are original cosponsors of the job protection act. and at the end of my remarks, mr. president, i ask that we include two articles from the "wall street journal," the first written by me on april 29 and the second written by the president of the boeing company, jim mcinerny, also chairman of president obama's export council. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. alexander: thank you very much, mr. president. to make a few remarks about the actions that have caused this, i just left a hearing in the health, education, labor and pensions committee on the middle class in america. and one of the witnesses there was the general counsel of the boeing company. and as might be expected, given the notoriety of this case and the breathtaking scope of it, he

got a lot of the questions. let me first say why there's such a breathtaking scope here. up until the filing of the complaint, one would assume that a manufacturing company such as boeing, or a smaller company, who wanted to open a new plant to create new jobs could make its own decision about where to do that. and that in doing so, it could take into account such factors as the cost of labor. it could take into account such factors as the labor relations within a state, as well as the geographical location of the -- of the state. and many other factors. but the reason the decision by the acting general counsel has attracted so much attention is it basically says, or at least it suggests to any company

manufacturing a product in a state which is not a right-to-work state, such as washington, that you better think twice before you open a new production line in one of the right-to-work states. now, let me talk for a moment about why that has an impact upon the middle class in ameri america. 30 years ago i was governor of tennessee. we're the third poorest state, and my goal was to raise family incomes or to create an environment in which they could be raised. i knew enough to know i was a young -- i was a young governor but i knew enough to know the government didn't raise the incomes but it might create a good environment for that. i went to my first white house dinner with the president of the united states. the president was then jimmy carter. the president said to us governors -- very nice dinner, just the governor and their spouses, the president and mrs. carter -- governors, go to japan, persuade them to make in the united states what they sell in the united states. i remember i called dean rusk, who'd been the secretary of

state, and asked him to come visit with me and talk to him about how to do this. and off i went to japan, which was not something i had really planned to do when i was walking across tennessee trying to be the governor. i met with the nissan officials in tokyo in the fall of 1979. at that time, the japanese companies which seemed so powerful that there were books coming up saying japan, number 1, we thought they might take over the united states economy. but they weren't making here what they sold here. they were making nissan cars and trucks in japan. but they were making a decision about where to locate in our country. i took with me a photograph of the united states at night taken from a satellite and they asked, where's tennessee? i said it's right in the middle of the lights. that reduced the shipping and transportation costs.

and then the next decision was, where in the center did they want to go? every state north of us did not have a right-to-work law. tennessee and the states around us did. nissan chose tennessee and they and the general motors plant that later came and the volkswagen plant and thousands of suppliers have helped our middle class raise their incomes over the last 30 years. a third of our jobs are auto manufacturing jobs because we provided an environment in which automakers could compete in the world marketplace. and nissan says today that soon they'll be making in the united states 85% of what they sell in the united states, which makes them a very american company. that's what we want. but this decision, madam president, says -- would throw a big, wet blanket over all the auto suppliers and manufacturers who might be thinking about moving into

tennessee or opening new plants in tennessee or suppliers who might be wishing to follow boeing to south carolina because it says you can't make that decision. we've never had that kind of law in the united states. we've had a right-to-work law on the books since 1947. states have a right to adopt it or not to adopt it. and the legislation i'm offering today on behalf of 34 senators doesn't change that but it does preserve the right of states to adopt a right-to-work law, the right of employees to join or not to join a union, and the right of employers to make decisions about where to locate their plants or their ability to speak in public about what they're doing. this is a most consequential decision. it is one that deserves the attention of every senator. because as the boeing chairman, who is the head of president obama's export council, whoat in the wall street -- wrote in the

"wall street journal" this week, that a union state would not be able to attract a manufacturer because a manufacturer might be afraid that any expansion could never be done in a right-to-work state. and by simple mathematics, if boeing, which is our largest exporter -- 155,000 in the united states, 15,000 around the world -- has a disincentive if it can't expand a new production line in a right-to-work state and if it might think twice about expanding in any other state, then where is it going to go? it's going to go to some other country. so this decision by the acting general counsel of the national labor relations board is the single most important action i have seen in years that would rush american jobs overseas in

pursuit of an environment in which they can build and manufacture competitively. it is just the reverse of what president carter said to the governors 30 years ago when he said, governors, go to japan. persuade them to make here what they sell here. we did that. they came here. they're making 85% of what they sell here. we want volkswagen to do that. we want general motors to do that. we want ford to do that. and we want boeing to do that. and if we say to them, but you -- we're going to tell you, the federal government is going to tell you where you have to locate your plants, you're going to override section 14b of the taft-hartly act which was created in 1947 which has created an environment which really has permitted american manufacturing to succeed. all one has to auto is to read david halverstam's book, "the reckoning" of the late 1980's to see in our entire auto industry,

if it were still locked into detroit, that it wouldn't be as competitive as it is today, cars made in america. i know that firsthand because i saw it happen when nissan came to tennessee, they didn't hire a bunch of people from japan to run the plant. they went to detroit. they got ford executives who knew how to -- who knew how to run a plant but weren't allowed to by the environment there and they put them at a start-from-scratch place and they created the most efficient automobile plant in north america. and we welcome also the general motors plant and the united auto workers to their spring location in tennessee. that's what a right-to-work state is, it's where you can choose to join a union or not to join a union. both can operate. employees make the decision. but when the federal government starts telling any company, a boeing or a boeing supplier or an auto company or an auto supplier or any manufacturing company, you can't locate in a right-to-work state, they probably won't locate in a

non-right-to-work state. where are they likely to go? mexico, europe, japan. boeing sells airplanes all around the world. it can make airplanes all around the world. and if we persist in policies like this instead of having the situation where our largest exporter has 170,000 employees, more than 150,000 of which are in the united states, we'll turn that right upside-down and they'll be making 85% of their aips iairplanes in the countriee they sell them and the united states will have lost jobs. so this is a consequential matter that i hope attracts democratic as well as republican support. it preserves the right-to-work law. it preserves the choices of employees. it preserves the decision of corporations to make their own decisions about where to locate. and it would stop a federal government regulation which is the single-most effective action i know about to chase american

jobs overseas and lower family incomes. i thank the chair, and i yield the floor. mrs. murray: madam president? i have 1 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: and i ask unanimous consent that carol bruce and brian solarz with the senate ethics committee be allowed privileges of the senate floor during today's session. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: thank you, madam president. madam president, i come to the floor today to support the close big oil tax loopholes act and to talk about the devastating effect that high prices at the pump are having on families in my home state of washington. madam president, middle-class families and small business owners are still struggling. you know, our economy is just starting to turn around, but so

many families are still fighting just to stay in their homes. and so many small business owners are still struggling to keep their doors open. and so many workers are still desperately trying to get back on the job. and all of this is happening while we are here debating in congress about the best ways to cut spending responsibly and rein in the deficit. this is a serious issue. we need to get it done. but i feel very strongly that before we make budget cuts that slash support for our middle-class families, we should look at ways to responsibly reduce the deficit that doesn't hurt the families that are struggling the most. and to me, one of the most commonsense actions we can take is to end the wasteful subsidies that we, the taxpayers, are forced to hand over to the big oil companies every year. it's a no-brainer. anyone who's serious about

reducing the deficit should support this effort. it really is as simple as that. the big oil companies are already making billions of dollars in profits from families in america who are paying now sky-high prices at the pump. in fact, the five biggest oil companies have made nearly a trillion dollars in profits. a trillion dollars in profits in the last decade. and $36 billion just in the first three months of this year alone. but the big oil companies aren't just making money hand over fist from families paying high -- sky-high prices at the pump. they also have the gall to come back to those same taxpayers and demand billions more in subsidies that add directly to their profits. it doesn't make any sense and it has to end. so i think my colleagues here in the senate who oppose this legislation need to explain to the american people why they

think big oil companies need even bigger profits. and why they think american taxpayers should continue to pad their coffers with unwarranted subsidies at the very time we are fighting to rein in the deficit. but, madam president, in addition to ending those wasteful subsidies to the big oil companies, we also have to act to end the speculation that is a big part of what's pushing prices at the pump higher and higher. you know, at a time when our household budgets are already stretched so thin, speculators continue to drive up those prices and the volatility in the oil markets. that's why -- one of the reasons why i was so angry and disappointed that the house republicans' budget proposal slashed the funding for the commodity futures trading commission. that is the very agency that is charged with protecting consumers from excessive speculation in the markets. how can they do their job and protect consumers if they're not there? so i think that says a lot about our very different priorities

here in congress. the house majority has pushed to slash spending by crippling agencies that middle-class families depend on for basic protections while democrats are here trying to reduce the deficit responsibly by ending subsidies for the big oil companies that don't need them. so i urge our colleagues to put taxpayers and the middle class ahead of big oil, to end those wasteful giveaways to oil companies and to use that money to pay down the deficit in a responsible way. and i really want to thank senators menendez and mccaskill, tester and brown for their great work on this issue. so once again, madam president, i support the "close big oil tax loopholes act," and i'm going to keep fighting to end the oil and gas speculation that is hurting so many families in my home state of washington and across the country. thank you, and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you,

madam president. i want to thank the senator from washington state for her leadership on this issue and for her eloquent remarks just now as well as other senators who have championed this cause, as i have, over years when we have fought rising gasoline prices in the state of connecticut relentlessly and tirelessly and now rise here in support of legislation, "the close the big oil tax loopholes act," which would fundamentally restore fairness to our markets and tax system. over the last drkd the big-five oil companies have taken home about $1 trillion in profits while enjoying tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies and giveaways and sweetheart deals and preferences, which undermine the credibility of our tax system and our economy in

the eyes of ordinary americans. ordinary americans in fact are still struggling to make ends meet storks stay in their homes, to keep their families together, to find jobs n connecticut, the price of gasoline now has risen to more than $4.25 a gallon from about $3 just a year ago. there are a number of ways to combat that spiraling cost of gasoline, including going after some of the illegal manipulation and speculation that may be occurring. i've proposed some measures. for example, a department of justice investigation that would, for the first time, effectively and comprehensively pursue the traders and hedge funds that are at an all-time high in their energy positions. but the ending of giveaways and

subsidies is about the fairness of our economic system and our tax code. our families and businesses in connecticut are paying these higher costs of gasoline but, at the same time, providing subsidies that are in no way needed for exploration or refining or any part of the business of these big-five oil companies. they have made over $30 billion in profits in the first quarter of this year alone. representing a 50% increase in profit from the last year. big oil doesn't need help from american taxpayers to make unprecedented profits. for better or worse, they know how to do it without corporate welfare. and we ought to end corporate

welfare that makes our job of cutting the deficit and reining in the debt and reducing the size of government all the more difficult. this call ought to be an easy one. we have difficult choices ahead in cutting spending and perhaps increasing revenue. this one should be easy for us. and i hope that it will attract bipartisan support, because there is truly nothing partisan about this kind of corporate welfare. despite claims to the contrary, ending these subsidies will not increase prices at the pump. it will impose basic fairness because americans will no longer pay out of our pockets for these tax breaks and giveaways to some of the most profitable companies in the world. but it will not add to prices at

the pump. in high home state of connecticut and across the country, people are rightly concerned about reducing our debt and deficit, and we will make those difficult choices, just as americans are making difficult choices in tighterrenning their belt -- in tightening their belts and their oughts about as they struggle to find jobs and make ends meet. as resources remain scarce for some of our most vital programs, we can ill-afford this kind of corporate welfare, and i urge my colleagues to seize this moment, cut these subsidies, protect the hard-earned dollars of american taxpayers. taxpayers in connecticut and throughout the country who basically want fairness, shared sacrifice, truly shared sacrifice. and i urge my colleagues to demonstrate to the american people that we are serious about tackling unfair giveaways and to

take this step toward restoring fairness. thank you, mr. president. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i just met in a room right near the senate floor with doctors and others from three of america's great children's hospitals, the reason i bow

children ins cleveland, nationwide children's in columbus and cincinnati children's, and these -- these -- ohio i think leads the nation in the number of children's hospitals and i think frankly the quality of children's hospitals and there are so many things we need to do. i know the presiding officer from north carolina sits on the health and human services pefntion committee, has had an interest in this. where we don't focus quite enough on children's health. when we do research in this country, we used to -- we're only beginning to change this -- we used to think about children as just small adults, and if you need "x" milligram of prescription for a 150-pound adult, for a 30-pound child, you just give them one-fifth as much. and we realize that's not the way that we should do research or practice medicine. so we've seen a lost progress, and much of that comes from the activism, if you will, of doctors and tbhurses and administrators -- and nurses and

administrators at columbus nationwide children's and rainbow children's in cleveland. but we've been able to, through a long time program with children's graduate medical education in training pedia trigs. we've also seen is it in making pharmaceuticals, something 340-b, getting pharmaceuticals available for orphan drugs a understand rare diseases to children's hospitals, helping many, many small children in country. and we're also working on legislation that kit bond, the republican from missouri who retired in january, gave -- legislation he and i have worked on to really focus on pediatric research and designate a handful, maybe 15, maybe 20 hospitals, children's hospitals, around the country, some of the best research hospitals, to get them more focused on children's research because even though we have done better, we're not doing well enough.

i just want to share on the floor with colleagues the importance of this legislation, the importance of that focus on children's hospitals, the importance of training pediatricians and the importance of children's hospitals overall in our nation's health, especially the future of our nation, our children. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. lieberman: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: thank you, madam president. madam president, everybody knows that this country faces a major deficit crisis and we have a national debt of over $14 trillion. what has not been widely discussed, however, is how we got into the situation in the first place. a huge deficit and huge national debt did not happen by accident.

did not happen overnight. it happened, in fact, as a result of a number of policy decisions made in recent years and votes that were cast right here on the floor of the senate and in the house. let's never forget, as we talk about the deficit situation, that in the year 2000 when president clinton left office, this country had an annual federal budget snru surplus. let me underline that -- surplus of over th 200 billion, with projected budget surpluses as far as the eye could see. that was when clinton left office. what's happened in the ensuing years? how did we go from huge projected surpluses into horrendous debt? the answer, frankly, is not complicated. the c.b.o. has documented it. there was an interesting article on the front page of "the

washington post" on april 30, a few weeks, a talking about it as we will. here's what happened. not complicated. when you spend over $1 trillion on wars in afghanistan and iraq and you forget to pay for those wars, you are you run up a -- you run up a d when you provide over $700 billion in tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country and you forget to pay for those tax breaks, you run up a deficit. when you pass a medicare part-d prescription drug program written by the drug companies and the insurance companies that does not allow medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices and ends up costing us far more than it should -- $400 billion over a ten-year period -- and you don't pay for that, you run up the deficit.

if you phorpbl double -- if you more than double military spending since 1997, excluding the wars in afghanistan and iraq and you don't pay for that, you drive up the deficit. now yesterday my good friend -- and he is a good friend from alabama -- senator jeff sessions came to the floor and he suggested that senator bernie sanders was one of those big-government types. i would say to my friend, senator sessions, and all of those others who are now wanting to make savage cuts in programs for working families, the elderly, the sick and the poor, guess what? i'm the deficit hawk. you guys are the big spenders. this senator, when he was in the house, did not vote for the war in iraq which will end up costing us some $3 trillion by the time we take care of our

last veteran. i didn't vote for that. senator sessions did vote for that. i didn't vote for the huge tax breaks for the richest people in this country. no, no. i'm the deficit hawk. my republican friends in every instance voted for those huge tax breaks. i didn't vote for the medicare prescription drug program, $400 billion over ten years. i'm the deficit hawk. the big spenders on the other side said we could spend that money and not pay for it. so my point is that i am not sympathetic to being lectured about deficits by the same people who caused this crisis and who on piece of legislation after legislation voted to significantly increase the deficit and forgot about paying for it. just put it on the credit cards

for our children and grandchildren. so, please don't lecture me on deficit spending. now, my republican friends have come up with an interesting idea as to how we can deal with this crisis, with the deficit crisis. and in the house of representatives, they voted, i believe, unanimously for the so-called ryan budget. and what they said is at a time when the middle class is collapsing, poverty is increasing, unemployment is sky-high as a result of this terrible recession, what they think is the best way to deal with the deficit and the national stket is to make saf -- national debt is to make savage cuts in health care. that is to do away with medicare as we know it today, replace it

with a voucher program. massive cuts in medicaid, so at a time when 50 million americans have no health insurance, that number will go up. and i'm not quite sure what you do if you get sick and you lose your health insurance. i don't know what you do. i don't know how many more people will die if you slash medicaid and throw millions and millions of people off of that program. their brilliant idea as to how you move to a deficit reduction is to make major cuts in education, pell grants, all over this country middle class, working-class families struggling to be able to send their kids to college. pell grants are an important part of how they do it. cut it. large numbers of young people never get the chance then to go to college. nutrition, cutting back on food stamps. women, infant, children's nutrition program. people in america are hungry. cut back on those programs. housing, cut back on those

programs. head start, giving low-income kids an opportunity to do well; cut back on those programs. child care, you name it, they're going to cut back on it. so the deficit is caused by unpaid-for wars, tax breaks for the rich, medicare part-d prescription drug program, bailout of wall street, a declining economy, less revenue coming in. their solution is let us balance the budget on the backs of the sick, the elderly, the children, the poor. let's cut back on environmental protection, let's cut back on transportation. it's an interesting idea. i think it's a pretty dumb idea myself. but inherent in that whole approach is another factor. madam president, in the united states today, while the middle class is disappearing and

poverty is increasing, there is another economic reality, and that is that the wealthiest people in this country have never had it so good. over a recent 25-year period -- from 1980 to 2005 -- 80% of all new income went to the top 1%. top 1% now earn 23% of all income in america, more than the bottom 50%. today, madam president, if you can believe it, the top 400 individuals in america now own more wealth than the bottom 150 million americans, bottom half of america. 400 people earn more wealth than the bottom 150 million americans. now interestingly enough, madam president, at a time when the rich are becoming richer, when the effective tax rates for

the wealthiest people at 16.6% are the lowest on record, at a time when the wealthiest people have received hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks, at a time when corporate profits are at an all-time high and major corporations make billions of dollars pay nothing in taxes, my republican colleagues in their approach toward deficit reduction do not ask the wealthiest people or the largest corporations to contribute one penny more for deficit reduction. their idea of moving toward a balanced budget is to go after the middle class, working families, low-income people, but make sure that the millionaires and billionaires and largest corporations in this country who are doing phenomenally well, that they don't have to

participate in shared sacrifice. they are protected. this is the robin hood philosophy in reverse. this is taking from the poor and giving to the rich. now, madam president, many viewers may not believe me -- and i ask them to check it out -- that in the midst of all of this, huge deficit, huge national debt, the republican proposal to slash programs that working families, middle-class people desperately need, in the middle of all this our republican friends have another brilliant idea. let's give $1 trillion in tax breaks to the very wealthiest people in this country. yeah, we're going to throw millions off of medicaid, we're going to cut back on pell grants, we're going to make savage cuts in nutrition programs. and when we get all of those savings, the $1 trillion in savings, you know what we're going to do with it?

we're going to give it to the richest people in this country. we're going to lower the tax rate, personal income tax rate for the rich from 35% to 25%. at a time when major corporations like general electric, exxonmobil make billions of dollars in profit, pay nothing in federal income taxes, you know what we're going to do to them? we're going to give them even more tax breaks. now, madam president, the president has recently come up with an approach toward deficit reduction which is certainly a lot better than the republican approach, but to my mind is by no means as strong as it should be. and i was disturbed, not happy, to hear that his approach calls for $2 in spending cuts and only $1 in additional revenue. so at a time of significant, severe recession, millions of

people are hurting, the president is calling for $2 in cuts in spending, only $1 in additional revenue. i think that that's a bad idea. i think that's an inadequate idea. because if the president starts at that position, $2 in spending cuts, $1 in revenue, by the time you deal with the republicans if the house, that number is going to go up. it will probably end up three, four to one in terms of spending cuts. senator kent conrad, chairman of the budget committee here in the senate, has done a better skwrorbgs has not gone anywhere near as far as i think he should go but has at least -- at least -- come up with a budget that i think most americans think is sensible in saying at the very least let's have $1 of spending cuts and $1 of additional revenue. let's at least have shared sacrifice. let's not balance the budget on the backs of the weak and

vulnerable. madam president, let me just -- my office put together just a list, just a list of ideas that are out there as to how we can raise revenue in a fair and progressive manner. and i want to just touch on them for a second. number one, i want everybody to hear this. if we imposed a 5.4 surtax on millionaires who have been doing phenomenally well, over a ten-year period we can raise $383 billion. what do you think? we can't throw millions -- we can throw millions of people off of medicaid, we can end nutrition programs for low-income kids, or we can ask the wealthiest people to pay a little bit more. madam president, the cause of this recession that we're in right now has to do with the greed, the recklessness and illegal behavior on wall street. the crooks on wall street who made huge sums of money ended up driving this money into a terrible recession.

if we passed a speculation fee, a fee on wall street speculators, we could raise as much as $100 billion a year. and, by the way, have the added benefit of cutting back on speculation. we can raise more than $580 billion over ten years by ending tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. right now we have a tax policy that says shut down a plant in america, go to china and guess what? you're going to get a tax break. i think that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. madam president, the estate tax, which my republican friends refer to as the so-called death tax, only applies to the top .3%, the very, very wealthiest people in this country. instead of lowering the staes tax as we -- estate tax as we did, we could raise $300 billion

over ten years by establishing a tax that asks the top .3% of wealthiest americans to pay a fair estate tax. we could raise $736 billion over ten years by taxing capital gains and dividends as ordinary income. warren buffet, one of the wealthiest people in the world, has said that he pays a lower federal tax rate than his secretary, than do nurses and police officers and teachers, because most of his income and most of the income of very wealthy people is generated by capital gains. our provision could correct that problem. taxing capital gains and dividends as ordinary income. madam president, we could raise $40 billion over the next ten years bill ending tax breaks and subsidies for big oil and gas.

and i do understand there is legislation that is going to be coming to the floor which i strongly support -- doesn't go as far as i would go, but it basically says that the top five oil companies who make billions and billions and billions in profit, now charging us $4 a gallon, prices are soaring despite the fact that supply today is greater than it was a year ago and demand is less, that maybe 2003 do away with -- that maybe we do away with some of the tax breaks they enjoyed. we could raise $100 billion by doing away with illegal offshore tax shelters. a senator has a photograph of a building in the cayman islands. it is an infamous building, a four-story building that houses 18,000 corporations. that's right, one building, 18,000 corporations. obviously the whole thing is a scam. this is just being used as a

postal address for corporations and wealthy individuals that want to avoid paying taxes to the united states government. we estimate, the budget committee estimates we're losing about $100 billion a year by having corporations and wealthy people stash their money in the cayman islands. that's a lot of money, $100 billion a year. phapt, we could -- madam president we could raise up to $500 billion over ten years by establishing a currency manipulation fee and, by the way, create up to a million new jobs in the process. so what is my point? my point, madam president, is that this deficit was caused by actions voted upon by many of my republican friends -- the war, tax breaks for the rich, medicare part-d -- that in the middle of a recession when the middle class and working families are already hurting, when poverty is increasing, it

is not only immoral, it is bad economics to balance the budget on working families and the most vulnerable people in this country. when people are hurting, when thief lost their jobs, when their incomes are going down, you don't say to those people, we're throwing you off of medicaid, we're going to voucherrize medicare, we're going to cut back on federal aid to education so your kid can't go to college. that's not what you say in a humane and fair society. on the other hand, at the same time when the wealthiest people are becoming phenomenally wealthier and when large corporations are making huge profits and in many cases not paying any taxes at all, it is appropriate to say to those people, sorry, you are also americans, you have got to participate in shared sacrifice. you have also got to help us

reduce the deficit. so that is where we are right now. we're in the midst of a major debate but it's not only on financial issues, it is very much a philosophical debate. it's a debate about which side are you on. do you continue to give tax breaks to the very risch and make -- very rich and make savage cuts to working families, the children, the elderly, the poor, the most vulnerable. so, madam president, i am going to continue doing everything that i can to make sure that the budget that is finally passed here in the senate is a fair budget, is a responsible budget, is a just budget. with that, i would 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 just give kudos and accolades to my friend and colleague and fellow madisonian -- madison high school in brooklyn, new york, that is -- bernie sanders. i have rarely met, not just here

in the senate but in public li life, people who display the passion and the effectiveness combined that bernie does. and sometimes it's a lonely world for him in a certain sense because he feels these issues so strongly, he is so outstanding at articulating them in every way, and he wonders why the world doesn't change a little more. well, bernie, in terms of this world, which changes slowly, unfortunately, we would agree with that, you've done a great deal of good for people who need help. and i'm just glad you're here and i'm glad you're my friend. thank you. anyway, madam president, i rise today in support of the legislation authored by my good friend from new jersey, senator menendez. as you know, the democrats here on our side of the aisle are focusing on this legislation this week and next. but senator menendez has been championing this legislation for

quite awhile. and he was prescient to focus on this idea and i'm glad we'll have a vote on it and i hope the vote will pass. i've heard a few of our republican colleagues now have said they'd consider voting for it. nothing would be better in terms of showing some bipartisanness and giving us some hope that we can come to a fair agreement on the budget than to pass this legislation. now, in the last election, voters who gave those of us who have the privilege of serving in this chamber two distinct mandates. they told us to do two things at once. first, perhaps foremost, make the economy grow, create good-paying jobs, make sure that that american dream burns brightly, the dream that says to the average middle-class family, the odds are pretty good that you'll be doing better ten years from now than you're doing tod today. and the odds are very good that your kids will do better than you. that dream which has burnt so

bright until this country for hundreds of years, the candle began to flicker a little bit in this decade because median income went down even before the recession, which meant that even if you had a job -- and we know that millions are out of work despite the fact that they look, and i think of all the people who i've met who are struggling because they don't have jobs -- but even people who do have work, they have a difficult time when they sit down at that dinner table friday night after dinner figuring out how they're going to pay the bills. the costs and needs keep going up. and even when you have a job, the income doesn't seem to keep up. so that is one obligation the voters sent to us and it's a very justified one. but second, they said in no uncertain terms, rein in the out-of-control federal deficit, rein it in. and they're right. because in a certain sense, madam president -- and i've said

this before but i think it's -- i think it's worth repeating -- the debt, the symbolic nature of the debt is as follows. we, the u.s. government, are a blindfolded man and we're walking towards the cliff, and once we fall off that cliff, there's no getting back up. now, the debate is whether we're 20 feet from that cliff or 200 yards from that cliff. but we know sooner or later if we keep walking straight we're, going to fall off. so that means try to rein in this federal -- out-of-control federal deficit. is would be hard enough to accomplish one of these goals. to try to do both at once is a herculean task. and it's why we're having such divisions here and it's why everyone's grappling. and i think everyone's trying to do the right thing, regardless of their ideology, but there are strong feelings.

so when we can come to issues that seem to have an easy, common ground, because things are so difficult, we ought to jump at them. and that's what the menendez amendment is. it's a choice that's not a tough one, not by a mile, because it is obvious that at this time when there are so many needs, to continue to give the oil companies the kinds of tax break we do make no sense. getting rid of these corporate subsidies to big oil is a no-brainer. decades ago, these were passed. oil was $17 a barrel. and maybe it made sense in those days to give companies an incentive to explore, to produ produce. one of the subsidies that the menendez legislation repeals, the oil depletion allowance, dates back to 1913. that's the same year a man named william burton patented a new oil extraction process called thermal cracking.

well, madam president, big oil no longer cracks petroleum using mr. burton's method. it's an outdated process, decidedly, but the outdated tax subsidy still remains on the books, amazingly enough. with oil hovering at $100 a barrel, big oil reaping record profits, it defies logic for this government to spend billions of dollars, for these taxpayers to give dollars out of their pocket every year when they're struggling to tax giveaways to big oil which is making record profits. believe me, the free market gives the oil companies enough of an incentive to produce. when oil is $100 a barrel, they don't need an extra subsidy from the federal government to produce. they're going to produce every bit of oil they can. they make huge profits. so they don't need a financial nudge from washington. and at the same time,

middle-class americans get hit with a double whammy. they're paying $70 or more to fill up their gas tank and then their -- some of their hard-earned tax dollars are being used to line big oil's pockets. in my home state of new york, the price of gas is up 35% on average compared to this time last year. economists estimate the typical family will pay more than a thousand dollars more on gas this year than last. families across the country are still struggling to make ends meet as the economy slowly recovers. they can't afford to get gouged at the pump. with billions of dollars worth of tax subsidies and gas prices at near record highs, it's no wonder that the top five oil companies just announced mind-boggling profits. these companies are not only among the most profitable businesses in the u.s., they're among the most profitable in the

whole world. in the first quarter of this year alone, the big five brought in $36 billion in profit. in the past decade, they took home nearly a trillion -- not a billion, a trillion dollars in profit. now, there's nothing wrong with these profits in and of themselves. in america, we celebrate succe success. we want the private sector to thrive. but at a time when the government is looking to tighten its belt and we're grappling with painful cuts because we have the dual goal of growing the middle class but also reducing the deficit, it boggles the mind that we continue to subsidize such a lavishly profitable industry. there are priorities. i said this to the oil company executives today when they testified before the finance committee. and i want to salute chairman baucus for holding such outstanding hearings. there are priorities. how many americans would say if we had to choose that we should

give oil companies an extra subsidy rather than help kids who deserve to go to college pay for college? that's what many of my colleagues are recommending. that's what the house budget recommended. how many of my colleagues would say that we ought to cut cancer research but still continue to give the oil companies subsidies we do? again, the ryan budget does th that. now, i understand they would say, we have to cut spending. we do. but we also have to cut out wasteful giveaways like tax breaks to big oil. and i'd do that before i'd cut aid to college students who are struggling to pay for college, which is more and more expensive. before i cut cancer research, which has saved millions of lives, including people we know and love. i would do that before i'd cut

money for veterans or cut money to keep our homeland secure. but the budget that mr. ryan has proposed -- and many of the budgets that i've seen come from colleagues on the other side of the aisle -- choose these subsidies to big oil over money to help kids pay for college, over cancer research, over helping our veterans, over keeping our homeland secure. hardly any american would agree with that. hardly any american, democrat, republican, liberal, conservative, northeast, south or west. so just try to wrap your head around it. big oil is recording record profit, gas prices are near an all-time high, and we, the american taxpayer, are subsidizing the oil industry to the tune of $4 billion a year. you don't need the imagination of lewis carroll to come up with a more ridiculous scenario.

that's why i strongly support and i'm proud to cosponsor senator menendez's "close big oil tax loopholes act." this legislation will put an end to taxpayer handouts to the five largest integrated oil compani companies, use the $21 billion savings to reduce the deficit. this $21 billion is an excellent down payment on our effort to get the nation's fiscal house in order. the bill repeals a host of byzantine tax provisions that only a lobbyist could love, such as the deduction for tertiary injectants and the deduction for intangible extraction costs. small- and medium-sized oil firms are exempt. the legislation only deals with the big five -- shell, exxonmobil, chevron, conocophillips, and b.p. now, i've heard pundits from the hard right parrot big oil's talking point that repealing these giveaways would increase gas prices for consumers. well, nothing could be further from the truth.

independent analyses have repeatedly found that ending these absurd subsidies would not impact the price of gas. and in what was perhaps an inadvertent moment of candor at this morning's senate finance committee hearing, exxonmobil's c.e.o.re x tillerson said -- and i quote -- "gasoline prices are a function of crude oil prices, which are set in the marketplace by global supply and demand, not by companies such as ours." now, that doesn't seem like an objectionable comment. it's true. but even -- when he made that comment, mr. tillerson of exxonmobil has conceded that repealing taxpayer-funded subsidies for the big five will not increase prices. prices are set, as he says, by global supply and demand. that's not to say that repealing the subsidies will necessarily bring down prices. we're not making that claim. all along, we've been clear that

the purpose of this bill is to make a dent in the deficit by repealing tax breaks for the five companies that are the least in need of help from uncle sam. that's not lowering the cost and ridding our country on its dependence on foreign oil requires a long-term, comprehensive approach. and in the months ahead, i expect the democratic caucus will unveil a thorough and forward-thinking plan to do just that. in the meantime, if republicans in the house are serious about deficit reduction, the menendez bill is their chance to show it now. there's no good reason mott to support this sensible legislation. speaker boehner said earlier this week, he wants to make trillions of dollars in cuts. well, here's a good place to start. indeed, the speaker himself has said as much. let's not forget that he was in favor of repealing oil subsidies before he was against it. the bottom line is this:

at a time of sky-high oil prices, it is unfathomable to continue to pad the profits of oil companies with taxpayer-funded subsidies. the time to repeal these giveaways is now. our plan to cut the deficit begins with ending waistsful subsidies to big oil. the republican plan begins with ending medicare as we know t that's a bright-line difference between our side and theirs. we know what choice the american people will make. i yield the floor. and i ask -- i ask that the president report the nomination. i don't yield the floor. i simply ask that the president note the nomination of. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order you the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination:

michael francis urbanski of virginia to be united states district judge. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there willing an hour of debate is with respect to the nomination, with the time equally divided in the usual form. the senator from virginia. mr. webb: mr. president, thank you for recognizing me. i'm very gratified yesterday when the senate unanimously voted to confirm arenda wright allen as a united states district judge for the eastern district of virginia. and i'm very glad to be here today to speak in support of virginia's nominee to the western district of virginia, judge michael urbanski. i would like, as i did yesterday, to express my appreciation to the leadership here in the senate of both parties for scheduling these important confirmation votes. filling existing vacancies on our court is important to virginia, it is important to

america, and particularly in these cases where the nominees are noncontroversial to either party and, thus, are able to be brought forward here for reasonably quick confirmations. one of the bedrock principles in this scun access to justice and it can clearly be said that vacancies on our courts create backlogs, bottlenecks, and delays and justice delayed is obviously justice denied. so, again, i would like to express my appreciation to the leadership for moving these two very highly qualified nominees -- arenda wright allen, who was confirmed yesterday, and judge michael urbanski who will shortly be voted on. i am proud of the work that we've been able to do from my office during my time here in the senate in finding dedicated, well-qualified jurists from verm virginia to recommend to the president when vacancies do can he our. when i first arrived in the

senate, senator john warner and i developed a robust, collaborative selection process to review candidates. senator mark warner and i have continued this thorough, deliberative process. and we were pleased to recommend judge michael urbanski to president obama in judg june oft year. president obama first nominated him for a seat on the western district of virginia last deisms he renominated judges urbanski earlier this year and judge urbanski was reported out of the judiciary committee without opposition on march 10 of this year. senator warner and i jointly reviewed a highly competitive field from the western district of virginia. judge urbanski skewed out stood out to me because of the resounding recommendations from the bar association, which he covers now o.a.s. a magistrate judge. they all noted judge urbanski's

incredible work eth iefnlg he has worked tirelessly to ensure the efficient administration of justice. he has served in this capacity since 2004. he also has an outstanding reputation for fairness and a good judicial teem pravment he has contributed to the efficiency of the western district of virginia by being an effective mediator, resolving a substantial number of disputes without lengthy litigation. he also recently established a veterans' court in the western district. this court strives to utilize the many services available to our veterans in order to try to find alternatives to incarceration from nonviolent offenders and to break the cycle of resid vivment i'm very frowd say that judge urbanski is a product of virginia's public universities. he graduated from the university of virginia school of law in 1981 and the nation's oldest university, the college of william and mary in 1978.

prior to become a federal magistrate judge, judge urbanski earned a reputation as one of the top trial lawyers in western virginia. he was the head of the law firm woods, rogers litigation spl section, practiced in row an knock, practicing fro.he has thl temperament to make an excellent district court judge. i also had the pleasure of meeting with his family, many of his friended, law clerks and colleagues. his dedication to his family and communities is abundantly apparent. though i am proud that virginia has such an exemplary individual to put forward as a district judge nominee, the judiciary committee clearly shares this view, having voted out judge urbanski unanimously, and i urge all of my colleagues to support his cfltion today. with that, i would -- his

confirmation today. with that, i would ask unanimous consent that the time used in quorum calls during the debate on the urbanski nomination be charged equally to both sides. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. webb: i would now suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. a senator: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i want to address the senate on the nomination for michael urbanski, u.s. district judge, western district virginia. since we have returned from the april recess, we've done very little else other than consider judicial nominations. this will be the third judicial nominee to be confirmed in the

last three days, and the 23rd confirmed this year. in fact, after today, we will have confirmed six judges in just eight days. now, i know that the liberal interest groups have been pressuring the other side to consider more nominees, even though we have been moving at a very brisk pace this entire congress, but it is surprising to me, with all the issues facing the nation at home and abroad, that we would spend two weeks on the floor considering little else. our economy continues to struggle, millions of americans remain out of work and are unable to find jobs. the unemployment rate remains at approximately 9%. those who do have jobs are finding it more and more difficult to get to work as gas prices are over $4 a gallon and inching even higher.

our nation is facing significant national security issues, and every single day our national debt continues to climb to unsustainable levels. these are incredibly important issues. i wouldn't go so far as to say that the majority doesn't care about the issues facing our nation. perhaps they are simply out of ideas, but as americans continue to struggle in this economy, it is difficult to understand why we would spend two weeks voting on hardly anything but judicial nominations. as i said, the senate has been moving swiftly this year on those nominations. we have confirmed 23 nominees in just the 49 days. that is a rate of one judge almost every other day that the senate has been in session since convening in january. however, the senate must not place quantity confirm over

quality confirm. these lifetime appointments are too important to the federal judiciary and the american people simply for the senate to rubber stamp these nominations. so i was surprised during one of our recent debates to hear one of my colleagues on the committee come to the senate floor and imply otherwise. during the debate on the confirmation of edward chen, a reference was made to what was characterized as the senate's long-standing tradition, a deference to home state senators with regard to the federal district court nominations. that senator stated that at his time in the senate where a federal district court nominee is backed by the two home state senators, it is usually almost pro forma that the nominee is confirmed. now, the fact is that home state

senators do have a great deal to say in who should serve the country on the bench. that is part of the advice and consent process. but there are 100 voices in this body, and we speak for the american people who come before these jurists. we must ensure that they're fit to serve as impartial arbiters. i do not consider the confirmation process for a federal judicial nominee to be a pro forma process. i will continue to give careful scrutiny to all nominees, regardless of home state support. i do not consider it delay or obstruction to fulfill that duty. if the other side chooses to do so, of course, that's up to them, but i will not simply rubber stamp those nominees. we will continue to process the nominees fairly and with a standard the people rightly hold

us to. i support today's nominee, michael francis urbanski is nominated for u.s. district judge, western district virginia. he presently serves as a u.s. magistrate judge in the same district. judge urbanski received his b.a. with high honors from william and mary in 1978 and his juris doctorate from university of virginia school of law in 1978. upon graduation, he served as a law clerk to the honorable james t. turk of the u.s. district court western district virginia. from 1982-2004, judge urbanski worked in private practice, first as an associate at the washington, d.c., office of vincent and alkin, and then in the firms of woods-rogers where he became a principal in 1989.

in 2003, the nominee was appointed to his present position. in 2010, chief judge james jones appointed the nominee to chair an advisory committee on the new local rules adopted in the western district. the american bar association committee on the federal judiciary has given judge urbanski their highest rating -- unanimously well qualified. i'm pleased to support this experienced nominee and i urge my colleagues to do the same. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second?

there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: is there anyone who wishes to vote or change their vote? if not, the ayes are 94, the

nays are zero. the nomination is confirm. under the previous or the motion considered made and laid upon the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate will resume legislative session much. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business for debate only until 5:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i may speak for up to 20 minutes and then followed immediately after with -- by senator isakson as much time as he may wish to consume. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: mr. president, yesterday the senate ethics committee voted unanimously to release the special counsel's report regarding the actions of former senator john ensign. the committee also voted unanimously to refer several

findings to the department of justice and to the federal election committee. federal election commission. because we have reason to believe that senator ensign violated laws within their jurisdictions. i want to thank, from the bottom of my heart, the senators who participated in this investigation. many of whom are on the floor today. my vice chairman, the extraordinary leader, senator isakson. and i say leader, i mean a leader on the committee, and i consider him to really be a co-chair with me. and senator roberts, who has been on this committee a long time, who has a sense of history and a sense of levity and

pragmatism and i really appreciated his cooperation. i want to note the participation of -- of sherrod brown, who came on this committee and began this journey with us and his very important contribution. senator risch, who brought with new hampshire very strong legal slant on everything that we did and was very, very valuable. i want to thank him. and i want to say a special word of thanks to senator cardin, who sat in on this case because senator pryor felt he had too close a relationship with senator ensign and had to recuse hips. and, -- himself. and, senator cardin, we thank you so much for coming in and focusing in on this case. and i just have to say that i am so grateful to have thoroughly and hard and collaboratively we all worked during this 22-month

investigation. i say and i mean it was an honor to work with my colleagues. the ethics committee is unique. its staff is nonpartisan and its actions are bipartisan. and that is so important always, but particularly during these very polarized times. and also because this was such a long and difficult investigation for many reasons. i want to be clear about why the committee is releasing its report to the public and why senator eysenator isakson and ie addressing the senate today. if any of our colleagues which to add to teas these comments, y may do so. though his -- trial phase, it did not end our profound responsibilities to the united states senate, to our laws, to our rules, to our constitution

and, of course, to the american people. article 1, section 5, clause 2 of the constitution of the united states says that -- quote -- "each house may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior and with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member." unquote. that's in the constitution. senate rules, those give the ethics committee responsibility to investigate alleged violations of laws and rules and -- quote -- "improper conduct which may reflect upon the senate." that's a quote from our rules. finally, ethics committee rules make clear that whenever its members have -- quote -- "reason to believe," unquote, that a violation of law has occurred, we -- quote --"shall," unquote report it to the proper

authorities. ethic committee rules make it clear that whenever the members of committee have reason to believe that a violation of law has occurred, we shall report it to the proper authorities. so we have a solemn responsibility, indeed. it's actually a mandate to refer possible criminal or civil violations to the department of justice and to the federal election commission. and that is what we have done today. we also have another responsibility, and that's to tell the american people when we believe laws and rules have been broken and that standards of conduct have been breached, and that is what we have done today. our special counsel, carole elder bruce, has written a report that speaks in great detail about her findings and that report has been released today. these findings are so disturbing that she believed that had senator ensign not resigned and had we been able to proceed to

that ajud adjudication that it d have been substantial enough to warrant the consideration of ex expolition. that's why when former senator ensign resign, the vice chairman and i put out a statement, and we said that he made -- quote -- "the appropriate decision." unquote. i want to give you the findings of the special counsel: one, there is substantial, credible evidence that senator ensign conspired to violate doug hampton's post employment conduct ban. two, there is substantial credible evidence that senator ensign aided and abetted mr. hampton's violation of the post-employment contact ban. three, there is substantial credible evidence that senator

ensign made false and misleading statements to the federal rereeks commission -- commission regarding the $96,000 payment made to the hamptons. four, there is substantial credible evidence that th the $96,000 payment to mr. hampton violated campaign finance laws. five, there is substantial credible evidence that senator ensign violated a law and a senate rule prohibiting unofficial office accounts. six, there is substantial credible evidence that senator ensign permitted spoilation of documents and engaged in potential obstruction of justice. seven, there is substantial credible evidence that senator ensign discriminated on the basis of gender. eight, there is substantial credible evidence that senator ensign engaged in improper

conduct reflecting on the senate, including, violating his own office policies written in a manual. these eight serious findings in the special counsel's report are the culmination of an extensive 22-month investigation and the basis for the committee's unanimous decision to refer this matter to the department of justice and the federal election commission. as chair of the senate ethics committee, i am proud to report to the senate that our committee and its staff and special counsel have been fair and thorough. we deposed over -- excuse me. we deposed or interviewed 72 witnesses. we issued 32 spps for documents -- subpoenas for documents. we reviewed more than a half million documents, including a large number that were initially withheld from the committee. and none of this would have been

possible without the very hard work done by the staff of our committee, our personal offices, and i am so grateful to them. the special counsel, who was extraordinary, whom we all owe a debt of gratitude. and i particularly want to thank the staff director and the chief counsel of the ethics committee, john sasserman, and his team. they were focused and they searched for the truth, and we believe they found the truth. i also again want to personally thank our special counsel, carol elder bruce and her team. our founders gave congress the responsibility to ensure that its members behave ethically. we do this. the ethics committee tries to do this by working to prevent violations of rules and laws when possible.

we try to work with colleagues before they do something they shouldn't do. we try to train colleagues so that they understand what we mean when we say don't bring any kind of shame upon the senate. and then if something bad happens, we give a fair hearing, we might sanction them, and we do when necessary. now, this isn't an easy task, but every member of the ethics committee is submitted to fulfilling our critical responsibility in a thorough, fair and a bipartisan fashion. when senator ensign resigned, he said, and i quote -- "i have not violated any law, any rule or a standard of conduct." unquote. i want to go on record as chairman of the ethics committee to say how strongly i disagree with that statement. let's be clear, it was senator ensign's actions that led to the ethics complaint filed against him. it was senator ensign's action

that led to a 22-month investigation by the ethics committee. and it was senator ensign's actions that led to the very serious findings and referrals in the report we are releasing to the public today. the committee believes that every senator should read this report very carefully. let me say that again. the committee believes that every senator should read this report very carefully because it is a cautionary tale. it shows that our actions, all of them, have consequences for ourselves, for our families, for our staffs, for congress and for our nation. it shows that we must ensure that every action we take is within the law, the rules and the appropriate standards of conduct. and in my view, if i could say my own personal view, it shows something else, and that is when you are in a position of trust

and power, don't abusive it. don't misuse it because people can get hurt, very, very hurt. we cannot violate the laws or rules that we set for others, including our own staffs. we must always lead by example, not by words alone. this ensign case was a sad chapter for the senate but a far sadder chapter for those whose lives were affected and destroyed by his actions. i want to thank the senate for placing its trust in the ethics committee. and, mr. president, with that, i would yield to the vice chairman of the committee, one that i consider my cochairman, senator johnny isakson. mr. isakson: thank you, madam chairman. mr. president, on certain occasions in the life of a public official, one is called upon to make difficult decisions

and unpleasant ones. such is the case of the six members of the united states ethics committee today. but we recognize it's essential that the institution, this senate, that passes the laws that all our citizens must live under must also enforce those laws and rules of standard and conduct which we impose upon ourselves. it's a solemn responsibility, but it's important to the integrity and the future of this institution. the senate ethics committee looks upon itself as an advisory board and a source of information and counsel to our members. we ask members to come to us when there are questions about the potential ethical violation of a decision or even something that might in passing may seem to be trivial. our job is to make sure in our case that everybody that has a question gets an answer and no one unwillingly gets caught in an unethical situation. but it is also our responsibility when complaints are filed to follow up on those

complaints, and if we find merit in the complaint, to enter an initial investigatory period of time, which if that information bears enough likelihood that a violation has occurred, to ultimately go to an adjudicatory phase and then finally a decision on the floor of the senate. it is rare -- and i can tell you personally, it's a situation i hope i'm never involved in again, but as i said, it's an essential process to the integrity of this body. when the particular complaint in question in the ensign case came to us, it was, like any other case, reviewed on an initial standpoint to determine whether or not it even merited an investigation. after the initial investigation determined that it did merit that, the senate staff did an overwhelming and wonderful job of gathering information and evidence and gathering testimony to help us get to a position to begin to make a decision whether we could go further in the case. but we didn't rely just on

ourselves. we sought forensic experts in computers and technology so that the over 500,000 documents that were reviewed and crossreferenced had a forensic test to them, and we knew what we were dealing with and how it was dealt with. we went to the case of hiring a special counsel, which is a rare thing for the senate ethics committee to do, but it was essential because of where the evidence and the testimony was leading the committee. and i want to say at this point in time that i have known a lot of lawyers in my day, ones i've hired and ones i have been on the other side of the deposition table from. i have never known anybody more professional or whose ability i admired more than carol elder bruce, and i want to commend her on the floor of the senate today. it was her report which we are also submitting with the referrals today that indicate that we have looked to see that there was reasonable evidence to conclude that a violation may have occurred. the ultimate decision on that will be up to the united states department of justice, and it will be up to the federal

election commission. but the report clearly indicates that the senate committee did not act on what it thought or an opinion or whim. it acted on facts determined through hundreds of interviews, 500,000 documents that were examined and testimony that came to our committee. it is the hope of the chairman and myself and each member of the committee that every member recognizes the senate ethics committee wants to be a source of information, advice and counsel to see to it this institution always rises to the occasion as the most ethical body in our government. but we will as a committee, if it becomes necessary and the evidence finds that to be true, that we will pursue our responsibility as a committee and we'll do what was required of us in this body. mr. president, i want to thank chairman boxer for the method in which she has handled this from the beginning to the end, and laura schiller who has been her aide throughout and helpful.

as i also want to commend joan, gene and chris for their tireless effort. the members of the committee should also be commended for their hard work, and it has been hard work. ben cardin has been a tremendous legal mind for us. sherrod brown has been an insightful person to ferret out information and guide us in the right direction. my dear friend, senator roberts, who is the dean of the members of the ethics committee. on the floor today is senator roberts, senator cardin and senator brown. senator risch from idaho is not here but deserves equal credit. as the chairman said, his legal mind and insightful nature helped us come to the conclusion that is we came to today. i want to repeat my thanks to carol elder bruce for the tremendous efforts in the work she did as well as brian, mike and john longstreth who have all worked with her legal team. the staff of the ethics committee. our staff director, john sassman has seen to it that every i was

dotted, every t was crossed and the committee did its job. i will end where i began. no one in public office volunteers for the type of responsibilities that we have had in the case of senator ensign, but all of us took that responsibility when it came upon us, recognizing the integrity of the senate and the integrity of our decision was important on the future of this body. as sad as the dliks were and the ultimate result was, it was proof that this senate and its ethics committee can stand and do the effort necessary to see to it this institution's integrity proceeds in the future uninhibited and unendangered. mr. chairman, mr. president, with that remark, unless there is a member who would like to speak, i will note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the

senator from nebraska. mr. hoeven: north dakota. the presiding officer: i thought it was north dakota. mr. hoeven: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: thank you, madam president. i rise to speak this afternoon about the escalating cost of gasoline at the pump. something that affects every american consumer. crude oil prices are now more than $100 a barrel and the price of gasoline at the pump for our consumers is about $4 on average across the nation. it's even more here in the -- in the district. and despite some correction recently in the oil commodity markets, the u.s. energy information administration expects that prices this summer will average $1 more than they did just a year ago. now, gasoline price spikes like

this are a form of stealth inflation eating away at the incomes of american families. impacting our economic growth an deepening the hardship to the almost 14 million people that we have who are still looking for work. some economic analysts indicate that for each $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil, it has an impact of reducing our economic growth by about .2%. and each .2% equates to 120,000 fewer jobs that are created just in the first year of that type of increase, so you can see it has a very significant cumulative impact. imported oil also greatly affects detrimentally our balance of trade, and last year alone contributed $265 billion

to trade imbalance for our nation. the high price of oil, whether it's at the well head or the price of gasoline at the pump, impacts every sector of our economy. it affects jobs, it affects economic growth, and it certainly affects the purchasing power of the american family, and therefore their standard of living in our quality of life. so what do we do? the fact is oil prices are subject to the same laws of supply and demand as other commodities. when we increase the supply, that helps bring prices down. when we reduce demand, that helps bring prices down. and of course just the reverse is true. when we have less supply or more demand, that tends to push the price higher. so clearly, clearly we need to do all we can to produce more energy in this country, and certainly we need to produce

more guess fuel, more guess oil and gas. now, i don't know how many people realize it, but over the last few years, over the last approximately five years, oil imports into this country have actually been going down, and that's why i have brought this chart along which was prepared by the congressional research service. as you can see from the chart, from about 1985-2005, we increased our imports to a total by 2005 of 12.4 million barrels a day. 12.4 million barrels a day of imported oil. approximately 60% of the total oil that we consumed in 2005. however, since 2005, things have begun to change. we have made progress. we have made progress both because we are producing more oil, gas in this country, and

also because we're using less. so you see here from 2005 until 2010, we have actually reduced the amount of oil that we import into this country from about 60% of what we use to less than 50%, and today about 49% of the fuel that we consume is actually produced in this country. that is a significant reduction, a reduction in our imports of about three million barrels a year from -- excuse me, a day from 2005. well, so what changed? what changed is that we're producing more oil, producing more oil offshore, producing more oil on shore in the lower 48, and we're also producing more natural gas liquids. and as i said just a minute ago, we're also consuming less, and we need to continue to do both. in addition to those things, though, we are also increasingly relying on friendly governments for our imports rather than

governments that are hostile to our country. for example, last year, -- by last year, we were importing twice as much oil from canada as we were from saudi arabia, and that's certainly a good development, and we need to continue to not only produce more guess oil, but to the extent we import oil, bring it in from countries that are friends rather than countries that are foes or who certainly may not share our beliefs and our interests. we have opportunity to do that. for example, right now, very close to my state, we are working on a project which is a keystone x.l. pipeline. the keystone pipeline is designed to carry crude oil from alberta, canada, to the refineries in new mexico. the problem is we're still awaiting approval for that pipeline.

u.s. approval of this project will cost our nation not one penny but will increase the supply of oil and gasoline in our country and help hold down the price of gasoline at the pump. at the same time, it will help reduce our dependence on oil from volatile parts of the world, create thousands of good jobs in america, and we all know how important that is at a time when our nation still has 9% unemployment and millions of people out of work. but we have similar opportunity to boost the supply of domestic oil and gas right here on american soil as well, not just in the lower 48 but also in alaska. the transalaska pipeline could help increase supply enormously, but right now it's only carrying about one quarter of its capacity. the pipeline has the capacity to carry two million barrels of oil a day. right now, it's carrying something over 600,000 barrels of oil a day.

so clearly, tremendous capacity that's not being utilized. senator murkowski has eloquently pointed out that the state of alaska holds an estimated 40 billion barrels of oil. 40 billion barrels of oil. the equivalent of more than 60 years' worth of imports from the persian gulf, yet that is -- that oil is excluded from our nation's reserve figures. the united states is already the third largest oil and gas-producing nation on earth with 28.4 billion barrels of proven reserves, but it also has an estimated 162 billion, almost 163 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil, according to the congressional research service. only russia and saudi arabia produce more than our country. so the lesson in all of this is clear. we can and we must increase domestic production of oil and gas in our country, and the record over the past five years

clearly indicates that we can do it. as a matter of fact, we're on our way to do it, and we can do much, much more. for example, in my home state of north dakota, we have been working over the last decade to increase oil production, and we have -- since 2005, north dakota has increased its production of oil by more than 200,000 barrels a day. north dakota is now the fourth largest oil-producing state in the nation. we have passed states like oklahoma and more recently louisiana. and we have opportunity to produce much, much more. we have just barely scratched the surface. last month, i hosted a meeting of the u.s. geological survey in bismarck to make the case for a new, updated study of recoverable reserves in the williston basin. of course, the williston basin covers parts of north dakota,

montana and extends into canada as well. the last agency study was completed in 2008, and it indicated that there are 3.5 billion to 4 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the balkan shale formation which is in the williston basin. 3.5 billion to 4 billion barrels of oil recoverable. now, industry scientists and engineers, however, who are working out in the wilson basin right now feel that that figure is low and that the reality in terms of recoverable oil reserves in the williston basin is much, much higher. that's why we're asking the u.s. geological survey to come out and do a reassess many. if they're right, the results will attract tens of millions of dollars in new investment to the region, creating fuel at lower prices for american consumers. more jobs in this country, more jobs in our state, in montana. more jobs for our country. also, it will help us develop

infrastructure and sustain economic growth throughout the region. now, in north dakota, we have focused on creating more energy, more oil and gas, other types of energy as well by creating a legal tax and regulatory climate, a business climate that encourages that private investment in job creation. i have spoken several times here on the floor and more times than i can count at home and around the country about the need to forge a legal tax and regulatory climate in america that will attract investment in the energy industry, whether it's wind, biofuels, coal or oil and gas. at a time when america is struggling with a 9% unemployment rate, the need to create private sector jobs is absolutely paramount. it is job number one. and building our domestic energy industry is one of the keys to accomplishing it. the oil and gas industry alone

supports 7.5% of the united states gross domestic product, and more than nine million american jobs. now, government doesn't create those jobs, but government creates the environment that empowers and unleashes the creativity and energy of american enterprise. the challenge confronting the united states energy industry today, however, is a climate of legal tax and regulatory uncertainty. this uncertainty is not only sidelining investment and impeding production, but also hindering job creation and raising fuel prices at the pump for american consumers. we all want to ensure that we have clean air and water. we all -- but at the same time, we all want to develop our nation's abundant natural resources, doing it with good, sound environmental stewardship.

but clearly, we need to look at our current legal tax and regulatory environment to make sure that we have the commonsense, reliable rules that will not only enable but actually empower companies to invest the hundreds of millions and billions of dollars in new technologies that will help us unlock our energy resources in this country and do it with the kind of environmental stewardship that we all want. and it's vital for the rest of our economy. the reason for that is simple. if the energy industry can't grow, neither can our other industries. they can't create the jobs and opportunities that our nation so very much needs, and they can't provide the affordable energy that american families and businesses depend on every day. impeding domestic energy production, moreover, is a national security issue as well as an economic issue. increased dependence for oil on unstable parts of the world like the middle east and venezuela puts not just our economy but

our nation and our nation's security at risk. yet, rather than reduce constraints on production, rather than encourage more exploration and recovery, rather than make our country a better place to do business, our laws and regulations too often seem aimed at serving every other purpose but increasing domestic energy production and supply. ironically, at a time when we need to invest and create jobs, billions of dollars are not being deployed. that's because energy investors are waiting to see what kind of rules will govern things like fast fracing for domestic oil, hydraulic fracturing, co2 management, and siting. companies are ready to make billion dollar investments that will have a life span of four years, but they don't know the rules of the road. certainly i don't mean more restrictive rules and

regulations. i mean commonsense rules of the road that won't change arbitrarily or according to political crosswinds. a number of us in the senate on both sides of the aisle are already working on commonsense initiatives to ensure that congress, rather than government agencies, establish those rules. i've already spoken about some of those here on the floor. today, i'd like to talk about another one. today i want to discuss for just a short period another piece of legislation that i believe will help reduce the price of fuel at the pump, not by increasing production but simply by applying good judgment to the rules that govern distribution of gasoline in the united states. senator roy blunt, myself and a number of other u.s. senators are promoting a bill called the boutique fuel reduction act of 2011. this legislation would simplify the nation's fuel standards and make more fuel available to american consumers. it would give the administrator of the environmental protection

agency, the e.p.a., the flexibility to waive certain agency requirements pertaining to the use of specific or boutique fuels, specialty fuels when extreme or unusual distribution problems are limiting supply. currently, the increased use of different types of fuel for different parts of the country is causing artificial shortages in some retail markets and consequently higher prices at the pump for our motorists. a service station in one city that runs out of fuel may not be able to use a certain blend of gasoline available just 50 miles away because it's not approved by the e.p.a. for use in that location. unfortunately, under current law, the e.p.a. can waive the requirements only during a natural disaster, not to meet shortages or price spikes like we have today. the law that we're sponsoring would change that. in addition to the bill, myself and a group of u.s. senators and

house members as well have also sent letters to the e.p.a., to e.p.a. administrator lisa jackson, calling on the agency and the department of energy to complete the fuel harmonization study which congress requested more than five years ago. that report was due in 2008. this study would examine or this report would examine the effects of the nation's varying boutique fuels on retail prices and also assess the feasibility of developing national or regional standards to reduce the multiple varieties required today by the e.p.a. having fewer types of fuel would make more fuel available during shortages, thereby putting downward pressure on prices at the pump. it would give refineries more options to meet demand and help stabilize and reduce the retail price of gasoline. and we expect that e.p.a. and

the department of energy to follow through on the congressional intent that was outlined in the 2005 law and conduct and complete that study as soon as possible which correlates closely with the legislation that we're sponsoring. bear in mind, the measures i've just discussed don't cost anything. they take no funding to work, yet they can help us reduce fuel prices for the american consumer, for our american families. they can make doing business in america more affordable, reduce our trade deficit and help get americans back to work again. we need to increase domestic fuel production and we need to provide regulatory relief in order to do it. because high energy prices, whether it's fuel for our cars or electricity for our homes and businesses, impact virtually every sector of american life. that includes jobs. that includes economic growth.

that includes the purchasing power of the american family. ultimately it includes our standard of living and our quality of life. our future is fueled by energy and that future depends on the decisions and the choices that we make right now and we need to get them right. madam president, i appreciate greatly your time on the floor this afternoon. it's wonderful to see you. and at this point, i yield the floor. i also note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: i think the senator from missouri is here. the senator from missouri. mrs. mccaskill: thank you, madam president. i want to just briefly rise and make some comments about the people at home that i'm so proud of. over the past three weeks, my home state has been the sight of

heartbreaking destruction that resulted from a series of severe weather incidents throughout the state. we have also had the privilege of witnessing great acts of bravery, compassion, and neighbors being neighbors in response to these incidents. i wanted to take just a moment today to recognize the incredible character of missourians and particularly to recognize the contributions made by the citizen soldiers and airmen of the missouri national guard. today, weeks after the historic flooding began, we continue to see its life-altering effects in my state and others all along the mississippi river. my prayers and those of my colleagues go out to all who have and will continue to have their lives altered by this tragedy. i'll continue to work with my colleagues in the missouri delegation to make sure that the federal government provides the assistance necessary to help missourians affected by the tragedy, so that they can get back on their feet and back at

their important work. already the president has granted the first federal disaster assistance to individuals and households across the state. more announcements will come as damage assessments are complet completed. the usda is also poised to assist and will start holding public meetings in the affected areas to inform farmers and landowners of the help that they can receive. one thing that struck me about the response to the storms has been the dignity and class with which missourians have carried themselves. in my state, families have been driven from their homes, pushed away from their jobs, taken off their land, lost everything. whether it's a family in north st. louis whose home was destroyed by a tornado or a producer whose family farm was submerged when the levee protecting it was intentionally breached, missourians have drawn on their faith, their families and their neighbors to pull through. i had the opportunity to spend some time with some of these families during my trip to view some of the flooding in southeast missouri. their courage, as always, is

inspiring. as an example of the american spirit that we all hold dear. we have had a rough year. the last three weeks have been particularly destructive, starting with the tornado and strong winds that ripped through the st. louis area on good friday. this tornado rated an e.f.4, was the strongest to hit the area in decades. as the storm battered the saints the storms battered the st. louis area, rain continued to fall in southeast missouri. and while the governor deployed the missouri national guard to assist, it marked the 26th year that the missouri national guard has provided such assistance, including the last time a catastrophic flood struck the state in 2008. since their deployment to respond to this latest disaster, the missouri national guard, under the very strong leadership of my friend, their adjutant general, major general steven danker, has provided invaluable support to the governor, the

army corps of engineers, local responders, and citizens across scores of communities that have suffered damage. two events have recent days provide a perfect summary of the service of these brave men and women continue to perform for the people of my state. last week, the citizen soldiers and airmen of the missouri national guard joined the people of currethersville in pennescott county to rapidly erect a flood wall to support the existing wall. this new effort, made of 60,000 sandbags, stretched across over 3,000 feet, helped to provide safety and peace of mind for a community that was wracked with fear and thought the worst could happen. a couple of counties away, month the month national guard members helped to save a 93-year-old woman trapped in her car as she tried to cross a flooded black river. one of the guardsmen on the scene, seeing his first emergency duty, remarked, "we aren't here to be heroes. we're just doing our jobs." the citizen soldiers and airmen of the missouri national guard

while just doing their jobs have played an incredibly important role in supporting the flood response efforts of their neighborhoods. a member of the 138th -- 138th military police company said it best when he said, "nothing makes you feel as good as being able to help your neighbors in missouri." the missouri national guard and the people they valiantly serve are and will continue to be the embodiment of those words and the spirit that we all strive to personify. i thank them for their bravery. i thank them for their selflessness, and i thank them for just being great neighbors. and we will all stand by to be of assistance as everyone recovers from the natural disasters that have brought such destruction to the state that i love. thank you, madam president. mr. whitehouse: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island is recognized.

mr. whitehouse: madam president, i rise this afternoon to discuss an important piece of bipartisan legislation that i am introducing today with my friend and fellow new englander, senator olympia snowe, to establish a national endowment for the study, conservation, and restoration of our nation's oceans, coasts, and great lakes. let me begin with a particular thank you to our original cosponsors, the chairman of the commerce committee, senator rockefeller of west virginia; the chairman of the appropriation committeeappropri, senator inouye of hawaii; my colleague from the great state of michigan, senator stabenow; and two colleagues from the gulf of mexico region, senator bill nelson of florida and senator mary landrieu of louisiana.

as any rhode islander can tell you, the ocean is central to our state's way of life. i tell colleagues here that rhode island's coast is one of the most beautiful places on earth, but we don't call rhode island the ocean state just because it is beautiful. we are the ocean state because, from our earliest days, we have relied on the ocean and our beloved fair i narragansett bayr trade, for food, for recreation, and for jobs, jobs? shipbuilding, shipping -- jobs in the shipbuilding, shipping, and tourism industries. and we are not alone. across america, our oceans and coasts directly provide over $130 billion to our country's gross domestic product and support 2.3 million american jobs. but the impact goes far beyond

that. our coastal zone areas generate nearly half of our nation's gross domestic product and support more than 28 million jobs. in part, madam president, it is americans' love of and reliance on the oceans that drives the need now to protect and restore them. coastal america is experiencing a huge population boom leading to more and more construction that puts significant pressure on our natural coastline and on our wetlands. worldwide, demand for seafood grows at a pace that our fish stocks cannot keep pace with, and our demand for energy leads us ever deeper into the ocean in search of fuel. there is an old adage that, nothing focuses the mind like a

crisis. well, if this is true, it must be time to focus on taking care of our oceans. because, madam president, our oceans are facing what can only be characterized as a crisis. our oceans are facing an array of threats, from marine debris aggregating in gyres the size of texas to whales so full of bio accumulative toxin as that they constitute swimming, living hazardous waste. mr. president, these -- madam president, these are just a few of the headlines from this past year. this spring we've watched in horror as japan, already suffering from a terrible earthquake and tsunami, battled to keep the fukushima nuclear plant intact. leaks from the plant sent

harmful levels of radiation into the pacific ocean. in july of 2010, the midwest experienced its largest oil spill ever after a leaking michigan pipeline poured oil into the kalamazoo river and, thence, into the great lakes. last june, the journal "science" published a literature review by researchers from the university of queensland and u.n.c.-chapel hill, revealing mounting evidence that -- and i quote -- "rapidly rising greenhouse gas concentrations are driving ocean systems toward conditions not seen for millions of years, with an associated risk of fundamental and irreversible ecological transformation. in my home state of rhode island, the narragansett bay has witnessed a four-degree increase in average annual winter water temperature, causing what amounts to a full ecosystem

shift. and, of course, in april 2010, we witnessed the horrific explosion of the deepwater horizon, the tragic loss of li life, and the unfolding of the largest environmental disaster our country has ever seen. the gulf of mexico and the people who depend on this ecosystem for their sustenance and their livelihoods are still struggling to recover. we are now 13 months beyond the deepwater horizon explosion. lives are still shattered. livelihoods reliant on the gulf ecosystem are still threatened. but we are within the window of action. it is not too late to provide for short-term restoration of america's gulf coast. to enact legislation that reduces the risk of future oil spills.

and, as my cosponsors and i seek, to provide dedicated funding to study, protect, and restore the marine and coastal ecosystems within the united states boundaries. the national endowment for the oceans is our proposal to meet this last challenge. the endowment would make grants available to coastal and great lakes states, local government agencies, regional planning bodies, academic institutions, and nonprofit organizations so these entities could embark on projects to learn more about and do a better job of protecting our precious natural resources. projects that allow researchers to hire technicians, mechanics, computer scientists, and students. projects that put people to work relocating critical public

infrastructure jeopardized by sea level rise. projects that solve resource management problems and restore our natural ecosystems. and projects that protect jobs by restoring commercial fisheries habitat and creating new fisheries gear for sustainable and profitable fishing. the national oceanic atmospheric administration received $167 million for coastal restoration projects under the recovery afnlgt more than 800 proposals for shovel-ready construction and engineering projects came in, totaling $3 billion worth of work. but noaa could only fund 50 of the 800. the national endowment for the oceans would help us move forward with these projects and others that protect our oceans and drive our economy.

as i stand here today, more than a year after the beginning of the oil spill in the gulf, and in the face of mounting evidence that our oceans and coasts are truly facing a crisis, i understand the feelings of concern and frustration. but, again, i believe it is not too late. in fact, i believe the time is now to pass legislation that will help to restore the gulf ecosystem. the time is now to pass legislation that will reduce the risk of future oil spills, and it is time now to provide dedicated funding for the study, restoration and protection of our nation's ocean and coastal resources. we need to put the stewardship of our natural resources, our ocean resources at the forefront of our national agenda.

the national endowment for the oceans, as i said, is bipartisan, and i thank senator olympia snowe for her leadership in this effort. this legislation is science-based, with much of the money made available through a competitive grant program. this legislation is cost-effective, coordinating existing efforts of federal, local, and private programs, reducing duplication of research efforts, and crossing political borders to ensure that every dollar is spent with the greatest possible effect. finally, this legislation is appropriately paid for with revenue generated from the oil spill liability trust fund, a portion of royalties from outer continental shelf energy development, and fines and damages collected for violations of federal law off our coastline. put simply, a small portion of

the revenue we extract from our oceans and great waters will be reinvested to now protect the long-term viability of those oceans and great waters. madam president, the ocean provides us with great bounty, and we will continue to take advantage of that, as we should. we will fish, we will sail, and we will trade, we will dispose of waste, we will extract fuel and construct wind farms. navies and cruise ships, sail boats and supertankers will plow the ocean's surface. we cannot change how reliant we are on our oceans. what we can change is what we do in return. we can, for the first time, give back. we can become stewards of our oceans, not just takers but

caretakers. the oceans contain immense potential for new discoveries, immense potential for new jobs, and immense potential for new solutions to the emerging ocea oceans' crisis. but to meet the demand of this moment, we must respond to the challenges before us. we must heed the alarm bells that are ringing. from the arctic seas to you are oceans from the top of the food chain to the bottom, the alarm bells are indeed ringing. i urge my colleagues to join senator snowe and myself in support of the national endowment for the oceans. let ours be the generation that tips the increasingly troubling balance between mankind and our oceans, a little bit back toward the benefit of our oceans for

the long-term benefit of ma mankind. madam president, i thank the chair, and i ask unanimous consent that the time for morning business for debate only be extended until 6:00 p.m., with senators permitted until then to speak for up ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. whitehouse: with that, i yield the floor. mr. sessions: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama is recognized. mr. sessions: madam president, i thank the chair and just would share a few thoughts on a very important matter of the financial health of the united states. we had a nice meeting with the president earlier today.

republican senators, virtually all, were there, shared their thoughts, and the president responded. all in all, it was a good exchange. those are the kind of meetings that i don't talk about what is said in detail or quote anyone. i was asked by a number of reporters what happened and what qusay about it -- and what could you say about it. and i guess my conclusion is that not much happened, that no commitments were made that i could see that indicated to the president had made any change in the budget he had submitted or the speech he gave somewhat amending his budget a few weeks ago. he did not make any changes in the plan that i am seeing out there.

he discussed it. maybe something will happen. well, what is the status of the senate business? this is the senate. the senate has serious responsibilities. the budget act was designed to ensure that congress passes a budget because it was learned over the years -- it goes back to the 1970's -- that a budget is important for a country to have. families have them, businesses have them, you need a budget. congress was having trouble passing a budget, so they passed the budget act that allowed a budget to become law without 60 votes in the senate. but they could be passed with 350 votes. -- but they could be passed with 50 votes. we know there are 54 democrats in the senate and more than, i guess, than that with independents, that caucus with the democrats. so this is a situation we're in.

the president complied with the budget act a week late by submitting his budget. and his budget failed to meet the requirements of our time to a very significant degree. every witness we've had in our budget committee -- i'm the ranking republican on it -- has indicated and told us, many in great detail and with passion, we're on an unsustainable course. you can't continue to borrow 40 cents of every dollar and try to fund the government borrowing that kind of money, that we will hit a budget deficit this year of $1.5 trillion, the largest in the history of america. and in four years the president will have doubled the entire debt of the united states based on the trillion-dollar deficits he's had each single year. so this is not an acceptable

path for us to be on. and we had hearings in the budget committee about the critical issues we face. we considered and had testimony from the fiscal commission that president obama appointed, erskine bowles and alan sirch sofnlt -- alan simpson. we had the riff are inand dim commission. alice rivlin was o.m.b. director for president clinton and a wizard herself with numbers. and they proposed some real changes in the debt projectory we're on. so i thought after that, and based on the comments of senator conrad, our chairman, and the strong witnesses that we heard that called on us to make significant changes in what we were doing, that we would move

forward with a budget that would be a good bit stronger than the one president obama submitted. indeed, president obama's budget was not serious. president obama's budget took the current spending line for ten years that the congressional budget office says we're on, and it made it worse. it made the deficit worse, $2 trillion worse than the current plan we were on. totally unacceptable. he proposed in his budget increasing education funding by 10.5%, increasing energy department funding funding.5%. increasing state department funding 10.5%, proposed increasing the transportation department 62%. i mean, in a time when inflation is, what, 2%, we're having those

kind of increases and we're sea wire we're submitting a budget that recognizes we're on an unsustainable course and we've got to change? well, it was unacceptable. i was very disappointed about it. and i think even the man he appointed to head the debt commission, erskine bowles, said it was -- they've come nowhere close to what's necessary to avoid our fiscal nightmare. well -- so, we were told by our budget chairman, senator conrad, who it's been a pleasure to work with, that we would have a budget beginning -- budget markup beginning this monday. told us that last week. we willwell, it didn't happen on monday, maybe it was ghg to be tuesday.

maybe it was going to bence with day. all of the sudden, the white house invited the democrats over onence with dorks the preens hon thursday. and everything is o i asked my staff, have we received a notice that we're going to have a budget committee hearing next week? and the answer is "no." so what do we say about that? the budget act says that the senate and the house should commence budget action april 1. we've not done that. it sthais a budget should be passed -- it says that a budget should be passed by april 156789 the senate has not done that. the republican house has. the republican house has proposed an historic budget. they've passed it. they passed it on time. it would reduce spending by about $6 trillion. that would actually reduce taxes also and get the rates down to help encourage more economic growth, and put us on a path to

fiscal sanity, not only this decade but in decades to come, because it dealt with some of the exploding entitlement programs like medicare. and so what resulted from that? well, mr. ryan, a brilliant, young congressman, who has worked on budget issues for many, many years, is the most knowledgeable person probably in america about the details and the financial condition of america -- they attacked him. like he did something wrong. so the democratic senators and the president are spending their time attacking the one person who stood up and produced a budget that can be defended, and he's prepared to defend it anywhere, anytime. he goes to town hall meltings. he goes to town hall meetings.

he explain what had his budget s it may not be perfect. but it is a change. it would put on a budget to financial stability. and what has the senate done? complained about his budget. well, it's time this senate produces a budget. let me say this: 743 days today have passed since the senate has passed a busmgh . now, let me ask you, if you took a poll of the american people, how many of the american people would say, the senate shouldn't pass a budget? we've got a whole act that requires one to be passed and brought up and voted on. what happened last year? the budget committee did produce a budget. it came to the floor and the democratic leader, senator reid, well, he just didn't have time

to bring it up. well, why? well, you know, there's a vote-a-rama. we don't like vote a-a-rama. everybody gets to file an amendment. you have senators that are supposed to vote. has to be brought up and passed. you have 50 howmplets it is passed bay simple majority. why? because we want to elevate the debate, make sure a budget is passed because a nation that intends to be serious about its financial stability needs a budget, does it not? it began in the 1970's. and so, we're now beginning to wonder, well, will the committee even pass a budget? is senator conrad not even going to have a committee markup and produce a budget? is the democratic senate just not even going to move one out

of committee? at least it moved one out of committee last year. and if the committee does meet and does move a budget, is senator reid prepared to stand up like congressman ryan, lay his budget down before the american people, and defend it before the world? oh, well, we need to have talks. we've got talks going on. the vice president's having a meeting. the president is inviting everybody over. why don't we move forward with our budget process, i ask. why don't we? well, why not? you read in one of our local newspapers that covers the senate, i think it was "the hill," that senator conrad had a hard time with his democratic colleagues. his budget, which i very much

was afraid wouldn't be -- wouldn't contain spending enough, but certainly i felt it would be better than the budget president obama had submitted, was discussed with his democratic colleagues last week in the conference, and it didn't go well, we are told. and so this week he came back again apparently and produced another budget. and according to the report, senator sanders, probably the most aggressive and articulate advocate for greater government spending and affectism in the senate, senator sanders seemed to be very happy that he changed the budget and it had $2 trillion in tax increases, they said and $2 trillion in spending reductions. that's supposed to be balanced. but that's not what the debt commission said.

the debt commission, which i didn't agree with really, they said, well, you should have at least $3 worth of spending reductions for every $1 in tax increases. and now we have another report, i think it was in the "c.q." publication that does work around here and digs up information, they said it looks like it's going to be less spending reductions than that. looks like it's going to be about $2 trillion in tax increases and only $1.5 trillion in reduced spending. so it's less than even one to one. well, i think if i were the majority leader, i wouldn't really feel comfortable about bringing such a budget as that before the american people and standing right down here and

defending such a weak response to the fiscal crisis that we're now in. of course that budget is irresponsible. if that's so -- and i don't think the american people will be happy with it. i certainly will oppose it with every strength in my body if that's the nature of it. why don't you know, sessions? well, i haven't been told what's in it. we asked -- the republican members of the committee wrote the chairman and asked that any budget numbers that are produced be produced 72 hours in advance of a hearing so we can study it, offer amendments or substitute as we chose to do so. we've been basically told that you will get the budget resolution that the chairman intends to file the morning it starts, when you commence the

hearing to mark up the budget, we'll be getting a copy of it, what they propose to bring forward. and we really think that that's not a healthy way to do business on a matter this important. this period in history represents the most significant long-term threat to american financial stability that we've seen maybe ever. sure we had a tough time during world war ii and the debt went up. but you could see when the war was over and the strength of our workforce and the economy grew, we came right out of that and got that situation under control quickly. but now we're in a situation in which our nation is aging. the number of people working is

down. the number of recipients is up in medicare and social security, and we have to figure out a way to honestly deal with that without in any way placing our seniors at risk and other people who benefit from government programs. it's going to take some change. it's first going to take change in wasteful washington spending. all our discretionary spending needs to be looked at aggressively and we also are going to have to look at the long-term prospects for our financial future as our creditors, those who are loaning us this money we are borrowing, are getting uneasy. they're not too comfortable with what we're doing. i just believe that any party, any president who desires the mantle of a leader, desires to

demonstrate a commitment to a firm footing for our financial future should come forth with a plan as part of the budget process and lay it out so the american people can see it. and i'm becoming very concerned that once again, even though 743 days have passed since a budget has cleared this senate, that we may not get one this year. what an event. that, to me, is unthinkable. how irresponsible could we be to go another year under these circumstances? for example, the congressional budget office has analyzed the president's proposal for the future, and that scoring of the president's budget concludes a couple of things. last year our interest that we

paid on the money this nation has borrowed was $200 billion. in ten years under the president's plan, the congressional budget office said the amount of interest that would be paid in one year is $940 billion. that's bigger than the defense department. that's bigger than medicare. it would be the largest single item in the entire budget. it's unthinkable we get no benefit from that whatsoever except the money we borrowed to live off of. we're passing huge debts off to our grandchildren, and the expert economists and financiers that testified before the budget committee said don't think that you can just assume that the problem falls on your grandchildren. they said we could have a crisis much sooner than that.

mr. bowles and mr. simpson issued a statement to us when they testified that said we're facing the most predictable debt crisis in american history. when asked could we have a -- when such a crisis could hit us, and mr. bowles -- chosen by president obama to head the commission -- said two years, maybe a little earlier, maybe a little later. alan simpson said, i think twobgd be one year -- i think it could be one year. we hope we don't have some new debt crisis. we hope that the people that have been loaning us money don't get so nervous as they've done in greece that our interest rates surge, puts this economy in a dangerous condition and damages our country. i hope that's not happening within two years or one year. wouldn't that be a disaster for

us? how do we prevent it? we take action now that changes the debt trajectory of our country, sends a message to the whole world. we get it, we know we can't continue on this path, and we're changing. and the way our congress and government is set up, the way that change occurs is through the adoption of a budget. and, madam president, i remain very disappointed that while the house has produced an historic budget on time, by april 15, we now have not even begun to mark up a budget in the senate. that's irresponsible. and we need to know, and the american people need to know, that the majority leader, if a budget is passed out of

committee -- and certainly it should be -- that he will move it on the floor and bring it up for vote in amendment and debate. and then it goes to the house in conference, and they hammer out the differences, and we adopt a budget that can help put this country on a sound financial path and avoid the kind of crisis that so many experts have warned us could occur. i thank the chair. i see my fabulous colleague, senator hatch, here, ranking republican member of the finance committee, and my former chairman on the judiciary committee who is honored to serve with him. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. mr. hatch: madam president? the presiding officer: thank you. the senator from utah is recognized. mr. hatch: i thank my dear colleague for his kind remarks. i appreciate it. madam president, yesterday the finance committee held a hearing on the u.s.-columbian free trade agreement, what we call the colombia trade promotion agreement. this agreement will provide significant new opportunities

for u.s. manufacturers, agricultural producers and service providers in the rapidly growing columbian market. implementation of the colombia agreement would also benefit u.s. national security. colombia is emerging from decades of civil strife, and it is in our interest to see that colombia continues to heal from its wounds of the past. this free trade agreement will help bring further stability to colombia, a close friend and ally, will also open and further build the market for u.s. exports to that country. in short, it is a good agreement for the united states. so what's the holdup? over four years have passed since the u.s.-colombia trade promotion agreement was signed. it is imperative that the administration submits an implementing bill for this agreement to congress and soon. the administration, however, still won't say when it will send an implementing bill to capitol hill. during yesterday's hearing, i asked our deputy u.s. trade

representative two very simple questions regarding this issue. first, assuming that colombia fulfills the steps outlined in the labor action plan developed by the obama administration and the columbian government will will ... let me go over that again. assuming first that colombia fulfills the steps outlined in the labor action plan developed by the obama administration and the columbian government, will the administration submit the colombia agreement to congress for a vote? second, is the administration preconditioning the president's formal submission of the colombia trade agreement on matters not related to the action plan, such as congressional extension of trade adjustment assistance or permanent normal trade relations for russia? to me, these questions are pretty clear and can be answered

with a simple yes or no. but unfortunately, we did not get a clear answer. after years of delay, we still do not know if the administration will ever submit the colombia agreement to congress for approval. this is very unfortunate. the obama administration's delay in smith the colombia agreement is hurting u.s. exporters. this failure is a drag on job creation and economic growth. while the president has dithered as to whether to implement the trade agreement with colombia, our trade competitors have been more than willing to enter into agreements with colombia. consequently, while colombia's tariffs on u.s. imports have remained in place, colombia's tariffs on products from other countries are falling away. for example, colombia complemented a preferential trade agreement with argentina and brazil. as a result, u.s. farm products are rapidly being displaced in the columbian market by products from those countries. so it's not too surprising that between 2007 and 2010 u.s.

agricultural exports to colombia fell by more than half. it looks like matters are going to get worse. a montana wheat grower testified at yesterday's hearing noted the u.s. share of the columbian wheat market fell to 43% in 2010. he also stated the following: following implementation of the canadian-columbian -- of the canada-columbian free trade agreement which is expected to occur this year, u.s. exports of wheat to colombia will drop to zero unless the united states implements its trade agreement with colombia. so u.s. agricultural exports to colombia are already falling. u.s. manufactured goods and u.s. services will be next. it doesn't have to be this way. we don't have to continue giving away the growing colombian market to our competitors. if we want to boost our e expors to colombia we need to implement

the colombia-u.s. trade agreement. the obama administration stated it wanted to address colombia's internal labor situation before moving ahead with the agreement. but the administration delayed taking any meaningful steps to address their concerns with the colombia government for years. a few months ago the administration finally got serious about engaging with colombia. in a manner of weeks -- in a matter of weeks they were able to develop a labor action plan that addressed their concerns in a meaningful and concrete way. the administration discovered that in their owner words, they had a willing partner in colombia. the fact of the matter is that colombia has been taking steps for years to address issues related to violence against unionists and has always been willing to do more. why it took the administration so long to figure it out is a mystery to me so the obama administration is now negotiated

an action plan that address its concerns regarding the labor situation in colombia. you would think that we would have clarity once the steps in the action plan are fulfilled, the administration would submit the agreement to congress for its consideration. but we do not have this clarity. there has been no clear answer to this very simple question. instead, there seems to be more preconditions on submitting the agreement that are not even related to the agreement itself such as extension of trade adjustment assistance and permanent normal trade relations with russia. now, this is very odd. most economist wos agree there are like -- would agree there will be few workers who will lose their job because of the implementation of the colombia trade agreement. afterall, the u.s.-colombia trade agreement will result in almost no growth in imports in

colombia. this is the case, as almost all colombian products entered the united states duty free over the past two decades on the count of u.s.-trade deference programs. in contrast colombia's average supplied tariff on u.s. imports is over 12% and they can reach as high as 388%. moreover the administration itself testified that implementation of the colombia agreement will expand exports of u.s. goods to colombia by more than a billion dollars. that's with a b. increase u.s.-g.d.p. b by $2.5 billion and support thousands of additional jobs for our workers at a time where we need jobs. and when we need to pull this economy out of the mess it's in. so it's hard to see further extension of the d.a.a. program as a necessary precondition for approval of an agreement that will help our economy and support jobs in the united states.

it's a no brainer. i'm also bewildered by any attempts to precondition submission of the precolombia agreement to congressional support for permanent, normal trade relations for russia. these two issues are totally unrelated. given the current disregard for the rule of law, and the many trade problems that persist in russia today, it is hard to argue that the time is ripe for congress to grant russia permanent normal trade relations. moreover, it would be particularly ironic and sad to condition passage of the colombia trade agreement with permanent, normal trade relations for russia. over the past four years colombia's been a reliable u.s. trading partner ready and willing to remove its tariffs on u.s. imports through implementation of our trade agreement. during these same years russia has seemingly gone out of its way on numerous occasions to prove to the united states that

it is an unreliable trading partner. it is fundamentally unfair to continue to treat a friend and ally like colombia in this ridiculous way. unfortunately, it's not the first time democratic leaders have put one of our closest latin american allies in this position. the u.s.-colombia trade promotion agreement was first signed on november 22, 2006. almost five years ago. democratic leaders refuse to consider the agreement until there are additional -- their additional demands were met on labor, the environment, and intellectual property. the bush administration responded by working with then speaker pelosi on a package of changes that were understood would lead to consideration of the agreement. but once they had these changes in hand, the democratic leadership in the house bawlinged -- balkd.

when it was -- procedures in april 2008, the democratic leadership refused to allow the agreement to come up for a vote. instead they changed the rules and the agreement has since languished for almost five years. it's time for the excuses to end. resolution of unrelated issues like trade adjustment assistance and pntr for russia should not be used as further barriers to submission of this agreement. colombia is taking the steps laid out by the obama administration that the administration has said are necessary before the president will formally submit the agreement to congress. once those steps are taken in june, i fully expect the administration to findly fulfill its end of the bargain and formally submit the agreement for congressional approval without further conditions. if not, the administration's making a conscious decision to continue to deny u.s. exporters

improved access to the colombian market. and to undermine our standing as a credible ally in latin america. now, madam president, it's a no brainer to realize that colombia's one of our best friends. when you compare it to some of its neighbors like venezuela, and i can name other countries that are undermining our very country as we sit here and stand here. the fact of the matter is colombia is a friend. friends should not be treated this way. it's ridiculous what's going on. there's very little need for trade adjustment assistance in this particular deal. it's just another way of sucking the taxpayers more money for purposes that literally don't exist. madam president, i hope the administration will wake up and

realize this is really -- this will really be a -- a tremendous achievement for them. there's no reason in the world why they shouldn't want to do this. it would be a sure creator of jobs at a time when we need jobs. it will even up a situation that up to this point has been said. it will help our country. let's quit playing games with this free trade agreement. let's vote on it and let's restore our relationship with colombia to the great relationship that it deserves to be. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: