quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i'm honored today to support the nomination of judge anthony battaglia to the seventh district of california. i had the great privilege of recommending judge battaglia to president obama to serve on the southern district court. he's widely respected in the san diego legal community. he will make an excellent addition to the bench. i have a committee that's set up in all of the various areas over california, and they recommended him to me, and i was proud to recommend him to the president. i do want to congratulate him and his family on this important day. judge battaglia was born and raised in san diego.

he's a graduate of the united states international university, now alie ant international -- reliant international university and california western school of law in san diego. he has practiced law for 35 years in san diego and for 19 years he was a private practitioner with a very strong record as a litigator. for the past 16 years, judge battaglia has served with distinction as a magistrate judge for the southern district. he has a reputation as a judge's judge, which means that the judges believe he is very hard-working, thoughtful and fair. local lawyers praise him for being well prepared for hearings and for trials, and he's very diligent in moving cases forward. he's presided over 22 trials that have gone to verdict during his tenure on the bench. equally important is judge battaglia's dedication to service outside of the courtroom. he's the past president of the

national federal magistrate judges association. he's twice been selected by chief justices of the supreme court to serve on a national advisory committee that reviews criminal court rules. in short, judge battaglia's career stands out as a testament to his dedication and to his devotion to the law and the legal community of san diego both inside and outside of the courtroom. so i close my comments here by congratulating the judge and his family on this momentous day, and i urge my colleagues in the senate to vote to confirm this highly qualified nominee to the bench. i'm very grateful to the judiciary committee who have twice voted him out of the committee, so we're very grateful for that. i also would just like to add a comment on another matter which has to do with a bill that was passed here, the boxer-casey bill and sent over to the house, a bill that would say if there were to be a shutdown of

government -- which i know nobody wants -- but if there were to be one, that the members of congress should not get their pay. they shouldn't get their pay, and they shouldn't get retroactive pay because this is a very basic responsibility that we have to keep the government running, to make sure that social security recipients receive their checks on time and disabled veterans, and to make sure that superfund sites are cleaned up and that the n.i.h. keeps functioning so that they can find the cures to the diseases that plague our families. and, mr. president, it's fair to say that the two parties have different views on how to approach the deficit. i would have to say that the party i'm proud to belong to, the democratic party, believes and we showed it under the leadership of bill clinton that we can balance the budget but not threaten job creation. we did it under bill clinton, we

did it smartly, we did it wisely, and the millionaires paid their fair share. as opposed to some of the proposals in h.r. 1 that came out of the house that at the minimum would cost, according to the economists, 200,000 jobs, and we've heard estimates of 800,000 jobs. we can't afford to lose those many jobs just as this economy is -- is getting to the point where jobs are being created in decent numbers. so yes we need to trim the deficit and yes, we have to make sure that we don't knock this economic recovery off track. and therefore it's essential that the parties work together because if we each stand in our camps, then we're never going to get anything done. so let's do this in a wise way. it's true that we had an election and that the house changed hands, but guess what? the senate didn't and the white

house isn't up for election for two more years. so you can't go around saying there was an election and the election said that the republicans get everything they want. that just doesn't make any sense. and having come back from that election, you know, i want to say it was about jobs. jobs, jobs, jobs. my opponent, you know, essentially asks every morning, every noon and every night where are the jobs, and that was a fair question. i said to her and i said to my people in california, we're not creating jobs at a fast enough pace, we have to do better. so as i stand here, how could i ever betray what i said in the campaign and vote for a plan that would cut between 200,000 and 800,000 jobs, the republican plan from the house? so we've got to get our act together here and meet somewhere in the middle. you know, if you look at the republican plan, it was a -- i think it was $100 billion off of

the president's budget, and our plan is about now $60 billion off of the president's budget, so we have met them more than halfway, mr. president. let's get this thing done. and -- and i think if we get this done and we do it in a responsible way, yes, we'll get this deficit on a -- on the right path, but to -- to hold out this idea that we're going to go after just 12% of the budget, the things that people really rely on, the roads and the bridges and the highways and education and cleaning up superfund sites and the f.b.i. and all the things that we rely on, to go after that one small part of the budget and decimate it the way h.r. 1 would do would be counterproductive. it's really a job killer that hurts the middle class, so we can't go that way. having said all this, you know,

i'm sure we're going to see a vote on h.r. 1 - -- i'm pretty sure we're going to see a vote on h.r. 1. and i don't think it's going to get enough votes to pass. then we'll take the proposal of the democrats that senator biden has put forward and see what that does. if neither gets the requisite number of votes, we're going to have to keep talking. but we can't continue with these two-week extensions. it's -- it's absolutely irresponsible. imagine taking billions of dollars out of the federal budget every two weeks. it's going to be tens of thousands of jobs in every one of our states that are lost. so in summing up, i hope that the speaker of the house over there will take up our bill quickly, make sure that, you know, members of congress aren't treated any better anybody else and we hopefully avert a shutdown, but if there is one, we're treated like every other federal employee -- no budget,

no pay. and i am again grateful, very greatful to the judiciary committee for having us -- giving us the opportunity to vote for anthony battaglia, who's going to make a great judge for the u.s. district court for the southern district of california. thank you very much, and i yield the floor. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: today we continue our efforts to lessen the burden of our overworked courts. we are, before the evening's out, going to confirm three more judicial nominees. two of the three nominees will -- we will vote on are for seats designated as judicial emergencies. with our actions today, it is only -- and we're only 22 days that the senate's been in session this year, the senate has confirmed 10 nominees.

with these votes tonight, we will have confirmed 19% of president obama's judicial nominees submitted in this congress. this pace far exceeds the progress made at this point in the 108th congress, which was the beginning of the third year of president bush's presidency. at this point, the 108th congress had confirmed only four of 48 nominations sent to the senate, about 8% confirmation ray. our fast pace on the floor is matched by our rapid pace in committee. we held our third nominations hearing this past wednesday. we have now heard from 13 judicial nominees and reported 16 favorably. our work in the committee and on the floor indicates that a cooperative effort between me,

the chairman of the committee, and our leadership, is an indication of the progress that can be made when the president nominates consensus no nominees. we will continue in our efforts, but again, i would remind everyone that while we in the senate are doing our part, the administration must also be engaged in this process, so i would note that 24 of the 41 vacant seats deemed to be judicial emergencies yet have no nominee. of the additional 54 vacancies, 28 have no nominee. so i'm very perplexed as to why the president would ignore these pending vacancies and instead spend time and resources to send up a nomination for a seat that will not be vacant for some time. i refer to the president's nomination february the 16th

of scott cavdaugh to be u.s. district judge for the district of wyoming. this seat will not be vacant until july 24, 2011, when the current judge will retire. i do not understand the administration's priorities when it comes to judicial nominations. i believe instead of focusing on nominations for future vacancies, i would hope the administration would use some commonsense and direct its efforts towards nominating individuals for seats which are at least currently vacant. with regard to the nominees on whom we will vote this evening, let me say a few words about each. judge joseph battaglia is nominated to be a district judge for the southern district of california. he presently serves in that district as united states magistrate judge. he was first appointed to that position in 1993.

in addition to serving as magistrate judge, this nominee has served on the judicial conference of the united states advisory committee on rules of criminal procedure, on the ninth circuit executive board of magistrate judges, and as a magistrate judge observer on the judicial counsel of the ninth circuit. in 2009, this nominee was appointed by chief justice roberts as magistrate judge observer to the judicial conference of the u.s. this nominee received his b.a. from the united states international university and his j.d. from california western school of law, spent almost two decades working in private practice and also acted as an an arbiter -- arbitrator for the san diego superior court, serving on many panels. the american bar association's standing committee on the federal bureaucracy -- standing

committee on the federal judiciary unanimously related -- rated him well qualified. this evening we will also vote on two nominations for central district illinois. both of these vacancies are considered judicial emergencies. judge shadid received his b.s. from bradley university and his j.d. from john marshall law school. upon admission to the illinois boy, judge shadid opened his own law practice. he maintained his practice until 2001 when he was appointed by the illinois spreec court to fill a -- supreme court to fill a vacancy for the 10th judicial circuit. he was elected to the full term in 2002 and reelected 2008. while in private practice, he served as a part-time public defender for the peoria county public defender's office. he also served as an assistant

attorney general for the state of illinois. he was appointed by governor jim edgar to serve as the commissioner for the court of claims in illinois. the american bar association's standing committee on the federal judiciary rated judge shadid as qualified by a substantial majority while a minority rated him well qualified. also nominated to a judicial emergency vacancy for the central district of illinois is judge sue e. myerscough. judge myerscough received her b.a. with honors from southern illinois university and her j.d. from southern illinois school of law. upon graduation from law school, she served as law clerk to harold a. baker, the u.s. district court for central district of illinois. the nominee was in private practice for approximately six years before being elected as an associate circuit court judge

for the seventh judicial circuit illinois. the nominee later became a circuit judge for the seventh circuit. in 1998, she was elected as an appellate court justice of the illinois appellate court, fourth district. american bar association's standing committee on the federal judiciary unanimously rated this nominee as qualified. i congratulate all three nominees and wish them well in their public service. i yield the floor. ms. klobuchar: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i ask to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i first wanted to alert senators that we will most likely be voting somewhere around 5:30. we're still working out an agreement about yielding back time. but i thought people would like to know that. the other thing i'd like to note is to first urge my colleagues to confirm the judges before us

tonight and then i'd also like to briefly say a few words about the third vote that we are going to be taking in this sequence. in just a few moments, mr. president, the senate will take another important step towards passing the america invents act. this bipartisan bill will go a long way in ensuring our country remains the world leader in entrepreneurship, research and development, and, of course, innovation. over the course of last week, every senator had an opportunity to come to the floor and weigh in on this bill with amendments. we made a lot of progress and, as a result, i'm pleased to say that we have a bill that is even better than the one we started with. a truly bipartisan product which will bring our peant system -- bring our patent system into the 21st century. if passed, this legislation will make the first comprehensive set of reforms to our nation's patent process in almost 60

years. 60 years. a lot has changed since then. the america invents act will create a legal framework that reflects current technologies and a climate in which innovation can flourish. in doing so, it will unleash the power of our nation's single most precious resource: the ingenuity of our people. and i want to point out that it will do it without adding a penny to our deficit. an improved patent process, mr. president, will spark the kind of job creation and business growth that our economy needs right now. i know that you know that in delaware and we certainly know it in minnesota. ms. klobuchar: those aren't democratic priorities, the priorities of competitiveness and innovation, and they're not republican priorities. they are american priorities. and i urge all senators to support the motion so we can move forward with this important legislation. and i want to thank senator grassley for all his work on this bill and senator leahy as

well and the rest of the judiciary committee. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and we will soon update on whether or not we can yield back the time start the votes at 5:30. thank you, mr. president. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: we're prepared to yield back the balance of time on this side. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call being suspend. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: i ask unanimous consent that all remaining time on both sides be yielded back. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the nomination of sue e. myerscough to be united states district judge. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, we ask that the yeas and nays be ordered. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the question is on the nomination of james e. shadid to be the united states district court judge. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? the senate will be in order. there being none, on this vote the yeas are 89. the nays are zero. the nomination of james e. shadid to be united states district court judge is confirmed. the question is on the nomination of anthony j. battaglia to be united states

district court judge. ms. klobuchar: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the next two votes be ten-minute votes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. ms. klobuchar: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators present wishing to vote or change their vote. if not, the vote on that is 89 aye, no nays. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order the motion to reconsider considered

made en bloc and laid upon the table en bloc. under the previous order the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate will resume legislative session. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on s. 23, the america invents act signed by 18 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate the the key beat on senate 23, the patent reform act of 2011 shall be brought to a close. yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senators froant wish to vote or change their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 87, the nays are 53. three fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the pending business. the clerk: calendar number 6, s. 23, a bill to amend title 35, united states code, to provide for patent reform. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the pending amendments be set aside and call up an amendment on behalf of senators baucus and grassley numbered 1 141, that it be modified with the changes that are at the desk.

further, that the amendment as modified be agreed to, that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table and there be no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i have another matter. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent to withdraw the pending leahy and bennett amendments. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i call my amendment which is number 143, which is at the desk.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes an amendment numbered 143. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now call up a second-degree amendment which is numbered 152. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes an amendment numbered 152 to amendment numbered 143. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask that -- i ask consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, so everyone knows what this amendment does. we -- what we did is looked at what national science foundation does regarding a program called f-score. a number of sparsely populated states really are disadvantaged with this. however, in talking to a number of different senators, this amendment that we are going to seek modification of at a later

time would have no, zero effect on scoring, there's no score to it whatsoever. but we're going to try to include -- we're not trying to, we're going to include every state because it costs nothing. and so even though a lot of the states that aren't funded adequately with this f-score money, there's no reason that every state who has a state university that does something that's inventive, that they should have to pay these exorbitant patent fees. so it doesn't cost any money. i think it's the right thing to do. but we'll discuss it at a further time. if someone has some problem with that, we'll have to make a determination. but at this stage, i think it would be the right thing for the country. i now -- it's my understanding, mr. president, we're now -- now we're going to turn to morning business? i would ask consent that we now turn to a period of morning business and that the time run, the 30 hours, run postcloture on the patent bill and that the --

senator grassley be recognized for whatever time he may use on morning business and that following his statement, senators be recognized for up to ten minutes each, as if in morning business. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. grassley: mr. president, i would ask that i could -- the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i would ask that committee speak for some little time after ten minutes. mr. reid: mr. president 123? i know my friend was preoccupied but i knew he wanted to do that and that's -- the consent agreement said whatever time you may consume. mr. grassleyly: thank you very much. mr. grassley: thank you very much. mr. president, the american economy remains on an unsettled footing, as we all know. now, there are some real signs of economic recovery but it shows a very fragile recovery. the consumer confidence level seems to be increasing ask that's good news.

u.s. factory activity is up. that's good news. but also we're very nervous about the housing market remaining weak. the nation's unemployment rate stands at 9%, maybe officially now 8.9%, and now our economy is facing a significant headwind due to rising energy prices. since the unrest began in few tunisia, our energy markets have rocked upward by the uprisings in egypt and now in libya. libya produces roughly only 2% of the world's crude oil, wch of that going to europe. but even in libya producing such a small amount, still making a tremendous impact on the world market of oil.

the uncertainty and fear about supplies, according to oil speculators, has driven crude prices to more than $100 a barrel. prices at the pump were already high before unrest in the middle east. the events going on in the north africa and the persian gulf area just worsen the problem. according to the energy information administration, gas prices jumped 19 cents during one-week period at the end of february. this is the second-largest one-week jump in more than 20 years, and i think over the weekend we learned that now gasoline in a two-week period of time is up 33 cents. so americans are now paying, on average, $3.51 a gallon for gas,

and that obviously is about 80 cents higher than at this time last year. the average cost to fill up a tank of gas is likely around $50. and we all know that for a family struggling to make ends meet, these are valuable dollars spent at the pump, and most of these dollars, you know, are going overseas because you probably know that before this rapid rise in the price of oil, we were spending $730 million a day to imhort oil, and -- to import oil, and of course now that is a much higher figure. $730 million a day, probably close to $1 billion a day right now. our country is at the risk. our economy is at risk. our nation's security is at risk. and that's economic security but

also that's related to our national security. our ever-increasing reliance on foreign sources for energy is undermining our nation's economic and national security. the activities in the middle east over the last six weeks should be an alarm bell going off. it should in fact be a wake-up call. let me be clear. i know that our economy -- that for our economy to grow and for business and individuals to thrive, we need access to reliable, affordable energy. i support an energy policy that i kind of say is like a four-legged stool, or another way of saying is, all of the above. obviously, all the sources of petroleum we can get our hands on and more domestically obviously than import.

all sorts of alternative energy. conservation h's got to be a leg of -- conservation has got to be a leg of that stool. and obviously nuclear energy. so, to be repetitive, first we have to have access to oil and gas resources here a at home. two years ago the rallying cry was "drill here, drill now." it seems to me that still is the legitimate rallying cry for us at $3.51 oil. the idea that we have -- relimit our access to our own resources, which in turn leads us to go hat in hand to foreign dictators like see s.a.r. chavez and sheikhs is ludicrous. it is just silly to be sending

more money overseas to give people resources, to train people, to train terrorists to kill americans. we currently import more than 6% of our crude oil, and it doesn't have to be that way. i know that we can't get to energy independence by drilling here and drilling now all by itself, but isn't it a little foolish to have our economy held hostage by events in libya, north africa generally, or the persian gulf area? and particularly with libya where only 2% of the world's oil comes from. the obama administration needs to put an end to the existing policy of a de facto moratorium through permitting. that's for drilling onshore and offshore of our own domestic supply. we need to make sure that we're doing everything we can to

protect workers and the environment. but permitting delays and obstacles should not prevent our nation from moving forward to developing resources here at home. i also support efforts to expand the use of clean coal and nuclear energy. i also support conservation efforts. i agree that the cheapest form of energy is the energy that doesn't have to be used. that's conservation. here in the senate, i've supported policies aimed at reducing energy use in homes and buildings through conservation and energy-efficient technologies. i see the value in reducing overall energy consumption. i've also been a leader in the senate in promoting alternative and renewable energy. and why? because the supply of fossil fuels is a finite quantity. we must look to alternative and

renewable resources so that we can improve our energy and our national security. this includes supporting energy from wind, biomass, hydroelectric, solar, geothey are mall, and biofuels. so i would houck now on the developing -- so i would focus now on the developing of homegrown biofuels. for many years congress has known about the need to tremendously an alternative to fossil fuels, particularly as a means of reducing or dependence on that fossil fuel. one of the first priorities was a tax incentive to encourage the use of homegrown ethanol. for over 100 years the fossil fuel industry has had a monopoly on our transportation fuel. they built the market. they own the infrastructure. they weren't about to use a product they didn't manufacture,

own, or profit from. so congress created a tax incentive to encourage big oil to use the product mangeds it available to their consumers. it was paired with an import tariff to make sure that the only domestic ethanol receives the benefit of the tax incentive. so the tax incentive and the tariff work together to do two things: the incentive exists to discourage the use or to encourage the use of domestic ethanol. the tariff exists to ensure that we aren't giving a tax incentive to already-subsidized foreign ethanol. in other words, wouldn't it be silly to have a tax incentive for the production of domestic alternative energy and then allow the import of it to have

taxpayers subsidize an alternative form of energy coming in from another country? we will, that wouldn't make sense. together these two approaches ensure that we don't replace our dependence on foreign oil with a dependence upon foreign ethanol. so the in my view was created to encourage big oil to use a domestically produced product and a renewable product. in 2005, congress created the renewable fuels standard. the standard was created to ensure that a minimum amount of renewable fuels was used in the supply -- in the fuel supply. it was strongly opposed by big oil, but it was enacted over their opposition. in 2007, it was greatly expan

expanded. it mandates the use of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel annually by 2022. but that decision made in 2007 also limited the amount of ethanol that can be made from grain to 15 billion gallons. one of the criticisms that i hear occasionally is that ethanol receives both an incentive and a mandate. so i think we should address that point. first, while the mandate requires that the fuel be used, it does not mandate that the ethanol be produced domestically. the incentive acts as an encouragement to use home-grown products. it increases economic activity at home and works to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil and

does it -- and it doesn't do any good if you're importing a domestic renewable fuel if it can be done here locally, creating the jobs here. secondly, the mandate acts as a floor to ethanol use, without the incentive, we would consume a bare minimum. the incentive encourages ethanol use beyond the mandate. some in the environmental community are quick to raise objections to the biofuels mandate, as we will as the incentive -- as well as the incentive. i would like to suggest to them that this is a clear example of limitless hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty here in this town. many of the loudest voices against these policies are the same voices who lobby meat for

tax incentive and also mandates for wind, solar, geothey are mall and other renewable energy. i happen to be a strong supporter of electricity generated from wind and other renewable sources. i first authored the production tax credit for wind in 1992. over the years it's been expanded to include other types of resources. since as far back as 2003, environmental advocacy groups have been pushing for renewable portfolio standards, which is a mandate that utilities around the country use a certain amount of wind or other types of alternative energy instead of coal in the production of electricity. so, now what do we hear? they want the production tax credit for wind and other renewable electricity and a

mandate that it be produced. yet they oppose the same policies for biofuels. that is an inconsistency. that seems to be an intellectual dishonest approach. that they would like to have this senator support mandates for wind as we will as a tax incentive for wind -- as well as a tax incentive for wind. but lobbying against this senator's approach to having a ttach incentive for other alternative energies www.ale as a -- as w well bass a mandate. i have been a champion of ethanol biofuels for a long tiesm i am well-aware of the role it plays to create a cleaner environment. it is improving our economic and national security and it's creating jobs and economic activity in rural america. in 2010, nearly 90% of all gasoline sold in the united states contained some ethanol.

the 13 billion gallons of ethanol produced in the united states reduced our oil imports by 445 million barrels of oil. after domestic oil production and imports from canada, u.s. ethanol production is the third-largest source of transportation fuel. what we use in internal combustion engines. u.s. ethanol production is larger than what we import from saudi arabia or even from hugo chavez's venezuela. that reminds me, i said "see s.a.r. chavez" when i first mentioned his name. the dictator of venezuela is hugo chavez. i hope that will be corrected in the transcript. without domestic biofuels, we'd

be on bended knees, even more than we are today, begging others for oil. just think what's developed in the two weeks of libya. we have opec having to go to saudi arabia to make up the difference. just because of 2% of the oil production be affected. why would we want to be more dependent upon foreign sources of energy, particularly for our national security? without domestic biofuels, it seems to me we would be on bended if these even more than we are begging others for oil. ethanol is the only reliable, legitimate alternative to crude oil. domestic ethanol currently accounts for 10% of our transportation fuel there is no

other renewable fuel that comes close to's kieving th achievinge economic ben pet benefits delivy the biofuels we call ethanol. there are other well-funded misinformation campaigns to undermine the only alternative to imported crude oil. beg oil has been joined in recent years b by those in their desire to increase profits an raise food prices. they did this just two years ago. two years ago when corn was $7. they scapegoated ethanol. they needed a cover to raise the price of food. and then within seven months when the price of corn was down to half that price, $3.50 per

bushel, did you see the price of food come down? no. and you're going to fiend the same theng now. -- you're going to find the same thing now. these people continue to perpetuate the same tireless arguments to undermine our efforts toward energy independence. they're more interested in protecting market share and profits than national and economic security. over the next few weeks i'm going to do everything i can to talk about this issue, to he'd educate the public on domestic biofuels. i'm not going to sit quietly while the national security ben pets of ethanol -- ben pets of ethanol are scoffed at. the american public deserves an honest fact-based discussion of

the ben pets of reducing -- benefits of hugo ch vice president and qaddafi. on territoriy fossil fuel. -- on dirty fossil fuel. i look forward to continuing this effort and would invite dialogue from any of my colleagues. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: i ask that the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: the majority leader. without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on veterans' affairs be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 55, and the senate proceed to that. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution, 55, expressing support for designation of a welcome home

vietnam veterans day. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until tomorrow morning tuesday march 8 at 9:30 a.m. following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved until later in the day, and following any leader remarks there be a period of morning business for two hours. with senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each. the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with 30 minutes to the democratic time under the control of senator john kerry. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: the republicans will control the first hour.

the majority will control the second hour. mr. president, following morning business, the senate will resume consideration of s. 23, the american invents act postcloture. further that the senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings. finally i ask that the time during any adjournment, recess or period of morning business count postcloture. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the appointments at the desk appear separately as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i have spoke wen the republican leader -- i have spoke wen the republican leader and i believe we will be able to -- that should be sometime tomorrow afternoon. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

the senate is expected to take up consideration of the remainder of the fiscal year 2011 funding. today on the floor senator jeff sessions of alabama spoke about his expectations for the legislation and attempt to cut funding in the bill. this is 20 an ounce to vetotioni minutes. of spending imposed by the house is goingnt to cause the governm. to sink into the ocean. reduc states are making far more

serious reductions in spending e than that. the language the majority leader is using, they might make -- recalled the old language in spd 1994, reckless republican spending cuts, and people thrown into the streets and that sortd of thing, but what happened in '94, in '94 the american people through the newly elected congress balanced the budget int four years, they balanced the budget but said it shouldn't be done.e going they said the spending reductions were going to destroy america and prosperity andsperit everyone else that they could imagine that it doesn't happen.e it created a period ofnding outstanding growth. vot we are told we will have a key vote and it's a very important l vote because it deals with thepg level of spending this country

is going to participate in. it's the way to make in nationas decision that's really contiing important. we passed the two week by $4 uing resolution that reduced spending by $4 billion over that period keeping us on track to meet the house passed goal of the 61 billion-dollar reduction in spending this fiscal year. it was a good, small first step, but the big step is coming up i suppose a week from this friday night when the sea are we pass o will expire and we have to passs another one and what level will we pass it? that is the question will be coe before us. will we continue the trend of o reduced spending the house started us on that the americant people start of a song by the

election last november just foun monthsti ago or we continue business as usual. to continue to say no more, we t can't do anymore, we give up.plt a vote for the democratic planrl the wouldl be presented tomorrow will be a vote to do nothing.itb that's the fact. a vote to say we are still indet denial, it would be a vote that says deficits don't matter. we can just continue to spend g continue to invest. it will all get better in thee end.ore it's a vote for more investment and more spending.mittee, h indeed, we have in the budgetee, committee which i'm a ranking republican last week testimony from the department of education. they are asking for an 11% increase when the inflation rate

is to the department of energy for the 9.5% increase andamaziny amazingly the department of transportation came with a 62% increase in spending. is this the way to bring this aa country under control?hey ved is this what the american peopla expected when they voted the of house of representatives and senators here? what and what do we hear? it will be another vote for feae that we can't reduce spending te because the nation will sink into the ocean.hink i don't think so and the and american people don't think so m and cities and counties andat i states for making toughake decisions and being successful at it. so a decision we make on spending could well determine the fate of our nation and our

economy. it's that important. spend it really is. bro 40% of every dollar we spend today is far road.ear three plight $5 trillion but we diou kno only take 2.2 trillion? did you know that? congress knows that. they are in denial some but that's the fact is indisputablee it's in the president's budget. the next ten years the budget pursuant to the budget plan the, president gave us, interest on b the debt will go from 200 billion last year to 844 inu one year. we will double the entireom $13n national debt from 13 trillion they claim they're saving a trillion dollars.go i guess it would have gone to se 27 trillion. how can you save a billion -- an

deficit is going up every singlf year. ficit the lowest single year ofon. deficits is $600 billion. the highest single deficit yearo president bush had was for 50. the lowest they will have to the pr the president's numbers he sent to n last. this is not an acceptable path.g we have -- we are on the wrong . road. this is a road to decline. it's the road to dependence on foreign sources of money to t finance spending free.rosperit it's noty the road to prosperite and growth.ave to we simply have to make some more tough places. we have to make the government lean and more productive and create growth and prosperity and the growth and prosperity has tc be in thee private-sector.a --et that should pay the taxes that allows us to continue to have a and our failure to act at this point in history, after all thef

discussion we've had and thehe debt commission, several actually have met all of itommin calls for substantial reductions in spending but congress doesn't get so this is a demoralizingpl, thing for our people, for our government, for investors in the united states, for business is sitting on capitol and thinking about future is going to be soud like. any is this not going to be a soundg economy any longer?able o is the government of the united states and capable of offering its trajectory?jectory? they thought perhaps this collection was that way. clear message.e some think it could have gone further.61 billion it proposed 61 billion-dollar reduction in the.

that's a 6% reduction. i've already gotten four so that would be 57 billion. when you take these numbers, mr. president, and reduce th baseline and $61 billion in some discretionary accounts, that is far larger than some peopleus think. one of the things that scott ano us in trouble is the geometrical problem of increasing spending.g when you're increasing spending it 7% a year for an example forv ten years you double the size of government just like your bankt account doubles at 7% interest compounded.g when you're reducing spendingng the same thing occurs.if $61 billion, the reduction in the baseline that there were no more reductions over ten years built into the baseline that results in about $850 billion in

savings. in ten years almost trillion dollars. cut. just a 61 billion-dollar cut. it does make a difference.ignif. it does make a difference, and it's significant.'s but president obama's plan thecn anate democratic plans to ppos, almost nothing. he proposes as i understandear. 6 billion-dollar cut for the rest of the fiscal year. a that's just about one-half of 1% reduction of spending thisn in eiscal year.d th and the senate democratic plan it appears to me to be alion ren 4 billion-dollar reduction o lasting one-half of 1% reduction in spendingon this year. n those r are fake cuts.this they are not real, this is t washington talk.virtuallyroke. this is why this country is tt

the president says he proposed a budget for the united states congress has law requires him to b and the budget would cause uo to live within our means and begin paying down the debt.thata that's what he said, that's what his budget director said in mmittee. testimony before the committee. what planet are they on? ann the lowest single annual floor n deficit, and if anybody in thiso floor wants to dispute this i would like to hear it.s the lowest single the annual deficit is over $600 billion in. the ten year plan and they are going up in the out years to his almost 900 trillion in the tenth year of the plan. that's why experts tell us thish is an unsustainable course. i wish we were not in this fix.t i guess i will have to take some of the blame, too. i voted against the programs but i supported them and we've

gotten ourselves into some ands in the fix. it's going to be hard to get oue of it, not impossible but we ari going to have to take some action.some it cannot be business as usual.y of course not but that is why the majority leader is proposing to do nothing. to do nothing. let the interest on the debt go from 200 billion a year to 844 where's that money going to come from, education budget 60 billion, highway budget, 40 billion, 844 on interest.t gg what is it going to crowd outike that we would like to spend government money on? debt and what if we have a debt intet crisis?esre this assumes interest rates areo 3.5%. this a lot of people think this interest rate is note. so stabl. a lot of people are afraid we could have a national or even rs

international debt crisis,hen interest rates could surge.rst , i remember when i bought my d first house, the interest rate was double digits. i think it was 11.5%.ave to think we can't have that thes happen instead of $844,000,000,000.1.5 trillion in interest crowding out all kindf of other spending this is irresponsible. irresponsib this is an irresponsible coursef everyone knows it. you can't bar your way out of debt. so what is going to have an?he what's pullback the curtain and talk about what the plans are. it's pretty clear if you look a. it and have been around this town a little bit to the defeate of the ddemocratic lideader accepted in the debate theyort accepted the 4 billion-dollarrd- reduction over the two week period last week.

that was done.eeks. nobody much talked about it.e an the american people assumedth things are running along prettye well. at least we avoided a given a ae shot down and things are moving along pretty well. hav so now we are going to have was another quick vote tomorrow.ar that was juenst decided appareny today on two different plans. 6% the house plan, 6% reduction, a democratic plan based on noithee reduction. and neither one will pass. and to weeks -- a week from thil friday, this er will expire and we will be heading towards a government shut down. so secret negotiations will wil begin and start talking. maybe the vice president will involve the american people onty being on the discussions.e they probably won't invite me in on the discussions.

i don't know who all will bete there but they begin to they'll negotiate and talk and they wilg be seeking some to floss ocodile compromise.nings crocodile tears and warnings will be shed all weekend and have a government shutdown. half we've had a half a dozen the short period of time and we w certainly don't want one. so that's the way we talk about it. we just can't cut any more. it's going to end. schools are going to close. health care programs are going a to close.has out there. you can't do it. it just won't happen. then they're going to expect, i guess, the republicans to cave and the plan, of course, as it's

been from the beginning is business as usual. business as usual. politicians win again. people lose. elections nullified. business as usual. well, i don't think so. business as usual has put us on the road to bankruptcy. and the voters did speak, and there's a moral responsibility of this congress to respond to the legitimate cries of the american people. don't we have that responsibility? i know one senator told me that during that election, they ran every single ad that talked about reducing spending and won by a margin far more than anybody predicted. there's no doubt that the american people expect us to reduce spending.

they know that there will be some people won't get as much money as they were getting before, but they know we're spending too much. that's common sensical. and a vote for the democratic proposal truly would be a vote for the status quo. it would be a victory for the status quo. it would be seen clearly as a victory for the big spenders. it would be a continuation of the unsustainable fiscal path that we are on, the path to decline, the path to dependence, debt dependence. the whole world is watching, really, just like we watched the british, they stepped up to the plate and made cuts. the germans have criticized the united states for our excessive spending. the european union has criticized the united states for our excessive spending. canada has done a lot better than the united states has in

containing spending. the world is watching. what is the united states going to do? is it going to get its house in order like the other developed nations are working to do? have they made a national decision to reform their unsustainable actions or not? some say these $61 billion in cuts would hurt growth. i contend that absolutely is not so. in terms of the total government spending, we spend spend $3,500,000,000,000, $60 bi llion reduction in that spending total is not going to throw this economy into a -- a recession. o onomy into a -- a recession. indeed, what was due is send a band is through the financial world of the american people have gotten it, the congress has gotten it and they are at last

beginning to end the unsustainable trajectory that this government is on. w the idea that we can borrow money, pay interest on it and create jobs has not worked. if it were such a good idea, why don't we borrow three times as a much and spread around three times as much money. it is not an economically sustainable theory. it won't work and it has not worked. so, we are facing a huge national decision, and i believs many of my democratic colleagues get it. they tell me they get it. they have said so publicly. many have, but talk is not enough. action will bel needed and we will begin to take action tomorrow when we pass this boat. party loyalty is fine. we all have to try to work with

our leadership and nobody complains about that to a degree, but we are not to be winning. we do have a duty to our constituents and our country and our future to make some tough decisions. so, for example, let me share just one more thought and i will wrap up. i seek my colleague, is here. don't think that we are cutting spending. this 6% reduction from some type a's lineup spending lake may be so in your state, your city or your county. in the last two years, the nondefense discretionary spending has increased 23%, and that does not count the stimulus

package money, they $850 billiot expenditure ever in the history of this republic or any other nation in the history of the world. that is on top of the 23% spent. for example, the epa in twos years got a 36% increase inn baseline spending in two years. they can't take a 6% reduction. plus, they, got an almost -- thy got a 70% increase from the stimulus package. a $7 billion on top of their 10 billion-dollar budget. what about the state department? they got 132% increase in t spending in the last two years plus a billionears dollars for e stimulus package. the education department asked

for an 11% increase this year and got an 11% increase previously and hold your hats, they budgetedt about 63 billion now. they got $97 billion out of the stimulus package, more than the whole budget.r. so mr. president we borrowed 40r cents out of every dollar we spent. our debt will soon outgrow our economy.t interest on the debt under the will rises budget $844 billion a year. is the question is not whether we are headed for a crisis but whether we have time to act to prevento it. our character is tested by how we respond in times of great challenge. this week the senate faces such a test. how do we respond to the growing fiscal crisis facing ourro natie that every expert including the

debt commission has told us it's real. this is a defining vote and ain career of everyg senator and a definingre vote for the senate. a -1/2% propose reduction in spending by this administration is not anything. it is basically doing nothing. we need every group, everyut concerned citizen to reach up to congress to tell congress to get off this road to fiscal calamitt and to every fellow senator i say, now is the time to stand and be counted or you are going to t be the vote that help us tn back from the fiscal cliff or the vote that pushed to the economy that much further toward the edge. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. >> also today in the senate, minority leader, -- mcconnell spoke about the spending bills expected to come up this week in

the senate. following his remarks we hear from majority whip, senator durbin, on federal spending and attempts to cut the budget. this is 20 minutes.e >> as we reengage in the ongoinr debate over government spending this week, it is worth noting that some on the other side have already decided to fold up their tents.lica last week republicans showed we can change the status quo in washington by cutting government spending. it was a small step, but a stept in the right direction. some of us were hopeful momentuf is finally building for the kind of bipartisan consensus that would enable usha to cut even me government red ink thisble wee. unfortunately the assistant majority leader seems to have had enough.ss yesterday heista said that cuttg $6 billion pushes the limits of what is needed to live within ouron means. mr. president this is ludicrous. ludicrous.shin so far this fiscal year washington has spent nearlyio

$650 billionn more than it has taken in. mor this year. that is a little more than $4 billion a day that washington is t spending over and above wht it has to spend. and senator durbin thinks democrats in congresscong havety pushed the limits of responsibility by agreeing to cut $6 billion more this year. imagine if every american have the same approach to their credit cardam bills. imagine calling up their credit card company and asking first if you can just freeze your out-of-control spending habits in place, just freeze them in place. then when they say no, imagineur telling them you don't want to cut down your monthly spending because you prefer living outside your means. this is the logic of our friends on the other side.hi now according to this logic, they would rather draw a line in the sand and agree to cut w another dime in spending at a

time when washington is spendinr about $4 billion more every day, every single day than it is taking in.th republicans have been hopeful that we can make progress in on reach of bipartisan solution on this issue. so it is my hope that the assistant majority leader was speaking for himself and not for his entire conference. this of course is the debate c that most people in washingtonos will continue to be focused on thisee week and it is an importt debate.ay-t by focusing on day-to-day o expensesbs threatens to obscuren even larger threat and here i am talking of course about entitlement programs like social security, medicare and medicaidm anyone who has looked at these programs, anyone who is looked at these programs closely knows they are becoming unaffordable. that is doing -- doing nothing risks not only the future of these programs themselves, but our nations future as well.

anyone who looks at history alsw knows that the best time to address a crisis like this is a time like right now. when two parties share power in washington. t this is the time, mr. presidenta i made the case where i can publicly and in private conversations with the white house. as republican leader i put thisu issue front and center my first day on the job. four years ago i came to the floor and said that the demographic changes taking place in america made it incumbent upon us as a i body to reform social security. two years later when the american people put a democrat in the white house, i renewed my call for action. i said republicans are ready to work with the president on entitlement reform and it c repeated that call again for months ago when the voterso decided to put republicans in charge of the house of representatives. throughout thisho time i held or

hope that our friends on the other side would rise to the the occasion. if not when republicans when controlled the white house, atou least when they do.i i was encouraged further when president obama said repeatedly back in in 2009 that his administration would seek to work with us on serious entitlement reform that preserves the safety net for seniors, for people with disabilities and which alsoli p, on a firmer stable footing generations to come. the president has acknowledged the seriousness of the problem. he is noted himself that costs are escalating even as the population is getting older, creating the perfect storm for i fiscal crisis that dwarfs even today's budget crisis as urgent as it is. it out parties agree on all of this, i thought, then there is no reason we can't do this for the good of the country. the urgency fraction is onlynsif intensifying in recent months as we have seen an uproar in a number of state capitals. every state is different, but of

the problems in everyone of thee can be summed up pretty easily.o lawmakers from new jersey tobo california and just about everywhere in between made promises they couldn't keep. that the promises lawmakers in washington have made puts the states to shame. if you add up the unfundedtate liabilities in all 50 states, youu get iowan estimate about $3 trillion total. at up washington's promises on social security and that ichiro loan and it is over 50 trillion dollars. $50 trillion we promise to the american people that we don't know how we are going to pay for. something must be done, and now is the time to do it. a republicans are ready and willing.si where is the president? suddenly at the moment when we can actually do something abouts this, he is silent.shin as one columnist in the

"washington post" put it, for a man he was talking about change we can believe in, the president can be aen strangely passive president. one of the greatest fiscal challenges -- on the greatest fiscal challenge of the day, he appears at least so far, to have taken a pass. this is obviously deeply disappointing to me giving my repeatedly raising of this issue but more importantly it should be decent pointing to every american who has reason to hopef we can tackle these issues in a moment of divided government. and it should be disappointing to all of those who believe this president when he pledged he would shake up the status quo in washington. past presidents have the foresight to seize thet momentp to reach across party lines to solve an earlier funding problem with social security in the case of president reagan and welfare

reform in the case of president clinton. so it is not a question ofes whether it is puzzled by thege question of whether the president has the courage to step up to the challenges that we face. in this case, one can't help bue wonder if the president who camn into office promising change has been changed by the office'm instead. i hope i'm wrong about all of this, but all of the signs.towards inaction on the part of the white house and it might view, this would be a tragic failureic of leadership.p >> mr. president? d >> the senator from illinois.s >> i ask consent to speak as ist that in morning business. >> without objection.kend >> mr. president there was an interesting letter to editor in "the new york times" over the weekend that was sent by two representativeve state senators and i apologize for not having their names immediately at myo anger tips but i will include them in the record d when they

have a chance to insert them s here but a democrat ando republican, minnesota state representative wrote a letter to the editor in response to an article written by david brooks and brooks whom i respect very t much is conservative but a thoughtful man and i agree witht him in a lot of interest and books written about what to do with the state and federal challenges when it came to budget bud deficits. what these two minnesota state representative said, democrat and republican, a republican, is that we acknowledge in our state and nation what we face.ve we face a situation where we have a weak economy and we face a situation where they debtsur that are being incurred by her levels of government are going up too fast.in so having acknowledge that we have got to find a solution and i'm going to probably not saygh this is accurately but i thought they said it so well. w they said we have come to the conclusion that we just can't cut our way out of a problem and we can't tax our way out of the problem. we have got to think our way out of the problem.

we can't lurch from one budgettl battle to another budget battle without looking at thehe fact tt our challenge is a structural, long-term challenge.budg it doesn't relate to the media budget by two a lot of things thatlong are happening over long overlong period of time. and i reflected on that for a minute and i thought you know, think if you look at what we face at the federal level, there are reasons why we are running into these budget problems, not the least of which has senatort mc connell mentioned earlier, is the fact that the population of america's changing. baby boomers can reachby a point where they will be drawing on government benefits they have paid for over a lifetime and asn more and more of them drawn these benefits there is an obvious question as to whether the reserves are there to keepre care of them. so how do we deal with that? t let me speak to two particular issues that senator mcconnell raised.conn the first of social security. social security. is there a program that is more important to america? i can't think of one.f

that is the starting point of the new deal, when president roosevelt said we have got to give seniors in america some peace of mind that when retirement rolls around and in their senior years robe around that they will in fact have enough money to live on. not in a luxurious way but the basics. there was a time i can remember in my family and at many american families where grandparents move back in with the kids. there was no place to go. they could no longer work and te they could no longer afford their homes and they became target the larger family. it happened in my family and it happened and others.with then came social security and with a little planning and a little savings and social security checks, senior citizens have independence.it it was a critically important thing. it was an insurance plan. not a welfare plan, an insurance plan that virtually everyca american paid into an every w american drew from. and soe where are we today? iraq and congress in 1983, brand-new member of the house

from illinois and they saidse welcome to washington. social security is broke. i said great, thought it would get a little reading but in fact there was none. and so president ronald reagan and house speaker tip o'neill c ape political odd couple if you've ever seen one, got together and hammered out an agreement. the agreement that we have reached we reached and voted for in 1983 resulted in social security remaining solvent from then until 2037. we wanted to buy 75 years of sovereignty that we bought over 50. so those who sayse today that social security is in trouble i would remind them, untouched with no action by congress, social security will make every payment promised to every social security recipient with a cost-of-living adjustment everyy month of every year until 2037.i

there aren't many things you can say that about in washington and for over 25 years this program is financially sound. but the bad news is in 2037uche things change dramatically. untouched at that point, social security benefits will go down 22%. now that is a heavy hit on lower income retirees and middle income retirees and so we know that looming 25 years over the horizon is a terrific challenge. president obama created a deficit commission. senator harry reid was kind enough, i guess kind is the word, was nice enough to appoint me to this commission and i spent 10 months listening and then voted for the final commissiond product.it that went into social security and it suggested some things that are inherentlyge controversial. for example, if you are going t, give social security a longer life, what is the mix? w what will you cut in benefits?

how much we increase revenue? those are the two things. social security is basicti arithmetic and medicarec. islu calculus. those basic decisions really get to the heart of when you retiref how much will you receive when h you retire and how much you pay in yourre payroll deductions eao month.he and so the commission reached an agreement and there were parts of it i didn't like what what5 you did buy 75 years of solvenct or social security. it is interesting that we brought it up uhe then as part f the deficit commission is literally social security does not add to the deficit. currently there is a surplus in the social security trust fund n and that trust fund is being invested in government securities and being paid interest but it does not add to the deficit. and so many of my colleagues have argued why are we debating social security is part of deficit reduction if it doesn't have a direct connection? and that is a legitimate point.

i think we should look at it. we should do it in a separatede and parallel track to deficitse reduction, and i welcome what senator mcconnell said. let's have that conversation bua i don't think it needs to be the necessary starting point for deficit reduction because there is no connection between the two. then i heard senator mcconnell say that the president has not shown leadership on medicare. i respectfully disagree with senator mcconnell. the whole debate about health care reform was lowering theyo cost of health care. you cannot balance a budget of america with 13 million people unemployed and without addressing the skyrocketing cost of health care. and so president obama worked with congress, the house and the senate to reduce the growth inah the cost of health care. when the area was in medicare. n time and again, the senator from kentucky and his colleagues came to the floor and gave critical speeches saying quote the obama plan is going to take $500 billion out of medicare day

after day after day, 500 billion out of medicare. if we are seriously talking about budget deficit reform, if we are talking about medicare reform, we are talking about reducing theic anticipated expee of medicare and reducing at least $500 billion in costs.ipie what will that mean to the medicare recipients across america? does it mean less coverage, less care? it doesn't have to. i always use as an illustration the average cost per medicare for the beneficiary and my tom -- hometown the cost is between seven and $8000. you go to chicago or specialty hospitals with a for the higher cost oflt living, it is eight to $10,000 a year for the average medicare beneficiary. but then you go down tome miami and the number is 14 to $15,000 a year. why the dramatic difference between chicago and miami? that is a question we ought toeu ask. is there better care in floridae

or just more expensive care?t can we bring the cost of that care down and not compromise the quality of the n care? hard questions but the only questions that count if you want to have reform and medicare that doesn't sacrifice the basic methods. what i would say to senator mcconnell is this. he quoted me earlier in thei statement. yesterday i said i was ige supporting not the house republican budget but the budget proposed by senator in a way. this budget for the remainder of this year, the next six example is what the $10 billion more out of spending. we would have cut $51 billion below what the president told palma asked this year so in the senate we will average 51. bel in the house they went to $100 billion below what the president as. i think there is a qualitative not just qualitative a qualitative difference in the i approach. i think the house republicanelie budget went too far. i just don't believe that we need to cut the basics in

education for the lower income families across america and thab is exactly what the house republican budget does. let me give you an illustration. they reduce dramatically the amount of money that was going to be spent on headstart. i don't know how many members have had a chance to visit heads start or grams.ese i did a couple of weeks ago insi chicago. these aren kids from the lowesta income families in chicago. these are kids who are most likely to drop out without somee intervention, most likely to struggle in pre-k in kindergarten and most like he to have a difficult time learning. so they bring them in to head a start at an early age and they learn. the one that i visited in chicago was nothing short of amazing. they were teaching these littleh kids, and they were so impressive, chinese as well as a nigerian dialect in these kids were just chattering away. and i thought this experience learning and singing and being

so happy about it cannot help it prepare these kids for a classroom setting where they are going to learn just a couple oft years. the house republican budgetea dramatically cuts the headstart programs. these kids in the teachers and staff that support them will be gone under their proposal andl what will happen to those kids? i am not sure. i don't know if they will be a babysitter down the street or whether someone else will intervene but it is possible without early intervention and early training and education these kids t are going to show u in a year or two for prekindergarten and kindergarten and really not be as far along as they should be. does that make their chances of success better? of course not.ha we know that. the studies have shown a. that. the second area that they have budget cuts is the money in the school districts and the poor parts of america. in my home state there are plenty of those. my hometown of e. st. louis illinois for example. to cut back on federal assistanceba to that poor community at this moment in time i think would really be a. mistake.

we need to make sure that these young people have good teachers and good resources and can learl even though they live in a town that is economically poor. the house e republican budget cp that money and cuts the teachers forchoo the school districts. t monday cut the money from pell grants. pell p grants are the college-ae grant given to students from lower income families. o many of them don't have a chance to go to school unless they gett a grant so that they can proceed with their education. the house republican budget cuts $850 a year out of the pell $ grants for lower incomedent students, students from low income families. that unfortunate will mean thatl many of them will drop out. when i went to visit with the president of augustana college a private lutheran college, he anticipated they would lose one out of every two students because of the cut in pellhey grants. so students when we have highmp unemployment in a recession are dropping out of college because of house republican budget

obvious question, does that make america's work force any bettero are we in a better position to compete with china and other wil countries the world or will we sacrifice our advantage because students have to drop out ofhe school? i think the answer is obvious. that is what house republican budget with some support i think is too far. t it cuts too much in education. a cutuch dramatically medical research. what were they thinking? we would cut the national institutes of health, medical research and critical areas, alzheimer's, lou gehrig'su disease, diabetes, cancer at a time when we know that research and innovation are critical for america's success. why would the house republican budget cutbacks so dramatically in areas that we no know pay off? i think they made some poor choices and that is why support the senate democratice approach. $10 billion in cuts but presuming in education worker trainingd