and when you look at a poultry producer, beef producer, a pork producer or lamb producer or turkey producer or milk producerer or egg producer, what they have been hit with is their largest cost has doubled because of this policy. quite frankly, america is lucky because the worldwide demand for grains given our wonderful farm community and their ability to produce it is extremely high, and our farmers are extremely efficient. so this policy isn't going to affect farm prices but hopefully in the future it will bring them down to a more moderate level. two and a half years ago corn was as $2 a bushel and most farmers made money on that. it is now above $7 even though their input costs have risen somewhat with the increased oil prices. the farms in our country that

raise grains have never been in better shape, if they can get a crovment and i know there are areas in the country where there hasn't happened. so i think overall we're starting to address some of the misdirected capital formation in this country by backing off on government picking of winners and losers, and i'm thankful for the opportunity to speak on it and i would yield the floor. i see the senator from iowa is here. mr. harkin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: first, i ask unanimous consent that katie jones and gene flemming of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: madam president, i'd like to ask, since he was kind naff yield to me, i would alike to ask that the senator from ohio be recognized for his statement after the completion of my remarks.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: madam president, i strongly oppose both the amendment offered by senators feinstein and coburn and the one that was offered by senator mccain that we'll be voting o on in a couple of hours. my message is very simple. this assault on america's ethanol industry both misguided and undeserved. this is truly a homegrown industry, built on the investment and labor of many thousands of americans. providing a product that helps us with one of our most pressing national issues: our dependency on imported oil. yet here we are debating amendments that i think clearly tell the industry you aren't important, you don't matter, and you don't have the support of the american people. well, i think that is the wrong, misguided emergency to be -- misguided message to be sending. we've been struggling with our dependence on foreign oil for almost 30 years.

one of our strategies over that period of time has been to develop and commercialize biofuels. i'm proud to have been in the beginning and continue to be a strong advocate for renewable biofuels produced from domestic feedstocks. we started working on this, as i said, over 30 years ago. it's been a long campaign but it's been a remarkably successful campaign when you think about it. it took about 20 years for ethanol to get to the point of contributing just a few percent of our gasoline supply. in the past ten years the biofuels, and particularly ethanol, have gotten to the point where they now displace about 10% of our fuel supply. think about that. 10% of our liquid fuel supply used basic lure for transportation is dis-- basically for transportation is displaced by biofuels. i think that's remarkable achievement. no other alternative supply comes close. in fact, no alternative supply provides even 1% of our domestic

fuel. let me repeat that. no other alternative to ethanol comes even close to displacing 1% of imported oil, and yet ethanol is displacing 10% today. again, a remarkable achievement. now, our oil dependency problem is still with it. we still depend on it from many nations that are unstable or unfriendly to us. it is getting worse. you know, oil imports are costing us, on average, over the last few years about $100 per barrel. i know many of my colleagues share my strong concern about oil imports and the need to find alternatives. well, that's why we passed new cafe standards in the energy independence and security act of 2007. that's why we adopted a mandate for renewable biofuels in that

same bill -- a mandate. going back further, that's why we began providing tax incentives for biofuels production already in the 1970's. that's why we promoted alternative fuels in the 1991 energy bill. that's why many of us today are promoting hybrid and electric vehicles. and that's why we need to continue to support the production of ethanol and other domestic biofuels. just as increasing efficiency standard have been a big success in reducing demand, promoting biofuels has been by far our biggest success on the supply side. they've gone from a few percent at the turn of the century to about, as i said, 10% today. mormoreover, the most likely supply-side alternative to displace the next 10% of our gasoline demand is biofuels. again, we recognize this fact in 2007 when we adopted the renewable fuels standard ii that

requires 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022. 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022. now, again, we should pay attention to the options. let's pay attention to alternatives like electric vehicles. i'm all for that. but since we're going to be using liquid fuels for most of our transportation fleet in the next 10, 20 years and beyond, well, we have to look to biofuels. it's renewable, renewable and clean. so our biofuels challenge isn't production or it really isn't even economics. our challenge is adapting our transportation markets, our fuel markets to be able to utilize the biofuels. well, again, as i said, most of our biofuels today are in the form of ethanol. it will continue to be our

principal biofuel for many years to come. however, today we can only displace 10% of our gasoline, as i've said, in the form of a 10% blend of ethanol. it's called e-10. you go to your gas stations and my friend from oklahoma is referring to the ethanol blends. that's what we have today. it's limited. most of it is e-10. now, again, we need to be able to use higher blends, 15%, 20%, as high as 85% of ethanol. in fact, in my state and in our neighboring state to the north, minnesota, we have many pumps that are what they call e-85, 85% of the fuel that comes out of it is ethanol. and only 15% is gasoline. and, quite frankly, the flexible fuel cars run just fine on that

85% blend. the problem is, we need more blender pumps at our filling stations. we don't have them, but we need them. we have them in a few states, but very few states have blender pumps. now, we need to pass a bill like s. 187, the biofuels market expansion act which i introduced in january. again, i remember a few years ago that senator lugar and i had a meeting in the ag committee room and we had the oil companies and the major oil companies. we asked them why they didn't put more blender pumps in their fuel stations. and they are answer was very clear and very logical: they said, well, why would we take up valuable space in our fillinfilling stations for a blr pump when there are few and almost no flexible-fuel cars out there that could use it?

point well-taken. so, after that, we called in the automobile companies. i know we had chrysler, we had ford, g.m., honda i believe was there, and we asked them, why don't you make more flexible-fuel cars? and their response, from their viewpoint, was very logical: why should we build more flexible-fuel cars when there aren't any blender pumps out there? point well-taken. so here you have a ching and egg. -- so here you have a chicken and egg. i would point out that in brazil, almost every car built by ford, every car built by g.m., every car built by honda or highway yow at that built in bra -- or toyota built in

brazil, are built for flexible-fuel. that's the direction we need to go here. now, with these two amendments today, we find ourselves going in exactly the wrong direction. the feinstein-coburn amendment tells the ethanol industry it no longer has the support of congress, and the mccain amendment then would block one of the most critical things we need to do: that is the installation of flexible-fuel pumps. again, i have said many times that we can reform our biofuels policy. i'm more than willing to give up the ethanol tax credit. i've said that before here on the floor. we can give up the ethanol tax credit, if the ethanol industry has access to the market. but the mccain amendment -- you take the two amendments together. one pulls the rug out from undermeaninunderneath the ethany

in terms of its tax credits. i'm say, fine. that's fine. we can do that, if we have access. then the mccain amendment comes along and says, uh-huh ... you can't use any of the funds that we've put in the agricultural bill, in the last ag bill that had tremendous bipartisan support, i might add, can't use any of that for blender pumps at fuel stations. so here we have it. you can tell the ethanol descrirks you can't get the tax credits and, guess what, we're going to keep from you getting access to the marketplace. that's what we need is market access for ethanol. when you go to exxon and mobile and shell and all those gas stations, you think they want to put in a an ethanol pump? they're okay with 10%. they'll do the 10%. but they need to have to put in those blender pumps and the automobile companies need to produce cars that are flexible-fuel.

they do a few of them now, but every car built ought to be flexible-fuel. so that, again, people can choose. as i've said, ethanol can stand on its own two feet now, if people have the right and the freedom and the ability to use it. but if you're up against monopolistic kind of filling stations that won't permit a blender pump to be put in there, then ethanol has no marketplace. we also need to build a dedicated pipeline for ethanol. you know, the oil companies, gas companies, they have their own pipelines. they won't put any ethanol through those pipelines. they says it's water and all that. but let's face it. they won't put any ethanol through their pipelines. well, we can build -- and the private sector, nolt the government -- the private sector can built and is willing to build and is ready to build a dedicated pipeline from the midwest to the east coast.

a couple of companies have already secured the right away. all they need is a loan guarantee, not money just a simple loan guarantee so that they know that they can build the pipeline and that the ethanol industry can use it and get the fuel to the east coast where the majority of our population is right now, where we have a dirth -- we don't have enough ethanol in our major population centers. again, we need to redouble our national commitment to expanding the use of renewable energy and weaning ourselves from imported oil. but we're not going to do it with these two amendments today. the ethanol industry says they just want the marketplace to be able to accept it and let them stand on their own two feet. they can do that. that's more important than the tax subsidies. i might also add, i remember debating this issue with the then-senator from texas, senator

graham. we had a lot of debates on the senate floor and back in the 1980's and 1990's, i guess is, on this issue. i pointed out at that time that the ethanol industry, if you talked about the tax credits and the support from the government that the ethanol industry has gotten, pales, pales in comparison to the dozens of years of tax write-offs and benefits we've given the oil companies in america, going clear comeback to about 1920 -- going clear back to about 1920. when you think about all of the tax benefits we've given the oil companies in america to drill, to produce, to ship, to pipe, to refine, to market -- add it all up, add it all up, and ethanol is just a small, small part of that.

but, the oil companies have never given up -- have never given up on their assault -- in their assault on ethanol. and on biofuels. the feinstein-coburn amendment is precipitous. again, as i said, i'm more than willing and hopefully before the end of the year -- now the, the ethanol tax credits are going to expire at the end of the year. hopefully before the end of the year, we will reach some agreement, work out something where we have more access to the marketplace. and then we can do away with the tax credits. but we should not take an action that will slash the value of the ethanol industry's primary product by nearly 20% overnight. think about it this way. we have a one-year extension of the ethanol credits that go to the end of this year. we did that, the congress did that, we said that to the

industry. investors have come in, modifications to plants have been built. plants have been built. yet, in the middle of year, we're going to say no, we're going to take it away? all my friends over there that keep talking about the private sector and how we need the private sector and don't need the government, you're going to pull the rug out from underneath the private sector on the guarantee that we gave them earlier this year. no industry could survive a shock like that. no industry could five that. -- could survive that. it's wrong to do that at this point in time. madam president, we all know one thing. these votes this afternoon, okay, people can come down here and vote against ethanol, vote against the tax credits for the ethanol industry, vote to cut off marketplace access for ethanol, but nothing's going to happen. the house will blue-slip it and then we'll be on to doing what

really needs to be done in a logical way, and that is to reduce the tax credits for ethanol, which i'm all in favor of doing, if, in fact, we then can promote market access. senator lugar and i in the past had worked on a bill together. i have reintroduced it basically this year that would do three things. it would mandate a certain proportion of blender pumps be installed at the large gasoline stations, those that are owned by the major oil companies. it would provide tax credits to the small mom and pop stations that would put in a blender pump in their station, the independents. and third, it would mandate a gradual increase over the next few years of the number of cars produced in america, sold in america that are flexible fuel. if we do all those things,

ethanol will stand on its own two feet. i want to just say one last thing before i yield the floor to the senator from ohio, i guess, and that is this. right now, people have made much of the fact that there is is $5 billion of tax credits this year going to the ethanol industry. i understand that. however, because of the lower price of ethanol, because we're blending 10% ethanol into gasoline, all of the people in america today are paying less for their gasoline than they otherwise would if we didn't have ethanol. so if you take that into account, the fact that the consumers of america when they fill up their gas tank are paying less than they would if they didn't have ethanol, that more than offsets the $5 billion that we have put into the tax credits for ethanol support. so yes, we have supported the

ethanol industry with with $5 billion. i dare say we have gotten back probably twice as much as that in savings at the gas pump for the consumers of america. now, perhaps that's what the oil companies are mad about. maybe they would like to have that money for themselves. i suppose that's probably true, i understand that, but i think our obligation are to the consumers of america and to the private sector who is operating on a guarantee that we gave them that we would have these tax credits at least until the end of this year, and i think on an implicit guarantee that we gave that we would make sure that there would be a marketplace that would be open and accessible for biofuels. so that's what we need to do, reduce the tax credits but open up -- open up the marketplace for the -- for ethanol in blender pumps and in flexible

fuel cars. but that's not before us today. that's not what's before us today. but we will continue to work together again, as i said, towards the end of this year to make a reasonable, smooth transition from the tax credits to access to the marketplace, and i will take the floor again and again, the remainder of this year and on. i am not doing it today, but i will show the amount of tax benefits the oil companies have gotten over the last -- over the last 80 years. add that up and compare it to what the ethanol industry has gotten over the last about 30 years, and you will see that the oil companies have gotten a lot more than what ethanol has ever received from the government. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. mr. mccain: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona.

mr. mccain: madam president, i rise in support of my amendment. i would ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business on the issue of libya before i do. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: madam president, yesterday, the administration made an announcement that i believe will strike most of my colleagues and the americans they represent as a confusing breach of common sense. two administration levels claimed -- two administration lawyers claimed that u.s. military involvement in libya is not in breach or calls for a war powers resolution. in other words, they believe that our activities, military activities in libya do not require a war powers resolution. they say because the united states is not engaged in a state of hostilities in libya. this puzzling assertion seems to be undercut by the very report that the administration sent to

congress yesterday, which makes it clear that the u.s. armed forces have been and criewmably will continue to fly limited strike missions to suppress enemy air defenses to operate armed predator drones that are attacking qadhafi's forces in an effort to protect libyan civilians and to provide the overwhelming support for nato operations, from intelligence to aerial refueling. now, i korea that actions like these don't amount to a full-scale state of war, but i would certainly grant -- that i am no legal scholar but i find it hard to swallow that u.s. armed forces dropping bombs and killing enemy personnel in a foreign country doesn't amount to a state of hostilities. unfortunately, this only adds more confusion to our already confusing policy in libya. our policy objective as stated by the president correctly is to

compel qadhafi to relinquish power, and yet that is not our military objective. the administration claims to have turned the operation in libya over to nato, an alliance in which the united states makes up three quarters of the collective defense spending, as secretary gates recently pointed out. the administration sought the blessings of the united nations, the arab league and nato before using force in libya but still has not sought a similar authorization or statement approval from the elected representatives of the american people. that's wrong. the result of all this, i hate to say, is plain to see in the actions of our colleagues on the other side of the capitol in the house. there is massive and growing opposition to continuing the u.s. involvement in libya. there has already been one piece of legislation passed that binds

the president's authority as commander in chief, and there could likely be a vote soon to cut off funding for the entire operation. in short, the accumulated consequences of all this delay, confusion and obfuscation has been a wholesale revolt in congress against the administration's policy. i take no pleasure in pointing this out because although i have disagreed and disagreed strongly at times with aspects of the administration's policy in libya, i believe the president did the right thing by intervening to stop a looming humanitarian disaster in libya. qadhafi was at the gates of bengazi. amid all of our present arguments about legal and constitutional interpretations, we can't forget the main point. in the midst of the most ground-breaking geopolitical event in two decades, as

peaceful protests for democracy were sweeping the middle east, with qadhafi's forces ready to strike at the gates of bengazi, with arabs and muslims in libya and across the region pleading for the u.s. military to stop the bloodshed, the united states and our allies took action and prevented the massacre that qadhafi had promised to commit in a city of 700,000 people. and by doing so, we began creating conditions that are increasing the pressure on qadhafi to give up power. yes, the progress towards this goal has been slower than many had hoped, and the administration is doing less to achieve it than i and others would like, but the bottom line is this: we are succeeding. qadhafi is weakening. his military leaders and closest associates are abandoning him. nato is increasing the tempo of its operations and degrading

qadhafi's military capabilities and command and control. the transitional national council is gaining international recognition and support and performing more effectively, and although their progress is uneven, opposition forces in libya are making strategic gains on the ground. i know that many were opposed to this mission from the very beginning and i respect their convictions, but the fact is whether people like it or not, we are engaged in libya and we are succeeding, so i would ask my colleagues is this the time for congress to begin turning against this policy? is this the time to ride to the rescue of the man who president reagan called the mad dog of the middle east? is this the time for congress to declare to the world, to qadhafi and his inner circle, to all of

the libyan who are -- libyans who are sacrificing to force qadhafi from power and to our nato allies who are carrying a far heavier burden in this military operation than we are, is this the time for america to tell all of these different audiences that our heart is not in this, that we have neither the will nor the capability to see this mission through, that we will abandon our closest friends and allies on a whim. these are questions that every member of congress needs to think about long and hard, but especially my republican colleagues. many of us remember well the way that some of our friends on the other side of the aisle savaged president bush over the iraq war, how they sought to do everything in their power to tie his hands and pull america out of that conflict with far too little care for the consequences that their actions would have on our friends, our allies, our

interests and our moral standing as the world's leading power. we were right to condemn this behavior then, and we would be wrong to practice it now ourselves simply because a leader of the opposite party occupies the white house. last week, qadhafi wrote a personal letter of thanks, a letter of thanks to the members of congress who voted to censure the president and end our nation's involvement in libya. republicans need to ask themselves whether they want to be part of a group who are earning the grateful thanks of a murderous tyrant or trying to limit an american president's ability to force that tyrant to leave power. the goal for all of us here in this body, democrats and republican alike, should not be to cut and run from libya, but to ensure that we succeed.

in the very near future, senator kerry and i along with a senior bipartisan group of our colleagues will introduce an authorization for the limited use of military force in libya. the administration may assert that we are not engaged in hostilities in libya, but the senate should go on record as authorizing these operations. we are in a state of hostilities, and the only result of further delay and confusion over congress' role in this debate would be to continue ceding the initiative to the strongest critics of our actions in libya. we plan to introduce this authorization soon, and i would urge the majority leader to schedule a vote on it quickly. the senate has been silent for too long on our military involvement in libya. it's time for the senate to speak, and when that time comes, i believe we'll find a strong bipartisan majority that is in favor of maintaining our current

course in libya, that supports us seeing this mission through to success and that is willing to continue standing in the breach with our allies until the job is done. now, madam president, the amendment 411 would prohibit the u.s. department of agriculture from funding the construction of ethanol blender pumps or ethanol storage facilities. the latest request from the ethanol lobby. by prohibiting -- we will prevent american companies from spending over $20 billion to convert the 20,000 gallon lean pumps currently under construction. $20 billion. during today's cloture vote on the ethanol tax credit amendment some members cited concerns about the procedural tactics used to bring up the vote. pulling the rug out from underneath the ethanol industry

and that somehow it was premature end to over 30 years of subsidies unless it was coupled with further funding for ethanol infrastructure construction. i hope my fellow critics of the ethanol tax credit have taken notice of this new tactic over the past few weeks where ethanol supporters, this debate has been about where and how to prop up the industry in the future, not whether or not the ethanol industry deserves future taxpayer support. it's time to say, enough is enough. this industry has been collecting corporate welfare for far, far too long. those of us who have been fighting against these handouts over the last two decades, it's been far too long since we've had a full debate on this industry. as a reminder to some of my colleagues as to how this debate has shifted over the year, i'd like to read a portion of a floor statement on ethanol subsidies that i delivered on march 11, 1998. i said, mr. president, let me

just take a moment to try to explain why we have such generous ethanol subsidies in law today. the rationale for ethanol subsidies has changed over the year, but unfortunately ethanol has never lived up to the claims of any of its diverse proponents. in the late-1970's during the energy crisis, ethanol was supposed to help the u.s. lessen its reliance on oil. but ethanol use never took off. even when the gasoline prices were highest, when lines were longest. then in the recallly 1980's, ethanol subsidies were used to prop up america's struggling corn farmers. unfortunately, the usual trickle-down effect of agricultural subsidies is clearly evident. even dairy farmers have to pay a higher price for feed corn, which is then passed on in the form of higher prices for meat and milk. the average consumer end ends up paying the cost of ethanol subsidies in the grocery stomplet by the late-1980's,

ethanol became the environmentally correct fuel. unfortunately, the department of energy has provided statistics showing that it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than the amount of energy that a gallon of ethanol contains. in addition, the congressional research service, the congressional budget office, and the department of energy all acknowledge that the environmental benefits of ethanol use, at least in terms of smog reduction, are yet unproven. these facts are as true today as they were 13 years ago. in fact, we now have a better understanding of the negative effects corn ethanol has on both the environment and food prices than we did 13 years ago. but it's important to note, while attention is being paid and rightly so, to eliminating the unneeded and wasteful ethanol tax credit, the corn ethanol lobby is seeking a new

ethanol stimulus package by attempting a congressional runaround to continue bilking american taxpayers out of their money. instead of seeking approval from congress, lobbyists have convinced the department of agriculture to change the rules of the rural energy for america program to pay for new gas station pumps at retail stations at the expense of solar, wind, and energy efficiency projects. in fact, the president has announced his goal to fund the construction of 10,000 ethanol blender pumps and tanks within the next five years, a down payment on future ethanol stimulus spending. supporters of ethanol corporate welfare are happy to tell you that if they get their way, these 10,000 blender pumps and tanks will be the tip of the iceberg for billions of new federally funded corn ethanol infrastructure development.

to be perfectly clear, not content with government support to subsidize ethanol, protected from competition, or require its use, lobbyists now want american taxpayers to pay for the construction of pumps and holding tanks at retail gas stations. of course the u.s. department of agriculture is happy to comply with the industry's request to fund infrastructure construction. on april 8, 2011, secretary vilsack issued a rule that would classify blender pumps as a renewable energy system qualifying it for funding under rural energy assistance programming. when congress created the rural energy assistance program, it had no intention of paying gas station owners to upgrade their infrastructure, further subsidizing the ethanol industry. furthermore, as a bonus to any gas station owners to take advantage of the grant program, once the federal government has

built the blending pumps, holding tanks, retailers will be vibl to receive the ethanol -- eligible to receive the ethanol tax credit. double dipping in the federal treasury. how expensive will this ethanol stimulus be if the special interest lobby gets its way? according to the u.s. department of agriculture, an ethanol blender tank and pump cost an average of $100,000 to $120,000 to instahl stall. with over 200,000 fuel pumps currently operating in the u.s. it would cost over $20 billion to convert them all. this is one stimulus project that we can't afford. as for those concerned about the lack of support for wind and solar projects, a recent congressional research service report indicates the tax credits and subsidies for solar, wind,

and geothermal power will cost $8.62 billion from 2008 to 2012. the ethanol tax credit alone would cost over three times more, $26.5 billion. allowing the rural energy for america program to continue funding blender pumps and tanks will only continue this trend. for my completion that really want -- for my colleagues to really wanted to end the corporate handouts to the corn industry but were concerned about the process issues over the tax credit, are concerned about ending the tax credit midyear, you can rest assured that those concerns do not apply to this amendment. it is time congress took a stap to ending payouts to a robust and strong industry n a time of fiscal constraint when all are being asked to make a sacrifice, we should expect more from leaders in the private sector

than seeking to continue handouts for -- quote -- "stimulus projects" -- from the federal government. madam president, i was disappointed obviously in the vote that we took concerning the ethanol subsidy, and i know probably what the vote on this amendment will turn out. i message is, americans, we're really not serious about heeding the mandate of last november to stop spending, to stop wasteful projects to stop the unnecessary projects such as ethanol subsidies. we're going to go out and we're going to spend $20 billion of your tax dollars in your local gas station to install a pu pum. my friends, no wonder -- no wonder -- the american people according to recent polls are disillusions, disappointed and des mystic about our future. -- and pessimistic about our future. this vote will confirm an ample

and adequate reason, an understandable reason, for that pessimism. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.are.

mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings your honor the quorum call be dispensed with. officer without objection. mr. mcconnell: madam president, i know we're scheduled to have two votes around 2:00 today oangt million to issue. once we're passed those amendments, we have a number of other important issues to be debated and hopefully scheduled for votes. senator hutchison, for example, has one on health care lawsuits.

senator portman on unfunded mandates. senator brown on withholding payments. senator demint has an amendment on the death tax and the renewable fuel standards. in addition, our rank member and marching, senator inhofe -- our rank member and managers senator inhofe, has a number of amendments as well. i'll be talking to the jo leader and members to see how we can schedule that's votes before moving to final passage. i will i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: resident?

the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: madam president, are we in a quorum call? i move unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. corker: thank you, madam president. i rise today to speak to the mccain amendment. i notice my colleague from arizona was just on the floor, and i wanted to say that i appreciate him offering this amendment and, as with the

coburn-feinstein amendment, i support his amendment. i also wanted to make reference to the comments he had made regarding our conflict in libya. i agree with him. these are my words -- that it's bizarre, that the administration has sent over a letter yesterday referring to the fact that we're not involved in hostilities in libya. i mean, it's really totally bizarre when you look at what is going on in the air in libya right now. so i have no idea why mr. coe would have offered this awrgt. i know we're going to have a hearing in foreign relations in the next couple of weeks thankfully to look at this issue. but thirdly i'd like to point out that one of the reasons that we're in this situation right now where congress has not authorized anything is the administration -- i sent a letter to the administration, secretary gates, and secretary clinton, nine weeks ago, madam

president, just asking five questions about our engagement in libya, five questions. and i received last week a letter from an acting assistant secretary that gave me a half-answer on one of those five questions. i think most people in this body are aware that senator webb and i then authored a resolution asking 21 questions of the administration regarding libya. i thank them for yesterday transmitting to us some information on libya. we haven't yet gotten access to the classified versions of it. we have obviously, like everyone else here, i'm sure, read the unclassified version. but i think the reason we find ourselves in the place that we are is we just haven't been able to get information from the administration regarding this conflict. so i know the senator from arizona and the senator from massachusetts are working on an

authorization request, a limited authorization. i hope that they will potentially wait until we have the answers to all 21 questions, the same questions that many of the same house members wanted the answer to. but i share with him the frustration that congress has not taken any action on this. and i would say i'm just really stunned by the fact that the administration has chosen not to give responses to questions until yesterday, and eelly this was done in request -- and really this was done in request what to they saw was a movement in congress just wondering why in the world they would be so resistant to answering basic questions regarding a conflict. but then secondarily, again, just the bizarre answer that we are not involved in hostilities. i mean, you know, you cannot

tell senators one thing in private, the same senators, and tell them something else in public and expect senators to feel any degree of credibility regarding those statements. so i thank the senator from arizona for the comments that he has made. we've had an applicable relationship -- we've had a an amicable relationship. we've had probably some differing thoughts. but i'm here to shay that i agree with him that his amendment is an theament needs to be passed. i agree with limb that it is incredible that -- i agree with him that it is incredible that we have not acted as a congress. i big reason for that just the lack of information for some reason. for some reason the administration has gone to seek approval from the united nations but has not shown any desire to seek approval from congress. it's just again odd.

and then thirdly, just the whole bizarre nature of this administration saying that what we're doing there does not involve hostilities when in their unclassified version that the whole world has the ability to see, there's no way that the engagements that they have said in an unclassified document are occurring in libya do not involve hostilities. that's just absolutely, categorically not possible. so, madam president, i do hope that very soon congress will take afntle hypocrite that all of the answers that we've asked -- answered -- all the questions we've asked answers to have been answered and i hope all of us will know that very soon when we actually gain access to the classified versions of what has been sent oamplet so with that, madam president, i yield the floor.

and i notice the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: i see i'm joined by the senator from iowa, who i know will speak shortly and has been a leader in biofuels and in energy for many, many years. madam president, i rise today to speak about the votes we will be having later today on the amendments that would immediately cut off support for our homegrown energy industry, with i guess a few days' notice. i don't think there's precedent for this. -- a decision, if this were to ultimately pass, i'm not certain this is the vehicle that would allow it to go into law, but if it would pass, we would have made a decision that is different than the decision made in january affect an industry that affects nearly 500,000 people. i would say if we were voting twice on an

amendment in a few days, it would be something that creates jobs or decreases our dependence on foreign oil, but that is not the case here. we're talking about pulling the rug out from an industry that provides 10% of the nation's fuel supply and supports nearly 500,000 jobs. i don't think people quite understand that about biofuels. i think they think it's some boutique industry, 10% of our nation's fuel supply at a time when gas is up near $4 a gallon. madam president, we know that there is support for phasing out the current ethanol tax credits. we know that. i have a bill to do that. senator grassley has another bill to do that. we understand that at a time when our country is facing severe budget constraints. but the question, madam president, is not if we should do it -- we will. it is when and how. we all know that homegrown energy has played an important part in reducing our dependence on foreign oil and supported thousands of jobs in this country. we also know that as we continue

to move our nation toward energy independence -- by the way, we actually are moving up in terms of are own energy independence, which is a goal that i believe every member strongly supports. and that is that homegrown energy will be a significant part of our solution. we need a glide path and not a cliff for the only alternative to oil. immediately ending all support for the biofuels industry as the amendments we're considering propose to do would stifle investment in not only the existing ethanol industry but also the newly developed cellulosic -- yes, that's part of this -- cellulosic, algae and the next generation of biofuels which i think holds the most hope for this country. many of the first biofuels plants are colocated with corn ethanol plants. you can't promote next-generation fuels by promoting a tax policy for existing biofuels six months into a one-year extension with only a few days notice.

again, the real debate is not about whether we end this tax credit. we know we should do it. and i believe we should do it with oil too. but right now we're on biofuels. it's about how we do it. that's why the senator from south dakota, senator thune, and i continue to work towards a bipartisan compromise that would reduce our deficit and offer a reasonable way to reform the biofuels industry and achieve significant deficit savings immediately. and i appreciate our colleagues talking to us. we've had many meetings, and we are working very hard to get this done. we need to work toward a pragmatic solution that reforms the ethanol industry without harming jobs or driving up gas prices at a time when gas is over $3.70 a gallon. an article in "the chicago tribune" underscored the fact if we cease to produce the 13 billion gallons of ethanol that we make every year, it would drive up prices at the pump by as much as $1.40 a gallon in the short term. does the senate actually think we can afford to raise gas

prices by $1.40 per gallon? do my colleagues think we can afford $5 per gallon gas? i look forward to working with my colleagues on a more responsible option that will reduce the deficit and not suddenly disrupt an industry that supports $3 billion in economic activity in my state alone. madam president, i also want to say a few words in opposition to the amendment offered by my friend from arizona, senator mccain. our current policies provide incentives for many different kinds of fuel-dispensing technologies, from hydrogen to natural gas to electric hookups to ethanol. but the mccain amendment singles out only biofuel pwhrerpbd pumps and -- blender pumps and proposes to cut investments in these pumps at a time we need to be expanding, not limiting them, not getting them from saudi arabia. we should be investing in the farmers and workers in the

midwest. but what the mccain amendment does is focus on limiting blender fuel pumps. blender pumps don't require ethanol. they give consumers a choice at the pump and helps lower gas price for all consumers, even those who don't use the higher blends of ethanol. from 2000 to 2010, competition from ethanol reduced wholesale gasoline prices by an average of 25% per gallon. saving american consumers an average of $34.5 billion annually. during the gasoline run-up? 2010 the impact was substantially larger reducing gasoline prices by a national average of 89 cents per gallon. giving consumers a choice of using higher blends of renewable fuel has allowed the country of brazil to become energy-independent. and we can do the same here. the mccain amendment also would do more than limit consumers' options at the pump. i know north carolina,

madam president, is a good military state. this would prohibit the u.s. military from constructing blender pumps or storage tanks that can use more fuels, that would be more resilient in case of a fuel supply cutoff from opec in the global fuel supply. our dependence on foreign oil has been widely recognized by our military and diplomatic leaders as a major strategic vulnerability. to respond to this, we have taken important steps in recent years to encourage u.s. government and military fleet vehicles to be fuel-flexible as part of our efforts to reduce both our spending on fuel and our dependence on foreign oil. shouldn't we allow our homegrown ethanol to compete with foreign oil to fuel these vehicles? so i urge my colleagues to oppose the mccain amendment. at a time when families and businesses across the nation are battling high fuel costs, we should be giving them more options at the pump, not less. madam president, today's votes

on the feinstein amendment and the mccain amendment are part of a process. we all know it's not the final result. while i strongly oppose both amendments, i also know that regardless of the outcome today or even the outcome on that vote two days ago, we still have work to do. i appreciate the willingness of the senator from california and the senator from oklahoma to continue to negotiate with senator thune and myself. these are serious ongoing negotiations. i am hopeful that in the coming days we can reach a bipartisan compromise that isn't just about one amendment on a bill that is not the vehicle where we can get this done, but in fact we actually have a bipartisan compromise that balances our need to continue to support homegrown biofuels with our need to reduce our deficit. and to do this in a way that actually puts money right now back to our government to pay off this debt. with that, i see senator

grassley, who knows a little bit about finances with his major role in the finance committee, and also as a farmer, a little bit about the biofuels industry. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i compliment senator klobuchar on her leadership in trying to find, first of all, leadership in supporting biofuels and alternative energy, but also working real hard the last few weeks to find a compromise here on this issue that is a very difficult issue and very divisive here within the united states senate. so we're voting at 2:00 today on these amendments that senator klobuchar has already referred to. the first is an amendment by senators feinstein and coburn repealing the incentive for domestically produced ethanol. i emphasize domestically

produced because we don't have to worry about oil sheikhs robbing us of all of our resources when you burn ethanol like you do when you burn imported gasoline. the second amendment is offered by senator mccain, prohibiting the u.s. department of agriculture from using funds for the installation of blender pumps. these amendments won't lower the price of gasoline at the pump. that's what people today are concerned about: the price of gas at the pump. these amendments won't lessen our dependence upon foreign oil. we spend $835 million every day importing oil. and these amendments won't create a single job in the united states. in fact, they'll do just the opposite. they'll raise the price of gasoline and make us more dependent on foreign oil, and it won't create a single job. most importantly, these

amendments also won't save the taxpayers any money, because they stand little chance of being enacted. even if the amendments were to pass today, they won't get out of this chamber because of our constitution that says that revenue measures must originate in the house of representatives. so, when this bill, if it passes the senate and goes to the house, they're going to reject it. or they use the term "blue slip this bill" and it's going to come back to the senate. so this bill with these amendments is dead on arrival in the other body. it's also dead on arrival at the white house. we've had indications in a statement that president obama opposes repealing the incentives and is open to new approaches that meets today's challenges and to save taxpayers money.

and i remember one of the first policy discussions that i had with then-new senator obama. i was chairman of the finance committee. he came up, and we talked about what we could do working together to promote ethanol as an alternative energy. and his idea was incorporated in a piece of legislation that became law. and i was glad to work with him on that. so i thank president obama for the statement that he recently gave again now as president of the united states supporting alternative energy, biofuels; and in this case specifically ethanol. the votes at 2:00 then are a fruitless exercise. so to a sense, you are in political theater here as we debate these issues. we've already had this vote and it was defeated 40-59. now, everybody knows that oil is

now hovering around $100 a barrel, and everybody knows, as you hear once a month or maybe reminds every day, that unemployment is 9.1%. so why is the senate taking a full week and voting twice on the same amendment that will increase prices at the pump, increase dependence upon foreign oil, and lead to job loss? or at least do nothing about the unemployment rate. we should be having this debate in the context of a comprehensive energy plan. this debate should include a review of the subsidies for all energy production, not just singling out ethanol. nearly every time -- nearly every type of energy gets some market distorting subsidy from the federal government. an honest energy debate should include ethanol, oil, natural

gas, nuclear, hydropower, wind, solar, boy yea biomass and proba lot of other alternative energies that i can't think of right now. by discussion it in the context of an overall energy policy instead of singling out ethanol right now, you would be able to then make sure that you have a level playing field for all forms of energy, because the government shouldn't be choosing between petroleum and alternative energy, as an example. when the oil and gas subsidies were targeted, as the ethanol subsidy is being targeted right now, and oil and gas subsidies were targeted last month, the president of the national petrochemical and refiners association had this to say. quote -- "targeting a specific industry, or even a segment of that industry, is what we would

consider punitive and unfair tax policy. it is not going to get us increased energy security, increased employment, and it's certainly not going to lower the price of gasoline." well, those very same words could be said about the ethanol debate we're having right now. because it would surely increase our energy insecurity. it would increase unemployment, and it's certainly not going to lower the price of gasoline. so it seems to me that what, you know, the old saying about what's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander, what's good for a subsidy for petroleum and the people that defend that, why would you want the inconsistency that we're demonstrating here, because this gets back to how i voted on that provision about a month ago? i voted that you ought to deal

with oil and gas and ethanol and all of those things in the same context and make sure that they fit into an overall national energy policy. now, in december of 2010, congress enacted this one-year extension of the -- of vtec, the volume umetric energy tax credit. we extended that for one year. that's what's being repealed in the coburn amendment. buff thithis one-year extensions allowed congress and the domestic biofuels industry to determine the best path forward for federal support of biofuels and for the phasing out of that subsidy. as a result of these discussions, senator conrad and

i introduced bipartisan legislation on may 4 that is a serious, responsible first step to reducing and redirecting federal tax incentives for ethanol. our bill will reduce and phase out vtec over a period of a few years. it also would extend through 2016 the alternative fuel refueling property credit, the cellulosic producers tax credit -- that deals with the second generation of ethanol from things other than grain -- and the special depreciation allowance for cellulosic biofuel plant products. earlier this week, i joined senator thune and senator klobuchar in introducing another bipartisan bill to immediately reduce and reform the ethanol tax incentive. it includes many of the same features as in the bill i introduced last month with senator conrad, but it enacts these reforms this year, right

now, not phased out over a period of five years, as my original bill did. senator thune's approach also leads to significant deficit reduction. the legislation we've introduced is a responsible approach that will reduce the existing blenders' credit and put those valuable resources into investing in alternative fuel infrastructure, including alternative fuel pumps or senator klobuchar used the term blender pumps. it would also make significant investments in advance in cellulosic ethanol, that's the second generation of ethanol. that's where we want to go so we're not using grain for fuel. it's a forward-looking bill that deserves widespread support. the thune-klobuchar bill, of which i am a cosponsor, will responsibly and predictably

reduce the existing tax incentive and help get alternative fuel infrastructure in place so consumers can decide which fuels they prefer. we shouldn't pull the rug out from under this industry that has made these emore must investments -- these enormous investments. we need to provide transition. i know that when american consumers have the choice, they'll choose domestically produced, clean, affordable renewable fuel. they'll choose fuel from america's farmers and ranchers rather than from oil sheikhs and foreign dictators. both of the ethanol reform bills i mentioned are supported by the ethanol advocacy groups. in an almost unprecedented move, the ethanol industry is advocating for a reduction in their federal incentives.

no other energy industry has come to the table to reduce or eliminate subsidies. no other energy lobby has come to me with a plan to reduce their federal support. and, for sure, big oil hasn't come forward with any suggestions. -- on reducing their subsidies. the best way to get deficit reduction that gets to the president's desk with a presidential signature is a responsible transition like the one offered by senator thune and cloab collar. otherwise, this -- and klobuchar. otherwise, this exercise today and these two votes today is a waste of time. this vote will simply put many members of this body on record in support of a $2.4 billion tax increase. i would encourage those to want to reduce incentives and save

taxpayers' money to work with senator thune and klobuchar and the rest of us on a responsible transition that has a chance of being enacted and, most importantly, signed by the president. i, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose these two amendments. i've always said that ethanol shouldn't be singled out, that it ought to be talked about in the context of an overall energy policy. but one of the reasons it's been able to be separated from all the rest of the alternative energy, as well as from all the rest of our energy policies that we have for this country, is because there's a great deal of ignorance about ethanol, and you can tell that in this town when you hear a lot of people pronounce the word ethanol "eethanol." i'm going to use statements from the sponsor of the bill and

refute some of these things that i think are really wrong. the first one is we can save $3 billion if we eliminate the vtec's blending subsidy. well, there are a lot of numbers thrown around about how much this incentive costs, and how much senator coburn's amendment would save. i have a letter from the joint committee on taxation with a score of senator coburn's amendment. t -- the fact is the amendment would increase revenue to the federal treasury by $2.4 billion, not $3 billion as the authors state. again, the coburn amendment, if enacted, would be saving $2.4 billion, not -- and that's from the joint committee, and that's not my estimation. that's the estimation of the people that score for the congress of the united states what impact various tax bills have. another statement -- quote --

"all the blenders of gasoline in the united states -- all of them -- have called and written and said we do not want the $3 billion for the rest of the year." well, i have a letter from the society of independent gasoline marketers of america, and they go by the acronym, sigma, to senate majority and minority leaders to abruptly eliminate the blenders credit, contrary to the statement that i just read that all the blenders want to do away with this. the letter states -- quote -- "as a leading marketers of ethanol-blended fuels at the retail level, sigma members and customers are the beneficiaries of veetc. simply put, sigma opposes recent moves to prematurely or abruptly end the subsidies without any consideration for future fuel or

fuel delivery costs. to end this incentive immediately would no doubt result in an immediate spike in consumer fuel costs." end of quote from the gasoline marketers of america, the independent gasoline marketers. so i hope somebody will put that in their pipe and smoke it, because the fact that all of these people, we've been told here on the floor of the senate, don't want this, well, that's an incorrect statement. another statement is -- quote -- "according to the u.s. department of agriculture, 40% of last year's corn crop was utilized, converted to ethanol. now it is true that almost 40% of the corn crop went into the ethanol plant to produce -- to produce ethanol.

but what it doesn't tell you is that out of a 56-pound tkurbl of corn, there -- 56-pound bushel of corn, there's 18 pounds of animal feed left over that is more efficient in fattening animals than even the original corn. and that's called dried distillers grain. so i want people of this body not to come to me in their ignorance and tell me that you shouldn't use -- that you're using too much corn for feed and saying it's 40% of the corn crop when 18 pounds out of every 56-pound bushel of corn is for very efficient animal feed. and so i'm going to take credit for that 18 pounds and refute this statement that 40% of last year's corn crop was utilized and converted to ethanol. one bushel of corn produces nearly three gallons of ethanol,

and 18 pounds of high-value animal feed. in 2010, 4.65 billion bushels of corn were used to produce 13 billion gallons of ethanol. but ethanol production uses only the starch from the corn kernel. more than one-third or 1.4 billion bushes of dried distillers grain is left over, available as a high-value livestock feed. on a net bays, ethanol -- basis ethanol production used 23 of the u.s. corn crop, far less than the 40% that senator coburn claims, according to the u.s. department of agriculture feed use consumed 37% of the u.s. corn supply, much more than the 23% consumed by the ethanol production. the next statement that's

incorrect: the american people ought to take into consideration when they go buy a gallon of fuel today, you already save, you already have $1.72 worth of subsidy in there. it does not have anything to do with oil and gas drilling. i believe senator coburn is referring to a report from the congressional budget office. for the record, that report relied on a questionable assumption that only a tiny fraction of ethanol skruplgs -- consumption is attributable to the ethanol tax credit. regardless, i'm glad he raised this point about subsidies and oil and gas drilling. our colleagues may be interested to learn of the hidden cost of our dependence upon foreign oil. and these are not my estimates. i'm going to give you references for you to look up. a peer-review paper published in

"environmental" magazine in july 2010 concluded that -- quote -- "27 to $138 billion is spent annually by the u.s. military for oil infrastructure with an average of $84 billion every year. " isn't it convenient to forget those costs of our national defense that's keeping oil lanes open so that we can get oil to the united states that we spend $835 million every day to import oil? i'd like to refer to another one. milton copulus, an advisor to president ronald reagan, a veteran of the heritage foundation, head of the national

defense council foundation, testified before congress in a recent year on -- quote -- "the hidden costs" of imported oil. mr. copulus stated that by calculating oil supply disruptions and military expenditures, the hidden cost of u.s. dependence on petroleum would total up to $825 billion per year. the military expenditure is equivalent to adding $8.35 to the price of a gallon of gasoline refined from the persian gulf oil. there is no hidden -- this is important about ethanol because there is no hidden u.s. military cost attributable to homegrown renewable environmentally good ethanol. here's another statement i'd like to refute -- quote -- "there is a big difference between a subsidy that is a tax credit and allowing someone to

advance depreciation because they are going to write it off any how. the net effect to the federal government revenue if you take all those away is still zero." now, that statement wants you to believe that all the tax benefits that the oil industry gets are just tax benefits. they're not a subsidy. well, my response is that i have to refer to september 2000 report by the government accountability office. that report concluded that the federal government has granted tax incentives, direct subsidies and other support to the petroleum industry. they describe tax incentives as a federal tax provision that grants special tax relief designed to encourage certain kinds of behavior by taxpayers or to aid taxpayers in special

circumstances. according to the government accountability office, the tax break allowing for the expensing of intangible drilling costs began in 1960. the percentage depletion allowance was enacted in 1926. the government accountability office estimated that these two tax incentives led to a revenue loss of as much as $144 billion between the time studied by the government accountability office kh-rbgs goes from 19 -- office which goes from 1968 to when the report was given in the year 2000. now, i would say to my colleagues that those figures i just gave you are a far cry from the zero revenue effect that senator coburn claims for the oil industry. these are government accountability office words and figures. they refer to them as tax

incentives that resulted in loss of revenue more than $100 billion to the federal treasury over a 32-year period. i've heard senator coburn on the floor on many occasions talking about the dire fiscal situation our country's in. i find myself voting with senator coburn most of the time, but on this issue i disagree. yet, on this issue it sounds like he's arguing about semantics. one is a subsidy. yet, the other is a legitimate business expense. in other words, in the case of ethanol, it's a subsidy. in the case of big oil and their taxes, it's a legitimate business expense. i'm not sure that this argument over terminology will give our children and grandchildren much comfort when they're picking up a $1 trillion tab over the next couple of decades.

the last statement i would like to refute is this -- quote -- "corn prices are $7.65." that had to be a couple days ago because i get a report every day on corn prices at my local elevator in new hartford, iowa, they were $7.10 yesterday. let me quote again -- quote -- "corn prices are $7.65 a bushel. they are two and a half times what they were three and a half years ago. ethanol has been this last year the significant driver." let me suggest here, first of all, that he's right. two and a half years ago, or three and a half years ago corn was about $7. but six months later it was $3.58. so anybody that thinks corn's going to stay at this historically high price isn't very smart, and the farmers are

spending money according to that, they better slow up because they're going to be caught off guard and out of business like they were in the 1980's. so this is my response tphoeugs what i just said -- my response in addition to what i said about corn going down to $3.58. grain used for ethanol accounts for approximately 3% of the world's course grain -- coarse grain. let me reflect on that statement for a minute because you get the opinion when they say 40% of u.s. corn is used in ethanol, you get the opinion that ye gods, what are people going to eat? but worldwide, and the grain market is worldwide, the global marketplace decides the price of grain. and worldwide, only 3% of the coarse grain, and one of the coarse grains is used for fuel,

and because of the increased corn production, the amount of grain available for nonethanol use is growing. in the year 2000, there was a 2.4 billion metric tons of grain available for use, uses other than ethanol. even with the growth of the ethanol industry, last year there was 2.6 billion metric tons of grain available for uses other than ethanol. it's also important to review the cost of corn in retail food prices. corn priced today, the corn costs and a gallon of milk is about 46 cents. the cost of corn in a pound of chicken is 34 cents. one pound of beef takes 92 cents worth of corn.

one pound of pork requires 39 cents. so, you have all this excuse coming from the food manufacturers of the united states that ethanol is the cause of food prices rising. but you can see in the figures i just gave you that what the farmer gets out of $1 worth of retail food is about 21 cents. and you could cut this in half, and it will be cut in half like it was three and a half years ago, but when the price of corn goes down, you aren't going to see big food reducing their cost of food by 20%, because they need ethanol as a scapegoat to raise the price of food. that's all i have to say about ethanol, but i do have an

amendment that i'm introducing to this bill that's before us that's unrelated, unrelated to ethanol. but it also brings up the same point that there's a lot of places in this budget we can save money. and senator johnson of south dakota and i are introducing this amendment that pertains to setting limits that any one farmer, including this farmer, can get from farm program payments. i've been pushing for reform of farm program payments for many years. some folks from outside of iowa unfamiliar with this issue may be surprised that i am the member who keeps pushing these reforms. they may think that iowa's economy relies heavily on agriculture. why would a senator from a farm state like iowa want a hard cap on farm stphaeuplts but iowa --

payments? but iowa's farms understand why i continue pushing for a hard cap. this is to make sure farm programs provide what they're supposed to provide: a safety net for those who need it. basically farmers that have the economic capability of overcoming natural disasters and political issues and international politics, that they have no control over that affects the impact of farm income. those are small and medium-sized farmers. they aren't these megafarmers that are 10% of the farmers getting 70% of the benefits out of the farm program. these small and medium-size farmers, as of course bigger farmers do, play a vital role in supplying our nations and world with food. however, they're continually as

small farmers faced with the challenges of rising land prices. many times young and beginning farmers can't compete because of high land prices and rent. there is no doubt the rise in commodity prices is part of the reason for higher land prices and cash rents. but currently farm program payments are also placing upward pressure on land prices. this is not how it's supposed to work, because what -- i just said means that we're subsidizing big farmers to get bigger. now, there's nothing wrong with big farmers getting bigger. i don't argue with that in any segment of our economy. but we shouldn't be subsidizing big farmers to get bigger. the farm program was put in place to provide a safety net for farmers. it's meant to help them get through tough times. the farm program was not created

to help big farmers get bigger. let me repeat for you because it can't get enough emphasis. 10% of this nation's largest farmers receive 70% of the farm program payments. these large farms do not need these program payments to get through tough times. small or medium-size farmers don't need market factors driving up cash rent. this bill is a commonsense solution to this problem. reform the farm program so it works as a true safety net for those it was intended for. we can do that by placing limits on how much a single farm operation can receive in program payments. the government should stay out of subsidizing the growth of large farms. in addition, this amendment tightens the requirement for people to be considered an

actively engaged farmer. for too long people have gamed the system and received farm payments that the law did not intend. there have been a number of amendments introduced to the e.d.a. bill before us in the name of saving taxpayers' dollars. and the ethanol amendment, supposedly that's one of the motives behind it. by setting hard payment caps and making these reforms, we will save the u.s. treasury approximately $1.5 billion over ten years. the headlines around here are dominated by the problems of the budget. many of my colleagues have come to this floor in recent weeks and discovered, or discussed that government spending and the big debt. if this body is going to be serious about cutting spending, then this amendment that i'm laying before you has a limitation on farming, farm payments is a continuation of

that effort. instead of spending time debating the merits of programs that assist the renewable energy industry, an industry that, by the way, helps us wean ourselves off of our need for foreign oil, why don't we agree to make cuts in areas we should be able to have an agreement to? this is a simple and commonsense way for us to save money while at the same time making sure the farm program accomplishes what it's supposed to. i yield the floor. mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: could i ask what the -- how much time is left? the presiding officer: nine minutes and 37 seconds. mr. thune: mr. president, i want to join my colleague from iowa who has been a great leader over

the years on the issue of biofuels and trying to transition our country away from this dangerous dependence that we have on foreign oil, and over the years has worked to put in place policies that have helped build an industry literally from the ground up. the ethanol industry in its inception many years ago sort of started with just a few farmers getting together, and now today they are producing about 13 billion gallons of ethanol. actually, it represents 10% of our entire fuel supply. there isn't any other fuel in the country, mr. president, that provides the alternative to traditional gasoline that ethanol does, and that's the result of a lot of investment, a lot of hard work by a lot of people over the years. it's also been as a result of the dependence upon what has been fairly stable public policy. now, there is a debate about whether or not that public policy ought to change, and that

is certainly a debate that we can have. i don't want to get into the merits of the individual elements of ethanol policy because, you know, obviously people are going to disagree about that, but i am going to point out that we put this policy in place in december of last year. in december of last year, we told this industry which represents -- this is 204 american-owned plants. these are american companies that employ almost 500,000 indirectly or directly american jobs, american workers in this country, and so we told them in december of last year 81 senators, 81 senators, many of whom are now saying i'm going to vote to do away with this particular tax policy, 81 senators voted for it. we had 81 votes in the united states senate in december that said these are going to be the rules of the game until december

of this year. and so now we have this effort to completely change the rules in the middle of the game. now, i haven't been here all that long. i served three terms in the house of representatives. i'm in my seventh year in the united states senate, but i don't recall an occasion where we've ever done anything like this, where the congress has put policy in place, made commitments to american businesses in this case, people who employ american workers and then tell them six months later i'm sorry, we're just going to pull the rug out, our u2 there on your own. now, it would be one thing if these decisions were made in a vacuum, but most of these businesses made decisions, investment decisions based upon public policy that was put in place by this congress. you cannot in good faith now go tell them that we're just going to jerk this policy out of the way. does our word mean anything around here? you know, we've got an issue

with this particular amendment to start with because it's unconstitutional, you can't originate a tax measure in the senate so it will be blue-slipped in the house of representatives, which makes everything we're doing right now largely symbolic. this bill isn't going anywhere, but there seem to be people who are intend upon making some sort of statement, i guess, or trying to send some sort of a message, but the end result is if what they were trying to accomplish today were to become law is you would raise gas prices because you're talking about a a $2.4 billion increase in taxes on people who inevitably are going to pass it on. why would you want to start raising gas prices at a time when we have got historically high gas prices and people are already being pinched at the pump. and so you single out a specific industry. now, i have heard people get up today and say we voted for tax

extenders last year, but those were part of a bigger package, we didn't have to agree with all of it. well, then don't vote for it and surely have the debate then. why were we not debating this issue last december? if people had issues with this, they should have been brought out then when we put this policy in place. what in effect we are doing is singling out an industry and saying we are going to punish you by changing the rules in the middle of the game because we don't like your industry or we don't like this particular tax provision. but we had a similar debate here a few weeks ago. there was an effort to do something on oil and gas tax provisions, and the argument that was made at the time, myself included, was why would we single out a specific industry? if we're going to do this, let's do this in a comprehensive way where we look at all types of policies, tax expenditures, favorable tax treatments that various industries in this country get and let's -- let's examine them all together, and if it's time to make some changes, let's make some

changes. this is selectively singling out a specific industry and changing a tax policy in the middle of the year. now, there has been a statement made on the floor that -- that the people who get the benefit of the blenders credit don't want it. well, it strikes me at least that if they don't want it, they don't have to take it. they have to file for it. they have to file with the i.r.s. if they don't want the blenders credit, they don't have to take it, but most of the people who file for the blenders credit it is assumed are going to pass it on to the retailer, to the gas station and ultimately to the consumer so that it will result in lower prices. that's what -- and most of the people who are -- who are refiners anyway are large, integrated oil companies who, frankly, i think, don't want the competition that is represented by the ethanol industry. they don't have to take the blenders credit. they have to do something to get it. they have to file with the i.r.s. in order to receive it.

one other point i want to make, mr. president, is because there is some talk as well about ethanol and the environmental benefits. well, let me just say this. i mean, there are certain states in the country who perhaps would like to have even higher standards, but if you compare ethanol to traditional gasoline, according to the e.p.a. in terms of life -- what am i looking for here -- greenhouse gas emissions, life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, it is 20% lower corn-based ethanol -- and when we get to cellulosic ethanol, which is the next generation of biofuels, if we get there, if we don't completely do away with the platform we have today with corn-based ethanol, it will have a 60% life cycle greenhouse gas emission advantage over traditional gasoline. so corn-based ethanol, 20% cleaner burning than traditional gasoline. cellulosic ethanol, 60% cleaner burning than gasoline.

that's according to the environmental protection agency, which doesn't take a particularly favorable view of these fuels because they like to include other types of -- in their calculation, other types of elements like indirect land use in other countries around the world which, frankly, we don't think ought to be part of the calculation. but even with that, even with that o'20% cleaner burning than traditional gasoline for corn-based ethanol, 60% for cellulosic ethanol. i want to read, if i might, mr. president, from a letter that i received from an organization called the american council on renewable energy, acore. this organization is about 500 deep, represents about 500 other organizations. in some cases, american companies, universities, members like wal-mart, like dupont. this is what they say -- -- quote -- "current domestic ethanol production is also laying the groundwork and infrastructure for more advanced

biofuels of the future including cellulosic ethanol, algae-derived fuels and drop-in fuels. we have also crossed the thresholds of these home-grown biofuels meeting a substantial portion of fuel annandale for cars and light-duty trucks but they cannot be further developed without the infrastructure investments that are fostered by current ethanol production today." they go on to say the thune-klobuchar amendment ensures ethanol production to continue while directing to support infrastructure development and the transition to advance biofuels. the ethanol tax credit has been critical to increased domestic ethanol production and corresponding economic growth, job creation, enhanced energy security and lower gas prices. we urge you to oppose the coburn amendment which would prematurely terminate support for our domestic ethanol industry while failing to invest in critical infrastructure and advanced biofuels. we ask for your support of the thune-klobuchar amendment. now, the thune-klobuchar amendment, we are working, mr. president, with the senator from california, senator

feinstein, the senator from oklahoma, senator coburn, on a solution that would hopefully lead us to a result, and it would do what many of the folks here in this chamber want to see done. it would do away completely with the blenders credit effective july 1 and with the ethanol tariff and would also put money back into debt reduction. we think that is a better way to do this, and i hope that we can -- those discussions will lead somewhere, but this vote today is going to be largely a symbolic vote for reasons i just mentioned. it's unconstitutional. it will be blue-slipped in the house of representatives and therefore it makes absolutely no sense for us to be having this vote in the first place. it certainly doesn't make any sense for us to be sending a message to this industry that we want to do away with it. mr. president, i understand my time is expired, and so i will yield back whatever i have. thank you. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i rise to speak in favor of the

feinstein amendment, and i am a proud cosponsor of this proposal because it will save us money, it will reduce food prices, annandale doing so do it in a responsible manner. mr. president, ethanol enjoys truly unprecedented support from the federal government. first, there is the renewable fuels mandate, mandate that requires, requires ethanol to be blended into gasoline. second, there is a 45% -- 45-cent-per-gallon subsidy to blend ethanol into gasoline that is costing the treasury nearly nearly $6 billion per year. third, there is a 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol, protecting the domestic industry from any serious competition. and to top it all off, the

federal government spends billions every year to subsidize the growth of corn for ethanol. so in a time of fiscal constraint, we simply cannot afford to prop up an industry with such enormous supports, and these supports are not just costing taxpayers money but they are also causing food prices to rise and harming our environment. the united states department of structure estimates that 40%, 40% of this year's corn crop will be used for ethanol. this is raising grain prices worldwide, especially hurting the needy. for these reasons, the feinstein amendment has the support of taxpayer right groups, religious groups looking out for the needy, budget hawks concerned about our deficit, livestock growers who use grain as freed, the grocers and restaurants who are seeing food prices increase and the environmental community

who understand that corn ethanol requires enormous amounts of fossil fuels to be produced in the first place. my support for the feinstein amendment is not just because it is the right thing to do for our country and our federal budget but because it is the right thing to do for my home state. new jersey has over 120,000 flex fuel vehicles but does not have a single e-85 ethanol pump in the entire state. 120,000 cars that are built to allow automakers to gain fuel economy standards but may never see a drop of e-85 fuel. now, i know that this issue is important to our friends in the midwest, but ethanol producers already have a guaranteed market for their product as a result of a federal mandate. now we have an opportunity to help families across the country by ending this failed ethanol

policy and providing relief both in terms of their taxes and their food prices. for these reasons, i will be voting in favor of the feinstein amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same, and i also think this vote is important for the larger debate on the deficit. our friends on the other side of the aisle have said that revenues cannot be a part of the strategy to reduce the deficit. well, i think this vote and the one earlier this week in which 34 republicans voted to end these wasteful ethanol tax breaks shows that there is a bipartisan support for cutting wasteful tax subsidies and loopholes and that these revenue expenditures must be part of any solution on the deficit. and as i speak about that, let me end with another item that i think should be on the table, one that i have been promoting in this chamber. the first place to start in terms of tax expenditures is oil subsidies. a bipartisan majority of 52 senators voted recently to end

these tax breaks. if these 34 republicans come into the fold, we could work together to make some real progress. oil companies do not need these subsidies, talking about the big five. with oil trading at nearly $100 per barrel, they have all the incentive they need in the marketplace. by cutting these subsidies, we can cut the deficit directly by by $21 billion. these companies are projected to earn this year up to to $144 billion in profits, not proceeds, profits, this year alone. if they can simply live with a mere $142 billion in profits, then they could do their share to rediewt reduce the deficit wt raising gas prices. mr. president, it is time we come together after cross party lines and end wasteful tax subsidies to lower the deficit. this vote is an important first sterntion and i think by doing so, we will ensure,

notwithstanding the issues about blue slips and constitutional impediments, it will send a real clear sense of the senate that will move us in a direction that will end the ultimate subsidies and help us reduce the deficit. and i think that, combined with ending oil subsidies, to get us on a path poo a balanced and bipartisan solution, is critical for the nation. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and observe the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

thune mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. thune tune are we in a quorum calling? the presiding officer: yes. mr. thune: i ask to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: i would like to elaborate a little bit on where these descrutionz that we've been having -- these discussions that we've been having toward

getting a solution are. since we first had this vietnam couple of days ago, i have been in conversations along with senator klobuchar from minnesota, senator cobun, and senator feinstein, the sponsors of this teerntle see if there isn't some way that -- the senators of this amendment, to see if there isn't some way to accomplish what we'd like to do, but do it in a way that is not disruptive, that is a thoughtful approach to the future of the biofuels industry, and that also does something meaningful in terms of dealing with the debt and the deficit. and so those discussions continue. we continue to get closer and closer, i think, to an agreement there. i hope that my completion will continue to talk and -- i hope that my colleagues will continue to talk and discussion that. we will continue the discussions after 2:00. but i say that toll let me colleagues know that even though this particular vote is going to

amend the piece of legislation that perhaps isn't going to go anywhere and certainly this amendment, because it is blue-slipped, because it has a constitutional issue, isn't going to go anywhere, that there are discussions go on that will hopefully yield a result in my view, there is a better way to do this. obviously there are people who feel very strongly, very deeply. we've theard over the last few days, about this subject. but there is in nigh view, a better way, a right way a and a wrong way to do this, so you aren't just pulling the rug out from an industry in the middle of a year after we have put policy in flais they have been relying upon in terms of their investment decisions. so i would hope that we can get that agreement, and i would certainly hope that my colleagues will bear that in mind. there are a number of members here who obviously are very

supportive of the legislation that senator cloab chards and i -- that senator klobuchar and i introduced earlier this week. you heard senator grassley and senator coats and i who are cosponsors of that amendment. we continue to work with the sponsors of the coburn-feinstein amendment to see if there san path forward that would enable us to actually get a result to pass something through the united states senate. so i want to let me colleagues know that, just to apprise them of the status of those discussions, and my hopes that we can actually come to a conclusion here that would get a result and not simply have a vote that ends up being largely symbolic. so we will continue to keep my colleagues apricessed as those -- apprised as those discussions continue, and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: would ask you for a quorum call, sir? mr. thune: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to modify the pending feinstein amendment we changes at the desk. -- with the changes at the desk to reflect a drafting error made by legislative counsel. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. all time is yielded back.

the question is on the feinstein amendment as modified. is there a sufficient second? there is a sufficient second. yes, appears to be. under the previous order, the amendment will require 60 votes for its adoption. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators who have not yet voted or wish to change their vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 73, the nays are 27. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is agreed to.

the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the question is on the mccain amendment number 411. under the previous order, this amendment will require 60 votes. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators who have not yet voted or wish to change their vote? if not on this vote the yeas are 41, the nays are 59. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment stpholt agreed -- is not agreed to. under the previous order, motions to reconsider the previous two votes are considered made and laid on the table. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

majority leader. mr. reid: there will be no more roll call votes this week. we'll work on next week's schedule later today. i would ask unanimous consent that the senators from massachusetts, senator kerry and brown be recognized for up to ten minutes each. following that time, i be recognized. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kerry: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: before mayor manino accused the duck boats for the victory parade on saturday, i want to take a moment with my colleague here on the senate floor to celebrate an extraordinary victory by the boston bruins. after a grueling 39 years of so many ups and downs, heartbreaking misses and

almosts, the stanley cup is coming back to boston. that is thanks to the extraordinary grit of a special hockey team, a team that had really remarkable character. i have to say, and i say this i hope cautiously because i know pride comes before a fall, but nevertheless we in massachusetts are blessed with an embarrassment of riches right now because last night's heart-stopping game against the vancouver kanucks is allowing us to celebrate our seventh championship for our city in the last decade. i know pride comes before the fall, but sweeping the yankees a weekend ago and now winning this isn't too bad. so as a lifelong hockey fan and a guy who still tries to get around a rink occasionally when my hips allow me to do that, the bruins' win last night really was one of the sweetest ever.

and that's partly because it was in such a long time coming, but it's also because of the determination this team showed in getting there. not since 1972 did the bruins bring home the stanley cup. and not since the 1970 championship has there been so much for hockey fans to cheer about. this boston bruins fans made history not just in the championship but in the way they got there. they are the first team in n.h.l. history to win a game seven three times in the same postseason. they did it with a kind of hard-nosed, selfless, remember the fundamentals, play the basics gritty kind of team work that we in boston admire so much. during the bruins run to the

championship, we got to witness a very special kind of pride and encouragement that came from our city. there is a black and gold bruins jersey on the statue of paul revere. before game seven, everybody got to see our injured forward nathan horton, pouring a bottle of boston water on to the vancouver ice. this team couldn't and wouldn't lose at home, and last night horton's magic water turned vancouver into our home ice. and today all of new england is home for the world's champion boston bruins. toeuf say with last -- i have to say with last night's victory yet another pwraoupb legend -- bruin legend was born, tim thomas. in seven spectacular games, tim held the kanucks to eight games

goali spefplt it was more than appropriate he was named the game's most valuable player. i would say what curt shilling was to the red sox tim thomas is to the bruins today. mr. president, this stanley cup win is a victory for 9/11 massachusetts who ever laced up a skate and braved frozen ponds early in the morning, to every parent who packed their kid in a minivan to get to practice, for everyone who remembers their heart skipping a beat when bobby orr sailed the air in victory, we hear our own voices in the words of tim thomas last night when he proclaimed, you've been waiting for it for a long time, but you got it. you wanted it, you got it. we're bringing it home. just as it was for the red sox

for a long time, some people said this day was never going to come. and just as it was for the red sox and a curse that we no longer hear much about, some even blamed fate for the drought. but after last night, mr. president, boston proved once again never underestimate an underdog. and so final score, bruins 1, fate zero. i'm proud to offer my congratulations to the bruins players, the coaches, the front office for a great series, for a great season, and for being great champions. this team never quit. they never lost focus. they believed in themselves as individuals. and above all, they believed in themselves as a team. so we can't wait for saturday when we will see the city of boston's reflection in the polished silver nickel of lord

stanley's cup. welcome back to boston. a senator: that was great. mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. brown: it was great i. i'm honored to speak as well with my colleague senator kerry to celebrate something that i was 11 years old when it last happened. i come to the floor obviously to recognize the boston bruins and the thrilling season and 4-0 victory last night in game seven over vancouver in the stanley cup finals. i enjoy not being an avid skater like senator kerry, i still am amazed at the way that they just go all out and then just slam each other up against the boards and they actually get up. i find that amazing. and obviously they're bringing the cup back, as senator kerry said, for the first time since

1972. we actually have a couple of boston fans up in the gallery. all right! as you know, it's also the home of the bean pot tournament and some of the best college hockey in the country. the bruins made history by becoming the first team in the nhl to win three deciding game seven in a single run, twice rebounding from being down two games to none. for bruins fans and everybody and myself and everybody i was with last night, we were very excited. with victories over philly, tampa and finally vancouver, it made for a memorable run. being a big underdog before the series began, the bruins played inspired hockey to win lord stanley's cup. they did it as a team. they played outstanding defense against one of the best offensive teams that many have seen in a long time. bostonnians will never, ever forget the sight of captain char

standing 6'9" tall which i find truly amazing and lifting the stanley cup high above the ice. he led the incredible defensive effort in that series. it was also an unforgettable moment for nfl veteran mark recchi playing in his final nhl game last night. he capped a great career the way many professional hockey players can only dream about, with the stanley cup in his hands, moving around the ice. last night he said it was one of the best groups of players he has ever played with. for those of us who watched, we can attest that it was one fun team to watch. it was just a lot of fun. everyone was so excited, regardless of whether you were a bruins fan or not, just to see the -- the intensity that that series was played. there was a mixture of youth and experience, hard physical play, great scoring touch that helped put together this run. brad marchan, the bruins rookie,

has become a household name also with hockey fans after scoring an impressive 11 play-off goals, set ago record for the most play-off goals by a boston rookie and tying for second most in nhl pivot. and patrice bergeron coming back from an injury, scored the first imoal in game seven that set the tone. as senator kerry said, our clutch goalie tim tomorrows. i didn't know a body could move like that, quite frankly. he took home the conn smythe trophy for most valuable player in the play-offs. behind the bench, as you know, the coach led the b's with quiet confidence, even as his team faced daunting deficits and devastating loss of forward nathan horton as was referenced so aptly done, took some boston water and put it on the ice to make it our home ice. this is a vindication for team

president cam neely, a bruin great for several years. with the bruins' stanley cup victory, the city of boston can in a classy manner celebrate its victory as we have done before and as senator kerry also pointed out, we are very, very blessed in massachusetts and new england to have the patriots, red sox and celtics to round out a decade that includes many world championships. and upon the arrival of the stanley cup in boston, today the baystate has hosted all four major championship trophies since 2005. as we all know, since 2002, the patriots have won the lombardi trophy three times, red sox have captured the world series trophy twice and the celtics have earned the o'brien nba title trophy once. it's an unprecedented run in sports history. no longer left out, the bruins can join a highly decorated group of teams that has never been matched. and i didn't come down to the floor to brag about boston's

reputation as the home of the greatest champions in professional sports. no, mr. president, i have to say that the evidence is pretty compelling on its own. so with great pride as the junior senator from massachusetts, today i also honor the 2011 boston bruins for their remarkable season and commend them for their relentless pursuit of lord stanley's cup. another championship banner will rang from the rafters of the t.d. bank garden and i'm very optimistic it will not be the last one for boston, the hub of hockey. thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor. mr. career: madam president, before our time expires, madam president? in listening to my colleague from massachusetts reminding me that captain chara, the defenseman who raised the cup last night is the tallest person to ever play in the national hockey league, it reminds me therefore that we are also making history because never has the stanley cup been held so high over the ice.

thank you. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. reid: i'm happy to be here to listen to my friends talk about hockey. i'll talk just a minute about hockey. i was raised in the desert. when we came back here as a -- i came back here as a member of congress, i wanted my boys to watch a hockey game and i wanted to watch one. i had never watched one. so we went to a hockey game. i tell you, it's a game you have to learn something about. for me walking in with no experience, it was pretty difficult. they are on the ice just a few minutes and off, they are back and forth, it's hard to keep track of all that. but i did have the opportunity twice to watch the great gretzky, and that was a good experience. but my most harrowing, one of my most difficult, scariest experiences of my life, there was a time when -- still do, las vegas had a minor league hockey team, and i was asked to go out

in the middle of that ice and drop a puck. i don't do very well, as indicated when i -- a few weeks ago i slipped and fell and dislocated my shoulder on regular dirt, so to walk out on that ice, madam president, was something that was frightening to me and i've never forgotten that. so to have those men rush up and down those rinks the way they do is truly astounding. my only heroism in hockey was my own heroism in convincing myself i should go out there. okay, madam president, our staffs have been working diligently for days now to find a path that would allow the senate to complete action on the jobs bill which is now on the floor. they've worked so hard on this bill because this bill is legislation to reauthorize the

successful economic development agency so important to this country since 1965. it's not an obama piece of legislation. it was started by richard nixon and every president since then, democrat and republican, have wrapped their arms throughout this legislation because it's so good for our country. the economic development administration has created jobs where they are most needed, in economically distressed communities. in just the last five years, the the $1.2 billion of investment, we have created 314,000 jobs. the merits of reauthorizing this job-creating administration are so very, very clear. e.d.a. works with businesses, universities and leaders at the local level so it creates jobs from the bottom up. for every dollar we invest as a government, we get $7 in return. it represents manufacturers, producers compete in the global marketplace, and it's a great

investment. every dollar from e.d.a., as i have indicated, tracks $7 in private sector investment. that's a pretty good return. because of this agencies' success and because each senator is on record talking about the importance of creating jobs, senator boxer, chair of that most important committee, the environment and public works committee, in her capacity as chairman of the public works, her committee, she has produced this bill, and she has shown me statements by virtually every senator in this chamber about the merits of this bill, democrats and republicans alike. so this is the kind of bill that should pass on a bipartisan basis, if not unanimously, and it has passed in the past unanimously. in the past, that's what would have happened, we would have done this so quickly, but no

more. now we find ourselves struggling just to bring it up for a vote. i heard the republican leader this morning speak earlier about the state of play on the e.d.a. bill. he said we have got this done but we have got this to do and this to do and this to do. here is a brief for you so far of what we have had on this bill. we have already had votes again on matters totally unrelated to this bill. swipe fees, regulatory reform, ethanol, three votes on that. we have 70 amendments that have been filed. we have pending now a number of amendments related to the debt limit, to wall street reform, health reform, davis bacon and 66 others that could be pending. in addition, senators have filed amendments that are related to

immigration reform, border fence, e-verify, the estate tax, right-to-work laws, gainful employment regulation, a series of amendments dealing with endangered species, light bulbs and other energy-efficient provisions. not a single amendment that has anything to do with this bill. not a single thing that is germane to this bill. so, madam president, i'm going to continue to work with the republican leader, hopefully find a way to complete action on this extremely important bill, but it seems so far to be a never-ending process. it's filibustered by amendment. amendment after amendment after amendment on amendments that have nothing to do with the legislation. we can't continue this. this process has to end so we can pass this bill, let the private sector create jobs the american people need and let the senate move on to other pressing matters.

i hope we can work something out, but in the meantime, i have no alternative as the leader of this senate but to file cloture on this bill, and i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on s. 782, a bill to amend the public works and economic development act of 1965, to reauthorize that act, and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators as follows -- reid of nevada, boxer, lautenberg, carper, brown of ohio, whitehouse, casey, coons, tester, cardin, udall of new mexico, shaheen, stabenow, murray, conrad, durbin and manchin. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to calendar number 75, s. 679, the efficiency and streamlining

act. the presiding officer: the motion to proceed is now pending. mr. reid: madam president, i want to say a word before i leave the floor to -- to and about my friend, the senator from california. as i've indicated, chair of this most important committee, the environment and public works which i had the good fortune of chairing on two separate occasions. she has been tireless in bringing legislation to this floor and attempting to. she has been talking about this bill for months about how good it is, and when she sat down and reminded me of the merits of this legislation, i thought this should be a good one. a job-creating measure. we need that right now. and i have been very disappointed that we haven't been able to move forward, but it is not because of any lack of effort on her behalf. she and i came to washington together many, many years ago and served together in the house of representatives. she is my friend, but she is

also one of the most outstanding legislators we have had in this body, bar none. i ask now that we proceed to a period of morning business until 6:00 p.m. this evening, with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each during that time. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered.

the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: madam president, i -- i want to thank the senator from nevada, my friend, the majority leader, senator reid, for his remarks, and i want to thank him for filing cloture on the e.d.a. bill. the economic development

administration. he said it was started by richard nixon. actually, it was continued by richard nixon. it was started by lyndon johnson and supported by every single president since 1965, whether they were republican, a democrat, a liberal, a moderate or a conservative. every congress has supported this. the last time the e.d.a. was authorized, it was authorized, madam president, by a voice vote when george w. bush was president and he signed it into law. so one has to ask one's self, why do we find ourselves in the middle after filibuster? why do we find ourselves with 77 amendments pending to this little bill that takes a $500 million authorization and, because of the effect it has on the private sector, draws in private-sector matching funds 7-1 and means it's a $3.5

billion-a-year basically jobs bill? this is a jobs bill. every republican and every democrat i know around here says, jobs, jobs, jobs. but they're killing another jobs bill. and i think the american people have to understand, this list of amendments -- do you have the list? -- that have been filed, senator reid went through few of them, there's even one that relates to the prairie chicken. now, with all due respect, there may be a lot of issues surrounding the prairie chicken, but it has nothing to do with an economic development act bill. it goes on and on. it talks about protecting free choice for workers to refrain from participating in labor unions. this sounds familiar, from a governor from the midwest.

it talks about amending the unfunded mandates reform act. let's face it -- we weren't born yesterday. i wish i was, but i wasn't. and the fact is, this is too small to even show up on the screen. three pages -- i think we're up over 80-81 amendments to this bill, which is a jobs bill, which is a simple bill to reauthorize the economic development administration's programs. e.d.a. is a great job creator. and in our committee, madam president, every single democrat and republican, save one individual, voted for this bill. so it's bipartisan, it's been supported by every president since lyndon johnson, it has created, over time, millions of jobs, and we know this

particular bill, at its current funding level, would support 200,000 jobs a year or a million jobs over five years, and they're good jobs. how does that happen? because the e.d.a. goes into local communities that have high unemployment rates, they bring together the local governments, the state government, the private sector, the nonprofits and they say, what do you want to do here to attract industry, to attract consumers here? what do you want to do to rehabilitate this community? sometimes they say, we need a new road, we need a new water project, we want to build an industrial park for new businesses. and this is what e.d.a. does. so they're really locally controlled ideas, and a coming together of the federal government, the local government, the state government, the nonprofits in a beautiful package that has

resulted in millions of jobs over time since it started. shere's what i really want to sy today asgy through my statement: the first thing i want to say is we know what the other side is doing. they are killing these jobs bills by a frivolous list of amendment after amendment after amendment that has nothing to do with the bill. and this isn't the first time. in this very spot a few weeks ago stood another senator with a southern accent, mary landrieu from louisiana. she's the chairman of the small business committee. she had a fantastic bill called sbir. it is a small business incubator bill. that has been in place since the

1980's that program, brought to us by a republican senator named warren rudman. again, a bill that has always been without controversy. what did they do to that bill, my republican friends? death by filibuster, death by amendment, killed that jobs bill right here on the floor. and if you put that in the context of everything the republicans have done since they picked up more seats around here and they took over the house, here's the list: they still haven't appointed conferees to the f.a.a. conference, f.a.a., aviation, the federal aviation administration, the f.a.a. bill. that bill will create 280,000 jobs. it modernizes our airports, it gets rid of the old ways that we track planes and bring our air traffic control system into the

21st century. senator rockefeller has worked so hard. it's sitting over there waiting for conferees. i'm a conferee here on this side. i'm waiting to go get this bill done. it is essential. it has a passenger bill of rights attached to it. which is so important. it will make sure that our systems work properly. it will put in place safety features. jobs, jobs, and jobs. they haven't done a thing. the patent bill -- i had some problems with the patent bill because i didn't like one or two provisions. but the bottom line is the patent bill is expected to create 300,000 jobs. it is sitting over in the house, no action. so since they took over, they've passed a bill to destroy medicare, destroy education -- it's known as their budget.

but when this comes to jobs, there's no beef. and we are perplexed. now, this bill has attached to it, the e.d.a. bill, now an ending of the ethanol subsidy. i happen to vote for that. the fact of the matter is, whether you support it or you didn't, it's going to save $3 billion. so now the e.d.a. bill is not only a jobs bill that leverages billions of dollars to create jobs from the private sector, but it reduces the deficit because it has this amendment on ethanol. so i say to my friends, who may be listening from their offices, when we come back next week, vote "yes" to cut off debate and get this bill done. get this bill done.

now, i talked about the fact that senate republicans have supported this program continually, and i would like to show some of the statements -- or tell you some of the things they said about the e.d.a. remember, i'm quoting senate republicans who are trying to kill this bill by loading it up and filibustering it. 26 of the current republican senators have made positive statements about e.d.a. or put out great press releases in their states. and i agree with what they said. for example, senator cochran of mississippi praised the e.d.a. grant intended to help spur economic development in northeast mississippi. he said, and i quote, "this region has suffered during the downturn, but the three rivers

has been diligent about working to help jobs." this is what he said about an e.d.a. grant. senator cornyn of texas, he said, "$2 million e.d.a. grant for water tower will pave the way for creation of new jobs and business opportunities in palestine, texas." but, they're filibustering this bill. senator crapo says, "e.d.a. business grants will help keep idaho firms on the cutting edge in various fields." he says, "it can make idaho firms successful, which translates into more jobs and revenue in idaho." so, my republican friends, while they're trying to kill this bill by filibuster, have said laudatory things about the e.d.a. you explain it to me. you explain to me. i think i have an answer as to why they're doing it, but i'll

continue. let's see what senator wicker said when he got a grant. "these federal dollars will fund rail improvements and help bring new jobs and economic growth. i am glad the federal government has taken this step to continue its investment in south mississippi's recovery." unquote. these are all the republicans who are killing this bill with a filibuster. senator collins, "$1.1 million grant to fund renovations at lauren development authority. she and senator snowe praised the e.d.a. they said, "this investment in by e.d.a. will allow for improvements and upgrade which will in turn further business growth. lauren will continue to be an economic driver forethe region, creating good jobs in aroustic county." this is just a small sample of

more than 20 republican senators -- more than 25 -- who have praised the e.d.a. and yet each one of them seems to be supporting and supporting, amendments that have nothing to do with the bill. but they all have a chance to do the right thing on tuesday and vote to cut off debate. we have had some tough amendments to this bill already. it's gone a couple of weeks. it's time we had a clean vote because, guess what? jobs are what it's all about. so i'm going to not go on too much longer, but i felt it's important to explain to the american people, who by the way give congress an 18% positive rating -- hello? -- is it no wonder? we're doing nothing about jobs. every time we try to do something, it's stymie ched.

i laid out what they've done, the republicans, and medicare as we know t by the way, passed a slew of abortion bills. it's really unbelievable to me, and these straightforward jobs bills go nowhere. so don't tell me you're for jobs and then come down to this floor and offer amendment after amendment on the prairie chicken, on the border fence, you know, on issue after issue that has nothing to do with this e.d.a. bill. e.d.a. creates a job for every $3,000 invested. that's incredibly good. we invest $3,000, a good-paying job comes about. why? because the matching funds come in. so, this is the time we have a chance to create 200,000 jobs a year over the five years of this bill.

so here's the thing. again, we need, in these tough time, as we're going to get our arms around this deficit -- and here's the thing i really find interesting: lots of talk about how to cure the deficit from the other side, but they forget some of the easiest ways to do it. one is say to the billionaires, thank you very much. you've gotten millions back a year. let's just go back to your rates that you had when bill clinton was president. you made a fortune then. you'll still make a fortune, and help this deficit. millionaires and billionaires. oh, they don't want to do that. our friends on the other side. they want to destroy the e.p.a., they want to destroy the department of energy, they want to destroy the department of education, they want to destroy medicare. that's their answer. why? to pay for tax cuts for the richest of the richest of the richest.

explain to me how that helps the middle class in this great nation? another way you want to cure the deficit and the debt and the wars -- end the wars. end the combat mission. bring home the troops, let's work diplomatically in iraq and afghanistan. i met with the afghanistan women who were struggling there. they don't want combat troops. they want help to get a peace process going, peace and reconciliation process going. it's time to end the wars. madam president, our highway trust fund, which is so critical, is short $6 billion, and it is difficult. that's the trust fund that pays for the highways, for the bridges that are falling down, for the infrastructure improvement, for our transportation system. and i know it's hard to find $6 billion. but we're spend $12 billion a month on the wars in afghanistan and iencht bring the money home.

it's time we spent it in this country for our people. we're not going to walk away from our responsibilities. we're still going to have counterterrorism going on. we're still going to protect our personnel that are there. we're still going to work for peace and reconciliation. but you want to talk about the way to cure this deficit? it's not that hard. we did it before. we can do it again. the democrats balanced the budget under bill clinton, the only time it was done in recent history, and we created 23 million jobs. not by threatening medicare and social security and the department of education and the e.p.a. and the clean air act and all the things they're going after there. but by doing the right thing by our children and our grandchildren and making the right investments to become energy independent. so, for me, the argument of not

being able to do anything because of the deficit, something's wrong with that argument. you have to cure the deficit problem and make the investments that make sense. and here's an investment that makes sense. for every $1 of e.d.a. investment, you get $7 in private-sector investment. that's what we ought to be doing. i already said this before, and i'll say it again. for every one job we create, it costs us approximately $3,000 per job. and these are good jobs. and this is a very -- it's a smart program for us. that's why it's lasted since 1960's. i said before up to 200,000 a jobs a year could well be created here. a million jobs over the life of this bill. a million jobs over the life of

this bill. what are we doing loading a beautiful bill like this down with all these extraneous amendments? so, we'll look at a couple of more charts. if you want to know how many jobs were created between 2005 and 2010, 450,000 jobs and 85,000 jobs were saved. so we're not talking about some ethereal idea of a new jobs bill. this is a jobs bill that's worked and it's a jobs bill that shouldn't be filibustered and it shouldn't be stalled and it shouldn't be loaded up with things that have nothing to do with it while the american people worry and give us an 18% approval rating. i'm surprised it's that high at the rate we're going. look at some of the folks who support this: the united states conference of mayors, the american public works

association, the national association of counties, the afl-cio, the council on competitiveness, the association of university research parks, the national association of development organizations, the national business incubation association, the state science and technology institute, and an arm of the chamber of commerce that came in with a letter. i ask unanimous consent to place this in the record, madam president. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: it's a letter from an arm of the chamber of commerce. and i'll tell you, it's rare when you get afl-cio and an arm of the chamber of commerce singing from the same book. they don't want to see filibusters. they want to see jobs. they don't want to see filibusters. they want to see progress. they want to see us work across party lines. so i've kept asking during my remarks why would they do this to us? why would they do this to the american people?

and i have an answer. i wish this wasn't true, but it's been stated by some of the republican prim candidates -- presidential candidates tanned has been stated by the republican leader here. their priority is defeating barack obama. their priority is defeating our president. their priority is not job creation. it is not business creation. it is not fair tax policy. it really is defeating this president. and when you look at it through that lens, then you say to yourself, wait a minute, if we got something done around here and the president had a signing ceremony, like we used to do in the good old days when we worked together, and he had a republican here and a democrat here and an independent there, and we all came together like we

always have, unanimous consent we passed this in 2007 -- i'm sorry -- 2004. unanimous consent. they're afraid that if we did that, the president would take out his pen and he'd sign this bill, and we'd create jobs. i hate to say it, but i'm not making it up, that's what they have said. and i just hope that over this weekend when we go home and we meet with our people and they say, senators, you've got to do something about jobs, i hope that the public will say to us, be we democrats or republicans, don't filibuster jobs bills. we can't afford to lose more jobs. we need to create jobs. and this e.d.a. bill is a jobs bill. it was created as a jobs bill.

it has been a jobs bill since 1965, signed by every president, passed by every congress, never loaded down with amendment after amendment that's not germane, that weighs it down. and i hope that the people at home will pay attention to this. and i will say this, this is a p-t tenure. this isn't the first bill. toiled you the -- i told you the small business bill same thing, f.a.a. bill sitting over there, no conferees. patent bill no action and millions of skwrors are at stake -- millions of jobs are at stake. i just found out about the small business bill they killed here a few weeks ago. over the lifetime of the program it's provided assistance to 26,000 firms to help them get

started. and that bill was filibustered to death. i don't get it, except if what i say is true, and that's what the motivation is -- it's all i can come up with. i have looked into the hearts of my friends and wondered how could they do this. they voted for this bill in committee. why would they load it up like this and put all these amendments on? it's only one reason. to not make progress. and who gets hurt by that? they think the president, but i've got news for them. america is going to wake up because i'm going to be here every day talking about this. i know my colleagues are going to be here talking about it. jobs, jobs, and jobs. i hope this bill gets cloture and we can move on with it tuesday. that would be a wonderful thing. if we do that, that's a change in the atmosphere. and then we can pat this -- pass this bill and get on to the next

jobs bill, and the spirit of the people will be lifted. look, we know government doesn't create the jobs. the private sector creates most of the jobs. the beauty of bills like the s.b.a. bill, that small business job, private-sector jobs. the beauty of this bill, private-sector jobs. so it would lift the spirits of the people instead of, you know, having them watch this, watch me, and think they'll never get together and do anything. then i wouldn't be shocked if the ratings of the congress just hit the bottom of the barrel. they're already close. i hope the people will insist on our passing these jobs bills. things are tough out there. people are unemployed, they're underemployed. businesses are sitting on mounds of cash. they've learned to be able to be profitable without hiring more

people. things are shifting. the sands are shifting beneath the middle class. thank god this president rescued the auto industry and we had a majority here to stand with him to do that. thank goodness we took some of the steps that we took to get banks lending again when credit was frozen. but you know what? our progress is being stymied because partisanship has taken over the process. partisanship means when you get bills out of of a committee, people who voted for them have disappeared, they are nowhere in sight. we filed all these amendments to bring down the bill. we only hope when we come back next week there will be a change of heart. i certainly hope so because i've been here a long time. i've been ao in the house. ten years here, a lot of years.

since 1993 i served with republican presidents and democratic presidents. but i want to say this: i fought hard when election time came. it was tough. madam president, you know 2010 was tough and every time we have elections, they're tough. that's the time that politics is in your blood, is in your veins. you're out there, you're working hard, you're fighting for your life. but when we're here we have to do the people's business. however we feel about who we want to be president, who we admire, who we don't admire, that ought to be left somewhere else. and i hope it will be left somewhere else and i hope that on tuesday we vote cloture on this e.d.a. bill. i would hate to see this die. because when you deal a death

blow to the e.d.a., you deal a death blow to a million jobs. thank you. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. a senator: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. madam president, i come to the floor today as i do each week as a doctor who practiced medicine in wyoming for 25 years, as someone who has taken care of families all around the state of wyoming, as a doctor who has great concerns about what's happened to the american health care system and will continue to happen under the health care law that has been passed by this body and signed into law at the assistance of this president. and i come as a doctor giving a second opinion because i have great concerns about this health

care law. in talking with patients and talking with doctors and just from my own personal knowledge, i believe that this health care law is going to be bad for patients, bad for providers -- the nurses and the doctors who take care of those patients -- and bad for the payers, the taxpayers of this country who are going to be left to pay the bill. madam president, recently my friends on the other side of the aisle have been using what i believe to be significant scare tactics about my party and medicare. medicare is the program for our senior citizens. and i believe it's important the american people receive the truth. they deserve to hear the truth about the future of medicare, not scare tactics. the fact is unless congress takes action, medicare will go broke in 13 years. in 13 years medicare will go broke. today more money is going out

than is coming in. a bankrupt medicare equals no medicare for our seniors. these are people who paid in to medicare, but a bankrupt medicare means no medicare. if washington doesn't show leadership now, today, this year, this program is going to run out of money and medicare patients will run out of care. now, many of my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to ignore the ticking clock and ignore reality. well, let's take a look at some of the reality that the other side is ignoring. they're ignoring the fact that the life expectancy of the united states has risen significantly since medicare was signed into law. when medicare became a law, the average at that time was 1965, life expectancy in the united states was about 70. so about average you're talking

about people being on medicare for a certain number of years. well, now through the advances in modern medicine, life expectancy in the united states is almost 80. high 70's for men, low 80's for women, but it's about 80. people are living about ten years longer now on average than they were at the time medicare was signed into law in 1965. it's an undenial fact. another fact is the fact that there are about 10,000 people, new medicare recipients, adding to the rolls every day as baby boomers turn 65. an entire generation of baby boomers is retiring. the other side seems to ignore the fact that there are far more retirees today than ever before and they are getting more money paid out of the program than they ever put in. now, i have town hall meetings, i travel around the state of wyoming, and people say i paid

into medicare and they are absolutely right. on average, a couple that would be retiring this week has paid into medicare about $110,000. that's over a lifetime of working. that's a significant amount of money they have paid in. so what kind of services will they receive over the remainder of their lifetime, adjusted for today's dollars? $343,000. so you're talking about $109,000 they have paid into the system, taking out $343,000. well, american seniors know that medicare is in trouble, they understand that the math doesn't add up. that this $3 coming out for every $1 paid in cannot work forever. my friends on the other side who attack republicans for want to go address this problem in a

responsible way tend to want to ignore this reality. to make matters worse, members on the other side actually voted for a health care law that puts medicare on an even faster track to bankruptcy. in fact, the president's health care law cuts $500 billion from medicare. not to save medicare, not to strengthen medicare, not to secure medicare for the next generation, no. they took $500 billion from our seniors on medicare to start a whole new government program for someone else. and so it was no surprise to me when i read recently that those folks who take a hook at the numbers, work for government, say medicare is going to be broke five years sooner than even they had anticipated. it's odd how democrats never even mention this when they attack republican plans to save medicare. well, when they run advertisements and hold press

conferences focused on scare tactics, why don't they ever explain their own $500 billion cut to medicare? it's also odd to me that the democrats never talk about the other very significant piece of the president's health care law that attacks our seniors on medicare. hidden away in the bill, it is called the president's independent payment advisory board or ipab. now, as a doctor who has practiced medicine for 25 years in casper, wyoming, i can tell you what this board really is. it is a rationing board. a board to ration health care of our seniors in this country. now, rationing some may say is a very strong word, but that is exactly what it is. the president's health care law puts medicare on the road to

rationing. this health care law creates an unelected, unaccountable board of washington bureaucrats who will decide, will decide how much medicare pays for certain medicare services. starting in 2014, after the next presidential election, starting in 2014, members of the board will decide how much they will reimburse hospitals, how much they will reimburse doctors for taking care of medicare patients. then providers all across this country will have to decide whether or not they can continue to care for america's seniors. let's face it, even today doctors are running away from taking care of patients on medicare. according to the american medical association, one in three primary care doctors already limits how many medicare

patients they are willing to see. according to the same survey from the american medical association, 60% of doctors say that they are looking for ways to get out of medicare completely. so even more providers are going to stop seeing medicare patients. this situation will continue to get worse. if you don't believe me, ask the seniors in your own community. when a doctor retires, ask somebody on medicare how easy it is for them to find a doctor to take care of them. if they happen to be with a doctor when they turn 65, ask if they are allowed to stay with that doctor or if they move to another community to be closer to their children or grandchildren, ask them how easy it is or how difficult it is for those on medicare to find a doctor. the reason, of course, is because medicare pays a lot less than the going rate, but yet the democrats and the president's solution is to pay even a lower amount and continuing to ration

and ratchet down that amount, resulting significantly in additional rationing of care as our seniors find it harder and harder to find physicians and nurses to take care of them. the other thing about this rationing board is it actually gets worse when you take a look at the details. it will be practically impossible for this congress or any congress to overturn the rationing board's recommendations. again, to me, it seems very odd that my friends on the other side of the aisle don't talk about this rationing board when they hold their medicare events. but as nancy pelosi said, first you have to pass it before you get to find out what's in it. the american people continue to find out what's in this health care law, and they continue to oppose it. i would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if you're so proud of the work you

have done on medicare, then you should stand up and defend this rationing board. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle should explain to american seniors how it will work and how it will impact their care. america deserves a thorough and honest debate about the future of medicare and how we got to this point and how we can in a responsible way strengthen and secure medicare for those on medicare and for the next generation. now, madam president, i bring this all to you today because today a new study has come out in the "new england journal of medicine," just came out today, and it has to do not with medicare, a program for our seniors, but with medicaid, a program for low-income and specifically in many cases for children. and the study from the "new england journal of medicine" today talks about how very difficult it is for people, specifically children on

medicaid, to even get an appointment to see a doctor. during the health care debate over the last year, i have come to the floor continuously, talked about the fact that many physicians refuse to take patients on medicaid because the reimbursement from the government is lower than the cost of actually even treating the patient in terms of pain, office expenses and other things, and this study out today in today's "new england journal of medicine" talks about researchers in chicago who called a number of doctors' offices with identical voice, same person calling, actually, the same office a month apart, with the same symptoms of the same child, whether it was asthma or different sorts of conditions, diabetes, a child for care, and the question came do you have insurance, are they on medicaid?

what they found is that for 89% of those with insurance were able to get an appointment, regular insurance. of those saying no, we have medicaid -- and they called hundreds and hundreds of offices and republicans. for those on medicaid, only one in three was able to get an appointment. i mean, think about that. and it's something for our seniors to think about as well as the president's rationing board pays less and less for a visit to a doctor, and we have talked about the fact that medicare rates as a result of the $500 billion cut from medicare will be in many places similar to medicaid rates, so i would assume at some point very soon seniors are going to have the exact same amount of trouble getting an appointment to see a physician as the "new england

journal of medicine" found today for children on medicaid. and with that, madam president, i will say i will continue to come back to the senate floor week after week with a doctor's second opinion about a health care law because week after week, we see new information, new relevant information about how the impact of this law, this broad, sweeping law, significant changes for the health care of all americans, how it is in my opinion bad for patients, bad for providers, the nurses and doctors who take care of them, and bad for our taxpayers. with that, madam president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. coons: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware is recognized. mr. coons: i ask unanimous consent that my entire statement be submitted for the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coons: mr. president, i rise today to speak to the proceedings that have just occurred in this body with regard to ethanol. and to talk about how i see them from the perspective of my home state of delaware.

today the senate agreed phon a path forward to en end federal subsidies for corn-based ethanol. the votes on today's amendments were a reflection of where we're from. for delaware, agriculture is the single-largest part of our economy. we grow a lot of corn, a lot of soybeans. we have companies investing in advanced biofuels and we have a major poultry industry. and today i voted for delaware's poultry growers and for our consumers, lots of folks across this country in the last few years have lostary jobs, lost their homes, lost their livelihoods. it is important that the people of delaware know on the record that the vote i cast today to end federal subsidies for ethanol was about voting to make sure that we are supporting our home state poultry industry. my main exern is that one of the most important economic engines not just in delaware but on the whole delmarva peninsula is the

poultry industry. at a time when many other ag industries are seeing record prices and that is a positive thing, a boone for them, for the poultry industry, it is forcing companies to rethink their business models or sadly in one case just last week, one of the most important and vital powell dry companies in delaware shut its doors and went into bankruptcy. we need to move away from corn-based ethanol and towards homegrown advanced biofuels if we are going to accomplish three goals at the same time. one is to reduce our deficit, to end unwise and unnecessary federal spending. second, is to support and advance and defend our poultry industry, whether this delmarva or throughout the rest of the country. and third is to continue to move, to make progress towards the future of clean, promising biofuels that are not from grain. the amendment i just voted for closes the door on corn-based ethanol, but in my view that should not prevent us from

finding a path forward to advance biofuels, those not from grain, whether cellulosic biofuels or those developed from algae or otherwise. today also filed an amendment with senator carper, the senior senator from delaware, makes it clear that as we close the door on corn-based ethanol we need to do two oir things going forward. first use those billions of dollars in savings to reduce the deficit. and, second, redirect funds formerly committed to vtec to support an important but just-beginning, a nation-advanced biofuels industry. ultimately, the policies we pursue should lead to american consumers, producers and farmers using less petroleum and more importantly using less oil from overseas sources. if we are going to reduce or dependence on fossil fuels and especially on those that we import from overseas, we're going to need to continue to pursue a range of cleaner and more secure sources of energy. advanced biofuels are central to this effort. now that we have taken the

important first step by adopting the feinstein-coburn amendment and significant nailing the intent of this body to end federal subsidies for corn-based ethanol, i hope that we will also responsibly pay down our federal deficit and continue a strong path forward towards the advanced biofuels that dellians are making a -- that delawareans are making a significant contribution towards making a relativet

the presiding officer: the senator from utah is recognized. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: mr. president, our nation's challenges grow day by day. the citizens of utah get this. the citizens of this country get this.

the recent nbc news "wall street journal" poll found that 62% of americans think the country is on the wrong track. only 37% of americans approve of the president's job of handling the economy. i would like to meet those people, because when i talk to utahans, the numbers are much lower than that, and i understand why. applications for unemployment have been about 400,000 for seven straight weeks. economic growth is stagnant. job growth is pathetic. the real estate market remains in free fall. since 2007 housing values have dropped by more than during the great depression. medicare is going bankrupt. and when it does, it will take down this country and tens of millions of seniors with it. yet, president obama and his democratic allies steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that there's a problem with medicare. former speaker nancy pelosi, when asked where the democrats reform plan was, responded --

quote -- "we have a plan. it's called medicare." meanwhile, the president's hand-picked chairwoman of the democratic national committee demagogues republicans' toefrts fix this dying program. there are fears the policy is creating yet another stock market bubble that could pop and destroy the retirement savings of millions of americans. and most ominously pinco, the world's largest bond fund manager, is look to go countries like australia, canada, brazil and mexico, countries without our massive fiscal problems, to invest in. as i've said before, there is a genuine risk that the united states is in a debt bubble. because of historically low interest rates, we may be totally underestimating how dangerously leveraged this country is. but the minute that rates start going up, citizens are going to realize how much they're really

on the hook for. and when the word on the street is that u.s. treasuries are not worth investing in, higher interest rates are just around the corner. so we have a lot of work to do. but i want to touch on three things that we should be doing now, and i mean right now. the people are demanding action, and there are a few things that congress can do today that would bring relief to struggling american families. first, the president needs to submit the colombia, panama and south korean free trade agreements to congress. they are long overdue. the failure to submit these agreements stalled u.s. job growth at a time when it is desperately needed. there is only upside to these agreements. consider that from utah alone, south korea imported more than $294 million of goods in 2009. the former director of the congressional budget office, doug holtz-eakin, has it right.

this is what he said earlier this week in a letter to the president -- quote -- "opening colombia, south korea, and panama to u.s. businesses is anticipated to increase total exports by $12 billion and will add at least $14 billion to the united states gross domestic product, promoting increased investment and job creation at home." unquote. when the president was down in florida kwrubging it up with -- yukking it up with rich liberals, he seems oblivious to the fact that he could just send -- or should i say deliver these agreements to congress and have a trade-driven economic stimulus. if given a clean up-or-down vote, i am confident these agreements would pass. i have no doubt who will prevail if that debate were allowed to happen. but old habits die hard. the president's first mentality is cluttering up what should be

a clean debate on the benefit of these three trade agreements for the american economy. rumors persist that the president may include a reauthorization of the expanded trade adjustment assistance bill into one or perhaps all of the bills implementing our trade agreements with colombia, panama and south korea. this would be a grave mistake. that tactic raises serious procedural concerns which could jeopardize approval of these job-creating agreements. it also raises serious concerns about the president's commitment to gaining approval of our long-stalled trade agreements with these important allies. it would send a signal that further placating unions is more important than growing our economy, a position that i simply cannot understand or support. if the president chooses this course of action, he needs to know that i will vigorously oppose him and reserve the right to use all procedural options available to do so. if, as the president says, there is such strong bipartisan

support for trade adjustment assistance, it should be considered on its own merits and not thrust upon an unwilling congress through procedural shenanigans. these trade agreements are something that washington can do and should do to get our economy back on track. but we must also be vigilant in fighting against proposals that would undermine our economy and our sovereignty. standard & poor's recently downgraded greece's debt rating to triple-c from a "b." this is the world's lowest rating. and s&p concluded that a default on greek debt was increasingly likely. so what was the president's response? like the siren's call arcs bailout beckon. he seemed to go for a bailout of greece. greece has already been bailed out by the i.m.f. to the tune of

$145 billion. we cannot let this happen again. that is why today i am cosponsoring the antii.m.f. -- anti-i.m.f. bailout. this would rescind bailout funds provided in 2009 to the international monetary fund. under the urging of the obama administration, additional funding of up to $108 billion was given to the i.m.f. which it can use to bail out heavily indebted european countries like greece. the amendment i'm cosponsoring would roll that funding back. now is not the time when americans are struggling to find work and have budget problems of their own to tap innocent american taxpayers in order to bail out profligate european governments. rather, it is time to stop our own runaway spending and our continued movement toward european levels of government. if we go down that route, the

destination is an america very different than the one our founders intended, and it is critical that we hit the brakes now and save our limited constitutional government. the american people are tired of bailouts. when ordinary americans are struggling to get by and when our country faces its own debt crisis, the last thing we need is a bailout of irresponsible social governments and irresponsible investors who bet on them which brings me to my final point. earlier this week my colleague and senator from florida, senator marco rubio gave his maiden speech in the senate. he is to be commended. i sat here and listened. it was a tour de force. i recommend all my colleagues and for that matter all the citizens of this nation read it. he made it clear he is confident in this nation and our ability to weather the current storm and emerge in rich and steady seas. america's best days are ahead of it. america has been and will always

be a shining city on the hill. but for there to be another american century, a century of liberty and prosperity both here and abroad, we have our work cut out for us. americans owe $14 trillion in debt. actually $14.5 trillion. we face our third year of trillion-dollar deficits. we have entitlement programs that are going bankrupt. thupbd presidency, we have lift -- under this presidency we have lifted the debt ceiling three times. the last one, as i recall correctly, was about $1.9 trillion. and we've basically just given congress and the administration -- we've basically given the administration an open checkbook to write checks. we have entitlement programs that are going bankrupt. our total obligations, according to one account, are over $62 trillion. this is a debt burden that is simply unsustainable. we need to get our spending under control immediately.

otherwise american families and businesses will be crushed under the weight of all this debt. the other side keeps telling us the problem is the lack of revenue. they say all we need to do is raise taxes and eliminate tax loopholes. never mind the fact that raising taxes threatens to kill the small businesses that will be the engines of our economic recovery. never mind the fact that these so-called loopholes include the ira's, 401(k)s and charitable deductions of american taxpayers. let's not make any bones about it, the less proposal to gut tax expenditures would put a bull's eye on the backs of working families that have mortgages and save for the future. and in the spirit of bipartisanship, as an aside to some of my friends on my side of the aisle who seem to think all tax expenditures are wasteful spending, consider the following: the third-largest tax expenditure is the current lower rates for capital gains and dividends. be careful, my friends.

otherwise, you might inadvertently find yourself sharing the stage with my friend, the junior senator from vermont, in effect advocating for a sharp hike in the rate on capital gains and dividends. even if liberal democrats did all of these things -- raising taxes on middle americans and furthering hindering economic growth -- we still would come nowhere close to balancing the budget. this is the dirty secret about the failure of president obama and democratic leadership to engage in meaningful efforts to balance the budget. as my colleague from alabama ... as my colleague from alabama, the ranking member of the senate budget committee notes, it has been more than 770 days since democrats passed a budget. that's disgraceful. for over two years congressional democrats have simply and kaeutd their most -- abdicated their most basic congressional responsibility, and here's why. they refuse to cut spending and

they know balancing the budget through new taxes alone would be an assault on liberty and limited government. instead of offering up a bogus government as the president did and get laughed out of town or offering up a proposal for balance that satisfies their liberal base, raises the tax burden to historic levels and inspires the vitriol of their constituents, democrats decide to keep their mouth shut. so where does that leave us? the answer to me is clear. we need to pass a balanced budget constitutional amendment. this is where the entire republican caucus stands in the senate. the amendment that i introduced, s.j. res. 10, is supported by every single senate republican. i believe it's the first time that all republican senators have supported it. it is a good amendment, benefited from the input of many senators. and it is a necessary amendment. some people, the sophisticated set, argue that this is not a

serious proposal. well, the american people beg to differ. they know that congress will not balance the budget and shrink the size of government without meaningful constitutional restraints. the actions of democrats and president obama over the last few months are all the evidence we need to support this hypothesis. facing a full-blown debt crisis, they still prefer to kick the spending can down the road. i want to be clear that i am deadly serious about this proposal, and so are the people of utah. i have been pleased to work side by side with my colleague from utah, senator mike lee, on the balanced budget amendment and senator cornyn and all the other republicans. some people might say that mike lee and i are an odd couple. i have a few years on him. i don't intend to be as animated as he is. he is a great young man with a lot of energy. we share at least one thing -- an absolute commitment to

passing a balanced budget amendment constitutional amendment and sending it to the people of the states for ratification. people are demanding that we act, and it's well past time that we recognize their constitutional sovereignty and allow them to exercise it through state ratifying conventions. i would like to commend senator lee for his tireless work on this amendment. he is not the only one who deserves thanks, however. my colleagues, senators cornyn, kyl, toomey, demint, paul, and many others were all essential in the development of this amendment. but it really is special for me to be working with my friend, senator lee, on this critical constitutional amendment. he is a legitimate constitutional scholar, a steadfast advocate of our constitutionally limited government and a hero to many, and i could not be prouder to stand with him and lead this fight for the people of utah and the taxpayers of this country. if the american people said anything last fall, it is that they want their representatives

in washington to listen to them. they know that we won't get it right every time, but they know that we should always do our best to represent their values and their interests. this congress needs to listen to the people. it needs to get these trade agreements done without holding them hostage to unrelated spending. it needs to say no to more bailouts, and it needs to pass a balanced budget constitutional amendment. in this country, the people are sovereign. i would have to say if we would pass that constitutional amendment through the senate, i believe we would get it through the house, and then it's up to the states. you still have to get three quarters of the states to ratify it. and to the extent the democrats hate the constitutional amendment and hate that kind of restraint on their spending practices, they can leave the battle in the states. the problem is they know that that -- that this constitutional amendment would be ratified so

fast our heads would be spinning. you need 38 states to ratify a constitutional amendment, and that's not easy under anybody's view. in this country, let's let the people decide that. they are sovereign. it is well past time the congress and the president listen to them. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president? i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: and i ask for consent to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, like yourself, i've served both in the house of representatives and in the united states senate, and during the course of my career have been called on to make many votes, most of them fade into obscurity after they're cast and are never recalled again. but there are a few that you'll

remember for a lifetime, and i would say that at the highest level in that category are the times when we're called upon, as members of congress, to consider a declaration of war. many of us have lost sleep over those decisions. i've thought about those votes long and hard. no matter how just the war may be or how important it may be, you cannot help but reflect on the fact that at the end of the day, people will die as a result of your decision if you go forward in terms of a declaration of war. and i've lost sleep over those decisions. i've tried to, during the course of making those decisions, be guided by several principles. first, as members of the congress, both in the house and senate, we swear to uphold and defend the constitution. and i've felt that that constitution is my startingpoint for my responsibility and my rights as a member of the united states senate when it comes to this issue. the constitution is very clear

in article 1, section 8, clause 11, that only the congress can declare war. the decision was made by our founding fathers that the people of the united states literally would have a voice in this decision. it wouldn't be a decision made only by the chief executive. because ultimately the people and their families and their children would pay the price of a war, in human terms, the loss of life, and of course in the covelet of that war that is born by our nation. i also am good guided by those who gave me this opportunity to serve. i think about my state of illinois, the fathers, mother, children across that state who could be affected by that decision if our nation goes to wamplet i also like to think in terms of whether the war is absolutely necessary, in terms of the defense of the united states of america. in some cases -- some cases are

easier calls. when we were attache attacked o, many knew that 3,000 innocent americans died at the hand of terrorists. i didn't hesitate to vote for a declaration of war against those forces in afghanistan responsible for that attack on the united states. we went through a parallel debate at the same time about the invasion of iraq. i didn't believe that the previous president had made a compelling case for the invasion of iraq. if you'll recall at the time the debate was about weapons of mass destruction that could threaten the middle east or even the united states. i voted against that declaration of war in iraq. 23 of us did in the senate, 22 democrats and one republican. we came to learn that there were no weapons of mass destruction. many of the threats which gave rise to the president's request turned out to not be factual at all. well, we are finally, finally,

more than ten years later, starting to bring those troops home from iraq, and we paid a heavy price. americans killed and maimed and in the cost to our nation. so each time that we have been challenged as a senate and a house to consider a declaration of war, i have thought long and hard about it. my constitutional responsibilities, my responsibility to the people of my state and whether such a war was absolutely necessary. now we are engaged in three wars, wars in iraq, afghanistan, and in libya. and shortly we will be considering the authority of the president of the united states to continue our involvement in libya. i'm going to ha ply the same standard, constitutional standard, and standard of judgment to that decision that i have to every other declaration of war or every other approval of hostilities by the united states, engagement in haas stilts as i have in the --

hostilities as i have in the past. this president is my friend. he was my colleague in the senate. we're in the same political party but tbh comes to aaro an e of this gravity, we have to think about our nation, our constitution, and our responsibility to the people that we represent. we have learned during the course of our history that presidents don't always come to congress when they initiate a war. president franklin roosevelt d he came to congress shortly after, in fact the day after the attack on pearl harbor, in december of 1941, and asked for the authority and permission to go forward with a war that would be waged against those who had attacked us. and then came the korean conflict, which was not characterized in firm terms as a war because president truman didn't come to congress asking thor that authority. it was -- i had two brothers

incidentally, who served in the united states snat navy during the korean conflict. they always used to say jokingly it was a police action with real bullets. and i know because many innocent americans died in the course of that korean conflict. yet there was no formal declaration of war. vietnam was a war that i paid much closer attention to because it came at a time when i was in college and law school, and my friends were being asked to serve. again, there was no official declaration of war. after vietnam and after the tremendous loss of life and all the controversy associated with it, there was a debate in the halls of congress about whether or not we needed to be more specific in terms of the authority of a president to go to war. and so congress enacted the war powers resolution in the 1970's which spelled out in specific terms the responsibility of the president when he would ask this nation to go to war.