more? the dump truck of a bill known as hr1. i could use -- i mentioned on the floor that you got a kick out of it that it has more poisen pills than a medicine cabinet. . .

gasoline, so i think that is one of the consequences as well. >> okay. just one final comment to address. we talked a lot about the restoration and i happen to agree. we ought to be investing money because the economic impact and the deleterious one if we don't make that investment but i think mr. dix is right with regard to the sound and that affects the quality of the water all arroyo down the river in chesapeake bay, and on chesapeake bay we have had support on both sides of the ogle, but now we have this language that says you can't use any federal funds even though we have had the epa, we've had any number of agencies working particularly with the states and localities to clean up the chesapeake bay. we have miles of dead zones from

all the fertilizer as mr. latourette referenced that killing the vegetation at the bottom of the water, and now we've got this legislation that says you can't use any federal funds to implement which is precisely the tool we are using to try to clean up the thing. if you have any further comments that's fine otherwise i will let you go. i appreciate the opportunity to make these points, mr. chairman, and i would trust you would agree we ought to get that to a regular appropriations bills we can deal with these very difficult regulatory and a legislative issues and inappropriate document and not on a dump truck with a bill known as h.r. one. >> upc the gentleman's comment but the appropriations are appropriate in the appropriation bill because we are at the appropriations committee, hence the definition funding, limitation amendment which is what was offered coming and i would also say i think you are

incorrect. section 1746 that was stationary sources of greenhouse gases, had nothing to do with fuel standards so it would have left those completely untouched. whenever we put something in everybody throws out this the world is going to fall, we want people to do anything. originally been proposed the energy star standard wouldn't be about to enter jester remark. that's a program that existed that was ever before mentioned of greenhouse gases. there was nothing that would have affected energy star. but all of those comments are made and of course people that don't like it throughout the worst-case scenario and i am surprised the world didn't just fall apart the day after that past. unfortunately or fortunately i guess it didn't. some of those things said were not true and it seems like the agency -- i and stand, i'm smart enough to understand the agency on almost anything it does, overstates the benefit and understates the cost and i'm also smart enough to understand businesses that maybe don't like it over to the cost and understood the benefit and the

reality is somewhere in the truth, and the problem is having an honest discussion about this because of all of the bowl that's thrown out and that's the reality. >> mr. chairman, i would agree with you that you're a very smart guy but i think you would agree -- i.t. to also agree we shouldn't be deciding these issues with ten minutes of debate. didn't mention epa, just said all federal funds and that's the problem of legislating that at 2 a.m. in the morning. >> just to clarify that you will notice that on the greenhouse gas. limitations the was put in there we made it through the crm. the seven months e.r. because we didn't on the epa and business to spend a ton of money implementing a rule was being taken up by authorizing committee. the one thing i don't want to do is have this committee substitute this judgment to the authorizing committee. working with them they said through the turn of the cr

that's fine. let us work and they are holding hearings currently. i don't know the congress will ultimately decide and may disagree or agree with whatever congress decides but let's let the authorizing committees to their work but sometimes there are things that have to be done on the appropriations bill. i will also tell you there are an awful lot of statutes out there that are authorized to read that expired and what do we do? we spend the authorizations through the appropriations bill. if we want to stop doing that we will close on the indian hospital across the world. we will deliver other things and necessary. >> was a century now? i don't want to be argumentative with you, mr. chairman, because you are a good guy and want to do the right thing that i do to we have a real problem with all of those writers that were put on to that continuing resolution but thank you. >> as i said it was so devastating no efforts were made by your site to remove them. >> chairman, things very much. i have one brief question.

it's about the most recent article in the times. i think it's just coming out today or tomorrow. according to the report, with the cities that some epa lawyers believe federal pollution laws are being violated in pennsylvania and i know you're going up there tomorrow and will get some deep insight into the situation and i deeply appreciate you spending the time up there. so they believe that the pollution rules being violated in pennsylvania and specifically drilling waste is being discharged into rivers and streams with minimal treatment. according to one epa lawyer it was cited in this most recent story in the times said this, and this is a quote pity the treatment plants are not allowed under federal law to process mr. reed liquid regardless of the state tells them. mistreat liquid is exactly what this drilling waste is, this

ingredient toxins aren't known. that was an interesting statement by him. nevertheless, the agency has not intervened in pennsylvania. mostly because if we understand it, resistance on the upper level staff within the epa region three office, and of course they oversee the operations of the state. this may be something that you are interested in checking out and going up there. so i think that it would be interesting me you know something about this already, the this agreement, something about what's going on, what about this disagreement, how this disagreement is taking place but the context of it all, maybe will just find out about this and look into this mauro. and enforcement officers believe the law is being violated. we have some enforcement officers there who believe that this is being violated. so i wonder if you can give some

insight into why no action has been taken despite the calls to do so from enforcement personnel. >> i would be in a better position after speaking directly to my staff tomorrow. i think what i want to also assure them from the highest level of the agency is the things i said publicly which is we are going to do a study and these our work on science, but if any time we find a situation that we believe violates the law we need to be clear and we need to either work with the states as the primary enforcement to take into action or to address it. one other thing. when it comes to the water that comes back up and potentially goes into a treatment plan or surface water, that is regulated. that is absolutely regulated under the clean water act and that's waste water when it comes back up. there's some places week injected the call that recycling come and that may be an opportunity that there's still

waste water produced even in a recycling operation, so one of the things i think is important is that as an agency we ensure that for example new york i know has made clear to the new york office has made clear to the new york state that the epa can at any time said additional standards for what we call the pretreatment for the waste that may go through treatment plant. so i need to speak to the professionals out in the office and ensure they hear from the top of the organization that there is no look the other be stand down. we intend to do our job so we need to do that with respect to the fact when a state is doing the work we are not there to simply help them, but to ensure we are providing information so and happy to report back but i can't give you much more than that. >> administrator tracks and i just want to thank you very much for everything that you're doing and for everything you've done today and i appreciate you calling that of pennsylvania tomorrow. thanks.

>> thank you, ms. lewis? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i apologize for the voice. first i want to tell you that i had a good experience with epa out of the denver office and number of years ago with regard to our requests that the work with, my states on a compliance issue that was right next to my land which is right next to an oil refinery, and i'm not sure that we ever would have gotten it solved without the epa. so i want you to know, i am not a person who is antiepa. i saw it work in our instance in the cleanup occurred wouldn't have happened but for the epa. so, don't, please don't view me

as a detractor, but i do have some questions about the efforts to privatize funding but i believe maybe detracting from efforts to really work on the ground on concerned with the boots on the ground dollars that the epa uses to help businesses comply and businesses comply with epa regulations it's about the rural water systems. does your fy 12 budget set aside money to assist small rural water systems remain in compliance? >> within the funding for the revolving fund is money for the rural systems and of course that is added to the money from the fda who spends a lot of rural development. >> i will let you know i will

submit some of these in ridings because i hard to track today. in 2007 over 200 representatives and senators asked epa to fund technical assistance and training grants to the small water systems and the epa has chosen the leadership to go a different route so i'm going to work with you to encourage you to revisit what seems to be working well in my state of wyoming with regards to training grants for small water systems because these small communities just don't have expertise. you were in pennsylvania, correct? or new jersey? there may be some communities in new jersey that even are small enough you know what i'm talking about, the struggle to comply and want very much to provide clean water to their water use or that technical assistance just really does seem to go

along way so we will visit further about that. another question i have is about smacked. have they asked for any impact now or proposed utility macked brolan electric reliability jobs, consumer and business electrical prices? >> the taxes will the committee for asking about, the rule was not out but it will linwood a benefit analysis that will impact -- it will include in its proposal a jobs analysis as well but that isn't yet out for public comment. >> and do you think -- do you anticipate when that is coming? >> it is required by court order for i believe march 16th. islamic and you anticipate being able to meet that deadline? >> yes.

>> did your agency consult with the sba proposed rule? >> we did as a brief consultation required by law. >> did a comment and could you provide those comments? jul follow up with you? >> we will provide them. >> the would be great. i would be most interested. you know, i have some other questions, mr. chairman, but my voice isn't cooperating, so i will submit them in writing, and i do want to thank you very much, mrs. jackson and mrs. benet for being here today. >> glad the and if you don't mind i do want to compliment. i visited two years ago or last year and the disney water program is wonderful. water is obviously quite a commodity there. >> thank you very much. i served on the board of land commissioners and the state investment board which administered the srf, state revolving fund for drinking water and the clean water action. mr. chairman i can tell you

those programs my state are fueling helpful and making safe drinking water available in the state of wyoming since a great program. thank you. >> mrs. latourette? >> thank you mr. chairman and met an administrator and on the stand between you and freedom so i will attend to be -- >> you're in deep trouble. >> i'm glad the distinguished ranking member is still here because i don't think i can let them call h1 a dump truck without making several observations. h.r. 1i don't think was a dump truck. the dump truck was a majority party that didn't produce a budget, didn't produce any appropriation bills of significance on the defense side, and abandoned regular order, and so i think what you saw on h.r. one was built up frustration. somebody mentioned we had more recorded votes during the consideration of h.r. one than

in the entire year of 2010 in the last year mrs. pelosi was the speaker of the house. and the reason for that quite frankly was that we didn't have any open rules and i want to embarrass, but she actually in a meeting i was asked what is this open rule? what is the amendment? how long to get to talk? and i think it is a sin for some the that's been here for two years doesn't with an open rule was that nobody did know what an open rule was so i agree a lot of stuff got piled on to h.r. one, but it was four years of frustration on both sides of the aisle and not having these and ideas brought to the forefront, so if there was a dump truck the dump truck was the decision by the previous majority cannot finish its business and basically dump this thing on our map with an expiration date of march 4th which is no accident. i always say the former chair of the committee mr. okay is a very great man. he knew exactly what he was doing, and that was the -- that was the dump truck. the question i have for you, however, and it comes from mr.

mr. speed's observation, district three, they don't have district five out of chicago and said the epa's director his headquarters in the ten regional offices and guidance from the department of justice. and why delighting that we all appreciate flexibility and regional nuances, one of the things you see like the different appellate district in the united states, district court systems where you get all of these conflicting interpretations, and you know, while regionalism is great, i think that some uniformity across the country when it comes to enforcement and regulation would be welcomed. you shouldn't have one set of rules for mr. hinchey in pennsylvania and another set for ohio and illinois. at least in the implementation. so i'm just interested to see whether you think that there is a variance between the regions and in terms of how -- how different is the wetland in ohio different from the wetland being

interpreted by the regional office in wyoming and what are you doing to sort of strife that the agency speaks with one point? >> certainly our goal is consistent in enforcement and a level playing field across the country, and our challenge in meeting those goals are that oftentimes the vast majority isn't all of the in for some action is taken or is undertaken by the state's coming and so the epa plays a sort of dual role and we try to do the was both well both working partnership on the training and capacity building or technical assistance or the interpretation of the law and also on oversight for a state that might for whatever reason not be so inclined to implement the clean water act and the clean air act. those are tough discussions and the regional offices, the district offices are on the front lines of trying to make

those relationships over, and you know, many elections, so those relationships are long standing. i worked for almost 12 to 13 years in the office of new york city, and so i have a very strong belief and respect for the hard work of the on the ground work with the states and those relationships are usually very good ones. so i think we play both of those roles. i do think we have challenges ahead of the enforcement work in the region now but what we try to do is give national enforcement priorities because we could enforce. we have so many malls and so many are important we try to the public health threats are the greatest and we hope to succeed but we certainly are constantly trying to improve. there is actually money in the budget for an initiative they came up with which is based on transparency of information because what we find that that community and states with what

is being emitted into the air and the water and if we can get people information on what is in their drinking water they will do a lot of our work for us because no one wants contaminated water and so that regaining ground you called it is really based first and foremost on using electronic information reporting and getting that out to the public. >> i appreciate that and i would appreciate your efforts in that. some of the disconnect when mr. kohl talks about people getting upset, and ms. lummis talks at the same thing. people in my part of the world and even further west, you have the east coast where they've paved all the wetlands and eaten all the endangered species and are now trying to impose a set of standards and people are upset so we are just looking for evenhandedness and i trust you to do that. >> thank you, administrator jackson. i'm going to bring this to

close. you've been gracious to spend three hours with us this morning and address any concerns as you can tell members of congress have that we hear from our constituents and actually a couple of budget issues as well. and i have a whole list of questions that go from everything i will be submitting for the record again. some of them deal with the budget and others are other issues that the epa deals with. one of the things i do want to sit down with you cannot right now that some time we can all come down to your office is or ought to mind, but i would like to sit down and talk about how you come up with a cost-benefit analysis on the regulations. what goes into it, who makes those determinations. those types of things and use the six people. we talked many times about the arsenical and what it's -- what it does to the small communities trying to comply with this sometimes when they are trying to reduce the arsenic levels

from 12 to 14 parts per billion down to ten parts per billion and the incredible cost of getting that is the last one -- those last few parts per billion down. the take into consideration these are the questions we will discuss the duty into consideration the fact the city council, sitting here in a town of five or six or 700 people has to decide that well, they can't -- their volunteer fire department is going to use rockets instead of -- instead of fire equipment because it included anymore putting all the resources here. that affects human life also. they can no longer have the police officer because the have to comply with these standards. that affects human life also paid to those types of things come into consideration in the decisions that they have to make because of the imposition of some of these -- some of these rules on them? the same would be true of businesses. they have to make a trade-off decisions as they try to comply with the rules and regulations that are coming down. but again i do want to thank you for being here. i want to associate myself in the words of mr. cole that the

concerns being expressed our real, and you're right if you about and ask the american people do not clean water comedy want clean air? everybody does. every republican in congress, every democrat in congress wants clean air and water. we have differences sometimes of opinion about the impact of some of the regulations and how we get there, and the cost of some of those regulations. so, it's not a matter of being in favor of clean water and we are not, or we are in favor of clean air and they are not. it is trying to achieve a common goal and one of the things i've heard and be the best description of all the concern out there that i've heard, and i've mentioned it to you before, whenever i go to a meeting might not care whether it is the local city councilman, whether it's with the chambers of commerce, whoever it is, once the word epa comes up, that's the rest of the discussion. that's the concern being expressed out there. and let's talk about reducing

funding in h.r. one and what we will have to do in the 12 budget to get the budget in balance someone will raise the hand and defunded the epa and during this line. that's the concern the american people have. they don't like the epa is working in concert with them to try to clean up the air and water if like the epa is imposing on them and sometimes for a limited benefit. and if we don't change that attitude around i feared the epa is going to have more difficulty trying to do its job but one person described it to me as if you get some regulatory agencies like the nrc, the nuclear regulatory commission, the city standard and then business will come in to them and say okay, this is how we think we can meet that standard. they don't impose how we were going to meet the standard. they develop the plans and will

sit down and discuss yes, this will do it, no this point. the epa is different. they tell you exactly what you have to do to meet that standard and it prevents innovation and the new technologies and ideas and how to meet certain standards out in the real world that is a difference in attitude so i want to work with you to try to help police solve some of the problems and address some of the concerns i think the vast majority of american people have about the way that the epa is moving and addressing some of the concerns we have, so i appreciate it. thank you very much for being here today. i know it's been a long time. three hours sitting there is not always easy. thank you.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

president of collis but today on u.s. education policy at a miami florida high school

senator majority leader harry reid came to the floor to talk about the u.s. budget and next week senate agenda which includes a couple of test votes on temporary 2011 federal spending. his remarks are half an hour. terminated.reid: mr.reside

>> without objection.ger stement >> mr. president, thank you verr much. i have a longer statement that s will give after we finish this t colloquy here. yesterday afternoon at 4 o'cloch we met back here in the vice president's office a very finehe meeting.ublica vice president bidenn was there, my friend the republican leader- the speaker and the majority --t minority leader, let me get thin turned down, there's this change in the house leadership. anyway, mcconnell read, boehner and paul lucey were there withpt vice president biden, and we spent about an hour and therrant arrangement is we would have a woul vote ond h.r. one sometime this next week and also a vote on the bill that we just laid down, which is our alternative to what we think should be done with the economy. now i know, mr. president, that our bill, because it's the wayts

we have to do things around here is a long bill, and i'm sure to there is a minority that wants a to spend some time looking at wl that. one way or the other we will do it with an agreement or throughg motions gets to the point nextek year we will vote on h.r. one 1, which we want to do. democrats r? democrats want to do and wile vote on the bill.he ?hat is the number of the billmt we have at the desk? the amendment? a >> anyway, it's been here for a, while. the whatever the number is, it's the democratic alternative, that'sad down. . mr. president, we really cominge speaker feels the same way, the thing we should do is vote on vn

h.r. one, which we have had than calls for voting on that for now more than a. week now. ipad members of the press see o why doesn't senator reid said the vote on the jar one comingo. and that's what we are doing.t we need to that with consent agreement with my friend theh republican leader or we will do it through the procedural motioy that i will file leader today. the amendment on that is labelea 149 and that is senator inouye's cuts of some $51 billion on with the president's budget was.i thk and to move the process forward. i think this is the place to start.e'll we have some confidence we will get the votes on a bill that fo. will move this matter forward. g but with regards if h.r. one doesn't pass and it won't pass, and if ours hasn't passed we ate least know where we stand, the a mr. president of this moves the ball down the road a littlealloe

further. start that would allow thenk negotiations to start and i i'm think i'm paraphrasing but that is exactly what he said, and but i d.at is what always in the roomi decided to do yesterday.o d and so today i seek those twovor votes for tuesday afternoon.e on one vote on passing h.r. one as it came over from the house, and after that we would have a vote which is as the chairman and away drafted in theee amendment 149, and once we gotpt that it would be a fair mr. proposition to move forward. the as i said mr. president, i know my friend of the republican leader has a scheduling problem and i understand that.ave i would like to have come and earlier today and so what he, but we were not able to do thate and i will give a full more explanatory statement in a fewrn minutes. but right no, whwat, what i i wt

mr. president, is ask consent that upon the position of s. 23, which is the patent bill thendar senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 14hr1 defense appropriations long-term continuing resolution fiscal year 2011. recnized that senator reid be recognized to offer a substitute amendmente at the desk. four hours of debate equallyur u divided between the two leaders and ade vote on relation to the substitute amendment.n the upon disposition of the - let read that again, mr. president. sorry about that. between for now was divided between the two leaders were the designees, prior to the vote in theo ame substitute amendment upon the df disposition of the substitute amendment the senate proceed to a vote on passageproceed to of f amended.mended with no intervening action or or debate and that no motion or no amendments be ordered to the substitute amendment or the bill prior to the votes and the substitute amendment on the bilt be subject to the threshold and

that h.r. one as amended if. 1 amended doesn't achieve a votevo would return to the calendar. i >> is their option? >> i would like to object and o. for the short term i am going to object at least for today. we've received a 350 page amendment at 11:45.eed we need to have a chance of foro the weekend to take a look at o what our friends have offeredel here and it could well be thatcd by monday we will conclude thisy proposal the majority leader has laid out as the best way to gor forward. we will continue to talk about that over the weekend. but for today, i object. >> the objection is heard.positn >> i asked upon the dispositiont ofhe s. 23 the patent bill the long term continuing resolutionl

for fiscal year 2011.. mcconnl:t >> is their objection? >> for the same reason i object. >> the objection is heard. cale numbe >> i move to proceed to come under number 14 h.r. one. >> the clerk will report. 14, hr >> motion to. proceed to come under 14 h.r. one enact to theed appropriations of the departmens of defense and of departments and agencies that the government the fiscalyear year endingte september 30th 2011 for their purposes. t ha mr. president i have a wld at cloture motion at the desk and ask the clerk reports that. rep. >> the clerk will report. we, the >> cloture motion senators andus according to the provisions ofen rule 22 the rule of the senate here by move to bring to a clos the debate on the motion to proceed to come under number

14hr1 and an act to make appropriations for the department of defense anthder tt department and agency said the government the fiscal year sept1 ending september 30th, 2011 by,d 17 senators as follows.son o nevada, inouye, nelson ofa, florida, white house, conrad, c the kimmage, yuval of mexico, h, in, menendez, casey, shaheen, klobuchar, carns, boxer, franken, feinstein and bingaman. >> mr. president i ask consent demand for a quorum under the ak rule 20 to be waived.nder >> without objection. the presid m i now withdraw my motion andw proceed. >> the center has that right.hen >> mr. president? when an american sits in theurch kitchen after table and sorts fs through their finances as they oftenen do, partisan politics don't figure into the equation. when the families we represent calculate their own budgets,

when they add up the cost of gas and groceries, tuition in some instances, and other b necessities, they care more about the bottom lines and the l news headlines. and when a family was desperately counts the dwindlinf number of weeks before the sun and plymouth insurance runs oute that family doesn't have time to the most political points durink any given week.sc that's because when you have toc make the tough decisions that go into any budget those decisions have to be practical, not political.practical, not they have to be realistic, notlr ideological.gues t se oftenhat w tell ourselves ana colleagues we should be as responsible as the american people. as their representatives, we absolutely must be sympathetic chlenges out to the challenges outside this q chamber, and we need to comerest quickly to a resolution that wey benefits them before we worry about whether it benefits us to be as careful as we must be nots to waste the american people'sts money, we must be just asugh,

mindful.t , political exercise. i'm sorry to see mr. president, not much more. serious that's counterproductive. we need to be as serious as the challenge before us. i am much more concerned withnty actually keeping the country fnning and investing smartly in the future than i am in this political ga political game that we see.ke when i wake up in the morning the american people want to seno their children to be good schooo and then go to a good job. and, mr. president, now they are saying a job. they won their families to come to a safe neighborhood at night and they want to go to sleep tse knowing our country is safe from those who want to do less harm. they don't care about who gets o credit.o the health care who fought of i. how best to do it, they justeals want us to do it. the time really now for thetical political posturing should behob over. we have set up a procedure. seta

it was a great honor in the vicd president's office to get this h.r. one out of the way. everyone knows it's not going ty pass. it's a very, very difficult, that piece of legislation. rid so get rid of that.we will responsible and cut spending by ofhose $51 billion, not all then-spirid mean-spirited writers that aret attached to each one that on ov, their own couldn't pass anything over year mr. president. who it was a mad could the most sensational amendment. bring it over here in the lighti of day is referred to the committee, have a hearing on it, and once that were done none would come to the floor with aoe rare exception. they were not willing to do that.

so the time for pragmatism issos overdue, also. since this is with the senate io going to do. we are going to vote early nextg week on the democrats' plan and we're going to vote on the republicans' plan. it seems fair. let the american people decide which is the better to do.ever everyone will have a chance andr to be on record supportingo. whichever they choose to do. bri tsichever plan. i let me talk briefly about the merit of each of the plans and what they will do. d first call, h.r. one which wouli go downch in history as probably one of the worst pieces ofece of legislation that we've drafted in the history of this congress. first, this reckless republican plan that the tea party haspushe pushed through the house, that you're responsible proposal slices investments, cuts jobs and sacrifices security and and education. yes, it cuts a lot of money today.ouldose but america would lose so muchro to normal because these are madi

arbitrarily, without regard for the consequences.that that is why lean independent int economists agreed it would hurt our economy, slow growth and owth cost jobs. we can't afford that. on the day before yesterday on thet national public radio, they had0 more than 300 economists whodont were staying with one voice don't do this. the we can't be blinded by the big numbers in the house republicant plan. how we have to scrutinize how theytt cut $63 billion, and the truth is that it adds up to $61 billion with a significant e attraction of programs the american people don't want tolas lose. it slashes more than a billionol dollars of social security. billions. seniors which means half a million secuy seniors will pay social security their entire lives, and now are eligible for wouldn't be able tt get the beonefits promised them.

there's nobody to process theit claims. it cut $700 million from educationation, which which mean disadvantage just can lose funding and moreore than 10,000 teachers carried the aids and le schools that would lose their jobs and would even take $200,000, i'm sorry, 200,000 children, i'm sorry,headtart mr. president, out of the headd aart program. start what is the head start program?. these are not just words, they are programs to educate the poorest of the poor children that worked out well. sta try to find somebody that ese lit criticizestl the headstart program. these little boys and girls have no alternative and it's workedee out well, because the parentsoig are involved.te they're going to eliminate 200,000 children from this wonderful program of headstart.s the republican h.r. one opposes poison control centers and cuts $100 million from food safety

inspections. that means the food we eat couls be safe and less expensive and that is a proposition. it cuts three-quarters of a billion dollars.0 mill $750 million of renewable energy investments andrene the reasonso mr. president is theseprs for investments are incentives forf people to do these kinds of from jobs. you can drive from my home in search light nevada, 36 miles, get it out to the 31-mile mark,s you look off to the left and pane there is a million solar panels being installed, a million solar panels. produ producing huge amounts of electricity in summer and wintek in what we call the great dry lake. that was done because of these e programs. so we don't have to be holding to the middle east parents who

that's three-quarters of a job billion which will cost us jobsy and our energy independence and the day that american lives andr works in the clean energy cuts economy. mils o it cuts hundreds of millions of dollars from border security,mae federal emergency managementes agency's when an emergency comel up we need to be able to respond to that. and even republican congressmen aret admitting it's not so smart toit pinch pennies on the backs of or the first responders. and my conference room right across the hall, one of the in shriver ways came in to see me,o this family has done so much for our country and the elderd of shriver who just died is that i, the peace corps but there are probably the number one mark has been how they've worked with wih

children, young men and womenicl with challenges, physical challenges, emotional challenget and they brought up the number of those young men and women, some are not so young anymore, but some of the great programse that are being cut in h.r. one to help special olympic, the best but the program is another one. me and he told me he brought an t elected member of the house of representatives who voted for ah h.r. one, and he said how coulda yout? do that? how could you do that? with you have a child with downher syndrome. her response? i didn't know it was in then't t bill. i didn't know it was in the bill. clerk, ho many madam, how many pages in h.r.

one? you mr. president, could you tell mi how many pages in eachn or one?2 three ander 82 pages.well, mr. e >> well, mr. president, i've only talked about enough to take a couple or three pages, but itf is full of the same kind of stuff that i've talked about stuff that is not fair and mean-spirited. we all wanto a cut.te of i represent the state of nevadac we are in a deep economic know, problem. have to we know that we have to cut things here. the presiding officer from the state of connecticut we are both we behave supported these progrs because it is the right thing tt do. to b cuts we recognize there will have to be cuts made.o but we have to do them with a ma

scalpel, not a meat cleaver, an, to have someone say well why didn't know that was in the bill eliminating cuts for a programe emotional, mental, physicalow in challenges. i didn't know it was in the lotf bill. same well, there's a lot of that same kind of stuff in this bill, h.r. that's why it is going to be pre defeated. and i have to say mr. presidenti to my friends, the republicans,t ihat can't imagine who will voe for this. we've got b to move beyond partisan politics and do what iw right. and i don't know how many.ns but not all republicans will vote for that. - cascaded in the press. unwilling to move to that but ii couldn't do that. i't do have to file cloture to . to proceed. they won't even let me do that. but we are going to get to it

because i know the procedures i are not here and i can get to this bill and do it next week. w but i just talked with the tipme of the iceberg with this mean-spirited h.r. one. the federal reserve chairmanere arey bernanke said these cuts and there are many more like them, a already said there will cost a significant number of jobs.oodys mark, the chief economist at adr moody's and former chief economic adviser for john mccain. the said it would cost our jobs. country 700,000 jobs. -- those that cuts place -- those kutz on please too heavy a burden on se, working families, -- low-income children and asks for any r sacrifice from those who we can be a necessary tax payer funding subsidies they don't need. w that's no way to recover. oil and gas subsidies.

the former head of chevron oil.e orn. e. f i've been very helpful to my setors. farm state senators to date i rk have helped them work their wayh through the droughts and floods and all kind of things to makeet sure we anunderstand how importt in agriculture is.ory the very few times in the history of our country has commodity prices and supply.en o it's been so high. little neck redican to get from the head start programs, programs like that. our plan, mr. president, filed today by senator inouye, senator man. is, one of the from the become f

most famous men in the history of the country. a been in congress a long time bur we always remember this man is e battlefields of italy where he lost his arm and was badly a res injured and as a result of his hair his like actions he sees tl congressional medal of honor. but he is a hero here in the eagislative halls also. l one of the leaders in the my watergate hearing and many other things he's done over the yearsa to become a hero here inadditiot addition in the battlefields. it's his amendment.differen pla that's why democrats have a that different plan, the plan thatert represents a different supportee by the president of the united states. we know we have to make cuts toe morning several times. w we also know that when we cut wo have to cut in a way that strengthens our economy, not cey

weaken set three weeks to look n at the quality of the cutsblindy cannot get blinded by the quantity of the cuts. we can lose a lot of weight, you and i and anybody in this room,o cut off your arms and legs, accomplish the purpose, you'vef lost a lot of weight. and but no doctor would recommend it and so that is what they've done with h.r. one.t. no well reasoned economist with esiden recommended. our plan cuts $51 billion from president obama's budget but in a much more responsible way we are eliminating what we've done in any unnecessary bureaucraticf program, cut this and earmarks., mr. president, we agreed to cutf the funding. i don't like that. ittold the president of theun united states i don't like it.or i believe we're giving up too much power getting rid of this year marks.o we of obligations to directll of

funding. her but i agreed like all of us over here don't accept that. remember, mr. president, your marks -- when you have a budget of $10, and you have to tenths of 1% of that goes to the congressional t deficit funding, still the same amount of money.e it's just the president didn't t determine whether the money is a going to be spent. congress had a say in it.to go d billions of dollars that are going to go towards cutting the deficit and i have agreed to accept that. and an unnecessary bu program cutting funding. presid- mr. president, i commend my friend, the senator from oklahoma. got he had a jeal report that shows all kinds of redundancies' redua there was a place we could cut money.let' let's dos do it. thate're our plan recognizes we are not in competition to determine who

can cut the most without regards whether we need to t cooperate, whether we can cut the smartest. the plan is based on the ideolo, ideologies we believe ours is o not ideologyno but reality.s they solve real problems andour affect real lives to recover budget of firms the determination that we have also to reflect our values. modtly rv we see a more modest weeks about recuring economy. today's news about employersstet hiring at the fastest rate in aa year on the nationalth natio unemployment rate fell nearly to the two t year low we can'tt squander that cautiously by elii eliminating 700,000 jobs. this cautiously optimistic news and counterproductive cuts.e so mr. president, i hope thates when we have these votes next hr

week, h.r. one will be -- itrom will be -- people will run fromt that. that run from it. people who vote for it will take all of their legislative livesrg and afterwards trying to live l down having voted foriv that stc but this is what each centerne will vote for or against next la week. these boats like all the voteswe have good choices life of land s is what.urpris not to spoil the supplies that we all know how this will turnww out.for republicans likely won't work for hours, i hope they do. it's a simple majority vote. dit ccpublicans have established tha standard 60 votes. we'll end we accept that. so going back to square one resf without consensus, without a anw budget for the rest, without the asurances we can keep the votes

country running.us and e so once these votes are behind us and the voice is heardve eacd senator and member of congresstt will find the renewed motivatioo to do what we needed to do sinc, the beginning. gotiate come together to negotiate in good faith, negotiate, working on consensus, compromise,ar islegislative, the art of who can flex the biggest and the longest and hardest to get it tg out to compromise working out t ings for the american people.a we have to acknowledge the mo move forward lies somewhereperhd between the two businesses recognize one threatens our fiscal footing. one side of the man's victoryviy everybody loses. that goes to both parties and pi both chambers. negot this will not happen in the media and we cannot be found in extreme rhetoric, it's unrealistic idea was some.istic it will happen when we sit downd and have an adult conversationoo

about what our country andts ne. constituents need, that is the o onlynl exercise.ndation how we treated the future ande our priorities become citizens and states across the country and to our allies and adversaries around the world.oue .t's not political.olitical it's among the most practicalgso things to do. and mr. president, there is no dispute on the 53 democrats. to we are willing to cut $51 billion from our president's budget. abo, we' and as we talked about we are we willing to do more but we are th not willing to do this with a ant t meat ax. ak want to do with the right t way. we want to take a scalpel and be very careful we don't affectaffs people's lives. l and we want, mr. president, when it's over with, we don't want someone saying well, i didn'tyiw know that was in the billel even though it affects that person personal personally as anlyything could o

when we talk about where to cut invest and cut everyone is the concerned about the budget abo w bottomline. when we talk about how we can tm get their here's the bottom line of the negotiation process. we o yes, we have to make tough choices. but that is what the leadership is really all about. true that and it's true no one here will e get everything that he or she f, wants to read my friend the presiding officer was a long time attorney general of one ofs our i was quite as the most famous states, but one of the orig original states who was noted for its fairness, and if an attorney general or a lawyer is, noted for fairness, that person. is now willing to compromise.he that's what it's all about.'s w it's the same in the law as itat is here in the united stateswhek senate. ge there when we talk about how we can get there, the bottom line ishos negotiation. we have to make tough choices.

but that's i repeat what leadership is all about it marks 150 years since abraham lincoln put this with of office, the, we its very existence at the time was in question. like the incomplete nation weitb support toel leave, the greek capital buildasing was onthe fia finished. he addressed the nation for the first time as president.he president clinton stood on eastr fund capital on the ukraine andd scalpels thing that represented. growth and uncertainty at theeas same time.herer 150 years later the threats we face are nowhere near as the to lawyer has the civil war americs was about to endure. us but his words that afternoon ar, useful to us to hear thisn our afternoon when we are again at the moment of apparel in our country. and again, we will sink or swim together. address as lincoln closed that inaugurae dr