partners must understand that they will no longer conduct business with the regime in tehran with impunity. mr. speaker, these are times of sharp partisan divide in our nation's capital, but today we have a chance to together to take a major step forward in the interest of world peace. the time for decisive action to head off the regime in iran's nuclear program is now. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i yield myself -- before i yield to the majority leader, i'm just going to yield to myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. berman: one year and three months ago america's goal -- america was pretty isolated in its goal of trying to stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon. we absolutely need to move

we absolutely need to move quickly because iran is moving quickly. but there can be no doubt that the result of the events of the past 15 months have changed the dynamic fundamentally where the international community now recognizes the threat of iran's nuclear weapons proposes, and it is iran that's isolated not america. that is a direct result of the fundamental change of power. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. berman: i now am pleased to yield one minute to the great advocate of this legislation, and achieving this goal, the majority leader. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend of some 45 years, the chairman of the committee, for yielding. and i want to, before i start my remarks, say that i agree with you. with respect to his observations regarding the obama administration's efforts that are bearing positive fruit with

respect to our allies around the world. we are not where we need to be and they are not all allies, but they certainly are partners in responding to this threat to the international community. we know what a grave danger a nuclear iran would pose to america's security, to our ally israel security, and indeed to the security of the international community. that is why, mr. berman, ms. ros-lehtinen reported out a bill, that is why we passed a bill, that's why the senate has passed a bill, now it's time to go to conference. it's time to resolve the differences that exist and send a clear and unmistakable message. the dangerous consequences of inaction range from a fierce regional arms race to a nuclear umbrella for terrorism, to the unthinkable with american and international security at stake,

iran's nuclearization is a grave, proximate threat and cannot stand. that is why the united states must do everything in its power, mr. speaker, to stop iran's nuclear pursuit. through years of diplomatic silence, iran's nuclear program grew. president obama took a course of patient engagement. and while iran's unwillingness to negotiate in good faith has been exposed to the world, it has grown even closer to its goal. today the international atomic energy agency feels that iran has enough low enriched uranium for two nuclear bombs. so time is of the essence. by proceeding with this motion, congress moves closer to the imposition of sanctions that will hit the iranian economy at its weakest point. its banking system, the

revolution card -- guard corps, and the refined petroleum that iran defends upon. i support strongly this motion knowing full well that sanctions are never a perfectly precise instrument and that they may mean hardship for ordinary iranians who already suffer under the repressive regime in iran. but i support sanctions nonetheless because they can work with the international community recognizes the outlaw nation poses a common threat to us all. a case president obama and secretary clinton are making persuasively as was the point of the chairman of the committee to our fellow security council members. and the case the administration continued to make at this month's nuclear security summit. an extraordinary summit, i might add, of historical precedence, where 47 nations from around the

world came here to washington to meet together, including the president of china, to say that nuclear proliferation poses a danger to all, not just a single nation, not just to a regional group of nations, but to all. i support sanctions because tehran can choose at any time to negotiate in good faith and setaside its aggressive nuclear pursuit. i support sanctions because when properly designed they can be a source of powerful pressure on the iranian regime. pressure both external and internal. as britain's telegraph newspaper reported on monday, i report, there is now increasing resentment that iran's once popular nuclear program could be distracting from more urgent needs in the face of economic mismanagement and sanctions. far from resenting the u.s. designed sanctions, iranians

blame the slowdown on their own government. going on to quote, nuclear energy is something that i supported but why go about it in this way? asked an iranian citizen. a pensioner and father of two. he went on to ask, if it is legitimate, then why are we suffering for it in this way? if it's not legitimate, then do it in the right way or give it up. we are paying too heavy a price. so said an iranian citizen about that country's nuclear ambitions. it is my belief, my colleagues, that if smart sanctions take effect, more and more iranians will come to the same conclusion. and so, hopefully, will the iranian regime. sanctions will show the regime that its embrace of nuclear proliferation carries a cost that is far too high.

we cannot expect a change of heart from tehran, but we can demand a change of behavior. my colleagues, this action is timely and perhaps past time, but it is always timely to do the right thing. to speak up, to act, and to encourage our allies as well. and our partners, and our fellow citizens in this globe to act in a way that will protect them and protect our international community. so i rise in strong support of this motion to go to conference. and the motion to instruct and i thank my chairman for his leadership on this issue. he is working both to have effective action taken by the congress and to assist the administration in reaching the

objective in as positive a way as possible. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i continue to reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves her time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. nadler: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, we all know that the prospect of an iranian state armed with nuclear weapons is simply intolerable for the world. it o poses an exi sention threat to our ally, israel. it would pose a threat of terrorism all over the middle east under a nuclear umbrella so we wouldn't be able to oppose what iran was doing. it poses a threat of a nuclear arms race in the middle east. it poses the threat that we cannot rule out that this regood morning, america will give a

nuclear weapon to a terrorist group like al qaeda to use, we can only guess where. and finally, some people say, you know, we coexist with a nuclear soviet union for 40 years, 50 years. we deterred them. deterrence works. deterrence cannot work when you have a government that is religious in nature, many of whose elements are of the belief that the final destruction of israel, even if it cause as nuclear war, would bring on the return of the hidden i amman more -- imman more quickly. you cannot deter a suicide bomber which is in essence what parts of the identify rain government are. we must prevent iran from getting nuclear weapons. we must avoid the hobson choice of having the situation where the advisors come into the president and say, mr. president, here are the two choices. one, do nothing and iran will have nuclear weapons in a couple weeks. two, militarily attack iran.

we don't want that choice. we have to avoid a choice of military action or nuclear iran. the bush administration was here for eight years. they pursued a policy of talk tough and carry a tooth pick. they talked tough, but stopped nothing. and for eight years the centrifuges increasesed -- increased in number and went round and round and came closer to a nuclear iran. now we have an administration that comes with a policy of big sticks and carrots. and says first we will engage the iranians. we'll show them the advantages and we will by so doing establish the foundation for unified not unilateral sanctions action against iran if necessary. now we have reached the stage where we have to start engaging in real sanctions. and we have allies and we will get those sanctions and we must take tough sanctions to avoid the hobson's choice. this resolution before us is part of that to impose tough sanctions on the iranians to

make them reconsider or to make it impossible to them to develop nuclear weapons. . so we must pass this resolution because we don't want a hobson's choice of a military action or a nuclear iran. the latter of which is intolerable and the first of which is something we should not ever want. so i urge my colleagues to pass this resolution, and i thank the gentleman from california, the gentlelady from florida for bringing it to the floor. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady. ms. ros-lehtinen: we continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: reserves her time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, one of the original creators of the concept to refined petroleum sanctions two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two

minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. speaker, and thank you, mr. chairman. there is a jfble broad consensus in this country -- justifiable broad consensus in this country and in this congress that iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. the issue is how to achieve that objective and why to achieve that objective. we cannot act in isolation to achieve the optive. we must act to isolate iran. this has been the fruit of the persistent diplomacy engaged in by the administration, assisted very nobly by our chairman berman, our ranking member, that has brought us to the point where the world is now isolating iran. iran stands essentially alone in support of the proposition that its behavior has been justifiable. the sanctions that are proposed by the underlying bill will be effective because they will

force the iranian leadership to choose between the prospect of prosperity if they drop their nuclear she connery and the certainly of economic distress if they persist in retaining it. the sanctions -- the iranians should switch from gasoline to natural gas as a means. in the early 1930's there were ugly statements and vicious images coming out of europe. people insisted that people who worried about that were exaggerating the threat. so much of the world, including, sadly, the united states turned away as those ugly signals were sent. the tragedy was of unspokeable proportions, six million people

killed in the holocaust. today, there are ugly words coming out of iran -- i would ask for 30 more seconds. mr. berman: i'm pleased to yield 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 second. mr. andrews: there are some that say that one holocaust is not enough, that the jewish state should not exist. we should learn the terrible histories of the 1930's and not repeat it. we should act decisively, swiftly with the rest of the world to impose sanctions on the iranian government. i thank the chairman for his leadership on this issue, urge a yes vote and the swift adoption of the underlying legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i have one additional speaker

requesting time. i believe the gentlelady has the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has the right to close. mr. berman: so shall we -- my speaker and your right to close. i am pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, chairman of the committee on the western hemisphere, mr. engel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. engel: i thank the chairman for yielding to me. i thank the gentlewoman from florida for her strong voice. boy, if there's anything that is bipartisan it's this resolution. the one good thing that iran has done is brought us all together because we realize that the iranian threat to the world is the world's biggest threat. iran remains the leading sponsor of terrorism around the world, and as mentioned before, the president of iran, ahmadinejad, has threatened to wipe israel if the face of the earth but the threat is not to

i ale alone, it's to europe, it's to the united states, it's to the entire world. and the entire world must be with one voice. i am a proud co-sponsor of h.r. 2194, the iran refined petroleum sanctions act, and i want to commend chairman berman for this initiative and congresswoman ileana ros-lehtinen as well. only a few short months ago the world learned of the secret iranian enrichment uranium facility. if there was ever any doubt that iran was going to build a nuclear weapon, this was kept secret from the iaea, the international atomic energy agency. it was built on a mountain near a protective military base. this is how a country conseals a nuclear weapons program and defies u.n. security council resolution, not how it develops peaceful energy technology. however, although iran is the leading producer of crude oil,

it has limited refining capacity. and this bill will increase leverage against iran by penalizing companies that export refined petroleum products to iran or finance the refining capabilities. it's my hope that the administration will make clear to the iranian regime that the world will not accept its nuclear ambition. as commarme of the subcommittee on the western hemisphere of the house foreign affairs committee, i'd also like to raise one additional concern which arose at my october hearing on iran's role in the western hemisphere. venezuela leader, hugo chavez, agreed to provide 25,000 barrels of gasoline to iran. the deal may be covered by the bill we are considered today. while some question whether venezuela has the ability to provide gasoline to iran, since it imports some gasoline to meet its own demand, chavez is meeting a perilous area. i hope chavez considers this unwise step. we must consider and keep

focusing on iran in the western hemisphere as well. the u.s., our allies and the u.n. security council has agreed that a nuclear armed iran would be a danger to our ally, israel, the middle east, the entire world. the regime murders its own citizens, represses people who want to demonstrate against its stolen election, and it's time for us to stand up. so i'm glad in a bipartisan voice this morning we say no to iran, no to nuclear weapons for clucks and a few moments, president obama encourages leaders to support legislation.

on unwashed to note -- on "washington journal" tomorrow morning, john stanton will discuss the value-added tax. a political analyst from "to the british sky news" will talk about how the party leaders are doing on their american-style televised debates. >> i think there is a huge lack of knowledge about how this town works, how congress works. >> when you are doing the actual research, you have to do that to yourself. >> this weekend, award winning historians will talk about their work, their books, and their profession. they will revisit their first appearances on our network.

>> c-span, the public affairs content is available on television, radio, and online. you can also connect with us on twitter, facebook, and youtube. >> president obama pressed his case for a tougher financial regulation during a speech in new york city. he outlined the major provisions of the legislation making its way through the senate. this is one half-hour. >> thank you. thank you very much. [applause] thank you. thank you very much. everybody, please have a seat. thank you very much. it is good to be back.

it is good to be back in new york. it is great to be back in the great hall in cooper union. we have some special guests that i want to acknowledge. congresswoman carolyn maloney is in the house. [applause] gov. david paterson is here. [applause] attorney general andrew cuomo. [applause] state comptroller thomas to nepali is here. [applause] the mayor of new york city, michael bloomberg. [applause] dr. george campbell, jr., the

president of cooper union. [applause] and all the citywide elected officials, thank you for being here. it is great to be back in cooper and union where generation of leaders and citizens have come to defend their ideas and contest their differences. it is also great to be back in lower manhattan. it is just a few blocks from wall street. [laughter] it really is good to be back. [laughter] because wall street is the heart of our financial sector. since i last spoke here two years ago, our country has been through a terrible trial. 8 million people have lost their jobs. countless small businesses have had to close their doors. trillions of dollars in savings have been lost.

as a nation, we were forced to take unprecedented steps to rescue the financial system and the broader economy. as a result of the decisions we made, some of which were very unpopular, we are seeing hopeful signs. a little more than one year ago, we were losing an average of 760,000 jobs each month. today, america it is adding jobs again. one year ago, the economy was shrinking rapidly. today, the economy is growing. in fact, we have seen the fastest turnaround in growth in nearly three decades. but you're here and i am here because we have more work to do. we cannot be satisfied until

the millions of our neighbors who are looking for work can find a job and wages are growing at a meaningful pace. we may be able to claim a technical recovery, but we will not have truly recovered. even as we seek to revive its economy, it is incumbent on us to rebuild it stronger than before. we don't want to economy that has the same weaknesses that led to this crisis. that means of addressing some of the underlying problems that led to this turmoil and devastation in the first place. one of the most significant contributors to this recession was a financial crisis as dire as any we have known in generations, at least since the 1930's. that crisis was born out of a failure of responsibility, from wall street, all the way to washington, that brought down some of the world's biggest

financial forms and almost brought us into a great depression. it was the failure of responsibility that i talked about here in new york city two years ago, before the worst of the crisis had unfolded. this was back in 2007. i take no satisfaction in knowing that my comments that have largely been borne out by the events that have followed. but i repeat what i had said that because it is essential that we learn the lessons from this crisis so that we do not do them ourselves to repeat. make no mistake, that is exactly what will happen if we allow this moment to pass. that is an outcome that is unacceptable to me and is unacceptable to you, the american people. [cheers and applause] as i said on the staged two

years ago, i believe in the power of the free market. i believe that a strong financial sector that helps people to raise capital and get loans and invest their savings. that is part of what has made america what it is. but a free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get however you can get it. that is what happened too often in the years leading to the crisis. some -- let me be clear, not all -- but some on wall street forgot that every dollar traded or leveraged as a family looking for a house or trying to pay for education or opening a business or saving for retirement. what happened on wall street has real consequences across the country, across our economy. i have also spoken before about the need to build a new

foundation for economic growth in the 21st century. given the importance of the financial sector, wall street reform is an absolutely essential part of the foundation. without it, and our house will continue to sit on shifting sands. our families, businesses, and the global economy will be vulnerable to future crises. ññññññññññññññññññññññññññ but his wife also strongly to ensure accountability on wall street and to protect consumers on main street. [applause] here's the good news. a comprehensive plan to achieve these goals has already been presented to the house of representatives. [applause] a senate version is currently

being debated, drawing on ideas from democrats and republicans. both bills represent significant improvement on the broad rules that we have today. despite the furious effort by industry lobbyists to shape this legislation -- i am sure some of these lobbyists work for you in the private sector. they are doing what they're paid to do. but i am here today, specifically, to speak specifically to the titans of industry. i want you to join us in this effort. [cheers and applause] i am here because i believe that these reforms are, in the end, not only in the best interest of our country, but in the best interest of the financial sector. i am here to explain what reform will look like and why it

matters. first, the bill being considered in the senate will create what we did not have before -- a way to protect the financial system and the broader economy and american taxpayers in the event that a large financial firm begins to fail. how can we respond in a way that does not force taxpayers to pick up the tab? in an ordinary local bank, when it approaches insolvency, we have an orderly process through the fdic that insures that depositors are protected, maintains confidence in the banking system, and it works. customers and the taxpayers are protected and owners and management lose their equity. but we do not have that kind of

process designed to contain the failure of a lehman brothers or any of the largest and most interconnected firms in our country. that is why, when this crisis began, companies employing tens of thousands of people and holding billions of dollars in assets had to hurry and had discussions in the middle of the night. we had to deploy taxpayer dollars. much of that money has now been paid back. my administration has proposed a fee be paid by large financial firms to recover all of the money, every dime, because the american people should never have been put in that position in the first place. [applause] this is why we need a system to shut these firms down with the least amount of collateral

damage to innocent people and innocent businesses. from the start, i have insisted that the financial industry, not taxpayers, shoulder the cost in the event that a large financial companies should fall. the goal is to make certain that taxpayers are never again on the hook because a firm is deemed too big to fail. there is a legitimate debate taking place about how best to ensure taxpayers are held harmless in this process. that is a legitimate debate. i encourage that debate. what is not legitimate is to suggest that somehow the legislation being proposed is going to encourage future taxpayer bailouts, as some have tried. that makes for a good sound bite, but it is not actually accurate. is not true. in fact, the system as it stands --

[applause] the system as it stands is what led to the series of costly taxpayer bailouts and it is only with a reform that we can avoid a similar outcome in the future. in other words, a vote for reform is a vote to put a stop to taxpayer bailouts. that is the true spirit. end a story. [applause] and no one should be fooled in this debate. the bill would also enact what is known as the voekler rule. [applause] this will run only safeguard our system against crises.

this will also make our system stronger and more competitive by instilling confidence here at home and across the globe. markets depend on that. part of what led to the turmoil in the past two years is that, in the absence of clear rules and sound practice, people did not trust that our system as one that was safe to invest or lend. as we have seen, that has for all of us. so that is the first thing. no. 2, reform would bring new transparency to many financial markets. as you know, of part of what led to this crisis or firms like

aig and others who were making huge and risky bets using derivatives and other complicated financial instruments in ways that the fight accountability or even common sense. in fact, many practices were so opaque, so confusing, so complex, that the people inside the firms did not understand them. they were not fully aware of the massive debts that were being place. that is what led warren buffett to call derivatives as financial weapons of mass destruction. that is what he called them. that is why reform will rein in excess and ensure that these kinds of practices see the light of day. there are a lot of companies who use these instruments to

legitimate end. a business might hedge against rising fuel costs. they can rein in a decent price. that is the way markets are supposed to work. the problem is that these markets operated in the shadows of our economy, invisible to the regulators and invisible to the public. these practices were rampant. risks accrued dangerously.

i was encouraged to see a republican senator join democrats this week on this issue. [applause] that is a good sign. with that action, we will continue to see what highly leveraged and loosely monitored gambling in our system. third, this legislation would enacted the strongest protection devore. -- strongest financial protections ever. [applause] this financial crisis was not just the result of decisions made on wall street.

it was also a result of decisions made at kitchen tables across america. while it is true that many americans to own financial obligations that they knew or should have known that they could have not afforded, many were duped. many were hurt by conditions in the fine print. while a few companies made out like bandits, our economy was made it vulnerable. millions of people have now lost their homes. tens of millions more have lost value in their homes. economy has felt the pain, whether you are behaving -- whether you are paving driveways in arizona or selling houses in ohio for your dream home repairs in california or you're using your home equity to started small business in florida.

that is why we need to give consumers more protection and more power in our financial system. this is a lot about stifling competition were stifling innovation. it is the opposite. with a dedicated agency setting ground rules and looking out for very people in our financial system, we will impart consumers with clear and concise and -- we will empower consumers with clear and concise financial information when they are making financial decisions. ññññññññññññññññññññññññ instead of competing to offer confusing products, companies will compete to the old fashion way, by offering better products. that will mean more choices for consumers, more opportunities stability in our financial system. depends on bilking people, there is little to fear from these new[applause] #4, this is the last component.

these wall street reforms will give shareholders new power in the financial system. they will get what we call "a say on pay," a voice on the bonuses given to top executives. there will have authority to determine who manages the company in which they have placed their savings. americans do not begrudge anybody for success when that success is earned. but when we read in the past and sometimes in the present about exorbitant bonuses while taking government money offends all of us.

they can take -- they can create perverse incentives to take excessive risks. it led to a situation where folks with the most to lose, stock and pension holders, have the least to say in the process. that has to change. [applause] let me close by saying this. i have laid out the set of wall street reforms. these are reforms that will put an end to taxpayer bailout, that will bring complex financial dealings out of the status, that will protect consumers, and it will give shareholders more power.

we also need more reform in washington. [applause] the debate over these changes is a perfect example. we have seen battalions of financial industry lobbyists descending on capitol hill, firms spending millions to influence the outcome of this debate. we have seen misleading arguments and attacks that are designed not to improve the bill but to weaken or to kill it. we have seen a bipartisan process buckle under the weight of these withering forces. that is even as we offered a proposal to target the root problem that led to the turmoil in our financial sector and in our entire economy.

we have seen business as usual in washington. but i believe that we can and must put this kind of cynical politics aside. we have to put an end to it. that is why i am here today. [applause] that is why i am here today. for those of you who are in the financial sector, let me say this. we will not always see eye to eye. we will not always agree. but that does not mean that we have to choose between two extremes. we do not have to choose between markets that are unfettered by even modest protections against crisis or markets that are stymied by it onerous rulesthat suppress enterprise and innovation. that is a false choice. we need no more proof then the crisis we have just been

through. managing that tension is what has allowed our country to keep up with a changing world. we make sure that we not tip one way or the other. this debate can be contentious. it can be heated. but, in the end, it serves only to make our country strong. it has allowed us to adapt and to strive. i read a report that fairly illustrates this. "through the great banking

houses of manhattan last week ran ran while live alarm. big backers stared at one another in a year and astonishment -- big bank stared at one another in a surprise and astonishment. that was in a "time magazine" in 1933. [laughter] [applause] the system that caused so much consternation, so much concern, was the federal deposit insurance corp., also known as the fdic. it is an institution that has successfully ensured the

deposits of generations of america. in the end, our system only works, our markets are only a free when there are basic safeguards that prevent abuse, that check excesses, and that insure that it is profitable to play these system. that is how we will ensure that our economy worse for consumers, -- works for consumers, that it works for investors, and that it works for financial institutions -- in other words, that it works for all of us. that is why we're working so hard to get this passed. this is a central lesson not only of this crisis but of our history. what i said when i spoke here

two years ago, ultimately, there is no divide between main street and wall street. we will rise and we will fall together as a nation. [applause] that is why i urge all of you to join me in. i urge all of you to join me. for those of you in the financial industry, i urge you to join me not only because it is the interest of your industry, but also because it is in the interest of your country. thank you so much. [applause] god bless you and god bless the united states of america. [applause] thank you.

>> on "washington journal" tomorrow morning, you can: with your questions about the immigration legislation. we will discuss the value-added tax with curtis dubay and isabelle sawhill. a political analyst from britain's "sky news" examines the coming british election. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. >> tomorrow morning, live coverage of the hearing on the 2008 financial crisis and the role of credit rating agencies, particularly standard and poor's and moody's. witnesses include former officers of both companies. that will be live here on c-span at 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> boat tv is live this weekend

from the l.a. times festival of books. these are some of the featured authors that will take your phone calls, e-mails, and tweets. get the whole schedule and booktv.org. >> we have to get this right. if we do not, we could stifle innovation. we could stifle the free market. we could stifle -- we could do more harm than good. >> as the senate gets closer to tightening regulation, look for it at our c-span video library. >> on thursday, the senate

budget committee continued its market of a budget resolution. continued its markup -- continued its market uup of a bt resolution. this is over 3 hours. >> i want to welcome staff and members back to the market. -- to the markup. i did understand that senator gramm has some questions that he would like to pose. you're free to go with your amendment, sir.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the first amendment is to deal with the top program, which -- with the top program, which -- the tarp program, which was scheduled to expire. senator gramm made an eloquent argument. the talk program avoided the financial meltdown around the world. it was supposed to expire in december 2009. this amendment removes the budget authority. i hope we can pass this

amendment. the problem now is that tarp has taken on a life and flavor that no one had envisioned. if you had told me that it was going to be used to bail out car companies, i would not have voted for it. the reason i voted for it was because i thought it was when to avoid a financial meltdown. these $44 billion have ceased to serve their purpose and it is becoming a slush fund. the authorization needs to expire. we are well past the time it should have expired. it took as a long time to do away with the spanish-american war phone tax and i do not want tarp to be around for another 100 years. it is not needed.

>> i thank the senator for his evaluation. tarp ends on october 3 of 2010. that is three days into the fiscal year. based on the cbo projection, we assume that $148 billion of the tarp funds will not be used and will not add to the debt. i think all of us were very reluctant to approve tarp funding. but it was done on a bipartisan basis. it was to avert a global financial collapse. we now know that the latest projections from cbo, the original $700 billion, will not

cost us anywhere near that amount. the latest analysis is that the $700 billion will cost us $109 billion. that is the most recent credit score. already, $181 billion has been paid back. we just had the news this week that general motors has paid back all of their loans. we still have to recoup the equity investment. i was interested to see that the chairman of gm say he believes that they will be able to sell stock and the united states will recoup all of its money.

i hope that is the case. the administration is not that optimistic that we will recoup all of the money. but we also know that, in terms of the money invested in banks, the latest estimate, we will actually make $7 billion on the money put out to banks. many of the banks have already repaid. of course, we acquired warrants on these banks in addition to loans that were extended. so the estimate is now that we

will actually make a profit of $7 billion. the president has put forth a proposal for a fee to ensure that all of the money is recovered from the industry. that is so that we would not even be out of the $109 billion. i would reluctantly oppose this amendment. the secretary of the treasury has asked that we not end it before october 4. >> i share your optimism. but there were $44 billion in this fund that is obligated. we're trying to make sure that these $44 billion do not get spent on things that had not been envisioned when we voted for tarp. i think it would be fiscally prudent to take it off the table.

>> all right, that is certainly fair, senator gramm. >> we do not needed anymore. your statement is absolutely accurate. it has worked out for the taxpayer fairly well, relative to the money that was put out to the banks, not so much for the automobiles, not so much for aig, but the banks were making money on it. there's no reason to continue this program and to carry it into the next budget cycle. we should terminate its. end it. >> is there any other debate? >> first of all, i support the amendment as it is presented. something that seems to have escaped the people that voted for tarp is the fact that the banks that received tarp money

made billions and billions of dollars with that money. billions -- i don't think that was the intent of tarp. at least on the committee that i am on, tarp helped summon finance. it was supposed to extract toxic assets out of the banking system. it was never supposed to be used for the purposes of that have been explained here more than once.

i would hope that this amendment would be considered. i would urge everyone to vote for it. thank you. >> thank you. senator gramm, can i get your attention for a moment? >> yes, sir. >> let me make sure that i understand the full implication of your amendment. please take a moment and take me through what your intention is. >> yes. it is pretty simple. it is my understanding that there is $44 billion that were supposed to be in the tarp program that are on obligated. the banks are in good shape. who would get the $44 billion? none of us appreciated the

money be used to bailout car companies. again, i voted for tarp believing that the financial system was melting down. next thing you know, we are was a different purpose than what i intended. if this $44 billion is not taken off the table, my fear is that he will be spent on tangential issues that cannot go to the heart of the matter. the program did work when it comes to banking and we're well on our way to get some stability. we have a lot of needs in this country. the $44 billion is hanging out there in thin air and it disturbs me. i think we should take it off the table and put it to some other noble purpose rather than having it potentially is used in a way that -- potentially misused in a way that tarp was never intended. >> here is the question that i

have. here is the thing that i am trying to reconcile in my mind. .

>> cbo says it will be used but has not been used so far. if it is taken away, -- >> let me just circle back. i get it now. thank you for that explanation. >> your welcome. i am glad i was able to help. [laughter] >> can i just say this to you? i personally believe is appropriate that we take off the table part money that will not be used. i have an issue with the calculation here, because my

understanding, from the treasury is that this money will be used, but there will then be $148 billion that will not be used. and before we ended this marco, i hope we are able to address that. it is really a larger number. i don't think we should interfere with obligations that have already been made, which is what treasury tells us is the case with this money. >> what is it obligated to do? what are they going to spend it on? >> i don't know. what they have told us is this is money they anticipate will go out, and i do not know if that is part of some long-term arrangement to stabilize finances of certain entities. >> that is not our understanding of these dollars. our understanding is they are a keitty.

they just wanted their as a kitty in case they decide to initiate one of their programs like a small loan program. >> my understanding is that is correct, this money has been set aside but it has not been obligated. >> i am not certain of that. i get that. let me just say this to you. i personally believe the larger number that cbo tells us it will not be used, we do need to find a fence before we end this mark up so we have an assurance that money goes to pay down the deficit. senator gregg and i insisted that any tarp money that remains be applied to the deficit. we insisted that that money go to pay down the deficit. that is the law.

but i do think before this markup ends, we want to make certain that is fenced. >> this money should be taken off the table. they are just holding it there as a piggy bank. there is no purpose for it other than they might come up with some great idea of how to spend it. >> this is a pretty good rule for washington, just generally speaking. they did not know what they are going to do with the money. they are going to spend it if we let them keep it. let's take it away so we know it will not be spent on something we do not know where it is going. i am not sure that have a good plan to spend it, so let's just take it off the table and use it for something we all know we need. >> i am sympathetic with the notion of making certain that those moneys that are not going to be expended for park purposes are taken off the table. i have reservations about this particular amendment, but hopefully before we are done

here today, we can take off the table the $148 billion that is out there that will not be used for this purpose. >> why don't we do this? why don't we go to senator feingold? he has an amendment, then we'll come back to senator sessions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we are not in the ninth year of the war in afghanistan and our eighth year of the war in iraq. to date, we have spent about one trillion dollars on these boardwars.

every single penny of those costs has been added to our budget deficits. we have paid for absolutely none of it. we fully expect to be spending hundreds of billions dollars more on these two wars, unless we change the way we budget for these costs. all that new spending will be added to our deficits, too. the resolution includes an additional $59 billion for the current fiscal year and $159 billion for fiscal year 2011. it includes $50 billion as a place holder in fiscal year 2012 and $50 billion for 2013, but nothing beyond that. so altogether this budget resolution anticipates more than 23 -- just for the years covered by this resolution based on getting down to 60,000 troops in both afghanistan and iraq by

2015. cbo projects $273 billion more than the $300 billion in the budget resolution already provides. to his credit, president obama has provided more transparency than the previous administration. simply disclosing anticipated costs in the budget is not the same as paying these costs. i think we need a more comprehensive global strategy to enhance our national security. a al qaeda is not 82-country franchise, but a nimble, global threat. my amendment requires that we pay for those costs, rather than continue to add them to the budget deficit. it permits them to be offset over 10 years to lessen the immediate fiscal impact but it does require we enact policies now that ensure deficit

neutrality for any additional spending on the wars. congress and the administration could decide not to offset -- certainly these two wars do not meet our current definition of emergency. it is hard to argue that the spending is somehow unforeseen. in a little more than a year, the war in afghanistan will beginning its second decade, and the war in iraq is not far behind. i hope my colleagues will support this amendment regardless of whether they support or oppose these wars. we all agree on the need to get our fiscal house in order. i want to thank you for your staffs help in drafting the amendment. it has been extremely helpful to my office in helping to understand how to accomplish what we are trying to do here. >> there are certain members that will be unhappy with what i

am going to say, but i think it is important that we take this step. to assert that it is an emergency four wars that have been underway for years. to say that that is an unanticipated expenditures, i just do not believe it. we now know what the expense is , ongoing, month after month, can we predict with precision? no, we cannot. do we know that we are going to be spending hundreds of billions of dollars? yes, we do. i believe it is important to send the message that we are not just going to put this on the deck, that we are going to pay for it. i would say that senator feingo

ld has come up with the responsible way to do this. he does not expect the expenditure to be covered in one year, but to do it over time in what i think is responsible and is also fiscally prudent. i thank the senator for his amendment. i intend to support it. other debate on the amendment? senator sessions. >> we are in a war not of our choosing, but because we were attacked. that we had a prolonged and vigorous national debate about it. most of us overwhelmingly have supported this activity and we are in huge deficits, and there is no likelihood that we will

construct a plan that will get us to a balanced budget in the short term. but we can certainly take steps to get in that direction. i think are appropriate responses to maintain a focuse n reducing our deficit, reducing the cost of war and the emergency supplemental that we used to keep that apart from regular budgets, and i think that would be the best approach. i really think that this would be a vote -- away to try to force an non-military reduction

in our effort at this critical juncture, which would not be good for the country. >> let me just say that i read this amendment entirely differently than you do, senator sessions. i say that with respect. we put in this budget every penny the president has requested for the war effort, and i am committed to providing the dollars requested by the military leadership for the commander in chief. but i also think what senator feingold has said here is responsible on the other side of the ledger as well. we all know his position with respect to these conflicts. he is saying here, over time we have an obligation to pay for this. for each one year of war cost,

under this amendment, he is saying it has to be paid for over 10 years. >> what about the other spending such as the money that is proposed to be spent as emergencies for school funding? are we going to pay for that? are going to set up a guaranteed mechanism only for the fact that we are responding to a military attack? >> this is the circumstance. >> one thing that would be more legitimate would be military response to a military attack on the nation. >> there is no question, when a military attack comes, that constitutes an emergency. but when we are in a war for a year after year after year, to suggest that is an unanticipated expenditure does not have any merit.

we know what this expenditure is going to be, within rough limits. >> it cannot be said that it isn't a anticipated expenditure. >> let's be clear, this does not prohibit emergency funding. it is obviously not an an anticipated emergency in creating a process by which we can budget the normal way. historically this is been done in other major work situations, like the korean war. in the second year, 98 percent of the funding came from the regular process. the vietnam war included funding in the regular process less than a year after recent the truth, and within three years, 86 percent of the funding

was appropriate to the gregoire process. this is not -- i voted for the afghanistan war. i voted for some of the funding for the iraq war, even though i voted against it. i voted for the funding until i came to the conclusion that this was just going on too long and we need to stop it. the point is that this is about whether you are for the war against it. it is about having responsible budgeting, which is what this committee is all about. >> there is a real problem here if you approach it as senator feingold would like to approach it. we have a baseline budget, and if all of the emergency designations were done in regular order, where were the defense baseline budget be presently?

not where we are budgeting it. it would be extremely high error than the baseline -- it would be extremely higher than the baseline that we are budgeting presently. if you add up all the emergency designations and do it regular order, you would have an unbelievably high baseline budget for the defense department, and i only argue this because when we decided to do emergency spending for the war effort in iraq and afghanistan, it was decided that we would not build it into the base line because it would become too high, but we would do it with emergency spending. ñ

>> i would like to respond to that. that is a fair point if that is what we are doing. we are not building into the baseline defense budget. >> this is a cap adjustment. this is not that -- does not add to the baseline of the defense budget. i certainly would not want to do that. that is not what we are doing. >> just to remember now how many years we have done these emergencies. if we had done them in regular order, is it true or not true, ask your staff, would that not be built into the baseline of the defense budget? >> the point of senator feingold's amendment is threefold. number one, it does not preclude emergencies. three elements. you are in a feisty mood today.

[laughter] but let me go back. as i understand it, number one, emergencies are not precluded. is that not the case? >> i agree with that 100%. >> number two, he does have a requirement to pay for ongoing war costs, which we are currently not doing. but he does not do it over one year. he spread it over multiple years. no. 3, he does it as a cash adjustment so that it does not go into the baseline. that has been a concern center greg had, that i had, he did not want to put war funding into the base budget, otherwise we would be forever on an inflated base.

>> so my point is made that if we had not done it in an emergency, our budget baseline would be much higher for defense than it is now. >> that is correct. but senator feingold is not doing it in that way in this amendment. he has crafted in a way to prevent that problem. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. just to talk more broadly about what i think this is about, and i want to commend senator feingold for the amendment, i know we have honest differences about the way we have chosen to go after al qaeda. we all agree that we have a threat and a global threat as it relates to terrorism. we can debate whether or not iraq was a choice or necessity. we agree on afghanistan. i did not support going into

iraq because i did not believe that it was where we ought to be fighting in terms of terrorism. but we all agreed that once the commitment was made, we should support the troops. i am very proud of the fact that we had stepped up over and over again. we have gone through emergency spending, what was needed to be done to support the troops. i am very proud of the fact that we have also stepped up for our veterans and under your leadership we have dramatically increased what we are doing on veterans' health care and so on. i say that as a backdrop to say this is not about supporting the troops are not wanting us to be safe or not supporting our veterans. it really is how we view the economics of how we are going to operate in a country. we are going to hear all day about the concern about deficits. we share those concerns, and we will debate how we got there,

not because it is about blame. it is not about going back and climbing. it is about what kvnt policy should we use going forward if we want to make sure we do not see the same mistakes that were made in the last eight years, or even before. what happened in the eight years of the prior administration is that they chose to remove revenue by tax cuts for wealthy americans and then create major expenditures which included two wars. the people that were asked to sacrifice for the troops and their families, and they are still sacrificing. we all know that. but in general, after 10 years, we have not said it is time to step up and pay for the wars that we have created and the situation we have gotten into. i think that after 10 years, what senator feingold is talking about makes perfect sense. we are talking about tough choices, but i do not think

tough choices are just deciding whether or not in an economic emergency we ought to find teachers or schools. tough choices are howard going to contribute together? how are we going to ask -- how are going to ask those who are most blessed in this country to step up and help us get out of a deficit hole and truly paper wars that are going on for 10 years. i think it is responsible if we want to talk -- talk about tough choices. this is probably the toughest one we will be asked to make. >> senators sessions. >> just to follow on that statement, this is the only part of our deficit as i understand that we are requiring to be paid for. we passed an $800 billion

stimulus package and much of it went to social programs and aid to states and things of that nature. that is defined as an emergency. we did not start this war. we were attacked, and i believe if anything in our budget comes close to an emergency, this would be it. i think it is targeting the one particular appropriation that has more justification than a lot of the others that we are using to hit our debt with. that is the reason i was concerned that we are heading in that direction. >> let me just say on that matter -- >> will we pay for these others, are just the defense department spending? >> no, emergency should be dealt with as emergencies and treated as such for budget purposes. but to assert now that war spending -- of war that has been underway for years is

unanticipated is not a program budgeting. in previous wars, we did not treat ongoing war costs as emergency funding. we did not do that in vietnam. we did not do that in korea. it was entirely legitimate, certainly when the attack occurred to treat that as emergency funding. and perhaps for some time after that, but at this point, we know what the expenditure rate is, not the budget for it. not to pay for it. it just creates another problem for us, but emergencies really should be emergencies, whether in any category of our spending. >> later, the committee passed

the united states does recognize that we are irresponsible in our debt spending and when needed some mechanisms to make sure that we contain at spending. >> i do not have his amendment. do we have a copy?

>> this is essentially the amendment that we offer and the floor that i believe we had 8919 democrats and every republican did support. it does not endorse any of the levels of spending or how we conduct the numbers that we agree on in last year's budget, but it says we did agree on them and they are our budget, and we should do a better job of adhering to it. writing a budget is about leadership, about tough choices, and we have some very tough choices. after 10% 9 discretionary increases last year and a year before. we are over 20% increases in base line, non-defense

discretionary spending for two years, plus in addition, there's the $800 billion stimulus bill that is now up to $840 million, added on more than an entire year's worth of spending on top of our regular spending. this budget fails to freeze spending, but it does contain spending at a lower rate than we have been operating at for sure. compared to the president's budget, i think fundamentally it comes almost entirely from assuming the state tax or fee for only two years. some agencies, we have to know, such as epa and the state department received 33% increases in appropriations last year.

that does not count the extra money both got from the stimulus package. so this budget lock sent those large increases for those agencies we have to acknowledge. so therefore if we have a freeze or a small increase in base line spending, we are freezing this small increase in on a very much searched baseline. it is not so dramatic as a lot of people would know. in fact, the stimulus, when you consider the stimulus and the other non-defense appropriation increases, nondefense appropriations received an 84% increase in the last two years, a stunning number. a stunning number. mno carrierringconnect 1200

telling them they must do. the amendment we offered on the floor would have made last year's budget binding for the full five years of its existence. it did not free-spending flatly for any year because that was not in the budget, but it would bring some integrity to the system. to answer some of the complaints of our colleagues, concerns that the rest, it would be that binding three-year limits, limits based on our budget of

last year, and enforce it with a 2/3 point of order. it only sets three years of limits because that is the number of years the president called for freezing. rather than being in conflict with the president and demanding more than he asked for, we decided to crack the amendment in a way -- let me say -- >> i enjoyed listening to your conversations. >> i apologize. go ahead. >> most of us are fairly familiar with it. three of our democratic colleagues on this committee supported it previously, so it does not limit any of the

entitlements. does not require any action on entitlements like social security and medicare but i know that at some point it will have to be dealt with. i think it is a common-sense bipartisan support. i would recall that this was passed in the early 1990's. for reasons that seem to have worked. it was one of the effective tools that help contain the growth in spending in the 1990's to 1% or 2%, and that is what helped us create the ultimate surplus at the end of the decade. this amendment is something we had done before, and i believe it will work, mr. chairman. what it would do is make you the

strongest man in the senate and defend the budget that we passed. it would help us to be sure that what has happened in the past -- we pass a budget and we violate it, it would not be so common in the future. so i urge my colleagues to support this and i believe it is a common-sense approach that does not overreach and could be very effective in helping us contain growthga. >> let me just say this. i think this would be a mistake on several levels. first of all, this cuts defense from what is in the mark by $9.5 billion, by $50 billion over five years.

we not only have ongoing we not only have ongoing conflict incnx afghanistan andn0 commander-in-chief, to cut $50 billion over three years from what is in the mark, what has been requested by the commander- in-chief is just a mistake. i would also say to the senator, what you have done is to carry over last year's numbers with respect to war. last year's numbers for 2011

was $50 million. we know because of the increase in activity in afghanistan that the right number or the more correct number is $159 billion. so to me, this amendment has a $109 million mistake built into it. >> repeat that, because i certainly would not want to effect such a dramatic alteration in the president's request on military support our troops. >> that is one of the problems with the gentleman's amendment. >> for 2011, what you have done is carry over the numbers from last year. last year, the number for the war effort of 2011 was $50 billion. that is the number that is carried in the gentleman's

amendment. we now know that the expenditure is going to be at least $159 billion, so the gentleman's amendment has what i consider to be a $109 billion mistake. here is the problem when you carry over numbers from a previous year, and things have changed, you are stuck -- you are disconnected from reality we confront today. >> mr. chairman, i know how excellently you can handle these numbers, but we know that each year we have had an emergency supplemental for the war, and you are counting that in these numbers. otherwise you would not have such a gap. maybe if there is a $10 billion base line difference, i would be

willing to talk about that, but the only way i can see you talking about this large a number is that you are comparing apples to oranges and misrepresenting the impact of this number. you have your staff over there. why don't you get this number straight? where does it come from? are you expecting another supplemental this year? does the president's budget account for the war fully? the answer is no, the president's budget does not account for the war fully, because he fully intends to ask for supplemental, i assume as has been done each year. >> usually when a senator asks me a question, i am actually permitted to answer it. >> please explain to me. >> i have tried to do that. you have carried over in your numbers the numbers for the war effort for 2011 at $50 billion,

when we know that the president's new budget request for 2011 is $159 billion. you have a $109 million mistake. beyond that, you are cutting the defense that is provided for in the mark by $9.50 billion over one year, by $50 billion over three years. if that is your intention -- >> it happens to be the fact, because as you will recall, in the meantime, the president as commander in chief and recommendations of the uniformed head of the military made a determination to have a surge in afghanistan, and the war costs that was estimated for 2011 last

year at the dollars billion is now estimated to be $159 billion, and unfortunately, in your amendment, you have carried over last year's estimates, and they are no longer correct. >> let me ask you this. is this in the presidents of baseline defense budget request or not? >> it is regular money for the war. >> is not in his baseline budget. that is what i thought. >> but it is his request for more funding for 2011. but that gets into the question we are talking about what senator bunning. we have war cost over above

baseline. the president has asked for regular war funding of $159 billion for 2011. the gentleman's amendment has $50 billion. >> i think you guys are talking on different pages here. what senator sessions has proposed is what the president proposed, with an enforcing mechanism. the president asked for a freeze. senator it sessions and mccaskill have proposed the president's language. you are talking about the war fighting effort, which was not included in the president's freeze. nobody expected to be included in the freeze. it will come to us in a supplemental. if it needs to be adjusted, it will be adjusted up. nobody is suggesting that the freeze will impact troops in the field. what they are suggesting is that we have a freeze with the

president's number. he could do this a minute to your numbers. you have said you want a freeze to your numbers, so let's do it to the chairman's numbers. >> but substituted and do it that way so that the chairman's concerns are addressed. i would ask that the senator be allowed to withdraw his men in an offer the amendment to the chairman's number, because it will essentially be the same thing, but address of freeze again. you cannot have it both ways. you cannot argue that you cannot have a freeze because you might adjust numbers and then claim your budget has a freeze. >> let's be clear. this freeze that the president has proposed and is in this budget, we have a freeze for three years on non security spending. there is not a freeze on

defense. defense is increased by $20 billion. there is not a freeze on defense. there never was intended to be a freeze on defense. but the gentleman's amendment has to significant loss. number one, because the chairman's mark and the president's request for defense by $9.5 billion in year one. cut it by $50 billion over three years. that is a fact. the additional problem with the gentleman's amendment is that he carries over the president's number for war costs for 2011 at $50 billion. that is not the president's request for war costs for 2011 now. times have changed. afghanistan is costing far more than was in the president's numbers for last year for 2011.

the difference is $109 million. >> i honestly think that you fellows are talking on different pages and i think the senator it can correct this by offering his second amendment and withdrawing his first amendment. >> your microphone is not working. >> we are dealing with this question -- if the senator wants to withdraw an offer an additional amendment, we are happy to consider that. the senator does not determine what we do. >> we can stay here and debate this amendment for the rest of the day. >> that is fine, we will do that. i think the senator has a right to modify his amendment under the rules of the senate. >> the center does have the

right. >> i asked to modify the amendment. >> i do not have before me -- i did not know how he has modified his amendment. it is entirely reasonable for this committee to have it in writing -- that is the procedure here -- the gentleman's modification in writing. >> i do have that. it would have been helpful had we had the chairman's mark a few days before this hearing started. it is a lot bigger than my amendment. >> i hate to keep cutting him off and going ahead of him. with the chair allowed the senator from tennessee to contribute to the discussion? maybe he has something of value to help us. >> center alexander.

>> i am little disappointed with this discussion. as you know, i may co-sponsor and supporter of the deck commission, which was not accepted. i commend the chairman for his sincerity in trying to deal with the debt problem. the ranking member said that we are going to have to actually borrow to pay for social security payments, for medicare, and for the general operation of the government. what senator obsessions and mccaskill have done, they have developed a fairly successful bipartisan approach to dealing with nearly half the budget, 40% of the budget that is the discretionary part. they are suggesting that we go up about 2% a year, as i understand it.

you can move money around within the account, and on the floor they have gotten a significant vote for this approach. if the chairman could help the senator from alabama, or join with him and the senator from missouri of two different parties in advising what the chairman thinks is a sound way to approach this, we would not need a debt commission. that would deal with 40% of our problem. if we get discretionary spending going up at a rate of 2% the year, we could begin to deal with that part of the budget and then the debt commission could deal with entitlements spending. it may be there is the number at a flat here or there, but it seems to me that the more responsible approach would be for the democrats and republicans to say senator sessions is offering a serious amendment. this is an amendment he has worked hard with senator mccaskill to develop significant bipartisan support. it is a reasonable approach to

the needs of this country and most urgent concern we have is the debt. so why don't we take this effort and modulated however we can agree on, and give the rest of us a chance to vote for something that would put us on track to dealing with 40% of the debt problem. it may be that you can find some holes in the amendment, but isn't the reason for this round table discussion to fill up those holes, and when you have a promising approach like this, to give it a chance to work? i know this is a serious amendment. another have been working hard on this. i did not supported on the floor because i think it takes one step too far. i think the chairman has done in

his budget is reasonable, and even in some ways concerning to me when we look at the stats. when we talk discretionary spending, nondefense, it is 18% to 19% of the budget. we have already had concerns about paying for defense in terms of the war, and yet the 19% we are talking about that people are willing to go in cut are things that affect families and communities. it is about teachers in the classroom and police officers on our streets and firefighters, and are going to invest in jobs? are going to invest in making sure the air and water are clean? all those things that are important to people. those are the investments in people and communities and families, and that is what they are seeing, is those

investments in terms of that 18% to 19%. when we talk about all this, my concern is if we are going to say after 10 years we should not be paying for the wars, they are no longer emergencies, but things we need to do to help our real emergencies -- we have over 50 million people on unemployment benefits. people who want to work and cannot find a job. they are looking for us to invest in those things that will create jobs. if we are going to debate that that is not an emergency, which i believe is an emergency right now, i would ask that we take another look at all of this. there are bigger questions. when we have companies like exxonmobil not making any tax payments to america for services, discretionary or defense in the last year, they are not paying taxes at all. and then we are questioning

whether or not to take the small part of the budget that focuses on safety and education and job training and job creation and those things that people in our country are counting on us for, i have a real question about that. so i very much appreciate that this is a serious amendment. i believe it sets up -- it goes a step too far and really is not on the side of the people that we ought to be fighting for right now, which is working, middle-class families and small businesses trying to get started. >> i take it your position is that you oppose the budget as presented by the chairman because it has a freeze in it? >> i am willing to support that in the context of having to make tough choices going forward, but i do not want to go any farther.

i believe this amendment goes a step farther. i think we have to be very careful going forward how we limit the piece of the budget that invests in our families. i am happy to listen to it, but from what i have hear4fs far, i think it goes a step too far, even though i know that in my judgment, if we were looking at this at the same time saying to exxonmobil that it is time they pay their fair share of taxes, then i would feel more confident. >> senator sessions, we are having a chance now to look over your second amendment, and it is an improvement, certainly, over the previous one. >> because it daubs of your

numbers. >> so there is a not a $9.50 billion cut, i appreciate that. that is an improvement. you have also taken the 2011 number up to the of $159 billion from the $50 billion which corrects the $109 billion error as i would see it. so those are improvements. it is a little confusing to me on this question. is there a 60 boat or 67 vote enforcement hurled? in one place in this amendment, it appears to be 67 votes. at the end of the amendment, it refers to a 3/5 requirement. what is the intention of the senator? >> i think the chairman for asking that question.

it is part of the result of our effort of 59 senators voting for this. we did acquiesce in saying emergencies could still be defined by 60 votes, but if the basic budget numbers of our budget are violated and there is no emergency, it would take 67 votes. does that explain that? originally with that amendment was first done, it would require the 67 votes for the declaration of emergency. many members objected to that, and we acquiesced and it makes celeste's -- it reduces the t's a little bit.

i think it would provide you the ability and members of the senate the ability -- >> you are saying it takes 67 votes to break the freeze unless you declare an emergency, and it takes 60 votes. >> that is correct. >> it takes 67 votes to break the freeze language of your budget unless it is declared an emergency situation, where it would be 60 votes. >> that is an improvement over the previous iteration as well. you have clearly made significant improvements here. what i have got is three years of caps, five years -- i have questions about how realistic that is. in the current circumstance, you

have certainly made moves that are improvements. >> all of us are jealous of our powers as members of the congress. obviously with 50 as opposed to in a filibuster level of 60, we could always change these numbers. if the congress wanted to spend more, they could raise the caps at any time, either with a 50 vote or a 60 vote if it is blocked. it is not the kind of permanent, binding thing, but it gives us strength to say that's not just this year, the budget mean something, but the next year and next year. that is how we balance the budget in the 1990's. every year they contain the growth of spending to fairly low numbers.

i have serious concerns over cutting defense $9.5 billion this year from the chairman's mark, and the question of the president's war request for 2011 being at such a variance. you have adjusted those. i have to more fully understand the implications of that 60 versus 67, but it is certainly moving in a direction that i appreciate. center bunning, do you have an amendment? rfi>> mr. chairman, i do have an amendment. i know senator gramm had an amendment earlier this morning regarding the park funds. -- regarding the tarp funds.

it is a slight modification. it is to put all the tar funding -- eliminate all the parts funding that has been paid back and put it back to paying down the deficit. the only thing we do is set aside $30 million for small business lending. in my amendment is being passed out right now. it is almost exactly the same except for one variation, that we put in a reserve of $30 billion for small business lending if congress in the future decides that is the focus, which i believe is. i know in alaska with 52% -- this is a huge gap that is out there. because it is a lending program is paid back. senator warner has been working on some ideas over the last six or eight months.

it is coming back. it is having a positive impact now that is being paid back. leave a $30 billion as a reserve for the purpose of small- business lending. i don't think i would be surprised if folks from either side would have a problem with $30 billion for small business lending. the procedures will pay back the money and will get a decent return, but at the same time, get rid of all the other tarp money and putting it back to the deficit, and no longer having it out there. i do not know if that is the proper term, but the idea is to have something to be available for discussion with his amendment.

>> i do think it is very important that we fence the substantial majority of the park funds that remain available so that we know it goes for deficit reduction. as i hear you describe it, you are allowing $30 billion to be available for small business credit, which i think all of us have heard is one of the most important challenges remaining in this economy, credit for small business. i have certainly heard it all across my state. good businesses that have had their credit lines extinguished, not because they have not made their payments or even been late in payments, but because the balance sheets of their lenders are impaired and the regulators

are requiring them to call in loans. so i think that has merit, but even more important that you are fencing the $148 billion and saying that has to go for deficit reduction. >> you are absolutely right. the goal at the end of the day, and this is my simplistic way of looking at it. the original allocation back when the bush administration put it together was $700 billion. the goal is that the end of the day, there is $30 billion left that is available for small business lending. it all goes back to reducing the deficit, but what is left is $30 billion available for small business lending our credit, however the congress chooses to use it. but it must be for small business. . .

>> senator gregg. i point out all it does is spend money.

the tarp says all the money has to go to reduce the debt, so there is nothing being accomplished other than creating a $30 billion slush fund. why don't we set one up for any number of social causes? the whole purpose was not to use it as a general operating fund for what ever the government needs. if you want to set it up for small business, it should come as the regular product. it should not come in which funds are being paid back which in law they have to go to pay the deficit, so this is a spending exercise and recreation

of a new program exercise using tarp funds. we ought to be honest about that. >> if i could respond. your characteristic that a small bending -- small-business lending program -- the small business community, who under the gains of the last decade had gotten left behind, and this economy is driven by small business. i know what i hear from american people. american people, even though you very clear. it is not a slush fund. everyone likes to use terms to get good sound bites. the small business community has suffered. they are the drivers of this economy and they will be the

ones that drive this economy into the future. we may disagree, but i would ask in the debate we have here, using terms like slush funds and pay back with interest. that is not a social program. i want to be sure we are talking about the right terms here. i understand you have been on the budget committee for a long time and i am new to this. yes, you are right, it is required to be paid back. we are saying when all is done in said, i know last year a lot of people were talking not using this money for other purposes. 39 republicans sent out a letter and i was the one democrat that signed on at that said this exact thing. all i am doing is what i have heard from both sides here, especially the majority if not all republicans.

the difference is on the $30 billion for small business, it should have been the approach in this first page of utilizing this money. it damaged the economy, what the big banks did. that is my ran for the day. >> the accurate terminology is you are taking tarp money and creating a new program. that is what you are doing here. so if you believe this is an essential program, that is fine. it should not come from park money. it should come from the basic mechanism of the federal government. park money by definition and by law is supposed to go -- tarp money by definition and by law is supposed to go to reduction of the debt, so the american public does not have it on their back. we borrow the money from china. we borrowed somewhere around $580 billion.

it came from china. what you are suggesting is that rather than paying that money back, we should take $30 billion of it and create a new program with it. if that is what you want to do, fine, but do not wrap yourself in tarp as the just a fire of a source of revenue for this, because it is not. -- do not justify it as a source of revenue for this. >> i was not here when he tarp finding was passed. my understanding was that it was to shore up the financial system that was in crisis, and many parts of the financial system have recovered.

one part of the financial system that has not fully recovered has been small business lending, and this is just a question for senator gregg. i thought it was not talking about returned tarp funds, but there is a portion of tarp funds that have not been allocated today. my understanding is that while not creating -- whether this is creating a new program or whether it within the original con fines of part, if part of -- if small-cap debt markets have not returned, i do not understand how this would not fit within the original parameters of tarp, if there were portions that had been unused today. on the return to tarp funds, i agree 100%.

$148 billion has been appropriated or budgeted to be put out. to claim to reserve part of that to use for shoring up the financial system which is part of the intentional -- original intention of tar, does that not fit within the parameters? >> my analysis of the men and by amendment is different from the $148 billion. the authority does exist for the $148 billion to be used. if it was payback, it would have to go to deficit reduction.

there is no guarantee that if that money were used, it would be paid back. therefore it might not ever reduce the deficit. what the senator from alaska is doing is the authorizing soak it can reduce some can be assured -- what the senator from alaska is doing is deauthorizing it so it can be assured. it is not a social program. i totally disagree with that characterization. it is credit for small businesses that would have to be paid back. you called it a slush fund. i totally disagree with that characterization. or as a social program as others have asserted. others have used the terminology

ago social program." if the money is paid back, as we hope and expect it will, it goes to pay down the deficit. >> so it goes on the debt, correct? >> it goes on the death until it gets paid back -- goes on the debt until it gets paid back. we have already seen the money extended to the banks is now expected to make a profit for the taxpayers of $7 billion. >> so you want to use the tarp to borrow money to add to the debt for whatever the initiative is, whether it happens to be small business or some other initiatives. why stop here? >> the part of the financial system that is not normalized is small business.

the whole purpose of tarp was to help normalize the financial structure of the country. let me finish if i can. i did not interrupt you. the purpose is to normalize the financial system. the one part of the financial system that is clearly not normalized is small business credit, and it is entirely reasonable to use tarp funds for that purpose. it is not reasonable, in my judgment, to use tarp funds for other purposes. it is also entirely reasonable to extinguish the authority for additional tarp funds to be used for other purposes. that is also part of the senator's amendment, and it assures that that money will go

for deficit reduction, not to be used for other purposes. >> if i might respond to that. tarp was not designed for this purpose. the fact that it was not designed for this purpose is reflected in the fact that when the president proposed this concept of using -- creating a small business fund, which is essentially what the senator from alaska has proposed, he said he was going to have to change the authorization of tarp to do it. the testimony was that they would have to change our authorization to do it. the reason was because tarp was never perceived to be basically for the general operation of the government in general activities of the government. it was an emergency fund set up to stabilize the financial structure of the country, and in fact, the envelope was significantly pushed, and probably push beyond the envelope, when it was used in the automobile industry. but it cannot be used for general operation of the government, which is what essentially this program is.

the representatives of the president came before this committee and said this cannot be done. what the senator from alaska is suggesting is -- would create a borrowed event of creating debt, which whether it is payback for not, is not consistent with a tarp. >> the need for a change in authorization is because of the way the administration wanted to handle the $30 billion extension of credit to small business. under their current authorization, under the current law, they could extend credit to small business and be within the parameters of existing tarp. senator bunning. >> i sat on the committees when tarp was trying to be sold directly.

our former secretary of the treasury, the current secretary of the treasury, the head of the federal reserve, all came and asked for tarp money, but there has been an expansion of the purpose for which tarp was created. i will guarantee you this. if they would have come and asked the committee of jurisdiction for tarp money to be spent on new york banks and other financial institutions, they would not have got one penny. they came and asked the committee of jurisdiction that they needed the tarp money to buy top six securities from banks and other entities to get them out of the system, to

stabilize the system. you can go get secretary paulson. you can go get secretary geithner there. you can go get chairman bernanke, and if you can find anything in their testimony before the committee of jurisdiction that explains that tarp was going to be used in the manner it was used, i missed it. so i think the argument is kind of what you do with the existing tarp. there can be many, many other

uses. some have been described by the omb director as not available for the use of tarp. others have been used -- the buying of general motors, chrysler stock -- that was unheard of. that was not even mentioned. that was an expansion of tarp money, and the fact that we are going to get a return on it is insignificant, because we had to borrow the money to start with. all of the money was borrowed. i thought all $700 billion was borrowed. to my surprise, only $570 billion was borrowed. $507 billion. tarp was set up to alleviate the problem with credit of all swaps -- credit defaults swaps and

other entities that were driving our economy into the tank, and not for other purposes. >> i am not unsympathetic to what senator bunning just said, but it does come down to the fact that we were in a financial meltdown when president bush, secretary paulson, and others came in. i share great concern about that initial $700 billion and how it was structured and so on. but is absolutely true that when the big banks were bailed out, the assumption was that they were going to unfreeze credit, and that in fact the auto companies who were frozen

out, small businesses and others would be able to get credit to get the economy going again. i am very proud gm paid back their loan yesterday, five years early. a good investment when you are talking about investing in jobs and people, and what we really were focused on is not -- or should not have been focused on were big banks and wall street. the impact on main street, the impact on people and communities, on people being able to have a job. i strongly support making sure we actually need one of the goals i thought this was originally set up to do, which was to unfreeze credit markets to support small business. we heard over and over again, all of us from all kinds of small businesses that have not been able to get credit, that are laying people off, that cannot meet their obligations, closing their doors because of what happened in this tonnage crisis.

i cannot imagine anything at this point more significant to move the economy forward and to invest in small businesses. so i want to thank the senator for his amendment and senator warner for his work on this as well. this really is about how you view the economy and what you think is important. frankly, when the money was given to wall street, they did not turn around and landed. a short up their books. they bought other banks and left a lot of small businesses and manufacturers and families hanging, and this is an attempt to right side that. we want the money to go back, but we also want to make sure that the people who did not cause this, the people who were hit the first time because of the lack of credit do not get left hanging out there and hurt again. i view this very much as a jobs amendment, mr. chairman.

>> i just want to add my perspective from citizens in oregon. there is little they would like to see more than moving money from wall street's to main street, and to move in a form that is recapitalizing and providing the opportunity for small businesses to get the loans they need to put this economy back on track. it is the local businesses that will create the jobs, the local businesses that have been crunched because of wall street money-management that blew up our country's economy. i applaud this effort to move money from wall street to main street to strengthen our small business, strengthen our recovery, and create jobs. if that is not stabilizing our economy, i do not know what is.

>> i just want to say for the record, senator merkley has been a real leader with his legislation on this. >> can we go to the next amendment? we go to senator bunning next and then to senator warner. >> i will wait until the amendment is passed. >> thank you for that. >> i am offering an amendment to the chairman's mark that seeks to curb the abuse of emergency designation for spending bills. my amendment creates a point of order against any bill that is designated as emergency spending that does not first collect the signatures of 16 senators supporting the designation. this would create a process for designating legislation as an emergency similar to a cloture petition.

the senate has used emergency declarations too many times for too many things that should not be considered emergencies. we talked about that earlier. they-go rules passed by the majority were supposed to rein in excess spending. however, this has not been the case. as pay-go is consistently bypassed by these emergency designations. since the final appropriations bills for 2010 were passed in december, congress has approved over $90 billion in extensions and designations and designated them as emergency spending, and still has about $140 million in the mix between the house and senate in emergency designations that has not been

resolved as yet. for instance, unemployment insurance benefits have been extended three times since december, and so have lending limits for small business. we have even used the emergency designation to extend satellite television copyright fees three times over that period. there were about nine designations for emergencies. i have just mentioned three of them. each of these times, we need these programs were going to expire -- we need these programs were going to expire. none of this was a surprise to us. my amendment requires the 16 senators to sign a document indicating that the legislation is truly an emergency and meets the following requirements.

first, it is necessary, essential, or vital, not merely useful or beneficial. the need for it is sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up over time. 3, it is urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring immediate action. four, it is unforeseen, unpredictable, an unanticipated, and five, it is not permanent but temporary in nature. this point of order would not be able to be waived, and it would apply to each emergency designation found in any piece of legislature or any bill. i would also like to know that

my amendment does not remove, does not remove the 60 votes appeal of the emergency designation that is currently on the books. the goal of this is to simply add more accountability to the emergency designation process. if a piece of legislation is truly deserving of an emergency declaration, then it will be easy to get 16 senators to sign a document supporting that designation. balancing our budget starts with getting the use of emergency designation for the spending we do around here under control. this amendment would not be able to end all abuse of emergency designation, but hopefully it would enable curtailing a bit of it. i urge my colleagues to support

this amendment. >> senator, i have not had a chance to fully review it, but from what i understand it, i think this is a pretty good amendment. the only question i have about it is whether it is in our jurisdiction, our rules committee jurisdiction. >> i got a ruling from the parliamentarians and they say it is us. they had another one that they ruled out of order. >> let me just say we will confirm that with the parliamentarian. i completely believe you, but we need to confirm it. it will be my intention to support it. i think it is a thoughtful amendment, and there is no question that what the senator says is true. the emergency designations sometimes have been used for real emergencies, but sometimes

-- >> then you would not have any trouble getting those 16 signatures. >> i agree. is a very thoughtful amendment at all for reform. if we get confirmation from what you heard from the parliamentarian, it would be my intention to support it. senator warner. >> it sounds pretty good to me. i want to mention an amendment that i am offering and my staff will be passing it around right now. let me acknowledge on the front end, this may be the result of the opportunity that you as the chair and senator gregg gave me to look at repetitive programs. one of the things that president reagan said that one of the hardest things to eliminate was actually a government program. while i commend you and ranking member for some of the activities in overall lowering

the deficit, sometimes we lower but do not actually eliminate programs. what i am suggesting here in this amendment, as we are all aware, every year omb comes out with a list of programs that they think ought to be eliminated. that list often has been summarily put aside and the appropriators ignore that. this past year, president obama's omb put together 50 proposals to be eliminated. most of them continued. let's try to make this a truly bipartisan, so let's narrow that lest to those programs that both the president bush's omb suggested should be eliminated and it president obama's omb suggested should be eliminated. that lowered us to 18 programs. it is only $1 billion in savings, but it is actually program elimination it would set up a deficit reduction program.

some of these programs sound good, but if you dig a little deeper, and let me cite one example. we have an enormous duplication. the department of agriculture is broadcasting grant and the telecommunication facilities grant. they sound good, but these varied activities are already done by the corporation for public broadcasting. we are paying three times the overhead, and no basic business function would have that kind of duplication. we are simply taking 18 programs that both president bush and president obama both agreed need to be eliminated and saying, let's put the onus on showing why these programs need to be continued. it is $1 billion. it would not get us all the way there, but it would lead to program elimination.

>> this is a very thoughtful amendment as well. i think one of the real deficiencies around here is things get authorized and over time they become calcified and no longer do what the intention was when they started. but they never get killed, and what you are saying is, here we have an agreement between presidents of two different administrations and two different parties. they are in agreement. these are programs that should be terminated. >> a lot of these programs on the surface sound good, but there is a reason you have to dig into why the omb's under both president bush and obama have said they ought to be eliminated.

even though their functions may be important, they are duplicates. >> i just want to speak up in support of the amendment as well. i have been working with senator warner for some time. even though this is a small step, it is an important step. it is important for us to start going through and identifying those programs, projects, and are authorizations that have outlived their usefulness or are part of the waste, fraud, and abuse that we have in our government right now. if we have an opportunity to start that process, i say we should do it. >> senator gregg. >> i think he should say that they shall reduce, rather than that they may. you agree to modify that? >> absolutely. >> amendment so modified. >> i would want to look that more closely.

i may not be able to support the amendment with that. i do not know. >> i want to congratulate senator warner on this step in the right direction. i would also ask for his consideration going forward with some legislation that i previously introduced, creating in effect a sunset commission that would look more comprehensively at the federal government, federal agencies' spending. we have had successful efforts by sunset commissions to look at agencies and programs that no longer work, that actually have a process to go back and start with zero based budget. what we know in the federal government is, once the program is created, it develops a constituency. that constituency invariably comes in and ask for a cost-of- living increase or some growth in order to justify its existence.

i am absolutely convinced that we need a comprehensive way to do with this bill tries to do, and i commend you again for it. >> as governor i was very proud of the fact that we eliminated a number of programs. what struck me as i looked through these and did some of the due diligence, that sounds great and many of these are very were the areas, but what you find as you begin deeper is that they are often functions that are duplicated by another program. what we have tried to do, narrowing this effort so there is not a partisan effort here, is look at the programs that both president bush and president obama both concurred could stand to be eliminated. >> i would again commend senator warner for this amendment, but i would take these comments even a step further.

there are things that sound good that may be good, but we simply cannot afford, particularly when it comes to deficit spending, which seems to be more the rule than the exception these days. but i thank you for the amendment. >> i just want to congratulate senator warner on the amendment. i think it is a step in the right direction. it is a first step. obviously there are many other places that we could look, and i am sure we will do just that in coming years, and i will applaud you from the sidelines. >> senators sessions. >> i likewise would applaud the senator's amendment and appreciate the fact that it allowed when the saving

occurred, that the money not be reached spent on something else, but actually to reduce the debt. we need to be focusing on how we can contain debt increases. i believe this has some -- i think we need a strong attitude on that throughout the senate to make sure it works effectively, but i appreciate that very much. >> i just had a question to understand, is it accurate to say that this would leave the determination on whether or not individual items should be changed or terminated up to the normal process of committees and so on? what you are saying is if, in fact, things are cut, it goes to deficit reduction? >> we are saying it should go to deficit reduction. we are also saying these are programs that have been designated by the omb, oftentimes repeatedly. it puts the onus back on the

appropriators. >> i certainly support having any of these cuts go to deficit reduction. i am looking at the list. great lakes of restoration is on there, and that raises a big red flag for me. i will have to take a look at it more, but i think that as we make cuts, it makes perfect sense to have the savings go to deficit reduction. i am concerned about the process of determining what the cuts are. >> there enough. center court and, for an amendment. >> the chairman, my amendment is straight forward and proposes to rescind $42 billion of the remaining and obligated stimulus funds and to use that for deficit reduction. i remember because it is so memorable, i think speaker

pelosi said that the object of the stimulus was to have a timely, targeted, and temporary stimulus of the economy, and i certainly understand the need for that stimulus. we had differences of opinion on how to accomplish it, but nevertheless, the bill did pass. according to the congressional budget office, about $70 billion of discretionary stimulus funding remained an obligated at the end of march. -- obligated at the end of march. in june we will likely take action on a supplemental appropriations bill where rican rescind these funds. i am reminded when i look back at the 2009 report of cristina romer, who was chair of the

president's council of economic visors, when she predicted that enactment of the stimulus legislation would result in unemployment rates peaking at 8% in the third quarter of 2009 and then declining to 7% at the end of 2010, looking back on that now i am reminded of the quotation from john kenneth albrecht said that the only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look good. notwithstanding the hopes and aspirations of ms. romer and economic forecasters of the time, it did not quite pan out. the report projected that a stimulus bill similar to that that was enacted feb. 2009 would add 3.7 million jobs by the end of 2010. instead, the economy has shed more than 3 million jobs since the stimulus bill was enacted, and 48 out of 50 states of the number of jobs for -- saw the number of jobs decline relative to february 2009.

in october, ms. rahm conceded that the promised results from the stimulus bill were unlikely to materialize when she testified. she said the current forecasts do not predict substantial employment gains in 2010, and unemployment is unlikely to end 2010 much below its current levels. so i think it is fair to say, to repeat myself, given the hopes and aspirations of those who supported the stimulus bill, which of course was deficit spending, that now we have an opportunity to take what is an expanded by june, $42 billion, and apply that to deficit reduction. i am not only one that tries to figure out both in talking to their constituents and reading public opinion polls and

otherwise, what the predominant concerns are of the american people, in addition to jobs. with much higher unemployment in various regions and states across the country, they are very worried about the runaway spending and the deficit and what that will mean to our children and grandchildren. i think this presents a wonderful opportunity for us to take money that was not spent in a timely, target, or temporary way and applied to the deficit, so i would ask my colleagues for their support. >> we have asked senator warner 2 d again to what is remaining

-- to be in again to what is remaining in an extended recovery act funds. >> let me first of all say that the conceptual point center cornyn has made, i tended to agree with, the notion of timely spending, when you look at some of the omb numbers that actually had some of the spending appear at all in 2017 or 2018, it raised a lot of red flags with me. it has taken a number of inquiries to get the administration to be forthcoming on the data, to say how much is actually left, and i shared with some of the colleagues on my side that conceptually, if there was an ability to squeeze some of the dollars out, whether it be for deficit reduction or other more immediate job producing activities -- i can cite a number of these programs that

even by september 30 look like they are not obligated. they have been awarded, but the contracts have not been signed. one is two major jobs that look like they have been obligated. they have made the awards, but they have not signed contracts. one is for good. -- one is fort hood.

we have a similar circumstance at a hospital in virginia. has taken me three or four times to understand it, but within the additions on the food stamp program, where a lot of the dollars look like they are not obligated, it takes awhile for inflation to get back to where it was. perhaps we can get a better explanation than from me on this item, but a lot of the out years spending is mandatory, based on what we did on food stamps. you'd have to dramatically cut back food stamp spending right now, based upon inflation numbers that economists expect inflation to get up to 19. not a good explanation, but we can get somebody better on that. a lot of the dollars were kept driving down was the number that was actually going to be available.

it was somewhere around the $30 billion category. a lot of that falls within the energy loan guarantee program, where a lot of the dollars have not been allocated out yet. there's an argument there that you could sweep some of those, but you could hopefully recruit, and i think there is a legitimate policy there. there are a couple of areas around broadband where they have made the announcement that they are going to put out a request for proposals. some cases they have even made requests for proposals, but they have not actually awarded the dollars. i could perhaps go through offline with senator cornyn the program by program area. i thought some of these in the out years could be put to better use. the dollar amount is much lower than what appeared at the top line. i would be happy to share it

with you and your staff as we go through this. >> i appreciate the diligence of the senator from virginia. i wonder whether the information that he had difficulty getting, whether you would share that more widely with all of us. >> let me say that it was literally only in the last 10 days or so after repeated efforts that i was able to get some of it. >> i appreciate your diligence. the numbers we had were numbers that came from a staff consultation at the congressional budget office, which congress relies upon. i would just say that since the whole premise of the stimulus was to get the economy moving again, some of the programs i heard the senator mentioned are good programs, but they should be ones we should be paying for as part of the regular function of government, not spending money on under the guise of

providing an economic stimulus. again, i would say that if the only question we look at, and i am not suggesting this, but if the only question we try to answer it is if this is a program that has some merit, if we do not look at whether it is actually paid for, then we will never pay for anything. there is an endless list of things, for example, the extension of the unemployment insurance benefit that we all support as a matter of policy, but the point of contention was come are going to pay for it? there are two ways to pay for things. you can raise taxes, or you can cut spending or a three prioritize other aspects of the budget. that is the simple exercise that we are asking be done here, is to pay for things that are meritorious programs that do not continue to run up the deficit.

i do not think raising taxes during a recession is a job- creating exercise. i think it is a job killing exercise. so i would love to get access to good information. i guess if it is a question of trying to get accurate information, other than the congressional budget office and perhaps professional staff on this committee, i do not know where we look for the most reliable information. i think the premise of my amendment is still the same, un obligated discretionary funds that could be used to pay down the deficit should be used for that purpose. >> could i just very briefly

say, and we have lots of amendments pending, so i will try to be very brief. we have tried to pierce the veil on these numbers as well, because the concept that the senator has i think is the correct one. what we have found is in line with what senator warner said. it depends on the language one uses. i as soon and obligated meant money was unavailable. turns out that in the language of omb, that have programs that have been awarded that are not considered obligated until the contract is signed. and so the difference between what we see and what i thought stuck out there, and i was hoping to put into this budget, was money that was unobligated, i guess making the same assumption the senator from texas is making. let me give you two examples we found. on a high-speed rail program, is

100% awarded, but not yet obligated, because the contract has not been formally signed, because they are in what is called legal review. on the smart grid program, which has potential for very significant energy savings, it is 100% awarded, but much of it not yet obligated, again for this same reason. so that creates an issue. let me just say, -- >> one other thing, because i looked at the top line numbers and bought, even if he said we will give them through fiscal year 2012 or 2013, there were still large numbers. if you look at broadbent, we all have communities that have applied for broadband finding that is not obligated, but there is the expectation that if they have been selected, they will get the dollars.

the number is much lower than what the top line look like. >> i say with all respect that the stimulus did not worked the way that the administration and many of those who supported it hoped it would, in terms of keeping unemployment under 8%. i understand, because economic forecasting is a very dicey business. but now, with the benefit of experience, in hindsight, we ought to be able to learn from that lesson that the stimulus did not worked in keeping unemployment low. so the fact that there may be projects still in the pipeline should not dissuade us not to

take this money, whatever it is, and use it to pay down the deficit. we ought to learn from our experience not to be condemned to repeat it. >> 5.23 pieces of evidence. there has been over a 70% increase since a year ago. that is working. no. 2 -- the jobs market. we were losing in january of last year, 800,000 jobs a month. in march of this year, we had a gain of 162,000 jobs. on economic growth, the first quarter, economic growth was -

6.4%. in the last quarter of last year, it was positive 5.6%. if we want to learn from what has happened, the evidence is overwhelming that the series of federal initiatives have work, and if you go back in economic history and look of previous recoveries, rarely have you seen one with a turnaround as dramatic as this one, so i think the senator's characteristic -- characterization that it has not worked as fundamentally wrong. >> the facts are what they are, but the fact is as well but the stimulus, which was sold as a means to create jobs and hopefully create unemployment under a percent sign has not

worked. i concede some of the other point about the stock market rebounding, and we're all glad and hopefully our economy's resilience enough to overcome anything washington or anyone else throws at it, but my point has to do with the affect of stimulus on keeping unemployment low, and they do not think it has worked. >> let me respond to the. cbo says the recovery fact contributed between 1.5% and 3.5% to gdp growth last year, and if it had not been enacted, unemployment would have been from 10.5% to 11.1% without the recovery act. you were saying we have got to use their analysis. their analysis is the the

recovery as it has prevented unemployment from being much higher. >> mr. chairman? i would just conclude you made the argument to the amendment that the session is over and the snap back has been the fastest in history and we are on a strong economic upturn, and all the being said, i would say we do not need to spend more stimulus money. we ought to put it towards the debt. >> the cbo has always -- also said it would be impossible to say how many reported jobs would be in the absence of the stimulus package, so given a lack of demonstrable results, we have a chance to recover about a seventh of it.

i think this is a great opportunity for us to do so. >> i understand we need to move on, but i feel i need to respond as it relates to michigan and the recovery act. because of the recovery act, we have nine new companies that are manufacturing or going to be manufacturing advanced battery technology for the next generation of vehicles to compete in the global that only happened because of the $2 billion put into events in manufacturing. because of the tax credit, 150 companies across the country -- 14 companies in michigan have received the ability to create new investment and jobs and manufacturing, so we have a long way to go in michigan and anywhere elf, but i can tell you we're seeing significant changes as a result of the

recovery act, and i do not know where would 3 did where we would be if we had not done it very good >> we have got a lot of amendments pending, and in fairness to those who have amendments going forward who have not had a chance, i think we should try to limit time on amendments. i do not know what would be reasonable, but we will have a discussion and see if there is some reasonable time, maybe try to do five minutes? should we try to go to 5 minutes on an amendment to colleagues -- i think in fairness to the colleagues who have not yet had their amendments considered. i apologize to those -- >> is that the idea?

was it because senator one house is next devlin >> you have an important amendment. >> i have a non controversial one. there is an existing reserve fund, and it provides that the reserve fund and insurance reform -- >> is the microphone on? maybe if you could call it up closer. >> the amendment would expand infrastructure reserve fund to include measures to modify and reserve and to prevent and mitigates flood damaged. the reserve funds will provide the flexibility to help make badly needed investment in our nation's infrastructure this response to flooding, the worst

flooding in well over a century. in certain places it exceeded the 500-year flood lines drawn by the army corps. rivers overflowed. they closed route 95 for two days. amtrak was shut for five days because the tracks were flooded. ryland's economy ground to a halt because the book could not get to work. i traveled and survey the considerable damage, speaking to those who were unemployed. i am working with my colleague on an aid package i hope will be a will to pass as emergency spending. it certainly is a new story of emergency for the people of rhode island. this will help bolster existing programs that are helping our state recover but are under

foundered such as the emergency relief program and army corps relief efforts. i hope my colleagues will support the passage of this amendment. >> thank you, senator white house. any other comment on the amendment. if not, maybe we can save some time and vote on the next amendment. are you ready? if weekend have the amendment is to -- if we could have the men and distributed -- now the amendment distributed -- >> thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment would establish a deficit reserve fund to protect the u.s. entrepreneurial sector for small business and only a small business from an increase in the top two individual interest grapes. that would be -- individual

rate. the vibrant entrepreneurial sector is the bedrock of to the economy and the key to growth. small businesses try out new technologies. they experiment with new forms of organization, an important source of risk taking. unfortunately, if there's sold partnership -- if they are also partnership, the profit flows immediately to the personal income tax, even though almost all of it is reinvested back into the business, and as the rates go up, it will seriously damage their ability to be innovators and risk-takers. .