vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 12. the nays are 88. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, this amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, there are now two minutes of debate. a senator: madam president? madam president, i ask unanimous consent to withdraw the pending landrieu second-degree amendment number 244 and the johanns amendment number 161. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, there are now two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 183 offered by the senator from kentucky.

mr. inhofe: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mrs. boxer: madam president, the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: may the senate be in order. the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: thank you, madam president. i think we learned something just in the last half-hour, and that is that 90% of the members of this body, of the united states senate, do not think that the e.p.a. is qualified to regulate greenhouse gases. they voted against the baucus amendment, the stabenow amendment, the rockefeller amendment. i refer to those as cover amendments. you don't get much cover when they get less than 10% of the vote. now is the chance to do something. if you really want to do something that is going to stop the overregulation that is so offensive to the majority of people in this, we can do it with the inhofe-mcconnell amendment. first of all, the cost of this we know what it is going to be. the cost is going to be in the neighborhood of $300 billion a

year, the largest tax increase in the history of this country. secondly, what do you get? i've often said, people have said, inhofe, what if you're wrong? what if these greenhouse gases are going to destroy this country? if we're wrong, let's look at the response we got of the administrator of the environmental protection agency lisa jackson when we asked her at a public meeting if we were to pass these regulations or any of these cap-and-trade bills, would this have the effect of lowering greenhouse gases? the answer is no because it would only affect the united states of america. this is your chance to vote against a major tax increase for the american people. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. may we have order in the chamber, please. the senator from delaware. mr. carper: madam president and colleagues, the question before us today is simple. can we protect our environment and grow our economy? the answer is yes. 40 years ago naysayers claimed the clean air act signed into law by then-president richard

nixon was too costly, would doom our economy. they were wrong. we heard the gloom and doom predictions when george herbert walker bush led the effort to strengthen the clean air act. they were wrong against. since 1970 the g.d.p. has grown by 200%. the clean air act has saved hundreds of thousands of lives, trillions in health care costs and grown our economy. now the naysayers warn that reducing carbon pollution will doom our economy. ronald reagan might say there they go again. but history and science say they're wrong. we don't take action, here's what it's going to mean. higher health care costs in america, destroyed coastlines and ever-growing dependence on foreign oil. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mr. carper: if we don't take

action -- thank you, my colleague. if we don't take action, here's what it's going to mean: higher health care costs in america, destroyed coastlines and ever-growing dependence on foreign oil. that's not a recipe for economic success. it's a recipe for failure. let's keep america on the right course, one that saves lives and grows our economy. please join me in voting against mcconnell amendment. thanks very much. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber still wishing to vote? is there any senator in the chamber still wishing to vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are 50. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the

adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, there are now two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 281 offered by the senator from oklahoma, mr. coburn. mr. coburn: mr. president, this is a straightforward amendment. the presiding officer: would the senator suspend until he has order in the senate? may we have order for the senator from oklahoma, please? the senator may proceed. mr. coburn: thank you, mr. president. this is a straightforward amendment that eliminates individuals who have adjusted gross incomes of greater than than $1 million per year from receiving unemployment benefits. last year, we had 2,383 people who received unemployment benefits and also had an income

tax return that this adjusted gross incomes above $1 million. we had 40 that had adjusted gross incomes above $10 million per year. so it's a very straightforward amendment. i would hope that we would support it. mr. udall: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: mr. president, i'm pleased to join my friend from oklahoma in supporting this amendment. he laid out the case in the strongest terms possible. we're spending $100 million a year providing unemployment insurance for people who make over a million dollars a year. it doesn't make sense, it undercuts the integrity of the unemployment insurance program and we would save $100 million as has been mentioned. i ask all of you to join us in supporting this amendment. let's save the taxpayers some money. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the

question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

okayokay: vote:

the presiding officer: does anyone in the chamber wish to change their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 100, the nays are 0. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is agreed to. under the previous order, there are now two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 286, offered by the senator from hawaii, senator inouye. and i would ask that the chamber come to order so that the senator from hawaii may be heard.

the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. inouye: mr. president, my amendment addresses the concerns raised by the coburn amendment but it does so by using existing authorities established by the impoundment control act of 1974. my amendment accomplishes the same objectives but it maintains the proper deference to congress on matters of appropriations. the coburn amendment simply duplicates that existing authority but removes the checks and balances, so i urge a "yes" vote on the inouye amendment and a "no" vote on the coburn amendment. the presiding officer: who yields time in opposition? the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i was looking for senator warner in the chamber.

it doesn't look as if he's here. there he is. senator warner will answer. mr. warner: mr. president, i rise to urge adoption -- i know we're going to come to the coburn amendment in a moment. i believe the coburn amendment actually puts teeth. we have this study here of duplicative programs from g.a.o. we've got to make sure that we -- as we debate closing down the federal government, attacking real programs, we ought to be able to save $5 billion in administrative duplication within the 82 programs that were given in this guideline in the g.a.o. report. so i would urge adoption of the coburn amendment after the inouye amendment. the presiding officer: the question is on the inouye amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: does any senator on the floor wish to change their vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 57, the nays are 43. under the piece order requiring 06 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order there are now two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 273 offered by the senator from oklahoma, mr. coburn. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: we have one more vote

in this series of votes. this will be the last vote tonight. we are now going to continue working on this piece of legislation. should talk to the manager of the bill if you have other amendments. we have quite a few we have to work through. i think we've had a lot of success today. so we're still working on seeing if we can get a budget deal, everybody. we have a meeght at the white house at -- a meeting at the white house at quarter to 9:00 tonight with speaker boehner. mr. warner: mr.? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: i rise to speak in favor of the coburn-warner amendment. refreshing everyone from a point made a couple of moments ago, the g.a.o. gives us a guidepost of where to eliminate the duplication and replication. this does not go to heart of service delivery. it goes to anybody who has been a governor or mayor in this body

knows you can find in moments of tough times savings at the administrative level. this is a guideline if we can't find $5 billion in administrative savings in this guidepost, this will go along with many others sitting on a self. i ask my colleagues to vote in favor of the coburn-warner amendment. mr. inouye: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from -- the senator will suspend. the senate will be in order. the senator hawaii is recognized. mr. inouye: mr. president, since 1974, there's been a law on our books that does exactly what this amendment proposes to do. it does so without taking away the checks and balances that we have in the government. it also does so in a proper way. it goes through the congress of the united states. this is an appropriation matter, so, therefore, i hope that all of us can vote "no" on the coburn amendment.

the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 64, the nays are 36. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is agreed to. under the previous order, amendments 217 and 184 offered by the senator from oklahoma are agreed to. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask that we now proceed to a period of morning business with senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each during this period of

morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, the budget that we have talked about so much -- mr. president, this budget that we have spent so much time talking about is really about making tough choices, hard choices, difficult choices. the american people understand this. they understand tough choices. they have to make them every day, especially now with the economy being the shape it's in. so should their representatives in congress make tough choices. we're being honest with ourselves over here, mr. president. we know that we can't get 100% of what we want. that's what this goashes is all about. that's why this is a negotiation. it's not a winner take all. democrats have made tough choices because we want to get

this agreement finished, we want it completed. we can't to keep the country running and keep the momentum of a economy that's now creating jobs. we want to avoid a shutdown and the terrible consequences that would follow. the only thing republicans are trying to avoid is making the tough choices that we need to make. we have been more than reasonable, mr. president, more than fair. we meet them halfway, they say no. we meet them more than halfway, they still say no. we meet them all the way, they still say no. if republicans were serious about keeping the country running, all they would have to do is say yes. now we learn that house republicans are going to make another excuse, create another diversion and avoid another tough choice. instead of solving the crisis the way we should, instead of saying yes, they say in fact

what they are going to do is pass what they will call another short-term stop-gap measure. they will say it's short term, but what that real means is it's a shortcut, a short cut around doing our jobs. instead of solving problems, they are stalling, they are procrastinating. that's not just bad policy, it's a fantasy. we all heard the president of the united states say yesterday that he won't accept anything short of a full solution, and why should he? we're six months into the fiscal year now, mr. president. president obama is right. we can't keep funding our great country with one stopgap after another. the united states of america, this great country of ours, shouldn't have to live paycheck to paycheck. we're not going to give up. we're going to keep talking and keep trying to find middle ground. the speaker and i will go back to the white house tonight, in

two hours and two minutes. meet with him again, continue the conversation we have been having for weeks with this administration. we know the republicans are afraid of the tea party. that's been established, mr. president. now it looks like they are also afraid of making the tough choices we have to make, but tough choices are what governing is all about. they are what leadership's all about. it's time for my friends in the house of representatives to stop campaigning and start governing. and remember one of the greatest speakers of all time said -- in fact, he was speaker three times, mr. president. he was from the state of kentucky, henry clay. he was known as the great compromiser. and he said that all legislation is based on mutual consensus. that's what this is all about. but remember, let's focus on the word mutual. it takes both of us. mr. president, it's time to

lead. i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. cardin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, i just want to spend a moment or two talking about how devastating it would be for our country and for the people of our country if, in fact, we have a government shutdown. now, i know i represent maryland and there are a lot of federal workers in maryland and they're very concerned. because it will affect them. but a government shutdown will affect everyone in this country t. will affect people who depend upon their government to be there to serve them. if you're fending upon a timely i.r.s. refund -- depending upon a timely i.r.s. refund check and the government is shutdown and you need that money and you're counting on it, it's your money, you may found out if the government is shut down, there's no one to talk to and that check will be delayed. or if you're a person who's entitled to social security disability payments and you have a case that's pending, there's

not going to be people there to resolve those cases and you're going to have to wait. and that could very well affect your ability to literally pay your bills. or if you're doing research at n.i.h., cutting-edge research which depends upon the continuity of the work in order to discover the answers to many of the problems we face in health care, that's going to be disrupted if we have a shutdown in government. the bottom line is everyone loses if we have a shutdown of our government on friday. the taxpayers lose. study after study shows that a shutdown of government will actually cost the taxpayers more money. it makes no sense at all. and yet there are some on the -- in the house that said, look, bring a shutdown on. they're not negotiating in good faith. they're saying, it's our way or

we're not going to do it. basically they want to shut down the government. well, we need to negotiate in good faith. it's not going to be what the democrats want. its not going to be what the republicans want. that's how the system works. you've got to negotiate in good faith. i know that our leaders are doing that. i would just urge all of us to understand the consequences of a shutdown and make sure that we take steps to negotiate in good faith to have a budget agreement completed by friday of this week. i just really want my colleagues to understand why people in my state should be very concerned about the budget that passed the house of representatives, the republican budget. it would hurt children on head start. in my own state of maryland, 1,795 children on head start would be -- would lose their ability to go to the head start program. we know how important that is to our country. for students in maryland, they

would find that their pell grants would be reduced by almost $700. women would be hurt by the loss of essential preventive health services. families would be at risk of the lack of enforcement of our regulatory bills that protect us from -- on public health issues. and the list goes on and on. it's been estimated that 700,000 jobs would be lost if the house budget became real. 700,000 jobs would jeopardize our recovery. as you know, we're just starting to see job growth. we certainly don't want to take steps that would be counterproductive to this. and as we pointed out many times, the budget the house sends us over is concentrating on 12% of federal spending. 12%. we need to broaden this discussion and we all understand that. but it starts by allowing the political system to work and for to us get dispoag reach an agreement -- get together and to

reach an agreement on a budget that is already six months we're into. we're talking about the last six months of the budget that we're working on. in my own state of maryland, if the house budget were to pass, in the rometro lose $150 millio. this, of course, is the nation's transit system. people would find if the transit system can't operate, the -- the commute in to work's going to take a lot longer, roads are going to get clogged. it's not what we need for the nation. and i guess my point to you is this. the house budget, the republican budget's not going to become law. it's not what the republicans want. it's not what the democrats want. we've got to come together. we've got to -- to -- and we're doing that. but let's not let a minority in the house tell us that we're not going to let the system work for the best interests of the american people. now, i think, though, we should be very concerned about whether this is part of a plan with the republicans when we take a look

at their budget for next year, the 2012 budget, which was released this week. there's some very disturbing signs. as to what their intentions are all about. we saw it with their budget for this year. now we see that continued with their budget for next year. they literally want to turn the medicare system into a voucher program, where seniors are going to have to rely upon private insurance companies. we tried that before medicare. in the early 1960's, the number of seniors couldn't get health care -- a number of seniors couldn't get -- the number of seniors who couldn't get health care insurance was staggering. why? because the insurance companies didn't want to insure people who were going to make claims. if seniors are at the mercy of private insurance companies, it's going to be much more expensive for seniors and they're not going to get the adequate protections that they need. we understand that. that's a reason why we should all be concerned about the budget that was brought out this week. the medicaid system that protects our most vulnerable and

protects our system -- protect our seniors. seniors rely on large part in the medicaid system to deal with long-term care, nursing care. the republican budget would thereafter to the states with a block grant, making it very unlikely that we would see the continuation of the program that is critically important not just to people who are vulnerable but if they have to rely ghosn use of emergency -- rely again on the use of emergency rooms to get care, once again it's going to be more expensive for all of us. those so-called short-term budget savings turn into long-term costs for our country. but then the republican budget tons do these domestic discretionary cuts well beyond what we need as a nation to grow, taking again our most vulnerable, those who depend upon government, making college education more expensive, denying young people the opportunities that they need is continued. but guess what's missing in the republican budget? getguess what's missing?

there's no effort to really deal with the revenue problems of america. now, i say there's a better way to do this and there's 64 senators that have come together and say, look, we've got to deal with our national debt, we've got to deal with it with a credible budget plan, a credible budget plan that starts with the -- with discretionary spending cuts -- and we all agreed to that -- got to do the military, reduce military spending, got to deal with mandatory spending, but we also have to deal with the spending side. that's 32 democrats, 32 republican senators have said that. that's what we do. the republican budget in the house doesn't take us down that path. it's not a credible plan for dealing with the budget deficit that can pass and be enacted and give confidence not only to financial markets here in america but around the world and tell the american people they're putting their interests first. so i just really want my colleagues to understand, we don't want to jeopardize the -- the recovery. we want to get our budget into

balance. and we've got to get this year's budget behind us. we've got to deal with it. president obama's right when he said in his state of the union address that we've got to beat our competition. we've got to outeducate, out spin rate is and out -- outinnovate and outbuild and we've got to do it in a fiscally responsible way. we can do that if we work together now and deal with the budget that we're currently in that ends on september 30 of this year. in a fiscally responsible way. the dollar budget cuts we've all agreed to. we know what it's going to be. now let's get this done and move on and work together for the sake of our nation. i am convinced that if we work together, we can have a responsible plan and we certainly should not allow a minority in the house to block a budget resolution for this year causing the government shutdown. that's the worst case for the american people. and i urge our colleagues to continue to work together so that we can keep government

operating, reduce the deficit, and allow america to grow and compete to meet the challenges of the future. with that, mr. president, i would 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 louisiana.

ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous to -- i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the roll call. ms. landrieu: i ask that we resume consideration of s. 493, set aside the pending amendments that i may call up the following two amendments en bloc. that would be cardin 240 and snowe 253. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from louisiana, ms. landrieu proposes en bloc amendments 240 and 253. ms. landrieu: i ask that the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: i want to thank senator cardin for his patience and senator snowe as we've worked through the last hour or two on their two proposals. both of them have to do with perfecting our contracting programs. while not specific to the sbir

program and sttr program, they are very relevant to the work that we do on the small business committee. so i really appreciate all the members that allowed these two amendments to go forward. they'll be pending and hopefully tomorrow we can get some agreement on some additional votes. we've had a very busy day today, as you know, on the underlying bill, the sbir bill. we voted on about seven amendments. we've had some very heated discussions on issues that are actually not at all related to this bill, but are very important to this body. and i thank the senators for working in good faith as we try to move through the many amendments that had been filed, most of which are not germane to the issue at hand, but are important to be discussed on the floor of the senate and here in congress. so i want to thank particularly senator cardin. i noticed that he's on the floor. he may want to say a word now about his amendment just briefly and i commit to the senator that we'll try to call his amendment

up and senator snowe's amendment as soon as we can tomorrow. but i yield the floor. mr. cardin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: let me thank senator landrieu for her extraordinary work and patience. you give us credit, we give you credit for the patience on the manner on which this bill is considered. this is important not just to the small business community, but to our economy. we are talking about providing the wherewithal for providing innovation in america. small business will provide the largest job growth, but this bill gives them some degree of predictability on getting the types of resources so they can innovate. so i really do applaud you and i'm proud to be part of the committee and this is a very bipartisan bill and i thank you. and i thank you for acome daight the amendment that you were very helpful in getting passed initially along with senator snowe that increases the size of the surety bonds from two

million to five million, which really makes the difference for a small construction company being able to get government pro procurements. it's worked much more successfully than we thought when we first put the increase in effect. we've actually had a lot more contracts than we thought when we originally suggested this. and i am pleased to tell you it has no score as far as costs. there's no taxpayer costs. this really is a win-win situation to help small businesses to be able to get the type of construction work adding to our economy and job growth. and i look forward to talking about this tomorrow and hopefully we'll be able to get a vote. and i, again, thank you for your attention. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. ms. landrieu: mr. president, i don't -- thank you. mr. president, i'd like to speak just for two minutes in a general wrap-up. there may be other senators coming to the floor. we're still in a period of morning business. but i'm hoping that we can

locked in a time to vote on the cardin amendment number 240 and the snowe amendment 253. there are other amendments that are -- a few amendments that are pending. many others have been filed and the senators are working together to see what kind of accommodations we can make. but, again, i want to remind everyone while we're working hard behind-the-scenes and man -- in many, many rooms and meetings today to try to keep our government open and operating while reducing spending where we can, in an effective and smart and constructive way, i want to remind our senators how important this bill is because it will be reauthorizing a program that actually is a program that creates jobs in america by the small businesses that are representative on all of our main streets in our states and our communities. this is the federal government's largest program for research and development. we don't believe that only big

business, only international corporations have the best technology, the best approaches or the best methods. we actually believe that the small businesses, some quite tiny, some just one scientist and an assistant that come -- that can come up with cutting-edge technology or engineer and an assistant or doctor and an assistant that can come up with cutting-edge technology that can cure the disease of the time or create a new mechanical system or technology system that helps not only our federal aibts sis to cut -- agencies to cut spending, operate more efficiently, but can be commercialized in a way that creates manufacturing jobs and service jobs here in america. so there are many ways to get to a balanced budget and we've heard a lot about cutting spending. yes, we need to do that. but we also need to create jobs which generate income that close that budget gap. so if we can get a more robust

economy under way, this program most certainly is one of the ones. i'm proud of newt economic data -- the new economic data's that's come up -- come out. unemployment is still too high, but it's coming down. we're not key yaight enough jobs, but we're creating more and more every month. in large measure it is because some of the work our our committee has done in the stimulus package and the last small business bill to open up lending and get credit started and part of it is smart programs like this. there are some government programs that don't work. this is not one of them. so i thank our members for being patient. we now have the cardin and snowe amendments at least pending. we'll hopefully lock in a time to vote on those and a few others that we're considering as well. and, with that, i would yield the floor. there may be other members that come down to talk in morning business. and tomorrow, hopefully, we'll

start at an early hour and can continue to work on this important bill. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to resolution 134 introduced earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 134, supporting the designation of april as parkinson's awareness month. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? seeing, hearing no objection, the senate will proceed.

mr. durbin: i ask that the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with any statements relating to the measure be prescriptived at the appropriate place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it recess until 10:00 a.m. on thursday, april 7. following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each, with the first hour equally divided and controlled between the it would leader or her designees with the the republicans controlling the first 30 minutes, the majority controlling the second 30 minutes, further, senator hoeven be recognized at noon to deliver his maiden speech to the senate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: we sting to work to complete action on the small business. we thoap deal with the continuing resolution by the end of the week. senators will be notified when votes are scheduled. mr. president, if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it recess under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate will be adjourned --

recessed until thursday, at recessed until thursday, at

>> put the nation on a briskly sustainable path. we stand here today united with the path of prosperity budget introduced by our budget committee chairman, paul ryan. the nation has the opportunity to be on the path of decline of the path of prosperity. under that republican budget we will provide tax increases and a fundamental tax reform, and we will provide the nation with a fiscally sustainable path to get the confidence of job creators to go out and perot, invest, and create more jobs in america. that is what we need today. we have not seen anything but protection of the status quo of spending 42 -- $0.42 on the dollar become a much from the chinese and sending the bill to our children and grandchildren. that is simply unacceptable.

>> i was going to tell you all, i like the president personally. we get along well. but the president is not leading. he did not lead of last year's budget, and he clearly is not leading on this year's budget. remember that the democrats have a majority here last year. supermajorities in the house and said. the white house and the failed to pass a budget. as a matter of fact got the could not agree on the budget after the election. in december they just punted and sell this month. when you look at the fact that the president introduced a bill to put a dent commission together one year ago, and while i didn't agree with everything his debt commission but ford, i have to tell you what, these people really worked hard. they have a lot of really good ideas. the president used none of his own deficit reduction commission's ideas in his own

budget. here we are trying to clean up last year's mass. our goal is clear, we are going to fight for the largest spending cuts we can get and the policy writers that were attached to them because we believe that cutting spending believes -- will lead to a better ends teeseven garmin for job creation. we continue to have conversations with our colleagues in the senate. i am hoping that there will continue to go well. the government is due to shut down tomorrow. we will be prepared to move forward with our funding bill that will find our troops, keep the government open for another week, and be cut $12 billion in spending. i think this is the responsible thing to do for the united states congress, and i would hope the senate can pass it and the president will sign it into law. >> obviously these are very serious times for these countries -- this country. as we know, $14 trillion in debt

is no light matter. i care about people. we care about people. we care about people who are out there right now trying to find a job. we care about people who, frankly, are trying to figure out how they get through the end of the month trying to pay the bills. that is why we are doing well we're doing. we have got to solve the debt crisis in this country, and we have got to demonstrate some responsibility here in washington so that this economy can get going again. as we all know, paul ryan and the budget committee are marking up the budget as we speak. we have before the plan that, in fact, does retire the debt over time and does so without raising taxes. we have seen nothing out of the president as far as a vision for how he wants to take this country. in fact, in the senate we know from the leader there that he doesn't even accept that there is a fiscal crisis in this country.

you know, we believe that we have got tacked to do something to make sure that the american economy recovers. we have put forward plans. we understand america is broke. my question is, mr. president, are you going to help us? >> you know, it has been said that past behavior is the best indication of future behavior. look at when the democrats are in the majority. republicans came into power and produced a budget that ticket to the end of the year. forty-six days, the same past behavior as the behavior today. after we first extended for the first two weeks the president got engaged. low and behold he spent one day and left for two weeks. after we extended again we are at another deadline. the president called people down. low and behold we left again

today. i think this election was a different election. this election was about change. it was more than just change. it was a cultural change of washington. they expect things to be fact-based and to actually solve problems. think for one minute or only imagine what the future could be if the debt was taken away. what did you spend that interest money on? what could you invested for america? well, we have imagined what it can be, and we are going to fight for it. we asked people to do the job you're supposed to do. the senate could only take in the last 46 days and pass something, we would be in a much different position. we asked the senate to change their past behavior and change the action. >> there is not a single house republican that wants to set down the government, and we have been doing everything we can to avoid it. some numbers to prove it. forty-six, the number of days

ago that we passed hr1. zero, that is the amount of work that the senate has done on the budget. 45,000, that is the debt for every single american in this country. $90,000, that is the debt projected over the next ten years. the house republicans are committed to bringing our fiscal house into order. we have taken the steps, passed a budget that would take us back to the pre-spell-out, pre-stimulus levels. we are committed to getting the fiscal house in order and we ask the senate to take the action necessary to allow us to move forward. >> the american people in november spoke clearly. they want serious, serious answers to serious problems this country faces. the republican majority that took over in january presented time and again and are doing so with the budget today. it's time to get on with the big issues, and we will make sure our trips are paid as we resolve

spending issues. we have to cut spending. they don't want these deficits passed on to the next generation. it's time for the senate to get serious and get this resolved and move on to the big issues prebon. >> questions? >> mr. speaker, can you give us a little bit more information about the conversations? the spoke with the director today. >> the conversation is continuing. nothing is agreed to until everything prebon. >> a more positive. >> well, i think we made some progress. yes. we are not finished, not by a long shot. >> progress that you can get this on the floor by friday? >> in the house in know we have a three day layover policies of the people can read the bill. secondly, i think it is clear to most of you that it will take

two or three days to put it all together. we believe it is important to move this trip funding bill that will keep the government funded for another week. >> he said that the past. you will be asked to try to win this vote through a number of people on the republican side of the aisle. they will not look for another see our. fifty-four last time. democrats said they won't help you. the you have the votes to pass? >> what we have before you will pass the republican vote. no doubt about it. >> he done the the democrats? >> i don't need one democrat. >> what about those who have said they want. have it painted themselves into a corner? >> understand what is before you. we are sitting by friday. we have people today fighting for liberty in our freedom. you don't want to pay them? we have one week where we will

cut 12 billion. it is of fundamental bill that will pass with republican votes. if democrats to not want to join us, that's their choice. if the senate wants to continue to not act, that's their choice. we believe america should move forward. we are not sitting down. >> questions? >> if i could just add, republicans have no interest in setting down the government. setting down the government is irresponsible and it will end up costing the american taxpayers more money than we are already spending. i believe that our members want to support our troops, want to pay our trips, and we will do the responsible thing. >> got halfway to what he wanted. why not make the deal that would avert a government shut down and get to work on next year's budget? >> it would be easier to just hold your cards and go home. that is not with the american people elected us to do. they elected us to cut spending because cutting spending will lead to a better environment for

a job creators to create jobs. we're going to fight for as many spending cuts as we can get. thanks, everybody. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> and since that briefing has been announced speaker banner will join harry reid at the white house this evening talking did 2011 budget. this is a discussion of the 2012 budget. the cannon house office building where pretty much all day the house budget committee has been meeting to mark up for review the 2012 proposal as presented by house republicans yesterday. they have been in recess for a series of votes on the house floor. they're likely to gavel back in charlie. republicans have announced that they will bring to the floor tomorrow another short-term

spending measure that will find the pentagon through the end of the year, september 30th of this year and we will cut another $12 billion. look for action on the house floor. meanwhile, senator reid, the majority leader, saying he is not pleased with that idea. he made those comments in a brief for statement from the senate floor late this afternoon. here is a look. mu >> this budget we have spent soo much time talking about is about making tough choices.the ample the american -- the american chs people understand, they eve understand tough choices. they have to make them everyy day, especially now with the economy in the shape it is an. so should their representatives in congress make tough choices.r we are being honest with tha ourselves over here, g mr. president.of w we know that we can get 100% of what we want. that is t what this negotiations

all about. that is why this is a take negotiation. it is not of winner-take-all.gh democrats have made tough choices because we want to get this agreement finished.ompleted we want it completed. we want to keep in touch andomef keep the momentum of the economy that is not creating jobs. and we want to avoid a shutdown and the terrible consequences that would follow. mak the only thing republicans areug trying to avoid is making the to tough choices that we need to make. we have been morere thanthan reasonable, mr. president, more than fair.they we meet them halfway, they say h no. we meet them more than halfway, heey still say no.ay, t we meet them all the way, and they still say no. the if republicans were serious about keeping the countrys running all they would have to do is say yes.re goi now we learn that house republicans are going to make another excuse, create another o

diversion and avoid another tough choice. instead of solving the crisis the way that wens should, insted of saying, yes, what they are going to do is pass what they ao will call another short-term stop-gap measure. thateal they will say its short-term,t's but what that really means is jobs. instead of solving problems you are stalling, procrastinating. that is not just bad policy, hea it's a fantasy. we all heard the president of the uni ated states say yesterda that he won't accept anythingn,a short of a full solution. the f why should he? we are six months into thesiden. fiscal year now, mr. president. president obama is right.ng we can't keep funding our great country with one stopgap after f another. the united states of america, this great country of ours,aychk should not have to live paycheck to paycheck.oing

we are not going to give up. we are going to keep talking and ound trying to find middle ground.to the speaker and i will go back to the white house tonight. two hours and 20 minutes.ontinue meet with him again, continue ws the conversation we had beenh having for weeks with this tea administration. we know the republicans are afraid of the tea party.esiden that has beent. established,id k mr. president. now it looks like you are also o afraid of making the toughtough choices we have to make serious tough choices are what governing is all. about.s all they are what leading is all to about. it's time for my friends in the one of the greatest speakers of all time said, in fact, speakere three times, mr. president. the state of kentucky. kno henry clay was known as the great compromiser.d t heha said that all legislation s

based on mutual consensus. that is what this is all about.t remember, let's focus on theesh word mutual. it takes both of us. mr. president, it is time to lead. [inaudible conversations] >> harry reid, the majority leader from just a short while ago on the senate floor. but harry reid and speaker -- speaker boehner will be at the white house talking about the 2011 budget negotiations. they will meet with president obama and vice president biden. the house budget committee has been meeting throughout the day talking about the republican 2012 budget plan, $6 trillion lower than president obama's proposal in terms of budget cuts over the next 4510 years. it seeks more than $4 million -- $4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade and would also make significant changes to medicare and medicaid programs. the house budget committee has been working on it throughout the day.

discussing amendments, voting on amendments. david hawkins daily briefing writes about the changes, proposed changes to medicare and medicaid. he writes that turning medicaid into a block grant, states would save $7,701,000,000,000 while turning medicare into a premium support system for persons currently hundred and 55 meaning the government would pay private insurers a fixed subsidy every year would save just $30 billion in the next ten years with a bigger savings coming only after the new system fully kick sand. want to let you know that the budget proposal called the pathway to prosperity, the path to prosperity which has been proposed by rep paul ryan, the chairman of the budget committee. we have links to that budget proposal on our website at c-span.org. you can get to the lincoln read the details. a number of members have filed back into the rump. a few minutes ago we saw the chairman himself have the

ranking democrat, chris van houten. they are expected to get underway shortly. it is possible they will continue into late this evening. your watching live coverage here on c-span2. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

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

[inaudible conversations] >> the house budget committee shortly should resume deliberations on their republicans' 2012 budget proposal. the house and senate have both finished their legislative work for the day. the senate has gaveled out. the house voted on the number of amendments to a bill that bars the epa from regulating greenhouse gases to discuss -- to address climate change. they will finish work but it will likely finish work on that tomorrow. they are finished with amendment work. the senate voted on that in the form of an amendment by mitch mcconnell. they voted down that amendment that would have prohibited the epa from regulating greenhouse gases. that fell in a relation to an amendment, a small-business bill that has been on the senate floor for a number of weeks. this is the house budget committee resuming deliberations. they started this morning at 1030 eastern talking about the 2012 budget.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the ranking democrat on the house budget committee is chris van holland of maryland. he just sat down moments ago, and he said today he would be unveiling the democratic plan to

the democratic caucus tomorrow. he is also set to speak to reporters at some time tomorrow morning, and we hope to have c-span cameras there to get his comments. again, the democratic proposal to be presented to the caucus tomorrow. rep ryan and the of the republican plan yesterday in a news conference. you can watch that on line and the democratic response as well. we have linked to the gop proposal on line as well. the front page of c-span.org. [inaudible conversations]

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

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> now we are on mr. bloom and hours amendment. will the clerk please designate the amendment? >> amendment designated as number 15 offered by mr. berman hour. stop cuts to transportation. >> recognized for six and a half minutes. >> to be able to make sure that we are dealing with another deficit that is every bit as important as the budget deficit, and that deals with our deficit

for transportation and infrastructure. the society for civil engineers suggests that we are in the neighborhood of two and 1/4 trillion dollars of unmet need just in the next five years. it has been my privilege to travel around the country, including some of your districts to be dicey my good friend mr. simpson. we had a great session in a lacy talking about the unmet needs, talking about the courage of our former colleague, but offer, to try to step up and get the resources needed in idaho. it was eye opening for me, i must say. i appreciate your courtesy. as some of you know, we have been working on an ongoing basis. we have had hearings before this committee in prior sessions where we have been able to bring in a very significant coalition because you can find truckers, cyclists, triple a, contractors union, local governments,

engineers all agreeing on the need to deal with this massive and matt transportation and infrastructure deficit. unfortunately the budget that we have before us speaks to more than of 30% reduction from where we are today, let alone what we need to do in the future. i am offering an amendment for the consideration of the committee to start and a small way to indicate that the budget committee understands the needs that are articulated by the u.s. chamber of commerce by the favors, the concrete people, the construction unions, local government. across the board that would have us increase our investment in infrastructure, even if that meant raising user fees.

my friend from oklahoma who in 1982 put through a nickel a gallon increase in the gas tax user fee. well, i am not certain that we are going to be doing that any time soon. we can start indicating that we are listening to our contractors, our local government, our citizens who are stuck in traffic whose count to five children could not get to school safely. we are seeing cutbacks in transit at precisely the time more people are relying on it. just as important as what we would invested and in terms of transportation options is where the resources would come from. i have worked with some members on this committee in the past because of the outrageous ethanol subsidies, some $40 billion that we have

invested since 1980. more than 40, mike? 40 billion? you and i were not working on that one. it is other members. corn-based ethanol is going to cost us in the neighborhood of $5 billion this year. this is a subsidy that we mandate be in the production stream. we already mandated that it has to be used in fuel across the country. again, it is an area that where the energy used for the production of corn-based ethanol actually may be more than the energy that is produced as a result. it is in no small measure why we have got a dead sound at the mouth of the mississippi river about the size of delaware. it is why in some cases we are actually having reductions in fuel efficiency.

by starting to face this out, and we are only asking for a billion dollars. but we are doing three things. one, these are items that can make a difference economically tomorrow but. these are things that are really job ready that we can move forward. the infrastructure investment and the recovery act actually produced most of the jobs. unlike some of us, wanted more rather than over 40 per cent in tax cuts which the public did not know they got and actually did not produce the jobs. if you listen to your contractors the next time they come to town they will tell you that those jobs on the ground created economic opportunity and in some cases kept some of the contractors afloat. they were basically bidding for payroll. well, here is an opportunity to help in an economic sense. here is an opportunity to help strengthen our communities so

that kids can get to school safely, we can fight congestion, we can deal with the range of things that speaks to the grants where we had 20 times as many applications from communities as we were able to find. and we start facing down an egregious, unnecessary market distorting ethanol subsidy that has negative consequences for other producers. for example, people who use corn to feed animals, not just people. so i would respectfully request that we take a step back, look at this. although, listening carefully to my friend from boise about what he has to say, but this is an area that shifting the subsidy to our communities, putting people to work, making communities more livable, healthy, and economically secure i think is something that we all ought to be able to agree upon.

>> are you yelling back? >> i apologize. >> says the determine yield back? okay. who seeks time? >> i do. >> mr. simpson is recognized for seven and a half minutes. >> this is hard for me, but not impossible. the gentleman, i thank you for coming to idaho. it is sincere. he has a sincere interest, as i do call entry infrastructure deficit that we have in this country. not just roads and bridges, but waterways, harbors, sewer systems and water systems throughout this country and the energy grid. he and drivable spent many times talking about it. what we need to do. he is right. we do need an overall plan of how to address the infrastructure needs of this country. the reality is we need the

commission again to look at the infrastructure needs of this country in general. we keep being asked in the appropriations committee on the energy and water subcommittee that i sit and to address certain harbors. they come in. if you are politically connected you might get this harbour dredged in the great lakes, but every community in the great lakes has of harbor. i don't know if that is the right harbor to dredge for the new deep water ships are not because there is no infrastructure plan. how does that connect to the rail system and the highway system of this country? we need an overall plan, and i applaud the gentleman from oregon for his sincere efforts in this, but this amendment instead of cutting spending raises revenue through the tax code that chase higher spending for new start programs. this provides discretionary grants for expensive light rail systems that a majority of local communities cannot support because they do not pay for

themselves. most of these kinds of mass transit projects will always need federal and state funds to cover operating and maintenance expenses that cannot be recouped through writer ship these just because it may be cheaper to pay for light rail than $4 gasoline. that does not mean the taxpayer is in making up the difference on the back and through higher taxes. the fiscal challenges facing the nation make long-term subsidization and feasible. that is the threat of large and the subsidies and precisely the reason the governors across the country are rejecting federal funding for high-speed rail projects as well. furthermore, new start project has proven to have either a very limited or minimal reduction on highway congestion and most cities. most important, the benefits of this mass transit program is purely local, not national. they should be addressed the state and local levels. i urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and he'll back the balance of my time.

>> all right. the gentleman has one minute to close. >> thank you. [inaudible] >> you were right. >> microphone. >> we have a lot of work to do ahead of us dealing with this. this won't be the last word. that would just set for my colleagues, i invite them to look at a recent survey from the rockefeller foundation on an infrastructure survey measuring public opinion on transportation funding and legislation. the majority support transportation legislation and consider infrastructure considerations inadequate. 71 percent of the voters say there should be common ground on the issue of transportation legislation. but higher than any other major issue, including the budget deficit. but this is serious business. eyeball dispute. the time to snap this -- permit.

i will be happy to bore any of you later. i do hope that this is not the last time this budget committee deals with this huge unfunded infrastructure deficit. thank you, and i yield back. >> the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon. all those in favor say aye? >> aye. >> those opposed, no. >> in the opinion of the chair the notice have it. garza recorded vote is requested. the clerk will call the roll. at ketubah. [roll call]

[roll call] at ketubah aptitudes. [roll call] at ketubah. [roll call]

aptitude. [roll call] bar [roll call] to winds. [roll call]

>> anybody else who wishes to vote or change their vote? i see a little time. [roll call] >> the clerk will report the vote. >> mr. chairman, on that vote the ayes are 15, the nose of a 22. >> there being 15 eyes and 22 knows, the amendment is not agreed to. next. i believe this is this more. the clerk will designate the amendment. >> amendment designated as number 16 offered by this more, stop that stuff wall street what starts and consumer protection. christ the gentle lady is recognized for six and a half minutes. >> thank you so much. i am so proud to offer this amendment which would put a stop to the proposed cuts to wall

street watchdogs and the consumer protection agencies. you know, even though the bipartisan financial crisis inquiry commission found that widespread failures in financial regulation and supervision word devastating to the stability of the national financial market this counter intuitive budget takes away resources from the regulatory agency. we need to provide oversight over the wizards on wall street like bernie made of who created the products that precipitated the crisis. on the heels of the financial crisis of 2008 the republican budget doubles down on hr1 defunding of wall street reform. republicans voted in hr1 to cut more than $100 million from the securities and exchange commission, the commodities futures trading commission.

[inaudible] >> the committee please come to order. the gentle lady is recognized. >> thank you so much. at reclaim my time. don't take it off the clock republicans voted in age are want to cut more than 100 million from the securities and exchange commission, the commodities futures trading commission and consumer bonanza protection board, three of the key agencies in monitoring and regulating securities trading. this budget resolution precludes those cuts which will take away from funding needed to employment reform due to recently react -- enacted wall street reform. every consumer in america was adversely impacted by the malfeasance of unscrupulous mortgage underwriting and securitization products. yet this budget aborts the development of the consumer financial protection bureau by preventing a $30 million budget neutral transfer from the federal reserve to staff up the sorely need computer -- consumer

protection faction. killing wall street regulation is much more lucrative than the corporate welfare of billions of dollars of tax expenditures, deductions, and credits. yes, allowing trillions of dollars of derivatives, unregulated market -- mortgage products and exotic trays to bed with lack of oversight. corporate welfare. contrary to the republican budget talking points, this budget would bring back in time to 2008 with huge financial institutions to big to fail. at the dog-frank act ended too g to fail by requiring financial institutions to cover the cost of winding down of failing firm. i vividly recall the panic in the street when the other side prevaricated about their being death panels in the health care bill. well, in dog-franc we do