perform an act which contradicts its basic moral principles. who ultimately suffers by undermining the rights of conscience or religious groups or individuals. it is not merely the integrity of the principle of religious freedom but also the people whom we serve and employ. as pastors within the universal church we catholic bishops hear the cries and share the pain of believers around the world who suffer persecution, violence and discrimination simply because of their religious identity. in the last year alone we've seen dramatic examples of the persecution of catholic and other christian communities around the globe. an example that strikes us is this march, the pakistanian minister was assassinated at the hands of extremists. he advocated for intolerance and religious freedom for all religious minorities in pakistan. for this courageous witness he

was brutally murdered. we appreciate the of sympathy and condemnation that have come from our religious partners, our dialog partners in the muslim community. especially the islamic society of north america, the islamic circle of north america. they have stood with us as trusted allies in speaking out against violence and in defense of religious freedom. solidarity among people of every religion in the face of its attacks of people of any one religion is respect for religious freedom and action. in concluding, as a religious community our catholic faith commits us to defend and promote the rights of religious freedom for all as a moral priority and a human responsibility. this common commitment to religious freedom is at the heart of american life. it is also an example of a world where too many doubt people of religious -- of different religions can live together in peace and mutual respect. as other countries wrestle with

how to treat religious minorities, let them look to our nation where we work to ensure that our muslim sisters and brothers are treated with dignity and their religious identity and beliefs must be treated with respect. let them see with people with hard won religious freedom living out our commitment living life in the full for the identity, integrity and freedom of all religions. thank you very much. >> thank you so much, cardinal. and when i make a closing statement here, i'm going to include statements from a wide variety of religious faiths to join in your sentiment in expressing solidarity with muslim americans. at this point, mr. acosta, please proceed with your testimony, your written statement will be made part of the record. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and chairman durbin, senator kyl, good morning. i want to take a minute to thank you for holding this important hearing and i also want to take a minute to thank the assistant attorney general perez for his

words and his division's current efforts. general perez graciously made an important point that the protection of religious liberties is a bipartisan issue. muslim americans should take comfort in knowing that the effort to protect religious liberties has been ongoing since 9/11. has transcended the bipartisan divide and i hope continues to transcend the partisan divide. the title of today's hearing references american muslims, and i thought it appropriate to begin by discussing two such individuals. the first is a student at the law school where i'm now dean. he's a candidate for student body president. i asked him to send him an email about himself. i was going to summarize it but i'm going to quote it in full because i thought it made a powerful point. he writes: i'm a muslim born and raised in the united states. i suppose by most people's standards my childhood was pretty normal. i went to school. tried to get out of doing

homework. and spent entirely too much time watching tv. the truth is, i was pretty lazy. but that changed when i went to high school. i attended astaira high school in astaira florida where i was introduced to the junior training corps. i loved the jorotc program. it taught me what it means to be a leader and take responsibility for my actions. i excelled in the program. in fact, i was the first cadet in my class to be made a cadet officer and reached the program's highest rank. but it's not my success in jorotc that i remember most about high school. rather, what i remember most about high school, he wrote, is the confusion, the fear that overcame me on september 11 when our teacher turned on the classroom television just in time for me to watch the second plane crash into the second tower of the world trade center. i knew that my country had been attacked. so i did what i knew was right.

five months later i enlisted in the military. i enlisted in the florida army national guard on february 7th and i transferred to regular active duty on july 27th, 2003. in late 2007 i left active duty so i could go to law school. while the students mohammed -- he was selected at only one of 25 first year law students in the nation to intern for the army judge advocate general's corps. his goal is to become a jag officer. the second individual that i want to talk about is a young woman by the name of nashala hearn. she testified to this committee in 2004. at the time she was 11. her story begins in oklahoma at the start of the 2003 school year. at the time she told her sixth grade teacher that she was muslim and she wore a head scarf as part of her religion. the teacher didn't object at the

time. and she happily attended school for the next month. that changed on september 11, 2003 when her teacher asked her to remove her head scarf. the school permitted students to wear baseball caps and kidnapas but wanted her to remove her head scarf because it frightened other sixth grade students. she declined and was sent to the principal's office and he insisted to remove her head scarf and when she declined to do so she was suspended. i offered the justice department to intervene in the case and after court action she was permitted to return to school wearing her head scarf. i speak about these two individuals because i think it highlights some important principles, some critical principles that make our nation great. the first principle is that foremost we are all americans. mr. desarny is an american. listen to his words, i knew my country had been attacked so i

did what was right. five months later, i enlisted in the military. the second principle is religious freedom. nashala's situation was an opportunity for the public school to teach this principle of freedom. school officials could have taken the opportunity to talk about america's early settlers and their search for freedom to express their faith. school officials could have taken this opportunity to teach basic civics, a topic that is sometimes lacking in our system of education. they could have taken this opportunity to say that fear is wrong. that respect and tolerance for another's faith is right and that these are founding principles of our nation. instead, these public school officials fed the fear. to her fellow sixth graders that they should be afraid of the head scarf and that the head scarf and by extension that her faith should be suppressed. her case, unfortunately, offers an insight into our nature. our nation is strong because we

respond to attack with resolve. history has shown, however, the need for leadership that tempers resolve with wisdom. president george w. bush understood this when on september 17th he visited the islamic center of washington to remind a then-resolute nation that those who feel they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take up their anger should be ashamed of that kind of behavior. president obama has understood this and has spoken out as well. 10 years later, as we approach the 10th anniversary of 9/11, i feel obligated to conclude by stating the obvious. as a nation we have not forgotten the events of 10 years ago. emotions remain charged and the desire to blame remains high. this is a good time, this is a critical time to temper our resolve with wisdom and to recall and to remain true to our american ideals and freedoms. we need to ensure that all people are free to practice

their faiths without fear of retaliation or reprisal. i thank you for the hearing and for your time and look forward to your questions. >> i've been in the senate for a long time. i can't recall a panel that's been so impressive. i thank you, all three of you, for your testimony. it really was heartfelt and is going to make excellent record of what we're trying to talk about today. i want to address an issue raised by cardinal mccarrick and put it in terms of the topic that's before us. and the cardinal said, and i'm going to quote you here, where is the respect for religious freedom in compelling a religious entity to act in ways which contradict its most basic moral principles? and now let's move this principle or thought to the question of shari'a law. you heard the question i asked earlier of mr. perez about where the line should be drawn. we certainly know the excesses

of shari'a law. they are publicized every day. the killing of this man in pakistan who made controversy by saying he was opposed to the blasphemy laws. he gave his life for speaking out for tolerance. the same thing suggested stoning of women for certain transgressions in muslim countries. those for many people are the images of shari'a law. i'd like to ask you ms. khera, put what the cardinal said in the context of shari'a law and what we know to be excesses in some context but to be part of muslim religious practice in a very peaceful way in another context? >> right. mr. chairman, thank you for that question. i think, as you pointed out and mr. perez pointed out earlier as well, for every day american muslim what shari'a really means is those guidelines that guide

our everyday life. so whether it's prayer, fasting, issues of marriage -- in the way that religious law guides those every day activities for christians and jews and the other faith communities in the united states. the kinds of -- should i say excesses of shari'a that you've outlined, i cannot imagine the circumstances under which they would -- they would be tolerated here in america in our legal system. you know, there is, as a legal matter, the supremacy clause ensures that the constitution is the law of the land, no religious law, no foreign law. and that is absolutely important. and something that, you know, i'm personally very thankful for is there. so i think this question of shari'a and these efforts to introduce bills to ban shari'a are just woefully misguided. and they're chasing a threat

that does not exist but the implications, if they are actually allowed to be enacted, you know, taking, for example, like the oklahoma one could have very significant consequences in terms of the religious practice of american muslims here at home and that's why it does concern us. >> so i'll ask you to go a step further because the case we talked about here, the american muslim who raised the case in oklahoma, was objecting saying that it was shari'a law that had guided him in the execution of his will, how he would leave his property after death. can you give me other illustrations -- i mean, as i said, the stereotype of shari'a law is extreme and we wouldn't -- >> right. >> can you give me other illustrations of shari'a law in the life of an american muslim that you believe should be understood by most? >> so the one example you gave is a very good one in terms of the way some people may decide to write a will. may also entail decisions to get married and those who get

married under religious law in terms of how they go about their life. things like the prayer, how they pray, when they pray, fasting, which is also a cornerstone of the faith. those are just some examples. >> as well donations. >> charity, charitable giving is an obligation for american muslims, as it is for many people of faith in this country. >> and the hajj. >> yes, and the hajj, thank you. which is a topic earlier in the hearing, thank you. that the pilgrimage is something required for american muslims as well. >> i realized after 9/11 i didn't even remember the pillars of muslim. mr. acosta can you talk about your role as assistant attorney general for civil rights the question of shari'a law? >> certainly. i will try to do so. i will confess to not being

familiar with the details of shari'a law. i guess i have two thoughts. first, i would have concerns about equal protection issues while a legislature or a state can certainly determine what the -- to what laws a state court will look. there are concerns when a particular type of law or a particular religion is singled out as against others in much the same way that you cannot ban a head scarf but allow other head coverings. second, i would also note that as a general rule, courts do not apply foreign laws or religious laws. the context for that might come up is in the conflict of law situation when the contract or the will or the document of

adhesion references another jurisdiction. and in that case, it's the individuals that are signatories that are asking the court to look beyond the local jurisdiction and apply that other law. and so this is a fairly unusual circumstance where that would come up. >> i don't want to misstate your position but i think initially you said neutrality. >> neutrality, absolutely. >> so you would put whatever that religious belief is in the context of american law? >> absolutely. >> that's the way i see it, too. i don't understand the other point of view and i wanted to see if maybe you could point to some difference that i don't see. but i think we're in agreement on that. cardinal mccarrick i need to ask you about a delicate and controversial issue. you played a role in the great controversy which rocked our controversy for weeks related to the park 51. the proposed islamic center in lower manhattan. i understand that you were involved in an interfaith effort

to stand in solidarity with american muslims who were experiencing religious discrimination. can you tell me how you get involved in this and describe that effort to the committee? >> actually, i was involved only tangentially because it was a new york difficulty and a new york question. we learned long ago don't get involved in other people's property because you've got enough troubles on your own. but it became -- it became such a national issue that people became very confused about it. and the archbishop did speak to it as did others. i think it was because i've been very much involved with the muslim leadership here in this part of the country especially with the -- with the islamic society of north america. and its leadership. actually because we've been

trying to work together to look for peace in the holy land and so we have a very close relationship with the leadership of the muslim groups and with the leadership of many of the jewish groups in our area. all of us looking for the two-state solution. and we've become friends over that over the years. and it was that friendship which -- which wanted to us speak out a little more carefully. a very difficult issue. an issue where you could -- you could understand reasons behind both positions. but i think we felt that you couldn't say this was an un-american thing. you couldn't say this was something that was -- that would destroy the unity of our religious friendship and our religious working together. that was basically that we wanted to try to keep it both the level of saying this is something that you have to do. you have to attack. you have to speak against.

you could see that people of good will could look at both sides but you had to make sure that they were looking at it at a level where they understood that whatever you decided, you could not be condemned for because there were -- there were good arguments on both sides. that often is what is the position that is always the best to take. we run into a world where everything is black and white. well, there are a lot of grays in our world and it's important that we recognize that. >> thank you, cardinal. senator kyl? >> thank you. first of all, dean acosta, as a former assistant attorney general, i'd just ask you a couple questions about shari'a. it seems to me that one thing to say shari'a should not be banned but it's quite another to say that it should or could supplant u.s. civil or criminal law. would that be a correct way to look at it? >> i don't see why any foreign law or any religious law could or should supplant u.s. law.

>> and if, therefore, it is merely a guide by which people should live their lives from a religious point of view, as has been described here, it could not and it should not allow things like underage marriage or polygamy or things of that sort? would that be correct? >> i think a supremacy clause makes clear that the u.s. law is the law of the land absolutely. >> thank you. and cardinal mccarrick, let me ask you. the u.s. constitution and the teachings of your church allow all americans to practice any faith of their choosing or no faith; is that correct? >> that is, absolutely. >> and would also allow people to convert to a different faith, would it not? >> yes, we are not happy about that but that is -- that is certainly part of our position has been always. >> i think that is correct. for those who would condemn others in hateful language for

doing that, that would not -- while that speech would be permitted, it would not be speech that -- well. that speech would be permitted but would you condemn, i guess -- i'll ask it this way. would you condemn people who use hateful or incisightfucitincite those who converted to another faith? >> generally, you should love your neighbor even if you don't love the actions that your neighbor posits. you have to have respect for your neighbor you. might tell your neighbor we think you're wrong. that we're sorry you're doing this but to attack them as being -- as being anything less than your neighbor, would certainly not be a christian point of view. >> miss khera, let me ask you a similar question. you belong to an organization which has been very clear about

its positions on the website, for example. i wonder if you've made any public pronouncement or statement condemning those religious leaders who have employed violent or hateful rhetoric or promoted hateful views of others religious groups? have you done that or has your website done that? >> well, let me maybe by way of background -- >> as a former staffer, you know my time is very limited. i don't have a lot of background. i have three quick questions here. have you done that. >> let me clarify my organization's work is protecting and upholding our constitutional values. >> you haven't condemned the hateful speech of those who have criticized others in the way that i mentioned then? >> i guess i would have to know more specifically which particular case you're talking about. >> let me just ask you this, would you today criticize threats of death or physical harm directed at writers or

commentators who have criticized islamic extremism? you would condemn that today, would you not? >> i think we have in our country a very cherished fidelity to the first amendment -- >> you're not questioning whether people have the right to speak. the question is, whether you would agree that that speech is helpful or hurtful. whether you would condemn it or be neutral about it? >> those who would threaten to kill somebody because of their political views, religious views, that's inappropriate. >> and i'm specifically talking about the website -- i guess i should identify your site here, which i will here in just a moment. >> it's muslimadvocates.org. >> it's muslimadvocates.org; is that correct. >> yes, yes. >> let me refer you to several

cases here last year and then ask you about something on your website. just last year u.s. intelligence agents and our justice system uncovered and prosecuted a number of attempted terrorist attacks that were planned by radical muslim extremists. a compellation produced by the investigative project on terrorism based on recent justice department reports lists just the following incidents on november 27th, mohammed was arrested to explode a car bomb in portland oregon october 27th farouk ahmed was arrested in attempting to assist others whom he believed members of al-qaeda of planning multiple bombings in metro washington. on septemberth another was sentenced to 24 years for prison for attempting to blow up a skyscraper in dallas, texas. a federal court in manhattan found james kromede and four others were attempting to detonate a synagogue in the

bronx. and two were convicted to attempting to explode john kennedy airport and faisal shahzad pled guilty to detonate the time bomb to time square and he was sentenced life to prison and david hedley participated in planning the 2008 attacks in mumbai, india which killed 164 people. every one of these people could have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of people and the hedley attacks did. all of these terrorists were indifferent to whom they killed, including women and children and i think we owe a debt of gratitude to the enforcement agents who identified and stopped the plots before they could be carried out. in view of this history, i was curious about your website, the so-called community alert section, which is apparently directed to american muslim quotes they are contacting

american muslim to solicit information and advice to address violent extremism. we strongly not to speak to officials without the presence of a lawyer. and i was stunned that you would issue that kind of instruction to people who would read your site since cooperation from muslim americans is one of the best way that law enforcement can uncover terrorist plots like the ones i described. and it seems to me that it's the civic obligation of all americans to assist in preventing these hispanicus crimes especially given the participation of muslims in all of the attempted attacks against americans. i would feel muslim americans would have a special obligation to help intelligence agents to root this out. do you think it's wrong to investigate and prosecute the individuals that i mentioned? and do you stand by the muslim community alert instructing muslim americans not to cooperative with fbi and other law enforcement investigating potential acts of terrorism or at least without not having a

lawyer present? >> senator kyl, i fully understand the threat that we are facing you know, on september 11 i was working here at the capitol and i run from my colleagues because we thought planes were approaching. i philly understand the threat. those who engage in criminal acts must be stopped and brought to justice. and every american has a civic duty to report criminal activity to law enforcement. you know, and i might add that attorney general holder has actually said that the cooperation of the american muslim community has been essential to detecting and thwarting terrorist plots. at the same time, every american has the right to seek legal advice. and that's a right that's guaranteed to every american. and i know you're a lawyer. we're both lawyers and i think we both know that our legal system is quite complex and so

encouraging community members to seek legal advice as they interact with law enforcement is something that every american has a right to do. >> so you stand by that statement on your website? >> i stand by all the statements on my website. >> thank you very much. i recall a few weeks after 9/11, just remembering when i raced from the capitol as you did that day, i flew in o'hare and there was a man wearing a turbin in the cab and i got in the cab and sat in the backseat. and as we started to pull away from the cab, i said to him, how things been for you since 9/11? well, he said i'm sikh and i wear this turbin every day. some people give me the finger. some curse at me. some won't get in my cab but most people are just fine. i said i wish they would get in my cab i would like to show them something and he reached over and he pulled a the side advisor and there was a picture of a

young man in an u.s. army military uniform. and he said this is my son. he's somewhere now overseas in the middle east and he can't even tell me but he's fighting for our country and my other son is going to enlist in the marine corps. and i thought to myself, the people who are cursing him, if they only knew that this man was putting his two most prized possessions in service to the united states, risking their lives to keep this nation free. i cannot quarrel with anyone that if we have a threat of terrorism and have to deal with it honestly. what i hope this hearing has suggested is that among the millions of muslim americans, the overwhelming majority are patriotic, law-abiding people who simply want to live their lives as we all do in this great and free country. we all have to work to keep it safe. muslim americans and those who aren't. but the purpose of this hearing was to make it clear that there are some basic and fundamental principles that should guide us in our relationships with one another. and your testimony today, i want to say, for all three of you has

been extraordinary. i'd like to close, as i mentioned, i would, thanking you again but also noting some of the groups that have submitted statements in support of this hearing. i received written statements from over 40 different organizations the aclu the american jewish committee, human rights first, interfaith alliance, islamic society of north america. leadership conference on civil and human rights, military, religious foundation. muslim public affairs council sikh coalition, south asian-americans leaders today, southern poverty law center and the united methodist church and without objection i'll put the statements in the record. i wanted to note a statement we received from an interfaith coalition called shoulder to shoulder standing with american muslims upholding american values. among others this coalition includes the american baptist churches, usa, disciples of christ, episcopal church, evangelical lutheran church, the

religious action reform of judaism and the reconstructionist association. here's part of what they said in their statement. we remain profoundly distressed and saddened by the incidents of violence committed against muslims and communities across america, by the desecration of islamic houses of worship and by the destruction of sacred text. we stand by the principle that to attack any religion in the united states is to do violence to the religious freedom of all americans. we encourage all citizens of this country to honor freedoms guaranteed by our constitution that enable the-free exercise of religious across our great land. that's an appropriate note to close. if there are no further comments from our panel or colleagues, i'm going to thank the witnesses again and tell you that the hearing record is going to be open for two weeks. and additional materials and questions may be sent your way championship you will reply to in a prompt manner. thank you again for being part of this hearing >> thank you.

>> the u.s. senate continues working on a small business bill extending programs to provide funds to help small tech and research firms get started. the number of amendments have been offered to the measure, many of them unrelated to the bill. senators may vote today on several amendments dealing with limits on epa regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. managers are saying they hope final vote on the bilk take place at the end of the week. senators will begin with an hour of general speeches. we go live now to the u.s. senate here on c-span2. and embrace your wisdom as they seek to keep our nation strong and lead the world into a new era of freedom. lord, help our nation's leaders stand tall for righteousness. endue them with stamina for the long days ahead.

bind them together as prayer partners as they deal with the adversity of ideas. and lord, bless all who labor for liberty on capitol hill and their families. we pray in your mighty 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 30, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable kirsten e. gillibrand, a senator from the state of new york, 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: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: we are not in a quorum call. mr. reid: that's even better. following any leader remarks, madam president, there will be a period of morning business for an hour. senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each with the

republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half. following morning business, the senate will resume consideration of s. 493, the small business jobs bill. roll call votes in relation to amendments to the small business jobs bill are possible today. we hope that the blockage that we have from the -- my friends on the republican side will allow us to move forward on this bill. there are a number of nongermane and really nonappropriate amendments on this bill, but we have agreed to go ahead and work on those. two that are the most glaring are the 1099 that we need to resolve and the e.p.a. controversy that we have. we're being blocked from the other side from working that out, even getting votes on these. we were told earlier in the session that what the republicans wanted was an open amendment process. well, that's great except we

have an open amendment process and we vote on the bills. that's changed, they won't let us vote on the amendments or the bills. anyway, if we can get some votes scheduled, if the logjam is broken, we'll schedule them as soon as we can. there will be a senators-only meeting today at 5:00 p.m. in the new visitors' center. madam president, as the country watches, we continue to work toward a bipartisan, bicameral agreement to keep the country running. so let me update the senate on where we stand. i want everyone to know how things looked from the blink, but also let's talk about how they look right now from the negotiating table. much of the criticism of the process has come from people who aren't even sitting at the negotiating table. i am. and so is speaker boehner. i'm glad he has returned to the

conversation. it's obvious that he's in a difficult situation -- he has a difficult situation on his hands. i don't envy him in that regard. he is getting a lot of pressure from the tea party folks to dig in his heels, even if it hurts and destroys the recovery that we have going now. what's worse, the country doesn't care much about the tea party. there is a new cnn poll out today that says this very directly. well more than -- let's put it this way. the people who care about the tea party are a very small number who care about them positively. those that care about them negatively is very high, more than 50%. and that doesn't mean there is 50% favors the tea party. it doesn't. 50% of the american people don't want anything to do with the tea party. only a small percentage identify with the tea party. and the interesting thing, and i

think the important thing to the country, is the tea party's unpopularity continues to grow because the american people see how unreasonable they are. so let me reiterate my hope that the republican leadership recognize that they can't continue to be pulled to the right by the radical, unrealistic, unreasonable, i repeat, radical and unpopular faction, the tea party. i've always said, madam president, once the economy gets better, they are going to fade out fairly quickly, and it's getting better and they are fading out. if people want to move the country forward, they can't let the tea party call the shots. our proposal still stands. it's a number of the republicans were before before they were against it. we got that number by relying on reality, not ideology. so i repeat, we know the answer lies in the middle. neither party can pass a budget without the other party. we've already proven that. neither chamber can send it to the president without the other

chamber. i look forward to getting this done so we can avoid the many terrible consequences that would come with a shutdown. we don't want that to happen. if it's up to us, this side of the aisle, it won't happen.

the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: the president is expected to outline his vision for improving our nation's energy and security, but as we have frequently seen with this administration, what it says and what it does are often two very different things. so this morning, i'd like to discuss some of the things the administration has actually done when it comes to energy.

then i'd like to propose some things republicans would do differently. it should go without saying that americans are ready for action on this issue. with average gas prices approaching $4 a gallon in most parts of the country, growing uncertainty and unrest in the middle east and a jobs crisis here at home, americans want the president to outline a serious plan today that will make us less dependent, not more, on foreign sources of oil, and which stimulates job creation here. unfortunately, what they have gotten instead are more of the same, halfhearted proposals democrats have trotted out every other time americans get squeezed at the pump. instead of facing the problem of higher energy prices head on, democrats are once again paying lip service to those concerns with fake solutions that only aim to distract people from what

they are really up to. so it's my hope the president changes that tune today. but i'm not holding my breath because we have seen how this plays out many times before. tell a democrat in washington that gas prices are too high and as if on cue, they will throw together a speech or a press conference to suggest that we open an underground oil reserve that was created to deal with calamities, not market pressures. they will take you on a tour of some alternative car plant that promises to have one of its its $100,000 prototypes to market 25 years down the road, or they will quietly release some report to the media about how energy companies really aren't working hard enough to extract oil. while schizophreniccally claiming american reserves are minuscule and that more production isn't the problem. this last item is a perennial favorite of our friends on the other side. the idea here is to somehow

blame energy companies for not producing enough energy on their own. what democrats don't mention, however, is that drilling -- that a drilling lease is nothing more than an agreement with the government that a company has a right to explore for oil and gas in a certain area, not a guarantee that they will find it. and they never see fit to mention that most of the area that could be leased is off limits, thanks to the red tape factory democrats operate here in washington. and honestly, we're really supposed to believe that the same administration that declared a blanket moratorium on all offshore drilling off the gulf coast, which chased away rigs and jobs to other countries and which established new regulations that make getting a new drilling permit virtually impossible now believes that energy companies aren't drilling enough? this doesn't even pass the laugh test, but it does suggest that

democrats don't even believe their own arguments about decreased production not affecting price. and it's my hope that the president acknowledges as much today. that when you shut down drilling, higher prices and fewer jobs are sure to follow. the truth is we could use a lot more honesty on this whole issue from democrats. despite what some on the other side might say, republicans are just as eager as democrats to develop alternative sources of energy. but everybody knows it will take years, if not decades, to get to the point where there will be economically viable and widely used. the president's target is decades from now, but americans should be able to expect action now. and all they get from democrats is a pretty picture of some far-off future we've been hearing about for decades and not a word about the things democrats are doing to make it

harder to find and use energy we already have right here. initial news reports about the president's speech today mentioned that the administration is determined to derive 80% of u.s. energy from clean energy sources in the year 2035. and i'm sure we could generate a great deal of bipartisan support for much of what the president will call for, assuming it doesn't involve federal mandates. but what does any of this have to do with the crisis at hand, the crisis right now? the guy who's trying to make ends meet wants to know what you're going to do for him today, not 24 years from now. but of course, the administration doesn't have anything to say to that guy because the administration's energy policy isn't really aimed at him. if it were, then the administration would be locking down domestic energy sources. it wouldn't be looking to pass

new regulations through the e.p.a. that will impose a national energy tax on every business large and small. it wouldn't be telling our allies in brazil that while it's great that they found oil off their coast, those who want to search for oil off our coast and on our mainland can. in other words, it's great that the brazilians are drilling offshore, but not so good that we are. and i wouldn't be telling job creators in the energy industry to look elsewhere. in his remarks today, the president is also expected to call for decreasing imports of foreign oil. yet, just last week he told brazilians that he hopes america becomes a major customer of brazilian oil. well, which is it? which is it, mr. president? clearly on this issue the president is telling people what he thinks they want to hear. over the past two year the administration has taken what can be described as a war on

american energy. it's canceled dozens of drilling leases, declared a moratorium on drilling off the gulf coast, increased permit fees, prolonged public comment period. in short, it's done just about everything it can to keep our energy sector from growing. as a result, thousands of u.s. workers have lost their jobs as companies have been forced to look elsewhere for a better business climate. consider this: just three of the areas we could tap in alaska are thought to hold enough oil to replace our crude imports from the persian gulf or nearly -- for nearly 65 years. so the problem isn't that we need to look elsewhere for our energy. the problem is that democrats don't want us to use the energy we have. it's enough to make you wonder whether anybody in the white house has driven by a gas station lately.

no, the crisis we face is immediate and it requires immediate action. and that's why republicans have come up with two concrete proposals that will have a positive practical effect, two things we can do to give americans relief, job creators a reason to hire and make all of us less dependent on foreign sources of oil. first, let's increase american energy production by cutting the red tape and opening up areas that the administration has either temporarily blocked, stalled, or closed off to production. and let's block any new regulations that will drive up production costs for energy, including the administration's proposed new e.p.a. regulations on carbon emissions. the first proposal is guaranteed -- guaranteed -- to create jobs by unlocking our energy resources. the second has been described as one of the best proposals for

growth and job creation to make it on to the senate docket in years. and let's be clear, the alternatives being offered by the other side are nothing more than a face-saving exercise aimed at allowing senators who aren't serious about this issue to mislead their constituents into believing that they are. but the american people have put up with distractions and face-saving exercises long enough. they put up with near double-digit unemployment long enough. they've heard enough about the costly big government proposals democrats envision for the future. and frankly, madam president, they've had it. it's time to address the problems right in front of us. it's time for the president to put forth a serious plan. when it comes to energy, these problems are obvious. so are the answers. it's time for lawmakers to come together and do what we know is

right. madam president, i yield the floor. 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 republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: madam president, i'd like to share some thoughts this morning and to report to our colleagues on the congressional budget office analysis of the president's budget that he has submitted to us and ask that we adopt. the budget has been roundly criticized as in no way getting us off the unsustainable path we are on. it's allowing the country to continue to head toward a

financial abyss. expert after expert, witness after witness before the budget committee, of which i'm ranking republican member, has testified to the danger we face and the need for us to take action. the congressional budget office, in sum, concludes that the very, very insufficient reforms contained in the president's budget are more insufficient than the president has said when properly analyzed. and it's a very firm and severe rebuke to the president and his team of analysts who presented it to us. it's not good. i believe it's probably the most erroneous budget ever submitted to congress.

and changing the numbers by $2.3 trillion in debt. in other words, the congressional budget office says that the budget submitted by the president which was supposed to add to the debt some $13 trillion or so is actually going to add $2 trillion more to the debt over ten years, more than doubling the national debt. so, this is a very serious matter. and the budget presentation to the congress continues a policy by this administration to minimize the danger of the debt crisis we face. it's been a sophisticated long-term continuous effort to not only say that cuts are too

severe, extreme as the talking points are, but that indeed this president has things under control and the debt crisis is not real, and we don't have to take firm action. and the president does not look the people in the eye and explain the true situation that we're facing. indeed, this is the rhetoric that they've used. the president has used this language. jack lu, his director of the office of management and budget, has used this language. they claim that the budget they submitted calls on us to -- quote -- "live within our means." his budget causes us to live within our means. they also have used this phrase more than once: it only spends money that we have each year. close quote. and also they say that their budget does not add more to the

debt. close quote. when asked at a press conference about it, the press secretary to the white house said -- he was asked do you stand by these statements? what did he say? absolutely. and when budget director lu came before the budget committee and i asked him about it, he stands by these statements. he didn't acknowledge that they are in any way in error. but if we're going to have reform in america if we're going to do something about the debt crisis this nation faces, we've got to be honest with one another. we've got to deal honestly with the grave challenges we face. we can't be in denial. we can't continue to say we're living within our means and that we're not going to add more to our debt. why do i say that? well, the president's own budget said that the deficits would

surge, continue to be out there every single year with the lowest single deficit in ten years, according to his budget, to be $600 billion and going up in the out years to almost $800 billion. what does c.b.o. say about all of this? this is what they have told us after they have analyzed the president's budget. and that's what happens. the president submits a budget to the congress. we have our own congressional budget office. and every year they analyze what the president proposals, and they give a report on it and say what it means if adopted, how it would impact our economy, how it would impact our debt, how it would impact financing of our government. so what does c.b.o. say? it says that the president's debt-doubling budget adds more to the debt than the president

claimed. the score reveals that the president's budget never once produces a deficit of less than $748 billion and climbs to a deficit in the tenth year of $1.2 trillion, $1,200,000,000,000. c.b.o. says no. c.b.o. director and team for the most part is in place where the democrats control both houses of congress. they are a nonpartisan group that try to give honest numbers and do honest work, but they certainly not a republican organization. they say that the actual number was not going to be a $600 billion low annual deficit, but the lowest deficit would be $748

billion, increasing to $1.2 trillion. see, this is why the experts say we're on an unsustainable path. we cannot continue. how much is $1.2 trillion? well, president bush's highest deficit he ever had was $450 billion, i believe, give or take. way too high. he was roundly criticized for that. but this is three times that in the tenth year. and this year we're going to have a $1.6 trillion, $1.5 trillion deficit this fiscal year, the third consecutive trillion-dollar deficit. these are the likes which the nation has never seen before and cannot sustain. it puts us on a path to go financial instability and danger, as a path we must get off of.

we can do so, but it's going to take some will. we're going to have to do some of the same things that our cities and counties are doing around america today. also the c.b.o. said that using gimmicks, the president's budget conceals a total of $2.3 trillion in deficit spending and $1.7 trillion in increases of gross debt for the country , and very, very importantly, the debt, the g.d.p., the comparison of our total debt to the total gross domestic product of america reaches 116% in the tenth year. so let's talk about that. why is that important? professors rogoff and rhine hard hard -- reinhart who testified before our committee wrote a

well-regarded book. their book, the title of which is "this time is different" says that from a study of sovereign nations all over the world, when their debt reaches 100% of g.d.p., the economy is pulled down. it has a depressing effect on the economy. and when the economy will grow on average about 1% less than it would have grown otherwise, which is very huge when you're talking about economic growth of 2%, 3%, 4%, to have a 1% reduction is a major drain on our economic growth, and growth is so critical for job creation and actually tax revenue to fund our government and get us out of the debt we're in. you can't borrow your way out of debt. the deeper you get into debt, the more it pulls down the vitality and growth potential of your economy.

we have got to get off this path. and c.b.o. says in the tenth year, we'll be $116 billion. senator conrad, the democrat chairman of the budget committee, is very worried about this number. he had a chart about it at a hearing recently. he showed that this year, for the first time, this year we will go over 100% of g.d.p. in national debt. it's about 95% now, and we'll go over 100% and we'll stay over it under the president's budget. but the experts are telling us this is unsustainable. something bad will happen to us. in addition, when secretary of treasury geithner appeared before our committee, he acknowledged the rogoff and reinhart analysis, he acknowledged that this high level of debt will weaken the

growth in our economy, and he added this -- "this level of debt creates a greater potential for an economic kickback, an economic catastrophe, another recession could occur as a result of these high debts." c.b.o. analysis reveals a number of other things that are disturbing because they are so plainly false, so plainly gimmicky and so plainly designed to mislead the american people about the true nature of this budget that it again raises credibility questions about the white house and how they are explaining to the american people the situation that we're in. they seem to be denying that we're in a crisis. for example, this budget submitted by the white house assumes, assumes that there will be $315 billion for what we have

referred to as the doc-fix in the final eight years of this ten-year budget. but there is no source of income for that. they don't propose a tax increase. they don't propose any income that would be there, and the c.b.o. says no, you can't just assume money is going to appear when there is no source for this money. this does -- is not a paid-for doc-fix. it's not paid for. in fact, what it is is a manipulation of the numbers to try to hide the fact that there is no money available to pay the doctors the kind of income that they need to continue to do medicare payments. it's a real sore spot. if we don't do something, physicians will have their pay cut 20%-plus for treating

medicare patients. that's not a healthy thing. it cannot be sustained. physicians will not work with another 20% cut. they get paid less from medicare than any other source of work they do unless it's the federal medicare program -- medicaid program, and so that's not good. it's just made up, and c.b.o. caught them in it and said no. you can't score income when you show no source of that income. and what about the transportation? there is a major increase proposed for spending in transportation next year, and their budget just assumes that there will be a $328 billion income surge for transportation called a transportation tax. but it won't be a gas tax, we're told. i've referred to it as the not

gas tax tax because all we know about this tax is they say it won't be a gas tax. but they are talking about a a $328 billion tax increase of some kind, but no proposal where it would be -- how it would be imposed, whether congress would ever vote for it or not. and they are not likely to vote for it, i have to tell you. so c.b.o. says that's phantom money. you can't assume that you're going to have this money. you're not going to have it. you'll have to have a better plan than that because otherwise your -- your budget is just smoke and mirrors on that subject. well, remember, when we borrow money from the american people for -- to spend money we don't have, we borrow it from the american people, we borrow it from foreign countries, we borrow it around the world, interest is paid on that money

that we borrow, and the interest that we paid last year was was $200 billion in one year. well, as the debt goes up and increases, interest rates are very low now, they're going to increase some. according to c.b.o.'s analysis, with the debt more than doubling in the next ten years under the budget the president has submitted to us, the annual interest -- please, colleagues, hear this -- the annual interest in the tenth year of the president's budget is over over $900 billion. that's about 1/4 of the entire government -- what the entire government spends today. we spend about $3.8 trillion. this is almost $1 trillion in interest in one year. and frankly, i think c.b.o.'s estimate of what the interest rates are going to be on our debt are probably low.

it could be well higher than that. it's this kind of debt where your debt is over 100% of g.d.p. that puts you in a position where you could have a debt crisis kicking us back into another recession as witness after witness has warned us. so i would say that what we have got to have from the president really and from our democratic leadership here in the senate is an honest evaluation of where we are. the president needs to look the american people in the eye and say we are not on a course that we can sustain. federal reserve chairman bernanke told us in january, we are on an unsustainable path. we have to get off of it. we said these numbers that project out here for ten years, the doubling of the debt, mr. bernanke said we're not going to get there because we'll have a debt crisis before we get there, and there will be much,

much harder time in getting our finances in order than if we act today to get them in order. he said we won't get there with these projections. they are too severe damaging to our economy. so, madam president, i don't know what's the time left on this side? the presiding officer: the republican side has 13 minutes. mr. sessions: if some of my colleagues appear, i would be glad to yield the floor, but i would share a few more thoughts. the president's budget does some other gimmicky things. he claims that he has a five-year freeze on nondefense discretionary spending. he told the american people that in the state of the union address. we have looked at those numbers, and it appears pretty clearly that there is a 5% increase in

the discretionary spending next year. how do they accomplish that? well, they reclassify all discretionary transportation funding as mandatory spending and say it's not discretionary. they just declare it's mandatory spending, no longer discretionary, and they say they have reduced discretionary spending by $7 billion. now, what kind of hokum is that? this is not worthy of the president of the united states and the office of management and budget to come in here and have a gimmick like that. just redefine discretionary spending and say it's there and say well, i -- i have a freeze in discretionary spending. what else do they do? they hide another $9 billion in a reverse of that, in one-time

mandatory savings. actually, they use it in a discretionary account, but they don't count it as increased spending. that's $9 billion. and the president's proposed spending levels for next year will be even further out of whack as the freeze because this congress is going to reduce the spending this year, hopefully by the full $61 billion that the house has asked that we reduce. well, you say mr. sessions, this is all just partisan bickering, but it's not partisan bickering. we have bipartisan recognition in this senate from senator after senator, democrats as well as republicans, who understand that we were on an unsustainable course, and they know that we need to get off of this course, but i have to be critical about the president because he's not

telling the american people the severity of the challenge we have, he's not proposing a plan that will actually fix it, but actually he is proposing a plan that will make it worse. and this is a crisis. we have got to confront this problem. the president is going to have to move from denial to reality to the real world and help us develop a plan that contains spending in america just like it's happening all over this country. governor cuomo is talking about substantial reductions in spending in new york, governor christie in new jersey, governor brown in california. i just saw my friend, john mcmillan, the head of agriculture and industries in the state of alabama has 200 employees, said that they are going to have to reduce 60. that's almost a third of the employees of his department. do you think the department of agriculture and the industries of alabama will cease to exist? i don't think so.

i bet mr. mcmillan will figure out some way to perform most of the duties in his office, but he doesn't have the money. and when you don't have the money, you have to make tough decisions. and the american people understand this. when they don't have money, they don't spend, and if they spend when they don't have money, they know they are taking a risk, and they know it can't continue long. but this congress does not get it. we're in a denial mode. we think we can just continue to spend forever, and we have got the majority leader in the senate whining about losing money for a cowboy poetry festival in nevada. give me a break. when you don't have money, you have to make decisions. that's just the plain fact. and what about next year's

budget? the president proposes. the education budget next year is proposed to get an 11% increase. over the past year -- past two years which have had surging increases. indeed, most americans probably don't know that in this time of record deficits, over over $1 trillion deficits the last three years, that the discretionary accounts, nondefense discretionary spending increased 24%. increased 24%. now i'm talking about what about next year? they want another 11% for education, another 9.5% for the energy department, another huge increase for transportation.

base, i believe, is over 10%, but with the new tax revenue that they are projecting that might occur out of nowhere, 60% is -- as i recall. the state department is demanding and expecting to get under the president's request over 10% increase in spending. r less. how can we do this? the american people know this is not realistic. they know it's dangerous, and they want us to do something about it. frankly, i think that had something to do with the elections last fall. i think the american people were trying to send the message to a blind congress that they expected us to do better on spending. but are we getting the message? we're proposing next year huge

increases in spending, five times the rate of the inflation rate in america and claim that's somehow frugal and living within our means. and when the lowest single deficit over the next ten years is projected to be $740 billion-plus, that's unacceptable. we've got to be careful about what we say about our economy. we have got to keep our economy moving forward. it's struggling. it's moving. we're having some good growth. we want to see that growth continue and expand. the job situation is not good. we need to be having at least 150,000 to 200,000 new jobs a month to stay level. that's about where we've been,

$150,000 to -- 150,000 to 200,000 jobs. we need more job growth than that. it's better than none, i acknowledge that. but it's not as strong as it needs to be. one reason we're not having growth, professors row tkpwog and -- professor rogoff and reinhart told us is the debt is putting a cloud over our economy. the whole world is watching the united states. are we going to go off the cliff or will this congress rise up and put us on the path to sound fiscal policy that creates confidence in our financial situation, creates investment, growth in jobs? that's the road we need to be on. it will be a tougher road. we'll have to make some hard decisions about spending, what programs are going to get money, what's not. maybe all of them will have to

take some sofrt haircut. but -- some sort of haircut. but we can do that and get the country on the right track. america's not going to fall into the ocean if we make some reductions in spending. i would just point out that it's difficult to do that when you're in a political world, according to "the new york times," where anybody that proposes to reduce spending is called an extremist. senator schumer started that -- i quote a phone call -- saying we should use the word "extremist." cut $61 billion out of $381,000,000,000. a proposal we cut he reduce spending out of the resolution by $61 billion out of a total of

$381 billion the federal government spends. this is extreme we're told. and the government is going to sink into the ocean and we can't survive with these kind of reductions. so they had a meeting, and they all were right on message, according to "the new york times." we're urging mr. boehner to abandon the extreme right wing, close quote, said ms. boxer, urging the house to compromise on the scale of spending cuts and to drop proposed amendments that would deny funding for planned parenthood. another senator said, referring to the house republicans as right-wing extremists. he's a real nice stphorbgs didn't want -- he's a real nice senator, didn't want to be too hard so he called them right-wing extremist friends. better than not calling them friends, i suppose.

another senator decried mr. boehner giving in to the extremes of his party. close quote. another closed by speaking of the -- quote -- "relatively small extreme group of ideologues who wore an anchor dragging down the budget negotiation process." give me a break. $61 billion, if we can't do that, what does the world think about us? did we really get a message from this election? did we really understand that we are challenged now, that this is our time in history to face up to the fact that we're on an unsustainable fiscal course that will lead us, as mr. bernanke said, to economic disaster long before these projections come to a conclusion. we cannot continue on this course. we have to get off this course. we owe it to every working american not to put this country back into another recession.

and the truth is we can do these reductions in spending, this government is not going to sink into the ocean. we're going to be -- continue to serve the american people. and if we do it, we'll get us on the right path, and this economy can continue to grow knowing that we've gotten our fiscal house in order. it's not that hard. i urge my colleagues to do so. let's don't give up on the $61 billion total reduction in spending the house has asked us to meet. let's do it, and let's be proud of it. let's know then that we've done something that will amount to a real change in the debt trajectory we're on. i will just say we've calculated it. my budget staff has looked at the numbers. $61 billion reduction in baseline spending which is what they're proposing. over ten years we'll save $860

billion. it will reduce the debt of america by almost $1 trillion. and we need to do more of those kind of things in the months ahead. and if we do so, we can change the trajectory we're on. so i urge my colleagues, don't be here talking about splitting the baby and just seeing how little we can reduce spending. let's go on and accept the house number. let's embrace it. let's make a decision to get our finances in order, just like cities and counties and families are doing all over the country. i thank the chair and would yield the floor and reserve the balance of the time. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. akaka: madam president, today i rise to introduce legislation of great importance to my state. the native hawaiian government

reorganization act of 2011. this bill will ensure parity in federal policy as it relates to the native hawaiian people. it would put them on equal footing with the american indians and alaska natives. i have sponsored this commonsense legislation since the 106th congress. last december i spoke here on the senate floor to reaffirm my commitment to enact this legislation. i made it clear to my colleagues and my constituents that i would be introducing this legislation in the 112th congress. i am moving forward with the legislation as it was reported out of the senate committee on indian affairs in the 111th congress. throughout my senate career, i have been a member of the committee on indian affairs.

i have worked diligently with my colleagues on the committee to champion legislation to improve conditions for our native communities across the nation. at the beginning of the 112th congress, i became chairman of this committee. i look forward to working on the many pressing issues for american indians, alaska natives and native hawaiians. reconciliation between the united states and the native hawaiian people will be a top priority for me. in 1993, i sponsored a measure commonly known as apology resolution. this resolution was signed into law by president bill clinton. it outlined the history prior to and following the overthrow of the kingdom of hawaii, including

the involvement in the overthrow by agents of the united states. in the resolution, the united states apologized for its involvement and acknowledged the ramifications of the overthrow. and it committed to support reconciliation efforts between the united states and the native hawaiian people. however, additional congressional action is needed. my legislation allows us to take the necessary next step in the reconciliation process. the bill does three things. first, it authorizes an office in the department of interior to serve as a liaison between the native hawaiians and the united states. second, it forms an interagency task force chaired by the departments of justice and interior and composed of

officials from federal agencies that administer programs and services impacting native hawaiians. third, it authorizes a process for the reorganization of native hawaiian governments for the purposes of a federally recognized government-to-government relationship. once the native hawaiian government is recognized, an inclusive democratic negotiating process representing both native hawaiians and non-native hawaiians would be established. there are many checks and balances in this process. any agreements reached would still require the legislative approval of the state and federal governments. opponents have spread misinformation about the bill. let me be clear on some things that this bill does not do.

my bill does not allow for gaming. it does not allow for hawaii to secede from the united states. it does not allow for private land to be taken. it does not create a reservation in hawaii. what this bill does do is allow the people of hawaii to come together and address issues arising from the overthrow of the kingdom of hawaii more than 118 years ago. it is time to move forward with this legislation. to date there have been a total of 12 congressional hearings, including five joint hearings in hawaii held by the senate committee on indian affairs and the house natural resources committee. our colleagues in the house have passed a version of this bill

three times. we have a strong bill that is supported by the native communities across the united states, by the state of hawaii and by the obama administration. last week i met with officials and community leaders in the state of hawaii to share my intention to reintroduce this legislation. i received widespread support. this support was not surprising. a poll conducted in may of last year reported that 66% of the people of hawaii support federal recognition for native hawaiians, and 82% of native hawaiians polled support federal recognition. my efforts have been the support of the national congress of

american indians, the alaska federation of natives and groups throughout the native hawaiian community, including the association of hawaiian civic clubs, the native hawaiian bar association, the council for native hawaiian advancement and two state agencies which represent the interests of native hawaiian people, the office of hawaiian affairs and the department of hawaiian homelands. i have also received support from national organizations such as the american bar association and from president obama, the department of justice, and the department of interior. i encourage all of my colleagues to stand with me and support this legislation. i welcome any of my colleagues with concerns to speak with me so i can explain how important this bill is for the people of

hawaii. the people of hawaii have waited far too long. the united states has federal aid, recognized government-to-government relationships with 565 tribes across our country. it is time to extend this policy to native hawaiians. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. akaka: today, i will also be introducing legislation addressing the supreme court ruling in cozierv. salazar and will be cosponsoring the helping expedited and advance responsible tribal homeownership act of 2011, also known as the hearth act, sponsored by my colleague, vice chairman john

barrasso. madam president, i ask that my written statements on the introduction of these bills be inserted into the record at the appropriate place. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. akaka: i yield back the balance of my time. madam president, i ask unanimous consent the period for morning business be extended until 2:00 p.m., with the time equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. akaka: madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

you. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i would ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: madam president, i wanted to say a few words about the debate over the budget that is currently taking place here in washington, and i want to express a viewpoint that i think is shared by the vast majority of the people in our country, and that is, number one, i think we all recognize that the deficit at $1.6 trillion is an enormously serious problem. as is the case with a $14 trillion national debt. and i think most americans and

virtually everybody in congress understands that this is an issue that we have got to deal with. but, madam president, at a time when this country is in the midst of a severe recession, when real unemployment, not official unemployment, is close to 16%, when poverty in america is increasing and when we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on earth, at a time when 50 million americans have no health insurance at all and we're losing about 45,000 americans every year because they don't get access to a doctor, at a time when many of our people are working longer hours for lower wages, i think what most americans are saying is yes, we have got to deal with the deficit, but we have to deal with it in a way that is fair. a way that requires shared

sacrifice. that it is absolutely wrong to be talking about balancing the budget and deficit reduction simply on the backs of working people, the middle class, low-income people, the sick, the elderly, the most vulnerable people in this country. that is morally wrong and economically unwise. what we must be talking about is shared sacrifice. all segments of our society participating in the effort to balance the budget and reduce our deficit. madam president, while the middle class in this country is disappearing and while poverty is increasing, there is another reality that this senate must address, and that is that the people on top are doing phenomenally well. many of my colleagues will have

seen articles which talk about corporate profits today are at an all-time high. middle class collapsing, poverty increasing. corporate profits at an all-time high. today, madam president, the wealthiest people in our country are doing phenomenally well. our friends on wall street who helped cause the recession that we're in through their greed and their recklessness and illegal behavior, they are now earning more money than they have ever earned before. three out of the four largest banks today before we bailed them out because they were too big to fail, they're even bigger. so the guys on wall street are making more money than we did before we bailed them out. corporate profits, record-breaking levels, wealthiest people in this country doing phenomenally well.

in a recent 25-year period, 80% of all income went to the top 1%. and we now have a situation where the top 1% earn about 23% of all income in america, more than the bottom 50%. so that is where we are. corporate profits soaring, wealthiest people doing phenomenally well, and then we have folks who come in here and say well, we have got to balance the budget, we have to move to our deficit reduction, and the way you do it is on the backs of those people in the middle class, working class, lower income people who are already being beaten over the head because of the recession. madam president, i would point out that the deficit reduction package passed by our republican colleagues in the house would cut head start by $1.1 billion,

throwing over 200,000 little children off of head start. there is a major childcare crisis in america today. we have got to expand head start. they want to throw 200,000 kids off of head start. madam president, with 50 million americans having no health insurance. people can't get to a primary health care doctor. they are getting sick when they shouldn't be sick. they are ending up in the emergency room. they are ending up in the hospital. our republican friends want to cut $1.3 billion from community health centers, denying 11 million patients access to primary health care. you're balancing the budget on the backs of little kids. low-income kids balancing the budget on the backs of sick people who have no access to a doctor. madam president, college education costs are soaring, middle-class families can't

afford it. our republican friends want to reduce the pell grant program. the major source of federal funding for low and moderate income families to send their kids to college by 17%, which would mean that over nine million low-income college students would lose some or all of their pell grants. community service block grant program would be cut by by $405 million, and that is the program that helps the poorest of the poor get by day by day. and on and on it goes. now, madam president, i want to introduce another aspect into this swution, and that is not only have we given huge tax breaks to the richest people in this country, driving up the deficit -- and i hear very little discussion about asking them to pay any more to help us lower deficit reduction -- we have another scandal out there, and that is major corporation after major corporation, many of

whom have powerful lobbyists right here on capitol hill not only pay nothing in taxes but in many cases get a refund from the i.r.s. i just want to list some ten, the ten worst corporate tax avoidance. exxonmobil, largest oil company in the world. made $19 billion in profits in 2009. exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received $156 million rebate from the i.r.s., according to s.e.c. filings. so instead of throwing children off of head start or cutting back on community health centers, maybe, maybe we want to ask exxonmobil to actually pay taxes rather than get a refund. bank of america, number two, received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the i.r.s. last year. bank of america received a a $1.9 billion tax refund.

although it made $4.4 billion in profits. maybe they might want to contribute a little bit more before we cut back, as the republicans want, on the social security administration. over the past five years, while general electric made made $26 billion in profits in the united states, it received a a $4.1 billion refund from the i.r.s. chevron received a $19 million refund from the i.r.s. last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009. so if you're a working stiff, you're making $30,000, $40,000 a year, you're paying taxes, but if you're chevron and you made made $10 billion in profits in 2009, you don't have to pay any taxes. you get a $19 million refund. yeah, let's go after little kids, let's go after the elderly, let's go after the sick, let's go after the most vulnerable, but apparently in the senate, we can't ask chevron to pay taxes.

boeing, which received a a $30 billion contract with the pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers got $124 million refund from the i.r.s. last year. valero energy, the 25th largest company in america with with $68 billion in sales last year received $157 million tax federal refund check from the i.r.s. goldman sachs, our good friends on wall street, in 2008 only paid 1.1% of its income in taxes, even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost almost $800 billion -- $800 bill ion from the federal reserve and u.s. treasury department. citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. conoco phillips, fifth largest oil company in the u.s., made made $16 billion in profits from 2007-2009, but received a

a $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deductions. over the past five years, carnival cruise lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rates dropped during those years to just 1.1%. so the point is if you go out and you work for a living, you pay taxes, 10%, 15% of your income taxes. but if you're on wall street, if you're a major oil company, you have lobbyists all over this place, not only can you avoid paying any taxes, in many cases, you'll actually get a tax refederal fund from the i.r.s. so what's the point? the point is that at a time when we have a $1.6 trillion deficit, maybe we have to reduce that deficit, not simply on the backs of working families, low-income people, the children, the sick, the elderly. maybe, maybe we might want to call for shared sacrifice.

maybe exxonmobil and some of the large oil companies might be asked to pay something in taxes. maybe general electric might be asked to pay something in taxes. maybe the wealthiest people in this country might be asked to pay something in taxes. madam president, these are serious times for our country. we need serious answers. we need shared sacrifice. thank you, and with that, i would yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. madam president, i ask ten minutes -- unanimous consent to speak for up to ten minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. madam president, i rise this morning to talk about jobs, the economy and our nation's energy, and the president in a few minutes will be speaking at georgetown university about energy. well, i rise today to talk about the president's environmental protection agency and his

efforts to regulate our global climate by taxing using a back door method called cap and tax, a proposal that we'll be debating here in the senate and are debating today because folks back home recall the debate about cap and tax. it happened over the last few years, but yet his environmental protection agency tries to do it through a back door method. attempts to pass this massive energy tax on to the hard-working families all across the country has failed. it has failed in congress and it has failed because the american public has said we do not want new energy taxes. americans don't want to pay more for gasoline at the pump, but yet they are experiencing it every day. i saw it just this past weekend in wyoming. week after week, the price at the hump goes up. american families don't want to pay more for electricity to heat

their homes, run their small businesses, yet the president's environmental protection agency is attempt to go bypass this congress and enact their own cap and tax policy through regulation. cap and tax was unacceptable to the american people, was unacceptable. three years ago, it was unacceptable. two years ago, it was unacceptable last year, and it is still unacceptable today. now, the e.p.a. may think they know better than the american people. that is why this e.p.a. must be stopped. now, there are different ways to stop the e.p.a.'s ongoing regulations, and we have three proposals before us today but only one is a solution. of the other amendments, one is a surrender, another is a distraction. the mcconnell-inhofe amendment, the one i support, is

an amendment that will block the e.p.a.'s attempt to enact the same cap and tax bill that has been defeated time and time again on capitol hill. that is the solution that i will talk about shortly. but i want to talk about the amendments that i have concern with. one is the baucus amendment. i do not support the baucus amendment. to me, it is an attempt to surrender, to surrender in the face of the e.p.a.'s dramatic regulatory overreach. it's the so-called agriculture exemption. now, when i talk to people in agriculture, the so-called agriculture exemption doesn't really shield structure producers from increased fuel, increased energy and increased fertilizer costs. the factories, the refineries, the power plants that are the glue that holds the farming industry together, that allow it to function, they will be hit with significant taxes under the baucus amendment.

the aftershock will be felt by american small businesses and farmers across the west and the midwest. now, farmers and small businesses will face higher electricity costs, higher gasoline costs, higher diesel costs and higher fertilizer costs. everything from driving a tractor-trailer to shipping your produce to market, all of it will go up. now, farms will close and the cost to produce at the local -- produce at the local grocery store, that will go up for all americans. we are seeing not just pain at the pump. people are paying more for gas but are also paying more for groceries these days, and this is going to make that worse. so if you have any doubt about the impact the baucus amendment will have on farms, i would suggest you talk to the american farm bureau because they oppose this amendment. another amendment dealing with the e.p.a. is the rockefeller amendment, and it calls for a

partial delay of the e.p.a. regulations for two years. this is really not a delay. it is a distraction. the question is does it really delay the regulation of greenhouse gases? well, not really. a couple are delayed, two of six but four are not. if that sounds like only a partial delay, you're correct. it is only partial. does the rockefeller amendment put in safeguards to ensure the environmental protection agency abides by the two-year partial delay? no, it doesn't. the rockefeller amendment does nothing to stop the e.p.a. from stalling construction permits during the two years. the amendment also does nothing to prevent the e.p.a. from retroactively requiring costly mandates on small businesses, on power plants and on manufacturing facilities. it also does not prevent climate change nuisance suits which are filed in court by groups opposed

to fossil fuel development. it seems to me that the rockefeller amendment only delays job growth while giving the green light to the e.p.a. to proceed with regulations that will be costly to american families and to our american economy. so, for those of us who are looking to protect jobs across the country, to restore congress's authority to determine our own energy future, this type of amendment can only be described as a partial delay. it is a distraction. we really don't need a surrender, we don't need a distraction. what we need is a solution, and the solution, madam president, is the mcconnell-inhofe amendment. this amendment, this amendment restores the clean air act to its true meaning and congressional intent. let me get back to that again. this amendment restores -- it restores the clean air act to its true meaning and congressional intent.

the mcconnell-inhofe administration blocks e.p.a.'s attempt to enact cap and tax. now, they're trying to do it a backdoor route, cap and tax. what the mcconnell amendment does is block the e.p.a.'s attempt by removing the e.p.a.'s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the clean air act. by repealing the e.p.a.'s endangerment finding that says carbon dioxide is a threat to public health, but repealing the tailoring rule that says the e.p.a. can arbitrarily pick and choose which businesses they want to target. also by applying immediately to all greenhouse gases. this is the amendment that we must pass to rein in e.p.a. and to protect jobs. this is the amendment that's been endorsed by the u.s. chamber of commerce, by the business round table, by the american farm bureau and americans for prosperity.

now, the list of supporters of this amendment is extensive. madam president, we need to get serious about america's energy future. congress needs the time to get this policy right. we need to make america's energy as clean as we can as fast as we can, and do it without raising energy prices or hurting american families or jobs. the mcconnell-inhofe amendment is the right solution. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: #

quorum call:

quorum call: