as we put in place the long-term fiscal reforms that will force us once again to live within our means as a nation. in china, building on the remarkable reforms of the last 30 years, the challenge is to lay a foundation for a new growth model driven more by domestic demand with a flexible exchange rate that moves in response to market forces, with a more open market-based economy and a more developed and diversified financial system. the reforms we must both pursue to meet these very different challenges are not in conflict, and the strengths of our economies are still largely complementary. ..

a. >> we are making progress and i'm confident we will continue to do so. thank you. councilor dai. [applause] >> translator: so i guess i can stand taller. [speaking in chinese] >> translator: dear friends,

just now i heard from my colleagues, although i have to say. so i will be brief. secretary of state hillary clinton, secretary of the treasury, timothy geithner, vice premier wang, ladies and gentlemen, it is a great pleasure for me to join you in the china-u.s. dialogues. here in washington. we meet at a unique point in history of china-u.s. relations as this year marks the 40th anniversary of the people suppose and of dr. kissinger's secret visit to china. 40 years ago the desire of the chinese and american people for friendly direction, together with the decisiveness and courage of our political leaders produce an unstoppable force of history. it has pushed open the door between our two countries that have remained shut for over 20 years.

c-span, no force in the world has ever had the power to close that door again. today, as we review the positives and look ahead to a better future of china-u.s. relations, we cannot but a high tribute to those icebreakers, pioneers, and the builders of china-u.s. relations. more importantly, we shall learn from their foresight and the pioneering spirit goes we have to bring china-u.s. relations forward. the china-u.s. relationship, too, is an extremely important point in history. president hu jintao and president obama met in washington this past january, a time when we have just entered a second decade of the 21st century.

together, the two presidents decided to build a cooperative partnership based on mutual respect and mutual benefit. charting a clear course for the future of china-u.s. relations. history will show that the decisions they made is a historic one. that accords with the time of history and serves the benefits of the people of china, the united states, and the world. admittedly, it is no easy task to make this major decision a living reality, and turn commitment into real actions. as we may face all sorts of difficulties, obstacles, and interference on the way ahead, i'm confident, however, that so long as both sides --

[inaudible] in the 21st century, stick to the directions with resolution and never waiver in our determination to overcome whatever difficulties coming our way. we will make a new part of major contributions featuring mutual respect, harmonious coexistence and a win-win cooperation so that our people and our future generations will live in the sunshine of lasting peace, friendship, and cooperation. i am standing here addressing you as a 70 year-old man. i may not look that old. actually, i have turned 70. an age when i should do home and

enjoy the company of my children and my grandchildren. why then do i fly across the pacific and sitting round after round of candid and heart-to-heart dialogue with my american partners? i am doing this to implement the consensus of our presidents for the achievement of one lofty goal, to make our two countries and the people for ever good friends and good partners, and to enable our children and children's children to live in peace and happiness. could we ever let them down? the answer is no, a definite no. if we do, we would be failing, and that would be unforgivable.

dear friends, the people of china and the united states live in the same global village. you on the website, we on the east. i want our american friends to visit china to see and feel for yourself the friendship of the chinese people and the importance of china-u.s. relations. you may also learn first hand the enormous progress china has made, in human rights. and again, get to know what is a real china. to conclude, i wish this round of dialogue for success. thank you. [applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen, the vice president of the united states. [applause] >> higood morning. thank you. thank you all. it's an honor to welcome back to washington for the third meeting of the strategic and economic dialogue between the united states and china, two good friends. let me acknowledge the co-chairs at the outset here. vice premier wang and state councilor dai, welcome back. i got the opportunity spend time with you. not as much of my colleagues have, but your trip with president -- president hu.

the united states co-chairs are our 18th of our superstars. secretary clinton and secretary geithner, two of the best america has to offer. so we expect great things to happen. we expect great things to happen with the fourth you. ladies and gentlemen, we each have a number of important tasks in the days ahead, and all designed to continue to guide our relationship to an even better place than it has already move. i also would like to recognized by the way secretary gary locke, the president's choice to be our next ambassador to china. gary has served with distinction in the cabinet as well as before that, serving as the governor of the state of washington. and i know that once the senate confirms gary, and i expect that to be quickly, he will do an outstanding job with beijing. [applause] there he is.

i'm not going to mention the trade representative sitting next to you, because i told him if he was able to deliver a deal on, with korea i would nominate him for the nobel peace prize. he did, and i have to. [laughter] but any rate, i hate to acknowledge this gentlemen, but i made my first trip to china as a young man meeting with deng xiaoping in 1979, in april of 79. i was privileged to be with what i guess i am now part of a group of very senior senators at that time. i think we are the we were the first delegation to meet after normalization with senators like jacob javits of new york and frank church, and a number of other very prominent members. and on that trip when we met with then vice premier done and witness the changes that were being initiated, beginning to spark china's remarkable,

absolutely remarkable transformation, even back then it was clear that there was great things were happening, it is also a debate, a debate here in the united states, and quite frankly throughout most of the west is whether a rising china was in the interest of the united states in the wider world. as a young member of the foreign relations committee i wrote and i said and i believe in what i believe now, that a rising china is a positive, positive development. not only for china but for america and the world writ large. when president obama and i took office in january 2009, we understood absolutely clear that our relationship with china would be a key priority. the president and i were determined, determined to set the relationship on a stable course that could be sustained for decades. our two countries, now the world's two largest economies,

were bound by an ever-growing tide of congress and investment. we been a states always talk about we come in for. we exported $110 billion in american goods. and services to china last year. we were bound by much more than commerce. over the last three decades our people become increasingly linked through education, three work and to travel. last you 130,000 chinese study in the united states. they are really good. we will try to keep some of them. i'm only joking. only joking. but they are. [laughter] >> we cannot claim the same number of americans in china, but are 100,000 strong initiatives will dramatically increase the number of young americans studying and living in china. as a matter of fact, my niece, excuse me, you graduate from harvard not too long ago, works

for secretary geithner, she did exactly what we hope another 100,000 will do. she studied chinese and went and lived in china, and is now devoted to making sure the relationship gets better and better and better. and we are linked by our shared global responsibilities. we both serve as permanent members of the u.n. security council. we are both pacific powers. and for many of the world pressing challenges, it's a simple fact, that when the united states and china are not at the table, the solution to the problem is less possible than when we are at the table. it's no exaggeration to say that our relationship, and how we manage it, will help shape the 21st century. our commitment starts at the top. our presidents have met face to face nine times in two and a

half years. nine times. president hu as i mentioned was just here in january for what we would acknowledge was a very successful state visit. i will go back to china this summer at the invitation of the vice president and i'm looking forward to hosting the vice president for reciprocal visit later this year. even these frequent visits and summits as you all know are not enough. on their own to sustain and build a relationship across our entire government, across all agency. so that's what we are here. it's not nearly, nearly our mil-to-mil or economic issues. we want to build a relationship across the entire spectrum of of our government. that's what we've asked all of you to come together for these dialogues. when president obama launched the first strategic economic dialogue in 2009, he issued a challenge to all of us, to work together to address some of the defining province of our time. some would say that was somewhat presumption for china and deny

states to work on the defining problems. as i said earlier, how we cooperate will define a significant part how we deal with the challenges the world face in the beginning of the 21st century. this is at the heart of our effort to build a cooperative partnership. we seek to cooperate to advance our mutual interest, not on promoting economic growth but a strong, sustained imbalance in trade that is free and is fair. we seek cooperation to advance our mutual interest in a prosperous future that will come from an energy supply that is clean and secure. and addresses climate change. and we seek to cooperate to advance our mutual interest in a range of pressing global and regional security challenges. this includes continuing our work to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and specifically to curb proliferation of those weapons and technology from both iran and north korea.

where do we stand two years after the president issued his challenge that we cooperate? through this dialogue and a dedicated efforts of our governments and our people, i believe history will show we have made progress. but there is much more to do, and that's why we're here. along with our partners in the g20, we were to sustain global economic recovery. we recognize that the united states, china relations generate global economic benefit, not just to both our countries but global benefit. last year our trade with china supported over 500,000 jobs here in the united states. we made tangible progress through president hu's visit is bush in the areas of innovation, intellectual property and exports, all of which were following up on. over the next two days, we need to build on this momentum and to make sure our commitments are

aggressively implemented. so we can continue to move. you may have noticed that there is a debate in this nation now how to best secure america's long-term fiscal future. we know that overcome our economic challenges begin at home. we in the united states have to restore financial stability. we need to make the investments necessary as well to win the future. we need to maintain our commitment to what we believe the president believe are the pillars our economic future, education, innovation and infrastructure. i know that you're adjusting to your economy and the world situation as well. i know that in china you are working to rebalance your economy, and make growth more sustainable with greater reliance on domestic demand. none of this is easy, but success and growth will be not only good for china in our own

opinion, but will be good for the united states and for the rest of the world. the united states and china are the world's largest producers and consumers of energy, and we share a common challenges that flow from the. and this creates not only a problem, but great opportunity. great opportunity for comment efforts to find clean energy solutions. secretary chu likes to say, and i love this expression, science is not a zero-sum game. science is not a zero-sum game. that is illustrated by the remarkable cooperation we begin to forge in this area. let me just mention one example. our joint clean energy research center is finding new approaches to energy efficiency. clean coal, which we both need to deal with, and clean vehicles

your we need to build on and expand our efforts in this area, and i know you will be doing having much discussion these next two days on that area, and it seems to me an area where there's potential for great progress. on global security challenges, we've also made progress. president hu join us at the nuclear security summit in january. we signed a memorandum of understanding to build a center for excellence to promote nuclear security in china. we have cooperated in stemming nuclear proliferation from both iran and north korea, including preventing sensitive technologies from being exported to both those countries. the strategic dialogue is important to both our countries. just look at the agenda you have for the next two days. it's a fulsome agenda. so that's just a few of the topics on the agenda for the next two days, and it

illustrates the sheer breadth of our relationship. i'm a change, clean energy, mil-to-mil operations, military relationships, regional issues such as sudan and afghanistan. our goal, our goal in part is to enhance the committee patient and understanding that we believe, and i believe you believe, will build trust and confidence. we have to be honest with each other. we are not going to agree on everything. we will clearly find areas where there will still be disagreeme disagreement, but as we work to address our respective national interests, we have to move on what we seek in common, find common ground. and i would argue, much of our mutual national interest will find common ground. but only by discussing a diverse range of topics, including sensitive ones. can help mitigate the risk of this perception and

miscalculation? my father used to say, the only disagreement worse than one that is intended is one that is unintended. that's why it is so critically important we talk to one another honestly. we should be realistic. we won't always be able to work together. in some areas we have vigorous disagreements. and some will have vigorous competition, and still others will have vigorous collaboration. but i believe on balance we have much more to agree on and to disagree on. and so does the president believe that. a healthy competition in our view is good for both of us. competition is not bad. competition that is healthy is good. this is the reason why i have held the view for soma years, and continue to hold the view, that a rising tide is a positive development. as you might expect i have overwhelming confidence in the

capability in the american people, and those capabilities are enhanced when this change when competition from equally capable people. i welcomed is healthy and fair competition, because i believe we will see, it will spur us both to innovate, and both will benefit from it. as i said earlier, it's important to be straightforward to one another. there is one area where we have vigorous disagreement, and i don't and i understand that disagreement when we voice it is upsetting or wrinkles, i don't know how that translates into chinese, but how it concerns some of our friends in china. we have vigorous dissident in the area of human rights. we've noted are concerned about the recent crackdown in china, including the arrest and the disappearance of journalist employers, bloggers and artists. and again, no relationship that

israel can be built on a false foundation. where we disagree it's important. we will continue to express our views in these issues as we did the human rights dialogue in beijing two weeks ago. .com as i said i recognize that some in china sea our advocacy of human rights as an intrusion and lord only knows what else. but president obama and i believe strongly as does the secretary, that protecting under the rights and freedoms such as those enshrined in china's international commitments, as well as china's own constitution, is the best way to promote long-term stability and prosperity of any society. the transformation of china's economy and society since my first trip as a young man in 1979 has truly been breathtaking. i doubt whether it is encourage any other period of world history. it's been so significant, so rapid. the immense talent the chinese

people, incredible hard work and perseverance of the chinese people, and their leaders, have literally lifted tens of millions of people out of poverty and build an economy that now helps fuel the world's prosperity. it's remarkable. during this same period, the relationship between the united states and china is also seeing a remarkable transformation. again, in the talent, hard work, and respect of political leaders who have covered our countries over the last three decades. the bonds between our countries, our countries, about, have come about through intense engagement from the moment of normalization, events like this one. we've already done much to make our relationship positive, cooperative and comprehensive. and i'm absolutely confident that we can do more for ourselves and for generations of

americans and chinese as well. and as i said, receptions of me for to say this come if that occurs and continue to occur, it will benefit the whole world. so now it's time to get to work. again, welcome, gentlemen, welcome to delegations. and i thank you all for the honor of being able to address you. thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> last week and ninth circuit three-judge panel heard oral arguments on whether a teachers for some in free speech rights were violated when the school board made san diego high school math teacher bradley johnson takedown classroom banners which included such phrases as in god we trust, and god bless america.

mr. johnson who had displayed the banners for the past 25 years has argued that they're not an endorsement of religion, but our historical phrases and part of u.s. history. a lower court agrees with mr. johnson ruling that the school district practice to the viewpoint discrimination. this is just over half an hour. >> all rise. >> this court that resumes session. >> thank you. good morning once again. next? it 10-55445 johnson v. poway unified school district. each side will have 18 minutes. ready for the appellate. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> if it please the court, i would like to reserve five

minutes. my name is jack sleeth with the law firm of stutz, artiano, shinoff & holtz. we have the honor of representing poway unified school district and in this matter. as my first remarks, i would like to focus on the freedom of speech? speech? the issue here is whether the district and these administrators violate mr. johnson's rights when they asked him to remove his banners and replace them with some posters that had language in them but were in their original context or and more of a historical context. the trial court erred eyed leaping over the threshold issue of whether mr. johnson's beach -- mr. johnson speech was attack. there was error for a couple of reasons. but i think the first reason is

that this court is given us a very clear rule on how to approach employee speech in any case which followed the pickering-garcetti line of cases. and if those first two elements are examined, mr. johnson has no speech rights and we don't get to that issue of whether classroom is an open forum. >> what do we do about the fact that apparently to give them a bulletin board and say you can decorate it however you like, but not in certain ways? >> what do we do with the fact that the district has limitations on what's out there? what we do with that is, we define curriculum the way of the boards and the way this court -- this court hasn't defined curriculum yet, but if we define curriculum consistent with the other courts have defined it, as anything that is knowledge or information, that teachers

because hard, not permitted, the material that is on the bulletin board is under our control just as well. as long as it is communicated to students. the issue is whether it is directed toward students or not. i think you get a little bold board or the place right beside his desk were yet inspirational messages that were directed only towards him i don't think that raises a problem that i don't think it would raise a problem based on the test one of the administrators in this case. the issue here is a seven-foot long banner across the room where the students can't miss it with repeated references to god and to the nation. in a sense to students that the united states is a judeo-christian nation, and that may make someone in the room that feels differently uncountable. >> any student complaints? >> there were none. >> whether any inquiry made of students to see if they had a reaction one way or the other to the banners of?

>> there was not. the only thing that we have is one teacher asked the question, didn't you make a complaint but has to question why can he do that and i can't. >> had that teacher been prevented from doing something? >> i don't even know that. i would have in the record with the question was. i guess he felt he couldn't, and i think, i want to make this important point, i think. in 2002, this court looked at one of those phrases, one nation under god, in the context of the pledge of allegiance. there was a lot of press on that, that this court had outlawed one nation under god in the pledge of allegiance. this happened during a couple of years after that, and i think teachers like that teacher probably thought he couldn't put that up because some of that. so i know the court took a different position in the end newdow free speech but he had these banners up more than 25 years. >> yes, he had. >> nobody ever said anything.

>> nobody ever said anything and nobody had ever noticed it. he couldn't find an administrator who could remember seeing him. i have to answer to that. one is a legal answer that the district does great an open forum or doesn't establish a right-center by the passage of time under case law. but factually, realistically, administrators don't very often go into senior respected teachers classrooms. this is an excellent teacher who has a good reputation in the school for teaching math, handling his students well. and i think after about 10 years, under california law your statutory required to evaluate a teacher every two years. after you have done that about five times, i think administered the going to the classroom. >> this was a new principle. she had just taken over the high school, and apparently if anything had been said to her predecessors, no action had been taken. >> nothing -- we couldn't find any record of anything being

said that the assistant superintendent collins was deposed and he was in the school for ages and he didn't remember. he had a fight with his teacher and he didn't remember. i have another expedition for that, and that is wha what you s into the room, when administered goes into the room to evaluate a teacher he's not looking at the walls to what. i think he is looking at the teacher. >> he couldn't have missed it based on the exhibits i saw in the record. >> i agree. i would want to get into a debate. it was large and their concern was it was large when it came to their attention. but i think if you go into the room looking at the teacher, the interaction of the teacher to the students you may not even look at the walls, particularly with -- >> didn't the principal testify one of the first thing she was surprised at was the size of the banner? >> absolutely. >> seventy by two feet of? >> yes. >> then the word god was in much larger font than any of the other words and phrases?

>> the word creator in the second there was much larger type, and all caps like it was shouting the word. she was surprised by that. >> why didn't she notice that when she was in the classroom before? >> would have made any difference if mr. johnson was a civics or social studies teacher rather than a mathematics teacher? >> the newdow three and some other cases have taught us the word context is explaining important. so i think the answer to the question has to be it would change the context and that makes, may make the analysis a little bit different it was a social studies class, if it was a history class and the item to be discussed -- by argument, my statement right now almost of silly because this was out for 25 years. it wasn't up for a few days on a particular subject, for a particular period of time. all those things would change the content. >> what's difficult for me in part is the fact that one of the

phrases that the principal found, the superintendent and objective, objected to was one nation under god. and yet every day in mr. johnson's classroom, they say the pledge of allegiance, right? >> absolutely. >> and that phrase is in the pledge of allegiance. so it's okay to say in the middle of the pledge of allegiance, but if you put it on a banner in put up on the wall, suddenly that's not okay? >> and i think -- i was rather surprised by these administrators understanding of the current state of the first amendment jurisprudence. they said that was christian context. they thought taking it out of the pledge of allegiance and putting it on a batter with other phrases refer to america and god altogether change the context and change the message. and it appeared to them that the banners were direct as and with intent to commit a something different than the context of the words one nation under god, as a part of the pledge of allegiance we come down to the

end and you say one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> why didn't they ask the students? what strikes me is how hypothetical it is. how detached it is from reality because with all those concerned about impact on students and yet there's no effort of impact on the students. >> well, i do think it would have -- it was my think on what we didn't take the depositions of a bunch of stupid because i thought we get decisions, we would get answers spent even that is to lay. i'm kind of astonished the administration makes a decision based on what they think might happen without chatting up a couple of students. find out if anybody objects, if it is based upon how concerns -- have stood for act and maybe there ought to be evidence of student reacting. there isn't any. >> you couldn't lead prayers whether not students speedy's i do that it matters whether the students objected or not. i think it is either legal or illegal. >> but that was the reason

given. i read a brief and it says she is concerned on christian student might adversely react. >> she did know if there was a non-christian student or scientologist or someone else in that room. she didn't know that. she just thought, her to issue was i think it would make some students uncomfortable. >> did she ever ask? >> she did not. and i think that's the correct reading, we get down to the establishment clause, the endorsement. >> that's a whole other set of issues. at the threshold, this problem struck me as more theoretical than real. >> i think we thought it was illegal. >> that's something else again. and, frankly, i disagree with you on that proposition, but the state of this nation's astonishing -- the establishment of jurisprudence, what's okay and what's not. >> and i'm hoping and that's one of the points i want to make on the issue of freedom of speech, i'm hoping this court can give us a bright line rule. the bright line rule that i

would request is that this court followed the idea in other cases and the holdings, the language of lee versus george and mayor, and defined speech as outside of the arena, defined as hired speech and defined broadly, defined curricular speech is any information, any knowledge imparted by a teacher to a student during class time, or during the contract a come on during the workday, or someone which like that so we have a bright line rule. and we leave teachers with a constitutional right to speak as you are leaving for our as they are off campus or on break or other times like that. but when they are working for the school district, a broad definition of curriculum and the exclusion of curricular speech from the protections of the first amendment would give it ministers a bright line rule, and hope to at least understand teacher speech.

spent helping write the opinion. if we write the opinion in such a way that we do that, with mr. johnson as the advisor to the christian club be able to unfurl his banners by the christian club is meeting in the courtroom or in the classroom after school hours of? >> absolutely. >> so we'll have to put an exception into our bright line rule. >> when he is volunteering, when he is off of his time, when he is dealing with that student group, i don't think that's -- >> you would call the extracurricular? >> i would. >> you want to reserve a five minute figure down to about three. >> my principal argument is that the school principal nailed the endorsement past by saying she was concerned that some kids would feel like outsiders. we didn't violate it because we have a secular purpose. our primary effect, it inhibited

religion because we offered other posters to put up there. and by removing it we avoided government entanglement with religion. moving on to equal protection, which frank i think was the most complicated issue, and there's all these other diagrams of all these other things. i have very little time your left, so the thing i would like to say is if the court would look at those tibetan prayer flags in the picture that is on volume two, page 203, and ask the question whether any rational person could look at those flags that are called tibetan prayer flags, and come to any conclusion that the primary purpose was to endorse or that they had any primary purpose related to religion at all, from the floor those flags are high up, and the one little buddha that might be a religious symbol is about an inch, inch and a half tall, a group of flags, buried in schools. and i'm told there is a

sanskrit. >> you have that who can translate an? >> we haven't found anybody. a teacher who put those up asked her students, she has kids of all overcome including thailand and areas close to the home of the sanskrit language, and none of them could read. none of them had any idea that it was religious and she was using it for a secular purpose to talk about caring for flags to the top of mount everest, because she talked about seashells at the top of mount everest. the trial court didn't believe it. he didn't believe her. but it's the only evidence we have. the only evidence we have of her purpose in putting up the flags is that she put them up and use them in our curriculum to talk about evolution and seashells on the top of mount everest. the secondary purpose of the picture of buddha might be religious, the issue of whether the tibetans believe in these flags are not doesn't reach our school district. the school district is concerned

about documents or speech that would have primary effect of establishing or endorsing religion, and those flags don't do it. so the answer is we treated everybody unlike. if somebody else had something up that endorsed religion, we would have pulled it down. we did not see the. and, finally, a brief moment on qualified immunity. i was stunned when the truck were issued a $10 award of damages against the school board members and against these administrators. they did not punish mr. johnson. they have a good relationship with mr. johnson. it is purely a philosophical discussion and there's no possibility that anybody could know fully in 2007 and 2008 that the words one nation under god, upon the wall, were permissible at a school district, particularly after newdow one. thank you. >> thank you, mr. sleeth. >> good morning. >> good morning. may please the court, my name is

robert muise. it's my first represented plaintiff in this case mr. bradley johnson. this case presents unique set of facts, the facts that are not contested in fact they're really mad at the end of the day. based on the facts the district did create a limited public forum for the non-curricular personal speech of its students. excuse become of his teachers including mr. johnson. >> is that the analysis? or should we begin first with the supreme court's decision in pickering-garcetti connick, and ask whether or not this was actually hired speech by a public employee who is directed by the school board to teach a particular subject matter? and is entitled to make policy as to what may or may not be taught in the classroom. >> i think, your honor, when you look at the first jurisprudence and with the government facilities and whether the limits of the government can place on the use of its

facilities for the use of design for as opposed to the use of the facilities or property for expressive activity, you cannot perform analysis. >> even though the audience is captive? >> even though the audience is captive. it is the principal analysis based on these facts. regarding -- >> what we said was -- >> it's interesting. balance did form an analysis or they determined that the speech was personal and non-curricular speech. and because it was government speech and the government speaking, then you don't have a first amendment issue because once the government speaks speedy so don't we need to make that decision first? what kind of speech was this? >> all you have to do is look at the testimony of the people in the school district who testified as to what is curriculum and what is not curriculum. and the record, that's why facts matter. the record without exception they testify this is personal non-curricular speech but it's not related to the curriculum.

they testify to that -- >> i'm not sure it's the same thing. it's the captive audience that strikes me. the principal audience of this are a bunch of kids that are required by law to be in that classroom for whatever the length of period is up at school each day. that's the target audience, and the target audience is there only because the school district. i'm not sure i understand why it is that we disregard the fact this is something happening during the school day, through the vehicle of the school, a commentary being offered up by somebody who is an employee of the school. why do we disregard that? >> again, the question of the first amendment gives with the governments restricting speech, restricting the speech of an individual whether it be an employee or an employer, and certainly there are other cases that teachers don't -- >> only you don't take the position that the school couldn't ban this altogether. >> this includes the four. this is where the problem comes

in. because they created this form of personal non-curricular speech the government could based on the arduous of opposing counsel they could tell teachers while i to put up a campaign poster but will not allow you to put a good democrat campaign poster. those of you want to put up posters to promote the campaign of john mccain or some other republican candidate, you go right ahead and do so. you put them up on your classroom walls. but you teachers want to put up republican posters or democratic posters, you can't do that. here's the problem. they created the problem themselves. look at widmark versus clinton, when the government creates the forum when they allowed his personal non-trigger speech was no exception, no dispute that's what they've done, they have to live by the limit that they set for themselves. and in that form you can't make viewpoint-based discrimination. if they want to retain the control of their classrooms then close the forum. they have the option able to them. >> let's suppose that we

disagree with your analysis of how the form is characterized. and we find for the reasons articulated by judge clifton that this forum is closed. doesn't that strengthen the right of the school district to dictate what may or may not be posted on its wall inside its classroom, particularly when the contents are being displayed the students who have to be there? >> you still have a problem with a discrimination. even in nonpublic forum. >> do we have a problem, under the pickering test, if we conclude that this is not interest, speech on a public, as a public interest, if it is instead the employer's speech which is to be confined to whatever curriculum mr. johnson as a teacher is supposed to be teaching, in the supreme court has told us there is no first

amendment protection. the school board can do mr. johnson what he may say and what he may not say when he is on the clock for them. >> not there is a so much bickering but innocent it does with garcetti do without question whether it is pursuant to the duties that they were hired to do. so under garcetti would be government speech that under this court's decision in downs without it was the government speaking its government speech. so if the case in growth, if it is government speech, if it is government speech and not non-curricular speech of the individual they can make those restrictions. that's why the facts matter. in the league they said was curricular speech but they don't have the record and even said in a decision that had been personal non-curricular speech they would the school district would've had to assure it was a material substantial disruption in the school district to restrict the speech spent let me come at it a different way. if you take the position that nothing on the walls of

mr. johnson's classroom could be curricular, then what do we do with these huge white chalkboards that i see on er to 84, in which i presume mr. johnson when he is teaching cactus rights calculus formulas. >> the fact that the open the floor doesn't mean it can be that user courage and her speech is. i'm not sure i follow -- >> if mr. johnson is using the same location in order to carry out the directives of the school board to teach mathematics, why doesn't the school board have the right to say to him we want you to teach mathematics. we do not want you to be talking about religion when you have this captive audience of? >> if they want to close the forum and exclude the personal non-curricular speech of the students, tell lori brickley that she can't put up her, promoting gay rights come from an environment of causes,

promoting the antiwar causes or don't put up your barack obama campaign poster, or don't put all these other personal items. if you want to take deposition, they can. they can't single out -- single out mr. johnson after allowing his band of 25 years as a we don't like your viewpoint. they are still to come at the end of the day. and school districts and schools themselves are not totalitarianism, taking a quote from the tinker case. that's a probably run into and that's why these facts are so important and why it is testing osha will from pickering, garcetti, all the other cases. they chose to open in that forum and allow the personal non-curricular speech and they have to live by those restrictions. >> suppose we define curricular to include more than what the teacher says when class is in session. suppose we define curricular to say that a teacher is employed as a leader to import all kinds of information to students, and

that is done in addition to what is said in the classroom by other things that the teacher does while he is on the school premises. >> with that said then, with the court and license a school district such as how weight during the next, you know, next campaign elections that will allow teachers to put up all the democrats and other campaign posters for barack obama, and none for any republican appointee? that's a huge problem. >> are you saying there are no limits to what they can regulate as far as this bulletin board goes if it's an open forum for could he put up white supremacy posters? >> it's a limited public forum so you can make content-based restrictions in a limited public forum. they can say no political campaign posters. >> how about no religious test of? >> for example, if he wanted to include crosses and 10 commandments displays they could do that. these banners, the tibetan

verify, -- >> at this point there's context, no religious -- to what mr. johnson did. they are not comparing apples and oranges. >> the 35, 40-foot tibetan prayer flags with images of buddha on the. they described him as prayer flags. comparing this to these historical phrases, they are not taken from tex. they are from our founding documents. they are not -- they don't represent any particular religion. they are historical in nature. those -- >> it's hard to take that straight, given the way of the word creator. you look at the picture, there's always a message meant to be convicted. it's not an accident that mr. johnson is conveying what happened to be his personal views with regard to the existence and importance of god. a few i don't quarrel with, but

to suggest that these are a bunch of our struggle documents, that's just not how it is. >> i think it is how it is. in particular when you look at the context of the fact that the role of religion played in history of our nation. any different than you see a poster of mother teresa or martin luther king or gandhi, i mean, i don't think there's a public having those in the classroom. nobody has discuss any concern with those. these are historical banners. they are not quotes from the bible. even creator in the actual word and declaration of independence is cowboys. the declaration of independence uses -- >> are all the word creator cap was in the declaration of independence are only the first of? >> the first one. >> in the banner, what is at? >> to say student doesn't understand the banter from the declaration of independence i think we have it or problems. >> to say that the student doesn't understand there's a religious message here -- are you telling me students don't pick up the religious message?

>> it is not meant to convey a religious message that is permissible under -- >> don't give me the legal question. you're saying it's all about facts. and i'm asking, our students likely to infer from these banners a religious message? >> no. in god we trust is our national motto. declaration of independence is our founding document. >> your? breasts students will not end for? >> for them to make a viewpoint taste distinctions and if you'll be relying, their fear cannot be an unfounded fear. that is an unfounded fear based on the fact of the case. first of all, it is mr. johnson's speech that any student in the classroom to look at all the photographs, you go to any particular class or any day and you'll see that that classroom represent the person knows, opinions and values of that teacher whether that person is a sports fan, or that person is a social activist like lori

brickley. if you look at mr. johnson, the greatest number of pictures in this clash of our nature pictures. you walk into his classroom and here's something that mother nature, he has his red, white and blue banners and the declaration of independence. you go into another classroom and you see someone who is antiwar. >> counts, if we accept your position, aren't we constitutionalizing every grievance that ms. brinkley or some other people might have about the content of some other teachers room aren't we doing exactly what the supreme court told us in garcetti the federal courts should not be doing? you really don't want federal judges making quarterly visits on campus to make sure everybody is complying with the first amendment, do you? >> as i stated before, if they don't want to create this limited public forum then they don't have to do so. the fact that they did they have to abide by the law in that particular forum. that's what this case is so unique than the others. i want to make a just curriculum, make it only the

items that school districts put up, they are more than free to do so. they could've done it from the beginning. the fact they don't want to do that and they like to pick and choose which social issues they want to promote that should cause us pause for concern. >> if they do that and if we find that it is their speech, not his speech that is being honored inside his classroom, then they can change anytime they want, can they not, because the first amendment doesn't protect them? >> they did not grant a limited public forum, then exactly. but that's what the facts of this case meant. they created a limited public forum. the testimony is without equivocation or exception, personal non-creature speech on the individual teacher. that's what mr. johnson was doing. when you pick and choose, that is a problem it is a problem in a public school because it's the government. they can't become, they can't -- if you want to create that forum then they have to live by those

restrictions. >> the supreme court has told us if it is their speech and if the public disagrees with the way that the school board is running for school, then the answer is the ballot box. to get rid of the members of the school board and put other people in charge who will run the school in a different way. >> we don't subject to constitutional rights to democratic vote spent if he has a constitutional right. >> they created that for. if you can create that forum we don't have the problem. that's why this case is scheduled. even in hazelwood, there was a limited public forum. lee made a point there was not agree to personal speech would have a different issue. dowd makes a point if it wasn't the school speech, and we have a different issue. that's why the facts matter in this case. you can't escape the fact they created this limited public forum and those of the confines. otherwise we raise even greater

constitutional concerns. they chose not to do that. that's where the problem becomes. that there picking and choosing. >> thank you very much. mr. sleeth coming of one minute left. >> i would like to change my answer, judge. i said that he could unfold his banner at the new meeting on or afterschool meeting a student at the student could unfold his banner. if the banner is up and while there's no problem. advice from the christian group are not supposed believe that particular activity. he shouldn't unfold it. but he wants to edit a student i would be happy with it. there is a footnote bill -- [inaudible] >> i think that's the reason. there's a footnote in garcetti that this court has addressed yet which deals with academic freedom. there are courts out there who have said k-12 doesn't give the application of academic freedom, and i think that's another thing that needs to be in this, is

this court needs to address the issue to determine whether academic freedom only applies to the publishing issues for university professors and doesn't apply, and we would suggest that it does not in that broad definition of curriculum would be important. >> your time is up. thank you, mr. sleeth. thank you, council. the case as argued is that it. we will stand in recess. >> all rise. the court stands in recess. >> on this tuesday morning the u.s. senate is about to gavel in for a day of general speeches. negotiations are underway on the

floor of a debt reduction agreement that would be inserted into a senate budget plan. senators will recess today between 12:30 and 215 east and for the weekly party lunches with more general speeches on senators returned this afternoon. u.s. house will be debating expedited offshore oil drilling permits and a review of haiti earthquake released spending. live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and live coverage now on the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, the chaplain, dr. barry black, will eternal spirit your kingdom is above all earthly kingdoms. empower the members of this body

with the wisdom, courage, and strength needed for our times. infuse them with a passion to act in ways that honor your name. preserve their health and strength by your mercy and power and may they find your grace sufficient for every need. lord, bless also the citizens of this great land. give them the wisdom to pray for our governmental leaders so that all people may live quiet and peaceful lives in all goodness and holiness. we pray in your merciful name.

amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., may 10, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable jeanne shaheen, a senator from the state of new hampshire, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. reid: madam pre the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i would ask consent that the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: following any leader remarks, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 5:00 p.m. today. the majority leader will control the first 30 minutes. the republicans will control the next 30 minutes. senate will recess from 12:30 until 2:15 for our weekly caucus meetings. working to setup a debate and vote on the nomination of edward chen to be a district judge in the state of california as soon

as we notify when that vote is going to be scheduled. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: madam president, later today the president is expected to speak in el paso about our nation's immigration policy. getting immigration policy right is one of the more difficult challenges we face as a nation. and republicans are committed to meeting it. as with most serious challenges, however, the only way we'll make progress is by working on a solution that's acceptable to both parties. for republicans that means the president will have to present a plan that takes amnesty off the table and focuses instead on make a real commitment to border

and internal security. if the president does these two things, he will find strong bipartisan support. if he doesn't, he won't. another difficult challenge if we're only solving by working together is bringing down the nays' debt. to -- nation's debt. both parties meant with the president last week at blair house. the participants had what all sides agree a productive meeting and they'll meet again this afternoon. unfortunately, there still seems to be a serious disconnect between the two parties on this issue. there is still those on the other side who think we can put off difficult decisions until after the next presidential election or even beyond. republicans strongly disagree. in our view doing nothing about the debt would be far more dangerous in the long run than failing to raise the debt ceiling. i've said this before and

speaker boehner reiterated the point yesterday in new york. the warning bells are simply too loud to ignore this crisis any longer and the debt limit debate presents us with a prime opportunity for a meaningful, positive action. if the last financial crisis taught us anything it's that we can't afford to play with fire when it comes to economic forces this great. we need to get serious now. before the crisis that we know is coming. and that means entitlement reform needs to be on the table. this is a serious crisis. we muss do something serious. entitlement reform needs to be a part of it. that's the only way we'll send a message to the world we're actually willing to make the tough decisions needed to get our fiscal house in order. that's the only way the markets, the american people and the rest of the world, especially those

that hold so much of our debt will believe we're on right track. so as we prepare for a second round of talks, i would renew the call to get serious about this looming crisis and do something serious. and i would do what it takes to make sure we avert it without making taxes or averting tax increases in the future which would only destroy jobs. we can avert this crisis without doing harm to the economy or slowing down any economic recovery. that means no tax hikes now and it means not rewarding the failure of a futuring on with automatic access to more taxpayer dollars. above all, it means serious reforms. we need to summon the courage to make some tough decisions right now. madam president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the leadership time is reserved -- mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: thank you. briefly, madam president, first to comment on immigration reform. we spent a great deal of time on the senate floor the last two congresses dealing with immigration reform. we've worked hard coming up with a solution. and we have the solution. we were working with president bush toward coming up with a solution to immigration reform. the problem was even president bush -- even president bush could not get his republican colleagues to join with us in doing something about immigration reform. our immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed. but it -- it is so important that the president in el paso today talks about the need for

immigration reform because he knows, we all know, even as president bush knew, immigration reform is necessary. the problem is we can't get republicans near the senate to help us. it's quite simple. we know that we have to do something about border security and we've done a lot in that regard. have we done enough? no. there's more that can be done. but we've done a lot in that direction and rightfully so. we just within the past year or so we provided $650 billion for more border security that was on a bipartisan basis. we passed that. that was important. we also have to do something about our guest worker program. we have at any one given time thousands and thousands of guest workers here. why? because it's necessary and it has been for a long time. out here in the chesapeake bay, we learned that we have people who come in, seasonal workers,

who can do the stuff on the clams, the great chesapeake bay, we have 1.5 million agricultural workers in our country. we have a system that doesn't work even for them. we have to do this. our agriculture industry depends thofnlt we have -- depends on this. we have 11 million people undocumented. there isn't anybody with an ounce of commonsense that thinks we can deport 11 million people. we can't do it fiscally and we can't do it physically. we need to do something about the 11 million people here. how should we do that this is put them on a pathway to legalization. it doesn't mean amnesty. it means that they would pay penalties an fines. -- and fines much they would go to the back of the line, not the front of the line they would have to learn english. stay out of trouble. pay taxes. there are certain things they would be required to do. finally, madam president, we

have to do something about the unworkable employer sanction provision put in the 1986 law. it wasn't worked. prior to that time the burden was on the government to make sure that people came to work throughout -- who came to work throughout america were legal. we shifted that responsibility to employers. they can't do that. as it catch 22 now. it's simply the way the law's setup now. it simply doesn't work. we have now since 1986 computization that's taken over much of the world and through that we could work toward having an employer sanction in the country that could work. president obama should be commended for talking about immigration reform that's necessary. my friend, the republican leader, should also understand that we have tried and for my republican people to talk about immigration reform and not vote accordingly is something that people of america have witnessed now for many years.

madam president, saving money requires a lot of very very difficult -- very, very difficult choices. which programs do we cut in these tough times? which priorities are more important than others? after we've seen in the senate and across the country over the last few month as lot of people have a lot of different answers to these questions. democrats believe that we have to get our spending under control and we have to look at what needs to be cut p we need to have a -- cut. we need to have a fair program. one that looks what the we're going to do long term with the equities of our spending programs. we have to look at what we do with revenues to make sure that they're fair and balanced. so there are a lot of choices. my friend, the speaker of the house, gave a speech last night in new york, and he talked about raising the debt limit and some of the things that he thinks would be necessary in order to get that done. but i would direct my friend, the speaker's attention, to one

way to go very quickly to solving some of these problems. we know that there's waste in the federal budget and the tax code. but what i want to direct my friend, the speaker's attention to, is these five big oil companies. we as taxpayers are paying billions and billions of dollars every year to these companies. billions every year. every cent of it is taxpayer money. the oil companies already are more than successful. these oil companies made made $36 billion in profits during the first quarter of this year. i repeat that. $36 billion in profits during the first quarter of this year. exxon oil alone made 70% more this year than they did last year. exxon holds the record for making more than any corporation in the history of our country in years past.

these oil companies, i repeat, made $36 billion in the first quarter. the industry's $36 billion in quarterly profits means they are making about $4 billion a week, and yet the u.s. government has given these companies billions of dollars in corporate welfare every year. that's unnecessary. why are taxpayers on the hook for oil companies that are doing just fine on their own? if we're serious about reducing the deficit, what an easy place to start, i say to my friend, the speaker of the house of representatives. it's really a no-brainer. let's use these savings from the taxpayer giveaways to drive down the deficit, not drive up oil companies' profits. we need to make one thing very, very clear, madam president. wasteful subsidies have nothing to do with gas prices. these oil handouts have existed for decades. prices have continued to rise. oil executive paychecks have

also continued to rise. in the state of alaska, they are paying $8 or $9 for gasoline. in the state of california, there are places where you pay as much as $5 for a gallon of gasoline. here at an exxon station along the waterfront, i looked out the other day and the gas prices there were within a few cents of being $5 a gallon. that's here in our nation's capital. so that money americans are paying at the pump are not related to those subsidies that i've talked about, but those profits are proof enough that they don't need them, the companies don't need those subsidies. even big oil c.e.o.'s like the head of shell and republicans in congress, even my friend the speaker said on occasions that these subsidies aren't necessary. some of our conservative colleagues have a hard time

stomaching giving a hand to those who need it the most. madam president, we should all agree in the interest of fairness, common sense and saving taxpayer money that we cannot continue with this corporate welfare for the big oil companies who need it the least. that's a good place to start. 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 ten minutes each, with the first hour equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and the republicans controlling the next 30 minutes. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: madam president, i'd like to rise in support of the comments made by the majority leader. i was in chicago over the weekend and down state as well in illinois and saw these

gasoline prices and understand the hardship they cause. at a b.p. filling station in chicago near lawrence and lake shore drive, i ran into a man who was a plumber who had a van and went from job to job, and he said it's not unusual for him to spend now over $100 a week on gasoline. and, of course, that's taking away money that he could have brought home for his family. it's a real hardship on him. he kind of smiled and chuckled and said but they do it to us every year, don't they? that's true, madam president, whether you're talking about the situation in new hampshire or in illinois. we can predict the rites of spring in america -- the opening of the baseball season, easter egg hunts, seder dinners for passover and then skyrocketing gasoline prices. there is an excuse. there is always an excuse. we had to switch from winter to summer. we didn't see that coming. oh, there is a problem in the middle east. whatever it is, any excuse will do and the gasoline prices go up.

we can do something about it, and we should. the majority leader is right. we accept the challenge of speaker john boehner who said in new york let's make a serious effort to deal with this deficit. well, we've got a great down payment. $21 billion that we can take off the deficit and we can take it away from a group that doesn't need it. we're talking about the oil companies that are registering record profits, $36 billion, and if we decide to take away the subsidies that are now being given to these extremely profitable companies, it will save taxpayers $21 billion over ten years. let's get started there. there ought to be the easy part, because right now we know what's going on. we're paying for these high gasoline prices three times. first, when you fill up your tank. oh, they hit you hard there. $60, $80, $100 just to fill up your tank. second, because we're giving giving $4 billion a year in subsidy to the oil companies,

taxpayers are being hit again. it isn't just what you pay at the gas pump. it's what you pay on april 15. part of that is going to the oil companies, but there's a third hit. do you know where we get the money to pay the oil company subsidy? we borrow it from china. the largest creditor of the united states. we are borrowing 40 cents for every dollar we spend. so out of the $4 billion that we're talking about that's going annually to these oil companies, 40% of it, about $1.6 billion being borrowed every single year from countries like china. so the third way we pay is ultimately on the debt to china and the interest on that debt. can we afford that? at a time when americans are sacrificing, can't we ask the oil companies with record profits to sacrifice their federal subsidies? that's all we're trying to do. i know that senator schumer from new york is going to take the floor momentarily and talk about

this. we'll have a bill on the floor. for those members on both sides of the aisle who have given impassioned speeches about reducing the deficit, here's your chance. it's a put up or shut up moment. if you really believe in reducing the deficit, here's here's $21 billion of low-hanging fruit. let's pick it. let's pick it for the taxpayers. let's take this savings and put it right on deficit reduction. i hope that's something both sides of the aisle can agree on. let me say a word very quickly here about the president's speech today in el paso. madam president, i have said on the floor many times because it's a source of pride to me, i'm a first-generation american. 100 years ago, my mother was brought to this country as an infant. 2 years of age, my grandmother brought her over from lithuania and they landed in baltimore in 1911, 100 years ago. how they made it, four of them at that point, my aunt and uncle, grandmother, my mother, how they made it from baltimore

to east st. louis, illinois, i don't have a clue because i'm sure they didn't speak but a handful of words in english. they made it like other immigrants made it, because they were determined to come to this country, they were prepared to leave everything behind in their lives. their home, their church, their relatives, their friends, their language, their culture, and come to this great nation and take the risk, the risk of opportunity. think about that story and multiply it millions of times, and that's the story of america. the people who hate immigration are turning their back on the heart and essence of this great nation. we are an immigrant nation of people of extraordinary courage who picked up and moved and said we're going to try our best in a new place with a new language. and when most of them arrived -- i'm sure it was a case with many on the boat with my mom -- there were folks standing on the shoreline saying no, not more of those people. don't we have enough of them? they don't speak our language. they don't look like us.

they don't dress like us. they eat funny food. they hang out with one another. you know, we don't need more of those people. for as long as immigrants have been coming to these shores, there have been people standing on these shores saying please, pull up the ladder, we don't need any more of those folks. but we do. we need them not only because they work hard. we need them because they have a spirit and a determination which makes us a different nation. the d.n.a. which each of us shares from those immigrant parents and grandparents gives us a drive and a determination to make this a better nation. and when we close the doors to immigration, orderly, legal immigration, we are closing the doors of opportunity in this country. the president will speak to immigration today. he has been a loyal friend of mine for a long time. he was a cosponsor of the dream act which i introduced ten years ago. i wouldn't be surprised if he brought it up today in el paso. he did last week in the white house. i know he is as committed as i

am to make sure that children who were brought to the united states as as infants and youngsters, who had no voice in the decision to come here, who had a good life here, worked hard, gone to school, said the pledge of allegiance every morning in the classroom, know no other flag other than the american flag, children who want to become tomorrow's adults and leaders deserve a chance. the dream act will give them that chance. they can choose to enlist in our military and become citizens of the united states or they can choose to complete college, at least two years of it, and find a path to citizenship. that is reasonable, it is compassionate, and it's fair, and i hope that as part of immigration reform we include it. i would plead with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't turn your back on america's heritage, don't turn your back on fairness and compassion. join us in real immigration reform, join us in passing the dream act. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. schumer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york.

mr. schumer: thank you, madam president. first i want to commend my colleague and friend from illinois for his outstanding remarks on both subjects, the deficit and on immigration. i'm here to talk about the deficit, but i will just touch on immigration. people are saying well, why is the president going to el paso when we haven't made enough progress on immigration? they bring up a point. the president's point is the right one. he is bringing the message to the country on why we need real immigration reform. i think there's one thing 100 members of this chamber would agree on -- our present immigration system is broken, badly broken. we turn away lots of people who should be here. we also don't have a rational system for who should come here. and america is the lesser for it. as the senator from illinois pointed out, immigration is part of our proud, proud heritage,

and immigrants help america. one of the reasons we are doing a lot better than europe is we have welcomed new people into this country and we integrate them and say quick as you can, become americans, because we all came from somewhere else originally. now, i am still very hopeful that as the president sets the table and lets america know how important this is, that we can get bipartisan immigration reform done in this chamber and on the floor of the senate and even over to the house. it's hard, no question, but i believe that first to get comprehensive reform, we need bipartisan support. that's obvious. but second, that there is enough need -- people see enough need to do it that we can actually get it done, particularly if the president goes around the country, as he is beginning to do today in el paso and as he has done in the past and talks about the need for immigration reform, setting the table so that we can actually get

something real done. now, let me speak to the issue i came here to speak about, which is the deficit. speaker boehner was in my hometown of new york city last night, and he talked about how important it is to get a handle on this deficit, and on that issue, my colleagues on this side of the aisle and i certainly have no problem. neither does president obama. the president has proposed proposed $4 trillion in cuts. a huge amount of cutting. $4 trillion to close the deficit, both on the spending side and the tax side. so anyone who thinks that, you know, one side wants to cut the deficit and the other doesn't just hasn't looked at the facts, but obviously we have to come together. if each side sticks to its own position, nothing will happen, and there should be one obvious place where speaker boehner and

his colleagues can show some goodwill, and that is on the subsidies to big oil. no one can defend them, no one. oil companies are making record profits, gas prices are at an all-time or close to an all-time high, and we, the taxpayers, are continuing to subsidize the five big oil companies. you couldn't write a more ridiculous scenario. and senator menendez, along with senator brown, senator mccaskill, later today will introduce legislation that our side agrees with which will say take all that money and put it to deficit reduction. there are some who would have preferred to put the money into encouraging independence from particularly foreign oil, but because the deficit is such a huge problem, because we might have a dispute with our friends

on the other side of the aisle as to where the money ought to go, everyone can agree it would be worthwhile to take a little bit of the burden off the taxpayers, have the oil companies pay their fair share, and stop these ridiculous tax breaks and subsidies to big oil, to the five big oil companies. and so i would ask speaker boehner to show some good faith. some on his side of the aisle have said these subsidies don't belong. they were created when oil was $17 when we worried about production here. oil went over $100 a barrel again yesterday. the oil -- you don't have to worry about their desire to explore. they're looking for every place they can. they don't need a tax subsidy to do it and some might argue well, what about the small and middle-sized companies? well, many of us believe they

too shouldn't get the tax breaks much but this bill that senator menendez will be introducing shortly doesn't even touch them. just the five big oil companies much just the tax breaks that they now get. why not? a perfect way to start off this debate and show some goodwill, democrats have agreed to cuts, lots of cuts. people on the other side of the aisle can show some agreement on revenues. this area of revenues, which almost nobody can dispute, shouldn't be there. and so the time to repeal these giveaways is now. we would most prefer do it in a bipartisan way. speaker boehner, those on his side of the aisle, can show some good faith that they're not just dug in and saying, only my way. because only my way will lead to the kind of scenario that many

tremble at, which is the debt ceiling not being approve. we on this side of the aisle don't believe that should happen. many on the other side of the aisle have said they don't. the first good step that can be taken to show a little give on the other side is eliminated big tax subsidies to big oil. i urge colleagues to support . it i urge speaker boehner to pivot on his speech from yesterday and support this proposal and it would create a great deal of goodwill and put us in a direction of reducing the deficit that we all so much want to reduce. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the cher will call the roll. -- the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. inhofe: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: and, madam president, it's been called to my attention that there are some people that are trying respond to the fact that we had such high prices of gasoline at the pumps. in a totally unrealistic way, in a way that is class warfare, in a way that doesn't make any sense to anyone when we have a solution to this problem that we've been talking about for a long period of time. the -- there are some who are trying to say that we're going to have to do something about

the -- the subsidies that are given to oil companies, about all of the amount the -- the -- what they've been doing over the -- over the years and all of a sudden they're the ones that are responsible for the high price of gas at the pumps. a c.r.s. report was requested by my colleague, lisa murkowski that grew out of the frustration with the refrain that america has only 3% of the global oil reserves, and, therefore, under this view more drilling and production at home is futile. i think that president obama has said many times, with 3% of the world's oil reserves, the u.s. cannot drill its way to energy security. well, it can. it's not 3%. the c.r.s. report came out later and showed -- showed -- and this is something that people don't want to believe, but it's out there and it is a fact that the united states of america has the

largest recoverable reserves of oil, gas, and coal of any country in the world. more than china, more than saudi arabia, more than anyone else. our problem is that we have a political problem and that is this administration -- and it goes right down democrat and republican lines, the democrats put 8% of america's federal lands -- 83% of america's federal land off drilling. they have made some statements i will read to demonstrate very much they want to increase the price of gas at the pumps. the idea that you can do this through regulation and through trying to further tax the oil industry c.r.s. stated tax changes outline in the president's budget proposal and i'm quoting from the c.r.s., the congressional review, it is completely nonpartisan, they say -- quote -- "it would make oil and natural gas more expensive for the u.s. consumers an likely

increase foreign depends." ain't was very proud of a couple of the democrats over there. only two that came out that were outspoken, senator landrieu from louisiana said -- quote -- "the administration has put forward draconian taxes on the oil and gas industry. it seems very contrary to our stated goal of being more energy sufficient. in the united states taxing this domestic industry would increase our dependence on foreign oil. so i want you to deliver ta message again to the administration. we have bipartisan opposition to the increasing taxes on this industry. senator begich from alaska said -- quote -- "the president's proposal would cost thousands of jobs in alaska and across the country. energy companies are among the -- the businesses investing and creating jobs at a time when our country needs them both and i will fight any major entities, et cetera. well, i think it should be pretty obvious without the

democrats coming in, these two, and i appreciate the fact that they did, that you're not going to be able to reduce the price of oil at the pumps by further taxing the oil an gas industry -- and gas industry. it's ludicrous to even think that anyone would suggest that you could increase taxes on the oil industry and the gas industry and somehow you're going to have energy more available and you're going to reduce the cost of gas at the pumps. you know, it's -- there is a way of doing this that i -- i think is -- is -- is so simple. there's not a person in this country and certainly no one who serves in this body who back during his his or her elementary education didn't learn about supply and demand. here we are in the united states of america sitting on more gas an oil than any other -- and oil than any other country in the world and we are the only country that doesn't exploit its own natural resources.

we're the only country. now, if we did, we would be completely independent from the middle east. we wouldn't have to go outside of this continent to go -- to supply our needs. and people say, well, if you do that and you start developing then that's going to take a long time to do. it's going to be maybe eight or 10 years. well, that would be fine because we were there saying that eight or 10 years ago. we could have done it then. that's not quite true. the economists have said that if we announce that we're going to go to these areas where we're not exploiting their own resources. i'm not talking about the gulf. i'm talking about the east coast, the west coast, i'm talking about the north slope, anwr, our public lance where they are off -- lands where they are off limits for drilling. if we were to announce today that we are going to open up drilling and exploration and production in the united states of america, that price would drop tomorrow. it would drop immediately

because people would know that we have -- we are going to be able to use our own resources. you know, i hate to say this, but somebody has got to say it. we have an administration that is so wrapped up in saying that one of these days we're going to have to have all of this green energy and all of that, that they themselves are on record saying that they don't want -- that they want to increase the price of oil and gas. look what happened. the administration -- this is allen krueger, the department of the treasury. he said the administration believes it is no longer sufficient to address our nation's energy needs by finding more fossil fuels. the -- the obama treasury department said to the extent the lower tax rate encourages overproduction of oil and gas, it is detrimental to long-term energy security. therefore, you know, we want to do away with oil and gas. and then here's the best one here. 9 energy secretary of president obama, steven chu, says --

"somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels of europe." we have an administration who wants to increase the price of gas, the price of gasoline at the pumps to be comparable to europe which is between $7.50 and $8 a gallon. and i think that obviously people would know that this is true. it wasn't long ago that president obama gave his energy speech. in his energy speech, he said well, there is all this abundance of -- of clean gas that we can use. and then at the end of the speech, he said but we are -- we have some problems in -- in getting the gas out of the ground. he's talking about natural gas in this case, not about oil. and he says -- and so i happened to give the response at one of the tv stations and i said -- you know, he says he wants natural gas. at the same time, he says he wants to end high drawling fracturing. let me tell you about hydraulic fracturing, madam president.

the hydraulic fracturing started in the state of oklahoma, my state in 1948. it's a way of pumping fluids, water primarily, into these tight formations, these tight formations mostly are down about a mile to two to three miles under the surface, and that will allow them to go in and get the gasoline. we have enough gasoline -- we have enough natural gas to take care of our needs for the next 100 years. we just need to use these systems that we have. now, if you do away with hydraulic fracturing, then that means you're not going to be able to get any of the natural gas out of the system. you can't produce one cubic foot of natural gas without using hydraulic fracturing. now, what did we find out last week? steven chu, secretary chu is going to be in charge of the study to see how dangerous hydraulic fracturing is. now, wait a minute, this is the same guy who said somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels of europe. so i would only say this.

we actually have three problems. we have the problem that we have all of this abundance we're not going after with the hydraulic fracturing. then you have to keep in mind once you get it, we have to refine it. that's where the e.p.a. is coming in. i stood here at this podium for nine years talking about the problems that we have with cap-and-trade. the fact that we can't have a cap-and-trade system that is going to have the effect of costing the american people -- the estimates are between between $300 billion and and $400 billion a year. that's supposedly for greenhouse gases. now, they tried -- the kyoto treaty way back in the 1990's and they tried seven different times on the senate floor to pass legislation that would have the same type of cap-and-trade as we would have if we had become a party to and ratified the kyoto treaty. now, the problem with that is even if there are people out there -- and there are. there are a lot of people out there, a very large percentage of people in america, some 40%,

believe that somehow the greenhouse gases are causing catastrophic global warming. even if that's -- even if that were true -- which it is not, but if it were true, it doesn't make any difference what we do here in the united states of america. i admire our -- it was the director, the administrator of the environmental protection agency, lisa jackson, who was appointed by our -- by our president, president obama, because even though, yes, she is way off on the left wing, she is liberal and all that, but she -- when you ask her a direct question, she gives an honest answer, and she gave honest answers. one of them was -- i asked her the question. i said at that time it was the markey bill, one of the cap-and-trade bills. i said in the event that we were to pass the cap-and-trade bill here in the united states, would that reduce emissions? and her response was no, it wouldn't, because that won't

affect the united states of america. that's not where the problem is. the problem is in india and in mexico, china. china, right now they are cranking out two coal-fired generating plants every week in china. so it's going to continue there. in fact, you could argue that it would even be more expensive -- it would be more expensive because -- or more polluting if you call co2 a pollution because our jobs would go to places like china where they do have this problem. they don't have any emission control. so you have the problem of refining it once you get it -- and i see my good friend from -- is on the floor. he is going to be speaking, i'm sure, on perhaps the same thing, but i only want to mention one thing, that the cap-and-trade agenda, since they were not able to get it passed, they are trying to do it through the environmental protection agency, through regulations.

lion oil based in el dorado, arkansas, recently testified before the house energy and commerce committee that it commits a $2 million expansion of its el dorado refinery in 2007 with 2,000 construction jobs, but its completion has since been stalled. as lion oil vice president steve cousins explained, and i'm quoting now, "the uncertainty and the potentiality of prohibitive costs associated with possible cap-and-trade legislation and e.p.a.'s greenhouse gas regulations were the critical factor leading us to delay the completion." what i am saying is if we are -- and i believe we are going to be able to break down this barrier and overcome this -- this mentality that we should not be developing our own resources, but then we also have to have a way of refining that. we can do it, it's within our reach, and we could bring down the price of oil and gas and certainly gasoline at the pump by tomorrow.

if we were to announce that we were going to stop being the only country in the world that doesn't exploit its own resources, we go after the oil and gas that is available in the gulf and the east coast and the west coast, our public lands as well as -- as the north slope of alaska, we could be independent from any dependency on the middle east. and with that, i believe the american people understand that. it goes right back to our elementary school education. it's supply and demand. we have the supply in the united states of america. we've got to open up that supply so that we can use it, and obviously that would lower the price of gas at the pumps. with that, i would yield the floor. mr. sessions: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i thank my colleague from oklahoma for his leadership on the environment and public works committee, and i'm pleased to be back on that committee with him and share very much the substance of his views about the need to produce

more american oil and gas, and it keeps money in the united states, creates jobs in the united states, creates tax revenue for the united states. offshore oil and gas in our gulf produces billions of dollars for states and the federal government. why we would want to produce oil and gas off of brazil and not produce it off our shore, i don't know, but i thank my colleague for that. madam president, i -- i just want to make a few remarks about the budget circumstances in which we find ourselves. yesterday, we learned that the white house, the president scheduled two summit meetings on the budget this week. the president will meet with senate democrats on wednesday and republicans on thursday. by calling this summit, it would seem that the president has effectively canceled this week's planned unveiling of a

democratic budget, senate budget in the senate budget committee that was planned earlier, actually. first, it was going to be monday, then tuesday, then wednesday. it looks like maybe it won't be held this week at all. it might be. senator conrad could do that somehow with be this event occurring, but may not. regardless of this new discussion period, it's my expectation and belief that the american people should be given a senate budget plan, so the -- they it can be examined and we can know what's in it and see what it's about. the american public deserves to know where our elected leaders stand. i have -- i hate to say we have

gone 700-plus days -- maybe 740 now, without a budget for the united states of america. during a time of the greatest systemic debt situation we have ever faced. we have -- we will have double the debt of the united states i believe by next year in four years. we'll add $13 trillion to the debt over the ten years presented by the president, president obama's budget that he sent to us some time ago. and there have been all kinds of discussions and talks and a lot of speeches. the president created a fiscal commission, and they came forward with a serious proposal that was worthy of real insight and study. they spent a lot of time on it. did not go far enough, in my opinion, to reduce our surging

growth in spending, but it made made -- it was intellectually honest and it offered us some very real suggestions about how we could do better. then we started hearing that after the president's budget was submitted and it was received very badly, in fact, it was not helpful at all but actually made the debt trajectory that we are on worse, we had a gang of six senators who tried to work together to establish a budget plan that might work for us. they met in secret and had these ideas, and -- and i was interested in what they had to say, but somehow that seems to have gone on the back burner. then we had vice president biden, he is going to lead a discussion with house and senate republicans and democrats, and

he's going to work out something. and now just yesterday, we had the president is going to have another meeting at the white house and talk to us. i hope it's not like the one in which he invited the house budget chairman paul ryan and criticized him sitting right there in front of him for producing what i think is a historic budget that would put us on a sound path, if followed. so i -- here we are. we have not gotten a plan or a commitment as to what this administration intends to advocate for. they submitted their budget. it was alleged to have reduced the deficit by $2 trillion, but when the congressional budget office, our objective analysts, took the document that they

submitted and stated it in detail, they concluded it would add $2 trillion. in other words, it would create more debt over the next ten years by $2 trillion than was projected to accrue without the budget. that's not what financial experts are telling us. that's not what economists and professors are telling us we need to do. it's unacceptable. that budget was criticize and we hadn't heard much about it. well, the president for a week or so tried to propose that it would reduce -- it would have us live within our means and help pay down the debt. and according to the congressional budget office the lowest deficit in 10 years would be over 00 billion. -- $700 billion. and the president said this was going to have us living within our means?

so apparently desiring to back off that, the president made a speech and he said he's now going to save $4 trillion. and the budget staff, i'm ranking republican on the budget committee, we looked at the speech and took what he said and we noticed a couple of things. we noticed that he had moved the period from 10 years to 12 years and that would save -- that made the numbers look a lot better compared to a 10-year savings plan. you save a little bit each year and you go 12 years and it looks better than 10 and everybody was talking about 10. it's kind of a little gimmick, you see, to medicare numbers look -- to medicare numbers -- make your numbers look better. and they took credit for every dollar that was saved when the

republican house negotiated with the senate and with the c.r. reduce spending abou about $12 billion -- $29 billion a year. they took credit for that and that was about $2.9 trillion of the savings. the net result is that it was not any different, really, than the budget plan he had proposed except it took credit for the house reduction in spending which should not be done since the budget is for the future and the house savings take place this year and, secondly, it was 12 years. so i have to say the house republicans stood up and they faced the american people and they revealed in advance the core of their plan. i attended one press conference in which paul ryan announced the

budget that he was moving forward with. he had a series of press briefings. he basically said, this is my plan and i'm ready to hear any exceptions you have to it and i'm prepared to answer your questions and i'm prepared to defend what it is that we've done. honest, direct, responsible approach and he dealt with the long-term financial threats to america as well as the immediate and the numbers that he proposed get us to a.where we can perhaps -- to a point where we can perhaps -- so we can certainly say we're not on the same debt trajectory that put us at such great risk. i believe it's probably the most serious effort that i've seen in the 14 years i've been in the senate to address the significant fiscal challenges that we face. see, we face not only a short-term problem, but we face a long-term systemic problem.

we've got an aging population, people drawing more social security for longer periods and medicare for longer periods. we've got our entitlement programs and we've been spending extraordinarily. and so all of that has got to be a part of our discussion about how to put this country on a sound path. and every expert that we've had, republicans and democrats, have testified before the budget committee and senator conrad, our democratic chairman, has done a good job in calling good witnesses who have told us the truth about the grim circumstances under which we find ourselves. and they've told us, if you don't act, we could have a debt crisis. they told us that the debt we've already accrued and continues to increase, that that debt is right now pulling down our economy. our growth is not what it would

be had we not incurred this much debt. this is pretty uncontradicted. when i asked secretary treasury geithner about that, he agreed with a rogoff, rien hart study when your debt reaches 90% of g.d.p., it pulls down economic growth 1%. secretary geithner said, yes, that's an excellent study. i would add one more thing, when you get that much debt, you run the risk of having a debt crisis that could throw us back into some sort of recession or financial problem that we've had. that's president obama's secretary of treasury. so we know we've got a serious problem and we need to do something about it. so the president submitted a budget. it's basically been rejected. i can't imagine that the senate would bring it forward as the senate democratic budget.

the house of representatives in accordance with the law and the time frames of the budget act have produced a budget. publicly stated it before they voted on it and have defended it since and now we haven't had one in the senate. the senate by law should have produced its budget and started its markup six weeks ago. the law says we're supposed to have passed a budget by april 15th, tack day. we tax day. we haven't even begun to mark it up. it was supposed to have begun this week on monday and we've not started. and people are politically attempting to explain democratic spinmasters are attempting to explain what it's all about. why are we doing these things? why hasn't a real budget been

produced? they say republicans are divided. oh, you've got tea party people and the republicans are all divided. the republicans have passed a budget in the republican house. where is the democratic senate? who's divided? why can't they produce a document? why do we have to have the vice president here and the president having meetings here and the president giving speeches here? why don't we see a real budget that the american people can see in advance and be able to evaluate and senators have to stand u up, as we're paid to do, and cast votes for or against it. i really think that's what we need to be doing here. i don't agree with the fact that the president is leading. i wish i could say that. maybe he'll surprise us

thursday, i hope so, with something. but i don't sense any leadership at all. because the budget he produced will not do the job and that's the only one that we have in the senate, i guess, at this point. indeed, mr. erskine bowles, the man he chose to head his debt commission said that the president's budget came nowhere close -- nowhere near doing what's necessary -- actually what he said was that the present budget comes nowhere near doing what's necessary to avoid our fiscal nightmare. nowhere near. -- nowhere near doing that.

so i'm wondering what's happening here. the american people get it. they sent a message in the election in november. sent 64 new members to the house of representatives. almost every -- every single one of them promised to do something about reckless spending in washington. and what about this budget that the president has submitted to us? it's the on-line one, i guess -- it's the only one i guess we have in the senate. the senate democratic leadership hasn't presented one, it called for a 10.5% increase in education, 10.5% increase in the state department budget, 62% increase in the transportation budget. well, we don't have the money. 40 cents of every dollar we spend today is borrowed. it cannot be continued.

we are on an unsustainable path. the american people know it. every expert has told us. we know it. where are our leaders in the senate? senator conrad apparently made a presentation of his budget. the republicans have asked senator conrad to present it to us 72 hours before the committee meets. he said he's not going to do that. he made a presentation to the democratic conference and apparently it didn't go well. senator conrad must have proposed -- apparently did propose reducing spending more than they like to hear. the democratic leader, mr. reid, senator reid was sort of critical, actually. he said, well, it's a nice bunch of charts. obviously he wasn't happy. so what are we going to have? when are we going to seeing? we're going to go another 800 days we're not going to have a budget this year? the way things should work is

this: the senate should come forward -- the democratic senate. they have the majority. you pass the budget with a simple majority. let's propose a budget that -- that hopefully would get bipartisan support. if not, you stand up and say what you believe in and how this budget reflects your vision for america. the house has done that. then you go to conference committee after it comes to the floor and is voted on, goes to the conference committee, and differences are worked out. it comes back and you have to vote on the final passage on an agreed-upon budget. we have to have a budget. it's time for this country to begin to reverse the reckless trend we are on. because we are placing our nation at risk. mr. bowles and senator alan

simpson, when they testified before the budget committee, warned us that we have to do something significant. in their written estimate that they both signed, they said, we are facing the most predictable economic crisis in our history. when asked when that could occur, mr. bowles said two years maybe. alan simpson said, i think maybe one. not when our grandchildren -- i'm talking about now. so i guess what i would just say, madam president, i think it's time for us to go back to regular order. we're trying a lot of different things to confront this crisis we face. it seems to me that our leadership in the senate is desperately seeking to avoid having to do the responsible thing. and that's to stand up and produce a budget.

if you aren't prepared to stand before the american people and tell how you think the country ought to be run and where the money ought to be spent and how much ought to be collected, then you're not leading, it seems to me. and i'm very disappointed in the president's leadership. he's been roundly criticized because the only proposal he has sent to us is irresponsible. it in no way comes close, as mr. bowles said, to doing what's necessary to avoid our fiscal nightmare. and that's the path we are headed to. it is not a matter of dispute. we will not reach 10, 15 years down the road spending like we are because we'll have a catastrophe before then. allen greenspan, the former head of the federal reserve, said he thought that maybe some sort of compromise would be reached that would be good for the country.

the only question, he said, was whether it would be before or after a debt crisis occurs. this was a few weeks ago. alan greenspan saying this. it's a challenge to us. and it's a challenge to the leadership in this senate to come before the american people and produce their plan and seek support here on the floor of the senate and let's debate it. let's have amendments offered. let's go to conference. and somehow, some way hammer out a budget that will put this country on a better path. we have no other choice. it's our defining moment for this congress. we have no other higher duty than to confront the dangerous fiscal path we are on. i thank the chair and would yield the floor.

mr. pryor: madam chairman. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. pryor: i will speak here in morning business for 10 minutes or less. thank you very much, madam chairman. let me just talk about a couple of things this morning. first, i want to talk about something my state has been going through since mid march and has continued to present day, and that is we have been battered by tornadoes and high winds, and now flooding. you see this photo that was just taken a few days ago. i think it was taken late last week of just one of our areas in the state that's underwater. we have had many, many towns that have been evacuated. many, many counties have been declared disaster areas. in fact, the corps of engineers showed me a map on friday when i met with them, and they have this map and it's a large oval that goes -- that starts down near dallas, texas, goes pretty

much all across the state of arkansas and into a little bit of missouri and tennessee and illinois and even i think a little bit into kentucky, and in that oval, the folks in those areas have received six times the normal rainfall in that area. so when you have six times the normal rainfall, this is what you get here, and this is just a photo where you can see the water is up in the house and up on the front porch. you know, these folks are under water, just like a lot of people in my state are. i will say this, the governor in our state is doing all any governor can do. he is doing a great job. even though we have interstate 40 under water right now in one area where the white river goes under interstate 40, they're working very hard to try to get that open, maybe today. if the water will cooperate, we're seeing a lot of emergency response in our state.

we're seeing neighbor helping neighbor. the churches are rolling out. all kinds of folks are just doing everything they can do to make this work. so we appreciate that. also i want to really thank the corps of engineers. it's really easy for us to beat up on the corps of engineers sometimes, but, you know, the truth is probably 95% or more of the time they do things right, they do it the right way. if it weren't for the corps of engineers, all of arkansas would be under water and a lot more. i think that's true around the country. so the system that they have designed and they have built has worked, even though this is a 100-year flood or even worse, it's working and it's saving billions and billions of dollars in damages and hardship, so i want to thank the corps. also i want to thank fema. fema has been on the ground in arkansas for three, four weeks now probably with different teams going around the state, helping in different ways, and they have been very helpful. so i appreciate fema. now i want to go to my second topic and i want to emphasize

that what we're seeing happening in the state right now is not impacted by what i'm about to talk about, but i think that this fema administration is still cleaning up some mess from the previous fema administration. a few years ago, we had another series of floods in our state, and now what we're seeing is we're seeing fema trying to recoup that money against people in our state. so let me give a little background. three years ago, in an area around mountain view, arkansas, the white river flooded, and fema came and they -- they showed up. they actually went to this woman's house. i want to talk about her and her husband. went to this couple's house. they are on social security. they are retired. fema assured them that they would be eligible for assistance. fema took pictures, they

verified the damage. they gave her the paperwork, even kind of coached her through some of the paperwork, and they assured her repeatedly, assured them repeatedly that they would qualify for some assistance from fema. now, they did end up getting getting $27,000 for home repair, and that's exactly what they spent it for. they played by the rules, they filled out all the paperwork. fema was physically on their premises. they got their check, they put it right back into the house like they said they would do, and it helped them stay in their house. now fast forward three years, and we see that fema writes them a letter, what i would call a demand letter where they are requesting that they repay all of this money and that they have 30 days to repay the balance of the debt that they owe to fema. this, of course, is a big shock to them because they were

assured repeatedly that they had a legitimate claim and that fema encouraged them to file this claim and they got the money and they thought everything was great with it. what's happened here is these -- this couple, like many others in our state, this couple built their home down on the river, and they knew that it could possibly flood one day. when they built it, they bought flood insurance. after years of paying flood insurance and they were flooded, after years of paying flood insurance, the flood insurance company said they weren't going to carry flood insurance anymore. they actually went to lloyd's of london and bought flood insurance for their property and did that for a number of years. eventually, lloyd's of london said we're not going to do flood insurance anymore. so they desperately tried to find flood insurance, could never find it. fema has a rule that in order

to -- for anyone to get flood insurance through the flood insurance program, the county or the city has to pass an ordinance in order for them to get the flood insurance, people in their community to get flood insurance. fema knew that this particular county had not passed this ordinance. nonetheless, they assured her repeatedly that she was entitled to this money. so in a very real sense, these people and many others in our state, these people are twice the victim. they are the victim of the storm and then the flood, but then they are the victim of their government because their own government has injured them by the way they have handled all of this giving out the money and then demanding recoupment for the money. three years after the fact when they get the notice of debt, -- fema, by the way, not just sent it out to one couple but 35 households around the state --

three years later when they get this notice of debt, they have no means to pay this back. these folks are on social security. they don't have -- in fact, they wouldn't have qualified for the money, for the payment had they had substantial resources. so one of the ironies here is that what we're doing is we're telling the poorer people that they need to pay fema back and the poorer folks owe fema the most money. that's just the way the program works. i think if we had director fugate -- who again is doing a good job running fema. i think if we had director fugate here today, i don't know what he would say exactly about the situation, but i think he would say that the statute ties his hands and he really doesn't have much flexibility under the statute, and even though whether he agrees with the hardship of the situation or not or the equity of the situation or not, he just doesn't have a lot of leeway on trying to -- to deal with this. so i'm offering a solution, and

i'm offering it in the homeland security committee this week. i hope that members of the -- of the senate will look at my piece of legislation, it's only four pages long, and what we're asking is we're asking the congress to give fema some flexibility when it comes to the recoupment process and to allow leniency for some individuals under certain circumstances. and i think our couple here in arkansas fits those circumstances exactly. basically, they played by the rules, they have done all that they can do. they are -- they continue to play by the rules and do all that they can do -- and i will be glad to yield the floor to the leader.

mr. reid: i express my appreciation to my friend from arkansas who is always so courteous in everything he does in life, and i appreciate it very much. i ask that the record appear as not interrupted, that his remarks will appear in one. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 today, the senate proceed to executive session to begin consideration of executive calendar number 61, the nomination of edward chen of california to be united states district judge for the northern district of california under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: madam president, there will be three hours of debate on the chen nomination beginning at 2:15 p.m. today. senators can expect a roll call vote on the chen nomination at approximately 5:15 p.m. today. i have nine unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have been approved by me and by the republican leader. i ask consent that these requests be agreed to and be

printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. pryor: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. pryor: so i filed a bill that's going to be in the homeland security committee this week, and i would love to have my colleagues look at it and support it if they see fit. what it does is really three things. one, it says that fema may waive a debt owed to the u.s. in cases where funds were distributed purely by a fema error, which is the case here, because fema knew that this particular county had not passed this ordinance. fema knew that no one in this county was entitled to any assistance under this particular provision of the disaster relief

because the county hadn't passed the ordinance. and fema knew that for the entire county. in fact, they have a list of every county, every zip code in the country where people do not qualify. she was very clear, very clear about her location as she went through this process. fema, whether they admit it or not, we can produce documentation, fema was clearly in error in giving out this check, in assuring her that she was entitled to it, in assisting her through this process. they were clearly in error. i think it's a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. again, i think this fema administration has cleaned up this problem. my guess is you won't see this type of problem in the future, especially not out of this team administration. the second thing that it does is it says that they have to waive a debt owed to the u.s. in cases where the rationale for recoupment was failure to participate in a national flood

insurance program. again, what this will do is this acknowledges that fema made some mistakes three years ago. it's kind of competence 101 that they would know which counties and which residents would be entitled to this particular relief, but somehow, some way they dropped the ball. but this would make it very clear from 2005-2010 -- again, this is a limited duration of this bill, this is really a relief bill to help a specific group of people here, that because of fema's mistake and because the folks here could not, could not participate in a flood insurance program no matter how much they wanted to -- and this particular couple did want to participate in the fema flood insurance program, they could not do it and this would basically say you cannot now punish them and come back on them for that money. the third thing that it does is it basically -- it makes clear

that the congress is not giving any waivers in cases of fraud or misrepresentation or false claims or anything of that nature. so this is purely for mistakes and errors made by the federal government when the federal government is trying to come back in and recoup moneys that they wrongly paid. let me just run through a couple other things, madam president, and i will be glad to yield the floor in just a few minutes. these communities that do not pass this ordinance and therefore are not entitled to participate in a flood insurance program, they are called sanctioned communities. that's what fema calls them. they're called sanctioned communities. there was a lawsuit a few years ago that basically challenged fema's ability to do certain things, it was too long to talk

about, but the court found there are 168,000 cases, most of these going back to hurricane katrina, rita, et cetera, the biggest bulk of them do. 168,000 total cases that fema has to revisit and maybe recoup some money from people. so far, they have only done 5,000 of these cases. out of the 5,000 cases that they have reviewed, only 18 cases -- only 18 total out of 5,000, really out of 5,500 cases would be impacted by my bill. so we're talking a very small percentage. we're talking .3% is what we're talking about here. and so this is a very tiny, very narrow exception. and let me say this. i'm for recoupment as much as anybody. i think it's very important that the government do it right and do it right the first time. if they for some reason can't do

it right, if there is some sort of fraud, some sort of misrepresentation, then the government absolutely should go after that money and try to recoup as much of that as possible. what we're talking about here is a 99.7% of the cases, they can pursue recruitment, but based on the numbers we have today, it's .3% of the time where the mistake is completely on fema's side of the equation that we would say no, as a matter of fairness and a matter of equity, then they can't seek recoupment in those cases. let me say this in closing. to me this is a matter of equity. this is a situation where this particular couple in arkansas -- we have other families too. we know of a total of four in our state that fall under this category, so we only have four out of how many thousands have received fema participates over the years, but nonetheless, this is a matter of equity because if

you look at this couple that i'm talking about here in arkansas near mount view, they basically would never have done this. they would have made other arrangements three years ago. i don't know if they would have gone to the bank. i don't know if they would have gotten a second mortgage. i don't know if they would have just sold the property and move out. i don't know. and they don't want to think about it. because this fema check actually allowed them to stay in their house. now they're coming back in a worse condition than they were before because fema says you have 30 days to pay this back. the fact that they haven't paid it back yet and that they filed an appeal with fema to try to work through this process and get some relief, which fema very seldom if ever grants, if they file this paperwork, it means they have a little extension on the principle owed. it is clear from the correspondence from fema that now interest is accruing. interest is accruing on these folks and, again, i think

they're in a worse situation today than they would have been had fema said no three years ago like they should have done. to me this is a matter of equity. i think if we were in a -- in a court, you might use the word he's stopple. i think that the federal government should be esstopped in this situation from pursuing this money because there was detrimental reliance on the part of the family. they didn't ask for this. fema took pictures. fema walked them through the process. they did exactly what they're supposed to do. put them in the house. saves their house. gives them the ability to say there. three years later they get a letter saying notice of debt, you owe fema $27,000. you can imagine, mr. president, this is devastating for a family on social security that really has very few other means that, again, since they qualify for this in the first place, you know they're not high-income folks.

$27,000 at this stage of life for them is a lot of money. it's really a mountain that's too tall to climb. so what i'd love for my colleagues to do is look at what we're going to offer in the committee and i hope you can support it. we'll be glad to answer any questions if any of my colleagues want to talk about it today or in the hallways here in the senate over the next couple of days as we're working through this. i certainly want to thank senator lieberman for allowing us to put it on the markup. i think that folks around here rightly are in a recoupment mode. they want to recoup money that's been wrongly paid out. and, again, i'm for that 100%. in fact, we had a hearing in one of the homeland subcommittees just the other day about recoupment. we've talked about this. it's very important that we stop the bleeding and the government not pay out more money than they should. but in this particular case, i think the principal equity and fairness is certainly on the side of these folks who, again,

like i said are twice the victim. they're first victimized by the storm. second, they're victimized by their own government. so, with that, mr. president, i will yield the floor. thank you. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. bingaman: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the g officer: without objection. mr. bingaman: mr. president, i ask consent to speak as if in morning business for 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bingaman: mr. president, yesterday i introduced two bills on the subject on -- on a subject of great importance. two different subjects, really, related to our national energy

policy. the two bills were the oil and gas facilitation act of 2011 and the second was the outer continental shelf reform act of 2011. both of these bills are based on bipartisan, largely consensus work, that was done in the committee on energy and natural resources during the last congress. i -- i should note that these important issues are being addressed in separate bills very consciously and for a reason. in the past we have passed comprehensive energy bills that are attempted to address all the energy policy issues in a day in a single piece of legislation. there are obvious advantages to that, but there are well-documented disadvantages as well. and i would like to avoid those disadvantages this year in furtherance of completing our important work.

there's no disagreement in the senate about the need to have robust and responsible domestic production of oil and gas. at the same time there is probably considerable disagreement about how best to address that issue and we need to begin work on that. however, ensuring the safety and viability of our operations in the outer continental shelf is a separate matter which deserves attention on its own. the question of how we undertake oil and gas exploration and production on the outer continental shelf appropriately, in my view, stands apart from the question of where we undertake those activities. i do not believe it would make sense to try to trade off safety or environmental protections against the issue of access. i believe the congress should

set an appropriate level of safety and environmental compliance regardless of where the oil and gas exploration and production is occuring. i'll also observe that there was much greater consensus on the need to reform the rules governing outer continental shelf production in the last congress than on other issues such as those related to access to particular areas. and so conflating these separate issues into one bill is not likely to be the best path to success in enacting a bill into public law. accordingly, we have introduced two bills. that's not to say we don't have a responsibility to address both issues. we do. i believe they should be addressed on parallel tracks and not in combination. i hope to be able to move forward in the committee with consideration of both of these bills later this month.

the first of the bills, the oil and gas facilitation act is toen hans domestic production of oil and gas and to limit the dependence of the united states on foreign sources of oil. the last two years have been a time of real success in increasing our domestic production of both oil and gas and in reducing our reliance on imported oil. we're currently the third largest producer of oil in the world. the percentage of oil that we use that is imported has declined from 60% in 2008 to about 51.5% in 2009 and to about 49% in 2010. we want to be sure that we continue this progress while protecting our other natural resources and our communities' health and safety.

this bill, this oil and gas facilitation act, addresses production issues in a variety of ways. it requires a comprehensive inventory of the oil and natural gas under the waters of the outercontinental shelf, to inform decisions about where leasing is likely to be most productive. to improve the efficiency of the permitting process for development on federal lands and waters, permit coordination offices are reauthorized, and a new coordination office is established for the alaska region of the outercontinental shelf. two provisions facilitate the transportation of alaska's abundant oil and gas resources. the amount of federal guarantee instruments is increased to support the construction of an alaska natural gas pipeline and the transalaska oil pipeline system is exempted from certain

requirements that unnecessarily slow the permitting process. coproduction of geothermal energy by existing oil and gas leaseholders is encouraged by making leases available for that purpose on a noncompetitive basis. and finally, the bill will potentially contribute millions to the treasury, to the federal treasury by repealing the current law that requires the secretary of interior to give relief from royalty payments to certain offshore oil and gas production. this bill would allow the secretary to provide such relief in appropriate circumstances, but it would not require such relief. this avoids inappropriate giveaways of taxpayer-owned oil and gas resources to the industry when it is unnecessary for us to maintain a robust domestic production. these provisions are drawn

almost verbatim from s. 1462 which was reported by our committee on a bipartisan basis in the last congress. the one significant change is that certain funding for the offshore oil and gas inventory provided by s. 1462 was redirected by the committee in subsequent legislation to be used for research on safety issues related to offshore oil and gas drilling. to avoid spending the same money twice, we have eliminated that funding here so that it could be included in offshore safety legislation. at the same time, the bill retains the authorization of significant appropriations to be used for this oil and gas inventory. the outer continental shelf reform act is the other bill that i'm introducing today. it is a verbatim reproduction of

s. 3516 which was reported unanimously by our energy committee in the last congress. because of the widespread support for this bill, i have reintroduced it exactly as reported since i believe that it is a good place to begin our work this year. it will need a bit of updating as we move forward. a few of the provisions have largely been overtaken by events, and we have learned from the president's oil spill commission and others about some refineries that we should make, make, -- some refinements that we should make in this legislation. i have been having discussions with senator murkowski and others who have supported this bill and i would continue those discussions as we move forward. i would hope that we would have the same strong bipartisan support for these efforts as we did last year when we reported this bill during the midst of the worst oil spill in our

nation's history. our commitment to responsible operations in the gulf and protection of our citizens and communities should be well understood by all. this bill is intended to respect those who lost their lives in the deep water horizon accident and respect the people of the gulf who have suffered serious economic and emotional harm by doing what we can to create a better future for them. it is the particular responsibility of the committee on energy and natural resources to look at the future of the regulatory agency and the industry that it regulates, and as i said last year when we introduced the bill, our goal must be, of course, to prevent future disasters. but we can and must do more than just that. congress should create organizational resources and a set of requirements that will

have safety and environmental protection and innovation at their core. we should require that both industry and agency employees have the expertise and the experience and the commitment to quality that is necessary to handle the complex issues involved, and we should set principles in place to create a culture of excellence for the regulatory agency and for the industry that will be a model for the entire world. thus this bill reforms the structure of the offices of the department of the interior dealing with offshore gas leasing and development to avoid organizational conflicts of interest. it clarifies the breadth of the department's responsibilities in managing the resources of the outer continental shelf. it increases the safety requirements for exploration and well drilling and production. it mandates use of best available technology, an

evidentiary safety case and a risk management system that identifies and addresses hazards in advance and manages for change, and it provides for third-party review by qualified parties outside the agency of key equipment and well design. it addresses the essential need for the department of the interior to have in-house research capacity on both the safety and the marine environment issues necessary for the exercise of its regulatory authority. research departments in these areas will no longer be optional but are required and funding is redirected from other areas of research to ensure that this will happen. in order to ensure that the rules are enforced, the bill requires the collection of fees from industry to fully fund the necessary teams of inspectors. it provides for independent

investigations of accidents and the sharing of data so that all can learn from mistakes. it also provides the department of interior with adequate time to carry out necessary reviews, and it makes the input of other federal agencies occur in a transparent way. and it increases the civil and criminal penalties applicable to violations of the law and regulations. i believe these policies and resources can set us on a new and constructive path toward managing the incredible natural resources that we have in the outer continental shelf. we must commit ourselves to the goal of excellence in this important endeavor. the fact that oil is no longer gushing into the gulf of mexico in no way diminishes the importance of this work. both of these bills address issues of great national importance. we will shortly be scheduling the necessary hearings and preparing those -- these bills for committee consideration.

if at all possible, we will do so before the memorial day recess. i look forward to working with my colleagues on the energy and natural resources committee and in the rest of the senate on a bipartisan basis as we have in the past to address the vital issues presented by both of these bills. mr. president, i'd ask unanimous consent that the text of both bills be printed in the record following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bingaman: mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: