withdrawn. the majority leader. mr. reid: is amendment number 365 pending? the presiding officer: that is the pending amendment. mr. reid: i move to table the pending paul amendment, 365, i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second. the question is on the motion to table. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: is there anyone wishing to vote or to change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 91, the nays are 4. under the previous order, 60 votes not having been cast in opposition to the motion to table, the amendment is withdrawn. could we please have order. under the previous order, amendment number 348 is withdrawn. all postcloture time is yielded back and the question is on the motion to concur with amendment number 347 in the house amendment to senate 990. the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators who wish to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 72. the nays are 23. the motion to concur in the house amendment to s. 990 with amendment number 347 is agreed to. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the leader. mr. reid: this will be the last vote this week.

we're in a -- the presiding officer: please. the leader. mr. reid: no more votes today. tomorrow -- we'll have a vote the monday we get back in the evening around 5:00. i would ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business until 8:00 p.m. tonight with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. further, senator murray be recognized to speak for four minutes. following her remarks, senator inhofe will be recognized until 6:15 p.m., senator durbin will be recognized for up to ten minutes. following that senator coburn will be recognized for up to 45 minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reid: i think that may get us past 8:00. i've done the math very quickly; but however long that takes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. murray: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. i come to the floor to honor and commemorate the men and women who died fighting for our great country. memorial day is a day to honor those american heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation. it's because of their sacrifice that we can safely enjoy the freedoms our great country offers. the presiding officer: sorry. go ahead. proceed. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. it is because of their unmatched commitment that america can remain a beacon for democracy and freedom throughout the world. mr. president, memorial day is a day of remembrance, but it's also a day of reflection. when our brave men and women volunteered to protect our nation, we promised them we would take care of them and their families when they return home. on this memorial day, we need to ask ourselves, are we doing enough for our nation's veterans? making sure our veterans can find jobs when they come back

home is an area where we must do more. for too long we've been srefgs billions of -- investing billions of dollars training our young men and women to protect our nation only to ignore them twhe come home. for too long we have patted them on the back and pushed them into the job market with no support. that is simply unacceptable and it doesn't meet the promise that we made to our service members. mr. president, our hands-off approach has left us with an unemployment rate of over 27% among young veterans coming home from iraq and afghanistan. that is one in five of our nation's heroes who cannot find a job to support their family and who don't have an income to provide the stability that is so critical to their transition home. that is exactly why earlier this month i introduced the hiring heroes act of 2011, which is cosponsored now by 17 senators and garnered bipartisan support.

this legislation will rethink the way we support our men and women in uniform when they come home to look for a job. i introduced this critical legislation because i have heard firsthand from so many veterans that we have not done enough to provide them with the support they need to find work. i've heard from medics who return home from treating battlefield wounds who cannot get certification to be an e.m.t. or drive an ambulance. i've heard from veterans who tell me they no longer write they are a veteran on their resume because they fear the stigma they believe employers attach to the visible wounds of war. these stories are heartbreaking and frustrating, but more than anything they are a reminder that we have got to act now. mr. president, my legislation will allow our service members to capitalize on their service. for this first time it will require broad job skills training for anyone leaving the military as part of the military's transition assistance

program. today over a third of those leaving the army don't get any of that training. my bill will also require the department of labor to take a hard look at what military skills and training should be translatable into the civilian sector and will work to make it simpler to get those licenses and certifications our veterans need. all of these are real, substantial steps to put our veterans to work, and all of them come at a pivotal time for our economic recovery and our veterans. mr. president, i grew up with the vietnam war. i've dedicated much of my senate career helping to care for the veterans we left behind that time. the mistakes we made then cost our nation and our veterans dearly. today we risk repeating those mistakes. we cannot let that happen again. our nation's veterans are disciplined, they're team players who have proven they can deliver under pressure like no

one else. so, mr. president, let's not let another year and another memorial day go by without us delivering for them. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, first of all, i ask unanimous consent that my time that would expire at 6:15 be extended to 6:30 and other times adjusted accordingly. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, a few weeks ago i had the opportunity to visit with one of my really truly heroes. binyamin netanyahu, who was here and graced us with his presence this week. i just last march i was in jerusalem, had some quality time with him and we kind of relived spaoefrpbss that we've had in the -- experiences we've had in the past when he was prime minister before. that was back in the middle of the 1990's i had a chance to talk to him and i can recall his concern at that time and what he

said at that time, two major concerns. one is what's happening in iran and then of course making sure that the land that is in israel right now will stay there. well, recently i had a chance to visit with him again and i was really quite surprised when he came here and was met with this suggestion, that things are going to change and that maybe we would encourage israel to go back to their 1967 borders. and i can assure you that we'll do everything we can to keep that from happening, and i want to make sure we get the message out there. this may be president obama talking. it's not the majority of people in america, as was witnessed by the 30 standing ovations that prime minister netanyahu got in his joint speech. it sounded familiar when we were talking about the land, mr. president, and i remember that it was ten years ago -- ten years ago, 2001 -- that i made a

speech and that jogged my memory when i heard the president talking about going back to the 1967 borders, and so i dug up that speech. i found it, and i found that it is still appropriate today. in fact, this was a speech -- by the way, the research done for this speech was done by a guy named willie george, a preacher, pastor, historian. i want to put the simple perspective on this that we did 10 years ago. first of all, i am going to do something that's unusual on the the floor of the senate. that i am going to quote ephesians 6. "for we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against the ruse rulers of darkness of this world, against spiritual witnesses -- wickedness in high places. it is significant that we look at that because, make no mistake about it, the war that was started ten years ago, the war that ware nay right now, that we're fighting now, is a war first and foremost, a spiritual war.

not a political war, never has been. a political war -- it is not about politics. it is a spiritual war. it has its roots in spiritual conflict. it is a war to destroy the very fabric of our society and the very things for which we stand. now, many of the wars in history are wars where people are trying to take over something that -- something another country that - something another country has. this is a different war. it is not just simple greed that motivates these people to kill. one may ask, what is it about our nation that makes them -- and hirple a talking about some of the hamas, hezbollah, the terrorists -- hate us so much in this country? i suggest there are three things. first, in our country, we have the freedom and the right to choose the kind of worship we want. i happen to be a jesus guy, a born again christian, all that. i believe the way to the lord is through -- to god is through his son. now, while i believe that i believe every american has the

right to choose whether or not he or she wants to believe that. some people have the notion that if you are a christian who believes in the bible, you are totally intolerant, you do not allow other people to have a choice. nothing could be further from the truth. the nations of this world where christianity is the dominant way of worship, we also find jewish synagogues, we find islamic mosques, we find freedom of worship. we'll not find the same kind of things in the militant islamic nations of this world. they don't allow christian churches or synagogues to be open freely. they don't allow people the freedoms. they percen persecute people. one of the reasons america is hated so much is that we have allowed people, through the years to choose what they're going -- what they're going to do. it is their choice. the second reason that we're hated so much is that we have opened the door for people to achieve their god-given place on this earth. we have not restrained people.

we have allowed people freedom of expression, the freedom to pursue dreams, the freedom pursue goals. this is not true in other places in the world. these freedoms are not found in every nation. america is great because we have magnified the rights of individuals, protected the rights of individuals and our culture. we are careful to allow people to have expression in our society. and we are hated for it. the third reason we're hated by these people is that -- because we're a nation of laws. we have a people ruled by laws, lest one thinks that's common, go around the world and look at these other countries in the world. most of the world's countries don't have a 200 yierld constitution. they -- 200-year-old constitution. they are ruled by dictators, ruled by the whims of those leaders or by political parts, as they change. the rule of law is what makes civilization possible. the rule of law is what makes an orderly society work.

if there is no rule of larks the strongest, toughest on the block is the one running the country. now america is a country of law and order. because of the philosophies of the people who founded our nation, they believed in the rule of law because of what they knew from the pibal. our constitution and the constitutions of most governments around the world similar to ours are indeed based on the ten commandments. our fathers knew that the ten commandments and the laws of god should be the basis for all laws. they understood the concepts of absolute right and absolute wrong. there were not many who believed in what we call today "situational ethics" or where if things change according to our needs. they believed in absolute right and absolute wrong. that's the reason we are hated so much as a nation. we are hated because we are a beacon of light, a beacon of freedom all the way around the world. we know contemporarily what this

means. one of the greatest speeches of all time was a speech made by ronald reagan -- a rein day view with destiny. in this speech he talked about -- this is back when castro first took over cuba. he talked about the atrocities in communist cuba and people were trying to escape and one man escaped in a small boat, as many others did. and he throifd reach the coast of florida -- and he lived to reach the coast of florida. as his boat floated up on the coast, he started telling the people who were there about the atrocities of communist cuba. and a lady respond and said, well, i guess we in this country don't know how lucky we are. and he said, no, it is how lucky we are because we had a place to escape to. now when what he was saying is we were that beacon of freedom. and we are hated because we are a beacon of freedom. that's the third reason. for by the rest of the world. we are hated because in america

we have freedom of choirks freedom of expression, we have laws. why was america attacked on september 11? we were attacked because of our system of values. it is a spiritual war. it is not just because we are israel's best friend. we are israel's best friend in the world because of the character we have as a nation. one of the reasons god has blessed our country is because we have honored his people. now, right there on your desk, mr. president, you have a bible. if you look up genesis 12:3 it says, "i will bless them to bless you and curse you that curses you," and he was talking about israel. one of the reasons america has been blessed abundantly over the jeers because we as a society have opened our doors to the jewish people. the jewish people have been blessed in the united states of america. when the tiny state of israel was founded in 1-9d 48, we stood

in the beginning with israel. we were the first country to stand for israel. and because we took a stand, other nations in the world took a standed. they followed quickly. the united states made it possible for there to be an israel. we stood with israel again and again angenscher in its fight te stand with israel again and again and again. it is not just because of our support of israel. it is what we believe as nation that caused us to come under attack. and israel sunders attack in the middle east because it is the only true democracy that exists in the middle east. there are more than 20 arab countries that are in northern africa, in the middle east, and nearly every one of those is run by a dictator. israel is the only true democracy that exists in the middle east. and, mr. president, did you know if you are an arab in israel and you are an israeli citizen, as an arab, you can vote in the

elections? in fact, the -- in the necessary set, that's their -- in the knesset, they have a political party for arabs. they are their own party in the knesset. israel is the only party in the middle east. the laws of god that our country is based on are the same laws from which israel gets its law. it represents the laws of god. that's the reason it is under attack. we ought to be israel's best friend. if we can't stand for israel today, can we ever again be counted on as a beacon of hope, a beacon of freedom for the oppressed nations? you may ask, what does this have to do with the attack on america that happened ten years ago? we were under attack because of our character, and because we have supported the tiny little nation in the middle east. that is why we are under attack. if we don't stand for this tiny country today, when do we start

stat standing for tiny little countries in the world that are right? many years ago yasser arafat and others did not recognize israel's right to the land, very much like our president obama. even today many don't recognize israel's right to exist. there are seven reasons i considered to be indisputable and incontrovertible evidence and grounds to israel's right to the land and you have heard this before because you heard it from me ten years ago and it was some words in the records now, but i kept it. most know this, that they're going to be hit by skeptics who are going to say that we are being attacked all because of our support for israel and if we get out of the middle east, all of the problems will go away. that's not soavment it's not triewvment we all know in our hearts it is not true f we withdraw, it would come to our door t would not go away. i have some observations to make about that in a minute. but first, i want to tell you the seven reasons that israel has the right to the land. and i'm saying in because i'm

still in shock over what what happened this last week. but i am relieved from the response we got from this great man, prime minister netanyahu. israel has the right to the the land. reasonium one: because of all of the archeological evidence. this is reasonium one. it supports it. every time there is a dig in israel, it does nothing but support the fact that israelis have had a presence there in that land for over 3,000 years. the coins, the cities, the pottery, the culture -- there are other people and other groups there, but there's no mistake the fact that the israelis have been present for 3,000 years. it predates any claims that any other peoples in the region might have. the ancient philistines are exstingtsz. they are not around anymore. many other ancient people are extinct. they do not have an unbroken line to this date. the israelis have -- even the egyptians of today are not racial egyptia egyptians of 2,0r

3,000 years ago. they're premerrell an arab people. the land is called egypt but they are not the same racial and ethnic stock as the old egyptians of the ancient world. the israelis are in fact descended from the original israeliites. the first proof is the archeological proof. the second proof of israel's right to the land is the historic right. history supports it totally and completely. we know that there's been an israeli up until the roman empire. the romans conquered the land. although jews were allowed to live there they were driven from there twice. but there was always a jewish presence in the land. the turks who took over about 700 years ago and ruled the land up until about world war i had control. then the land was concurred by the british. the tushes entered world war i

on the side of germany. the british knew they had to do something to punish the turks and throes brain the empire that was going to be part of the whole effort of germany. so the british sent troops against the turks in the holy land. this is a good one. one of the generals who led the british into the holy land was a guy -- whose name was allenby. he was a jefnls he was a bible-believing crifnlt he carried a bible with him everywhere he went. he knew the significance of the jews. the night before the attack against jerusalem to drive out -- that is to drive out the tucialgs, allenby prayed that god would allow him to cap tutor city without doing damage to the holy places. that day allenby -- this is world war i now -- he sent a bunch of biplanes into the holy land to -- as a reconnaissance mission. you have to understand, these turks had never seen a biplane. they looked up and they saw

these cute little machines flying archltdz they were terrified. then they were told that they are being opposed by a man named allenby. that is true story. history supports it. allenby in their language means "man sent from god" or "prophet from god." they dared not fight against a prophet from god so the next morning when allenby went into jerusalem, he went in and captured it without firing a shot. and that is history. that's actually what happened. that's the history that we're talking about. now, out of gratitude to the jews, and out of gratitude to jewish bankers and financiers and histories who lent financial help on the homeland, the jewish people, the homeland that is now israel, and what you feel was then the nation of jordan was given to the jewish people. the homeland, britain said it would set asierksd conned of all

of what is now israel and then gored dan. the whole thing. that is what the british promised the jews in 1917. now, in the beginning, there was some arab population there. and some arab support for this gift. there was not a huge arab population in the land at the time. there was a reason for that. the land was not able to sustain any kind of a large population. the people -- it just didn't have the development it needed to handle any kind of population in the land. it really wasn't wanted by anyone. if you believe that israel was not wanted at a time by anyone. listen to what mark twain said. he did huckleberry finn and tom sawyer and samuel clemens. he took a tour of the holy land in 1867. this is how he described it. we were talking about israel. he said -- quote -- "a desolate country whose soil is rich enough but given over wholly to

weeds, a silent, mournful expanse. we never saw a human being on the whole route. there was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of worthless soil have almost deserted the country." where was the great palestine at that time, the palestinian nation? it didn't exist. the palestinians weren't there. palestine was a nation named by the romance but at the time it was under control of the turks. at that time there was no large population there because the land wouldn't support a large population. this was the support -- there was a palestinian royal commission that was created by the british. it quotes an account of the conditions on the coastal plain along with the mediterranean sea in 1913. this is the palestinian royal commission. this is what they said about israel at that time. they said -- quote -- "the road leading from gaza to the north was only a summer track suitable for transport by camels or

carts, no orange groves, orchards or vineyards were to be seen until one reached the va vavnev village. the western part toward the sea was almost desert. the villages were few and thinly populated. many villages were deserted by their inhabitants. it was a hopeless, dreary place. in short, under the turks, the land suffered from neglect and low population. it's a historical fact. the nation became populated with both swriews and arabs -- with both jews and arabs. the land began to prosper when the jews came back and began to reclaim it. historically, they began to reclaim it even if there had never been any arco logical evidence to support the right of the israelis to the territory, it's important to recognize that other nations in the area have no long-standing claim to the country either. and, mr. president, this may even surprise you. so i would say, mr. president,

did you know that saudi arabia was not created until 1913, lebanon until 1920, iraq didn't exist as a nation until 1932, syria until 1941, the borders of jordan were established in 1946 and kuwait in 1961. now, any of these nations who would say that israel is only a recent arrival would have to deny their own rights as they were recent arrivals as well. they didn't exist as a country. they were all under control of the turks. so historically, the land was given to the israelis in 1917, then of course we know that israel gained its independence in -- in 1948. now, so we have the arco logical logical -- reasons. the third reason i believe it belonged to israel is because of the practical value of the israelis being there. israel today is a modern marvel

of agriculture. israel is able to bring more food out of the desert environment than any other country in the world. the arab nations ought to make israel their friend, important technology from israel that would allow all the middle east, not just israel, to be exporters of food. right now, it's only israel, so israel unarguably has the success in its agriculture. they have been able to develop it when nobody else has. the fourth reason i believe that israel has the right to the land is on the ground of humanitarianism. you see, there are six million jews slaughtered in europe in world war ii. persecution against the jews was very strong in russia since the advent of communism. persecution was against the jews even before that time under the czars. these people had the right to their homeland. if we are not going to allow them a homeland in the middle east, then where? what other nation on earth is going to cede territory? they are not asking for a great

deal. you know, the whole nation of israel fits into my state of oklahoma seven times. so on humanitarian grounds alone, israel ought to have the land. the fifth reason that i disagree with president obama and think that israel should have the right to the land without any changes, not going back to 1967, is because it is a strategic ally to the united states. now, whether we realize it or not, israel is a detriment, an impediment to certain groups hostile to democracies and hostile to those things that we believe in, hostile to the very things that -- that make us the greatest nation in the history of the world. israel has kept them from taking complete control of the middle east. if it were not for israel, they would overrun the region. israel is our only strategic ally. mr. president, it's good to know that we have a friend in the middle east that we can count on. they vote with us in the united nations more than england, more than germany, more than canada,

more than france, more than any other country in the world. and so they have been our consistent ally for strategic reasons. the sixth reason that israel should be entitled to the land is that israel is a roadblock to terrorism. the war we are now facing is not a war against a sovereign nation. it is a fluid group of terrorists moving from one country to another. they are almost invisible. that is who we are fighting against. we need every ally we can get. if we do not stop terrorism in the middle east, it will be on our shores. now, i've said this and said this and said this. one of the reasons i believe the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the united states is because of the policy of our government has been to ask the israelis to demand with pressure that they not retaliate against the terrorist attacks that have been launched against them. now, since its independence in 1948, israel has fought four

wars. in all these wars, they were not the aggressor. they weren't the aggressor in any of the wars. some people might argue with videotape they were the first ones there. no, egypt was building up and everyone knew what was going to happen. you have to understand that in all four cases, israel was attacked. well, israel won all four wars against impossible odds. they are great warriors. i have spent some time over there. they consider a level playing field to be outnumbered 2-1. they are a great people. there are 39 scud missiles that landed on israel's soil during the gulf war. our president asked israel at that time -- remember, our policy was to try to get them not to respond. we asked them at that time not to respond. in order to have the arab nations on board, we asked israel not even to participate in the war. they showed incredible restraint they did not. and we asked them to stand back and not do anything over these attacks. we have criticized them. they have been criticized in our

media, our local people in television and radio offered criticism of israel, not knowing the true issues. we need to be informed. years ago, i was so thrilled when i heard a reporter pose a question to our former secretary of state colin powell during the gulf war. he said mr. powell, the united states has advocated a policy of restraint in the middle east. we have discouraged israel from retaliation again and again and again because we have said that at least to continued escalation that it escalates the violence. he said are we going to follow -- we, the united states, going to follow that preacher, preaching ourselves. mr. powell indicated that we would strike back. in other words, we can tell israel not to do it but when it hits us, we're going to do it. that's one of the reasons that i believe the door was opened, because we held back our tiny little friend. we have not allowed them to go to the heart of the problem. this was a mistake. terrorism is not going to go

away. if israel were driven into the sea tomorrow and every jew in the middle east were killed, terrorism would not end. you know that in your heart terrorism would continue. it's not just a matter of israel and the middle east. it's the heart of the very people who are perpetuateing -- perpetrating this stuff. you know, should they be successful in overrunning israel -- they won't be, but should they be, it will not be enough. they will never be satisfied. we learned that at camp david. now, the seventh reason -- and this is going to upset a lot of people, but i have got to say it because it's obvious and it's printed right up there on the desk. i believe very strongly the seventh reason that we ought to support israel is that it has a right to the land. this is the most important reason. are you ready for this? because god said so. as i said a minute ago, look it up in the book of genesis. genesis 13, verse 14, 15 and 17.

the bible says the lord -- this is very specific, too. this is very interesting." the lord said to abraham, lift up now your eyes and look from the place where you are northward, southward, eastward, westward, for all the land which you see to you will i give it and to your seed forever. arise, walk through the land and the length of it and in the breadth 6 it -- of it, for i will give it to thee." that's god talking. he is talking about israel. the bible says that abraham moved his tent and came to dwell in the plane of mammaree, hebron. hebron is in the west bank, the west bank. right here is what we're talking about, is the place where god appeared to abraham and said i am giving you this land, the west bank. now i want to hear yelling and screaming about this because you're quoting the bible. that's their problem, not mine.

this is not a political battle at all. it's a contest over whether or not the word of god is true. the seven reasons here i'm convinced clearly establish that israel has a right to the land. years ago on the lawn of the white house, yitzhak rabin shook hands with p.l.o. chairman yasser arafat. it was a historic occasion. it was a tragic occasion. at the time, the official policy of the government of israel began to be -- quote -- let us appease the terrorists, let us begin to trade the land for peace. they tried and this process continued unabated. here in our own nation, camp david in the summer of 2000 -- i remember it so well when many ehud barack offered the most generous concessions to yasser arafat that had ever been on the table. he offered him more than 90% -- listen to this, more than 90% of all the west bank territory, sovereign control of it. there were some parts he did not want to offer, but in exchange for that, he said he would give

up land in israel proper that the p.l.o. was not even asking for. and he also did the unthinkable. we can't imagine today. he even talked about dividing jerusalem and allowing the palestinians to have their capital there in the east. yasser arafat stormed out of the meeting. why did he storm out of the meeting? why would he storm out? everything he asked for was offered to him, everything. a couple of months later when there began to be riots and terrorism, the riots began when ariel sharon went to the temple mount, we all remember this, and this was used as the thing that lit the fire that caused the explosion. this is the excuse they used. now, i'm talking about the terrorists. did you know that sharon did not go to the temple mount unannounced? he contacted the islamic authorities before he went, he secured their permission, he had permission to be there, it was no surprise. the response was very airfully calculated. they knew they would not pay attention to the details.

and so they would portray this as an arab world -- in the arab world as an attack on the holy mosque. they would portray it as an attack upon a mosque and use it as an excuse to riot, and we know what's happened since that time. over the following years, during the time of the peace process where the israeli public has pressured its leaders to give up land for peace because they are tired of fighting, there has been increased terror. it hasn't helped. it hasn't worked. nothing has worked. in fact, it's been greater than at any other time in israel's history. showing restraint and giving in has not produced any kind of peace. it is so much so that the leftist peace movement in israel did not exist because the people felt they were deceived. they did offer a hand of peace and it was not taken. that's why the politics of israel have changed drastically. the israelis have come to see that -- quote -- "no matter what we do, these people do not want to deal with this. they want to destroy us."

that's why even yet today, the stationery of the p.l.o. has upon it a map of the entire state of israel. not just the tiny part they call the west bank. they want it all. the unwavering loyalty we have received from our only consistent friend in the middle east has got to be respected and appreciated by us. no longer should foreign policy in the middle east be one of appeasement. as hiram mann said the best men rot in filthy jails, those who cry appease, appease are hanged by those they try to please. islamic fundamentalism, terrorism has come to america. it came to america on be 9/11. we have to use all of our friends, all of our assets, all of our resources to defeat the satanic evil. patrick henry said -- said we are not wicked to make the profit use of those means which the god of nature placed in our

power. armed in a holy cause of liberty as that which we possess by any force our enemy consent against us. we will not fight our battles alone. there is a just god who reigns over the destiny of friends and fight our battles with us. he was talking about all of our friends, including israel. that is what is happening. thank god that israel is in the battle by our side. it is time for our policy of appeasement in the middle east and appeasement for the terrorists to be over with our partners. and victory, it's going to be an absolute victory. i mentioned a few weeks ago i was with prime minister netanyahu in israel. and at that time his concern, he had this growing concern for the land. we didn't know what was coming. we didn't know what was going to happen. we didn't know that which did happen just a week ago was going to happen. and i'll quote this now from the associated press. it said prime minister -- i was so proud of him. think of the courage this took

for prime minister netanyahu to stand next to the most powerful men in the world and make a statement like this. he said, he sat alongside president barack obama on friday and declared that israel would not withdraw to the 1967 borders to help make way for an adjacent palestinian state. obama had called on israel to be willing to do just that thing. prime minister netanyahu said, he said his nation could not negotiate with newly constituted palestinian unit governments and that includes the radical hamas movement which refuses to recognize israel's right to exist and is committed to israel's production. and, mr. president, those are the seven reasons that i believe the land belongs to israel. we need to respect that. and we need to declare god bless israel. mr. president, i know i've got

just a couple minutes left. i would like to cover one last thing because something is about to happen in the next week. some people are going to be killed. it has nothing to do with israel and nothing to do with this subject here, but it is something that is really very, very serious. you might recall at six different times on the floor of the senate i've talked about the problems that are taking place in a country in africa, west africa called cote d'ivoire. the fact we have a president named laurent bag pwoerbgs his wife simone. they were ruling, an election came a along, stolen from him by a man named alassane quattara. what i've done is tried to show -- i explained well before this all happened, before we got involved that france and the united nations and now our state department joining in with them, this is a picture in today's

paper. this is one of quattara's death squads killing people in abidjan, which is the capital. we showed this picture and shows this is happening today. the reprisal attacks are being committed by forces loyal to the quattara of the cote d'ivoire. it also said the french and the u.n. along with quattara championed by the united nations during the deadly post election conflict has failed to condemn atrocities against real or perceived borders of out of ousd president gbagbo. there are the death squads of quattara. they are in there killing people. we don't know how many people they have murdered in cold blood. amnesty international criticized the u.n. mission for ignores

pleas for help for failing to prevent the massacre in the town of duekoue. that's the town of duekoue. see the charred bodies down here and people saying they actually had hogs that were in there eating the bodies. this is what quattara did in a little town called duekoue. we have another one, put that up there too, of what is happening there. it is really criminal. these are people. people right here, these are all of quattara's people. amnesty reports a manhunt launched against gbagbo's loyalists in abidjan were beaten in hours of his arrest. some of the people, this one right here, this is the secretary of -- what's he the secretary of? secretary of interior right there. they're trying to say -- we had a hearing the other day and our state department tried to say

that quattara is hiring a lot of people from the cabinet of laurent gbagbo. there is the secretary of interior. they shot him in the face, across the face so it would take him a long time to painfully die, and he died. here is one being executed, another member of the cabinet. this is what is going on and nobody cares. anyway, i care. what we are looking at right now is the quattaras publicly. there is a way out of this thing right now. what has happened is quattara is trying to figure out a way to kill the president and the first lady. and i will wind up by letting you know and seeing firsthand what we're talking about. let's go with the president first. president gbagbo is one i've known quite well. he's a jovial guy. this is a picture of him right now as i remember him, as i've spent a lot of time with him, right after his arrest. put the next picture up. he was beaten almost to death. you can see what's happened to him in his face. his wife is a beautiful lady.

her name is simone, simone gbagbo. i've been with her many times. she is the first lady. i first knew her 15 years ago when she was a member of parliament before they were married. you won't find a more beautiful lady than that. after they went in there, ravaged their home, quattara with the united nations in agreement with our state department, this is what she looked like the next day. they went in and grabbed her by the hair, pulled her hair out and you can see other things that were happening to her. the last thing i hesitate to put up. but this one you have to put your imagination to work. it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see what is happening in this. there she is, the beautiful first lady. just imagine what is happening with all of kwau's people around -- with all of quattara's people around her. what is the answer to this thing? all we have to do is encourage the state department to take a different stand and say let's take the gbagbos, the president and the first lady, allow them to have asylum.

i've already located a country in sub-saharan africa who are willing to host them. by the time we get back here nine days from now after this recess, both of them will be dead if we don't do something. as we speak right now they are being tortured. there you have it, folks. we have an opportunity to do it where you can save not only these people, but save those around him who have loved peace in cote d'ivoire. with that, i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i first want to thank my colleague from oklahoma. he and i share a passion and interest in the continent of africa. he has traveled there many, many more times than i have, but we have talked about the situation on that continent. and i want to give special accolades to him for continuing to raise the questions relative to that continent, the people who live there. it is an important part of the world. and for too long has been

exploited. i'm glad that on a bipartisan basis we feel the united states should pay more attention to that important continent. i thank senator inhofe. mr. president, it's been ten years ago now that i was contacted in my chicago office by a mom in chicago. she's a korean american. she had a problem. she had come to this country with her young daughter from brazil. the family was originally from korea, but they came to the country from brazil. and her daughter came at the age of two, grew up in chicago. she was a bright girl with a lot of talent and particularly turned out to be a musical prodigy. by the time she was ready to graduate from high school, she had offers to go to the best music schools in america. the manhattan school of music, julliard school of music. as she filled out her application forms there was a little blank on there that said citizenship. she asked her mom what am i supposed to put her?

she said i don't know. we never filed papers. you were brought here at the age of two. we better do something. her daughter said what are we going to do? her mom said call durbin. they called my office hoping i could find a solution. but i couldn't. the law is clear. she not only would have been deported from america. she would have been deported to brazil, as i understand it, a place where the little girl never really lived or a language she never really mastered and she was supposed to wait there for ten years and try to get back in the united states. it struck me that that was unfair. that's when i introduced the dream act. the idea behind the dream act was to give children who are now in young adulthood a chance to become legal in america. and i introduced the bill ten years ago and called on the floor several times during the last ten years. i think on every occasion we had a majority vote. the last time we had 55 votes out of 100 in the senate. but the filibuster rule requires

60, so we fell short of passing it. and what the bill says is very basic. the dream act would give students a chance to become legal if they came to the united states as children, they were long-term residents of the united states, had good moral character, graduateed from high school and completed at least two years of college or military service in good standing. it's not too much to ask to give these young people a chance. two weeks ago i reintroduced the dream act with 33 of my colleagues. i'm going to do everything i can to pass this legislation this year or next year. this is a matter of simple justice. there is not another situation in america where we hold children accountable for the wrongdoing of their parents except in this case. it's just not fair. these children didn't have a vote or a voice in coming to america. they were brought here, and they did the right thing once they came. they went to school. they did well. they got every morning and

pledged allegiance to the only flag they knew. they sang the national anthem, the only one they knew. and they believed they were really americans. but the day came, a rude awakening came and they came to learn that they were not. they might have been viewed, i guess, more as people without a country. what will the passage of the dream act bring us other than justice? well, it will bring us some of the most talented people within america who want to make this a better nation. these are young people who have really worked hard. their parents were immigrants to this country, and most of the time had to take very difficult jobs and work extra hard so their kids could finish school. and many of these young people turned out to be excellent students, valedictorians of their classes and stars in many other respects. now some of them just want a chance to serve in our military. well, that says a lot about them too, doesn't it, that they're willing to risk their lives for america? is there any question about their patriotism or love of this

country? or they want to finish college so they can use their skills and education to improve their lives and make this a better nation. we have the support of the defense secretary robert gates for the dream act, general colin powell -- a man i respect very, very much -- rupert murdoch, a very conservative republican businessman supports it. and the c.e.o.'s of companies like microsoft and pfizer. every day i hear from another one of these dreamers. they come up to me sometimes very quietly and sometimes very publicly and tell me their stories. just the other day a young man came up to me as i was leaving a speech and said, here in washington, and he said, senator, i just want to let you know i'm finishing law school. i can't be licensed in america because i'm not an american citizen. i'll just pursue my education until you pass the dream act. i thought about it, this poor young man deserves a chance to use his education, not just to continue it. so that gives me more of an

incentive to really work on this issue. let me tell you the story tonight in just a few minutes here about two of these dreamers. this is juan gomez. this handsome young man was brought to the united states from colombia in 1990 at the age of two. he is an academic all-star. at killian senior high school in miami, florida, he earned close to two years of college credit with high scores of 13 on advanced placement exams. he scored 1410 out of 1600 on the s.a.t. and finished in the top 20 of his class. his economics teacher nicknamed him president gomez and said he's one of the best students ever to graduate from killian high school. in 2007, during his senior year in high school, he was placed in deportation proceedings. what happened next is an amazing

story. scott ethylbane was a student body president at juan's high school. he was also juan's best friend. he thought it was basically unnature this young man would be routed out of school and thrown to a country he never remembered. scott started a facebook page protesting the deportation. here's what he wrote. we need your help in stopping juan from being sent to colombia. he is the smartest, most dedicated kid you could meet. many of us owe him. i know he helped everyone one way or another in school. it's the least we can do for him. thanks to scott's initiative, 2,000 people joined juan's facebook page. then juan's friends came here on capitol hill to lobby for him. they persuaded representative lincoln diaz boh le rt and senator chrised dodd to stop his -- senator chris dodd to

stop his deportation. representative bohlert is one of the lead cosponsors of the dream act in the house. my good friend senator dodd is also a democrat but this is not a partisan issue. republicans and democrats should come together and agree that to punish this young man because his parents came here illegally is unfair.juan is going to gad m georgetown in may and things to congressman boehlert he has been offered a job at a top financial services firm in new york city. can we use a person with his skill? of course we can. every year we import thousands of foreigners on h-1b visas. you know why? we need these bright minds in america. if we need bright minds in america, why are we exporting those who were raised here and who can bring their skills and talents to a better life for themselves and our nation?

let me introduce another person to you. her name is ola caso. she was brought to the united states by her mother from albania in 1998 when she was five years old. ola is a senior in eye school in warren, michigan. she is a valedictorian of her class. she has taken every advanced placement class offered by her school. she has a 4.4 gradepoint average, a very bright young lady. ola is on the varsity cross country and tennis teams, treasurer of the student council, treasure he shall of the national honor soviet her school. she tutors students who are learning enly,. she was also a member of the homecoming court. this is a great picture. here is a picture of her at her high school at homecoming. and she sent me a letter. she has been accepted into the honors program at the university of michigan where sheebl a

premed student. here is what her letter said. "i aexpire to ultimately become ago surgical oncologist but more importantly i intend to work for patients that cannot afford the astronomical fees accompanying life spf saving surgery. my goal is not to increase my bank account. my goal is to decrease preventable death. i wish to remain in this country to make a differenc difference." do we need sneer you bet we do. two months ago she was placed in deportation proceedings, just like juan gomez and the many other "dream" act students. all of her friends decided to rally behind her. senator carl levin cosponsored the "dream" act and asked the department of homeland security to reconsider her case. this week the department grant add stave depour station to give her chance to continue her education. that was the right thing to do. it makes no sense to send someone like ola, who has so much to contribute to america, to a country she barely, barely

remembers. mr. president, i introduced the "dream" act in 2001. since then i have met so many of these young students who would qualify for the "dream" act. juan gomez, ola caso. they are americans in their hearts. they are willing to serve their country and die for it if we would only give them a chance. simple justice. fairness requires it. i ask my colleagues to support the "dream" act. it is the right thing to do. it will make america a stronger and better nation. one thing i'm sure of -- if you give these young people, these young dreamers a chance, they won't let us down. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: i would nirs like to thank senator coburn for allowing me to take a few minutes to speak about something very important in my state, and that is that tomorrow would be hubert humphrey's 100th birthday.

hubert humphrey was you are a happy warrior in minnesota, mr. president, the son of a small-town south dakota drugstore owner who lifted himself up through hard work and determination to become the mayor of minneapolis, a united states senator, representing minnesota, and the 38th vice president of the united states of america. i actually have hubert humphrey's desk, mr. president, something i requested when i got to the senate. it somehow got in a different category and i got the former senator of new hampshire, gordon humphrey's desk, for the first two years. but then lo and behold, with the last congress coming in, i did get hubert hum fries defnlgt i was a senior in high school when hubert humphrey passed away and i still remember standing in line for his funeral in st. paul. it was january and it was one of those days where it was below zero, freezing, and yet they were there standed outside the

state capital, all of us in our puffy winter jackets, 40,000 people waiting to pay their respects. that's how much hubert humphrey was lfd in our state, enough for people to stand outside for hours in the dead cold of the minnesota winter. i can honestly say that humphrey had an enormous impact on my own views of public service. you can go down the list of landmark federal legislation that pass the past -- the past 60 years and his fingerprints are all over them -- medicare, nuclear arms control, the peace corps, the list goes on and on, and humphrey's impact continues to be felt in our state. you know, humphrey was a compassionate man. but he was no pushover and he never backed down from a fight worth fighting. when he was asked to speak at the national democratic convention in 1948 he dove headfirst into one of the most controversial topics of the time: racial inequality. it was a gutsy move, especially when you consider how divisive

civil rights issue were for the democratic party. and let's not forget: 37-year-old mayor -- and you can treelt this, mr. president, as a former mayor -- 37-year-old mayor of minneapolis, humphrey's political career was just getting off the ground. he had a lot to lose. but he was convinced that segregation and jim crow were hurting our country and he was determined to challenge the status quo on the national stage even if it meant risking his political career. that was hubert humphrey. but i think last, the most important thing to point out about hubert hum frirks is that he was, above all things, an optimist. and to this day, the senate, according to our colleagues, has never seen anyone quite like him, bursting with energy, idealism and hopeful in a happy warrior. i have a picture of the happy warner hanging in my front office and it hangs there in a visible place for a good reason. it's because i'm convinced that now, more than ever, our nation needs a good dose of the hope

and optimism that defined hubert humphrey's life. the truth is that we have to go back decades to find a time when we were confronted with so many challenges. two difficult wars, a crashing debt load, our quest end to our dependence on foreign oil, and develop our own home-grown energy. the way we dhoos address these challenges will determine the course of our nation for decades to come. history will tell whether we are right or wrong, timid or courageous. i believe we must choose courage but not only that we must also choose optimism. we must take a page from hubert humphrey's book and strive for that resilience he displayed. i think about the inscription on his gravestone at lakewood cemetery in ann madam president list. it is a quote from him. "i have enjoyed my life. its disappointments outweighed by its pleshes. i have loved my country in a way that some people consider sentimental and out of style. i still do and i remain an

optimist with joy, without apology, about this country and about the american experiment in democracy." these are words that resonate today, words that remind us of the amazing life and legacy of a man who did so much for the causes of justice, democracy, and accountability. america is a better place for his leadership, and that is why we honor him today. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and i again thank my colleague from oklahoma for allowing me to put in these good words for senator humphrey. thank you. mr. coburn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: thank you. i wanted to spend a few minutes this evening kind of talking about where we are as a a nation. i have to say that i am discouraged at the work of the senate. if you look around, if you took the whole picture, nobody is

here, essentially, and they're not going to be here for nine more days -- ten more days. the question i'd put forward is, if your own personal household was in trouble financially or otherwise, if you knew you weren't going to be ail to pay the bills -- be able to pay the bills, if you knew your credit cards were masmed out, would you just sit on the coup and not do anything or would you work to protect your family, would you go out and do whatever you could, take advantage of every opportunity to secure the future for your family? we have big problems in our country. it doesn't matter how we got here. the fact is that we're borrowing -- in non-oklahoma speak "borrowing" -- $4.3 billion a day. the interest on our debt is $28

billion a day. i need to stand corrected. it is $2.8 billion a day. we are at a point where if we don't start making the very difficult decisions for our country because we're afraid of the political consequences of them, then we'll be like the person who had his family in trouble and didn't try to solve the problems. we don't have a budget. yesterday we had political votes on budgets. it was a gaivment none of the hard work of the senate -- of the budget for the last two-plus years, there's been 10 budget come -- there's been no budget come through the senate. the american people need to know. there is a great budget chairman. his name is senator kent conrad. it is not his fault there's not a budget.

it's because the leadership in the senate does not want the votes that come along with a budget. you see, the political thinking is, we don't want any of our members to be -- to have to be recorded on things that might affect the next election. to hell with the country. what's more important is the next election. and what is happening in the senate is a complete meltdown of the very purpose that the senate was created. and the fablght that we've votes on -- and the fact that we have votes on four separate subjects -- nobody votes for president obama's budget. lelt me tell you how astounding that is. the president of the united states submits a budget to the congress and nobody in the senate agrees to vote for it? how disconnected could that budget be from the realities of what our country's needs are, if even the people of his own party

won't vote for it? i was inclined to want to vote for it so we could have a debate on his budget. but the fact is, we didn't have a debate on any budget. and as we sit here borrowing $4.3 billion a day and running a $1.6 trillion deficit and mortgaging the very future of our children, the people that we work hard -- the reason we work, the reason we live is to nurture and support those that come after us -- and to ignore that responsibility, i think, it's absolutely uncalled for and congress deserves every recognition from the american people thaits a farce. you can't -- that it's a farce. you can't have the kind of problems that we have in front of us and not attempt to address them. i want to spend a minute talking to every medicare patient in the country. i've practiced medicine for 25 years. i've cared for thousands of medicare patients.

and i understand, at 63 years of age with three pretty significant disease processes going on in my own border, i worry about my health and i worry about the security around that health. and i'm important enough to me to really take the medicines and to follow the diet that my doctor is offering me now that i'm 63. i probably wouldn't have paid attention 20 years ago. but today i'm doing that and my health care that's available to me is important to me, and i know it is to every medicare recipient out there. but the facts are the following: the politicians want to use medicare as a tactic to scare people into not doing what we as a nation are going to ultimately do anyway. we will have to fix medicare,

and we can fix it in a way that assures every senior who absolutely needs the help of medicare and is dependent on medicare that they will have that health care. and anybody that says something other than that, they either care a whole lot more about themselves and their political career or they're absolutely dishonest. because it's absolutely impossible for us to raise the money to continue to run medicare the way it is today. it will change in the next four or five years, no matter what the politicians say, no matter what the election -- the next election. it's got to change. it has to change. and the good news is we can give as good a care or better with less dollars if we'll make the right changes to medicare. what most medicare patients don't understand is one out of every $3 that's spent on medicare isn't helping to get better and isn't preventing you from getting sicker.

those are facts. they're backed up by four studies now. four long-term studies. so if one out of every $3 is going into medicare and it's not affecting or helping you with health care, and that $1 out of every $3 we're borrowing from the chinese this year just to keep medicare afloat -- that's just the hospital system, that's part-a -- why would we not want to make the hard choices and fix it? and the reason you're not seeing that come forth is somebody cease an advantage -- sees an advantage at election to game medicare. the fact is it's not just medicare that's broken. the entire health care system is broken because we don't allow markets to allocate it in an efficient way, and we don't hold physicians like myself accountable to be very frugal with the dollars that we put out there and the tests that we order and the treatments that we

order. so as we continue to think about ourselves and say i don't want any -- that's the other point i make. as i get older, the one thing i find is i resist change more than anything. but the one absolute that's going to happen is medicare's going to change. it doesn't matter what any politician from washington tells you. it has to change. otherwise we'll be in an absolute depression. we won't be able to accomplish any of the things we're accomplishing now under medicare. it will change. so if it's going to change, why don't we change it in a way that continues to guarantee the promise of medicare and puts more of a burden on those who have more dollars with which to do that and takes care of the sickest and the poorest, and puts a greater load on those who have less of a need for medicare. some would say that's not fair. let me tell what you's not fair.

what's not fair is the average american puts $138,000 into medicare over their working career and takes $450,000 out. that's not what's fair. what's not fair is for a five-year-old to complain about something not being fair, to quote p.j. o'rourke, it's not fair you were born in america. life isn't fair. the fact is we have a system that is getting ready to crash, and we have a political dynamic that people are actually saying we don't care because we want to win the next election more than we want to fix the problem. and that doesn't apply to everybody. but people who are gaming this issue, people who are scaring people who are on medicare lack the integrity and courage to talk about what the real problems are in this country. and the real problems is we've made promises without creating the revenues to pay for them. we can tax 100% of all the

income of everybody above $1 million, $100,000 in income in this country, and you will not fix the deficit this year. if you took 100% of what people earned over $100,000. that's how great the problem is. when is it going to stop? when are we going to start thinking about the future of our country and the security of our country instead of the next election and how we can look good as the media plays the game on politics. you know, it's amazing today, most of the stories in the newspaper were about medicare and the effect of the election up in new york, a congressional election. i don't think that matters a twit on what's going on in this country. what did -- what wasn't said in

the papers is that nobody voted for the president's budget. that wasn't the headline anywhere. it wasn't the headline that the congress doesn't have a budget. the house has passed a budget. you don't have to agree with it, but at least they passed one. but you have all this criticism of a proposed plan that came through the house that actually will solve the problem, make sure everybody on medicare actually gets the care they want and actually will take one of those three dollars that we're wasting, one out of every three in medicare and put it into actually taking care of patients. but the people who are critical of that plan have no plan themselves. and if you have a plan, the plan is the following: it's the plan that passed with what we know is obamacare, but what is the patient -- the health care bill that was passed in the last congress. and here's the plan, just so we

understand. the plan is, and according to the president's speech at washington university, that if we have to, that we have two mechanisms. he mentioned one of them. he didn't mention the other. we have the independent payment advisory board. and under the affordable care act, the independent payment advisory board is mandated to control the growth of medicare. and here's how it does it. it makes a recommendation on the cutting of payments for medicare, and that recommendation comes before congress, and we either have to accept that or do something similar to that in terms of the total dollar amounts to cut back on the payments for medicare. now what is the number-one problem that a new medicare recipient has today? the number-one problem a new medicare recipient has today is finding a doctor that will care

for them that will take their medicare. that's their number-one problem. and if you think that we can't take this tremendous unfunded liability and continue to cut -- and i'm not against as a physician, physicians taking a 5% or 6% pay cut under medicare today. i'm not against that. but if you think we can continue to do the savings that we're going to have to get out of medicare by doing that, you won't have anybody taking care of medicare patients because they won't be able to afford to. because those payments are only -- to the physicians are less than 30% of the total payments of medicare. so then they transfer over to the hospitals. and so we're going to cut what we pay to the hospitals. well, some hospitals can afford that. some can't. what happens when the hospitals that can't afford that close? where do you get your hospital care? or prescription drugs. we're going to cut the price of

prescription drugs, so consequently no new drugs are coming on line because the rate of return for the tremendous, the billion-dollar cost that it is for any new drug just to get it through the f.d.a. so all of a sudden the things that you count on are not there. let me mention the second way that the president would have us control that. that is they have what is called innovation counsel under the affordable care act. what is the purpose of the innovation council? the purpose is to decide whether medicare can afford new innovation in medicine to be offered to medicare patients. well, that's the same thing as saying here's a new drug. it will cure your breast cancer, but we don't think we can afford it. so, therefore, it's not available under medicare. so one is direct rationing. the other is indirect rationing. but the fact is we can't fix medicare by rationing. you won't fix it that way. what you will do is limit care and limit access, similar to

what we have under medicaid. and if you look at the trustees' report on medicare, what they're saying will have to happen is that the reimbursement rates under medicare will end up being lower than the reimbursement rates under medicaid. so that's the answer that they have right now. that is not a good answer. and no american thinks that's a good answer. my colleagues on both sides of the aisle don't think that's a good answer. but that's where we're sitting. so, i would make the point that if we don't address medicare and if we don't address medicaid and if we don't fix social security -- and it's true if congress hadn't stolen the $2.6 trillion from it and it was sitting in an account, we'd be in pretty good shape. we'd make it another 30 years. but there's a problem in terms of paying tpwhabg money. -- paying back that money. congress stole the money, spent

it, and it's not there. for us to get the $2.6 trillion to keep it going until 2036, we have to borrow more money. we have to borrow that $2.6 trillion. and the problem is we're at a debt limit now, and we're getting very close to the time people are going to quit loaning us money. so we can fix social securities where it is for sure available arrest it is today. actually -- available as it is today. actually we can make it better for the poorest americans. we can make it better and we can assure it's going to be working forever. but that requires change. and the political dynamics say you can't touch social. well, how fair is that? how fair is it not fixing medicare, not fixing medicaid and not fixing social security to those that follow stphus i'm the grand -- follow us? i'm the grandfather of five great grandkids. i love them to death.

i raised three daughters. my wife did most of that hard work and that's why they turned out well. but the fact is the relationship with your children with a special relationship, but it doesn't get close to comparing to the relationship to your grandkids. i mean, there is not anything i wouldn't do for my grandkids, and they kind of know it. they haven't taken advantage of it yet, but they know it. and so what i would ask is anybody that's on medicare today that's listening to this, here's what you need to know. one is there's nobody in washington that doesn't want you to have a secure medical health care system. but the problems with it are so severe that it has to be fixed, and it can't wait. and that requires change. the problems of our country as a whole are so severe that we're not going to be able to borrow the money to pay back what we owe social security if we don't

fix medicare and medicaid because nobody is going to -- they're going to say you haven't done what you need to do. what has to happen is we have to think about our grandkids. i don't like going through change very much, but i'll tell you there is one group of kids that i'll go through change for, i'll sacrifice for, i'll give something up for me, and what we're asking you to give up is the comfort of what you know now and move to the comfort of something that's going to supply the same thing to you, just in a different way. and anybody that games that won't put forward a solution to the very problems that are in front of us. so to the seniors out there who are on medicare, nobody's proposing any impact on you today for the next ten years. what any proposal would be for those people who are 55 and less, and we're saying we have got to change it so we can keep

it. if we don't change it, nobody's going to have it. and by the way, we're going to have trouble surviving if we don't change it because we're not going to be able to manage this tremendous amount of debt, which is over $55,000 per man, woman and child in this country today. we have got to think about our grandkids, and we have got to quit listening to the political shrill that says somebody wants to hurt you. everybody that has put forward ideas on medicare have a legitimate basis with which to be critical of any other, but no politician in the senate or the house that hadn't put forth their solution to get us out of the problems you should give no quarter to, you should not listen to the first word they said because what they are thinking about is the next

election. they are thinking how do i advantage, how do i scare you over the next election? nobody wants to take away health care for our seniors. what we want to do is ensure that it's there in the future, and to put forward the idea that the motivation there is to scare you into thinking that somebody wants to disrupt your care. that's just not true. now, there can be a great debate, and i started this talk on the fact that there hadn't been any debate on the problems that are in front of us, and there needs to be a great debate. people need to hear what the options are. we need to really put a budget on the floor and have the hard debates on it and take the hard votes and then try to mix something with the house. otherwise, here's what's going to happen come september. which is not fair to any federal employee. we're going to have another continuing resolution. i mean, that's what's coming

because we refuse to have a budget that allows the people who work for you through the federal government to plan and efficiently carry out what the congress directs. we're just going to do a continuing resolution. it's a highly inefficient way to run the government. as a matter of fact, i would tell you that any family that doesn't run on a budget is a setup for getting in trouble. and we're not running on a budget now. the bills are coming in and we have a continuing resolution until september 30. but we don't have a budget. we have no planning. we don't know what we need to do, what the changes we should make. we're not listening to those people that are running the program. we're not listening to the american people as we do that. we can fix health care in this

country. the problem is the cost of health care, and the reason it costs so much is the vast majority of americans think somebody else is paying the bill. i'll end with a story -- i see my colleague from alabama is here. i have delivered thousands of babies, but there is a particular group that always enjoyed delivering -- that i always enjoyed delivering because they were unique, and they were the best purchasers of health care i've ever encountered. they are from a little town called inola and shoto, oklahoma, and they are amish. when they come to buy health care -- they don't have health insurance, by the way. and most of them -- very few of them have a college education. they work with their hands. they are either dairy or carpentry or farmers or something, but they work with their hands. they have got lots of good

common sense. i can tell you without a doubt on the 500 amish babies that i have delivered that they bought that service from the hospital, from me and the radiologist and from the labs at 40% less than anybody else bought it. now, why is that? it is because they are a great consumer of health care and the money was coming out of their pocket. they didn't think somebody else was paying for it. they knew who was paying for it and they knew it was them. so therefore they asked for a discount. they asked -- i'll pay you cash up front if you'll give me a discount. and by the way, if you want to do this other test, please explain in detail why i should fork out $100 for another ultrasound. does my wife absolutely need to have this ultrasound? and you know what, when you get questioned that way, well, if you understand we may miss something, but basically everything looks good, that i'm fine with that as long as you're fine with that, so you don't do it then. you know, the average pregnancy today in the united states has four or five ultrasounds.

i was trained without doing any ultrasounds, and i had the same outcomes. so the point being is we can get better value if we reconnect the purchase of health care with some individual responsibility, and where -- as we disconnect that, -- and that's what we do through private insurance and low deductibles and medicare and low deductibles and supplemental policies, we do the opposite of that. once we have met our deductible, there's no cost. so we're not prudent consumers, and as we age, we worry a lot about new symptoms so we access the health care system, and once you access, the costs just start ticking. so the point i would make is there is a lot of things we can do better in health care if, in fact, we have market forces and transparency helping us to do that. and i -- i would suggest that we

can have a medicare program that's efficient, that works -- that doesn't have $70 billion of fraud in it, by the way, way, $70 billion, well over 10%. improper payments above 10% as well. so $70 billion in fraud and and $70 billion in medicare, improper payments. we can solve the problem right there if congress could do it but we don't, because we would rather have a political game and game people's fears on health care and medicare than fix the problem. what i hope seniors will do over this next year is as they hear the politicians make all these wild claims about people's motivations and the damage to medicare, when you hear that, think about that in the light of your grandchildren. think about you and what you want versus what you want your

grandchildren to have, because there is no question the 14.2 trillion and under the president's budget the the $23 trillion we're going to have at least in nine more years is going to be paid back by then, not you. what that really means is they are going to have a far lower standard of living than you do so you don't have to get out of your comfort zone. i trust america a whole lot more than i trust the u.s. congress. we have a trillion dollar deficit of common sense in washington, and we have an excess of common sense outside of washington. and if you will trust your common sense, and look at what we're doing, what you will find is we can solve our problems, we can come together as a nation and we can fix what ails us, and we can do that without destroying the future of our children and grandchildren. i'd yield the floor to my colleague from alabama.

mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask consent that i be able to enter into a colloquy with senator coburn if he has a moment to stay for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: senator coburn, you served on the debt commission, you had no burden to run for re-election. i'm so glad you did. you're one of the most valuable members of this senate. but i have an understanding that you came here to try to do something about the debt this country faces. is that fair to say? and you believe that this congress has a responsibility to confront what admiral mullen calls is the greatest threat to our national security, which is our debt. you also have tremendous

experience as a practicing physician. you practiced up until the very day you were elected -- how many years ago now? seven years ago. and continued to practice even while in the senate until the bureaucrats made it impossible, i guess, to do so, so you come here with practical experience, a brilliant mind and a committed, committed vision for america. i appreciate you sharing your frustration about what's occurred this week. this is a quote that was in "the wall street journal" by a democratic strategist, about this scheme and plan that resulted in four votes yesterday, four votes that the majority had conceived in such a way that they were guaranteed to

fail and nothing was going to happen. it was a guaranteed plan to assure nothing would happen, and this is what they said about it. as a political matter -- and i'm quoting from the journal, while democratic strategists say there may be little benefit in producing a budget that would inevitably include unpopular items. now, you are famous for telling the truth, and if you would, i'd like you to respond to that. what does that say about our senate that the democrats say that there would be little political benefit in producing a budget that might include unpopular items? isn't a tough budget that gets us on the right path has got to have some things in it that some people might not like? mr. coburn: well, to my colleague through the chair, i would answer what is our obligation?

is our obligation to win the next election or is our obligation to solve the problems in front of our country? you know, it's not even a matter about having votes. we can't even get bills on the floor with amendments that actually will save some money right now. i mean, let me give you an example. we had the small business bill up. the only thing that we've done of significance since we have been back in this session, it took two weeks to get a bipartisan amendment that would save $5 billion out of the duplication that was reported by the government accountability office, hundreds of billions of dollars. it took two weeks to finally get a vote on that. myself and my colleague from virginia cosponsored that. it won. that's one of the reasons we didn't finish the bill is because they don't want to do that. they don't want to make the hard choices. and so what -- you know, the -- it's an abrogation of our responsibility to not do the hard part that comes with the job. you know, we get -- the job

comes with a whole lot of rasping on your skin. you know, it is -- you're going to get criticized, but the ultimate fatal criticism is to make a choice not to get or put yourself in a position to be criticized. so what we're saying is we're going to do nothing. we're going to not do what we are constitutionally supposed to do by april 15 every year, and that's have a budget. we're not going to debate the issues. we're not going to cast hard votes because somebody may affect somebody's election outcome. well, how big of cowards are we that we can't defend the vote that we make? i don't have any problem. you throw the hardest vote from the other side of me, i'll make a decision on it whether i think it's right or wrong, and then i will defend it. but to not vote at all is an absolute abrogation of our oath, and that's the leadership that we are experiencing.

and it's not just democrat leadership. we have some on our side that don't want to cast hard votes either. the point is the american people need us to be casting hard votes now. our problems are greater than at any time since world war ii. the challenge to our country is greater than world war ii. the outcome of our republic depends on us solving the very real and urgent and difficult problems in front of us, and to do so in a way that preserves the future of this country and re-establishes and reforms us to where we get our mojo back and we start believing in ourselves again. and to not do it and to not have the courage to sacrifice your own position for the betterment of this country, that's what we ought to be about, and i don't see that. mr. sessions: well, let me ask the senator, you just won an overwhelming re-election. there is not a senator here that i think anybody would dispute has been more frank in

expressing the need that all of us are going to have to rein in our spending, who have told and shared that directly with your constituents. when they have asked for things, you tried to help them, i know, but you're frank with your constituents. would you share with us what kind of percentage you got in the last election? mr. coburn: i got 71.8%. mr. sessions: 71%. i don't think it's -- do you think perhaps some of us here in washington are overafraid of being frank and truthful with our constituents about the challenges america faces? mr. coburn: well, i would answer through the president that i think we're perplexed. we see, we know intellectually that there is a big problem and we have this challenge of do i go down this path to do the best thing for our country or do i go

down this path to do the best thing for me? i look at politics different than most of our colleagues. to the senator from alabama, i would say i don't really care whether i'm here or not. i care about whether america is here or not. but our point ought to be is how do we secure the vote and how do we establish trust with the american people? if my colleague would go with me -- and i know he knows this -- look at the confidence of the people in this country and the congress. why is there a lack of confidence? you know, why is it that 80% of the people in the united states don't have any confidence in congress? i can tell you why. it's because we have built trust and credibility with those very people. and i can tell you, i get letters all the time from people that disagree with me. i mean, they will write me and i

actually -- i'm involved in every answer to every inquiry that comes into my office. i actually read them because i want to know what the people from oklahoma say. but even though they disagree with me, they vote for me because they trust me because i'm not gaming them, like we have seen the gaming on medicare. you know, our problems are real, the solutions are difficult, but america can overcome that if we come together. if we stay divided like we have seen in here with no budget votes, no hard votes and we try to game it for politically, what we're doing is undermining our country's future. it doesn't matter who wins the next election. what we need to be doing is saving america. mr. sessions: well, senator coburn, you have served on the debt commission, and i know there has been a concerted effort to blame and exaggerate and distort the house budget, particularly as it referred to medicare. this is what "the wall street

journal", again quoting democratic strategists, senate strategists, what they had -- what "the wall street journal" said -- quote -- "many democrats believe a recent house g.o.p. proposal to overhaul medicare is proving to be unpopular and has given democrats a political advantage. they are loathe to give that up by proposing higher taxes -- which they would prefer as a solution. democrats plan to hold a vote on the ryan plan, which they did yesterday, hoping to force g.o.p. senators to cast a vote on medicare overhaul that could prove politically difficult." you served on the debt commission. this is what your commission chairman said in a written statement after paul ryan and the house democrats produced their budget -- quote -- "the budget released this morning by

the house budget committee, chairman paul ryan, is a serious, honest, straightforward approach to addressing our nation's enormous fiscal challenges. we applaud him for his work in putting forward a proposal which will reduce the country's deficit by approximately the same amount as the president's fiscal commission." they also went on to say, "if you criticize it, you have a responsibility to offer an alternative. you served with mr. bowles. he was the democratic chief of staff to president clinton and was appointed by president obama to chair this commission. that -- that doesn't sound like the things we heard yesterday attacking the house-run budget, does it? >> you know, it doesn't but it's interesting to note the president's deficit commission

was set up by the president, had six of his nominees on it, had six republicans and six democrats. five of the six presidential nominees that he nominated agreed with the deficit commission. three of the six republicans agreed. mr. coburn: a pretty good meeting in the middle. and yet the president didn't embrace the results of his own commission. did not embrace the results of the people that he appointed. so what was the purpose of that exercise? was it to make political hay or it was to solve the problems? and the fact is that i have five colleagues in the senate that have been working hard on that over the past five months trying to build a bipartisan agreement out of the basis of that. that's what has to happen,

except politics. you know, i'd go back and -- and just refer to my colleague, if you look at the history of republics, the track record isn't real good. the average age of the world's republics is 207 years. that's their average age. you know, we're -- we're 27 years past the average. the question is, is can we cheat history? can we not fall like the rest of the republics over the very same things. they all fell over fiscal issu issues. they let their spending get out of control, they let their debt get out of control and then they couldn't afford the promises that they had made. and so i would just say to my colleague, i have -- this is not an issue of the budget chairman. this is an issue of the leadership of the senate that doesn't want a budget. and we ought to be very clear that the american people know

that the congress is not doing its job, this body for sure, because we're not making the hard choices that we were sent up here to maifnlgt and what we'r --that we were sent up hero make. and what we're doing is punting. and we're going to come to crisis, and the crisis is going to be painful, and it's going to be much more painful than had we made the hard choices today. so i want to thank the ranking member of the budget committee for his leadership. we can solve any problem in front of us, mr. ranking member, but we've got to do it together and we can't deny that the problems exist. mr. sessions: i thank senator coburn for his leadership. and i've watched him with admiration over the years with consistency and fidelity to the national interest work to bring our spending under control. i see my colleague, senator alexander, here and would yield the floor. and i would just follow up before i do that with a quote from erskine bowles when the

president announced his budget, not long after the deficit commission that he called together, had made some pretty good proposals about how to improve fiscal matters in the united states. mr. bowles was obviously deeply disappointed with what the president submitted and said, this plan goes nowhere near where they will have to go to meet our country's fiscal nightmare. and i think that's a consensus, that we are facing a fiscal nightmare. we're going to have to take some serious steps in that regard. and, mr. president, i think there's some other members who have reserved time. if there are no other members here that have reserved time after senator alexander completes his remarks, i would ask unanimous consent that i be recognized at that time. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. alexander: mr. president, if -- i -- i won't object. i think senator hatch is expecting to come down, senator sessions. that's the only one i know. mr. sessions: as i said, if any -- my consent would be if anyone has reserved time, they would get before i would speak. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: thank you, mr. president. i congratulate senator sessions, senator coburn for their principled remarks about -- about the phenomenon of washington spending. we're spending 40 cents -- we're borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend. we can't continue -- we can't keep spending money we don't have. and we want to save medicare. so those two major difficult decisions are things we need work on together. stopping spending money we don't have and saving medicare. we can do both if we put our minds to it. mr. president, i'd like to speak.

i ask consent to speak for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: thank you, mr. president. if you could let me know when one minute remains, i would appreciate it. mr. president, last month the acting general counsel of the national labor relations board filed a complaint against the anything's largest exporter, the boeing company, a company with 170,000-some employees, 155,000 of them in the united states, a company that sells airplanes around the world, makes them in the united states. the complaint basically said that i there was prime aphasia a evidence because boeing had decided to build an airplane production plant in south carolina, the point being that boeing's main operation is in washington state, a state without a right-to-work law and

south carolina is a state with a right-to-work law. this notwithstanding the fact that boeing is adding 2,000 employees in washington state. it's nearly finished this new plant in south carolina, spending a billion dollars, hiring 2,000 people and all of a sudden here comes this complaint. this is not just a south carolina matter. it affects the entire country. and many of us have spoken out about it. i want to review it just for a moment. this complaint against boeing is just one indication of the administration's antibusiness, antigrowth and antijobs agenda. that's why senators graham, demint and i -- actually, there are 34 senators who are cosponsoring this bill -- have introduced the job protection act, to protect right-to-work states and employers from an independent government body run amok. our bill preserves the federal law's current protection of state right-to-work laws in the

national labor relations act and provides necessary clarity to prevent the nlrb from moving forward in its case against boeing or attempting a similar strategy against other companies. now it seems that the nlrb wants to change the rules governing how and when a company can relocate from one state to another. according to a may 10 internal memorandum from the nlrb general counsel's office, it wants to give unions power over major business decisions and require companies such as boeing to collectively bargain if the company wants to relocate a facility. as was explained by james shirck, a senior policy analyst in labor economics and hansi kovski, a senior legal fellow at the heritage foundation, in a recent article in national review on-line -- quote -- "nlrb wants to force companies to provide detailed economic justifications, including

underlying cost or benefit considerations for relocation decisions to allow unions to bargain over them or lose the right to make those decisions without bargaining over them. either way, businesses would have to negotiate their investment plans with union bosses." shirck and vonkovski described this as a "head's, i win, tail's, you lose scenario for the unions." these decisions belong at the corporate booed room, mr. president, -- corporate bored room, mr. president, not at the collective bargaining table. the goal of this national labor relations board seems to place the interests of organized labor over those of business, shareholders and economic grow growth. their means is to change well-established law governing business decisions under the national labor relations act. the supreme court has riz than -- quote -- "employer must have some degree of certainty

beforehand as to when it may proceed to reach decisions without fear of later evaluations labeling its conduct an unfair labor practice." under the dubuque packing case and subsequent nlrb jurisprudence, a company may make a major business decision, such as relocation, outside of collective bargaining. accordingly, the burden is initially on the nlrb general counsel to establish that an employer's decision to relocate work is unaccompanied by a basic change in the nature of the employer's operation, such as being part of an overarching restructuring plan. the dubuque case test was most recently applied by the nlrb in holding that a company, the embark corporation, did not violate the law by refusing to provide information about or bargain over a planned relocation of its nevada call center to florida. both of those happened to be

right-to-work states, as tennessee is. in a concurring opinion, the nlrb chairman lieberman expressed her desire, though, to change the rules governing relocation decisions and collective bargaining. the chairman noted her displeasure that, in her words, "the law doesn't compel the production of information fully explaining the underlying cost of benefit considerations of a company's relocation decision." the chairman then suggested requiring employers to provide unions with economic justification wherever there was a -- quote -- "reasonable likelihood that labor cost concessions might affect an impending decision to relocate." in practice, the burden would shift to the employer before making its relocation to advise and explain to its union the basis for its decision supported by detailed economic justification. then if it does turn on labor costs, the employer would be required to provide the union with the information supporting

the labor cost savings underlying its decision. if the employer failed to provide such information and labor costs were a factor, it would be precluded from making those decisions without collective bargaining. following this decision against embark corporation, the nlrb associate general counsel issued an internal memorandum on may 10 suggesting that chairman lieberman's new test should now be examined and considered in all cases concerning relocations that come before the board. now, i'm all for requiring employers to provide advance notice to their labor organizations, in offering the economic reasons for proposed relocation, a shutdown or a transfer of existing or future work. providing notice and reasoning is already required under existing law and jurisprudence. we included this in our jobs protection act just to make sure the spirit of the law was

maintained. but what the nlrb and general counsel are now proposing goes much further and changes understood law and places an unreasonable burden on employers. as was observed by shirck and vonkovsky, this new test would raise costs to businesses by dragging on collective bargaining, by preventing them from legally executing a decision that's in the best interest of their shareholders until bargaining hits an impasse and forcing them to provide detailed economic justification and negotiate their investment plans with union bosses before having the right to execute a relocation plan. effectively, it would give a union a seat at the board of directors through the force of law and tip the scales of justice in their favor. if employers don't comply, then they'll lose the right to later claim that their relocation decision did not have to be

collectively bargained under the national labor relations act. so as with the nlrb acting general counsel's action against boeing, this potential new posture by the office of general counsel represents a departure from well-established law. they don't like the outcome so they want to change the rules and give unions greater leverage over their employers who provide the jobs in the first place. they're more concerned about producing outcomes and facilitate the collective bargaining process rather than those that foster economic growth, exports, and jobs. those decisions are best left to the owners, officers, shareholders and directors of businesses, not organized labor, not the federal government. this potential change in well-established law would be another blow to manufacturing growth and expansion in the u.s. and further incentive for manufacturers to expand or open

a new facility in mexico, in china, in india to meet their growing needs. republicans are not the only ones who are outraged by the direction the nlrb seems to be headed in recently. william gould, who chaired the nlrb during the clinton administration, was recently quoted in "slate" magazine expressing his unease with the board's recent actions. specifically, he said -- quote -- "the boeing case sun precedented." and that he -- quote -- "doesn't agree with what the acting general counsel has done by trying to equate an employer's concern with strikes that disrupt production and make it difficult to meet deadlines with hostility toward trade unionism."that's the clinton nll counsel. coming back to the boeing issue which is stoabt heard by an administrative judge on june 14 recent comments in the press from nlrb spokeswoman shed further light on how their

agenda flies in the face. very concept of capitalism. on may 19, various press outlets quoted this spokeswoman suggesting that the nlrb acting general counsel would drop his case against boeing if boeing agreed to build ten planes in washington rather than seven. specifically, she said -- quote -- "we're not telling boeing they can't build planes in south carolina. we're talking about one specific piece of work: three planes a month. if they keep those three planes a month in washington, there is no problem." so they can build planes in south carolina, just not the three they'd planned to. so now the federal government, or the nlrb, is sitting on boeing's board and determining the means of production for american industry. while the economy continues to struggle and in my state we've had 24 months of 9%

unemployment. mr. president, our job is to make it easier and cheaper for the private sector to create jobs. the national labor relations board is not acting in the best interest of american workers. through its continued attempts to depart from well-established law and dictate integral business decisions to companies. i ask unanimous consent to include in the record a memorandum from the associate general counsel of nlrb dated may 10, as well as an article to which i referred from ""national review"" outline dated may 16. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, if i may, i ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 9:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: thank you.

mr. president, senator corker and i had the privilege of being in chute into gay on monday for the -- in cht into gay on monday for the opening of a plant. here is a major manufacturer in the world making in the united states what it plans to sell in the united states. we salute volkswagen and i salute chatanooga. one-third of our manufacturing jobs in our state are auto gobbles. there was a new volkswagen passat that gets 43 miles a gallon and that's good news for americans who are paying $4 or more a gallon for gasoline. but as i was there at that celebration for these new fuel-efficient cars, and earlier in week at a hearing of the energy committee, i was thinking, what if i were to say to you or to anyone o i might seekers while you're worrying about $4 gasoline, did you know that we have signature over here

unused -- sitting over here unused enough fuel that is not oil to power 40% of our light cars and trucks at a lower cost? that's right. we have unused every night enough power to power 40% of our light cars and trucks every night, and we can do that by simply plugging them into the wall. i'm talking about electric cars and light trucks that almost every major manufacturer is now beginning to make. a understand we don't have to build one -- and we don't have to build one new power plant to do it. last week senator merkley and i appeared before the energy committee to talk about our legislation, the promoting electric vehicles act. i said to the committee, the difference between the bill this year and the one the committee reported last year by a vote of 19-4, a good bipartisan vote, is

that this year the price of gasoline is higher than it was last year, and the cost of our bill this year is less than it was last year. encouraging electric vehicles is an appropriate short-term role for the federal government. our legislation establishes short-term incentives for the wide adoption of vehicles in eight to 15 pilot communities. our legislation advances battery research. the billion dollars that we save by reducing the cost of last year's bill, we save by avoiding duplication from other research programs. finally, if you believe that the solution to $4 gasoline and high energy prices is finding more american energy and using less of it, as i do, electric cars and trucks are the best way to use less. electrifying half our cars and trucks could reduce the use of our foreign oil by one-third,

saving money on how we fuel our transportation sanldz cutting into the billions of dollars we send overseas for foreign oil. so instead of making the speech with the rest of my time let me tell a story of ross per roarks the famous texan and how he made his money. back in the 1960's he noticed that the big banks down in dallas were lacking their doors at 5:00 and the banks had all these big computers in the back room and they were locking them up, too. they were using the using them . so mr. perot made a deal with the banks fl sell me your unused computer time at night, he said, and they did at cheap rates, and then he went to the states and talked to the governors -- this is before i was a governor -- and he made a deal with the states to use that cheap computer time to manage medicaid data, and he made $1 billion. in the same way, we have enormous amounts of unused electricity at night. a conservative estimate is that we have an amount of energy unused at night that's equal to

the output of 65 to 70 nuclear power plants between 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. i suspect that's the greatest unused resource in america. what if someone proposed building 60 or 65 nuclear power plants -- actually, i propose building 100. but if wree tried to build 60 or 65 more, it would take us 30 or 40 years an cost us a half trillion dollars that we could even do it. what i just said is we have an a unused electricity that's equal to the output of 60 to 65 nuclear power plants every night in this country between e6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. and if we were to use that resource to plug in cars and trucks at night, we could electrify 43% of our cars and trucks without building one new power plant. it is a very ambitious goal to imagine electrifying half our cars and trucks. would take a long time to do it. but it is the best way to reduce

our use of foreign oil. another reason i think it will work is it's easy for consumers. and i am one. for two years i drove a toyota prius and it was modified to add an a-123 bat rhode island i increased my mileage to about 80 or 90 miles per gallon. i just plugged it in at night at home. very sivment i now have a nissan levment it is all electric. i have an apartment nearby here, the capitol. and just plug it in at night. i don't even have a charger. i just plug it into the wall. and i can drive it about two hours every day and plug it in at night. i haven't bought any gas since january, since i got my leaf in washington, d.c. and i've had no problems, either with the modified toyota prius that i drove for two years or the nissan leaf that i've driven for about half year. almost every car company is

making electric cars today or will soon have them on the market. so if electricity -- extra electricity is available, and electric vehicles are easy to use and car companies are making them, then why do we need for the government to be involved? that's a good question. one for one, it is the urgency of the problem. $4 gallon is killing our economy, throwing a big wet blanket over it and the only solution is find more, use less, and this is the best way to use less. and to my republican colleagues, i said, before our comeergts and i would say today, we have been saying for three years in our caucus, buy more, use less. we have criticized democrats for wanting to use less without really wanting to find more. and we're subject to the same criticism. if we want to find more, which i think we should, offshore on federal lands and in alaska, and then we don't have a credible way to use less. electric cars and trucks -- it is the best way to use less. another criticism is that it interferes with the marketplace,

our bill. it does, but in the short-term limited way. short-term snriives for new technologies to jump-start nuclear energy, to jump-start natural gas truck fleets to jump-start electric cars and trucks in four to five years i think are appropriate, given the urgency of the problem. i'm here -- if i am here in five year, i will be the foyers say that should be the end of it. if i'm not, i'll come back and argue for its repeal. and finally, conservative groups across the country have said national security demands that we do this. garry bower, president of american values, as well as richard lam, president of the equiticsand religious liberty pm endorsed our bill saying that national security concerns overwhelm i.o.u. any opposition to t it is the best way to displace our use of oil. that was them talking. can we afford it? well, our proposal is $1 billion cheaper and it is an authorization bill and we should be setting priorities.

senator merkley and i have agreed that we won't try to pass the bill when it comes before unless we can agree to do it in a way that won't add to the debt. so in summary, mr. president, i would say, it's time to address $4 gasoline, and high energy prices. to do that we need to find more american energy offshore, on federal land, in alaska, but we also need to use less. the single best way to use less is to jump-start the use of electric cars and trucks. electric cars and trucks -- electricity just in the delivery system -- fuel comes from a whole variety of things -- natural gas, coal, and other things. so we jump-start the use of that huge resource that we have just sitting there unused every single night. our committee approved this bill once before. the problem is worse today than it was when they approved it last year. the bill costs less than it did

when they approved it last year. it's an appropriate role for the federal government. we'll work to make sure that if this body were to pass is it, it doesn't increase the debt. i urge my colleagues to report the bill to the floor and to consider encourage electric cars and trucks as the single best way to use less energy and reduce the use -- and reduce the cost of gasoline. i thank the senator from alabama for his courtesy in listening to my remarks, and i yield the floor. mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, today the senate declined to

vote on whether or not to recess. someone said the republicans blocked the senate from recessing. that's not correct. the republicans wrote a letter to the majority leader and said we should not recess until we have plans set forth and begin to take action to deal with the budget that we have not passed that's required by law to be passed. that's what was done. a and so when it came down to the moment to move to recess and vote to recess, as we're required to do to have a recess, a unanimous consent or an actual vote, the majority leader chose not to vote. i guess he wanted to protect his members from having to actually be recorded voting to recess this body when we haven't done our work. the budget act -- it is in

united states code, in the code book -- the budget act requires that the senate commence markup hearings in the budget committee by april 1 and that a budget be produced by april 15. congress doesn't go to jail if it's not passed. i will acknowledge there's no fine. perhaps there should have been. congress writes laws. i guess so they make sure no consequences occur when they apply to them and they don't comply with their duty. so we didn't do that. the majority leader decided to keep us in pro forma session through the week but to do it in a way that guarantee guaranteese no action on a budget. and it's a sad thing really. it is not a little bitty matter. our congress knows that we're in a serious national crisis.

and i think we can't deny it, and we've got to figure out how to respond to it. i hope that this letter that i'll make a part of the record to the majority leader will have some impact on our colleagues and cause them to reconsider the actions that have been taken so famplet it says today marks the 757th day since congress has adopted a conference report on a budget resolution. since we've adopted a budget. but it goes on. "while the republican house has met its obligations this year, the democrat-led senate remains in open defiance of the law. last year, the senate did not even call up a budget for a vote, and this year the senate didn't -- this year, the senate budget committee has not even marked up a budget resolution,

as required under section 300 of the congressional budget act of 1974. despite this dubious distinction, the senate plans to adjourn for a week-long recess on friday to coincide with memorial day, a holiday that honors our men and women in uniform. as our service members put their lives on the line to defend this nation, surely the least congress can do is produce a plan to confront the debt that is placing the whole country at risk. house republicans put forward such a budget weeks ago, an honest plan for prosperity to overcome this nation's dangerously rising debt, cut wasteful washington spending and make our economy more competitive. but in this time of economic danger, the senate continues to stone wall any action and all action on a 2012 budget.

for this reason, we respectfully request you, mr. majority leader, or members of your party in the senate to bring forward a budget resolution and schedule a meeting of the budget committee, a power which resides only with the majority to work on that budget. in an interview last week, you stated -- quote -- "there is no need to have a democratic budget, in my opinion. it would be foolish for us to do a budget at this stage." close quote, the majority leader said. so we find these remarks shocking, especially given the state of our fiscal affairs. the cochairs of president obama's own fiscal commission recently warned if we do not take swift and serious action to address our rising debt, the united states faces the -- quote -- "most predictable economic crisis in our history." the house completed its work on their fiscal year 2012 budget

resolution on april 15, but nobody can become binding until the senate acts. in our view, it would be an astounding abandonment of responsibility for the senate to go on recess without having taken any steps to produce a budget. we hope that as required by law and in your capacity as majority leader, you change course and follow the example of the republican-led house and provide the american people with the honest leadership and honest budget they deserve. until a budget plan is made public and until that plan is scheduled for committee action, on what basis can the senate justify returning home for a one-week vacation and recess while our spending and debt continue to spiral dangerously out of control. we appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this request

and welcome any questions that you might have." well, mr. president, we are out of sorts here. the american people are not happy with this congress. they say our polling numbers are as low as they can get. in last fall's election, there was a shellacking, particularly of the big spenders, the ones who want to have more government programs and create more debt. there was an accounting, and i guess there will be an accounting in the next election. we all better be sure that we have tried to respond faithfully to the challenges america faces. i would say, mr. president, that what has happened this week is a mockery, a sham, a joke. we had four votes yesterday. each one of them carefully,

sophisticatedly structured to fail. the one that failed the biggest, of course, was president obama's budget which got zero votes, voted down unanimously by this body. it was all designed to suggest that it's impossible for the senate to pass a budget, but the senate doesn't even require a supermajority to pass a budget. under this budget act that we have, it provides that it gets preference, it has to be brought up promptly and it can be passed with a simple majority. the democratic majority, like the republican majorities in the past, have to choose will they seek to pass a budget that has broad support of both parties or will they simply use their majority and pass their budget? you should do one or the other. a good bipartisan budget is always possible, -- preferrable, but sometimes we have differing

opinions. so if you have a different view from the other party and you can't reach an agreement, you have a majority, you pass your budget. but you know, when you do that, what happens? when you pass your budget, what happens? you lay out for the american people what you believe. it's one thing to criticize someone else. it's another thing to tell the world what you believe. the house has told the world what they think would be an effective budget for the future. what does this senate say? nothing. we haven't even commenced the markup in the budget committee. a budget sets forth your vision for the future, it tells how much you want to cut taxes or raise taxes. it tells how much you want to raise spending or reduce spending. it says how much debt you expect to accumulate over the years to

come or whether or not you would reach a surplus or a balanced budget. that's what a budget does, and you know it holds you accountable. you have to defend it. you have to say what it is. one thing i have been proud about the republicans over in the house, they met their duty, they produced a budget, and they are prepared to defend it. congressman ryan knows what he's talking about. he's worked on that budget and he's prepared to defend it. it's been terribly misrepresented, but he's prepared to defend it and explain it and talk to anyone about it. but if our colleagues in the senate fail to produce a budget, don't produce one at all, it's kind of hard to hold them to account, isn't it? so that's why it's pretty clear that senator reid said why, it's foolish for us to have a budget. it's foolish for us to have a

budget because you know we would then be in a position to be held accountable. was he talking about foolish for america to have a budget? was he expressing a view that it's better for america that we have a budget? no. when he said it's foolish for us to produce a democratic budget, he was talking purely politically, purely politically. he was saying we think it's smart politics for us not to put our neck on the line, to actually expose to the american people what we believe in. we would rather be in a position to criticize those people in the house, who actually had the gumption, i guess he would say the foolish sense to pass a budget and tell the american people what they think. i just have to say this is not a good situation. we didn't have a budget last year. we're not having one this year.

is there any wonder then our deficits continue to spiral out of control, to a degree we have never, ever seen before. many have criticized president bush and so did i for that that $450 billion budget deficit he produced. i thought it was a stunning number. you know, since president obama has been president, the budget deficits have been been $1,200,000,000,000, $1,300, 000,000,000. and this year by september 30, it's projected to be about about $1,500,000,000,000. we take in $2.2 trillion this year, we expect, and we will spend $3.7 trillion. it's 40 cents plus of every dollar we spend is borrowed, and we're not confronting that, so

we're taking a recess. and when it came time to vote the recess, the majority leader figured out a way that -- to go on another attack and not have to actually vote to go home because i guess his members felt they would be embarrassed if they had to vote to go home after being in violation of the united states code to produce a budget. so this is not going away. let me just say that. this issue is not going away. every expert, including the chairman of the fiscal commission, the commission formed by president obama, the chairman of which he appointed, mr. erskine bowles, and they told us in a written statement delivered by mr. bowles and cochairman simpson that this nation has never faced a more predictable financial crisis.

we are heading toward that wall at warp speed. we can have a financial crisis. in fact, mr. bowles was asked by our chairman, senator conrad, when you think this crisis might occur. he said two years, maybe less. alan simpson said i think maybe one year. surely, we have got to get off the debt path we're on spending so much more than we take in, 40 cents of every dollar we spend is borrowed, we pay interest on it. the interest has the potential to damage our economy in a very significant and substantial way. they put us in another recession. that's what mr. bowles was talking about, a debt crisis, another recession maybe could be perhaps worse than the one we're

in, and our projections for fragile growth is squarey. it's just not coming back nearly as much as we would like it to. one reason expert economists tell us is that we're carrying too much debt, and this debt has a potential to pull down our economy. so i think we're in -- in a crisis, but i think the economy is so naturally strong, the american people have so many capabilities, such a good work ethic that if we get this economy under control and the fiscal house in washington under control, i believe the economy will come back, but we need to do it and do it now, and every day we delay increases the risk that we'll have a credit -- a crisis occur. so, mr. president, i -- i thank the chair. i saw my colleague, senator klobuchar, here. i know she wants to speak tonight, but i want to repeat this matter is not over.

we're in a long-term battle for the future of america. we're in a long-term battle for the financial security of our nation. and yes, it's about our grandchildren, but it's -- as mr. bowles told us, as senator alan simpson told us, as alan greenspan told us, we could have a debt crisis in just a few years. wouldn't that be a disaster, because of our failure to respond to the extraordinary debt that we're incurring, that we have a financial crisis that could put us back into a recession. i hope not. i don't think that's going to happen this year, but i don't know. we have been warned it might. and it's scary. so we're going to continue to talk about this. we're going to continue to use the rules of the senate to try to force this senate to comply with the rules of the united

states code. it says we should have a budget. we're now at 757 days. how many more will it be before we have a budget? we're going to continue that battle, and it's going to be, i think, a battle for the financial future of our country. hopefully, we'll be successful. hopefully, somehow, some way as the pressure builds and the american people continue to have their voices heard, that the white house to date has been oblivious to these challenges, that the democratic senate which has been oblivious to these challenges will somehow get on board and seriously work with the house to confront the challenges we face and put us on a sound path to financial security for the future. i thank the chair. i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the