unemployed. this is 30 minutes. >> the question for the prime minister, jackie doyle price. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm sure the whole house wishes to join me in paying tribute to major matthew collins and mark bogan from first battalion irish guards after dying last wednesday in an ied blast. they were dedicated soldiers who will be greatly missed. our thoughts are with their families, friends, and colleagues. this morning, i had meetings with others and will have more later today. >> jackie doyle price. >> i'd also like to pay tribute to the fallen heros.

we have to remember the debts which we owe are braved particularly at this time. the prime minister, there's 14 members opposite who signed an earlier day motion congratulating u.k.. despite that organization's refusal to stop the violence, will you join with me in withdrawalling their names? >> i thank the honorable lady for her comments. the scenes of property in london and shops and lively hoods being destroyed is completely unacceptable, and the police should have our full support in policing the march and the action they took. i think it's important for people to understand u.k. refused to condemn the violence, and their names should be removed from the early day motion. >> mr. speaker, can i join the prime minister in paying tribute

to matthew and mark who died in afghanistan. they showed enormous bravery and courage and our thoughts are with their family and friends. can i ask the prime minister on the ongoing situation in libya, and can he tell the house what is his policy on unarming the rebels? >> i want to thank the gentleman for his question and before starting, i want to congratulate him and justene on their forthcoming wedding and wish them a long and happy life together. in terms of the situation on the ground, what i can report, obviously, it is a situation and no doubt in anyone's mind the cease fire is still being breached, and it's absolutely right for us to keep up our pressure under u.n. security counsel 1973. i can confirm to the house the coalition took action yesterday

against supreme forces and yesterday overnight through 24 soldiers and tornado aircraft destroyed or tillly. you asked the question about arming the rebels. i said before in the house we must do everything to comply with both the security counsel resolutions, and as i told the house, the legal position is clear the arms embargo applies to the whole territory of libya, but at the same time, 1973 allows all military measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas. our view is this would not necessarily root out those protecting l civilians in certain circumstances. as i told the house before, we do not root it out, but have not taken the decision to do so. >> i thank the prime minister for that reply and get further in the statement at 12:30. i thank you for your kind wishes and all members of the house for my forthcoming wedding which i'm

looking forward to. i may be coming to you in the coming days because you know how to organize memorable stag nights. [laughter] let me turn to a different issue, mr. speaker, which is the issue of -- [inaudible] the prime minister said that universities will only charge 9,000 pounds tuition fees in circumstances. can the prime minister tell the house of the 23 universities who announced that plan, how many are planning to charge 9,000 pounds? >> first of all, free exchange of advice. i certainly when i was heard of the opposition, i would have done anything to have a honey j moon, and he probably feels the same way. [laughter] but we do wish him well. [laughter] in terms of tuition fees, obviously, the point about 9,000 is well made. the universities can only charge 9,000 if they go through a

number of steps 20 prove that they -- to prove that they really are improving universities. i don't have the figures available, but i'm happy to give them to him. >> mr. speaker, this is an important point because the prime minister reassured people when he was selling the policy and it was in his own words there's a basic threshold of 6,000 pounds in exceptional circumstances from the universities allowed to charge 9,000 pounds, but of the 23 universities who announced fees, 18, that's more than 80% are planning to charge 9,000. it's not -- it's not the exception, it's the rules. i'm afraid not for the first time, mr. speaker, this policy has not been implemented in a competent way. now, the next problem that he faces in relation to this policy is it costs the treasury more money to fund the loan. can he guarantee that doesn't

come from budget or reduction in student numbers? >> it's worth reminding the house that tuition fees were first introduced by the party opposite. the point i make is there are two important points on the threshold. first of all, each university has to spend 900 pounds on access requirement. the second point is it is the office of access that will decide whether or not they can go to that 9,000 threshold and very tough rules have been published and placed in this house for people to see. in terms of the additional revenue, the additional money going into higher education, he's absolutely right. because of the system we're introducing, we will be spending more overall on universities. that's right. the key is this, that because of the reductions in spending, we're having to make elsewhere, this is the only way to guarantee we have well-funded universities, well-thought libraries, well-paid lecturers,

and good university to take on the world. >> mr. speaker, i was asking a very simple question which where is the money going to come from because they miscalculated the level of tuition fees. universities around the country are worried this prime minister doesn't think an 80% increase in budget is enough, and they're going to come back for more. now, another area of public services which i don't think the government is getting quite right in relation to policing. the policemen on the radio eight times with the number of frobt line officers falling. can i ask the prime minister, where there be fewer front line officers in the years ahead? >> according to home office statistics, if all forces achieve the best error rate for visibility and availability, that would increase the number of officers available by 8,000. >> gilibrand. >> mr. speaker, mr. speaker, i

don't think people will understand what the house means frankly because you should let the chief inspector and we cannot leave the front lines untouched, and that is because of the scale of the cup, and also 2,000 police officers are being forced out under the a-19 rule. sergeant daft hewit is forced out, and not by choice. i'm still young, and i want to be considered a neighborhood sergeant. that sounds like a front line police officer to me. i ask the prime minister the same question, fewer front line officers in the years ahead, yes or no? >> there's no reason there should be fewer front line officers. >> mr. speaker, both parties agree it needs to be cut. i heard them, and they said this, we would have made cuts to policing. they would have cut policing.

we would have cut the policing budget. the question is how do you make those cuts? we say you have to freeze police pay for two years, reform police allowances, reform the paperwork. because you oppose those things, you have to make deeper cuts in police numbers. that is the case. >> giliband. >> we proposal 12% cuts, he's proposing 20% cuts. if you go beyond 4%, there's cuts in front line officers which is what is happening up and down this country. mr. speaker, the truth is he used to claim they were the party of law and in order, but now he's cutting the number of police officers up and down the country. it's the wrong choice for the police, communities, and it's the wrong choice for the country as well. [cheers and applause] >> not for the first time, the honorable gentleman is completely wrong. the difference between a 12%

reduction and what we propose is the freeze in police pay and allowances that he refuses to support, and i have to say has anyone seen a more ridiculous spectacle than the right honorable gentleman marching against the cut that it was his government that caused? [cheers and applause] i know, i know martin luther king said he had a dream. i think it's the old gentleman woke up. >> further more, the prime minister will appreciate the high regards and all around the u.k. and very reassured the minister said the current modernization proposals are not a done deal. does the prime minister agree with me in various forces to get the plans right? >> i absolutely agree with the honorable lady, and i'm sure she

would want me to say and the whole of the house wants me to say how much we feel for our colleague, the honorable member of the southeast corridor who lost her husband in a tragic fishing accident which demonstrates the risk those professions are. we are thinking of her family. we have the cost guard support, and that is what the reform is about. trying to make sure there's the front line, and if that isn't the case, we have to reconsider the reforms. that's why they're being reviewed, and everybody who cares about the issue should work with us to get the maximum amount in lifeboats to help others in the fishing community. >> does the prime minister acknowledge the serious concerns that have been raisedded by the adverse implications on complications for cancer patients under the proposals and the welfare reform bill from

replacing dla with personal independence payments? therefore investigate with ministers the keys for creating a straightforward care which would be available to those diagnosed with cancer and either undergoing or awaiting treatments. >> i think the lady asks a more important question. we will look very carefully as the government medical adviser is about dla and interaction with people who have cancer. i think everyone on all sides of the house has to recognize dla needs reform. 130,000 people on dla who have nos had a claim revised at all since 1992. there's three quarterings of a million people with the same claim for ten years and no contact from the department. there 21,000 people of working age getting dla because they are on drink or drugs. reform is necessary, but making

sure we assess people with cancer is definite part of that reform. >> mr. speaker, can i congratulate the prime minister on what appears to be a very successful conference on libya. can i ask the prime minister what measures are being taken to expand the coalition of countries taking part and qatar and others because this is vital to maintain regional support. >> i thank the gentleman for the question. it was a successful conference yesterday and the foreign secretary will make a statement about it later. over 40 delegations, widespread representation from the islamic world, and a very common message coming from everyone in the conference about broadening lines, forcing u.n. security council 1973, and there was new support in terms of actually equipment from including the swedes who are making eight aircraft available. i think we are on track, very strong support for what's being done, but we need to keep up the

support particularly in the arab world. >> thank you, mr. speaker. families who have lost their jobs apply for emergency loans to tide them over, so why when unemployment is a 17-year high and predicted to get worse does information leak to me showing the country wants to cut the funds tomorrow and why was this not announced in the budget? >> what we are doing is putting in place the biggest and boldest program to help unemployed people since the great depression. that is what is the work program is about. he should be working with us to make sure it helps everyone including those in his constituency. these are older -- >> thank you, mr. speaker. taking into account the high levels of depp prevaition and in my constituency coupled with the unrivaled contention of the coast for creating jobs in the offshore energy sector, does the prime minister agree with me

these prospects will be boosted significantly? >> the honorable gentleman makes a case for the enterprise zone. i'm delighted we have 21 zones, and clearly there's a case for colleagues to make for more. i think there's a real strength in his area of green tank jobs i know he's supporting and i'm sure the chancellor hears the message he gives. >> mr. speaker, dozens of families in my constituency lose their homes and as a result of terrorist activity, the latest in a long line of such incidence in northern ireland recently. will you condemn the terrorist activity as well as supporting the police and army with resources? would the prime minister agree as we approach the elections in a few months time marking the first uninterrupted time for generations, that the best answer we can give to the people is to reject them, their

policies, reject them dragging us back to the past, and keep northern ireland moving forward? >> i think the honorable gentleman spoke on both sides of the house. first of all, we have to be eternally vigilant against terrorists in ireland and elsewhere. we should do that and the british government should give executives every support it can. secondly, the best proof of success and that there is a nonviolence path is to show the success of our democratic institutions as he and his colleagues and all parties are doing so. >> thank you, mr. speaker. yesterday, counselors on the yorkshire scrutiny committee were told by senior doctors that if it loses its children heart unit, transfer would be unsafe and could be fatal. given the report of the review of the children's heart unit commissioned by the last government contains errors, and there is a question of the

partiality of the board that made final recommendations. will the prime minister agree to halt the process, and if not, additional review? >> the gentleman is right to speak up for his constituency which could be affected by this review and my constituency. we want to make sure this review is as transparent as possible and involved and engaged with parents and communities. i think there are many times when rather bogus arguments are put forward in the nhs, but i think in a really complicated case like child heart surgery, and as passionately as we want to defend the hospitals, we have to think about clinical safety and what's best for the children. he's right to stand up for his hospital and the one in my constituency. we have to have coning about the complexity we are dealing with. >> does the prime minister understand that unilaterally

setting the price of carbon in britain drives inward investors and others out, carbon trading by the nature requires a common price, and therefore needs to spend the price, and chancellor to the e.u. to negotiate a common price so that we have a level playing field that would end in investment. >> i respect the views, but i don't agree with him. the steps in the budget are right, and i think we should judge companies by the investments that they are making. i've been hugely heartened by they are putting more investment in the u.k., and if we take the case of red car closing under the last government, it will reopen in part because of the investments we're making. i listen to the gentleman, but i think he knows more about the business than he does. >> david. >> my constituent is in parliament for cancer policy dates to remind us prostate

cancer is the most common in men and only three in ten men aware of the blood tests and 10,000 men dying of this disease every year. do you have outcomes of increasing investments in nhs? >> i think the gentleman is right to raise this issue, and he's right, it is a nightmare for many families and many people in this country, the fact that prostate cancer is such a massive killer, and we have to do something about it, that means better testing, diagnosis, better access to drugs, all those things in our plans for the nhs. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. the prime minister will be aware of the large number of women across the u.k. and a number of in my constituency that are females, aged in their mid-50s on low incomes. you'll be aware of the spinning of the equallyization of the state pension age affecting some

3.9 million, some waiting two years, and as a result lose up to 10,000. these are usually people on low incomes and marginalized economies. can i ask the prime minister if he intends to put and face any measures to cushion the severe affects on these people on low income and their stretched financial circumstances. >> the honorable gentleman makes an important point, and, of course, the change in the peages age asks people to work for longer in their lives, and it is a big change, but because people are living longer, it's right to make the change to have a good and strong and affordable pension system for the future, and the biggest thing we're doing is linking the pension to earnings rather than prices which means someone retiring today will be getting 10,000 pounds -- 15 ,000 pounds more than in the previous period. one is to pay for the other.

>> thank you, mr. speaker. the last government left us with one in five people unemployed. do the new university technical schools will help transform the lives of young people and social justice and economic efficiency, and will you support lord baker in the college to have a uc state -- [inaudible] >> the honorable gentleman is right to speak up for university technical colleges, a great innovation in our country, and i pay tribute to lord baker and the work he's dong and the chance lore to put money in the budget to have 21 of these colleges opening in our country. >> comments that the nhs budget increases in real terms each year. since the spending review, inflation is spiraling very high, and we are now facing a reel terms --

real terms cut. what is the prime minister going to do about that? >> we said nhs spending will increase each year, and it will. [audience reacts] >> as we approach good friday, we might reflect on the role of pontious pilot. with that in mind, can you assure the house he will never address crowds in high parts quarter protesting about reductions in spending if he had been responsible for the economic mess which was the result of the reductions in the first place? [cheers and applause] >> my hon national friend -- honorable friend put it extremely well. the fact is the right hon rational gentleman is sit in a pool of debt that's his

creation, and he is absolutely no idea what to do about it. >> in 2009, the prime minister prompted families with disabled children then which was a crack team of medical experts to agent as a one-stop shop to assess families and get them the help they need. can you tell the house how many of these teams have been set up? >> what i can tell the hon honorable lady, and it was something based on my experience of repeated assessments when you want help, benefits, and social work is that in the special educational needs green paper, that pree sice idea is rapidly becoming government policy. >> thank you, mr. speaker. despite local unheartful political mischief making about the future services, would the prime minister in welcoming counsel's proposals to protect

shortstop services by cuts? >> the lady is right, and the key thick is the ahead of services have said there is money available in the budget to keep sure star open. that money is not being reduced. >> chris williamsson. >> on 24th of march last year, six weeks before the general election, the telegraph reported the prime minister accused me of inaccurate information about the conservative plans on the winter fuel announcements. it turns out i was right, and he was wrong, and unless he's going to overrule his chancellor, i take this opportunity to apologize, and apologize to me for his ire fairness. >> i can't believe i accused him of anything, because i had absolutely no idea who he was, but while we're at it, we

promised to keep the payments, and we kept the payments, the cold weather payments, we kept them, promised to increase the earnings, we increased the earnings. we said we'd keep the bus passes and licenses, and we did all those things, and yet he did mislead the leaders of the election. >> greens award winning mobile talk, rally winning prodrive, and global winning cct are all manufacturing businesses based in bambry all doing so well that they want to move into larger premises, but they also have immediate skill vacancies that they need to fill. what collectively can we do to ensure people unemployed elsewhere in the country who have skills, know of the skills -- >> we have other people to accommodate. >> the prime minister. >> i think the honorable

gentleman is right. they are not interested in skills and expanding those things. we're going to have 250,000 apprenticeships in this parliament, the university technical colleges to make a difference, and it's good news to hear about the expansion of manufacturing in his constituency. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the world reform bill proposes to introduce the civil penalty. the claimants in this state completing the application form, and at the same time this is introduced, five agencies of the state are facing funding cuts, and many say they won't be in existence to help the vulnerable in completing forms. does the prime minister think this is fair? >> well, i'll make two points to the lady. first of all, it is fair that the government in terms of the money it puts into the advice bureau is not cutting that money for exactly the reason she gives.

i urge all councils to do what my council has done which is find savings in bureaucracy to put money in the citizen's advice bureau. the point she make about fines against people with misclaimed people, it is right. there's far too much in our system that a lost from fraud and error, and i don't think that taxpayers go to work and work hard in order to fund people for benefits that they are not entitled to. >> right honorable friend to display caution in the matter of supply of arms to the so-called -- libya. the legal position is by no means clear as the previous answer to the leader of the opposition made eloquently obvious. in addition to that, the political consequences of doing so, particularly among those nearly 40 countries that were represented at the successful corchesz in london yesterday, is very difficult to predict.

>> my right honorable friend is absolutely right to be cobs and skeptical, and this is a decision we should consider with huge care, and as i said while the legal position i think is clearer, i think there are some very strong arguments like his we have to listen to. what i say to him though is yesterday i met the interim transitional national council and i was reassured to see those people forming an alternative government in benghazi, they want it to be transitional. they are democrats, not tribal, and they want to see a future for the whole of libya where the people have a choice over how they are governed, and i was encouraged by what i heard. >> thank you, mr. speaker. last week, i had the privilege of meeting 25 women currently studying on courses and they shared the prime minister's desire as i do that every my grant in the u.k. speak the

language. given the prime minister's belief that the practical things make a big difference to community cohesion, will he commit today to putting a stop to this government's short sided cuts english learning classes? >> i have to say to the lady, we have to take some difficult decisions over student numbers, and i think the priorities should be to make sure that our universities can go on attracting the best and the brightest from around the world, and that's why we said there should be a post-study work group, but it does mean we should be tough particularly on colleges that are not highly regarded, and the fact is over the last year over 90,000 students were coming to colleges that didn't have proper regard at all. >> [inaudible]

>> multinational to build 500 meters -- [inaudible] there is no need for this provision, and it's been rejected by the family committee. does the prime minister agree that the concerns of local people after the negative impact this has on their town should be of importance when this proposal is considered on the table? >> i do agree with her that local consideration should be taken into account. that's one of the reasons why we made the changes to the ipc that we have, and i think it's important local communities have their say, and she put the case extremely strongly. .. say. and she has put the case extremely straightly. >> when local mp's met with the

north staffordshire committee like and why they were not on the list to have a local enterprise zone. will the prime minister understand the need and arrange for his colleagues at local governments to be with us and the treasury to make sure we get the investment when the new listers are announced in july? >> i completely understand the point the honorable lady makes but particularly in stoke, where the -- i wish the chatter chancellor will occasionally shut up and listen to the chancellor. [laughter] >> am i -- am i -- i don't know -- i will try. >> order, order. ..

will one day agree with me. [shouting] right, we're where we? clearly, there are massive issues because of the decline. i completely understand the need for stoked to have that port and it's very important she is working to bring together the communities including other mps, including the local enterprise partnership and never have a friend the chancellor to look at whether it can be the gloss enterprise because we wan to help the poverty communities that she represents. >> mr. speaker, we areis way, nounseling sextillion pounds ofe investment following the budgets but the prime minister ensure that his ministers in thexpla treasury engagement industries to explain how field allowances will adjusted and jobs are not lot >> we will certainly look carefully at the point he makes. the point i would raise is when

you look at the regime in norway, they actually have higher taxes on petrol and on duties that we do in the u.k. i think the key point i would make to my honorable friend is that when the companies in the north sea make investment decisions the oil price was around $65 a barrel. it's now around $115 a barrel and i think the break we're giving to the motorists by cutting petrol tax, including >> the senate is in recess for a classified briefing on the bs

>> for more than four decades, the libyan people have been ruled a tyrant, moammar gadhafi. he has denied his people freedom, exploited wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad and terrorized innocent people around the world.

>> senator ensign of nevada spoke today about his opposition to u.s. action in libya and it just remarks by the presidented and secretary and secretary of state about why the u.s. isctio. involved. this is 10en minutes.ut >> i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. >> without objection. outlining what h >> mr. president, rice to speak in reaction to president obae mt speak out monday what he believes to be our interest in libya.hat last week was in a bad outcomehw constituents asked what my in thoughts were on the military actions that. we've taken inhe libya. had my answer to them is simply thav i did not believe that theit president has outlined a bilateral u.s. american interese in our engagement in libya, that the united states cannot afford to be the police force of the this week with the president the destination, i had hoped that it would hear something to change

that would instill confidencemen s.out the president's decision.r but unfortunately, this address provided the american people with many more questions than u. answers.t in president obama left meld wondering why anybody u.s. american interests in libyahe si would justify military action.oe he said the refugees would stream into tunisia and egypt, but we often made refugees without the f-15s. he said we needed to preserve the rights of the u.n. security council, but he did not explain what the safety of our men ande would've been in uniform should ever be put at the su nrface of that body. he said we needed to show dictators across the region that they cannot use violence to cling to power. but if president obama's polic is to get rid of gadhafi, that is exactly the lesson they wille learn. the president left me wondering mission is limited, but how dokw

we know when we hit our limit? is that when gadhafi poses no wn threat to civilians? is a win all of gadhafi's bugs are gone? or is it when gadhafi stepspr down?ama this week's address from president obama makes it clear to me that we may be headed fore another decade-long in the middle east. our servicemen and women cannot afford to be engaged in another middle east dispute. they are stretched thin enough as it a is. the s this weekend, the secretary of. defense -- this is the secretary he said that when asked about ud libya whether it's in our vital interests. he said no, i don't think libya is a vital interests for the united states. what are we doing? i understand the president may sincerely want to save life in t libya, but our country cannot afford to be the police force

for the rest of the world.hen tr we did not step in when therear. was genocide in darfur were.uldk and as a matter of fact, there is a storage bay and i would ask unanimous consent to have the story put into the record. >> without objection.etrayed by >> the headline figure four is still betrayed by libya know by his own. see we didn't step in in darfure we also didn't help the people in rwanda. the last time we did try to police a situation such as this was in somalia and we all know how that ended.n the iry that's probably why we haven't o intervened in the ivorugy ch oas even though there are more than a million people a flood homes and hundreds of thousands have crossed into neighboring countries. other nations such as franceaddg wanted to take the lead onthem o addressing the libya situation. i believe we should have alloweb them. the president's address made it clear to me the libya action and

humanitarianism and more aboutyu realizing.resolution secretary clinton -- while secretary clinton has continued to refer to senate resolution 8a is a senate endorsement of the president's establishment of ano no-fly zone if you can put up a chair, please. i'd like to point out to the american people that thisd. talking point is very misleading.one this is what she said. she said the united states senate called for a no-fly zoneo mission is on the brink of having been accomplished. there was a lot of congressional support to do something.sideratn well, the senate resolution have the same amount of consideratio. that a bill to name a post debe office has. no this bill is outlined. there was no debate on the issue. no legislative language for friday to consider and there was nouveau.

senate reds 85 describes ano no-fly zone as a possible coursd of action for the u.n. security council's n consideration. it did not assert the u.s.itary ambassador to the united nations to take action, let alone authorized a military operation. using the hot line process for this resolution of the congressional endorsement forpln the president's policy is simply inadequate use of congress' role in authorizing military action. the administration unilaterallyn developed, planned, executed its no-fly zone policy. the president consulted with the united nations. he consulted with nato. he consulted with the arabn' league, but he didn't consult with the body that is mandated e under our laws and our constitution and that's the united stateths congress.ent there was no congressional approval or oversight of his military commitment. the senate resolution simply

does not authorize or endorse the use of force. it urges a multilateral body tos consider a no-fly zone as a possible course of action. this is not the legal equivalent of an authorization to useuivalt force. this is not the political equivalent of tha authorization. so what is there? i believe it's a disrespectful check in the box for congressional approval by the administration's unilateral action. in libya the secretary gates has stated, there is not a vital interests for a nich me than libya, whiche now means that now we are engaged there.miss the united states is at risk of the possibility of the take two of what happened in somalia. before our military intervention from the u.s. interests in libya were minimal. our intervention has overinflated our interest inlib libya cicivil war.

if gadhafi stays in power, then there's many who believe we wile and he continues to fire on innocent civilians, demand forw. u.s. military capabilities willr go up. this sounds strikingly familiar to what happened if molly appeared furthermore, disengagement has display w announced her support for the rebel cause in that we don'te k even know who or what these rebels are, what their ideologyr is. president obama's militaryble strategy risks damaging our already shaky credibility in this unstable region of thedent world. and even with complete military success, president obama's policy may appear to fail a because he is disconnectedan military means, a no-fly zone from the strategic and gadhafi's removal. the obama administration has used the priorities in the middle east.in operations in libya divert our focus from unstable situation in

syria, yemen and around, all of whom are much more important for the united states and cherry spirit operations in libya moded or interest and undermined our ability to lead across then region. calls and if turmoil in libya callse for a no-fly zone, are we prepared to make the same syria where we have far greater this strategic interest.se countes if not, what kind of message? does this send to reformers in,w those countries? uprisin last year, if you recall, when s there was an uprising in iran, the president basically said ant not. it is not in our interests. what kind of a message does that send? well, some of our view is oil is then underlying. whether this is the case is notl the procession is then instead l, thi of lessening our dependence onat

foreign oil, this administration has steadfastly refused to allow the united states of america too tap into its own oil reserves.st in alaska alone, there are threw places in alaska that would then supply the united states with 65 years worth of what we import from the persian gulf. is 65 years worth of oil that we import from the persian gulf is unfortunately, as strongly as i believe in renewable energy, it's going to take us 30 to 40rh years for renewable energy infrastructure to be up and running and start contributing ge energy supplies, which is why we need to act to get more oil, ino natural gas and other types of american fossil fuels into our energy supply today. i would argue that there is u.s. american interest to harvest theirr own energy what we riskse engaging in military conflict every time those in the middlee east become unstable.

mr. president, this is absolutely a critical debate.eb there are legitimate differences on both sides of th dis debate, but this is a debate thatld have congress should be willing towht have, whether the president should have consulted and whether this is in our vital u.s. american interest to go forward. mr. president, i yield the floor. >> next, we'll hear in exchange for this afternoon to train senators randy paul and the turbine on president obama'sthen rule. we'll watch this until the senate comes back in. >> we are now engaging -- it has to be read. >> report the motion. >> senator from kentucky moves to commit the bill s. 4932 the k committee on foreign relations with constructions to report as back with an amendment as follows. at the appropriate place insert

the following: it is the senset of the senate that the president does not have power under theliy constitution to unilaterally authorize a a military attack ia situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the >> madam president, >> the senator from kentucky. >> we are engaged in a third war at a time when our country iseba struggling under enormous debt, in the time we are engaged histor two wars. historically, our country has filed more by asking for congressional authority. this was true under iraq, truea. in afghanistan. use the president came to congress and there was a vote on a use o. force prior to him engaging in force. some say well, this is no big deal.fight wa whene the president should be able toh fight where whenever you want te fight for. i beg to differ in our founding fathers day to differ. madison said that the what

constitution supposes what history demonstrates, that thete executive is the branch mosts prone to war and most intereste. in it. therefore, the constitution hasa withstood the care and vested the powern declare war in the congress. incbly i think this is an incrediblyur important debate. when we talk about sending our young men and women into harm's way to another war, the fact that we would have a president send us to war without any had debate coming of people's representatives have had absolutely no debate that we arw now involved in a third war. the language of my resolution if not unfamiliar to many. t the language of thishi resolutit by the president's words. in 2007, barack obama said the president does not have power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize theon

military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to theth nation. the this was very, very clear what c the president said and i agree with what candidate barack obamo said. we should not go to war withoutd congressional authority. these are the checks andf balances they give you a say,ay they give the people of america is say to this allows us to say when we go to war to our one congress, not one individual, 5 but through 535 individuals that you elect. t i think the decision to goo to that w war if such an important one that we shouldn't leave it upt o one person. our founding fathers agree with this. we in the 1970s after vietnam, we e voted on something called the war powers act.nthe we did give the president the right to go to war in certaincus

circumstances. these circumstances were one, if congress had declared war, too, three, if congress authorize use ofere imminent danger danger to ouri m country. i think all of us recognize ent that. if we were in imminent danger om attack, would allow the president some latitude, but would expect quickly for him to come to congress and ask for permission. in this instance, even the secretary of defense has saidtil that libya is not in our national interests. there is no threat to our invven national security and yet we are now involved in a third war. we party spent $600 million in the first three days of this c war.ven there has been no constitutional authority given to the president to be committing troops to thist lawyer. this is such an important n i'm constitutional principle that while i'm new here in the

senate, i am appalled that the senate has abdicated theire sent responsibility. the senate has chosen not to let and to allow this power to gravitate to the president. i think that the president --o the precedent for allowing a president to continue to act orw to initiate war withoutr congressional review, withoutitw congressional vote, without the representatives of the people any say is a rea problem.lem. there was an article this morning in the "washington times" by general mark kimmitt. and that he says there is a climate of cognitive dissonance describing the discussion as military objectives seem to pass the lack of connectivity from a use of force and campaign objeco is, subordination of thesi military to a nondisplaced

purpose turns decades of policy on the use of force on its heada it's from general kimmitt thisna morning. vital national interests are noy read, nor have sanctions failed or diplomacy been exhausted. we are putting the lives of oure troops at risk in a nondisplaceo not meet the threshold of a fight over national interests. o further, foreign military commit carrying the burden of three wars on its back with the foreseeable future, a policy ofr more frequent intervention and sub optimal use of force as an instrument of diplomacy is inta" the state.thatas i come from a state, kentucky,em that is to military bases. war, war and i worry about theirwo in two wars.ar for ten some of these young men and women have been going to work for 10 years now. i and the president now is goingrd to engage us in a third war

without any consultation, without any voting in congress and without any congressional authority. i think this is a very seriouss. breach of our constitution. it is something that should not have been lightly. it is something we should object strenuously to enforce the debate in this body.ye many debates historically have happened here. many important debates. what is happening now is we are our duty in allowing this to be made unilaterally by one indil.vidual. i think it's a mistake. ishould i think it's a travesty and i think it should end.hese peoe there have been some questions about who these people are that we will be supporting in thisnet new war. i think there's no question that gadhafi is a tyrant, not a cracked and someone to freedom t loving people would despise. ar? however, d rebels are? during the 1980s, we supported

the freedom fighters in tur afghanistan who turned out to be the leader of the freedom leades fighters are one of the leaders? osama bin laden. now our mortal enemy waseceivinm receiving money from the united statess in support for the unin states for every decade. afghasn in fact, the state department stated goals in afghanistan during the 1980s was radical of jihads. we wereal j in favor of radical jihads because we thought the he islamic radicals hated the russians were some nice. e us didn't until we got rid of the russians. now they hate us as much or be y more. i think we have to be very tolmy careful in going to war.nts wh i told my constituents when i importantwo vote i would ever te would be on spending their money and women, boys and girls coming young men and women in my state or anywhere else in the united states to war.hing,n to me and it's amazing thing, an amazing thing that we would do this so lightly without any

consideration by the body. the young men and women to war without any congressional repori approval. there have been some reports ins the media about possible ties with o al qaeda to the rest.posr this morning in the "washington post," a former leader of libya's al qaeda affiliate says he thinks freelance jihads is fe have joined the naval forces. nato commander system of al qaeda and hezbollah forces are fighting gadhafifo forces. former jihad is, normal for not been estimates 1000 geodesy to libya. these are the rebels. we have to ask ourselves when gadhafi is god, who will take his place?oint study a 2007 west point study showed that 19% of al qaeda fighters il afghanistan hail from libya. libya has been supplying the second meeting unmounted jihad n

is the war in afghanistan. go? interestingly, where do these fighters go? to the fighters come back toe libya to harm us when gadhafi iu gone wpphat we now have an al qaeda supported government in libya?ects of i think most importantly are nor the practical aspects of going to war. it's that we didn't follow the constitution going to war and e should have. power the constitution says very clearly that the power tohat wa declare war is a power that was given to congress and not to thw james madison in the federalist papers is fixed as it that thist was the power given to congress and not to the president. the president's own words areind incredibly important here. the hypocrisy is amazing. in 2007, the president said, any

president does not have the power under the constitution toi unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not stop in an actual or internet threat to thedent nation.lier and yet herely twe have a prest cavalierly taking us to war. ti he seems to have had a lot of time to talk to people. he talked of the arab league. they have time to get together and vote on it. he talked to the u.n. they have time to get together contempt for the most important body in the united states that represents the people in the u.s. congress. nato. utter contempt -- is gone to to stto parities gone to our inu allies. it's gone to the u.n. he's gone to the araheb league summit that he has not had one te single minute of debate in a congress. to add insult to injury, he

brazil while congress is notev even in session. this really, really should not be the way we operate as a r constitutional republic.nd i'm saddened that no one here seems to stand up and say, whyts in the world would we let a president take us to war withoue wide in the world when we'ret ha involved in two wars would we get involved in a third without having that debate in congress? this to me is a remarkable and really tragic set of events.he s i hope that the congress will see fit to pass this motion which says the bill back to committee with specifice s instructions. are the specific instructions of ths president's tewords and i'll ben more than interested to see whether his supporters here in the senate will support theidat candidate, barack obama or not the hypocritical version that has become our president.

this is an important question,tw beyond any question that wee wil address. reay fiscal problems are a tragic problem we face now, but this really fails in comparison tohis usurp the power of force to take the power upon itself unilaterally without any debate in congress. i urge the passage of this comm committee. >> senator from illinois. >> madam president, in response toro the senator from kentucky, i'd like to say that he is new to the united states senate ande i do not question his sincerity when it comes to the enforcement of our constitution.reonsibili i share his feelings about the responsibility of congress and under the constitution to declare war. i have followed previousof bot presidents of both local parties to that standard and believe

this president should be held to the standard as well. i may regret some of his crew stations of our president, but i moment.s i will say the following. let's makeab the record therehyt about how we got into this situation anden why we got into the situation, which the president said the otheris nighs this wasn't a matter of waitinge until congress came back from his vacation. it was a matter of innocent people being killed in libya.s there was no mistake what-blankm gadhafi was going to do. he said point blank, i am going to benghazi. i'm going house to house and room to room and killing peoplea ofle people.history it shouldn't come as any people surprise because he is a history of not only killing his own people, but killing the innocent passengers on pan am 103.ess, b he is a ruthless, bloody dictator, so much so that the urban league of nations book president and called for libya f to be expelled as long as

his own arab league of nations lepelleded him. p they then turned to the united nations and said please, stopilr him from killing his own peoplea >> will the senator yield for a question? >> i'll finish my statement and then i'd be happy to yield. i tonight they then said, go to the united nations and create i the authority -- the international authority to stopd him, which was done. he was in the midst of all thisi that the president was leaving for south america in congress was leaving for a one-week scheduled recess. i'm really here to talk about the importance of passing the

reauthorization of the small business innovation research program. and i think it's important because our future economic prosperity depends on whether this country can continue to be this country can continue to be in continue to be a leader science and innovation. we can't compete with india and china for those low-wagemanufaug manufacturing jobs. fute that's not the future ofure i america. be our future is to be the global leader in science and technolog, america makes the bestinnovave innovative products and services andce that ingenuity and excellence is our chief economic strength as a nation. now has a former small businesss owner i know that it's business creates jobs but i also knowe that government has a critical a role to play in fostering a this limate. tbusiness c i believe there are a few things we need to do to unleash the innovative spirit that's so alive and well as throughouto this country and particularly my

home state of new hampshire but to maintain the dominance tha has allowed us to leave the world and innovation we do need to enact a long-termbusiness reauthorization of the small business innovation research program or the fbi our program.t it's not just a typical grant p program. under the fbi program is all business is able to compete for research that federal agencies need to accomplish their missions. deparent of defense. small businesses employ about ad one-third of america's science and engineers and produce more e patents than large businesses and universities and yet small business receives only about 4% of federal research and diplomas dollars. we insure that small business gets a tiny fraction of existing federal research dollars. the last few months as we'vegrad

been talking about the sdi our h program on the committee in which i serve, i've had the vis chance to visit a number of newg hampshire companies doing cutting edge research ancud and of resea the sbri program. this research has allowed them h customers and hirean new workere and i want to talk specifically about one of those companies c because they have such a great story. and it's in somersworth news, n they showed just how the sbri po program encourages innovation and creates jobs. i when i visited i got a chance tn see some of the impressive impr technology that the companyes hs developed. in eric specializes in electromagnetic motors and com components or as they explain tr me the motors don't go aroundrod and around, they go back and

forth. apple ipad to gyroscopic coilsos used to stabilize the artillery system abram's tank so a widein divergence of products. in the past decade he's more than doubled its revenue and its work force largely because of the products that it developed with the support of the sbir program. swick jim cedric to is the president told me that sbir was criticalle important for the development of theen product that enabled the a company to add several good in w for example, he was able toorce compete for and when a grant to do research for the air force on the material needed for strategic missile defense to in order to conduct research he had to develop a new electromagnetic motor. since the motor that he

developed had tremendous commercial potential, he secured a patent. patent. now that motor is used in the production process for the apple ipad, and as you can imagine sales for that motor have increased dramatically in d recent years has the ipad has sl become popular. the same is true for severalelpf other products that eric haseris developed with the help of sbirs his products continue to be in high demand not just here in america but across the world. exports now account for 30% ofhe the revenues so they are a great story on the export front.that'l the biggest export products are the ones developed with the support of the sdi program.e if we are going to compete and out in a fit the rest of theof world we need to encourage the n nd of innovation that has mado him so successful.

they've made the success a r that's why they must continue to be anur important part of our strategy for staying competitiv2 in the 21st century. and it's just one of many new hampshire small businesses thats have successfully competed for r sbir funding in the 28 years the program has been in existence.i. all across the hampshire, small businesses that otherwise wouldn't be able to compete for federal funding have one h competitive grants to advanced technology and science andogy create good jobs. he they've one adc seven awards and despite the small size of the sl it's a little bigger thanlittle delaware as the president knows new hampshire has ranked 22nd il the nation and in the grand award in the department ofso, defense since sbir began.t weeed

so i know you notice that we need to focus on a smart way is to create jobs and stay that sml competitive. c all know that small firms are where the jobs are created in w the u.s.. and weha know that the future of the american economy rests with. the innovation. o the sbir program must be one important part of our overall kp strategy to encourage the american innovation that will keep the american economy strong throughe the 21st century so i'm pleased to be here to support the perhae and i encosurage all of our colleagues to join me in muc supporting this important program. the thank you very much call th rol. mr. president. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. coburn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coburn: and i understand we're under a unanimous consent for ten minutes and i'd like unanimous consent for 20 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coburn: thank you. i'm coming to the floor because we've not seen much action on the floor on this bill because we're hung up over the right of senators to offer amendments. the senate works best when we have a free and open process of offering amendments, and one of the amendments in particular that i was going to offer on the blending requirements for ethanol i plan not to offer at this time. i've made that known to the majority leader but have still not been able to get an agreement to offer other

amendments. our country's in a pickle. we have $20 billion worth of cuts that under the vast majority of the people in the senate would vote for yet can't get those amendments up because people don't want to take the difficult votes. and i understand that. senator reid has been more than gracious in working with me. i understand his problem. but the problems are a lot bigger than the problems in the senate. the problems facing our country are tremendous. they're not only tremendous, they're also urgent. and -- and here we have a small business bill. we're trying to create jobs, but one of the ways we create jobs is making sure we're not sending money out of here that doesn't create jobs. and so i come to the floor somewhat worried about our process and not critical of senator reid in any way. i wouldn't have his job.

being the majority leader's the toughest job in washington. but it is -- it is somewhat worrisome and yet amusing that we won't take a vote to eliminate unemployment payments to millionaires. i mean, that's amazing to me. we can save $20 million starting tomorrow by quit making unemployment check payments to people who make a million dollars a year through their investments but they're unemployed. i mean, $20 million. we could do that. we could put a garnishee on the billion dollars that's owed by senate employees and federal employees in back taxes that's already been adjudicated that they haven't paid, but we can't get an amendment up to do that. isn't that strange? that here we're running a $1.67 trillion deficit and we can't go about solving our problems a billion dollars at a

time to get rid of that? we can't have the right to offer an amendment to that? or the fact that the g.a.o. three weeks ago issued a report on duplication, and according to my calculations, there's at least a hundred billion dollars in savings in that and i have an amendment that will save us $5 billion over the rest of this year on the easiest part of an elimination to carry out. can't get that amendment up. we can't vote on it. we can't do the things that will start getting us out of the problems? even though i've withdrawn the amendment on ethanol that's so controversial? can't -- still can't get them up? covered bridges, $8.5 million. it's a good thing to do if we had money, but old bridges that are of historical significance we shouldn't be spending $8.5 million on right now because we're borrowing the money to do it. an amendment to identify and disclose every federal program. one of the things the g.a.o. report said is it would be very

helpful to the g.a.o. if every department would give every year a list of all their programs. there's only one government agency that does that today and it's the department of education. the rest of them don't know all their programs. isn't that interesting? they don't even know their programs? and yet we can't get an amendment up that will help us solve some of the problems with duplication and inefficiency? so i come to the floor tonight to say, what is the deal? you know, this is the senate. you're expected to make tough votes. if you -- if you want to continue to pay millionaires unemployment, then vote against it, but don't keep an amendment from coming to the floor that saves us a million dollars. if you think federal employees shouldn't pay their back taxes, then vote against it. but we could collect a billion dollars. a billion dollars that we wouldn't have to borrow. vote against it. but don't block the amendments from coming up.

i have an amendment, i understand it's controversial. i don't think there's a role anymore for us funding the corporation for public broadcasting to the tune of a half a billion dollars a year. you may not like it, you may not agree with it but vote against it. don't say you can't have an amendment. because what goes around, comes around, and we don't want to get into the dysfunctional state that because somebody can't have an amendment, somebody else isn't going to have an amendment. and that's what we're going to degrade into. and it won't be because we won't want a vote on them. so what happens is the senate gets paralyzed. so the unfortunate thing is i have $20 billion worth of cuts that we can make and yet we're not allowed under senate tradition to offer an amendment, even though the most controversial one i've said okay, i won't offer at this ti time, and yet can't offer an amendment. to me, i think that tells the american people what they

already know -- we don't care about what the real problems are, we care about the politics. and we no longer have the pleasure or the time to worry about political outcomes. we need to be worrying about what the outcome is of the future of this country. and to say that a sitting senator can't offer $20 billion worth of cuts in a $3.7 trillion budget on a bill that's related to small -- to business and this $20 billion will be money that we won't be competing with against them for the capital to create jobs in this country, to me strikes me that we've lost balance, that we need to reright the ship. everybody in this body wants to vote on the 1099. we know it was a mistake. i don't think there will be -- there will be very few people who will vote against it. there's a controversial amendment, the inhofe amendment,

but this is the senate, let's vote it, whatever way it turns out. let's let the body do its work rather than not let the body do its work. and so my hat's off to senator reid. he has been cooperative. but we can't run the senate this way, saying people don't have a right to offer amendments. i'll never forget when i first came to the senate seven years ago. i had an objection to an amendment i offered and another senator from the other party came to me and said, you can't do that, this is the senate. we debate amendments. we vote on amendments. so somebody on the other side of the aisle defended the process in the senate. the fact is, is we're in tough times. we're going to be taking a lot of tough votes. if not now, a year from now, but they're going to get every year we take them -- they're going to get tougher every year we take them because the writing is on the wall for america in terms of its spending and its debt.

and if you look what's happened to interest rates just on our t-bonds the last nine days in a row, t-bonds have shrunk, interest rates are going up. what does that mean to us? that means that our historical average interest rate on our debt is about 6.07%. we paid 1.97% last year. for every 1% that rises, that's $140 billion additional that doesn't help the first american. so we ought to be about getting rid of things that we can get rid of that will survive okay on their own, that are not duplicating things that we should be duplicating. the senator from alaska and i put into an amendment on the f.a.a. bill getting rid of all earmarks, money that's parked. save us a billion dollars. so the fact is, is we can do this if we'll stand up and do the job we were hired to do.

and the job we're hired to do is to make the difficult decisions. so my hope is is that things will break loose and will revert to the best of the tradition of the senate is have a real debate about real amendments, taking the tough votes and defending them on principle. and take the political calculus out of it. it is not popular for me in oklahoma to eliminate the blenders credit on ethanol. we have a lot of corn farmers. but the fact is is the very people who get this, british petroleum, valero, exxonmobil, chevron don't want it. i've got a letter from them saying they don't want the blenders credit. that's who gets it. only 16% of the ethanol is produced by farmer cooperative ethanol plants.

84% is not. it's produced by the big boys. they're saying they don't want it. so why don't we save $5 billion between now and the end of the year? because we're going to borrow 47% of it. why would we do that to our children? so i relented on that. we'll vote on it. i'll have to have a 67 threshold to do it. senator reid knows that we're going to eventually vote on it. we ought to be grownups and go back to the best traditions of the senate and taking the tough votes. our country's in a tough time. families are having tough times. why would we want to duck making tough decisions? and the only reason we would want to do is that political. it's so somebody can gain a political advantage rather than do the best right thing for our country today. so i -- i call on my colleagues, whoever it is that's objecting

to commonsense amendments that doesn't want to fulfill their obligations to their own constituents by casting a vote to look what the you're doing to the senate. there's no reason we should get into this conflict that the -- because i can't offer amendments, i'm going to eventually not allow other people to offer amendments? i mean why would we go to the childish resolution of this rather than the adult resolution? and the adult resolution is give people their amendments, vote on them and go down the road. and if you don't agree with them, then defend it. if you do agree with them, vote for them. but don't duck not taking a position. that's belying the oath that you have to be a senator. so to those that are objecting to cutting $20 billion out of this government, out of a $3.6 trillion budget, wake up. you're going to be cutting this money in the next two years whether you cut it today or

tomorrow, it's coming. let's do it now. because every day we do it earlier saves us money. but it also preserves and enhances future for our kids. so i won't harp on this other than to say i'm really disappointed because we had started this year out pretty well in terms of going to amendments. the leader -- both leaders have worked hard to make sure that that can happen. and now that we have tough votes, people want to revert to childish behavior and -- and really not honor the reason they were sent near the first place. you know, not voting on something is the chicken's way out. it's the coward's way out. voting on something and defending your vote is honorable. you don't have to agree with me, but don't say you can't have an

amendment and you can't have a vote. because i assure you i know the parliamentary procedure is to get a vote on every amendment that i offer. we will get votes on these amendments. so the question is, if you're trying to duck not having a vote on an amendment because you don't like the political choices, you're going to get it voted anyway. so why degrade the senate into childish behavior because you want to duck a vote. we're not going to duck these votes. we're going to have them. i promise you we're going to have every one of these votes eventually. and i'm talking over a short period of time or we're not going to do anything. we're going to live up to the tradition of the senate or we're not going to function at all. with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be suspended and that -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: be allowed to engage in a colloquy with the senator from oklahoma. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i just had a couple of questions for the senator from oklahoma. my understanding is that he seeks to have an amendment considered that would eliminate the tax -- the subsidies which are $4 billion? mr. coburn: we don't seek to

eliminate any subsidies. we seek to eliminate a blenders credit that the very people who receive the credit do not want. and it's $4.9 billion between now and the end of the year. mr. mccain: $4.9 billion? mr. coburn: yes. mr. mccain: and the recipients want it reversed? mr. coburn: i have a letter from the refining, and i have it here and i'll introduce it into the record if we need to and they say they don't want it, they don't need it. contain contained so if -- mr. mccain: and so if the recipients of this would want it eliminated, what is the basis, if i may ask, of the opposition to the amendment? mr. coburn: well, i can -- i think i can clarify it is we're not -- we're doing it abruptly rather than over a period of time and not allowing people to plan for the elimination of this is the arguments i here. and -- and the fact is, this is just one of a series of things

that we do for ethanol. and i'm not going after ethanol. i'm going after saving money for our country that is being spent that -- senator mccain, we have a mandate that says the country has to buy a special amount of ethanol. and before we had that mandate, a blenders credit was a smart thing to do if you believe that ethanol was a way to solve our problems. but the fact is is we now have a mandate that they have to produce it. and it's going to $15 billion -- 15 billion gallons a year. and i can give you the exact numbers in terms of what we produce. but because we have a blenders credit, last year we produced 397 million gallons more and we exported it to europe and so the american people subsidize subsidized $200 million worth of ethanol consumption in europe

through this blenders credit. so we're not going after all the other loans, the loan programs, everything else, we're not doing any of that. all we're saying is here's a simple thing that is no longer needed, 86% of this -- of the ethanol production is by majors, not small ethanol plants. they don't this money. they don't need this money to blend ethanol because there's already a mandate there requiring it. and i've already withdrawn what -- i have agreed that we won't vote this amendment until after cloture and i'll file a motion to suspend the rules and then we'll have a 67-vote threshold, which we won't win, but the american people are going to lose. the american people are going to lose $4.9 billion. mr. mccain: if the argument is that maybe we ought to eliminate this but not abruptly, wasn't the message of last november 2, that they want a lot of things

done abruptly? mr. coburn: i think the message of the american people is they want the spending cut, they want it cut now they want us to keep spending money that we don't have on things that we don't need. this is an ideal program -- i have $20 billion worth of amendments. none of them can come to the floor because there's an objection to having votes on $20 billion worth of cuts. and -- mr. mccain: it was my understanding that as part of the beginning of the new session of congress, 112th congress, that there was going to be amendments allowed. that there would be a kind of a different environment where it wouldn't be bringing up a bill, filing cloture, and shutting out members from offering amendments. that -- that is apparently not the case? mr. coburn: i think it is the case, but to be fair, there's bipartisan opposition to this amendment. and i understand it. it's from the corn-producing

states. they're worried this might have an effect on ethanol production and corn prices. the c.b.o. estimates that the maximum impact on the price of corn is less than 35 cents a bushel. corn's near $7, a record high. near an all-time high. and so this might have an effect of 35 cents on the price of corn. but -- but -- let me carry that out for a minute. corn is the primary feed source for cattle, hogs, chicken chicke whole range of the things that we eat, so what we've done is through just this portion of it we're raising the cost because 40% of our corn production this next year is going to go for ethanol. so -- now it's not just that we raised the tax -- because we've given a $5 billion or $6 billion

annually credit to the blenders, we also raised the cost for everybody else's food. but you know what else we've also done? we've increased the cost of our food stamp program because we raised the cost of food. so we're paying for it twice. so it's not just the fact -- it comes back to the point is, this isn't an attack on the ethanol industry. i met with the ethanol industry yesterday in my office. i think that americans should be able to buy what they want, if they want to buy e-85 ethanol, or want to buy 10%, but what they ought to know, if they go to buy gasoline, there is $1.85 of your taxings in every gallon that you buy. when you buy blended ethanol gasoline, you're not paying $3.50, you're payin paying $5.35. mr. mccain: i understand this amendment has been objected to

by some -- quote -- "conservative" organizations that want us to not increase taxes in any way, shape, or form. something that is characterized the voting record of the senator from oklahoma and -- and me. but now you're being attacked for being a tax incaesar? -- a tax increaser? what is the argument? mr. coburn: the argument is they don't agree with the blenders credit. but the fact is if you take it away, you need to give somebody else the tax credit. i think the american people know for us to get out of the problems we're in we're going to have to do a lot on both sides of the balance sheet. we had $3.3 trillion worth of of -- $1.3 trillion worth of tax, a significant amount of money is in programs just like this that did -- that are directing people to do things that they're going to be doing

any way and we're paying them to do it. so it's a tax expenditure. it's cutting spending is what it is. it's not -- it is a true credit. so they get -- the more they blend, the more money we pay. so if they blend beyond what the mandate is, can't sell it, we'll ship it to europe, but we're subsidizing, first of all, it hurts our own energy usage, because we're taking oil and water to do it, but we're helping the europeans with our own subsidy in terms of shipping ÷his over. what i care about is the american people ought to have a shot at saving $4.9 billion through the rest of this year. mr. mccain: and, it seems to me that this issue has some complexities to it. the average citizen would not understand. mr. coburn: it does. mr. mccain: but i think they understand $4.9 billion and that

that savings would accrue to them, along with the reduction and inflation -- in inflation and the cost of the products of corn. so it's a very interesting situation, and so when i sometimes go back -- when i go back home and some of my constituents are skeptical about whether we're really serious about taking on some of the sacred cows -- and certainly ethanol has been a sacred cow around here -- that maybe there's some justification for their skepticism. mr. coburn: we will, since we started the blenders credit, the american people have spent -- will have spent $32 billion on it, and it -- it's fine for us to look for alternatives. and, you know, i think it's great. i'd like for them to convert corn to butanol instead of ethanol. it burns more efficient and

doesn't pollute as much and burns like regular gasoline and is not water-sollable so can be -- soluble so can be transported like other products. as markets were -- and we're playing with markets -- the reason we have such an objection to this is because we probably have the votes to win it and they know it. and so i've pulled that out. it's got another $15 billion of amendments that i'd like to offer that are common sense that a good portion of america would absolutely agree with and we don't have people who want to have a vote on it, they don't want to stand up and do their job. let me ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the president of the national petrochemicals refinery association. "senator coburn: n.p.r.a. writes today in supports of their effort touses end the volume unet trick ethanol excise tax credit through the sbir reauthorization bill and the bill you recently

introduced with senator cardin, s. 520. the association sha's a long history of opposing mandates and subsidies and this obsession descends to the v tech. it is an unnecessary subsidy given the federal fuel renewable standards requirement to blend 36 billion gallons of biofuels into the fuel supply by 2022." the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coburn: so here are the people that are receiving the credit. mr. mccain: yes. mr. coburn: saying they don't want it. mr. mccain: we will, i think -- well, i think the senator has made a strong poirnghts and i just want to -- a strong point and i just wanted to add clarification. and i hope we can start addressing the issue of sugar subsidies which i think is probably one of the really great ripoffs in american -- in america today. again, costs -- causing the cost

of any confection or anything that contains sugar to rise and then of course the american consumer pays for it. preventing sugar from other countries to come into this country at a lower price. so -- mr. coburn: you know, senator mccain, the real issue is we spent three days this week not doing anything on this bill. we borrowed $12 billion. i've got amendments, if we could pass, would save us $20 billion. every day we don't take hard votes is a day we don't fulfill the responsibility of us -- given to us as senators. we ought to be take hard votes. people who don't want to do that, their constituency ought to ask the question: why are you there? why are you afraid to defend what you believe to be right? rather than disallow somebody else to make a point pands a

position within an amendment. so to me, you didn't hear my speech prior to coming in -- mr. mccain: i was watching it. mr. coburn: -- this is the worst tendencies of the senate. i want us to go back to the best tradition. i certainly hardly ever win. the issues are so great, we don't have time for this anymore. every day we don't work on this small business job-creation bill because people don't want to take tough votes is a day we're not fulfilling the obleses we have as u.s. senators. mr. mccain: if you believe in our great nation and the democracy and representative government that it is, over time you will succeed. it requires tenacity. i don't think you will be elected ms. congeniality this year again either. so i appreciate your effort on this issue and many others, and i look forward to continuing to join you in the fight and follow new your leadership. mr. president, i yield the floor.

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

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: happy birthday. the presiding officer: thank you. mr. reid: are we in a quorum call. the presiding officer: yes, we are. mr. reid: i ask consent that it be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i'm not kidding. happy birthday. the presiding officer: thank you. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 112 and we now proceed to that matter. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 1 112, congratulating the pennsylvania state university ifc panholenic dance marathon on its continued success in support of the four diamonds fund at penn state hershey children's hospital. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask that the resolution be agreed

to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate and any statements relating to this matter be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent we now proceed to s. res. 118. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 1 118, designating april 2011 as national 911 education month. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, noaghts reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action and debate and i it statements relating to this matter be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous scoant that when the senate -- consent when the cincinnati completes it's business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on wednesday, thursday, march 31. following the prayer and pledge, the journal of probes be approved to date, morning hour be expired, leader time be reserved and the senate proceed to paired of morning business with senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each during that time.

that the first hour be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and the republicans controlling the second 30 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: ps, i apologize to everyone, including the presiding officer. for having to wait with a quorum call, nothing happening, but there was an important meeting with a number of senators going on in the vice president's office and i had to have those senators there before i could determine that we weren't to do anything more tonight. so i apologize to everyone for the down time. mr. president, we're working to reach an agreement regarding the amendments to the shawl business jobs bill -- small business jobs bill.

senators will be notified when votes are scheduled. i've spoken to senator mcconnell earlier today and we know we have some problems to work through and we'll continue trying to do that tomorrow. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that we adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate will stand adjourned senate will stand adjourned

>> the congressional radio association hosts it's dinner. >> for more than four decades, the libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant -- moammar gadhafi. he has exploited the afro-american, murdered their wealth, and terrorized innocent people around the world. >> follow what leaders are saying about libya, from the president to other administration officials from the house and senate floor and other leaders around the world. all online at the c-span video library. search, watch, clip, and share any time. >> today senator charles schumer

of new york, head of the senate rules committee proposed legislation that would change the confirmation process in the body. the measure would make it easier for nominees to move smoothly. first we hear from senator alexander from tennessee, then senator schumer. this is 15 minute. >> mr. president, the senator and i are on the floor to introduce legislation which he will introduce in just a moment that will help make the senate a more effective place to deal with the big issues facing our country, such as the debt and our national defense and other issues. this is the result of discussions we have had other the last several months with many members of the senate on both sides of the aisle. it began with some reforms in the senate rules which included eliminating the secret hold, so-called, and doing other

steps. and it's the culmination of work by a number of senators on both sides of the aisle, including senator lieberman and collins, the leaders, senator reid and i and schumer and others, and it came down to the question how many confirmations should the senate have? how many confirmations are enough confirmations? is it in the public interest to staff to allow a new president, whether democratic or republicans to staff the government promptly. and is it in the public interest to get rid of this syndrome which is established in washington which i call innocent until nominated. where we invite a distinguished person to come in and go through a run through gauntlet that makes him or her out to be a criminal for making some mistake in the process of being

confirmed. we have worked together on that and come up with legislation that senator schumer will produce on behalf of both of us, on behalf of the leaders, senator reid and senator mcconnell, and on behalf of the senator lieberman and senator collins. this legislation would answer the question how many confirmations are enough confirmations by reducing the number -- by dealing with about -- from about 1400 to 1,000. to put that in perspective, that's more than existed when president clinton was president. it's four times as many confirmations that existed when president kennedy was president of the united states. in other words, like many things in government, the number of confirmations have grown over time. we have ended up confirming people we have no business confirming, people who are pr officers, financial information, and made it difficult for the

government to be staffed. is it in our interest, the citizens, to staff the government promptly? yes, i think it is. we have created from phenomenon, for example, when president obama came in, secretary geithner, was sitting over there almost home alone during the middle of the worse recession since the great depression. according to news accounts, he didn't have much help. the key vacant positions were assistant secretary for tax policy, these were all in treasury, dep si assistant secretary for tax policy, deputy assistant secretary for analysis, tariff policy within and a variety of others. that wasn't helping any of us, whether we agreed with president obama or secretary geithner, at least after an election, the president should be able to promptly staff the government and we should have procedures that give us a chance to review

the nominees and offer our advice and consent and reject those nominees in a reasonable period of time. if we are spending our time dealing with junior officials, we are spend lest time with the assistant of tax policy whom we could be focusing a lot of time and asking a lot of questions. and this business of what i call innocent until nominated. all of this now this exists. it really exists sloppiliness on our part. both in the legislative branch and the executive branch. if you are asked to serve in the federal government, i know this, because i was asked by the first president bush, you fill out forms. there are many forms in the executive branch. they have definitions. for example, income. if you were to carelessly fill out the same definition of electric in -- definition of electric in this forum and another one, you might have been correct. then someone could say you are

telling a lie and weren't fit to serve. that's been caused by others and, including me, as being innocent until nominated. i remember when ron kirk was nominated by president obama, the former major of dallas, to be the trade representative. there was some issue about whether he had properly reported the charitable contribution -- a speech fee that he gave to charity. what difference did it make in terms of his overall fitness to serve? is held him up, embarrassed him, and it was not relevant to the inquiry. the legislation that we have will do the following: it will take 400 positions, half of them will be eliminated of senate confirmations. these are the ones we don't need to spend time on. the other half will come directly to the desk and unless an individual senator says send it on to the committee, it'll be expedited. that still leaves us with 1,000

senate confirmations to have. 1,000 hostages that we can take. that's more hostages that we could take under bill clinton, and more hostages, four times as president kennedy. there ought to be present of hostages for any senator to make his or her point if that's what we seek to do. the second thing it would do is set up a process whereby an executive branch commission would review the various forms that nominees are expected to fill out, try to have a single smart form in the executive branch, as a result with the committees of congress to see if he can do the same thing with our forums, and make it possible that we can get all of the information that we want without unnecessarily subjecting nominees to harassment or trickery just because they are not wise enough to fill out different forms with different definitions. i think this is substantial step forward.

it may not sound like much to those watching the united states senate. let me just say that both of us leaders, reid and mcconnell, have said they tried and couldn't get it done. senator mcconnell and senator lieberman, and senator collins have tried. they wouldn't get it done. i worked with senator lieberman two years ago. we couldn't get it done. what has happened this time, as a result of the discussion that we had earlier in the year about making the senate a more effective place to work, the full support of the leaders, reid and mcconnell, the full support of senator lieberman and senator collins and good work of senator schumer, we have come up with legislation which has broad bipartisan support, both sides of the aisle, including chairmans and ranking members of the committee who you think might be the first one to object, still leaves the senate with the prerogatives it ought to have in terms of reviewing presidential nominees and

separates out those who take our time away from the more important things that we ought to be doing. i want to thank the senator from new york for the way he's worked on this. he's been constructive and direct and helpful. i thank the leaders for their support. i hope that the committees will rapidly consider the legislation that senator schumer will offer on our behalf and i hope that it will show that we can take another small step in making the senate a more effective place to work. i ask consent to include the following my remarks. remarks that i made earlier on the subject and prior to that, i'd like to list the presidential appointments no longer requiring senate confirmation. there are about 200 of those, and privileged nominations, those are the ones that will be expedited unless a single senator decides that he or she wants to have this nominee sent

to the committee. that's about another 200. i think -- i thank the president and note that the senator from new york is also on the floor. i thank him for his work on this. >> mr. president. >> senator from new york. >> thank you, mr. president. first, i want to thank my colleague from tennessee. he's been a great partner in this. in fact, it was his everyonetous that brought us here. as usual, it's been a pressure to work with senator alexander on the rules committee. i want to thank the two readers, senator reid, and my friend, and so proud to work under his relationship, and senator mcconnell. i have to say senator mcconnell and i often have our differences, but he's on all of the issues of moving the senate forward been operating in good

faith, and his support of his legislation has allowed us to get here. and finally, the committee chair, senator lieberman, as well as ranking member collins have been equal partners in this legislation and it will go through their committee. finally, i want to thank all of the committee chairs. and they have been very understanding of the need to do this, obviously committee chairs might say i want to have -- be for my committee every single person. ultimately, they have realized it slows down the senate. while we are introducing the legislation today, a number of committee chairs on our side probably with the consent of their ranking members have come to me and said there might be other positions they'd want to add to the list. that would be a good idea. we've tried to be careful here. we don't want to step on any toes or prerogative, in the past when the legislation was attempted, people said, well, just -- i don't want this one, i don't want that one. we were fairly minimal.

we had a real effect on the senate. close to 1/3 of the appointments. there maybe different committees that said i don't need to approve them. the committee on which i chair and ranking member, doesn't need to approve the five or six more. add them to the list. we would hope our committee chairs, because it will be considered by senator lieberman's committee and they can make such additions. let me say this about the process, one the most important duties of the united states senate is the constitutional advise and consent power. we were careful to balance this interest with the importance of making the confirmation process more efficient. not only for the benefit of the senate, but as well for the benefit of the administration, it's agencies, and as senator alexander so aptly pointed out, for those individuals that are nominated as well. the senate was designed to be a thoughtful and deliberative

body, but the confirmation process has become dangerously close. the american public is harmed when we were not able to get qualified people confirmed to positions in a timely manner. all of this position covered tend to be noncontroversial and more closely resemble appointments that are made without senate approval. the legislation assists of a stand alone bill, a presidency appointment and streamlining act and resolution and as senator alexander topped -- touched on, the stand alone will eliminate 200 confirmationing and 1,000 officer corps positions. the resolution will create a standing order that will streamline approval of 250 part-time bored members. we spend to move both of the pieces together. together the two piece wills remove or streamline as i mention near 1/3 of currently

confirmable senate apayments. it will remove the need for confirmation for several categories, including legislative and public affairs, information lektology, -- information technology, and nonpolicy related assistant secretaries that report to individuals that are senate confirmable. removing these will allow a new administration to be set up with more efficiency and speed, thus making government work better for the people. in addition, we've removed thousands of positions from public health service officer core in the national ocean oceanic officer corps. the act will also create a working group. this is a work in progress. senator alexander has been working on it longer than i have, or most of us in the body,

that will provide recommendation. the group will make recommendations to the president and the senator about streamlining the paper work. process for nominees by creating a single, searchable electronic smart form and also conduct a review of the current confirmation requirements. senator lieberman and collins held a hearing in the confirmation process in the homeland security and governmental affairs which will have jurisdiction. it was extremely helpful to the working group, and highlighted that dealing with the nominations needs reform. the resolution piece of the package will create a streamline process on boards or positions. a majority of these boards require political balance. certain number of democrats and republicans. we are doing this rather than eliminating senate consideration in it's entirety in order to ensure th