Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Reid amendment No. 152 be withdrawn; that the Reid amendment No. 143 be modified with the changes at the desk; the Senate proceed to vote on the amendment, as modified, with no amendments in order prior to the vote; that there then be 30 minutes of debate equally divided between the two managers or their designees; that S. 23 be read a third time; that a budgetary pay-go statement be read; the Senate then proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, as amended; and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Further, I ask unanimous consent that at 12 noon Wednesday, March 9, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 14, H.R. 1, the Defense appropriations long-term continuing resolution for fiscal year 2011; that there be 3 hours of debate on H.R. 1 and the Democratic alternative, the Inouye substitute amendment No. 149, with the time equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to a vote on passage of H.R. 1; that the vote on passage be subject to a 60- vote threshold; that if the bill achieves 60 affirmative votes, the bill be read a third time and passed; that if the bill does not achieve 60 affirmative votes, the majority leader be recognized to offer the Inouye substitute amendment No. 149; the Senate then proceed to a vote on the substitute amendment; that the substitute amendment be subject to a 60-vote threshold; if the substitute amendment achieves 60 affirmative votes, the substitute amendment be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; if the substitute amendment does not achieve 60 affirmative votes, H.R. 1 be returned to the calendar; that no motions or amendments be in order to the substitute amendment or to the bill prior to the votes; further, that all of the above occur with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, with this agreement, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote with respect to the motion to proceed to H.R. 1 be vitiated.

Mr. President, even though there have been a few turns in the road, we are at the place where we need to be. We need to be able to show the American people where we are on these two measures. I express my appreciation to my friend, the Republican leader. As I said, things don't always work smoothly around here, but they usually work. Now we are at a point where we can vote on these two measures which is what we need to do.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 8, 2011, at 9:45 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 8, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 8, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 8, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 8, 2011, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Does the Tax System Support Economic Efficiency, Job Creation and Broad-Based Economic Growth?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 8, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 8, 2011. The Committee will meet in room 345 of the Cannon House Office Building beginning at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 8, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 8, 2011, at 10:30 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 8, 2011, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``State Department Training: Investing in the Workforce to Address 21 Century Challenges.''

Mr. President, following leader remarks, there will be a period of morning business until 4:30 today. Senators will be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

At 4:30 the Senate will proceed to executive session with an hour for debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form.

At 5:30 today the Senate will confirm the nomination of Sue Myerscough, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of Illinois. There will then be a series of up to three rollcall votes, first on the confirmation of Anthony Battaglia, of California, to be a U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California; the confirmation of the nomination of James Shadid, of Illinois, to a U.S. District Judge for the Central District of Illinois; and the motion to invoke cloture on S. 23, the America Invents Act. The filing deadline for second-degree amendments to S. 23 is 5 p.m. today.

In addition, on Friday, cloture was filed on the motion to proceed to H.R. 1, the Defense appropriations continuing resolution. I hope to reach an agreement to vote on H.R. 1 and the Democratic alternative introduced by Senator Inouye on Friday. We are going to vote on this matter sometime tomorrow, even if it is late tomorrow night.

In addition to completing action on the America Invents Act, the Senate will also begin consideration of the continuing resolution and possibly H.R. 4, the repeal of the 1099 section of the bill we passed last year dealing with health care.

Mr. President, budgets and votes have something very important in common: At their heart, both require and reflect tough choices.

Tomorrow we hope the Senate will vote on the Republican response to the President's budget. That is the so-called H.R. 1. Not only is the United States now focused on it, but the entire world is as well. Then we will vote on the Democratic response. Everyone has done the math and everyone knows how these votes will turn out. It is likely neither proposal will pass, which means neither will reach the President's desk, and we will go back to

square one, back to the negotiating table.

But tomorrow's votes are still significant. Just as our budget--that is, how we invest taxpayer money and invest our resources--reflects our values, so will the votes cast on these two competing measures. They will show us which Senators are serious about fortifying our long-term future and which are more concerned with scoring short-term political points. These votes will show us who wants an easy applause line and who wants to strengthen our Nation's bottom line.

As the two parties' vastly different proposals make clear, there is a fine line between a responsible budget and a reckless budget. The Republican plan we will vote on tomorrow is the same plan the tea party already pushed through the House of Representatives. It is called H.R. 1. Now the same tea party is trying to push it through the Senate. That plan will cost 700,000 Americans, including 6,000 Nevadans, their jobs, and I will not support that nor will any other Democrat I know of here in the Senate. The figure of 700,000 is not a figure picked out of the air. Economists generally agree that is a huge job loss for our country--economists led by Mark Zandi, whom I have said on this floor on a number of occasions has a pretty good resume. He is a chief economist at Moody's now. He is a noted economist and was John McCain's chief economic adviser during the campaign.

The tea party Republicans are hoping America will see their budget's pricetag and swoon over its cuts. They are hoping the country doesn't look under the hood and see what is wrong. That is because they know that when we do, we will see their shiny new budget is a lemon and has a badly broken engine.

I can remember I represented a number of car dealers when I practiced law. One of them was a wonderful man. His son is now running his operations. There was someone out picketing his place of business and he had a great big lemon. He alleged he had bought a car there at Findlay Oldsmobile and it was a lemon. I was an attorney wanting to stop that. I was ready to go to court and get an injunction to stop that. Pete Findlay called me and said, look, there is something wrong with that car and I don't want people to buy cars when there is something wrong with them. Take care of it. We will get him another car.

Well, that is what the Republicans should do with the lemon they are trying to perpetuate over here. As I said, when we look under the hood of H.R. 1, we find it is not a good piece of legislation, and that is a gross understatement. H.R. 1 has not only a broken engine, it is a lemon in many other respects.

To pull ourselves out of this ditch, we need an engine that powers growth, innovation, and our being more competitive. We need one that powers a recovery. The last thing we can afford is a broken engine that will drive us right back into recession. We can't fix a broken economy with a broken engine. But that is exactly what the Republican House is trying to sell us with this H.R. 1. The tea party plan will make Nevada's students and workers less competitive and will make Nevada's families and communities even less safe.

It hurts education, which, of course, threatens our future. There are many examples, but let me give two or three, starting where many of our children start--in early education. Head Start is a successful early education program for the poorest of the poor. It has been proven Head Start students are much more likely than their peers to graduate from high school. But under the Republicans' plan--this tea party plan, this H.R. 1--200,000 Head Start students, including hundreds and hundreds in Nevada, will be basically eliminated from the school system. That is a careless short-term cut with devastating long-term consequences.

Second, what about students who are already out of high school and go to college thanks to Pell grants? If the Republican plan were to pass, those Nevada undergraduates who rely on Pell grants would see their tuition assistance cut by more than $600 a year. That means one of two things: These students' tuition bills will go up or they will be forced to drop out. We can't afford this. Either choice is a bad choice.

Third, what about those who are already in the workplace who are looking to join the job market? This tea party proposal would cost Nevada $30 million in job training investments. That would hurt about 8,000 potential Nevada workers. These cuts won't do anything to help unemployment go down or help Nevada's economy get back on its feet.

We all know we have to make some sacrifices. We know there have to be cuts made. We have made them. But these Republican cuts, as indicated in H.R. 1, dealing with education alone, as I have mentioned, are counterproductive. If we slice budgets in the name of a stronger future but cut the most important way to strengthen our future, what have we accomplished? Nothing. We have made things much worse.

It is not just education. Let's talk about a few more of these dangerous consequences the Republicans' reckless budget would have for Nevada. The same would apply to Connecticut. It would pull the plug on renewable energy jobs in Nevada, including 600 new jobs at the State's largest solar plant. It would fire another 600 Nevadans who work at community health centers. One of the outstanding things we did in the health care bill is we put $10 billion in that bill to build 10,000 new community health centers across the country. These aren't just for poor people, but they do help poor people a lot. It gives a place for people to go so our emergency rooms don't become overrun. All of the medical economists say it will cut down the cost of health care delivery significantly. But that isn't what the Republicans do. The 600 Nevadans who work at community health centers would basically be eliminated, which means fewer Nevadans would have jobs and the neediest among us would have fewer places to turn when they need help getting healthy.

It would cut more than $1.5 million from local law enforcement programs to help Nevada prevent crime, fight domestic violence, and keep our neighborhoods safe from gangs. The plan would cut homeland security investments by about $1 million which puts every Nevadan and everyone who visits Nevada at risk. Some 60 million people a year visit Las Vegas alone. These cuts threaten the health of our economy, our communities, and our citizens.

The Democrats know we cannot make our economy work again for the middle class unless we invest the taxpayers' money as responsibly, efficiently, and transparently as possible. So for anyone to say we don't think there should be cuts--we believe there should be cuts. We have proven that. We have already cut $51 billion below what the President recommended, and it was a pretty austere budget he presented. Yes, it is easy to demonize any investments we make by calling it government spending. It has always been a political shortcut to demand that we slice zeroes off the end of the national budget. But before we go on a reckless cutting spree, let's think about what these investments do, whom they help, and how much they mean to our future.

That is what Democrats have thought about as we drafted our plan. We made responsible cuts to the tune of $51 billion below President Obama's budget. We have made some difficult choices. But where the Republican plan cuts indiscriminately, we have cut carefully. Where the Republican plan is based on ideology, ours is based on reality.

Some of the ideological cuts: Eliminate public broadcasting, eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Endowment for the Humanities. There are scores of things they have done, cutting indiscriminately. Where the Republicans' plan is based on ideology, ours is based on reality. That is because we know the whole point is to cut in a way that strengthens our economy, not in a way that weakens it. Our cuts eliminate redundancies, end unnecessary programs, and stop funding for earmarks. Our plan recognizes our job isn't to cut a billion here and a billion there just to say we did.

Our plan recognizes, as Democrats do, that we are not in competition to determine who can cut the most without regard to consequences; rather, we need to cooperate and figure out where we can cut the smartest.

The budget is complex, but the choice is very simple: If we want to create jobs, the Senate simply cannot pass the plan the tea party has already pushed through the House. We want to responsibly make the cuts we all agree we have to make. The Senate should pass the Democrats' proposal to bring down the deficit and keep our economy moving in the right direction.

If we want to realistically get something done before it is too late, the House and the Senate Democrats and Republicans should return to the negotiating table where we know a good compromise on common ground awaits us. The country is waiting too. Time is not on our side.

Mr. President, would the Chair announce morning business.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside, and I call up an amendment on behalf of Senators Baucus and Grassley, No. 141; that it be modified with the changes that are at the desk; further, that the amendment, as modified, be agreed to, that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and that there be no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the pending Leahy and Bennet amendments.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment, which is No. 143, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I now call up a second-degree amendment, which is No. 152.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, so everyone knows what this amendment does, we looked at the National Science Foundation regarding a program called EPSCoR. A number of sparsely populated States are disadvantaged with this program. However, in talking with a number of Senators, this amendment we are going to seek modification of at a later time would have no, zero, effect on scoring. There is no score to it whatsoever. But we are going to try--not trying to, we are going to include every State because it costs nothing.

Even though a lot of States are not funded adequately with this EPSCoR money, there is no reason every State that has a State university and does something inventive should have to pay exorbitant patent fees.

It does not cost any money. It is the right thing to do. We will discuss it at a further time. If someone has some problem with it, we will have to make a determination. At this stage, I think it would be the right thing for the country.

Satellite Offices

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for the transaction of morning business, and that the 30 hours postcloture run on the patent bill, and that Senator Grassley be recognized for whatever time he may use in morning business, and that following his statement, Senators be recognized for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I know my friend was preoccupied. I knew he wanted to do that. The unanimous consent agreement said whatever time he may consume.

I ask unanimous consent the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 55 and the Senate proceed to that.

I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until tomorrow, Tuesday, March 8 at 9:30 a.m.; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following leader remarks there be a period of morning business for 2 hours, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled by the two leaders or their designees, with 30 minutes of the Democratic time under the control of Senator John Kerry; that the Republicans will control the first hour, the majority to control the second hour; following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of S. 23, the America Invents Act, postcloture; further, that the Senate recess from 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings; and, finally, I ask that any time during any period of adjournment, recess, or period of morning business count postcloture.

Mr. President, I have spoken with the Republican leader and hope we will be able to work out an agreement on the continuing resolution we will receive from the House that we are going to offer as an amendment. That should be sometime tomorrow afternoon.

If there be no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, following any leader remarks, the Senate will proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

As a reminder, cloture was filed on S. 23, the America Invents Act. The filing deadline for first-degree amendments is 1 p.m. today, Friday, March 4.

There will be no rollcall votes today. We should expect at least three rollcall votes at 5:30 p.m., on Monday, March 7. The first two votes will be on the confirmation of judges and the third vote will be on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 23, the patent bill.

Would the Chair announce morning business.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, thank you. I have a longer statement that I will give after we finish this colloquy.

At 4 o'clock yesterday afternoon, we met in the Vice President's office. It was a very fine meeting. Vice President Biden was there. My friend, the Republican leader, me, the Speaker, and the minority leader of the House were there--McConnell, Reid, Boehner, and Pelosi. We spent about an hour there.

The arrangement was that we would have a vote on H.R. 1 sometime next week and also a vote on the bill that we have just laid down, which is our alternative as to what we think should be done with the economy. I know our bill--because it is the way we have to do things here--is a long bill, and I am sure the minority wants to spend some time looking at that. But one way or the other we will either do it with an agreement or through my filing different procedural motions. We will get to a point next week where we will vote on H.R. 1, which we Democrats want to do. We will vote on the bill. Anyway, it has been here for a while. Whatever the number it is, it is a Democratic alternative, which Senator Inouye laid down.

We believe, and I am confident that the Speaker feels the same way, that we should vote on H.R. 1, which we have had calls for voting on for more than a week now. I have had statements from the press: Why doesn't Reid set up a vote on H.R. 1? We will either do that with a unanimous consent agreement with my friend, the Republican leader, or we will do it through a procedural motion that I will file later today.

The amendment to that bill is No. 149, and that is Senator Inouye's. It cuts some $51 billion from what the President's budget was.

To move the process forward, I think this is a place to start. We have some confidence that we will get votes on our bill, and we will move this matter forward. Regardless, if H.R. 1 does not pass--and it will not pass--and if ours does not pass, we at least know where we stand to move this ball down the road a little further.

The Speaker said that would allow the negotiations to start. I am paraphrasing, but that is about what he said. That is what all of us in the room decided to do yesterday.

Today I seek to set those two votes for Tuesday afternoon: one vote on passing H.R. 1, as it came over from the House, and after that we would have a vote on passing the alternative, which Chairman Inouye has drafted and is amendment No. 149. Once we get that, it would seem a fair proposition to move forward.

As I said, I know my friend, the Republican leader, has a scheduling problem. I understand that. I would have liked to have come in earlier today, and so would he, but we were not able to do that. I will give a more full explanatory statement in a few minutes.

Unanimous Consent Requests--H.R. 1

But right now, I ask unanimous consent that upon disposition of S. 23, which is the patent bill, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 14, H.R. 1, the Defense appropriations long-term continuing resolution for fiscal year 2011; that Senator Reid be recognized to offer a substitute amendment, the text of which is at the desk; that there be 4 hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to a vote in relation to the substitute amendment; that upon disposition of the substitute amendment, the Senate proceed to vote on H.R. 1, as amended, if amended, with no intervening action or debate; that no motions or amendments be in order to the substitute amendment or to the bill prior to the votes; that the substitute amendment and the bill be subject to a 60-vote threshold; and that if H.R. 1, as amended, if amended, does not achieve 60 affirmative votes, it be returned to the calendar.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon disposition of S. 23, the patent bill, the Senate proceed to H.R. 1, the Defense appropriations long-term continuing resolution for fiscal year 2011.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 14, H.R. 1.

I have a cloture motion that is at the desk. I ask the clerk report the motion.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

I now withdraw my motion to proceed.

Mr. President, when an American family sits at their table in the kitchen and sorts through their finances, as they often do, partisan politics do not figure into that equation. When the families we represent calculate their own budgets, when they add up the cost of gas and groceries, tuition in some instances, and other necessities, they care more about the bottom lines than news headlines. When a family desperately counts the dwindling number of weeks before its unemployment insurance runs out, that family does not have the time to keep track of which side scored the most political points during any given week. That is because when you have to make the tough decisions that go into any budget, those decisions have to be practical, not political. They have to be realistic, not ideological.

We often tell ourselves and our colleagues that we should be as responsible as the American people. As their representatives, we absolutely must be sympathetic to the challenges outside this Chamber, and we need to come quickly to a resolution that benefits them before worrying about whether it benefits us. As careful as we must be not to waste the American people's money, we must be just as mindful not to waste their time.

Regrettably, though, the budget debate has turned into a political exercise, and I am sorry to say not much more. That is counterproductive. We need to be as serious as the challenge before us. I am much more concerned with actually keeping our country running and investing smartly in our future than I am in this political game we see.

When they wake up in the morning, the American people want to send their children to a good school and then go to a good job. And now they are saying ``a job.'' They want their families to come home to a safe neighborhood at night, and they want to go to sleep knowing our country is safe from those who want to do us harm. They do not care about who gets credit. They do not care about who thought of how best to do it. They just want us to do it.

The time for politics should be over. We have set up a procedure--it was agreed to in the Vice President's office--to get this H.R. 1 out of the way. Everyone knows it is not going to pass. It is a very difficult, bad piece of legislation. Get rid of that. We will do what we think is responsible and cut spending by $51 billion and not have all the mean-spirited riders that are attached to H.R. 1 that on their own could not pass over here. It was a mad rush to see who could do the most sensational amendment. Bring it over here in the light of day, refer it to a committee, have a hearing on it. Once that is done, none would come to the floor, with rare exception. But they were not willing to do that.

The time for pragmatism is overdue also. This is what the Senate is going to do. We are going to vote early next week on the Democrats' plan, and we are going to vote on the Republicans' plan. It seems fair. Let the American people decide which is the better of the two. Everyone will have the chance to be on record supporting whichever plan.

Let me talk briefly about the merits of each of these plans and what they will do.

First of all, H.R. 1, which will go down as probably one of the worst pieces of legislation ever drafted in the history of this Congress. First, this reckless Republican plan the tea party has pushed through the House--that irresponsible proposal--slashes investments, cuts jobs, and sacrifices security and education. Yes, it cuts a lot of money today, but America would lose so much tomorrow because these cuts are made arbitrarily without regard for the consequences. That is why leading independent economists agree it would hurt our economy, slow growth, and cost jobs. We cannot afford that. The day before yesterday on National Public Radio, they had more than 300 economists who were saying with one voice: Do not do this. We can't be blinded by the big numbers in the House Republican plan. We have to scrutinize how they cut $63 billion. The truth is, it adds up to $61 billion through significant subtraction of programs the American people don't want to lose. It slashes more than $1 billion from Social Security--$1 billion--which means \1/2\ million seniors who paid into Social Security their entire lives and now are eligible for it would not be able to get the benefits promised to them because there is nobody to process the claims.

It cuts $700 million from education, which means 1 million disadvantaged students could lose funding and more than 10,000 teachers, aides, and school staff would lose their jobs. It would even take 200,000 children out of the Head Start Program.

What is the Head Start Program? These are not just words, they are programs to educate the poorest of the poor children. It has worked out well. Try to find someone who criticizes the Head Start Program. These little boys and girls have no alternative, and it has worked out well because the parents are involved. They are going to eliminate 200,000 children from this wonderful program of Head Start.

The Republican H.R. 1 closes poison control centers and cuts $100 million from food safety inspections. That means the food we eat could be both less safe and more expensive. That is a lose-lose proposition.

It also cuts $\3/4\ billion--$750 million--from renewable energy investments.

The reason that is so important is these investments are incentives for people to do these kinds of jobs. You can drive 36 miles from my home in Searchlight, NV, and get to the 31-mile mark, where you look off to the left and there are 1 million solar panels being installed--1 million solar panels--producing huge amounts of electricity in the summer and winter in what we call the great dry lake. That was done because of these programs so that we don't have to be beholden to the Middle East tyrants who are shipping us oil.

So it cuts $\3/4\ billion from renewable energy investments, which will cost us jobs, threaten our energy independence, and delay the day America lives and works in a clean energy economy.

It also cuts hundreds of millions of dollars from border security and port security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. When an emergency comes, we need to be able to respond to that. Even Republican Congressmen have said, and are now admitting, it is not so smart to pinch pennies on the backs of the Nation's emergency management and first responders.

In my conference room right across the hall, one of the Shriver boys came in to see me. The Shriver family has done so much for our country. The eldest Shriver, who just died, was head of the Peace Corps. Probably their No. 1 mark has been how they have worked with children, young men and women with physical and emotional challenges. They brought a number of those young men and women--some are not so young anymore--in to see me. Some of the great programs being cut in H.R. 1 help Special Olympics. The Best Buddy Program is another one. And Shriver told me he had talked to a Member of the House of Representatives, an elected Member of the House of Representatives who voted for H.R. 1, and he asked: How could you do that? How could you do that, when you have a child with Downs Syndrome? Her response was: Oh, I didn't know it was in the bill. I didn't know it was in the bill.

I have been talking, Mr. President, about H.R. 1. I ask, how many pages are in H.R. 1?

Mr. President, can you tell me how many pages are in H.R. 1?

Three hundred and eighty-two pages. Well, Mr. President, I have only talked about enough to take up

two or three pages, but it is full of the same kind of stuff I have talked about today--stuff that is not fair and is mean-spirited.

We all want to cut. I represent the State of Nevada. We are in a deep economic problem. We know, though, we have to cut things. The Presiding Officer is from the State of Connecticut. We are both members of the Democratic Party. We have supported these programs because it was the right thing to do. We recognize there is going to have to be cuts made, but we have to do it with a scalpel, not a meat cleaver. Then to hear that a Member of the House said: Well, I didn't know it was in the bill--eliminating and cutting drastically a program for people with emotional, mental, and physical challenges--I didn't know it was in the bill. Well, there is a lot of that same type of stuff in this bill, H.R. 1. That is why it is going to be defeated here.

I would say to my friends, the Republicans, I can't imagine you will all vote for this bill. We have to move beyond partisan politics and do what is right. I don't know how many, but not all Republicans will vote for that.

I have been castigated in the press: Why doesn't Reid allow a vote? Let's have a vote. Well, I am willing to move on that, but I couldn't do it. I had to file cloture to move to proceed to it. They wouldn't even let me do that. But we are going to get to it because I know the procedures around here. I can get to this bill, and I can do it next week.

I have just talked about the tip of the iceberg with this mean- spirited H.R. 1. Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke said these cuts--and there are many more like them than I have already said there are--will cost a significant number of jobs. Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody's and formerly the chief economic adviser for John McCain, has said that H.R. 1 will cost our country 700,000 jobs.

These cuts place far too heavy a burden on working families, low- income children and seniors, and it asks little, if any, sacrifice from those who rake in unnecessary taxpayer-funded subsidies they do not need. That is no way to recover.

Look at oil and gas subsidies. The former head of Chevron Oil said: We don't need them; we are doing fine.

Mr. President, I have been very helpful to my farm State Senators. I have helped them work their way through droughts and floods and all kinds of things. I understand how important agriculture is. But very few times in the history of our country have commodity prices been so high--so high. Don't you think they could take a little nick--a little nick--rather than take it away from Head Start Programs and programs such as that?

Our plan was filed today by Senator Inouye, who is a very sensitive, good man. I don't need to recount who he is, but he is one of the most famous men in the history of our country. He has been in Congress a long time, but we always remember this man was a hero on the battlefields of Italy where he lost his arm and was badly injured. As a result of his heroic actions there, he received a Congressional Medal of Honor. But he is also a hero in these legislative Halls. He was one of the leaders in the Watergate hearings, and there are many other things he has done over the years to become a hero in addition to being a hero on the battlefield. The amendment we have filed is his amendment.

So Democrats have a different plan--the Inouye plan--which represents our different priorities, and it is supported by the President. We know we have to make cuts. I have said that this morning several times. We also know when we cut, we have to cut in a way that strengthens our economy not in a way that weakens it. We have to look carefully at the quality of these cuts and not get blinded by the quantity of the cuts.

I have said before that a person could lose a lot of weight--you, I, anybody in this room. We could cut off our arms and legs, and we would have accomplished the purpose of losing a lot of weight. But no doctor would recommend it. That is what they have done with H.R. 1. No well- reasoning economist would recommend it.

Our plan cuts $51 billion from President Obama's budget but in a much more responsible way. We are eliminating redundancies, ending unnecessary bureaucratic programs, and cutting funds for earmarks. We have agreed to cut funding for earmarks. I don't like that. I have told the President I don't like it. I believe we are giving up too much power to the President in getting rid of those earmarks. We have obligations to do congressionally directed funding. But I have agreed, as all of us over here have, to accept that.

Remember, Mr. President, when we have a budget of $10 and we have 2/ 10 of 1 percent that goes to congressionally directed funding, it is still the same amount of money. It is just that the President didn't determine where that money is spent; Congress had a say in it. But we have agreed. We have agreed. We have earmarks in here, billions of dollars of them, that are going to go toward cutting the deficit. I have agreed to accept that.

So ending unnecessary bureaucratic programs and cutting funding, as I have indicated, for other things. I commend my friend, Dr. Coburn, the Senator from Oklahoma. He got a GAO report that shows all kinds of redundancies and overlapping. Those are places we can cut money. Let's do it.

Our plan recognizes we are not in competition to determine who can cut the most without regard for the consequences. Rather, we need to cooperate to figure out where we can cut the smartest. While the House- passed plan is based on ideology, we believe ours is based on reality. Not ideology, but reality. These are decisions about real money to solve real problems that affect real lives. Our budget affirms our determination that we have to also reflect our values.

We see our modestly recovering economy, including today's news about employers hiring at the fastest rate in a year, and the national unemployment rate fell to a nearly 2-year low. We can't squander this cautiously optimistic news with counterproductive cuts--eliminating 700,000 jobs.

I hope when we have these votes next week on H.R. 1 people will run from that. For the people who vote for that, it will take all their legislative lives and afterwards trying to live down having voted for that bill. But this is what each Senator will vote for or against next week. These votes, like all our votes, are about choices, and what I have just outlined is what these choices represent.

Not to spoil the surprise, but we all know how this vote will turn out. We know neither will reach the President's desk as written. Republicans likely will not vote for ours. I hope they do. If it were a simple majority vote, we would win that. But Republicans have established a different standard--60 votes. We accept that. So we will end up back at square 1, without consensus, without a budget for the rest of this fiscal year, and without assurance that we can keep the country running.

So once these votes are behind us and everyone's voice is heard, I hope each Senator and Member of Congress will find renewed motivation to do what we have needed to do since the beginning: come together, negotiate in good faith, working on consensus and compromise. Legislation is the art of compromise. Legislation is not who can flex their muscles the biggest, the longest, and the hardest. Legislation is the art of compromise, working out things for the American people.

We have to acknowledge that the answer that will allow us to move forward lies somewhere between our two positions perhaps. We have to recognize that digging in one's heels threatens our fiscal footing. If one side stubbornly demands victory, everyone loses. That goes for both parties and both Chambers. This negotiation will not happen in the media, and a solution cannot be found in extreme rhetoric or unrealistic idealism. It will happen when we sit down and have an adult conversation about what our country and our constituents need. That is the only worthy exercise.

How we invest taxpayer money, how we create a foundation for our future, how we articulate our priorities to our citizens and States across the country and allies around the world is not political. It is among the most practical things we do.

There is no dispute among the 53 Democrats. We are willing to cut. We have cut $51 billion from our President's budget. As we talked about, we

are willing to do more. But we are not willing to do this with a meat axe. We want to do it the right way. We want to take a scalpel and be very careful how we affect people's lives. And when it is over with, we don't want people saying I didn't know it was in the bill, even though it affects that person as personally as anything could.

When we talk about where to invest and what to cut, everyone is concerned about the budget's bottom line. When we talk about how we can get there, here is the bottom line of the negotiation process: Yes, we have to make tough choices, but that is what leadership is all about. It is true that no one here will get everything he or she wants. My friend, the Presiding Officer, was a long-time attorney general of one of our--I was going to say most famous States--but one of the original States, who is noted for his fairness. If an attorney general or a lawyer is noted for fairness, that person is known to be willing to compromise. That is what it is all about. It is the same in the law as it is here in the Senate.

When we talk about how we can get there, the bottom line is negotiation. We have to make tough choices. But I repeat, that is what leadership is all about.

Today marks 150 years since Abraham Lincoln took his first oath of office as the President of our country--whose very existence at the time was in question. Like the incomplete Nation he had just sworn to lead, this great Capitol building was unfinished. As he addressed the Nation for the first time as President, President Lincoln stood on the east front of the Capitol building under cranes and scaffolding that represented growth and uncertainty at the same time. Now, 150 years, later the threats we face are nowhere near as dire as the Civil War Lincoln's America was about to endure but his words that afternoon are useful to us to hear this afternoon, for we are again at a moment of peril in our country. Again, we will sink or swim together.

As Lincoln closed that Inaugural Address 150 years ago today, he reminded a divided nation that, ``we are not enemies but friends. . . . Though passion may have strained it, it must not break our bonds of affection.''

Lincoln then famously called on us to recall the ``better angels of our nature.'' Those are his words. If we listen to his critical lesson in leadership at this critical moment in history, we will secure in our time a stronger future for this great Nation we call America.