i may say a word. the reporter, he says, that guy harkin, he speaks with that iowa lingo and i don't understand that midwest lingo of his. and so they put it down. and so that's why we have a record. and our staffs go back to the record. i go to the record. and we "correct the record." we all do that every dare around here simply because people are human and people make mistakes. when we have a hearing in front of a committee and someone asks a question, the witness answers it, and we find out that the answer quite wasn't correct, we go back to the witness and say, what's this all about? here was a question, here was your answer, but we have different information. well, the witness is able to look at that and correct the record and that's what patricia smith did. obviously she heard the question

one way. the corcted the record. and, again, keep in mind no one on this side of the aisle is alleging that she did this to cover up an illegal activity or to cover up something nefarious or to cover up something that was unethical. no, there was no allegations of that on that side because it's simply not true. she made a simple mistake, she corrected it. there were two times when that happened and one was simply because at that point in time she didn't have all the information she should have it had and when she went back to her staff in new york, she found out a different -- a different thing and corrected the record at that point. as i said, we do that all the time around here and we don't think anything about it. the republicans do it. the democrats do it. we correct the record all the time. simply because human beings are human beings and people make mistakes.

now, there's been a lot made on the idea of whether this idea came from within her staff or came from the outside. well, again, that was one of the debates about this. she had testified in the hearing that this was something that came up from within her department. well, unbeknownst to her, some of her staff lower down talked to outside groups and discussed the wage hour, wage watch program and presented it to commissioner smith. well, my response on that is, what's the big deal? so what? so what if some outside groups were involved in this. again, was it illegal? 'twas unethical? was it underhanded? no. perfectly legal. so i dare say all of us senators meet with outside groups all the time. they come in and see us.

talk about programs. talk about how we should be doing things. that's one of our function here is to listen to outside people and get better ideas. this would be a sorry place if all we did was talk to one another. it's a good thing we're talking to people on the outside. so whether the program was suggested by one of our -- one of her staff or by an outside group, i say so what -- so what? she happened to think it came from within her department. and later found out that people in her department talked to people on the outside. okay. so she corrected the record. so what's the big deal? then there was the question about expanding the program. well, i would say, honestly, commissioner -- did commissioner smith want to expand the program? sure. as long as it proved to be successful, that what a pilot program's for. obviously she thought it was a good idea to put the pilot program in. the whole point of the pilot program is to expand it if it's

successful. now, again, it had to do with conversations -- there was a question about had she had conversations about expanding the program. and thereon was another -- therein was another little problem. they thought did she have conversations about authorizing and expanding the program? and she had not had any authorized any expansions of the program whatsoever. but, of course, you talk about, well, if it's successful, sure i'd like to expand it. in fact, i would point out to this day she has never authorized an expansion of the program. why? because they don't have all the data and haven't thoroughly evaluated the success of this private program. i think that's what a responsible leader does. lastly, there's some allegation that the wage watch program was used by unions as an organizing

tool. well, again, is anyone on this side alleging that that is illegal? unethical? nefarious in some way? underhanded? i don't hear some allegations. because they're not so. quite frankly, i don't think there would be anything wrong with that. but, commissioner smith took all the appropriate steps to ensure that unions separated their organizing activities from volunteer with wage watch. as far as i know, and i have seen no evidence to the contrary that her instructions, that they were followed. i have seen no evidence to the contrary. so i hope that our debate and what i had been able to say and put in the record will put to rest any concerns that colleagues may have about ms. smith's honesty and her integrity. her honesty and her integrity. -- are unassailable.

is she infallible? is she infallible? never makes a mistake? well, i -- i don't know of any living human beings that can say that. but does she recognize it and does she correct it? absolutely. just as we all do. well, i -- again -- again, honesty and integrity, unassailable. and her performance as commissioner of labor in the state of new york. and, again, i always point out that this pilot project was a $6,000 pilot project. she was in charge of running an agency with an $11 billion, that's spelled with a "b, "b," $11 billion budget. 4,000 employees across the state of new york. this was a $6,000 pilot project. you've got to kind of keep that in perspective as to how high it was on her -- on her viewing screen.

well, quite frankly, i think this whole delay from last april would have been avoided if more of my colleagues on the other side had taken time to sit down with commissioner smith, talked with her, and hear her side of the story. i also think it would have been avoided if they read all the letters of support from business groups in new york. from the attorneys -- the district attorneys in new york representing all different political parties and ideologies. all these attorneys saying she does a great job. and if they just looked at her record. well, i did. i looked at her record. i've spoken with her. i've read the transcripts. i look -- at the background of all of this. i can say with utmost confidence, never did she have any intention of misleading the committee. why? this was a perfectly legal, above the board project. why would you want to mislead

anybody about? -- about it? she has every intention of dedicating her life to be the best, most effective solicitor of labor that she can possibly be. so, mr. president, our nation is very fortunate to have public service of this caliber. i mean, you know, you look at, this you know, i have no doubt that patricia smith, with her legal skills, her managerial skills in the private sector could be making a lot of money. i have no doubt about that. but she has chosen a different career path -- to be a public servant. a public servant. to dedicate her life to helping people for whom there isn't a lot of government help. and no one's sticking up for them. people at the bottom end of the ladder. and, to me, this is one of the

highest caution i think that anyone can do in our -- callings that i think that anyone can do in our society to be a public servant. i think our nation is very fortunate to have this kind of person in patricia smith for this critical position. i look forward to her swift confidential. i would hope that we wouldn't have to drag out 30 hours, but it seems like the republicans are intent on wasting time. there's nothing happening here. anybody can see that. anybody watching on c-span can see nothing's happening here, and we just waste time. we could have the vote now. we could have the vote in 20 minutes. nothing would change. but we have the 30 hours and i guess we have to waste it. but i wanted to take this time, again, to set the record straight one more time on patricia smith. her integrity, her honesty, her exemplary background and the

fact that she is going to be an outstanding solicitor for department of labor. mr. president, with that, i -- i have some instructions here. mr. president, i have 11 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval and majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that the requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. hain:nd, mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: yes, we are. without objection, so ordered. under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until

off the floor, defense secretary robert gates and joints chief chairman mike mullen are testifying before the senate armed services committee on a proposal to end the don't ask don't tell policy. that hearing just began this hour. you can watch live coverage of it on c-span3. later, national intelligence director, dennis blair, joins cia director leon panetta and fbi chief robert mueller for a senate intelligence hearing on threats to u.s. security. that's live on c-span3 at 2:30 50er7b.

>> a year ago this month the president obama signed the economic stimulus funding into law making $787 billion variable. since then the federal government has committed more than $332 billion to states for stimulus projects. that's up 3 billion from last week. $176 billion have been paid out for those projects.

for more about the economic stimulus, go online, to cspan.org/stimulus. you will find the fourth quarter reporter on stimulus effects plus congressional hearings and debates, news conferences and links to government and watchdog groups tracking stimulus spending. again, that is all at cspan.org/stimulus. the president's fiscal year 2011 budget request of 3.8 dal trillion increases education funding by about one-third. the 82.2 billion stomach includes mandated spending of 32.6 billion. the president's proposal includes an overhaul of no child left behind, more help for college students, like pell grant tuition increases and changes to k-12 education. the education secretary arne duncan explains those at this news conference. it is just under an hour. >> apologies for not having enough chairs for everyone today.

thanks for cramming in and grabbing spots where you can. of course we're here to talk today about longitudinal data systems in missouri, specifically for 11-year-olds. [laughter] in reading about history. i am very pleased by the turnout, to talk about that. so thank you for your interest. no, we are of course here to talk about what's in this green book, the proposed 2011 budget and, we know you have lots of questions so we'll leave plenty of time for that. the agenda today will include comments by secretary duncan, who will be joining us shortly as well as by carmel martin, assistant secretary for planning, evaluation and policy development. we have on hand now, thank you, tom, director of budget services, tom skellie. who is just come from, from the press with the secretary and carmel.

again we'll have time for question and answer. we only have one microphone here today, for you. it is over here. so the people on this side have a real ad tank. if you're, have a question you may want to plan to migrate over there at one point. at some point. if you come to the mike, please speak directly into it. we are recording and transcribing today's forum and want to make sure we get everything down accurately. we're, of course, very pleased with, with the investment the president is proposing to make in education in this budget. to meet both his goal of having the highest proportion of college graduates by 2020 and to secure our economic future. this is a heavy investment in college access, adult education, k-12 reform and

early learning, and to do it we really are determined to build bipartisan and grassroots support as well for reauthorizing the elementary and secondary education act to promote a well-rounded education, foster competition, and give states and distributes as much flexibility as possible. our role as always willing to be provide that common definition of success and not a prescription for it. so we're going to talk with you today how we propose and how the president proposes to go about this. i see we've now got carmel joining us who is getting instruction on the fact that her remote for her powerpoint only goes forward and not back. so we're a forward-moving agency here. always looking to the future. and, we have our special guest yet or is making his way down? >> right behind. >> he is right behind. so i have prepped these folks for you with the

microphones. i have nothing more to say. >> tell a few jokes? >> already used one. i have very little in my pocket today. it is all very serious. the color of the book is green. [laughter] always an exciting thing for us to see what it is going to look like. sort of the color of money i suppose this year. so add that to your collection. we've been talking a lot as we've been doing other things around here about different shades of colors so we look forward to your best description of this particular green. you can e-mail that to sea comments. this is always a fun time when you're, when you're waiting for the secretary. other things that we want to, why don't we move into carmel's presentation. i'm particularly glad c-span is here and look forward to hearing from friends who are

watching late at night [laughing] so why don't we, we'll pause when arne arrives but, carmel, you've got a clicker so why don't we get started. >> okay, thanks, massie. i'm sorry we're running late. the secretary should be here shortly and i will try not to up stage him too much. my presentation focused more on the details and i think he will lay out the vision for you in terms of the president's budget being unveiled today. my clicker doesn't even work. oh, there we go. so, as you probably all know, since i have your green books and are dutifully reading them, the president's budget includes a $49.7 billion for non-pell discretionary fundings for the department of education with a $1 billion reserve fund that would come into play when the congress passes a reauthorization of the elementary and secondary

education act for a new total of $50.7 billion. which, without the reserve fund is a 7.5% increase. with the reserve fund it is closer, almost 10. with that, here's the star of the show. come on up, arne. i really got through your first bullet point. so. >> packed house, huh? should i start? >> you can start. >> i just talked about the overall increase. literally the first bullet point here. >> good afternoon. thanks everybody for coming. obviously an extraordinary starting day. i start from the start. so this morning as all of you know the president released his fiscal 2011 3wu7b8g jet. this budget includes a 7.5% increase in discretionary spending for our department. it is one of the largest increases proposed. the president is investing in education. sees it as the key to our

economic future. in this budget a clear reflection of his dope commitment to education. -- deep commitment. the president's budget lays out a new system for reforming our education system, improving schools, college access and college completion. investing in education from every level, early education, k-12 reform to college access. it is a cradle to career agenda, one that starts at birth and follows children every stip of the way with the ultimate goal they graduate from a 2-year or four-year institution. the president understands america's economic security depends on improving education. and in 10 years, the jobs and employers will be looking for fill will require college degree or at least a professional certification. we have to educate our way to a better economy. the budget also signals a bold, new direction for federal k-12 education policy with more competitive funding, more flexibility, and accountability system that we will develop in

partnership with democrats and republicans in the months ahead. all told, president's budget, the slide here, includes $49.7 billion for the department of education discretionary programs and increase of 3.5 billion over fiscal year 2010. the proposed budget includes a $3 billion increase for competitive programs in the elementary and secondary education act. also known as the no child left behind. it also signals the president's commitment to redesign the accountability system created by nclb. helping students graduate high school ready for success in college and in the world of work. the president's committed to strengthening the current accountability system and it will be based on out comes and closing achievement gaps. today, and far too many states, standards are too low and existing law doesn't provide states with incentives to raise their standards. in fact, so many of you know, quite the opposite is true. nclb also does little to

reward progress. we want accountability reforms that factor in student growth, progress in closing achievement gaps, proficiency towards college and career ready standards. high cool graduation and college enrollment rates that is lot to track. we recognize that. if we want to be smarter about accountability, more fair, to students and teachers and more effective in the classroom we need to look at all of these factors. we need to learn from them and we need to act on them. my staff and i have traveled to all 50 states on a listening and learning tour over the last year. we heard some complaints about the current system of accountability. folks said it narrowed the curriculum, taught schools to teach to the test and infairly labeled schools actually doing well and it was too prescriptive. so we heard those complaints and we're coming back with some ideas to address them and we welcome additional input, feedback and more ideas as we reauthorization moves forward. we'll work with congress to

redesign the accountability system to reward growth and give states the flexibility and encouragement they need to adopt higher standards that truly prepare students for success in college and in careers. under the proposed budget after esea is reauthorized the president will send congress a budget amendment for an additional $1 billion to provide incentives for successful schools. it will also provide additional money for assessment and for after-school programs. the president is trying to advance reform elsewhere in the budget by including $1.5 billion to continue race to the top, 500 million for the i-3, investing and innovation fund. more money for school turnarounds charters, school safety and programs around teacher and principal preparation. one area i think we dramatically underinvested in around leadership and principals. we're basically proposing a five-fold increase there. we think that is a game-changer. we think there are no good schools without good principals.

we'll do lots of work there he proposed budget reflects the president's broader commitment to efficiency, cutting red tape and holding ourselves accountable for results. this budget consolidates 38 education programs into six funding streams and eliminates six others that duplicate other programs or don't have a national impact. by doing that, we can save $123 billion. we'll save another $217 million by eliminating all earmarks. one of our goals with reauthorization to give local educators flexibility to do what's best for children. we don't have all the answers here in washington. the best ideas, the best innovation, will always come at the local level. with great teachers, great principals, great school districts, great states, not from here in washington. as the options say our role should provide a common definition of success, not a prescription for success. we will advance that goal when we reauthorize esea.

we'll creating a limited federal role in education. we'll focus on raising standards for all students, rewarding success in schools, supporting and rewarding effective teachers and leaders, turning around low-performing schools and helping schools develop a well-rounded education. in fact, we have boosted funding by nearly $200 million for subjects like history, the languages and the arts because we understand that children need so much more than just reading and math to be successful, and to stay engaged and excited about going to school every day. now let me take a moment and shift to higher education. the budget includes a grand total of $173 billion in loans, grants, tax credits, and work study programs to help students go to college. that is enough to help three out of five college students in america. it incorporates everything in a higher ed bill to end student lending subsidies to banks and shift billions in savings into higher education, and into early childhood.

that proposal passed the house and awaits the senate's approval. under the proposal, maximum pell grants will rise by $160 to 570 and automatically rise by rate of inflation 1% annually over the next decade. the bill also has $10.6 billion to improve and modernize community colleges, and 3.6 billion to raise college completion rates. lastly, the bill provides $9.3 billion for competitive grants to states over the next 10 years to improve early learning programs. as you know, the president set a goal that america will once again lead the world in college completion. to reach our goal by the end of the decade we need to improve the quality of education at every level, from birth, through the end of college. this budget puts us on a path towards success and meeting that goal. it also includes much more. such as an additional $250

million for special education. more money for english language learner programs. more money for hbcus and other colleges that serve minority students. there's more money for school safety and for school health. there is also $210 million for the promised neighborhoods program. which is a competitive grant program whose goal is to build upon the success of the harlem children's zone. the program combines social services with school improvements in order to transform whole neighborhoods. we expect to fund up to 10 pilot projects with money from the fiscal 2010 budget. these additional resources will help those pilot programs get their start, and others to plan their own promised neighborhoods. lastly, there is more money for expanding educational options in charter schools, and comprehensive systems of public school choice. let me just close by saying that the need for reform is absolutely urgent. today, more than 25 percent

of our nation's high school students fail to graduate. about 50% of incoming college students need remedial education. many drop out. either because they can not keep up or simply can't afford to stay in. millions of jobs in our country go unfilled each year due to a lack of trained workers. and american students are falling behind other countries in critical areas like engineering, and science. nclb did a great job of exposing achievement gaps and demanding accountability but it has many other shortcomings and we need to fix it so we can get on with the important work of teaching and learning. the president knows we have to educate our way to a better economy. he has called on all stakeholders, from students, to parents, to elected officials, to educators, to take greater responsibility for education, and join together in this effort. we are working with both sides of the aisle to develop a bipartisan proposal, because education affects everyone.

everybody wants reform. and everyone wants to work together. it doesn't mean there won't be some disagreements from time to time but we all share the same common values. so we are really hopeful that reauthorization will happen and we all move forward with an aggressive education agenda, an aggressive reform agenda in the months and years ahead. thank you so much. [applause] >> thank you. thank you, arne. so i won't spend a lot of time with the presentation. i'm just going to go through a few highlights that emphasize some of the things the secretary mentioned, and then turn it, open it up for questions. you have most of the information i'm going to share you have in the books in front of you. so as, secretary mentioned, total increase would be up to 50.7 billion dollars. just to flag some of the

things that he mentioned in additional points about early learning. the budget supports 9.3 billion over 10 years for the president's early learning challenge fund t also contains continued support for idea pre-school grants and idea grants for infants and families. we'll also continue to look for ways to prioritize early childhood education in our other grant programs as we have done with respect to promise neighborhoods, race to the top and i3. also just wanted to flag that our investments will compliment increases for the child care development block grant, child care tax credit and head start in the hhs budget that is being released today as well. in terms of elementary and secondary education priorities there's $3 billion increase for esea programs with a plan to seek up to an additional $1 billion upon reauthorization. some of our priorities for the reauthorization

mentioned by the secretary that i'll just cover briefly again, are, additional funding for school turnarounds. we are proposing $900 million for the school, the currently labeled school improvement fund, and we also, in our, funding that is contingent on reauthorization we'll propose additional funding for rewarding high-poverty schools that have made extraordinary progress. there's additional funding for innovation as the president announced last week. we are asking congress for $1.35 billion to continue a race to the top investment and have asked for authority to also run a district level competition. the budget asks for $500 million to continue the i-3 program that is designed to identify, validate and replicate successful interventions.

$150 million of that funding would be devoted to stem initiatives, and all that funding would be looking to prioritize strategies that focus on education technology. we, we are also proposing, in the innovations space, additional funding for charter and other innovative ought ton must school models. additional funding for public school choice. another major area of focus is excellent instructional teams. as the secretary mentioned, a big focus on teachers and leaders. we have a net increase of $350 million for teacher and leader strategies, including new investments in programs that help to recruit and prepare leaders, particularly leaders who can go on to operate in school turnaround programs. and additional funding to promote the development of teacher evaluation systems that more effectively evaluate teacher quality,

and reward teacher who is have been successful, identify them as effective teachers so they can serve as instructional leaders in their schools. another area of focus is supporting student success. so we have a total of $1.88 billion for programs that are about providing additional supports non-academic supports to help children succeed including a continuation of the 21st century learning program but also a new successful safe and healthy student initiative and additional, the $200 million increase for a promise neighborhoods initiative. as the secretary mentioned we're also providing resources to insure that students have access to well-rounded education, so we are consolidating existing fragmented investments in different content areas. we'll have a dedicated funding stream for comprehensive literacy initiatives, dedicated funding stream of $300 million for stem initiatives, and then a over $200 million

investment in programs that are designed to insure that other core academic subjects are integrated into the, the education of students. so, in promoting the idea of interdisciplinary teaching, in the areas of arts, history, and civics, financial literacy, and, then, last but perhaps most importantly, continuing to focus on insuring that students are college and career-ready. we're maintaining investments in the title one program, focusing on disadvantaged students with increases for the rewards program that i mentioned but also, significant increases for school turnaround funding. we also have maintained investments for particular groups of students that you see in current law including migrant students, homeless students, english learners with a large increase for english learners as the secretary mentioned but very purposely did not include

those programs in our consolidation efforts and are maintaining those programs as formula-driven programs. we do, we do shift the balance between formula and competitive programs under the 2010 budget. $20.8 billion of our elementary and secondary education funding was formula-driven with 4.2 invested in competitive funding streams. under this budget the total will be 20.3 for formula-driven programs and 7.8 in competitive funding streams. whoops, i think we've lost that slide since i was told, i can't go backwards. there we go. so here are the programs today mentioned earlier which we are not consolidating and we are not shifting to competitive, but we would like to work with congress insure that these programs are more focused on out comes for the students they're designed to help.

so we will be looking to work with congress on that but, not looking to shift them to competitive funding streams. we do have an increase in existing competitive funding for the english learner program, which is designed to help insure that we can tackle, improving teacher quality for english learners and, invest in research around the best strategies for improving english learners success. then as the secretary mentioned, the budget contemplates historic increases in student aid, including an increase in the pell grant. as the secretary mentioned, insuring stability in the student loan programs. as well as the, administration's budget across the board asks to make the tax benefit, the college tax benefit permanent. we are also proposing in the budget to improve upon the

existing income-based repayment program so that no student has to pay more than 10% of their discretionary income in student loan payments. students who enter into public service jobs would have their balances forgiven after 10 years and under the president's budget, other folks would have their balance forgiven after 20 years. so this is just recapping i think most of these numbers the secretary mentioned but our request would make available $156 billion in new grants, loan and work study assistance providing three out of five students with aid. our available aid would increase by 60% compared to 2008, before the president took office. nearly 15 million students would receive aid under the president's proposals. we would help graduates manage debt through an improved income-based repayment program and increase the pell grant

maximum for 2011 to 5710. that would grow over the 10-year window to $6900. the budget also supports the $2.5 billion over 10 years for hbcus, hsies and other minorities serving institutions. in the legislation peppedding in congress as well as a 5% increase in discretionary funding for these institutions. the budget supports the $10.6 billion over 10 years investment in the american graduation initiative, which is focused on improving community colleges, including infrastructure investments in community colleges as well as an online education initiative. and $3.5 over five years for the college access and completion fund which is designed to insure, to compliment the existing trio and gear up trams and insure

students not only get to college but actually complete college. so, with that, i will turn it, open it up for questions. >> like to bring the lecturn down this low so i feel as tall as arne. so there is a microphone right over here and so if you have a question, head that way. folks on this side, it is a longer trip for you, but, head over there if you like. and let's do focus on questions, and stay away from advocacy for particular things this afternoon. and why don't we start with mary. >> hi. mary -- with the american association of school administrators. this is going to seem completely off for me but i actually have a clarifying question. the education, the e 2 state education technology grants is described in the back as being consolidate understood

the effective teaching and learning for a well-rounded education. but it is not listed in that section as one of the consolidated programs. so if you try to do an apples-to-apples comparison, it actually looks like it is an elimination of the program and a elimination of $100 million towards education technology. i know there is talk about infusing it into every section but if we're comparing apples to apples, i guess i'm trying to figure out how that is considered a consolidated program and not an eliminated program? >> so we consider it a consolidated program because we are looking to support the activities currently funded under the current education technology program through, it is a little bit more complicated than some of the other consolidated programs because we're looking to do it in multiple front. it is something we want to be infusing into our funding streams wherever possible. so it would be something that we would look at in context of the money for the teaching and learning of a well-rounded education.

so insuring that as that funding is being competed out, that there is attention and focus given to strategies that use educational technology to deliver content. we're also looking at it in the context of the reauthorization of the title one program to insure that at the state level there is capacity for identifying innovative uses of educational technology to improve instruction for disadvantaged students. it will be a big focus of the i-3 funding and there will be focused on what are the most innovative tools available to improve out comes for students. so it's, infused through multiple programs as opposed to just moving into one new funding stream . . consolidatio

it's being infused into multiple funding streams as opposed to just one. >> good afternoon, mark ames is the national association of secondary school principals. question about the excellent structural teams consolidation. there are a number of consolidations, programs that are proposed to be consolidated there. namely, the improving teacher quality state grants and, of course, the school leadership program. and, of course, this is a really important focused school leadership. this could be a really nice, robust increase.

but i'm concerned i didn't see a work that i was hoping to see and that's dedicated. the problem as you're probably aware with school leadership and federal funding, only about 4% of federal funds have been used for school leadership because it's always been an allowable use. but so is this -- with this consolidation, is there going to be language that specifically dedicates funding for school leaders? >> yes, $170 million. >> $170 million dedicated funding stream -- >> yes, to prepare -- to recruit and prepare effective leaders with the focus on preparing leaders to be turn-around. we're also in our proposal of related to the new formula-funding stream for effective teachers and leaders asking for grant recipients to

show in a very concrete way that they are focused in a leadership way -- well, teacher leaders as well as administrative leaders. >> okay. so does that fall under one of the specific three kind of breakdowns? is that under the -- >> all three of our funding streams that are dedicated to teachers and leaders have a focus on both teachers and leaders. but under the teacher and leader pathway initiative is where the $170 million would be dedicated to leaders. >> okay. so is there a dedicated funding stream under any of the other programs or the other, you know, kind of consolidations like, for instance, the innovation fund or the state grants? >> so for both the state grants and the innovation fund it's not a segment portion of the funding but we're going to ask recipients of those funding streams to demonstrate that they're tackling, improving their capacity around effective leaders. >> joel? >> joel packer with the

committee for education funding and also the raven group. on page 33 of the book you list specific funding request for programs if the asea is not authorized. explain that a little bit more like how official these numbers on page 33. >> so it is our hope that the reauthorization will move forward and we'll be able to allocate the funding as the budget proposes. but that list is under the current program structure of what some of our priorities would be. >> and sort of a related question. it's my understanding that title -- the administration is not proposing at this point or through the budget formula changes in title 1? >> not at this point. >> okay. and the last question, on page 5 when you're talking about programs that are essentially under safra mentions 1.2 billion over three years for graduation

promise grants for high schools which i don't actually think is in the house. the administration is proposing that be in the final version. >> i think that's under consideration in the senate. >> i'm saying that's -- >> we're supporting. >> and there's nothing in this budget, though, related to school renovation or modernization? >> no. >> okay. >> speakers, please speak as directly as you can into the mic. thanks. >> i'll do that. [laughter] >> myrna, with the usual suspects. i'm here from lots of -- i'll take this thing off. let's do it this way. carmel you were talking about the priorities and the fy11 requests and one of them you listed is instructional teams and then you talked about supporting school success. and i would throw in there effective teachers and the definition.

and then i look through here and i see programs like the school counseling program that are being consolidated which are one of the few dedicated funding streams and specialized instructional personnel, school workers, counselors and psychologists. and we think we very much political that those people are a critical part -- excellent instructional teams. and also should be included as part of the definition of effective teachers since they can't be effective without all the support personnel around them. so i wish you could comment on how we're going to deal with ensuring that school districts have the appropriate staff. if these programs aren't indedicated funding streams? >> so the funding and the effective teachers state program could be used on other staff beyond teachers and leaders. we asked in the existing teacher

incentive fund program -- we asked congress this year to modify the language so that performance-based compensation could be given to all staff in a school and not just the teachers or the leaders in the school. congress agreed to do that. and our proposals moving forward would continue to do that. we also would see the new successful safe and healthy student program as an opportunity for states and districts and nonprofit organizations to apply for funding to implement innovative programs around things like school counseling and providing other supports, nonacademic supports to students as well. but it is something that funding in the teacher and leader funding streams -- the instructional team funding would also be able to support professional development and other programs to improve nonteachers. >> just one fast follow-up. on those consolidated programs

would we assume that the programs that are subsumed under there -- those current programs would be allowable uses or how would that be done? >> that might not be the case in every instance. but in many instances that is the case. >> thank you. >> jane west with the american association of colleges for teacher education. a sort of follow-up to myrna question. you've taken that money and consolidated it into this new funding stream. $150 million has just been let out and exceeded grants. -- competed grants. this is between partnerships between k-12 and higher ed. what happened? those are five-year grants. what would happen to those grants? my second question is, are you also moving the accountability provisions for title 2 of the higher education act into this new fund so that all preparers would have the same accountability requirements?

>> so the current program funds -- if grants have been awarded we would provide for a continuation grants with this this new funding stream, new larger funding stream. the new funding stream specifically for teacher recruitment and preparation is 235 million, which is more than double the current funding stream under the teacher quality partnership program. and, yes, we are looking in the new program to ensure that there is a system of accountability for teacher preparation programs. both traditional programs and alternative certification programs. >> that would be the same for all of them? >> yes. >> thank you. >> hi, good afternoon. city littlefield professor of jesuit colleges and universities. first of all, i want to thank the administration for on the increase on pell grants. my mother to be thoughtful whenever we get presents. so i'm thanking you for the

increase on pell grants. i would just like a general explanation of why the 34.878 billion for pell grants were proposed for fy11 is now in the mandatory side of the budget. if you could just explain to us the rationale behind that. >> sure, sure. so as you know, cindy, pell grants operate a lot more similarly to social security and medicare than it operates like title 1. funding on the discretionary side. the basic theory is, we will allow -- allocate a certain amount of money. and when that money is gone, that's all there is to spend for that purpose for that year. but as you know under the pell grant program every student is entitled to the amount of money that they are eligible for. so by having it on the discretionary side, we have this continuous cycle where we shift back between shortfalls -- lately shortfalls more often than surpluses.

so it's the president and the secretary's sense that the most responsible way to budget for that program is to move it to the mandatory side. >> would this be done through safra legislation attached possibly to the senate? >> so at this point we're putting it forth as a proposal. it will obviously be up to congressional leadership to decide whether to do it and how to do it. what's most important to us is that we get the maximum amount of funding into the hands of students so we'll work closely with them on any moving piece of legislation. >> but an important part here if i could ask a final question would be taking care of the shortfall on the mandatory side of the budget. that seems to be a general principle of the administration going forward; is that correct? >> yes. that is our proposal. and, you know, we will work with congress to ensure that we do take care of the shortfall. >> all right. thank you very much. >> good afternoon. joan with the national governors association.

first, we'd like to -- the governors would continue to thank you for the funds that states have received from the state fiscal stabilization fund. that has been an incredibly helpful to stave off cuts to education and states are certainly facing probably their worst fiscal year ahead. in terms of assessment, that's a question to you today, two parts, the first in terms of the funds that have been referred from race to the top for common assessments, as you know a number of states have already signed assessments. is the department's vision to fund a single consortium of states to assess common assessment or to establish common assessments? and the second part on page 20, you talk about migrating assessments it off career and college ready standards and new assessments. could you describe a little bit more of the division of department as it relates to the $450 million? >> so the details of the

application and the grant program under the race to the top assessment initiative are still being determined. our lead on the race to the top program -- joe an-weiss has been working on that. she's gathering experts around the country around that. so i can tell you that those are the types of things that we're still working on. we are very encouraged by the work led by your organization the national governors association and ccs around a set of common standards and would like to ensure that as we move forward with those standards that there are high quality assessments aligned to the new college and career-ready standards. we do not intend to mandate a set of national standards. but we want to look for ways to continue to provide incentives and support to the state-driven process around raising standards so they match a career and

college readiness standard. >> i'm pat smith from ask you. and would like to ask about income-based repayment. if i understand the numbers in here, for existing loans it's costing about $1.7 billion. but in the future, i'm not sure what it would be starting in the -- with the fiscal -- the president's budget year. and i assume that the reason that it costs at all is because of inschool intrasubsidy for the loans for the first few years. and if that's not the case, i would be interested in that too. >> the total cost is about $8 billion over 10 years. and there are always costs. if you have loans that are defaulted or other things go on inschool intrasubsidies is a

cost but the loans -- some of them would be cancelled before we got back all the interest that would normally be paid to us. so that's a cost. >> so it's a mixture of those things? >> right. >> is that a fair statement? thank you. >> hi my name is joseph. i have a question about the education learner program which is currently under title 3. i understand that it sounds like the majority of the funding will still continue to be formula-funding. but do you have an idea about what the proportion would be -- what competitive grants would be in terms of the actual numbers versus formula? >> so i can tell you that the $50 million increase that's in our budget we're proposing be dedicated to the national activities competitive funding. >> thanks. >> thank you. >> hi. kim heinz for the council of exceptional children. i have a question about the

javits gift and talented program which has been one of the consolidated programs. as jane mentioned earlier kind of similar to her situation, the javits competition was just opened up last year. and grants had just been awarded either three-year grants which are in their first year of completion. and only have one year of funding attached to them. can you just explain what will happen if this budget were to go through for a year or two the existing grants? >> there's funding that would -- >> is there -- >> to cover the continuation grants. >> great. >> thank you again for the briefing today. jonathan moody at the american legislative exchange council and association of state legislators. and following up to the question of the sga. what would you say are the top two take-aways for the state legislators from the changes in the budget and with regards to increasing in school choice and other programs? >> so i would say that the take-aways are, you know, a clear -- a clear education that

education is a priority for the president and for the administration. and a focus on rewarding success. and a focus -- looking for ways to provide additional flexibility at the state and local level with respect to how funds are used. we think that under the current fragmented structure, folks at the state and local level have dozens of programs that they have to keep track of. make sure they're in compliance with -- we have to be very focused on whether state and local actors are in compliance with federal requirements under each of the programs. so we think by streamlining, setting forth the new framework that focuses on key areas where the federal government can have the greatest leverage that we will -- we will become less compliance driven and more supportive of success and innovation. and hopefully help folks at the state and local level to also be more focused on success and innovation as opposed to program

compliance. >> jeff with the great city schools. the funding in the budget proposal is good. it's not commendable. i'm a little concerned, obviously, about the flat funding for title 1 for fy11. at least the title 1 regular program. we see our schools hitting the funding cliff or aria. and i think there is certain concern about holding back a billion dollars until we get a political consensus on esea. i don't see any proposal anywhere around that holds back the increases in child nutrition funding although the child nutrition funding reauthorization is certainly delayed. i don't see any proposal to hold

back the medicare and medicaid funding increases for either services or administration waiting for health reform reform to go through. i guess i'm wondering why the justification for flat funding the regular one title 1 schools in the budget until we get a political consensus on esea? >> so obviously the budget does contain -- i would argue a very substantial increase in funding for elementary and secondary education regardless of what happens with reauthorization. the president and the secretary felt that additional funding would be -- could be very effectively used once a reauthorization is complete. but we obviously are supporting significant increase in the meantime. and as you know, provided $10 billion of funding through the recovery act for title 1 to deal with the state budget cuts.

as you know there's legislation moving through congress right now that's tackling the jobs issue. and we'll be working closely with them to do our best to support creation of jobs. prevention of unemployment. and to help stabilize state budgets. >> i think the state stabilization fund for education that's currently pending -- it would be great. that doesn't entirely replace the education stabilization fund, which was substantially more than that. and it certainly doesn't replace the $10 billion in title 1, which i don't think we expected to be replaced. but when you hit that funding cliff, the fact that contemporaneously you would hit a flat funding or a freeze for title 1 i think is just a continuing concern here. >> thanks, jeff. we got about 5 minutes left in our time, folks.

>> don with the international society for technology and education. and i'd like to explore a little bit in terms of the strategies that you expect to use in order to move programs that you are funding since the enhancing education through technology is not being funded. i'd like to hear the strategies that you might have to move title 1 -- the teacher quality programs, the revamped programs for teacher quality and leader quality. we've seen decades of funding for those. yet we've seen little movement into the digital age for those programs. so what are some strategies? what's the commitment of the administration to be sure that we don't put on the whole yet another generation of students' futures? >> so we'd like to work with congress in the reauthorization of the -- of the elementary secondary education programs to ensure that there's a focus on building capacity both at the state and the district level in terms of the use of technology.

also ensure that students are gaining the technology literacy skills they need to be successful in the 21st century. we'll be looking to fund innovation in this area in a very big way through the i3 program. we're also working closely with nsf who has similar funding streams to ensure that we're maximizing the federal investments and learning as much as we can from that. so it really is something that we're looking to make a very concrete part of multiple funding streams. and would like to work with you as we, you know, develop those proposals and get more specific. and get your input on how we can improve upon those. >> and we'd love to work with you as well. i just know that change is difficult. and sometimes it takes pretty explicit expectations. >> uh-huh. >> so i appreciate that. thank you. >> derek, you may have the last question. >> thank you. in the complete education

consolidation section, do you anticipate providing further detail on the breakdown on the consolidated programs to understand the expected grant support in each of those programs? >> so what we'd like to do is fund the best proposals. the intention is not to break it down into individual programs. again, that would just reversing what we've tried to accomplish, which is to have a larger funding stream available for people with innovative ideas. on how to promote arts education, history education, civics education, financial literacy, environmental literacy with the real focus on interdisciplinary teaching so that we can, you know, help schools and districts figure out how to effectively teach -- use arts to improve the teaching of other subjects. >> thanks. carl, did you want to say

anything about the provisions we've got in there for -- our competition is i3 and others for rural and other districts to give some assurance to folks there? >> i will say there that the secretary and the president are committed to ensuring that the move to competitive funding stream does not -- is not -- does not result in bias towards particular districts or communities because of their geographic location. so we're looking for ways as we put forward these new competitive funding stream to ensure that rural districts and other small districts have a chance to compete on an equal footing. some ways that we've been talking about in terms of doing that would be to provide competitive priorities to small districts. another possibility would be to run separate competitions based on district size. so those are things that we haven't fully fleshed the details on but that we're committed to working with folks to make sure we get it right. >> thank you.

anything else to add? tom? >> all the materials is on the web at ed.gov. >> okay. all right. thank you all for starting your week with us. and we will talk to you very soon. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]mgx

[inaudible conversations]

>> watch c-span's "washington journal" for conversation, comments and your calls about the day's public affairs. live daily from 7:00 to 10:00 eastern. c-span covering washington like no other.

>> eric shinseki explains this at this news conference. it's under just 40 minutes. >> the honorable eric k. shinseki.

>> well, good afternoon, everyone. thank you for joining us for today's budget rollout. we'll be sharing with you the president's fy2011 budget and the fy2012 advanced appropriations request for the department of veterans affairs. this budget request provides the resources necessary for us to continue pursuing the two overarching goals that the president provided to us a year ago. first, is to transform va into a 21st century organization. and at the same time, ensure that veterans have timely access to benefits and quality care from the day that they take their oaths of office the first time until they are laid to rest. to that end, the va's 2011

budget focuses on addressing three critically important concerns to veterans. first, shortened processing time for receipt of earned benefits and reduced -- reduce the backlog in disability claims. second, improve access to healthcare services and finally, end the downward spiral that results often enough, veterans homelessness. va is fortunate to have public servants who are both talented planners and skilled operators who are able to generate good ideas and then creatively implement them. with this kind of talent and the continuing support of the congress, i'm confident we'll achieve our goals of providing accessible, high quality timely care and benefits for veterans. i'm privileged to share the podium today with deputy secretary scott gould. he has been our leader in the budgeting process.

secretary gould comes to us -- came to us with broad experience in both public and private sectors. and he and i both share the commitment to deliver president obama's vision for transforming dy ornization. and let me now call on deputy secretary fouled. -- gould. >> thank you for that kind introduction. we do have an enduring and sacred mission at va to care for those who have bourne the battle. and today is a watershed moment for our nation's veterans. as secretary shinseki said a moment ago, president obama's $125 billion budget request for fiscal year 2011 and the advanced appropriation for fiscal year 2012 are landmarked figures that will provide the resources that we at va need to get the job done. now, one only has to look at the

shifting dynamics of healthcare and the needs of our veterans to understand and appreciate the need for va to have its capacity to serve veterans enhanced. the president's fiscal year 2011 budget and the advanced appropriation 2012 associated with it will give us the tools we need to act quickly, effectively, and compassionately to meet the growing needs of our veterans. we will improve our services in virtually every facet of our department. when combined, the president's 2010 and 2011 budget requests for discretionary va funds are 20% above the 2009-enacted level. that's 20% over a two-year period. va has in 2011 one of the largest increases of any department in the discretionary budget arena. and we are not taking that growth for granted.

it is all the more reason why the va will be the best possible stewards of taxpayers dollars and our veterans trust. with this new budget in hand, we will continue to transform va by working as advocates for veterans. this budget will improve quality, access and cost of healthcare services and benefits. we will address the claims backlog. and we will strengthen our management infrastructure and i.t. in acquisition and most importantly, by investing in our people. as you will see in the advanced appropriation for fiscal year 2012, we will work to bend the knee in the healthcare cost curve. that is to say, we'll be working to improve our quality of services, improve access but to do that in a cost-effective manner. we see this as a contribution to meet the challenge that our nation faces to reduce the growth of healthcare costs.çç the advanced appropriation for 2012 represents a floor for

activities as needs arise it can be increased. in just a few moments, todd grahams or acting assistant secretary for management is going to give you the details of the budget proposals. what we hope you take away from this briefing is an overview of the financial plan for a department and an administration fully committed to meeting the needs of our veterans. with this budget proposal, president obama is sending a signal loud and strong to our citizen soldiers from the greatest generation to the latest generation that we will meet their needs. and we will keep our commitment to them. now, ladies and gentlemen, it's my great pleasure to rich mr. john gingrich and our enormously effective chief of staff. >> mr. secretary, deputy secretary, thank you for your leadership on the budget process. now, it is my pleasure to

introduce todd grahams, who took over as principal deputy assistant secretary for management in late november of last year. he also is currently serving as the acting assistant secretary for management and chief financial officer. responsible for the financial management of va's $110 billion budget as well as the department's performance management, business oversight, enterprise assets management. he stays very busy doing all these activities. but he's also very experienced in the federal government. as the cfo at the department of commerce, national institute of standards and technology asthe cio and cfo of the irs where he was responsible for the accounting of two trillion dollars in tax credits and the oversight of $10 million in operating budget. and here at va where from 1994

to 2000 he served as the first cfo for vha and later as the deputy chief financial officer for va. let me also introduce the rest of the panel here today to answer your questions regarding 2011 and 2012va budget. first we have acting undersecretary for health dr. gerald cross. actingecretary for benefits michael, with alkof. secretary roger baker assistant secretary for i.t. and cio. and glenn hagstrum office of construction and logistic construction. secretary tommy duckworth for public and intergovernmental affairs. now, without further ado, let me turn it over to todd. todd, thanks.

>> well, good afternoon, everyone. first, let me thank the secretary, deputy secretary and chief of staff for taking the time this afternoon to kick off our rollout of the budget. and second to thank you for spending this next 45 minutes with us so that you can be informed of the president's budget for our nation's veterans. our format today is -- i've got 17 slides that i'll present to you that will walk you through the highlights of the numbers in the budget as well as the policies that are included in the budget. we'll save some time at the end for questions and answers. and that's why we have the assistant secretaries and the undersecretaries joining us so they can answer your questions in as much detail as they need to so that you can get the answers that you expect today. let's go to the first slide in the presentation.

as the deputy secretary and secretary said, the 2011 budget supports president obama's vision to transform the department of veterans affairs into a 21st century organization. the priorities in the budget are focused in three key areas. and those areas are access, claims processing and eliminating homelessness. the next slide shows the highlights of the budget request itself. when you look at these numbers you will see that the budget clearly reflects president obama's commitment to our nation's veterans. this is the second year of a large increase in the va budget. when you measure the increase in the discretionary budget from 2009 through this request for 2011, the increase is 20.3%. the highlight within that s0.3% includes a discretionary 9íl

the president's budget includes $15.8 billion in new money for 2010 andç 2011ç to pay the cl related to the new agent orange presumptions. out of that $15.8 billion, $13.4

billion is for new claims in 2010 alone. out of that 13.4, the vast majority over $12 billion is for retroactive claims that we will process and pay out to veterans and their families. for 2011, the claims estimate is $2.4 billion and that also is included in the budget request. turning our eyes to the discretionary part of the benefits and claims processing, the 27% increase that you've heard referenced several times already today amounts to $460 million.ko so the vba discretionary budget is going up $460 million between 2010 and '11. that $460 million will buy us 4 nor fte in 2011 than the permanent fte that we have in 2010. those ftes will be used to

process the additional claims related to the new agent orange presumption as well as the increasing trend in nonagent orange claims that we have seen over the last couple of years in vba. our second area of focus or priority in the budget is the advanced appropriation that is included for vha medical care in 2012. and that ensures an uninterrupted stream of funding to support the timely delivery of quality healthcare to veterans. homelessness is our next area of focus and priority. included in the 2011 budget is a $294 million increase as part of our five-year plan for eliminating homelessness. it brings the total for this effort to $799 million in 2011 or just short of $800 million. this $800 million in 2011 will be used for permanent transitional community-operated

and va-operated housing programs that include homeless grants and per diem. the hud va supportive housing program. and outreach new domicileary programs for low-incomed veterans. access continues to be an area of focus and priority for the department. let me highlight three components of the access strategy included in the 2011 budget. first, telehealth. in the veterans health administration there's an increase of $42 million in 2011 to enhance our efforts in telehealth that will improve access to care and quality of care especially for our veterans who live in rural areas. also in vha, we will be activating 39 major construction or leases across the country that will provide new services to veterans to meet their healthcare needs.

these 39 projects are located in 17 states. and the projects include the opening of a new hospital in las vegas. a new polytrauma center in san antonio. and the opening of eight new healthcare centers. the third component of our access strategy in the 2011 budget is our national cemeteries where we'll be implementing a new policy that will improve access. and it will improve access to our cemeteries by lowering the population threshold that we use in our planning for establishing new national cemeteries. this change in policy will allow us beginning in the 2011 budget to plan for five new national cemeteries. last but not least in our areas of focus and priorities is strengthening management across the department. our budget includes new

initiatives that will strengthen management. and they include a $24 million government-wide presidential initiative to improve the acquisition's work force. now, this is an initiative -- this is va's part of this government wide initiative but there are investments such as this being made in the various departments and agencies across the federal government as the budget rolls out today. this $24 million is va's component of that government-wide presidential initiative. it also includes 21.6 million to further strengthen department level management including a little over $4 million to help us manage the nationwide implementation of hhpd12 by establishing an office to manage hspd12 in the department. it includes over $3 million for the benefits laws team in our general counsel's office, which will allow us to handle cases before the court of appeals in a more timely manner.

and also increase timeliness in in the publication and distribution of secretarial regulations. $2.8 million will enhance our alternative dispute resolution. that's good for va. it's good for our employees. and over time will save our nation's taxpayers money. also included under management is a ten-year extension request for our enhanced use lease program. for those of you who are familiar with the enhanced use lease program, it has been a win-win for the veterans and the authority for it expires at the end of 2007 11. -- 2011. so we're asking the congress to extend that authority for another decade. the final focus under management is to improve our construction management in the department by aligning the costs of resident engineers with the major construction projects budget. and that will ensure that all projects no matter how large or

how small will have the proper level of project management devoted to them. let's move to the next numbers. the next slide is a pie chart that shows the major components of the budget and especially focuses on distinguishing between the discretionary components of the budget and the entitlement components. the 2011 total budget request as the deputy secretary indicated is $125 billion. it includes both mandatory spending for entitlement programs and discretionary program spending. highlighting the entitlement programs which is the bottom green half of the pie chart, the entitlementment programs amount to almost 52% of the va budget in 2011 and that's a total of $54.7 billion. so what do we buy with that $64.7 billion. 3.8 million veterans and survivors will receive disability compensation.

500,000 veterans and survivors will receive pensions. 829,000 veterans and their families will receive readjustment benefits. 6.9 million veterans and family members will be covered by our va life insurance program. and 240,000 service members and veterans will receive va-guaranteed loans in fiscal year 2011. so that's it for the entitlement program highlights. for the discretionary piece of the pie chart you can see that it totals almost 42% of our budget. the major components of that medical care and medical research make up the vast majority of that amount. and what we're getting for that 42% of our budget here is that for the first time in history, the va medical care program in 2011 will treat over 6 million veteran patients. our next slide moves us into the details that underlie the pie chart.

and this is by our appropriations account structure. it shows what the levels are for 2009, '10, '11 and then the deltas between '11 and '10. look at this table as presenting a landscape of this budget. it's here for your quick reference. what i'm going to do right now is i'm not going to focus on each specific appropriation account because that's actually what the rest of the slides in the presentation will do. they'll walk us through each one of these lines in a little bit more detail. i would ask you on this slide to focus at the bottom. and if you look at the bottom two boxes and follow those lines across the table, you'll see that the total va funding for 2011 is actually a 10% increase over 2010. the mandatory increase over 2010 is 12%. and the discretionary budget increase over 2010 totals to 8%. i'd also direct your attention to the last line on this table,

which is entitled 2010 agent orange supplemental. this is a supplemental for 2010 that will be in the 2011 budget that will be for the cost of claims for the agent orange presumptions. that will be $13.4 billion. part of what we do with that money is staff the department of veterans affairs. the next slide is the total fte that this budget will buy. you will see in 2011 we will have an fte level of nearly 288,000. that's almost a 6,000 increase in fte over 2010. the major pieces that make up that 6,000 increase are the just over 4,000 fte that we are expecting to increase in vba in 2010 to help us address claims processing.

as well as adding nearly 1300 fte in our medical care programs. so let's move from fte into the actual account level detail. our first slide in that regard is medical care budget authority, which is presented here in billions of dollars. you'll note that this slide includes both the 2011 appropriations request as well as the advanced appropriation for fiscal year 2012. the advanced appropriation for 2012 is an increase of $2.8 billion over 2011. more specifics about the funding, the 2011, our appropriations request in total, 51.5 billion. that's made up of two components. 48.2 billion in direct appropriation and 3.4 billion in collections. total increase $4 billion or 8.5% over 2010. looking at the dollars for 2012, the advanced appropriation with

the 2.8 increase we talked about earlier. 54.3 billion. 50.6 billion of that we will be asking for congress in our direct population and another 7 billion we will collect through our medicare cost program and other sources. so the increase in 2012 of 2.8 billion over 2011. and i just want take a moment to note the concept of the advanced appropriation relies on the 2012 numbers in this budget being a floor, if you will. and as we go through 2010 and as we go through 2011, the administration will have another bite at the apple for 2012. a year from now we will be standing here presenting the 2012 budget. and if we think these 2012 figures need to be adjusted, we will do so at that time. in terms of workload for the medical care, appropriation

again as i mentioned 2011 will be the first time that we've ever gone above 6 million veterans being treated. and in 2011 our outpatient visits will total 83 million or 5% over the 2010 estimate. in 2012 we're expecting to treat 6.2 million unique veterans. and the outpatient visits will total 87 million or a 5% increase in workload from the 2010 -- or over the 2011 estimate in 2012. selected key programs that may be of interest to you is on the next slide. i'll highlight a few of these lines and leave this with you as a reference document that you can use later. mental health, you'll note that the dollars devoted to mental health in the 2011 budget are 9% more than 2010. and that increase continues at a rate of 6% in 2012. operation enduring freedom and operation iraqi freedom veterans are noted the money devoted to them is noted on the second line

of this table which shows an increase in funding for this veteran cohort to be 30% higher in 2011 than 2010. and another 26% higher in 2012 than 2011. the third line up from the bottom of the table i also want to highlight the women's veterans budget. there's an increase of 9% in 2011 for women's healthcare programs. and 12% for 2012. and it's worth noting that the emphasis included in this will be enhancing primary care for our nation's women veterans. the next slide takes us into unique patients treated or patient accounts or system users. the 2011 workload for our veterans which as i said earlier 6 million is a 2.9% increase over 2010. and another 2.5% increase is reflected in the table for 2012.

the second line in the table focusing on priority 7 and 8 veterans -- between 2011 and 2012 we're looking at over an 8% increase in the number of priority 7 and 8 veterans that we will treat as we continue to expand our healthcare to priority 8 veterans. just looking again at the oef, oif veteran cohort, we thought it's worth pulling out and highlighting is we're looking at a 14.8% increase in 2011. and an increase of 12.9% in 2012 for oef, oif veteran patients. and it's worth noting we expect to treat 449,000 veterans as va patients in 2011. let's move from medical care to medical and prosthetic research. and now this slide is total resources dollars in millions.

the last line in this -- in this table below the graph is the operative one for this discussion because it reflects what we're requesting in our appropriation in addition to what vha may bring in, in 2011 in grants from federal and other sources. va is continuing our research by requesting $590 million in 2011. when combined with the increase requested in 2010, this is a 15.7% increase in medical research over two years in the president's budget. with the funding level in 2011, we'll be able to fund 3,345 fte and fund 2,350 direct research projects. our research priorities in 2011 includes rural health, access to care and telemedicine. we're also looking to continuing conducting investigations that demonstrate our ability to enact large scale changes in clinical

practices in acute and chronic disease areas such as mental health, regenerative medicine and for our combat vets. our next slide takes us into the veterans benefits administration. the discretionary increase 27% more than the 2010 enacted appropriation and those funds willi3 zj"e$sheñjb0bn[f>mdsx>9r(n+:lú number of claimsr™vájt(ujuj and the staff that support them as we address claims processing in our backlog. the driver of this increase as we said earlier is the continuing trend of increase in applications for claims into vba's compensation program as well as the increase in workload that comes with the new agent orange presumptions. in addition to compensation, it's worth noting that this budget includes other important activities such as the continued implementation of the post-9/11 gi bill, the veterans management system or vbms as it's more

popularly referred to that would replace our paper centric claims benefit. vrm will provide enhances services to our va veterans. so with the money we're getting in 2011 you can see what we're doing in terms of staffing in vba in the next slide. the 2011 request will fund a 24% increase in fte from 17,200 in 2010 to 21,248 in 2011. it's important to note that the

it will go up by 3,919. in 2011. and that includes 1870 positions that will be funded so recovery can stay as permanent fte in the future as well as 2,049 new positions so that 1870 and that 2049 in new positions make up the 3,919 fte increase that you see on the table for compensation and pension. and the staffing is important to note here because it is a critical but not the only component but it is a critical component of our efforts to address the claims backlog. and that plan does include staffing.

that is funded in this budget. it includes process reengineering included in the budget as well as investments in information technology that are in the budget. and you could see that the budget request sustains the increase in nca that was provided by the congress in 2010. which included an $8 million increase over the president's budget this year. when combined with 2010, this request is a 9.1% increase over the 2009 funding level so we're roughly averaging about a 4.5% increase in nca's budget over the past two years. within that total the nca budget in 2011 will provide for the following. 3.3 million to address workload increases at existing cemeteries. $3 million to pursue renewable energy projects through the use of wind, solar and geothermal.

39.9 million to maintain veteran cemeteries as national shrines. and when combined with this amount the total in the budget is $61 million. in 2011. going now to the i.t. component of our budget, our funding is frozen in 2011 for information technology. that reflects our strategy in va of under the leadership of roger baker, our chief information officer bringing greater discipline and oversight to our project and program management. so we're comfortable with this freeze while we take the time to make sure that when we commit to deliver a project or program, we are delivering it on budget. we are delivering it on time. and it has the functionality that our customers come to expect. the overall va's i.t. investment of $3.3 billion represents 2.7

of the total va -- 2.7% of the total va budget. the i.t. request in terms of its major buckets, if you will, and what it funds, medical programs 1.3 billion, benefits and memorial delivery, 381 million. corporate systems 527 million. interagency development 158 million. and staffing and administration at $966 million. so let's move from i.t. infrastructure to our building and our capital infrastructure and our capital programs which is on the next slide. our new budget authority that we're asking for in 2011 is $1.75 billion. it breaks that you see below the graphs and we'll have a couple where i'll talk about major. let me take a minute to talk about the cemetery grants, the extended care grants and minor construction.

minor construction requests $468 million. includes $387 million for vha, 44 million for nca, 23 million for staff offices and $14.5 million in minor construction for vba. the state cemetery grant is requesting 46 million and the state extended care grants request is for 85 million. now, let's turn to the next slide so we can talk about the details of the major construction budget. as i said earlier, the total request 1.151 billion for major construction. let me give you the highlights for vha and nca out of this total. the vha request includes funding for five major construction projects. three of those are ongoing projects where this budget continues the work to build those facilities. and two of the five are actually new projects that we're introducing in the 2011 budget.

the three projects that are ongoing are a new tertiary care facility in denver, colorado, a new medical facility in new orleans. and in palto alto california, a ambulary care. one is in alameda california and a replacement facility in omaha, nebraska. that's it for the vha in major construction. for the national cemetery administration, the request fully funds grave site expansion at two national cemeteries. the first in indiantown, pennsylvania. and in at the houma, washington. and there's a explanation at our los angeles, california, location. it's also worth noting in major construction there are additional line items that i

have funded that includes advanced planning activities, improved facility security, resident engineer staff, land acquisitions for national cemeteries and a variety of other functions and activities. so with that, that ends the presentation. of the slides. again you have supplemental slides in your package that you can take away for reference. and now we will go in to the question and answer portion of our presentation today. and i believe our first question is coming from rick mays of army times. rick? >> i'd like to ask a goldie locks kind of question whether the budget too big, too small or just about right. because the increase -- although sizeable still isn't enough for some veterans groups. they still think there's more that need to be done. and we're already hearing from some democrats in congress and this is one of the agencies whose budget isn't frozen and nothing is guaranteed and that they are going to come back and

try to cut it. can you give us some idea where you're at in terms of -- is this the smallest budget that you could do? is there more things that you needed that you weren't able to ask for? >> sure. i think to play off your goldie locks analogy, this budget is just right for our nation's veterans. if you look back at the highlights that we've talked about, 20% increase over two years. 27% increase in vba to address one of our top priorities, which is the claims backlog. almost $300 million invested to help our plan to eliminate homeless veterans. and 8.5% increase in medical care as well. so this budget in 2011 and 2012 is established to treat those veterans who come to us for their healthcare while maintaining or increasing the quality and safety. it provides an unprecedented increase in vba which shows the

seriousness to which the president and the secretary are devoting to claims processing and the backlogs in vba as well as expanding the policy in our cemeteries so that we can provide more internment for our veterans and their families. in the future. thank you. >> our next question is coming from jim dow from the "new york times." >> thanks. could you explain a little bit more in detail on agent orange compensation. that's retroactive. and i think you're saying. and could you explain how that works. and does that number then come down considerably over the coming years? >> the number does drop off because a lot of those claims are retroactive in one time in 2010 but i'm going to turn that

question over to mike for a response. >> thanks, todd. there was a court decision some 20 years ago -- the name of the court decision is nehmer. and that decision requires us to -- anytime we had denied a claim and then the condition for which we denied the claim is then found to be subject to a presumptive, the court decision requires us to go back and readjudicate the claim with the affected date of the original filing. so what that means is that we're going to be paying retrobenefits in many cases it off veterans that go back some 20 years. and that's why there's such a large payout in 2010. >> i believe our next question is from adam levine from cnn. >> can you talk a little more about the timeline for

implementing the software for both the g.i. bill processing and medical claims processing. when will that replace all the human processors if you will. and also what's the goal for hiring 4,000 more processors. is that next year or this year? >> i'll turn the first half of that question over to roger baker our cio and then we'll let mike talk about the plan for bringing on the 4,000 fte. roger? >> the goal for the new software for -- what we call long-term solution for chapter 33 is to introduce first functionality on april 1st. have some claims processors testing that at that point. and full functionality on june 30th so that when we go in the fall with the new more automated system for processing those benefits. i wasn't clear on the question from the medical claims side. that's the education side of things. on the medical side are you talking about the paperless system?

we're currently working a number of pilots on the paperless system in 2010 and in 2011 we have a substantial chunk of dollars in the budget. i believe it's $145 million to field the new system in a number of offices between 2011 and 2012. we have a commitment to congress to have all the paperless system -- the new processes in the paperless software in the field by the end of 2012 and we're currently on that plan. >> i think, first of all, it's important to remember that 1870 of that 4,000 are already on board. these are employees that we are currently -- currently are employees that we hope to retain. so that is relatively easy from an h.r. standpoint. the other 2,000 we will be bringing as early as possible in

'11. and with the idea that we want to front load it as much as possible so that we can get them trained quickly. we have hired a similar amount of people over the last couple of years so we know we have the infrastructure to do it. we have money built into the budget for training. and also for space for those people. so we're pretty confident that we're going to be able to do that. >> okay. our next question from aleah from government executive. >> hi. a question regarding oversight of i.t. project management. when do you expect to launch the va-specific dashboard website where citizens can watch that oversight? >> it's actually been launched. i need to get you the link to that. >> okay. >> we did what's called a soft launch. which we put it out there and let folks look at it that

stumbled across it. we haven't done any big publicity on it. i will give you the link and you're welcome to look at it. >> thank you. and with regard to that, is there any information on the auricle enterprise sign on there -- when do you plan to sign that deal? >> i couldn't even talk about anything that would be acquisition-sensitive. but that's not the sort of thing we would have on that website. it's really the projects where we're developing and where they sit on their milestones. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. thank you, alia. and i believe katie has some questions from the field. >> actually, we have answered all those questions. that concludes the formal press conference. so thank you very much. >> okay. well, thank you all for coming in. if you have any questions, please let us know. thank you. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> live now back to the u.s. capitol as the senate returns. they just gaveled other things going on, other conflicts and disasters around the world. this is having to do with northern uganda. it's something i've been on the floor talking about for several years now and i've had occasion to be there several times. for over two decades, a guy name

joseph cohen has led the l.r.a., lords resistance army, leading violence throughout northern uganda and the north lakes region of east and central africa. they killed tens of thousands of little kids displacing over one million, terrorizing, kidnapping over 30,000 little kids. forcing them to fight. you know, it's this child soldier thing a lot of people are aware of. but not nearly many enough people are. with all the problems there are in africa, more people are concerned about zimbabwe, somalia, sudan and no one talks about the lords resistance army and what they've been doing in africa in that area for 25 years. now i've been there. i've been up there to northern uganda and let me kind of share

the problem that exists up there. this madman, kind of a spiritual leader by the name of joseph connin, has taken advantage of all of the unrest and disasters by going into villages, kidnapping and -- taking young people that -- and training them to be soldiers. now we're talking billion little kids. little boys from 11 to 14 years old. once they trained them to be soldiers, they give them ak-47's. i don't have my chart, but i've got pictures of that. they train them to be soldiers and then they have to go back to their villages, murder their parents and their siblings. if they don't do that, they will dismember them. they will cut off their nose, theiree -- their ears, their lips. this has been going on for a

while. i have gotten to know the president of uganda, the president of rwanda, president kabila in co2ngo. all agree that we need to do something about the monster, joseph connin. two of the presidents that i just mentioned from uganda and rwanda are presidents who have really come to power in the bush. they are warriors. these are people who -- who have -- and they really are reluctant to admit that they can't go after one guy and get him. well, they finally have all gotten together and what we're trying do -- well, we've already introduced. this is actually the author of the bill is senator feingold from wisconsin, to go after these people and this bill provides about $35 million to help these kids that are all -- all have been brutalized as well as to give whatever assistance we have to give to these

different countries in order to bring this guy to justice. you know, during one of the trips i made up to northern ewe grande a, i ran into three young men, they're college-aged types. bobby bailey, lauren poole, and jason russell. they had started a documentary on -- on joseph conney, and they have gone around to universities and we have tens of thousands of young people who are now rallying around this thing trying to get us to do something as a -- as a nation. well, anyway, with these young people, they are actually -- have become very, very effective. now this week the senate has an opportunity to act in unison to shine a light on this forgotten place an bring leaf to these -- these children. the great lakes region has suffered from years of devastating fighting between tribes and as a result area -- the area is home to massive

amounts of displaced people who are vulnerable. they're the ones who are vulnerable to this type of treatment. so those are the conditions that allow joseph conney and his l.r.a. rebels to thrive. now, conne preys on the weak. he gets young girls, he sells them for sex slaves and these kids to become murders. so, anyway, on december of 2008, the governments of uganda, southern udan launched a coordinated effort against the l.r.a., it was called operation lightning thunder. during the operation over 300 rebels were killed, over 40 captured and more than 500 kids who were abducted were rescued. so we're making some headway in doing this. according to estimates by the

u.n. between september of 2008 and june of 2009, the l.r.a. killed over 1,300 civilians, abducted some 1,400 more boys and tbirls, displaced nearly 300,000. i know something about this because i took the time to go to -- you hear about western congo, this is eastern congo that but thes up again -- but thes up against the country. in going to ugondo, we thought that's where joseph conney was at the time. we barely missed him. he went north on a tirade going up to sudan and murdered thousands of people during that are short people of time. it averages out he murders or mutilates about 3,000 kids a day. that's why this is important. we have to get this guy. we can't do it if we tried the way we tried before.

it hasn't work and it's not going to work. anyway, we have watched this take place. it's spreading now to other areas. i would anticipate before too long if it was left unchecked, it would go not just to the central african republic, but back into the sudan and maybe even eastern ethiopia. it's a very serious thing. in 2009 a total of 186 people have been killed by the l.r.a. just in southern sudan. one survivor describes his experience in the murders of his families at the hands of the l.r.a. now this is a -- this is a quote. this is actually what this person said. "we were eating dinner outside of our hut when several l.r.a., that's lords of resistance army, rebels appeared and told us in broken language, they a lotted our food, locked inside the hut and burned it.

there -- there was 10 of us. my family. when i realized they were burning it, one rebel standing outside of the door tried to hit him with a heavy club, he dodged it. they shot after me, but they missed. apparently they shot or hit everyone else in my family who tried come out except for one other person everyone in my family was burned to death." now this is the type of a thing we have documentary on. it has been happening for a long period of time. now, what we're trying to do with this, as i mentioned before, the cost is not -- by the way, it's not any appropriation. this is an authorization bill. to authorize probably what the c.b.o. says is about $28 million to get this done. it is not offset. when the bill first came out, it was offset by a reduction in certain types of military expenditures. i disagreed with that. and so it's not offset at this time. but of all of the efforts out there right now, this is something that absolutely has to

happen. now, just by contrast, we had a bill not too long ago, the other african bill, just a couple of years ago, called the petfar bill. that was one that actually had about 35 -- $35 billion. much, much larger than this. and that just sailed right through. i would say if we're willing to do that, we ought to be willing to do this. by the way, i've got a lot of cosponsors now, i do believe. we're going to be successful in getting this bill passed. and i -- i will be bringing this up, i'm guessing, probably either wednesday or -- or thursday. so, with that, i will yield the floor and hope that any of the hems of this -- members of this body who are not a cosponsor to this bill, it is 1076, and we'd like to get -- a few more cosponsors on here if at all possible. with that, i'd yield the floor and suggest the absence of a

quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. gillibrand: mr. president, i rise in support of the nomination of patricia smith for solicitor of the department of labor. commissioner smith is a dynamic and effective leader with over 30 years of experience in labor law, and i'm very proud to support her nomination. she has exhibited exceptional leadership during her tenure as

new york's labor commissioner. in this capacity, she managed 3,700 employees in 80 offices and oversaw an annual budget of of $11 billion. in response to the current economic climate, mrs. smith executed critical programs to reduce the impact of layoffs and also implemented career training to assist individuals in entering high-demand fields. additionally, she has enhanced labor law enforcement in order to safeguard workers and reward responsible employers. commissioner smith fully embodies the integrity and the diligence that this position demands and has a wealth of experience, making her well qualified to enforce quilt issues such as workplace safety and health, fair wages, equal employment opportunity, veterans' protection, and retirement and health benefits. prior to her term as labor

commissioner, she served as chief of the labor bureau in the new york attorney general's office for eight years. in that capacity, she established a method of labor law enforcement that other attorney generals and enforcement agencies have used as a model. she was an innovative leader here, increasing efficiency and effectiveness of the bureau by developing ethics standards, targeting enforcement efforts, and on a industrywide basis and strategically focusing on workers. commissioner smith's nomination, which has been pending since april, was reported with the unanimous support of all committee democrats. additionally, she has the enthusiastic support of labor groups, women's groups, and worker advocates. a number of prominent business organizations have also endorsed commissioner smith, including the business council of new york, the manufacturing

association of central new york, the partnership for new york, the long island forum for technology, and the plattsburgh north country chamber of commerce. commissioner smith has endured a rigorous vetting process and has made herself available to answer over 50 questions from our friends from the other side of the aisle and met with all interested senators. i urge my colleagues to move quickly to confirm patricia smith for solicitor for the department of labor. thank you, mr. president.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. dorgan: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. dorgan: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dorgan: madam president, we're approaching a one-year anniversary of the fatal crash

of continental connection flight 3407 in buffalo, new york, and today the national transportation safety board is actually holding a public meeting to consider the final report that they are making on that crash. i think almost everyone has heard the tragic story of that crash last february 12. two pilots, two flight attendants, 45 passengers on that airplane, and one person on the ground all lost their lives. this flight was operated by colgan. the plane was a bombardiier 8-200. operated by a cap pain and copilot -- cap pain and copilot -- captain and cob coby. they revealed their inexperience in the cockpit i listened to.

inexperience in the voice recordings. the captain had failed a number of tests in his career as a pilot. and the ntsb is now considering 45 findings and conclusions in a public meeting as i speak. this morning, the ntsb members said this, the plane and the flight crew were properly certified. the plane was in good condition before takeoff. they also said that the ice buildup that night flying into buffalo was typical and did not affect the ability of the flight crew to fly the airplane. so while we are waiting for the final conclusions of the national transportation safety board, the members of that board spoke about crew training, pilot fatigue, and pilot error as reasons for the crash. and these are the issues that i've been holding some hearings on in this past year.

the ntsb is going to make recommendations to the f.a.a. we already know that when they make recommendations, the appropriate agencies don't always pay attention to those recommendations. for example, pilot fatigue has continually been on the national transportaion safety board's most-wanted list -- that is, most-wanted list of safety recommendations for 19 years. let me say that again. for 19 straight years, the national transportaion safety board had said -- quote -- "pilot fatigue" is on the most-wanted safety recommendations, and yet no one's been listening. no one seemed to ring the bell on those issues. i've held seven hearings on safety in the aviation subcommittee that i chair in this congress. we've heard from the f.a.a., the ntsb, pilots, regional airlines, major carriers, safety experts,

and we've heard especially from the families who lost their loved ones in that fatal crash, tragic crash in buffalo, new york. let me be quick to say that we've had fortunately reasonably few airline crashes in this country in recent years. it is generally a very safe way to travel. but there isn't room for error with respect to these airplane flights, the commercial airplane flights, and i'm going to be holding follow-up hearings with my colleague, senator rockefeller, and others in the commerce committee with respect to the ntsb recommendations. we are supposed to have what is called one level of safety, one level of safety -- quotes around that. the ntsb, since the middle of the 1990's, said there is one level of safety for commercial airplane flights in this count

country. the big regional trunk carriers -- excuse me, the big major trunk carriers that are national and international and the regional carriers shall have one level of safety. but it is the case that regional airlines often employ pilots with much, much less experience, much lower pay, which forces difficult conditions. it is the case that in many cases, you get on a small airplane for a regional flight and you see a crew with obviously much less experience. and there are questions from time to time raised about the training, questions raised in this investigation, as a matter of fact. we know there are a lot of factors that play into this one level of safety, but i think most people believe that one level of safety standard really at this point doesn't quite

measure up, and that's the reason i think we will see some of the recommendations from the ntsb as a result of this crash. at the time of the crash outside of buffalo, new york, colgan air did not have a remedial training program for pilots. the captain of the flight had failed numerous performance checks over the course of his career and would have made an excellent candidate for remedial training. i know the f.a.a.'s been working on the industry to try to get them to do this for a long, long while. if the traveling public ever begins to have very significant concerns about safety on a commercial airline flight, it's going to be devastating to that industry. so safety must not just be a perception. safety on commercial airlines, whether they be the major trunk carriers or the regional yairlz, has to be something -- or the regional airlines, has to be something that everybody takes seriously and that the

american people believe is taken seriously. now, i want to show a chart that shows something that just common sense will tell you just doesn't work. here's a chart that shows where colgan airline pilots were commuting to. you'll see, they were commuting from laguardia, which was their base of operations, and so on that fateful flight going into buffalo, new york, the copilot flew all night long from her home in seattle, washington, flew all night, i believe deadheaded on a fedex plane, as a matter of fact, stopped in memphis, tennessee, changed planes, got to laguardia airport and so after flying all night long is now ready to take an airplane on its flight. there is no evidence or record that have copilot having a hotel or a crash pad or finding someplace to find a bed and go to sleep. that's the copilot. the pilot, on the other hand,

came from florida to laguardia airport. there is no evidence outside of being in the crew lounge at the airport that the pilot had a bed in which to sleep or had rest. and so you have a pilot and a copilot that get on that airplane to take, in this case those 45 passengers on that airplane to its flight to buffalo, new york. on that flight, icing built up on the wings and there is what is called a stick shaker on that airplane and there was a stick shaker that employed which would have said to the pilot, you must put the nose down in order to gain some additional speed with that airplane. and the pilot, in fact, did not put the nose down, pulled the nose up, as i understand it, which is apparently a training issue as well. so you have a pilot and a copilot traveling across the country all night long just to get to the duty station and then things happen in the cockpit during the transcript, the

copilot said that she had very little experience flying in icing. and, look, both the pilot and the copilot lost their lives and i -- i take no joy in reciting what happened in that cockpit. their loss of life was a tragedy for their families as well. my point is simply this. what happened here -- and, by the way, i believe that four out of the most recent five airline crashes in our country have been on commuter carriers. this, it seems to me, raises a series of questions that must be addressed and now i believe will be addressed in recommendations from the national transportation safety board of, must be addressed by the f.a.a. and these deal with the issue of fatigue, who is flying these planes, are they getting proper rest. it deals with the issue of competence. is it the case that you get on a

small jet and know that the copilot is making $18,000 a year or $20,000 a year doing two jobs and flying across the country at night in order to get into an airplane cockpit? does that give you confidence? well, the fact is, all of these issues are now coming to the forefront because not just of this crash but other circumstances as well that require the f.a.a. to take a very hard look at what has happened. at one of my hearings, i showed a "wall street journal" article in which mr. wychor, an 18-year veteran pilot describing the routine of commuter flights with short layover in the middle of the night. he said -- quote -- "take a shower, brush your teeth, and pretend you slept." that is not what you want in the cockpit of an airplane. "take a shower, brush your teeth, and pretend you slept."

a 737 pilot flying to denver -- this is an nbc news quote from the pilot. "i've been doing everything in my power to stay awake. coffee, gum, candy. but as we entered one of the most critical phases of the flight, i had been up for 20 straight hours." is that an issue? it is with me. it's one that we have to addre address. and i think all thoughtful people in that industry -- and i have great admiration for people in the airline industry. they do a great job in this country. but all thoughtful people in that industry understand that we have to address these issue issf fatigue and training and compensation. that's just a fact. and all i wanted to do today was to say the national transportaion safety board i think does a great job investigating accidents. the family, the family members of the victims o of that flight that crashed in buffalo, new york, have been extraordinary. i mean, really extraordinary.

they have come to every single hearing that's been hold capitol hill. -- that's been held on capitol hill. they have been witnessing on behall their brothers and sisters and wives and children saying i don't want congress, i don't want the f.a.a. to let up. we want you to address these issues. that crash did not have to happen. our loved ones did not have to die. that's their message. and so i say to them, you're doing exactly the right thing. what you are doing, showing up here at all of these hearings and keeping the pressure on the congress and, yes, on the f.a.a., will save lives. you won't know their names but you're saving lives, and good for you. now, madam president, i wanted to talk just about one other issue today if i might in a separate part of the record. madam president, this issue of cloture motions, which, you know, sounds like a foreign language to a lot of people. if you're back home someplace and getting up in the morning

and struggling to get to work and put in a full day, try to, you know, make enough money to kind of raise your family and get along in life, you don't know about cloture motions or cloture petitions or two-day ripening or 30 hours postcloture. all of that looks like a foreign language and sounds foreign to almost everybody. this is a -- a graph of cloture motions in congress. in the 1950's, there were two low pure petitions filed in the entire deck -- cloture petitions filed in the entire decade. two of them. now, what does cloture mean? if you decide in this body and you are the most junior member of this body, you're the last one elected, you're number 100 seniority and you sit right back by the candy drawer beats thaws the last -- drawer because that's the last desk -- i guess we shouldn't talk about a candy drawer, i guess, but you sit way back in the corner, you're number 100 in the senate. once you're on your feet and recognized by the presiding

officer, no one else can take the floor from you. not the majority leader, not the most senior member of the senate, the floor is yours, you can speak until you are physically and mentall mentally exhausted. that's just the way the rules of the senate are. it's the way the senate works. and it was described long ago, i think it was washington or engineejefferson that describede coffee that cools the -- the saucer that cools the coffee. the senate isn't supposed to be efficient, isn't supposed to work quickly or necessarily efficiently, it's just supposed to slow things down, take a better look at it and try and have more evaluation, what does this really mean for the country, does this make sense for country. that's the way the senate was created. it's very hard to get things done. but it is near impossible to get things done these days because of something called filibusters and cloture petitions. i just want to provide some statistics that i think is really interesting. this could not happen and would not happen in any city council

in america. there's no city council in america where this sort of thing could happen, no matter what their rules were, because they'd be laughed out of town. you couldn't do this. we've got people blocking bills that they support. can you imagine that? go ask -- if you were in the city council and your business was to block things that you support and your neighbors said, what are you doing, are you nuts? no, i'm just blocking things i support because it's a -- it has a -- a strategy attached to it. well, what's the strategy, they would say? so here's the situation. we had in 2009 and 2010, it's projected we'll have 146 cloture motions to shut off debate. in this congress. now, let me describe what we're involved with next. we're on one now, by the way. we are -- we are now in what is called 30 hours postcloture. we had a nomination that should have been approved in five minutes and those that want to vote against the nomination

should vote "no." but we couldn't do that. instead, those who oppose this nomination for the solicitor for the department of labor -- this is a solicitor for the department of labor nomination -- instead of having an up-or-down vote and those who don't like this candidate, this nominee should vote no, they said, no, you can't even have a vote. you have to file a cloture petition, wait for two days and then have a vote and see if you get 60 and if you get 60, after you get the 60, we're going to insist that you bleed off 30 more hours because the rules allow us to do that. only then can you have a vote. so that's where we are now. we had a cloture vote. it prevailed. and now we're waiting for 30 hours to elapse so that nothing can be done during the 30 hours. it's just stalling. and so then the 30 hours is done, we'll vote on this, and then we go to the next nomination. so this week we will do two nominations, both of which should have taken five minutes,

if people of good will worked together and decided, all right, here's the agenda. let's bring up this candidates for a vote. if you like the candidate, vote "yes." if you don't, vote "no." so the next one is going to be martha johnson, g.s.a. administrator. by the way, this one has been objected to, and it's waited for seven months. so seven months ago this president nominated martha johnson to be g.s.a. administrator. now, april 3, 2009, was her nomination. june 8, the nomination passed through both the senate -- i should say, through the senate homeland security and government affairs committee -- unanimously. so this nomination was voted on unanimously and approved by the committee. that was june 8.

so now here it is february, the year following. we now are going to get to vote on this nomination that passed the committee unanimously, but not until we're able to shut off a filibuster, and then have 30 hours postcloture. it is the most unbelievable thing in the world. now, is this person qualified? yeah, absolutely. served as the head of g.s.a. during the clinton administration, hailed by former current g.s.a. employees as the golden era of g.s.a. you know, she was the chief of staff back during the clinton administration. she would be a vast improvement, by the way, over the previous head of the g.s.a. the previous head of the g.s.a. -- and i spoke about her on the floor of the senate -- loreta done, april 7, 2508, the office of special council for the united states, asked that she be disciplined to the full extent for the most pernicious of

political activity by the hatch act. she submitted her resignation by request of the white house. she had been accused of providing no-bid contracts to friends. she and a deputy in karl rove's office at the white house had joined in a videoconference with 40 regional g.s.a. administrators after a powerpoint on polling about the 2006 elections. she side "how can we help our candidates?" this is a nonpolitical office heading our g.s.a. in the country. this person got drummed out of the office. but should have -- should have gotten drummed out of office and resigned under pressure. so now here's someone who's fully qualified. and it's finally seven, eight months later and we're going to get to have a vote but only if we file a cloture to end a filibuster. that is unbelievable to meevment let me give some other examples of what is happening here.

here's a bill that was filibustered. credit cardholders' bill of rights. there was a filibuster 0 on that by the other side, the republicans. they filibuster everything, everything. so credit cardholders' bill of rights. so they went through a filibuster. delayed, and after the delay, it passed 90-5. so obviously we had a bunch of folks here that said, i'm going to lay down on the track until it's inconvenient for everybody. then i'll gipt and vote for it. we have people blocking things they support. you'd get locked out of town if any town in this country if you tried that on the city council. department of defense appropriations -- filibustered. go through the motion of filing two days, 30 hours. and then it passed 88-10. so obviously we had a bunch of folks on the other side that decided, we're going to block

something we support. kind of a curious strategy. energy and water appropriations -- that was my -- that was my bill that i chaired. filibustered. cloture. 80 people voted "yes." fraud enforcement and recovery act -- filibustered it, by the republicans, and then when it was finally voted upon, after they'd delayed it, 92 of them voted "yes." again, people blocking things they support. only in the united states congress, i guess. unemployment compensation extension was the subject of a filibuster, and then 98 people voted "yes." people blocking things they support. what a curious thing. i mean, what do you tell your children? what was your role, dad or mom? well, my role was really to slow things down. i just wanted to sort of spread glue around the united states senate. not that we don't think it is

slow enough the way it is. we want to slow it down even further. the fact is people send minimum of good will to this chamber -- and i -- one of the things that i've learned in many years in this chamber is that almost every desk is occupied by somebody that has pretty unique and interesting and special skills to get here. you know, in almost every case there are people here with very substantial skills. but they're not sent here with an agenda. you know what -- you know what i'd like you to do? i'd like you to block everything and then vote for it in the end. that's not a message that comes from any state that i am a aware of. they're sent here to do good things for this country. all of us are. we might have a disagreement about what that means and how to do it, but there shouldn't be any disagreement about these kinds of things. in the middle of the deepest recession since the great depression, seven of this president's high-level nominees

for the treasury department are not yet confirmed. seven of them. how do you justify that? deciding in the middle of the deepest recession since the 1930's that you're going to prevent the u.s. treasury department from having a full complement of people that can think through and work through to try to put this country back on track, restart the economic engine and put people back to work again? how do you justify deciding that we shouldn't have a full implement of people to do that? -- full complement of people to do that? we had a fully qualified surgeon general nominated in this country, and that surgeon general nominee was blocked, even after the h1n1 flu had been declared a major health threat. think of that -- blocked even after it had become a major health threat. we had ambassador of iraq -- obviously an important position

-- blocked at a time of war, scwhrus we most needed to resolve some of those -- just as we must needed to resolve some of those issues. one single senator on the other side held up the nomination of the deputy u.s. trade representative for nine months -- nine months that was held up -- to try to force that u.s. trade representative's office to file a complaint against canada on some issue. i don't have the foggiest idea what that issue was, but i tell you this. i would never and have never held up a nomination for nine months in order to try to forcing this that you insist should happen. that's not the way the national is posed to work. one senator on the other side blocked a highly qualified nominee to be assistant under secretary for the western hemisphere at the state department, and it had to do with our relationship with chavez. which left us without the person that was supposed to be

responsible for coordinating our response to the difficulty in honduras last year. one senator held up that nomination. on and on and on. and the fact is -- again, as i said, this is called the great debating body. er you know, the most exclusive club in the world and all of those descriptions. but that's not the way it's supposed to work. it is supposed to work, and we have some models of how it's supposed to work, in a way that in the old days -- when i say "the old days" -- many decades arc people would get together and say, what is the major challenge to our country? and people would get together to fix what's wrong. that's the way the senate used to work. and regrettably, these days it does not. and at a time when our country rests on the precipice of a very significant cliff -- i mean, we are still not out of this

financial crisis, this economic crisis, although i think there's been some stability and we've hopefully found some foundation -- at a time when we most need cooperation, we see almost none, almost none, and, again, it -- it doesn't take a substantial debating point to make that a certainty. just read the record. just read the record. 146 -- it's estimated 146 cloture petitions are filed to shut off filibusters, and issue after issue after issue we have the minority in this chamber blocking things that they ultimately vote for. i mean, how do you explain that? i was against it before i was for it? madam president, this country deserves and expects a whole lot better. this country is going through tough times. while i speak here and while my

colleagues are objecting to proceeding on anything, while we're in a 30-hour period where nothing is happening on the floor of the senate -- nothing -- while that's going on, a whole lot of people are out looking for work right now, stopping by business after business with their resume thinking, can i find a way -- can i please find way to get on a payroll an get a job to help my family? there's a whole lot of folks that need a job, need some hope, need to keep their house, that are really struggling. they deserve a lot better from this congress. the last thing they deserve is from a congress that decides that they are mission is to get umin the morning and stop things from happening. the mission for every senator ought to be to get up every morning and see how can we work together to get the best policies. that is happening far to less to often in thi chamber.

when i see what's happening and we're signature here today -- this is a good example of this. we're signature here doing nothing. why? is it because there's nothing to do? no, it's because the other side insists on cloture, insists on the two days, then insists on the 30 hours and so what they will have done this week is insist that we will only be able to confirm two presidential nominees, one is a solicitor in the labor department and the second is to head the g.s.a. that's what we'll get done this week. that should have been done in five minutes. vote on it. you don't like the nominee, vote "no." you like the nominee, vote "yes." dispose of the nominations. in my judgment, this system is broken, and it can't be one person or 10 people that fixes it. it has to be 100 people with reasonably good will that want to make good things happen for this country's future. madam president, i yield the floor. i make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. dorgan: madam president, i ask consent the quoru cal be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dorgan: madam president, on wednesday of last week the president gave a state of the

union address and talked about a lot of the issues. one of the issues that he mentioned that is especially important to me is one that i've worked on for some long while here in the united states senate, and that is changing the tax code to begin cutting out and getting rid of the tax break that is offered to companies that shut their american factories and move their jobs overseas. it is strange to most people to hear, but we actually have in the american tax code a reward for companies that would say, you know what i should do? what i want to do is i want to shut down my american factory, i want to fire my american workers, i want to move those jobs to china and hire somebody for 50 cents an hour. and, by the way, if they do that, they actually get a tax break in this country. they get rewarded by the american tax system for moving american jobs to other countries. that is an unbelievably ignorant and pernicious part of our tax code and needs to be changed.

i've offered amendment after amendment here on the floor of the senate, and the president in his state of the union address last week indicated that he felt that we needed to do this and do it soon. i couldn't agree more. we're talking about jobs in this congress a lot, and we had some discussion today about jobs again. senator durbin and i have worked to put together a jobs package that would try to stimulate and incentivize more jobs, especially small- and medium-size businesses to be able to hire people and have the incentive to put people on payrolls. we're working on all of that. senator baucus and certainly senator reid and others have been working with us to put together a jobs initiative. and even as we try to find a way to create more jobs in our country, we still have this back door approach in the tax code that rewards people for moving jobs outside of our country. i mean, most of us believe that what we want to do is see more of those signs that say "made in

the u.s.a." made in the u.s.a. means there is a job someplace here particularly in a factory, that's producing something that is putting somebody to work to be able to make a living. no social program is as important as a good job that pays well. i have both written a book about this issue of jobs and moving jobs overseas. i have spoken on the floor so many times, people have either nearly or completely gotten tired of it. but the stories are legend of what has happened in recent years. i mean, all of the little things that we know and have expected to be american-made, almost all of those things are gone. radio flyer, little red wagon. we've all ridden in radio flyer, little red wagon. it was a 110-year-old company in this country. they made those wagons for kids in america. made in illinois. not anymore. all those radio flyer little red

wagons are made in china. huffy bicycles, all those people in ohio lost their jobs. they were all fired, and all those bicycles are now made in china. in the book i wrote, i told the story about the last day at work at huffy bicycles in ohio, and those workers, as they left their parking lot, they left an empty pair of shoes in the space where their car was parked. and it was a way for them to say to that company, the huffy bicycle company, you can move our jobs if you want, but you're not going to be able to effectively replace us. those shoes in an empty parking space in a big parking lot in ohio when all those people lost their jobs was a symbol of what's wrong. a company made something called etch-a-sketch. every kid has used etch-a-sketch. etch-a-sketch was also made in ohio, but not anymore. now made in china. and the list goes on and on.

those american products that are gone in search of 50-cent labor and higher profits. and the people that make these products, radio flyer, little red wagons or huffy bicycles or etch-a-sketch or, yes, even airplanes, the people that make these products ask the question what's wrong with my work? and the answer is nothing's wrong with your work. you just can't compete with somebody that makes 50 cents an hour. and the second question is: should i have to compete with somebody that makes 50 cents an hour? and the answer to that is no, you shouldn't. this country needs a vibrant manufacturing base, and it needs to fix this unbelievable tax provision that says you move your jobs overseas, we'll give you a tax break. in order to retain a manufacturing base in this country, we need to reward the production of things in this country. made in the u.s.a. should not be a distant memory. made in the u.s.a. ought to be something applied to things that

were made here that we're proud of. the senator from washington state is here and is going to speak in a moment. i won't be long. but in every circumstance in this area of trade and the movement of jobs, other countries take advantage of us because we allow them to. for example, airplanes. washington state makes some great airplanes in the boeing company manufacturing plants. a country like china that has an unbelievable trade deficit with us -- over $200 billion a year -- says to us, if you want to build airplanes in china, or if you want china, rather, to buy your planes, you have to build most of it in china. it doesn't make any sense to me. if we're buying all those products from china in this country when we have something they need, they ought to buy american products to be shipped to china. not say to us, you must move your product to be produced in china. it's going on all the time, and this country doesn't have the backbone or the nerve or the will to deal with it. we ought to say to other countries is we're going to hold up a mirror, and you treat us

like we treat you. if i might make one additional comment on automobile trade. our automobile industry has been in a very serious problem. we came close to losing our automobile industry in this country, which is so important for our manufacturing capability. this country has a trade agreement with china with whom we have a $200 billion-plus deficit in trade. we have a trade agreement with china that says to the chinese, who are, by the way, ramping up a very large automobile industry, and you'll see chinese cars on the streets of america very soon, we say to china, if you ship chinese cars to the uplts united states of america, you will have a 2.5% tariff attached to those cars. the agreement also says if we ship american cars to be sold in china, they may impose a 25% tariff. we have an agreement with the chinese that says we'll give you a 10-1 on tariffs. that is a recipe for undermining

american strength. it goes on all the time. frankly, i'm sick and tired of it. one piece of it is something the president talked about last week. that is let's at least cut out this unbelievably ignorant and pernicious provision that says you move your jobs overseas and we'll give awe big tax reward. we'll cut your taxes if you just move your jobs overseas. i say to the president, good for you. help us shut that provision down. and let's have made in america be something that we see more and more frequently these days. madam president, i yield the floor. mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, i thank the senator from north dakota for his passion on this issue. i would just add one other issue within this, is that we have got to be training our workforce for the coming years with those skills to make those things in america, whether it's airplanes in my state or cars in the midwest or south or whether it's the widgets that he talked about. we're losing people today in this country that have those

basic skills -- welding, electricians, those kinds of skills that are basic to these industries. as we move into this coming year and look at our budget and we look at our education policy and when we're talking about the president's education policy on the committee that i sit on, we've got to make sure that we're going down into our middle schools and high schools and really making sure our kids have career pathways that help fill these skilled manufacturing jobs that we want to have here in this country. so i thank the senator for his words. madam president, i am here this afternoon to rise again in support of president obama's nominee to serve as solicitor of labor, patricia smith. i have to tell everyone, i am very confident that she is the right person for this critical job. and the work that she's going to do to protect our workers is more important than ever before. you know, american workers are really facing an incredible challenge today. we all know that. they're struggling with record unemployment and devastating

economic crisis. and today, more than ever, they need and they really deserve strong leaders in the department of labor who are passionate about public service and committed to being there to fight for them. you know, the department of labor is this agency that just sounds like an agency. just the name sounds bureaucratic. but it really is important because that agency is charged with a very critical mission in our nation's government. their role is to foster and promote the welfare of america's workers by improving their working conditions, by advancing their opportunities for profitable kphroeuplt, by protect -- employment and strengthening free collective bargaining. i believe that during these really challenging economic times, it's absolutely critical that the department has leadership within that

department to make those goals a reality. so i was very pleased when i heard president obama nominate such a strong candidate for the position of solicitor of labor. ms. patricia smith, as the presiding officer knows, is commissioner of the new york state's department of labor. she's been there since 2007. she's cochair of new york state's economic security subcabinet. and she receives today 3,700 employees with an annual budget of $4 billion. for the previous 20 years, tricia worked in the labor bureau of the new york attorney general's office and served on the obama administration's transition review team for the department of labor. madam president, i have received many letters of support for patricia harris from people who admire her work, from people she has worked with and from workers that she has helped. and i wanted to take just a couple minutes this afternoon to

read some experts from those letters because i really believe that they demonstrate patricia's broad support and why she should be confirmed by the united states senate. one letter i received was a letter of support from the c.e.o. of the plattsburgh new york chamber of commerce who knows tricia well. he said "patricia smith has been an outstanding partner as commissioner of of the new york state labor department and will be an outstanding solicitor for the u.s. labor department. we strongly encourage her earliest possible confirmation by the senate. " i heard from the united states women's chamber of commerce, and they wrote said and said after learning of ms. smith's expertise and the laws that she worked to uphold, i can clearly see she is someone who will work with conviction to enforce the laws of the united states of america. additionally i'm impressed with creating programs that will keep jobs. we especially need these

attributes in this time of economic challenge." that's from the united states women's chamber of commerce. i received a group of letters from scholars of labor and employment law and labor relations from over 50 scholars of highly respected institutions. institutions like georgetown university law center, columbia law, thomas jefferson school of law, yale law, and cornell university school of industrial and labor relations. they wrote to me and urged speedy confirmation saying that tricia demonstrated the highest integrity and commitment to ethical standards. she is experienced, intelligent, thoughtful and energetic. we believe this is exactly what the u.s. department of labor needs in a solicitor. and once confirmed she will be among the best solicitor of labors that the department has known. and i will tell my colleagues that her support transcends

party lines. former new york attorney general dennis fakle had this to say about his former employee. patricia smith has proven herself as one of the foremost experts in the nation in the realm of labor law which is why president obama saw fit to nominate her. she was an asset to the new york attorney general he's a office and i'm confident that she will be an asset to the department of labor. so tricia smith has bipartisan. and, madam president, as chair of the subcommittee on employment and work place safety, i know the challenges that america's workers are facing today and i know that they deserve a solicitor of labor, like tricia, who's going to fight every single day to protect them. when she is confirmed as the department's top legal counsel, she's going to have the profound responsibility of enforcing more than 180 federal laws and managing more than 450 attorneys nationwide. she's going to be responsible for defending the department in

litigation as well as providing legal advice and guidance on nearly every policy, legislative, regulatory, and enforcement initiative of the department. but, most importantly, she's going to be responsible for defending the rights of workers when they're not able to speak for themselves. madam president, tricia has a big job ahead of her. but we need to act now to allow her to get started. we really owe it to our country's workers to have a confirmed solicitor of labor in place. i've had a number of conversations with tricia myself and i am confident that she is highly qualified and she's really eager to get to work. so i will be voting, hopefully later this afternoon or soon thereafter, to confirm patricia smith, and i come to the floor this afternoon to urge my colleagues to do so as well. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. kaufman: i ask consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaufman: i ask to speak as if in morning business for up to seven minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaufman: i rise to speak once more about america's great federal employees. next week in vancouver, the 21st olympic games will begin amid great fanfare and high hopes. every four years, the world's top athletes of skiing, skating, hockey, and several other winter sports compete to win medals and to win hearts. olympic athletes push themselves to the limits, not only to win personal or team glory, but also to represent their nations on the world stage. a ticket to the olympics is purchased with years of arduous training and a commitment to personal integrity and athletic

fairness. the values of olympians are those of perseverance, integrity, teamwork, and national service. this list of values sounds so familiar to many americans, it's because they are the same values that motivate those federal employees who serve our nation in civilian roles and in the military branches. this week, in honor of the upcoming winter games, i have chosen to highlight three incredible american olympians. they share these values and all three of them choose to serve our nation in the united states army and are great federal employees. jeremy tilla is an infantry sergeant. originally from anchorage, alaska. jeremy joined the army in 1997. in addition to serving in the infantry, he participates in the army's world-class athlete program. jeremy is one of america's best in the sport of biathlon. it is a grueling race which begins with cross country skiing and ends with precision rifle

shooting. jeremy is a seven-time national champion and he was a member of the u.s. olympic team in 2002 salt lake games and the 2006 games in torino. jeremy will once again be competing in the by at lincoln at this year -- in the biathlon at this year's games in vancouver. last year at the whistler world cup which took place at the same venue, he won a bronze medal. the first american to medal in biathlon in 17 years. joining jeremy in vancouver will be sergeant shauna roebuck of the army national guard. she is one of america's champion bobsled drivers. a native of utah, shauna enlisted in 2000. about that time, she began training in bobsled in the hopes of making it to the olympics in salt lake city just 40 miles from her hometown. while she didn't make it to those games, shauna made it to toronto four years later.

there she won the silver medal in the women's bobsled. apparently the teamwork required to succeed in the army to the kind necessary to succeed in olympic bobsledding, shauna said recently -- "just like any team or platoon, you are only as good as your weakest person. it takes two people to push a sled in a race. bobsled drivers cannot do this alone." this month, shauna will return to compete with team u.s.a. in vancouver. madam president, the olympics are not the only games taking place in vancouver this season. following the olympics will be the 2010 paraolympic everyone winter games. there the world's best athletes with physical disabilities will compete in several winter sports. among those vying for a medal is retired army staff sergeant heath calhoun. heath grew up in bristol, tennessee, and joined the army in 1999. in doing so, he followed a family tradition.

his grandfather fought in world war ii and his father served in vietnam. heath trained at fort benning, georgia, and was deployed to iraq for the 101st airborne division. while on patrol in iraq, his convoy was fired upon with a rocket-propelled grenade and heath lost both his legs above the knee. after much recovery at walder reed, he was losing -- at walter reed, he was losing hope he would ever walk again, but with the help of the wounded warrior project, heath became an advocate for other soldier amputees. determined to regain his mobility, heath began training with special prosthetic legs and computerized knees. soon he was able not only to walk, but also to run, golf, and drive an unmodified car. in 2008, heath began training for vancouver paraolympic games in the sport of adapted skiing. he has been training in aspen, colorado, and won gold at last year's super g national champions in men's sit ski.

he will be headed to vancouver in a few weeks to compete for medals there as well. madam president, all three of these inspirational soldiers are not only army strong, but they are olympic strong. the values that called them to the army, teamwork, perseverance, integrity, and service, are the same ones that drive them to olympic glory. it is the same set of values that calls other americans to serve in the navy, marines, air force, coast guard, and civilian careers in the federal government. we have such talented citizens who are federal employees and whether they are nobel laureates, or army sergeants, whether they work behind a desk or a space suit, they all share the common bond of having chosen, let me repeat that, chosen to give back to their country we all love. this is the case with all the great federal employees i've honored from this desk so far, and those are the stories i have not yet shared and will not be able to share during my brief

term. shauna roebuck put it best when she said -- "i feel it is a great honor to be able to represent my country as a soldier and as an athlete. all federal employees, military and civilian, athletes and nonathletes alike represent us well. madam president, i hope my colleagues will join me in saluting jeremy tilla, shauna roebuck and heath calhoun and offering them and their fellow american olympians our support in their pursuit of victory in vancouver. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

yo quorum call:

mr. lautenberg: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. lautenberg: yeah. i ask unanimous consent, mr. president, that we dispense with the calling of the roll.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lautenberg: mr. president, not -- notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive calendar -- mr. lautenberg: i think it's mystifying but important that we respond to the public discourse and concern about what it is that we do here to accomplish what the public interest is. we know that for some time now, that there has been

obstructionism to moving ahead with the people's business, that the price obtained for obstructionism is political gain. but like any other transaction, when you do that, when we take the time and the energy devoted ward trying to move ahead, instead of moving ahead, the price that's paid for this is the american public. and it's apparent that our friends on the other side have decided that they would rather sacrifice the people's need for action on critical issues for their party's political gain. we've seen delay, diversion,

parliamentary gimmicks, wasted time, throw away huge resources to distort and distract us from accomplishing better lives for american families. republicans have used stalling tactics like filibuster over a hundred times since the start of this congress just one year ago. the problem is, mr. president, the victims of these delay and destroy tactics are people who need to get back to work, have affordable health care, better education and other essentials for decent living. the victims are also well-qualified nominees for high government positions who seek to serve in order to carry america forward. nominees to fill an appeals court position like judge joseph greenway from my state of new jersey. joseph greenway is a

well-qualified judge who served on the federal bench in new jersey for over a decade. he's been nominated by president obama for a seat on the third circuit court of appeals. he has -- brings exceptional credentials and experience that are second to none. but it has been blocked without any criticism of his education, experience or merit. this wonderful example of america that's best came from modest income family, has great acacademic credentials, excellig at columbia university, harvard law school. brings a rare blepped of experience clerking for a federal judge, serving as an assistant u.s. attorney in newark in 185 and then working in private practice. he distinguished himself prosecuting bank fraud and white-collar criminals before rising through the ranks to become chief of the narcotics

division. he moved on to serve as a united states district court judge in new jersey. in that position, built up a wealth of experience, presiding over more than 4,000 cases in his courtroom. he received numerous honors and awards recognizing his work. among them, the earl warren legal scholar, thurgood marshall college fund, garden state bar association, award of excellence, the list goes on, columbia university medal of excellence, chairman emeritus of the columbia college black alumni council. judge greenaway spent his career protecting the people from the state of new jersey, and despite his critical bench responsibility, he also found time to give back to the community, teaches criminal trial practice classes at cardoza law school and classes about the supreme court there and at columbia university.

mr. president, judge greenaway will be an outstanding addition to the berth and the american bar association, rated him unanimously well-qualified for this the position. and that's why he was passed unanimously out of the judiciary committee. not one republican on that committee dissented. not one vote against him. yet judge greenaway has been side lined for over four months, waiting for a vote on the senate floor, despite the need to fill that position. every time we try to schedule a vote, the republicans have objected. well, i was pleased, mr. president, to note that we are -- that there has been consent to go to a vote on monday evening, but the wait has been long. it's been torturous.

and there is no -- can't be any understanding why, with all of the wonderful accolades that judge greenaway has had for his work, his experience, his climb to the position that he has been -- what can be the objective? i say, if he is not acceptable in our colleagues' eyes, speak up, vote against him, show the american people why this educated, brilliant scholar -- legal scholar is not fit to serve. obstructionism last year led to the lowest number of judicial confirmations in more than 50 years, but it is time for this to end, and it doesn't end with a vote on judge greenaway. there are lots of positions that have yet to be filled, and i

want to say to those who hear this or understand otherwise what's going on, this man, people like him in our country deserve better. when these confirmations are blocked, it's not just one nominee that suffers; the whole system suffers under the weight of vacancies in the judiciary. the american people suffer. longer waits for justice and overburdened courts. the third circuit court has a vacancy that needed to be filled -- that needs to be filled, and it's time for our friends, the republican senators who i know who love the country -- but stop obstructing things when we have well-qualified nominees and allow the united states senate to confirm them without further delay. you know, mr. president, when we have objections that are

purposeful, come to the floor, explain why, and explain it honestly and frankly in front of the american people, but to hide behind objections reminds me of what we used to call people who refused to serve: "conscientious objectors." and that says something in that phrase. it -- i heard it rather often in america when i was in uniform as a soldier. "conscientious objector" -- people who objected because they have a conscience. if that's the case, then if we relate this to the current condition here, then let people who want to object come up and

explain why exactly it is they don't want to vote. but, again, i'm pleased that our republican colleagues have seen that there was no longer any purpose in delay, and with that, i yield the floor. mr. menendez: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i want to join my colleague from new jersey in speaking just a minute about judge greenaway. i had come to the floor in hope and expectation that we could actually go to his nomination this afternoon. i am pleased that we will get a vote on monday. but even still, this process has taken much too long. you know, this is a nominee for

the third circuit court of appeals that has about as good as it gets in terms of bipartisan support. he, at the age of 40, became a u.s. district court judge. then he passed by unanimous consent of this chamber -- republicans and democrats alike, unanimous in the senate. now he passes out of the judiciary committee by, again, a unanimous agreement, and yet he's been held up for months -- months -- on the senate floor. why? simply because you can? simply because you can? that's not acceptable. that's not acceptable when i have heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for years talk about an up-or-down vote. give us an yap or down vot up-oa

nominee, particularly a nominee who's eminently qualified, who's noncontroversial by virginia -- by virtue of the fact that he has achieved the ability to be agreed to in terms of his nominations both past and present with regard to the judiciary committee without qualification, without objection. so it's clear that up to this point the obstruction of this nominee is not about what's right for the nation; it's not about acting in the best interests of an overburdened judicial system, it's not about insideology; it's not even about judge greenaway. it's about politics of obstructionism. that is really consequential to the judicial system and to our citizens who depend on that system for the administration and delivery of justice. this is more than a nominee. it's everyone who is waiting for their cases on appeal. i'll point out to my friends on the other side that hopefully

when we go to monday's vote will understand that on countless occasions they argued for an up-or-down vote, demanding that a simple majority vote on the president's nominee is all that is necessary. a position diametrically opposed to their position today. i recall they went so far as to proclaim that filibusters of the president's nominations, particularly for the court, are unconstitutional, and they threaten what had we called "the nuclear option." i ask again, which is it? do my friends on the other side believe it's right that filibustering the president's nominees are unconstitutional, or is the question what do they believe will work for them in any given moment? so, we're looking for this up-and-down vote. you know, i don't hear arguments of the unconstitutionality of filibusters now, and i submit to

my friend friends, you can't hat both ways. i urge my colleagues to -- i know there will be a unanimous consent request offered here. i suspect that it will be approved. if not, i'll return to the floor and have more extensive remarks on this issue. iterissue. it's time nor this nominee to the third circuit court of appeals to get a vote up-or-down. and this is an eminently qualified nominee. my colleague from new jersey, senator lautenberg, talked a lot about history. there's even more. this is a superb nominee. if this nominee can be held up for months, i can only imagine what we're in for, mr. president, as we move forward. and i -- at least tbh comes to nominees -- at least when it comes to nominees of new jersey or the district, i intend to come to the floor each and every time. but i look forward to some success here, at least today, in

being able to make our system of justice actually work for our citizens. and for that, we need judges and justices in place. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. chambliss: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: mr. president, with we in a period of morning business? the presiding officer: no, we're not. we're in cloture on the smith amendment. mr. chambliss: i would ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. chambliss: i rise to speak about this administration's decision to try the 9/11 conspirators and the christmas bomber in our civilian justice system. prosecuting the five 9/11 conspirators currently detained at guantanamo at well as the christmas bomber umar farouk abdulmutallab in an article 3 criminal court indicates a disturbing tendency by this administration to make terrorism a law enforcement priority rather than an intelligence priority. it's a mistake to treat

terrorism as a law enforcement problem alone, a mistake that is only compounded by the fact that the intelligence community was not even consulted before they were prevented from gathering any intelligence from abdulmutallab, a member after terrorist organization sworn to be at war with america. as the 9/11 commission found -- and i quote -- "an unfortunate consequence of this superb, investigative, and prosecutorial effort was that it created an impression that the law enforcement system was well-equipped to cope with terrorism." close quote. as we know from an examination of events before 9/11, law enforcement means alone cannot eliminate the threat from al qaeda. after abdulmutallab failed to detonate an explosive device on northwest flight 253, he was taken into custody by law enforcement. other than the federal bureau of investigation, no member of the

intelligence community -- in particular the central intelligence agency -- had the opportunity to question abdulmutallab and gather intelligence. the department of justice should have foreseen that a dedicated trifort intent on -- terrorist intent on committing suicide and harming americans would not be willing to cooperate with u.s. law enforcement, especially after being informed of his rights under our criminal code, including the right to remain silent. without consulting the intelligence community, the department of justice limited the tools used to gather intelligence and potentially prevent future terrorist attacks. the administration is returning to the idea that terrorism can be investigated by the f.b.i. and prosecuted rather than relying on our intelligence community and plilt to disrupt attacks. -- and military to disrupt atafnlings the united states should not revert back to the days where we waited for an attack to occur, then investigated it and prosecuted it.

we must work actively to disrupt terrorist attacks before they take the lives of americans. we must work actively to deny terrorists safe havens and financing. and the most successful way to disrupt and deny terrorist activity is through the intelligence that we gather on individuals prior to a criminal or terrorist act occurring or from those individuals after they have made such an attempt. treating these terrorists as common criminals would put our communities in danger, and cause the government to misvaluable intelligence collection opportunities. for example, mig the five 9/11 conspirators to new york city is estimated to cost over $200 million per year just in enhanced security. this does not include the cost to millions of new yorkers and businesses who will have to adjust their way of life to accommodate these trials.

meanwhile, this will allow terrorists to mock our justice system and use it as a stage to hespouse their jihadist beliefs and expose our intelligence sources and methods. we have already seen zacarias moussaoui use his trial in virginia despite al qaeda propaganda and to try to portray himself as a martyr. meanwhile, terrorism trials during the 1990's exposed sensitive and classified nfltion to, among others, osama bin laden, including the fact that the u.s. intelligence community was targeting his communications. let me be clear. these are not common criminals and they should not be treated as such. the five terrorists responsible for planning and organizing september 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, including self-proclaimed 9/11 mastermind khalid sheikh mohammed, should

not be entitled to receive the same legal treatment as our constitution gives to common criminals in this country. these terrorists committed an act of war, an act that led us to an armed conflict in afghanistan where today more than eight years later our troops are still battling al qaeda. these terrorists should face justice through the military commission process for the atrocities they committed, the same process that had already charged these five terrorists and began over a year ago. the same process that k.s.m. already pleaded guilty under but that the president abolished as soon as he took office. for these reasons, i joined a bipartisan group of senators today in introducing legislation that would prohibit funding for the prosecuting of the 9/11 conspirators in our u.s. criminal article 3 courts. under his constitutional authority as commander in chief along with the congressional

authorization for the use of military force, the president has the authority and the responsibility to detain the 9/11 conspirators and abdul phaou tall lab because of -- and abdul mutallab, an action the president determined appropriate for other terrorists such as abal rahim al nasireh responsible for the u.s.s. cole. instead it creates the impression that terrorists are rewarded with the full complement of rights and privileges of an american if they attack defenseless civilians at home. but not if they attack our government or military interests abroad. this will only further incentivize terrorists to attack our homeland. as the attempted terrorist

attack on christmas day illustrates, al qaeda does not need further incentive to attack america or americans. they are focused on and engaged in harming americans here and abroad. as such, it is kreut that our intelligence -- critical that our intelligence community have every opportunity to gain information so we can stay one step ahead of any related terrorist threats. obtaining intelligence first rather than affording constitutional rights to a foreign terrorist is an obvious solution. treating members of al qaeda the same as we treat others captured on the battlefield is another. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor.

mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: thank you, mr. president. since we're technically in the 30 hours of debate the on the nomination of patricia smith to be the solicitor, i'll rise in opposition to that nomination as i did yesterday and i'll elaborate a little on my concerns about the personal privacy violations in the program she created in 2009, which is the wage and hour watch. the wage and hour watch program recruits and trains union organizers and public interest groups to go into businesses with compliance literature and interview employees to discover violations of wage and hour law. the state of new york gives participants materials to disseminate and official cards identifying them and their group as being part of the program. when they enter businesses and speak with employers and employees. as part of this process, union and community organizers are directed to gather personal telephone numbers, vehicle

license plates and home addresses. i know this is something that the senator from vermont would be very interested in because he, of course, has always had privacy pieces to any legislation. as part of this process union community organizers are directed to gather telephone numbers, vehicle license plates and home addresses stkwaoelz tails about the employees working there. these are people with one day's training and special card from the government. labor organizers and community activists were allowed to use this information for their own organizing activities. state identification cards were provided to individuals in various unions and community organizing groups to investigate businesses. but the state conducted no background checks on those they trained and that they provided identification cards to. is this the kind of program we

can expect ms. smith to federalize if she's confirmed as solicitor? now another deep concern to me is how ms. smith described the decision not to conduct any vetting or background checks for wage and hour participants who could collect this personal information. when ms. smith was questioned about this by the "help" committee last year she explained there is no formal vetting process. the department did consider the possibility of background checks on the groups but rejected the idea as to -- after inquiring whether neighborhood watch groups are subjected to background checks. the department was informed that the groups participating in this more sensitive crime prevention partnership were not subject to a check. ms. smith explains that the lack of a background check, because the program is modeled after the national sheriffs association neighborhood watch program.

however, unlike wage and hour watch, neighborhood watch is purely an observe and report program, calling the police about suspicious activity in a public area is different than investigating the wages and hours of individual employees and recording their personal contact information and investigating osha violations. for all of these reasons, i have grave concerns about ms. smith's decision to allow those who may have criminal records or who may be legal -- may not be legal residents of the united states to be trained and gather information under the auspices of the new york state authority. these instances reinforce the serious reservations i hold regarding ms. smith's judgment, competency and ability to lead the solicitor's office. and i urge my colleagues to oppose the nomination for those reasons. now, i want to also elaborate on my concerns about her agency's treatment of small business. ms. smith's wage and hour

program specifically targets small- and medium size businesses, including, for example, supermarkets, laundry mats, nail salons for investigations by union and community groups. five trade associations representing small and medium-size businesses wrote to ms. smith to question her agency's decision to target them and launch her program without any input from them. to quote them, "the image painted by the department of of labor in its january 26 release is a posse of activists duly deputized by the weighty imprimatur of the department demanding access to any employer in the state whom they have chosen either at random or by prejudice." that's part of what they said. notably the program had been launched in existence for two months before she met with the trade associations. "the new york post" characterized the program as -- quote -- "vigilante labor

justice." targeting small business. in documents produced to the committee, we also find that there is a culture in the new york state department of labor where bureaucrats often feel little responsibility for treating businesses fairly. for example, when a reporter misquoted ms. smith's deputy and protege, she responded in an pha*eul -- quote -- "i have never -- in an e-mail -- quote -- "i have never said that any part of our job is to protect the employers against employees who abuse their rights. i have been in this field for 15 years and i have never said anything like that. employers have attorneys who can play that role. all the workers have is us." small businesses don't just run out and hire attorneys, and they're not used to having people at random come in, flash cards and take a look at their business. in announcing the wage and hour program, ms. smith stated her opinion of the business community as follows: "as the

economy continues to reel, businesses find any way they can to cut corners. unfortunately, this is often at the expense of the workers who keep them going. the future is now and it's here. and today the labor department expands its field of battle." end quote. i found that, whether it's employees or employers, there's probably about 1% to 1.5% that will do the wrong thing, the wrong thing no matter what the law is. we have to set up mechanisms to make sure that doesn't happen and people are properly treated. but to assume they are all going to cut corners and harm employees is the wrong approach. more ever according to to internal e-mail the program was designed -- quote -- "for community enforcement" and created by allied public interest groups and her deputy without any consideration of small business. there are also questions whether the state honors its commitments to business.

ms. smith met with the trade associations concerned with the wage and hour watch in march of 2009 and personally committed to banning the pilot participants from promoting their individual organization simultaneously with wage and hour watch activities. the official documents received from new york, however, do not show this agreement was implemented and in fact appeared to show the department allowing the groups to continue these activities. these instances, again, reinforce the serious reservations i hold regarding ms. smith's judgment, competency and ability to lead the solicitor's office. it's more reasons why i oppose her nomination. now, leaving aside the clear inaccuracies of her testimony to the u.s. senate, you recall i spoke extensively on that yesterday, where she gave us testimony, then we gave her a chance in written questions to correct her testimony. she did not.

so, there are also concerns with commissioner smith's ability to be a fair arbitrator and enforcer of our nation's labor laws. in every instance i'm aware of commissioner smith has shown herself to be a trusted ally of organized labor and even allows them to participate heavily in the formulation of her agency's initiatives. indeed the state of new york's official records show that two of the pilot groups for wage and hour watch, a senior organizer and a public interest entity financed in part by unions, were heavily involved in developing all aspects of the wage and hour watch program, including participant eligibility, program documents, training, and press strategies. one of the union's written work plans stated they were going to use wage and hour watch in -- quote -- "all of our organizing campaigns." including those outside their designated area. also, a food and commercial workers union's newsletter

states plans to specifically investigate nonunion groceries as part of the wage and hour watch. the cochairman of the state's wage and hour watch is the president of the union. several program expansion applicants have as their sole purpose union organizing. state officials also plan to ensure upstate trade unions would be eligible. documents also show the new york labor department allows unions to participate in wage and hour law investigations, including interviews of workers with potential claims. ms. smith's interaction with some of the organized labor allied groups goes back to when she headed the labor bureau for the then-new york state attorney general elliot spitzer. records show these groups shore up neutrality.

states had official identification cards they could use in any business in new york possibly allowing them to avoid policies to gather information on employers and employees. unions were allowed to contact employees or employers at their home or at the business as part of community organizing. ms. smith twice also attempted to alter a long-standing legal position to restrict charter schools for the benefit of organized labors. once while in the attorney general's office, and in 2007 and again when she became commissioner of labor, in both instances she was reversed by a court. commissioner smith also maintains the senior executive for outreach solely to organized labor. currently staffed by someone who worked for 23 years for the afl-cio in organizing and with the seiu. notably, there is no such equivalent role for outreach to

small business or nonunion employees. while i appreciate that organized labor is an important stakeholder in new york, this record of favoritism, including allowing union organizers to participate in state labor law enforcement, strikes me as clearly inappropriate. indeed, i cannot imagine how my colleagues would react if a republican nominee and a future administration deputized trade associations to investigate or enforce laws with regard to unions. as you can tell, i have grave concerns about this nominee because of these actions. but having also learned that she misled the senate and then didn't correct them when she got the chance, i cannot support her. and i urge my colleagues to oppose ms. smith. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. wyden: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from oregon -- oregon. to vacate the quorum call and to speak as if in morning business for 20 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: mr. president, after holding 20 town hall meetings in my home state of oregon, i can certainly report that people are hungry for good economic news. particularly news about job creation, growing our economy. our people want fresh ideas that work and, clearly, they are saying and saying passionately, that it's time to set aside government that doesn't work for them. that is why i'm proud to come to the floor this afternoon and talk about a positive economic development. a development that has far exceeded the projections and the hopes of those who advocated for

it and that is th -- the build america bonds program. build america bonds work and it works to put people to work at good paying, family wage jobs. mr. president, when i started working on build america bonds about six years ago with a number of colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it was because i felt there was bipartisan support for shoring up our nation's crumbling infrastructure and at the same time getting our economy back to work. it's a fact that investing in infrastructure, dollar for dollar, is one of the best economic multipliers we have in our country and it's a way to jump-start economic growth. as communities deal with the recession, i and