i'd have to get up for the record for your. >> have you also had occasion to call into service, like commercial planes or commercial ships or anything like that? and what's the process that you go through to do that? >> yes-men in fact with a very robust process. in fact, if we can go first our commercial industry, are you as likely, that's what i would do. they can do it cheaper then we can do for the military side so i tried to focus the military on places where the threat or the conditions required military type live. if commercial can do it, i will turn to them first. they have helped us to minister on the search to afghanistan, bring it up and out of iraq. all of that has been done commercial. >> how are they cheaper?

>> well, if you look at fully burdened cost and you say okay, here's how much it cost me to take a palette of stuff on the c-17 versus 747, 400 freighter, you look at the efficiencies they have in the commercial world it ends up being a cheaper way to do that. that frees the c-17 to go to airdrop. so i sit there and i think about that, that has been one of the real powers that i've seen in transcom is the use of both the air and the airtime -- maritime whatever posner that has allowed us to have the both of these that you've asked about is the fact that we brought to you as likely today. we basically contract with them. >> and it is a u.s. like? >> yes, ma'am. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman,. >> the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. >> jenna mcnabb, general ham, i represent robins air force base, just to the south of me i have moody, just to the west i have forbidden, just to the east i have stewart.

both of your air force are very important for us. as you look for additional commands, i think georgia will be coming you will find open and welcome arms there. i want to ask a question. the joint future theatre left him is that going to be -- >> congressman, we're looking at all -- vertical lift is one of the. one is fixed wing which is they brought in a much more modern c-17, 130 type aircraft. we also are looking at airships to say how does that fit in with the overall enterprise that we have. and what we're trying to do a sort that out. and i will say we're going to look at what does across per pound deliver and how does that fit into the rest of the fleets that we have. i will you service, i will use real, we will use trucks. i would've look at airships.

we'll see how that will fit into the rest of those. vertical lift is one of those ways. vertical lift in the past has and probably the most expensive way. so when we think about ways that we can help jenna petraeus and general mattis, one of the things if i can free up his vertical lift assets to go to operational type missions that only they can do by doing whether airdrop our air land that is what i tried to be because historically that is a much more expensive way. when i look for the future that may change. those dynamics, as technology takes over and i think that's what we're looking for. >> just looking at the history of things, it never made sense to me while we cancel the f-22 before the f-35 was ready. the tanker company takes us a decade to get through that. and now we have the c-17, and stopping the purchase of the

c-17. of all the decisions that i've seen, again, i don't pretend that i know all the things you do, general, but of all things i question the most as far as our ability is going forward is, is canceling the c-17. it's not manufactured in my district. i mean, it's not, but this is my question. if we cancel the c-17 altogeth altogether, knowing the history of the procurements and that it may be 20 years before there's an alternative to the c-17 that actually works, we've all repay for the technology cost of the plane, you know, what alternatives do you see for future air lift production is our last remaining wide-body military production program shuts its doors and closes? and how would we replace those

aircraft if we end up in a situation where they do come under fire and we could actually start to lose some of them? >> sir, i will say the c-17 has performed magnificently and it really has changed the way we did airlifts because it can swing between strategic and theater roles and as you mentioned, it has been tremendous. right now we are set to of 222 c-17's. i would say that we figured we need about 300, 304 large strategic air lifters. and right now that was made up of c-17s, and c-5 aid that that had the idiotic program on there. and what i basically, from the transcom standpoint we need 30 2.7 million ton miles. and as the air force looks at what's the best of those

airplanes, that's where the c-17, c-5 mix came up. from my standpoint, one of the things that i'm very excited about is as we get the new tanker and right now we use c-17 in ways i would rather be using the new multi-rule tanker and that will freedom up to do some of the of the work. i think that's going to a positive all by itself is one of those things that folks don't realize the impact we have on to using c-17 is to translate from our reserve air fleet, both cargo and packs because they can't take them all the way forward. when i think about the future, and you make a very good point, one, i think they are planning to make sure they keep to them. i think dick issued a history of the of the portion i think we would say as you mention, as look at the new study, what are the other things we need to do, and again, how will that mix and match. when i first was working as a major on the c-17 and talking about when we need at that point

we're going to buy 210 c-17s to replace the c-141, we are at 222 now, i would say we have the numbers most of the places we go now, i would just say that we are not impacted by the numbers of airplanes. it's how many airplanes can i get in there. so that tends to be where i look at the c-17 fleet. it has been superb. the other portion i think we're doing better than ever is used in our civil reserve air fleet, modern airplanes and make sure we are using those to the maximum advantage weekend free of the fleet to make sure they do. i understand your concern. i will say i have the same concern to make sure that we have hedged those beds and with options to be able to bring that back if we need to. >> my concern is that we start finding stress fractures and other things that it takes us longer to repair them, and at the same time we can't bring new equipment in. thank you, sir. thank you both spent a

gentlelady from guam is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i also like to welcome general mcnabb and general ham. thank you for your testimony. well, earlier you heard my colleagues speak about the great attributes of their states. well, i represent the beautiful island of guam, and if i were to tell you about all the advantages of living in a tropical island it could take all day. so we will put it off for another time, but guam is the home of andersen air force base and naval base. i have two questions for you, general mcnabb. the first is for you in reference to ship repairs in u.s. shipyards. in a may 2004 report to congress, msc and assured congress that it was firmly committed to conducting the maximum amount of repair work practical in domestic shipyards and ensuring that msc ships are

repaired in foreign shipyards only, only when directed by operational necessity and allowed by law. how does transcom ensure that operational necessity exists before authorizing repairs in foreign shipyards? and annual report to congress indicates that there are still a tremendous amount of ships being repaired in hong kong or singapore. so what more can be done to comply with congressional -- congressional intent? could you answer that for me? >> yes, ma'am. one of the things that military sea lift command, not wanted to take care of our ships, they also take care of the navy fleet. and the ships that they have forward, for instance, in the pacific are primarily under the chief of naval operations and support of the navy. the ships that they take care of it for me our the large medium speed shifts that we would activate if we can't get the

commercial lived to be able to do that. and right now we haven't had to be activating ships, these lordships because the commercial capability has been there. i know that they are committed to using guam. i know admiral busby, the msc commander, and i believe has talk to you and go through this with you and had to do with the dry dock i think in guam. so whatever we can do to get that dry-docked up because right now that is the constraint as i understand, the biggest constraint. where we do $40 million, guam is probably the place where he does most of the work. but not under my umbrella. it's really under -- >> i see. i have a concern because we have about 350 workers, employees there. it's a private shipyard, and, you know, it was one of the things that i thought for a few years ago, buy america. so i want to be sure that is being carried out. now, my final question is also

for you, general mcnabb. and it's in regards to rotating aircraft support on guam. a rotating aircraft which in the past has been called the patriot express helps to enhance morale and welfare for servicemembers in guam by offering them flights to, say, japan or hawaii. what steps his transcom taking with either the navy or the air force to bring back this capability to guam? and can you explain to me what is necessary to revisit this issue and validate the requirements for this important capability to? >> yes, ma'am. on the patriot express what we have done with that, and that primary is to move the u.s. military members around. and their families when they're moving back and forth. it also has the added benefit that if you have it then there is space available opportunities for dependents and families, which i think is one of the real advantages to that. when we've actually increase the

number of, adding back korea, adding back others, and the promise that i've had with the commands in those areas that you've got to make sure you fill those airplanes because we have to break even at the end of all of us. guam is slated to be dashed and a half to gauge whether it is next year, it is probably 12 but might even be in 11, but we said especially as the marines would come down there and we got additional number of military folks on guam, then you will make sense to patriot express comment rather than than the normal commercial traffic. so right now i told them that that's what we want to do as soon as we have enough military presence on guam, and then we will get the patriot express coming. >> so what you're saying then is by 2011 possibly or 12 this capability will be returned? >> yes, ma'am. and i will get you the exact day because it had to do with the movement of the marines coming to them.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway is recognized for five minute. >> sitting here listening to my colleagues, and felt like a time warp when earmarks are okay. a budget earmarked requests went on for general ham to move his command. general mcnabb, requirement under the qdr for some 330 plus planes includes 111 c. fives, some configuration. the list i have is 36 c. 58 that either have or will go through the program and 52 with both engines and the in program. what are the other 20 or what are the other 23? >> right now we're asking for the ncr is that we need 30 2.7 million tidal miles which equates to about 301 total bigger place.

>> so you would be supportive of -- i suspect other 23 that are missing off that list they are parts of place and never get off the ground again and where maintaining airplanes in a commercial venue that you never do for a variety of recent? >> what we were hoping for is the ability as we bring on the additional c-17 that we can put them in places like charleston and take our oldest the 17th and replace some of those old at some of the different basis. that would get them new airplanes, it will extend the service live on our c-17s specs began service life, the operations tempo that you're expensing, none of us hope over the next five or six years, giving each play and set useful life of some period of time. what impact does this current operational table have on that fleet? will it last until 2025, 2030,

whenever it is when we decide to replace the c-17? >> we bought c-17s for 30,000 hours and reprinted in 1000 hours a year. so basically 30 years is what we were trying to get out of that asset. i would say that we were overflying that, especially early on in oif and oef. in fact, this committee helped us with it. we said we need about seven to 10 airplanes to make up, to get -- >> and your analysis you've addressed that tempo issue. >> but if we keep, we met to address it again if we just keep stay at this tempo. but as i mentioned before we are using a lot of commercial. >> i understand it but if you come back to us and say we need c-17 is going to do a lot more expensive at that point in time. >> yes, sir. >> general ham, congratulations on the new command. just a quick inference.

when gates was here last week he said one of the core missions of nato would be the search and rescue. and maybe i misunderstood you to say that was ad hoc thing that may occur, but it seems to me we're going to provide the search and rescue for the libyan work. did i misunderstand a? >> no, sir. you understood it. it falls under the category of what we call unique u.s. military capabilities. we thought were the best suited to do that. >> are those your asset? >> for the most part they are, yes, sir. >> your request for 201 2012 is $289 million. how much out of hide is this living operation going to cost you assuming it goes past september -- are august 1? >> financially, it won't affect the headquarters very much, but where the cost is borne is with our service components. in this case, particularly the air force and navy service

components, commands or africom who have soared the ships, aircraft and personnel at a rate higher than ever anticipating to do. >> so they'll have to figure out someway to pay pay for the. that's not necessarily your responsibility to? >> that's correct. that burden to the service component command fallback. >> one of the advantages that we were told africom was that you in effect create long-term relationships between the milk to know kind of things that would go on these developing countries. given is a relatively young command still, at this point in time are you expensing the kind of opportunity and ability to send folks back to the same countries on enough of a basis so we are building relationships that can be used in a crisis if we need them? >> i am just learning about this but in my first to trip to the continent, which were admittedly far too short, i in fact found

exactly that circumstance where u.s. service personnel have been back for repetitive assignments. and in those two cases, they were very well to me of that because as people they know and understand. i think is probably more that we can do any future and i will look to do just that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you, general. it is to to to edge of a much deeper bench than we do so i will be very quick i just a couple follow-up questions. jenna mcnabb come if i could follow up on a question that mr. kline asked. if the f.a.a. go forward with the rule on crew rest requirements will it affect transcom's ability to execute the mission? >> sir, as mr. babbitt went through come he said he would consider what i was worried about is that one size doesn't fit all and our nonscheduled carriers are a bit unique, and

to make sure that we built in the proper safety program for them. if they do the one size fits all it will impact us in how quickly we can do it with velocity and will also drive up the cost for our u.s. carriers fairly dramatically to the point where i again start worrying about the competitiveness they will have on making sure they can take advantage of modern airplanes. that's probably my biggest concern, and they do think between a war in vancouver's facilities and making sure that we look at what donations like, it is a little different than the legacy carriers. and i just hope that they will consider that there is a different. >> can i just go down on that question just a little bit more. i'm aware of the air force's technology study that found up to 70% of the missions flown either civilian carriers may be impacted depending on how the rule isn't limited. that seems substantial to us. given how much you rely on them, can you just put that in context subcommittee has a good feel for where that falls?

>> sure. when we set up our how we will base airplanes especially talked to far off place like afghanistan, and if you have to drive in some additional crew rest in changing crews, it drives in some complexity into the system and that becomes tougher to manage. right now we have, we have been driving very hard to get of modern airplanes, and like i said, 70% are affected it means they would have have additional stops, they would have to lay in additional crews. the rhythm, the issue with making sure that as you're traveling around the world, afghanistan is 12 hours out from here. so if you have, when you think about domestic here in the u.s., they'll have to do with 12 hour changes every day. so what we have to do is make sure that we can think through all those parts to the puzzle and make sure that one size doesn't necessarily fit all. fatigue will affect everybody

but you need to come up with programs that adjusts, and adjust to that reality. i have done lots of missions and have 5600 hours or i will say that there's a big difference from flying four to six sorties in the u.s., very quick stops dealing with air traffic, all of the problems you have on the ground by flying a one hop on the same day and going all the way, for instance, stopping for the night. i would just say the fatigue level is different and it takes different approaches. is my recommendation. >> thank you, general. general ham, just a couple of questions for you. just a few weeks ago i had the privilege of being over at your command, and i just got back from visiting several of the countries in africa. one of the things on every briefing that you would find is that there would be a host that would be drawn from all of the different operations that are going on, some of them by state departments, some of them by

dod. and the question that always puzzles me is who is managing all of the errors? who is the one authority that is making sure that we are not overlapping and that those nations are all coordinating in the right fashion? can you shed a little bit of light on that for me as we see that overlap between state and dod and all the various operations that we have going on in africa? who is ultimately managing that to make sure this is downright? >> yes, sir. while there isn't some overarching command that is, in fact, directing that, this is our interagency process at work. in each of us who participates in that has a responsibility. so meet at africa command, serving assistant secretary carson at state, the folks at the office of the secretary of defense and usaid and other

agencies, what i think we've got to do is make sure we've got a forum through which the most senior folks can collaborate and make sure that we have, in fact, synchronized our efforts to the highest degree possible. my sense is probably a bit the same as yours, at least my initial, at least in the military side i'm not sure that that's quite as tightly wound as it perhaps ought to be. and it is something that i'd like to take a look at as i began my tenure. >> and if you do take a look at that, if you would give us that information back as you examine it. just two other quick questions. one of the other concerns i had was in talking to the various players over there, one of the things we consistently heard from the state department was defense doesn't do anything unless we okay it took that case some of us just a little bit of concern. as to the role that the state

department head and rolled out at the apartment of defense had. can you tell us and explain a little bit about those two functions and how they are collaborating? >> yes, sir, certainly. we would all agree that it's far better when state and defense agreed in a way had any particular, in any particular matter. >> that's given. >> but sometimes that's just not the case. but we have a mechanism. through our interagency process, to the national security staff, for the various departments to bring forward matters where there is where perhaps there's some disagreement on the way ahead. i'm confident that again as i'm able to get started in this command and build relationships with secretary carson, with others in the interagency, that those times will be few and far between where we will have very strong disagreement. but where we do, i don't feel

any reservation whatsoever about saying i'm sorry, i just can't get to agreement on this, we need to take it into the deliberative process to have disagreements adjudicated. we know how to do that. we do it all the time in our government, and under accountable inside that process. >> last question. what are the authorities granted to the usg summation regarding combatant commands activities in the countries to which they are posted? do you believe these authorities are sufficient? >> sir, in general they are. clearly the chief of mission is decent senior american representative is the representative of the president and his countries, and so our efforts are nested with the chief of missions. there may be some very unique circumstances where they would be a military effort that might require authority other than the chief of mission. those are probably undressed in,

not in an open session. >> i think we've hit all of our question. thank you so much for your service to our country and for your patience today, and for sharing your experience and expertise with us. and this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> it's wednesday march 6 in the u.s. senate is about to gavel in to begin the day with the

general speeches. at 11 eastern senators return to a small business bill providing innovation fund to help start up tech and research company. a number of amendments have been offered. senators will vote on seven of those amendments. the u.s. house is working today on a bill to block epa regulation of greenhouse gases. they will have final vote around six eastern this evening and you can see live coverage of that debate on c-span. and, of course, lawmakers working behind the scenes to come up with a spending plan for this budget year. live senate coverage right now here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. merciful father, who put into

our hearts such deep desires that we cannot be at peace until we rest in you; remove from our lives anything that would seek to separate us from you. lord, lead our lawmakers to make courageous decisions based upon conscience and duty. may they refuse to do anything that threatens the long-term security of this nation, as they strive to follow the right path as you give them the light to see it. give them wisdom and courage for the living of these days.

impart your wisdom so they will know what to do, and bestow your courage so that they will possess the resolve to act on what they believe. we pray in your sovereign name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate.

the clerk: washington d.c., aprill 6, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable kirsten e. gillibrand, a senator from the state of new york, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: we were finally able last night to arrive at an agreement on the small business jobs bill, at least a way to get rid of some very important amendments that we could have around 4:00 tonight seven roll call votes. this morning there will be a period of morning business until 11:00 a.m., the time until 10:40 to be equally divided and controlled between the majority and the republicans. the majority will control the first half, the republicans will control the final half. at 10:40 senator ayotte will give her maiden speech in the

u.s. senate. madam president, as the deadline looms, the budget negotiations continue nonstop. the speaker and i met with the president yesterday morning, and we met with one another yesterday afternoon. like in any ongoing negotiation, the status of those talks is constantly evolving. i will give the senate a snapshot of where we stand at this moment in time. the bottom line has always been the same, is this: we want to avoid a shutdown. we want to pass a budget, make smart cuts, cuts that save money but that doesn't cost jobs. this has been our bottom line throughout this process. so we've made some tough choices. we made those choices because we know that this late stage of the game, reality is more important than ideology. we know the sacrifices of the cost of consensus, and we think they're worth it. the bottom line hasn't changed because our objective hasn't changed. we want to keep the country

running and keep the momentum of the economic recovery that's creating jobs. i wish i could say the same about those on the other side of the negotiating table. republicans' bottom line has changed almost every time. first republicans refused to negotiate until we tried it their way. we gave the reckless house-passed proposal vote, the senate resoundingly rejected that vote. then once talks began, republicans asked for $73 billion in cuts, when we said let's meet in the middle, they said no. then we said in the interest of getting this done, we'll agree to your number. and they still said no. republicans refused to take "yes" for an answer. every time we agree to meet in the middle, they move where the middle s. they said no when we met them halfway. now they say it's our way or the highway. that's no way to move forward. people ask why is this so difficult?

they ask can't you just get it done? i understand how they feel, and i share their frustration. but this is why it's so tough. it's like trying to kick a field goal and the goal post keeps moving. democrats' bottom line has not changed. republicans' bottom line hasn't stayed still. our bottom line hasn't changed because our priorities have not changed. we all want to lower the deficit. but democrats will not sacrifice seniors' retirement security, women's health or children's education or our nation's veterans. the cuts we make have to be smart cuts, and those aren't smart. they're radical. we want an agreement that's reasonable and responsible. i wish i could say the same about those on the other side of the negotiating table. they forget that not one of those people led us into a recession, and punishing seniors, women, children, veterans will not lead us to a recovery. their budget would cost 700,000

jobs and slow economic growth. it would take us backward, not forward. that's as counterproductive as it comes. the point of this entire exercise to help the economy. democrats won't stand for a budget that weakens it. our bottom line, our strongest desire to reach an agreement hasn't changed because our willingness to compromise hasn't changed. we long ago accepted the reality that getting something done means more -- i'm sorry, madam president. we long ago accepted that reality at getting something done means not getting 100% of what we want. we long ago accepted the fact that the only way to reach consensus between the democratic senate and the republican house is to compromise. i wish i could say the same about those on the other side of the negotiating table. the republicans have demanded a budget that can pass with only republican votes. instead of seeking a bipartisan budget, they're actively seeking the opposite. the republican leadership has a tea party screaming so loudly in

its right ear that it can't hear what the vast majority of the country demands. the country demands that we get this done. as i've said before, the biggest gap in this negotiation isn't between democrats and republicans. it's between republicans and republicans. so the speaker has a choice to make, and not much time to make it. he can either do what the tea party wants or what the country needs. mr. president, i'll close with two pieces of advice we would be wise to heed today, one from american history and one from ancient history. henry clay served in both houses of congress, in the house and the senate. he actually held the same seat the republican leader now holds. he was a senator from kentucky. he also held the same gavel that speaker boehner now holds at three different times. henry clay served as speaker of the house. i repeat -- on three separate occasions. in his esteemed career, he earned the nickname, "the great

compromiseer." so henry clay knew what he was talking about when he said -- quote -- "all legislation is founded upon the principle of mutual concession." close quote. this legislation, this budget is no exception. tpwu's important -- but it's important to remember that the most important word in that quote isn't concession. it's "mutual." we all have the responsibility to be reasonable, which brings me to the second piece of advice. for everything there is a season. to paraphrase a passage we all know well, a passage much older than the statesman henry clay: there is a time to campaign, a time to govern. there is a time to be partisans and a time to be partners. we stand here with fewer than 72 hours on the clock. it's time to get to work. it's time to get the job done. this is the season for action. would the chair now announce morning business, please.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in morning business until 11:00 a.m. with the senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each with the time until 10:40 equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half, with the senator from new hampshire, ms. ayotte, recognized at 10:40 a.m. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: it's my understanding the democrats have the first half of morning business. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. durbin: i ask consent to be recognized in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i rise to speak about the issue of wall street reform which i know is near and dear to the senator from new york, who represents wall street. i do believe that what congress achieved last year in wall street reform was wise not only for our nation, but also to avoid the possibility of another recession. there were many fine financial

institutions across the united states, including new york. the fact is that many of their practices led us into the recession which we are now experiencing. it was quite a battle last year. senator chris dodd of connecticut, now retired, led the battle on the floor of the united states senate to try to make sure that we had the necessary oversight and balance when it came to our financial institutions to avoid the likelihood of another recession. the banks fought back, but in the end we prevailed. and senator dodd passed the measure here in the senate, and it was passed in the house of representatives under the leadership of congressman barney frank of massachusetts. signed by the president, it really gave us a chance to move forward with oversight regulation and reform on wall street. it was signed last july by the president a o -- by the president and many of the most important elements of the dodd-frank bill will not go into effect until july 21 of this

year. several of them are very important to america and important to me as an individual, because as a senator, i offered an amendment to this bill. it was a controversial amendment. and for the banks, an expensive amendment. for the wall street banks and credit card companies, the interchange fee amendment which i introduced and passed with 64 votes -- 17 republicans and 47 democrats -- was an amendment which will cost the biggest banks and credit card companies in this country up to $1.3 billion a month. imagine that. in any given year, $15 billion or $16 billion is being collected by these banks through credit cards from merchants, retailers and consumers all across america. from the moment that that bill was signed into law these wall street banks and credit card companies have been involved in an all-out nonstop campaign to

repeal the law. now, they can't just flat-out repeal it because they know that looks a little too obvious. so instead what they're calling for is postpone. just postpone it for two years while they study it. that's their argument. they believe we need to look into this a little more closely. the record suggests that they're not after a study. they're after $1.3 billion a month in profit. it turns out it's actually 30 months that the delay would take place, so that's about a $40 billion postponement that the wall street banks and credit card companies are asking for. who pays the $40 billion? merchants and retailers and customers all across america. that's why the consumer federation of america, the leading consumer advocacy group in washington, supports my amendment and opposes this $40 billion delay which has been suggested in the amendment that

is being offered. last year when we passed landmark legislation to reform the debit card swipe fees that are enriching wall street banks and crushing businesses and consumers on main street, they started organizing to repeal. for years the banking industry has been engaged in a collusive practice. banks have let the visa and master card monopoly credit card companies fix the interchange fee rates that banks receive from merchants each time a debit card is swiped. the so-called swipe fee is a fee that banks get, but they don't set the fees. the credit card companies set them. this is unregulated price-fixing by visa and master card on behalf of thousands of banks, primarily the biggest banks in america, the same banks we bailed out are now coming back here and saying don't cut into our profits. don't in any way reform or

change the interchange fee that affects merchants, retailers and consumers. incidentally, when the federal reserve took a look at the interchange fee that we pay every time you use a debit card, for example, it averages about 40 cents. the actual cost of using the debit card? less than 12 cents. so what they're doing is imposing this fee on every transaction every place across america. this is unregulated price fixing by visa and mastercard. it's a sweetheart deal for the banks, too. according to the federal reserve, banks make about about $1.3 billion each month, as i mentioned, in debit interchange fees, and the fee rates keep going up, even though the costs of processing continues to drop. last year, congress decided that we should place some reasonable limits on visa and mastercard. we did this to ensure that they can't use their market power and price-fixing ability to funnel

excessive fees to the nation's biggest banks. congress said if visa and mastercard are going to continue fixing interchange rates that merchants pay banks, the rates ought to be reasonable and proportional to the actual costs of processing. it's a narrowly targeted reform, and we made a major exemption of small banks and credit unions if they had assets of less than than $10 billion, they were exempt. you wouldn't know that. they are arguing that this is going to apply to them. i would commend to them reading the law, which specifically exempts them. there are two arguments which have been raised recently in opposition to interchange reform. the first is we need more studies. now, i know banks and credit card companies believe that interchange reform literally needs to be studied to death, but many studies have already been done. there were at least seven congressional hearings specifically on interchange fees before we passed the amendment.

i chaired one of them. another two hearings on interchange fees have been held since the amendment became law. there were also at least three different g.a.o. studies on interchange fees prior to the amendment's passage. it isn't as if this matter hasn't been studied. it has been. there's not all. economists and payment system experts at the federal reserve have been studying interchange fees for years. they have put out at least ten significant reports that we -- reports. do we need another study? one of them was january, 2010, by famiko hiyashi, a senior economist at the federal reserve bank of kansas city. she did an analysis, and listen to what she found. in general, the united states has the highest debit card interchange fees. the united states has the highest interchange fees for both credit and debit cards among the 13 countries where

adoption and usage of payment cards are well advanced. now, i can see where the banks and credit card companies want to ignore that study. americans are paying more every time they use plastic than any other of the 13 largest nations in the world that use credit and debit cards. do you know what the debit fee is in canada from visa and mastercard? zero. 40 cents a transaction for the united states of america, god bless them for treating us so kindly, zero for canada. why? because the canadian government spoke up for retailers, merchants and consumers and said stop this, it's price fixing. now we've done the same and the wall street lobby and the credit card lobby are coming down here, hitting hard to repeal this interchange fee reform. there was another study. 2009 paper put forward by the federal reserve's division of research and statistics entitled

"interchange fees and payment card networks." then there was a 2008 paper by james mcandrews and chu wang of kansas city on the economics of the payment card markets. their study found, incidentally, privately determined card pricing, adoption and usage tend to deviate from the social optimum and imposing a ceiling on interchange fees may improve consumer welfare. hmm, kansas city federal reserve. they came up with this finding, but the credit card companies ignore it. they want another study. they don't like a study that says interchange fee reform is good for consumers. the boston federal reserve had a study of 2010, found on average every year each cash-using household pays $149 to card-using households. the studies go on and on, madam president. the fact of the matter is i'll

put them in the record. i ask unanimous consent that my entire statement be made part of the record. i see several of my colleagues on the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: but i want to make one other point as well. whenever i talk about wall street banks and the credit card companies and the costs associated with debit card fees charged to american consumers and retailers, the first thing that i hear is, oh, there he goes again, just defending wal-mart. well, there's no question about it, wal-mart is the largest retailer in america when it comes to the use of credit and debit cards. i'm certain that they have a larger volume of sales from that than any other. but let's do some comparison here for a moment. according to forbes.com, in 2010, wal-mart, the largest retailer in america, had had $17 billion in profits -- i ask unanimous consent for two additional minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: for $17 billion in profits and a 4% profit margin. that sounds like a lot, and it is, but not compared to the big

banks. j.p. morgan chase, one of the largest issuers of debit cards, had $17.4 billion in profits -- that's more than wal-mart, incidentally -- and their profit margin wasn't 4% like wal-mart. it was 15%. this is the same chase that has said any regulation of interchange fees will force them to raise fees on consumers. one of the most profitable banks in america threatens consumers that if they can't charge the interchange fees that they want to charge, they're going to raise fees on consumers. isn't that great? your money or your life when it comes to chase. chase has more profits than wal-mart and a 15% profit margin. madam president, i'm going to reserve the balance of my time and let my colleagues take the floor. i will return on this subject, but i want to remind my colleagues, this amendment, this effort by the wall street banks and credit card companies to

repeal the interchange fee is a a $40 billion amendment. $40 billion that will be transferred to the biggest banks in america and credit card companies from consumers and retailers across america. we did the right thing with interchange fee reform. let's stand by it and say to wall street and major card issuers, visa and mastercard, they have had enough, they could get a reasonable fee but not an unreasonable amount out of our economy. and i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i'm going to proceed on my leader time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: madam president, across the country this morning, americans are wondering what's going on in washington this week. they want to know why it's taking so long to fund the government. americans want to know how we got to this point, and they deserve an answer, so here goes. each year, the majority party in congress is responsible for coming up with a budget plan that explains how they're going to pay for all the things that

government does. it's not just a good idea. it's the law. congress has been required to do it since 1974. well, last year, the democratic leaders in congress decided they didn't want to do it. they didn't want to have the -- didn't want to have to publicly defend their bloated spending and the debt that it's creating. so republicans had to come up with a temporary spending bill to keep the government running in the absence of any alternatives and leadership from our friends on the other side. republicans even passed a bill in the house that would keep the government funded through the rest of the current fiscal year and which takes an important first step toward a smaller, more efficient government that helps improve the conditions for private sector job growth. this house bill would save us billions of dollars on our way to a conversation about

trillions, and congressman ryan has done a service this week by setting the terms of the larger debate by outlining a plan that puts us back on a path to stability and prosperity. unfortunately, democrats have made a calculated decision that they didn't want to have either debate, so they have taken a pass on both. and frankly, it's hard not to be struck by the contrasting approaches to our nation's fiscal problems that we have seen here in washington this week. on the one hand, you've got a plan by congressman ryan that every serious person has described as both honest and courageous. on the other hand, you've got people like the new chairwoman of the democratic national committee and the previous speaker of the house dismissing that plan in the most cartoonish language imaginable. while thinking people have seen in the ryan plan -- while thinking people have seen in the ryan plan an honest attempt to

tackle our problems head on, ideologues on the left have seen a target to distort while offering no vision of their own to present a fiscal nightmare that we all know is approaching. and they still haven't come up with an alternative to the various republican proposals we have seen to keep the government up and running in the current fiscal year. they have just sort of sat on the sidelines, taking pot shots at everything republicans have proposed while rooting, rooting for a shutdown. that's why the republicans in the house have now proposed another bill this week that will fund the military for the rest of the year, to keep the government operating, and which gets us a little closer to the level of spending that even the senior senator from new york has called reasonable. the fact that democrats are now rejecting this offer, which even members of their own leadership have described as reasonable, is all the evidence you need that democrats are more concerned

about the politics of this debate than keeping the government running. so let's be clear about something this morning. throughout this entire debate, republicans have not only said that we would prefer a bipartisan agreement that funds the government and protects defense spending at a time when we have got american troops fighting in two wars, there is a republican plan on the table right now that would do just that. democrats can accept that proposal or they can reject it, but they can't blame anyone but themselves if a shutdown does occur because they have done nothing whatsoever to prevent it. so with the clock ticking, i would once again encourage our democratic friends to get on board with this proposal and to support the kind of spending cuts that the american people have asked for and that their own leadership has already endorsed. now, on another matter, later today, the senate will vote on an amendment that one leading newspaper described last week as

one of the best proposals for growth and job creation to make it onto the senate docket in years. more specifically, this amendment which is based on legislation proposed by senator inhofe would prevent unelected bureaucrats at the environmental protection agency from imposing a new national energy tax on american job creators. everyone knows that this attempt to handcuff american businesses with new costs and regulations is the last thing these job creators need right now. that's why even democrats in congress have sought to secure the same kind of exemptions from the law for favored industries in their own states that we saw others from their party trying to secure for favored constituencies in the health care law. democrats from auto states tried to have the auto industry exempted. democrats from farming states tried to have farmers exempted. what these efforts show is that democrats themselves recognize

the dangers of these e.p.a. regulations, yet instead of just investigate for the one amendment that solves the problem, they are hiding behind sham amendments designed to give them political cover. well, republicans have a better idea. let's try to make sure everybody is exempted, everybody gets the exemption, not just some favored constituency. let's not pick winners and losers. let's let america's small business and entrepreneurs compete and grow on a level playing field without any more burdensome government regulations, costs or red tape. the amendment that i have offered on behalf of senator inhofe would do just that. the amendment would give businesses the certainty that no unelected bureaucrat at e.p.a. is going to make their efforts to create jobs even more difficult than the administration already has. so once again, i want to thank senator inhofe for his strong leadership on this issue. he's led the way in protecting

american jobs from this burdensome proposal with determination and with common sense, and he deserves the credit. i also want to thank chairman upton and my good friend congressman ed whitfield from kentucky for fighting against this effort boy the e.p.a. and moving legislation to prevent it over in the house. finally, on another matter relating to the economy, there are some signs today that the administration is beginning to take seriously a pending trade agreement with colombia. republicans have been urging the administration to act on this critical trade deal for months. this agreement would help american businesses compete on a level playing field with businesses overseas. it would help create american jobs, and it would help our relationship with an important ally in latin america. so hopefully these reports, madam president, are true and the president will send this agreement along with similar agreements related to panama and

south korea to congress soon. this would be some extraordinarily good news for an economy that really needs it. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: madam president, i rise to the floor to speak in morning business and to comment on the terrible situation that we find ourselves in. we're in a terrible situation. the republican leader is exactly right, the clock is ticking on a shutdown. but, madam president, i have a couple of principles as we head into the midnight witching hour on friday. first of all, my first principle is no shutdown, let's have a sit-down. let's not shut down government and cutting off the funding for private-sector contractors who do business with the government.

let's have a congressional sit-down and arrive at an orderly, rational agreement that does create a more frugal government but does not torpedo our economy. but my second principle is if we shut down the government and federal employees and contractors don't get paid, congress shouldn't get paid. and not only shouldn't congress not get paid, no back-pay, and no way. but, madam president, i spoke about the congressional no pay position yesterday. today i want to talk about the consequences of the shutdown. i'm against a government shutdown. shutting down the government breaks faith with federal employees, jeopardizes our economic recovery, threatens the viability of small and medium-size business that is do

business with the federal government, and even threatens the safety of our families and our economy. that's why i'm for a congressional sitdown, not a shutdown of the federal government. democrats and republicans should negotiate over spending cuts, but what's not open for negotiation is whether the federal government is worth keeping open or not. parties must come together. you know, madam president, there's a belief that a shutdown will occur only in washington. oh, the lights will go out in the washington monument. maybe a museum will be closed here or there. maybe even a national park will be closed here or there. both on the senate floor, the house floor and even in the media, it's followed by kind of a snicker or even a snarl. how foolish, how they don't understand the functioning of the government of the united states of america. i'm afraid that the lights will

go out. i'm afraid that government agencies will be shuttered. i'm concerned that people who work in behalf of the federal government, as those contractors, small and medium-size contractors, disabled veterans contractors, will not get paid. now i'm for cuts. i voted for the democratic package with over $51 billion in cuts. in my own appropriations bill, i reduced agency overhead by 10%. i cut out lavish conferences and so on by 25%. i could eliminate that -- illuminate that year by year. cuts alone are not enough to reduce a deficit. what i don't want is to make sure that our government will not be funded. there are other ways of doing it, and i will talk about that more tomorrow, about how we can actually pay for this. but today i want to talk about the consequences of what we're doing.

there's nobody on the senate floor talking about it. i appreciate the minority leader. but on my side if nobody's going to talk about it, i'm going to talk about it. a possible government shutdown creates uncertainty in consumer confidence and further damages the economy. mark zandi, the chief economist of moody's, says that it will damage the confidence in the economy and could result in the loss of 700,000 jobs. well, let me tell you, and everybody says, oh, well, that's government. oh, well, that's government. i'm going to talk about "oh, well, that's government" in a minute. let's talk about private sector. let's take that snickering and snarling over national parks. you know national parks, we have 300 million visitors. do you know that those national parks generate 270,000 private-sector jobs in camp

grounds, restaurants, gas stations, vendors to the national parks. oh, yeah, you can laugh about closing down yellowstone and maybe that's not the explosive thing. 270,000 jobs mostly in the west. i didn't hear that they have such a low unemployment rate that they don't give a darn. local communities at national parks lose $14 million per day. so that's the national park argument. let me go to the contractors. i represent the state of maryland where we have a lot of contractors. take goddard space agency, 3,000 civil servants that do everything from help run the hubbell telescope to refiguring out how we can fix the satellites through robots in the sky. but there are 9 -- excuse me -- 6,000 contractors. 6,000 contractors.

some of them are small business, 8-a contractors working the way up. many of them -- some of them are women. many of them are veterans who started small to medium-size business. these people, if there is a government shutdown, will not get paid. hello, colleagues. this is not only going to happen in my state. this' going -- it's going to happen in your state. this was a major article in the "wall street journal" yesterday about what the shutdown means to the private sector. well, let's wake up here and let's move more quickly to this sit down. i'm going to talk about essential versus nonessential. you know, madam president, in my state, i represent over 100,000 federal employees, three of whom were nobel prize winners i'll talk about in a minute.

nobel prize winners who are civil servants. and that's not even the gang at hopkins or university of maryland. that is the three nobel prize winners are actual civil servants. now, under this shutdown that we're heading for, they're going to be told they're nonessential. we have a nobel prize winner at nist for the development of new work on laser light. secretary chu was his partner. we have a nobel prize winner at n.i.h. who won the nobel prize for proteins and cellular communication that could lead to a cure for cancer and a nobel prize winner at goddard in physics. what am i going to do midnight on friday? am i going to call up these three nobel prize winners and say, hey, guys, you're not essential. we know you could be in the

private sector making millions of dollars but you're staying here to do research to save lives, save the planet and lead to saving our economy. but, hey, guys, you're nonessential. in other countries, they carry you around on your shoulders and so on. but here we're told they're nonessential. it's not only nobel prize winners, it's all the other people who are working. we're going to turn out the lights at the national institutes of health. we're going to say to a researcher, i know you're working on that cure for cancer, i know you're working on that cure for alzheimer's or autism or arthritis, sticking just with the "a" words. but you know what? washington, the congress says you're not essential. hey, what about social security? i have over 10,000 people work at the social security administration. you say, well, my god, that's a lot. that's 24/7 to make sure that all functions properly and

efficiently. we have the lowest overhead of any -- quote -- "insurance company" in america. but these lights are going to be shuttered at the social security. not only in senator barb's or senator ben cardin's state but it's also going to be shuttered, madam president, in your state when people come to apply for benefits they are eligible for, when people who are disabled want to apply for those benefits, they're going to come to a shuttered, shuttered, social security office. and they're going to be told they're not essential. well, then let's wait until monday morning. aren't they going to come to work fired up, ready to work for america, ready to help america be great again? we are essential that goes on at social security, that work for the national institute of standards that come up with new ideas. look at commerce. i represent the great port of baltimore. ships are going to come into the port. who's going to inspect their

cargo? traffic coming in to airports, who's going to inspect their cargo? but, oh no, we're going to tell them they're nonessential. well, i'm telling you, madam president, this is not going to be good. but you know what's not really good? not only the consequences, but the way we're functioning here. madam president, hello? madam president? i don't know if my speech is not that attention-getting, but could i have your attention? the presiding officer: the senator has consumed ten minutes. ms. mikulski: well, then my time is up. maybe the senate's not paying attention, but the american people are paying attention. and i'm telling you, this is a situation of enormous negative consequences, and i think we're going to rue the day the way we're functioning here. we need to come to the table,

and we need to sit around and act like rational human beings. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: madam president, as congress and the obama administration grapples with how to responsibly address our long-term deficit, something that the senator from maryland has talked so eloquently about, we need to remember why it's so important to get on a path to balanced budgets. we need to address the long-term deficit because this deficit is a threat to america's future prosperity. economic growth and jobs, that's why the deficit matters. the deficit is not just some math problem where it's solved if the numbers add up right. the choices we make, which spend programs we cut, which tax expenditures we eliminate, where we continue to boost investment, all of this matters. and it matters because the

deficit is currently a threat to the overarching challenge that faces our country, and that is how do we keep america and our economy competitive. we can't compete with india and china for low-wage manufacturing jobs. that's not our future. america's future is in continuing to be the global leader in science and technology. america makes the best, the most innovative products and services, and that ingenuity and excellence is our chief economic strength as a nation. but right now we're in danger of losing that edge. science, technology, engineering and math, what we call the stem fields, are the skills that drive innovation. and jobs in the stem fields are expected to be the fastest-growing occupations of the next decade. however, unfortunately, not enough of our students are pursuing an education in stem subjects to keep up with the

increased demand. and for those students that do pursue education in stem fields, right now they're being outperformed by international competitors. studies show that by the end of eighth grade, students in the u.s. are two years behind their international peers in math. american students rank 21st in science and 25th in math among industrialized countries. in addition, the u.s. has produced a declining number of ph.d.'s in science and engineering compared to the european union and china over the past three decades. so it's clear that to remain competitive internationally, we must encourage and strengthen our supply of stem-trained graduates. that's why this week i introduced, along with senators klobuchar, kerry, begich, coons and leader reid the innovation inspiration school grant program, to bolster our nation's ability to compete in the global economy. this legislation would provide

new incentives for our schools to think outside the box and embrace extracurricular and nontraditional stem education programs. it establishes a competitive grant program to encourage schools to partner with the private sector both for financial support and to provide mentors who serve as guides and role models to students. now, i'm proud that new hampshire is home to the first robotics program, which is an example of how these extracurricular stem programs can boost student learning in the fields. in fact, research shows that 99% of students who participate in the first robotics competition graduate high school, almost 90% go on to college, and once in college these students are nearly seven times more likely to major in engineering, twice as likely to major in computer science, and they are significantly more likely to attain a postgraduate degree.

these programs speak for themselves. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation to inspire our students to become scientists, engineers, computer programs and mathematicians because our country's economic future depends on it. and, madam president, i will submit my entire statement for the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: madam president, i am going to speak for approximately four minutes during morning business. i had originally intended on 15, but i'm going to do that tomorrow on another subject, but if i could be recognized for four minutes, that's my -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. roberts: i thank -- i thank you, madam president. madam president, changing the subject a little bit, i know it's pretty serious business talking about a government shutdown and things of this nature that affect all americans, and i certainly hope we can reach some accommodation. i just want to do a little bragging on behalf of my home

state. as of this morning. we're pretty proud of our basketball heritage in kansas, but i note that we have not received national recognition to the extent that i think we should in regards to a recent accomplishment that i'd like to highlight, so i rise today to congratulate the wichita state university shockers. the shockers won the 2011 men's national invitation tournament in the big apple. the championship up in new york city. in claiming the championship trophy, wichita state set the school record with 29 victories, 29 victories in the season. rich that state advanced to the n.i.t. championship with four straight wins in the tournament. they beat the university of

nebraska in the first round. virginia tech in the second round. the college of charleston in the quarterfinals. washington state university in the semifinal. and finally, the university of alabama in the championship became. all of these teams have good basketball teams, and wichita state came out on top. graham hatch, an outstanding player, was named the n.i.t.'s most outstanding player and a member of the all-tournament team, while garrett stutts was also named to the all-tournament team as well. wichita state and head coach greg marshall are not only successful on the court but in the classroom as well. earlier this year, coach hatch and garrett stutts were named to the 2011 missouri valley

conference athlete first and honorable mention teams respectfully. so i congratulate the wichita state university shockers, their head coach greg marshall, the athletic director eric sexton, a good friend of mine, the wichita state university president don beggs. don, you're back again and you certainly did us proud. specifically, i want to congratulate each member of the team for an exemplary season. gabe blair, derrick brown, j.t. durlg, aaron ellis, jerome hamilton, graham hatch, trey jones, david kyles, trey murray, ivan aruke, joe ragland, tyler richardson, ben smith, garrett stutts, randall voutravers, josh

walker, and dometric williams. i say to the team if i have mispronounced your name, i'm terribly sorry. you certainly did not do anything wrong in the tournament in terms of winning the n.i.t. and congratulations to all of the shocker basketball fans. i simply would add that the coach has made a decision to stay at wichita state. good news for kansas, good news for wichita state and an exemplary action on the part of the coach after a very successful team effort and winning the n.i.t. and then staying at wichita state university. so good news for kansas, good news for wichita state and good news all the way around. by the way, we're not going to shut down the team. they're going to keep on fighting. and i think the signal there was

not four quarters, let's go play hard, but that the four minutes are up, so i yield back the balance of my time.

mr. roberts: madam president, i note that a quorum is not -- is not here in the senate of the united states, and i would like to bring that to the attention of the president. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. barrasso: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: i come to the floor today as a doctor who has practiced medicine in wyoming for about 25 years. during that time as medical director of something called the wyoming health fairs where we provide low-cost blood screening for people for early detection and early treatment of problems and medical problems. we know one of the things that was attempted to be solved with the debate and the discussion on health care was to have people involved with their own health care decisions and early detection as well as prevention of disease. so i was in a health fair last weekend in worland, wyoming, had a chance to visit with a number of folks there who were attending the fair. also people with small businesses. so the first thing i would like to do is congratulate this body and specifically congratulate senator johanns from nebraska for the repeal of the 1099 form regulations, which is a significant burden to small businesses all around -- all around the country. i also come to the floor as

someone who has practiced medicine and has been watching very closely with this health care law, and it's one that i believe is bad for patients, bad for providers, the nurses and the doctors who take care of those patients and bad for the american taxpayers because i think this is going to add significantly to a growing debt problem, and these are things that need to be addressed. one of the parts of the health care law, the 2,700-page law that was passed dealt with something called accountable care organizations. those are intended to help people coordinate care and have that coordinated care increase people's health and early detection of problems and help minimize problems, but also attempted to help save money. well, the six pages of the health care law that had to deal with accountable care organizations has resulted in a release of regulations on

march 31 of 429 pages of regulations which will have a significant impact on restructuring the way that medicine is practiced in the united states. one of the -- one of the concerns is that i look at this in terms of our growing debt is that the administration is bragging that the regulations save medicare money. about $960 million total best-case scenario over a three-year period of time. so savings of less than than $1 billion, a restructuring of the way medicine is being practiced, a savings of less than $1 billion at a time where medicare will be spending over those three years over over $1.5 trillion. so savings of less than than $1 billion on an expenditure of over over $1.5 trillion. the other thing that was so interesting watching this administration is they have come out with a statement about

regulations. small business people that i've talked to in worland last weekend at the health fair will tell you that increased government regulations add to the costs of doing business, make it harder for them to hire more people, and it's specifically related to the increased costs. so then it was interesting to see the administration saying that an increase in labor demand due to regulations may be -- may have a stimulative effect that results in a net increase in overall employment. the administration apparently believes that if you increase the rules and regulations on businesses, it's going to make it better for them when they will tell you universally it will make it worse. additionally, madam president, i come to the floor because last friday night, the department of health and human services released their new next round of obamacare waivers. you know, we've talked about those in the past on this floor as part of a doctor's second opinion, and if this health care

law is so good, why do millions and millions of americans say we can't live under this? and the administration agrees and grants them waivers. so this past weekend, second sebelius added another 128 waivers covering another 300,000 americans to say no, the next year -- you get a one-year waiver -- you don't have to live under the mandates of obamacare. is now we're at a point where the total number of waivers granted is 100,000 covering 2.9 million people. you say what's the breakdown of those stphaoepl how do they get -- those people? how do they get those waivers? 49%, almost half of all the waivers have been granted to people who get their insurance through the unions. now, i just looked at this list

that came out, and it's interesting because one of the waivers that has been granted for 13,000 employees, enrollees is the united food and commercial workers union. let's see what we can find out about them. if we can to their web site and go to the area that deals with health care, what it says is thanks to your hard work -- this is to the people in the union. thanks to your hard work over the past year, congress passed a health care reform bill that was signed into law by president obama. they say this landmark reform is a hard-fought victory for the united food and commercial workers union. well, wait a second, madam president. these are the same people that went in and asked for and got from the secretary of health and human services a waiver, a waiver so they don't have to live under it. it's interesting, if you go to this web site, you can click to other things, and what you can find is you can actually watch a video on the web site of the

people that just got a waiver, a video of the members of this union -- quote -- "rally and talk about health care reform." the health care reform, they're rallying for it but they don't want it to apply to them. the secretary of health and human services says that's fine, you can have a waiver. madam president, you can actually see pictures of union members taking action on health care reform, but it's not the action of applying for the waiver or waiver they've just been granted by the secretary of health and human service. now it says call your members of congress to thank them for passing real reform. you're supposed to thank the members of this body for passing something, but then they've applied for a waiver that's been granted for over 13,000 members who get insurance through this program? and then they ask you, you can also check an area to read the background information on this union's advocacy of health care reform. advocacy for a program that they wanted to force down the throats of the american people, but yet,

madam president, don't want to live under themselves. madam president, this health care law is bad for this country, it is bad for our patients, it is bad for our health care providers and it's bad for taxpayers. and the union members who absolutely lobbied for it are now saying, now that they've read the bill, now that they know what's in the law, they're saying they don't want it to apply to them; so much so that one of the unions that has gotten a waiver, on their recent web site it said we are challenged by how to implement the law under prevailing circumstances. under prevailing circumstances are the law that they wanted passed. it says the trustees of the fund have no ability to secure additional contributions needed to cover the increased costs of providing these required -- madam president, required by the people on the other side of the aisle that voted for this -- required additional benefits. it says the trustees are requesting a waiver from h.h.s.

to preserve the annual benefit limitation now in place for the part-time plan of benefits to minimize the cost impact of transitioning to the requirements of the reform act. is what it basically says is that these folks who want the waiver are saying what i've been saying on this floor since the beginning of the debate, that this is going to be bad for taxpayers. it's going to drive up the cost of care. it's going to drive up the cost of insurance. in spite of the president's promise that if we pass this, families would see premiums drop by $2,100, in spite of the president's promise that if you like your plan, you can keep it, what we're seeing for the people who proudly lobbied for this is they don't want it to apply to them. they realize now that it is going to cause their plans to have significant problems. and, madam president, i believe that every american ought to be

able to have a waiver. every american ought to not have to live under these health care laws. to me, it's unaffordable, it's unmanageable, and i believe it is unconstitutional. and that's why i come to the floor, as i have every week with a doctor's second opinion, that we must repeal and replace this health care law. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: madam president, i want to speak about the urgent fiscal crisis that is facing our nation. we know that the congress right now is in negotiation for a resolution that will take us until the end of the fiscal year. it's in an atmosphere in which so many people are worried about our overwhelming debt and the deficit that would be in the budget that was submitted by the president for sure. we now are trying to cut that budget responsibly. the united states is averaging $4 billion a day in debt, a $1.6 trillion deficit is projected by the end of this year.

that's just the deficit. that's adding to the debt. federal spending in 2010 wags 23.-- was 23.8% of gross domestic product. the c.b.o., the congressional budget office, predicts it will be 24.7% of g.d.p. in 2011. as a nation, we must remain competitive by reducing federal spending and spurring economic growth in the private sector. it is jobs in the private sector that will take our economy out of the doldrums where it is now. for the sake of the american people, i hope we can come together to stop the reckless federal spending. continuing the spending, the borrowing and the taxing in washington will halt job creation and triple the debt by the end of this decade. that is what is predicted. we must make bold cuts where we

can by carefully also prioritizing investment in areas of strategic national importance. what we need now is for the president, the senate majority leader and the house speaker to sit in a room and not come out until a deal is made until we have the votes to pass. i don't want a government shutdown. the consequences of a government shutdown will be enormous. and so many people who are talking about that as an option as if it's not a big deal just don't realize how many lives it will touch and how hard it is going to make life for so many people, people twhof depend -- people who have depended on benefits such as veterans. we don't know what will happen in a government shutdown. we don't know what will happen to our military because that's not clear. and that's what i want to talk about today. a government shutdown will put

people in peril in many areas. but now we have a situation in which our military, our active-duty military, some which almost 100,000 in afghanistan, 47,000 in iraq, are put in a position today of now also wondering if their spouse is at home with children are going to get their paychecks if we have a government shutdown that will affect their ability to pay their mortgages. madam president, let me ask are there time limits in place? the presiding officer: there's an order to recognize senator ayotte for her first speech at 10:40. mrs. hutchison: thank you, madam president. madam president, let me just say that i've introduced legislation. i have cosponsors casey, inhofe,

snowe, murkowski, collins, ayotte and hoeven. it is the ensuring pay for our military act of 2011. it's very simple. it just ensures that in the event of a federal government shutdown -- which i do not want to happen and do not support -- nevertheless, our military will be paid. it also will allow anyone that is serving our military -- civilian, defense employees or contractors who do the food services -- to also be able to go to work and not have to worry about what is going to be happening back home if you're in a tent in afghanistan. i so hope that we will be able to pass this bill. i don't want one more minute of stress on our military. the bill is very simple and it is very short and very clear. our military personnel and their support will not be affected by a government shutdown. madam president, i hope that i

can have more colleagues signing up. we have introduced senate bill 724, and i hope that we can get a vote on this bill in very short order so that this is off the table. thank you, madam president. and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: madam president, i ask unanimous consent for my intern robert varner to have privileges of the floor for the balance of the day. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you. ms. ayotte: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: thank you, madam president. with humility and a deep sense of reverence for this body, i rise today to address my colleagues in the senate. serving in this historic chamber is truly an honor. on this floor, men and women of strong character gather together to work on the unfinished work of building a more perfect

union. it is an even greater privilege to stand here representing the people of new hampshire, a place of distinct beauty that places a premium on self-governance and informed public discourse. new hampshire reflects the very best of our nation. as america faces enormous challenges, i am reminded of the words of wisdom from one of new hampshire's revered statesmen, general john stark. after fighting bravely and heroically in the revolutionary war, general stark gave new hampshire its treasured state motto: live free or die. this famous quote perfectly captures the spirit and character of the people of the granite state. fiercely independent and strongly protective of our personal freedoms, we place a high premium on self-reliance,

personal initiative, and individual liberty. we believe strongly that government cannot and should not be allowed to get in the way of each of us reaching our full potential. that's what "live free or die" means. yet, as i stand here today, and as i've heard from so many of my fellow granite staters, we are at a time when our government has grown so large and we have become so indebted that the size of our debt threatens the full potential and future of the greatest people and country on earth. admiral mike mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, has said that america's debt is the greatest national security threat that we face. that debt now stands at an

historic level of over $14 trillion, about half of which is held by other countries. the single-biggest foreign holder of our debt is china, a country which does not share our values. we are borrowing $4 billion a day, or 40 cents of every single dollar to fund our ever-expanding government. in the month of february alone, we ran a record monthly deficit of $223 billion. that $223 billion shortfall accumulated in just one month, puts into perspective the current spending debate that we're having in congress. house republicans came up with a plan to cut $61 billion for the

rest of this fiscal year, which is an important start. but those cuts only cover a little more than a quarter of the deficit that we accumulated in just one month. yet, all i hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is that $61 billion in cuts is extreme. in my view, the only thing that is extreme is failing to confront the endless flood of red ink that threatens our economic strength and threatens our national security. the debt that we owe, it's so much more than just numbers. this is about us, who we are as americans, and what kind of country that we want to leave behind for our children.

my husband, joe, and i are the proud parents of two children, kate who is 6 years old and jacob who is 3 years old. i am determined to keep alive the american dream for my children, for all of our children and for future generations in this country, but our addiction to spending in washington threatens that dream. i for one will not sit by while our children are beholden to china. hollow words paying lip service to fiscal responsibility have been used by too many in congress for far too long. hall of-- new hampshire familiet around their tables and find ways to make their family budget work. with limited resources, they make hard choices to distinguish

between wants and needs. it is time for our federal government to do the same. that's why the first step that we should take is to pass a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. almost every state in the nation is required to balance its budget, and our federal government should be no different. last week, i was proud to join with all 46 of my republican colleagues in supporting such an amendment that caps spending, requires the budget to balance and makes it more difficult to raise taxes. i ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us in passing this important measure and to put this vote to the states for ratification. i appreciate that amending the

constitution is no light matter, but our founding fathers could not have anticipated how unwilling members of congress would be to actually pass a balanced budget and to make fiscally responsible decisions. our founding fathers were well aware of the threat posed by debt. it was tomorrows jefferson who wrote, "to preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. we must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude." in 1997, the senate came close to getting its arms around the debt when a balanced budget amendment failed to pass this chamber by just one vote. at that time, our national debt was a little over $5 trillion.

it has nearly tripled since then. imagine how much stronger our nation would be today had the senate approved a balanced budget amendment back then and had the states adopted it. a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget is a key first step, but getting spending under control will take a multi-pronged approach. that's why we must also move quickly to pass serious statutory limits on spending. one of my honorable predecessors from new hampshire, warren rudman, helped author the graham-rudman-hollings act to require sequestration of funds if congress failed to act and cut spending within deficit targets. unfortunately, congress sir couple vented the law's

provisions by finding loopholes. while that effort may not have ultimately succeeded, we should take the lessons learned from that experience. we need statutory spending caps with teeth that congress cannot easily undermine. well, i realize that this week we are working to pass funding for the rest of the year of 2011 for the fiscal year, congress must do something this year that it failed to do last year -- pass a budget. back home in new hampshire, people, especially small business owners, are astounded to learn that our federal government is operating right now outside the confines of a strict budget. frankly, it is shameful that the last congress did not approve a

budget for fiscal year 2011. their failure to act is why we are in the difficult place we find ourselves today. here we are trying to fund government through a series of patchwork, short-term funding bills. we need a fiscally responsible budget that cuts federal spending and puts us on a path to eliminating our debt altogether. state governments operate within a budget, families operate within a budget, small businesses operate within a budget, and the senate should not be working on any other legislation until we resolve funding for the rest of this fiscal year and pass a responsible budget for 2012. we have to begin by reviewing every program in our government and eliminating the waste, fraud

and duplication that we all know is there. we know that there is so much more that we can do to streamline our federal government. a g.a.o. report released in march identified hundreds of redundant programs costing us billions of dollars. finally, it's clear that we cannot address our country's fiscal crisis while continuing to focus on only 12% of spending. that's certainly an important start, and there is plenty to cut, but in order to truly get our fiscal house in order, we must look at the entire budget, we must rare our entitlement programs of medicaid, medicare and social security. entitlement reform should be an issue that brings us all

together, republicans, democrats, independents, to ensure that we keep our promises to those who are relying on those programs while making sure that future generations don't pay for our failure to address the fiscal reality of these programs right now. this is certainly an issue that requires presidential leadership, and i join others in my party in inviting the president to work across party lines to address this urgent priority. the american people deserve a substantive, responsible debate on how we can preserve these programs in a fiscally sustainable way. we simply cannot continue to put off making the difficult decisions today and passing them on to the next generation. with our trillion dollar-plus

deficits and rapidly accelerating debt, we are again closing in on our debt ceiling. having to repeatedly increase the debt limit represents a broad failure of leadership by politicians from both parties. as a new member of the senate, i refuse to perpetuate that cycle. we cannot let this moment pass us by, and i cannot in good conscience raise our debt ceiling without congress passing real and meaningful reforms to reduce spending. that plan should include a balanced budget amendment, statutory spending caps, spending cuts and entitlement reform. we can no longer afford the status quo or business as usual in washington. the days of spending like

there's no tomorrow to bring home the bacon must end. and the fiscal crisis that threatens our union, threatens all of us. we will have to make sacrifices. there will be times when we have to put aside our parochial interests and appreciate that the only way that we will be able to cut spending is for all of us to take shared responsibility and to make shared sacrifices for the great country that we love. make no mistake, out-of-control spending jeopardizes our nation's economic strength and costs us jobs, and one thing is for sure: we cannot spend our way to prosperity. we need look no further than the stimulus package to prove that stubborn fact. the reality is that government

doesn't create the jobs. small businesses and entrepreneurs create jobs. what we can do in the senate is to help create the right tax and regulatory conditions to allow our businesses to thrive and grow. despite the circumstances we face, we are blessed to live in the greatest country in the world. there has never been a challenge that we have not faced and met and overcome and been better for. when i think of what it will take to address the challenges before us, i'm reminded of my 95-year-old grandfather, john sullivan, who is a world war ii veteran and what his generation went through and what he did. my grandfather landed on the beaches of normandy, and he is part of what is known as the greatest generation of our

country. every generation is called upon anew to preserve our country. in my view, this generation's greatest challenge is having the courage and the will to take on and fix our fiscal crisis and get our fiscal house in order once and for all. this is our time to show that we have the fortitude and the courage to do what is right to preserve the greatest nation on earth. madam president, i know that we can do this, and it is truly humbling to have the opportunity to serve in this body at a time when i know that leadership and courage will make all the difference. on behalf of the people of new hampshire, i stand ready to fight for our great country and to work with my colleagues on

both sides of the aisle to address our fiscal crisis. i remain confident that america's best days still lie ahead of us. thank you very much, madam president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: madam president, i want to congratulate our new colleague from new hampshire on her initial speech related to the twin problems we have in this country of spending and debt, and also say to her that it's pretty clear to all of us that she is a worthy successor to our good friend, judd gregg, whose seat she now occupies, who was also a leader in this body, some would argue the leader in this body, on the question of our nation's fiscal crisis and how to get it in order. so on behalf of all of our colleagues, i congratulate senator ayotte.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: i also would like to congratulate my colleague from new hampshire. it is an extraordinary privilege to serve in this chamber, and it is a long tradition of the chamber to utilize one's first speech or maiden speech as an opportunity to address something that is close to one's heart, so i extend a warm welcome to her and to her voice, her intellect, her passion on issues that we must on both sides of this aisle work to resolve in order to build a better america and put america back on track. thank you. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 493, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 17, s. 493, a bill to re-authorize and improve the sbir and sttr programs, and for other purposes. a senator: madam president?

the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: i ask consent that coburn amendment 281 replace amendment 223 in the agreement we reached last evening. this is an updated version of senator coburn's amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: thank you. madam president, under the previous agreement that we reached last evening -- and i want to really thank both leaders, senator reid and senator mcconnell who have worked so hard with senator snowe and myself to try to bring our caucuses to conclusion points on this very important bill, the small business investment bill -- small business innovation bill that we have been negotiating now for almost two weeks, and it's a very important program that deserves to be re-authorized. this bill will reauthorize this program for eight years. we've been operating for the last four years six months at a time. madam president, you representing new york, many of your small businesses have accessed this program. many of your universities, to

achieve or to acquire or to reach cutting-edge technologies that not only our federal agencies need but taxpayers benefit directly from this program. this program is a job creator. it's an innovative program and it's a job creator. and so, i really appreciate the work that our two leaders have done with senator snowe and myself to get us to this agreement. we'll be having seven votes this afternoon. skwr to recap they'll be baucus 236, stabenow, 277, rockefeller 2 15rbgs coburn 217, coburn 281 and coburn 273 with a side-by-side with inouye 286. that's already been agreed to. but, madam president, our challenge is that we have 124 amendments additionally that have been filed, most of which

have nothing to do with either the small business administration or this program. and we understand senators are frustrated and want floor time for their issues, but taxpayers really do need this program that works. we're eliminating some programs at the federal level that don't work. this one does. and so we need to try to find a way to get it authorized and continue the good economic numbers that we're hearing coming out of treasury and other independent think tanks that are saying jobs are being created, the recession looks like it potentially is coming to an end. we're creating new jobs every month. this is a program that supports that. it's a great foundation program based on cutting-edge research and innovation that really helps small businesses in the country who are the job creators. so i ask my members on both sides to let's work cooperatively through the day today. we're going to have a vote on

these seven amendments this afternoon as previously agreed to, and we'll be considering and trying to work with members on some of their other issues. but if we could get a good, strong small business bill agreed to this week and sent over to the house so as we resolve these very tough negotiations on the budget, we can be proud to at some point very soon send this bill with a few attached amendments, hopefully not many, but a few to the president's desk for signature. so, again, i thank the members for their cooperation, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. ms. landrieu: i take back that request. i ask that senator sanders' amendment -- i'm sorry. i ask the clerk to report under the previous agreement that we were able to get to last evening. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

the clerk: the senator from l.a., ms. landrieu -- the senator from from louisiana ms. landrieu proposes stabenow amendment 277, rockefeller amendment 215, coburn amendment 217, coburn amendment 28 1, coburn amendment 273 and inouye amendment 286. lan lane ask that senator sanders dashes. ms. landrieu: i ask that senator sanders amendment be modified with changes at the desk. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: i ask unanimous consent that any time spent in a quorum call prior to the votes at 4:00 p.m. be equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: thank you, madam president. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sander: madam president, we

are at a unique and enormously important moment in american history, and the decisions that will be made by the congress and president in the coming days, weeks and months will in many ways determine how we go forward as a nation and will impact the lives of virtually every one of our 300 million-plus citizens. the reality today, as i think most americans know, is that within our economy, we have a middle class which is collapsi collapsing. in the last ten years, median family income has declined by $2,500. millions of american workers are working longer hours for lower wages. if you look at real unemployment rather than the official unemployment, we're talking about 16% of our people unemployed or underemployed.

numbers may be even higher for certain blue-collar workers and for young workers. middlmiddle class is in very die straits. poverty in america is increasi increasing. since 2000, nearly 12 million americans have slipped out of the middle class and into poverty. as a nation, we have 50 million americans today who have no health insurance and that number has increased in recent years. we have the highest rate of child poverty of any major country on earth. we are industrializing in a rapid rate. in the -- we are deindustrializing at a rapid rate. in the last ten years accident we have lost 3,000 manufacturing plants as many of our largest companies have decided it is more profitable for them to do business in china, other low-wage countries than reinvest

in the united states of america. that is one reality. then there is another reality that we don't talk about too much and that is while the middle class disappears and poverty increases, people on the top are doing phenomenally well. today, the top 1% of income earners earn about 23% of all income. that is more than the bottom 50%. top 1% earn more income than the bottom 50%. and the gap between the very, very rich and everybody else is growing wider. madam president, not widely discussed but true, in america today, the wealthiest 400 families own more wealth than the bottom 150 million americans. 400 families, 150 million americans. that is an unbelievable gap in terms of wealth between a handful of families and the vast majority of the american people,

and that gap is growing wider. in 2007, the wealthiest 1% took in 23.5% of all the income earned in the united states, top .1% took in 11%. the percentage of income going to the top 1% has nearly tripled since the 1970's, and between 1980-2005, 80% of all new income generated in this country went to the top 1%. so we are living in a society where the very wealthiest people are becoming wealthier, middle class disappearing, poverty increasing. and that takes us to the budget situation that our republican friends are pushing. at a time when the richest people are becoming richer, what the republicans saying as the

answer is let us give millionaires and billionaires even more in tax breaks. at a time when the middle class is in decline, poverty is increasing, what our republican friends are saying, let us attack virtually every significant program that improves lives for low-income or moderate-income people. rich get richer, they get more. middle class gets poorer, they get less. maybe that sense of morality makes sense to some people. it does not make sense to this senator and i do not believe it makes sense to the vast majority of the american people. our republican friends outlined their immediate budget proposals for 2011, for the c.r. in their bill, h.r. 1. let me briefly review it, because i want everybody in america to understand what these folks want to see happen and it's important that we discuss

it. 50 million americans have no health insurance today. republican solution -- slash $1.3 billion for community health centers, denying primary health care to 11 million patients. now, what happens when you're sick, you have no insurance, you don't have any money, you can't go to a doctor? what happened? -- what happens? perhaps you die, perhaps you suffer, perhaps you're lucky enough to get into a hospital. we spend huge sums of money reading to you which could have been treated a lot more cost-effectively through a community health center. today in my office, and i suspect in your office, madam president, people will tell you that it takes too long for them to get their claims from the social security administration, their disability claims. waiting lines too long. republican solution -- slash $1.7 billion from the social security administration, making seniors and the disabled wait even longer. everybody in america knows how

hard it is for a middle-class family to send their kids to college. a significant federal program are the pell grant programs, making it easier for low- and moderate-income families to afford college. republican solution -- slash $5.7 billion from pell grants, which means that 9 -- over 9 million american students will lose some or all of their pell grants, many of them will not be able to go to college. madam president, everybody, every working family in america knows how hard it is today to find quality, affordable child care. most american middle-class families, the husband works, wife works. they want to know that their kids are in a safe, good-quality child care center. for decades now, head start has done an excellent job in providing quality early childhood education for low-income kids. in the midst of the child care crisis, republican solution -- slash head start by 20%, throw

218,000 children off of head start, lay off 55,000 head start instructors. and on and on it goes. in my state, it gets cold in the winter. 20 below zero. many seniors living on social security can't afford escalating cost of home heating oil. republican solution -- slash $400 million in funding for liheap, making it harder for seniors and other lower-income people to stay warm in the wintertime. but what we should be very clear of, madam president, as we discuss the budget, is the republican proposals for the continuing resolution for the remainder of fiscal year 2011 is only the first step, only the first step in their long-term plan for america. and yesterday what we saw is the real vision of the republican party for where they want to

take this country into the future. and while i applaud them for being straightforward about that vision, i think the more the american people take a hard look at where they want this country to go, the more outrage will be millions and millions of citizens, as they understand the republican proposal for the future. right now, if you are a senior citizen, you get sick, you need go to the hospital, you have a health insurance program called medicare. which has been lifesaving for millions and millions of senio seniors. republican budget, as outlined by congressman ryan yesterday, essentially ends medicare as we know it, converts it into a voucher-type program that will leave seniors paying out of pocket for many lifesaving health care costs.

in other words, if you end up at the age of 75 with cancer or another illness, what the republican proposal does is give >a voucher to a private insurane company, $6,000, $8,000, we're not exactly sure, after that, good luck, you're on your own. you have an income of $15,000, you have cancer, how are you going to pay for that? the republicans say there will be a voucher ending medicare as we know it right now. the republican proposal would force seniors to pay $3,500 more for prescription drugs. the proposal would reopen the prescription drug doughnut hole, requiring that seniors pay full price for prescription drugs. madam president, at a time when so many of our people have no health insurance, the republican budget contains $1.4 trillion in

medicaid cuts over ten years by turning it into a block grant program. we are now reading in various states who have budget problems that their solution to the budget problems is simply to throw people off of medicaid. including children. well, what happens if you have no health insurance and you get sick? madam president, we are beginning to talk about death panels. that's what we're talking about. if you are sick, you have no health insurance, what do you do? i guess you have options. you die. you get sicker. you suffer in ways that you did not have to suffer. the republican proposal, as outlined by congressman ryan yesterday, also includes over $1.6 trillion in cuts over the next decade for education, pell grants, infrastructure, affordable housing, food stamps, food safety, and other vital

programs for the middle class, the elderly, the sick, and the children. madam president, what is also interesting -- it is literally beyond belief to me -- is that while the republicans are slashing programs for low- and middle-income people, what they are also doing -- i think people will think i'm not serious, but i am -- at the same time as the rich are getting richer and they're slashing programs for low- and moderate-income people, the republican budget plan would significantly lower taxes for millionaires and billionaires. so we cut head start, we cut pell grants, we cut community health centers, but at the same time we give huge tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires. furthermore, the republican proposal would also lower taxes for the largest corporations in this country.

so, madam president, my point here is, we all do understand that this country has a serious deficit problem and a $14 trillion national debt. and i think every member of this senate is concerned about the issue and wants to address it. the question is, do we move toward a balanced budget on the backs of the weakest, most vulnerable people in our country, on the backs of the poor, the children, the elderly, the disabled, that's one way you can do it. or do you ask for shared sacrifice? do you say to the wealthiest people in this country, do you say to the largest corporations in this country, you know, you're part of america too and you've got to help us get out of this deficit crisis. madam president, last week i issued a list of 10 major corporations -- 10 major corporations who paid nothing in

taxes in recent years and in some cases actually got a rebate from the federal government after making huge profits. so to my mind instead of cutting back on head start and pell grants and community health centers, which will have a devastating impact on low and moderate income americans, maybe -- maybe we might want to ask general electric, which made $26 billion in profits over the last five years and received a $4.1 billion refund from the i.r.s., maybe, maybe we might want to ask them to pay something in taxes. i think it's a bit absurd that the average middle class person pays more in federal income tax than does general electric. maybe we want to change that. maybe we want to ask chevron, who made $10 billion in profits in 2009, who got a $19 million

refund from the i.r.s., maybe they want to pay something in taxes so that we can move toward deficit reduction in a way that is fair. so here's the bottom line, the bottom line is corporate profits are at an all-time high. richest people in this country are doing phenomenally well. middle class is in decline, poverty is increasing. republican answer, more tax breaks for the very, very rich, lower corporate tax, but stick it to working families in a horrendous way that will cause massive pain. we are in a fork road in terms of public policy. do we develop public policy here which protects all of our people, which expands the middle class or are we at a moment in history which moves this country aggressively toward alagarcy

where you have a small number of people at the top with incredible wealth, incredible power while the middle class continues to disappear. now is the time for working families all over the country to stand up and say enough is enough. we need shared sacrifice as we go forward. we do not need to see the middle class in this country further disappear. madam president, with that, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: madam president, i have 11 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders, and i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: madam president, i

rise today to offer an amendment to exempt farmers and ranchers and small businesses from e.p.a. regulation and greenhouse gases. the science is clear, greenhouse gas pollution is causing climate change. climate change is here. it's real. it's human caused. and it will hurt our economy and the health of our kids and our grandkids. in montana we're already seeing the effects. according to dr. steve runin, at the university of montana, the duration of the wildfire season in the western united states has increased by 78 days since the 1970's. this trend is driven by earlier snow-packed melt and less summer precipitation due to climate

change. and this trend costs jobs in montana's tourism and timber industry. climate change also endangers our national security. according to a report recently authored by retired navy admiral frank boman, even the most moderate predicted trains yant -- transient climate change have security challenges. that's why it is among the security threats in the quadrenial defense review. i believe that we all -- all of us have a moral responsibility when we leave this place to leave it in as good a shape or better shape to our kids and grandkids. better than we found it. that means we ought to deal with climate change by reducing our

emissions and greenhouse gas pollution. but we must also do so in a manner that doesn't hurt the economy. madam president, small businesses and agriculture are the drivers of economic recovery and job creation. of the 200,000 jobs added in march, over half were created by businesses with 50 or fewer employees an over 09% -- and over 90% of the 200,000 jobs created last month are created with businesses with 500 or fewer employees. my amendment ensures that these businesses can continue to add jobs. my amendment is very simple. it exempts farmers and ranchers and small businesses from e.p.a.'s greenhouse gas pollution regulations. under my amendment, only about 15,000 of the more than six

million stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases in this country would be regulated by the e.p.a. these 15,000 sources are at-large plants run by -- are at large plants run by big corporations an over 15% of these sources have to get permission under the clean air act. moreover these 15,000 polluters account for 70% of greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources. so under the boxer amendment, small businesses would be -- baucus amendment, the small businesses would be protected while the biggest polluters would have to comply with the law. the e.p.a. is going forward with regulations to reduce greenhouse gas pollution. we ought to ensure that these regulations preserve our outdoor heritage, protect our children's health, promote our national

security, and protect small businesses, farmers an ranch -- and ranchers. my amendment does just that. and i urge my colleagues to support it. and, madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: