the skills he needs. not far away, at the putnam bank, one after another small business leaders tell me they could create more jobs with more certainty and consistency in government action. in hartford,e capital, we celebrated job corps graduating class. kids who dropped out and came back through training and determining. and in bridgeport, unemployed older workers crowding the workplace, a highly successful job training center, they're there and all around our state because they and people simply want work. at the fuel cell energy corporation, r. daniel barter, the president of this cutting-edge green energy manufacturer, plans to expand his workforce, but he needs to

know that he can continue to count on the renewable energy tax credit and workers with the right skills. and in waterbury at a meeting hosted by joe rayley, president of atlantic steel, small business manufacturers describe again and again how they are facing unfair competition from companies in countries breaking the rules. at crescent manufacturing in burlington, steve wilson demonstrates the destructive consequences of chinese currency manipulation when they effectively devalue their money and subsidize the exports of their exports through devaluing their money and devaluing the prices of their products, undercutting connecticut-made goods and jobs. the people of connecticut don't need washington to tell them what's wrong. they need help in making it

right. they want job creation to be the priority in washington just like it is in connecticut. they're frustrated because washington seems beholden not to them, but to some of the personal and financial gamblers who made the economy their own personal casino and put millions of americans out of work and out of their homes. and on main street, small businesses struggle to get started. ongoing businesses fade roadblocks -- face roadblocks when they try to grow. they can't get capital, credit or loans. they can't find workers with the skills they need. they face unfair trade practices from foreign governments promoting the products of their manufacturers. taxpayers are angry for good reason, not just for themselves but for their children and the growing danger to the american dream. the great fear that they will be the first generation to leave a

lesser america to the next and trillions in unpaid bills. a new report from the government accounting office documents what we instinctively have known, waste and duplication in government cost taxpayers billions of dollars every year. early estimates say between $100 billion and $200 billion. and experts say we could save tens of billions of dollars by aggressively prosecuting health care, waste and abuse, just as we saved millions of dollars going after health care fraud when i was attorney general. the people of connecticut, indeed of america, will not tolerate and should not tolerate billions in waste and duplication. it must be cut. that's where we should focus. not on the thoughtless slashing of essential services that provide a safety net for our

most vulnerable citizens. when we cut, let's be smart about it. the people of connecticut are sick of the special breaks and tax loopholes that have been protected for far too long, tax breaks to companies that send jobs overseas, subsidies to huge oil and gas interests; some of them the most profitable companies in the history of the planet. and giveaways to giant agribusinesses, many given tax dollars not to grow anything. shutting down those loopholes and special breaks and sweetheart deals will take a fight, but the people of connecticut and the country are ready for that fight, and so am i. we must make that fight. and it will require support for the prosecutors and enforcers who prevent and go after waste,

abuse and lawbreaking. cutting enforcement funds may make appealing political sound bites until we realize that real-world lawlessness has real-world consequences. consistent, sreus russ enforcement is -- consistent, vigorous enforcement is critical. good cops on the beat make a difference. these steps, responsible cuts in spending, clear rules and consistent, rigorous enforcement are absolutely necessary to help our economy grow again. but they are not alone enough to create jobs. washington must provide tools and remove obstacles to the people and small businesses who are the real job creators. we have to make "made in connecticut" and "made in america" mean something again. we must invest more. we must make more. we must invent more right here in the united states.

step number one, we must invest more. we must invest in infrastructure and education, in roads, transmission lines and airports, in everything from our grade schools to our community college and to job training programs. in new haven is just one example cutting-edge beau technologies are taking -- biotechnologies are taking root and growing thaofrpbgz a downtown project where road rebuilding are necessary for dynamic growth instead of thoughtless threats to slash downtown transportation grants, we should be encouraging this promising development. in coming weeks i will introduce new legislation that will help small businesses to set aside money to invest and reinvest in business. step two, making more means more manufacturing and fair trade. strengthening buy america requirements to ensure that our tax dollars are creating jobs

here, not abroad. chinese currency manipulation is costing us jobs and undermining our businesses, and it must be stopped. and we need stronger enforcement of laws to prevent foreign export subsidies and intellectual property theft. third, to invent more. the renewable energy tax credits and other incentives which encourage businesses to create and produce green-energy solutions should be made permanent. the r&d tax credit which creates incentives to invest in research should be extended indefinitely and expanded. the people of connecticut want bipartisan efforts to achieve job creation and economic growth. they want partnerships among business, labor, and education. and they want bipartisan efforts to help our veterans so that after those veterans serve our country, they return to a

paycheck instead of an unemployment line. and that is why in coming weeks i will introduce to help secure job opportunities for our veterans and provide training, health care, higher education and more. as i travel across the state of connecticut, i listen to people like the squatreetos, their business in south windsor, an immigrant from italy, this woman started making pasta in her kitchen and grew it into a successful small business. this year thanks to smart targeted tax incentives, carla's financial recipe includes investing in fuel cell -- from the fuel cell energy corporation in torrington to provide low-cost energy for most of her company's needs. this cleaner, greener energy

source will lower their energy bills and allow them to hire more people and create more connecticut jobs. finally, the people of connecticut sent me here to fight for them, to fight for jobs and justice, to fight against the capital it caters to powerful special interests. the best moments of my career have been when we fought and won battles for ordinary people, for skyler austin and others when their health insurance companies wrongly denied them medically necessary, sometimes lifesaving treatment, for business people like kathy plag when general motors sought wrongfully and unfairly to shut down her car dealership alderman motors. or terry, a marine like many veterans, who returned from iraq or other military service only to be denied proper treatment

from our own government. i'm here because the people of connecticut know me as a fighter. and in the challenging time again, i will fulfill that trust by listening to them and working for them and fighting for them. as we gather today, young americans are serving and sack tpaoeugs at home and ab-- sacrificing at home and abroad. like all of you, i am grateful to them every day, and to all the veterans who have served and sacrificed before them, for giving us the freedoms we enjoy every day, including the extraordinary opportunity to speak today in this historic chamber and participate in the greatest democracy in the greatest nation the world has ever known. thank you, mr. president.

i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the roll. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: thank you. mr. president, i wanted to gorks while we're waiting for senators to come to the floor, just put a couple of other, i think, very important quotations or quotes or comments from very well-respected organizations about the importance of this bill. i again appreciate the 84 members of the senate that voted "yes" to bring this bill to the floor because those 84 members of the senate understand that you can't close budget gaps and reduce deficits without growing the economy. and those 84 members really understand that in order to grow the economy, helping government create the atmosphere for the private sector to grow is

absolutely imperative. and if we would spend a little less, you know, hot air around here and a little more illuminating discussion, i think the benefits of programs like this that are -- it's actually a federal program, but it's a federal program that establishes a partnership with the private sector, that's exkiting and that works and that helps to -- that's exciting and that works and to helps to create jobs. the biodistrict in new orleans that was formed after katrina, sent a document to the office that said, in reference to the temporary extensions of this program, they say, "these repeated temporary extensions have wreaked havoc on agencies' ability to make strategic decisions in regard to the programs. the small business technology council says, not only does this program spur technological innovation and entrepreneurship, it helps create high-tech jobs and does so without increasing federal spending."

the national small business association, another strong supporter, said, "the uncertain future of the program has deterred potential participants and investors." mr. president, we don't want to deter anyone. we don't want to discourage anyone from making that investment or that step to create that next tbhais could create not just a handful of jobs but dozens, hundreds and potentially thousands. that's why president obama is talking about, and i support his efforts, to outinnovate and outcompete, to fight our way out of this recession. this bill -- senator snowe and i migh-- might be a relatively sml bill from a small agency. but it contains the kind of power to create the kind of jobs that people in your home state and my state and in maine and other places want to see us creating with no -- virtually no additional cost to the federal government, because we're simply

setting aside a slightly larger portion of research and development moneys already budgeted for cutting-edge research and development and targeting those to small businesses that have proven themselves to produce excellent innovations, technology, and in fact have a disproportionate share of high-impact patents. the national venture capital association says, "at a time when our country needs to build new businesses, the venture capital industry believes the best use of government dollars is to leverage public-private partnerships." that's what this does. i know there are a few people around this place that don't think the federal government can do anything right. i'm not one of them. i actually think the federal government can do lots of things right. yes, we make mistakes. yes, there's money wasted. yes, there's duplication. and, yes, sometimes there's even fraud. but programs like this need to

be reauthorized. we've been debating now for six years whether this program should be authorized or not. i mean, if it takes us six years to reauthorize one of the best programs in the federal government, you wonder how long it's going to take us to reauthorize some of those that are not as well-run and to gives the opportunity to make them run better, instead of just running around, throwing up your hands saying nothing ever works, everything in washington is broken, this program is not and it deserves to be reauthorized. according to the u.s. chamber of commerce, the sbir program serves as an important avenue by which agencies harness the creativity and ingenuity of small business to meet specific research and development needs of the federal government. and might i say, that they may be needs of the federal government, like we need a way to cool our tanks in afghanistan and iraq because our tanks are

operating in temperatures that are excessive. that was a real need of the defense department. they sent out basically an s.o.s., can anybody come up with a better way? we will, not only did we come up with a better way in a radiator out of technology that we actually developed in louisiana, but, mr. president, as you know, these technologies don't stay in the department of defense. once they go out to be used in our tanks helping keep our war fighters safe, helping keep our war fighters save and helping win the wars we send hem to fitted, this technology can be deployed in the racing car industry or in detroit or in some of our other car manufacturing. so while it is launched by federal scientists and inventors and people who are good employees and good, solid americans looking for a better way, it finds its way out into the general public for all of our benefit. let me just say two more -- and i see the senator from kentucky.

the biotechnology industry organization says, "this bill represents a balanced approach to ensure that america's most innovative small businesses can access existing incentives to grow jobs by commercializing new discoveries." and finally, from the university of california, the connect group says, "because acquiring funding through traditional lending sources continues to prove difficult in today's tight credit market, sbir and sttr grants provide tech start-up companies another viable chance to compete for early-stage funding. and, yes, there are many venture capitalists out there. there are always savvy investors looking for the next best thing. but before they're invented, there's got to be somebody betting on the human capital in our federal agencies, the human

capital, in our academic institutions and the human capital in small businesses that take the risk and believe they can invent that next-best thing. so this financing is early. it is high-risk. not every sbir grant works, but according to the man who gave us the review of this program, if every one of these inventions works, you're not running the program correctly. this program is for earlly -- before it's clear whether it's going to work -- the chance to get it to woncht but the up side is so great, when one or more -- and we've got hundreds of companies that have sort of broken owvment so i see the senator from kentucky. and i'll rest my discussion here. i do want to put some other things in the record. but to keep the debate moving forward, i think this would be a good time to proceed, senator. mr. paul: 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: with that -- without objection, the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. paul, proposes an amendment numbered 199. mr. paul: i ask that the reading of the amendment be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. paul: this amendment would cut $200 billion in spending. earlier this morning we voted nearly unanimously in this body to cut 5% from our legislative budgets. like so much in washington, it sound good, and i voted for t but 5% of our legislative budgets will be a few million dollars. we have a deficit this year of $1.65 trillion. we are awash in debt. it is america's number-one

problem. even the administration has said that our national debt is a number-one threat to our national security at this point. we have to get our fiscal house in order. voting to cut our own budgets by 5% is wonderful. it's a first step, but it is aboutst 1 million, a couple millions. it won't put a debt in the overall problem. now, if we were really concerned as a body about our deficit, we could cut the entire budget by 5%. it's gone up by 25% in the last couple years. if we were to cut our entire budget by 5%, it coul would be t $200 billion. that's what i'm proposing, a $200 billion cut in spending. are we bold enough? will we do it? if we don't do it, what happens? my fear is if we do not have significant cuts in federal spending that ultimately in the

next few years we could have a debt crisis. this amendment will give us a chance, will give the members of this body a chance to say, are you serious? are you serious about addressing the debt problem or do you only want to do token things like cutting our legislative budgets 5%? it's a good start, but it's not enough. and this was actually only a sense of the senate resolution, so we really didn't cut our budgets by 5%. we said we might be in favor of that. this would be a real cut of $200 billion. i hope the senate will support it. thank you, and i yield back my time. mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so i can call up senate amendment 207 and ask for its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will report.

the clerk: the senator from vermont, mr. sang derks proposes amendment numbered 207. mr. sanders: mr. president, this amendment is identical to the social security protection act that i introduced yesterday with senators mikulski, boxer, sherrod brown, blumenthal, akaka, whitehouse, begich and lautenberg. this legislation halls the strong support of the national committee to preserve social security and medicare, the american med reagan administration of government employees, the paralyzed veterans of america, the military order of the purple heart, and the jewish veterans of america, among others. mr. president, social security is the most successful and reliable federal program in our nation's history. for 75 years, through good times

and bad, when the economy was strong and when the economy was weak, social security has paid out every nickel owed to every eligible american. and while we take that for granted, that in fact is an extraordinary accomplishment, and it is all done at very modest administrative cost. social security has been enormously successful in accomplishing exactly what its founders hoped to accomplish. before president roosevelt signed the social security act into law in august of 1935, approximately half of our senior citizens lived in poverty. before social security, about half of our seniors lived in poverty. today fewer than 10% of seniors live in poverty. that number is too great, but it

is a significant improvement over what occurred before the establishment of social security. mr. president, what we should be very clear about is that given the volatility of today's economy, there is a great deal of anxiety among the american people about whether or not they are going to be able to retire with dignity. at a time when millions of americans have seen the value of their private sector retirement plans plummet, at a time when major corporations have significantly cut back on the defined benefit pension plan and 401(k) contributions, it makes no sense to me that anybody in this chamber would contemplate dismantldismantling the one rett program that has been there for

75 years and has worked for 75 years. mr. president, there was an interesting article in "usa today" yesterday, and this is just a couple of the facts that they threw out in yesterday's "usa today." this is what they say. "the percentage of workers who are not at all confident about saving enough money for a comfortable retirement reached 27% in 2011 compared with 22% just last year." significant increase in a one-year period. "when combined with those who said they are not too confident, the total reaches 50% of workers." so we're in a situation, according to "usa today," where almost 50% of american workers lack confidence about whether or not they're going to have enough money to retire with dignity. there's another point that the article makes. this is what tha they say.

"quite a few workers virtually have no savings or investments. in 2011, 29% said they have less than $1,000". you're not going to go too far in your retirement. 56% said their savings and investments excluding their home value totals less than $25,000. the bottom line is that for a variety of reasons -- a, the wall street collapse of a few years ago, the fact that wages for millions of workers have not kept up with inflation -- a significant part of our older workforce today is extremely worried about what happens to them when they retire. and within that context that there are people in the congress who would want to start dismantling the one program that has, without fail, been there for 75 years makes no sense to me at all.

mr. president, let me also make another point, and i think it's important to make this point 24 hours a day because we hear so much misinformation coming to us from pundits and from the media and from members of congress. so let me be very clear. this country has a very serious national debt problem and a very serious deficit problem. we just heard about that. $1.6 trillion deficit, that is serious business. and in my view, congress has got to be aggressive to address that issue. but here is the point: social security has not contributed one nickel to the federal deficit or the national debt. not one penny. so when you hear people saying, oh, we have a serious deficit problem. therefore, we've got to cut benefits in social security or raise the retirement age, what they're saying makes no sense at

all. these are two very separate issues. in fact, social security currently has a $2.6 trillion surplus. let me repeat that. social security has a $2.6 trillion surplus that is projected to grow to $4.2 trillion in 2023. in 1983, when we look back a little bit, it turns out that social security did face a crisis. at that point in 1983, if the congress and then-president reagan did not act, social security was projected to run out of necessary funding in six months. six months. that is a crisis. as a result of the discussions and negotiations that a committee put together by the president and tip o'neill, et cetera, a resolution was reached

to that problem, and the congress overwhelmingly voted for it. today is not 1983. today the social security administration has estimated that social security will be able to pay out 100% of promised benefits to every eligible recipient for the next 26 years. now, mr. president, this country does face a whole lot of crises. unemployment is off the wall, child poverty is too high, serious deficit problem. we've got two wars. we're worried about global warming. we've got a lot of problems. but it seems to me to be totally absurd that people say, oh, my tkpw-dness we've got to cut social security because it can only pay out benefits for the next 26 years. go to minnesota and ask a businessperson and say if you can pay out all you owe for the next 26 years, do you think it would be a crisis, people would

be shaking their heads. i can guarantee after those 26 years if nothing is done -- and i think something should be done -- social security will be able to fund about 78% of promised benefits. so, mr. president, it seems to me that given the enormous importance of social security, not only to the elderly but to people with disabilities, the people who are widows and orphans who have lost the income that a breadwinner had brought into the family, we have got to do everything that we can to protect social security. we have got to make it very, very clear that social security today is strong, can pay out every benefit for 26 years, has not contributed one nickel to the deficit. and that is the amendment that i will be bringing up as soon as i possibly can.

and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. ms. landrieu: would the senator yield for a question? mr. sanders: i would. ms. landrieu: would the senator explain -- and i think that he knows this because he's quite an expert on this program, and i agree 100% with his views that he has just expressed -- what is the basic average social security income that a person might receive? i understand it's somewhere between $7,000 and $10,000 a year. mr. sanders: i think it's a hair higher than that. i think it's about $14,000 a year. but the point is, i would say to the senator from louisiana, there are millions of senators for whom that is either all or almost all of their income. that's it. that's it. and in this day and age, that's the average. so your point is there are certainly people below the average. ms. landrieu: i ask the senator that because it really is striking to me that some members on the other side of the aisle will come and argue that programs like this should be

slated for cuts and reductions. and yet, fail to vote favorably to raise slightly the income tax on families making over $1 million a year in annual income. i, frankly, senator, don't understand that. i'm not sure people listening to this understand it. could you enlighten us? mr. sanders: here's the story. i agree with you, and i find it hard to understand that there are people who get up here -- and we hear the speeches every day. they say we have a serious deficit crisis. it is unfair to leave that burden to our kids and our grandchildren. we agree with that. and we say, okay, let's address the deficit crisis, but let's do it in a way that is not on the backs of the sick, the elderly, the children, the most vulnerable people in this country. so what the senator from louisiana is pointing out, that

in the last number of years what we have seen is that the people on top have been doing very, very well. the top 1% now earns about 23% of all income, which is more than the bottom 50%. the effective tax rate for the very wealthiest people in this country is about 16%, which is the lowest in recent history. and we have given huge amounts of tax breaks in recent years to these very same people. so what i think the senator from louisiana saying, and i agree with her, is if we are going to go forward with deficit reduction, let's do it in a way that calls for shared sacrifice. the senator from louisiana knows that h.r. 1, the republican house-passed bill, would throw over 200,000 kids off of head start. millions of students who are trying to get through college would either get lower pell grants or no pell grants at all.

it is an attack, a devastating attack, a cruel attack against some of the most vulnerable people in this country. they're cutting back on the women, infant and children nutrition program. you got low-income women now, we're trying to make sure they don't give birth to low-weight babies cut back on that program. but when we say millionaires who are doing phenomenally well might be asked to pay a little bit more in taxes, my word, we have none of that at aufplt the issue is -- none of that at all. the issue is shared sacrifice. don't balance that on the backs of the weak and vulnerable. ms. landrieu: i thank the senator from vermont for that eloquent description and very accurate description of the situation that we're in. i see the senator from oklahoma that is here for an amendment. we want to keep these amendments

discussed, so i thank the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: my planned time to introduce those amendments is 3:30. i'll do that. did i want to engage some of the comments of the senator from vermont. as somebody who was on the deficit commission and looking at that, the first presumption is making social security solvent was our goal. making it solvent for 75 years. the flaw in the argument given by my colleague from vermont is the assumption that the i.o.u. at the treasury for social security is good. it's good as long as people will loan us money. it's not any good if they won't. and so when people say why fix social security, we can fix social security by taking the very haircut from the people the senator from vermont just described and markedly lessening the benefits, even though they continue to pay into social security, that they'll receive.

the billionaires and the millionaires. we can do that. but if in fact we don't send a signal to the international financial community on the largest expenditure we have that we're going to make it solvent, then we won't be in the market and available and have the ability to borrow the $2.8 trillion. one other thing that i would disagree on, the social security trust fund trustees have said social security's running a net deficit this last year, will run one this year and from every year forward in terms of what comes in versus what goes out. there's no question i want to keep our commitment, and nobody's talking about eliminating benefits except to the very rich in this country in terms of social security. as a matter of fact, the deficit commission raised the benefits in social security for the poorest in this country. so we actually did the opposite of what the senator claims that republicans might want to do.

what we have to do is to make sure social security is viable for the future. and having looked at every aspect of social security, i can tell you if we're not able to borrow the $2.6 trillion, the benefits won't be there. and so although the money has been stolen, there's no trust fund. there's no money there. if you read what the head of the o.m.b. said in 1999, he said it's not there. so what's really happening in social security? congresses under both republican and democrat control, both republican and democrat presidents, presidencies have stolen money from social security and spent it. the money's gone. it's been used for another purpose. so there's two ways of solving that. one is to make social skaourtd

skaourtd -- social security the priority and not fund anything but that until we get it paid back. or actually fund that $2.6 trillion by going to the debt market, which we will go every year from now forward under the present plan of social security. the rate of taxes between now and 2035 that will be taxed will rise from $106,000 now to $168,000 between now and then. that is a 60% increase in the taxes on the wealthy that is planned and programmed right now. even with that, social security will run a deficit every year. every year now forward. even with the $2.8 trillion, it still is in a negative cash flow. so to deny the fact, if we don't want to fix social security, then what we're saying is we don't want to fix it for our children's children or our children. and i'd like to finish my point.

it's not about taking something away except from the very wealthy. the fix from the deficit commission. that's what it did. we also added back, is when you reach 80 -- and a lot of people may be running out of their combination of what their retirement was plus their social security -- we give another little bump. so what the deficit commission did was significantly increase the viability for social security for the next 75 years. and there is no -- the social security trustees know we have to do this. everybody knows we have to do this. and the question is: does this congress owe that $2.8 trillion back to the social? yes. but where do we get the money to repay it? and unless we can calm the international financial markets down where we make major change not just in social security. in discretionary spending, $50 billion out of the pentagon,

modifying medicare where we get the fraud, waste and abuse out of medicare, unless we do those things, we're not going to be able to borrow the money. one final fact and then i'll yield back to my chairman because i have a meeting -- my colleague, i have a meeting to go to. so far in the last five months who do you think has bought our bonds to finance the deficit? we ran a $223 billion deficit the month of february. who borrowed? was it the chinese? who is the biggest buyer? you know who the biggest buyer was? the federal reserve bought 70% of the bonds that we put on the market. what are they doing? they're debasing our currency and creating future inflation, which will hurt the very people who are going to be on social security, because the cost of living index will never truly keep up with the real cost of inflation. and all of us have gotten

letters from our constituents wondering why there was no cola. right? we know why there was no cola. but when you look at food and transportation costs and what they've done over the last three years, that's the thing that's important to seniors. their health care costs, their housing costs, their food costs. yet, we have a cola system that says we're not going to recognize that. so if in fact w -- so if in fact we get into a hyperinflation system because the federal reserve is buying the bonds because nobody else will buy them, right now 70% -- 30% are bought in the market. final point: the largest bond trader in the world, pimco, last week sold every government -- u.s. government bond they have. you know why? they expect the price of the bond to go down because they expect the interest rate to go up. what happens to us if we don't fix social security, if the

interest rates are going to be a lot higher on our debt? and if they're a lot higher and we owe $14 trillion, for every 1% increase in the cost of borrowing we have, it adds to our deficit $140 billion. so i'm honored that senator sanders is adamant about making sure we keep our commitments, but in terms of cash flow, it isn't there. and we have to address that. and the only way we create the confidence is for the international financial community to say, you have a solvent program for 75 years. the largest segment of your expenditures, we get it we're going to lend you the money. if we don't get it we're going to pay for it anyway. i'd rather for us to be in a situation where we croasm there isn't one senator that want to take money away from needy seniors who are on social security. this is about making changes far

down the road that will affect people 30 years from now, 40 years from now, 50 years from now and it makes sense to do it. with that, i'd yield back to the senator from vemplet. mr. sanders: i thank my senator from oklahoma. let me make a few points, if i might. are you leaving? then we'll continue the dialogue. but i did want to make a few points. number one, the senator from oklahoma gave his understanding about what the debt commission would do to social security. i do not agree with his characterization of what that commission does. in point of fact, what the debt commission does do is cut retirement benefits by more than 35% for young workers entering the workforc workforce today. 35%. today's 20-year-old workers who retire at age 65 would see their benefits cut by 17%, if their

wages average $43,000 over their workinworking lives. by 30% if their wages average $69,000 over their working lives, and by 36% if their wages average $107,000 over their working lives, according to the social security chief actuary. the proposed cuts would apply to retirees, disabled works and their families -- disabled workers, and their families, children and their widowers. so it is not accurate to say that the debt commission left unscathed workers. quite the contrary. devastating cuts to young workers. but let us answer the question: if the senator from oklahoma wants to make sure that social security is financially solvent for the next 75 years, which i agree with, i want to see that

as we will, there is an easy way to do it there is a fair way to do it and it doesn't require slashing benefits for younger workers. when barack obama ran for president of the united states, he had a pretty good idea. i hope he still has that idea. when he said is that it is important to understand that right now somebody making $1 million a year pays the same amount of money into the social security trust fund as somebody who makes $106,000. if you lift that cap, start at $250,000, ask those people to contribute into the social security trust fund, you will go a very long way to solving the financial solve solvency of socl security. i think we should do that. that is certainly not what the deficit reduction commission did do. let me deal with this issue very briefly, i say to the senator from louisiana. we keep hearing that the social security trust fund just has a

bunch, a pile of worthless i.o.u.'s. the fact of the matter is that social security invests the surplus money it receives from workers, from the payroll tax, into u.s. government bonds, the same bonds that china or anybody else purchases. and these bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the united states government, and in our entire history -- and many of us want to make sure this continues -- the united states government has never defaulted on its debt obligations. so the point is to say that these are worthless i.o.u.'s. it is not dissimilar to say, gee, ghast? because we have a deep deficit and a deepality debt, we don't have any money to fund equipment for our soldiers who are out in the field in afghanistan or iraq. that's just worthless i.o. u.s.

we can't fund them. that's of course non nonsense. so do we've to address the deficit crisis? yes, we do. but my friend from oklahoma did not respond to the issue of why, if he and his friends are so concerned about our deficit crisis they vote year after year for hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country. they want to repeal the estate tax which would provide $1 trillion in tax breaks to the top .3%. with that, madam chair, i would yield the floor. ms. landrieu: mr. president, i think this has been a very -- the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: mr. president, i think this has been a very interesting debate on one of our amendments. but it really gets to the heart of the larger amendment here on capital hill and in the minds of all americans: how are we going to close this budget deficit, annual deficits,

and how are we going to substantially reduce the national debt? and i'm actually pleased that this discussion is taking place on this bill. i think it is appropriate because this bill's intention -- i--its underlying intention is o close that gap by creating jobs. there are some of us around here that actually believe and know -- although there are arguments on the other side; they're not very strong -- that you can accomplish that by cutting discretionary spending alone. the senator from kentucky, senator rand, was here arguing, sort of along that line that if we just accept his amendment -- which i will strongly object to -- and cut $200 billion out of the discretionary sides of the budget, that will get us, you know, in the direction we need to be. all that will do is eat the seed corn that this country needs to invest in important things like infrastructure and education to secure our future for our children and grandchildren.

and i want to remind senators that since 1982, nonmilitary discretionary spending -- i'm sorry, military discretionary spending has never dropped below 5.5% in any given year. so since 1982, nonmilitary discretionary spending has never dropped by more than 5.5% in any given year. senator paul's amendment, if adopted -- i doubt that it will be -- would propose a 50% reduction in the discretionary funding of education, energy, housing, and urban development. it is a drastic cut that would not support a foundation for growth and expansion. but, having said that, the other thing that is offensive to that approach is that there's never -- is that there never seems to

be a discussion of reduction of military bug bugs budgets when s to fraud and abuse. there are hundreds of thousands of dollars ma the military budget itself. then we have members who are trying to use the social security situation to argue for their point that the roof is falling in, the world is collapsing and we've got to cut back on social security. i want to add to what senator sanders said and clarify something. and i do respect senator coburn. no member has worked harder on the issue of deficit and debt deficit reduction. and i don't agree with everything, but i most certainly recognize effort when i see it. but when he says that the social security program is running a

deficit in terms of the money in and the money out, he's correct. the reason is because the federal government used the surplus over the last 15 or 20 years to fund other operations of the government, but the social security program itself is intact and when that money is paid back, it will have a surplus, as senator sanders said. so using the fact that it's running an annual deficit to argue for either cutting benefits to social security or cutting benefits from education or from health to pay for social security, is not a legitimate argument. again, social security is intact. it is actually running a surpl surplus. if they would have a surplus right now in the account -- they would have a surplus right now in the account if the money had remained in there. even in this discussion, we never, ever hear from the other side the willingness to raise

$50 billion, if we're trying to get to $100 billion in cuts -- some people want to get to $200 billion, but we'd like to close the gap anywhere from $10 billion to $100 billion -- if you wanted to get $50 billion by raising the income tax on people that make over $1 million, we could get half of that. but we never hear that. we just hear cut education, cut health care, cut homeland security, and it just -- i don't think the american people. i know we have to cut back on spending. i know we have to get our deficit under croavment and i know that our debt is high. but we're not going to achieve the goal of fiscal responsibility by just cutting discretionary spending on the domestic side, which means cutting head start, pell grants

and education and refusing -- refusing, add monthly refusing -- adamantly refusing to raise the income tax on people who make over $1 million. so this is going to be a very interesting debate over the next couple of weeks. it won't be settled on this bill, the sbir bill. but it will be settled in the next couple of weeks in this cofnlg i am looking forward to that gaivment i think the american people have to have an open and honest debate what is going on in this country. i am going to suggest the absence of a quorum. and others may come to the floor to speak on other subjects. i see senator grassley here, so let me take back the quorum and say senator grassley is free to speak on this or other matters. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i believe that there is an amendment been submitted that hopefully we will vote on called the mcconnell amendment which basically takes away from the environmental

protection agency the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. the environmental protection agency gets this power from a supreme court decision that said they had the authority to do that. that supreme court decision was about two or three years ago, came about 16 or 17 years after the 1990 clean air act was passed. those of us that were around here and debated and worked on the clean air act of 1990 don't remember any discussion about e.p.a. under that legislation having the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. but obviously the supreme court read the law different than we do. and so the environmental protection agency was told, you can regulate greenhouse gases. now, the environmental

protection agency didn't have to do that, but i suppose they're like regulators generally. you know, you kind of say, why do cows cows moo, why don't pis squeal, and why do regulators regulate? because that's what regulators do. so they are they're is going to issue a regulation if they've got the authority to do t the situation is this: if we don't take away the authority and in a sense overturn the supreme court case, e.p.a. is going to put us in a position to be economically uncompetitive with the rest of the world, particularly in manufacturing. when you increase the cost of energy by anywhere from $1,800 under one study to $3,000 under another study per household, you're very dramatically

increasing the cost of production of manufacturing. and if you're worried about too many manufacturing jobs going overseas, and we would let the e.p.a. follow through with what they want to do, increasing the cost of energy, we will lose all of our manufacturing overseas. and i haven't checked the record, but my guess is that a lot of our colleagues who are fighting the amendment and think it's not the right thing to do are the very people who are very shag grinned and -- chagrined and blaming american industry because jobs are going overseas. well, if we're going to pass a law that increases the cost of energy in this country, we're not going to have a level playing field with our

competitors overseas. and that's why i've always said if you want to regulate co2, you need to do it by international agreement. because if china's not on the same level playing field as we are, then we're going to lose our manufacturing to china and other countries. and it happens that china puts more co2 in the air than we do. and you take china and brazil and india and indonesia and they put a lot more co2 into the united states, or into the air than the united states does. and yet, somehow e.p.a. is of the view that the united states can cut down and solve the global warming problem. well, even the e.p.a. director has testified before committees of congress that if the rest of the world doesn't do it, we're not going to make a dent in co2 just by the united states doing it. but the argument goes that the

united states ought to show political leadership in this global economy we have. and if the united states would do something about co2, the rest of the world would follow along. but china's already said they weren't going to follow along. even japan that, signed on to the kyoto treaty, said that they wouldn't be involved in extending the kyoto treaty beyond 2012. and so, if the united states did it by itself, under the guise of being a world leader and setting an example and the rest of the world didn't do it, uncle sam would soon become uncle sucker, and we would find our manufacturing fleeing the united states to places where they don't have regulation on co2, where energy expenses aren't so high, and we'd lose the jobs accordingly.

and in a sense then, those people that have complained for decades about american manufacturing moving overseas would destine the united states to do more of it. and so i don't understand how people that are concerned about losing jobs overseas could be fighting the mcconnell amendment. because if you want to preserve jobs in america, our industry has to be competitive with the rest of the world. so i hope that the mcconnell amendment will be adopted. and i hope there will be some consistency in the reasoning of people who are concerned about the movement of jobs overseas, that it's inhrebgt wall disupon -- intellectual dishopb minority to support e.p.a. adopting regulations that's going to make america uncompetitive. there's nothing wrong with seeking a solution to the co2 problem.

there's nothing wrong with seeking, working on the issue of global warming. but it ought to be a level playing field for american industry so that we can be competitive with the rest of the world and not lose our industry, not lose our manufacturing overseas and not losing the jobs that are connected with it. but it often is the case that when either the courts or the congress delegates broad powers to the executive branch agencies, it seems like you give them an inch and they take a mile. and there are plenty of other examples as well, and i'll go into some of them in just a moment, of e.p.a. having some authority and moving very dramatically in a way that doesn't meet the commonsense test. and the work of e.p.a. on co2

is a perfect example of, first of all, they didn't have to do it just because the supreme court said that they could do it. but like regulators, they want to regulate. and they're moving ahead. i suppose they're moving ahead also because in 2009 the house of representatives passed a bill regulating co2, a bill that would have made the united states very uncompetitive, as i've stated the e.p.a. will. but the senate didn't take it up. and i think this administration is intent upon getting the job done. and so they go to e.p.a., issue a rule because congress isn't passing legislation. it's so typical of so many things that this administration's doing that because congress won't pass a law that we'll see what we can do by regulation. and so they're setting out to

accomplish a lot of change in public policy because congress won't act, but they're going to act anyway. and if they have the authority to do it, they'll probably get away with it. you know, avoid the will of the people, the will of the people expressed through the congress of the united states. the will of the people, congress doesn't do something, so can the administration ignore the will of the people? yes, they can if they want to. but they should not, in my judgment. and it brings me to not only the mcconnell amendment, but a lot of other things that we should be doing around here to prevent this outrages overreach -- outrageous overreach by not only the environmental protection agency but by a lot of other agencies as well. because when the e.p.a. and other agencies promulgate rules that go beyond the intent of congress and never should have passed, it undermines our system of checks and balances.

the american people can hold their congress accountable for passing laws that they don't like. however, when unelected bureaucrats implement policies with a force of law that they would not have been able to get through the congress, and that's without direct accountability when a regulator acts instead of congress acting, these policies that take effect do something that's very wrong when it's against the will of the paoefplt so i think it's -- will of the people. so i think it's time for congress to reassert its constitutional role. we try to do it from time to time on a process called the congressional veto. i recall last june the senator from alaska, senator murkowski, proposed doing that on these very rules affecting co-2.

we did not get a majority vote so it didn't happen. maybe in the new congress such an attempt would get a majority vote. and if we can't apply that congressional veto again to those rules, then that brings about the mcconnell amendment that i'm speaking about to take away the authority of e.p.a. to do it. but perhaps we can use the congressional veto on a lot of other issues yet that regulators are regulating maybe against the will of the people. and i hope we will. but there's one that senator paul has suggested that i ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to amendment 231. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: that would be the -- he uses the acronym,

r-e-i-n-s. it's called the regulation from the executive in need of scrutiny. and basically what it does -- and i applaud senator paul for his amendment, and i will surely vote for it -- and that is that we delegate authority to agencies in the executive branch of government to write regulations. if those regulations are considered -- quote, unquote -- major regulations, then they would have to be submitted to the congress for our approval before they can go into effect. and then would also have to be signed by the president before they would go into effect. it seems to me that that's a natural extension of congress's authority under the constitution to legislate and to be the only branch of government that can legislate. and it seems to me to be a very adequate check on out-of-control bureaucracy that they can only

do those things that congress intended they do in the legislation they pass. i would extend my remarks on something a little bit unrelated to the mcconnell amendment but still to the overreach of the environmental protection agency. and this is in regard to some of their regulations in agriculture. and when it comes to their regulation of agriculture, instead of aoepl standing for environmental protection agency, i think it stands for end production agriculture. now, that's not their intent. but in this city of washington -- and i describe it sometimes as an island surrounded by reality -- that it's an evidence of not enough common sense being put into the

thought process of issuing regulations. and i could give several examples, but i may just give a few. but before i give those examples , i want to compliment e.p.a. on one thing. after a year or two ago that one of their subdivision heads testified before congress and the issue was agriculture, and she said "i'd never been on a family farm." in the 20-something years of working with e.p.a. and dealing with such issues, i invited her to a family farm and she came and spent -- showed a great deal of interest. we had a very thorough tour of some facilities, research, agriculture and biofuels. and they were very thankful that we did it. and i believe that it has helped

their consideration of the impact that maybe some of their regulation writing has on agriculture. but still i'm not totally convinced. and so i would use one or two examples of regulation that's out of control. and one of them would deal with what i call the fugitive dust issue. fugitive dust is a term that e.p.a. uses to regulate what they call particulate matter. and the theory behind fugitive dust rules is that if you're making dust that is harmful, then you have to keep it within your property line. so let's see the reality of that. you're farming. the wind's blowing, and you've got to work in the fields. and the wind's blowing so hard that you can't keep the dust

when you're tilling the fields within your property line. well, are you supposed to not farm? are you supposed to not raise food? are you supposed to not be concerned about production of food that's so necessary to our national defense and the social cohesion of our society because, you know, we're only nine meals away from a revolution. if you go nine meals without eating, you know, and you don't have prospects of it, are you going to be able to have revolts like they do in other countries because they don't have enough food? no, we have a stable supply of food in in country so we stkroepbt to worry about it. but suppose we did have to worry about it? there's more to farming than just the prosperity of rural america. the national defense and social cohesion and all those things. but the point is that they've issued, that they're thinking about issuing a rule.

in fact, they started a process down the road two or three years ago of issuing a rule. maybe a year or two from now hopefully they'll decide not to. it says that you've got to keep the dust within your property line. so i just wonder when i talk about the common sense that's lacking in this big city, not just tphoepbl e.p.a. but in a -- not just only in e.p.a. but in a lot of agencies, do they realize that only god determines when the wind blows? do they realize that only god determines when soybeans have 13% moisture in september or october. and that 13% moisture you've got to harvest them and you've only got about two or three days of ideal weather to harvest them. and when you combine soybeans, dust happens. and if dust happens and you can't keep it within your property lines, you're going to violate the e.p.a. regulation. what are you supposed to do? shut down and let a whole year's supply of food stay in the

field? no. good business practices would say that when beans get to 13% moisture whether the wind's blowing or not, you're going to take your combine out into the field and not worry about the dust. and does somebody down at e.p.a. that john deere's and caterpillar and new holland and all those companies are thinking about, we have the problems with the e.p.a., we have do something about the dust and we have to control it coming out of our combines or our tillage goes across the field, we have to consider the dust that comes up from tilling the fields? well, we've asked these manufacturers. they don't have any solutions to fleems. and i think they -- to these problems. and i think they probably think it's ridiculous after 6,000 years of agriculture throughout our society that it's really an

issue. but there's people down at e.p.a. that thinks it's an issue. and so i use the fugitive dust thing as one example of their -- of do they realize what they're doing to production agriculture? another one would be the spilt milk. you know, milk has fat in it. so now they're saying that -- that dairy farmers, well, if they have above-the-ground tanks to store their milk, they're just like above-the-ground oil tanks, and they're going to have the same regulation applied to them as applied to petroleum. now, the compliance requirements on this have been delayed pending action on an exemption, so maybe this won't go through, but just think how ridiculous it

is that people at the environmental protection agency are saying that if you're a dairy farmer and you happen to spill a little milk, you have to follow the same environmental requirements as an oil company if they spilled oil and the cleanup of that. but that's where we are on these sort of rules. i've got other examples like atrozine, the application of chesapeake bay requirements on the -- on chesapeake bay applicable to the rest of the country as other examples. but i hope that we will take a look at this mcconnell amendment that spoke about carbon dioxide, plus the examples that i gave of the harm that e.p.a. regulations are going to be doing to just family

farming and stop to think about we've got to find ways to stop e.p.a. from doing things that just don't make common sense. and i think a start would be to vote for the mcconnell amendment. and i'm going to vote for it. i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: vsh

quorum call:

mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york is recognized. mr. schumer: i ask consent that the quorum be vacated the. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that at 2:00 i be given five minutes to speak as the senator from -- and the senator from texas, senator hutchison, speak immediately after me. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. schumer: i note the absence of a quorum, mr. president. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from new york is recognized. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to speak -- the presiding officer: the senator is advised the senate's in a quorum call. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i rise today to speak about the current debate over the federal budget. yesterday we had a very telling and troubling vote in the house of representatives on the three-week continuing resolution needed to avoid a government shutdown on march 18, speaker boehner was forced to rely on

votes from house democrats in order to pass a measure he himself had negotiated. the reason why, conservatives republicans abandoned their party leadership in droves out of anger that the measure lacked special interest add-ons dealing with ideological issues like abortion, global warming, net neutrality. in all, 54 conservative republicans rejected the measure even though it was necessary to avert a shutdown and even though it included $6 billion in cuts to domestic discretionary spending. mr. president, this is a bad omen. this was not supposed to happen. last week, the senate held two test votes, one on h.r. 1 and one on a democratic alternative. we knew that neither one would have the votes to pass but we held the votes anyway and, sure enough, they both went down. the purpose of those votes was to make it clear that both

sides' opening bids in this debate were nonstarters and, thus, pave the way for a serio serious, good-faith compromise. but, unfortunately, an intense ideological tale continues to wag -- tail continues to wag the dog over in the house of representatives. speaker boehner had hoped that after h.r. 1 failed in the senate, it would convince his conservatives of the need to compromise. instead, those conservatives have only dug in further. not only will they not budge off $61 billion in extreme cuts on the long-term measure and special interest add-ons. but they also won't support anymore stop gaps to avoid a shutdown. so speaker boehner is now caught between a shutdown and a hard place. the speaker has said all along he wants to avoid a shutdown at all costs, and i believe him. he is a good man. the problem is, a large percentage of those in his party

don't feel the same way. they think compromise is a dirty word. they think taking any steps to avert a shutdown would mean being the first to blink. and don't take my word for it. here is what some -- here is what some in the other chamber are saying. conservative house member mike pence said passing a 3-week bill to keep the government running would -- quote -- "only delay a confrontation that must come." i say let it come now. it's time to take a stand." that's what congressman pence said. michelle bachman said, "if a member votes for the continuing resolution, that vote effectively says, i am choosing not to fight." outside forces on the far right are also cheerleading a shutdown. tea party nation, for example, has called on republicans to oppose anymore budget measures unless they repeal health care and do away with family

planning. the tea party element in the house is digging in its heels. that is putting the speaker in a real bind. his need to avoid a shutdown is in conflict with his political desire to keep his tea party base happy. i don't envy the position the speaker is in. but he's going to have to make a choice one way or the other. there are two choices but only one of them is responsible. the republican leadership can cater to the tea party leadership and as mike pence has suggested pick a fight that will inevitably cause a shutdown on april 8. or the leadership can abandon the tea party in these negotiations and forge a consensus among more moderate republicans and a group of democrats. i think we all know what the right answer is. speaker boehner wouldn't have been able to pass this short-term measure without democratic votes and he won't be able to pass a long-term won't

one without democratic votes here. it's clear that there's no path to compromise that goes through the tea party. we urge speaker boehner to push ahead without them. we are ready to work with him, if he's willing to buck the extreme elements in his party. throughout this debate, democrats have repeatedly shown a willingness to negotiate, a willingness to meet republicans somewhere in the middle. and yet the rank and file of the house g.o.p. has been utterly unrelenting. they've wrapped their arms around the discredited, reckless approach advanced by h.r. 1, and they won't let go. worse, the last few days have taught us that spending cut alone will not bring a compromise. the new demand from the far right is that we go along with all their extraneous riders. they don't belong on a budget bill. but they were sho shoemore shoeo

h.r. 1 anyhow. these are like a heavy anchor bogging down the budget. in recent days a number of right-wing interest groups like the family research council began encouraging republicans to vote against any budget measure that doesn't contain some of these controversial policy measures. that's why a compromise has been so hard to come by on the budget. it's because hard-right republicans want more than spending cuts; they want to impose their entire social agenda on the back of a must-pass budget. those on the right are entitled to their policy positions, but there's a time an and place to debate these issues and, mr. president, this ain't it. if this debate were only about spending cuts, we could probably come to an agreement before too long. but we'll have a hard time coming to an agreement if those on the far right treat the budget as an opportunity to enact a far-ranging social

agenda. the tea party lawmakers are putting a drag on the progress of these budget talks. many republicans in the house recognize the unreasonableness of the hard-liners. kevin mccarthy was recorded to have gotten into a tense exgauge with mr. pence, one of the lead defectors. republican mike simpson acknowledged it was -- quote -- "unexpected" to have so many defections yesterday. steve la tourette of ohio said passing the three-week stopgap was -- quote -- "exactly what people expect us to do; find cuts and continue to talk." and michael grimm from my home state of new york said the tea party lawmakers were -- quote -- "a big mistake." this shows there are enough commonsense conservatives in the house to go along with reasonable democrats that speaker boehner can find a way around the tea party. in order to avoid a dead end on

these budget talks, he should abandon the tea party and work to find a bipartisan consensus. it's the only way out of this bind. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. mrs. hutchison: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and call up amendment number 197. the presiding officer: is there objection? ms. landrieu: no objection. no objection. mr. president, can i just to just interrupt. there's no objection to that. but i see senator murray on the floor and senator stabenow is on the floor. i would like to ask unanimous consent right after kay -- senator hutchison from texas that we would recognize senator murray for seven minutes and senator stabenow for seven minutes.

the presiding officer: will the senator from texas so modify her request? -- to allow ther thers to speakr you. -- to allow the others to speak after you. mrs. hutchison: i do. i would like to have my amendment called up, then speak, and then i'm happy to have the unanimous consent so they know their order is following me. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i would like to ask the senator how long she intends to speak for. mrs. hutchison: ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, the request is granted. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: mrs. hutchison proposes an amendment numbered 197. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i do with want to thank -- i do want to thank the senator from louisiana, who's managing the bill for her side, for allowing us to go forward with amendments; that is, i think

very important. and i do have an amendment that i think will help our small businesses and our states throughout the country. the cosponsors to amendment number 197 are senators hatch, kyl, barrasso, burr, johanns, murkowski, cochran, moran and ensign. we are approaching the one-year anniversary of health care reform becoming law, and it is important to highlight the reality of what this bill has done to every american family, every patient, every doctor, health care provider, and every small business in this country. one year later the skyrocketing cost of health care is still the number-one concern among our nation's job creators. just today my office heard from a small business in corpus christi, texas. it has 34 employees, and the cheapest option for health

insurance this country has now dpotten the bids for renewal to be -- has now gotten the bids for renewal for the policy ey c. they have until april 1 to decide whether or not to continue to offer their employees health insurance and to try to figure out how they're going to compensate for that increase in cost. bibut, mr. president, this isn't the first -- but, mr. president, this isn't the first small business that i have heard who is telling me the same thing. it happened in a vacuum. they are the 200-page, $2.6 trillion health care bill signed into law a year ago. one year later, after that b one year later, after that bill was signed, small businesses are facing unprecedented premium increases. their policies are being canceled as insurers close up shop because of new federal regulations. the reality that the small

business tax credits touted by the administration are really just an empty promise that a majority of small businesses will never see. in fact, the obama administration has estimated that by 2013, as many as 80% of the small businesses will not even be offering their current health care plan anymore due to the new federal regulations and mandates and the increasing costs, leaving the promise that our president made, if you like what you have, you can keep it, as a distant memory. a former director of the congressional budget office has warned that health reform includes strong eloyees to drop employer-sponsored health insurance for as many as 35 million americans. a recent employer survey conducted by the national business group on health reported that 81% of employers have experienced increased administrative burdens because

of health reform. this same survey also reported that because of the increased cost from health reform, 68% of employers are increasing the contributions required for dependent insurance coverage. the congressional budget office agrees and has reported that these increased burdens and mandates on employers will result in fewer jobs as we will as a shift from full-time to part-time jobs in our country. the congressional research service adds that lower wages will also become a reality because of the new employer mandates. the only good news that our small businesses have gotten recently on this health care reform bill is from the courts. two federal courts have found the law un-- two federal courts have found the law unconstitutional: one in virginia and one in florida. in january, the florida judge

voided the entire law because the constitution doesn't allow congress to force individual in, small businesses, or families to purchase anything, just because you live in this country. that is why i am offering an amendment to senate bill 493, the small business innovation bill, that would delay any further implementation of health reform until the supreme court rules whether or not the law is actually a valid law. included in the 2,000 pages of the law, are provisions that harm small businesses, their employees, and families. the health reform law contains $500 billion in new taxes, cuts nearly $500 billion from medicare to fund the new government entitlement and puts the federal government between patients and their doctors. health reform requires

individuals and businesses to buy government-approved health care or have i.r.s. agents knocking at their door. if business owners want to grow their business and hire new employees, health reform says, if you have over 50 employees, there will be costly new federal regulations with which you have to comply. small businesses across the country who are in the 48-49 level of employees are now facing a federal mandate that discourages them from hiring more people. this in one of the highest unemployment times in our country's history. we need to get government off the backs of small business, our job creators, and stop putting up miles of red tape that restrict innovation. this bill is the perfect place to do it.

my amendment would pause further implementation of this law so that we don't spend millions of our taxpayer dollars and our small business dollars implementing a bill that ultimately could be struck down by the highest court in the land in a case that has already said the law is unconstitutional, so it is making its way to the supreme court as we speak. in addition to the effects on the individuals and small businesses of our country, state legislators and governors across our country are also making very tough decisions needed to close nearly $125 billion in budget shortfalls. they, too, are having to meet the federal mandates of health care reform. their medicaid systems are being drastically impacted. some statg because of the florida judge's ruling that they're not going to

go further in implementing the law. they don't want to spend the millions if the law is going to be declared unconstitutional by the supreme court. on the other hand, we're putting them in the position of taking a chance because there are fines. if they don't implement the law in a tpaoeuplly way according to -- in a timely way according to the law that was passed, so if they don't implement, while the court has said the law is unconstitutional, they could pay on the other end by having to have fines because they didn't implement. my home state of texas is going forward with implementation, but they are facing a $27 billion shortfall in their budget. and yet, they're spending money that may be money down a rat hole to implement a law that may not be a valid law. today we could take one federal mandate off the list.

today we can make it easier for job creators to create jobs. the least we can do for the businesses and states and families in our country is to delay the burdens, the mandates, the regulations and taxes until the highest court in the land rules on whether or not it is a valid law. mr. president, this amendment would not affect any of the law that has already been implemented. we are not doing something that is retroactive at all. but when this bill passes, everything going forward would be halted until the supreme court has ruled on whether in fact the health care law that was passed last year is a valid law. i ask my colleagues to join me in take this go heavy burden from our employers and our states. thank you, mr. president, and i

y. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. let me thank the senator from louisiana, senator landrieu, for her tremendous work on the bill that is in front of us today, the small business bill. it is so important that we keep focusing on the most important thing we can do right now for families and small business owners across the country, and that is to continue working to create jobs and boost the economy. and that's exactly what this bill is all about. last month our economy added over 200,000 private-sector jobs and the unemployment rate fell to the lowest in two years. we have a long way to go, but i'm confident we have turned the corner and we are now beginning to move in the right direction. but we have to continue to make progress. that's exactly why i strongly support this long-term reauthorization of the small business innovation research program, which supports research and development efforts by small businesses that will help them

grow and create jobs. it's why i will continue working with all of our colleagues to make sure we pass a budget for this year that cuts spending responsibly while continuing to invest in programs that create jobs and boost our economy. mr. president, the small business innovation research program, or sbir, is a bipartisan bill. it's been successfully creating jobs since it was signed into law by president reagan in 1982. the resources this program has provided to small businesses over the years have led to new products, new ideas and new innovations. in fact, small business tech firms that receive sbir grants produce 38% of our country's patents. they employ 40% of america's scientists and engineers, and they produced many of the most important innovations that have driven our economy forward. this program has been especially important in my home state of

washington where over 2,000 grants have been awarded to small businesses, totaling close to $700 million. one company that has received support is a small business called infinia. it's in the tri cities in my state. infinia was founded in 1985 as an r&d firm but they have been able to successfully transition to commercial production and has emerged as a leader in our state's clean tech industry. with support from sbir and other programs, infinia has been able to develop their products and grow from 30 employees to over 150. these are good family-wage jobs in that community. this is such a great example of what small businesses can do with just a little bit of support. mr. president, there are thousands of companies across the country with similar stories that have received a critical boost from sbir. unfortunately, the small business innovation research program has been operating now under a short-term

reauthorization for the last several years, and that really creates uncertainty and makes planning very difficult for companies that do want to participate in this program. so i hope we support this long-term legislation that will help our innovative small businesses develop their products and expand and create jobs and that we don't continue to see all these extraneous measures added to it that will stop us from getting it passed here in the senate and moving to a place that can really help create jobs and grow our economy. mr. president, i also want to mention another issue that we are going to be discussing on the floor, because it is directly connected to senate democrats' efforts to get workers back on the job, and that is the need to pass a long-term budget bill to keep the government open through the end of this fiscal year. you know, i am really disappointed that the same republicans who came into office saying they were going to focus on the economy have now put forward a very damaging and shortsighted budget proposal that would literally destroy

hundreds of thousands of jobs and devastate our workers and small businesses and undermine our fragile economic recovery. i'm really disappointed that at a time when our middle-class families still need some support to get back on their feet, republicans have proposed this very highly politicized slash-and-burn budget that is going to pull the rug out from these families at a critical time. and i'm disappointed that while on this side senate democrats have put forward some ideas to make responsible and prudent budget cuts that will allow to us continue to do that, out-innovate and outeducate our kpepl tors we're -- competitors, we're seeing a proposal that will hack away at our ability to improve the quality of life for all of our families in this country. the proposal that they put forward would slash programs like head start. it would decimate housing and economic development. it would eliminate community

health centers that the presiding officer has worked so hard to put in place. it would cut off critical investments for our workers and our infrastructure. independent analysis has said that their plan would destroy up to 700,000 american jobs. that includes 15,000 in my home state. that is a hit we cannot take right now. it would be devastating. so, mr. president, senate democrats are trying to put forward a proposal that goes in a very different direction. we would cut spending billions of dollars, but would do it in a responsible and measured way to protect our middle-class family and not kill jobs and continue making the investments we need to compete and win in the 21st century economy. unfortunately, as we all know, we weren't able to pass that proposal last week, and now, unfortunately, we are back to passing a short-term funding bill just to keep the government from shutting down. i have to tell you, mr. president, weekly spending

bills are no way to run a government. so i'm hopeful that moderate republicans will say "no" to the extreme members of their party and come to the table to work with us to pass a responsible long-term budget that will help us create jobs and invest in middle-class families and workers across our country. you know what? that's what this is really all about, creating jobs, getting our economy back on track, and setting our country up for continued success and prosperity now and into the future. that is exactly why this debate is so important, and it is also why passing the small business investment research program is so critical. so i urge my colleagues today to support this reauthorization, to support small businesses and invest in innovation and growth. and i hope that we can get rid of these extraneous matters and for all of us to come together and do something that helps create jobs and get our economy back on track rather than diving into all the political debates of the past and offering every amendment that we can think of

in order to slow it down. this bill is important, and i hope we can move it forward to final passage. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. i rise today in strong support of the small business innovation research act, and i want to congratulate and thank our distinguished chairman, the senator from louisiana, for her leadership and advocacy for small business. i was pleased to join with her as we worked very hard last fall to pass the small business jobs act to create more capital for small businesses to be able to grow and thrive and start a new business, expand their business. the eight different tax cuts that were in that proposal as well are beginning to take effect and help our small businesses. this particular bill in front of us is one more opportunity for us to partner with small

businesses who are on the cutting edge of new innovations and new ideas. we just passed a patent change to update our patent laws last week, and i'm very proud that the one satellite patent office in the country is in detroit because we're in the heart of innovation and new technologies. well, we need to make sure that our small businesses are able to compete successfully and have the partnership dollars they need to be able to create these new innovations. and that's what this legislation does. we know that small businesses create two-thirds of all new jobs in america. our top priority should be working with them to create an environment so small businesses can thrive and create jobs. i have to say even in our wonderful automobile industry which is roaring back, mr. president, the majority of our jobs are in the small- and medium-size suppliers. so it's very much about small

business. medium-size businesses. this particular program was first created by president reagan in 1982, and it has helped literally tens of thousands of small businesses create jobs, new ideas, new innovations in our economy. we have led the way in a variety of military and communications and health care innovations. it's been extremely successful. in fact, small business tech firms have participated in sbir producing 38% of our patents. 38 of america's patents have come from small businesses involved in the tech sector partnering with the federal government on new innovative opportunities. 13 times more patents than tkproplg large businesses. -- than coming from large businesses. so this is a big deal. this is very much about out-innovating in a global

economy so we can compete globally and create jobs. our small businesses in the tech sector employ about 40% of our scientists and engineers, and they produce about 25% of our nation's crucial innovations over the last three decades. now, unfortunately, this important partnership has been allowed to nearly lapse and have to be reauthorized ten different times in the last three years over and over again for just a few months at a time. and it's impossible for small businesses to plan for the future and to be able to create those innovative investments and partnerships without a long-term view. and so we have in front of us a bill that would reauthorize this important partnership for the next eight years and give some opportunity to look a little bit more long term, which i think is also very critical. mr. president, we have many, many outstanding small

businesses that are partnering right now with our universities, with our federal agencies to create jobs and new innovations. one of those outstanding entities is cybernet systems in ann arbor, a leader in american research and development in medical and defense fields. they are one of the largest small business innovative research contract winners because of their success, they've added now up to 60 employees and have had 30 patents as a result of the sbir program. another important entity is neowave in lansing, michigan, a high-tech business specializing in superconducting particle accelerators. they have been doubling, and in talking to them today are going to be tripling their workforce because of new insraeufgss that have been create -- invasions that have been created and they have been nominated for the national sbir business of the year. finally just one other important part of our economy in michigan

and nationally as we look to alternatives to bring down gas prices by having better competition for alternatives, alternative energy through battery technology and electric vehicles has been aided by the small business program in front of us today. as an example, a-123 batteries is a company that has received sbir support. i was very pleased in september of last year to join with them when they opened the largest lithium i.m. battery plant in north america in livonia, michigan. i could go on and on, mr. president. i will not in the interest of time. but focusing on small business, focusing on innovation, new technologies will create jobs, allow us to outcompete in a global economy and allow to us grow our economy. and we in michigan are very proud to be helping to lead the way. thank you, mr. president. ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: i know that snort portman is -- i know that senator portman is here on the floor and as under previous order will be recognized in a few minutes. i want to on the previous agreement to state that the first-degree amendment and order after senator hutchison, who just spoke a minute ago, will be from the democratic side. and, just as a recap, there are seven amendments pending. we're hoping to get some votes on those votes pending later this afternoon, potentially in the morning. and if there are other amendments that senators have to offer, come down to the floor. we want to limit, of course, what we can are important, it's very important for us to move this bill forward. but at this time i yield the floor.

mr. portman: mr. president -- the presiding officer: the senator from ohio is recognized. mr. portman: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i appreciate being given the time to make a few remarks this afternoon as a new senator from ohio. to be in the senate is a great honor and it's also a solemn responsibility, particularly given the critical issues we have before us. it's actually not an honor i expected to have after 12 years in the u.s. house representing southern ohio and serving in the bush administration, i returned home to cincinnati four years ago. although we kept our home there and raised our kids there, i commuted for 15 years and it was time to be home with three teenagers, my amazing wife jane and other family members including my dad. at that time my predecessor, george voinovich was serving with distinction and said he was planning to run. i was involved in two small

family businesses, practicing law, teaching at ohio state university and enjoying being a dad including getting to coach my daughter's soccer team. i was watching with apprehension the worsening economy and the way the administration and congress were responding to it. when george voinovich announced he would not seek reelection, i made a decision to run because i was so concerned about the direction of my state and our country. i saw the bottom falling out of the ohio economy. i saw firsthand what happens with layoffs an downsizing. like others, i was frustrated while ohio small businesses and families were making tough decisions, the federal government seemed immune, out of touch. instead of cutting expenses and figuring out how to do more with less and focusing on private sector job growth, the obama administration and congress responded with a big government approach. unfortunately the $800 billion stimulus package had less to do with creating private sector

jobs than growing the size an scope of government. in the midst of all this i saw a new national health care bill working its way through the system that would lock in place the unsustainable costs and inefficiency in our current health care system, making health care more expensive for families and small businesses and making it harder to deal with the exploding cost of health care in our federal budget. and i saw record deficits building up to dangerous levels of debt that further threatened our economy. these issues, these deep concerns over jobs and the direction of our economy and the fiscal crisis we face as a nation are my focus now in the united states senate. and i'm not alone whether republican, democrat or independent i believe ohioans understand that our state and our country are in trouble. and it's going to take real change and all of us working together across party lines to set things right. i believe the challenges of our

time are to revive the economic america kal and -- miracle and to stop the overspending by government and one affects the other. without a growing economy and more jobs, we cannot hope to reverse the dangerous trend of record deficits and deepening debt. without getting our spending under control we can't get our economy moving. it's not one or the other. in fact, these two goals are not inconsistent, they are reinforcing. with the fiscal time bomb on our doorstep and the uncertainty it creates, we will not sigh the kind of strong -- see the kind of strong recovery we hope for. in addition to getting the fiscal house in order we move atbres live to clean the climate for job growth, innovation, invention, entrepreneurship. we need an environment that encourages risk taking and private investment which economists will tell you is the biggest challenge we face in this weak recovery.

the current economic climate is one of uncertainty and one of apprehension. i've seen it all over ohio. last fall i visited an independent trucking company in wayne county, ohio. paul williams pulled together a dozen or so businesses in the area for a roundtable discussion, one of many i've had. struggling in a tough economy, these small businesses all wondered the same thing, why has washington made it harder on them to grow and create jobs? they talked about the threat of new e.p.a. regulations. they were worried about other specific regulations or mandates on trucking on manufacturing and banking that would drive up their compliance cost and make them less competitive. they talked about the threat of higher taxes coming, increasing the uncertainty at the time when the opposite is needed, to incentivize businesses to invest and grow. like the vast majority of small businesses, most of these businesses paid their taxes as

individuals, not as corporations. the temporary extension of tax rates on capital gains, income tax, debt taxes and the possibility of higher taxes soon reduces their incentive to invest and create the jobs we need. every single small business owner around the table talked about health care. all of them said the same thing. they said since the health care bill has passed, their health care costs are going up more, not less. they were already going up. now they say they're going up faster and that increases their cost of business making it harder for them to create jobs. they talked about premium increases of 10% to 25%, annual increases eating away at their profits and any chance to expand. at one of the 80 factory visits i've made in the past two years bruce beagley in northeast ohio said that orders are up, but he wasn't hiring. he was paying overtime instead because he wasn't willing to

hire permanent workers because of the embedded costs of health care. and our education system and federal worker retraining system is also failing us in ohio. around the state high-tech companies told me they can't find the skilled workers they need. this is wrong. there is a skills gap in america. there are high-skilled jobs available but our schools aren't producing a sufficient supply of well-trained american workers. you can't talk to workers in management without seeing these issues, but i've also seen it closer to home. in fact, on the prod -- i'm the product of a small family business. my tad, bill portman, who -- my dad, bill portman, who we lost last year was one of those small business takers. he took a big risk when i was a kid. he had a good job as a salesman. he had health care and some retirement benefits.

he gave it all up to start his own business, portman equipment company. started with five people. my mom was the bookkeeper. he couldn't get a loan because his family didn't have any loan so he borrowed money from my mom's uncle to get things started. the company lost money the first few years, he kept it alive through hard work, ingenuity and sacrifice. my brother took the reins later, but by the time my dad retired, the company hired 300 people. we all worked there and when i was growing up the discussion around the kitchen table was often about how government affects small business, how it affected him, rules, regulations, taxes. my dad is among my heroes because of his hard work and his sacrifice, but because they built something of value. i've seen it done. i know the role government can play and should not play in helping create jobs and opportunities.

about a year ago i asked my dad if he would take the same risk today. he thought about it for a while, kind of shook his head and said, i don't know. there's just so much uncertainty out there. that's a word i hear a lot from small business owners all over ohio. that's why a lot of potential job creators are staying on the sidelines, keeping their cash on the sidelines rather than investing in plant, equipment, and people. olympiliedership is -- leadershs needed to restore the american dream. leadership is needed to keep a handle on serious fiscal issues. you'll see it play out on the floor of the senate, we're locked in a fierce partisan battle about less than 1% of federal outlays of federal spending in this fiscal year and we're not addressing the biggest and fastest growing part of our budget which is the important but unsustainable entitlement programs. as american families tightened

their belts and businesses have had to do more with less, the federal government has taken the opposite path, spending more, growing bigger and becoming more involved in our private economy and our lives. over the past two years, paul williams at that trucking company that i talked about had to cut expenses to stay afloat. they had to sell a couple of trucks, let people go. here in washington during that same time, the u.s. government through going deeper into debt, brought on more government employees an grew in size. during that same two years, washington spent 27% more in the so-called domestic discretionary spending that's debated on the floor this week. it doesn't count the stimulus bill, another one-time spending, i'm told that gives us a staggering 80% increase in spending over the past couple of years. this historic control of spending affects our economy. it pushes up interest rates affecting car loans, mortgages, student loans.

it crowds out private investment and leaves us with three bad choices, far higher taxes, even more borrowing or both. this will surprise no one, but recently a group of 47 respected business economists agreed the singling biggest threat to -- single threat to our economy was our debt. restoring fiscal strength is needed to create jobs. across ohio and across our country. mounting debts are likely to lead to the kind of debt we've seen in other countries like greece. the government's spending more than it takes in hurts our economy today and mortgages the future for our kids and grandkids. think about this, every child born in america today automatically through no fault of their own inherits $45,000 in u.s. debt. people are looking for a better way. people are looking for leadership from washington that takes on those challenges that ohio's businesses and workers

are facing every day. the status quo isn't working. there's an urgency about this that the american people get even while many in washington seem to be in denial. we need to rise to that challenge and work together across party lines to meet our economic and fiscal problems head-on by aggressively putting in place pro-growth measures. we've got to do it now. we've got to think and act differently to compete and win in the global economy and give working families the hope of a better tomorrow. we can no longer rest on our laurels. no longer afford the luxury of living with a substandard education system that doesn't produce young people with the 21st century stills that we need. we can't have a hopefullily complicated tax code that favors social engineering over sound business decisions. we can no longer sit back while our dependence on foreign oil charts our destiny rather than american innovation and technology.

we can't compete and win if our health care system is doubled the rest of the world while the outcome is unsatisfactory, particularly those american families without coverage. this is wrong for the small businesses at the roundtable that i talked about who are trying to provide health care and stay afloat and it is wrong for families -- to revive the american economic miracle we need to revolutionize the way we think about all the major institutions of our economy. we need structural reform of our regulatory system, of our tax system, of our energy policy, worker retraining and education, health care delivery, our trade policy and legal system and, of course, we must fix our broken budgeting system that has us so deeply in debt. this is not insurmountable. i know that because we're americans and we've done this before. we've waged a world war that required more resources and sacrifice that we face today and

came out stronger. we survived a civil war, great depression and cold war to emerge as the beacon of hope and opportunity for the rest of the world. there's a long line of distinguished senators from ohio who were part of these historic times including william henry harrison. one famous predecessor is john glenn, an american hero, along with his wife annie, i've been honored to know and work with. i immediately followed senator voinovich, one of the finest public servants our state has known we are thank full for the historic legacy they lead. there's another former ohio senator whose desk i requested, robert a. taft, a fellow cincinnatian. like me, he also served in the house of representatives and the executive branch. unlike me, he was first in his high school, college and law school class and

was said to have had the -- quote -- best mind in washington, unquote. democrats joked that he had the best mind in washington until he made it up. he was a principled and effective republican leader. in fact, when his peers commissioned a review of the top five u.s. senators in the history of this place, he was selected to be among them. that's why he is one of only five senators to have a portrait hanging in the president's room right here off the senate floor. he was a featured profile in courage in john kennedy's book, and on his memorial across constitution avenue, it is written that it -- quote -- stands as a tribute to the honesty, indomitable courage and high principles of free government symbolized by his life. you know, it's always dangerous to predict how a former senator would react to today's predicaments, but i'm confident that were robert a. taft among us today, he would rise in full-throated support of addressing the twin challenges we've talked about today. his honesty would force him to

admit that our economic systems are not up to the global competition of the 21st century. his courage would force him to insist that we address our budget woes, including entitlements. and his love of liberty would compel him to fight for solutions to our economic challenges that promote free markets and the power and dignity of the individual over the heavy hand of government. i will rely on my faith, my family and the good people of ohio in my work here in this senate. as we have discussed, there is a lot of hard work to do. in my role, i hope to be worthy of this great and temporary privilege. i will work constructively with my colleagues to achieve results, including working with the senior senator from ohio, sherrod brown and others across the aisle. i will work every day to try to earn the confidence and trust the people of ohio have placed in me. as we go forward together, may god bless ohio and this great

nation and help guide us in our shared commitment to a better future. thank you for listening. and, mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the minority leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i would say to my friend from ohio, i have listened with great interest to his first speech here in the senate and was particularly interested in his reference to robert a. taft who, as the senator from ohio knows, his portrait is in the republican leader's office and has been there for some time. in fact, that space that's currently the office of the republican leader in the senate became the space of the republican leader about the time that senator taft was in that all too brief period. he was actually only majority leader for about eight months before he passed away, but he left an incredible impression here in -- in this town, which the junior senator from ohio

pointed out. and i would say in listening to the new senator from ohio that he is entirely able to fill the shoes of those who have come before representing the great state of ohio in the senate. he made reference to some of them, i predict, by the time the senator from ohio leaves this body, he will be widely referred to in the same -- in the same category. i thank him for his important first contribution here in the senate. mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i joined the republican leader in congratulating senator portman on his first speech on the senate floor. i remember those days some four years ago when i had the honor of doing that. i know how close rob and jane are and their children, and i have seen them much over the last year. i know the sacrifice and difficulty of leaving home as he points out, and i know he feels that way about his family. senator, i look forward to this relationship. i look forward already to what we have been working to do,

especially on manufacturing jobs. rob, senator portman, has visited, as he said, some 80 manufacturing plants in the last three years, and he sees what i see on these shop floors, that if we keep these jobs in the united states, these manufacturing jobs, the innovation is done, much of it on the shop floor and we'll continue to lead the world in innovation, continue to lead the world in job creation. that's the importance of working with small and medium sized and large manufacturing companies. i -- i also would add that senator portman already understands that ohio's the home of two major federal installations. nasa glenn in cleveland and wright-patterson air force base in dayton and also the petomo memorial institute in columbus, while not a federal agency per se serves much of the federal government by running this country's energy labs. the synergism among those three

coupled with ohio state and case western, i met today with president williams of the university of cincinnati in senator portman's hometown and the kind of synergism that comes out of this in innovation and high-end manufacturing and all the kinds of things that he and senator portman andly do together in job creation, whether it's usec in southern ohio or the solar industry in toledo or the auto industry in the north or the aerospace industry especially in southwest but throughout the state, the kind of work we do will absolutely matter to put people back to work and create the kinds of good-paying industrial jobs and good-paying other jobs that ohioans aspire to to create a strong and vibrant middle class. i congratulate senator portman. i yield the floor. mr. president, i -- i note 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: thank you, mr. president. let me ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i want to thank all of my colleagues for really helping us to focus on this debate yesterday and today. we started discussing the reauthorization of the sbir and

sttr programs within the small business administration. senator snowe has been on the floor most of the day yesterday and part of the day today as we manage this bill. as i've said many times, this particular bill is the -- this particular program is the federal government's largest research program for small business, and it was started in 1982 by a bipartisan group of senators and house members that believed that small businesses in america had something to contribute in the technological and scientific advancements in this country, and they were right. and they said, the federal government spends billions of dollars every year on research and development, yet some of our most promising small businesses -- maybe independent scientists or researchers or engineers or investor's veterans of all

different -- or inventors of all different backgrounds and per situations, couldn't really get into the back door of the department of defense or n.i.h. in those days, people only wanted to see people from big companies. wwell, not only was that not allowing small business an opportunity, but, mr. president, it was shortchange the taxpayer, because what taxpayers want is the best technology. doesn't matter to them whether it comes from a small shop down the street operating on the second floor, you know, above a doughnut shop, like my father got started many years ago, or whemg it comes from the back office of i.b.m. they just want the best. and they deserve it. this program delivers t and so this is about innovation and jobs. and one thing that i want to stress again -- several people have come down to the floor and said, why aren't we -- i guess meaning democrats -- focused like a laser on closing the

budget gap? let me say, this is an effort to close the budget gap and to reduce the debt and to close the annual deficit because that can be done by cutting discretionary spending, cutting defense spending, where it's wasteful and not effective; raising revenues, where it is appropriate, particularly for those making over $1 billion a year would be a good place to start -- making over ferredz 1 million a year would be a good place to start. and equally important to all the above is creating an atmosphere so the private sector can get about the business of creating jobs. that's what this business does. that's why senator snowe and i are on the floor. that's why our committee voted this bill out 18-1. we know it's important. so to innovate -- innovation creates jobs. and i want to show you just three examples as we're waiting for senators to come to the floor to talk about their amendments. i wanted to share one story.

this is from connecticut. might i say, that over the 20-plus years of this program, there have been small businesses in every state that have benefited either through grants or through contracts. the department of defense, which has about $1 billion of their research and development set aside for this purpose, other departments called in grantings. the department of defense actually enters into contracts with small businesses. now, i'm not sure if this came out of the department of defense. it's not noted here. but one of our agencies thought it might be important to create a device to safely transport toxic chemicals. now, i'm from louisiana. we have a tremendous -- we're proud of our industrial base in

petrochemicals. some things we produce are really, really safe. some things we produce are dangerous but necessary to undergird our economy. so the transport of these toxic chemicals, to do it safely is important. so one of the agencies -- and i don't have exactly which one -- identified a company in connecticut that might be able to come up with some such device. they did. that particular company, which is now atmi, paid more than ten times in taxes now that that invention has been commercialized, as we can see here on this chart. but what people really need to know is this company paid more -- ten times in taxes than they received from the program. this is just one example. atmi went from 40 employees to employing 800 people world bide. now, i'm hoping that their company is still located in danbury, concomp.

-- danbury, connecticut. there is no requirement in this particular program for that to occur, and we wouldn't want that to have that requirement because we're producing technology and innovation for america and for the world, and our people will benefit from t but let's hope that that is the case and that's just one example. a second example comes from ann arbor, michigan. senator stabenow was on the floor earlier today. and i want to thank her so very much. she was a very strong supporter of our very important small business jobs and innovation bill in the last congress. i'm pleased that the leadership has given our committee an opportunity to be on the floor with another important bill so early in this congress. i think leader reid knows and feels strongly -- as strongly as i do -- that there are more ways to cut a deficit than the one

being trumpeted on the other side of this capital. -- on the other side of this capitol. and it is not even a way because it won't work. all we hear from the other side is cut discretionary spend because we'll get there. a, we won't get there. and, b, we will shut off both feet in the process of getting there because it is a dead end. you cannot get to where we want to go the way some people are arguing. we can get to reducing our deficit, eliminating our debt by doing all four of the things that are mentioned. and one of them is creating jobs and doing it in the private sector. this is the cybernet ammo sorter. this did come from the defense department. when people ask, how can you save millions of dollars? we will, this particular invention has saved the

government hundreds of millions of dollars in defense costs over the five years. it started in michigan, now is expanding to florida. that will make senator nelson very happy. it was initially implemented at one of our camps in kuwait. it is in support of "operation freedom." it is now also in for the irwin, the national training center in the mojave desert, where troops train before deployment. it saves our troops many, many man-hours and hundreds of millions of dollars. so there is another way to cut spending besides just slashing and burning some of the best programs in the world, literally. some of the best programs in the world have been left on the chopping block, notiou the senas not in order just in america-- --not just in america. in the world. i might suggest to look outside the box and they think of other

ways to reduce spending which is investing in smart investments that streamline and create taxpayers money and create jobs at the same time. thus, companies can pay in more taxes at the local, state, and federal level and we continue to get spending under control and reduce our deficit. so that is the cybernet systems ammo system. leave it to the department of defense to make up such a name. this is beacon interactive turbowork out of cambridge, massachusetts. this technology created technology -- or this company to help sailors keep the fleet safe through streamlined and uniform maintenance. it will be going now into all 250 ships in the navy. 460,000 sailors will use this technology inteled out of the sbir program everily day to

protect and preserve our warships. in its first full year of implement thairks the software should give a 300% return on the initial sbir investment. mr. president, you know this because you've been a very strong advocate nationally, not just in the state of oregon, for small business. but you know that with a little investment at the right time, there can be a tremendous up side. and that's what you're seeing here in this program. our initial grants are only $150,000. people might say, jerks you know, when can you do with $150,000? we will, $150,000 given to the scientists or the engineer or the inventor just at the right time can help provide that half year or year of research and development necessary to grow and to mobilize the technologies, to develop it into something that really could work.

and then phase 2 comes in with the potential, if it looks inviting and exciting and interesting to the agency, they might award such a grantee another $150,000 phase 2. and then it can go up to $1.5 million. and that's the way these companies or these ideas grow. now at some point this program ceases to be necessary because what happens is it either becomes clear to the people managing it that that idea has failed, that that technology is not going to work and the grant is simply shut down or the contract comes to an end. and, yes, that money will be lost. but what often happens -- not in every case -- what often happens is that technology goes to such a phase that it becomes so promising that venture capitalists step in, like they should, and other investors step in and take that company way up. that's what happened to

qualcomm. they were 20 years ago, nobody ever heard of them. they got a small grant from this program. and they were one of the winners. we were winners too, not just the company, because now they employ 17,800 people operating in more than 30 countries worldwide and paid in taxes in one year -- in one year -- half of the cost of this entire program. and as the gentleman, the doctor who, the doctors who researched this program said to us in our hearing, because we have new members of our committee, five new members from the republican side, and senator snowe and i both wanted to give them a chance to really understand this bill. and i'm proud to say that they, all but one supported it coming out of committee. when they really understood, and of course some of them had served in the house before and were familiar with this. but when they really understood

that this has really been one of the most successful federal programs. and when it was reviewed by, i think it was dr. westman gave us a review of the program, he said, let me tell you, senator, if every single grant produces a company, you're running the wrong kind of program, because this is a high-risk effort. but it's a risk that over time has paid off tremendously to the taxpayer and will continue if it's continued to run in that fashion. so we've tightened up in this bill before us fraud and abuse statutes. we have put more oversight, which both senator snowe and i thought was important but not too heavily burden the program but just to make sure that our people and our departments whr-rbgs it's in -- whether it's in defense or n.i.h. or the nasa program are really utilizing this program to the extent and the spirit that congress intends. so we've made some, we think,

adjustments. well, we think some perfections through some adjustments and modifications. we think we've made this program, hopefully, even stronger. but not every grant that is given will result in jobs, and it will be folded. but when it works, it really really works. and we are so benefited as a nation. in fact, there was also testimony given before our committee that countries all over the world are trying to model some of their programs after this one, mr. president, because they keep asking how is it in america that you have such an innovative spirit? how is it that you start so many small businesses, and many of them -- not all -- succeed? what is it? and it's a number of things. it's our own nature and spirit. but it's because people have traditionally had a variety of accesses to capital, whether it's equity in their home or savings account or banking system that's for the most part very honest and transparent. we've had some difficulties in

just the few past years with some of the antics on wall street that caused people, some catch a breath for that. but generally compared to many other countries in the world, our people have access to those things -- private property that they own. in many countries people can't even own private property. you can't even get a clear title to property, so how do you borrow against it to start a business? you don't. and so it's many things that go into this miracle that we call the american economy. and this is a big part of it. now, the federal government doesn't do it all, but i'm hoping that as people consider this debate, that every state in the union will create a similar program. some of them already have, and i'm going to try to provide to all the members here a list of what their individual states have done. because if you think about it, and the large cities, whether it be new york or san francisco or detroit or chicago, if every city government would think

about setting aside a small portion of some of their research and development money to really p-rb out the -- to really push out the small businesses that aren't obvious to, sometimes to wall street in new york or they're not obvious to pennsylvania avenue in washington, or they're not exactly located in just the silicon valley in california. but there are bugged entrepreneurs and -- there are budding entrepreneurs and americans with great ideas and great drive and great determination. and i'm really hoping that our government can be smarter. and i'd like the federal government to be as smart as it can possibly be. and i'm hoping that our state governments will look at this program as a model in potentially cities. now i can tell you one thing that i'm very excited about, and i haven't talked with him about it specifically to this, but i have spoken at some length to the goldman sachs executives. and i want to speak for a minute about a program that i'm very impressed with. it's not something that we're

doing. it's something they're doing, but i think it's worth mentioning here. goldman sachs has decided to try to create 10,000 new small businesses in america. not new small businesses. they're trying to grow 10,000 small businesses in america. they have a very strategic plan and one that i'm watching very closely for a number of reasons. one, their model is scalable and other companies could potentially do it. and maybe we could model some kind of federal program if theirs is successful. secondly, i'm watching it closely because one of the cities they chose for their pilot is the city of new orleans, a city that i represent. my brother serves as mayor there now. he is very engaged with the leadership there because new orleans has become a hotbed of innovation. and when i hear president obama talking about outcompeting and out-innovating, that's not just going to happen on pennsylvania avenue or right down on the

intersection of m and wisconsin and georgetown. it's going to happen on canal straoegt in the lower -- street in the lower ninth ward in towns like new orleans and in places all over the world. and goldman sachs is saying, all right, mr. makers you get the city leadership -- mr. mayor, you get the city leadership, you get one of the community colleges to give the training. we jointly choose these entrepreneurs that have promised and already established, they have proven they can run a business and they can turn a profit. but they're just stagnating. they have the potential to be larger but they're not. what is it that's causing them? maybe lack of knowledge, lack of capital. so our delgado community college, and i'm very proud of delgado, one of the finest community colleges in the country, stepped up and said let us do the training. when they succeed and successfully exit the training -- and i believe it's a six-month to nine-month program,

at the other end goldman sachs gives them a check for "x" amount of money. i'm not sure if it's $35,000 or $100,000 or $200,000. i'll get that in the record so we can be clear. but they give them a check so they have the capital and the know how. and they have the support of some of the nonprofits in the area to help them to grow. song about that, mr. president -- so think about that, mr. president. if that is something only one company is doing, think about what companies like chevron, what they're doing to help small business. i think about other companies, american express with their plum card, talk about what they're doing. i'm not talking about companies, just an example of companies out there supporting small business. the federal government can do its part as well. and so we have an obligation. we can't do everything, but we most certainly can do our part as many large companies around the country and the world are

also thinking what can they do to help grow small businesses in their area. so that's just one example. and i want to -- we're going to watch the success of some of these programs in the private sector, and then we'll get some of their best ideas and potentially even strengthen our partnership. but this is a partnership between the federal government and private small businesses throughout our country. let me just switch to a minute to say a couple of the organizations that are supporting this program. i don't see anyone on the floor at this time to speak, so let me just read into the record again some of the comments that we received from very strong organizations. the small business technology council says not only does this sbir program spur technological innovation and entrepreneurship,

it helps create high-tech jobs and does so without increasing the federal deficit. the national small business association says the uncertain future of this program -- and as i said, for six years it's been operating on short-term, you know, short-term arrangements. three months here, two months there. for six years nobody has had any idea, either from the private sector, from some of the best labs, from our agencies, whether this program would be there next week. that is just unconscionable. that is why senator snowe and i have fought so hard to get this program authorized. and i see senator coburn on the floor, the senator from oklahoma, and i want to thank him because because of his good compromising efforts with us last congress, we're going to be able to authorize this program for eight years. as the senator will know because he's been a strong advocate for

good management and streamlining, programs like this need certainty. the labs, our agencies need to know. we're looking out two years or three years for this new technology, where there's a company out here we think could provide it to us. we need to know. so this eight-year authorization is important. and i thank him because some programs are only authorized for four years or five years. but we feel because we've been in limbo for six years, it would be a good idea to give that eight-year authorization. and just one more comment for 30 seconds, and i'll yield the floor. i want to read in to the record the letters of support from a short list of companies, and as additional ones come in we will read into the record their support. the bay area innovation alliance has sent their support. the biodistrict of new orleans. the biotechnology industrial organization, connect of california. the national defense

industrialists association. the new england innovation alliance. the national small business association. the national venture capital association. the small business association of new england. and i want to thank senator shaheen particularly for her support. small businesses of california. small business technology council. the v labs, inc. american chemical society. and the united states chamber of commerce, just to name a few. so, mr. president, let's keep this debate moving forward. we've had a number of amendments today. i see senator coburn on the tphraorbgs and i'll yield the floor -- i see senator coburn on the tphraorbgs and i'll yield the floor at this time. mr. coburn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i thank the president. i thank the senator for her kind words. it is necessary we move this bill. i'm thankful for she and the member, for some of the

commitments she made to me on those that don't work in the small business area. i have multiple amendments, but in deference to the chairwoman, i will not call those up. i am going to call up two. i want to explain both of them. amendment number 184, everybody was real excited about the g.a.o. report that we looked at the first third of the federal government in terms of all the duplication. we don't know the extent of that duplication, and we're going to have to do some hard work to really winnow out a lot of savings. but there are a lot of savings there. people don't agree with me on my estimate, but nobody knows these programs better than i do. i've been studying them for six years. there's at least $100 billion where we can save the american taxpayer and actually do a better job through redesigning the programs and eliminating the bureaucracies that make them less than effective. but one of the things we need to do to help the g.a.o. is have the agencies report to o.m.b. and to us on a yearly basis

their programs. there's at least 2,100 programs that we know of in the federal government, when g.a.o. goes to look at this, it's very difficult for them to ferret it all out. we only have one agency that publishes a list of their programs every year, and that's the department of education. you can get a book. it's this thick. it's this thick, and it lists all their programs. well, that's going to make it much easier for g.a.o. to do the next third. and so this is a simple amendment that requires every department of all the cabinets to fulfill to o.m.b. within a short period of time what are all your programs. and also to report to us. and when that happens, that's going to make the g.a.o. much more effective in how it brings to us this next group of duplications and overlap. so it's a straightforward amendment. my hope is that it can be accepted. and i'd like unanimous consent to call up amendment number 184,

which is that amendment and then make it pending. the presiding officer: is there an objection? ms. landrieu: there's no objection. i'd like to ask the senator -- the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: i like this amendment, 184, the senator has spoken about it with me. i think it has merit. if you could identify the other number, what i'd like to suggest if we could get a democratic amendment shot between these, -- slotted between these, what is the other number? mr. coburn: the other amendment number? the other amendment number is 220, the ethanol blenders credit. ms. landrieu: would the senator mind explaining that amendment and then i'll make sure it's cleared on our side and we'll see what we can do. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: let me ask the chair, then, i understand my first amendment is up and

pending; is that correct? the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from oklahoma, mr. coburn, proposes amendment number 184. at the end of title 5, add the following, section, requirement to identify and describe programs. a, each fiscal year the head of each federal agency shall, one, identify and describe every program anyonesterred by the agency -- mr. coburn: ask that the amendment be considered as read. and i would now -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coburn: like to discuss amendment number 22 o'and i guess it's your -- 220 and i guess it's your intention that i defer in calling amendment up? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: i may not have any objection. i would like to get that cleared on our side. if the senator would explain it and we could get back to him on that in just a short order.

mr. coburn: all right. amendment 220 is about making sure that we don't send good money after bad. when you go to the pump today to buy gasoline that is blended with ethanol, you pay as a taxpayer $1.78 as a taxpayer before you ever pay the $350 or $3 -- $3.50 that we're paying per gallon for ethanol and blending. this doesn't take away all the incentives on corn-based ethanol what it says is because we already have a mandate that says 15 billion gallons of ethanol must be available and put through the system this year, no longer is there a necessary -- a necessity to have a blender's credit to the tune of $6 billion

a year. so what this bill -- this bill does two things. one is it takes away a incentive that's no longer needed. but it saves us $6 billion that we're paying to names are going to do the business no matter whether we pay it -- to firms that are going to do the business no matter if we pay it or not. it is silly to pay $6 billion of which almost $3 billion will be borrowed money from either the federal reserve or from the chinese to incentivize something that's already mandated to happen. if you look at ethanol, it's two-thirds as efficient when blended as gasoline. it gets poorer mileage and

there's no savings in terms of carbon output or pollution. so what we're doing is we're incentivizing the use of a fuel that goes against what most people would like to do environmentally. it causes us to marketedly increase the cost of food, which we're seeing in our country and around the world today, and we're incentivizing something that's going to happen anyway. and so it's a straightforward amendment. it says on the blender's tax credit we're no longer going to give a credit for something you already have a market you're going to do without it. i know someone will say that it's a tax increase. but when dz 6 billion to a small industry that's -- $6 billion to a small industry -- if we use tax credits or expenditures to

expand the economy and it's not expanding the economy any when we do it, why would we continue to do it? as part of the president's deficit commission, we looked at that and said it's a no brainer. there's no reason you would incent something that is mandated by law. i know it's a controversial subject for a lot of our colleagues from farm states, but the fact is worldwide sophistication an food -- and food preference has widely increased, this has -- is taking food stock out of the human food change and putting it into the energy chain. we're not stopping that. there's still the all the other credits available and all the other mandates, but we're saying we shouldn't spend $6 billion of taxpayer money that we don't have for something that they're going to do anyway.

the other point i'd make is we're now a net exporter of ethanol. a lot of people don't recognize that. through november of 2010 we ex potted 397 million gallons of ethanol. that's almost a billion gallons since 2005 and not counting the blender's credit, but all the other credits, we're supporting that to the tune of $20 a gallon. we're subsidizing ethanol in europe to the tune of $1.20 a gallon. that makes no sense. when, in fact, we have significant energy needs ourselves. so my hope is that we'll consider this amendment, that -- that we'll have a vote on it. i recognize it's going to be a close vote. my count is 55. i know we've got to get 60.

i want the 45 members of our body to go home an explain to our constituents why we're accepting $6 billion to something that's going to happen anyway. it's a gift. we don't have $6 billion to spend that way. and the other point i'd make with the trouble that we're in we're not going to get out of it by cutting $200 billion at a time -- we're going to get out of it $6 billion at a time. senator begich and i foun found $1 billion in the f.a.a. bill from earmarks tied up, no money spent on them in 10 years, that's a billion dollar savings. if we do it $6 billion it $6 billion, $1 billion, $2 bi it $6 billion, $1 billion, $2 bi llion at a time, pretty sure we're going to add up and take some pressure off our country in terms of funding our debt. and the ultimate course has to be that we're convincing the world that we get it. that we can't continue to spend in the world financial market

and expect them to continue to loan us money. it's a straightforward amendment. my corn farmers in oklahoma don't like it. i understand that. but it's about doing the right thing for our country and now's the time to do it. and with that, i'd yield back the floor. ms. landrieu: thank you. mr. president, i really appreciate the cooperation of the senator from oklahoma. we have been able to get his amendment number 184 pending added to the list of seven others, which gives us eight pending amendments. none have been scheduled for a vote. if he would allow me to get back with him within the hour about whether i'll be able to clear -- senator snowe is not on the floor, so we need to consult with her to clear pending the number 220, and i will let him know within the hour. and senator shaheen has come down to the floor and i really appreciate, let me just say, i know she will be asked to be recognized. but i just want to say that she has been an outstanding member

of our small business committee and as a former governor of new hampshire, she most certainly was the job creator in chief and has brought a tremendous amount of expertise here to the senate and i'm very pleased to have her input on many of these bills that come out of the committee and, mr. president, i yield the floor. mrs. shaheen: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: thank you very much, mr. president. and thank you to senator landrieu for those nice words and also for your leadership. i think we all are indebted to senator landrieu and ranking member snowe for their leadership of the small business committee and their leadership in bringing forward this legislation that's before us, the small business innovation research program. they worked very hard in the last session of congress to get this bill through the senate and it would have gotten passed then, except the house adjourned before taking it up. so i'm trailed we're getting

back -- this reallied that we're -- thrilled that we're getting back to it in this session. i think most of us recognize that our future economic prosperity depends on whether this country continues to be a leader in science and innovation. we can't compete with india and china and other third-world countries for low-wage manufacturing jobs. that's not our future. america's future is to be the global leader in science and technology. america makes the best most innovated products and services. now, as a former small business owner, i understand that it is the private sector and business and not government that's responsible for most of the job creation in this country. but i also understand that government has a critical role to play in fostering the positive business climate that

we need in this country to remain competitive. and i believe there are few things that we can do through policy to unleash the innovative spirit that is so alive and well throughout this country and particularly in my home state of new hampshire. one of those policy initiatives that we can do that is central to maintaining the creative dominance that's allowed us to lead the world in innovation is to enact a long-term reauthorization of the small business innovation research program or the sbir program. sbir is not just a typical grant program. under the sbir program, a small business is able to compete for research that federal agencies need to accomplish their missions. agencies like the department of defense. small businesses employ about one-third of america's

scientists and engineers an produce more -- and produce more patents than large businesses and universities. yet, small business receives only about 4% of federal research and development dollars. sbir ensures that small business gets a tiny fraction of the existing federal research dollars. in the last few weeks i visited three new hampshire companies that are doing cutting-edge research because of the sbir program. those three are erics in summerworth, spy semiconductor and active shock. the research they have done under the sbir program has allowed them to develop new products, to add customers and to hire new workers. in other words, create jobs. all three have done essential research for the department of

defense. arics, for example, has developed a state of the art program to manufacture critical components for our nation's strategic missiles. this sbir award positioned them perfectly to compete and win a contract to manufacture motors for use in military programs and to commercialize their research. and they've been able to expand from a workforce of 10 to currently 25 workers since they got that sbir award and they're continuing to grow. in hanover, new hampshire, we have a company called criry, that is a poster child for the economic benefits that can be reaped through the sbir program. senator landrieu has talked on the floor about qualcomm in san diego. well, we should put criary in the same category as qualcomm. they can trace more tha

than $670 million in revenues that they've earned through the -- because of the sbir program. they produced spinoffs and technology hise -- license es for the commercialization of the sbir projects. many new hampshire small businesses have successfully competed for sbir funding in the 28 years since the program has been in existence. all across new hampshire small businesses that otherwise would not be able to compete for federal r&d funding have won competitive sbir grants that advance technology and science and create good jobs. what we all want to happen right now in this economy. in just the last two years new hampshire firms have won 80 sbir awards and, in fact, despite its small size, new hampshire is ranked 22 in the country for the total grants awarded through the

department of defense under the sbir program. now, as a senator from new hampshire, i take particular pride in the sbir program because it was new hampshire senator warren rudman who back in 1982 sponsored the small business innovation development act which established the sbir program. sbir has a proven track record and its cost, as chair landrieu has said so often on the floor, is minimal. c.b.o. estimates that implementing this bill would cost only $150 million over the next five years, and most of that minimal cost would have zero impact on the budget. that's because what this bill does is establish a three-year pilot program that authorizes participating agencies to use the same dollars they set aside anyway for sbir research to pay

for administrative costs. that means we won't be using general operating funds to pay for administrative costs, and this bill imposes no mandates on business and imposes no costs on state and local governments. we need to address the long-term deficit and debt in this country. our colleague from oklahoma just spoke very eloquently to the need to do that and what it's going to take, and we all know that, but the best way we can start dealing with the debt and deficit is through more robust economic growth. objecting to the sbir program as some have done on the grounds that we should be focusing on the deficit alone makes no sense at all because the jobs created by the sbir program will lower the deficit. just like stop-gap budgeting is bad for business, so are

stop-gap extensions of the sbir program. unfortunately, sbir has been operating under short-term extensions, ten of them, since 2008. short-term extensions are a problem because, as i hear and i know we all hear regularly from businesses, they need certainty in planning. this bill re-authorizes the sbir program for eight years. it's a reasonable period of time, and it will allow small business and federal agencies to effectively plan their research. now, mr. president, i know we've heard from some quarters and it's become fashionable on the part of some people to say that this country's best days are behind us, but i don't believe that for one moment. as i have traveled around new hampshire, i see cutting edge innovators who are creating

jobs. we here in the senate know what needs to be done, we just need the will to do it. so i urge all of my colleagues to join senator landrieu, ranking member snowe, the small business committee in voting to re-authorize and strengthen the sbir program. thank you very much, and i yield the floor. and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: mr. president, we're waiting for ten or 15 minutes for senators to come to the floor to speak about the bill, and i think that i and senator snowe and others have fairly described it for the hours today and yesterday, so i thought i would take a minute to just pay honor to a gentleman, the last u.s. veteran of world war i who was laid to rest at arlington just yesterday, and to

actually put into the congressional record, and i'd like to read as much of it as i'm able before the other members come because it struck me as something important. it was a beautifully written article in the post this morning, and i hope that many people got to see it and i'm hoping many of our members were able to read it. i learned some things that i had actually no idea about which will become apparent as i read this short article, but it was beautifully written by paul dugan, and i thought i'd just take a minute to read it into the record. this is the last u.s. veteran of world war i, so of course it wasn't just any ordinary funeral, not that any funeral is ordinary, but it was extremely special to our country and to the world. president obama was in attendance. vice president joe biden was in

attendance, and i would just like to read as much of it as i can. "a lowly corporal of long ago was buried tuesday at arlington national cemetery, ushered to his grave with all the army's old guard solemn pomp. frank woodroebuckless lived to be 110. the last of nearly five million u.s. veterans of a dimly remembered war, a generation now laid to rest. in a late-day chill after hundreds of strangers had paid their respects in public viewings since the weekend, soldiers carried the former doughboy's flag-draped coffin partway up a knoll and set it on polished rails above his plot. a stone's toss from the grave of his old supreme commander, general john j. "blackjack"

pershing. a chaplain commended his soul to god, a rifle cracked, buglers sounded the taps below a gentle rise. with flags at half staff throughout the u.s. military and government, it was a fine send-off for the country's last known veteran of world war i who died peacefully february 27 in his west virginia farmhouse. yet, the hollowed ritual at grave number 34-581 was not a farewell to one man alone. a reverent crowd of the powerful and the ordinary -- president obama, vice president biden, laborers and store clerks, heads bowed -- came to salute buckles' deceased generation, the vanished millions of soldiers and sailors he came to symbolize in the end. who were they? not the troops of the greatest generation so celebrated these days but the unheralded ones of 1917 and 1918 who came home to

pats on the back and little else in an era before the country embraced and rewarded its veterans. their 20th century narrative poignant and meaningful is seldom recalled. i know my father would want me to be here, said mike oliver, 73, a retiree from alexandria leaning on a cane near the cemetery's amphitheater hours before the burial. inside, a hushed procession of visitors filed past buckles' closed coffin in the chapel. i'm here for mr. buckles. i'm here for what he represents, oliver said. on his left lapel, he wore a tiny gold pin, the insignia of his long dead father's infantry division in world war i, the army's 80th. i'm here to say goodbye to my dad, he said. buckles, who fibbed his way into the army at 16, was a rear echelon ambulance driver in war-ravaged france, miles behind

the battle front. more than 116,000 americans died, about half in the fighting but most of the rest from illnesses in the nation's 19-month-long engagement in a conflict that scorched europe for four years. now the veterans who survived are all gone. what's left is remembrance, the collective story of 4.7 million lives, an obituary for a generation. arriving stateside in 1918 and 1919, many of them scared in mind and limb, they were met by post-war recession and joblessness. a lot of veterans thought that they were owed a boost, that they ought to be compensated for the good civilian wages they had missed, but unfortunately -- those are my words, unfortunately the words are but lawmakers after a year said no -- year after year said no. oh, the ymca did give me a

one-month free membership, buckles recalled when he was a very old fellow. except for the $60 that most veterans got from the government when they mustered out, the ymca gift was the only consideration i ever saw given to a soldier after the war, the last doughboy said. what he and other veterans finally received in 1924 were bonus certificates redeemable for cash in 1945, and congress had the right -- had to override a veto to secure even that. with the 1920's roaring by them, the young veterans tucked away their certificates and went about their lives. buckles became a purser on merchant ships traveling the globe. then the depression hit, and their legacy took on another aspect, one of activism that helped propel a reshaping of the nation's landscape. thousands of ruined veterans were left with nothing of value

but the promise of eventual bonuses. in 1932 while buckles was at sea, a rag-tag army of exservicemen descended on washington with their wives and kids to lobby for early redemption of the certificates and a disaster ensued that would long reverberate. and this is the part that i had no idea about and i think it's important to recall it and to remember it. living for weeks in a sprawling shanty town in mud flats in the anacostia and in tents and hovels near the u.s. capitol, the dirt poor -- quote -- bonus army numbering more than 20,000 defied orders to disperse so the army unleashed infantry. the veterans were routed in the melee of blood and tear gas. then soldiers cleared out the anacostia shacks and set them ablaze. two veterans died, hundreds were

injured. four years later, after a florida hurricane killed 259 destitute veterans at a make-shift federal work camp, political support finally tipped for the bonuses, and the generation that fought world war i finally got a substantial benefit. i think mine was $800, buckles said of his bonus, equal to 12,000 today, but he said he gave it to his father, an oklahoma dust bowl farmer barely hanging on. the bonus army debacle weighed on congress and the roosevelt administration during world war ii with 60 million americans in uniform, more than three times the world war i total. policymakers feared massive unrest if new veterans got the same shabby treatment that the buckles generation had received. the result in 1944 was the g.i. bill. widely viewed as the most

far-reaching social program in u.s. history, and i would only underscore to say widely viewed as the most far-reaching social program in world history. it made college and homeownership possible for the great wave of returning world war ii veterans when such opportunities were considered luxuries and spurred a vast decades-long expansion of america's middle class. unfortunately for the veterans of buckles' era, the bill was not retroactive. tuesday's hour-long viewing in the amphitheater chapel was consolation. buckles' family and members of west virginia congressional delegation had wanted him to lie in honor here, but it was not to be permissible, but so the people of arlington came to say goodbye, a generation's end. when senator -- when muriel sue kerr met buckles -- this was his

wife in the 1970's -- she was a secretary at the alexandria headquarters of veterans of world war i, had a large office staff and at the time scores of chapels across the country and a quarter million members out of 750,000 surviving veterans. thecommander who got the title n 2008 when the only other living member, a florida man, passed away. the group was formed in 1948 after millions of world war ii veterans swelled the ranks. it goes on to say, the world war ii guys had business loans, home loans, education, all kinds of things. my world war i guys nothing. they said, okay, we'll start other own bunch. so it included buckles, who was captured by the japanese while working in manila in the pacific and although he spent world war ii in an enemy prison can, he was a civilian, so the g.i. bill didn't extend to him.

in 1974, kerr was hired. most of the men when kerr -- when kerr was hired, most of the men were retired. they came to washington by a busload, they wanted money for hearing aids and dentures and a little pension. good ol' h.r. 1918, a bill they were always putting in to give them $50 a month. but of course it never passed. just a lot of memories now, the lobbying, the quarterly magazine. time ran out for all but the hard did iest of the veterans of world war i. they died fast. by 193 when the office shut for good, kerr said she was the only staff member left. she got phone calls for some of the few remaining members whose frail voices broke her heart. the typical sad things you'll hear from the elderly, she said,

"i had one of my guys. he was absolutely in tears. he was from nevada and his new nurse would not cut the crust off of his sandwich." they were buried with honors use it tuesday as scores scattered the hillside, a distant generation, the last cared for by his family till the end. in the waning afternoon, the soldiers of the burial detail strode up the avenue from the grand marble amphitheatre to section 34 of the cemetery exsupreme courting horse-drawn caisson with buckle buckles' med coffin, the procession slow and deliberate like the march of time. after the prayer and the echoes of the biewg and the rifles faded, the army's chief of staff, general peter chiarelli knelt before buckles' daughter and hand her a trifolded

american flag. he whispered words of comfort and then stood and walked away. no more dough boyce now. so long, rest in peace. no more doughboys now. so long. rest in peace. i thought ther this was an artie worth putting in the "congressional record." i am please that i had the time today before senators came to the floor to actually read it into the record so that we can take a pause to remember on this week the burial of the last veteran of world war i and what an obligation we have to our veterans today and the kind of determination that we must continue to foster, to honor them for the sablingifieses they made, whether it was this generation which we in large measure failed to do, the veterans of world war i i, the veterans of korea, vietnam,

desert storm, our veterans from iraq and from afghanistan who are currently fighting those battles. and it just helps us to remember, madam president, that the important work that we do here, the bills passing, particularly bills that provide these kinds of fair and equitable benefits is most certainly something the federal government must continue to keep as one of its highest priorities. and i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. pryor: thank you, madam president. i'm sorry for the dlaivment but we wanted to make sure we had our i's dotted and our t's crossed. i would like to calm and make pending the pryor amendment

number 229, the patriot express loan program. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from arkansas, mr. pryor, proposes an amendment numbered 229. on page 116, after line 24 -- mr. pryor: madam president, i ask that the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. pryor: madam president, i want to thank senator landrieu and senator snowe for their efforts to get this bill to the floor and handle these amendments and just showing the leadership we need to try to really focus on and emphasize small business. i'm convinced if we are going to get this full economic recovery that we all want to see, the private sector and especially small business is going to have to drive that recovery. and that brings me to the amendment that i've filed today

and have called up. in 2007, there were roughly 25,000 veteran-owned small businesses in my state. so you can do the math on that. there's probably 2 million around the country -- or more, maybe 3 million around the country veteran-owned small businesses. in 2007, the s.b.a. created the patriot express pilot loan initiative for members of the military community. that's part of the 7-a program. my amendment would move that patriot express loan program from a pilot program to a fully authorized one, and this would ensure that veterans and members of the military community continue to have the ability to access capital when starting a new business or even when operating an existing one. the patriot express pilot program has been a very successful program issuing close

to 7,000 loans valued at $560 million and increasing veteran participation in the s.b.a. programs. the amendment would make the patriot express loan program available to all members of the military community, including active and nonactive members, veterans, spouses, and children, widows and widowers of service members. it would increase the maximum loan amount from $500,000 to $1 million. it would guarantee rates would be 85% for loans of $500,000 or less and 80% for loans over $500,000 up to $1 million. it would also reduce the fees imposed by the s.b.a. for autumn veterans to 75% of the fees otherwise applicable under the 7-a and express programs. this is a wa way that we can rey help our men and women in

uniform. one of the reasons i think this particular pilot program has been a success is because obviously these folks are hardworking, they're disciplined, well-trained, they're serious because of what they've been through for our country. but also one of the reasons that i think makes this compelling is that they've given years of their lives to military service. if you're in the reserve or national guard, these can be very disruptive years. it is really hard to get anything going, in some cases hard to maintain a job over a period of years because they're being deployed and they're back and forth and doing the training arntiondz you noshing the requirements of the -- and, you know, the requirements that the country that is put on them has required them a very disruptive, what otherwise would be very strong earning years where they can be building their businesses. so this pilot program has been very effective and successful in providing access to capital, speeding the process along for our men and women in uniform.

and we want to encourage small business ownership. we want to encourage that innovation and i think this is a great way to do it. again, this is a program that's been on the books. it's proven to be successful. and we certainly hope that we can move it from a pilot program to a fully authorized program. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. ms. landrieu: thank you. madam president, i really appreciate the senator coming to the floor -- the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: i really appreciate the senator coming to the floor, and i thank him for his help in advancing this bill and supporting many of the proposals. the ranking member is not on the floor, so until we rurn run this through -- so until we run this through the other side for review, i'm not sure that we will be able to support t but we're looking at it now and i thank the senator for offering it.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. inhofe: madam chairman. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: we are currently, is my understanding, on my amendment 183 to s. 493. is that correct? the presiding officer: that is not the pending amendment at this time. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous

consent the pending amendment be set aside for the purpose of considering amendment number 183. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: thank you, madam president. and i say to the controller of the bill, i notice that we didn't have any speakers down, so i thought i'd come down. we do have this bill in consideration right now, in process for a vote. it's my understanding there will be a vote on amendment number 183 in the next perhaps hour or so, maybe just a few minutes. let me just give you a little background on what happened on this and where we are today. back in the early 1990's we had the kyoto treaty up for consideration.

that was during the clinton administration. the kyoto treaty was one that we looked at, studied here in this senate. one of the concerns about it was it was assuming that we have catastrophic global warming and it was due to manmade gases, anthropogenic gases, methane. that assumption most people thought was probably right because everyone said it was, until such time we found out what the cost would be if we at that time would ratify the kyoto treaty and live by its emissions restrictions, the cost would be somewhere between $300 billion and $400 billion. that actually came from the wharton school. we looked at that and thought we better look at that pretty closely. over some debate, we decided if this treaty came barks which the president -- came barks which president clinton signed, had to come to the senate for ratification, if it came to the senate for ratification, we would not ratify any treaty that

had either one of two things. number one, it would be devastating to our economy. and number two, would not treat developing countries the same as developed countries. well, as it turned out, it did both. it is one that only affected the developed countries. of course with the reports that we had on the cost, it would be very expensive. that was back in the 1990's. of course starting in the year 2000 and specifically 2003, it was called to our attention, at that time i say to you, madam president, that i was the chairman of the environment and public works committee, had the jurisdiction, and we looked at this and evaluated it as well as we could, the science that was behind it. the science on which this is all predicated came from the united nations. actually in 1988 the ipcc, the intergovernmental panel on climate change watts formed. so this came from the united nations. the science behind it was pretty much confined to recommendations

from the ipcc. we started getting phone calls from well-respected scientists all over the country. these scientists would say to us that the ipcc is a closed society, that they wouldn't let anyone in to offer their judgment unless they agreed that in fact anthropogenic gases were causing catastrophic global warming. so these scientists started piling up until i believe it was around 2003, we had a couple hundred of them. and i remember standing at this podium and talking on the floor about all the scientists that disagreed with the science of the ipcc. at that time i made a statement that became quite an irritant to a lot of people. i said the notion that we're having catastrophic global warming that is due to anthropogenic gases could very well be the greatest hoax ever

perpetrated on the american people. i remember going to the, one of the meetings. every year the united nations throws a big party, and each year we -- we just had our 15th, i would add. everyone remembers a year ago it was copenhagen. this year it was cancun. back then in 2003, it happened to be in milan, italy. in milan, italy, i was kind of detested by everyone there because it was something that everyone there was saying that we have to do something about this catastrophe that was about to hit us. well, as the years went by, we had bills. we had the bill in 2003, the bill in 2005, a bill in 2007, 2009. the last one was the markey -- who is it with markey? waxman-markey bill. each time those who were behind this to pass some kind of a cap-and-trade bill were fewer every time we voted.

at last count there is a total of 30 members of the united states senate that would say they would vote for the last cap-and-trade bill. the interesting thing about the bill coming up now is that they were unable to pass it legislatively, which is what we should be doing. we should be handling this through legislation. they tried, and we considered it, and it went through the process and they failed. now they're trying to do it through regulations. and it's been speculated that the cost to the american people would be even greater if done through the environmental protection agency than if it were done legislatively. it wasn't long ago that we had a hearing. i have a great deal of respect for president obama's director of the environmental protection agency, lisa jackson. she was in and testifying before our committee, live on tv. and i asked the question, i said if we were to pass -- it might have been the waxman-markey

bill. it doesn't matter. they're all the same. cap-and-trade is cap-and-trade. when it costs between $300 billion and $400 billion to the american people if we ratified kyoto, and the same thing would have been true if we ratified any of the five or six cap-and-trade bills since then. let's say we passed this and signed into law, would this reduce co2 emissions? that's the whole idea. co2 is supposed to be causing all this stuff. her response -- i was proud of her because it took a lot of courage to give the response that she did. she said in her response, no, it wouldn't because it would only affect the united states of america. and i would take it one step further. as we restrict -- that's what would happen. if we had a cap-and-trade, whether it's by legislation or by regulation, it doesn't really matter. what they're going to do is regulating everything that's out there in our society. and as i say, the cost would be

between $300 billion and $400 billion. what i do, since i'm not as smart as the rest of them around here, when i hear the billions and trillions of dollars, i try to see what does this cost my people in oklahoma. so i did the math, and in oklahoma if we take the total number of people that have filed tax returns and divide it into the amount of tax this would cost, it would be about $3,100 per family. my state of oklahoma. now, what do you get if you get it? you get something that even the e.p.a. director says is not going to lower worldwide co2 emissions. so you don't get anything for it. now the big vote that's coming up in a few minutes is going to be a bill that i introduced, we now have introduced this as an amendment to this small business bill, and that would say to the e.p.a. that you no longer have jurisdiction, which they shouldn't have, and i question that they had in the first phraeurbgs over the regulation

of co2. -- first place over the regulation of co2. there's a lot of talk about the clean air act. i was a very stronger supporter of the clean air act. and several people who take a different position from me on the vote coming up talk about the clean air act and all the wonderful things it's done. i agree, it has. i feel strongly about it. we have cleaner air now than we had in a long period of time. the thing is it was designed to take care of six known pollutants. co2 was not one. it was not a pollutant. the courts said you don't have to count it as a pollutant, but if you want to, you can do it. so it was optional to the environmental protection agency and to the government of our country. well, they elected to do that. in order to do that, they have to have an endangerment finding. an endangerment finding is something that says co2 is an endangerment to public health. well, when the same administrator, administrator

jackson was before our committee, this was right before the copenhagen thing. this would have been a year ago last december. i can remember making the statement to her again in the same public meeting. i said, madam administrator, i have a feeling when i leave for copenhagen tomorrow that you're going to have an endangerment finding. i could see a few smiles. i said if that happens, it's got to be based on some science, doesn't it? yes. what science would you base it on? primarily the ipcc. coincidentally, madam chairman -- madam president, this was right before, right before the all the climategate stuff came out, where they saw they were falsifying science and all the things we had found during the mid-1990's about scientists coming in, they were correct after all. that they had been cooking the science on this thing. that's another problem that we have that we're faced with. the way to solve the problem, and i think that many of my democrat friends, many of them

have said that they agree that this should be a matter of the legislature, not a matter of the e.p.a. making these decisions. this morning i quoted some of the -- i've got it right here. senator baucus, he's a democrat senator. he said i mentioned that i do not want the e.p.a. writing those regulations. i think it's too much power in the hands of one single agency. but rather climate change should be a matter of essentially left to congress. i agree with that, and it was left to congress. and we considered five or six bills on this. senator nelson, another democrat from nebraska, ben nelson, he said controlling the levels of carbon emissions is the job of congress. we don't need e.p.a. looking over congress's shoulder telling us we're not moving fast enough. and i agree with him. in addition to that, we have eight other democrat senators who said essentially the same thing. so i think that's pretty well understood. one reason i wanted to mention this before the vote takes

place, my wife thinks the greatest problem facing america is the price of gas at the pumps. i know that my wife is not the only wife around who believes that. she was saying for a long period of time, what causes these things? it's very easy because my wife and i have been married 51 years, and we have 20 kids and grandkids. and even my grandkids understand that the, it's supply and demand. that's taught in elementary schools nowadays. so supply and demand is at work here. well, we have supply in the united states of america. we have -- and i'm going to show you in just a minute. in fact, i'll go ahead and do that now because i want everyone who votes on this to understand anyone, democrat or republican, who votes against my amendment is voting to increase dramatically the price of gas at the pumps. the next time you hear someone say that we have -- this is something you keep hearing -- that we have just 3% of the oil

in this country, i think that's interesting because they say 3% of the proven reserves. well, proven reserves can't take place until -- go ahead and put that chart up -- until such time as you drill to prove it. well, we have members of the majority, along with the white house, the majority of the senate disallowed us to go out an drill. if you can't drill, 83% of the public lands where we could be drilling for oil we can't do it because they won't let us do it. they do have recoverable reserves and our recoverable reserves right now in america are 135 billion barrels. all we have to do is in order to do that is -- is to go out and take advantage of that and use thee recoverable reserves and with the c.r.s. report that came out -- the congressional review, the c.r.s., is something that is

recognized as an impartial, bipartisan or nonpartisan study group and they study these things and they said that as of a year ago the united states of america -- now this is very important, madam president, because the united states of america has the largest recoverable reserves in coal, gas, and oil of any of the nations. now, there they are right there. this is the reserves of the coal -- this is all three, isn't it? fossil fuels, coal, gas, and oil. and there it is. that's the united states of america. if you had this up, we have more than saudi arabia, china, and canada, iraq combined. now, that's what we've got here. but the problem is politically they won't let us drill for it. i know, and i just regret to say this, because i was just challenged, but it's true because i was there, 21 years ago we had exxon valdez.

it was a disaster. it took place in prince william sound. most people here remember that now. it was an accident where they had a deficient ship and it leaked in the beautiful war there. there were a bunch on the far left that celebrated that it happened. why? they celebrated because they're going to stop all production on anwr or the north slopes of alaska. i said, how do you figure that? because prince william sound -- exxon valdez, that was a advance taition accident. that hit something causing it to break. i say, if you do away with drilling in america, that means we have to transports it into foreign countries and the likelihood of it happening again is far greater. i hate to say this also, but when we had the spill in the gulf not too long ago, a lot of people said, we're going to stop all drilling in deepwater

drilling in the gulf. well, we have tremendous reserves down there in the gulf and while the moratorium was lifted, the administration is only -- has only issued one deepwater drilling permit since that happened. now what i'm saying is we've got all these reserves out there and we can do it and i'm talking about gas and oil and -- and coal. the -- it's not just the -- the oil and gas but we have another opportunity out there if you use the next chart up, i think that's the one i'm looking for here. that's coal. all right. we talked about oil. we talked about gas. now, in oil, if we just export our own resources, that that we know is there, the reserves that we have in oil and in gas, it

would run this country in oil and gas for 90 years. that's our own stuff. that's not from saudi arabia, not from the middle east, not even from mexico. that's our stuff. the same is true with the coal reserves. there's the united states, 28% of all the coal reserve. 58% of the power generated in the united states is generated with coal fire generations and they are trying to do away with that. so that's a target. but, again, we have these tremendous reserves in the united states and let's don't forget that's -- so we could run this country for 100 years on just what we have except the politician won't let go in and recover our own reserves. oil shale, right now, it's something -- there's several pilot projects to prove that the shale's special viability, the green river formation located in colorado, wyoming, and utah. contains the equivalent of six trillion barrels of oil. let me say that again, six trillion barrels of oil.

the department of energy estimates that of this six trillion, approximately 1.38 trillion barrels are potentially recoverable. that's the equivalent of more than five times the oil reserves in saudi arabia. but when i made this statement about having all these reserves more than any other country, i wasn't counting shale because not quite here yet. another domestic energy source that could lessen our dependence is methane hydrate. everybody knows that. i didn't count that either. so all these things that we could have counted aren't there. the point is this, we have enough reserves to take care of all the problems that we have in -- in this country for the years to come. i -- i look at some peep -- some people will come in -- they're well-meaning people. they say we have to go to green energy. i'm for green energy. but if you have something under development, it might be a year or 20 years or 30 years before it comes, then you have to continue to run this machine

called america in the mean time. and what do we know works and what is available? it's oil, gas, and coal. now, just for a minute i'm going to deviate over there to what's happened in -- over in japan. we just came from a hearing and i'm very proud that not just our administration, the president, and the secretary of energy, but also the nuclear regulatory commission has said that that should not affect what we're doing right now. we currently have 12 applications pending. two of them are pending for almost immediate consideration for nuclear reactors so that we will get into nuclear. right now we only develop about 20% of our energy from nuclear. france, for example, does 80%. and so that's something that's out there. and i would say that in my opinion, as one member of the united states senate, in order to stop, not reduce, but stop our dependence upon the middle east all together, all we have to do is keep working on all the

above. i want wind, i want solar, all of that. i also want those things that are developed and available today, coal, gas, and oil. now, you may wonder what i'm getting around to with these charts is the fact that we have a -- everyone admits that the -- that the goal of this administration, i'm looking for it right now, was to -- is to do away with price is so high that oil and gas so high that we'll have to be dependent upon other things. president obama said not long ago he said under this cap-and-trade -- we're talking about it could be legislative or it could be regulations -- quote -- "electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket." noticed he said necessarily skyrocket. his administrator of the -- or the secretary of energy to give you an idea of what's behind

this, all the high price of gas at the pump said quote -- this is steven chew, secretary of -- chu secretary of energy for the obama administration, he said -- quote -- "we have to figure out way to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in europe." let me repeat that. "somehow we have to figure out a way to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in europe." what are the prices in europe? $7.78, italy $7.54, france $750. that is the motivation out there to do this. we have many others that we could quote in the administration, but i don't want to turn this into something that gives the appearance that we're just criticizing the administration. the fact is that we have to do something about developing our own resources an if we do that we're going to be able -- and if we do that, we're going to be able to -- we're going to be able to bring down the price -- do two things. first of all, for our national

security, which worrying about -- quit worrying about depending on the middle east for our oil. we can stop that and develop our own resources. and, secondly, go right back to elementary supply and demand. if we can supply the oil and gas in coal, then we're going to have -- it will -- it will lower their price and lower it dramatically. everybody knows that. and that's why this bill that's coming up is so important. because the bill isn't just to -- vote isn't to keep us from having a $300 billion o or $400 billion tax increase on the american people that won't accomplish anything. remember what the said the adminstrator of the e.p.a. said, -- but also that we can stop the rise of gas at the pump. so if somebody votes against this amendment, all it does is say that the -- which many democrats, all the democrats and many democrats agree, we're going to find out how many, is that congress should be the one

to address these things, not the environmental protection agency. so that's what the amendment's all about. anyone's who's going to be voting against the amendment is saying we don't want to develop our own resources and that's one of the most serious problems that we're dealing with right now. we have other problems that have to do with the -- the e.p.a. right now with all the regulations. they have this minimum achievable technology on emissions, on other things such as -- as -- as boilers and -- and other things that would end up costing -- increasing the cost to do business. ultimately it's -- it's the consumer that pays. i actually have a quote here that i can't seem to find right now since i'm not using notes that -- that says that we -- we do have the technology to do all these things and, yet, it's -- we are going to allow this to happen even though it's not necessary. so we've got a big vote coming

up and that vote is, do you think the e.p.a. should regulate the emissions of co2 in america or do you think congress should do it? do you think the e.p.a. should do it, get ready for a tax increase, i'm sure that the president is ready to sign that will keep them -- that will allow them to continue to down the road of overregulating. there's a cost to regulation, i think we all know that, and it's one that's huge. if you just look hat these regulation that's we -- look at these regulations that we have and the $300 billion and $400 billion, and how that affects people, the boiler regulation, the same e.p.a., that affects 800,000 jobs in america. the utility mec, and that's somebody that -- that the -- the director of the e.p.a. just had a news conference on today. that is having the minimum achievable reductions in

utilities would cost about $100 billion. the ozone and the p.m. would be about $90 billion. i'd say we would be talking about a pretty big jobs bill. but only on this. i want to make sure that everybody understands. my friend john barrasso has a bill that is going to go a lot further than this. and i'm a strong supporter of his legislation. it will go into keeping the e.p.a. from using the co2 to change the clean air act, the clean water act, the endangered species act and that's very good. that's not what this is. if anyone says -- oh, let me find -- i heard something this morning that i want to make sure to clarify. i think it's important because there's all kinds of things out there people are saying will happen if we -- if we pass this amendment. they're saying that's going to somehow affect -- in fact they said i respectfully ask the members of the committee to keep in mind the e.p.a.'s saves

millions of adults and children from debilitating an expensive illnesses that occur when tailpipes release unrestricted amounts of pollution. i agree with that. i was a strong supporter when the clean air act came out and when the amendments came out. it was designed for the six criteria pollutants at the heart of the clean air act, air, ozone, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and particulate matter. those are real pollutants, not imaginary like co2. that was targeted by the clean air act and, of course, it has nothing to do with -- with anything else and that's -- so those things are still going to be restricted. we've had some people say and i heard this several times today that the -- the energy -- this amendment would block the administration's announced plan to followup with the clean air act standards for cars an light

trucks. not at all true. that's all done by the national highway traffic safety administration. that's not even within the jurisdiction of the e.p.a. that's -- that's nitsa, the national highway, traffic, safety administration. it has nothing to do with mileage or cars, nothing to do with -- with the whole effort that they're trying to do to increase mileage, that can go on. the -- and i would say, further, that the e.p.a.'s contributing practically nothing to the administration's global warming car deal. about 4% of the joint e.p.a. nitsa program emission reduction dropping e.p.a. would therefore have a meaningless effect on oil consumption. and according to the e.p.a., this is their figures, it's greenhouse gas car standards would mean that global mean temperature is reduced by 0.006 to 0.0015 celsius by 2010.

that's not even measurable. don't let anyone use the argument that it has anything to with cafe standards and doesn't do anything that is harmful to green. so, with that, i will say the amendment is coming up soon. we will find out who wants to keep us from developing our own resources, and it should be a very interesting vote. with that, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? mr. inouye: the amendment submitted by the senator from kentucky seeks to reduce discretionary spending by by $200 billion. the actual amendment would cut in excess of $155 billion from domestic discretionary spending and the balance from security

related programs. while i'm certain the senator is serious in his desire to cut spending, and all of us are, i would point out to my colleagues that for the remaining six months of this fiscal year, with the passage of the next short-term continuing resolution, the federal government will have less than than $200 billion in fiscal year 2011 funds remaining for domestic discretionary spending, and my colleagues need to be advised, madam president, that the c.r. that has passed the house will set a ceiling on domestic discretionary spending for the whole year at at $400 billion. since we are halfway through the fiscal year, we have already allocated about half of these resources. moreover, during the first six months of the fiscal year, the

government was funded at a higher rate, approximately approximately $405 billion. therefore, we only have approximately $195 billion remaining for the balance of the year to spend on all discretionary domestic programs. while these are their examples where unobligated balances remain in some agencies, in general, it is fair to say the senator's amendment would cut this year's remaining domestic spending by 80%. madam president, the amendment stipulates that the consumer product safety commission, the national endowments for the arts and humanities, the corporation for public broadcasting are abolished. if this wasn't bad enough, the amendment would also cut more

funding from the department of education than they have remaining for the balance of the fiscal year. they are going to wipe it out. it would cut more than remains available for the department of housing and urban development and from the office of personnel management. some domestic agencies would have sufficient resources to survive this cut, but none without dire consequences. a cut of 35% to the e.p.a. would seriously curtail funding for sewer and drinking water infrastructure while leaving the agency with little funding to pay its personnel for the rest of the fiscal year. for the department of the interior, this amendment would most certainly necessitate the closure of our national parks

and indian schools. with security funding, the bill would slash the state department's budget 75% below last year's level, effectively eliminating funding for most state department functions worldwide, with devastateing consequences for ongoing operations in iraq, afghanistan and pakistan. the $30 billion cut to the department of defense would likely delay or terminate procurement programs supported by the congress as the department uses its authority to target cuts away from readiness and personnel programs toward investment programs. the energy department's nuclear weapons program would be cut by by $2.5 billion. this would put the safety,

security and reliability of our nuclear weapons at risk. madam president, the only thing that many agencies would be able to do if they are faced with cuts of this magnitude would be to plan to shut down their operations, and i can't think of a single member of this chamber responsibly voting for this amendment. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: