new orleans we might think i lean to louis armstrong. but there's one classic rocker who hails from florida and speaks to what's in my soul today, and i daresay, debbie's, too. as tom petty puts it, and i will quote, because i cannot sing -- [laughter] >> well, i won't back down. no, i won't back down. you can stand me up at the gates of hell, but i won't back down. [applause] >> here's what you should know about debbie's leadership. one thing that i am as sure as the sunrise, she will stand her ground. she won't back down. windows republicans want to cut medicare and medicaid to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, debbie will stand her ground.

she won't back down. [applause] >> windows republicans try to take the next election by taking the vote away from people of color, women, young people singing, debbie will stand her ground. she won't back down. [applause] >> and windows republicans refused to get unemployment insurance, when they are less concerned about helping americans earn their paychecks them from getting them from a union card that when they are asking to have thousand jobs, so be it, debbie will stand her ground. she won't back down. [applause] >> and neither will we democrats. not this year, not next year, not ever. the history of our party, of our country, is a great story of challenges, victories one, and torches that pass on. i am proud to pass the torch to

a woman who gives a voice to an america that is forever being born, opening opportunities, and for ever seeking out a better future. ladies and gentlemen, sisters and brothers, our voice, our pride, our next national chairwoman who won't back down, the fighter from south florida, debbie wasserman schultz. [applause] [applause] >> all right. by the way, those remarks i made them up, so don't -- that's what happens when you like to write at night. it is almost time for us to

elect our new chair, but before we do that, we must adopt the rules to guide the process. members should have copies of the rules. members should have copies of the rules of procedures for the elections of the dnc chair person. they were e-mailed to you. they were -- everyone has copies? thank you. the rules were distributed back in april. i made sure that these rules are in essence the same rules the dnc has used to elect officers since chairman ron brown's election of february making 89, and have been used to elect new dnc chairs and 1993, 1995, 1997, 2001, 2005, 2009. they served our party well. they have been used to elect our first e-mail chairwoman, so i had to say that. all right. i would now like to recognize jim roosevelt, the chair, the co-chair of the rules committee along with secretary alexis

herman of the rules and bylaws committee who will walk us through the rules, and then they will highlight the rules of procedure, and then we will call the bill. thank you, jim and alexis. you don't need the gavel. [laughter] >> thank you, madam chair, and a member of the rules and bylaws committee. and in one of your other careers, that's called -- it's great to be with so many good democrats here in person and on the phone, all of the country. on behalf of my co-chair, secretary alexis herman, who i know is on the phone with us, and on behalf of all the members of the rules and bylaws committee, i am here today to recommend the adoption of the rules of procedure i this hole democratic national committee. and these are the rules that were e-mailed to all of you. even though today's election for dnc chair is uncontested we still have to conduct this election in accordance with the

procedure requirements. last month the rules and bylaws committee drafted the proposed rules after discussing them by telephone. we then voted via a mail ballot to recommend the rules for adoption at this meeting. the proposed rules were sent out on april 24 by secretary germond. and there are copies available if anybody really wants to hold up in japan to date. we can get you some. -- in your hand. the rules recommend for adoption by the full democratic national committee are as chairwoman brazil has mentioned the same rules used for our elections, since the election of ron brown in 1989 with minor modifications to allow for the unique circumstances of today's meeting. in order to encourage participation by as many dnc merit as possible for this meeting on in person

participation includes those dnc members you're actually here in the room and those who are participating by telephone. the recommended dose of procedures contain the following key provision. candidates for dnc chair had to file a nominating statement with the dnc secretary by 8 p.m. on monday, may may 2, 2011, that included the signatures of at least 20 members. i had the privilege of being one of those. i know there were many more than 20. each candidate for chair and set out to a total of 10 minutes for nominating an seconding speeches to be divided among no more than four speakers, also must be dnc members. a majority of the full membership of the dnc present in person which for this meeting means either in the room or via telephone, or by proxy, shall constitute a forum which we heard we've had. provide at least 40% of the

membership must be present in person or by telephone. no dnc member may hold more than one proxy, all proxies must be in writing and signed and must be submitted to the secretary of the dnc prior to the commencement of the vote. no proxies or transfer proxies will be accepted by the dnc secretary while a vote is being conducted. the dnc chair shall be elected by majority vote of dnc members present or by proxy, and on half of the rules and bylaws committee, alexis and i probably move that these rules of procedure as printed and distributed be adopted by the full democratic national committee. >> second. >> thank you, jim and alexis. first of all, we will entertain a motion to adopt the rules. love you all. is there a second? is there a discussion with cnn,

please signify by saying i go. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. [applause] [laughter] >> all those opposed? the ayes have it and the rules of procedure had been adopted. thank you, jim and alexis. [applause] >> now, in accordance with the rules of procedure that this committee has just adopted, it's now in order for us to move to the election of our chair. secretary chu monde has informed me, thank you, alice, that nominating petitions were popular a file for one candidate, congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz. pursuant to the rules of procedure, congresswoman wasserman schultz is entitled 10 minutes of nomination and seconding speeches by up to four dnc members. the chair now recognizes the president of the association of state democratic chairs and dnc vice chair, new hampshire party

chair raymond buckley for the purposes of nominating congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz. [applause] >> thank you, madam chair, fellow officers our future leader. and members. 18 years ago, a new hampshire legislator went to a conference of sophomore state legislators who showed great promise for being leaders in the future. and when i picked my friend up at the airport, she couldn't stop talking about this 26 year old legislator from florida. this woman is just amazing. she is so bright, she's so powerful, she so articulate and strong. you would just love her. now, 18 years later, not only do i just love her, there are tens of thousands of folks in the debbie wasserman schultz fan club across this country. and it's my honor to place the

nomination, that's amazing, bright, passionate, strong and articulate, former state florida state legislator and now congresswoman, debbie wasserman schultz, for chair of the democratic national committee. [applause] >> now, while debbie may work in washington, she is not of washington. as vice chair of the dnc and a vice chair of the dccc, that he was in constant motion traveling from every corner of this country. that he understands the elections are not one in washington, that he knows they're one and the harvest festivals and union halls, the local general stores, the town hall meetings, ethnic and community celebrations, and by going door-to-door. debbie's commitment to the grassroots and to the local and state parties is second to none. she gets it. as a state chair and as the leader of the state chair, i

appreciate that within the past month debbie has taken the time to reach out to every single one of my colleagues. debbi stands with the state parties, and today the state parties proudly stand with debbie. let us also cause, reflect on this historic milestone in our party's history, in our countries history. little more than a generation ago my remarks today would be little more than a dream. here i am, the first openly gay vice chair of the democratic national committee, nominating a woman to serve as chair of the democratic national committee as we embark on reelecting our great first african-american president, barack obama. [applause] >> which all goes to show and prove that where the party of opportunity. where the party of equality, the party of diversity, and what are the party that stands up for all americans.

and as a gay american i'm particularly proud of debbie's steadfast support of lgbt equality over the years but as ever biggest to reelect our president, anderson, which include sync tim kaine to the united states senate from virginia -- [applause] >> and in our effort to win back the house and turn state capitol blue from sea to shining sea, debbie wasserman schultz will be an outstanding and effective dnc chair. please join with me in supporting her unanimous election as our national chair. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, ray. the chair now recognizes florida state representative and dnc member joyce cusack, for the purpose of seconding this nomination. [applause] >> thank you, madam chair. i, joyce cusack, have known

debbie for many years. we met as colleagues in the florida legislature, and it wasn't long before i developed tremendous respect for the work, ethics and character of this woman. debbie works is her blog or her wordpress or bond. in this day and age, that is where. but it shouldn't surprise you that debbie is a person of incredible integrity. it is a core value for her, and let everyone that she and her acts know that she is in politics for all the right reasons. as a mother of three young children, our foremost concern is building a better future for her kids, and the kids of america. she looks at every issue through that lens, and her core values and principles are centered around standing up for children and working families. let me give you an example,

debbie's office in the state legislature, there's a picture of her twins holding hands and walking on the floor. when she spoke about protecting the environment and the world's resources, i knew that she did so with that in mind, protecting our environment. and she did that as she raised her family. the most important thing about debbie isn't that she's passionate about doing things and meeting challenges, but she is not only passionate about doing, she is passionate for the right reasons. as a nurse, i know the fight to reform health care was immensely important. debbie thought that debate not only in her own experiences, with health care system, but in an inquisitive and analytical mind. she was determined to wait all

the options, to understand all sides of the debate, and explain and interact with those folks involved so that she could do what was best for the constituents that she represents. her support for affordable care act and her efforts to help president obama passed that law is one of the reasons that this was finally achieved after many decades of being, of trying to do so. well, debbie gets it. she understands the impact of public policy on american lives, and she will go the last mile to do what's right for the people of florida and the people of these united states. she will stand up for our party's core values, and serve as a first rate for democrats. as a female leader, and i say that with pride, she reflected the diversity that is so much a part of our party.

and that she, too, will work hard to make sure that there is inclusion. she is a person of great leadership, qualities, and she will continue to make sure that our faces of all folk are represented in washington and in all state legislators. i am certain that with her team focus and attention for all that makes us democrats, and a diversity that makes us who we are as a party, she will work to bring their ideas to issues as she conducts the business of our party. she's always succeeded by reaching out to americans of all background, and by working to lift up families. as a member of congress from florida, she represents a richly diverse area of the country that strives on a fast difference. all this has served her well, for her many runs in office.

they will continue to serve her well as our democratic national committee chair. of course, i would be remiss if i didn't mention the importance of florida in the state's election. [applause] >> you know, florida has always been important in a election cycles. but i know that debbie will take her experience in the battlefield state of florida and share what she has learned with folks from all regions, and states and territories, because we know that the elections are not one in one state or one region. i am incredibly proud to be here today to support of my former colleague, my friend, congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz. relying on her strategic political skills, her immense work ethics, and her democratic values. i am confident that debbie will

do what is right for our country and our party. for all these reasons, i fully support congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz. as our next democratic national committee chairperson. thank you and may god bless you. [applause] >> the chair now recognizes college democrats of america president and dnc member, alejandra salinas, for another seconding speech. >> it is an honor to speak to all the dnc members, present in the audience and on the phone this afternoon. i am delighted to second the nomination of congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz as our next dnc chair. not only is congresswoman wasserman schultz nomination today an important sector on a party, she is a shining example of the next generation as to

what can happen when a student gets his or her start in college democrats. and what can happen when a young person is compelled to get involved in his or her community and making their voices heard. young activist in our party have always had a special place in our hearts for the congresswoman. she got her start as the vice president of the university of florida college democrats, and a member, a fellow college democrats noted that through her work as the honorary chair of the florida college democrats, the congresswoman's strength, energy and enthusiasm was infectious. her strength became our strength. her integrity, our integrity. and her leadership, our inspiration. what makes the congresswoman and especially exceptional choice is that she is never forgotten where she has come from. and has always been one of the key advocates for young americans in congress.

for all the college democrats, young democrats, and the next generation of leaders to go through sleepless nights, spend countless hours organizing their campuses while balancing steady, and face the pressures of being the youngest person in the room, her nomination is our victory. congresswoman wasserman shultz election will be a lesson to us all that if she can succeed in youth organizing, then we can do it, too. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you, alejandra, for your great remarks. now for the final seconding speech, the chair when i recognize dnc at-large member from florida, stephen patel. [applause]

>> madam chairwoman, thank you so much. you spoke so elegantly today. i like to go to class to learn how to do that with you right afterwards. good afternoon. i'm stephen petel, dnc member from the great state of florida. [applause] >> today i had the honor and privilege of batting cleanup. you have heard from three of our very distinguished colleagues about why debbie will make a fantastic dnc chair, and i want to support everything they have said. in my many years of playing baseball, in my youth, i always dreamed of batting cleanup. the problem was i could not really hit. [laughter] >> while president obama really got a hit when he asked congressman debbie wasserman schultz to serve as chair of the democratic national committee. [applause] >> in fact i think he knocked it right out of the park.

i can say this with confidence, because i really know this woman. i have seen her passion, her commitment, and her tireless work. i have gotten her phone calls, her texts, her e-mails at all hours of the day and night. we both tend to have a problem sleeping late at night, early in the morning. and she e-mails me, and i think she is shocked to get my response. this is a person who never stops thinking, never stopped dreaming, and never stops working to move our country forward. so all of us in south florida are more than willing to share our congresswoman with you, because we cannot imagine, not one of us, not all of us, of a more outstanding are qualified person to help reelect president obama and move america forward. i think we can all imagine a stronger country, a country with

the best education system, the most robust economy, the most opportunity, innovation and growth. and i think we can all agree that debbie wasserman schultz will help president obama get us there. let me tell you how i know she will do a great job. one evening a few years ago, my wife and i were out with debbie and her husband, steve, at a sporting event. and i am older for the favorite stephen. i asked her how she felt about being known wherever she went in her district, and we're out walking to our seats and everyone was coming up to her and everyone had a question or something to say. and i said how do you stand it was what ever you go you have no privacy. she didn't hesitate for a second and said, she loved it, that's what her job was, that's why she ran, that's why she served. she wanted to love every single person who asked her for her help.

that's the same kind of attitude that's going to make her outstanding at this job. she genuinely cares, and because she cares she will apply herself 1000% to the goal of strengthening our party and leading us to victory. now, some of you may wonder how does she do it all. well, if there is a superwoman, her name is debbie wasserman schultz. [applause] >> she is smart. she is bold. she is strong, energetic, and she knows how to win. and yes, she can leap tall buildings in a single bound. [laughter] >> she always worse when i introduce her. but she has a 1000% support of every member of her family, mother, father, husband,

brother, children, all of whom are here today. what i think is really inspiring about debbie is she is a clear illustration of this american dream so that we all cherish in our country, that if we apply ourselves and we are prepared, out organize and overdeliver, everything is possible. no matter where you come from, or where your parents or grandparents come from, no matter your religious beliefs, your sexual preference, regardless of the color of your skin or your gender, you can reach for your dreams. as dnc chair, debbie will work hard to make sure that our party and president protects the dream for all americans. debbie is ready. she is eager. she is dedicated to fight for our rights and for our future, and she will not quit. we have a lot of work to do in the next 18 months.

we have a lot of elections to win for mayors, state legislatures, governors, members of congress, senators, and yes, very important, president obama. the road ahead for us is long. at times it will be steve. we will tire, but you can count on my friend, my very close friend, your friend and our friend, debbie wasserman schultz, to have our backs, to the president to back encourage us to push us, to lead us, and we needed, to reinvigorate us. i do like to end with this thought. we are democrats, and what keeps us working together day after day is an overriding passion to make our communities, our states and our country, and the world better for each living person. our work together makes a tremendous difference.

in my faith tradition, every jewish child talks their obligation, a hebrew phrase meaning the need for each of us to work personally to heal the world. i take this teaching very seriously, and i promise you that i know debbie takes this personally and is committed to this principle as well. it's that internal burning need that drives the debbie to help us to secure for ourselves and our children, and grandchildren, every opportunity we can dream up. well, this is my only chance to bat cleanup. and now it is time for me to do my job to get this election going. president obama got it so right when he asked congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz to accept this enormous responsibility to chair the dnc and help lead us to victory in 2012.

and now, officially placing her name in nomination is our dnc chair, and all, does that sound good, i ask you to join me in making our vote unanimous for my friend, your friend, and our friend, debbie wasserman schultz. [applause] >> all right. thank you so much, stephen. this concludes the nominating and seconding speeches for congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz, and we are ready to move to a vote. [cheers and applause] >> did you say who'd that? rob klepper at this time the chair would entertain a motion to suspend the rules and elect congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz as the chair of the democratic national committee by acclamation. is there a second?

all those in favor please signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed? >> aye. >> aye. >> what a joyful noise. all those opposed? between those of us in the room and our members on the phone, that sounded pretty unanimous to me. ladies and gentlemen, fellow democrats, please help me get a big welcome to th the new chairf the democratic national committee, congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz. [cheers and applause] >> okay. [applause] [applause].

.. >> let me start by thanking my

dear friend, donna, for her outstanding service as interim. [applause] you know, we couldn't be in better hands during the transition, and she'll continue to champion the grass roots. of course, it's wonderful to be able to congratlate debbie wasserman schultz as she takes the gavel and leads us towards a future of prosperity, and i'm reminded something michelle said that if you need something important done, give it to a busy woman. [laughter] [applause] so thank you all for affirming my election as debbie as the new chair. i'm positive she's the right person for the moment not only because she's got great strategic sense, not only because she has energy, but she

also embodies the core values we cherish as democrats and americans. she believes that our government has a responsibility to promote economic opportunity for everybody regardless of background. she believes that, you know, we got to make sure our kids get the best education they get to compete in the 21st century economy. she believes we don't turn our backs on our neighbors when they fall on hard times. she's not just a great friend to me, but to those trying to make it out here during tough times. she worked to protect social security, protect medicare, make sure our first responders and military have the support and resources they need during her personal struggle with breast cancer, she barely missed a beat and kept working for constituents and introduced legislation to educate young women about the risks of cancer and the benefits of early screening, so, you know, debbie

stays focused, accomplishes the goals, knows how to handle adversity with grace and strength. she knows what it means to be a true citizen of our great nation, and so i am absolutely positive she's going to be doing a great, great jobment i'm counting on her and all of you in the next few years. look, we've accomplished a lot together, but everybody knows we have a lot more to do, and debbie feels the same way. there's still too many americans out of work. we invested in clean energy, but there's a lot more to do to be independent from foreign oil. businesses are coming back, but still struggling. we have to shrink the deficit in a responsible way and not on the backs of working folks or senior citizens. we've got to get immigration reform done, education reform

done, so this is a challenging time, but there's nobody i'd rather have out there talking to voters, organizing the party, and carrying the banner of democrats and all of you that are in the room, and in particular, debbie wasserman schultz, so thanks for supporting debbie, thanks to you for your hard work you've been doing over the last couple years. i know it's going to be a tough 18 more months, but i'm confident we'll get this done. god bless you guys. appreciate you. [cheers and applause] [applause] >> madam chair, it is with great honor and pleasure that i pass the torch, the gavel to you and to fellow democrats, i present to you our chairwoman, debbie wasserman schultz. [cheers and applause]

[applause] >> i believe, excuse me -- this is what happens. you know, this is what happens when you turn 51. you're not there yet, but -- [laughter] oh, i see. ladies and gentlemen, please turn your attention, we have a short video that we would like you all to see, and then i present to you our madam chairwoman debbie wasserman schultz, thank you. [laughter] >> you know, my parents raised me to believe that in america a little girl could be anything she wants to be, even chair of the national democratic committee. >> she's nominated by the president to lead the national committee. >> madam chairman -- >> i love it. >> please give it up for their

own congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz. [cheers and applause] ♪ >> i ran for congress because i really believe one person can make a difference. >> i represented south florida for almost 18 years in the state house, state senate, and now in the u.s. house of representatives. i'm the youngest chair in quite a while. the first woman to be nominated by the president and it sends a strong message to women that we matter. democrats have a dramatically different vision for our country than republicans do. democrats have been pushing hard with the president, barak obama, to create jobs, turn the economy around, ensure that we can have the best education system in america, that we can make sure that we have quality, affordable health care. you can save seniors money, and

then you don't have to make the choices we were talking about between eating and being well. >> bless the day that you got into office. ♪ >> i have the opportunity to work hard every single day from now until election day to reelect barak obama as president of the united states, take the majority back in the house of representatives and hold on to the majority in the u.s. senate. we have brought them the change that was promised, and we're going to bring even more. we are moving in the right direction. ♪ i'm going to have a chance to go all over the country and talk about democrat's priorities as it relates to women, working families. i'm a mom with three young kids. why i get up and do what i do every single day making sure i can work hard to give my children the best lives possible, and so now as dnc

chair, i can help transform america into the country that i want for my chirp. everybody should have a chance to achieve the american dream. ♪ we give you all the support we can. >> thank you so much. >> any time you get a call from the president of the united states asking you to step up and help do your part, it's an incredible honor. i'm psyched that the coach put me in. [cheers and applause] >> thank you, thank you, thank you. thank you. [applause] and now -- [applause] [cheers and applause] [applause] >> debbie, i want to thank you

in advance on behalf of the democratic national committee for the effort you will put in and put forth for our party over the next two years as we embark upon the journey to reelect our president and to elect democrats from the bottom up. it is with great pleasure. once again, i present our new national chairwoman debbie wasserman schultz. [cheers and applause] [applause] >> thank you so much. thank you all so much for your unwaiverring support. ray, alejandra, joyce, and steve, you captured who i am and why i believe in the future of this great nation and our party, the most aggressive forward thinking organization in this country.

[cheers and applause] thank you for always being there for democrats. you have blazed so many trails including as interim chair. now, i have to tell you all that i remember the first time i saw donna on tv. i told her this the other day. the first time i saw her on tv for al gore and how proud i was to see a woman running his campaign. [applause] as we transfer this gavel this afternoon, there's no doubt in my mind that women like bell la and stanley are smiling down on us today. [applause] so please join me in thanking the phenomenal donna brazile for her unwaiverring service to the her party, our country, and getting democrats elected up and down this ballot year after year after year. [cheers and applause]

thank you so much. thanks, donna. [applause] thank you. i must also recognize the leadership and service of the next senator from the commonwealth of the state of virginia, tim kaine. [cheers and applause] tim served us as chairman for the past two years with dignity and discipline. he's leaving us a party that is as strong as ever. i'm going to recognize and thank the florida democratic delegation for their strong unwaiverring support of me, for your friendships, and i want to thank my colleagues in the house democratic caucus as well. i thank and acknowledge my family, my congressional staff, and the staff at the democratic national committee. my family, my parents -- i can't get through this without -- my children, rebecca, jake, and

shelby, and my husband, steve, all here with me today, they make major sacrifices so that i can do a job i love so much. i am truly fortunate to have such a wonderful and close family. [applause] my congressional staff works tirelessly on my behalf. they are a committed passionate group of public servants, and i appreciate and value all they do for me and my constituents. to the dedicated staff that keeps our party running and winning, you have been there for me as vice chair, all of us as officers, made my transition to the dnc easy and pulled off yet another successful dnc meeting. thank you, thank you. [applause] i truly, truly look forward to working even more closely with all of you, and i do want to ask

all of us to keep patrick's family in our thoughts and prayers. patrick is a tireless advocate for democrats his entire career. for years, toiled in the wilderness for democrats, and i'm so looking forward to working with him side by side to help reelect barak obama, president of the united states of america. [applause] of course, i am so honored to have been nominated to this position by the president and thrilled that he called in. that was such a nice surprise, really incredible he did that, and i'm humbled beyond words for your confidence to be asked by president obama to lead the party is an indescribable feeling. you heard a lot about me today, but there's one piece not yet mentioned. my first decision to run for office, and most of the florida delegation went through the race with me. i was 25 years old when i first ran for the florida house of representatives. now, i believed i was ready to

serve, but mitch, you remember the good old boys in the democratic club had other plans. [laughter] let's just put it that way. they patted me on the head saying i was too young and i needed to wait my turn. [laughter] well, that just strengthened my me resolve. i was determined to prove them wrong. i was knocking on the doors of constituents, and before the race was over, i had knocked on 25,000 doors. [applause] , now, remember, this is florida we're talking about in the summer. [laughter] my husband was so concerned about how much weight i was losing he started sending me out the door with a chocolate milk shake to be sure i would come back at the end of the day. [laughter] i was involved in a six-way primary race. i had to demonstrate to the community who i was and what i

stood for. i was not detoured because i knew i didn't have a lot of money, but no one was going to outwork me. thank you. [applause] thank you. now, i won that primary with 53% of the votes. [cheers and applause] thank you. i went on to win the general election with 64% of the vote, and at the age of 26, i was the youngest woman ever elected to the florida legislature. [applause] thank you. and that race taught me two things. first, there is no substitute for good old fashioned hard work, and second, don't take no for an answer. [laughter] i will work every single day like i did in that first race to reelect our president, win back the house, hold the senate, and elect democrats up and down the ballot. on my watch, we will not be outworked. [cheers and applause] thank you.

[applause] thank you. thank you. ours is the oldest and most successful party in the history of the world, but our success as a party is not measured in political wins and losses, and our success as a party is not just an electoral score card. our success is measured by how we improve the quality of life for americans and ensure that everyone has a shot at the american dream. that's what i want for my children. that's what you want for your children, and that's what every person in our great nationments for themself -- wants for themeses and their family. it would be a great thing if our country was free of prejudice and inequality, there was equal opportunity and no barriers to success. of course, no land exists. it has taken pure work and perseverance to get to this point in history. no longer are women prohibited from voting or african-americans have to sit on the back of

busses, and no are no longer gay and lesbians prohibited from serving in our country's armed forces. [applause] thank you. all of these things took a lot of hard work, but as great as the country is, we have further to go. we know that. that's the great thing about america. our founding fathers knew we the people would determine how america is governed. it's our job to do everything we can to shape a more perfect union. to me, that's what being a democrat is all about. now, just down the road from where we are today on the banks of the title basin sits a memorial of franklin del roosevelt. [applause] engraved are words that inspire us still. he said the text of our progress is not whether we add more to

the abundance of those who have much, but rather we provide enough to those with too late. try telling that to the colleagues on the other side of the aisle. they talk of deficits, but propose tax cuts for the wealth. plan to eliminate medicare and have tax subsidies for oil companies. propose cuts on education and tax the teachers as overpaid. it's hard to understand they are so out of step with american's priorities. we know government can't solve all the problems, but we recognize we are all in this together. simply put, a country of the people by the people and for the people cannot by definition make progress without the success of its people. [applause] thank you. thank you. now, as democrats, we know a little about yes, we can, but

republicans seem to be stuck on no, we can't. as democrats we know that we can work together to care for those who can't care for themselves, that we can reduce historic and institutional barriers that prevented many in our society from achieving their dreams or reaching their full potential, that we can care for our seniors after they spent a lifetime of caring for us, that we can ensure that the quality of our health doesn't depend on the size of our bank accounts, and that we can be globally competitive if we outeducate, outinnovate, and outbuild the rest of the world. as democrats, we don't believe in giving people a free ride, but also don't believe people faces tough times of no fault of their own should be left behind. the other party has a different approach, one that failed america over and over again. one that says if all the benefits of our government are showered on the top, the wealthiest proper and their good fortune trickles down on the rest of us.

[laughter] we know better. [laughter] we know better. the other side is powerful and well-funded, and we know that too, and they are working to reverse the progress that democrats have made. that's why this election is so important to the future of our country and our party, and that's why i'm so excited to be leading our prater at this -- party at this critical time because by securing a second term for president obama, not only do we have an opportunity to cement the historic progress made, but we have a chance to continue delivering to the american people. now, many have asked -- [applause] thank you, thank you. many have asked what our priorities are as a party for the next two years, and they can be boiled down to the following. first, we will support the president's agenda and protect the progress that we've made. we trumpet his agenda from the rooftops and everybody sees that president obama and democrats are delivering on the kinds of

change that is making america stronger. we've come so far, but if left to their own devices, republicans would repeal health care reform, wall street reform, and student loan reform, put insurance companies back in charge of the health care and allow financial institutions to police themselves again and crash our economy again. they would turn back the clock on all the progress we've made, and our children, parents, and neighbors would suffer so every time they attempt to roll back the important gains, we must stop them. we must call them out. we are going to run on our accomplishments and not allow republicans to undo or distort them. [applause] thank you. thank you. next, next we will invest in the strongest campaign and best organizing ever to give president obama a second term. [applause] thank you. this is going to be the toughest

campaign in the history of america. they are going to throw everything they have at us. fortunately, our everything is better. [laughter] the dnc isn't going to do this alone. we have an incredible campaign team at work in chicago. we have organizers willing to knock on doors until they drop. we have supporters willing to turn their pockets inside out for the president and for our candidates up and down the ballot. we're going to bring all the resources to bear and all the people to support our president, to support historic national effort. we're going to support the 50-state strategy and fire up and glaze the grass rootings with the best staff and well-funded party organization behind any president's reelection effort in our nation's history. [applause] thank you. thank you. [applause] next, we will support our candidates, our state parties and the constituent institutions of the democratic party. our success over the past

decade, recruiting strong candidates and winning tough races at the local, state, and federal levels is in no small part of the 50-state straity. i heard that from all of you across the country as i traveled. a strategy pioneered by chairman dean, adopted and expanded by the obama campaign in 2008, and continued by chairman kaine over the past two years. the support for candidates and other committees making up our party has also been vital to our success, and as chair, support for the 50-state strategy, candidates, and committees is among my highest priority. [applause] thank you, thank you. [applause] thank you. thank you. thank you very much. make no mistake about it, we will explore every nook and cranny of the country seeking

support for the president and democratic candidates. finally, we will hold republicans accountable. [cheers and applause] we will. [applause] all across america, all across america, democrats are working hard to create jobs and boost economic recovery, invest in our children's education, and further the causes of justice and equality. all the while entrenching special interests and republican allies working to stall or reverse our progress. that's why we have to expose the stark differences between democrats fighting fortunate middle class and the republicans fighting for the privileged few. this is nothing new. in 1946, eleanor roosevelt told the democratic party in an vermont like this one what to expect from the gop. she said, never forget the republican party is the party that looks back ward. we have come too too far to turn back the progress democrats made, so let's remember it was democrats who ended the great

depression, democrats who established social security, democrats who created medicare. democrats protecting the rights for workers to organize. democrats who cleaned our air and our water. democrats who have defended our right to organize and mobilize, protest for the rights and freedoms that we enjoy today. [applause] thank you. and, it was democrats two timely made health care -- finally made health care a right, not a privilege. thank you, thank you. [applause] thank you. [applause] thank you. [applause] thank you, and so much of that progress was thanks to all of your advocacies working hard in the trenches every single day and for all of those advances, we can say, yes, we did. [laughter] yes, we did. when we let our core principles

guides us, work hard, democrats are an unstoppable force, aren't they? it's our job to remind our neighbors it is democrats who stand up for them. democrats invest in jobs for today and tomorrow. we must remind them that democrats represent their interests, and we must remind them it is democrats who care for the health and welfare of the people and our planet. today, i'm asking you to make a pledge, pledge that you will let no charge go unanswered. [applause] pledge, pledge that you will let no man or woman bear false witness against the democrats. [applause] and pledge that you will let no voter cast a ballot for a republican simply because they don't know what democrats have done for them or what republicans have done to them. [applause] i want you, i want you to tell

others why you are a democrat and why your friends and neighbors should vote with you. in other words, democrats, we have made so much progress, but we can make even more by showing america that it is democrats who will increase the opportunity for prosperity for everyone. there is so much at stake in this coming election, and we can't afford to let the republican party take us backwards. we worked so hard to get here. we worked so hard to win for the american people so we can stabilize the economy, but americans back to work, and deliver on long-term promises like health care reform. we worked too hard to give it right back. there is so much left for us to do. this is no time to be complacent or time to sit on the sidelines. we cant afford and the country cannot afford to go backwards. this is a priority for us, so let's make it happen. are you with me, democrats? [cheers and applause] are you ready to make history once again? [cheers and applause] let's do it, work hard, because we must wipe.

the stakes are simply too high. thank you, thank you, [cheers and applause] thank you. thank you. [applause] , and thank you, thank you. thank you. thank you, thank you. since you all have made a pledge, here is my pledge to you. as chair, i will continue to strengthen every aspect of our party's operations like i did in my first race of elected office. i will make sure no one outworks the democratic party. i'll do this job in the best way i know with all the energy i have. i want to see our candidates legislated and our ideas -- elect the and our ideas implements because i have three beautiful children who are the future of america. [applause] thank you, and steve and i want

them to grow up in a country where all things remainmains possible and the american dream is within reach for everyone. there is no problem we face here in america or around the world that will not yield to human effort, to cooperation, to hard work, or to perseverance. our challenges have always summoned the best in america, and as we have throughout history, we'll make the world better than it is today by reelecting barak obama, president of the united states of america. thank you all for your support. thank you so much. we're ready to work hard. on to victory in 2012. thank you very much. [cheers and applause] thank you. [applause] thank you. [applause] [cheers and applause] ♪

>> the u.s. senate gavels in shortly. senators have completed scheduled legislative work for the week spending today in general speeches. the house is working today on offshore oil and gas drilling. members are considering a bill to require a number of pending leases to be approved. you can see live house coverage on c-span. now here on c-span2, live senate coverage. 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. eternal and mericful god, thank you for both spiritual and temporal

blessings, particularly the riches of your mercies poured down upon us. thank you for blessing our lawmakers, for guiding their thoughts and words, so that their labors glorify you. lord, give them the strength and courage to fulfill your commands, trusting your wisdom more than their own. save them from either desiring or seeking the honor that comes only from humanity, but may they desire your approval more than life itself.

keep them from evil as they find safety in your love. lord, give them the humility to know that no one has a corner on your truth and that we need each other to discover your guidance together. we pray in your sacred name. amen. join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., may 5, 2011.

to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorablebenjamin cardin, a senator from the state of maryland, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, normally in opening, the majority leader goes first, but he and i have never viewed this as a contentious process. so since he is not here yet, i will go ahead with my statement. the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: when it comes to the state of our economy, the american people have seen enough choreographed rallies on factory floors and speeches that sound good but lead to nothing. after two years of chronic joblessness, they want results. and that's why we've seen a growing consensus in washington over the past few weeks that something serious must be done about our nation's debt. even democrats now admit that failing to bring down the debt would be far more damaging to our nation's economy in the long

run than failing to raise the debt ceiling. the situation has been described as the most predictable crisis in american history. people on both sides of the aisle now realize that the warning bells are too loud to ignore, and last month president obama himself made a crucial admission. in a sign that he too is starting to worry about the prospects of inaction, the president said that failing to produce a serious plan for tackling the deficit and debt could be a bigger drag on the economy than anything else. so more and more people see the problem. now the challenge is achieving a result. that's why i've proposed a few basic principles yesterday that i believe could guide us to success. this morning i want to reiterate those principles ahead of the meeting at the blair house. by setting out clear principles up front we're far more likely to actually get somewhere and to prevent the crisis before it strikes.

first, it's time for our friends on the other side to stopl pitting one tkpwraoufp -- stop pitting one group of americans against another. solving this crisis will require all of us working together so why don't we start acting like it? second, the level of spending the democrats want to maintain isn't impossible without raising taxes on the middle class, which we know isn't going to happen. we're only going to solve this crisis by admit -gs up front that we have a spending problem. third, entitlements need to be a part of the discussion, so let's drop the scare tactics and work together on reform. nobody is talking about taking anyone's medicare. fourth, raising taxes is the last thing we should be doing in the middle of a recession. what's more, a bipartisan majority right here in the stphapt -- in the senate oppose raising taxes. let's find common ground instead. if we recognize these things, we can avert this crisis. if we don't, we won't. and i assure you, we'll all

answer for it. very few people saw the last crisis coming. this one, on the other hand, is clear as day. failing to work together in good faith on a solution would be completely indefensible. everyone agrees this is a crisis. more people, including the president, agree that failing to address it would be disastrous for jobs and the economy. and everyone knows the upcoming debt limit vote is the best opportunity we are going to have to do something about it. so what are we waiting for? doing something meaningful about the debt is the centerpiece of any serious jobs agenda in washington. other things will help on that front, and the president made a small but important step in that right direction yesterday by announcing he was ready to begin talks on a free trade agreement with colombia, something we've been calling for him to do for years. ratifying this agreement along with other agreements with south korea and panama will open up markets to u.s. goods and create thousands of jobs. that was just one of the ideas republicans included in a

comprehensive jobs agenda we release this had week, an agenda in a focuses on expanding opportunity, lowering costs and clearing bureaucratic obstacles. if we can't get spending under control, we'll never get the economy moving. if the economy doesn't grow, we won't be able to reduce our deficits and our debt. and if we don't reduce our massive federal debt, we face a crisis that makes the financial panic of 2008 look like a slow day on wall street. so this debate couldn't be more important to our near-term and long-term fiscal health. everyone has a stake in the debate. if we face up to it like adults, we'll not only prevent this most predictable crisis, we'll help preserve our way of life. and the best part is no one side will be able to claim the credit. this is the moment. we cannot let it pass. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized.

mr. reid: i understand h.r. 1214 is due for second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 1213, an act to repeal mandatory funding provided to states in the patient protection and affordable care act, to establish american health benefit exchanges. mr. reid: mr. president, i object to any further proceedings in relation to this matter. the presiding officer: objection is heard. it will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president, following leader remarks, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 5:00 p.m. today, with republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the majority controlling the second 30 minutes. the next roll call vote is going to be monday, may 9 at 5:30 p.m., and we will notify senators on the subject matter of that. it will be in regard to a nomination. mr. president, in regard to the comments made by my friend, the republican leader, as i listened

to him, i picked up about three or four points i think are fairly obvious. one is don't touch the tax cuts for the rich. number two, don't touch tax cuts for the rich. and number three is that they want to go after entitlements. the largest of course are medicare, social security and medicaid. we know that the ryan budget calls for privatizing medicare. even the republican majority leader today was quoted in the papers as saying we're going to have to back off that. that's -- i'm paraphrasing. everyone can read it. it's on the front page of "the washington post" newspaper. but the ryan budget has a number of ways of seufg money. the most -- ways of saving money. the most significant way is to destroy medicare. the fourth point, mr. president,

after recognizing, as my friend the republican leader said, we need to go after entitlements is don't tax the rich. mr. president, we on this side of the aisle realize we have some problems with spending and we have to do something about it. we have to do -- the problem is not as much about spending. it's about deficits. what are we with going to do about -- what are we going to do about these deficits that accumulate every year? we have experience in recent years how to handle that. during the last four years of the clinton administration, we remember spending less money -- we were spending less money than we were bringing in. the criticism came from a number of important economics that we were retiring the debt too quickly. when president bush took office, he took that to heart. that time when he took office it was about $11 trillion surplus

over ten years. he took care of that. in fact, when president obama took office, that evaporated and it evaporated. we lost 8 million jobs. it evaporated because we had two wars all paid for with borrowed money. we had all these tax cuts paid for with borrowed money. so on this side of the aisle, we want to do something to rein in these deficits, and we've had experience and we know how to do that. one of the things we did during the clinton years was unique but we did it, and it was hard. we had something called the paygo rules. without any washington inside jargon, what this meant is if you have a new program tough pay for it. either have to pay for it by taking other programs that are in existence and getting rid of those or raising revenues. we did that in the clinton

years. when president bush took office, republicans in the congress worked with him and got rid of those rules. that's how come we had everything that was unpaid for. in fact, unpaid for is an understatement. it was all borrowed money. so we know there is a problem with deficits and we want to work with those. today at the white house there is a meeting. i've appointed a couple of people to represent the democrats in the senate. senator inouye, chairman of the appropriations committee; senator baucus, chairman of the finance committee. the other three leaders in the congress here appointed people. they're going to meet and talk seriously about ways of reducing the deficits we have. i would hope one of the things that vice president biden talks about with them, and i'm confident will be, is we don't need to talk about spending caps. we need to talk about deficit caps. we have to be able to work toward reducing these staggering

debts by looking at everything. mr. president, i am, like most everybody here in this body, do everything we can to protect those brave men and women who are in the military. but the general accounting office told us in a report which we filed that there is $100 billion a year in the pentagon that's wasted. $100 billion. when asked in a hearing how many private contractors the military has, they said we don't know. upon further questioning, they said, well, we either have, it's between a million and nine million people that are contractors. there's a lot of fat in this, mr. president. these are the same people that during the iraq war, in the hearings held and conducted by senator dorgan, that they were using wads of $100 bills to play

football. we can save a lot of money by looking at domestic discretionary spending, military spending and doing a better job of making our tax system more fair. mr. president, to show how unfair our tax system is today, we tax the american people by about $1 trillion a year. a lot of money. but we give tax breaks to corporations and individuals of $1,100,000,000,000. we give more in tax breaks than we have as revenue to this country. we've got to change all this. my friend who is the presiding officer -- and i see my friend from utah here who will be the ranking member of that important committee, finance committee -- are going to have to work together to make this tax system more fair. and so i appreciate my republican friend talking about all of the things we need to do

here, but one thing that is very clear that he doesn't want to touch are those tax cuts for the rich. it's very clear he doesn't want to do anything to deal with the tax cuts for the rich. he wants to go after entitlements. he said so here this morning, which are medicare, social security and medicaid. so, mr. president, we have a lot of work to do. the only way we're going to work our way through this is on a bipartisan basis. the only way we can do it. the heavily republican house has to recognize that. the democrats in the senate that's to realize that and the president has to realize that and he does and that's why he's convened this bipartisan meeti meeting. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business for debate only until 5:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each with the

first hour equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the majority controlling the next 30 minutes. the senator from utah is recognized. mr. hatch: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to speak for 20 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator is recognized. mr. hatch: i rise to speak about an unfortunate and distushing matter. while we were home during the most recent recess, the national labor relation board after 17 months of indecision issued one of the most far-reaching an outrageous complaints issued against the board. this complaint against boeing is one of the most outlandish and regrettable complaints i have seen in my years in the senate. the nlrb general counsel sitting in his ivory tour in washington, d.c., substituted his business

judgment for that of a private corporation. in essence mr. sullivan claimed the authority to determine where and how a private company is permitted to do business. this is a pieceus claim. boeing did nothing wrong and i'm confident it will ultimately prevail. this complaint carries a potential cost of billions of dollars an thousands of new jobs for the company and the community where it chose to operate. so why make this decision at all? why attack a private company with a legal challenge that will cost an enormous amount of money to defend, disrupts business, undermines the efforts of states to increase jobs and promote economic recovery, but that will fail for its lack of merit? the answer is simple, the unions wanted it. this is just another chapter in the sorry relationship between unions, big government and the party of big government. i have to say i admire mr. sullivan's moxie by making

this decision during a congressional recess. it is almost as if he thought it might avoid our scrutiny. maybe he thought news like this might not make its way back to the states. to that i say, nice try, but you will not escape the scrutiny of the american people when it comes to an action this over the top. the sunshine will fall on a decision like this that is so politically motivated. in the light of day the decision and the decision makers are going to look awfully bad. the nlrb boeing complaint has been criticized here in the senate and throughout the business community as a federal democracy run amuck. this is more than another example of an unaccountable bureaucracy hurting job makers and employers. what makes this case particularly ugly is this is a case of regulators supporting big labor against private enterprise. what makes this case appalling is that it is a gift wrapped

present to the interest that so happens to be the largest contributor to democratic party campaigns. the nlrb issued its complaint against boeing for allegedly transferring assembly work on the dreamline arer airplanes from puget sound washington to south carolina. boeing made a legitimate business decision to open a new plant with new workers and a new more business friendly climate. it chose south carolina in part to avoid labor disputes and crippling strikes which had befallen the company repeatedly over the past few years. when boeing first made this decision way back in 2009, it had experienced four major labor strikes in 20 years. the most recent work stoppage, a 53 day strike in 2008 cost the company $1.8 billion. with the decision to bring new

work to south carolina a prudent business decision, boeing faces significant global competition. the french company airbus is anxious to take boeing's business with the help and backing, i might add of the french government, was the decision good for american workers? clearly boeing's decision was. in the current marketplace many of boeing's competitors might have considered moving jobs overseas much instead of following that course, boeing saved american jobs. the president likes to talk about jobs that he has created and saved. well, mr. president, not a single job union or nonunion was lost in the state of washington as a result of boeing's decision. in fact over 2,000 new jobs have been created in piewj it -- puget sound since the company's announcement to begin work on the new facility. this is not to mention south carolina where hundreds of new jobs were created. added jobs in washington and

added jobs in south carolina sounds like a win-win for american workers to me. so, yes, boeing's decision to build its new plant in south carolina was good for just about everybody. yet, without asserting any evidence of antiunion animus on the part of boeing or an adverse impact on union workers exercising their legal rights, the nlrb sought to step in and make boeing's business decisions for them. as south carolina governor described it in an april 26 "wall street journal" editorial -- quote -- "the excitement in south carolina turned to gloom for millions of south carolinians who are rightly aghast at the thought of the greatest economic success we have seen in decades being ripped away from democrats. i think governor haley should be applauded for calling the nlrb a hand wrapped present to big

labor courtesy to their friends in the federal bureaucracy and the administration. let's look at the nlrb's complaifnlt let's consider the timing of the complaint. it is highly suspect, if you can ask me. -- if you ask me. the boeing complaint comes a few month bfs the new south carolina facility was scheduled to open in july and well after most of the construction was completed and the new workers were hired. in other words, after most of boeing's substantial investments had been made, the heavy hand of the federal bureaucracy intervened to dictate that its business decision must be reversed. in its april 21 editorial "the wall street journal," describes the boeing complaint saying -- quote -- "after 17 months and $2 billion, the nlrb sandbags boeing." the editorial continued -- quote -- "there are plenty of legal precedence that gives businesses the right to locate businesses in right-to-work states. that right has created healthy competition among states and

kept tens of millions of jobs in america rather than overseas." an opinion editorial by steven pearlstein in "the washington post" is even more telling. although mr. pearlstein was not unexpectedly somewhat supportive of big labor and the nlrb's action in this case he nevertheless acknowledged -- quote -- "if the agency prevails and enables boeing to open an additional line in seattle they can put a brake on the steady flow to manufacturing jobs in right-to-work states in the south. pearlstein hits it on the head. the decision to file this complaint is an attack on business friendly states attracting companies and creating jobs. it is an effort by washington democrats and career bureaucrats to force unionism on the entire country. yet in my view pearlstein does not adequately state the radicalism of the nlrb's decision. the fact is that if the nlrb

during the -- doing the bidding of the international association of machinist and aerospace workers prevails here, it will give them the right to dictate business location decisions everywhere even in nonright-to-work states. now there is a great deal of misinformation coming from those who support the nlrb's actions. in this article pearlstein inaccurately describes boeing's manufacturing industry in south carolina as a runaway shop. boeing had no -- it was not obligated under any collective bargaining agreement to keep the work there. it simply chose to locate new work and new expansion in a business friendly right-to-work state. is that a runaway shop? i think not. and i think most everybody would think not. apparently the nlrb agrees with me because the complaint does not allege that this was a classic runaway shop. in those situations bargaining

unit work that is contractually obligated to be performed by members of the union is shut down unilaterally by management. employees are laid off and the company stealthily slips out of town with little or no notice only to open in a new location to perform the same work on a union free basis. under the law that is wrong. the nlrb makes no such allegations here because that's not what happened in this case. instead the complaint falls back on the broad catch-all argument that boeing's actions were inherently destruction of union workers section 7 rights, referring to the rights protected in section 7 of the national labor relations act which in this case means the right to strike. if that theory were to apply to all cases like this one, if companies cannot factor labor decisions into decisions regarding new operations without it being inherently destructive of section 7 rights, there is no logical end to what private decisions can be overruled by

the nlrb. this is an agency run amok and trying to take the place of this congress. fortunately the legal precedence dealing with this type of decision do not support the acting general counsel's interpretation in the boeing complaint. the cases cited in the complaint are all distinguishable. not one of them deals with fact patterns involving new work because there's nothing unlawful about opening a new facility to perform new work that is not obligated under an existing collective bargaining agreement. put simply, this is just another effort on the part of the union-packed obama nlrb to undo years of labor precedence to satisfy big labor. if boeing's actions are inherently destructive of the union's right where is the antidiscrimination? once again, mr. president, no not a single union worker lost a job or an hour of work as a result of boeing's business decision. let's be perfectly clear, boeing

workers in the state of washington actually gained new work and gained 2,000 new jobs following the decision in 2009. these jobs are among the best paid in america. does that sound like antiunion discrimination? of course not. this was not a stuffed move in the dark of the night. no one was surprised caught off guard. of. the machinist union knew that boeing was building a machinist -- workers knew about boeing's plans as well. so did the nlrb. but before issuing his complaint, the acting general counsel stood for 17 months while new facilities were being constructed at great expense in south carolina at the cost of billions of burglars and workers were hired to run the assembly lines. it goes without saying that if carolina workers wanted a union, they, like any other private sector employees in south carolina or any other state,

could file a petition with the nlrb for a union representation election. there was no evidence, zero evidence of antiunion discrimination by boeing to any union petition or union representation election. but, and i can't stress this enough, the most important factor is that the work in south carolina was new work, which boeing was not obligated to perform in the state of washington under its collective bargaining agreement. boeing simply decided for sound business reasons to open a new facility to perform new work in a business friendly state. this is something businesses can do all the time and do do all the time. that is they used to do it all the time before president obama's acting general counsel in the -- and the might of the federal bureaucracy under the heavy hand of control of big labor decided to step in to interfere with boeing's decision. if this complaint is upheld and

this interpretation becomes the new status qoa who knows how it will impact businesses in the future. every citizen in south carolina and every member of congress, republican or democrat, ought to be outraged by the nlrb, the national relations labor board's decision an act. -- and action. if they can do it here they can do it anywhere. in the nlrb can do this in south carolina disrupting business and killing jobs, it can happen anywhere including utah or any other right-to-work state or nonright-to-work states. the most appalling part about this complaint, mr. president, is not the borderline interpretation of the law, no, it's the remedies the agency is seeking. after asserting that boeing unlawfully transferred bargaining work to south carolina, the being aing general counsel, a career nlrb bureaucrat throughout his government legal career has never been responsible for

making a single entrepreneurial decision or creating a single job sought an order stipulating that the boeing work on the 787 dreamliner could not be performed in south carolina and would have to be moved back to state of washington. not back, this would be to the state of washington. this is new business. as is typical in these cases the boeing complaint would be surely subject to lengthy litigation while boeing's foreign competitors eagerly seek to sub plant boeing's business orders. even if boeing prevails it could lose are the business war to fierce business opposition. that is stupid to put them in this position. the machinists know that and so does the nlrb. might i remind the supporters of the nlrb is that justice delayed is justice denied. the longer the wheels turn the worse it is for boeing's business and the worse it is for

america's jobs and prosperity. the company might be forced to seep settle -- to accept a settle. this is no less than economic warfare being waged by the nlrb on behalf of president obama's friends, the labor unions against boeing, workers of south carolina and 22 right-to-work states across the country. and it may even be against the rights and privileges and benefits of the people in washington, because if boeing to be competitive has to move offshore, they're going to lose their jobs. in the end it is economic warfare by the obama administration against all business-friendly states and against capitalism and free enterprise everywhere. i'm not the only one saying this. i know, for example, that the attorneys general in nine states

across the country: nevada, virginia, georgia, oklahoma, florida and south carolina, have written to mr. sraupbl asking the boeing -- mr. sullivan asking the boeing be withdrawn. it represents -- it is against the ability of our states to recruit jobs. your actions seriously undermines our citizens' right to work as well as their ability to compete globally. therefore, as attorneys general we will protect our citizens from union boeing and federal coercion. we call upon you to cease this attack on our right to work, our state's economies and our jobs. editorials from across -- from newspapers across the country have criticized the boeing complaint. even the seattle times wrote in an april 22 editorial -- quote -- "this page regretted boeing decisions but never thought of it as something that could be or

should be reversed by the federal government." the article continues saying that the -- quote -- "national labor relations board labeled boeing's decision an unfair label practice and is asking the federal government to move the line. we would celebrate the day boeing decides to do that but it is boeing's decision." the same editorial concluded "the company has a right to build assembly plants. it can build them in south carolina or afghanistan if it likes. its decision might be unwise but it is boeing's." these same sentiments were expressed in the president's hometown newspaper. a chicago tribune editorial described the nlrb acting general counsel's actions a -- quote -- "gross intrusion." the editorial continued "boeing, a chicago-based aviation company, already has one headache. its main rival airbus s.a.s. received from european nations

subsidies prohibited by international trade agreements. that is challenging enough for boeing as it tries to compete in an international market." the u.s. government tries to dictate where boeing can do business? that's even harder to stomach. unquote. the tribune editorial concluded -- quote -- "the disastrous unintended message to a major u.s. employer, keep your mouth shut and find another country to do business, unquote. the detroit news has the president and his prounion administration pegged. about this decision the he edits wrote, president barack obama made conciliatory sounds seeking to do business. congress ought to hold hearings on reining in the nlrb. unquote. if the nlrb's complaint is so transparently awful, what is this all about? let's see. an unfair decision comes late in the game. it threatens to destroy rather than create jobs. and it is based on speechless

legal reasoning. rest assured, the issue is not jobs. the issue is union jobs. and the issue is not better pay for workers. the issue is about money in the union coffers. and ultimately the issue is about the 2012 elections because money in union coffers means money for democratic candidates. the international association of machinists union is important to president obama. it endorsed him and contributed substantial resources to his campaign. and while president obama could not deliver on such legislative initiatives as the employee-free choice act, he appears determined that every lever of government, especially at the national labor relations board, will be turned in the union's favor. the contempt for the american people on display in this decision is astounding. the president and congressional democrats were unable to enact the employee free choice act even with supermajorities in congress. that's the card check bill. not to worry, just have some

bureaucrats do it for them. since the congress couldn't act, why not have these bureaucrats usurp congress's position and do it for them? keep this episode in mind the next time you hear progressives talk about the need for enlightened administration. keep it in mind when you hear progressives, really liberals, complain that the president is just interested in doing what works and that he is not ideological. progressives ultimately have little respect for the rule of law or for the people themselves. for all their talk about nonpartisanship and doing what works, what they really promote is a supposedly enlightened bureaucracy that in fact will push liberal policies regardless of what the people want. progressives are to nonpartisanship as donald trump is to subtlety. ultimately, progressives are as partisan as they come and they push their liberalism through a vast and permanent bureaucracy that plods along day after day, largely out of sight of the american people who would never elect representatives who would

actually promote this leftist antibusiness agenda. when former speaker of the house nancy pelosi said elections should not matter as much as they do, this is what she meant. liberalism should advance no matter what the people of this country actually desire. and the foot soldiers that will advance the causes of progressive leftism day in and day out are the unelected and largely unaccountable bureaucrats that churn out page after page of regulation and infiltrate the decision making progress of every business, no matter how small the decision or how small the business, which brings me to the nlrb's acting general counsel. how did he wind up in a position that caused this level of economic mayhem? not under the established procedure for appointing an interim general counsel under section 3-d of the national labor relations act which provides very clearly as follows: in case of sraeubg in the office of the general counsel, the president is authorized to designate the

officer or employee who shall act as general counsel during such vacancy. but no person or persons so designated shall so act, one, for more than 40 days when the congress is in session unless a nomination to fill such vacancy shall have been submitted to the senate. or, two, after the adjournment sign die of the session of the senate in which such nomination was submitted. president obama ignored the statutory procedure for appointing a counsel under the national labor relations act and instead made mr. sul liman his personal act the counsel under the vacancies act, which is intended to apply to government vacancies in general. even if he is technically authorized to do so, the president should not use the vacancies act to supplant or displace specific statutory procedures for appointing federal employees to vacancies whereas here as under the national relations labor act the

organic law is clear as to the intended process. why did president obama make the appointment under the vacancies act rather than follow the more preferred and traditional procedure provided under the national labor relations act? the answer is pretty simple. under the vacancies act mr. sulliman was allowed to stay in the job in an acting capacity for an initial 210 days rather than the 40 days provided under the national labor relations act and then be reappointed again for another 210 days and a third time for another 210 days until the end of president obama's term. this is yet another example of the president end running the law in order to esconce in office individuals who would have a difficult time surviving the constitutionally required confirmation process, a process that ensures the people and their representatives have some meaningful oversight of the appointee. so why no complaint about this appointment before now? i suppose some should have. i suppose after the battle of

the nomination of afl-cio and seiu, social counsel craig becker to the nlrb, many were convinced they could do a lot worse rather than have a career nlrb serve as acting general counsel. i'm not sure anyone feels that way now. in spite of recent actions, it is hard to conceive of a worse choice for acting general counsel. that decision should be revisited. that's why i'm writing to president obama to request that he withdraw the appointment of mr. sulliman. as far as president obama's nomination of mr. sul liman for full term as general counsel is concerned, it is difficult to imagine how mr. sulliman could be confirmed by the senate in view of his actions while serving as acting general counsel. government actions like the ones we've seen with the boeing complaint are debilitate to go our economy at a time we are struggling to recover from one of the nation's worst recessions

since the great depression. such bureaucratic decisions cost jobs at a time we're struggling to reduce unemployment. they delay business addition making. they undermine business confidence in government. why should companies invest in expanding businesses in the united states if, with the drop of a hat a federal bureaucrat can simply reverse that decision and destroy that investment? at this point we are left scratching our heads. why would the acting general counsel do this outrageous act? unfortunately, the answer appears to be that the decision to issue the complaint was a political one designed to placate an important ally of the president's: organized labor. that answer, while unacceptable, is the only logical answer. as the april 21 "wall street journal" concluded, -- quote -- "beyond labor politics, the nlrb's ruling would set a terrible precedent for the flow of jobs and investments within the united states. it would essentially give labor

a veto over management decisions about where to build future plants." that must never be allowed to happen. the nlrb should withdraw the boeing complaint. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama's recognized. mr. sessions: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, i understand that maybe there's an agreement that another member would speak at 11:00. if so, will yield at that time. i am concerned about the financial status of our country.

we are clearly on an unsustainable spending path. the people are rightly furious with their congress. we should, as they well know, never ever have gotten ourselves in the financial situation we're in today in which we are are projected to have a deficit this fiscal year ending septembe september 30th of $1.5 trillion, the largest deficit the country has ever had on top of deficits the last two years of $1.2 trillion of $1.2 trillion, $1.3 trillion. we're on a path to double the entire united states debt in less than four years. in the last three years, maybe one more year, we will double the entire debt of the united states. we are on an unsustainable path, as every witness who's ever

testified before our budget committee, at least in recent years has stated it is an unacceptable situation that we are in. there was a is shalacking of bg government folks. we've not even had a budget in two years, 735 days, we have not had a budget. the budget act requires that congress pass a budget by april 15th. the house has done theirs. the republican house has passed a budget, a historic budget. the republican democratic senate now is talking about commencing hearings tuesday. and i hope that we have a good hearing and maybe we will have

so, i will just say, that our members, the republican members of the budget committee asked our chairman to do as the house did and make public your budget in advance of the hearing so that it can be examined. it's a complex document. it's takes some time and effort, not just to prop it down the day the hearing starts and i've been informed that -- that business as usual will continue unlike what the house did in the -- to have a document out early. they will have -- bring us out a budget that day and we'll commence our guests to try to vote on it. and i don't think that's a healthy way to -- to proceed. we are facing the greatest financial risk maybe this country has ever faced. the president appointed a fiscal

commission, we call it the debt commission. ers kin bowles -- erskine bowles an alan simpson, appointed by the president, they wrote a document they presented to us as their remarks through the budget committee that said this nation is facing the most predictable economic crisis in its history. in other words, they're saying the path we are on is so unsustainable that it's easy to predict that we're facing and heading toward a financial crisis. and there's no higher duty, no higher responsibly for members of congress of the united states than to protect the people of this country from a foreseeable danger. when asked by chairman conrad when we might have such a crisis, mr. bowles said in his opinion it could be two years, a little less, a little more.

a financial crisis. something like greece is what he's referring to, another recession, a surge of inflation, a surge in interest rates. that's the kind of thing he's talking about. senator simpson, the co-chairman of the commission said, i think it could be one year. the s&p 500 bond evaluators have warned they could downgrade our debt. in fact, moody's in december warned that they could reduce the rating of the american debt in less than two years. we're at a -- we're in a serious, unsustainable position. we haven't even had a budget. well, the president is required by law to submit a budget. every president does.

i ask that when he made his state of the union address that he would address and discuss the danger we are in why the nation needs to reduce spending, why it's not some partisan brouhaha, but a real threat to the future of the country and why it is that we must take steps to pull back. he really did not do that in his state of the union. he talked about investments, investments, and more investments. then a few days after -- and then i asked did he produce a budget to help get us off the unsustainable path. i was never more disappointed in the president's budget. he claimed it would sav save $1 trillion over 10 years. how much is that? well, according to the congressional budget office, that objectively analyzes these

things, the deficit will increase at rate we're spending over the next 10 year years $14 trillion. so what is saving $1 billion? not nearly enough. -- enough to get us off the unsustainable path. the debt commission recommended a $4 trillion reduction in spending, which was not enough either. this was his own commission that he appointed. and that was not enough, but at least the numbers were fairly honest. the president's numbers, unfortunately, were not even honest. the congressional budget office analyzed his budget, and they concluded that it would increase the debt, not reduce the debt rate projections. it would not reduce the

projected increase in debt from 14 to 13. what c.b.o. said it was worse. it would add to the debt $2.7 trillion over the c.b.o. baseline. i said at the time it's the most irresponsible budget ever presented. maybe somebody can find somewhere in the distant past a more irresponsible budget. but when we know we are facing debts and interest rates, the likes of which we've never seen before, we need to recognize that we need to make changes. and his budget did not change. just, for example, let me note his budget called for a 10.5% increase in educational funding. it called for a 9.5% increase in the energy department. it called for a 10.5% increase

in the state department and a 60% increase in spending for the transportation department without any real source of revenue to pay for it in order to have a monumental new program to build high-speed rail and other things there. and we don't have the money. inflation rate is not above 3%, 2% or so, and we're getting double-digit increases when the country cannot afford the path we're on? it's unbelievable really. so after taking great heat from objective observers and so forth, the president made a speech. the president's speech. and he said it seems that -- he had a paragraph or two in his speech about the reason we need

to take some restraint and reduce spending and why we couldn't just invest, invest, invest; why we needed to restrain spending. that was in his speech. at least he acknowledged it a little bit, although it was not the kind of detailed, serious engagement of the american people in a discussion as to why we can't continue at the pace we're in. it just wasn't sufficient to my way of thinking. maybe i'm biased. i don't think so. i do not think he's done that. and in fact when the republicans in the house proposed reducing spending this year, he steadfastly opposed it. so we have a pattern with the president. he says he's for doing something about the debt path we're on. he opposes any specific action that actually makes a difference in that regard. and then finally when they were dragged kicking and screaming into saving about $300 billion

over ten years, the president took credit for it, like it was his idea. well, they had been opposing it all along. the democratic leader here proposed a $4 billion reduction in spending, which was nothing. so i just would say i'm worried about where we're heading, how serious we are. now, the senate republican budget staff has looked at the president's speech and tried to see what's in it and see where we could go from there. what they found is it does not reduce spending by $4 trillion. does not. his framework, as he called it, to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion would actually grow the deficit by $2.2 trillion above the congressional budget office baseline. the american people deserve an

honest fact-based budget. instead, the president's deficit speech was the biggest gimmick yet. an analysis of the president's april 13 speech exposes the falsity of the claim that this new framework would result in $4 trillion in deficit reduction. the analysis reveals that the president's framework is simply a rhetorically packaged, repackaged version of the budget he submitted on february 14, a budget that the c.b.o. estimated could actually worsen our deficits by $2.7 trillion. the committee staff has concluded the president's framework compared to the current c.b.o. baseline would now worsen the debt by $2.2 trillion over ten years. the president's speech is a

sleight of hand process that creates the impression of bringing new deficit-reduction measures to the table without actually doing so, leaving us at bottom with the original flawed proposal only presented in language that seems to be new. here's how the process worked in the speech and how we analyze it, and i believe this is a fair analysis of it. first, he offers the same proposals in his framework as his formal budget submission, but using new language. two, he assumes savings from his february budget that the congressional budget office has already found to be bogus. he continues to assume savings that the objective congressional budget office says are not legitimate savings. so if you score savings in your budget, you can claim you've

made savings when you haven't. we've seen that time and time again. in fact, it's one reason this government is in so much debt. the c.b.o., by the way, is a bipartisan group, but its leaders are selected by the democratic majority. they have the majority. this is a group that's not hostile to the president. they've rejected many of his claims of savings. number three, it calculates the savings over 12 years. everybody's been talking about 10. it's been a 10-year budget he submitted. so to make his numbers look better, he extends it to 12 years and claims more savings than otherwise would be the case if you're comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. a ten-year budget. he adds long-term savings from the just-passed congressional --

the continuing resolution. claims credit for the spending reductions the house of representatives forced on us. some said it wasn't nearly enough. that's really true. they had proposed saving about $800 billion over ten years. about time democratic resistance had gone forward and the president had resisted, we ended up with only about a $300 billion savings over ten years. he claims credit for that in his numbers. as the analysis demonstrates, the framework in his speech offered no new proposals beyond the dangerously flawed february budget. even if they used their own estimates that have been discredited by c.b.o., the framework still falls an

astonishing $3.2 trillion short of what the deficit commission that he appointed recommended. perhaps this is why the white house has been unwilling to heed the call of the senate budget committee republicans. we wrote him and asked that he take his speech and the budget that he submitted -- and it is about 18 inches worth of documents. we said, well if you made a speech now and if you've changed what you had in your budget, translate that into a new budget and send it to us -- we've had that done in the past a number of times. they refused. why? because a speech is more generalized, it's harder to score, hard to analyze. and when you put it in actual print, it can be analyzed. the numbers can be totaled, the

deficits can be calculated, and you find out whether or not it actually does anything worthwhile. they refuse to do it. so as it stands now, we have no plan to have any real reduction of the deficit that we're face tpr-g this administration -- that we're facing from this administration or the democratic senate, let alone a framework to reduce it by $4 trillion. but they pretend it's so, and that's offensive, and the american people are not happy about it, and they know that this senate and this congress has a responsibility under the law and under any morality and decency to produce a budget that says what we're going to do with their money the next year and how much deficit we're going to incur, how much debt we're going to increase. and they have a right to see

that. and all we've seen is a push back and talk of that kind. so we're heading to it. we're heading to a budget situation in the committee next week, i hope that we will. and i think senator conrad, our democratic chairman, will sph-t a budget -- will submit a budget better than the president's budget. surely it will be. i can't imagine it won't be substantially better than the budget the president has submitted. but the question is will it be enough? they've already blamed paul ryan in the house budget committee as being draconian, ideological and unreasonable with their budget, which would reduce spending $6.2 trillion in honest numbers that

they've laid out and defended publicly, that actually confronts some of our long-term spending entitlement programs and tries to get them on a rate of growth not quite as high as it currently is. try to bring this country into a financial sound position. i don't think the house budget probably goes far enough in the first ten years to bring our debt under control. but it's an honest, respected document that every objective commentator has praised. and mr. bowles himself said, well, if you disagree with mr. ryan's budget, at least it was honest, and you need to put your own out there with the same degree of honesty as he did. mr. bowles was president clinton's chief of staff, the man chosen by president obama to head his fiscal commission.

this will be really perhaps the most important budget in decades, maybe ever, because our debt situation is deep. it's not easy to get out of the fix we're in. a lot of it is driven by long-term commitments that we made that are unsustainable. and we've got to confront that honestly and find out how to deal with it in a way that's fair and just. well, they say we can't cut spending. we need more money for education, 10.5%. the state department needs more money, 10.5%. the energy department needs more money, 9.5% increase. this year they are proposing commencing october 1, 2012

budget, that's the number the president has submitted to it. well, we don't have it. i would ask some of the members of this body maybe to call governor cuomo in new york or governor christie in new jersey or tkpwo*ft bentley in -- or governor bentley in alabama. he just announced he's having to reduce spending by 15%, reduce -- prorate the spending for the rest of this fiscal year by 15%. and i just feel like that's a message that's been lost in this body. i see my colleague, senator klobuchar, here, mr. president. i wanted to share these remarks this morning. the vice president, i believe, is meeting with some people, house and senate republicans and democrats today. maybe it will be budget number three. and maybe the vice president can

fix something here. i hope they gave him the responsibility and the freedom to make a decision, or have they told him he can't cut spending really in any significant way. i don't know what they'll tell the vice president, but hopefully something will come out of that. and maybe we can get on a better procedure. but at this rate, at this point in our process, we're not in a good position. and i'm worried about it and hopefully we can reach some agreement. and if not, we're going to fight it out on the floor of the senate, of the house, in conference committee, and we're going to change the debt course of this nation because the american people are going to demand it. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from minnesota is recognized. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: we're not

in quorum. ms. klobuchar: okay. mr. president, it has been nearly three years since gas prices whereas high as they are now. in july of 2008 they peaked at $4 per gallon. we're approaching $4 per gallon for gas today. the average price in minnesota is $3.94 per gallon today and the peak driving season is right around the corner. back in 2008 i heard from many minnesotans, from seniors who couldn't afford to drive to their pharmacies to pick up their prescription drugs, to workers who couldn't afford to drive to work, to middle class moms an dads who -- and dads who couldn't afford their vacation who couldn't go up north because gasoline was too high for their budgets. these high fuel prices a few years ago helped to push our economy into a deep recession. we don't want that to happen again. one of the things we learned three years ago is that rising

oil prices were not simply the result of supply and demand market factors. in fact, the dramatic runup in gas prices was due in part to rampant price speculation by people who had no business being in the oil market. these were not airlines or trucking companies or other businesses that actually need and use oil and gas and who trade in futures in order to protect their businesses against volatility in the oil market. no, mr. president, the most frenzied price speculation was by wall street traders and hedge fund managers who would never actually touch a drop of oil. they never used it in their businesses. to them it was just numbers on a computer screen. they were trying to game the system to make some quick profits and then take the money and run. all at the expense of those people in minnesota or ohio who are standing there at the gas pump watching those numbers at up. it is interesting if you take a look at the gas prices in

minnesota back in 2008. you can, in fact, find it on minnesotagasprices.com. between july and the end of the years, prices went from $4 and dropped to $1.60 per gallon. numerous experts concluded that underlying supply and demand fundamentals can't account for the sharp rise or fall in prices. in the first six months in 2008 u.s. economic output was declining while global supply was increasing. but when you look at the cost of oil during that time, it just doesn't match up. in june of 2007 oil cost $65 per barrel. a year later in june of 2008, it reached $147 per barrel. it was down to $30 in december of 2008 and back up to $72 in june of 2009. even if supply and demand were,

over the long run, pushing the price of oil up, that, alone, couldn't explain the massive volatility in the market. looking back we now know much of the dramatic was wall street speculators fleeing the market because the spotlight had been put on them. in other words the heat was on and it got too hot for them to stay. here we are, mr. president, three years later. today the price of a gallon of gas is nearly $1 higher than it was 10 months ago and, once again, i'm hearing from minnesotans who are being squeezed by high prices, families, farmers, and businesses large and small. there's no doubt that some of these prices can be attributed to reduced production from countries like libya and egypt. there's no doubt that we can can increase domestic production of oil whether in north dakota, our neighboring state where they

doubled their production of oil in the last few years or in louisiana. but increased domestic production takes time and in any case the impact on prices would not necessarily change things. nowhere near what we're seeing right now due to speculation. that's why a few months ago i wrote to commodity futures trading commission chairman jerry glens her urging him to make swipt and strong limitations to speculation limits included in the wall street reform legislation that we passed last year. this authorizes the commission to impose the size of suspective positions by investors who are not bona fide oil traders. this is designed to limit market manipulation and make sure that the oil market is operating fairly according to supply and demand. we don't want to see wall street inspectors further drive up oil prices in the coming months. but, mr. president, we also know that short-term solutions will

only go so far. that's why i've been focused on a long-term energy strategy. a strategy that will provide incentive for innovators and entrepreneurs to invest in our energy future. in 2008 i helped push the commerce committee through with a number of my colleagues the first update to our fuel economy standard in decades. these rules, which are now in place, are expected to sav save $1.8 billion -- 1.8 billion barrels of oil, about three times as much as libya produces every year. i'm also continuing to work on policies that will increase our homegrown energy production and it's important to know, mr. president, that studies suggest that biofuels can provide relief at the pump. a recent study from the university of iowa indicates that from 2000 to 2010 competition from ethanol reduced whole-sale gasoline prices by an average of 25 cents per gallon saving american consumers an

average of $34.5 billion each year. during the gasoline price runup in 2010, the impact of ethanol and gasoline prices was substantially larger. reducing gasoline prices by a national average of 89 cents per gallon and by $1.37 per gallon in the midwest. biofuels are the largest an best alternatives to imported oil. in fact, we produce more biofuels in this country than we import gasoline from canada. our largest source of foreign imports. that's why in march, mr. president, i introduced new legislation with senator tim johnson that would significantly boost our nation's biofuels production and biofuels infrastructure while also providing long-term standards for increasing renewable energy production and major energy efficiency improvements. first our bill would provide consumers with more choices at the gas pump by expanding biofuels infrastructure and increase alternative fuel

vehicles specifically it would expand the availablity of blender pumps that are capable of dispensing different blends of ethanol and gasoline. it would provide loan guarantees to build biofuel pipelines and require half of the cars produced in 2015 to be flex fuel vehicles, natural gas powered, electric powered or hybrid vehicles. the bill would face down and invently phase out the ethanol tax credit. this credit is serving its purpose of helping to reduce the price of gasoline and reduce our dependence on foreign oil by providing consumers a choice at the gas pump, but it won't be necessary forever. last the bill would create the first national standards for renewable energy and energy efficiency along the lines of minnesota's 25% by 2025 standard and a 1% annual improvement in efficiency. if i could note, mr. president, our state has an unemployment rate is significantly below the

national average, two points below the national average. a lot of that has to do with our farm economy and a lot has to do with innovative companies but we have done it all with a renewable standard in place 25% by 2025, we have done it all with a significant push on ethanol and biofuels an wind and -- and wind and solar. i say this can be a model for the rest of the country, mr. president. our nation as a whole has an unemployment rate of 8.8%. gas prices are approaching record levels. we continue to send $730 million a day to foreign countries. many of which have been known to funnel money to terrorists to meet our basic fuel needs. that's $730 million a day for fuel that we send to other countries. i think we should be investing in the farmers and the workers of the midwest instead of the oil cartels of the middle east.

whether it is electric car factories, or electric car factories in your home state of ohio, mr. president, that is the future. it is not continuing to send millions of dollars a day to the middle east. each of the provisions in this bill have some support from both republicans and democrats. and i am hopeful, mr. president, that the bipartisan spirit of this bill can help advance a serious bipartisan discussion about thoughtful solutions to rising gas prices. the key is that everyone needs to realize that inaction is not an aption. that bumper -- option much that bumper slogans will only result in kicking the can down the road. this is about putting speculation that doesn't affect legitimate companies that are legitimately hedging their risk. this is about a comprehensive energy plan for the future that includes drilling in north dakota and other parts of the country but also includes natural gas, also includes hydro, also includes geothermal and wind and solar and biofuels.

that's what this is about. and if we learned anything from japan and while i support nuclear energy in this country and i think that should be in the mix as well is that you don't want to rely too much on one source of energy and this idea that we're looking regionally, that we're looking across the country at different sources of energy is key as we go forward. during these challenging economic times, we can no longer just put our hands in the sand and pretend this isn't happening. just talk to anyone that's filling up their car at the pump right now. talk to anyone that wants to go up to their cabin in northern minnesota for the summer every weekend, they'll tell you that it does matter. now is the time to act. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. mr. president, i have 10 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and the minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed

in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. so ordered. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota is recognized. mr. thune: thank you, mr. president. sometime in the not too distant future some speculation about exactly when, our country will be dealing with the issue of exceeding our borrowing authority. in other words, mr. president, we have maxed out our credit card. that would be the equivalent for the average family when you can't borrow anymore money. so what happens in that event is the congress has to take action. the congress essentially has to raise the country's borrowing authority. it's called raising the debt limit. we're coming up on that point in time. it could happen sometime in the july and august time frame. there's some uncertainty as to exactly when that happens much but the point is, mr. president, it will happen. and the reason it will happen is

that we have now accumulate accumulated $14.3 trillion in debt. and we've hit the -- the limit -- the cap that exists today on our borrowing authority. now $14.3 trillion in the abstract is hard for most people to wrap their heads around because it is such a massive, massive number. but if you translate it into an individual term it amounts to about $46,000 for every single person in the united states, which in and of itself, mr. president, is an astonishing amount much our projected deficit this year i is $1.425 trillion, which is the largest ever in nominal terms and according to c.b.o. it is the second largest as its share of the economy literally since world war ii. now, that's as much debt as we ran up from our nation's founding going back to the -- to the origin of this country up until 1984, that's the equivalent just in this one single year that we're going to

rack up in terms of the deficit. the interest on that amounts about to $213 billion every single year or nearly $700 for every person in the united states. this is assuming that interest rates stay at this historically low levels. now, while the deficit spending is, in fact, something that will merely delay taxes in the future, that somebody's going to have to pay. at some point this is going to have to be paid off and that burden in all likelihood is going to fall on our children and grandchildren. but it's got just something, mr. president, that we'll have to deal with down the road. because the implications today, the realtime implications of this level of spending and debt are very real for the economy. and you -- there's a great body of research that's been done, a study done by economist rienhart and rogoff found that countries with a debt to g.d.p. ratio of

90% grew 1% less than they would otherwise. that is a body of research that looks at nations over the last half century, it goes back further than that, but particularly developed nations that have gone up to that level of debt that exceeds 90% of gross domestic product. we're at 93% of debt to g.d.p. here in the united states. if you take that assumption if you reach that debt level and you sustain it over a long period of time that it costs you a single percentage point of economic growth every single year, according to the president's economic team, that results in the loss of about one million jobs. if you think about the realtime implications of this level of spending and debt, it means we're losing about a million jobs every single year in the economy. you can't say that this is something down the road that we can continue to kick the can down the road. the fact of the matter, mr. president, is we are running out of road. we keep kicking the can, but we

are at the end of the road. if we don't take steps now, not only is it going to put a crushing burden of debt on future generations and jeopardize the very foundation of our economy, it is going to have realtime implications today, not just in the future. so i would suggest, mr. president, that as we look at this issue of the debt limit coming up that it presents a unique opportunity. and i would hope that both sides -- my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, republicans and democrats, could come together, because if we don't bring this debt to g.d.p. ratio back down, we're going to continue to suffer from job losses. the impacts really of that are very clear. when the government is borrowing more money, it crowds out private investment. there's less money for private companies and individuals to invest, and companies, equipment, plants, housing, training, all those sorts of things. it spends money on government, on things that are probably less efficient, less necessary, more

duplicative, oftentimes down right wasteful when it comes to the programs and the projects that end up being funded. so it means that instead of investing and having funding for new factories for people to work in, we've got more bureaucrats like places like the national labor relations board who are coming up with new regulations that are making it more difficult for small businesss to create jobs. we have more unnecessary federal property being underutilized that the private sector could use more efficiently. unfortunately the risk to our economy, and it comes from out-of-control spending, is more than just that. it's more than the crowding out of private-sector investment and stifling of government regulation. we're beginning to face the very real possibility that our country could face a fiscal crisis. the chairman, former chairman greenspan has suggested that the risk of this occurring in the next few years is nearly 50-50,

an alarming thought. likewise, standard & poor's recently warned after possible down grading to the u.s. credit rating in the next two to three years, when they came out with an assessment of u.s. credit and said they attached a negative assessment to it. in most cases, at least a majority of the cases, within a year's time that leads to a downgrade of the credit rating. that would be disastrous for a country like ours which has always taken great pride and has been the sort of rock out there when it comes to a triple-a credit rating. it's notoriously, i think, difficult, mr. president, to predict ultimately when a debt crisis might occur. but it would be inexcusable for us to continue to spend at these elevated levels without assuming that there's even the slightest hint of a risk that this could be very devastating to our country, let alone that that risk could be very high. but if it were to occur, you would need drastic spending cuts

to drag ourselves out of this fiscal crisis, spending cuts that by today's standards would probably be unimaginable. but the worst effect of this deep recession would be the deep recession that it would throw our economy into. just think about that for a minute, mr. president because if you did have a debt crisis in this country, what does that mean? for most people it's going to mean higher interest rates. it's going to lead to countless job losses, pay cuts for a lot of people if you have job losses, and probably significant loss of savings which would take a terrible toll on the american people. that -- those are many of the implications of a debt crisis and the implications it would have on the economy starting, as i said earlier, with higher interest rates. it would make it more difficult for people to borrow, borrow money for a home, for a car, for their business; all those sorts of things would be impacted. but it doesn't have to be the case. the reason it doesn't is because most experts have suggested --

and it is really true -- that this is the most predictable economic crisis we've ever had. it's not like we don't see it coming. you see all the warning signs out there. you see all the red flags out there. it's looking us right in the face, and we have an opportunity to do something about it. but it will require that we have the political courage to take on this issue of federal spending. next week we're going to have an opportunity in the budget committee to mark up the 2012 budget which incidentally the budget year starts in a mere five months from now. i would hope that this budget will focus primarily on cutting spending because i think that's the primary driver of our deficits. i am concerned that instead it will merely continue to spend too much, borrow too much and tax too much. of course last year, even though there was a markup in the budget committee, there was never a budget brought to the floor of the united states senate. the congress never passed a budget, nor was there one brought to the floor of the

house of representatives. there wasn't even a vote on a budget in the house or the senate last year. we have a $3.8 trillion enterprise called the federal government that didn't even pass a budget. i mean, the most fundamental responsibility, i believe, that we have to the taxpayers of this country is to come up with a plan about how we're going to responsibly use their tax dollars to indicate to them that they can expect a good return on those tax dollars by the way that we do our budget. frankly, mr. president, that didn't happen last year, and i certainly hope that this year it does. but we're going -- it's going to take some leadership here in the congress. in the house of representatives, the republicans have the majority. they did pass a budget out of the house. i hope that the senate democrats here will also put a budget on the floor, that we will be able to vote on and amend and have a meaningful discussion about spending and debt and what we're going to do to get this country back on a path of fiscal sustainability.

now, the president sort of, i think you'd tkpwaourbgs punted -- argue, punted when it comes to the issue of debt by saying i'm going to appoint a kphreugs to look at this issue. the commission studied it for several months, came out with findings and ultimately a report in which they put forth a series of recommendations for dealing with the fiscal crisis. the president sort of distanced himself from those recommendations, chose not to take those things and to really engage with that commission and their recommendations, and then subsequent to that submitted a budget this year which ironically didn't do anything to address the long-term issues of spending and debt. rather, increased spending over the next decade, massively increased the debt and increased a lot of taxes on small businesses in this country who are job creators. so you did have this issue of borrowing, spending and debt continually being advanced and put forward by this president

and by many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle here in the congress. and so the house republicans put out a proposal that's been criticized by some. but at least, mr. president, they have put forward a plan. they have engaged the issue of what we're going to do to rein in out-of-control spending both in the near term but also in the longer term with the entitlement programs: social security, medicare and medicaid, which represent 60% of all federal spending. if we don't rein those programs in or come up with a way of reforming those programs so that they are viable when the 80 million baby boomers retire, we are headed for a train wreck. it is inevitable. you cannot, with the numbers that are facing us and the kinds of deficits that we're already running, the amount of debt that we've already accumulated, in any way assume that we can get out of this crisis absent taking on these issues and coming up with meaningful reforms for social security, medicare and medicaid.

now, whether or not you, again, subscribe to or like the proposals that were put forward by the house republicans, there at least is a plan out there. now there are a number of things being bandied around here in the united states senate. there's a gang of six looking at some recommendations. there's going to be a markup, we think, next week in the senate budget committee. there's now this new commission that the president has appointed to look at the issue, as we approach the vote on the debt limit, look at the issue of what we can do to address spending and debt. but frankly, mr. president, we don't have at this point anything in front of us that does deal directly or meaningfully with this issue of out-of-control spending or debt. i hope that some of these, some of these discussions are fruitful, that they lead to results, that they at least put alternatives out there that we can debate and discuss. but as of right now, the only proposal we have in front of us is the one put forward by the house republicans. and again, whether you like it

or not, it at least is has created a discussion in this country about what we're going to do to fix our fiscal problems. now, i believe that we ought to at a minimum go back to 2008 spending levels, because if you did that, you would take us back to a time before we had these massive run-ups or increases in discretionary spending. in the last two years we've seen discretionary spending increase by well over 20%, at a time when inflation in the overall economy was a mere 2%. so federal spending was increasing literally at ten times the rate of inflation over the past two years, mr. president. it makes sense to me in this fiscal environment, where your deficits are literally about $1.5 trillion every single day year as far as the eye can see, the least we could do is to, you know, restrain spending and cut it back to that level we were at in 2008 before we had this massive run-up in spending. so i think that's a starting

point. i believe that we ought -- also ought to be looking at the entitlement programs, which, as i said, have trillions of dollars literally of unfunded liabilities. medicare alone is a $38 trillion unfunded liability. we're currently on a path where that will bankrupt the nation if we don't make changes there. it strikes me at least that you've got to have not only some issues that deal with the short term -- you know, near-term spending issues, but those longer-term spending issues. if you went back to 2008 levels, you would at least tighten our belts in a way that i think most americans would find to be responsible. but the longer-term issue, these entitlement programs, have to be taken on. there are a series of things that have been proposed that would deal with that, one of which is a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. that is something i support. i have supported it since i was in the house of representatives; been a cosponsor of that. when i first got back to*

congress in 1997 there was a vote here in the senate on a balanced budget amendment which failed by one vote. it takes *67 votes in the senate, two-thirds of the senate to approve a balanced budget amendment. it failed by one vote. i assume at that time had it passed in the senate, we would have been able to pass it in the house of representatives because we had large majorities and we could have sent it on to the states. it takes 38 states to ratify it. but since most states already have balance the budget amendments in their constitution, i suspect they would like to see the federal government operate with the same sort of fiscal discipline. but it didn't pass at the time. i can't imagine how different our world would be today had it passed 15 years ago and how different this fiscal picture might look, because it would have put a straitjacket on washington, d.c., something that we desperately need. congress needs a discipline imposed on it. it has not demonstrated historically the capacity to deal with these fiscal issues absent some sort of mechanism that puts a straitjacket on the

congress so that it can't spend money. the balanced budget amendment is something i think we ought to have a debate about, and i hope we do. we lead up to this vote on the debt limit; this is one of many proposals that we hope to have considered. as i said before, there are so many states around the country that have balanced budget amendments to their constitution. our state of south dakota is a good example. in the state of south dakota, the legislature can't go home until the budget is balanced. that simply is something that is a requirement. and many states across this country have that same sort of requirement. it is an imperative that requires these states to every single year put their books in order. and that is something that is desperately lacking here in washington, d.c. and i hope, again, that we could enact a balanced budget amendment. there is one that's been proposed, several that have been proposed. i'm a cosponsor of a couple of different versions of that. but we have 47 republicans that are on a balanced budget amendment, and i hope that our colleagues on the other side will join us in at least

bringing that to a vote, putting it before the american people and engaging them in a debate about how best to solve our nation's fiscal problems. and i think that they would agree that a balanced budget amendment is a very simple, straightforward way in which to do that. i also believe, mr. president, that we ought to reform our budget process. because it's clearly broken. we have a dysfunctional budget process here when you can't pass a budget when you've got a $3.8 trillion enterprise like the federal government and you don't even pass a budget. and in most years typically you have, you know, if there is a budget that passes, the appropriations bill that follow it are supposed to be completed by the end of the fiscal year on september 30. those deadlines routinely are missed. typically what happens here is we end up with a big so-called omnibus spending bill at the end of the year that wraps all the appropriations bills into one massive spending bill which i don't believe serves the taxpayers very well. it doesn't allow us as members

of congress to do the appropriate oversight that we should do on various individual agencies of government. when you throw it all into one big spending bill like so often happens around here, you lose the transparency and the accountability that is necessary to an effective, functioning government. so i believe we ought to reform the budget process. one of the ways i would do that is to go to a pw*eul annual -- biannual budget. tkwaoe it every other year -- we do it every other year, in the odd-numbered years when people are not running for reelection. when people are running for reelection, they decide the best way to gain the favor of the voters is to provide more money for this particular program or this program or this constituency or that constituency. and as a consequence, there is a momentum to spend more and more and more money. it strikes me one of the ways that you could address that is you do a budget in the odd-numbered years when members of congress are not running for reelection and then in the

even-numbered years when they are you look at -- ways at we not spend but, save money, we do more oversight which is desperately lacking. many of these programs an agencies so oftentimes sort of do their own thing absent the appropriate level of oversight. i believe we have a responsibility as members of the congress with whom the legislative responsibility, the power of the purse is entrusted by the constitution to do the right types of oversight. and a good example came across here recently when the government accountability office came out with a report. and in that report rereferenced several -- referenced several different programs. they dealt with a third awful federal spend -- all federal spending. they concluded that there are all kinds of duplications and redund enzis -- redundancies in federal spending. i'll give a couple by way of

example, they discovered there are 82 programs spread across 20 different federal agencies that deal with the issue of teacher training, that are designed to focus on the issue of teacher training. i suspect it's arguable about whether that's something that the federal government ought to be doing in the first place, but is certainly -- certainly, i think, any american would agree, absolutely insane to have 82 different programs and 20 different agencies doing the same thing. another thing that they discovered was that there are 56 federal programs that focused on the issue of teaching financial liliteracy and i said this befoe and i mean it sincerely, of all places, weardz shouldn't be -- washington, d.c., shouldn't be leading or doing instruction on financial lit as yism that being -- literacy. 56 different programs spread across 10 different agencies. do we really need that.

that's the duplication an inefficiency and waste that we all talk about and, yet, because we don't do the oversight that we need to, many of these things continue year after year after year. you can only do a biannual budget and in the election years you're doing oversight, you might actually think of ways to save money for the taxpayers as opposed to spending it. so a biannual budget makes sense. i would make the budget resolution that we passed here binding. right now it's no. and as a consequence it often gets waived and i believe you need to have buy in from the president right now the budget resolution is passed by the house and the senate, but the white house doesn't engage on that and so you don't have the -- you don't have teeth in this thing that hold everybody accountable when it comes to spending. too often that gets waived. we need to change the way that we do things around here with regard to declaring emergencies. right now if we want to spend money outside the perimeters of

the budget everybody says it's an emergency. an emergency has become the norm rather than the exception. we have all this to allow congress to spend and spend and there are no constraints on that and it is high time that we change that. i think a number of changes in our budget process which i think would lead to more transparency more accountability, a more efficient, better run federal government. but that being said, it is not the federal government that's going to lead us back to an economic recovery and getting people back to work. it is the hardworking entrepreneurs, it is the small businesses, it is the people in this country who roll up their sleeves every day and go to work to try and make this country stronger and more prosperous. we are blessed because we have a nation that was founded on some core prince, one of which -- principles, one of which is economic freedom. we believe in free enterprise

and free markets. it is a system that has worked extraordinarily well in this country. look anywhere else in this world and you have to try to find a rival to what the hard-working entrepreneurials in this country and what those core basic principles are able to accomplish. you can't find one. and it is because of those core principles and the incredible ingenuity, and hard work of the american people that we have the greatest economy in the world. but that economy, mr. president, as i said, is very much in jeopardy. if washington doesn't get its spending habits under control, because we continue to crowd out private investment, we continue to make it harder for entrepreneurs to create jobs. and as we talk about the whole issue of spending and debt, one final point i'd like to make because there's this discussion right now about whether or not there ought to be tax increases. everybody says, well, you know, revenues are down relative to historical averages. but one of the reasons i believe revenues is down because there are literally trillions of

dollars sitting on the sidelines in this country that aren't invested because of the economic uncertainty based upon policies coming out of washington. uncertainty about tax policy, uncertainty about regulation. you have this tax and regulatory environment that is paralyzing the american economy. and so businesses out there that have funds that they could deploy, capital that they could put to work in this country aren't doing it because they are worried about what washington might do next. we have tax policies that going to expire at the end of 2012. it's very hard to make decisions when tax policies are temporary. it's very hard to make decisions when you don't know what regulatory agency is going to do to you next and they have consistently these regulatory agencies come up with more and more ideas about how to make it more costly, more expensive, more difficult to do business in this country. i alluded to a couple. the e.p.a. is one, in my state of south dakota we're primarily

an ag economy and many policies are at agriculture and all those sort of things that allow the economy and my state to grow and to prosper. i think one of the reasons the tax revenues are down, people aren't investing. when they're not investing, they're not turning those resources over. they're not taking realizations and they're not paying taxes. we need to get capital put back to work, we need to get people back to work and the best way is to provide certainty, tax policies, regulatory policies that are reasonable and provide incentives, not disincentives for people. today we have tax an regulatory policies doing exactly the opposite. they are discouraging investment and as a consequence i think we have a lower level of revenues. but the real problem -- the real problem, mr. president is not revenues, it is spending, and that's -- that's abundantly clear. if you look at where we have

been for the last four years in terms of what we spend as a percentage of our overall economy, that average is about 20.6%. that's a 40-year historical average we spend on our federal government as a percentage of our entire economy. this year we will spend 26.3 -- 25.3% of our entire economy on just the federal government. that doesn't include spending on state and local governments. when you add that up it's over 40% of every dollar we spent in this country is spent on government. and so what we see is the government is growing relative to our total economy and the private economy, those folks out there that are creating the jobs in our private economy, is shrinking relative to the size of the government, and that's something -- that is a trend, mr. president, that we have got to reverse. it starts with getting spending under control here. this is not a revenue problem. this is not a tax problem. and, as much as many of my colleagues would like to make at that, you flat can't look the

facts in the face and come to any other conclusion but that spending here in washington is under control. it has got to be reined in. we have got to attack the issue not only of discretionary spepping, the part that -- spending, the part that we annually appropriate for, but the entitlement programs if it is not addressed are not only going to bankrupt the program but ensure there is not a medicare program and social security program available to future generations of americans. these are very true mullus times in -- tumultuous types in our country, mr. president. there is a lot of uncertainty. i think the jobs number that's came out this morning again point to just how fragile this economic recovery is. and it is so dependent on good, sound policies coming out of washington, d.c. for better or worse, small businesses in this country, entrepreneurs in this country now, unfortunately, tend to be partners with washington, d.c., because there is so much policy coming out of here whether it's

tax policy, regulatory policy that impacts their bottom lines every single day. we need to get out of the way, to keep those taxes low, to get federal spending under control, to make sure that the regulatory framework in which our businesses operate represents the -- the minimum level and not the maximum level that we can do to make it more difficult for small businesses to grow and to create jobs. if we can do those types of things, address the issue of spending and debt, take it on in a meaningful way, deal with this issue of reforming our tax code and making sure that our tax rates stay low on businesses in this country, and -- and make sure that regulations and regulatory policies coming out of washington, d.c., are not the impediment that they are today to investment and job creation. and i think we can get this country back on track. but that's where it starts and if we want to create jobs, if we want to grow this economy, if we want to make it prosperous and

stronger for future generations, those are the steps that we can take. i hope we can do it soon. i don't think we can afford to wait. a lot of people believe this is political exercises, let's go through the hoops and the motions and we'll wait to solve this until after the next election. we cannot afford to wait. the time is now. if we don't do it, we are going to put in great peril future generations and their ability to enjoy the same standard of living, the same quality of life that we've enjoyed. that is not fair to them, madam president, and that's were i believe the time -- the time to start is now and the -- the time to get this budget process, not only the reforms of the process, but the spending -- the spending restraints in place is today. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. brown: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i was presiding before the -- the senior senator from -- from missouri was to -- took my place

in listening to -- two of the last three speakers talk about their budget religion, if you will. and i -- i -- i think about this and i think you've got to look at a little bit of history. and i don't think that i need a lecture on -- on balancing a budget. i was in the house of representatives in the 1990's when, without one republican vote, we passed president clinton's budget much we had a -- budget. we had a huge budget deficit in those days. that budget began us on a path to a balanced budget. i supported a balanced budget amendment in the mid-1990's. by 2000, the year that president clinton left office we had the biggest budget surplus in american history. then in 2001 at the push of president bush and his republican colleagues in both houses, this congress passed a major tax cut, mostly for the wealthy in 2001, another major tax cut, mostly for the wealthy in 2003, both of which i voted

against. president bush with intelligence that was not especially sound being gentle about it, took us into a war with iraq, didn't pay for it, took us in into a -- into a war with afganistan, didn't pay for it. i voted against the war in iraq. in 2003 or 2004 pushed through congress by one vote, i was in the house of representatives opposing that bill when they kept the roll call open for two hours or longer, president bush was on the phone with members of the house of representatives pushed through a medicare bill that was a bailout to the drug an insurance companies in the name of medicare privatization without paying for it. president bush leaves office then leaving the largest budget deficit in american history. going from the largest budget surplus written by and large by the democrats because the republicans didn't play ball with with us. after the republican leadership in many of those years, the house, the senate, president bush left us with the biggest

budget deficit in history. so when i hear this revisionist history on the senate floor, i wasn't even going to talk about this today, i heard from two colleagues i have respect for, one from alabama, one from south dakota, talk about this budge deficit in a way that is simply historically inaccurate. in the same -- in the name of this deficit and we have to deal with this deficit. the presiding officer is focused on that, a lot of us are focused on it, we have to deal with this deficit. but you don't do the same thing over again or you give big tax cuts to the wealthiest americans and then privatize medicare. that's what they're doing. they're cutting health care, saying it's not sustainable, whatever that means, and giving major tax cuts for the rich. never saying that's not sustainable. madam president, i would like to separate my previous remarks with the rest of my remarks in the congressional record, if i could, madam president. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you. i want to talk