go. i am a doctor. that's why i got so excited about genomics, the process -- the promise that it holds from taking medicine where it has been to where it needs to go. over the next 10 to 20 years, we will see remarkable advances of that sort. >> a cure for cancer? >> cancer is hundreds of diseases. a lot of this is built on technology. that's another lesson. science and technology are more tightly intra-woven than ever. medically, we can build upon these advances. look at dna sequencing. the first genome cost $400 million. currently, and that could be done for $8,000.

there are no laws of physics that will stop people. we will probably be able to do that in $1,000 in the next three years or four years. in some instances people are taking a vantage of information. and there was a recent analysis done. look at the first 10 years of having a genome sequence and they asked what were the economic benefits of the $400 million investment. about $796 billion was gained in economic growth in that 10- yearperiod. -- 10-year period. you have an investment of 141 to one, which is not bad.

at a time when resources are tight and people are trying to figure out which investments will encourage our economy, that is the sort of thing worth paying attention to. jobs in states and districts all across the country. the return on the average grant is over two fold in one year for a local economic goods and services. i hope there's enough legitimacy there for us to say this is not only about advancing human help, but a great opportunity to rebuild our economy and support our global competitiveness. in 10 or 20 years, if we are successful in retaining the best and brightest of this generation -- and i am worried about that -- we should have opportunity to be able to understand at a very detailed level about how people get cancer, diabetes, heart disease.

we will have diagnostics to identify and vanilla stage that something is gone wrong and will have a wide variety of opportunities for intervention that that should be much more powerful and less toxic than what we have now. that's a long and slow process. this is a marathon and not a fast race. people willing to recognize that it -- if people are not willing to recognize that, they will always ask where's the beef? the good stuff is what we can do now because we have this fundamental information, we can really start to figure out what's going on. imagine a computer model that captures all the components and makes accurate predictions about what happens whether it's internal or an external or makes a prediction of whether you

mutated a certain protein in this way, what would happen? that would be an interesting ping to contemplate being part of putting together. 20 years ago those ideas would have seemed insane. too broad down, but now attainable with the right talent and resources. >> the you see growth adopts a potentially? >> -- job growth potential? >> for sure. manufactured materials, making the materials and jobs. natural gas to liquid fuels. process we have developed, many areas of job growth from oil and gas to the chemical

industry in. we are very excited to be a part of that. making something that could give you a clear source of energy and lower carbon footprint, but creating jobs. it's a dream come true. >> natural gas to liquid fuel? >> this is the idea of how do you take a very abundant resources of natural gas and methane gas that comes from renewable sources. a pretty energy molecule. molecule. you put those together in a specific way. we have done catalysts discovery using biology, chemistry, and

screening to figure out how to make it so you can rearrange that in a very efficient manner. people have been wanting to do that along time. >> it is expensive to do, the initial process? >> the initial process, no. it's going to be quite a bit cheaper. we have developed catalysts that are very effective. the thing that's exciting to us is that it's compatible with already existing petrochemical industry. we are going to take our materials and plants and put them into already existing facilities. when you are getting rid of natural gas, let's use that to make fuel or products, things that would normally be going up to form carbon dioxide.

but it's going into a company that has fantastic engineers and they say we are going to find out all the combinations until we find a winner and interact with industry. >> you are pretty much as they're doing experts? >> we are very excited. -- >> you are pretty much there doing it? >> we are very excited. >> maybe we could go to the questions. >> one of the things we have to be careful about is not being overly top-down and prescribing what things are most right for investment, because in many ways it's a whole scientific community that provides the best

ideas and that's what our peer review system master focus on, evaluating those and in an innovative way. there are exciting things that we probably need to special a push on cancer, the ability to weed out all the dna mistakes in the cancer cell. cancer is a disease of the genome. so we have the opportunity to do this in a conference of matter. we are in the middle of this right now. there will be a new revelation about this regarding ovarian cancer this week in the publication of " nature." looking for a vaccine, probably looking at the possibility of a universal influenza vaccine sometime in the next few years. by being able to take advantage of structural biology and together with innovative and immunology that brings in genomics and figuring out how to design a vaccine that you only have to take once and maybe a booster shot every 20 years. but you would not have to have

the injection once a year. perhaps 36,000 people died of influenza every year will go down. amazing advances have happened in that field. with hiv aids, much excitement there in terms of potential locally and globally for applications. have to do something about alzheimer's disease. dit could create even more havoc than it already does, not to mention tremendous economic cost. we have new insights into alzheimer's in the last year that's are pretty excited, to review its ideas that had not been realized previously and it involves the genomics, studying why people get the disease, what are the risk factors, what pathways' must be involved. that's a short list of what could be a very long list. i hope you get the sense of the unprecedented heights o -- of the unprecedented opportunity that lie ahead of us if we put forward at maximum speeds.

>> its our young people making sure that they have the opportunity to excel in math and science from the educational point of view and mentor ship to get them excited about it and to realize what a difference they can make by choosing a path of maps,, or engineering. >> how to encourage women going into science and engineering? >> it's fabulous stages. -- it is at the early stages. you don't target them necessarily in high school. u local elementary school. that can be done through mentoring and encouragement. -- you look to elementary school. we have a lot of women in

engineering. sometimes more women undergraduates than men. but we have a problem with getting more women to get their phd or for them to go on to academia. that is seen as a lifestyle in part. i think my life is pretty good. [laughter] so part of it is through mentoring and dedication. it's not polite be want to work on just interesting problems. it's about let's make a difference in the world, let's build solutions. these are the kind of things if the students will get excited about. regular people wanting to make a difference in the world, not just solving equations and thinking, because it really is about community and interacting with people and about something

bigger than yourself that and make a difference. of kids't think a lot know what they will study at a young age. i never knew until i got into reporting science for all the different fields that are out there. at a young age i wish more kids could know what was out there. i probably would have studied more. what about job prospects of interdisciplinary scientists? will they be welcomed into the workforce? >> in the forward-looking and laboratories and institutions, absolutely. this is the area where many of us see the greatest potential for advancement, when you bring disciplines together. in the past and maybe still this is true in some institutions, such individuals had a little trouble finding a welcoming

home the, again because of the departmental structures that may have been a little mired in the past and not so much in the future and people who were computational biologist did not feel they were particularly recognized in the computer science department and in the biology department they were like, where's your test tube? if you look at the recruitments that are going across the top tier universities in this country, a large number of them talk about how they are looking for somebody that has interdisciplinary skills. >> one of the things i always tell young people is that being interdisciplinary is great, but to be a real expert in one field and then start integrating other disciplines. ofdon't be a little because something. have a depth of understanding in your field, whether its chemistry, physics, biology, and

then add on to it and that makes you very solid. >> improving your skills. recognize or promote talents outside the system, the nonacademic genius? that's a tough one. got any answers for that one? >> that's one of those where you have to look at it case by case. and nonacademic genius, in what particular area and with what particular dream? one of the questions that i think we don't have a good fix on is what is the talent need? what is the supply and demand equation across many fields of science? i just recently asked the president of princeton to lead a working group 4 my advisory council about workforce for biomedical research. depending on who you talk to, we have weight too -- way too many

ph.d.'s and others say we don't have enough. i think the problem is we are training them that they have to be just like us, tenured professors at top universities. the other pathways may not seem as good, they may seem alternative careers, which sends the message of you don't want to be one. the way science is going in technology and the engineering, there are lots of opportunities for all kinds of interesting pathways that are not traditional. yet we don't do a good job of exposing graduates students to those options in a way that they get a sense about what might be really good fit in industry and certainly in teaching. we desperately need those creative minds in education. and science policy. all those areas are underserved

right now by a talented scientists, but which are seen as not somehow fundamentally important, but they are. what we're trying to do is build a model that allows us to get a sense of what are we expecting to have as the supply of interesting people -- interested people will want to get into science from our country and others? and what are the pathways and what are the needs in those pathways? and we figure out are we doing this right? in terms of quality and in terms of qquantity? i suspect we'll get interesting answers. >> you both have highlighted the investment in research, get aarp is running ads pitting spending on medicare and social

security against research. -- against pickle research. >> longevity has improved by one year every six years in this country. if you add up what that has added to the economy since 1970, that's worth $95 trillion. if you ask what's happening in terms of disability, which aarp members are concerned about, we have reduced his ability by 30% since 1970 by advances that allow people to be more functional even if they have cardiac disease, a joint replacement, all the things that keep people mobile and able to perform like activities. those are pretty good returns on investment. we have seen heart attacks dropped by more than 70% and strokes by more than 70% in the

last 40 years. cancer now going down for the first time in the last century. for the last 10 years cancer has been going down by 1% per year. each drop in cancer by 1% saves $5 billion in terms of the economic situation. that's not bad, when you consider the amount of money we put into research, the return is probably one of the best things we can possibly do. has been quite supportive of research as a means of trying to do things that they care about, such as preventing disabilities and doing something about alzheimer's disease. >> how do social sciences pyrrole in innovation and economic growth? >> they are critical. they were having a pink tank and

they brought in experts from all over the country yesterday and some from outside the country to lay out of what should be the next agenda for social sciences as part of biomedical research. a lot of this is trying to understand human behavior. much of the disease that we are trying to prevent is based upon behavior all decisions. we have not done a very good job of understanding what the motivators are that would result in better outcomes. this is a great time to be able to do that. you cannot have personalized madison unless you think about human behavior. otherwise, nothing will really change. it is a fertile field for investment now. >> should graduate students in the sciences be involved in innovation's for turning discovers into economic social good? >> you are doing it. >> i see much more that the

students are looking for technology that can make a big impact. many times they are for economic good. a lot of times they are four countries that cannot afford better health care or less expensive ways of getting energy sources to a different part of the world. that is something students are very passionate about. as a professor, you always are having to weigh things out in terms of how you provide the best education for your students to go toward banning their ph.d. you want to make sure they are doing the basic science and technology. it's great to have the final impact in technology or underdeveloped countries or inexpensive health care. we have other programs where the

students go and work in other countries in either economics or engineering and science where they try to make an impact locally based on technologies that they develop in clauses or at mit or other places and the young people are excited about that. the bank is so much for your participation. -- thank you so much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> is today president obama urged congress to reach a compromise within the next two weeks on raising the nation's debt limit and warned against the short term solution. his remarks are next on c-span. in a few minutes we will hear from senate republicans on the debt ceiling and the senate's agenda this week.

and we will get a closer look at some federal spending and budget negotiations. "washington journal starts at 7:00 eastern. the u.s. supreme court has a network for the term. today, a look at some of the court's decisions. the court blocked a class action at wal-mart and allows video gamers to continue to sell violent video games to minors in california. that's toasted by the heritage foundation and moderated by a former attorney general. coverage under way at 10:00 a.m. eastern live. >> president obama spoke briefly to reporters about the debt ceiling and spending reduction negotiations between democrats and republicans. his remarks are under five minutes. >> no, everybody. i want to give you an update on the negotiations we have been

having the last several weeks and i want to wish everybody a happy fourth of july. coba the july 4 weekend, my team and i had a series of discussions with congressional leaders in both parties. we have made progress and i believe that greater progress is within sight, but i don't want to fool anybody. we donhave to work through some real differences. i have heard reports that there may be some in congress wghho want to do just enough to make sure america will its defaulting on our debt in the short term, but then wants to kick the can down the road when it comes to solving a larger problem of our deficit. i don't share that view. i don't think the american people sent us here to avoid tough problems. in fact, that is what drives them nuts about washington, when both parties simply take the path of least resistance. i don't want to do that.

i believe that right now we have a unique opportunity to do something big, to tackle our deficit in a way that forces our government to live within its means, that puts our economy on a stronger footing for the future, and still allows us to invest in the future. most of us already agreed that to truly solve our deficit problem we need to find trillions in savings over the next decade and significantly more in the decades to follow. that's what the bipartisan disco commission said. that's the mountain i put forward in the framework i announced a few months ago. that's around the same amount americans have put forward in their own plans. that's the kind of substantial progress we should be aiming for. together i believe we need a balanced approach. we need to take on spending in domestic programs, in defense programs,in entitlement

programs, and we need to take on spending in the tax code. spending on certain tax breaks with reductions for about the americans' fear this will allow both parties to get out of our coverage zones and both parties to agree on real compromise. i'-- to get out of their comfort zones. i am ready to do that. we need to come together and to reach a deal that reduces the deficit and to have the full faith and credit of the and the american people. even as we continue discussions today and tomorrow i have asked leaders of both parties and both houses of congress to come here to the white house on thursday so that we can build on the work that is already been done and have a final agreement. my hope is that everyone will leave their ultimatums at the door and we will all leave our

political rhetoric at the door and do what's best for our economy and what's best for our people. i want to emphasize that this should not come down to the last seconds. it's important for us to show the american people combat began find common ground and solve our problems in a responsible way. we know that it's gone to require tough decisions. i think it's better for us to take the tough decisions sooner rather than later. that's what the american people expect of us and that's what a healthy economy will require. that's the kind of progress that i expect to make. i promised that i will keep you guys updated as time goes on. all right? >> will you take any questions, mr. president? >> i cannot. >> we will hear now from senate republicans on the debt, deficit, and the senate schedule for the week. this news conference is about 30

minutes. ranking budget committee member jeff sessions begins with a brief remarks to reporters. >> the events this afternoon were very significant. the senate has sent a message to the leadership that we expect that we do real work on the financial condition of our country that includes budget issues and includes the debt limit, the debt ceiling. those matters are of extreme importance to america and we should be focusing on maps. -- on that. 46 republican senators wrote prior to the memorial day recess and we said we should not recess and then until we had done something about the debt situation our country faces. so the issue is joined again

before the july 4 recess. i think the majority yeutter had already decided he was not going to have a vote on the recess, so the president joined in on that. -- i think the majority leader had already decided. i appreciate the new members of the senate's who have brought passion and commitment and enthusiasm to this issue. that is unlike what we have seen in some time. i would like to recognize senator ron johnson and senator kelly a. hough who have provided so much of the impetus that led to this very significant event today. -- kelly ahyotte. >> thank you, senator sessions. i have been following your lead. the senator has been out there talking about how broken the senate is when it comes to the budget. the u.s. senate has not passed a budget in over two years.

i understand how broken washington is. the senate is fiddling while america goes bankrupt. last week on tuesday i stood up and said this must stop. until the senate to get serious about addressing the number one problem facing this nation, i was going to object and withhold my consent. we got past the nominations bill, and then senator harry reid brought up the libya resolution. i objected because as important an issue as that is, it simply does not address the fact we are bankrupting this nation. the u.s. senate has not passed a budget in two years. i have been in business 34 years. i have had to produce budgets on time. i have had people produce budgets for me on time. it is unthinkable in business to miss one of those deadlines. we are talking about the u.s.

government. we are talking about the united states of america. this united states senate cannot even pass a budget on time while america is going bankrupt. this week because of senate recessions leadership are not going out on recess, we can back, but to do what -- we came back, but to do what? my colleagues got on the phone with me on the weekend to rally republican colleagues. the republican colleagues in the senate were united in the fact we have to turn our attention to the fact we are bankrupting the nation and to address the real solutions. i want to thank everybody for participating and turn it over to kelly, whho also worked hard on the weekend-- who also worked hard on the weekend.

>> i want to thank senator johnson for saying that we should stay here and address the fiscal crisis that our country faces right now and not go on recess. i want to thank my other colleagues standing with me today. i want to thank senator sessions, ranking member of the budget committee as well as senator corker, senator wicker, and senator kay bailey hutchison. while libya is an important issue, right before us is the fiscal crisis that we need to address right now prevents winds we are back and why we are not on recess. that is why we are back. we are going to get our fiscal house in order in washington.

a non- brought forward binding resolution. we are here to work on real legislation that will address this fiscal crisis. republicans have proposed a balanced budget amendment. senator corker has proposed a cap act to cut spending. we should be bringing a real budget resolution to the floor. unfortunately, this latest non- binding issue in the senate is a political stunt on behalf of the majority leader. we are done with that. we need real leadership, meaning we are ready to roll up our sleeves and get together to put forth legislation that will reduce spending, to bring us to a balanced budget, so that all of us make sure we are pleading

for the next generation a better country and preserving the greatest country in the world. that's what's this is all about. we are ready this week to roll up our sleeves and get to work. now i would like to introduce senator kay bailey hutchison from texas. i want to thank courage for her leadership in bringing us together on this important vote. -- not want to thank her. >> it was the spirit of so many in our conference who said there is something wrong with us coming back and not keeping the commitments we have made in our homes states for purpose. that purpose is to deal with the budget crisis that is looming in this country and the debt ceiling that is upon us. and standing with me, deaccessions, the ranking member on the budget committee, who is standing firm that we should have a vote.

the first thing we had to do to solve the problem is to put out a budget resolution. then we will know how much spending money to cut. then we will know where the parties need to be. that is the first set. jeff sessions is ready to go and we are going to ask that a budget resolution come to the floor so we can debate. we don't disagree on the goal, but we do disagree on the spending cuts that are necessary and the parties. so let's get out there and that the amendments. i want to introduce bob corker. he has a real plan to cap spending at a level that is associated with the gross domestic product. that is the kind of legislation we ought to be looking at to solve the big problem before us. senator, thank you for everyt -- for efforts you have made. i think our congress is

completely united that this is the party and that we need to get onyx. -- get on it. >> much of what needs to be said has been said. i am thrilled to be here with my colleagues who have done such a great job. we did a tally on where we where as far as cloture. i am glad that senator reid has pulled the libya vote. ron johnson began this last week. kelly and jeff and kay bailey hutchison and roger and a lot of folks have been involved in getting us where we are. i've been in business 33 years. you made me do the math. [laughter] one of the things that's frustrating about being in a place like the u.s. senate, typically when you have an ox in business, you focus

on that, you don't go off on a tangent that is unrelated to the issue at hand. america is fiddling while we have congress -- or rather congress is fiddling while america has this problem. libya, the house has already voted down this resolution. it was a filler. some republican senators had to defer on an issue that they felt was very important, meaning libya, to agree and consolidated on the idea that this is the number one threat to our

country, the debt issue. i'm glad we were able to do this. i do hope we will focus on the things that actually have something to do with the budget. 797 days since we have had a budget in the senate. we have not had one brought to the floor this year. we will focus on the most important national security threat, the debt, over the next short amount of time. we have a debt ceiling vote that has to occur according to the administration by august 2 year that may or may not be the right date, but that's what we need to focus on. i thank my colleagues for making back a focus for the next short amount of time. >> thank you. roger , from mississippi. let me make sure everybody understands why we are here. we are here because had the votes at 5:00 in taken, there's no question that the majority

leader would have been defeated in his effort to move off the subject of the debt and onto another subject. to me this represents a significant legislative victory for those of us who agree with the outgoing chairman of the joint chiefs of staff that our national debt is the number one national security issues facing americans today. and we ought to be talking about past. -- abopuut that. there's one reaso the senate is in session today. we have been challenged to come back here and deal with the most pressing issue facing our country and that is the issue of the depth, the annual deficit, and what we are going to do about the looming deadline in august. there are a number of ways we can address this substantively. last week the republican leader invited the president to meet with republicans at lunch.

the president spokesman opined that it was not a conversation with having. senator mitch mcconnell renewed that invitation today in addressing his fellow senators on the floor. i would renew that. it would be valuable if the president did come speak to us. also, there's the quaint idea of following the budget law, which requires the budget committee under the leadership of the budget chairman and majority leader actually to bring the budget resolution to the floor of the senate for debate, for discussion and for amendment and for passage or defeat. so i am calling on senate recession counterpart, the budget chairman, to address this issue that brings us back to washington d.c. this week, by convening the committee, reporting out a budget

resolution, tapping us deal with it substantively. and finally, and i think this is the hope of many of us, but the house of representatives will send us substantive budget legislation, to prove that it can be passed in the house. the cap that senator corker has been instrumental in. a balanced budget, that over. let us vote. send that to the american people, particularly in the case of the amendment for ratification. give us substantive victories that we can so the american people that we are serious about the debt, that we are working on it and willing to work on it and get results for the american people. congratulations to my colleagues for working on this significant legislative victory. i will turn it over to our ranking budget member for any questions and answers you might have.

>> yes? >> what can the senate do this week on the? debt the -- what can the senate do this week on the debt limit? >> there's a lot involved in raising the debt limit. the president with his reckless spending, and three consecutive trillion dollar deficits. we have hit the debt ceiling far sooner than was expected. so the issue goes beyond just raising the debt ceiling. it's how do we change the trajectory that we are on? so constitutional amendment to balance the budget. it failed by one vote when i

arrived in 1997. history not shows had that passed and then, we would not be in a hole that we are in today. a lot of issues have to be involved. we should begin discussions and hearings on a balanced budget amendment. they say you have to have tax increases. well, let's see what they are. have a committee -- have the finance committee analyze them. are they necessary and how much will be raised? how much spending and what needs to be cut? this is the work of the congress. any objective observer would be concerned for the historic role of congress when you consider the settlement that occurred last december, the cr settlements that were rushed through, , even the health care

bill. we have not engaged in the kind of process that makes for better legislation. >> one of the main reasons i stepped up to the plate last week and started objecting was because of the process. a limited number of individuals locked themselves behind closed doors, far from the view of the american public. is that call? we will decide the financial fate america? i don't think so. -- a few people locked themselves behind closed doors, is that appropriate? is that how to decide the financial fate of america? i seek a solution to our problems is really a a two-step process. we have to provide caps, the

overall fiscal discipline. what is wrong with passing a constitutional amendment and sending it to the people? let the american people decide if they want fiscal discipline. i think they do. we are asking our democratic colleagues in congress to pass a balanced budget amendment, send back to the american people, let them decide. >> the fact is that by the people understand at this point baskets -- i think that people understand republicans are not going to agree to an increase without cuts in spending. all of these things are related because people do not want to see things continue as they are. so the debt ceiling vote may seem in isolation an issue, but

there are a number of issues that can be dealt with this week that would add to getting an agreement on the debt ceiling votes. not just a cap act, but members have offered a two-year budgeting cycle. there are all kinds of things. a freeze in federal spending, a number of federal employees. all kinds of things have been introduced, that if agreed to, would be very much complementary. so that's why it's important. >> you keep talking about how important it is to cut spending, and you talk about the balanced budget amendment and the cap act and the budget

resolution. why not come up with real spending cuts, the actual changes to programs? you start talking about all these procedural kings. -- things. why don't you say what you're going to cut? >> because those are the things that lead to a balanced budget. i have a social security plan that does not increase taxes or cut core benefits. that should be on the table for any long-term effects. we have to get it out there. that is what the process does. i put the bill in. it is on the record. i have had press conferences and have spoken about it. i have been to the heritage foundation and spoken with experts about it. i have a real proposal on social

security. it will close the 75-year gap without a tax increase and without any cuts to core benefits. that should be part of any discussion we have. but we have to have a discussion. we have to have a process. a budget resolution or balanced budget amendment or agreement should include that. what we are saying is give us a process and we have ideas. >> the budget does lay out what spending there will be over the future. something like they cap act blocks those in -- locks th ose in. >> will you have a vote? >> it came to the floor, the budget. in july and now we have not even had a budget come out of committee and bumping against

the debt ceiling. all these things go hand in hand. a budget does lay out real cuts. the cap act makes sure those don't change. they are relevant and pertinent to what we are doing here today. >> i want to say, the notion of not having a budget is very significant. look at the trauma on the june resolutions, that's no way to run a government. there's not a business in this country or family in this country that does not have a plan on what they have coming in and what they are spending appear that's why we keep harping on exit. it says we need to put the budget to gather. the hard work of rolling up your sleeves and having to prioritize and decide where you are going to spend your dollars if, that's why we keep talking about it.

it's so important. i'm the newest member of the budget committee and i cannot describe my frustration of not being able to do the real work of that committee, which i wanted to be on because i think it's one of the most important jobs we can do. to keep kicking the can down the road is completely irresponsible. >> i would like to provide a answer.owmore direct the fact of the matter is nobody wants to cut spending. if you are in a budgetary process as an individual or family, you have to cut spending and you have to cut its credit cards. you have to enforce the discipline first. you have to have those caps. you need an amendment to force washington to prior to or spending -- prioritize spending and make americans realize we have to prioritize spending. you have watched the process. it's all the demagoguery against

the ryan budget appear that's what happens when you throw out spending cuts without the institutional caps that we need. so it's a two-step process. first you need the discipline in place and then you need to do the hard work for spending. waylieve it's the only long-term that we actually fix the problem. i don't think we will ever -- >> what are you going to do with they reid solution? will republicans move forward? [inaudible] what alternatives might offer to it? >> we are supposed to have legislation in place by august 2

to deal with raising the debt limit. that has to be real numbers, real figures. so i guess we can say that we will begin to talk about something, with a rather apathetic response from the majority leader. i am not happy about that and i would note that the republican house produced a budget that is honest and dealt with systemic problems we face. the democratic senate has said that they have one. they say that they have a budget, but i would like to see it. would not the american people like to see it? bacon passes under the budget procedure with a simple it rity-- they c aan pass under the budget procedure with a simple majority. this is something they can do. the remarkable thing is that

they are not willing to lay out the kind of numbers that it takes to change. $3 billion on the airplane savings, they say, commercial aircraft. the president's budget over 10 years will increase the debt of america 13,000 billion dollars -- 13 trillion dollars. you have to pass a $3 billion deal on commercial aircraft, as if that has any significance when we consider the serious issues we are facing. >> that's correct. this is only a resolution. it would be interesting if they brought forth real tax changes. we might actually debate that. instead there's a sense in the senate, the one thing you could

say that's been accomplished this afternoon is that we have lots of members on our side of the aisle that really want to debate. this is something they spent a lot of time on. some of our folks have travel to libya and we have all met with leaders of the transitional government. but what they've said is they want to put that aside and deal with the most important issue we have in our country. obviously, you know there's nothing yet prepared to other than a things we have offered to deal with those issues. if the majority knows that we are willing to stick together and not go to any other business other than dealing with the budget, dealing with the deficit this and the debt ceiling, my sense is while today we are not going to have anything really serious to talk about, just a sense in the senate, my sense is that very quickly we will have something before us that actually is real. i think that is the victory of

what happened this evening. >> is said a lot of people want to debate libya. there will always be another budget crisis. we will be in debt for a long time. when should we get to the business of libya? last've weighed in on it week in foreign relations. most people know the resolution before us was defeated in the house, basically. one of the things that has been a misnomer. the president has never asked for authorization in libya. that's not true. people have said that he has. what he did say is he would like to have a sense of the senate resolution siand support. i would have respected them more if they had said we think it's unconstitutional. so there's no question that we need to return to the issue of libya, because you cannot have

somebody calling something not hostility when it is. but i i think we need to prioritize. the most important issue, as everyone has said, if the most important issue to our country and our national security is dealing with the debt ceiling, but that, and the deficits. we will get back to that. but there's nothing we were going to do this week in the senate that's in any way affected what was actually happening in libya, nothing. everybody knew that. the senate might have voiced opinion. but since the house had already voted down the same resolution, nothing was going to change. so you are right that we need to get back to that. in my opinion, and i don't set the agenda, but that ought to be the next item after we deal with these financial matters that are more pressing and something we can actually affect.

again, what we do this week on the floor in libya, or rather what we were going to do was not really going to affect the activity there on the ground or in the air at all. >> one more question back here. >> in terms of the timing, you spoke about a seven-day layover. the ratings agency said that they need to see evidence of progress by mid july? how realistic is it to ask for that type of seven-day layover given the time frames? >> we have been seeing these time frames come at us for months. we have been seen them since the first of the year. i called on the president to lay out a historic approach to our spending in this state of the union. he did not. he spoke about investments, more spending. i said you should do it in your

budget. his budget speech made it worse. it increased taxes and increased spending more than a tax. so we are heading to the last hours of the deadline that has been set by the administration, august 2, and we are seeing nothing. and i am really flabbergasted. and i don't believe republicans are to blame for this. i believe the white house, if they have a plan, they ought to be proud to bring it forth. or the majority leader should be proud to bring it forth and let's begin to look at it and debated and all the serious consequences that would accrue from not having raised the debt ceiling by august 2, which is a serious matter. hopefully, we can avoid that kind of event. >> [unintelligible] >> good to see you.

thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> senate republicans and a news briefing yesterday. president obama has asked congressional leaders to come to the white house tomorrow for talks on raising the federal debt limit. today's senate majority leader harry reid has called for a test vote on whether those with higher incomes should "make a more meaningful contribution to the deficit-reduction efforts." is a non-binding resolution. live coverage of 10:00 eastern on c-span 2. coming up this morning on c-span 3, an all-day forum from the campus progress national conference. we will hear from former president bill clinton this morning, live coverage at 9:00 eastern. mr. clinton's schedule to speak

after 10:00. >> the c-span networks, we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history. it's all available to you on television, radio, on line, and on social media networking sites. find our content anytime troops c-span video library. and we take c-span on the road with our digital bus local content vehicles, bringing our resources to your community. it's washington your way, the c- span networks, now available in more than 100 million homes. created by cable, provided as a public service. "washington journal" is next. we will look at the day's news. a review of the recent u.s. supreme court term. it's hosted by the heritage foundation, live coverage of 10:00 eastern. the house at 2:00 eastern, work on defense funding for 2012. amendment votes begin at 6:30 eastern. eastern.