which is, obviously, top of mind for a lot of folks, as bad as the economy was, something happens that is still under dispute as to why but makes a lot of difference, and that is oakens law breaks down. so as bad as the gdp is doing, unemployment rises substantially more than anybody predicts. it wasn't just my predecessor predicting that the baseline unemployment rate was going to be lower than it ended up being. all of you made the same predictions, and the private sector mistook what the baseline was going to be for unemployment, and the relationship of unemployment to gdp broke down from be it historical basis. so we got one and a half to two extra points of unemployment than anyone would have predicted from how output was doing at the

end of 2008. .. i do think we have one dynamic that was heavily against -- heavily to the negative in the recession which is now turning to potentially heavily in the positive which is as you know in most recessions. -- productivity growth drops. sometimes even goes negative.

this downturn the exact opposite occurred. through direct cost cutting or whatever other means productivity growth was growing at astounding levels, proved the downturn. we had annualized productivity of 5% or 6%. with output growing 1-1/2% and productivity growing 5% that is a recipe for a lot of people losing their jobs and we were on the downside of that trend for some substantial period. that has almost entirely flipped. you have expectations of output of 3-1/2% or 4% and productivity back to normal 2% rate. if that persists that is a recipe for a lot of people getting their jobs back or a lot of people currently at work working substantially longer hours. that it certainly a trend in the labor market that we are continuing to monitor, but is

suggesting of something positive developing. i think that is largely why you have seen modest at first but continuing to string the labour market performance. when i hear some people say jobless recovery, the way the last two recoveries were jobless recoveries in the early period, i really object to that because it is not accurate. so the 2001 recession ends and there is job loss for 22 months after the declared end of the recession. that is a jobless recovery. in this recession, dog growth commentss nine months after the end of the recession which is much more like a traditional recovery. it is just that the depth of

this hole -- i have to infer this in this goes down, job loss from this recession is very much on the order of magnitude of the last three recessions combined. that is how deep it is but it goes deep and have started coming back. that is different from going down somewhat and then just not generating any jobs for long period. i think our most pressing problem as we transition to fade 2 is getting the growth rate established and sustained. that is our most pressing problem. that will be as i will indicate in a second also quite critical for getting the deficit down and dealing with our long run fiscal challenges which we have known about for 30 years. have not got materially worse in the last two years. what got worse is the business cycle went down the tubes and ran the deficit up to record amounts. that happens when you get in the

business cycle. the long run fiscal situation facing the country is oriented around the aging of the population, the acceleration of health care costs and thinking about things like the share of income paid by high income americans which is at extremely low levels. partly from the business cycle but partly from major tax cuts that took place over the last decade. if you ask where will the growth be located, there is an argument made by some that if we can't restore consumer spending and if we can't get construction back, where will the growth come from? i believe that i should have brought a copy of our economic report. i didn't realize -- [laughter]

-- the economic report to the president, chapter i lays out what i think is wrong with that. if you compare the boom of the 2000s to previous recoverys it is highly unusual. it is highly unusual in two ways. number one, it is massively waited to consumer spending and residential construction. those are the two drivers of the 2000s boom. way more than in previous boom collapsed in the united states. the second difference is undersized for export growth and business advantage. exports and business investment are traditionally drivers of recoveries but not in the 2000s. when people say if we don't have a rapid increase in consumer spending and a big upturn in residential construction we

can't have a recovery they are leaving out the phrase like the one we had in the 2000s. but the one in the 2000s was not sustainable. consumption grew faster than income bring in a savings rate of the nation down to zero, is not sustainable. residential construction fuelled by a housing bubble is not sustainable. that is not where we are trying to get back to. in my view the growth is going to be located in business investment, exports, traditional business cycle recovery. and we want it to be like in a traditional recovery, a heavy dose of small-business expansion. entrepreneurship, new business. that part has been relatively weak. exports are up 17% over the last year. that is fantastic. that is well on the way to meet

the president's goal faster than on a 1-year basis where the president's goal is double exports over five years in the export initiative. business investment has been up strongly in various quarters and we continue monitoring that but when industrial production number, durable-goods number is not as strong but that is following several strong months. exports, investment, hopefully small-business, why we have small business credit bill have put this focus on startup america which is a public/private partnership to encourage entrepreneurs to start and grow their businesses. things that in the old solo division, basically what we want to focus on, physical capital, human capital and innovation.

as i said, nobody in the white house wants to hear about human capital accumulation and productivity enhancement but when the president says outeducate, outinnovate and out innovate the rest of the world it is coming straight out of the solo growth model. i think a growth agenda is what is warranted when we are talking about when the future is rooted in this let's have a business cycle driven by investment by exports by raising the skill level of our work force and to me, that is the private sector sustainable kind of growth. now let us talk about the deficit and the issues of debt facing the economy. as all of you know what matters is what is our debt to gdp level

and what matters is as the simpson-bowles commission revealed that is not what is important. conflating long and fiscal challenges with the deficit which is big this year is very dangerous because it leads you to do things that are not correct. we signed a tax deal in december in a bipartisan manner which was important. it gives payroll tax cut to encourage workers and encourage hiring. with incentives for education. all of those are important and everyone knew when they signed it, with 80 senators signing that deal, they knew it would increase the deficit in 2011. they're on the full growth path and a position to confront long

run fiscal issues. and therefore we need to cut, in some sense running into this what the medium and long run programs are for the short run driven by the business. the president in the state of union outlined a budget that cuts discretionary spending down to a share of the economy not since dwight eisenhower since the present. let us all look at one another and agree that is only 12% of the budget. that is not what the problem is. we want to hold hands and together in a bipartisan way think about the aging of the population and acceleration of health care costs, think about tax rates on high-income people over the long run. let's do that in a bipartisan

way. let us not continue saying the problem is runway discretionary spending because that is 12% of the budget and that is high and we are running a deficit in 2010, and 2011 because of the business cycle. growth is going to be a key component of getting the deficit down. in the 2000s before the financial crisis the deficits may be 3% of gdp. it goes to something like 11% of gdp. most of that 11% is from the business cycle. getting the business cycle reversed is critical to getting it down to let's say 4% or 5% and getting from that to primary surplus, has to come from cutting but getting the growth

going is fundamentally important. remember that from 1947 to 1979 the united states cut the debt to gdp ratio by 85% and it runs a surplus only four times the entire period. the main thing that gets the gdp ratio down is gdp grew at a sustained basis and made a big difference. we have to live within our means. we have to think about the entitlement. that cannot be done in a partisan way. if the argument was why doesn't president obama just come forward and say here is my partisan plan to just go ahead and change entitlements and the formula we went through a period in the health care bill in which it was a cut to private subsidy,

the medicare advantage program was not even medicare and that was transforming into the president wants to kill your grandmother. in an environment like that we are not having an adult conversation about the aging of the population and acceleration of health care costs. we can't be in that environment. there are hardening things in the fiscal commission. you had sitting senators from both parties say let's hold hands and confront these issues and confront them in the future. it is not about right now. but you also had sitting members of the house saying absolutely not, we won't have anything to do with this. in some sense we have to see how this one plays out but the president is committed to a strong budget, tight on the discretionary side, which if

enacted would get discretionary spending levels down to some where they have not been for many decades. there are two ways to mortgage the future. one is by running up deficits that leave the bills to your kids, the other is by not investing in the things that our children will need to have productive careers and good paying salaries in the future such as education, investing in r&d, investing business investment and physical capital. both of those are important and we have got to preserve and live within our means and means the investments that we need to make. there are things like bag cuts. cutting the things that are critical for our growth. that is not a good idea. if you are going to pull away the financial aid of nine million college students in the middle of the school year so that thousands of them dropped, that is not a good idea.

that doesn't pay for itself. that is a cut which costs you money. if you are talking about cutting things like the $30 billion of terminations and reductions which are things that the president already said we can afford to do without these or you are cutting things that are duplicates, wasteful spending, when you are not in phase i rescued mode any more you can afford to get rid of a lot of things. what matters is not just some aggregate number. what should be aggregate spending of the government be. that is a phase i argument. as you move to growth phase you need to be judicious about it. lastly, there are clearly concerns. we are in a recovery. we are shifting to phase ii but we are not in -- we are not recovered. we still have some fears on the

horizon. most obvious, the price of oil. a lot of people have in their mind the 1970s where when the price of oil goes up its and the economy into recession. there is good news on that front. number one, if you look at energy intensity per dollar of gdp it is 50% lower than it was in the 70s. most economists believe that the sensitivity of our growth rate to oil prices up or down is lower than it was at that time. number 2, you saw announced overnight and today that they are willing to lose -- i was going to say there is capacity among other oil producers in a way that at previous times the price went up. use of them announce this morning that nigeria, saudi arabia and somebody else are

going to each increase their production to replace the supply disruption from libya. the fact that there is capacity to address that is also of relevant positive. there is clearly a risk premium on top of stronger world fundamentals. world demand for oil going up as industrial production rises. that is driving up the price and there's a risk premium on top of that. the question is how much comes from the fundamental. there is one up side to the fundamentals which is if world demand is driving the price of oil up, those countries pile stuff from the united states. that is unlike the -- prices are going up because of supply disruptions. that is not good for anybody. if it is because in china they are expanding output, china is a large export market for u.s.

profit, it is not all in the negative. i would emphasize the importance of a long run energy policy so that we are not having this conversation every summer. we know in the summer demand goes up. gas prices go up. we are having the same conversation again and again year after year. whether it is energy efficiency, domestic production, or other energy policies to alternative fuels it is important we think those through. price of fuel is one risk. financial system in europe is a concern. a year ago it felt like we were starting to get some momentum. the events in tim pawlenty -- in greece and some of these financial markets like this buzz coming back like a ghost, continue to monitor events in europe. third, the housing market

remains in the dumps. there are five million vacant homes so it seems unlikely that with a reserve army of unemployed homes that prices will come rebounding rapidly in the near future. that said, the impact of the housing sector on gdp growth which was a major negative drag in 2008/2009, its impact on gdp growth in a negative way has lessened if fully because construction is at such a low-level that even if it remains depressed that is not adding negative numbers. is just adding zero. it is not private recovery as opposed to pulling it down. from our perspective those three are the most -- are the areas we continue to look at. on the job market is clear state

and local governments lack the aggregate economy 6 to 12 months and they will continue to be a drag on the employment prospects. not enough to outweigh the private sector, but over the last year the private sector added 1.5 million jobs. the government side is driven by state and local subtracted 300,000. those kind of numbers are negative, but approximately that magnitude. i would close by saying i think there is a source -- we made a transition, a scary one. i think there is a somewhat obvious transition we want to make to growth based on more traditional investment, exports, proportional. consumption proportional to income keeping the savings rate at 5%. that is the kind of boom that is

sustainable and broad based unlike the ones we have just gone through. that we put a focus on deficit reduction, where it ought to be which is medium and long term, that we not mortgage the future while doing that by cutting the wrong things that we focus the cuts where they need to be, and that we obviously be mindful of those concerns coming but the optimistic note is this -- warren buffett i got to know a little bit in the campaign as a supporter of the president. warren buffett says in 1900, the dow was at 50. if you asked in 1900 what do you think will happen if over the next 110 years we have two world wars, we have a great depression, we have a flu pandemic, we have a series of -- list all of things that went

wrong, all challenges that is down right down to 20. in 2011, we are hovering around 12,000. of course people being what they are, let's not correct for inflation, they don't get by. the dow was correct and something like 1,000. our standard of living is up by a factor of 8 or 10. the productive innovative capacity of the american economy is virtually unbounded. also the economic report of the president there is a lot of per-capita income in the united states from 1820. it is a straight line upward. even the depression, you can see it goes down and comes back to that line to keep things going and you can see the downturn of

2008/2009 on that chart. we are getting back on that line of growth. for all the hype about china, 12 times richer than china. they can double income and we will be five times richer than them. our workers are the most productive in the world. people say you can't say that because of a ppp adjusted basis luxembourg is higher than the united states. except for luxembourg we are the most productive workers in the world. the thing is anybody would trade places with us. everybody would like -- people are coming -- if you compute the ratio -- and will give the best statistic. and tractable, injectable. [laughter] if you compute the ratio of number of people who want to

come to your county by people who want to move somewhere else, leave your country the u.s. got the highest ratio by far. you can look that up in the almanac. overall, very positive prospects for the economy. we have to grow our way out of this spot we are in right now. what is our time frame? we have time for a couple questions. >> we need to use the microphone. >> this guy is a ringer. i know him. >> auto you a favor. he signed off on my dissertation. [laughter]

>> i have a serious question. getting back to what you said about the breakdown of the link between gdp and employment we all know gdp is a measured output of the economy but for sectors where we don't have a measure of the input we measure how much we put into that sector which is not a perfect measure and with health care, education and a lot of it was government spending and as a result of the stimulus and subsidies at state and local government that accounts for a larger share of gdp than it did a few years ago. is it possible that because of that, gdp is a less meaningful measure of economic health than it was two years ago and that could explain part of the disconnect between gdp and employment? >> i haven't looked at the data so i don't know the answer. i would need to try to figure out the magnitude of the shift

sufficient to explain. and the share of the economy, would have changed that dramatically over a two year period and would break down all these losses significantly but it might. it is worth looking at that. >> okay. [inaudible] >> outside of this room, are we going to have an endorsement by the president of the president's own commission on productivity and growth shared by simpson-bowles? the state of the union in particular absolutely quiet. i don't agree with that. it absolutely was not quiet. >> maybe note absolutely. we have a more vigorous

enforcement of a really broad program of revenue increasing, and cutting of entitlements? >> this is -- what i said was as the president stated, on the budget, i will put forward a budget that brings -- didn't say in these words. something like primary surplus with low discretionary spending since eisenhower to stabilized at to gdp. a small share of the budget, on the simpson-bowles commission, this is in the state of the union which is why i object to saying he is silent. we won't do this in a partisan way. that won't work. will hold hands and do this

together. we have to see whether people will hold hands and do this together or go back to pulling the plug on grandma mode. >> in the economic assumptions in 2012, you are forecasting real growth -- [talking over each other] >> forecasting real growth 2012-2014 in the neighborhood of 4%. you stated growth is important to dealing with the deficit. i imagine you are aware the forecasts are lower than in recent years, and in particular more investment than most. and the financial crisis, has

has been the case for financial crises. could you explain why you expect the u.s. to be different? >> the forecast embodies three parts. one is the medium term, 13 or 15 and one is long-term. the long term growth rate, our forecast is exactly what those -- our short-term forecast has to be locked in in november. it is lower than the prior forecast for the next two years and higher than three years following that. for anybody who says it is a rosy scenario, we are low and then hi, they are high and then lo and after the old period, do you think that potential output is lower in the u.s. because we

go through a deep recession, it remains the same. the potential output, if you go look at the graph, in 1820 to the present it is a straight line and the depression goes down and comes back to get back on the same line again and that is why we have a medium-term rebound. .. lines from 1230 to 1215 men broke and the floor of the u.s. senate on c-span2.

the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate.

the clerk: washington d.c., march 8, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable jeff merkley , a senator from the state of oregon, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business for two hours with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. the republicans controlling the

first hour and the majority controlling the next hour. the 30 minutes under the control of the senator from massachusetts. a senator: thank you, mr. president. i come to the floor of the senate to discuss an issue that is critically facing the american people. mr. barrasso: it is the price of gasoline at the pump in this country. it is something that is, in my opinion, going to impact our economy, going to impact the economic recovery that we are all hoping would continue in this country, but with every penny that the cost of gasoline at the pump goes up, it's been estimated that that takes about $1 billion away from the amount of money that can be spent on other things in this country to get back to growing the economy. and we're at a point where the american people, who have to balance their budget every year,

states have to balance their budget -- of course washington doesn't do that -- but the american people do. they have to focus on their pocketbook. and when they're going to fill up with gas and noticing they're approaching a point where it's going to be $100 to get a fill-up, they worry about the impact on the quality of their life, their ability to put food on the table for their children and clothing on their children and even have the money to get back and forth to work. those fortunate enough to have jobs. you say, well, is it really a problem? i believe it is, mr. president. i filled up yesterday -- yesterday morning in casper, a young man in front of me at the filling station, filling up his pickup truck, you know, he's watching the numbers go up and up and up. i filled up a week ago in wyoming as well and -- because we use a lot of gasoline in wyoming. we travel long distances.

and i was filling up in the evening, put my credit card in and it stopped at $75 because apparently they have to reset these things. you would think that at $75 at the time you'd have enough money to fillup. but not as this -- these gas prices continue to rise. my concern is that so much of this money is being sent overseas to people trying to blow us up. we have an opportunity to be much more secure in our energy resources by developing our energy sources at home and it seems that these administration's policies are making it that much harder. you say, well, how high can gasoline prices go with the unrest in the middle east, a front page story a few days ago in "u.s.a. today" says if unrest spreads, gas may hit $5 a gallon by summer. the -- you know, we need to do some things in this country that this administration has

continued to block. we need to find more of our own energy, be reliant more upon ourselves and less upon foreign sources of energy, and that mean doing three things, exploring offshore, exploring on federal land, and exploring in alaska. we know there are huge reserves of oil, of energy in these locations, and, yet, day by day those efforts are being blocked. and the impact of this on our overall economy is huge. and it's because of policies of this administration. i mean, just today the -- in "u.s.a. today" this morning, "will gas prices stall the u.s. upturn? consumers could cut spending again." it's not in the best interest of this country, mr. president, for us to have energy policies that make it more expensive for americans to fill up their cars. it does not help the economy of

this country when we do things when the policies of this administration do things that make it more expensive and harder for small businesses to create jobs and hire people. we're trying to get people hired, back to work. that's what we're focused on, jobs and the economy. when the administration's policies cut into our ability to use energy sources from within this country, red, white, and blue energy jobs, red, white, and blue energy as well and just send money overseas, it doesn't help us as a nation, it doesn't help our economy, it doesn't help strengthen our communities. we're so blessed with wonderful communities, wonderful land and yet we don't seem to make wise decisions on a daily basis, mr. president, with the policies coming out of this administration. now, it's interesting to see who is actually benefiting from all of this, these increased costs. because we know that the american families aren't

benefiting. we know the american taxpayers aren't benefiting. we know the families trying to get their kids off to school aren't benefiting. who's benefiting from the huge increase in the cost of energy and the cost of oil? all you need to do is go to the front page of the business section of today's "new york times", "fears about middle east oil pay off for russia." for russia, mr. president. it's -- it's -- whatever the eventual outcome of the arab world social upheaval, there is a clear economic victor, winner so far, vladimir putin. right there, that's the winner. our policies, our economic policies of this administration to limit our ability and ca curl our ability to use american energy and american oil to keep down the cost of gasoline is benefiting russia. it says, russia which pumps more oil than saudi arabia is reaping a windfall from the steep rise in global energy prices

resulting from instability of the middle east and north africa. russia doesn't have any oil well standing idle. right now russia is pumping oil at its top capacity. so, you know, in you can't where we in the united states, and this congress in particular, chooses winners and losers in energy, the winner seems to be russia because of the policies of this administration. and, you know, "the hill" newspaper this morning, "pump pain for obama," this clearly lies specifically at the -- at the feet of the president because of the policies of this administration. now, we've had a -- a situation in the gulf of mexico, mr. president, where there has been a moratorium, which has extended almost permanently shutting down the use of -- of oil reserves for the united states and the administration's

so happy and pronounced the moratorium have not until this week allowed for an additional permit, and, finally, one when the price of gasoline at the pump went up 38 cents on average to now up $3.50 per gallon. the department of interior last october, the federal register came out and they had a collusion. they -- solution. they had actually some ideas about this. the department of interior, the president and the department of interior admitted what they're doing in the gulf of mexico would have an impact. it said that the impact on the deep paw hydrocarbon production is expected to be negative. what it means is it is going to cut down on american sources of energy. you know, we need energy security. and we, as a nation, need to do it in a environment, responsible way and we need to focus on economic growth. and this administration doesn't

seem to be willing to make that distinction about energy security and economic growth and the needs that we have to help make our economy stronger. so what is the administration's position? what as of october was their position on all of this to say, okay, we know that we're going to have impacts in the gulf. they didn't say, oh, i know, we can go onshore and look at federal land. they didn't say let's go to alaska to explore. no, this is this administration's position. they said currently there is sufficient spare capacity in opec. in opec in the middle east -- to offset a decrease in gulf of mexico deep-water production that could occur as a result of this rule, the rule that they're going to shut down the gulf. therefore, the increase of hydrocarbon to consumers for the increase to drill and operate on

outer continental shelf is expected to be minimal. that's the administration's solution. they don't expect anything to happen. they're not worried about it and if there's a problem, just buy more energy, more gasoline, more oil from opec. send more american dollars overseas, that's the administration's position? and what about the impact of that on our economy? now, we do have a secretary of energy, you would think he would be concerned about the cost of energy and the impact on american families. well, not so, mr. president. when you look at some of the estimates that he's made. in the past he said somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels of europe. that's the -- that's the secretary of energy's proposal. figure how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in rural. well, how much is gasoline cost in europe? well, about -- almost $8 a gallon. now, the president when he was a

senator and running for president, he didn't seem to think that high energy prices were a problem. he just wanted the costs to go up gradually. he thinks the problem is when things go up too quickly. mr. president, the american people who try to put bread on the table for the kids and clothing on their backs and get them off to school and then go to work themselves, they notice this. they know every time the cost of a gallon of gasoline goes up by a penny or a nickel or 38 cents as it has most recently. and the economy will suffer as a result. and it specific -- it's specifically a result of the policies of this administration. the potsies that ignore -- policies that ignore the need for american energy. and, so, mr. president, i think that at a time when we need to be focused on jobs in this country that we need to realize the amount of uncertainty in the middle east, there is now sticker shock at the pumps and it is the policies of this

administration that are the things that are keeping us from using -- to develop the energy security that we need. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: mr. president, thank you. i rise today to speak for a few minutes about our current fiscal situation. over the next few weeks we're undoubtedly going to have a very robust debate on our country's future and the tremendous issues we face. we're going to have a debate about the need for fiscal responsibility. one thing that all of my colleagues should be able to agree upon is that our current level of spending and borrowing and debt is just simply not sustainable. when you're bringing i in $2.2 trillion, but you're

spending $3.8 trillion annually, something is seriously wrong. and adding $1.65 trillion to the national debt each and every year is not the answer. we simply can't afford to continue in this direction. for too long the answer of washington was, we will be all things to all people. promising everything with really no plan to pay for it. the result now is that we face a financial crisis unlike anything our nation has ever seen. while americans are making very tough, painful decisions in their daily lives, their government still refuses to make the same difficult choices. now, mr. president, i come from

a state where its citizens really do believe that less government is better government. but even if my colleagues disagree that less government is better, we'd be hard pressed to find anyone who can argue with the numbers. numbers don't lie and they can't be spun. so let's take a look at the numbers, grim by any economist's viewpoint. we are currently borrowing 42 cents on every dollar. 42 cents. so every dollar spent today, every dollar spent this year by the federal government 42 cents is borrowed. can you imagine an average family charging nearly half of all of their spending to the credit card? well, it wouldn't take long for that family to face bankruptcy. well, what's happening, mr. president, with our nation

is this, we are absolutely losing control of our destiny. i heard the gentleman from -- from wyoming talk about the oil issues and the fact that we're shipping our resources out of this nation, and that's absolutely true. but what is also happening is this, for every dollar borrowed, we have to find a banker. and looking at this chart, who are our bankers out there? china, japan, other foreign holders, oil exporters, the u.k., and you begin to understand the point. billions of dollars annually are being borrowed from foreigners who have really no home interest

in our nation. the interest payments on our debt will increase to almos almost $1 trillion by 2020. an increase of 370% since 2009. again, just look at the chart. the numbers don't lie. a nearly 380% increase by 2020. now the american people are absolutely appalled at trillion dollar annual deficits. just imagine their horror at trillion dollar annual interest payments. and what if current interest rates go up, which many project that they will, each 1% increase in interest rates equals, get this, $140 billion in additional

debt. our interest payments alone will eventually bankrupt our country before we even begin to think about providing services to our citizens. and everything will suffer. if you like education, guess what? it will suffer. if you want to build more roadsd bridges, guess what? it will suffer. our society will suffer. probably most importantly, for those of us in the united states senate, the legacy we leave behind for our children and grandchildren of a did diminishd standard of living because we could not get our spending under control is absolutely a horrific legacy. our country's national debt totals near 70% of our entire gross domestic product.

looking down the road, within ten years our publicly held debt will be at the 90% threshold. while the american public looks on this enron accounting with utter amazement, they can't imagine 90% of their paycheck going to pay off debt. yet, their government just continues to recklessly add to the debt year after year, $1 trillion deficits, $1 trillion deficits as far as the eye can see. well, this is just enormous. it's record-setting annual deficit. the alarm bells are sounding, the red lights are flashing, the flags are waving. we have to stop it. while this discussion won't likely even acknowledge the entitlement iceberg headed our way, we have to come to grips with the reality that we can't

finance what we have promised. yet, some object to $61 billion in spending reductions. in the grand scheme of what we are dealing with, that's hard to imagine. how can we possibly attack a massive debt if we can't even come to agreement on $61 billion, out of a $3.5 trillion annual budget? now, i acknowledge $61 billion is significant. i acknowledge that many of these programs are programs i like. but if we don't come to grips with this, those programs won't exist. yet, many are saying, well, let's do a little nip and a tuck. let's maybe get $4 billion out

of this. that's only 14 one-hundredths of one percent of reductions. do anyone think that's a serious reduction? nobody's buying it. the american people aren't buying it. i just did town halls, nine of them across the state. they're not buying it back home. it's time to roll up our sleeves, madam president. it's time to say look, we can't go on doing this. it is my intention to be on the floor a lot in the weeks and months ahead. i believe we're at a tipping point if we don't turn this around, we may lose the ability to control our own destiny in this debate. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: madam president, my understanding is i have up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: that is correct. but we are in a quorum call. mr. johanns: i ask that the quorum call be set aside. mr. corker: let me know if i take that long. if i get within a minute and a half, let me know. i'll probably be long gone. i rise today also to speak about our country's unlimited spending. the fact that this last month in february -- i don't know if many people know this, it was just published -- we had the largest budget deficit for one month in recorded history of $223 billion. those numbers were just released. i know we have some measures we're going to vote on this week regarding reductions in spending. i realize the republican version likely will not pass.

the democratic version likely will not pass. and then hopefully we will sit down and work out something to allow government to be open again for hopefully the long-term c.r. i know we're having a lot of difficulties in our departments as they try to manage their budgets, not knowing what they're going to do. but as the gentleman from nebraska mentioned, $61 billion is a drop in the bucket as it relates to trying to solve our country's problems. madam president, that's why i've brought forth something called the cap act. i've tried to do it. i have done it in a bipartisan way. there are numbers of people in this body that have supported the cap act. i think the thing for you, madam president, a former governor, and other people here who have, tennessee families who have to live within a budget, i think what we realize around here very quickly is that we have absolutely no construct. we know not where we're going in

the future. we never have a plan. what we do is what we're doing this week. we fight and debate over things that take us almost nowhere. and yet, we have -- we have not a long-term plan as it relates to spending. i think everybody in this body knows that when we have $3.7 trillion in spending this year and we have $2.2 trillion in income that trying to solve this problem by only dealing with discretionary spending makes no sense. i mean, if you did away with all discretionary spending during this year, all discretionary spending including defense, you still would not have a balanced budget. and all of us know that it's all of the mandatory programs that have to be added in to this. and what we need to do is create a comprehensive budget, a straitjacket for congress. madam president, i along with others here have offered something called the cap act. what it does stake us from where we are -- is take us from where we are today, over a ten-year

glide path to the historical average of spending in this country relative to our country's output. that's about 20.6% of our country's economic output. i've tried to not message. this is not a messaging bill. it's a bill that i truly hope to pass. i've been meeting with numbers of my republican colleagues and democratic colleagues. i have numbers of meetings set up over the course of the next several weeks to try to build consensus. here's the way it would work: we would pass it as a statutory bill. and what we would do is take us from where we are today, which is a little over 24.5% of spending relative to our country's output, which is way out of line. and, by the way, i don't really -- i'm not here to cast blame. i think both parties can recognize some of the contributions they've made to getting us where we are as a country. but the fact is we know that we cannot continue on on the path

that we're on today. we know that. what we have to do is not just look at discretionary spending. i've had so many of my colleagues on the floor talk about trying to solve this entire problem with only a very small percentage of the budget makes no sense. everybody understands that. and everybody here tphoeu wants to en-- i know wants to ensure that the entitlement programs that seniors benefit from are here for the long term. we want other seniors to benefit from that, and yet we know the way these programs are set up today they're not sustainable. there's not a person -- i don't think, there may be a few. i think most of it will be rhetoric, but i don't want to be casting judgment. i think everyone here knows that these programs cannot continue as they are. so what this would require us to do is to start today working ourselves down to 20.6% of our g.d.p. again, it's been the historical average for 40 years.

this wasn't something to try to overreach. for what it's worth, what it would mean to our country is over the course of the next ten years as opposed to the course that we're on now, the alternative c.b.o. scenario, which is what they deem most likely to occur without our action, this would mean that we would spend $7.63 trillion less than we're now spending. and this is how it works: there's a formula in here. it's a ten-page bill. there's not a lot of whereas' in this bill. it's just a business document. something like a former governor from new hampshire might be accustomed to looking at, but it's a business document, puts in place statutory limits. they're formula driven to take us from here to there. if we don't meet those requirements, then after 45 days in each year -- there are targets each year spending relative to our economy. by the way, this joins everybody at the hip wanting our kpwheu to

grow. -- wanting our economy to grow. if our economy grows rapidly those targets are much easier to hit. if congress didn't act, if we didn't have the courage to act, then what would happen is there would be automatic questions traeugs coming on a -- sequestration coming on a pro rata basis. on a pro rata basis you'd have sequestration that would take those moneys out. none of us want to see that happen, so that would force us to actually do the things that any congress acting responsibly needs to do. that is to actually work together each year to meet those requirements. instead i've heard so many people, especially on the other side of the aisle, coming down and talking recently about focusing on discretionary spending only, is basically cutting out some of those things that might make our country stronger. there are some things certainly in all of these bills, as the senator from nebraska was

mentioning, that i might have differing priorities. but the fact is that when you try to do it all, only on discretionary spending, you're not only not solving the problem, what it does is cause you to actually look at some things that might otherwise make our economy grow. again, this bill, the cap act, which claire mccaskill has cosponsored as original cosponsor with me, and others are looking at it, this bill would cause us to look at everything. again, first comprehensive look, spending relative to our economy at historical levels, everything is on the table and on budget, sequestration would be in place and it would take a two-thirds vote of congress to override spending limits. madam president, i did not come here to message. i didn't come here to move the bar beyond what the other side

might be doing just to make a name for myself or create, to create publicity. i came here to solve our country's problems. i look at these young people in front of me; i don't think they have any idea what our irresponsibility is doing to them. and we talk about future generations, but i think all of us know -- thank you very much. i think all of us know that we're actually at a point now that we've been so irresponsible that it's not just going to affect future generations, it's getting ready to affect us. there's a lot of turmoil in this world today, and for that reason the united states of america has been perceived a safe haven, and our interest rates continue to be low because of the rest of the world's turmoil. the fact is that we all know that if and when -- and we hope that's a when soon -- things settle down that as people begin to, again, look closely at where

we are as a country and if we continue to not act responsibly and show the world that we have the ability to at least put in place this framework which would cause us to work together to get to a place that we all know we need to go, then i think, i fear that interest rates over time are going to run from us and that interest rates relative to debt payments -- interest relative to our debt payments is going to continually consume more. again in closing, madam president, i appreciate the time. i really have -- i went around the state of tennessee and had 43 meetings talking about this type of approach. i know that numbers of people on the other side of the aisle have talked about what they feel is an appropriate level of spending relative to our country's economy. i know that this bill is not out of line. i know that this bill is at least appropriate. there are a number of people

that think it should be lower. but this is something that would cause us to first agree on where we're going. and, madam president, i know that you know it's very difficult for a body like this with 100 senators and on the other side 435 house members to agree on little things when you really don't have any idea where it is you're trying to go. and this would create a target for us. it would create a straitjacket for congress. it would really cause us to prioritize. and i'm going to continue talking about this until hopefully we pass it and actually have a process to cause us to work together in a constructive way. with that, i yield the floor and i thank you for the time. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you, madam president. madam president, i rise to focus on another grave threat to economic recovery and jobs, and that is skyrocketing energy prices, particularly the price

of gasoline at the pump. madam president, i don't have to point this out to americans all over the country, louisianians all over the state. they see it in front of them every time they go to get a new tank of gas. ever-increasing energy prices, ever-increasing prices at the pump. right now on average nationwide, the price at the pump is $3.51 a gallon. that's about 08 cents higher -- 80 cents higher than the average price a year ago. and most americans know it's not stopping there. they see $4 gasoline coming sooner rather than later, and who knows how far it will go beyond $4 at the pump. this is a real threat, madam president. we're trying to come out of the worst recession since the great depression, and this is an immediate threat to put the

brakes on any recovery we may be mounting. and ensure a real threat to american families and louisiana. it's a direct hit to their pocketbooks. americans, louisianaians, talking heads, national economists saying, we don't have any real inflation. every time they go to the pump, they know there's inflation in key prices like gasoline and that's a big hit to their family budget. now madam president, this has sparked somewhat of a breakthrough in thinking among the ranks of the obama administration. let me explain what i mean by that. recently president obama's energy secretary, secretary chu, focused on supply and he said, we need to increase supply to temper prices and mitigate the increase in price at the pump.

and he said, we need to do this by convincing the saudi arabians to increase their supply of oil on the world market. "that's going to mitigate the price increase." and he said further -- quote -- "we're hoping market forces will take care of this." close quote. i at least give secretary chu and the obama administration marks for this breakthrough understanding that supply is a big part of the equation. in fact, it's half of the supply and demand equation that yields price. also recently the white house chief of staff, bill daley, made a comment that also went to supply. he said this weekend on some of the weekend talk shows, that we need to consider opening up the stratigic petroleum reserve to put more product on the market, to increase supply.

also to stop the prices, to stop the ever increasing prices. i give mr. daley and the obama administration credit for finally realizing -- and it is a bit of a breakthrough -- that supply is a big part of the issue. but, madam president, where i disagree, where i want a further breakthrough, is that they need to focus on domestic supply that we can create and that we can control in the united states of america. and, unfortunately, they're not doing that yet. madam president, i've come to the floor many times to talk about the virtual shutdown of the gulf of mexico to energy production since the b.p. disaster. and i'll mention that again because that is at the heart of this issue. the administration understands we need to increase supply. what about domestic supply? what about the gulf of mexico? what about all of our other vast energy resources that we are

taking off the table and shutting down? what about that supply? that's the first place we should turn. that's the first action we should take. that's what can help us control our own destiny. instead, madam president, there's been a virtual shutdown of the gulf of mexico to energy production. that's reduced direct and indirect employment in the oil and gas and service industries, it threatens 93,000 jobs for every year through 2035 unless we reverse it. it could reduce an additional 82,000 jobs every year through 2035 in nonoil and gas-related industries that are still impacted indirectly by this shutdown. it reduces annual g.d.p. by over $20 billion a year, a cumulative impact o

of $500 billion in the next 25 years unless we immediately reverse course. it reduces long-term u.s. oil production by 27%. long-term u.s. foreign oil imports are increased by 19%. braut, long, and tell estimates says that 23 wells are need maintain current production levels in the shallow water of the gulf of mexico. since the moratorium was lifted on shallow water drilling, the formal moratorium, the administration has only permitted new wells at 1.8 per month. so 23 versus 1.8. in deep water it's even worse. there have been one deep-water explorery issued since the b.p. disaster and only one in nine

months. six deep-water rigs have left the gulf. discover has been moved. ocean barness has been moved to brazil. ocean confidence, also with dimed, has been moved to west africa. ocean endeavor with dimed has been moved -- diamond has moved. 10o drilling has -- sten drilling has moved. according to o.d.s., another five major rigs are scheduled to leave the u.s. gulf of mexico by april 1st. so that will put that six number up to 11. and new-well drilling has fallen from 20 in the first-quarter of 2009 to one in the first-quarter

of 2010. so, madam president, again, i applaud the administration's realization that supply is a big part of the issue. that we need to increase supply in order to stop these skyrocketing prices which are hurting louisianans and americans every day. but let's focus on domestic supply. let's focus on the gulf of mexico. let's focus on things that we can directly control, not just begging the saudi arabians to increase their production. i want to create jobs here, not just in saudi arabia. i want our children to be independent, to control their own future, not to have to beg some saudi arabian prince. with regard to mr. daley's suggestion of opening up the stratigic petroleum reserve, you know, the stratigic petroleum reserve is just that, it's supposed to be stratigic, for crises, for our security --

national security as a country. it's not the salazar petroleum reserve to open up to cover up the complete ineptitude and foot dragging at the interior department in terms of issuing permits for our own drilling. so let's not play politics with the stratigic petroleum reserve. let's not treat it as the salazar petroleum reserve to cover up the mistakes and ineptitude and foot dragging of the interior department. let's increase domestic production, let's address the supply side of the equation and create american jobs in the process. louisianans are depending on that. americans are depending on that. -- on that for jobs and to mitigate price at the pump so that we don't have these ever increasing prices at the pump that could kill a recovery that we're hoping to mount and this could hurt every american's

pocketbook, every american family's budget. again, madam president, i urge all of my colleagues, democrats and republicans, to come together on this point and urge the administration to act. yes, they're right. supply is key. let's start with domestic action, domestic supply and mitigate price increases that way. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i'm going to proceed on my leader time. the presiding officer: the senator may use his leader time. mr. mcconnell: first, let me commend my friend and colleague from louisiana for his observations about the need to increase domestic production. i think he certainly agrees with me, we'll be talking about this a lot more in the coming months as the price of gas at the pump continues to rise. and i thank him for his insight. madam president, at some point this week senators will have an opportunity to take a position on government spending. on two bills the majority leader

has predicted will fail. one is a serious effort to rein in wasteful washington spending that's gotten completely and totally out of control. the other, by our democratic friends is a proposal so unserious, that even its supporters have been forced to exaggerate its impact. something they called out -- something they've been called out on by the press repeatedly. that proposal comes on the heels of an equally unserious proposal by the white house last week to cut $6 billion from federal spending for the entire year at a time when washington is averaging about $4 billion in deficit spending every day. madam president, let me say that again. we're running a $4 billion deficit every single day this year. apparently democratic leaders in congress thought that even that was too much to cut.

because the bill they're proposing this week shaves it down to only $4.7 billion. so, yeah, the administration last week said they would go along with $6.5 billion, the proposal that the democrats are going to lay before the senate this week only reduce reduces $4.7 billion. that's about what we're engaged in deficit spending every single day. we're averaging about $4 billion a day in debt this year and democrats want to cu cut $4.7 billion and call it a day. that's their idea of getting serious. washington will add more to the debt this week than they want to cut for the entire year. and that's the farthest their leaders are willing to go anything more they say is dra draconian. i'll tell you what's draconian, draconian is what happens if

democrats don't get serious about our fiscal crisis. there was a report issued yesterday that gave as you pretty good sense of the recklessness of washington spending these days. last month alone -- last month alone, the federal government spent $223 billion more than it had. last month alone. the highest monthly deficit e ever. and the 29th straight month that washington has been in the red. and here's the democrats' proposal. let's cut $4.7 billion and call it a day. $4.7 billion? even less than the president called for just last week. and even that was ridiculed because of the preposterous claim it met us half way. it's time our friends on the other side stop see what they

can get away with and actually summon the courage to get our fiscal house in order. because here's the hard truth, even the biggest cuts under discussion this week are puny compared to the fiscal problems we face this the area of entitlements. i mean, it's pitch battle around here, over $4.7 billion, when we've got a $14 trillion debt and more than $50 trillion in entitlement promises that washington can't keep. if democrats can't bring themselves to cut -- if democrats can't bring themselves to cut $4.6 billion, how are we going to get a handle on the really big stuff? this is just a dress rehearsal, madam president. democrats are going to have to do a lot better than this if we stand a chance of getting our nation's fiscal house in order. frankly, it's embarrassing. it's embarrassing. the american people deserve

better than this. it's time for democrats in washington to face facts. and, as i said yesterday, it's time for the president to get off the sidelines and to lead. because with each passing day, it becomes clear that democrats in congress cannot bring themselves on their own to get serious about the problems we face. they don't even want to admit these problems exist. madam president, i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence -- i yield the floor.

mrs. boxer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mrs. boxer: i wanted to know from a parliamentary standpoint what time remains on the republican side and when does the democratic time begin? the presiding officer: 20 1/2 minutes remain on the republican side. mrs. boxer: well, madam president, it's my

understanding that the republicans have finished their time, and so i would like to ask unanimous consent that we can have that time. i ask unanimous consent that we start our hour at this point. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: thank you very, very much, madam president you know, i listened very carefully to my republican colleagues who have come to the floor blaming the democrats and the -- the democrats and the president for everything you can imagine, including the high price of gasoline and deficits as far as the eye can see. i want to say to my friend, senator manchin, i'm going to make some very brief remarks about h.r. 1 and then yield to you in five minutes. is that good? five minutes enough? 0, very good. my remarks at this time are as

follows: i respect the right of any colleague to say whatever he or she wants on the floor. but i also want to tell the american people who may be following this debate that in truth, in the last many years, 40 years, the only party that balanced the budget were the democrats. bill clinton, in his presidency, not only took a deficit brought about by a republican president, not only did he balance the budget with us, but we kraetd surpluses -- but we created surpluses and guess what? 23 million jobs. compare that to george w. bush, created this huge deficit, handed president obama over -- a tremendous debt and deficits. i'll get the exact numbers, and created a million jobs compared

to 23 million jobs. so i appreciate the lectures from my republican friends, but just look at any measure -- job creation, budget balancing, stock market. check it out, america. these are things that are in the history books. so please don't lecture us about how to balance the budget. we know how to do it. and the way you do it is cut waste, cut fraud, cut abuse. make sure everything you spend is essentially justifiable by the results, by the benefits. and invest in our people so that if they lose a job, we invest in worker training. invest in our people. invest in science and technology. invest in health research. invest in our children.

and if you follow that method, we will not only balance the budget; we will create jobs. and we know that their approach, h.r. 1, which they support, would devastate this economy, barely doing anything about the deficit. and most amazingly, they don't think that billionaires should pay even a little bit higher tax rate than people who earn $150,000. billionaires, multimillionaires. doesn't make any sense. so with that, as an opening, i'm very pleased to yield to the senator from west virginia, senator manchin five minutes.

mr. manchin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: thank you, madam president. i rise to express my deep concerns with the two wildly opposing budget resolutions that will be presented to us today. i might just be a freshman senator but i'll be blunt. this whole process does not make a lot of sense to me and i'm afraid it doesn't make sense to a lot of west virginians or a lot of our fellow americans. we will likely have votes on two proposals today, and both options are partisan and unrealistic and neither one will pass. the first is our democratic proposal that doesn't go far enough. this proposal which calls for $6.5 billion in new cuts ignores our fiscal reality. our nation is badly in debt and spending at out-of-levels. in february alone the federal government outspent revenues by unacceptable $223 billion.

we must turn our financial ship around, but the senate proposal continues to sail forward as if there is no storm on the horizon. or we can choose an even more flawed measure, a house g.o.p. proposal that blindly hacks the budget with no sense of our priorities or of our values as a country. i didn't grow up in an america that would carelessly cut head start and make the playing field even harder for kids born into poverty. our america shouldn't cut funding for veterans or for border security or for first responders or especially for our children without at least discussing the alternatives. the bottom line, however, is this, democrats and republicans are being asked to vote on wildly different proposals for reining in spending. republicans will say that democrats don't go far enough, and we democrats will say the republicans go too far.

the truth is that we're both right. and both proposals will fail. worse still, everyone in congress knows that they will fail. the more important question is this: why are we engaging in this political theater? why are we voting on partisan proposals that we know will fail that, we know don't balance our nation's priorities with the need to get our fiscal house in order? why are we doing all this when the most powerful person in these negotiations -- our president -- has failed to lead this debate or offer a serious proposal for spending and cuts that he would be willing to fight for? how does that make sense? the truth of the matter is this: this debate, as important as it is, will not be decided by house republicans or by senate democrats, negotiating with each other or past each other. the debate will be decided when the president leads these tough negotiations, and right now that's not happening. i know it's not easy, and i know

that it takes compromise. and i know that it will be partisan and difficult. i know that everyone will have to give up something, and no one will want to relinquish everything. but that is what the american people are demanding. respectfully, i am asking president obama to take this challenge head on, bring people together, and propose a compromise plan for dealing with our nation's fiscal challenges both now and for our future. for me, when i was governor of the great state of west virginia, like you, madam president, dealing with our state's problems required bringing people, and a diverse group, a strong-willed group of legislators, together. but i did because that was my responsibility. by working together, we were able to tackle the tough fiscal problems that our stays fated and we did it while studying our priorities and protecting the most vulnerable in our state. the bottom line is this: the

president is the leader in this great nation and when it comes to an issue of significant national importance, the president must lead. not the majority leader or speaker, but the president. he must sit down with leaders of both parties and help hammer out a real bipartisan compromise that moves our nation forward and establishes the priorities that represent our values and all hardworking families. and i truly believe that he can do it. and when we finally come together and agree to a bipartisan solution, we will not only set a new tone for our nation, but we can start to focus on what the american people sent all of us here to do: start working together to create a more prosperous future for all of our children and our families, and be the america that we all know that we can be. thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the majority leader.

mr. reid: madam president, i'll use leader time. the presiding officer: the senator has that right. mr. reid: madam president, since the moment republican representatives passed their budget, the in -- now infamous h.r. 1, which is a bill called h.r. 1, it's their number-one issue in the house of representatives. the country has been waiting to see whether the senate would repeat the house mistake in passing it. the house has passed it. the plan the tea party pushed through the house is an irresponsible plan. it's a reckless plan. it's dangerous for the health of our economy and serlt citizens of our -- and certainly the citizens of our great country. the last few days i've come to the floor and explained at length the damage that this tea party plan would do on the short term and on the long term.

let me now just again talk briefly about a few of the things that i've talked about before, but i'll talk about them again. here are some of the consequences. h.r. 1 will fire 700,000 americans, 6,000 nevadans. our budget would create jobs, not cost jobs. it will kick 200,000 head start students, the poorest of the poor -- little boys and girls trying to get started in life -- it will kick them off their ability to learn to read and do elementary math. hundreds in nevada will suffer from that. this is a very successful early education program. head start works. it would slash college students' pell grants, financial aid so many rely on to afford to go to

school. it will eliminate job training investment at a time we need them the most. it would pull the plug on 600 renewable energy jobs and the largest solar plant in nevada. it would fire 600 nevadans who work at community health centers, which hurts those workers as well as the neediest nevadans who need this help every day. it would arbitrarily slash programs that fight crime and keep our neighborhoods safe. it would slash homeless security investments that keep nevadans safe and our country safe. and, madam president, we have 55 million, 60 million people who visit las vegas every year. it's important that we keep them safe also. the mean-spirited bill, h.r. 1, eliminates national public broadcasting. now, that is really saying a lot, madam president. it eliminates the national

endowment of the humanities, national endowment of the arts. these programs create jobs. the national endowment of the humanities is the reason we have in northern nevada every january a cowboy poetry festival. had that program not been around, the tens of thousands of people who come there every year would not exist. national institutes of health, wax that. when we're at a time in the history of this country, when we're on the verge of breakthroughs on some of the most devastating diseases known to man, they're cutting that program. there are scores of other things i could talk about, but in short, madam president, the republican plan they want to push through the senate is all smoke and mirrors. it cuts the deficit in the name of a stronger future, but cuts the most important ways we strengthen our future.

it's counterproductive. it's bad policy. it is going to cause america 700,000 jobs. this isn't some figure i just picked out of the air. economists agree on this, including mark zandi, chief economist at moody's, who, by the way, worked during president, the republican nominee for president, john mccain, he was his chief economic advisor. their plan slashes billions from the budget and hopes no one will look past the price tag. h.r. 1 is not just about numbers. it's about people. it's about programs. it's about little boys and girls in head start. it's about senior citizens whose programs are going to be cut. because republicans know that once the country sees what's in the fine print, they'll run away from that as fast as they can.

now, madam president, it seems that republicans themselves have finally read their own budget over here in the senate because now they're even running from h.r. 1. over here in the senate, it wasn't us that moved h.r. 1 forward. it was the republicans. we have a procedure here in the house -- i'm sorry -- in this body -- i'm sorry -- called rule 14. it allows bills to move forward. and the republicans decided they wanted to get to h.r. 1, so they jump-started h.r. 1. they wanted to make sure that they let their buddies in the house know that they wanted to have a vote on h.r. 1. last thursday at 4:00, right back here in the vice president's office, there was a meeting held with me, with senator mcconnell, speaker boehner, leader pelosi, and the vice president of the united states.

the purpose of the meeting was to move forward on these budget negotiations. we had a very good meeting. everyone was very kind and thoughtful and considerate to everyone. and the idea that we came up with this meeting is to move these negotiations forward is to have a vote on h.r. 1 -- a vote on h.r. 1 and a vote on our alternative. that was the agreement agreed upon by the vice president of the united states, joe biden, by the republican leader, mitch mcconnell, by the majority leader, harry reid, by the speaker of the house of representatives, john boehner, and the leader of the democrats in the house of representatives, nancy pelosi yism that was the agreement we -- nancy pelosi. that was the agreement that we made. we would come here today and have a vote on h.r. 1 and on our alternative. after we had made this agreement, the staff was called into the meeting, we told them

what was done. now over here the republicans don't want to vote. they don't want to live up to the agreement that was made. i repeat, last thursday the leaders of both houses of congress and both parties met with the white house. we decided this was the way to move forward. we agreed, i repeat, to hold a vote on h.r. 1, the republican plan, that they moved to the senate floor themselves. and then, of course, as i said we'd vote on the democratic alternative which makes much smarter cuts and smarter investments. but that would be up to the body to decide and then we would return to the negotiating table and try to return to common ground. there was no question that was the agreement made. no question. that was the deal. by now republicans are reneging on that deal. they don't want to vote on their

own bill. they want some procedural votes. i'm told some procedural votes. well, madam president, they're going to have an opportunity to vote on h.r. 1. i may have to jump through all of the procedural hoops to do it in spite of the fact that we would move to have those votes. we will do that. the republicans over here are going to have to vote on that terrible bill, h.r. 1. they're going to have to vote on it. they don't want to vote on their own bill. as i've said before, the budget we outlined on our votes on that budget reflect our values. values like helping our nation recover and prosper, getting a strong education for our children, encouraging innovation, keeping america competitive. but another value i hold pretty important is how about keeping one's word? where i come from, people keep their word. i'm disappointed now the

republicans refuse to keep their word. i ask unanimous consent for committees to meet during today's session. senator mcconnell and i have approved this. would ask consent these requests be agreed to, these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from california. mrs. boxer: madam president, tell me what the order is right now. the presiding officer: the democrats control 51 minutes and 26 seconds. mrs. boxer: and how much more time do i control? the presiding officer: the senator may speak for up to 10 minutes total. mrs. boxer: thank you. the presiding officer: she has spoken for four minutes. mrs. boxer: okay.

my intention is to yield to senator udall. and he and senator merkley are going to engage in colloquy, but i just wanted to open it up before i yield to them in this way, senator reid has laid out the devastating consequences of h.r. 1, which the republicans have put forward as their plan to cut the budget. devastating. it's a jobs killer. it's a killer for the middle class. and they said they'd have a vote on it, now they don't want to vote on it. well, we're going to have a vote on it. it's very important that we have the american people understand the various plans to cut the deficit. well, one of the things in h.r. 1, of the many, is a huge, huge cut to the environmental protection agency. and there's two points i want to make and then i'm going to turn

it over to my friends for the remaining time. and -- and that is that in 1970, the clean air act was passed. the vote in the senate was 73-0. the vote in the house for the clean air act was 374-1. richard nixon signed the clean air act. h.r. 1 destroys the clean air act. -- act by giving the largest cut of any agency to the environmental protection agency and then, as if that's not enough, prohibiting the e.p.a. from enforcing pollution laws. in 1977, there were the clean air act amendment signed by jimmy carter. there wasn't even a roll call vote it was so popular. in 1990 george herbert walker bush signed the clean air act amendments. so two out of the three

presidents were republicans. this passed 89-10 in the senate and 401-25 in the house. the last point i'll make is this, the clean air act of the e.p.a. are strongly supported still by the american people. the only place we have no -- a lack of support is right here in the congress by our republican friends primarily. the american lung association says 69% think the e.p.a. should update the clean air act with stricter air pollution limits. 68% believe that congress should not stop the e.p.a. from enforcing clean air act standards, which is just what hfer 1 does, -- h.r. 1 does and 69% believe that e.p.a. scientists, not congress, should set pollution standards. our friends on the other side, through h.r. 1, act as though they have all the brilliance in the world, all the scientific

credentials in the world. well, they don't. at this time i'm going to yield to senator udall, but i'm going to ask unanimous consent that we continue with our time until senator kerry comes to the floor to talk on his particular subject. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: thank you. senator udall and he and senator merkley are going to speak. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: thank you, madam president. let me, first of all, thank the chairman of our environment and public works committee, barbara boxer. she's done an excellent job in -- in terms of outlining in our committee what the real issues are that are facing us. and -- and the big issue is, as you've heard today from leader reid and now from chairman boxer, h.r. 1 or what we call the house republican budget, which is just -- it's not only a budget bill, it's loaded up with

all of these environmental riders that really attack the public health of americans and attack in a very bad way because we're repealing public health laws. i want to reflect like chairman boxer did on the history here. but before i do that, i would just ask unanimous consent to insert in the record my full statement, because i'm going to engage in a colloquy with senator merkley, and my full statement as read in the record at this point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: first of all, we need to look a little bit at the history of what has happened here. because we used to have tremendous bipartisan support in terms of these public health and environmental laws. i remember the -- the glory days of the senate in the 1960's and 1970's. it was the senate and the chairman has talked about this that passed the clean air act,

the clean water act, created the environmental protection agency, passed the endangered species act. all of those were passed and created with significant bipartisan support. in fact, anywhere from eight to 12 republicans were joining in and felt that these were strong laws and needed to be passed. and you don't need to look very farther than the -- the majorities in 1967 the air quality act passed 88-0. 1970, the clean air act, 73-0, champ beyond by a number of -- championed by a number of republican senators. in 1980, the clean air act championed by george h.w. bush and his e.p.a. administrator bill reilly, that passed 89-10. so broad, broad bipartisan support. what has happened here? what has happened to the senate and to the congress in terms of protecting public health?

and i would suggest that what we've seen with this house republican budget is very strong, powerful special interests weighing in and those folks on -- on that side kind of catering to that kind of mentality rather than looking out for public health and looking out for the american people. i want to -- to talk a little bit about the impact of this bill on americans and on public health and on new mexicans and look at the disastrous things, but at this point i want to ask and engage with senator merkley in some of those damaging things he sees in terms of public health, environment in this h.r. 1, or this house republican budget. and so i would yield to senator merkley at this point. mr. merkley: thank you very much. it's a pleasure to join my colleague from new mexico in

discussing both the general environment, the environment in which we no longer have strong bipartisan support for clean air and clean water that we once had and some of the specifics of the house republican budget and the damage that they would do to american citizens across this country. just to give you a small sense of this, in 2010, the clean air act prevented 1.7 million asthma attacks, 130,000 heart attacks, and 86,000 emergency room visits. that is why leading public health experts oppose these cuts like the american lung association, which said house resolution 1 is toxic to public health. now, why is that the case? i'll just give a couple of examples and turn this back to my colleague. one example is that it would prohibit standards for toxic air

including mercury, lead, dioxin and acid gases coming from coal-burning power plants. a second is prohibits standards of toxic air pollution in industries burning coal and oil. a third is that it would prohibit guidance on how to protect clean drinking water from mountain-top mining. a fourth is that it would prohibit standards for handling hazardus waste from burning coal two years after a disaster in tennessee caused a billion gallons of coal waste to spill into neighborhoods an homes. -- and homes. i have more, but i'll stop there and note that these impacts on water and air occur to citizens in every state under house resolution 1, the house republican budget. mr. udall: madam president, senator merkley, this -- if the

american people really knew what was happening here, i would think they would be out in the streets here in washington, like we're seeing in wisconsin, where people are turning out and are energized because the -- the rollback of these environmental laws is really a rollback on public health. and, as senator merkley, as you have talked about very persuasively, mine, we're talking about preventing heart attacks, preventing emergency room visits. new mexico alone, over 170,000 residents suffer from asthma. over 47,000 of those are children. and thousands suffer from respiratory illnesses. with the rollbacks in the house republican budget, those folks are going to suffer a lot more. it's going to impact vulnerable populations. the house republican budget puts hundreds of thousands of new mexicans at greater risk from

pollution, from power plants, oil refineries, mines and ceme cement, the clean air act has had a very positive impact over the years that it has been a law. it has cut six major pollutants by over 40%. but air pollution still claims 70,000 lives per year, three times that of car accidents. so if we weaken that act by these riders and this approach in the house republican budget, that number's going to rise. the number of lives that are claimed each year are going to rise. and that's why one of the major organizations that monitors this -- the american lung association -- opposes these environmental rollbacks in the house bill. the clean air act also protects pregnant mothers and developing children from mercury, a

neurotoxin that creates problems in brain development including attention and memory problems. and mercury comes out of the smoke stacks into the air, deposits in our water and is also consumed in the fish that we eat. just to give a little example, in new mexico -- and senator merkley, you may have this up in oregon too, we have these coal-fired power plants that are emitting mercury. it gets into the streams. we now have a warning on every stream in new mexico, every stream in new mexico: if you're going to catch fish and eat them, don't do it more than once a week. they actually warn pregnant women to not eat the fish from new mexico's streams at all. i don't think people realize how much pollution there is out there. with that, senator merkley, i would yield back to you for any additional comments you have. and i see our good friend, senator cardin here, is on the

floor. and also has been a real leader on this, and i know he wants to speak also. mr. merkley: i'll say that just one key aspect is that the house republican budget would cut $2 billion from e.p.a.'s clean water and safe drinking water infrastructure loan program. as i'm going around my state holding a town hall in every single county, i hold a meeting with the city and county leaders in advance of the public meeting. and at virtually every one of these gatherings, i hear stories from mayors and chairs of county councils who talk about the challenge they have with their aging infrastructure both on their water supply and on their waste water disposal. and that aging infrastructure needs to be upgraded as plants wear out and as we discover more challenges that we need to address. and so cutting the loan program that supports our communities,

our rural communities, our suburban communities, our urban communities, all of our communities, in providing clean water to the residents and of helping dispose of and treat waste water would be an enormous mistake. that partnership is absolutely crucial to communities who cannot otherwise afford this infrastructure. so that would mean more sewage and other pollution going into our waterways and less treatment of water we take out to drink. mr. udall: madam president, just in conclusion here from my perspective, i think that the most important thing at this point in our history in america is that we take actions here on the senate floor that are going to create jobs, that are going to try to move us forward in terms of our economic development. and this house republican budget

is devastating in terms of creating jobs. leader reid, i think, said 700,000 americans are fired as a result of this job -- as a result of this job-killing bill, this house republican budget. it is a devastating, devastating thing to a fragile economic recovery that we have going on right now. so i'm very happy to hear, very happy to hear that senator reid says we're going to bring the house republican budget here to the senate floor. we're going to have an up-or-down vote on that budget. it will be out there. we're going to have lively debate until we have that vote, and it will be out there for the american people to see the devastating consequences it could have if we adopted it. and with that, senator merkley -- mrs. boxer: senators, if i could just take my time back.

i just want to thank you both. we have only ten minutes remaining, and we have three more speakers. so i thank you very much. before i yield to senator cardin, i thought it would be for five. now i'm told there's two more speakers. it will be about three minutes. let me just put two charts up here and yield to him for three minutes. look at this picture, i say to my colleague from maryland. these are the most difficult times when the air is dirty on these children. this is a beautiful child. she can't breathe. she has asthma. and the reason we passed the clean air act is because of kid like her and others who are gasping for air literally. and the other thing i want to show you is since we have put the clean air act into place in the 1970's, this is an incredible chart that shows a significant drop in smog-related

health advisories in southern california, the most polluted air. we have gone from 166 days where there were warnings for people to stay indoors to zero days in 2010. the republicans in h.r. 1 devastate the e.p.a.'s budget, plus they tell them they can't enforce the clean air act. let me just say this: if my republican friends want to repeal the clean air act, just bring it on and we'll have a debate here. don't do it through the guise of deficit reduction. now i see i have three colleagues here for the remaining time. i'm going to ask unanimous consent that we have until 11:020 until we -- until 11:20 until we turn it over to senator kerry. i'm going to add the following: senators cardin, lautenberg and whitehouse. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. cardin: madam president?

the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: madam president, let me thank first senator boxer for her leadership on this issue in bringing us together to point out that the house-passed budget bill, what harm it will do to our environment. i start off by saying when you look at the republican budget plan in the house, it not only devastates important investments in our environment, it doesn't bring us to a balanced budget because all the savings that they get in these draconian cuts to our discretionary domestic spending is offset by extending the tax cuts. we lose all the savings through their tax policy. today i want to talk about a nonmoney issue, at least a rider that was put on the house budget. and let me read what it says. the bill says that none of the funds made available in this act may be used to implement the bay restoration plan now underway. and i'm talking about the chesapeake bay program, a matter that i've talked about on this

floor many times. what does that mean? that means none of the funds in the budget can be used in the six states that are in the watershed -- including maryland and the district of columbia -- to implement their plan. each of these states are relying on getting federal funds under a state revolving fund to deal with waste water treatment plants. those funds would be denied. none of the money could be used for the state water programs. none of the funds could be used to watershed groups to restore local streams. we have school groups and civic associations participating with us to clean up the bay. those programs would come to an end. it is estimated this one rider alone will cost the bay restoration effort in delaware, maryland, pennsylvania, new york, west virginia and the district of columbia by more than $300 million. our efforts to clean up the bay, what does that mean?

it means job loss in our areas by far. we're talking about jobs here. and it also puts our citizens at risk as far as their health is concerned. more and more health-related illnesses are coming as a result of the poor quality of water in our community. let me mention just one other issue, and that is the house-passed budget, the republican budget would slash the e.p.a. budget by 33% over the fy2010 levels. it threatens the protections of lakes, streams by over $200 billion from the state drinking water fund. in my state and around the nation we're seeing more and more disasters occurring as a result of water main breaks. we saw what happened in prince george's county, maryland. that's within the last year.

you saw what happened in downtown baltimore when a water main broke and turned our downtown into unpassable streets. we saw what happened in montgomery county, maryland, where river road became a river, and people had to be rescued from their cars. this, once again, is about jobs. it creates jobs. it also provides us with safe drink water in our community. for all these reasons, madam president, it's important that we do not allow the house-passed budget to become law. and i thank my colleagues for participating in this. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. lautenberg: there's a lot of talk these days about dangers posed to our national security from faraway places, revolution in libya, war in afghanistan.

they get full attention. what about the dangers from inside our nation? we have a domestic danger that is directly visible, and we're about to stoke that fire. house republicans are going after something as fundamental as the air that our children breathe. the budget they recently passed calls for the gutting of the clean air act, which is a clear and present danger. we look aside and fail to really solve a major fiscal problem because we won't produce the revenues. instead we'd rather punish the families across america. the clean air act protects our children from toxic chemicals in the air and illnesses like asthma and lung cancer. last year alone that law prevented 1.7 million cases of childhood asthma and more than 160,000 premature deaths, according to the e.p.a. the numbers are big, but they

loom even larger when it's your child. and as we often say here, what goes around comes around. and if you really want to know the value of the clean air act to america's families, talk to the millions of parents who live in fear of their child's next asthma attack. in my family, that's the case. my grandson has asthma, and every time he goes to play sports, which he does actively, my daughter looks for the nearest emergency facility. the house republican budget says to these families, we're here. we're acting as accountants. we don't have time for this humanitarian stuff. we can't afford it. if you don't like regulation, then we ought to get rid of red lights. it sure would speed up traffic. those red lights, they're a bore. maybe they'd like to get rid of the air traffic control system.

why should pilots sit and wait up in the air and be told when to land? the bureaucratic system's terrible. by the same logic, madam president, house republicans say let's get rid of these environmental regulations. they interfere with our freedom to pollute. the house budget doesn't even allow us to control mercury emission. mercury -- the presiding officer: the senator has spoken for three minutes. mr. lautenberg: sorry? the presiding officer: the senator has spoken for three minutes. mr. lautenberg: five minutes was my understanding. what happened? well, i was told originally that it was five minutes. i ask unanimous consent that the rest of my speech be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection.

a senator: thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island is recognized for three minutes. mr. whitehouse: let me first thank chairman boxer for pulling us together on this. i want to make three points in the brief time. the first is the house bill cuts $2 billion out of clean water and safe drinking water infrastructure at a time when e.p.a. calculates that we have a $600 billion water infrastructure deficit. we are behind on rebuilding america's clean water infrastructure, and yet they cut it. we need the infrastructure. we could certainly use the jobs. this is a very misplaced cut. the second, from a clean air perspective, the bill cuts $60 million from state and local grants that ensure clean air and clean water and attacks clean air programs. in 2010 the clean air act is estimated to have saved 160,000

lives compared to where things would have been without it. physicians for social responsibility say that just u.s. coal plants alone cause about 554,000 asthma attacks each year. why do i talk about asthma? rhode island has a 10% rate of asthma despite not having a single coal-fired power plant. why is this? because out in the midwest they're pumping their pollution up into the sky where it falls down on our new england states. average smoke stack height has increased from 200 feet in 1956 to over 500 feet in 1978. in 1970 there were only two u.s. smoke stacks over 500 feet tall, by 1985 -- 23 were over 1,000 feet tall, so tall they had to be put on the air traffic

control maps. why are they doing that? because it exports their pollution to us. a state like rhode island has no shot at controlling the pollution that dumps on us that originates in other states if there is not a strong national e.p.a. to do this. so it is really vital to us and asthma is a real threat. the last thing i'll say is that on carbon pollution, we hear a lot of talk about this. but there are certain things that are just factual at this point. it is a fact that over the last 800,000 years the atmosphere has been in a range between 170 and 300 parts per million of co2, that's a measurement. not a theory. in 1863, a long time ago, the time of the civil war here in this country, an irish scientist named john intendle determined that carbon dioxide has a blanketing effect and increased

carbon dioxide warms the earth. that has been textbook science for more than a century. it is a debatable proposition much we have dumped seven to eight billion giga tons every year of carbon dioxide. we are now at 391 parts per million, well outside of a benchmark that has lasted for 800,000 years. the presiding officer: the senator has spoken for three minutes. mr. whitehouse: i appreciate the warning. i yield back the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: madam president, i understand i have 30 minutes. the presiding officer: 27 1/2, i am told. mr. kerry: i would ask unanimous consent to keep it to the

original 30. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kerry: madam president, i want to, first of all, thank my colleagues. i want to thank the senator from california and other colleagues who have been involved in an important discussion here, and i will say a few more words about that in the course of my comments. but let me just begin by observe last week, like a lot of colleagues here, i voted in favor of the two-week continuing resolution in order to avoid a government shutdown. but i will say that i did so extremely reluctantly and i'm not inclined to continue to do that in a series of hatchet budgets that continue to make cuts without regard to the larger budget considerations that we need to be considering. and i know colleagues on both sides of the aisle voted reluctantly. but, frankly, madam president, it's insulting and it's

frustrating that we're reduced to passing incremental allowances just to keep the government functioning. and this is just the work on this year's budget. something that should have been passed for an entire year last year. the impact of this kind of staggered, stop and start, keep them guessing budgeting on programs and on projects that, frankly, need to do some long-term planning, actually costs americans money and it costs americans long-term competitive capacity. run a business the way we're running these kinds of programs, and you go under if you had a month-to-month, week-to-week, two weeks-to two-weeks department. no department can plan for the long term because they don't know what they're going to have, how much they're going to spend, projects that need to begin,

don't begin, and that costs america leadership and it costs us money. no wonder americans are frustrated, madam president. all we do is bounce from one short-term stop-gap solution band-aid approach to another. always deferring the tough decisions and the adult conversation which is exactly what the american people sent us here to engage in. i come here today to appeal to the common sense and conscience of our colleagues. this is not the time to create a fundamentally political budget document steeped in ideology. it's not the time to put forward a set of choices, many of which, have absolutely nothing to do with reducing the deficit or the debt. but everything to do with ideological goals long sought by

some now cloaked in the guise of deficit crisis in order to achieve what they've never been able to achieve to date. everyone here knows -- you know, you have private conversation with colleagues and they'll nod their heads and acknowledge to you how serious this budget situation is. we need a serious conversation about our fiscal situation. and it begins with a comprehensive discussion about discretionary spending, yes, that has to be on the table. but what about entitlements? what about revenues, madam president? every one -- everyone here knows that we have to work towards a long-term solution in order to reduce the budget deficit and the staggering debt of our country and we're going to have to reduce some federal spending and make appropriate changes in entitlement programs in order to do that. and we're honest about it -- honest about it. it means you have to talk about

everything. revenue, tax reform, spending, and entitlements. a lot of americans appropriately ask, what are we doing with 57,000, 60,000 pages of a tax code? how many americans have their own page? but you can run through it and find an awful lot of big interest, big business, folks who can afford big lobbyists, they get their own pages. but the average american appropriately feels left out and abused by that process. that ought to be on this agenda, the simplification of the code and the fairness of the code. in addition, we need to obviously talk about medicaid, medicare, social security. social security, frankly, is easy to fix. we fixed it in the 1980's with ronald reagan. i was here when we did those changes much we can do this again. that's not complicated or challenging to the american --

we can make that safe and whole throughout the century so that our children and grandchildren and their children have the opportunity to trust in the social security system. that's doable with minor tweaks. what's far more complicated and challenging is medicare and medicaid. and i assure my colleagues who are out to undo the health care bill passed by president obama, that if that were undone, those medicare costs are going to soar. and the medical choices before our country are going to become even more complicated. now, back in december, a number of our colleagues understood and embraced exactly what i'm saying right now. senators, republican and democrat alike, senators durbin, conrad, coburn and crapo, had the courage and the willpower it put on the table the whole set of choices when they embraced the debt commission's report that was appropriately entitled,

"a moment truth." nobody liked every proposal that was set forth by the commission. not even the commissioners themselves, but they did it in order to put everything on the table for the discussion by us. we're the body responsible to make these choices, we in the house. and, yet, the budget sent us by the house is an unbelievably irresponsible exercise i in avoidance as well as a set of choices that will take america backwards. and i'm not exaggerating about that. and i'll go into that in a moment. let me just cite what the commission said to remind us about our responsibility. they said, that throughout our nation's history americans have found the courage to do right by our children's future. deep down every american knows we face a moment of truth once again. we cannot play games or put off hard choices any longer without regard to party, they said.

we have a patriotic duty to keep the promise of america to give our children and grandchildren a better life. our challenge is clear and inescapable. america cannot be great if we go broke. our businesses will not be able to grow and create jobs and our workers will not be able to compete successfully for the jobs of the future without a plan to get this crushing debt burden off our backs. madam president, i think every senator probably agrees with that, but is every senator prepared to do something about it? certainly this budget sent us by the house is an avoidance of that kind of discussion and the responsibility that the debt commission placed on our heads. so we ought to get serious. for the fiscal year 2011, the administration's budget projects a deficit of $1.6 trillion. without changes in our current

policies, the congressional budget office estimates that our federal debt will be 95% of g.d.p., the gross domestic product of our nation. today, as we are here, we are borrowing 40 cents of every single dollar that we spend. borrowing 40 cents. we borrow a lot of it to be able to afford to buy the source of our energy from other countries and much of the dollars that we borrow in order to go into debt to buy the energy from other countries winds up making us less secure. this is not a smart cycle. not a virtuous cycle. and certainly not something that we're locked into. we have a whole set of other choices. let me also point out to my colleagues, revenue right now --

spending -- spending is at the highest level as a share of our economy than it has been in more than 60 years. we are spending more than we've spent, as a share of our economy at any time in 60 years. but we are also collecting less revenue than we have ever collected in the last 60 years. there's something wrong with that equation. it seems to me clear many of us objected and oppose the tax cut that wound up putting us in this predicament that we'd been on a binge of political slowin slogag and it has been to the easiest instringinstinct of every ameri. the fact is the burden we pay is far less than any other country.

it's at a mean of where it's been in our history, and, as i said, less revenue than at any time in 60 years. that's part of what contributes to our debt. and it also robs us of a whole set of other choices in terms of american competitiveness. let me point out to listen to the members of the house and some of our colleagues, you'd think the president didn't do anything about this. in fact, the president is the only person who's put a budget before us. a realistic one. the president is the onlyperson who has really put in a plan to reduce the overall debt. not just a c.r. for temporary basis. but an overall budget with a plan for how you grow america and reduce our deficit. and the president's budget does significantly reduce deficits. i remember in the 1990's when we faced this very question and i remind my colleagues we did balance the budget. the last party presiding to balance a budget was president

bill clinton. and we did it, jointly, working together in a responsible way. and it wasn't so critical that we turn the revenue line that was going down and the spending line that was going up, it wasn't so important that we turned them around from that divergence. what was critical -- or that they all met within one year or two years or three years. what was critical is that we sent a message to the financial marketplace and to the american people that we were serious about turning those lines around so that they met at some point. that's what's critical year. and i believe as we go forward that we have a responsibility to understand that we need to have a responsible set of choices put in front of us as we go forward. we're locked in a debate that is not actually trying to find the common ground right now. ask the question, is everything on the table in a serious effort

to create jobs and advance america's economic leadership? is it really impossible for us to sit down together across the aisle and come to an agreement as to what helps us grow and what doesn't help us grow? is it really true that american senators have the inability to be able to agree as to where the benefit comes to the economy and the multiplie multiplier with ro science research or technology research or other kinds of things that we can excite in the private sector? completely absent from this debate is an honest discussion of what actions only the government is actually equipped to take in order to bolster our global competitiveness. every c.e.o. in america knows that there are some things that, in fact, only the government can do. look at president eisenhower's national interstate highway system in the 1950's.

by today's standards, you couldn't build it. it wouldn't happen by today's standards. but the fact is that more than 30% or 40%, maybe 50% of america's productivity came as a consequence -- increases came as a consequence of the building of the interstate highway system, not to mention billions of dollars' worth of spinoff jobs and tax revenues to our communities. we're still living off that inheritance. we are living off the infrastructure investments of those who went before us, and today china is investing 9% of its g.d.p. into infrastructure. europe is investing 5% of its g.d.p. into infrastructure. the united states, just about 2%, slightly less. that's what we're doing. so that we have a $2.2 trillion infrastructure deficit. mr. president, what we haven't

been discussing in this debate is what we need to invest in, a coherent strategy, a policy to make certain that we're not held hostage to oil and instability in the middle east. the united states could become the first country to have one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015 and ensure that 80% of our electricity comes from clean energy sources, and with that comes jobs. we need a cutting edge, high-speed wireless data network. we still don't have one. we're going backwards. we invented the technologies. we used to be number three or four. now we're drifting back to number 16 or number 21, depending on whose measurement you look at. by any measurement and any standard, we're going backwards while other countries are going forwards, and it's because we're not investing and we're not making it attractive for the private sector or the private citizen to be able to achieve this. america has always been a

competitive country. our d.n.a. is innovation and creativity and entrepreneurial activity. and the fact is that right now, we're not doing the things that we could do to joint venture with the private sector to attract the best jobs and create the best opportunities. we have to become that nation again. that's what our budget ought to be discussing, and we ought to be able to agree across party lines as to how we do that. the budget passed by the house of representatives not only doesn't present a realistic set of choices with respect to how you make america competitive and create higher paying jobs and grow our economy, not only does it not do that, it actually strips away the opportunities to do that. it takes us backwards, mr. president. the house budget is going to lower the deficit by only 6% because they are focused only on

domestic discretionary spending. they don't focus on defense spending. they don't focus on medicaid, medicare, entitlements. they don't focus on some of the waste and duplication within the system. they just strip away at a whole bunch of programs that many of them have proposed for their entire life in politics and voted against in the first place, and they're using the opportunity of this budget to put those choices back on the floor and to try one more time to press an ideological agenda. that's why only 13% of the budget is being focused on in what they are doing. they have sworn off any discussion of the really hard choices. so here we are three months after the commission put forward its important proposals and the united states senate is trapped in a political moment when what we really need is a moment of truth. mr. president, we have to find a way to make these tougher choices. now, i want to be clear about

what i think they are. i would ask my colleagues do we want a government that is too limited to have invented the internet? a lot of people don't think about that. but the fact is the government invented the internet. it was a spinoff from arpa, from research into how we might be able to communicate in the case of nuclear war, and so we were creating this communications network, which became the internet, and then the private sector saw the opportunities and took those opportunities and translated them into what we have today, which has revolutionized the way people communicate and do business, but it came from the government, mr. president. just as digitalization came from

government research, the space program, which also produced gortex and microwave and teflon and a host of other products that are out in the marketplace where we have created millions of jobs. the internet created 1.2 million jobs and has added 2% to the gross domestic product of our country. do we want to have a country that's so limited that we don't do those kinds of things? taxes so low that everybody feels good, thinks they're better off, but we don't do the research that's necessary to create jobs in new industries and fill the treasury with revenue that educates a lot of our children and provides cures to diseases and opportunities for poor people to be able to break out of poverty and touch the brass ring of america. we have to get past the slogans of the sound bites. we have to reason together and talk about the things that

america does best. if we're going to balance the budget and create jobs, mr. president, we can't pretend that we're going to do it by eliminating earmarks and government waste. you have to look at how we did it previously. in the early 1990's, our economy was faltering because deficits were too big and debt was freezing capital. we had to send a signal to the market that we were capable of being fiscally responsible. guess what, mr. president? we did it. and we did it without a reckless assault on a whole series of things that make a difference to the quality of life of our country and to our ability to be able to create jobs. we saw our economy turn around in the 1990's, and we created 22 million jobs. we created unprecedented wealth in america. every single income level in our country saw their income go up in the 1990's. we created more wealth in the 1990's than we created in the

1920's and 1930's with the great barons of wealth of that period, the -- the carnegies and melons and so forth, and we did it by committing the country to a disciplined path where we spoke to the potential of the american people. working with the republicans. it was bipartisan. we came up with a framework that put our country on a track to be debt free by 2012 for the first time since andrew jackson's administration. mr. president, the fact is that alan greenspan was warning america and the senate that we were paying down our debt too fast, and that that could have implications on the marketplace. we know how to do this in a responsible way. how we got off track from that is a story i'm not going to go back into right now. it's pretty well known. but the truth of how we

generated the 1990's economic boom is a story that has to be retold again and again. so let me just point out the difference here, we're not going to do this process in two weeks, we know that. so we ought to have a responsible c.r. that doesn't come back with another hatchet job that allows us to go forward and give ourselves a proper amount of time and agree we're going to tackle these larger issues and put something serious on the table with tax reform, spending, entitlements, all of those things on the table. but what we have in this house budget -- let me just point out, rather than just say it takes us backwards, i -- i want to talk about that for a minute, if i can. i believe there are reckless cuts in this budget that would do great harm to our country, because it strips away our ability to be able to create the

future. research and development in technology, research and development in science, the national institutes of health, a host of these things are just cut draconianly. i -- i had lunch the other day with the secretary of the navy, and he was telling me how the house budget has cut arpa-e -- that's the energy research of arpa -- has cut it from about about $250 million down to about about $50 million. effectively shuts off all the projects. you know what some of those projects are, mr. president? one is our military's ability to be able to have greater capacity in the field, to have solar or wind or battery storage so they don't have to run convoys of fuel in order to keep vehicles and supply our troops with the

support they need. they say the military has done a study. every 24 convoys for fuel, we lose one marine or soldier. one marine or soldier for every 24 convoys, they're looking at ways to reduce having those convoys, and they're cutting the money so that our military will be more dependent on the fossil fuel that comes from unstable countries in various parts of the world. mr. president, how much time do i have left? the presiding officer: six and a half minutes. mr. kerry: thank you. mr. president, china is racing ahead with respect to these kinds of investments, and the fact is that they're sending their students to the united states for degrees in math, science, engineering, but the house is cutting pell grants so that there's a 15% cut below the maximum level which would affect over 100,000 students in college, making it less

affordable, less accessible for low and moderate income students. that's not a budget that helps our economy. it does nothing with dealing with the deficit and jobs. they tie the hands of the consumer product commission, the product safety commission so they can't launch a database for consumer products. so i guess you don't need to know -- if you're an average american, you don't need to know if the products you buy are safe, if they are going to harm you. that doesn't matter anymore, even though it has nothing to do with really dealing with the budget problem. they reduce -- they reduce federal funds from being spent for planned parenthood, for doctors and nurses to conduct one million life-saving screenings for cervical cancer. more than 830,000 breast cancer exams. i guess it's much more important that millionaires, people earning more than $1 million a year get their tax cut than that 830,000 women have breast cancer screenings. i mean, this value system is

something that i think is absolutely essential for us to examine. the house cuts almost $2 billion from the clean water and drinking water state funds that allow us to capitalize on low interest loans and no interest loans so that we can build and refurbish clean water systems. all across our country, we have communities that are under court orders to clean up the water for our citizens, and the house is cutting the ability of those communities to be able to provide for that because they don't have the tax base, most of them, to be able to do it on their own. the house bill prohibits the e.p.a. -- that discussion took place and i'll skip over it, but it has nothing to do with deficit reduction. it just prohibits the e.p.a. from enforcing clean air laws. after the american people decided in 1970 they wanted clean air and people's lives have been improved because we have provided it, so we're going to go backwards there. the house bill, i mentioned the

arpa-e cuts. the house bill cuts $780 million below the energy efficiency and renewable energy which is going to cut critical programs that advance our -- our job base. i just met yesterday with the c.e.o. of a major solar company. they're going to create a huge number of jobs in the southwest of our country. they are the largest facilities are going to be in arizona and california, but by cutting the loan guarantee program, we're going to lose 1,200 jobs just on the california project, and that doesn't include the half a billion dollars of equipment from u.s. suppliers in nine states, including arizona, oklahoma, kentucky, colorado and kansas. that's a loss of jobs in every single one of those states. mr. president, the house bill reduces funding for the national institutes of standards and technology, which is going to

reduce the research and hurt job creation. it slashes funding for the national science foundation by more than $300 million. that's 1,800 fewer research and education grants. and just earlier this month, 300 of america's leading economists, including allen blunder and lauren tyson sent an open letter to president obama and members of congress concerning these cuts, and they said it is shortsighted to make cuts that eliminate necessary investments in our human capital, our infrastructure and the next generation of scientific and technological advances. they said republican plan cuts threaten our economy's long-term economic competitiveness and the strength of our current economic recovery. the letter goes on to say that we need to look and sustain the critical investments in the productive capacity of the united states. mr. president, you're a farmer. there isn't a farmer in the country who doesn't know you

don't eat your seed corn. that's what we're doing here. we're eating our seed corn. we are stripping away america's already challenged ability to compete against china, india, brazil, mexico, south korea, countless countries that are indicating far more seriousness than we are about their desire to build out and build a future. we have a train that runs from washington to new york called the os -- acela. it can go 150 miles an hour but only goes 150 miles an hour for 18 miles that have trip between here and new york. why? because if it goes too fast between the tunnel in baltimore, the tunnel may cave in. you go to china, you ride on a train that goes 200 miles an hour and the water doesn't even move in a glass. 300 miles an hour on the mag-lev train from shanghai airport to

downtown shanghai. go to dubai, go to paris, go to any major airport in america, and you'll find an airport that outshines the airports in the united states and you'll find public transit systems that outshine the public transit systems of the united states. because once again, we're living off what our parents and our grandparents built because we're not willing to pay for anything, which is why revenue in the united states is at a 60-year low. mr. president, we need to be smart about where we're going here. the g.d.p. of our country is measured by our total expenditures of consumption of the american people. it's measured by our investments. it's measured by government spending and investment, and by our exports minus our imports. that's the g.d.p.

that's how you measure g.d.p. how can these folks sit here and say if you cut the government spending, you're not going to cut the g.d.p., which is what every major economic analysis has said. so, yes, we have to cut waste. yes, we have to cut some spending. yes, we have to be responsible. but let's be responsible in a responsible way. by looking at the overall budget and the places that we can reduce at a tempo, mr. president, that doesn't do injury to our ability to be able to invest in america's future, create the jobs for the future but nevertheless send the right message to the marketplace and to the american people. we've done that before. we saw the longest expansion in america's history staring us in the face, mr. president, is the largest economic opportunity of a lifetime. the energy marketplace is a $6 trillion market with 6 billion

potential users today rising to about 9 billion over the next 30 years. we're not engaged in that. years ago china produced 5% of the world's solar panels. today they produce 60%. and the united states doesn't have one company in the top ten companies in the world's solar panel producers. what are we doing? the biggest transformational market staring us in the face is the energy market and we should be here putting an energy policy in place, an education policy in place, an infrastructure investment policy in place and a research policy for technology and medical that soars, that takes america into the future, creates the jobs we need for the next generations, reduces the deficit in responsible ways, not in this unbelievable, reckless, meat ax hatchet budget that is being presented to us by the house of representatives. we need to find the common ground. mr. president, i ask unanimous

consent that the full text be placed in the record as if delivered in full. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kerry: i thank the chair. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i ask unanimous consent that our remaining morning business time be yielded back. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 23, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 6, s. 23, a bill to amend title 35 united states code to provide for patent reform. mr. leahy: mr. president, before i begin, i note that i applaud the senior senator from massachusetts for his statement about how we should be spending money on innovation, be spending money on energy and so many other areas. i worry that we ofttimes ignore

some of the basic causes of the huge deficit here. we went into an unnecessary war in iraq, a war some said we had to do because of weapons of mass destruction when we had many of our intelligence agencies are telling us there were no weapons of mass destruction. but worse than that, for the first time in america's history we went into a war where we decided to borrow the money, borrow the money from the chinese and the japanese and the saudis and others rather than pay for it. so we -- a massive tax cut bill blew through the enormous budget surplus the clinton administration left. and then we borrowed the money for a war which is still going on ten years later and cost

thousands of americans lives, tens of thousands of other lives , people terribly crippled and injured who will be suffering for the rest of their lives in this country. and spent $1 trillion all on an unnecessary war and one for which we borrowed the money, putting ourselves -- not increasing the security of the united states, but decreasing the security of the united states by borrowing money for war. the first time in our nation's history. in afghanistan, we went in for the right reason, to capture osama bin laden. we had him cornered, our c.i.a. agents and our special forces were pulled out of afghanistan to go into the war in iraq.

and we're still in afghanistan, another $1 trillion which we also borrowed. now we have these deficits that we have to pay off. deficits caused by wars that did nothing to improve our security, did nothing to create innovation, did nothing to create -- to minimize the transportation difficulties we have in our country, did nothing to decrease our reliance on foreign oil and other energy, did nothing to allow us to innovate where we could become not only energy-independent ourselves but export to the rest of the world the products we created. the day will come when historians and our children and our grandchildren will look and say, what were you thinking of? what were you thinking of? because what that has done, aside from wasting the surpluses that we had, what it has done is

created problems perhaps for generations to come. and the united states, the wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth, at least for the moment, has suffered grievously. now, there are some things we can do right. american ingenuity and innovation have been a cornerstone of the american economy from the time thomas jefferson examined the first patent to today. the founders recognized the importance of promoting innovation. the constitution explicitly grants congress the power to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to inventors the exclusive right to their respective discoveries. unlike things created by statute, the idea of patents is in our constitution. discoveries made by american

inventors at research institutions, commercialized by american companies and protected and promoted by american patent laws have made our system the envy of the world. the senate has before it the america invents act. this will keep america in its long-standing position, at the pinnacle of innovation. i was glad to see the overwhelming, overwhelming bipartisan vote in favor of invoking cloture that was cast yesterday. one of the rare instances ever in vermont where snow has impeded us, that made it impossible for us to get back, we did have in some parts of vermont over 30 inches of snow. i think about 28 inches, 29 inches in the greater burlington area in 28 hours. it actually closed down the

airport. a rare circumstance. schools closed in vermont. now, that snow finally ended late yesterday afternoon. everything is open there today naturally. there are eight-foot, nine-foot, ten-foot snow banks on the side of the road where the roads have been plowed. but people are going back to work and school, and i'm delighted to be back here, mr. president, to what i hope will bring about the successful conclusion and vote on our legislation. it is, after all, a product of eight hearings over the last three congresses, hundreds of meetings, dozens of briefings. i again thank secretary locke for involvement, wise counsel and support. and i'm very pleased -- i see my

distinguished colleague from iowa on the floor, his help in getting the cloture vote passed by an overwhelming majority last night. you know, i introduced the patent reform act of 2009. that is the precursor to the america invents act on the floor today, along with senator hatch and others.á and our bill was the subject of consideration and amendments over several thoughtful sessions of markups in the senate judiciary committee in march and april of 2009. at that time, senator kyl and i convened a meeting with the director of the patent and trademark office to discuss whether further changes the office needed in the legislation to improve the office's efficiency, and we held those discussions. we held countless other meeting and briefings with interested parties in an effort to improve the legislation. again, on a bipartisan basis. i had bruce cohen in my office, aaron cooper, ed begano and

others, had meeting after meeting after meeting, just as predecessors of theirs had. in short, we spent a whole lot of time making sure this was done right. we did it in a bipartisan manner. after all, bolster the american economic recovery and strengthening global competition shouldn't be a matter of partisanship or political advantage. so that's where we are today, a process of discussions and debates and dlaib ration -- deliberation. the result is a legislation that's going to be a much-needed boon to our economy. it's also a model for our legislative process. shows what you can do when you set aside partisan rhetoric and incede negotiate and collaborate together in good faith. the last time congress significantly updated the patent system was more than a half a century ago. in the intervening decades, our economy, of course o, has changd

dramatically. a patent system developed for our 1952 economy, before the internet, before cell phones, before computers, before photocopiers, even before the i.b.m.selectric typewriter, for those old enough to remember that, need to be considered in light of 21st century realities while staying true to the consistent and constitutional imperative of encouraging innovation and invention. our patent laws were the envy of the world in the 20th century, desperately need to be updated if we're going to compete effectively and win the future. china and the european union are improving their patent laws. we can't remain complacent. if we're going to win the global competition by outinnovating the rest of the world, we need a patent system that works in the 21st century.