the -- the debt limit n. effect, raising the -- in effect, raising the debt limit on the nation's credit card because it's maxed out. according to the two cochairs of the fiscal commission, the nation could be facing a debt crisis, a lot of confidence that -- a loss of confidence that we would actually be able to pay back our debt and that crisis could come as soon as in the next two years. that's why the amendment i'm offering today, which i hope will enjoy broad, bipartisan support, establishes indeed a bipartisan united states authorization and sunset commission that will eliminate wasteful government spending. the amendment is modeled after the sunset process that was instituted in texas in 1977, which is over the years -- which has over the years eliminated over 50 state agencies and saved taxpayers more than $700 million. that may not seem like big money

in washington terms, but that's a substantial amount of savings in texas. this is what the president's own fiscal commission had to say about such a concept. this is a quotation. "such a committee has been recommended many times and has found bipartisan support. the original and arguably the most effective committee exists at the state level in texas. the legislature created a sunset commission in 1977 to eliminate waste and inefficiency in government agencies. estimates from reviews conducted between 1982 and 2009 showed a 27-year savings of over $780 million, compared with expenditures of $28.6 million. based on savings achieved, for every dollar spent on the sunset commission, the state has received $27 in return. this commission, under my amendment, would be made up of eight members of congress that

would focus on unauthorized programs that continue to receive taxpayers' money. as the chair knows, madam president, you know, one. biggest problems we have when it comes to unsupervised spend something the fact that the authorizing committees don't necessarily authorize a program but yet the appropriators, for one reason or another, have appropriated money and those are never given the kind of oversight that is really necessary. this means that congress has dropped the ball spending without authorization when it comes to doing the hard work of figuring out if these programs are working, but the spending nevertheless continues. as ronald reagan famously said, the closest thing to eternal life here on earth is a temporary government program. there is no such thing here in washington, d.c. the congressional budget office regularly finds that billions of dollars are being spent in unauthorized programs. in addition, the commission would focus on duplicative and

redundant government programs annually identified by the government accountability office. the g.a.o., as we all recall, recently found that billions of taxpayer dollars are being spent on duplicative and redawn daunts government programs -- and redundant government prasms the federal government has more than 100 different programs dealing with surface transportation issues -- 100. 82 monitoring teacher quality, 80 for economic development, 47 for job training, and 17 different grant programs for disaster preparedness. i think common sense would tell us that that kind of diew -- duplication is not efficient and is not effective use of taxpayer dollars. my amendment would review each program and submit the recommendations which must be considered by congress under procedures like we use under the budget act t could not be filibustered t would have to be

voted on. congress would not be able to ignore the commission's reports. the amendment provides expedited procedures that would force congress to consider and debate the commission's work. congress would have two years to consider and pass the commission's recommendations or to reauthorize the program before it would be abollished by operation of law. in other words, the program is abollished if congress fails to reauthorize it twa years after the commission completes its review and analysis of the program. this commission would help force congress to do the necessary oversight to make sure that every taxpayer dollar is wisely spent. while we all do our best to ensthiewr proper oversight is given to each program, we don't have the tools currently available to monitor and review every program. this sunset commission would provide congress with those tools. it would improve government accountability, provide for greater openness in government decision making. programs that have simply outlived their usefulness or

fail to spend taxpayer dollars efficiently are a burden, we know, on the american taxpayer and should be eliminated. but we simply zoo have the means to -- but we simply don't have the means to get there from here. congress has a spending floss place, and we should put together a sunset process for streamlining and eliminating government waste. that's what this amendment would dovment the commission would supplement the work of the congressional committees that are already in place that i know mean well and intend to do the oversight but simply never seem to get around to t it will not replace the work of those committees. it will supplement and i would say improve their oversight work. it will serve as another set of eyeballs keeping a close eye on the wallet belonging to the taxpayers. this commission will help congress answer a simple but powerful question: is this program still needed? is this program still needed? the sunset commission would help us make many programs more

effective by giving them the attention they deserve and exposing their faults to the light of day. it will improve government accountability and provide for greater openness in government decision making. programs that outlive their usefulness or fail to spend tax dollars efficiently are a burden on the american taxpayer and must be eliminated or reformed. as we continue to face the mounting deficit and a struggling comirvetion shouldn't we be doing -- and a struggling economy, shouldn't be doing everything in our four spend less? imagine the tax dollars that could be saved. it is my hope that our colleagues, mr. president, will join me in supporting a government-wide sunset comirks and i'd urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment so we can start setting our spending priorities straivmenstraight. the presiding officer: the senator louisiana. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i know that the members are following the debate on this bill carefully and their

amendments. so let me bring everyone up to day. it is about 5:05. we 240e hope to have a vote arod 6:00, potentially two votes. we have about five amendmentes pending. senator cornyn would like his amendment spend z pending. senator hutchison is here to speak about two -- two amendments that she may want to have pending. and senator johanns is on the floor to speak on the underlying mcconnell amendment. so what i would like to do is ask for a unanimous consent in a few minutes to try to get one or two votes set up for 6:00, potentially get these other amendments pending and set a time for votes tomorrow, so we can move through. we want to have as open a debate as possible. but we also really want to focus on the bill at hand, which is the small business, you know, reauthorization act, and related measures -- and many of these are somewhat related to johns and economy -- to jobs jobs and

economy here. we're trying to be as orderly, as appropriate as members have come down to the floor, in the order thew they'v that they've . mr. cornyn: i would object to any unanimous consent requests until we have some understanding about when i'll be allowed and others will be allowed to offer their amendments. ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i want to speak in favor of the mcconnell amendment, which is the pending amendment, which the senator from louisiana is trying to get time for a vote.

but i also do want to have the opportunity to support two of the amendments that i have offered -- at least filed -- and would like to have them pending as soon as the process allows. so let me just say that i do support the mcconnell amendment. and let me just be pretty clear and pretty simple. last -- in the last session of congress, senator lieberman and snorsenator kerry offered climae change regulation that would have caused our -- would have caused our fuel prices to go up exponentially and senator bond and i did a study on the kerry-lieberman multitrillion-dollar tax bill that would have happened if congress had passed their legislation. we estimated that it would have

been about $3.6 trillion in total fuels added expense to the small businesses and the families in this country. and we have documented that in this report. and, mr. president, i would like to ask unanimous consent to submit this report for the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: thank you. and, mr. president, the reason is because we didn't pass that legislation because everyone realized it would have raised the cost of gasoline. now the e.p.a. is trying to do the same thing by fiat, by executive fiat they are trying to regulate greenhouse gases. now, what they're going to do is raise the cost of fuel at a time when people are suffering at the pump. i mentioned earlier that that i filled up my pickup truck last weekend, and it was almost $50. now, i know every american is

having the same experience, and if they have an s.u.v., it's even more. we cannot allow the e.p.a. you e cannot allow the e.p.a., through greenhouse gas regulations, to increase the cost of fuel whvment they put that regulation on a refinery -- and we have very few refineries -- we haven't built a new refinery in this country since 1973 because it is so regulated that we have a shortage of refineries. it is one of the problems with the supply issue in providing gasoline at reasonable prices. we need to be stepping back, not stepping forward with more regulations. and the e.p.a. is doing something that congress wouldn't do. now, oddly, the e.p.a. is not authorized to make regulations that congress doesn't pass. they are to implement the law, not headache it. but that's -- they are to

implement the law, not make tflt but that's what they are doing and we are trying to stop it with the mcconnell amendment, which would repeal the e.p.a. greenhouse gas regulations. and i hope my colleagues will support it. in addition, as a former small business person myself, i know that it is very hard for small businesses to make ends meet. and i have heard from so many of the people in texas who are now trying to make ends meet and keep people employed in small business. and this health care reform bill is causing them to not hire people because they don't know what the costs are going to be. because basically you are going to be taxed, if you are an individual or a small business that doesn't adopt the government-prescribed health care insurance for your employees or your family. now, that's the bottom line. if you don't do exactly what the

government says and meet their government-required standards, even if the employees are happy with their health care coverage or certainly don't want to be left to the government health care, you will still get the fine, and most small businesses that i talk to are saying, hey, i'm going to pay the fine. it's easier. i don't have liability. i don't have to hire people to work with my employees, to get the best prices. that takes a lost my time, and it's -- that takes a lot of my time, and it's not helpful to the bottom line of my km, and, therefore, i'm just going to pay the fining and let the government do it. health care is not going to improve for the small businesses and families in this country. so, my amendment, number 197, that has been filed, which i hope to have pending, is colted s.o.s. act -- save our states -- meaning, while the florida case that has said the health care reform law is unconstitutional is still unsettled, states

should not be spending the money and small businesses should not be spending the money to implement a law that may be thrown out anyway by the courts. let's not cause the financially strapped states and the financially strapped small businesses in this country to have to spend the money to implement the health care reform bill until we know it really is the law of the land p. and right now that is a question, because two courts have thrown it out as unconstitutional. one in virginia and one in florida. so my amendment number 197 will say, we will delay implementation, we will not require any cost to be incurred by a business, an individual, or a state until it is clear it has gone to the supreme court and the health care reform act really is the law of the land. that could save millions for our states and millions for the businesses across our country.

i hope that we can get this amendment pending. the second amendment is number 198. it is called the lease afnlgt it is rulely simple. today we have -- it is called the lease afnlgt it is really simple. today we have a virtual moratorium. my colleague from louisiana has designated what we have senior senator a permtorum because there is almost no bein activito activity in the gull of mexico in deepwater drilling activity. now, we know that gasoline at the pump is going up because there is a shortage of supply. if we would get these leases out there, all of the exploration that's being done and allow the people who have paid the bonuses for the leases to fully use their leases, then we would give them one more year to be able to determine if it is worth it to drill a well in the gulf of mexico and start pumping oil and

increase our supply through our own natural resources that god has given to our country. our amendment number 198, which is the hutchison-landrieu bill, would just extend for one year, which is the time that these people have paid for a lease but not been able to use it because there is a moratorium on the deepwater drilling and the department of interior has now only given a maximum of three, possibly only two, permits for the people who had been able to explore before the b.p. spill. so i hope to get both of those amendments up. i can think of nothing that would help small business more than to know that they will not have to implement the health care reform afpblgt they can go ahead -- health care reform act. they can go ahead and hire people, free them to build up their employment base, which is what we all want to do -- build our economy. and, secondly, to hopefully get

a better price of fuel for them so that they will not have to suffer with these high gasoline prices. most small businesses in a poll said that their top three expenditures include the cost of fuel and electricity and natural gas. so we need to give our small businesses help, and i hope that we can get our amendments number 197 and 198 pending at the appropriate time. and at this point i hope my colleagues will support senator mcconnell's amendment to stop the e.p.a. from adding costs to the refineries and the gasoline producers of our country. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: i thank the senator from texas, and i appreciate the patience of my colleagues that are on the floor. because we've had two or three colleagues from this side of the aisle speak, i thought it would be appropriate to go to the senator from oregon, recognizing

senator johanns to speak on his amendment, and senator rand to then speak on his amendment. if no one objects -- i don't see anyone on the floor -- if we could go in that orbgsd i think everyone -- go in that order i think everyone could be accommodated before the vote at 6:00. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. a senator: i rise to address the mack -- mcconnell-inhofe amendment. america america my -- mr. merkley: my colleague from texas was addressing this amendment and noting her support for it. i would like to address several reasons that y this amendment is bad policy for america. first and foremost, this amendment increases our addiction to foreign oil. it increases oil consumption by 455 million barrels. right now we import about 9.7

million barrels of oil per day. so this amendment is equivalent to six weeks' worth of oil imports. recognize that gas prices are about $3.50 a gallon. the mcconnell-inhofe amendment amounts to a $68 billion price tag for working families to buy gas, to buy gas from oil imported from overseas. and this isn't a tax that in any way supports our economy. in fact, this is a tax that goes out of our economy to purchase energy from overseas. so, from the middle east, from nigeria, from venezuala. that is very profitable to the companies that supply that oil. it's very profitable to the governments far outside of the united states of america. but it certainly hurts the

citizens of our nation. it takes our energy dollars and puts them elsewhere rather than keeping them inside our economy. it decreases our national security rather than increasing our national security. furthermore, gasoline prices are set by the law of supply and demand. this amendment increases our demand for foreign oil. so if anything, this amendment increases gas prices. now, my colleague from texas just said we cannot afford to -- quote -- "raise the cost of fuel." i absolutely agree. and that is why we should defeat this amendment. indeed, i think almost everyone understands that when you increase demand for a product, you drive the price up. not down. but there are some third parties that have weighed in on this conversation, politifact.com did an analysis of the claim that this amendment would keep prices from increasing, and it did not find this claim to be true.

it found it to be false. so, at this moment when world events are unfolding in cairo and egypt, in libya, and we recognize that our dependence on foreign oil is a huge strategic vulnerability for the united states of america, that the flow of our energy dollars overseas is a huge mistake for our economy, why, why would we vote for an amendment designed to increase our dependence, our defense on oil, our defense on foreign governments, decrease our security and to damage our economy? it is simply a wrong amendment in all that framework about our dependence on foreign oil. second, this amendment is a tack on public health. it's an unprecedented attack, asking congress to step in and veto the scientific judgment of e.p.a. scientists. it tells the agency charged with protecting our public health and the health of our children to

ignore dangerous global warming gas pollution. carbon pollution and a long list of other global warming gases. you know, the clean air act in 1990 alone prevented 205,000 premature deaths, 674,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, 22,000 cases of heart disease, 850,000 asthma attacks, and 18 million cases of child respiratory illness. in 2010, the clean air act prevented 1.7 million asthma attacks, 130,000 heart attacks, 86,000 emergency room visits. it's been studied time and time again. and what we know is the application of the effort to clean up our air results in all of us having a better quality of life. this amendment, this attack on

public health is the wrong policy for our nation. you know, it's again, something that third parties have weighed in on, those who seek to protect our health and our health care system. the american lung association calls this amendment -- and i quote -- "a reckless and irresponsible attempt to put special interests ahead of public health." the american public health association has weighed in similarly. finally, this amendment is an attack on science. the clean air act passed by a large bipartisan majority and signed by president george h.w. bush tasked the e.p.a. with setting commonsense on pollution based on recent science.

by repealing e.p.a.'s program for having polluters simply report their pollution. in other words, this amendment says to the american public we're not even going to let you know about the dangerous pollutants being put into the air. and certainly that philosophy, not only of attacking our public health, but of attacking our right to know, is absolutely wrong. so, colleagues, let me just wrap up. this amendment increases our dependence on foreign oil. it increases air pollution that endangers our health. it overrules the nation's top scientific experts who are warning us to reduce pollution, not increase it. it asks american families to pay $68 billion to oil industry and foreign governments instead of keeping that money here at home. it's a mistake. let's vote it down. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky.

mr. paul: i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment number 199. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. paul: this amendment -- the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. paul: this amendment number 199 would save the taxpayer $200 billion. recently you've seen some discussion, but i think the american taxpayers are actually baffled that there's not more discussion up here. we have proposals of a deficit from the other side of $1.65 trillion, and yet we're not down here discussing this. we haven't passed a budget. we haven't passed any appropriations bill this year. the american people wonder what we're doing. you wonder why the american people say congress has about a 13% approval rate. why aren't we today talking about a budget? why aren't we talking about appropriations bills? why do they not come out of committee? and then when we get to the

proposals, look at the proposals. in the red, we have the deficit, $1.5 trillion. maybe $1.6 trillion. here we have the proposals. the other side, you can't even see without a magnifying glass. $6 billion. we borrow $4 billion in one day. we spend $10 billion in one day. and the best they can do is $6 billion for a whole year? our proposal is a little bit better, but still doesn't touch the problem. $61 billion in cuts sounds like a lot of money. but you know what? we increase spending by $700 billion. and now we're going to nibble away at $61 billion. but put it in perspective, saving $61 billion on $1.5 trillion means that either proposal, republican or democrat, is going to add trillions of dollars to the deficit. i'm proposing something a little more bold. i'm proposing $200 billion in cuts. i think it's the very least we

can do. $200 billion in cuts can be gotten rather easily. the government accountability office said there's $100 billion in waste, duplicative programs. why don't we cut that? what are we doing? if you look at the charts of what's going on here and you say what's happened to spending, the yellow line, around 2008 when we got the current administration, is going up exponentially. that's the spending that's going up. the spending is driving the deficit. you look at the two lines over, you can't even see the difference. this is the republican proposal to cut $61 billion in proposed increases. spending's still going up. the deficit is going up. we need to do more. the danger is if we do nothing, then we may well face a debt crisis in our country. we need to do more. my amendment will cut $200 billion in spending. and when i go home and i talk to

the grass roots voters, they say that's not even enough. we need more. at the very least, let's have a significant cuts in spending and do something to get the deficit under control before it's too late. thank you. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: please let me correct myself. earlier today i said that senator coons was from delaware. connecticut. clearly he is from delaware. and senator johanns is not on the floor, but senator barrasso is. it's been a long day, mr. president, and i apologize to my colleagues. the senator from wyoming is going to speak for a few minutes and then the senator from vermont, senator sanders. i'm still hoping we can have a vote on one or two amendments at 6:00. mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: i rise to speak on the mcconnell amendment, in favor of the mcconnell amendment. gas prices have increased 43 cents in the last month and 77 a

gallon over the last year. these skyrocketing prices are hurting american families and are threatening to derail the economic recovery. you say how much does this impact on the american family? well, the department of energy says that the average american family will spend about $700 more on gas this year than they did last year. that is going to impact every family, every family trying to deal with bills and kids and a mortgage. and it's not like this problem just happened overnight, mr. president. mr. president, for over two years americans have heard the president deliver speeches and make promises on energy. but the president says one thing and then he does another. and that say one thing, do another policy does nothing to ease the pain at the pump. the administration's policies are making the problems today worse. the president's reckless policies have virtually shut down offshore exploration for oil. last week former president bill clinton called the delays in

offshore oil and gas drilling permits ridiculous. offshore oil production in the gulf of mexico is expected to drop 15% this calendar year. what that submarines higher gas prices -- what that means is higher gas prices and fewer american jobs. the administration actually told congress, they said that we can replace the loss of american oil from the gulf of mexico with more oil from opec. that'that's exactly what this administration told congress in october. in justifying more restrictive offshore drilling rules, the administration admitted that this would lead to lower production of american oil. the administration wrote -- quote -- "the impact on domestic deep water hydrocarbon production as a result of these regulations is expected to be negative." and then the administration went on and said, "currently there is sufficient spare capacity in opec to swrof set a decrease --

to offset a decrease in gulf of mexico deep water production that could occur as a result of their ruling." that is this administration's mindset. don't worry about domestic production. forget about domestic production, opec has us covered. the administration shut down of american oil and gas exploration is not the only problem. the administration is also aggressively implementing environmental protection agency regulations that will drive up the cost of energy. the e.p.a.'s climate change regulations under the clean air act will cause gas prices for every american to go up even more. that's why i'm down here even more. the mcconnell amendment will fix this problem. senator inhofe originally introduced the legislation in the senate much it was introduced in conjunction with a bill in the house by representative fred upton. this legislation will stop the environmental protection agency's regulatory overreach

that is going to increase gas prices. when congress refused to pass the president's cap-and-trade scheme last year, the administration turned to plan b. plan b, the use of the clean air act to regulate climate change. the theory behind it is that additional restrictions on carbon-based energy and higher cost for gasoline are needed to make their green energy more competitive. now, the key word here is competitive. not actually making green energy more affordable, just more competitive. not by driving down the cost of green energy, but by driving up the cost of red, white, and blue energy. energy secretary steven chu has even said publicly that -- quote -- "we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in europe." mr. president, the price in europe, $8 a gallon. well, under this cover of creating green jobs, e.p.a.

regulations are increasing the cost of red, white, and blue energy. this administration is trying to achieve its goals, the same goals as cap and tax by placing a massive energy tax on gasoline and gasoline production. now, one of the way that's the e.p.a. will use the clean air act is to regulate greenhouse gas gas emissions from america's oil refineries. we have not had a new oil refinery built in this country since 1976. the e.p.a.'s climate regulations will make it even more difficult and more costly to build and operate refineries. the result, of course, is higher gas prices at the pump and a greater reliance on imported gasoline. the environmental protection agency's climate regulations must be stopped. they are arbitrary, they are costly, they are destructive, and they are politically driven. the e.p.a.'s climate rules are just one tool to make gasoline prices go up.

but this administration is proposing dozens more. i've introduced legislation similar to senator mcconnell's amendment and senator inhofe's bill but, mr. president, my bill is more comprehensive. my bill, s. 228, is called the defending america's affordable energy and jobs act. it will block the same manipulation of the laws to increase the future cost of gasoline on all americans. my legislation, which has the support of 20 senators, would block the manipulation and the misuse of the clean air act, clean water act, the endangered species act, the national environmental policy act and the use of citizen lawsuits. i am trying to stop this administration from placing a massive energy tax on gasoline and other forms of affordable energy. the environmental species act is currently being used to remove 187,000 square miles of land

from energy exploration. a decision of this magnitude will drastically limit oil-and-gas production development and exploration. to do this all in the name of climate change. mr. president, when the administration blocks production of american oil used to make gasoline, american families pay higher prices at the pump. they pay the higher prices today and the prices will remain high in the future. i plan to continue to fight the many ways this administration is trying to enact cap and tax policies an raise gas prices -- and raise gas prices. the president says he wants renewable energy to be the cheapest form of energy. he needs to level with the american people. he needs to admit that his scheme is to raise the cost of all other forms of energy and make the american people pay the bill. we should be exploring for more american energy offshore, on federal lands, and in alaska. i urge my colleagues to support

the mcconnell amendment so that we can block the administration's costly regulations and protect the pocketbooks of american families. the president's policies are making the pain at the pump even worse. it is time to stop these policies today with the mcconnell amendment. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i think we all know that elections have consequence -- consequences. i doubt seriously, however, that when most voters went to the polls last november, that they were voting for more of their kids to get aggravated asthma or more people to go to the hospital with respiratory problems or more people to get sick and in general. i do not think people went to the polls this past november to vote to put big oil and big

polluters in charge. i didn't see those tv ads on television. but make no mistake, people may not have voted for a polluter poison agenda, but that is exactly what they are getting from the republican in the house and their colleagues here in the senate. their agenda is to deregulate polluters even if it harms our national security. they want to gut the bipartisan clean air act even if doing that harms public health. republicans claim that the inhofe amendment would lower gas prices. that claim was found to be false by politifact.com. meanwhile the clean air act is actually raising fuel economy standards and is projected to save drivers $2,800 on gas for new vehicles. and the reason for that is pretty obvious. we are making an effort to see

that cars manufactured and sold in this country get decent mileage per gallon. we wonder why all over the world people are driving cars that get 40, 50, 60 miles per gallon and we're stuck with stars that get 15 or 20 miles per gallon. we can do, we must do, and we are doing better in that area and we've got to continue to go forward. the clean air act standards are projected to sav save $2.3 billion -- 2.3 billion barrels of oil. when you get cars that are energy efficient, when you get hybrids, when you get electric cars, you are not consuming oil from saudi aabe aiment we all -- arabia. we all talk here in the senate about moving this country toward energy independence. but the clean air act is actually helping to deliver it. that is good news for our national security, but not for polluters and senator inhofe's amendment would keep us

dependent on foreign oil. something we certainly do not want to be the case. my republican friends claim that the clean air act regulations are destroying the economy. that claim is also false. this chart here shows that even as we have reduced pollution in the air by 63% since 1970, our economy grew by 210% and added nearly 60 million jobs. in fact, the clean air act and other environmental laws have helped create hundreds of thousands of jobs in environmental technologies and pollution control industries, in my view. if we invest properly in energy efficiency and in such sustainable energies as wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, over a period of years we will, in fact, not only clean up our

environment, not only move us toward energy independence, but create millions of good-paying jobs. for every dollar invested in clean air, we see up to $40 in return in economic and health benefits to america. we should all understand, however, that while big polluters may not like the clean air act, it benefits every american. why is it that after we have made significant progress in beginning to clean up our air, there are people who want to bring us back to the days when polluters could just fill the air with all kinds of soot and other very harmful products which are causing disease all over america. -- america? thanks to the clean air act, we are actually saving 160,000 lives each year. people are are not dying from

premature deaths as they would have if the air that they were breathing was dirty. we are literally avoiding sending tens of thousands of people to the hospital and emergency rooms every year, avoiding thousands of cases of heart attacks, skin cancer, aggravated asthma, and lung damage thanks to the clean air act. senator merkley made the point a few moments ago about the view of the american lung association on this issue. and their strong concerns as to what will happen to respiratory illnesses if we weaken the clean air act. we are currently reducing toxic pollution, like mercury, that the c.d.c. has said causes major developmental problems for children. our nation's leading public health experts, including the american academy of pediatrics, the american college of preventive medicine, the american public health

association, the asthma and allergy foundation of america, the american heart association, and the american lung association recently said the clean air act's continued implementation is, and i quote -- "quite literally a matter of life and death for tens of thousands of people and will mean the difference between chronic, debilitating illness or a healthy life for hundreds of thousands more." end of quote. that is what is at stake. i will vote against the inhofe amendment and urge my colleagues to vigorously oppose this attack on our public health. while this amendment may benefit wealthy oil companies, is it an attack on all americans who want to breathe headlightsy air and drink -- healthy air and drink clean water. ms. landrieu: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: i see two senators on the floor and just for order i'd like to ask senator inhofe and then senator rockefeller and then we will try to get some consent for one or two votes tonight. we're still hoping to do that around 6:00 tonight and we'll try to keep people posted. mr. johanns: mr. president, i rise this afternoon to support the johanns-manchin amendment which would send a strong message to job creators that congress is listening, that we have heard them. the bill we are debating to help small businesses with federal funding for research and development is certainly important. but i have to tell you i believe what our small businesses are focused on, what they are really worried about is the avalanche of new regulations that is headed their way.

they're worried about the mountain of paperwork that's about to overwhelm them due to the 1099 reporting requirements contained in section 9006 of the health care law. you see, instead of focusing on hiring new workers and growing their businesses, they are meeting with accountants. they're wondering why those in washington choose to weigh them down further after the last two years. so the amendment that i offered today seeks to solve that problem by repealing the 1099 reporting upon date that is weighing town -- mandate that is weighing down upon them. as we all know, i'm referring to the tax paperwork nightmare, that, as i said, is buried in section 9006 of the health care law. it's straightforward. it says if a business purchases more than $600 of goods or services from another business,

then they're required to generate and provide to that business and to the internal revenue service a 1099 form. this new mandate will affect 40 million businesses in this nation. that's not even mentioning the nonprofits, the churches, our local and state governments that are also impacted. furthermore, it will stand in the way of job creators by forcing businesses to waste capital and human resources on really useless paperwork. considering the high unemployment rates plaguing many states, it doesn't make sense that we would keep this job-suppressing paperwork mandate, yet repealing this nonsensical mandate has been a long and somewhat tortured path. i first circulated a dear colleague letter asking for cosponsors on the 1099 repeal

back in june of last year, and when we introduced it in july, we had 25 cosponsors, and small businesses watched us with great anticipation. it gave them hope that common sense was going to prevail here in the senate and that partisanship could be set aside to just simply do the right thing, but unfortunately that hope did evaporate. they have been frustrated time and time again when it failed to advance in september and in november and appeared stalled as we came into the new year. but finally, they saw a ray of hope on march 3 when the house passed 1099 repeal. mr. president, it was a very large bipartisan effort. 314-112. and small businesses cheered last week when the majority leader reid endorsed the house-passed version and

indicated h.r. 4 would likely be passed directly to the -- and go on directly to the president by the end of the week, yet when thursday rolled around, a vote on 1099 repeal was shelved and replaced with a vote on a judicial nominee. and once again, our job creators were left scratching their heads, disappointed by the continued political gamesmanship on this very important issue. moving the post yet again, we now hear that some are objecting to the house bill's offset to completely pay for the repeal of the 1099 mandate. this now supposedly controversial provision simply reduces improper payments, overpayments of insurance subsidies. as the secretary of health and human services said, the repayment of improper subsidies

makes it -- quote -- "fair for recipients and taxpayers" -- unquote -- yet some have decided that this offset is somehow a middle-class tax increase, and that argument to me is stunning, mr. president. since when is requiring someone to repay what was given with them erroneously ever recorded as a tax increase? where i come from, that's just simply smart government for the taxpayer. furthermore, i find it a bit too convenient that not one senator complained about using this very offset to pay for the medicare doc fix last december. remember, the senate passed the doc fix, and they did unanimously. only two people opposed it in the house, and the president signed it eagerly. yet today, some have decided it's somehow a tax increase.

it doesn't pass the smell test, mr. president. our small businesses, well, they are not buying it either. they will see it as just one more hollow excuse why we can't provide businesses and their workers relief from the nonsensical paperwork mandate. these job creators have watched dueling amendments and proposals and counterproposals for too long, and they have grown impatient. our small businesses really do deserve better, but unfortunately right at the moment, we're getting more of the same. and more legislative squabbling only delays the certainty that our business community wants us to provide to them. they are looking for us to help them through this paperwork mess. well, what's happening out there is because this is now starting to stare them in the face, they

are already starting to think about software because they have got to track this, and there is a cost to that. they are talking to their accountants, and that costs money. they are diverting very precious capital in anticipation of the new mandate. not to mention the fact that rental property owners are currently subject to the new mandate, and unfortunately our rental property owners are having to comply with it and track each payment for repairs and for upkeep. we need to give these folks a break so they can focus on growing and creating jobs, not worrying how to pay for additional accountants. passing h.r. 4 would show them that we are listening to their concerns and we're committed to removing the unnecessary barriers to their success. well, instead, we're requiring our job creators to wait on the

sidelines. while this just continues to go on and on and on, and they deserve better. so i join our nation's job creators once again, asking the senate to act on this very important issue and repeal the 1099 requirement. rest assured, mr. president, they won't go away, and we don't want them to. we want them to do everything they can to create jobs. i will offer this legislation as an amendment to every legislative vehicle moving in the senate until it becomes law. i am hopeful not many more of these amendments will be needed because there is a simple solution: just repeal it. i believe there is strong bipartisan support for it. we can then send it to the president, he can sign it as he said he would, and we can celebrate this in the -- in a very bipartisan way.

a vote on this amendment is significant, not only because it really truly is the right thing to do, but because it will show that h.r. 4 has more than 60 votes needed to pass the senate. all we need to do is try on this and get it done. once again, i point out, mr. president, that this is a bipartisan effort. this is an effort that republicans and democrats and independents can claim victory and say we got this done, it was the right thing to do, it never should have been in the health care bill in the first place. my hope is that my colleagues will stick with me on this, we can get it done, we can get it passed and get it signed by the president. you will hear a cheer all over this country by our job creators when it is -- when it is finally repealed. with that, mr. president, thank you. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. rockefeller: mr. president, i have comments that i want to make on 1099 which are at variance with the distinguished senator from nebraska, but i will hold that for another moment. i think it's well known that in west virginia we have had our problems with e.p.a., and i have an amendment which would say for a period of two years that they would not have the power to enforce their laws on stationary sources, i.e. power plants, but it lasts for two years and then it stops. what is my reason for doing that? i will offer this amendment. my reason for that is this i want to give us the time to come up with a good carbon sequestration bill and also give us the time to come up with an energy policy, since if my

amendment were to pass, since it's two years from the date of passage, that does give us the time if it is the will of the congress to have an energy policy. if it is not, then that, of course, is quite a different matter. but i -- i simply cannot support and will not support the mcconnell amendment which calls for a complete ee -- ee mass cue laition -- emasculation of e.p.a. forever. i don't understand this type of thinking. i understand we're in a very difficult situation, a post-election period where people have very, very strong ideas, let's get rid of government and let's size everything down and get rid of all of these people who have been giving us trouble. i think we have to be mature in the way we approach these problems, and i don't think by saying that e.p.a. created by president nixon in 1972 shall virtually cease to exist with respect to any effect on

greenhouse gases at all forever. the concept of doing something forever is to me a very risky thing just on its face. it doesn't usually make any sense, whether it's health care or energy policy or any other kind of policy to make a law which has to do with regulation and then say you can't regulate forever. i mean, if you did that to the consumer product safety commission. we have discovered that -- that children, the little models they use for crash tests are not, in fact, big enough, little children aren't big enough. they were created a number of years ago and kids are much bigger now, and so we have to change, and that's -- the commerce committee is working on this. we have to change the size of the little dummies they put in these seats to crash test them to see what happens to them. because kids are larger.

and so if you had made a rule that this was to last forever under the original circumstance, obviously that would hurt our children and create discomfort and sadness. the environmental protection agency is not a frivolous agency. it is created to -- yes, to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, and i have been saying to the west virginia coal association, which for the most part doesn't believe in climate science. they don't believe there is a climate problem. and i have been saying to them for a number of years that that's wrong, in my judgment. there is a science -- the science is true, the science is unequivocally true, and that -- that there is a price to carbon in their future.

i said this a couple of months ago, there is a price to carbon in their future. you can't simply carry on business the way you're doing it now and avoiding any sense of responsibility and be called a mature corporation or a mature person in this country or mature public servant. i -- i understand the fervor of the senator from oklahoma, the senator from kentucky and others who put up this amendment for a permanent ban on any regulation of carbon dioxide or any other of these areas, but in the process, of course, what they say, therefore, is that the e.p.a. can no longer regulate cafe standards, and that is, you know, how many miles per hour.

if you look at the private sector, there is a drive and a kind of competition now to increase and raise the level of corporate fuel standards, average fuel standards emissions, and that's as it should be. that's a natural product of free enterprise competition. but to say that e.p.a. -- what if there were a backslide and what if the big three and a number of others say this isn't worth us -- you know, there is nobody regulating us so we don't have to do anything about it, and so they would slip backwards and then create a much more emission-charged climate. i can't abide by that. i can't believe that that's sensible government. i can't believe that in the theological drive to make government small, to make

government disappear, to make health care disappear, to make all kinds of things disappear so that we can all be happy again as we were in the 1910's and 1950's, i guess. like doesn't work like that, mr. president, and legislation should not work like that. we should approach it thoughtfully, with a long view as well as a short view. the short view says oh, i have to be mad at e.p.a., and i am, because they have done things in west virginia which i think are wrong and should be changed, but i would never for a moment consider saying that they should forever be banned from having anything to do with climate change policies or cafe standards. it just doesn't make any sense. it's embarrassing. it's embarrassing. that's not a favor to the people

of west virginia. what that means is that -- that the companies, coal companies and power companies that are looking at all of this, they will just start walking away from coal very quickly. this will be also true in pennsylvania, the home of the presiding officer. natural gas is beginning to take over large parts of our electric power industry. that's happened in north carolina and ohio, probably a little bit in -- in pennsylvania, yes, a little bit in west virginia. the marc marcellus shale is jusa boundless pool of gas and it lies up and down the appalachian spine. and companies are beginning to switch away from coal to natural gas. s nonow, you can either -- if yu don't care about coal miners and you don't care about coal companies, but particularly coal miners, they're not responsible

for any of this. they just dig the coal that god put in the earth a billion years ago. they did it. and then it's shipped by trail, by truck or by rail or in some fashion, by barge, after to a power company. the power companies are the ones that have to make a decision how are they going to burn it. are they going to burn it cleaner? well, two power companies -- two companies in west virginia, american electric power, has conducted an experiment in new haven, which is one of our large -- actually is the largest plant, i believe, power plant in the country, and they have picked out 18% of all their emissions and they have applied carbon capture and sequestration to that 18% and that 18% of the flue gas emissions have gone

from whatever carbon content down to about 10% of carbon con kent. that's call clean coal. we talk about coal on this floor. everybody assumes that skoal already dirty. well, coal is dirty when it's taken out of the ground and nothing happens to it. but with all the science and technology that we have available, carbon capture and sequestration is not only working to make that clean coal, therefore, highly competitive, much more competitive than natural gas, which is 50% carbon monoxide, it makes it only 10% when you use these technologies. that's what my amendment, the two-year amendment, and then only two years, that's what it's meant to give us the time to do. and sensibly that's what we ought to be doing, if people cared about having an energy policy. the -- then there's nor plant, r plant, dowel chemical. dow chemical is not usually associated with thee kind of

things. but they're running a clean coal burning demonstration using a slightly different technology also getting about 90% of the carbon out of the coal, which they use, the power from that, they use that. so don't tell me it can't be done. just tell me that we don't have the technology to do it broadly enough. but if you're talking about a nation with a couple hundred years of coal left, don't -- i don't want to hear about dirty coal because that's not going to get anywhere. about clean coal, that can do a lot better than natural gas and do a lot better than a lot of other alternative energies. what's going on in japan right now, i -- i shy away from the idea of saying, oh, well then we've got to stop ever building any nuclear power plant forever. i'm not a big fan of nuclear power but i don't think you make decisions like that, you don't maybe them out of emotion, you don't make them because there's a catastrophe in another country -- maybe there is, maybe there isn't, i haven't checked the news in four or five

hours -- but that's 20% of all of our power in this country. so before we make that decision, let's be thoughtful about it. i think we ought to be thoughtful about this amendment, saying -- the mcconnell amendment saying forever and forever that the e.p.a. will be completely stripped away in terms of any power for -- for -- for carbon monoxide, climate problems. and to boot -- plus anything else that creates carbon. it could be factories, any -- all kinds of things. they will be completely free of any kind of regulation. and i think that's wrong. i think the regulation has to be put in place which is reasonab reasonable, which would be the purpose of my amendment for two years and then that would be it and then we'd see where we are then. but to do a permanent complete

emasculation of this, of the e.p.a., isn't what a mature body of legislators does, in my judgment. i, therefore, will vote against this amendment and will wait to see the result then do my amendment, which i think is much on more sensible -- is much more sensible. i thank the chair and yield the floor. ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mrs. lann do you doms. landrieui thank senator rockefeller and all the members that have come to the floor today to debate this important bill and to share their thoughts about other amendments that are -- some directly but some indirectly related to our discussion. it doesn't look like we are going to vote tonight but we're going to continue to work throughout the evening as members want to come to the floor and speak on their amendments and we're going to try to work something out for tomorrow. but i want to thank senator

snowe and her staff for their good work today. i see that senator whitehouse is on the floor and he may want to speak about an amendment, but i'd like to just remind everyone that we are on the sbir and sttr reauthorization act. it's a very important piece of legislation that has been sputtering for a reauthorization now for over six years and there are literally thousands of entities, small businesses, dozens of federal agencies, many, many organizations from the chamber of commerce to the american small business association that are depending on us to do our work and actually get this program reauthorized. it is important to give consistency and permanency and so we're going to continue to work to do that, and i look forward to speaking in more detail about the bill later tonight and tomorrow. but it looks like we're not going to have votes tonight but

hopefully we can get some order and some agreement to proceed. at this time, i see the senato senator -- senator whitehouse on the floor. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, we are not at this moment without votes on this important legislation for lack of effort by the distinguished senator from louisiana. she has been extraordinarily determined on this, as she was with her earlier small business legislation which she fought through to a success, and i'm sure this will be fought through to a success as well. but one of the ways in which our friends on the other side are seeking to harass and impede this important -- piece of legislation is by putting on unrelated amendments, particularly really poisonous unrelated amendments, including the one that senator rockefeller just spoke about to completely

gut and strip the authority that the united states supreme court has recognized e.p.a. has to protect us from the hazard of carbon pollution. underlying this procedural maneuver which really would interfere with this significant jobs-related bill, it is a fundamental disagreement about whether or not our at moss sphere really being affected -- our atmosphere is really being affected by the carbon pollution that we have been pumping into it. and i would submit that the effects are entirely on one side of that debate and the polluters are entirely on the other, and it is really only in a building like this, in which so many special interests have such sw sway, that that debate has the currency that it appears to have achieved here. much of what is happening is really nondebatable.

scientists know not from theory but from observation, from calculation what the range of parts per million of carbon dioxide has been in the atmosphere for 8,000 centuries. you can go back and you can find the carbon record in ice and in other ways and you can establish what the range was carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. and for the last 800,000 years, it's been between 170 and about 300 parts per million. that's the bandwidth, 170-300 parts per million over 800,000 years. for the first time in 800,000 years, we are out of that range. the present concentration -- gean, again, a measurement, nota theory -- exceeds 381 parts per million. and scientists can do something like draw a trajectory, which is something that people do all

over it this world, it is not complicated, it is not theory, if you draw trajectory based on where we are going, the trajectory puts us at 688 parts per million in the year 2095 and 1,087 parts per million in the year 2195. these are levels that not only haven't been seen in 800,000 years, they haven't been seen in millions of years. this is an experiment in the very nature, the very physics of our planet. and it's been known since 9 -- since the -- really after the irish war when the scientist tindall that the had a warming effect, a blanketing effect, that warmed the atmosphere. that has been science for more than a century. it's in basic textbooks. and when you take that scientific theory, basic, established more than 100 and, what is it now, 34 years old,

and then you combine it with the facts as we see it, that it's been in this range of 170-300, it's now out of an 8,000-century range and climbing, and you look at some of the effects that are beginning to happen that are also consistent with that of fairly undeniable -- a fairly undeniable story begins to add up. and the day will come, i am confident, when our grandchildren look back at this moment at our unwillingness to deal with the plain scientific evidence in front of us and instead to be persuaded by merchants of doubt with big checkbooks, who have a vested interest in the outcome of this, who have a conflict of interest and we're listening to them and we're not listening to the plain facts and to the plain scientists -- science and to theories that have been known for more than a century, people will look back at us with real shame. there's no other word for it, shame and disgust that this was the way we addressed this

problem in our planet. you know, we look back at other events like this, galileo had a view based on his observations on science as to how the planets worked. and he was intimidated out of it by the power of the day which couldn't abide that, and he was taken before the inquisition and he was forced to recant. the legend is that when he recanted, he quietly said to himself, "i recant but the planets stay their courses." well, the planets stay their courses, the laws of physics and chemistry don't change, and we are on a slope towards a very severe problem that we just simply can't put, like the ostrich, our heads in the sand about over and over again. it is just wrong. and so this bill is wrong, the

amendment is wrong that would strip e.p.a. of it, it will hurt people who depend on this. it has always been good for america when we've made our airs and water cleaner, and we simply cannot go on this way. it's bad for this bill because it puts a poisonous amendment on it when this should be a bill we should all be getting behind, and it is certainly wrong from a point of view of history and science and the obligation that we have to our younger people and to their children who will have to live in a world that faces the consequences of our negligence this day. i thank the presiding officer, and i yield the floor. ms. landrieu: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: thank you, madam president. this has been a very actually invigorating debate on the bill that is pending before the senate. as i said, there have been a few amendments that have been filed that are directly related to the reauthorization of this important program and there are there's have arguably indirect

impact on small business jobs and the -- the creation of research and technology for -- the opportunity for research and technology investments for small business in america. but we're unable to vote tonight and to come to any consensus about the order of votes. hopefully we can do that sometime later this evening. but let me take this moment just again to thank the 84 members of the senate that voted yesterday to give us an opportunity to get to this important bill. and as people have watched this debate throughout the day and continue to watch this evening, one of the reasons that the leadership likes to sometimes put limits -- appropriate limits on the debate is to keep people focused on the underlying issue. but senator snowe and i decided to urge our leaders to have a really open debate because we understand that there are members that feel very, very

strongly about the e.p.a. issues and the climate change rules and regulations, about the 1099 provisions. senator nelson feels strongly about reducing legislative spending. senator hutchison and i have -- particularly senator hutchison and i have strong feelings about the lease act. so we're going to be as inclusive and incorporate as many of these ideas as we can, but i really want to ask, since we looked at the amendment list just within the hour, we have 48 amendments pending on this bill. and so i really want to ask, ane people have half a dozen. so i'm going 0 ask the mels and their staffs to look and see what's absolutely essential for you to offer as an amendment on this bill so that we don't miss the opportunity -- and that's really what i want to express

right now is this will be a missed opportunity to reauthorize one of the best programs at the federal level. we've heard a lot of talk about programs that don't work, about programs that are wasteful, programs that are full of fraud and abuse. this is not one of them. this is the federal government's largest investment program and research and development -- in research and development that gives small businesses in america that we all represent on main streets everywhere, whether it is north carolina or in louisiana or california or massachusetts -- small businesses with some of the cutting-edge technology, new, you know, exciting science with very bright people who have graduated from some of the finest universities in the world, giving them an opportunity to put their technology, their know-how in front of federal agencies for the sole purpose of saving

taxpayers money, creating jobs and increasing the revenues paid to governments at the local level, state, and federal level, to solve our deficit problem. we're not going to solve our debt and deficit problem by cutting, slashing recklessly domestic discretionary spending alone. no one in america believes that. it's really -- i don't know why people come to the floor to continue to promote that ievmentd it is not going to happen. we're going to get to a balanced budget when we bring our revenues and our spending in appropriate order, in line. and when, madam president, we pass bills like this that literally help create thousands and thousands of jobs in america. that's what's going to end the recession. that's what's going to close this budget gap. and that's why i'm going to stay on the floor all week with senator snowe, who has been wonderfully helpful today, and

will continue until we can get this bill passed. i don't want us to miss this opportunity, because it's been three congresses -- not one, not two, but three congresses that have tried and failed. we're not going to fail this week. we're not going to not pass this bill this week in the senate. we are going to get a bill out of here, over to the house. it is very likely the house will take up our bill as it's generally written. why do i say that? because we've already incooperated so many of the house views and thoughts over the last several years. this is not new language to them. we have a new chairman, chairman graves. he understands perfectly that we are working hard in the senate to get this bill over to him and to his good committee. but we have literally, madam president, thousands of

businesses, you know, kind of on hold because they don't know whether this program is going to be here from week to week. we have agencies that don't know if they should put on solicitations for new technologies. why would we not want to take in opportunity when we clearly know that this is one of the most effective programs? as i said, let me give you a specific example. we've used it, but it's worth using again, and we have hundreds. qualcomm, a country very well-known, it developed the software primarily that allows wireless communication 20 years ago. nobody ever heard of qualcomm and very few people had cell phones that weighed, you know, less than three pounds each, as i remember. but 25 to 30 people came together with dr. jacobs. they sat in his den. he testified before our committee just last week on this. and he said, through the sbir program, their initial idea got a couple a hundred thousand dollars and then phase 2, they

got $1.5 million, which is what this program does, incentivizing our giving grants or contracts to very -- to emerging technologies, well before a bank would take a look, well before venture capital funds would even look their direction. you have to develop the technology to a point and then have it launched. this is where there's what he described the valley of death. you know, great ideas, but there's just not a lot of patient capital out there, and particularly in this recessionary period. so he says, we helped this program, without it would have been virtually very, very difficult, he said to grow our company. today that company employs 17,500 people in about 22 countries in the world, including right here in the united states of america. and they pay in taxes, madam president, in one year $1

billion. that's 50% of the cost of this entire program. so one company, qualcomm, in the 25-year life has grown so much that it pays enough taxes that supports 50% of the cost of this program annually. and i can give you dozens of examples of other companies that have launched, through this program. and let me say this: our federal departments are getting better at this. it was a little touch-and-go at first. people -- the federal agencies weren't quite used to it. senator rudman helped to create this program. he was very passionate about it, as were others. we sort of pushed the federal agency to $this. they were more comfortable doing research and development with the big companies. they felt more comfortable. they weren't taking as much risk. you know, no one likes to fail. so they thought, you know, i have this project. i am going to give it to i.b.m. f it doesn't work, nobody can blame me.

well, the problem was that i.b.m. didn't have all the answers. we've come to find out sometimes, they had very few in parts of their careers, a company. not to be disrespectful to that company, there were ten companies but nobody heard of them. senator rudman understood this. he said, we're going to mandate a certain amount of their research and development money to go. you have to push it out to small business. some of them failed. but as the folks that testified, if they're not failing, this program isn't worging. i want to repeat, if they're not failing, this program isn't working because this program is a front-end, high-risk, but great urns. great returns for the american taxpayer and small businesses and as i said earlier today, it's the envy of many other countries in the world. the gentleman that has done the most research and lookover of

this particular program testified before our committee that he travels around the world. and he's called by other nations that say, how is it that the federal government sets up programs that allow the small businesses to enter into research and development? so senator snowe and i have taken this on as our first priority for this year, and for this congress. we know that there are many important bills pending before our committee, but well be this is the right -- but we believe this is the right bill for our congress. you're on the committee. soy know this very we will. we're trying to think what can we get to the president's desk that creates the most jobs and has the most impact and this is the program. it extend the authorization for eight years. it updates the award sizes for the program. from $100,000 to $150,000.

it updates the phase 2 awards from $750,000 to $1 million. it increases investment in small business by leveraging, increasing the percentage from 2.5% to 3.5% of the research and development moneys at all agencies over ten years. including n.i.h. department of defense. these are very significant numbers for the department of defense. it is $1 billion. $1 billion, this bill will sort of set aside and say, defense department, you're looking for that new radiator for your tank, looking at ways to coocialtion looking at ways to sort your ammo more efficiently, looking for ways to come up with new software to help that new war fighter, here is $1 billion of research money. we want you to ask not just the big companies in america and around the world but the smawb small companies, the innovators out there, give them a chance to show what you they have. that's what this program does,

and we have reams and reams of data supporting its effectiveness. it also includes, this compromise between the biotech, the venture capital industry and the small business community. we had a big fight over the last several years. we've come to a compromise. neither side is he can statistic iraq, which is a good compromise. they're all sort of just understanding that without this compromise, this bill could fall apart and they know how important it is, so they've come to terms on the basic portion that can be invested by venture capital funds, leaving the integrity of this program as a small business program, which is the way it was created, but allowing an appropriate -- an appropriate level of involvement with the venture capital industry. it also creates a federal, state, and technical

partnerships. it improves the s.b.a.'s ability to oversee and cured that this program. it adds some metrics and measurements so we can really get some good data about how it's working and where it's not working. and, as we authorize it for eight years, we'll be able to really say, madam president, that we, you know, got down to business and we got serious about reauthorizing this important program, while leaving this debate open and flexible and allowing the members to have an opportunity to speak about things that they feel strongly about. but i'm hoping that sometime tomorrow we can vote on some of the amendments we discussed today -- the mcconnell amendment, the johanns amendme amendment, potentially the vitter amendment, the nelson amendment, senator cornyn, senator hutchison and others were down here to speak. we hope to get their amendments in the queue.

but again if the members would just be cooperative, let senator snowe and i know -- if you could choose one or two, not offer six or seven amendments, that would be extremely helpful to us. our staffs will work as hard as we can to have the votes that are knows move this bill off the floor, get it to the president's desk, because my answer is, for those that say, why aren't we talking about the budget and debt, we are talking about the budget and debt. this is part of closing the budget gap. this is about creating jobs that generate revenue that close that gap. it's not just about discretionary domestic spending cuts. we will never get where we need to be going down that road. we're going to get to it by a combination of thifntle and that is why senator snowe and i feel very strongly about bringing this bill to the floor to talk about growing and encouraging job creation, particularly by

small businesses, innovators and entrepreneurs, inventors, risk takers that need and rely on this program to launch some new, exciting businesses that benefit us all. whether it is in the state of or oregon the state of louisiana, as i said, or moos massachusettw york, or california, we have literally thousands of companies that have used this program successfully to grow. our people are employed and america is continuing to lead in many areas. unfortunately, we don't lead in every. but in many areas in new emerging technologies, depending on the field of course. but we are very proud of this federal program. so it's an example of a program that works, and if we could work as we will as this program does to do our work this week and get this bill actually off the floor, intact, with some amendments, of course that will be voted on and get it over to

the house, let them do their work and get the bill to the president's desk, we will have done some good work this week. so, mr. president, i'm going to suggest the absence of a quorum. i don't see anyone else on the floor. there may be members that want to come and talk about amendments. there will be nothing that will be pending for the next few hours and hopefully we can get an agreement later on tonight. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: i'd like to ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the roll.

the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: to get out of quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: and i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: thank you. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorl be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent that when the senate liewms its consideration of s. 493 -- resumes its consideration of s. 493 tomorrow, wednesday, march 16, the senate proceed to votes in relation to the

amendments listed: nelson of nebraska, number 182, and snowe-landrieu-coburn number 193. there be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to each vote, that no amendments be in order to either amendment prior to the votes and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. further, i ask following those votes, the next first-degree amendments in order be the following: casey, 216, cornyn, 186, sanders, 207, paul, 199, a democratic amendment, and hutchison 197. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on armed services be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 96. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 96, congratulating the army dental corps on its 100th anniversary. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure.

mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsidered laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the committee on rules be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 7, 8 and 9. the presiding officer: without objection, it is so ordered. mr. reid: i ask that the joint resolutions be read three times, passed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, there be no intervening action or debate and nay statements relating -- any statements relating to this matter be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: s. res. 48 has been received from the house and is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the measure for the first time. the clerk: h.j. res. 48, joint resolution making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2011 and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, i would

object to my own request -- well, first, i would ask for the second reading and then object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the joint resolution be read a second time on the next negligent laif legislative day. mr. reid reid: mr. president, ik unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until tomorrow, 9:30 a.m., wednesday, march 16. following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that following any leader remarks, there be a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m., with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. further, that following morning business, the senate resume consideration of s. 493. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: senators should expect the first votes of the day to begin about 10:30 in the morning in relation to the nelson of nebraska and the

snowe-landrieu-coburn amendment. additional roll call votes are expected to occur throughout the day. under a previous order, senator blumenthal will be recognized at 12:00 noon for up to 20 minutes in order to deliver his maiden speech. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

>> earlier today, indiana senator, dan coates diverred his first speech to the senate floor talking about the u.s. economy and budget cuts. this is 25 minutes.

>> mr. president, returning to the senate is like in many ways having a chance to relive a part of your life, and yet doing so with a benefit of experience, the experience i gained in serving in this body before and also service from the private sector, and it allows you to see things differently than you saw them before, and while i've discussed with my colleagues what is the same here in the senate on return, there's also much that has changed in our country and that i think will mandate change in this institution. it's what has changed that has brought me back to the senate because the more that i witnessed what happens to our country, the more i realized, i, like many others across the country, need to reengage in the country and return to the time-tested principle, not to the least of which is returning our federal government to one

that ensures a healthy, fiscal nation whose finances and policies promote job opportunities for its citizens. i just could not get comfortable with the fact that my generation might be the first generation to turn over a country in worse fiscal shape with less opportunity to our children than one that we had the privilege of inheriting. when i first came to congress in 1981, one the first votes i had to deal with was a tough one. it was to raise the national debt limit to over the $1 trillion mark. think of that, for nearly 200 years as the country prospered and grew, grew financially, we spent into debt $1 trillion worth of debt. now, as a newly elected member of the house of representatives, the last thing i wanted to do is particularly having run on a

campaign of limited government and trimming the size of government and spending to then make one of my first votes one to raise the national debt to accommodate excessive spending. on the almost impossible to say no request of then the newly elected president ronald reagan who said we need to pay the past bills so we can get to the job of cutting spending and cutting taxes and getting our country back on the right track economically. i gritted my teeth, swallowed hard, and made that first vote. it is difficult for me today to exrend that i'm -- comprehend that i'm standing here just 30 years later, and we are looking at a national debt of over $14.5 trillion, so just in 30 years we've gone from $1 trillion to $14.5 trillion. i cannot comprehend that number,

and i think few americans can. one thing stands out, and that is that this federal government has grown faster and much deeper into debt than any of us could have possibly imagined over a very short period of time. we have paid a steep and will pay an even steeper price tag for that debt, and it threatens our way of life as well as our nation's security. during the 90's, the combination of economic growth, the defeat of the 1993 health care plan, president clinton's decision to move to the middle and support welfare reform all cricketed to moving towards a more fiscally sensible balance between revenue and spending. in fact, in 1998, we reached a surplus of about $69 billion, the first surplus reached since the year 1969.

that would have been the ideal time to lock in a balanced budget amendment to ensure and hold congress that we would not slip back into deficit spending and that congress and the white house would be held accountable for future spending. now, there were two serious attempts in the 90s, both of which i supported, to enact a balance budget amendment. they failed each one by one vote. think today where we would be fiscally had we passed, had we gotten that one vote and passed either of those amendments, send it to the state for e radification which i'm sure they would have done, we would not be facing the dire fiscal situation that we face today. i've decided not go into details of our exploding deficit and debt. much has been said and published in that regard, said on this floor, and more will be said, but based on the last election, the american public is better

informed of our current financial situation and the dangerous consequences of spending beyond our means. we have spent beyond our means in our areas of government. we increased unfunded liabilities, and we have committed to programs which we cannot afford or sustain. americans have heard the warnings of many who analyzed our situation and sounded the alarm, and in 2010 said immediate action must be taken to avoid a national fiscal crisis of unprecedented negative consequences. what are those consequences? ultimately, those consequences are a lower standard of living, less income for family to take home to pay the mortgage, to buy that new car, to save money to send their children to school. those consequences have, unfortunately, over the past couple of years put our nation in a serious unemployment situation. people are out of work, and they have been out of work for

months, if not years. ultimately, it all turns down to jobs. having the ability to bring home earnings that will sustain a family and provide opportunities of education, health, growth for those families, and give our children and our grandchildren, and all those who follow us the opportunities that soosm of us have -- so many of us have enjoyed. those are the consequences we face if we don't today address those problems. many republicked economists and financial expercents have -- experts have continued to issue dire warnings about our current fiscal condition, and let me quote a couple. a former chief of staff to president clinton and co-chair to the president's deficit committee said, "this debt is like a cancer that will destroy the country from within unless washington acts." peter welcherson, former finance

executive said this about the national debt. "we need to ask ourselves not just is this sustainable, but is it moral? what does it mean to burden our children to an unconscionable doubling of their taxes? "admiral mullen, joint chief of staff said, "i believe our debt is the greatest threat to our national security. if we, as a country, do not address our problems in the new term, our national power erodes in the cost of the ability to maintain and sustain influence is great." finally, u.s. controller general david walker who served under both republican and democratic administrations has said, "what threatens the ship are large known and growing structural deficits. spending more money than you make is irresponsible." that is what washington has

done, spend, sinking our fiscal ship deeper and deeper each year. we saw a drastic swing in november. hoosiers and americans united together in a joined purpose that all representatives repair our fiscal health that's been destroyed by policies. they called for a change in course. they called for bold action today to preserve our country for tomorrow. they realize that the stakes are too high to ignore or delay addressing our fiscal challenges. hoosiers family and businesses, local communities, states, and other entities across indiana and the country had to make sacrifices to trim their budget. they are now calling for congress to do the same. mr. president, we cannot succeed unless we, together, republicans

and democrats, agree that addressing our current fiscal crisis requires political courage and bold action from both parties, both chambers of congress and president obama. mr. president, i'd like to offer what i think are some solutions that i believe congress must execute, perhaps in a coordinated way, essential steps if we are serious about addressing the fiscal challenge before us. first, stop the fiscal bleeding and avoid economic disstress by doing so. washington has to break its habit of spending and borrowing addiction. like curing any bad habit, it takes discipline and commitment. as we consider spending cuts and ways to reverse the growth of government, i think everything must be on the table, all

functions of government should be examined including mandatory and defense spending. serious discussions and proposals are underway in the congress. i'm participating in many of them. these proposes need to be considered carefully, need to be baited, and they need to be voted on. secondly, i think it's important that we recognize that spending cuts alone will not solve our fiscal challenges and preserve our future. we need to pair our cuts with a pro-growth agenda that puts hoosiers and americans back to work. one of the ways congress can achieve this goal is by reforming the tax code, by lowering marginal rates, lowering corporate rates to make us competitive with our competitors around the world, by eliminating exclusions of special interests deductions on credits, and simplifying the complex tax code. congress can help advance the economic recovery.

this, i believe, is a necessary element in the task of returning the fiscal health. i currently am working on legislation on this very topic, and i hope to introduce it in coming weeks. third, washington needs to examine, reduce, and in many cases, eliminate harmful regulations and mandates. as i've traveled across indiana, perhaps one story i've heard over and over and repeats itself with every business i participate with or engage with, the word is "regulations coming out of washington, many of which do not reflect the will of the people, the will of congress, but are imposed by nonelected bureaucrats have put us at a disadvantage with our competitors, have added additional burdens of paperwork and compliance to us, and they don't make sense from the health and safety standpoint." oversight and proposals to address the regulatory burden also need to be considered,

debates, and voted on by this congress. fourth, we need to promote trade policies. 6,000 businesses in indiana export overseas. one forty of our of our -- one-fourth of our manufacturing jobs result from exports, so a good first step in all of this process is to open our markets by approving the three pending trade agreements that we have, korea, colombia, and panama. this increases job opportunities at home and puts us on the path of continuing open trading that provides so many jobs to so many hoosiers and so many americans. mr. president, having said all this, the greatest threat to our fiscal security is the growing and unsustainable mandatory spending. we cannot stengthen our country's financial health without addressing medicare, medicaid, and social security. these programs consume nearly two-thirds of the federal

budget, and while we hear a lot of talk about the necessity of tackling entitlement spending, little action occurs because it's often considered too politically dangerous. however, i believe we no longer have a choice. we no longer can defer addressing these problems until after the next election. entitlement crisis is before us and has been growing for several years. we know about the coming baby boom generation that's retiring, and the impact it will put on these entitlement programs, and we have to commit, i believe, of finding a way to restructure these programs and make them solvent. let me repeat that. we're not here to undercut these programs. we are here to preserve those programs. we are here to make the necessary structural long term incremental changes so that those benefits will be there for people when they retire.

winston churchill said not to turn your back on danger and run from it. if you do that, you double the danger, but if you meet it promptly without flenching, you can reduce the danger at least by half. we have not met this promptly, but i believe that it's not too late to begin the process of making common sense adjustments to the current systems. modest incremental changes now will help us avoid much more drastic and painful changes later. in 1983, the congress was faced with a serious social security crisis. we were months away from having checks not sent out. together, president reagan, tip o'neill, minority and majority members of the house, and the political leaders of the respected parties gathered together and decided to put this issue and the solution of the issue above politics, and they

did so, and it was a difficult debate in discussion, but we made the changes that were implemented on an incremental basis. social security bought 30 years of solvency in the basis of that decision. the sky did not fall. the economy did not collapse, and the people when they learned what we were doing to save the program and not leave it in a dire situation where the benefits had to be cut dramatically, they backed what we did and supported. i believe we're in that position now with our entitlements. if we propose sensible modest changing that saves these programs, i think the public will gladly support that. mr. president, over the last decade, we have watched the storm clouds gather, and we've watched as those fiscal clouds

have grown ever closer and darker. they are now upon us and alarms are sounding louder than ever. it is incumbent upon each of us in congress to acknowledge the storm is here and to do all we can to mitigate the damage, but begin the current division of authority in our congress and executive branch, it is incumbent upon the two chambers and the two parties to succeed if we're going to set aside -- if we're going to address this current situation. it's incumbent to succeed that we will need to set aside the politics of 2012 for the future of our nation, and i believe the voters will respond favorably to that decision, however, no matter what we do as elected representatives, we cannot ultimately succeed without the engagement and the support and the leadership of the president

of the united states. we know that the president understands the gravity of the fiscal crisis. as a former senator, as a presidential candidate, and now as commander in chief, he is clearly articulated his understanding of the issue. in 2006, then senator obama said, and i quote, "increasing america's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. leadership means that the buck stops here. instead, washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today on to the backs of our children and grandchildren. america has a debt problem, and it failure of leadership." those were the words of the former senator, barak obama, now president of the united states. as a candidate for president in 2008, president obama said, "we're going to have to take on entitlements, and i think we've got to do it quickly."

in 2009, then president obama said, "what we have done is kick this can down the road. we are now at the end of the road and are not in a position to kick it any further." he also promises his administration "would work with congress to execute serious entitlement reform." now, president obama as both republicans and more and more democratic members of congress are committing to go forward and republican and democratic governors in states are responding, our nation, mr. president, our nation needs you now to assume the primary leadership role in helping us avert these financial problems and potential financial meltdown. the 2012 election must be subordinate to the urgency of the challenge before us. we cannot afford to wait until 2013 to begin the necessary work

to prevent a fiscal disaster. we need presidential leadership now. our country's future is at stake. begin the immensity of our fiscal challenges we face today, some would say it's too late to remedy the problem. i do not hold that view, and i don't hold that view partly because and primarily because of our nation's history in rising to the challenge that faces us. from the founding fathers to george washington, from abraham lincoln to roosevelt and reagan, times of trial and crisis have always produced moments of great leadership and the response of the american people to support that leadership, and that is what americans are yearning for today, leadership. leadership to guide us out of this dangerous financial hole that threatens our nation's security and future. so i ask our president, as other presidents throughout our

history have done in times of major threats, mr. president, grant us your leadership. grant us the leadership needed to restore the strength and prosperity that has been the american's story and has allowed our nation to be the defenders and protecters of democracy and freedom. thirty years ago, ronald reagan delivered his first inaugural address expressing the need to rain in spending and incur the growth and size of the federal government. he said, "doing so will require our best effort and our willingness to believe in ourselves and to believe in our capacity to form great deeds, to believe that together with god's help we can and we will resolve the problems that confront us. for each of us serving here today, i believe it's our duty to arise to the immediate challenge kane resolve the

problems which now confront us. it will take all of us uniting behind a common purpose that above all else we must first restore and strengthen our fiscal security, articulate a clear vision, set specific goals, and make the tough decisions needed to bring our nation out of debt and preserve prosperity and opportunity for future generations. i am here today to commit to hoosiers, to my colleagues, to my children and grandchildren, to all our nation's children and grandchildren, that i will not turn my back on our economic dangers or seek the false safety of political denial. i am standing here today to find solutions, to make the hard decisions, and leave behind a country that is stronger and more fiscally secure for future generations. this crisis is not insurmountable. we can overcome it by doing what

great generations before us have done, mustering our will to do what's right. if we do, i know that america's greatest days are not behind us, but still lie ahead. mr. president, i yield the floor. >> here's a look at our primetime skeed eurohere on c-span2. >> with current federal spending expiring friday, the house and senate are working on another short term spending measure to last through april.

>> host: republican of okay was elected in november with 62% of the vote, budget committee member represents the 5th district of oklahoma. thank you for being here. let's begin with this headline in "washington post". it says here that marco rubio republican of florida and 150 republicans are not going to vote for this three week extension. are you going to vote? >> guest: still talking that through.

one more meeting with the final details. a lot of frustration in the republican conference. this is not a simple vote, it's the budget of the united states. it's frustrating. as freshman, it's a problem that started in the last session when last year there was no budget done. a new congress has walked in, and there's no budget to run the country. there's a debt ceiling coming up, the 2012 budget that's more strategic coming up, and at the same time, we have to deal with the 2011 budget when we're six months through it. yes, there's a lot of conversation about where does this go, why are we doing it, how do we get this resolved? we sent a budget from the house over to the senator. they turned it down, created their own, and it was turned down. >> host: what makes you vote yes for this three week extension? >> guest: i think i need to find a way that someone is saying we're getting to the end of this.

we're not just going to continue to do two weeks, three weeks, four weeks, and trickle this along. the big issues are the fallacies being passed, but there are also issues like defense spending, fbi, they can't move forward on things, and the continuing resolution, some people know and others not, during a continuing resolution, you cannot make major policy changes. you are stuck. in 2009 when the budget was passed is what defense has to do right now. they cannot make new plans, new strategies. if they are phasing a system out, they are stuck during the continuing resolution. we have to get this resolved so the government is not stuck in a holding pattern. >> host: there's meetings today. >> guest: i do. meetings after i walk out of here. >> host: who are you meeting with? >> the entire republican congress, and what i'm looking for, what's the plan from here. >> host: from leadership, your republican leaders? >> guest: yes. we have to hear what's the plan

from here, where with reheads, what's the next step, and all the different policies put in place is not just social issues, but the financial issues. there's a lot of things in there saying here's way to cut back spending that's practical. well, where are they? >> host: where -- it sounds like you're leaning no. is that fair to say? >> guest: no, i'm listening, taking in all the information. >> host: are you will willing to have the government shut down if you don't have the confidence from the republican leader that you're near the end? >> guest: what's funny about that is i heard the comment about government shut down and it's resinating from outside. the democrats are talking about it, the republicans are talking about passing something to keep the government going. my desire is to keep us at a funding level, but continue to cut spending. we sent over one piece already. the senate sat on it, and we sat over a second piece with a short

continuing resolution. it's like the senate is taunting the house say please we want it to shut down because they can say the mean republicans shut the government down. that's not what we're trying to do. that's why the continuing resolution came up the first and second time, and we want to find a way to fund the government to keep going and also continue to cut spending. we want to cut the $61 billion, $2 billion a week. so far that's what we've done the the first continuing resolution cut 2 billion the first and second week. the third week cuts $2 billion as well. we just can't keep trickling along. >> host: the senates say we took a vote, what the senator put forth, it's about $51 billion in cuts. there was a vote on what house republicans put on the floor about $61 billion in cuts, and we didn't get to 60 either way.

we are willing to compromise, are you willing to compromise? >> guest: i haven't seen the compromise yet. their proposal was actually $4.7 billion was the way it was scored. it was not $51 billion. president used the halfway until it was scored. it was not even $5 billion. we've cut more in three weeks than they were for six months. there's a big difference on that. the way this works is we put a bill out, proposed it, pass it, send it to them. they do the same and send it back. they have yet to send one back. there was one put up, couldn't pass it, and another one and couldn't pass it. we sent you one already, we want one back. it's like tennis. we vollied over the net. >> host: there's willingness to compromise. >> guest: yes, we have yet to have a counteroffer. >> host: i want to show the

"washington post" poll. woes among division. overall, do you think a partial shut down of the government would be a bad thing. 63% said yes. are you concerned about the ramifications of the whole debate shows a sweeping indicator of dissatisfaction with washington, just 26% of americans are on the mystic about the system of government and how it works. >> guest: i agree. as an incoming freshman, i see that 100%. when i walked in three months ago, my frustration was, and i've never run for politics before, i'm from the outside and got into washington, how can we make this work? the conversation here is how do we get political points and rather than getting things done. we are waiting to get things done, but they just talk about it. in fact, for the fest piece it was weeks before they took it up and had a debate. yes, we are waiting to say, okay, senate, let's get things

done. we've done our part, so now it's time to respond. >> host: do you think it it was going to be easier when you came here? >> guest: no, no i didn't. these issues are hard. first there's 435 members. if you get them all to agree on anything, you are doing well, but then you deal with another body with the senate and the president as well. the good thing about that is our government and our constitutional system was set up to move slow. we're not set up to move fast. that's the way we're designed so people think things through and have feedback on it. that's the good thing. the struggle is when there's not a budget from last year, trying to do one in the middle of the year, it makes it tougher. we are not set up to do things in two day, but two months. >> host: others expressed frustration they they are not so-called writers on the continuing resolution. that's language that would

defund the national public broadcasting station for example or issues related to abortion. where are you on those, and would you like to see those things added? >> guest: i would like to look at everything, not just those two thing. there are a lot of things to look at, but that's on my list as well. continuing resolution, budget year to come, we'll wait and see. >> host: you're open to the options? >> guest: i am. what is the next step on it because some of these things are better if we take them down 75% of the first year, 25% eventually and give people time to prepare. we are dealing with the spending for six months. cutting this program and it's going away? no, it's just going away for six months and how does that function and what does that do to staff and employees. those things have to be considered. >> host: michael from new york, democratic line, welcome to the conversation, michael.

go ahead. >> caller: you know something? you and the tea party and the right wing conservatives are a bunch of wacko. take last year's budget, run it through october 1st, take charlie coke and the coke brothers, take citizens united, and start a public funding system so everyone can get elected. you guys are going to send this country back into bankruptcy. >> host: leaving it there. a lot there, michael. starting with the tea party. did you get support? >> guest: no, in oklahoma there's no tea party candidatings. i know in other states and region that happened. in oklahoma, there was a functioning tea party and great people there, but they are focused on issues and there's no candidates. >> host: okay. did you get support from those that were in favor of the tea party movement? >> guest: sure. people that that group voted for and against me.

like i said, there was no endorsement, so i couldn't tell you how they voted in the end. >> host: will you join the tea party caucus or not something you need to do? >> guest: no. that's not the origins i'm coming out of. >> guest: david, a republican from jirs, you're next. >> caller: curious. i keep hearing about tightening the belt and budget and everything, but nobody says anything about the oil companies in america, tightening their belts. if we went back -- well, not back to, but if we went to a flat tax, no tax breaks, no tax shelters, everybody pays 10%, that would help our economy, help the american family, and let big business pay what they should pay. >> host: congressman? >> guest: sure. here's one the big issues we deal with on that. people look at the oil companies and say, okay, they make a lot of money. two things to remember on

thatment one is we are dealing with an energy crunch. people look at the oil companies and say, gosh, they are making record prices and prices are going up, it's all on them. there's a supply issue with the middle east. we are still dealing with the same issue of 1977, and that is we are very dependent of energy from other countries. if we have energy from our own country and can manage that, it's different for pricing and fluxuations over seas dealing with same issues from the carter administrations would not be occurring. people are talking about adc's, that is the ability for them to write off their business expenses. that is the same as every other company. now, people look at that and say the idc's for oil companies are larger than small business. they are. these companies are larger than a small business. they are the same, operating

expenses written off. people pick on that. if they take those away, that raises the cost of gas again. this is not the time to raise the price of gas by far. we need an energy policy that i've heard for my entire life. people say we need a national energy policy. i laugh with when i got here because we're still dealing with that. when will we do that. >> host: another michael from georgia on the democratic line. >> caller: how are you doing? >> guest: very well, good morning. >> caller: all right. i have two questions i wanted to ask you. want first one is did you vote to not sponsor the fundamental -- >> guest: i'm sorry reading as fundamental? >> caller: yes. >> guest: i'll look and check the votes. there were educational votes that came up. we didn't know it was 126 votes. >> caller: i know that the republican made it fair so that

ain't -- my second last question is did you vote to continue to pay for the nascar? >> guest: that was a funny vote. the democrats proposed an amendment to prohibit any of the military from advertising for nascar, and so i kind of responded and thought, well, why a shot at nascar, we advertise in movies, magazines, it's a place for patriotic americans. it wasn't defunding nascar, but defunding advertising at a nascar event. it was honestly a cheap shot at anyone who follows nascar that anyone in the military shouldn't view nascar events. it's a group of patriotic americans, and i don't see an issue with that. >> host: tom, republican from new york. good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> guest: good morning.

>> caller: i work for the wealth, and it seems that in the last four or five years, their percentages of disposable income is absolutely absurd, and you know, i mean, i'm a conservative all my life, but i can't agree to these different tax rate. if you are wealth and you don't need the tax cut, you get it. if you're poor and you do need it, well, there's a tax cut, but i mean, it just seems there is just too much of a disparity here, and i think you'd agree that this whole tax system needs an overhaul of some kind. >> guest: absolutely agree. >> host: congressman? >> guest: absolutely agree. we need a major overhaul of the tax structure. we did it in the 1980s. we'll well overdue to do that again. the nature of government is to make things complex. you make it simple, it gets

harder. right now the tax code is nine times longer than the bible. it's a complicated mess. >> guest: what did you think about the bipartisan committee that president obama put together? they want to simplify the tax code as well. did you like it? >> guest: i agree, we need to simplify the tax code, take a look at making this thing flatter, simpler, fewer compensatory compensatory exemptions on it. most the tax things in there, exemptions are favors pass the on different companyings. people can't get money coming to them, they get a cut in the tax code equivalent to getting more money on it. >> host: you'd be willing to give up the mortgage interest deductions, those sort of things in order to lower their tax rates? >> guest: that's interesting to look at. our country runs on inexpensive energy. if we don't have inexpensive

energy and construction in ongoing places, it's difficult for the country to run and function. we have to continue to have growth in what's happening in new development both commercially and residentially. that's where you see the dramatic slow down. looking back when the economy dropped, there was a smash in the housing market, purchasing and construction slowed down, home values slowed, and at the same time there was gas up to $4 a gallon. we haven't had both at the same time in a very long time, and so we have this sudden drop in everything, food prices go up, travel prices, everything accelerates on it with high energy costs and low construction costs, and that's the unemployment that stair steps down from there. >> host: an independent in massachusetts, welcome. >> caller: hello, yes. i want to tell the congressman we can't fix this problem until we fix what caused it, and that is the deregulation which

caused -- which made wall street cause the housing crisis. >> guest: deregulation in what area? >> caller: wall street deregulation and all those areas. they just buying us out. next is the oil crisis, gas prices. lower the speed limit to 55 miles per hour and enforce it and a barrel of oil goes down to $35. everything will get cheaper, inflation goes away, food prices go down, and you people just don't want address the causes of these things. >> host: couple issues there. >> guest: dpunny to hear you people on this, and you people in politics. i laugh and said i've been here two and a half months. i'm an outsider walking in, one who's never been in politics before. there's 37us like that. two months ago i was a normal

citizen, and now i'm you people. that's a normal transcigs. with the speed limit, we are going to try to mandate speed limits again, that's the federal government reaching in every state. we need to allow the states to determine what's best on their roads and such. i do understand that. honestly you get the same cost savings from the lowering the speed limit by changing stop signs to yield signs. there are ways you can tinker around the issues. the real issue is the supply issue. we have issues with getting it out of the ground, refine the and getting it inexpensive. i like natural gas, it's a great fuel, an american fuel, a lot of the vehicles can be shifted over to it quickly. it is a free market solution. honestly if you drive through oklahoma city, there's signs up for natural gas stations that show $1.39. that's a big difference. as that continues on, people say

where can i buy a vehicle that runs on $1.39 gas and start making the shift. that's a good thing. we need other options for fuel. >> host: long view, texas -- >> congressman sits on the budget committee, and earlier, they approved the sixth extension to fund the government until april 8. the measure passed 271-158. the senate still needs to pass legislation by friday to avoid a government shut down. tomorrow in the u.s. house, the chamber takes up a bill that ends federal mortgage assistance programs. you can follow the house live on c-span. on washington journal tomorrow, looking at u.s. preparedness for both manmade and natural disasters.