this isn't secretary of the state and your county auditors putting this election on, this is a party-building exercise. so i think when we're talking to a national media about the iowa caucus, that's the first nugget they have to get through their head, that this isn't an election. they had their checkbooks in hand and were demanding to pay the fee and be put on a ballot. and when we told them there was no ballot, they threatened to sue us was generally the reaction. starting with the questions. >> thank you. so i'm mike. i'm actually here from the other iowa, and i just want to draw some similarities here and get your comments. i believe that the great advantage that iowa brings to the process and that new hampshire brings to the process is we're small. instead of mummy, it's liquor. they've got to make an impact on the people to gain our votes. ..

that set a record for caucus attendance and i would say that all 118,000 of those people attended an event probably shook the candidate's hand and then they supported so it is about as retail politics as you can get and when you make it about retail politics it is not about how much money you can raise and those sort of things and that is the one beauty, and why iowa and

new hampshire -- but allow me. i am not from iowa. don't hold against me. can you not shake hands with the people of florida? [inaudible] >> can i shake the hand of the people in rhode island? of the conversation is about size how about we go to rhode island or connecticut? my point being not to put you on the spot or put on a on the spot. what is the value? we talk so much in conservatism and within the tea party, it is principal, not party. that expression explains what is happening. it is principal, not party. there are people in the republican party who don't represent the principles we ascribe to. what is it about ottawa, the hampshire -- we will talk about them first. what is it about our work? what other values present in

iowa that affords you the ability to start weeding people out before the rest of the nation knows who they are? what is it? it can adjust the size. if it was sought as we would go to connecticut and rhode island? >> just to answer that a little bit, i think the reason it works in both states is because both states and the people take this process very seriously. and i think -- i had an experience in 2007 when the iowa caucuses were over three of us went to nevada to help them in the final week to help prepare for their caucuses which to be honest they were not prepared for. it was a complete mess and the people out there were someone interested but somewhat not.

so what i would ask is if the people of rhode island or any other small state if you had a conference like this would there be 500 people sitting in the seats for eight hours? no. they don't -- we take these roles those seriously the that we are almost a year out and we're all sitting here scratching our heads and getting to know these candidates and wondering why they haven't been here more? we demand to see them over and over and what that allows us to do is understand are they consistent in their position or just selling me something? we take this those seriously and that separates iowa, new hampshire, from any other state because it is not just that we get the privilege of going first. it is that we have the responsibility to really that these candidates and we will turn out in the dead of winter when it is cold and support who

we believe in and i don't believe that kind of fire in the belly exists in other states. >> and i will we're different from primary state. we are a caucus state which means politics is extremely local. we don't have a primary system where we just toss everybody into the wind and whenever emerges at the end of the night wins. we have a representative or somebody important to a particular candidate it goes to every caucus site and present the case for that candidate. it is intense and personal. with the possible exception of a handful of extremely well endowed candidates it is almost impossible to buy. it is possible to community organized but isn't that what the whole process of politics is supposed to be? if you have convinced this group of people in this neighborhood

to vote for you and if you have somebody equivalent to you in the next neighborhood over doing exactly the same thing, the case will even be made or not and depending on how impressive the organization is you will be able to convince that and many more people with the limited amount of resources to go out and participate in the system. it makes it harder to buy in iowa because the process is decentralized. that also has converted our caucus system and the entire state of iowa into at one level i hate to say it this way but a non representative stayed politically because the process has radicalize the politics of ottawa. the hard core of either party are farther to the left and right of the mainstream of any place else in the country or

even i was because moderates don't make history. it is only unhappy people that make history. and we have a lot of unhappy people in ottawa. >> let's take another question. >> i'm a student that i was state university. we of course have the liberal professor atmosphere is that we contend with everyday's we're fighting back against that. we have a nice group today. [applause] >> i would like to know your device to was on how we can combat using media tactics, grass roots organizing to win campus briefings in this coming cycle of 2012 and also one good place given to the grandparents and parents in this room for how they can get their kids and

grandkids involved and keep the liberal professors indoctrination from seeping into that brain? a [applause] >> what is your name again? jeremy. unlike the tie and the whole thing. it is a great question. it is a question that goes to my question which is how do you sell the country on this idea? maybe you say we can't son of the country on this idea. we are first come. when i hear people talk about the money or the seriousness and i will get to your thing i don't except the people of rhode island or connecticut or new jersey are not serious people. that the decks of that premise. what i accept is that the people of iowa have a value system that is more in line with the

founding of the nation based on the society of that is our web. [applause] >> that is an interesting concept and an interesting construct talking about an agriculture base, not only middle of america in terms of wire over but howard of the fact that i have had more than one person mentioned this to me, la love living in ottawa. i am two hours from kansas city and a few hours from chicago. i could be in denver in their time. you can't say that in many other places. and because you can do that your world is actually much larger than people from the east coast or the west coast because people from los angeles are not from california. there from los angeles. follow me on this. people from new york are from new york and they mean that happen or one of the five

boroughs. otherwise i am from westchester which is outside the borough to prove they're not from the five boroughs because what would they want to be which means they could afford to live in manhattan. so you are from iowa. i leave in the morning. i live in ottawa. there's something to that culture about how you are naturally place that i think makes you a very worthwhile first choice although i will continue the conversation to your question. twitter, facebook, bloggers, video. turnaround at the cameras. mentioned twitter today and personal doing your own radio show. the only way to move a message in this world is to move the message. there's nothing else -- you no longer have the luxury of excuse. if you can say to me you are not

capable the younger generation will say why should i bother and you get four more years of obama. the days of not being able to move a messaging utilize technology are over. grandparents need to say how to use facebook and they will look at you like you are crazy and ask what are you going to be on facebook and you are going to say to them because i have to move the message. the country is falling apart. imac to against liberal professors or teaching nonsense and not teaching them to read or write etc.. it is that circular motion that will allow them to be involved in the process and get the grand kids involved and next thing you know conversation is taking place and we win in 2012. [applause] >> i will also encourage you to get involved in one of these campaigns. these campaigns, these candidates who will be asking for your vote. not just good enough to sit on

the sidelines and say i like that guy or make my decision when i -- find somebody you are passionate about and get involved. in 1999 i graduated college in may of that year. i had a very serious girlfriend who is now my wife and she was two years behind me so i looked at her and said i am going to get the political bug out of my system and work on a presidential campaign because i really like that. i worked on the board's campaign and now you see -- like there was one class a. there is a lot here. [talking over each other] >> but i was really passionate and involved in politics in college and i took that and work that. i didn't know what have i was on. i still don't know what have i am on but i am on a path and my

wife says this will only last two years but get involved and let your passion drive where you want to go because frankly it sucks to be upset about your country and not lending your voice and trying to make it better so get involved. the best way to do is get involved in one of these campaigns and find a candidate your passionate about. >> there is another factor to his fellow's question that is important and i thought i heard an element of resignation that universities have to be a liberal institution. that liberals because their tenured, that is just the way it is. that is part of the universe. that is the status quo we have to live with. i reject that notion. they didn't build the university's. it wasn't their money. it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the taxpayers' and it is an insult to our culture that we educate our kids in some cases those cool them.

put our hearts and souls and sweat and all the effort we put entering our kids only to have the montalban shift pagan funds and pay for the opportunity to have our kids worked over. [applause] >> i'm thinking it is time that we get rid of that ownership. what got me fired up in this direction was what i saw happen in wisconsin a few weeks ago when -- i hate using the word thug but it resonates with me when a march and scream that this is our house. that house belongs to the taxpayers. it never was their house. they are at best renters and the university system, the big box education store has been taken over by the same people and i'm tired of this and why we are

reclaiming the political clash we need to reclaim our social infrastructure too. [applause] >> question of the year. >> on the last election cycle when obama was elected, media's job is to bring out what these particular candidates are all about. we tell about what hope and change was after he was elected and i remember seeing some newscasters on the national media just before he was elected saying they didn't know anything about him. he was in iowa and i thought it was your job to find out what it was all about and what are we going to do to make sure this doesn't happen again. >> i am sorry. i am sorry. i fully accept the task but you

may not remember that during that cycle i was playing back sound bites almost on a day to day basis from reverend wright's church in chicago. i was saying this guy has connections to louis farrakhan. he actually likes the guy who is in libya right now that we're trying to get rid of. i played those connections over and over to anybody that would listen. to buy into one of the most radicalized candidates in the history of radicalized candidates who is the most pro-choice illinois senator in the history of pro-choice senators whose hope and change -- what is the guy's name? solvency construct is shaper and air designed to sucker in the cheap seats and it worked in their party because hillary didn't come to iowa and contest

the state. she got her organization and democratic side wasn't up to speed and a obama's organization was super bet he does represent a fairly well the radicalized democratic party in ottawa. he won the democratic nomination in iowa. totally reflective of the values of the iowa democratic party. they are extremely happy with his nomination eventual victory. >> i would say that the first thing, barack obama didn't live to us or to democrats about what he was going to do. the democrats have been running on socialized health-care -- howard dean almost won the state until he crashed and burned at the end. this didn't sneak up on to us in terms of the agenda but i would

add that iowa made the mess and in 2012 it is our job to clean it up. [applause] [inaudible] >> an answer to your question about all i iowa. why iowa. when i was 21 i had more lunches and breakfasts with potential presidential candidates that are amish or you had an opportunity to interview. and i have asked those questions to those individuals that no reporter will ask. and i have demanded an answer from them and unlike other parts of the country, i had a young man from detroit, young black man who came and said it is

their future for me and my children. you drive across iowa what do you see and he says icy abuilding with windows knocked out. we actually see the world and we see what it takes to become a leader and that is the message. but you don't do a good job telling the country about the message. when the country looks and questions why i love -- what is your name? >> steve aftery. >> that is an answer. i -- not that you sit down and have a meal with them.

there are opinionated people across the nation. i got a job from doing it. but what do you see when you come to iowa? you see as far as you can see. you can go as far as you want to go. the land of freedom. the land of liberty is right here in ottawa and there's a reason we pick who is going to be president because we believe because we can still see. we haven't been closed down. that is the message that needs to get pushed on video and pushed to kids who are going to college. it needs to be pushed to grandparents and grandchildren. that a great message. [applause] >> we are out of time with the panel. we have got to move on to the next one. come on. [talking over each other] >> jim told me this was the

charisma impaired panel. >> he said that. just real quick. this was all about you guys. we were doing some e-mail sign ups, who is the choice for president so that is your opportunity to stop by, fill out the piece of paper. i would love to know who is on your mind. thanks. >> the last thing you should know if you are at all interested in the political cause. you would be surprised how easy it is to get access to media. media is starving for material and new insights and personalities, things to talk about and people to share it with. i work at a place that is the hungry to talk to people about all these things and we savor the opportunity. i know we are viewed in ottawa

as an institution. who radio gets cancer granted. if there's something you think we need to be talking about and desperately need to get out call us an e-mail us. >> jan mickelson, craig robinson, tony katz. [applause] >> this conference hosted by steven king look at efforts to repeal the federal health care

law. this is a less than 45 minutes. [applause] >> the iowa for freedom campaign was the most fun if1 o >> the iowa for freedom campaign was the most fun i will never have on a campaign. taking three judges out and last time i was at a podium it was vote know which is appropriate since we are going to hammer home again obamacare and a the repeal. this is something we have to press our candidates about. how far are they willing to go to strip obamacare out? that the mccord --betsy mccoy is credited with stopping hillarycare in its tracks.

no discussion on obamacare is complete without the man in congress working artist and fighting the strongest to repeal obamacare, congressman steven king. a [applause] >> thank you. on january 31st jun vinson, a great american, declared this law unconstitutional in its entirety, nil and void. that is right. we are on the way to victory here.

this law shred your constitutional rights. it forces you for to hit a 1-size-fits-all government design whether you want it or not or can afford it or not and expand the powers of the irs to crack you down and penalize you if you fail to comply. .. >> here it is right here. it says insurance companies can pay only those doctors who follow whatever it takes

secretary of health and human services poses in the name of quality here that covers everything in medicine was tra cardiologist, whether you're ob/gyn decides to do a succinct section. your medical treatments will be entered into a national electronic database. your doctor decisions will be monitored and your doctor will have to choose between doing what's right for you and staying in the government's good graces. you heard the president promised that he was going to solve the problem of the uninsured by making health insurance affordable. that's not what he did. you've got your increases in the mail. instead he's going to put 31% of americans below age 65 and two medicaid. it's welfare reform until. 31% of americans on medicaid, imagine that. and to pay for that, there are $410 billion of new taxes in

this law. in addition, they are now talking about the new tax, the vat, the vanishing america tax, right? and worse yet, this law pays to expand medicaid nearly a third of americans, by eviscerating medicare. it takes $500 million at a future medicare funding over the next decade just went 30% more people will be enrolled in medicare as the baby boomers turn 65. that's going to me few hip replacements, you are in the replacement, fewer cataract operations, fewer bypass surgeries. those are the procedures that have transformed aging in this country. there was a time when people were in wheelchairs crippled with arthritis. but now older people enjoy their later years. this law will undo that. in sum, it lowers your standard of care, it puts government in

charge of your care, and it takes away something as precious as life itself. your liberty. no one to 28 states in these united states are challenging the constitutionality of this law. the first of december 12, december 12, 2010, when judge henry hudson of virginia respond to a lawsuit by that one state declared this law unconstitutional. then the very next month judge roger vinson went further. he not only declared mandatory health insurance unconstitutional, but he declared the whole law unenforceable. why? because the drafters of this bill had argued again and again that compulsion was a essential to this complex legislation worse. complex legislation generally includes a boilerplate provision that says if one party struck out from all the other parts will be enforced. the. the drafters of this, so judge

roger vinson turn that argument right back at them and said, oh, you told me that without compulsory health insurance this law will not work. well, it must be like a precision watch. if one part doesn't work and nonwork. preseason watch, no. house of cards, yes. you're going to see it fall. i'm delighted to be here with congressman keane who is going to help us defund this legislation and restore american rights. the simple truth is this. and it's been with us for over 200 years. our freedom can only last as long as we have a government of limited and enumerated powers. that's what this us. limited and enumerated powers. and that's exactly what we are fighting to achieve. thank you. [applause]

>> i tell you, i get all energized by being here. what tremendous fighters we have in this country. thanks, betsy. [applause] >> i read the title and it said, i'm going to talk about the repeal of obamacare, and i want you to know what i say that i'm not talking about repeating a component of it. nor am i talking repeating the most egregious aspects of the. i'm not talking about minimizing some of the task or the scope of this. i'm talking about ripping the entire malignant tumor out by the roots before it metastasizes and swallows of our liberty. all of it. [applause] >> betsy wants to put this through the shredder and turn into about a 40 page bill or something like that. >> come to my website for a 20

page bill, and honest bill. >> what i want to do is i want to have us back to nancy pelosi and harry reid and barack obama and say shredded, put it back in the tree. so how do we get rid of it? and take quickly you through the strategy that has unfolded. and i mentioned at the opening, i spent 18 months fighting obamacare and there's something surreal personal in that to me. the first 18 months was seeking to kill the bill. part of that process was calling for, press conferences at the capitol building when tens of thousands of people came from every state in america to surround the capital, jim the capital and make it hard for anybody to get in and get out and made so much that the rules committee couldn't function in writing the rule that allowed for them to do their legislative sleight of hand. i can tell you on the day that

obamacare passed, it could not have passed the house of representatives on its own merit. it was passed on a promise of two things. that there would be a reconciliation package that would come from the senate that would take care of some of the concerns of some of the house democrats. and that the present of the united states would write an executive order that would amend the bill. all that was part of the deal before it passed. can you imagine the president of the essays taking an oath -- taking an oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend so help them god, announced to do so as part of the deal, and they fell for that date. one of those people that was part of the vote where that would be was congressman from illinois that said if you don't care about the constitution. welcome he's no longer in the united states congress primarily because that's part of what he said. [applause] >> we do care about the constitution, and if there's a

roadmap to take america where we need to go, the underpinnings are right here. to know that there's somebody who has a ph.d in constitutional history that is here analyzing this for us i think it's an outstanding thing and i don't think i've known anyone with such a degree, betsy. [applause] >> so a year ago we're just finishing up this process of the imposition of obamacare on america by a legislative sleight of hand. i was the last one to leave the capital that night. i was deeply troubled by what i had seen happen. i had gone to i call it the mosh pit, the tens of thousands of people that were out there. they were all, what goaded into the crowd. the result of the earth people. any of them could have been at my church bigger. the best people america could offer with the deepest convictions climbed on a plane or drove all night to be there to tell nancy pelosi, barack obama and harry reid, take your hands off of my health care, take your hands off of my liberty and at your back to the

prostitute. so when i left that night it was about 1:30 a.m. and i walked home and i was exhausted from just a marathon of doing battle on this. i thought i will lay down and sleep, and over a period of hours i will wake up and put myself back together and put a strategy together. i lay down and slept about two and half hours, and woke up, sat down at my computer and i wrote up a bill draft request. and had that waiting when they open for business that morning at 9:00. the bill draft request is for your words, and the 40 worked in summary say something to this effect. that repeal obamacare in its entirety in the last words are, if it had never been an active. repeal it as if it had never been enacted. that bill draft came down, and within three minutes of the bill draft of michele bachmann who i

did not was working on this, within three minutes of each other exactly the same words, 40 words, as if it had never been an active. now, so we went to work on the. by mid-summer it emerged that the bill that i carried, i found the discharge decision. the discharge petition is a tool by which you can bypass the speaker and force a vote on the floor of the house if you get 218 signatures. we got to 173. they laughed at is the first weekend of starting to sweat it towards the end. but we got to 173, and it was a tool that was used in the november 2 election and it's credited with a number of house seats that we likely would not have won had they not use the discharge petition against the democrats that would not sign the petition. it was a component of winning the majority, a component of

picking up 63 seats in the house of representatives, and 87 freshmen republicans. [applause] >> whom i have described many times consistently as god's gift to america. and so they are there helping on all of us. but the rest of the strategy needed to unfold is what. i had it written up on a continuum, and it passed the repeal of obamacare. i wanted it to be h.r.-1. well, the speaker sets the agenda for each of the first 10 bills and buy priority one-10, it turned out to be h.r. director did with that. we moved that in the second week of the 112th congress then passed the repeal of a. -- the repeal of obamacare. the political configuration was such that they didn't shoot that down. but we have every republican in the united states congress, house and senate has voted to

repeal obamacare. they are all on record they want to repeal, everyone. [applause] >> and the next that, this is what i long argued, is we need to shut off the funding to obamacare in every appropriations bill that comes through the united states congress. it has to start in house. not a dime of federal money that can be spent at the house says no, it shall not be spent. we need to hold our ground, no going wildly, we need spine. what is that called what you're not that kind of doctor. i'm drawing a blank, the kind of stainless steel rod -- >> orthopedic. >> anyway, it's not a broomstick. its status to. everybody has got to have a spine and we got to stand up and stand strong. we always knew we had to face the president down in the. i wanted to prepare the public last summer, before the election on november 2 that this would come to a showdown with the

president. if we send a message to the president that we are trying to craft legislation that he will sign, that i can guarantee you this. the president will get exactly everything that he is willing to fight for. and we will have -- my messages we have to look the president, harry reid, in the eye and tell him when i going to find obamacare. were going to cut off all the funding to it. we will do in the c.r., the continued resolution. and as the president will hold his ground and veto such piece of legislation or do so through the proxy of harry reid in the senate, we need to tell the american people republicans have demonstrated we will find every legitimate aspect of government in a fiscally responsible way. that's the language. we have passed three times out of the house. if the president vetoes that kind of appropriation because my language is on and it cuts off the funding to obamacare. if it is that the american people will know that he has done a decision that his signature legislation,

obamacare, is more important than all the other functions of government combined. who do you think wins that argued with the american people? [applause] >> we do. and there are some in the congress that say that it was so carefully written and so smartly written that we can't cut off funding in an appropriations bill to what they call mandatory spending, and so as we go through that argument, yes, you can. and i drafted the language and pattern did it offer this. in the spring of 1974 in a continuing resolution the united states congress class language to shut off all funding to the vietnam war. and he says words to this effect, notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds in this act and dofund heretofore appropriated shall be used to carry out offensive or defensive operations in the skies over the land over the seas, the vietnam war or

adjacent country. it shut off every time going in to help the people that were trying to defend themselves in vietnam. i disagree with the decision, but now i'm saying that language works to cut off funding to obamacare. [applause] >> if a liberal congress can shut off a war with an amendment or language written into a continuing resolution, then we can shut off the funding to obamacare and a language written into it and continued resolution. that's what we must do. and stand strong and stand strong together. and send this message all across this land. that if we give up this high leverage point, because there's to leverage points in this 112th congress, the continuing resolution necessary for the government to stay open, and the other one is the debt ceiling. now, this is the place for a to b. is on the continued resolution. that's what the maximum resolution is. the irony is that if we use my

language and shut off the funding to obamacare, and the president are here greek decided it was shut down the government out of spite for obamacare, what happens? the lights go out and a lot of federal offices around the country, essential services get going, but what keeps going? obamacare. $23.6 billion available whether it was a shut down to whether there is an to fund the implementation of a obamacare that we can't reach unless we use my language in this c.r. i'm just asking you, send the message out across the land to every member of congress so they understand how important this is. you need to commit to stand with all of us that will stand. and we have to stare the president down. we have to challenge them on this. if we don't do this, this insidious obamacare will continue to send its tentacles down into american liberties and beat what i say it is, and that is an unconstitutional taking of american liberty. thank you. we are ready for questions down.

[applause] >> we do have a few minutes left to take some questions. and i have to say, when i was asked to introduce this panel i thought they would give me a couple of speakers who would tell you what they really thought. so i guess we have to probe a little deeper if we have folks out there that have questions. we have one over here. >> christie children is up for reelection in 2012 because percy was -- the vacancy caused by hillary appointed secretary of state. would you be willing to run for senate seat? i personally like the way you have spoken and i think we need the somebody with a ph.d on constitutional history in the united states senate. >> thank you. thank you. thank you. well, it's very flattering to have my name floated off, but i

would like to say is we do need people in the united states congress and in the white house who understand the constitution, who are committed to the constitution, who know what it says and live by it. and we have a president right now who does not. and our major task is to replace him with someone who loves this document that has given us over 200 years of freedom and prosperity. [applause] >> we have a question over here. >> my question is with the unconstitutionality that's been the obamacare, this is probably going to end up and let your totally successful with what you're doing, probably end up in the supreme court. >> it will and -- >> chances are it will be 5-4. as things stand today we couldn't pull this off.

the obama administration has no desire to expedite anything. i contend that we should all pray for our justices, because if one should retire, or if one should pass away, the thing really gets bad. so, let's keep our justices in place, make sure nobody decides to retire and no change can be made because the nintendo 5-4 the other way almost like that. so that's my only comment. something to keep in mind. >> it's an excellent comment. we will talk to him in bed at night, make sure they have breakfast in the morning to keep them going. i think we will see andrew kennedy, who despite voting for big government on many issues, has shown a real passion for federalism. one of the things that this law does is, it makes states near minions of the federal government. it commandeers state assets.

it commandeers state employees. it simply -- the whole law destroys the concept that we have a government with a central -- we have a federal system with a central government that has limited and enumerated powers, and the states that are sovereign within their sphere of authority. so let's hope that kennedy stresses that in his decision. >> and i would say that i think that's a good counsel to pray for the health of the supreme court justices and till such time as we get a new person to appoint the next one. during the bush administration i had a prayer which was i did want to wish any ill will on anybody. so my prayer was that then, for justice ginsburg and justice stevens to fall madly in love with each other and the low particular together. -- and the lobe to cuba together. >> that's great. >> oh, no.

i would like to add to the senate before. it's not just the supreme court for the lower court rulings that have given us more exposure to the fact that we need to get our good judges in to begin with, all of the courts matter. the inconsistency and finding these loopholes somehow that the mandate is constitutional because it's not inactivity, it's mental activity to choose not to purchase health care. i mean, it's just insane. >> it's also very unfortunate that the media of course present company excepted, have distorted the judicial record so far from five decisions in federal district courts, but every single decision in which the state was challenging this health law, the decision went for the state. there were three cases with my nobody gets, very poorly argued cases, and they should not be counted as equal.

so when you hear people on new say there have been five decisions and three of them were for the obama administration. that is not true. >> congressman, i bet those senior moments, too. what you're looking for is vertebrate. we need more vertebrates in congress. and michelle and tom latham not in vertebrates, and we definitely need a vertebrate in the white house. >> i like that. [applause] specs we have a question over here. >> congressman, november's election put 63 new congressman in the house that changed the makeup of the senate to where the democrats did not have a majority anymore, or the big majority they had. over 600 senate and house of representatives seats changed places nationwide he does we the people went forth and elected.

what are we going to have to do to convince the leadership in the house of representatives of the united states that we were serious and they better start acting on some of the things that you brought forth than others? how can we get that done and give them some backbone instead of being link weenies find? [applause] >> i think you're just sent a message, and that is the message that you said that they will here. i would add also that every time you can give a member of congress as indecisive a personal expense, respectfully, but if you can't need them and talk to them, that's the most powerful thing that you can do. the second thing is you can talk to them on the phone and they can hit a conviction in your voice, respectfully. if you can meet with her step, e.g. show up in the office is better than sending a snail mail. a snail mail is better than e-mail. but also what comes up is on march 31, just around the corner, the tea party groups are going to converge on

washington, d.c., and they're going to insist that the language that cuts off funding and obamacare the written into the continuing resolution. anyone who can join that effort on march 31 in washington, d.c., your voice counts. when i look out and i see tens of thousands of people there, and the effort to unbundle obamacare becomes as long as the effort to fight it, to kill it, i think then we get results. so thank you. >> very quick that kind of answered my question, but i'm not against each other and from a, iowa. but i appreciate what you do. i've never been so frustrated with the representation i have, and i contacted maybe my mother and they get a form letter back that just kind of sort of close to what i am trying to reiterate. but how to get the message out to representatives that we are not constituents of.

i guess do you pay attention, if i call you, because i am not going to vote for you. >> well, i will tell you, i like to pay attention but also just the staff of makes it such that there's kind of in natural filter that goes into some degree. it isn't complete but it is there. so i would say if you can have influence with friends and relatives in those districts i would ask them to get active also. but we do have meetings with people outside the district constantly, and build a relationship with their staff to make it past the palace guard, get the message through. sometimes i'm working around it because sometimes the natural filter just blocks. >> i just had to say quickly when this was going on i went to both offices, by phone, ask them getting more people for or against and they had no idea. i said you got to have some idea when the calls come in, are they for or against. well, we just don't know.

>> welcome another point that i said to help people understand is if you take somebody that's on the other side of the hour from where i am, they built a political power base to the left. and so if they adhere to planned parenthood, open borders lobby, tax theaters rather than taxpayers, that's where their power base is. so they will adhere to the power base and they will not listen as much to some of that believes in freedom of liberty and the constitution because it isn't their power base. so we have to change them. >> question -- >> i mean change this event they will never change for us. they will never change. >> this might be inappropriate, but, you know, i have a solution for the whole thing is asked president obama for his birth certificate. it seems like this never comes up. and if he does not have a birth certificate, i maybe wrong but the constitution of the united

states, that bill wouldn't matter to nothing because it would be authorized. >> that's right. spent i wanted to say something about this because although i'm very devoted to overturn this law, there's something much bigger at stake here. when i saw the administration issued so far 1040 waivers to certain companies and certain unions exempting them from the law the rest of us are compelled to obey, that is a far greater danger. this administration has shown disrespect, even ignorance for the rule of law. a government that has the ability to grant a waiver has the ability to deny a waiver and destroy a business. and we who have grown up in the united states of america understands that no american should ever have to slither to the white house for an exemption. in this country the rule of law

is king. not mr. obama, not anyone else who occupies the white house. it is the rule of law. that is what we have to protect. even above and beyond the debate over this health law. [applause] >> we just have a couple more minutes left. way over here. one question and maybe one more after. >> congressman king, my new congressman is one of those 63 that was swept into congress. but he is not one of the 54 that is gaining with you on a cd-r. i see all the scotsman including you as people that speak for all of us. i mean, you know, you represent me more than my own congress windows on this issue and i'm not sure he understands that. would you let him know that he is being represented -- his people are here and work on and the rest of you, you can call kevin also. thank you.

[applause] >> i would trust that he has a google alert and his blackberry that will pop up within a few minutes. but i will pass it along in case he misses it. thank you. >> first of all i would like to thank you, mr. king, the flowers that are blooming in the eye of a cold winter. we appreciate that you been helping us, guiding us, the right way to fight obamacare. but my problem i've been talking to a lot of people to know that we are facing with a very big liar, and demoralized government. which there are many people have been taking the progressive side because they are not aware of it. and we can't tell them any

better because they chose the easy way. for example, he lied to him, more money for themselves, or they are afraid to help. i'm really glad that we are here to fight back, but which you, somehow we can spread the word of the people who have been intoxicated by the progressive system, to wake up and know what the facts are? i don't know how, because there are no laws. what are we going to do about? >> you know -- [applause] >> i think we're doing something about it today. i think there are not only the people in this room that took time off their day and contributed to all this, everybody in this room has contributed to this being a successful day so far, and i expect it will continue to be that way. hopefully, you walk out of your inspired, and the people that are watching in, they aren't

also inspired. we never know who will be the spark that really launch of something good. i look back on my life and i can see places along the way where the road traveled would not happen if it had made for somebody that had inspired the our guided me. you all are in a position to do that and i think this is part of the process, and you take america, and see to it that we are not intoxicated by the progressives. and that we should be intoxicated by liberty as betty has articulated so well. [applause] >> the comment by this latest questioner, the comments by this are the very serious one. if lying were an impeachable offense, mr. obama would already be on the way out. some of the lies have become so widespread because he uses the engine of government to promote them. for example, the medicare agency, cms, has sent out millions of flies to medicaid, medicare eligible seniors

claiming that this law saves medicare by reducing funding. when, in fact, it takes the money out of medicare and puts it in a different program leaving seniors very vulnerable to lower quality care and less care. i remember when he talked about the early elements of this law going into effect and he said preventive care would now be free. there's no tooth fairy. it's not free. you have to pay up front in your premium, whether you want it or not. so these kinds of lies have done something to slow down effort to get rid of obamacare. if everyone knew the truth, as this woman pointed out, they would be even fewer people supporting it. and it is very disturbing to see the engines of government that our institutions of government used to deceive the public. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. we're out of time for this panel but i'm sure it's not the last you hear about this issue.

it's -- >> i just wanted to do a 10-second summer. there are three efforts to get rid of obamacare going on. one of them is the litigation that betty has talked about and it's unconstitutional in my view in four different ways. i wouldn't count on the courts to save us. lets you thing we can to litigate our way back to liberty in the constitution or second is the legislative site. we must do everything we can do. i took an oath to uphold the constitution. that means use the tools to get it repealed and all the leverage possible. the third component is of all the states out there, the 20 states that have joined in the lawsuit, they have all kinds of riches they can drop into the obamacare years. they need to be doing that and everything of state to slow down and limitation of this so that they don't snap this up and take over some of the operations going on within the state. all of those things drag this thing down and we can't win this is a determination is after like it is a. i know it is in this room. we can win this and i look forward to the day that we say

this is the end of obamacare. >> yes. and beyond that, beyond that, this is the fight of our lifetimes. we have to retake our government and protect our constitutional at the polls before they are lost forever. [applause] >> all right, thank you. betsy mccaughey and congressman king. thank you, thank you. [applause] [applause]

>> the u.s. senate gavels in shortly beginning the day with general speeches at about 11 eastern senators will resume debate on a small business bill. it continues innovation funds for small tech and research firms. a number of amendments are pending, many of them unrelated to the bill. negotiations continue off the floor how to handle those unrelated amendments. the u.s. house coming in today at 2 p.m. a couple of bills including one ending the hamp program. you can follow house coverage on c-span this afternoon at 2 p.m. eastern. now live to the senate floor hear on c-span2. senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty god, who has made and preserved us as a nation, make our lawmakers

people of high vision and steadfast fidelity to your wisdom. use them to lift the banner of righteousness which exalts a nation. as they work together, deepen their understanding of one another's perspectives, so that they will treat their colleagues as they would want their colleagues to treat them. purge them from all that blemishes, corrupts, and defiles our common life. heal our land, lord, and use our senators as agents of your healing.

we pray in your merciful name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., march 29, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable jeanne shaheen, a senator from the state of new hampshire, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore.

mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following any leader remarks, there will be a period of morning business for an hour with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the majority controlling the first half, the republicans controlling the final half. following morning business, the senate will resume consideration of s. 493, the small business jobs bill. the senate will recess from 12:30 until 2:15 to allow for weekly caucus meetings. roll call votes in relation to the amendments to the small business jobs bill are possible today. insofar as will be -- senators will be notified when votes are scheduled. madam president, we have ten amendments now pending. i spoke yesterday afternoon to the republican leader, and i think we're in good shape now to hopefully resolve the 1099 matter this afternoon. we're looking forward to having a consent agreement that we can

vote on that. and i think we're at a point where in the morning, we can vote on the mcconnell amendment dealing with the e.p.a. and a couple of other amendments relating to e.p.a. to get rid of that issue one way or the other. there are other matters with the bill that we would like to set up votes, and if people are willing to allow us to do that, we could do some of those this afternoon. but we're making progress on this very important bill. with all the amendments being offered, we sometimes lose sight of the fact that this bill we have that's been led by senators landrieu and snowe is an extremely important bill for creating jobs with small businesses. it's an innovation bill, and the programs that this bill covers has done some tremendously important things for the country. with the c.r., i spoke with the

white house this morning. there are conversations going with the white house and the republican leadership in the house, and i think that this matter with a little bit of good fortune could move down the road in the next day or two to get us to a point where we can have something done so that there doesn't have to be a government shutdown. i certainly hope that's the case.

mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the

republican leader. mr. mcconnell: as lawmakers return to washington this week, we did so against the backdrop of many world crises. from recovery efforts in japan to battles everywhere from afghanistan to libya, to an unfolding economic crisis in europe, the scope and intensity of world events in recent months has been nothing short of breathtaking. yet, in the middle of all this, it's important that we not lose sight of the struggles and concerns of so many around us here at home. at a time when roughly one in four american homeowners owes more money on their mortgage than their home is worth, at a time when nearly one in ten working americans is looking for a job, at a time when the federal debt has reached heights that none of us could have even imagined just a few years ago, now is not the time to focus on the paramount issue on the minds of americans every day, and that's the very real crisis that we face when it comes to jobs.

americans look around them and they see neighbors and friends struggling to find work, and yet all they seem to get from the white house are policies that handcuff small businesses with burdensome new regulations and red tape and that create even more uncertainty about the future. including the administration's inexplicable and inexcusable inaction on trade deals that would level the playing field with our competitors overseas. and they're tired of it. americans are tired of the white house paying lip service to their struggles while quietly promoting effort after effort, either through legislation or through some back door regulation that makes it harder, not easier, for businesses to create new jobs. but the administration really outdid itself last week when the president told the brazillian president that the united states hopes to be a major customer in the market for oil that brazillian businesses plan to

extract from new oil finds off the brazillian coast. you can't make this stuff up. here we've got the administration -- excuse me -- we have got the administration looking for just about any excuse it can find to lock up our own energy resources here at home, even as it's applauding another country's efforts to grow its own economy and create jobs by tapping into its energy sources. for two years, the blinks has canceled dozens, dozens of oil and gas leases all across america. it's raised permit fees. it's shut down deepwater drilling in the gulf. it won't even allow a conversation about exploring for oil in a remote 2,000-acre piece of land in northern alaska that experts think represents one of our best opportunities for a major oil find. and it continues to press for new regulations through the environmental protection agency that would raise energy costs for every business in america

and lead to untold lost jobs for more american workers. in other words, in the midst of average gas prices approaching approaching $4 a gallon and a chronic jobs crisis, the white house plans to make the climate for job growth worse, and that's why republicans led here in the senate by senator inhofe have proposed legislation to prevent this new energy tax from ever taking effect without congressional approval. "the wall street journal" has called the amendment we're proposing -- quote -- "one of the best proposals for growth and job creation to make it onto the senate docket in years." our amendment would ensure small businesses across the country that they won't be hit with yet another costly new job-stifling burden by democrats here in washington. it will give voters the assurance that a regulation of this kind, which would have a

dramatic impact on so many, could not be approved without their elected representatives standing up and actually voting for it. and at a time of rising energy prices, it would prevent democrats in washington from adding even more pressure to energy prices than they already have out of special interests that would rather we buy our energy from overseas rather than the bountiful energy resources we already have here at home. so i want to thank senator inhofe for once again leading us on this issue. his bill, upon which my amendment is based, has 43 cosponsors. he deserves the credit. he has been a fierce and tireless advocate, not only for american energy but also against new e.p.a. regulations that would sidestep the legislative process. i thank him for his work, along with the great work that

senators murkowski and barrasso have done in educating the american people about these issues. at a time when americans are looking for answers on the economy, this amendment is as good as it gets from washington. by voting for it, we would be saying no to more regulations and red tape, and we would be saying yes to american job creators and to the jobs they want to create. i would urge my colleagues in both parties to support it. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business for one hour, with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

call: quorum call:

quorum call: mr. schumer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: thank you, madam president. i rise to speak on the current state of the bipartisan budget negotiations. for weeks now, the offices of the senate majority leader, the house speaker and the white house have been engaged -- the presiding officer: the senator should know the senate is in a quorum call. mr. schumer: i'm sorry, madam president. i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you, madam

president. and i rise to speak on the current state of the bipartisan budget negotiations. for weeks now, the offices of the senate majority leader, the house speaker and the white house have been engaged in serious talks seeking a long-term budget agreement. it's been a long, hard process. there have been a lot of fits and starts in the negotiations. but it's no exaggeration to say that as of last week, talks were on a smooth path toward a compromise. the speaker's office was negotiating in good faith. the parties significantly narrowed the $51 billion gap on how much spending should be cut. house republican leaders had agreed to come down from h.r. 1 and meet us halfway. we could begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel, but suddenly at the end of last week, the house republicans did a strange thing. they pulled back from the talks. they changed their minds about what level of spending cuts they

could accept. we were right on the verge of a potential breakthrough, and they suddenly moved the goal posts. we felt a little bit like we were left at the altar. and not only did they abandon the talks, they started denying that they were ever close to a deal in the first place. majority leader kantor issued a statement friday saying that reports that progress was being made were far-fetched. it was like they decided that even the appearance of a looming compromise was a political liability. it was surreal. it's no surprise what happened. the headline of today's story in "national journal" says it all -- quote -- "with revolt brewing, g.o.p. backs off deal." let me repeat that because that is really what's going on here in the news of the day and the last few days." with revolt brewing, "said the

headline," g.o.p. backs off deal." the story reads -- quote -- "concerned about a revolt by conservative tea party wing of the party, g.o.p. leaders have pulled back from attempting a deal to cut roughly $30 billion in cuts from current spending levels. the influence that tea party conservatives now exercise over the process put the chances of a compromise seriously in doubt." the story continues, madam president. -- quote -- "the g.o.p. pulled back from that agreement last week after majority leader eric kantor and majority whip kevin mccarthy warned house speaker john boehner that the deal would trigger a revolt from tea party conservatives." so, in other words, as soon as house republican leaders took one step towards compromise, the tea party rebelled, so they took two steps back.

the "national journal" story describes an offer that was put on the table by the white house that would have met the house republicans halfway. the offer falls squarely in the ballpark of congressman ryan's original budget proposal. with roughly $70 billion in spending cuts compared to the president's budget request. this is a significant move in the republicans' direction. these are more cuts than many on our side might support, but it shows how seriously the white house is about wanting a compromise to avert a shutdown. if they are planning to reject such an offer, then it's clear they won't take yes for an answer and are seeking a shutdown. the republican leadership in the house, with the tea party breathing down their back, won't take yes for an answer and won't support the original proposal made by budget chairman ryan of

roughly $70 billion in spending cuts, and we know that congressman ryan is hardly a liberal or a moderate. so it shows you how far to the right the republican leadership is being forced to move by the tea party. this level of spending cuts was good enough for house republicans earlier this year when hal rogers released -- rodgers released his earlier proposal. house republicans were forced to double their spending cuts to an extreme level of $61 billion. when that happened, even hal rodgers said the house was moving beyond what was reasonable and into territory where they could never get a deal. tom latham of iowa agreed that in forcing h.r. 1 to go from from $30 billion to $60 billion in cuts, the tea party was forcing republicans to go beyond what was -- quote -- "enact

"enactable." these are conservative republicans saying that the present house proposal is not enactable, cannot pass. just as the tea party forced mainstream republicans into extreme territory before, they are doing it again, and anyone who looks at this objectively sees that's what's happening. the speaker has said all along he wants to avoid a shutdown at all costs, and, madam president, i believe him. he's a good man. the problem is a large percentage of those in his party don't feel the same way. they think compromise is a dirty word. they think taking any steps to avert a shutdown would mean being the first to blink. so speaker boehner is caught between a shutdown and a hard place. he's caught a tiger by the tail

in the form of the tea party. there is even a tea party rally planned for later this week to pressure the speaker not to budge off h.r. 1, to try and mask the divisions on their own side, the republicans have resorted to lashing out in a knee-jerk way at democrats. their latest trick is trying to accuse democrats of not having our own plan. that's a diversion. it rings hollow. the only proposals that have been made that would actually avoid a government shutdown are numerous compromises that democrats have offered republicans, and i'd like to remind my house friends, as you all know, the senate needs 60 votes to pass a bill. we can't pass anything without republican agreement, yet our senate republican colleagues are nowhere to be found. since the senate rejected the republican job-killing budget proposal that would cost

americans 700,000 jobs a month ago, republicans have not moved an inch off their plan. speaker boehner knows when it comes to averting a government shutdown on april 8, it is the tea party, not the democrats, that are causing the trouble. at this point, the only hurdle left to a bipartisan deal, the only obstacle in the way is the tea party, but for the -- but for the tea party, we could have an agreement that reduces spending by a historic amount. we could have a deal that keeps the government open. a tea party rebellion may hurt the house republican leadership politically, but a shutdown will hurt americans, all americans much more. it's time for house republican leaders to rip the band-aid off. mr. speaker, it's time to forget the tea party and take the deal.

there are only ten days left before the current c.r. expires. there is no new stopgap being prepared by house republicans. it seems like the only viable proposal is the one the speaker walked away from. so the speaker faces a choice: return to the deal he was prepared to accept before the tea party rebelled last week or risk a shutdown on april 8. i think we know what the right answer is. it is clear. the speaker has a choice: appease the tea party and shut down the government or take the right and principled stand and move the government forward by coming to a reasonable compromise between both parties that cuts the budget significantly. thank you, and i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: madam president, it feels a lit -- a bit like deja vu standing here again discussing the ongoing saga of the 1099 repeal. two weeks ago, i offered amendment number 161 to this small business bill. if you read all the press releases and the public statement, while it appears that absolutely nobody could possibly oppose the repeal of the 1099 requirement in section 9006 of the health care bill. yet once again, the other side is attempt to go delay or derail the 1099 repeal by offering a second-degree amendment. now, i might have been open to a second-degree amendment when we started this process many long months ago, but now we're approaching the one-year

anniversary since we began fighting to repeal this unnecessary mandate. it has no place in the health care bill in the first place. i -- i can't help but question why on earth we are still swinging and missing at this one. is it a lack of support in my caucus? well, the answer to that, madam president, is no. the support amongst republicans is absolutely unanimous. lack of republican support certainly has not held this up. i ask myself if there is a lack of bipartisan support that is holding the effort up. well, the answer to that is also no. my colleague, the junior senator from west virginia, has cosponsored the last several versions of this repeal legislation here in the senate. together, senator manchin and i

have secured dozens of democrats who very strongly support the repeel. and 76 democrats voted for this identical 1099 repeal in the house of representatives. so bipartisan support is enormously if not unusually strong. so might our problem be a lack of support from the white house? well, the answer to that is also no. the president has publicly called for repeal of this 1099 mandate on several occasions in press conferences, and he even referenced it in his state of the union address. well, is it possible that there is still confusion about how our small businesses feel about the mandate? well, that's not the case. the chorus of job creators

opposing this mandate is almost deafening. the chamber of commerce, the national federation of independent businesses, the american farm bureau federation, and i could go on and on and on listing organizations that are arguing for its repeal. has it been a controversial pay-for that has slowed down our progress? well, interestingly enough, an almost identical budgetary offset passed this chamber, the united states senate, unanimously just four months ago. requiring someone to repay what was given to them erroneously, well, that's just plain and simple good government. even secretary of health and human services sebelius noted that repayment of improper subsidies is -- quote -- "fair

for recipients and all taxpayers ." so arguments about the pay-for simply are hollow excuses to justify inaction. and our job creators are seeing it for what it really is. it's more nonsense. it astounds me that we can seemingly pass benchmark after benchmark without going over the finish line. how can we make so much important progress only to be stymied again and again by some silent opposition? my friends across the aisle have often complained about the slow pace of the senate. it blamed the other side of the aisle for preventing progress. well, madam president, my side of the aisle has been ready for a long, long time to repeal this

job-killing mandate. i want you to know we stand ready to vote. considering the high unemployment rates plaguing our country, it seems absolutely incomprehensible that we would waste even another day without addressing this mandate in the health care bill. our job creators have watched dueling amendments and proposals and counterproposals. well, that's gone on for a year. i first circulated a "dear colleague" letter asking for cosponsors of this 1099 repeal in june of last year. and when we introduced it in july with 25 cosponsors, well, small businesses cheered. it gave them hope that common sense would prevail in congress and that partisanship is

sometimes set aside to just simply do the right thing. but now they see that there is yet again a delay tactic in the form of a second-degree amendment to the 1099 repeal. they have been frustrated time and time again. when it failed to advance in september or november, it appeared stalled well into the new year. well, today we have a simple choice. we can pass my amendment with strong bipartisan support and democrat stroeut that we have the 6 -- demonstrate that we have the 60 votes necessary for the house version. or, we can pass the second-degree amendment and push this repeal off into limbo, into never-never land yet again. we can actually fix the problem in a bipartisan way, or we can

continue to kick this can down the road. if we pass the second-degree amendment, quite simply, what we have voted yes to do is delay the repeal of the 1099 amendment, and eventually we are going to flirt with disaster on this and it won't get done. we need to focus all of our energy on helping our job creators grow and create more jobs, not force them into worrying about hiring more accountants. pardon my boldness here, but there is no reason to delay. an identical version of my amendment passed the house with large bipartisan support,

314-112. i urge my colleagues with all i have to oppose the second-degree amendment that my friend from new jersey is proposing. let's be clear here, this latest distraction from 1099 repeal is just that. it's distraction. we all know that it isn't really about a study to look at health care costs. if you want to do a study, put the amendment on some other piece of legislation. this is about derailing and delaying the 1099 repeal. because if the second-degree amendment passes, it says instead of sending this to the president to become law, we need to go back to the drawing board. while the proponents of the second-degree amendment will claim that it's innocuous, make no mistake, it's designed to obliterate this amendment because of a budgetary offset

that, again i remind us a similar offset was passed unanimously recently by the senate. just like a "politico" article from yesterday noted -- and i quote -- "senate democrats are working on an amendment that would kill the republicans paid for in the future." unquote. if the second-degree passes, then we are essentially adding nearly $25 billion to our debt over the next ten years. while some may preach the virtues of pay-as-you-go rules, when it comes right down to it, they will undermine virtually any fiscal responsible pay-for. so here we are again crossing the same bridge that we have crossed so many times before. in fact, the senate refused this

idea when we rejected the baucus amendment that repealed 1099 but was not paid for. that amendment fell 23 votes short of passage because it just fiscally didn't make sense. so why are we still here aimlessly walking around in circles when we ought to be marching straight ahead? why are we proposing to send this bipartisan legislation back to the house? because that's what will have to happen when it ought to go directly to the president's desk for signature. our vote today can send a message that we have all the votes necessary to get this done and get it on the president's desk. and everybody can celebrate: our job creators, democrats, republicans, independents. the logic of the second-degree amendment is absolutely

baffling. here we are in the ninth inning and somehow our pay-for has become magically unacceptable even though a similar pay-for was used unanimously by the senate before. where were all the objections? where was the demand for further study when we unanimously approved a similar offset for the doc fix legislation? let me be very clear. a vote in favor of the second-degree is a vote against our business and job creators. my amendment has been waiting for a vote for 14 days now, and the repeal has been pending for nearly a year. isn't enough enough? the time for delay and further study must be over.

let's pass my amendment today by an overwhelming vote of the senate. let's reject the second-degree. let's get this piece of legislation to the president for his signature, and we can all celebrate. small businesses, our job creators, deserve no less. madam president, thank you. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: government funding is set to expire next week on april 8. we are in the midst of a 2011 fiscal year that ends september 30, and the congress has only appropriated money through april

8. if congress does not act by that time, the government would shut down. congress needs to act, but congress needs to listen to the american people, listen to the financial experts that we have dealt with, and to reduce spending and reduce the surging debt that we have, the surging annual deficit that we face this year. last predicted i think $1.6 trillion or so. maybe $1.5 trillion now. the largest deficit in the history of the republic. nothing has ever been seen like it before. and it has got to be addressed. there's no way around it. so we've got this deadline hanging over our heads, and the reason is that my colleagues and the democratic leadership here in the senate won't agree to the

kind of substantial but realistic spending reductions that the house of representatives has sent to us. they sent us a budget plan that i think will work. but what we hear is that the sky will fall if we trim the $61 billion from a $3.7 trillion. $3.7 billion that we spend. if we reduce that spending by $61 billion, somehow this will cause the country to sink into oblivion. the american people know better than that. that is not realistic. of course we can cut those kind of numbers out of this huge budget that we have. and the american people will be better off for it. as ranking member on the budget committee, we've looked at the numbers, and that $61 billion

reduces the baseline of federal spending by $61 billion. but over ten years, because its baseline reduction would save $860 billion. this is the kind of small but significant step that does make a difference. people say it doesn't make any difference. why don't we just increase spending? why do we cut spending at all? of course we've got to reduce spending. the american people know that the borrowed money and overspending of the past two years have failed to produce what it promised. instead, all that has been achieved through this massive surge and federal spending through the stimulus package and other programs is a crushing debt burden that weakens our economy and is a drag on our economy. as experts witnesses have told us, it threatens our economic

future. alan simpson, former republican senator; erskine bowles, formerly the chief of staff to president clinton, appointed by president obama to cochair the debt commission, the fiscal commission, reported to us -- and jointly they submitted a written statement that said that if the united states fails to act, it faces the most predictable economic crisis in its history." this is a real warning. and they said that such a crisis could arrive as soon as or two years. people have been saying we're on the wrong track f. we don't get off of it if three, four, five years we're going to have a crisis. more and more people are warning us that that crisis is sooner. mr. bowles said give or take a little bit, we'll have a crisis. mr. simpson said i think within a year.

the american people rightly expect their elected leaders to confront this threat with seriousness and candor. but the president has never once looked the american people in the eye and told them the truth about the financial crisis we face. has he ever discussed those kind of words with the american people that we face an actual crisis? we could have a debt problem that hit us very quickly, just like the one in 2007, that put us in a tkraoep session, and we're on a fragile recovery now. we need to keep that recovery going. the last thing we need to do is have another recession, some sofrt financial -- sort of financial kickback, pushback, collapse. it puts more people out of work. it weakens an already struggling economy. it's not necessary that this occur. the president and his budget

director have instead, being truthful with us, falsely boasted to the american people that their budget, that under their budget we will -- quote -- "live within our means." and -- quote -- "not add more to the debt." and -- quote -- "we're not going to spend any more money than we're taking in." he submitted his ten-year budget to the congress, and that's what he says this does. but not one of those statements is true. not one. when the budget was announced, mr. bowles, whom the president appointed to head the debt commission, said it's nowhere close to what we need to be doing to get our house in order. in fact, the congressional budget office finds this, that our annual deficits never once fall below $748 billion. i was saying $600 billion.

now the congressional budget office has done an independent analysis of the president's budget, and they say the lowest single annual deficit in ten years would be $748 billion. well, is it going down, you ask? isn't this budget going to put us living within our means and live on what we take? well, in the outer years, the deficits, out seven, eight, nine, ten years of the president's budget, they're going up. and in the tenth year, the budget deficit is $1.2 trillion, $1.2 billion deficit that year. you might ask: what do those numbers mean? we take in about $3.7 trillion -- excuse me. we spend this year about $3.7 trillion through september 30. we take in $2.2 trillion. this is why we're on an

unsustainable path, and we've got to get off of it. it's not a partisan matter. it's a matter that we've got to face reality. we still have members of the senate in denial. we have the majority leader down here complaining that he might not get money for his poetry cowboy, poetry festival in nevada. give me a break. this country is heading in a path of great danger, and we need to turn around. just imagine, if you would, the fate of a c.e.o. if in the process of asking for shareholders to buy company stock, he declared -- quote -- "we're not adding to our debt." while his accountants were telling him that the company's debt was on a path to double, as our debt is. the president even nominated a budget director, helen

higgenbottom, who has no budget experience, deputy director, who attempted to defend these claims before the budget committee last week. i don't know, maybe they couldn't find anybody that would take the job with experience. the best i can tell, she has never had a single business course or economics course, never managed any kind of organization or budget ever. majored i think in political science and campaigned for president obama and senator john kerry. we need some seriousness here. and we in congress are not stepping up to the plate, frankly. we're not taking the kind of decisive action needed to curb our rising debt, and the majority leader, our good friend, senator reid, which is a tough job, i've got to tell you, it's a tough job, but now he's saying that the problem is as a

division within the republican party. you see, you have got these extremists over here, new republicans who got elected last election promising to do something about spending, and they are out of touch. you see, they are extremists. and there are some good republicans over here that they have been here a long time. you know, we know how to get along and cut deals, and we're going to take care of this thing. you have just got to keep these people under control. but i might remind the leader that nearly -- that every single republican either voted for the the $61 billion in cuts or called for more cuts. there is no division in the republican party about the need to have reasonable and significant reductions in expenditures. there is an essentially anonymous republican agreement, we ought to cut $61 billion or

more from this year's discretionary budget. by contrast, the majority leader lost nearly 1/5 of his caucus on his proposal which was basically to do nothing. cut $4 billion, i think, reduce spending by $4 billion. ten members or more defected. they knew that wasn't enough, even under pressure from the president and from the majority leader. so it's clear where the momentum lies, and i just want to repeat again, though, this is not and cannot be seen as a partisan squabble. the chairman of the federal reserve talked to us a few weeks ago. he submitted a written statement to the budget committee, and this is what mr. bernanke said. he talked about the congressional budget office debt projections.

i have made some reference to those and how dangerous they show our path to be. this is what mr. bernanke said." the c.b.o. projections, by design, ignore the adverse effects that such high debt and deficits would likely have on our economy, but if the government debt and deficits were actually to grow at the pace envisioned in this scenario, the economic and financial effects would be severe. diminishing confidence on the part of investors that deficits will be brought under control would likely lead to sharply rising interest rates on government debt, and potentially to broader financial turmoil. moreover, high rates of government borrowing would both drain funds away from capital private formation and increase our foreign indebtedness with

adverse long-term effects on u.s. output, incomes and standard of living. he goes on to say it is widely understood that the federal government is on an unsustainable path, yet as a nation, we have done little to address this critical threat to our economy. doing nothing will not be an option indefinitely the longer we wait to act, the greater the risk and the more wrenching the inevitable changes on the budget will be. by contrast, the prompt adoption of a credible program to reduce future deficits would not onlien hans the economic growth and stability in the long run but would also yield substantial near-term benefits now, in terms of lower long-term interest rates and increased consumer and business confidence.

close quote. this is the head of the federal reserve, the man most, i guess, supposedly knowledgeable about the economy of the united states of america. we're not making this up. so we have a proposal from our democratic majority in the senate to do nothing. basically, to do zero, nada. and this kind of warning we have got, we are living in a fantasy world if we don't think we can cut $61 billion from this budget. my friend, john mcmillan, just elected the director of agriculture and industries in alabama, is facing a critical crisis in his department. i just saw the headline in the paper. he has 200 employees -- he had 200 employees. he's going to have to lay off 60 of them. cities and counties are doing this kind of thing all over the country. do you think the state of

alabama will cease to exist if that happens? it's too much. i hope -- it's sad that they have got that kind of challenge before them. we don't have to do that much right now, but if we took those kind of steps, something significant, we could make a bigger difference than a lot of people realize in the debt that we're facing. governor cuomo in new york and christie in new jersey and brown in california and others all over the country are making real significant alterations in their level of spending while we worry about protecting the cowboy poetry festival in nevada. and remember this: people have forgotten this. since bob took -- since president obama took office, discretionary spending on our

federal programs in congress have increased 24%. we didn't have the money for that. we never should have increased spending that much. it was a big error. but you know what they said? don't worry, we're making investments in the future. but you've got to have money to make investments. if you don't have money, how can you make investments? all of this increase was borrowed. we're in huge debt, and when you increase spending, you have to borrow the money to increase spending. every penny is borrowed. we did an $800 billion stimulus package. every penny was borrowed. we will pay $30 billion-plus a year interest on that borrowed money for as long as i'm alive, and longer, no doubt. there is no plan to pay that debt off.

and i know people are talking about working out. they are trying to reach a compromise so we don't have to shut the government down, and i certainly hope that's true. but i do not believe that we need any tax and spend compromise, and i will not support that, and i don't think the american people will support it either. they know we spend too much. they know we have ramped up spending $800 billion for the stimulus package, discretionary spending has gone up 24% in two years, and they know we can reduce federal spending without this country sinking into the ocean. that's what they expect us to do. that's what governors are doing, mayors are doing, county commissioners are doing, all over my state, all over america. we have got to recognize that

washington is spending too much, not taxing too little. how can we ask americans to pay more in taxes when washington is not even willing to cut cut $61 billion from our bloated bureaucracy? if i have a proposition from our colleagues who wish to raise taxes before we consider asking the american people to pay another cent in taxes, why don't we first drain every cent of waste from the federal bureaucracy? we will never truly dig ourselves out of this crisis and put this nation on a real path to prosperity unless we bring our spending under control. america's strength is not measured by the size of our government, but the scope of our freedoms and the vigor and vitality of the american people and their willingness to invest and work hard for the future. that's what makes us strong.

endless spending, taxing and borrowing is a certain path to decline, and we're on that path today and we must get off it. so we know the threat, we know what we need to do. the economy is trying to rebound. so let's take some good steps today. let's pass this $61 billion reduction in spending this fiscal year. it will amount to about about $860 billion over ten years. it will be a very significant first step. that's what's before us today. not the other issues. we have got to decide what we are going to do about funding the government between now and september 30. that's the rest of this fiscal year. let's take a firm step on that. let's begin to look at what we are going to do for next year's budgets and what we're going to do about our surging entitlement programs that are on an

unsustainable course. we can do all those things and leave our country healthy and vigorous and prosperous for the future. i truly believe that that's the kind of thing that we need to be doing now. so i am really baffled that we don't know why that the president is not leading more, he's not talking directly to the american people about why this is important. is it just a political squabble with the president sitting here and going to rio and talking about libya, or is it true, as mr. bernanke says, we -- we are on an unsustainable path? or is it true that mr. erskine bowles, the president's own director of the fiscal commission, says that we are

facing the most predictable economic crisis in this country's history, and said it could happen within two years? are we making this up? the american people get it. they tell me what's going on in washington? you've got to get your house in order. that's what this past election was about. people understand we need some action and some leadership here, but we're not getting it. i just truly believe if we could get together, if we could get a bipartisan effort to look at this $61 billion, we could disagree on how to reduce that spending. maybe republicans have this idea and democrats have that. let's work all that out, but let's reach an agreement that actually reduces spending by enough to make a difference, that the world would say wow,

the congress is beginning to take some steps. that was a nice, good, strong first step. now if they will stay on that path, maybe the united states will get on the road to prosperity again and stay out of this dangerous debt crisis area that we're in today and get on the right path to prosperity. this country's ready to grow. it's ready to rebound. it just needs a clear signal from washington, in my opinion. american leaders, those of us in this congress, have no higher duty, no greater moral responsibility than to take all appropriate steps to protect the good people we serve from the clear and present danger we face. it's time to get busy about it, madam president. i believe that if we act strongly and with clarity, the american people not only will support it but they will be

happy with it and it will make a positive difference for our country, and i would thank the president and would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

stk

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i may speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, later, as we move to the bill on small business, i will be offering, i hope, a second-degree amendment to senator johanns' amendment, and i speak today on behalf of middle-class families and on behalf of small businesses. i want to start by saying that i fully support, as i have already done in a series of votes,

repealing the 1099 reporting requirement but strongly believe that we have to do so in a manner that does not, does not increase the burden on our small businesses and employees. the amendment of senator johanns certainly only helped small businesses through the repeal of the 1099 provision, but -- and this is less well known, i believe it actually hurts small business employees as well. it's a double-edged sword. the johanns amendment risks driving up health insurance costs and cutting health insurance coverage for small businesses. as you know, the affordable care act provides tax credits to families who earn under $74,000 per year to help them purchase health insurance. those tax credits are set at the start of the year. then at tax time when families actually report their annual

income, the tax credits are reconciled with their annual household income to insure they receive the correct amount of assistance. because income and other family circumstances can change in the course of a year, individuals might end up getting excess tax credits, even though the amount of the payment was correct at the time. for example, a family with an unemployed worker who secures a job midway through the year -- and hopefully can do so as we continue to work on this economy to have it grow -- at a small business and has rightfully received a tax credit while unemployed could face a stiff tax hike to repay the amount of the subsidy because the family's annual income ends up higher for the second half of the year. this family receives the correct amount and did nothing wrong. let me say that again. these individuals did nothing

wrong. while unemployed, these individuals needed those tax credits to be able to get health insurance. that's why we passed this reform to help those very middle-class working families in need. now, under current law, we provide a reasonable repayment requirement if the tax credit and individual receives -- exceeds the amount they should have received because of unexpected changes in income or family status. we don't give them a pass. but we don't expect all families with an annual income of $70,000 to have $10,000 in savings to pay the surprise tax bill they will get in april either. so we set caps on what they would have to pay back depending on what they earn. the johanns amendment makes harmful changes to these middle-class families. under the johanns amendment, some families could have to pay back as much as $12,000 in some cases, and that's too high a

price. we shouldn't ask small business employees to take that much of a hit. they're the ones who are going to the exchanges to purchase coverage. they're the ones working for the mom and pop shop who doesn't offer coverage. my amendment isn't about these families alone, however, as difficult of a situation as they may be in. this amendment is about what the johanns offset could do to health care costs and coverage for small businesses and for those who make their living from small businesses. this risky offset could drive up premiums and force more individuals to refuse coverage. we're not talking about paying back tax credits. we're talking about driving up the costs on families and small businesses, many who have never even taken a tax credit to begin with. so my amendment would simply direct the secretary of health and human services to study the offset in the johanns amendment

and determine its effect on small business. what's so wrong about that? determine its effect on small business. we're trying to help small businesses by eliminating the 1099 provision. well, let's make sure we continue to help them and not put extra costs on them. specifically, to determine whether there is an increase in health insurance costs or a decrease in health coverage for small businesses. if the study finds either, then current safe harbor provisions would remain in effect, the same safe harbors we supported in the s.g.r. bill, the doc fix in december. passing 1099 would not be affected, that would move forward, so the claim that somehow the 1099 wouldn't ultimately -- issue wouldn't ultimately be eliminated is false. the 1099 would not be affected. that would move forward. we would eliminate that responsibility from the small businesses. so you can be both for my amendment and johanns because it would still repeal 1099.

let me make it clear, we all want 1099 repeal, and i have voted in a series of ways to do exactly that, and my amendment does not in any way affect, delay the repeal of 1099. the only potential change my amendment makes would be to the risky offset in the underlying amendment, and only if this study finds that it actually hurts small businesses. now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have come to the floor arguing that -- quote -- "a study would simply delay repeal of 1099, that further studying this risky offset would prolong the 1099 issue, that if we just pass the amendment without protecting small businesses, this bill can go right to the president." well, we have actually passed 1099 repeal already and shown that we have the votes necessary to make this become law, and it's not going to the president

to become law in this bill because this bill hasn't even cleared the house. at the same time, i heard no mention of what this offset could do to small businesses and their health care costs, not one word. i did hear that further studying the impacts it may have on small business would only delay repeal of 1099. a simple, simple read of my amendment would be enough to know that is incorrect. my amendment directs a study to be done after, after repeal of 1099 is signed into law. let me make it clear, nothing in my amendment slows down repeal of 1099. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are also trying to frame this debate as either you are for or against small businesses, but they are helping and harming them at the same time with the johanns amendment. with this second degree, we can have a conversation about

helping small businesses and ensure that small business employees will not get hurt at the end of the day. now, we haven't had the joint tax committee on taxation determine a revenue score yet, but it's important to point out this amendment does not spend, does not spend an additional dime. it simply protects small businesses from higher health care costs and coverage cuts. if there is any revenue score associated with it, that would only be due to the study finding that this offset drives up health care costs or drives down health coverage for small businesses. wouldn't we want to know that? all here are supposedly arguing to try to enhance the opportunity for small businesses to have less burdens, to be able to grow, to be able to prosper, to be able to create jobs. well, we certainly would want to know, certainly would want to know whether this offset drives

up health care costs associated with small businesses or drives down the health care coverage for small businesses. why is anyone afraid of that? why is anyone fearful of that? so for those who may consider opposing my amendment, think of this: on the one hand, if you do not believe that this -- that this offset will hurt small businesses, there's no harm in voting for it because you believe that the study will not show premium increases or coverage cuts, so the offset would remain in place. if you believe that my amendment would have a revenue score, then you're assuming that the offset hurts small businesses. it's one way or the other, not a gray area. the idea of protecting small businesses in this matter has precedent. i have a history of working across the aisle to support small businesses including cosponsoring a republican amendment to the wall street reform bill which requires regulators to ensure new rules do not harm small businesses.

we thought it was a good idea then to protect small businesses in the event new rules might unfairly impact them. and i strongly believe we should come together now to protect small businesses if this risky offset dries up health care costs on small businesses or forces cuts in their coverage. i would just simply ask, who in the world, especially during these fragile economic times, would want to do anything that could raise costs on small businesses? let's protect them and the 1099 repeal by supporting my second-degree amendment. you know, i listened to my colleague from nebraska who i've worked with on some bipartisan efforts, on housing for the disabled so, we get along very well. i respect him. actually i have supported 1099 repeal as one of the 20 democrats who voted for his

amendment in november and other issues like housing for the disabled. it's with some regret that we find ourselves with a different view here. there have been questions raised about the sincerity of our opposition to the marine in which the -- to the manner in which the offset is included in the amendment. the senator said an offset was passed unanimously by the senate a month ago. and i think our definitions of almost identical are very different. yes, it's true that we made changes in the payback tax to pay for the doc fix in december, but that provision was very different, very different from the one we're debating today. the one today, unlike before, removes protections that we included in december in the doc fix to protect families from unlimited tax liability which could be as high as $12,000.

you're talking about taxing these families through no fault of their own. what family of three making $74,000 annually gross can afford an unexpected $12,000 tax bill in april? i can't think of many, but that's exactly what could happen under the gentleman's amendment. that was not the case -- not the case -- in the provision that was enacted at the end of last year in the doc fix. we provided a phaseout that would have avoided this cliff and, thus, tax shock on middle-class families. the gentleman from nebraska also said my second-degree amendment was just a delay tactic. that simply isn't true. i and 80 of my colleagues have already passed 1099 repeal in the senate this year. soso to question our support for the 1099 repeal would be misleading. my understanding is that the

johanns proposal amendment to the small business we're debating has not passed the house. this amendment we're debating would not go directly to the president for his signature. it has to go through the process in the house. we're not delaying anything in that regard. finally, the only way that there would be any revenue shortfall here, those who would make the assertion that our amendment creates a revenue shortfall, then what you have to be saying if you make that statement is that you believe that the savings from the johanns offset comes from increasing premiums and reducing coverage on those who earn it through making our nation's small businesses run. that is not a proposition i think that they want to assert. so i will come back to the floor later to offer this second-degree amendment. and because it works to both repeal 1099 and ensure that there is not a tax on our small

businesses and small business employees or a diminution of health care coverage, i'm sure that we will get the support of my colleagues. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 493 which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 17, s. 493, a bill to reauthorize and improve the sbir and the sttr programs and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. before we get into a brief discussion of the bill that's on the floor, i have nine unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. can i ask the chair -- i know that we're discussing the bill.

do we have a time constraint? i understand that at 12:00 there may be some additional commentary. the presiding officer: there is no formal time constraints at this time. ms. landrieu: okay, thank you, mr. president. let me just try to recap for just a moment, because it's my understanding that there may be some colleagues coming down to the floor around 12:00 to pay tribute to an extraordinary woman, an extraordinary american, geraldine ferraro whom we lost this week. and i most certainly want to be respectful to the members that are coming to the floor to pay tribute to our former colleague and extraordinary leader. but let me remind colleagues that we are still trying today to get this bill, an important bill for the country, an important bill to help put this

recession in our rear-view mirror, an important bill that gives us yet one more very carefully crafted tool to help create jobs on main streets, in rural areas, in suburban areas and in urban areas all across this country. and that is the eight-year reauthorization of the small business innovation and research program and small business technology transfer program. this program is 20 -- approximately 20 years old, first passed by senator warren rudman, when a report found its way to congress that said, alarmingly, agencies of the federal government, whether it was the department of defense or nasa or n.i.h., were not accessing the power and the

technology of the small business community. that when they went out to do research, they were just looking at research offered by either just universities -- which we're very proud of the work that our universities do. but they were looking at really large businesses. what did g.e. have to offer? what did i.b.m. have to offer? and it occurred to many members of congress at that time that there was a tremendous amount of brainpower and agility and quickness and cutting-edge innovative technologies resting in the minds and hearts and dreams of entrepreneurs and small businesses in america that the taxpayers weren't benefitting from, mr. president. as you can imagine, people might think of all this technology coming out of new york or california. they might skip over a place like montana where the president is from, or louisiana, where this senator is from. and so there was some very wise members that said let's create a program that would direct at

least a portion of the research and development funding of these large agencies so that small businesses can compete. now, these are grants not given out by formula or on a first-come, first served basis. these grants and contracts are given out based on merit, about what looks promising, about potential and about what the taxpayers need in terms of dealing with problems. one thing that comes immediately to mind is the terrible tragedy unfolding in japan as we speak with the potential meltdown, the process of a nuclear reactor melting down. some of the technology, mr. president, being deployed to that situation which is technology developed by -- in the field of robotics, that technology was developed, a portion of it, through this sbir program. so that makes very relevant the

debate that we're having on the floor today. when people go home or now turning on their televisions or listening to their radio or over the internet following those unfolding dramatic developments in japan knowing that one of the companies that's been deployed and some of the material from the united states actually was developed through this program. so that's just one of 1,000 examples that senator snowe and i have provided in terms of testimony before the small business committee to the "congressional record" and our numerous speeches on the floor, to talk about the importance of this program. what we'd like to do is -- i would like as the manager of this bill -- i'm not sure it is going to be possible, but i would most certainly like to have this bill voted on and passed by the end of this week. i'm not sure the leadership has decided that that is something that's possible. but i'd like to send a strong bill over to the house, hopefully a bill that doesn't

have amendments on it that would warrant a presidential threat of a veto, and get this bill passed through the house and then passed on to the president so that he can sign it and send a very positive signal that his agenda and all of our agenda for innovation, having america be the best educated, the best competitors in the world in terms of the economy, and giving our small business yet another tool. we've worked on reducing the abuses in the credit card industry. we've worked on capital access through a new lending program. we've reduced fees, reduced taxes to the tune of $12 billion to our small businesses throughout the country in the last congress. we want to continue to work on lowering taxes where we can, eliminating regulations and supporting programs like this that work. let's eliminate or modify those programs that aren't working and

let's step up our support and reauthorize the programs that are. the assessments done and the reviews of this program have been across the board very positive and outstanding by the independent researchers. senator snowe and i have taken into consideration those many reports in the drafting of this bill and made some changes to the program so that it moves forward so that in eight years it will even be better. and one of my key goals and objectives is to make sure that states like louisiana or mississippi or montana or wyoming, states that have not previously been awarded many of these grants, that we have stepped up some technical assistance and help so that we can find the best technology in this country to apply to some of our most pressing problems regardless of whether they're in sort of the big cities and big places like new york, los angeles, california, but that

our entrepreneurs around the country are being benefited by a program that they have access to as well. so, mr. president, i'm pleased that we can get back on the small business innovation and research bill and small business technology transfer bill. senator snowe and i will be coming to the floor periodically during the day to continue to move this bill along. i see my colleague, the senator from maryland, who is scheduled to speak in just a few minutes. so, mr. president, at this time i will yield the floor. and again, i hope and i thank our colleagues for their cooperative nature, that they have been working in terms of trying to get our bill passed. that will be so important to so many people in all of our states. and i yield the floor. ms. mikulski: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that our remarks regarding the passing of skwrer dean tper -- of geraldine ferraro appear at an appropriate place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i also ask that the following senators be permitted to speak for five minutes each: senators -- on the subject of geraldine ferraro: senators boxer, hutchison, stabenow, shaheen. i don't know if the gentlelady from maine wishes to speak at this time or another time about -- would you like to speak at this time? let me reiterate the unanimous consent. the following senators be permitted to speak for five minutes each: boxer, hutchison, stabenow, shaheen, snowe. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: thank you. mr. president, we come to the floor with