month. in that one month, we lost more jobs according to this document that i'm looking at than any month probably in the last, i don't know, lost 10 or 15 years. i'll going to go back to check. can i have one more minute? the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: i don't see senator inouye. i'm going to ask for two or three minutes until he gets to the floor. that is the highest number of job loss in years. and i'm going to tell you how many when i find out exactly. the point is president obama was not the president in 2000 -- in january of 2009. or he was just sworn in in 2009. he was elected in 2008.

so the job losses of the year before which started february of 2008, which was the beginning of the recession, before president obama was sworn in, we lost 83,000 jobs. in march 72,000. in april, 185,000. in may 230,000. in july, 238,000. in august 267,000. in september 434,000. in october 509,000. in november 802,000. in december 619,000. in january, the month he got sworn in, we lost 820,000. i understand people have different views. but to blame a president who wasn't even in office for this recession is wrong and it's not fair. and that often happens. it doesn't happen from our ranking member, but it does happen from others around here. in addition, that terrible loss of jobs continued as wall street

collapsed, fat cats ran off with the money, people's social security and 401(k)s -- well 401(k)s, not social security, thank goodness, but 401(k)s tanked. public pension funds that people are screaming about that something's wrong with them. yes, there's a lot of things wrong with them. the wall street collapse of greed unparalleled maybe in the history of this nation sunk so many of our public pension funds, not the fault necessarily of governors or legislators or employees themselves -- and there are some underfinding opportunity. i would say treasurer. the big culprit was the collapse of the market which started before this administration. these numbers continue. 500, 300. what's happening this year to 2010? is it starting to reverse? yes ma'am, it is starting to reverse. in march, a plus of 192.

in april a plus of 277. in may a plus of 458. in october a plus of 171. and i could go on. the point is that, you know, it's not all gloom and doom. there are some things that are working. we need to keep working together. that's why senator snowe and i are on the floor -- and i see senator inouye coming and it's time to go to the c.r. but we are working together the way our committee has had a tradition of working to try to take a bill here, a bill there, putting good programs in place, putting new ideas, thinking outside of the box because we all have to do the best we can to get this economy moving again. so i just wanted to say for the record, to submit this data. i see the chairman of the appropriations committee. and i believe at this time, madam president, i will yield the floor and proceed to the next order of business.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will proceed to the consideration of h.j. resolution 48 which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 20 house joint resolution 488 making further fiscal appropriations for the year 2011 and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order there will be three hours of debate equally divided between the leaders or their designees. mr. inouye: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. inouye: madam president, i rise to discuss house joint resolution 48, a short-term continuing resolution designed to keep the government open through april 8. if the senate passes the resolution, it will be the sixth -- and i repeat -- sixth short-term c.r. this year. with its passage, we'll be more

than halfway through the fiscal year and we're still operating without a budget. h.j. res. 48 would fund the government for an additional three weeks and would reduce the rate of operations for the federal government by an additional $6 billion. if adopted, we would be operating the government at a rate that is $51 billion below the amount requested by the administration for this fiscal year. at this level our spending on security programs will be $30 billion below the president's request and $21 billion lower on domestic spending. madam president, i would also point out to my colleagues that this is $31 billion below the

so-called level which every member of the republican caucus voted for last year. the aggregate amount in this short-term c.r. is the level proposed by the president as a compromise with the house republicans, and it's the same amount that was included in an amendment which i offered as an alternative to the house c.r. last week. by agreeing to this level, the senate will be $6 billion lower than current spending levels but no more than the president has recommended. while several of my colleagues have complained that we simply have not cut enough government spending, most of our subcommittee chairmen and many members of the democratic caucus are beginning to think that we've already cut too much.

i believe the disparity in views can be partially explained by the information described below. recently the center on budget and policy priorities released a report which notes that in comparing appropriations funding levels, the appropriate measurement should be expressed in inflation-adjusted dollars normally referred to as real growth. the center's point is that the cost of government operations increases each year by inflation. one cannot ignore the fact that if the price of goods and services rise by 1%, 2% or 3%, the federal government's cost in providing these goods and services will also increase by this rate. when we fail to consider the effect of inflation on federal

discretionary spending in viewing spending rates, we are not accurately reflecting what is, what it costs to run the government. if utility prices are increasing by 5% and if we don't budget the extra amount, we are forcing to cut other programs to pay for the fact of life increase in our utility bills. longevity increases paid to military pay raises are also facts of life we cannot ignore. these bills have to be paid even if we aren't budgeting for the increased cost. and if we are not basing our funding decisions on real costs adjusted by inflation, we're in fact forcing government to cut the services it provides even when it receives the same

funding level as in the previous year. this isn't a political talking point. it is pure and simple mathematics. the report from the center on budget and policy priority measures the impact of inflation on the cost of government. by its calculation using the c.b.o. baseline, real spending approved for fy 2011 to date is $34 billion lower than was provided in fy 2010. a cut of $18 billion in real security spending and $16 billion in domestic spending. with this amendment, we'll be cutting domestic spending by another $6 billion, and in normal terms but more than in inflation-adjusted dollars. democrats have been chastised for only cutting $10 billion

from fy 2010. madam president, i would note that even in that comparison which fails to take into account many factor-of-life increases, we should all understand that domestic spending is being cut by more than $14 billion while security spending is slated to increase. furthermore, madam president, we are now halfway through the fiscal year. agencies have spent an average of 50% of their funds. each dollar we reduce at this time has the effect of doubling the cut made in programs for the rest of the year. our subcommittee chairmen recognize the difficulties that this level of spending will create for the programs. accordingly, many of my colleagues on the appropriations committee are saying enough is

enough. while those who are not familiar with the details of budgeting complain that we should be able to cut more spending. i would ask the senate to consider one more measurement. for domestic discretionary spending, the total available for the whole year after the passage of this bill will be $400 billion. that's a lot of money. in fy 2010, we had $413.6 billion for these purposes. for nearly the entire first half of this year we're spending funds at the rate of nearly $410 billion. and since the year is halfway over, approximately half of the $410 billion, or $205 billion, has already been allocated. in general, that means we only

have approximately $195 billion to cover the cost of all the domestic agencies for the rest of the year. this rate of spending for the rest of this fiscal year is $23.6 billion below the rate we spent last year. and when we compound this, recognizing that inflation has increased the cost of operations for domestic programs by $16 billion a year, we see that effectively for the remainder of the year we'll be asking our agencies to operate at a rate of $39.6 billion below what we gave them for the same level of goods last year. in real terms, even under this short-term c.r., we will be

requiring our agencies to observe -- absolve more than 9% reduction in spending compared to a year ago. madam president, agreeing to a cut of this size this late in the fiscal year will be most challenging for management and agencies to manage. i believe our subcommittee chairmen recognize this reality, and it is why most of them are concerned that the level of cuts we are agreeing to is already deeper than it is prudent. finally, i want to point out to everyone who is listening exactly where we are and what we are really talking about in trying to conclude our negotiations on spending for this fiscal year. those who talk about $3.7 trillion in spending and

billions in unneeded funds are not dealing with the reality of this c.r. what the decision comes down to is this: after this resolution passes, our domestic agencies will have approximately $195 billion to meet all their needs for their fiscal year. this will cover the salaries of people who monitor our food supplies, of our air traffic controllers who keep u.s. airspace safe, our customs officials and u.s. marshals who monitor our borders. it includes the cost of all our programs to support education from kindergarten through college, of those who ensure that our social security benefits are paid, and thousands of other activities. we have reduced their funding

effectively by 10%. how much more of this $195 billion which accounts for only about 5% of the $3.7 trillion budget? how much more of this spending can we really afford to cut before we are required to lay off food inspectors and shut down our meat plants? how much more can we cut before we have no funds to pay employees who monitor our borders and ports? how much more before we have to cancel the construction of dams and bridges and highways, sewers and transit projects and throw thousands of private-sector workers on the street? madam president, it shouldn't be forgotten that when we force

either civil servants or private-sector workers out of their jobs, they both head to the unemployment rolls. they won't be paying taxes any longer but they will tax already stretched social services. surely we can agree cutting jobs, whether public or private, is not the right approach to assist our slowly rebounding economy. this is not a question of how much we can or should save for -- from a $3.7 trillion budget but a question of how much more our colleagues think we should cut from the $195 billion we have left to pay for our domestic agencies when we will effectively be asking the agencies to cut another 10%.

-- 10% over the next six months. madam president, in the coming days, as we try to resolve our differences on domestic spending for the rest of this fiscal ye year, i hope my colleagues will keep some of these points in mind. madam president, having said that, i intend to support the c.r. because it will provide the funding level that the white house has endorsed and because if it fails, we would likely have to shut down the government and that, madam president, is unacceptable. so i encourage all of my colleagues, those who think we have cut too much and those who don't, to support this three-week extension to allow our colleagues additional time to try and reach an overall compromise on thi discretionary

spending for the rest of the fiscal year. i yield the floor. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. inouye: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inouye: and i ask consent that time be allocated on both sides accordingly. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inouye: the clerk will call th inouye: inouye: --i suggest a

quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. nelson: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: madam president, i ask consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: madam president, i ask to speak as if in morning business.

the presiding officer: without objection. madam president, you remember a year ago before we passed the health care bill that everybody testified that medicare was set to go into bankruptcy in seven years and you remember back then, just a year ago, medicare paid doctors when seniors got sick and medicare was focused on the quantity of care instead of the quality of care? and back then, medicare paid hospitals more if a patient got an infection that could have been avoided in the hospital and they paid hospitals less if they avoided that infection in the first place because medicare, whatever the cost was, medicare paid it.

and remember back then that doctors would perform the same test over and over again for the same patient because they hadn't been encouraged in a law to work together and to share results? madam president, that's why a year ago we passed the health care reform act and now that act extends the life of medicare for 12 more years, until at least the year 2029. and now as a change in that law, medicare doesn't just care for you when you get sick, it's a more comprehensive health care system now the senior citizens receive a annual wellness visit

as part of the new medicare law. they can receive screenings and tips on how to manage or prevent conditions, like if they have diabetes or high blood pressure. and they don't have to wait until they get sick. and in my state of florida, that's a lot of senior citizens, that's 3.2 million senior citizens. another thing that this health reform law does is it increases payments to hospitals for providing higher-quality care. it gives hospitals the incentives to prevent avoidable illnesses. and the law improves the quality by increasing the number of

primary care physicians. my opening statement was that hospitals were paid more if you got an infection in the hospit hospital. we're now going to pay the hospital less. we're going to give the hospital an incentive not to have that kind of hospital that increases the infections while the patient is there. well, now doctors under the new law can track the patient care. they can make sure that patients are seeing the right specialist and they can help specialists avoid repeating the test and the procedures. there's a part that is just being implemented now in the health care bill called "the

accountable care organization." combined with that will be electronic records. so instead of medicare beneficiary, the senior citizen going to this specialist, this specialist, this specialist, and this specialist and all of them getting medicare fee-for-servi fee-for-service, now they're going to be under the umbrella of an accountable care organization that may be in the private sector, it may be part of medicare advantage in an insurance company that's managing the case for the medicare recipient. whatever it is, it's going to integrate with electronic records with the enhancement of primary care physicians so that all that duplication is not done and so that everybody's talking to everybody through the electronic records.

and so these doctors now are going to be able to keep track of patient care, to see the right specialist, and to help the specialist avoid repeating the test. now, you remember a year ago, madam president, when the senior citizens had to pay a lot for their senior citizen prescriptions. under medicare, that meant that sometimes our seniors didn't get the treatment that they wanted because they could not afford it. remember back then that medicare covered the first $2,800 worth of prescription drugs but then you didn't get any medicare coverage of drugs until you had exceeded $6,300.

and if you didn't have the money and you were a senior citizen, i'll tell you what was happening in that $3,000 to $4,000 gap, a senior citizen, like some of the senior citizens in your state and my state, madam president, was they were doing without or they were cutting in half their prescription drugs or they were, unfortunately, making the choice between food or their medicine. something that in america in the 21st century you can't believe that's going on but, in fact, it was and unfortunately it still is. but it's about to go out because we are now covering that gap that is known as the doughnut hole in the new health care

reform bill. and so this bill that was passed a year ago is closing the gap in that coverage, and in my state alone, that means that 235,000 florida seniors received a check in this year of $250 that helped cover the cost of those prescriptions in that last year of 2010. and this year in 2011, under the new haw, the seniors who -- new law, the seniors who hit that gap called the doughnut hole are going to receive a discount of 50% off the cost of their prescriptions and the gap under the new law is going to be entirely eliminated by the year 2020. it's going to be gradually phased in. a year ago, a lot of folks talked about the effect of health reform on medicare

advantage. remember that? remember all of that criticism about how medicare advantage was going to go down and how it was going to get cut? well, when we started proposing some real improvements to medicare advantage, a lot of the opponents were saying that it was going to kill the program. they said it was going to cut those benefits and it scared a lot of our senior citizens. well, the truth was that the insurance companies that provided medicare -- called medicare advantage -- had a cushy extra 14% over medicare prescription direct benefits, and medicare fee-for-service plus 14% is what the insurance

companies were getting, and those insurance companies pocketed much of that government extra spending, and we were not, under the old law, holding those insurance companies accountable for enough on quality. well, as a result of that health care reform bill, today that program is stronger than ever. remember how they said it was going to get whacked and it was going to cause the seniors to go way down? well, i can tell you, in my state, enrollment is up 6% in medicare advantage and the premiums are down in florida by 9.6%. -- on medicare advantage. the new health care reform bill allows us to push back against the insurance companies who

wanted to charge too much for medicare advantage. just in my state, we were able to save florida seniors $4 million in the form of extra health benefits or reduced out-of-pocket costs for their medicare coverage. and now under the new law we're going to be able to reward medicare advantage plans -- read "medicare insurance companies" -- we're going to be ail to reward them for those -- we're going to be able to reward them for those who provide the high-quality plans, the high-quality care. remember back a year ago what was happening on waste, fraud, and abuse in medicare, the standards to prevent that waste, fraud, and abuse in medicare were certainly not tough enough. how many times did we pick up

the newspaper and we bred this guy -- and we read about this guy had fleeced medicare by oamg opening up a storefront that was a fake storefront and just started billing medicare right and left and medicare was paying. and, as a result, the criminals were able to rip off federal health care programs, and a lot of that was because there wasn't an adequate enough review. we will, this new law -- well, this new law has enforcement officials with new tools to prevent fraud before it occurs. and this senator had a part, a little bitty part in that, and the law gives states money to conduct background checks on long-term care providers and to educate seniors on the fraud

prevention on those people that prey on our senior citizens and take advantage of them. and my state has received a number of -- in excess of $3 million thus far in order to provide that education on fraud prevention. because of the changes in this health care reform bill, medicare is now stronger than ever and, as it is being implemented over the course of the next several years -- it didn't take effect all at once; there's a lot of implementation in each year over about the next four years. and as it does, medicare is going to be stronger than ever. and we certainly need to continue to protect and strengthen medicare for all of our seniors.

mr. president, on the occasion of this year ago when it -- this new law on health care reform became law, it is so complicat complicated. and there are mistakes in it and we'll correct those mistakes over time. that's the good part about this thing being implemented over the next several years; that where there is a mistake, it can be corrected. if this thing goes all the way up to the u.s. supreme court, which i expect it will, and if the court declares a part of it as unconstitutional, that doesn't mean the court is going to strike down the whole law. but there are plenty of opportunities where there needs to be corrections as it's being implemented that we can do that. i want to come to the floor of the senate and point out some of these things that have already

strengthened the medicare program as well as providing a more favorable environment in which to receive health care coverage, particularly for america's senior citizens. mr. president, i yield the floor, and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i want to speak for a moment on -- i'm so, i want to note -- the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you. i want to speak for a moment about the continuing resolution and then speak on something else. it shouldn't really matter which political party you belong to. it is not right for any elected official to use the budget process to scwawngder our economic potential and undermine itour economic competitiveness. i see far too many people doing that in this debate. i also see that we are looking

in a small window of the budget, something like one-sixth of the budget is where all the cuts are. confining the discussion to that, without looking at a millionaire'aire's tax, without looking at closing loopholes. as the presiding officer knows, if a company in wheeling, west virginia, or st. clair' clairsv, ohio, they can actually duct the cost of a shutdown. that makes no sense. weengdz to close those loopholes we need to close those loopholes. yesterday i was on the phone with the majority leader and talking to ohio and nevada media and also with john paul hall, and ohio veterans, who after being discharged from the army was left homeless and turned to drug abuse.

with support, and a grant program, he's got an apartment, his life is on track. he is enrolrolled in college in ohio and is on track to graduate and will be very employable. those are the kinded of cutes that republicans have made to maternal health care programs, to head start, to programs like this, for homeless vets. it is unconscionable that that's the approach they've taken instead of a much more serious long-term deficit reduction. we also know from what john mccain's chief economic advisor said that the republican budget that came out of the house would result in 700,000 lost jobs this year because of their approach, and that's clearly not the way, as this economic recovery has begun, not fast enough in west virginia, ohio, or anywhere else in this country, but it's begun. so we don't want to undercut that. i ask unanimous consent to insert the rest of my remarks in

a different place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i want to spheek -- we were considering earlier this morning when i was presidinsidid senator landrieu and snowe were leading very we will on the small business issue. i'd like to speak about another important issue for small business. that's our nation's trade and globalization agenda. as my completion are away, the generalized system of plercheses, the so-called g.s.p., the andean trade preferences for ecuador and the reforms, the trade adjustment assistance all expired in mid-february. i don't think too many people are happy about that. i'm not. i've offered amendments with senator casey and requested unanimous consent to pass both the andean trade preferences and the trade adjustment assistance, but my colleagues -- republican colleagues have objected. others like senator mccain requested unanimous consent on only the andean trade preferences and i have objected.

i have objected because we can't turn our back on american workers who lose their job through no fault of their own only to then help other workers in other countries. since congress made reforms to the trade adjustment assistance in 2009, trade adjustment assistance has been with us since the kennedy administration. it clearly works. workers lose their jobs through no fault of their own, they get some assistance from the government to go back to school and get trained to be productive workers again. they lost their jobs through no doing of theern. since congress made the reforms in 2009, 170,000 additional trade-impacted workers became eligible for training under the t.a. for workers program. so if somebody loses their job because of a trade agreement that we pass in this institution -- nafta, cafta, pntr with china, other kinds of trade agreements with us australia ad jordan and panama and peru --

when workers lose their jobs because of these agreements, we at least owe it to them to help them with trade adjustment assistance. but since this program expired last month, we've shut off service workers, we've shut off manufacturing workers who lost their jobs to countries that we don't have a free trade agreement with. so we don't actually have a free trade agreement with china or india. we did something called pntr with china. so if a worker in dayton or zanesville loses their job to china or india, they're out of luck. they don't get tee a.a. they worked at a plant where that plant lost their -- that plant moved because of trade, they moved to chiefnlt but they don't get any kind of assistance. it wasn't their fault. it shouldn't work that way. in addition, improvements to the health coverage tax credit program also expired, hctc helps

trade-affected workers purchase private health coverage to replace the coverage they lost. they lost their job because of a trade agreement. they can't afford health insurance because they don't have much money and they get some tax credit from the government to help them be able to afford this health care. it has helped thousands of workers manage hospital costs and medication and necessary doctor visits. without it, they're at risk of losing not only their jobs but they are health insurance. it may leave them more likely to lose their home and suffer from foreclosure. t.a.a., trade adjustment htct tax credit must be renewed regardless of whether the congress considers or passes any new trade agreement. ambassador kirk will conge be submitting the u.s.-korea free trade disagreement to congress. i've expressed my concerns about this agreement. i am concerned it will be a step backward, especially in the auto industry.

i am concerned that low-wage asian nations will use korea as a platform to export auto parts and steal duty-free to the u.s. they'll come into some country through korea and then get access to u.s. markets duty-free. these are serious concerns. this isn't theory. this is based on what's happened since passing other free trade agreements. every time we pass a free trade agreement, supporters of icy it is going to be more american jobs. we're going to close the trade deficit. it never s it's always lost manufacturing jobs and in northern west virginia and much of my state we've seen that inflicted on families day after day after day. and it means a larger trade deficit. but, mr. president, at least we'll have the time to debate and consider the korean trade agreement. unfortunately, several my colleagues across the aisle don't even want to consider the korea trade agreement unless it is packaged with the colombia and panama agreements. so on top of not extending trade adjustment assistance, on top of

not extend the health care tax credit, my republican colleagues want to move on all three leftover bush trade agreements -- korea and colombia and panama. these trade deals will not be winners for american workers. we know that our exports increase every -- that our exports increase with free trade agreements. we also know that our imports increase to a larger degree. the first president bush said that when we have a trade surplus or deficit of $1 billion, it translates into 13,000 jobs. $1 billion trade deficit is 13,000 lost jobs. a $1 billion is surplus is 13,000 increased jobs. that's president bush's numbers. you can just do the math. we have trade deficits of hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars in this country. when production in jobs is offshore, innovation is not far behind. all of us -- and i know the presiding officer has been, has gone through manufacturing plants. and what you see in a manufacturing plant is you see

workers and engineers figuring out always how to innovate to make productivity, to increase productivity to make production more efficient and less expensive. if we innovate in this country and invent in this country and then we send those jobs overseas for production, we begin to lose the innovation edge, because over there, whether it's mexico or china or india or japan or anywhere else, when the production is done over there, the innovation is also done on the shop floor over there. while we brag about being the most inventive, innovative people on earth -- which we are -- the future doesn't necessarily look that way as we outsource so many of these jobs. we've seen how these free trade agreements give incentive to move production overseas. instead of giving ins-pb alternatives -- incentives to american companies to produce over here, we do the opposite by

passing nafta, cafta, any of those. peru's president garcia spoke to the u.s. chamber of commerce, he said come and open your factories in my country so we can sell your own products back to the united states. come sell your own products back to the united states. how's that good for american workers? how's that good for instphoefgs how's good for american manufacturing? it's become a business plan for far too many companies in this country. think about this in the broad sweep of history, how often this has ever happened where a business plan for u.s. companies, we invent something here, we then produce it in china thousands and thousands and thousands of miles away, and then we ship it back to the united states, back to the home country. that's the business model for far too many companies. if they were to set up in china and sell into china and east asia, that would be one thing. but company after company after

american company have gone abroad, done the production there, sold it back into the united states. so it's not providing the work for american workers that it should. again, my colleagues are holding people who need retraining and adjustment hostage to another trade agreement. so they're saying if you don't pass colombia and panama and korea, then we're not going to extend trade adjustment assistance, we're not going to extend the health coverage tax credit. free trade's biggest supporters put so much stock into these free trade agreements and they do so ignoring the elephant in the room. i'm talking about our trade agreement with china. congress approved china pntr more than 11 years ago. we've had half a billion dollars a day in trade deficits with china. that means we buy $500 million a day more in products from china than we sell to products in

china. that's what a trade deficit of $500 million a day means, that we actually are buying $500 million every single day more from china than we're selling to china. that is not the sign, long-term sign of prosperity. that is not a long-term indicator of strengthening the middle class. mr. president, until we figure out where we're going on trade and put a halt to these trade agreements and look at what we need to do instead, we're going to continue to seat shrinking of the middle class. last week an appeals court of the world trade organization made a horrendous decision in favor of china against our trade remedy laws. the w.t.o. again has overreached beyond laws and rules against our anti-dumping and counterveiling duty laws. these laws have been the only way to protect ourselves, protect our economy and protect our communities and our workers and protect our small businesses. one of the last tools we have to defend against unfair trade law are these trade remedy laws, and

the w.t.o., a bunch of bureaucrat trade lawyers, are taking them away. the w.t.o. reufrbgz legitimacy -- risks legitimacy with a ruling like this one. i urge the obama administration to react aggressively to this decision. i ask my colleagues to step back from this stalled trade agenda, step back from south korea, step back from panama, step back from colombia. i ask my colleagues to examine instead what's in the best interest of american workers and businesses. we can find a balanced trade agenda that makes sense for our businesses, makes sense for our workers, makes sense for our communities. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest 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 tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, i ask consent that senator bennet and i --

the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call, sir. mr. alexander: mr. president, i ask consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: i ask consent that senator bennet and i have up to ten minutes for a colloquy. the presiding officer: without objection. how would the time be allotted, sir? mr. alexander: up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: ten minutes. mr. alexander: mr. president, senator bennet and i have just announced an effort that i think most teachers, most principals, many parents will want to be a part of. we're going to look at the education system in tennessee and colorado, two of the more progressive states in education, to see if there are too many tests and too many regulations. we want to make sure that the tests we have are good tests, the regulations we have are reasonable tests. and any minute that we can save from an unneeded test or an

unnecessary regulation is a minute a teacher can spend devoted to teaching. so we've done two things. one, we are introducing today legislation that will, we hope will be a part of the new elementary and secondary education act when it's passed, that will have the education secretary set up a task force that will do something we don't usually do in government, which is subtract instead of add government. in other words, to continuously ask teachers, principals and others, what tests, what regulations are unnecessary so that we can get rid of them. second, we're going to start right away to do this in colorado and tennessee. we've talked to our governors, and we're going to put together a task force of educators in our state and ask them to say to us what regulations are unnecessary, what tests are unnecessary. when i was governor, i used to say to the education secretary, who was then bill bennett, there

are too many federal regulations. he would say to me, i'll bet you've got more state regulations than federal regulations, and he was right. when i was education secretary, i had many teachers and others say to me, we can't do this, we can't do that because of a federal regulation, when in fact there was no such federal regulation. what often happens is the confusion between what the federal government and what the state government requires creates inordinate confusion in the classroom and teachers feel all tied up. so we're going to start right away to do this. we're both very excited about this. we think this is, this should give teachers and others in the classroom an opportunity to do their jobs. they have one day less on an unneeded test might mean one more day teaching a child united states history, which would suit me fine.

i want to congratulate senator bennet for his contribution to the debate, his ideas -- his ideas come from the experience of an extraordinarily successful superintendent of the denver public school system. so we're taking his more recent experience and my own background, putting them together with our teachers and principals and we look forward to reporting to our colleagues what we find as well as to secretary duncan, who will be a full partner in this with us. and we hope this is part of the elementary and secondary education act when it is enacted in a bipartisan way by this congress. mr. bennet: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i want to thank senator alexander for his leadership over so many years on education issues confronting this country and making sure that every child in america has the opportunity to fulfill their full potential, and for his work on this bipartisan effort to do

something very, very unusual for government and also for public education, which is actually the -- to begin an inquiry about not what the next rule should be, not what the next regulation should be, but whether there are rules and regulations that are now obsolete or whether our state regulations and our federal regulations are actually not accounting for each other in any way other than to overburden the people that are actually teaching our kids and our kids themselves. i used -- you know, i used to spend a lot of time when i was the superintendent of denver public schools wondering why everyone in washington was so mean to our teachers and so mean to our kids. and now that i've been here a couple of years, i know that people here aren't mean, but this senate floor is a very long way from the classrooms in this country, very long way from the classrooms in tennessee, a long way from the classrooms in colorado. and we have to remember what the effects are of everything we do

on that moment when a teacher is in her classroom with 20 or 30 kids and is trying to do her best to make sure they move forward. so this is an opportunity to not show up with the answers but to ask questions of our teachers and our -- and our principals and our moms and our dadssee what kinds of things we can take -- dads and see what kinds of things we can take away. i've learned something since i've been here, which is that an awful lot of the burden that we're placing on people in our -- in our schools and our classrooms is the way in which state and federal regulations interact with each other, and if we can reduce that burden while at the same time elevating our accountability system, improve our accountability system, make sure we're holding everybody accountable for delivering, for outcomes for our kids, that not only will we get better results but we're going to find out that there's a lot more time in the school day and the school year for kids to have a well-rounded

education all across america. so i want to thank our former education secretary for his work. i want to thank our current education secretary, arne duncan, for working with us on this initiative. i'm just so looking forward to having a conversation with people where we're saying, what can we take away, rather than what are we going to impose on you next. mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, i'd like to ask consent to include in the record a memorandum on the colorad colorado-tennessee working group on effective regulation and assessment systems for public education which outlines the roles senator bennet and i and arne duncan as well as i and the governor of colorado will have. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander son an: and if i y one more time what i think the bottom line of what this proposal of senator bennet and

me is. every minute that a teacher spends on an unnedded test or regulation -- unneeded test or regulation is a minute that the teacher cannot devote to cheechg a child -- to teaching a child. so what we are asking the teachers of tennessee and colorado to do for us is to identify the rules and regulations that we need and the rules and regulations that we can get rid of. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: i just want to add one more example, mr. president, just from the experience in denver. we complied with no child left behind in the denver public schools but there was something that really didn't make sense to me and didn't make sense to our teachers and didn't make sense to our families, which is we thought we were asking and answering a completely irrelevant question when it came to accountability, which was, how did this year's fourth graders do compared to last year's fowrd grairts? you know, the accountable -- year's fourth graders?

you know the accountability system all over the country is based on that. and what my teachers said, michael, it's irrelevant because they're not the same kids, and they're right. so we moved to the system that asked the question, how did this year's fifth graders do compared to how they did as fourth graders and third graders, and compared to every other child in the state of colorado with a similar test history did as well. all of a sudden we began to see places that were actually driving growth for kids but that were completely unrecognized by the federal law. and we saw other places where kids were achieving at high levels but were falling behind during the course of the year. there is a lot of wisdom out there in -- in this country about how to move our kids forward and what we've got to do i think is tear down some of the barriers in the way of those good ideas. it took me a long, long time to get that performance system signed off on, at both the state and the federal level. now the state of colorado has a

growth model and we're talking about growth models all over the country as a result of the work we did in colorado and the good work that's been done in other states as well. sometimes people ask, why is it so hard to scale quality in public education. and if we can in some small way tear down some of the unintended barriers to -- to that scaling of quality education, i think -- i think our kids will be the better for it. so again, i want to thank the senator from tennessee for signing up on this initiative. i look forward to learning with him what's working well and what's not working so well in our two respective states and then watching this spread cross the united states. thank you, mr. president -- spread across the united states. thank you, mr. president, and i thank the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: skilled that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, we'll be soon voting on a continuing resolution to continue funding of the united states government for three weeks. i believe that will reduce spending over that three-week period by $2 billion a week, which is far less than the debt

we're incurring each one of those weeks, but it is a significant progress. added to the $4 billion we did in a previous week's c.r. i think it keeps us on track to achieve a $61 billion reduction in federal spending this fiscal year which ends september 30. this is important that we take action. it is a matter that is important financially to american business interests, foreign business interests who may be thinking of invelveinvesting in the united s and people who might buy our huge number of treasury bills that we sell each yea week and e purchased by people all over the world. they want to know, do we have

our house in order or not? is this a safe place to invest money or not? and we need to do something now. when majority leader reid proposed not $61 billion but that we reduce spending only $4 billion throughout the rest of this fiscal year, i said then and believe now, that is hole a product of a -- that is only a product of being in the washington bubble. we're bubblized people. we're in denial about the reality of the crisis that we face, and i do not want to talk down the american economy. i believe the american worker is competitive and is willing to work and be competitive, can be competitive. but we cannot burden that worker down with excessive debt. well, how does that happen? i'm ranking republican on the

budget committee, and we've heard testimony from doctors rogoff and rhin reinhardt, writa book entitled "this time it's different." struggles of debt crises over the past 20 years shows a consistent pattern of problems. one of the things they concluded is that when a nation's debt reaches 90% of the total economy -- 90% of g.d.p. -- the economic growth in that country slows down, and the median was 1%. but the average was more than 1%. some countries had more than a 1% drop in growth. japan has a higher debt than we, i think the highest in the world.

they've had an interesting way that they've been able to finance it. but they've had no growth for quite a long time. it is consistent with the rogoff reinhardt study. does that apply to us? we will, we are about 95% now. our debt is surging. by the end of this fiscal year september 30, the numbers are that our debt will be 100% of g.d.p. we wilwell above the figure. what does 1% growth mean? if you're looking for growth of 1% or 2%, it is half your growth maybe. what does it mean in other terms? experts have said that a 1% reduction in your growth amounts to a million jobs lost -- a million jobs lost.

so i believe we're beginning to feel a negative pull on our bounce back from this recession as a result of growing debt right now, not years down the road as some people have been saying and predicting we're going to have a debt crisis down the road. i hate to say it. all i can tell you is what i've been told at our committee. erskine bowles -- he was president clinton's chief of staff, he was appointed by president obama to cochair the debt commission with senator alan simpson; they testified before our committee last week. and that is what they said about the nature of the crisis we face. they spent weeks studying the numbers, hearing from experts all over the world, economists and others about our debt situation, and they have reported that we've got to take action now. in a joint statement, they presented to the committee, they

said that this is the most predictable financial crisis this nation has ever faced. in other words, we're on a course -- they say if we don't change course, it'll be the most predictable crisis we've faced. and so senator conrad, our democratic chairman, who's very concerned about these issues, asked him about when, and mr. bowls, wh bowles, a -- and mr. bowles said, two years, maybe a little less, maybe a little more. and senator simpson contributed to the discussion and said, i think a year. well, i hope we don't have some sort of debt crisis in a career. but the fact that that has even been discussed should be a cause

of alarm for us. and let me say, alan greenspan said we could have a debt crisis in two to three years in january. and moody's has discussed downgrading our debt, warned that they might downgrade our debt in less than two years. so we need to take action now. that's the deal. that's the matter. and we got a big -- and we had a big election last fall. we had some fine new members elected to the house and senate. the american people felt when they elected these people, i'm absolutely confident, that they would come to washington and help us get off the wild spending debt course we're on. i believe the american people get it. they're not in a bubble. they know you can't continue this way. and soy they're prepared to take -- and so they're prepared to

take some action and we need to do it. if we fail to doing is something, i think it would -- if we fail to do something significant, i think it would send the wrong message around the world. you're still not changing your course. well, you may have heard that the president said in his state of the union -- and i urged him before that to talk straight to the american people about the threat that we face. he did not do so. in the first 37 minutes of his speech, it was new investments he called on us to make. investmentvestments, of course,w spending. he never once took a few moments to explain to us the kind of things that mr. erskine bowles said, mr. alan greenspan said,

how we're on an unsustainable course. he never acknowledged that we're on an unsustainable course. he never warned us that we're going to have to tighten our belts, like mayors are doing, like governors are doing all over america, like governor mansion had to do in west -- like governor manchin had to do in west virginia. if you don't have money, you have to change course. but i was really disappointed. and i think some of my democratic colleagues -- senator manchin has raised disappointment that we haven't had that kind of national dialogue as to why we have to ask the american people to receive somewhat less from the federal government than they've been receiving. why do we have to do? because we're facing a crisis and good leadership to me means that the leerpd has to tell the people -- that the leader has to tell the people what the threat is what the danger is and how we're going to get out of it. and i truly believe that one of

the highest duties of any member of congress or any leader in america is to protect the american people from foreseebilitforeseeabledangers. as erskine bowles said, this is the most predictable crisis we've ever faced. it's heading to a bad end. hopefully not as soon as they warned us it could happen, so we'll have time to get off this course, but that's important. so the president says in his state of the union that we'll be living within our means. he did a radio address after he submitted his budget, and he said that we're going to be living within our means. my budget puts us on a track to prosperity. we are going to continue to invest, and we'll be living within ash means and paying down the debt. -- living within our means and

paying down the debt. and the key chairman or director of the office of management and budget, where all the money has to be managed inside any president's administration, mr. liu says that we're going to be living within our means and paying down our debt. basically they're saying don't worry; you guys are getting all hyped up. this is political talk. we can still invest. we can still spend. don't worry about it. well what do the facts say? we don't need political talk. we need a fact-based budget. we need fact-based discussions. and the the fact are, we're not going to be paying down our debt in ten years under the president's budget. we're not going to be living within our means. what is the situation? his own budget is four volumes.

these are the figures in his budget, his projections, his plan really because that's what a budget is. it's your plan for the next decade. in that plan, it calls for spending levels that increase the total gross debt of the united states from $13 trillion to $26 trillion. under that budget plan, the lowest single annual deficit that occurs is over $600 billion. the highest deficit president bush ever had was $450 billion. that was too high. the lowest he's projecting in his own numbers is $600 billion. and more troubling, years seven, eight, nine, ten of his budget, the deficits of going up. that's almost about $900 billion

in the tenth year. so the deficit's course is not a good course. how could they say that? how could the president look the american people in the eye and say my budget is going to call us to live within our stphaoepbs and mr. l -- within our means? and mr. liu say that? i examined him in the budget committee. i said the lowest deficit you're going to have is $600 billion. how is that living within our means? he said, well, there's something called the primary deficit. i said what? the primary deficit. what is that? you don't count interest. you don't count interest. well, when you are a family who's living in tight times today, trying to squeeze their budget, do they not count their interest on their credit card or their mortgage payment? how can you say you're balancing the budget, you're living within your means and not count

interest that you pay on the debt? all the money we borrow, we have to pay interest on. the $13 interest, -- the $13 trillion, the $14 interest, we pay interest on that. last year our interest pay for the united states of america was about $208 billion or so. $200 billion in interest payments. what about the tenth year under the president's budget? $844 billion, according to his numbers. this is the fastest-growing item in the entire budget. and, mr. president, they assume interest rate at 3.5%. i don't think -- most experts would not believe that's going to remain so low. this is historically very low.

historically we average about 6% on our debt. so, if it went from 3% to 6%, to 7% instead of $840 billion, i guess it would be $1.9 trillion in interest payments. and that could happen. that could happen if we don't get off the unsustainable path we're on. so i'm really frustrated about this. people say, well, this c.r. before us is only discretionary spending. it's only a small part of the overall budget. you shouldn't even attempt to fool with it. you're just wasting your time. no, no, no. we're going to have to take every part of the budget step by step and see what we can do to contain the growth of spending or even reduce spending to

eliminate some spending that's totally worthless or virtually so, that we get no real benefit from. that needs to be eliminated. we need to make our government more productive, lean and efficient. we can do that. i go back to the point that we're on the wrong course. we cannot continue on the course. the house of representatives have passed a proposal, a continuing resolution that would reduce spending through the rest of the fiscal year a total of $61 billion. we should meet that. we should accept that. that's not too much. it's probably not enough, but it is enough to count. for example, it's a $61 billion reduction in baseline u.s. spending. the total spending, you reduce

the baseline, even if next year you start going up 1%, that 1% will be on a baseline that's $61 billion lower. and over a period of time -- we've calculated the numbers. over ten years that $61 billion plus the interest you don't have to pay will save the united states treasury $860 billion, close to $1 trillion. that's a real good step. that does make a difference. and people who deny it makes a difference are wrong. and it's not going to savage anybody unless some of these programs just aren't working and they ought to be zeroed out. i want to make that point clear. well, what about -- how much is the entitlement, i mean the discretionary spending, the money we spend here on education, on highways, on stuff

of that nature, defense? that's about -- that's total, well, discretionary non-defense is about 12 % of the budget. 60% or so is in social security and medicare, and they're growing in an unsustainable rate. it's just not healthy, and we need to take steps now to save social security, put social security on a path that our seniors can rely on it and our young people can have confidence that when they become senior citizens that they can rely on it also. it is not that difficult to do. and this has been talked about by editorial boards around the country and experts and economists and professors and congressmen and senators for years. but the crisis is getting more real and acute now.

but what did the president do? not one word about that in his state of the aoupb kwror or his -- in his state of the union or his budget. his budget doesn't do anything about any of the entitlements. you can't cut discretionary spending and you can't cut entitlement spending. in effect, they're saying nothing is to be challenged. i don't think that's a rational approach to the crisis that we're in today. i know it's not a rational approach to it. we've got to work together. we've got senators together right now, democrat and republican, that are trying to figure out a way to make some alterations in the trajectory of our debt in america to put us on a sound path. democrats and republicans.

senator warner, senator chambliss, i think senator manchin and others are talking. they'd like to see us do something historic. i really think we do. but on the budget committee, secretary -- administrator jack liu said that the president wasn't for any change. he agreed -- he took the view that social security doesn't have a problem. nothing's going to happen until 2037. what happens then? it falls off a cliff. that assumes you count this paper that's supposed to be backing it up. but the money's been spent. social security is always debt paper. we need to get it on a sound course, and we can do t. we've .com to work on medicare, which is even more problematic and more dangerous and get them on a sound course. we need to get our head together on discretionary spending and

contain our growth in discretionary spending, all of which is possible to do. all of which is possible to do. we've got the opportunity to put our country on a road to prosperity and growth. we'll need to do some things such as reforming our tax laws to more fairly raise revenue in a way that allows more growth to occur, because we need to have growth. we've got to create jobs. we need to redo our energy policy and produce more american energy and hold the cost of energy down. not drive up the cost of gasoline and electricity on the american people. the leadership in this country ought to be working to reduce energy costs, not drive up energy costs.

momentum, i think, is on the side of this. a lot of republican-democrat talk is going on. majority leader reid offered his pittance reduction, $4 billion reduction, ten democratic senators defected. they didn't vote for it because they didn't think it reduced spending enough. we had three republicans not support the $61 billion. they thought it ought to go lower than that. so the momentum out there is to go further than we're going. the american people get it. our expert testimony and witnesses tell us that. we've seen bill gross of the pimco bond fund, the largest fund in the world saying they're not buying any more u.s. treasuries, basically a call on the united states to reduce our debt. he didn't have confidence in it, not willing to buy it any more at the rates we're offering. so we need to get busy and do

some things. and it's going to have to be done in a bipartisan way; there's no doubt about it. so there are two choices, mr. president. i believe truly one is a tougher road, but it's the road to prosperity. it can return us to the kind of leadership role in the world we need to be on, and the other road is the road to decline. you know, nothing comes from nothing. nothing ever could, julie andrews sang. there's no free lunch. debts have to be paid. interest has to be paid on debts. this is reality. we don't live in a fantasy world. so the time to stand and be counted is now. this $61 billion reduction in

spending through the last seven, six and a half or so months of this fiscal year is a statement. it's actual. it's real. it will reduce the total indebtedness by $861 billion over ten years. we could do more. but congress being what it is, it's slowly coming around to the challenge, we're not ready probably to do more. we need to do 61 billion. we do not need a compromise halfway, some $30 billion reduction in spending. i do believe that would show weakness on our part, a lack of resolve which would not be a good signal for our fragile economy today. so, we need to meet the test, to face the defining challenge of our time, and that's spending.

the dominant issue facing america today, no doubt about it, it dwarfs every other issue. i wish it weren't so. i wish we were here at a time, when i came, 1997, well, i guess we were still fighting over spending then trying to contain spending. by 1998, 1999 we were in surplus. they started in 1994, they made some tough decisions. it's going to be harder this time. the hole is deeper. the demographics and the systemic threats to our financial order is greater than it was. there's just no doubt about it. but we can do it. and i think it's our time to fulfill our duty, the duty to our nation and to the american people to preserve the american heritage. we are standing at a time in this country where we have to

make a choice. let's make this choice. let's do this three-week extension, take it down $6 billion more over that three weeks. and then let's come back and just do 61 and celebrate the first real step in a decade to contain growth and spending. and promise that this is the beginning, that we're going to review all of our financial situation in this country, and we're going to do it in an honest, above-board way; fact-based, not politics, not smoke and mirrors or fantasy budgets. but real numbers facing real threats. if we do that, i think the american people will be supportive. they were supportive in the last election. i believe they'll be supportive again. mr. president, i thank the chair for the opportunity to speak. i thank you for your leadership on these issues in the senate.

i believe there's a growing consensus here that progress must be made. i would yield the floor. mr. sessions: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. kyl: mr. president, are we in a quorum call presently? the presiding officer: we are. mr. kyl: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. and the republican whip is recognized.

mr. ky kyl: and for my next act. thank you, mr. president. i just want to say a few words in support of the continuing resolution that the house of representatives passed that we're going to be voting on in another our so, h.j. resolution 48. this is another short-term funding resolution to prevent a government shutdown while our congressional leaders are negotiating to try to reach an agreement on a long-term plan to keep our government working through the end of this fiscal year, ending in september. the short- and long-term continuing resolutions under discussion are leftover work from 2010 to finish the job of funding the government, as i said, through the end of this fiscal year. notably, the spending cuts that have been achieved so far are really the first meaningful spending cuts that congress has passed since the deficit-reduction act, which was enacted in february of 2006. the house-passed three-week c.r.

-- or continuing resolution -- which runs until april 8 includes $6 billion in spending cuts, which will keep the congress on track to implement the overall $61 billion in spending reductions, which are included in the long-term c.r. enactment of this short-term measure would mean that in just five weeks we will have cut $10 billion from this year's spending, and because of the adjustment in the baseline, that means that over a ten-year period of time, we'll hav have d the taxpayers $140 billion. now, even in washington, d.c., that's real money. the cuts in h.j. resolution 48 include funding rescissions, reductions, and program terminations. it also eliminates earmark accounts within the agriculture, commerce, justice, sciences, financial services, general

government, and interior jurisdictions. it reduces or terminates programs for a $3.5 billion and eliminates $6.2 billion in earmark account funding. all in all, a pretty good day's work. while the spending cuts we could argue are not large relative to the overall budget, as i said before, they will amount to $140 billion in savings over ten years. and so, mr. president, i urge my colleagues to support this ability to cut funding, something that we don't often have the opportunity to do. why do we need to do this? wwell, we all know that first of all we've got a gross federal debt exceeding $14 trillion. in fact, we're piling up detect at such a fast rate that soon the administration says -- and the administration has -- the president has asked us to increase the debt ceiling of the

united states because of the amount of debt that we keep adding to the debt that exists. obviously we're living beyond our means. we have to borrow th 4 billion day. we have to borrow 42 cents of every dollar and about half occurs from foreign nations. if you want to look at how the debt relates to american citizens, it is related to $45,500 per american. if you want to relate it to americans that pay tams taxes, it is $127,000 for every taxpayer in the united states. that's how big our debt is. and that money has to be paid back. this is not something that just sought there in the ether somewhere. our creditors will want to be paid back when the bonds that we have issued become due. it's either going to be us here in congress and the president deciding how to reorder our priorities so is that we get our

fiscal house in order, or eventually the bond buyers are going to do it for us by demanding far higher interest rates in order to buy our defnlt and it's not just a fiscal problem. this is a national security problem. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, mike mullen, has made the point. "i believe that our debt is the greatest threat to our national security." now, why does he say that? wwell, there are two basic reasons y if we don't have the economic capability of funding all of the national security requirements that we have, we no longer are the world's leading power able to inject our authority throughout the world, our ability to help others as we will as defend ourselves. and, second, when we get into hock with other countries, become their debtors, our ability to influence their decisions in the world is diminished. it is very hard for us to go to the chinese, who hold a couple trillion dollars of our debt -- i think it is a figure roughly

in that neighborhood -- and say, we demand that you support us in the united nations security council to impose sanctions on iran. it's pretty easy for them to say, oh, really? how about the debt that you owe us? how about if you pay a little higher interest rate on that money? of course, paying a higher interest rate would devastate both our federal budget and our economy. so it impacts our ability to influence others around the world, thereby also influencing our national security. finally, the impact of the cuts that we're making today when we pass this legislation on job creation in our country. there is a direct relationship between government spending on the one hand, going into debt, and job creation on the other. it is wont reasons we have the high unemployment that -- www.one of the reasons we have the high unemployment that we have today. if you look at a chart, there is an absolute direct correlation between the unemployment in our country and the deficit spending

and debt in our country. that's why we have to get that lowered. and when we reduce the amount of debt and we spend less, which is what this legislation will do, we can leave the money in the private sector, enabling private businesses to invest that money, including in jobs, thereby not only hiring more people but sages our economy to grow. -- but assisting our economy to grow. stanford economist john taylor has shown this correlation in his work between the spending cuts and increased employment. he recently released an analysis and it's titled "why a credible budget strategy will reduce unemployment and increase economic growth." that's the title. and it concluded that the spending cuts in h.r. 1, which is the underlying continuing resolution in the house, and i am quoting now, "will increase economic growth and employment as the federal government begins to put its fiscal house in order and encourage job-producing

private-sector investment." end of quote. he is, by the way, among 150 top economists in the united states who signed a statement arguing for a change in direction and immediate action, and i'm quoting now, "to begin to slow government spending, reduce uncertainty, and support the creation of new private-sector jobs." end ever quote. mr. president, we can begin that process by adopting the regulation that's before us here in another hour or so. it will, as i say, cut an additional $6 billion, so that the total in this last month and one week will be $10 million -- excuse me, $10 billion in spending cuts that will over a ten-year period of time save the taxpayers $140 billion. all in all, a good day's work, and i urge my colleagues to support legislation. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll of the senate.

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from new york is recognized. mr. schumer: mr. president, i rise to speak about the current debate over the current federal budget. on tuesday, a very telling and very troubling vote was held in

the house of representatives. in order to pass the three-week continuing resolution needed to avert a government shutdown which we're considering here in the senate today -- excuse me. thank you, mr. president. -- which we're considering here in the senate today, speaker boehner was forced to rely on votes from house democrats. he had to do so because conservative republicans abandoned their party leadership in droves. they fumed that the measure lacked special interest add-ons dealing with ideological issues like abortion and net neutrality and global warming. in all, 54 conservative republicans rejected the measure, even though it was necessary to avert a shutdown, even though their own leadership negotiated the proposal, and even though it included $6 billion in additional cuts to

domestic discretionary spending. this is a bad omen. last week the senate held two test votes, one on h.r. 1 and one on a democrat alternative. we knew that neither proposal would have the votes to pass, and sure enough 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, paved the way for a serious and good-faith compromise. but, unfortunately, an intense ideological tale continues to wag the -- tail continues to wag the dog over in the house of representatives. speaker boehner 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 their heels in further. and that's no way to improve our nation's fiscal footing. speaker boehner said in no uncertain terms that he wants to avoid a shutdown and i believe

him. he's a good, honest man. the problem is a large percentage of those in his party think compromise is a four-letter word. i don't envy the position the speaker is in, but he is going to have to make a choice. this isn't a yellow woods, in robert frost's poem. but there are two divergent roads, and, sorry speaker boehner can't travel both. he can cater to the tea partier element. and as congressman mike pence suggested, pick a fight that will inevitably cause a shutdown on april 8. that's one path. or he 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 which road he should choose. speaker boehner wouldn't have been able to pass the short-term measure without democratic votes and he won't be able to pass a long-term one without democratic

votes either. 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 have wrapped their arms around the discredited, reckless approach advanced by h.r. 1, and they won't let go. in fact, they just keep squeezing harder. worse, the last few days have taught us that spending cuts alone will not bring a compromise. the new demand from the far right is that we go along with all their extraneous riders. these riders don't belong on a budget bill, but they were shoehorned into h.r. 1 anyway. now the hard-liners want them in the final deal. this is why a compromise has been so hard to come by on the budget. it's because 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 and place to debate these issues, and, mr. president, this ain't it. if this debate were only about spending cuts, we'd probably come to an agreement before long. but we'll have a hard time coming to an agreement if those on the hard right treat the budget as an opportunity to enact a far-ranging agenda. many republicans in the house recognize the unreasonableness of the hard-line he's, to their credit. steve lateret, said passing the three-week stop gap was exactly what people expected us to do, find cuts and continue to talk, unquote. michael grimm said the tea party lawmakers were making -- quote -- "a big mistake." this is proof positive that there are reasonable republicans in the house including some reasonable freshmen like

mr. grimm, who, along with a group of democrats, can provide speaker boehner with the way around the tea party. in order to avoid a dead end on these budget talks, speaker boehner should abandon the tea party and work to forge a bipartisan consensus. it's the only way out of this bind. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the majority leader's recognized. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the vote on the continuing resolution start at 2:45. we will have, mr. president, the -- the time will run as if it started at -- at 3:00. there's some problems with a few senators so i ask consent that their vote start at 2:45 are. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered.

roop mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader -- mr. reid: ? mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask that the time until 2:45 be equally divided between republicans and democrats. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the bill. the clerk: the clerk: make being further

congress tinge ens -- mr. inhofe: ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? appears to be so. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators who wish to vote or to change their vote? on this vote, the ayes are 87, the nays are 13. the joint resolution is passed. the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, which the clerk will report. under the previous order, there will be -- the clerk: no nomination, the judiciary, army burman jackson of the district of columbia to

be united states district judge. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: we yield back all time on this matter. mr. mcconnell: and ask for the yeas and nays. mr. leahy: withhold just a moment. mr. reid: madam president, the chairman's here. mr. leahy: i would just ask consent to put my full statement in the record. miss jackson is one of four nominees to the vacancies that have plagued the district court of the district of columbia for years. and this should have gone last year but i'm glad it's going this year. i strongly support -- i strongly support miss jackson and put my full statement in the record and yield back any time i have. the presiding officer: all time is yielded back. the minority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any other senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 97. the nays are stkaoe roerbgs and the -- nays are zero. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid on the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate and the senate will resume legislative session. the senator from massachusetts. a senator: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for a period of up to ten minutes aoefplt. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i rise in strong support of the sbir bill. as many of you know, the sbir bill and the sttr programs provide vital resources to small businesses not only in massachusetts, but from throughout the country. in this reauthorization -- this reauthorization is incredibly important to not only businesses in my state but businesses in

everybody's states. this compromise bill has been under development and negotiation long before i got here. i applaud senators landrieu and snowe, our chair and ranking member on the small business committee, for their persistence in pushing this bill through. as a matter of fact, i have two amendments that are in the bill that's before us now. i will be offering not today, but in the near future an amendment which i'm about to talk about now. as a small business owner myself for many years and a long-standing member of many chambers of commerce, i believe that massachusetts small businesses and businesses throughout this country are the economic engine that will help get us out of this economic slowdown that we're in. they have the potential to grow, expand and hire, unlike many businesses throughout the country. massachusetts is widely regarded as the center for innovation in biotechnology. we're a small state, but we've received the most sbir awards

only after california. that just goes to show you how important our state is when it comes to creating small businesses. the success of the program serves as a reminder that government can play a role in the business community, but it also needs to know when to step out of the way and allow businesses to grow and actually create jobs. i want to speak about an amendment that i filed. it's amendment number 212. it's based on s. 164, the withholding tax relief act of 2011 which enjoys bipartisan support and is critically needed now. the ranking member of the small business committee, senator snowe, is a cosponsor, and i'm looking forward to getting many other cosponsors and working very closely with the chairwoman on this timely piece of legislation, because we need once and for all to repeal an onerous and costly unfunded mandate that directly affects businesses not only in my state but throughout the country.

this is a jobs amendment, plain and simple. it would repeal part of our tax code that absolutely promises to kill jobs, jobs that these young people up here could someday have. if we don't act soon, section 3402-t of the tax code requires, beginning january of 2012, federal, state and local governments to withhold 3% of nearly all contract payments made to private companies as well as medicare payments, farm payments and certain grants. let's be real, it's an arbitrary tax just because, and it's really nearly impossible to actually implement. it's a sign of -- it one of the things that we've done that just makes absolutely no sense, and it's been delayed many, many times. the government withholding relief coalition, a coalition of more than 100 members impassing a -- encompassing a cross section of america estimated the combined cost could be as high as $75 billion.

that makes a lot of sense. $75 billion coming out of those coffers at a time when they least can afford it. and the provision is estimated only to bring in about $7 billion over that same time period. it makes absolutely no sense. it's absurd. any tax that costs more to implement than it actually brings in makes no sense at all. i'm hopeful with your leadership, mr. president, and many other people's, senators' leadership on this issue we can attack one of these bad laws that are about to click in. it should be repealed immediately. as a matter of fact, mr. president, last week i received a letter from massachusetts state secretary of finance, jay gonzalez, warning congress of the inevitable threat to small businesses' ability to survive in this tough economic climate if we allow this continuation of what i consider a stealth tax. we can't discuss the health of small businesses on the floor without acknowledging that these very same small businesses we

aim to help with the sbir program, the bill that's actually before us right now, will be suffocated by this 3% withholding tax. for some businesses, it may be the entire net profit of what they make per year. i'd like to submit secretary gonzalez' letter for the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. the department of defense alone has estimated that this provision would cost around $17 billion to comply with over the first five years. and unfortunately, there are many other provisions and reasons why this provision should be repealed as soon as possible. at a time when state and local governments are under extreme fiscal and financial stress, why -- i just don't get it. why will we actually start to put in and enforce another unfunded costly mandate on them to recover minimal funds for the federal treasury? this is really just a question of the federal government seeking more funds to pay its bills. only in washington -- and i've

been here a little over a year, vim hrar to what you have. -- very similar to what you have. only in washington can something like this try to be conveyed as a good idea when we spend $10 of your money, $10 of everybody's money watching military recoup a dollar. makes no sense to me. many businesses that contract with the government will simply pass this cost on of this provision back to the government in the form of higher bids on contracts. having a bid on a contract, when this bill is implemented, this particular tax, it's going to be here. and it's ultimately going to be costing efrgz ofs -- everyone of us more money to do the same thing. i listen to everybody talk about the fact that tpwhaoed to get our -- we need to get our fiscal and financial house in order. this country, if we don't do something quickly is going to be in deep trouble. here we are. we have an unfunded mandate,

something that's going to add to the cost of doing business. here we are. we're going to take it up and vote on it? i hope we do. i'm looking forward to that bipartisan leadership from you and others on this important issue. many businesses that contract with the government will merely pass this on, and it will really crush them and restrict the critical cash flow and discourage them from participating in government contracts. it will go other places. members of the construction industry are also worried that the provision will tax away all of their anticipated profit on government contracts. hence, diminishing competition and raising cost to the government at a time when we can't afford it. this provision passed in 2005, long before we got here, mr. president, but we, as the new breed of senators, recognize that we need to get our house in order. and there's a reason it's been delayed and the implementation of it over and over again. and everyone knows it can never

go into effect. so we'll be back on the floor later this session because we need to repeal this tax. we can do it next week. i appreciate the majority leader's efforts to now include us in the amendment process so we can actually be part of the process and come up with new ideas from new people to look at things in a different way and actually solve problems. and that's what this amendment offers, which i plan to offer, certainly welcome everybody's support. before i conclude, i'd like to wish everybody a happy st. patrick's day and i appreciate your listening, mr. president, and i yield the floor. thank you. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: mr. president, i rise today -- the presiding officer: the senate? a quorum call. mr. johanns: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be set aside. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to recognize an industry that has shaped our country since the days of our founding fathers. this industry is part of the very fabric of so many states, part of the very fabric of my home state of nebraska. it drives our economy, it fosters ingenuity and preserves the value of a handshake in our

society. what i'm speaking about, mr. president, is agriculture, an industry near and dear to this farm boy's heart. what better time to celebrate the remarkable advances in agriculture than national ag week. it's not because my roots on farm, nor my time as secretary of agriculture that i'm inspired to rise and speak today. it is because of remarkable men and women who rise before the sun each morning and literally engage in feeding the world. they provide safe, abundant and affordable, food, fiber and fuel. they are the stewards of our national resources and the drivers of innovation. more than two million farmers and ranchers contribute more than $300 billion to the u.s. economy each and every year. in nebraska loan agriculture

contributes $15 billion to our state economy. it includes cattle and corn and soybeans, dairy products and the list goes on and on. it is estimated that each american farmer feeds more than 144 people. a dramatic increase from just 25 people per farmer in the 1960's. and as our population and the global population continues to grow, demand for our food, our fiber, our fuel products is growing not just here at home, but across the globe. in fact, the united states department of agriculture projects that agriculture exports will set a new record exceeding $135 billion this year. it is estimated that every dollar in ab exports jen -- ag exports generates $1.36 in

additional activity including financing and packaging. nebraska's $4.8 billion in ag exports generates an additiona additional $6.5 billion in economic activity. now that is a big deal especially during these struggling economic times. however, the demands facing our nation's farmers and our ranchers are daunting. we should ensure the government is not adding unnecessary regulatory and paperwork burdens to their already heavy load. instead we must empower our nation's farmers and ranchers to continue to be among the most competitive, the most productive, and the most efficient worldwide. we should be actively promoting u.s. agriculture by enhancing renewable fuels. ensuring regulations are transparent and science-based in

creating international opportunities through enhanced trade agreements. this last one should be easy, but it has become difficult. congress has been waiting on our president to submit free trade agreements, three of them, colombia, panama, and korea now for about two years. it's estimated that this cumulative delay is costing about $2.5 billion in lost agriculture exports each year. and while we've been hobbled on the sidelines, our competitors, canada, brazil, argentina and the e.u. have been moving full speed ahead on trade agreements that puts u.s. agriculture at a disadvantage. instead of a -- maintaining market share for a preference for nebraska-grown wheat, corn, and beef, consumers in panama,

and k korea turn to our competitors. once market share is lost, it's very difficult to regain. i've talked to colleagues on both sides of the aisle who understand the reality. in fact, the chairman of the committee that josep oversees te could not have been more clear. senator baucus said this -- quote -- "the time is here, the time is now, we're losing market share hand over fist." unquote. and i could not agree more with the chairman. yet more than two years into their term, the administration has failed to send us the pending trade agreements for approval. our nation's farmers, ranchers and many american workers are asking for them. they know that new orders will be placed and business will flow from the agreements. new jobs will be created.

instead of spending hundreds of millions of dollars to create new jobs, i suggest we move to approve the agreements. it costs not one penny, which is what we're so focused on these days. congress simply says yes. perhaps that simply makes too much sense. the bottom line is that increased trade is one of many opportunities to ensure a bright future for american agriculture. but there are many reasons to be optimistic when it comes to agriculture in our nation. one need only consider the breathtaking advances in our farmer and rancher productivity. i've long said that our farmers and ranchers can compete with anyone in the world given a level playing field. it is nothing short of phenomenal that the average cornfields are now 160-bushel of

acre per land compared to only 53-bushel three years ago. frankly, it's difficult to keep pace of the new technologies that transform agriculture. consider this, thanks to biotechnology and improving farming practices, last year american farmers nearly doubled their soybean production from 1980. with just a a 10% increase -- just a 10% increase in total acres planted. did you know some farmers now use a satellite an g.p.s. technology to apply water and fertilizer where and when it will have the greatest benefit and the least impact on our environment. american agriculture truly is a remarkable a success story. it's true that we have big challenges ahead, but i think agriculture's ready for every one of them. our producers have faced down every challenge set before them and i'm confident nothing stands in their way.

that is assuming that the federal government doesn't wrap them in so much red tape that it suffocates their future. there simply is no more resilient bunch than our farmers and ranchers. how many americans would be willing to work hard, often seven days a week, only to leave any profit up to the hands of mother nature? only those who recognize that living close to the land comes with its rewards in feeding the world is a higher calling. mr. president, i would suggest that agriculture is the very foundation of our country's rich heritage. our founders clearly understood and appreciated the importance of agriculture. george washington once said that he knew of no pursuit in which more real and important services can be rendered to any country than by improving its agriculture. and thomas jefferson noted --

quote -- "agriculture's our wisest pursuit because it will in the end contribute most to real wealth, good morales and happiness." national ag week is a good time to reflect on the rich agriculture history of this great nation. it is time to celebrate the exciting scientific advances and the new opportunities. one thing that all of my colleagues should be able to agree on, we owe our nation's farmers and ranchers a sincere thank you. every time we go to the grocery store, we are reminded a little of our disposable income we spend in this great nation because of the good work of our farmers and ranchers. we compare better in our country than just about any country in the world, so we are grateful today for their good work. we say thank you to them for the

food, fiber and fuel that keeps our nation strong. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i'd like to ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call.

the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: are we in a quorum call? i'm sorry. the presiding officer: we are. without objection. ms. landrieu: i'd like to speak for about ten minutes. i snow that senator bingaman is on the floor and maybe other members are coming to the floor to talk on other subjects, where i guess technically still talking about our re-authorization of the sbir and sttr programs. senator snowe and i have been working through the week to manage this bill through the floor. i want to again just say how pleased i am with the progress that we made this week. i know we haven't had -- we have had about three or four votes on amendments, and there are others that are pending, but we really have made progress, and i really appreciate the cooperation of all of the members. this is a very important program. we have struggled, as i have said, for six years to get this program re-authorized. while everybody is running around, fussing about programs that don't work, mr. president, it's important for us to focus

on those programs that do work, particularly those programs that work to create private sector jobs. it's important for us to stay focused on eliminating, reducing and hopefully eliminating our federal debt and reducing annual deficits. that's going to be done when we do a couple of things all at one time. it's not going to be done by standing on the sidelines, slashing and burning discretionary domestic spending only, particularly some of the best programs in america. it's going to be done by thoughtful cuts and eliminations of some programs that don't work, some thoughtful eliminations and cuts to the defense budget. it's going to be done by raising revenues, where appropriate, to close some of the gaps and taking back some of the excessive grants to the high-end taxpayers, particularly those making over $1 million a year, in the view of this senator, and

it's going to take some investments that can actually save taxpayer money in the long run and cutting some mandatory programs. and we know -- and i think that's getting very clear to the american people as this debate over the house c.r. and the debate over deficits and debts goes on, people are understanding that, i think, better and better, and so one of the reasons that i'm personally happy to be on the floor this week is because i know the bill that i'm supporting and offering here to the senate, hopefully getting to the house and then eventually to the president's desk, will create private sector jobs and close this deficit gap and begin to chip away, in a substantial way at the debt. we have got to grow our kpheurbgs and i have a chart i want to call up in just a minute.

before i do, i wanted to say again a specific example that i'm talking about so people will be very clear. projects like this were won by irobot. this is an example, one example of the hundreds of thousands of small businesses that received either a contract or an award through this very important program. and d.o.d. has the largest, over $1 billion, mr. president, a portion of their research and development budget. prior to this program, almost 100% of that money went to big business or to universities and big business. small businesses were just summarily overlooked, regardless of whether they had good technology or not. they really weren't let in the front door. this program that we're talking about reauthorizing for eight years creates that door and opens it for the small businesses in louisiana, in

colorado, in new mexico, in new york. and that's why we're going to fight hard for this program and to get it reauthorized to the president's desk. let me just give you one example. the d.o.d. needed more reliable, cost-effective robotic devices for going into caves, checking and defusing i.e.d.'s. i don't think i have to explain to anyone listening or any member of this senate the challenges of our soldiers in afghanistan. i've been to afghanistan. i have not been in caves in afghanistan, but i have visited our troops there. i've heard their stories. i have seen pictures and read enough books to know the frightening thousands of miles of caves and crevices that our soldiers are having to go into to hunt down osama bin laden, who still has not been found and captured, and to project our forces overseas.

we have been in some ways as a nation kind of caught off guard, mr. president, about the terrorist attacks and military strategies using explosive devices. and i guess we knew that this could be a tactic, but honestly, we did not have what we needed to protect our troops to win the battles. and so this program steps up and says, okay, this is what we need. let's go out and see who's got the best technology. instead of spending billions and billions and millions and millions of dollars giving a contract to a big company and getting them to go through all the rigmarole to develop it, it's kind of an off-the-shelf technology almost except we develop the idea give a small business the opportunity. unlike large businesses, these small firms approach the project unencumbered by last research and approaches.

they start with a clean shraeufplt they often -- they start with a clean slate. they also attract young researchers fresh out of universities like irobot that started with two m.i.t. students and professors. ideas have turned a company with a market cap of now $400 million, strong military and private-sector sales. you probably heard of the private-sector spinoff, the roomba, a product that vacuums while one is at work in the u.s. this is a different product than the i.e.d. and the robot that i'm going to talk about in a minute. but it's an example of one of these programs. when our forces needed to go into caves and find i.e.d.'s, there was some technology that developed in order to do that. the navy has many examples. the army has many examples. and i am encouraged to see these

outstanding opportunities. this was in bedford, massachusetts. this is the irobot that i mentioned. and i'm going to get the chart for the i.e.d. explosive in just a moment. but this is an example of some of the projects that have been funded, and not just good for our soldiers, but obviously this company then became a company that went on to sell other products into the conventional market and creating jobs along the way. so i am really -- i know that the senator, senator bingaman wants to speak on energy, and i'm going to yield the floor and then come back later and put a few more things into the record before this weekends, so that when we come back in a couple of weeks, we will have built the strongest record possible for a vote as soon as possible on a program that works, that's cost

effective, that creates new technologies that help our soldiers at home and help us vacuum our floors. our soldiers overseas and helps us vacuum our floors here at home, and create american jobs in the process and help us to close this deficit and debt gap. so i thank you, mr. president, and yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: thank you, mr. president. i wanted to share a couple of thoughts with the budget process that's underway, where we are on the continuing resolution that we voted on this afternoon. first, with respect to that measure, that was a tough vote for me. it was a tough vote because this is no way to run the government. we're here now dealing with business that should have been done last year. unfortunately, the senate last year didn't get its work done, didn't even do a budget, didn't

do the normal appropriations process. it started kicking the spending can down the road last year, and we're still in the midst of that. i'm not sure how many continuing resolutions we've had at this point; three, four, five, six. i'm losing track. but this last one for these next three weeks, frankly, it's the last one that i'm going to support. this i could support because it does sustain the lower level of spending that was passed by the house. there are some tough cuts in that bill, but it's very necessary that we get serious about getting our spending under control. this is a small step in that direction. but i really want to urge our colleagues to, let's bring an end to these two-weeks, three-weeks, short-term, kicking the can down the road. let's resolve this. let's get a funding measure in place that will fund the government for the remainder of this fiscal year and be done with it. we've got serious work to be done.

we've got a budget resolution we need to govern the spending that's going to occur for next year. we've got process reform that we badly need. there's an awful lot that needs to be addressed, and this really just needs to get done. so i hope we'll do that soon. as we discuss the level of spending that we're going to have in this c.r. that will continue from when the current one ends, hopefully, i hope there will be just one more that will take us through the remainder of this fiscal year, it's really important that we get that level of spending down to the level, at least to the level that was passed in the house. and i want to talk about why. and i've looked at some of the individuals cuts are tough. they're going to make things difficult in many cases. but it's very necessary that we do this for the sake of beginning to restore some sense of fiscal sanity to get us on a

sustainable trajectory. one of the arguments i have heard from some of my friends on the other side of the aisle who have real concerns and objections in some cases to adopting a spending measure that does reduce spending, i would argue modestly overall, one of the arguments i've heard is that this will cost jobs. that if the government doesn't spend more than what's contemplated in the house-passed continuing resolution, we'll lose jobs. that if we cut government spending, we'll have lower employment. mr. president -- madam president, i'm here to suggest that that is exactly backwards. that is precisely wrong. and, in fact, it's the exact opposite. at the point that we are at, the more the government spends, the fewer jobs we're going to have. and the sooner, the more quickly we bring this government into some sense of fiscal stability,

the more employment we're going to have, the more job creation we're going to have. i think for many people that's common sense, but it's not universally accepted here. i understand that. but consider this: if all we needed to do was have the government spend more money to create jobs, then recessions would always be a trivial matter, because we'd just crank up some government spending and everybody would be back to work and we'd be fine. but we know that doesn't work. it's never worked. if that's what worked, frankly, the economy would be booming right now. we've got spending on a scale we've never even contemplated before. as a percentage of g.d.p., total spending, deficit sperpbgsd by any measure -- deficit spending, by any measure spending is at a record level and yet unemployment is much higher than we hoped it would be. it's not just this experience that we can look at. we can look around the world.

countries that have lived beyond their means and where the government occupies a big sphere of the economy, a big segment of the economy and spends a great deal, those are not the more successful economies. in fact, those are the least successful economies. they have persistently high unemployment rates. they have persistently low job creation, low economic growth and a low standard of living. this is all, this is all widely recognized, i think, but not entirely so here in washington. now, of course it's true that the government can always create a job. the government can have a program that instructs someone to go out and hire someone, give that person a wage and bingo, you've created a job. the government can always do that. of course the problem is in the process government destroys jobs in the private sector. and that is because the money that is necessary to create that government job has to come from somewhere, and it always comes from the private sector

unnecessarily. and when the money comes from out of the private sector and goes to the government for the government to create a job, well, that does several things. first of all, the government tends to allocate resources much less sufficiently than free men and women do in the voluntary exchange of the marketplace. so you get politically motivated allocation of resources rather than market-oriented allocation. this is widely acknowledged to lead to lower investment returns, less efficient investment. and, therefore, less job creation. but this isn't just theory. there's plenty of empirical data on this. i wanted to observe for my colleagues and talk about one particular chart that i think is a very helpful illustration, because this kind of goes to the heart of my point. my point is that the job creation, the job creation that we desperately need right now is only going to come from the private sector. the sustainable jobs that lead

to solid economic growth, permanent jobs, wealth creation and real opportunity is going to come from the private sector. and that is driven by private investment. the more government spends, the more it crowds out private investment and precludes the very engine of economic growth and job creation that we need. the chart behind me is a great illustration of this. it's provided by john taylor, a very, very well-regarded economist whose work is highly respected and widely circulated. and in this, mr. taylor illustrates that the unemployment rate is inversely related to private investment. so when the private sector is making investments -- and this can be investments in new businesses, investments in capital. but when private money is being put to work by citizens, as the

percentage of the economy, as the amount of this investment declines as a percentage of our economy, we see the unemployment rate go up. when we see private investment growing as it did for a sustained period from the early 1990's to the early part of this decade, we see that steady upward trend, it was driving down the unemployment rate. it's very, very clear that as this line goes down, the private investment line declines, unemployment rate goes up. and when it turns around and the private investment as a percentage of our economy grows, the unemployment rate declines. not just for this period. you can see the trend continues. we get another period after about the year 2000 of declining private investment as a percentage of g.d.p. and a rising unemployment rate. now that we have seen in recent years a long decline in private investment as a percentage of our economy, we've seen this huge increase in the unemployment rate.

these lines, at a quick glance, you can see it is almost a mirror image of each other. this, i think, is a great illustration of a sainldz really well-known fact that it's private investment that drives job growth. and when the government gets too big, as ours is today, and bh it spends too much money, as this one does and when the deficit gets too big, it crowds out and precludes the private investment that drives job growth. that's why it's so important that we get spending under control. that's why it's so important that we pass a continuing resolution that will fund the government for the rest of this year at the lowest possible level that we can reach an agreement on because lower spending is actually going to drive job growth. there's another -- several other aspects to this fact, this fact that lower spending will lead to greater job growth. one is, everybody knows that higher government spending eventually leads to higher

taxes. and we're at this point now where we have this huge short shortfall in the revenue relative to the amount of money being spent. so any potential investor wonders how much are taxes going to go up? when are they going to go up? will they go up on me, on my in, on my labor? these are just uncertainties that we here in washington have introduced into the economy. but everybody who's contemplating an investment has to wrestle with this question and uncertainty is then mi of private investment and job growth. the other possibility is that maybe before there's -- or instead of a tax increase, maybe there'll be a debt crisis. we're borrowing money on such a huge scale, it's not at all clear that we can continue. actually, i guarantee that we can't continue this indefinitely. i don't know how much longer it can continue. but that's a very dangerous thing to flirt with. ever-higher levels of debt and

the expectation that lenders are going to just keep on lending us this money, especially when they're at such large percentages of our economy. and then there's yet another verable that's flown -- variable that's thrown in this mix. that's the danger that the monetary authority will decide that maybe the easiest way out of this mess is to print money. this is a road there's been gone down many times before in many parts of the world. it always leads to a disaster, but monetizing the debt is a way that many governments have chosen to deal with excessive spending. i'm very worried right now about the policy of the fed, the qe-2 is a policy by which they are currently monetizing more than half of all of the deficit that we're running this year. i think that's a very, very dangerous policy. combined -- the combination of this fiscal imbalance and this fiscally imprudent policy together with this very, very accommodative monetary policy, i

think it is a very dangerous mix. what we can do in the shortrun and what we ought to be doing right now is addressing the spending problem that's at the heart of all of this, that's really driving this. and in my view, that starts with the continuing resolution that will fund the government for the remainder of this year. we just passed one that will fund this government for the next three weeks. i wish this had bhn for the remainder of this year. but we've got no time to waste now. we've the g.a.o. to ghet resolved and move on to a budget that brings us our spending and our revenue into balance without raising taxes and ruining economic growth. this should be the big priority for this body, and i hope that when we get back from this recess, this is what we'll be working on, the spend be measure to close out this fiscal year, a budget that will put us back 0 on a success stainingable path and pro-growth policies that'll lead to the job creation that we need. with that, madam president, i yield the floor.

mr. bingaman: madam president? the presiding officer: the senatosenator from new mexico is recognized. mr. bingaman: mr. president, i ask permission to speak up to 15 minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. bingaman: madam president, i wanted to just take these few minutes to discuss high oil and gas prices, gasoline prices. irthink when we get -- i think when we get them to our respective states this next week we're going to find that many of the people we represent are understandably concerned about the rising price of gasoline at the pump. and they -- they have good reason to be concerned. senator murkowski and i hosted a senatewide briefing on tuesday afternoon with three top oil industry analysts. we had dr. richard knewel, head of the energy information

administration, mr. bob mcal inly, part of the bush administration's white house team on energy markets, and mr mr. frank rostro, who is the head of the energy and natural security program with the center for strategic and international studies. and they gave us their. mr. whitehouse: whit-- andthey bangalore and they gave us their insiects as to what is - bing ay gave us their insights as to what is caution the rise in gasoline prices at the pump. let me go through four charts here to try to summarize what they told us that he briefing. i think it is very useful information for my colleagues and for anyone else who's interested in the subject. this first chart is labeled "gasoline prices reflect the cost of crude oil." a fundamental truth which they all subscribe to is that the primary driver of the price of gasoline at the pump is in fact

the price of crude oil on world markets. this chart demonstrates that. if it shows the price trends since 2005 for gasoline. that's the yellow line on this chart. and it shows the price of crude oil. that's the green line. while some past gasoline price spikes can be attributed to phasing out of the additive mtbe, for the last three years, gasoline price movements have exactly tracked global crude oil prices. society idea that our gasoline prices are high today because of some particular action that the administration, the obama administration has taken, is just not supported by the facts. the reason for the -- the reasons for the current crude oil price increase are equally straightforward.

in listening to each of thagessists highlight the factors that -- in listening to each of thage iflts highlight the factors that he thought crude oil was at high levels we haven't seen since 2008, i was struck by two instances that haven't been advanced in many of the political speeches here in washington and around the country about oil and gas prices. fangly, the conclusions or the allegations or arguments made in those political speeches did not comport with what these analysts were telling us. first, none of the experts that talked to us highlighted the administration's permitting process in the gulf of mexico as being a significant factor in determining world oil markets. i asked dr. newel whether the current base of permitting had any implication for the energy

information administration's short-term price forecast, and his answer was refreshingly direct. he said "no." and i would point out that neither of his copanellists disagreed with that conclusion. second, any anticipated environmental protection agency regulation of greenhouse gases at refineries was not included in any of the presentations as a driver behind the current increase in prices. in fact, more broadly, neither the e.p.a. nor any kind of u.s. regulatory action were discussed as important to understanding world oil prices. i noi know some of my colleagues, the main concern that we have not built a new refinery in the united states since the 1970's, i'd like to assure them that the data suggest that their concerns are not well-founded at this particular point. demand for refined products is

believed to have peaked in the united states. at the moment, 17% of our existing refining capacity in this country stands idle. and that's not because of environmental regulations. it's because demand for refined products has come down. in my opinion, it does not make a lot of sense to be debating whether we need new refineries when we're not using the capacity that we already have in existing refineries. so, having explored those factors that are not influencing oil price movements, let me spend a few minutes discussing factors that are contributing to increased oil and gasoline prices. the bulk of the discussion at the this briefing -- at this briefing we held on tuesday about high oil prices was about what's going on in the middle east and north africa. and this chart depicts what has happened to the price of oil. u.s. oil prices january through

march of 2011. so from the beginning of this imreeyear until the current tim. i think it is obvious that this is -- that the major force driving oil prices is the instability that we've seen in the middle east and north africa. when the world -- when the world's key oil-producing and exporting region -- which is the middle east and north africa -- when that region is unstable, world oil markets are also unstable. when political unrest threatens major choke points in the world oil transit routes, world oil markets react, as they have. and when a member of opec, the organization of petroleum-exporting countries, stops exporting oil, which has virtually occurred in the case of libya, world oil markets react. also, when there are fears that a nearby neighbor and a close

ally of saudi arabia, home of the world's largest oil production capacity, begins to have political upheavals, that raises tensions in world oil markets as we will. so, as you can see from this chart, oil prices are very sensitive to these kinds of developments. oil prices went up as regime change was realized in egypt, amid concerns about access to the suez canal, pries prices quickly came down again, as it looked increasingly unlikely that traffic through the canal would be disrupted. then libya became the first a major oil-exporting country to be affected by the wave of popular uprising spreading throughout the middle east and north africa, and oil prices reacted immediately, indicating market concerns that the situation might get worse before it got better.

indeed, it has worsened. we now have all libyan oil exports terminated or stopped or suspended. sanctions against qaddafi's government combined with chaos on the ground in libya have driven libyan oil exports to near zero. there's been little help for improvement so far nlt near future. -- in the near future. so we're just beginning to face a potential further escalation of tensions in the region. on monday, of course, saudi arabia sent troops across the causeway onto the island neighbor of bahrain, and this adds to world tension. world oil markets have reacted with expectations, and here i'm avoid the use of the more politically loaded term "speculation." although i do believe that that word is appropriate, it is speculation or expectations that the situation is at risk of getting worse before it gets

better. so into this uncertain environment we now have a new source of even greater uncertainty -- that the earthquake that has plagued the island nation of japan, the ensuing tsunami, the nuclear disaster that has struck japan -- all that have has introduced the possibility that the world's third-largest economy mightin me -- might be consuming less oil in the future than was earlier assumed. world oil markets have again reacted, this tile to falling to under $100 per barrel as we try to better understand the size of the scope of the disaster thatture japanese friends and allies are facing. what can congress do to help ease the burden of high prices for u.s. consumers when oil prices are determined mostly outside our borders, as i think they clearly have been? i think a realistic, responsible

answer has to be focused on becoming less vulnerable to oil prices -- oil price changes over the medium and the long term. and by doing so, we become less vulnerable by using less oil. i believe that increased u.s. oil production can play a significant role in world oil marktsz. the united states has fairly market resources compared to the rest of the world. our base of proven reserves is small. many people have observed that the united states has less than 2% of the world's proven reserves. despite what economists and analysts agree is a relatively modest resource base, the oil and gas industry in our country has led the world in developing state-of-the-art technology for oil exploration and production. our companies are continuing to get more oil out of the ground and into world oil markets than any of us could have believed

was possible. to use a boxing metaphor, we're punching above our weight in oil and gas production, thanks to the technology lead that our companies have developed. according to energy information administration, oil production in north dakota has risen by 150% since 2005. that's all from to the bakken se formation. it is a success story that we all can celebrate. let me now talk about this third chart. oil production is up strongly across the united states in the last few years. this chart demonstrates that current increases in oil production are a significant change from what we've seen in the last several decades. we have not had to repeal any

environmental laws to achieve this or change the protections that apply on public lands. let's not forget that even with u.s. production strongly increasing, oil prices have also been increasing. while domestic oil production plays an important role in ensuring the energy security of the country, its contribution to the world oil balance is just not sufficient to bring global oil prices down. it's therefore not a complete answer to the high oil and gas prices that tax our consumers and that threaten our country's economic health. so this leads me to conclude that the key to reducing our vulnerability to world oil prices and volatility is for us to find ways to use less oil. we need to diversify our sources of transportation fuel. we need to set ourselves on the right path as we did when we

passed the energy independence and security act of 2007. that law required us to make our vehicles more efficient and to shift toward relying more on renewable fuel. this chart, this final chart shows how the energy information administration's long-term forecast for u.s. dependence on imported oil, how it was predicted to go, what they predicted our level of dependence would be prior to the passage of that 2007 bill and what they predicted, what they now predict it is after the passage and implementation of that bill. there are two main features of this graph i think are particularly noteworthy. first, prior to the enactment of this bill in 2007, the energy information administration had been predicting that u.s. reliance on imported oil would

continue to increase in large part because of the biofuels and the fuel efficiency policies that we included in that act. the latest forecast shows that our reliance on imported oil probably peaked in fact in 2005 and is now going down and is expected to continue going down for the rest of this forecast period, which is out to year 2035. second, the amount of oil that we now will not need to import from today to 2035 -- that is the oil that we will be able to save because of the energy independence and security act we passed in 2007 -- amounts to about 26 billion barrels. that compares, compared to the previous forecast. what i'm saying there is that the difference between the blue line which was the earlier projection and the red line, when you take that out to 2035,

the total oil involved there is 26 billion barrels of oil. this amount is greater than the total u.s. proven oil reserves which are estimated at 23 billion barrels. so i hope we can all agree that this has been a significant success. how do we continue on this path toward reduced oil and gas, reducing our oil dependence? i'll conclude by highlighting three areas, three key goals that i hope we can focus on in the senate in the coming weeks. first, we need to enable further expansion of our renewable fuel industry, which is currently facing infrastructure and financing constraints. second, we need to move toward the time line -- move forward the time line for market penetration by electric vehicles. and finally, we need to make

sure that we use natural gas vehicles in as many applications as makes sense based on that technology. every barrel of oil that we displace from the transportation sector and that we, therefore, do not need to consume in the united states makes our economy stronger, not to mention our personal pocketbooks less vulnerable to the volatility of the current marketplace. so we need to keep drilling. we're good at that, and it is helpful to have more supplies on the world market. and i'm not arguing against that. but at the same time we need to recognize that the long-term solution to this challenge is to move away from such great dependence on oil. this is a strategic vision that president george w. bush who previously had worked in the oil industry clearly articulated in his 2006 state of the union address. we subsequently proved in congress in 2007, the year after that state of the union address,

that we have the ability to make significant changes in our energy consumption and that it is possible to mobilize a bipartisan consensus to do so. the bipartisan path that we laid out in the energy independence and security act in 2007 is the right approach, as part of whatever bipartisan approach we take to energy in the weeks and months ahead, we need to continue moving in this same direction. madam president, i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: mr. president, i rise to speak on a matter of great importance to the economic health of state and local governments. i'm talking about dangerously underfunded employee pensions. we hear about this problem every day in states like illinois, california, new jersey and many others. it is a multiinterest-dollar problem. let me -- it is a multitrillion-dollar problem. the underfunding of these pensions runs into the trillions of dollars. not billions. trillions. now how did this happen? there are two primary causes. fi