we believe that implementing this plan by 2014, we can get unemployment under 10% by 2014 by implementing these policies. this is a big priority for our people. it is realistic, and in relation to our spending program, we have to have it affordable for the moneys that the taxpayers are able to provide in the present circumstances. finally, at the end of this plan, of the 40 billion we're spending on foreign services, 40 billion -- of the 48 billion we are spending on foreign services, a 40 billion will be on health, education, and welfare. we must make sure we have an affordable basis from the taxpayers' point of view in providing these services. >> one thing i would really emphasize is that the 4.5 billion was an adequate figure, because i'm sure he has said

many times the state is funded halfway through next year, and then the state runs out of money. gilmor announced that he believes spending more money next year would make it easier for us to borrow money next year. under this plan, our overall borrowing will decline next year to 9%, a single digits. last year we were at 11.7%. this year we have to get to single digits, because every other country in the euro zone is in single-digit borrowing. never mind the single target we have to reach by a 2014. as a minimum next year, we have to get to single-digit levels. that means correction of the 6 billion. everybody has pointed this out. when the commissioner visited dublin, he extended invitations to all the parties to meet him. deputy gilmor chose not to meet him. that is their own business. but they should be informed, and i know deputy kenny accept the figure. but debbie gilmor should inform

himself of the basic facts. if we do not do a correction of 6 billion in this year's budget, we have no credible way of borrowing money to pay for our social welfare, to pay for a public salaries, to pay for our education system and health system. we have to face up to that as an asian and stop pretending that there are -- we have to face up to that as a nation and stop pretending that there are simple cure-alls. >> looking at these figures, it seems that your tax increases are going to be more than we were expecting, in the next budget in particular >> but the figures in here make the middle income person will be worse off by 3 how euros a year by the end of this. at the end of your pension relief or winding down a pension relief will hit high income earners but at the bottom end reducing minimum wage a euroand

it seems minimum wage people will be subject to income tax for the first time. is that the case? >> no, i think you're anticipating the budget there and certainly i don't accept your basic calculation that there are thousands upon thousands of eurobei beinbein b being taken off middle incomed taxpayers. we are looking at 20 euros on the taxpayer and i accept that and i don't accept the rather high numbers here. >> you spoke about intergenerational solidarity. is this plan not really the attack on the younger generation because the agreement attacks those in the employment and the old pensioners aren't going to be touched. yes, you are closing off jobs to young people and new entrance to the public sector will be paid less than people who are currently working on it. so our young people are not getting a royalty from this and

the jobs markets. >> the answer is, steven, we have to make what are caused structure decisions. what are sustainable in the longer term and we're seeing that in relation to pension provisions, public service pension provision. we're seeing it in relation to new entrance to employment in the public service and as i say over time when this four-year period is over and we bring back balance to our public finances and we have order back in our public finances, then, of course, we can forge ahead again. our horizons can go beyond 2014 but we must concentrate over the next four years on consolidating our position, reducing what we spend as a country. and basically improving our tax base because we haven't had a sustainable tax system for the level of services that we're providing for a moment. we have to close that gap and then beyond 2014, you know, there will be a new policy framework that we can -- that the people can look at and new

policies and new possibilities. but in the immediate term ahead, this is what we have to do. and we will create jobs by reducing -- we're setting out here to create jobs by improving the environment in which jobs are created by ensuring that we have more flexibility and that we have a great more competitive industry. and that's about keeping down our costs. that's about making sure that people can sell more into the world. and we recognize that the trading circumstances are difficult. but even this year, off a very bad year last year when we contracted by 9% as an economy we see manufacturing up this year. so up by 6.5%. so we are regaining competitiveness. we are competing better and we are getting more products and services out onto the market in a way that will maintain jobs at home. that's the future we have. >> public servants have seen average reduction in their tame-home pay of 14%. apart from additional taxation in the last two years. we now -- that has all happened

without any industrial disruption. we've already played a huge part in contributing to the correction if we're going on the ongoing pattern. we are looking at public sector patterns and a reduction of public sector pension in this particular plan. and we are looking and we will be working with the staff side to ensure that there is a reduction in numbers and that can be done and the level of public service can be maintained if we work with our staff. and in relation to the younger people and the opportunities by removing ridgity from the labor market by focusing the investment in education and innovation, we develop the jobs and we develop the human capacity to build and grow this economy. >> looking at some of the detail of what you call the deficit dynamics, the assumptions seem to be very optimistic. i mean, ireland's own esri is warning that taking this money out of the economy is not going

to help your gdp in this period. it also seems that this isn't a straightforward fiscal deficit problem. that you have a problem with your banks so it seems that your sovereign debt assumptions in this period seem to be optimistic as well. so can you tell us more about these assumptions? >> first of all, in relation to debt dynamics, this issue is at the heart of the negotiations we're having for external facilities. and a clearer picture will be provided at the conclusion of those negotiations. i should point out that there was a very substantial correction last year of $4 billion, notwithstanding that we had modest growth in gdp since we were advised last year by persons like yourself that the execution of that particular correction would cause huge damage to the economy and lead to deflation and a lack of growth. it did not happen. the reality for this country is that we have to control a

spiraling debt and reduce it. we have brought it under control. we are now taking a decisive step in reducing that debt and bringing it down to single digit figures. that is absolutely essential for the future of this country. and that's what we're going to do. and that of itself will create confidence in this country and its capacity to manage its own business. >> steven o'brien from the sunday times. if you're reducing the minimum wage by a euro, which is about 11 or 12%, and you're going to reform social welfare to avoid poverty traps created by that reduction, is it implicit in that that the reduction in social welfare over four years would be a similar order, 11 or 12%, perhaps more? >> well, in relation in the social order we set out a plan how we're going to go out about that and it may involve further cuts in rates depending on the plan depending on how the activation measure and others work.

we're not avoiding that prospect. but obviously we will be -- have to very carefully consider that on a budgetary basis year after year. we have a situation where you see on the tables where it's a very significant part of our spend. and we haven't -- you know, during the good times it's important to point out and quite rightly so we increased well beyond cost of living increases. almost doubling the pension at the time and no one is ever suggesting that these are large sums of money but i am making the point that during the good times it was a progressive approach in terms of helping those at the bottom, to bring them to thresholds of income that would not have been contemplated prior to being able to do that. we now have to find ourselves in a situation where we take some steps back in order to go forward again. and it is obviously important that we maintain to the greatest extent we can many of those gains. we won't be able to keep all of

the gains that we've made, but we do have to be conscious that people on low incomes and people on social welfare to assist them to the greatest extent we can with the resources that we have available but to grow more jobs and opportunities for people. and we saw that in the past when we did see a return to growth in the last recession. we were able to bring down people who have been out of the work force for more than 12 months. we were very successful in getting people back into the work force. you know, we have a big job to do here. and there's no simple easy solution that i can put forward today. but we do have to obviously in making the choices and making the budgetary decisions as we go forward be mindful of where we expect the burden to fall. but we're not in the position to say we can shelter people from decisions and maintain them in all circumstances. as where they have been at the moment.

>> in respect of the figures that are in this document, do they include the state liabilities in respect of the banks? >> yes, they reflect the current position. yes. >> do they respect -- >> again, the forward position is subject to negotiation. and that will be made clear at the conclusion of those negotiations. as i indicated in reply to a previous question. and i think you're right to raise the issue because it is clear that in these negotiations, what our european partners is telling us is that we need more capital investment in the banks. we need more assets transferred to nama and we need more guarantees in the banking system. they will build on the measures that the government has made in this area. the cost of this will be concluded at the end of the discussion. [inaudible] >> and what's going on?

>> and again, you're anticipating a different press conference may i say with respect to because the negotiations have not concluded. [inaudible] >> no, it doesn't -- no, it doesn't, in fact, because as far as the budgetary position is concerned, the framework in the document is a realistic framework for the next four years and that is accepted by the government and we're satisfied that in terms of the realism of this framework, it is correct. >> could i make the point in addition to what brian has shed we are having a reducing deficit and bringing it down to 4%. and included in our figures, are the depth of requirements of the economy going over that period. if we just say we negotiate and finalize an acceptable basis, then it will be possible to draw down some of that facility instead of the debt that we are already putting into our figures.

so you get my point? the difference would be the differential -- if there was an interest rate that's different. this is the position. we are putting into our figures what our deficit requirements would be to get to us 3% by 2014. >> some of the external assessments may be upon the banking system and in relation to that, remember, that much of the funding there is being talked about as a contingency fund. it will stand behind the bank as the governor pointed out would provide the firepower to shoulder the credibility. it's not necessarily being drawn down. the national pension reserve fund also stands ready to assist in the banking area. and that does not require any fresh recourse to any additional borrowing. just be clear on that. >> your government has pledged

significant investment in the number of major projects in northern ireland. are you determined that that will continue at the promised level? >> yes, i am determined that the commitments we've made on the north/south projects will bring benefits both to the whole island of ireland will be able to proceed and despite the fact, of course, that we're seeing reductions in our capital and i'm confident we can work on these issues and they would still have the priority and the money required with these annual projects as you know. [speaking in native tongue]

[speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] >> what consideration have you given to britain's effort of a bilateral loan and under what circumstances do you see yourself taking up that offer? >> we welcome the offer of assistance from britain in relation to a bilateral loan and also from sweden and denmark. and obviously as you know, we are dealing with -- there are a number of funds that will make

up the full complement of the facility when we have finalized our discussions and those discussions are ongoing and i wish to say we welcome the offer that has been made. >> i too would like to join in that. i believe it shows a new maturity in relation between the united kingdom and ireland. of course, the united kingdom is anxious on a bilateral basis to be of assistance and we're very grateful for that. we'll work with the united kingdom authorities. they've been very supportive also on the european side of our insistence that while there will be increased taxation in this plan, it is a matter for the government to determine where precisely those increases should take place. >> you've got a big financial problem with your government. do you blame yourselves or the rest of the world? >> no, i mean, we take on our responsibility at all times.

clearly, with the benefit of hindsight now one would say there were certain things that you could do differently but in relation to the fact that we are in a new situation, we have to use the situation as it is. and we don't -- you know, it's not a question of apportioning blame. we've been having that for two years. and the people will speak upon us shortly anyway. what's important for the country is that we bring this plan forward. that it is credible and accepted with two people whom we are dealing, acceptable to them and we bring forward our budget and that we complete our discussions on a financial facility. and, you know, this country in the first -- the last 10 years before this crisis shows what it was capable of achieving in terms of growth rate and employment. we overcame historic problems of underinvestment and underemployment in our own country and this has created a

great crisis of confidence. this crisis has really hit the people hard in many respects. and people are trying to find the direction, they're trying to find the way forward. they're trying to plan for themselves and their families. it's a very human issue for many people. very human problem. that's affecting many medium but we have to, you know, confront the problem and move on. and we have to be able to do that and we have to do that by having our democratic accountability now into the nut and we can, you know -- i don't want to get into that debate. that debate will be had when that campaign begins. today is about ireland putting its best foot forward. ireland saying, yes, here's what we're prepared to do. as a government and as a people to put to right the issues that have to be put to right to gave ourselves prospects and prosperity again. and we are also saying that we are a people of sufficient ability and intelligence to

winnow our way through this. i'm confident that we can do that and pull together in that effort. >> you just touched upon it and i would like an answer from you and john gormley, please. but could you please give us an indicative date for the next election? >> i can't do that because i indicated in broad terms what we're going to do. let's focus, if we may, on today's business. and let's deal with that business when that has to happen. what we have to do is put this budget through and enact the legislation that will be required to do that. show that our commitment is clearer and 2011 is set and all of our responsibility that make sure that happens in december and in the subsequent weeks and then whenever we have that completed, of course, ensure the people who they want to govern for the next four years to get

this plan implemented. >> one final point, this document is important, of course, from an economic point of view, from the point of the view from the preparation that has gone into it. it's enormously important from a political point of view because it sets out the realistic options, open and available to this country and to the years ahead and this document has to be the basis of any sensible proposal to the next general election. anything else put forward is nonsense. [inaudible conversations] >> we are bringing you several live events today. at 1:00 eastern energy secretary steven chu will be at the national press club. he's expected to touch on renewable energy, dependence on

foreign oil and climate change issues. again, that's live at 1:00 pm here on c-span2. the lame duck session of the 111th congress gets underway today >> new members of congress with the c-span video library.

find the complete list under the congress tab. every new member is listed with their district map, their campaign finances for the midterm elections and any appearances on c-span. it's all free on your computer anytime. it's washington your way. >> last week, attorney general eric holder spoke at an event marking the american indian heritage month. he discussed justice department programs aimed at helping tribal communities in the u.s. and this is just 25 minutes. >> good morning and welcome. my name is tracy. i'm the director of the office of travel justice. it's my pleasure to join the attorney general, eric holder, associate attorney general, tom perrelli and our distinguished

speakers, doj senior leadership and all of you at the department of justice to come here today at the 2010 american indian and alaska heritage month program. the theme of this year's program is american indians in government securing our future. to begin our program, i would like to ask you all to rise and we're going to receive a traditional blessing from mr. benjamin headshift who is a sundance leader with the northern cheyenne tribe and his part of the drum group today. mr. headswift?

>> well, first of all, i would like to say thank you for giving us such an honor to be here. this is a historical event for us. i just want to take this time and acknowledge those back at home who couldn't be here and who are very proud of this and humbled by this presentation that we are doing for you guys today. this whole historical event. and at this time i'm going to pray in english so we all understand, so you guys can understand the prayers that are being said by me. for us. [speaking in native tongue] >> i come here and gather today at the department of justice to bring our songs and our wisdom for the youth. i ask you to continue to guide them through the journeys and the leadership that it's going to take and ask you to watch over those that have traveled here that are here to partake in this event and i ask you to allow them to take back good feelings to their families, to

their loved ones during this time of holiday, this time of thanksgiving. i ask you to continue watch and bless those that are going to be traveling, those of us who are going back home that are far away from here. i ask you to pray for those who couldn't be here that are back home with sickness, diseases. i ask to you continue to guide us with our every day choices, the roads and the paths that you have given us. help us to overcome the obstacles that we come encounter that we make the right choices for ourselves and for our people. i want to give a special thanks for all the soldiers that are overseas right now. all the ones in armed forces, united states marine corps, army, navy, air force. those that are all fighting over there across seas for our freedom. i want to say thanks and continue to watch over them and protect them. without them we wouldn't have no freedom. i would ask you to watch over our elders, congressmen,

president, everybody that's got anything to do with the united states government. i ask you to continue and help guide them, help them so they can -- so that we can understand their choices. i ask and give you thanks for this day they have given us. thank you. >> okay. thank you, mr. headswift. we can all be seated now. i want to talk a little bit about the drum group and the youth group who will be coming in later to do the dancing. these young people are part of the travel youth, some off the juvenile justice and delinquency prevention each year and these are young leaders who have come around the country and represent a number of different tribes. there's a group from the seneca

nation and a group of the minnesota band of choctaw indians and the wichita tribes and the drum group is northern cheyenne. and if the drum group would like to a song, i think we're ready for that now. ♪ ♪

♪ [cheyenne indian drums] ♪ [cheyenne indian drums]

♪ [cheyenne indian drums] ♪ [cheyenne indian drums]

♪ [cheyenne indian drums] ♪ [cheyenne indian drums] ♪ [cheyenne indian drums]

♪ [cheyenne indian drums] ♪

>> okay. thank you. you can all be seated. i want to take the opportunity to thank the drum group and all the young people that have come in today. they came in a couple days ago and participated in our youth leadership workshop sponsored by the department. these young people are really our hope and vision of our communities. and i really appreciate having them here with us today. at this time, i'd like to formally welcome our distinguished speakers. first we're very fortunate that attorney general holder and associate attorney general tom perrelli have joined us here today. next, we really want to appreciate -- express our appreciation for the support that they provided for native

american communities and their administration. next we are pleased to welcome to the department, justice miss kim teehe senior policy for the white house and she will be providing us the address for us. we have deputy director of the office of travel justice who. will introduce miss teehe. i want to thank you all for joining us here today. for our celebration. it means a lot to all of us especially joining us here -- i know it's a busy week, the holiday weekend. i have to tell you thanksgiving is an interesting holiday for indians. for 400 years we have been debating whether we played it right when we welcomed the pilgrims to our shores. honestly, i'm a little conflicted because i love turkey and i make a real mean green

casserole and i'm looking forward to that other piece of pie. i'll just shove all this personal conflict aside and move on. there's one thing which there is no debate and we have a lot to be thankful at this time of year. and i personally have something to express and that is the office of tribal justice has been made permanent after 15 years. and i want to -- [applause] >> i want to take a brief moment and thank two groups of people associated with the office. first, i want to thank those who have supported us for the last 15 years. we're a small office. and in advocating for indian people and tribal communities we often take positions that are controversial. we would have never have been able to survive let alone do our support without the support of a group of selfless individuals scattered around the department

and it was really scattered throughout the department. people in departments, eousa, civil rights, cram, ojp and jmd. these individuals took action to place themselves in uncomfortable positions when decisions of native people were made and from my hearty thank you very much. -- heart i thank you very much. second, i want to thank so i appreciate attorney general tom perrelli and attorney general eric holder for coming back and for remembering indian country and in particularly for making the office of tribal justice permanent. it's accomplished by your staff and the office of the department attorney general. it's already beyond what we hoped for and going forward all of us in indian country are energized with the opportunities to come. thank you both. now i want to introduce tom perrelli. i've known tom for more than a dozen years.

i first met him when he was counsel to attorney general reno. and he was very, very involved in setting up the indian programs that we worked on back then. tom and i schlepped around to reservations all around the country. and he had an immediate rapport with indian people. after he left the department, he was in private practice and was a lead in the supreme court project which was a pro bono project by a number of large firms in town to make sure that the important cases that indian people have in the supreme court got adequate representation. there aren't often people who stay with us as tom has stayed with us and it's really important to have that consistency. when i go out to indian country, i'll say i'm doing this and i'm doing that. and this is, you know, an ojt project and you know tom perrelli is involved and they'll stop me and they say, yeah, we

know tom perrelli. we remember what he did. so without further ado, i don't think i need to say anything more about tom but to ask him to come up and again to thank him for all the wonderful things he's done for indian country over the last 12 years. [applause] >> thank you, tracy, for a really wonderful introduction. american indian heritage month give us a chance to honor american indians and alaska natives in all walks of life and we owe a tremendous debt to american indians and alaska natives and there's many things not as which was articulated in our opening blessing the extraordinary rates at which alaskan indians and native americans volunteer for our american forces and keep us safe. i'm proud to honor those contributions but we can most honor the contributions of our

first americans by fulfilling our trust responsibility to tribal nations and as the department of justice by reaffirming our commitment to keeping tribal communities safe. that's something that the department has focused on a great deal in the last 18 months. and i think we've accomplished a lot, but we, i think, have only just begun. we've changed wait our u.s. attorneys offices are interacting with tribal leaders and we are streamlining our grant-making processes so we can build capacity in tribal communities some we've launched new projects like the civil decisions efforts to ensure that native americans have access to radiation compensation programs. and for the first time the department of justice strongly supported the tribal law and order act landmark legislation that will improve safety, public safety and tribal communities across the country and does an important thing. it really requires greater commitment on behalf of all the federal officials who have responsibility for public safety if tribal communities and that

is extraordinarily important that we at the justice department really embrace that challenge. and as tracy mentioned just last week we formally announced that the office of the tribal justice will have a permanent place in the department's organization chart. and that is something that many of us have worked on for a long time and it's been a long time coming. all of those successes are tremendous efforts and there's so many people in this room to whom we owe thanks, those who worked -- who have labored in the department for five, ten, fifteen years to reach a point where we could really make a meaningful difference in tribal communities. but we couldn't achieve any of that without a leader who felt the need of tribal communities and who was committed to these efforts. in october of last year, the attorney general held a listening session with tribal leaders from across the country and listen and engage he did. i know he was deeply affected by the stories he heard from tribal leaders across the country especially those involving violence against indian women and children. tribal leader after tribal

leader came and talked to me after that event expressing appreciation for the attorney general's sincerity, his willingness to take on difficult subjects and his commitment. and having spent a contrary in law enforcement, i think it's fair to say that the attorney general knows in his core what it will take if we will make a meaningful difference across the country. having been a prosecutor he knows you can't make a community safe by dictates from washington. you got to work on the ground with the people who live there. having been a judge, he knows that you need a strong court system and that's something that the justice department and the department of interior with the tribal communities working with the tribal law and order act. as attorney general of the united states he has shown and knows that to make communities safe, all of our law enforcement teams have to work in a cooperative, true nation to nation way that focuses on people and their safety. so we're very lucky to have a leader like that. and without further ado, it's my

pleasure to introduce to you the attorney general of the united states, eric holder. [applause] >> thank you. >> good morning. good morning. >> good morning. boy! it's not -- we're not post-turkey time yet. thank you, tom, and good morning, everyone. it is a pleasure to join so many colleagues and distinguished guests as we celebrate american indian and alaska native heritage month. and it is a special privilege to welcome our keynote speaker, kimberly teehee, who serves as senior policy advisor for native american affairs on the white house domestic policy council. let me also thank tracy and their team in the office of

tribal justice - as well as [director] richard [toscano] and the equal employment opportunity staff in the justice management division - for organizing today's program. each november, we come together to honor the history and cultural traditions of america's indigenous peoples. and we celebrate the contributions and sacrifices that american indians and alaska natives have made in defense of our nation's strength and prosperity. on far away battlefields and in the halls of congress - from new york to california and west virginia to washington state - generations of american indians and alaska natives have distinguished themselves by their service to their country. we recognize them today. and we renew our nation's enduring promise to american indians and alaska natives: to respect the sovereignty and self-determination of tribal governments, and to build healthy, sustainable tribal communities. although there is a remarkable

tradition of progress to celebrate, there is also a history of injustice that we cannot overlook. and there are unfortunate, and urgent, challenges facing tribal communities today that we must not ignore. significant disparities in the rates of unemployment and violent crime continue to persist, depriving too many of the chance to pursue the bright futures they deserve. addressing these challenges won't be easy. but this administration and this justice department are committed to fulfilling our nation's obligations to american indians and alaska natives, to strengthening the government-to-government relationship between tribes and the united states, and to building more secure, more prosperous tribal communities. during last year's celebration, i noted that it would take a sustained commitment from the justice department to address

the public-safety challenges that we face in indian country and tribal communities. today, i am pleased to report that our commitment remains strong and that we have made meaningful progress over the last year. in january, i directed u.s. attorneys to meet annually with the tribes in their districts and to develop plans for addressing the specific public safety issues affecting tribal communities in their jurisdictions. as part of this effort, i also instructed u.s. attorneys offices to work closely with tribal law enforcement, to develop strategies for reducing violent crime - and, in particular, violence against women. in the upcoming year, we will be working closely with congressional leaders to reauthorize the violence against women act - legislation that has been essential in guiding and enhancing our efforts to combat

and prevent violence against women in tribal communities. and in july - following an administration-wide effort led by our keynote speaker - president obama signed the tribal law and order act into law. this landmark legislation is strengthening tribal law enforcement, enhancing our ability to prosecute crimes in indian country, and supporting substance-abuse prevention and treatment efforts across indian country. this new law also has allowed the justice department to achieve one of its longstanding goals - the establishment of a permanent office of tribal justice. after 15 years, otj is now a formal component of the justice department, dedicated to collaborating with our partners in tribal government and to advancing our work in indian country. and although the passage of the tribal law and order act was a significant milestone in our

effort to bolster tribal law enforcement and to improve public safety in indian country, we cannot - and we will not - rest on our laurels. in the next year, i expect continued progress. the president's fiscal year 2011 budget request includes nearly $450 million to strengthen communities and public safety across indian country. and through funding allocated by the cops office, ojp, and the office of violence against women, tribal governments will be able to hire additional law enforcement personnel, strengthen tribal justice systems, and better assist victims of violent crimes. as the justice department continues these efforts, we will work in partnership with tribal governments. i expect to meet with the tribal nations leadership council before the end of the year, and i look forward to their assessments of the department's

work in indian country, and to their recommendations for improving our performance. and i am confident that the justice department's efforts to protect public safety in indian country will be more effective because of this government-to-government collaboration. this year, let us honor american indian and alaska native heritage month by working together to create safer, stronger american indian and alaska native communities. i am proud to count you as partners in this effort. and i look forward to building on our recent history of progress to ensure what the president recently called "a new, brighter chapter in our joint history. this is a priority for this attorney general and for this department of justice. let us endeavor to make the promise of our work together a reality for all those who have suffered for far too long.

thank you. [applause] >> thank you, attorney general holder, for those inspiring remarks. while the theme of our program today is american indians in government, securing our future, i like tracy want take a moment to express our collective gratitude for the incredible support we received on issues that are important to native people and tribes from so many non-indians here in the department of justice. starting with our attorney general eric holder and very especially our associate attorney general tom perrelli. and the many people who work with him and -- both of them and

the acting deputy attorney general. and all the people in the various components here at the department who have been working on these issues with us. at the same time as the pottawattamie woman, i am really grateful that this administration has appointed so many talented and dedicated native people to positions of authority and influence throughout our government. that i've had the opportunity to work with many of them on issues critical to native people and tribes. has been the highlight of my 32 years of federal service. and chief among them, no pun intended, is kimberly teehee in the domestic policy council at the white house. to watch her herd these federal buffalos also known as agencies into a coordinated effort to address an issue or solve a problem is nothing short of

awe-inspiring. not that she didn't come well prepared to that task. just prior to assuming her duties at the white house in june of 2009, and starting in january of 1998, kim was the senior advisor to the house of representatives native american caucus co-chairman congressman dale kildee where she advised more than 100 members of the bipartisan native american caucus. in 1996, kim was the director of native american outreach for the presidential inaugural committee for president clinton's second inauguration. and prior to that, she worked with the democratic national committee as deputy director of native american outreach at the first indian desk. kim is a role member from the cheer key nation and she comes from a cherokee-speaking family. she was born in chicago where her parents had moved as part of a federal relocation program for

american indians. she returned with her family to their home in claremore, oklahoma, after only a few years in chicago. kim began her native american advocacy career when she was in high school. when she worked at that time for the late great wilma mankiller the first female chief of the cherokee nation. kim received her undergraduate degree from northeastern university and her doctorate from the university of iowa college of law. she's held numerous positions with the cherokee nation. she's been a court clerk for the district court, law clerk for the office of the principal chief and law clerk for the division of law and justice. and now it is my high honor and great privilege to introduce to you kimberly teehee. welcome to the department of justice. [applause]

>> good morning. >> good morning. >> i am honored to be with you today. i want to begin by thanking attorney general holder and associate attorney general tom perrelli and doj's fine staff and distinguished guests for your commitment to address the public safety issues in indian country. doj's work in this area is truly remarkable. today, as we celebrate national native american heritage month, i would like to talk about native americans, the issues tribal communities face and how obama is forging a new and better future in which tribal nations are full partners. tribal communities have contributed greatly to america's culture, social and political traditions. throughout our land, we have a

diversity of indigenous cultures with rich religious traditions that add to the fabric of the united states. native religious practices and their expression through song as we witnessed today and dance endure and flourish despite attempts to extinguish them during less enlightened times. from the american revolution to military missions in iraq and afghanistan, native people have served valiantly in the armed forces of the united states. their native languages have played a pivotal role on the battlefield. during world wars i and ii there were codes that saved countless lives. november 11th of each year is the day we pay tribute to these warriors and all our native veterans. we honor the dedication and valor of all service men and women.

in so many ways, native americans have added to the wealth and betterment of the united states and the american people. they have distinguished themselves as inventors, entrepreneurs, scholars, and leaders in all aspects of society. however, all too often, federal policies undermine the ability of indian tribes to build strong, self-sufficient and self-governing tribal communities. when the united states adopted misguided policies, native americans suffered greatly. the history of native americans is a history that we must acknowledge to avoid repeating our mistakes. the native people once owned this continent and they were often disposeddd -- dispossesse in the name of expansion. many americans have heard of the

brutality of the cherokee removal called the trail of tears but the cherokees were not alone as vast communities throughout the east from new york to florida were moved at the tips of the bayonet, their homelands forever taken. when tribal lands were democratically diminished the united states wanted to break up the remaining tribal lands into individual allotments. there were often other attempts at forced assimilation, outlawing of native religions as well as dance and song, taking of indian children and forcing them into boarding schools which banished their language, dress, and ways of their people. the federal policy of termination was designed to end the political existence of tribal governments. in this history, there are important lessons and guidance to learn from. these destructive policies that

sunk tribal communities deeper into the cycle of poverty and despair. experience shows us the type of policies that build the foundation for tribal communities to flourish culturally, socially and economically. our more recent history demonstrates that tribal self-determination, the ability of tribal governments to determine how to build and sustain their own communities is necessary for successful and prospering communities. the federal policy of tribal self-determination is guided by the belief that tribal governments are in the best position to decide the direction of their future. in more than 40 years, since the united states adopted this policy of greater tribal autonomy, tribal self-determination has proven to be successful. tribal governments have established, developed and enhanced tribal institutions and infrastructure for the health, education, and welfare of their

communities and improved tribal courts, fire protection, and law enforcement to better protect their communities as well. when tribes are empowered to deal with the challenges they faced, the results are tribal communities that thrive. however, the devastating consequences of the past still haunt us. tribal communities suffer among the most challenging socioeconomic conditions. some reservations face unemployment rates of up to 80%. nearly a quarter of all native americans live in poverty. approximately 14% of homes on reservations don't have electricity. and 12% don't have access to a safe water supply. native americans face some of the lowest matriculation rates and the highest high school and college dropout rates. in addition, native americans face disproportionate health disparities, compared to the general population and die of chronic illnesses at far higher rates than the rest of the population.

poverty breeds crime. and perhaps the greatest victim of poverty and violent crime on reservations are the children. native communities are faced with an increase of youth gangs engaged in drug trade. some tribes have experienced rates of violent crime twice, four times and at times more than ten times the national average. most tragically 1 in 3 native women will be raped in their lifetimes which president obama called this an assault on our national conscience that we can no longer ignore when he addressed tribal leaders at the white house tribal nations conference last year. though our challenges are difficult, our future is hopeful. under president obama, a new era has begun in the united states relationship with tribes. this relationship is based on mutual respect that tribal leaders must be a part of the solution in order to address the needs of native americans.

by working together on a government to government basis, we can realize a future where native people live long and healthy lives in safe communities and where their children and the young people here today and grandchildren can have an equal opportunity at pursuing the american dream. to address the myriad challenges facing tribal communities, we have taken a number of steps to strengthen the government to government relationship between the united states and indian tribes. first, president obama promised greater engagement with tribal leaders. in november of last year, the president invited representatives from each of the federally recognized indian tribes to attend a white house tribal nations conference. nearly 400 tribal leaders attended making it the most widely attended, interactive white house tribal meeting with the president, cabinet secretaries, senior officials and members of congress in history. and our federal agencies continue their engagement in

unprecedented outreach in tribal communities. last week, president obama announced that he will he's a second white house tribal nations conference on december 16th providing tribal leaders an opportunity to interact with representatives from the highest level of his administration. second, president obama believes native americans need representation in the federal government to properly reflect their needs and views. history has shown that failure to include voices, to tribal officials in formulating -- >> and we do leave this event about the indians here in america. and we are going to now to the national press club live where we'll hear from energy secretary steven chu. he's expected to talk about energy efficiency and alternative energies and politico is reporting that secretary chu was calling this clean energy successes of other countries a sputnik moment for united states and that the u.s.

has to focus its attention on clean technology and innovations. you're watching live coverage here on c-span2. >> which includes guests of our speaker as well as working journalists. i would like to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences. after the speech concludes, i'll ask as many questions from the audience as time permits. i'd now like to introduce our head table guests. from your right, neil roland of automotive news. derek sands from plats. karen from the los angeles sun, aaron, director of arpae. cathie zoy acting undersecretary for energy. andrew snyder associate editor for kiplinger and the speaker's committee chair. skipping over our speaker for just a moment. rod of plat. he's the speaker's committee member who organized today's event. dan, director of the office of public affairs for the

department of energy. mike, energy reporter for green wire and finally, tom, energy reporter for reuters. [applause] >> the future looked bright for dr. steven chu when he became the nation's twelfth secretary of energy. to combat climate change in enact a clean energy agenda from emphasized investments in alternative energy and a shift away from fossil fuels, he found early support that summer when the house of representatives passed comprehensive legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions and boost alternative fuel sources and uses. then the road got harder. the senate never agreed on a plan. now with republican party taking control of the house of representatives, the consensus of political observers is that such a sweeping bill is dead for the foreseeable future. chu and his department may have

found another approach, however. bolstered with tens of billions of dollars of stimulus bill funding the department has given billions in loan guarantees to support new transmission and nuclear and renewable power projects in nearly every state. a personal cause of chu is develop relationships with international competitors whose governments are committed to the policies that congress has failed to enact. on november 15th, on his facebook page, secretary chu warned that the united states needs to work closely with both china and japan lest we risk falling behind in the race of the jobs of the future. the self-proclaimed lifelong geek is the first person who will be appointed to a cabinet post after having won a nobel prize which he did in 1997 for physics. before being named secretary, chu was director of the energy department's lawrence berkley national lab. he's taught at the university of california and stanford university and researched at at&t, bell laboratories.

he holds 10 patents and has published 250 scientific papers. he also literally walks the walk on sustainability and energy conservation. he often rides his bike to work. and often walks the eight flights of stairs to his office overlooking the national mall. please welcome to the national press club, energy secretary chu. [applause] .. >> what i want to talk to you today about is something that i feel passionate about.

unfortunately, there was miscommunication and i spent thanksgiving holiday preparing the powerpoint. i'm told that's not in the policy. you are not going to see the powerpoint. there are some slides being passed out. i'll walk you through that. i should just say, you know, in most times powerpoints are kind of boring, bullet points, speaking points, they take away from the context of the audience i would hope that, you know, in the future powerpoints can be used. because they can be used to show images, and they can be used to show data. i know data is maybe a new concept here in washington, -- [laughter] >> >> -- but i think it's a god one. anyway. sorry. [laughter] >> so let me start. and the title of the talk is the energy rates our new sputnik moment. i know the analogies to sputnik are tried, and they've been used

a lot. let me suggest that this is something that should be taken seriously. just to remind you, on october 4, 1957, soviet union launched the satellite sputnik, the size of a basketball, 184 pounds, and went into orbit, and the orbit actually passed over the united states several times. this was a bit shocking. on november 13th, president eisenhower responded to this by delivering a speech. a major speech, i'll quote a little bit of it. it said the soviet union now has the combined category of scientist and engineers, a greater number than the united states. and it's producing graduates in these fields at a much faster rate. this trend is disturbing. indeed, according to my scientific advisors, this is for the american people, the most critical problem of all. my scientific advisors place the

problem well above all other immediate tasking, are produces missiles, of developing new techniques in the armed services. we need scientists in the tenures ahead. so he look a long view of this moment of crisis. i would nine years old at the time. and that long view, which is to europe and the united states to produce new corps of scientists and engineers was wonderful. i was the beneficiary of that. that meant in high school i went to science programs during the summer, and when i went to college, there was money being poured into investments in universities, i got an nsf predoctoral fellowship when i went to graduate school, and fellowship at the post graduate school. it was something that the united states took very seriously. many of my scientific colleagues

were trained in a similar sort of way. the united states woke up. so i want to make several points in my talk today. i want to say first, i believe innovation adds to the wealth of society. that's point one. second, that science and technology are indeed and lye at the heart of innovation. thirdly, leadership that we still own, innovation cannot be taken for granted. now the fact that innovate ration is the key to prosperity and progress was not immediately obvious. robert solo, a scientist at mit got a noble prize that shows the increases in productivity were the product result of technology development. what he started with the premise that no investments and capital and the capital when invested properly can in society make you build more stuff, produce more things, et cetera, et cetera.

but ultimately, it would be tied to lay borrow, in the long run, not in the short term, but in the long run, labor and capital would increase together. as your fork -- work force grows, you can produce more stuff. the standard of living per person is going to remain the same. solo pointed out, yes, that's true. but if you are technology innovation, everything can change. in fact, what he showed that the additional wealth, other than population increasing, will be caused by technology innovation. for that, he got a noble prize in economics. now this theme has been picked up a number of times. the fact that innovation is the key to property -- prosperity and progress was reactivated many times in reports issued by

the national academy of science, national academy of engineering, and national academy of medicine, and in 2005 it was called rising above the gathering storm. it was chaired, and i had the privilege of being on the committee. task very simple. how is the united states going to compete in a flat world of the 21st century? and the answer -- it made a number of recommendations. but essentially, pay attention to the intellectual capital, invest in it, you will get more wealth creation. there was a progress report in 2010, and it's entitled -- the title says the progress. rising above the gathering storm revisited. rapidly approaching category 5. and what it essentially says, it says in balance, and this is talking about the collective society of america, the government, congress,

administrations, everybody, in balance it would appear overall the united states long term competitiveness outlook, read jobs, has further deteriorated since the publication of the gathering storm report five years ago. and so the issue is what are we -- what is really at stake? what are other countries doing? so let me remind you, the united states has been for well over a century, the greatest innovation machine in the world. while it did not invent the automobile, that was done in germany, it took the invention and processed it into something that was not seen in the world before. especially the ford model t assembly line. it look over the leadership of automobile manufacturing for pretty much 3/4 of a century. the first airplane was discovered in america, first integrated circuit, op call and satellite communications, gps,

internet, all came from the united states. all did wonderful things in terms of wealth creation for the united states. and so i say that today this leadership is at risk. we are no longer leaders in manufacturing, more startling, we are not longer the leaders in high technology manufacturing. in terms of global exports in our country, we hit a peak in 1998. capturing about 25% of the market. since that time, it's been declining steadily. now it's about 13 -- 12% of the world market. europe remained roughly constant during this time. meanwhile, china from 1995 to -- this graph goes up to 2008 -- went from 6% to 20% of high-tech world manufacturing goods. so that's a fact. and, in fact, china says quite

candidly, and this is i'm quiting from quote in 2009, we should see scientific and technological innovations as an important pillar and strategic importance. science and technology is a powerful engine of economic growth. we will make china a country of innovation. we will accelerate the development of a low carbon economy and a green economy so as to gain an advantageous position in international position. it's taken out the united states. china decided to use government policy to guide the private sector into playing the leading role in r&d. it's the government policy acting to guide the much greater

investments in the private sector. the difference is they decided to do this and they launched on a long-term plan to do this. and the first five-year plan followed soon to be another five-year plan. what's the evidence that u.s. science and technological leadership is at risk? well, in the united states most of the patents in the united states were originated in the united states. but in 2009, for the first time, 51% of united states patents were awarded to nonu.s. companies. china has gone from 15th place to 5th place in international patents during that time. the world economic forum ranks the u.s. 48th in the quality of mathematics and science communication. china's universities are the two largest suppliers of students who receive phds in the united states.

in less than 15 years, china has moved from 14th space to 2nd space in published research articles, now just behind the united states. eight of the ten global companies with the largest r&d budgets in the world are established -- r&d facilities in china or india or both and 47% say we are build in china or india. these are facted revisited in 2010. and an american company applied materials, recently opened the worldest largest r&d facility in china. there's other evidence of chinese innovation, particularly in the energy field. china has installed the largest, highest voltage capacity lowest loss dc lines and high voltage ac lines in the world now. it has plans to an integrated high voltage dc/ac backbone. it has broken ground on 30 new

nuclear reactors, roughly 50 being built in the united states. the united states is building two new reactors. it just surpassed the united states with the world's fastest super computer. it now holds the record for the highest speed -- high speed rail in the world. the record is 262 miles per hour. but the operational speed, the scheduled speed is 220 miles per hour. and it has plans for 5,600 miles of new high-speed rail. by comparison, japan has 1500, france has 1100, the u.s. zero. china believes we will achieve by 2020, 18% of the renewable energies. and according to the vice chairman of china's national development and reform commission, the ndrc in china, it thinks it probably will get to 20% by 2020.

renewable energy in china. okay. let me take you through examples of what china is doing. take the coal industry. china used to have a lot of old inefficient plants. systemically, they said, this is polluting our atmosphere, it's not good for the co2. we're going to close then down. in 1992, it bought two 600 megawatt generators who are ultra super critical. working at the highest commercially. bought them from abb and ge, and it started operating them. in 1995, it established the collaboration between two chinese industries, state funded research centers, and universities in the china. it said, okay, this is what the world has. this is the best the world has to offer. we've got to understand how to do this, can we make it better?

and in between 2000 and 2004, it began to build and install and operate the first indigenous super critical plant in china. and by 2000 -- i believe it was 2005, it did it's first export. turkey bought one, followed by india. it holds the world record for the highest efficiently coal plants in the world now. okay. so now when they started doing this, the president of the china hunong group said we shouldn't look from a purely financial perspective. it represents the future. having said that, now they can build the power plants at cost per amount of megawatts. for example, it's now equal to the super critical plants that the united states is building, not the ultra super critical ones.

it's actually cheaper than the common coal plants that used to be made and actually still being made in other parts of the world. so in actual fact, they -- the cost has come down. and it's now competitive. in terms of power per unit investment. but you get a lot more power per unit coal. there's a common myth, for example, that china manufactures because it's the low cost, cheap manufacturing, and that's how it competes with the united states and the rest of the world. and so if you look at the biggest solar company in china, called sun tech, it's not according to the myth. it's founded by someone born of chinese heritage, but he got a phd in australian at the university of new south wales. he said he and his colleagues developed the new technology,

australia wasn't giving the right signals they were serious about the right environment to develop this. so he went back to china. the chief technology director of australian, is also the center for photothat theyics. he's now in china. i toured the plant. this company sun tech is -- they toured this plant. it was 100 meters by 400 meters and four stories. it was a high-tech modern plant that importants it's raw materials, raw silicon, from where? the united states. it's energy is cheaper. it adds the technologies, the doping, the metallization, all of the things that make it into a solar cell in china, and established factories around the world to assemble it. what is wrong with this picture? it's a high-tech automated factory.

it's not succeeding because of cheap labor. not only that, it -- it's focus on driving down the manufacturing cost, of course, but also set the world record for polychris lean as measured by the german institute, at 16%. it's low cost and good technology. rest easy, the united states still has the record for the crystalien technology in the world. this is the threat that i see. america still has an opportunity to lead in a world -- a world that will need essentially a new industrial revolution to give us the energy that we want inexpensively but carbon free. and it's a way to secure our future prosperities as noted by the premier of china. i think time is running out.

i believe that we shouldn't lose sight of this, and that federal support for scientific r&d is going to be critical for our economic competitiveness. and this has occurred before. i mentioned the wright brothers. they made the first plane. very quickly after that, the airplane technology migrated to europe. by world war i, europe had the dominant airplane technology. most of all -- all of our world war flew planes made in france. in 1915 the united states established the national society for aeronautics to encourage the industry in the u.s. that in part led to a resurgence back to the united states of recapturing the lead. many aircraft companies, commercially it's now boeing. of course, we are now in a race

with airbus. other countries think they too can get into the game, including china. there's a report that came out very recently in the last half year called a business plan for america's energy future. it was comprised of a committee, norm augustine, the former ceo of lockheed martin, john door, bill gates, chad holiday, who's it's the former ceo of dupont, jeff halk. and this small committee of seven people said what's the plan for america's energy future? they noted several things. the fraction -- if you look at the fraction of sales in an industry and how much actually gets put back into r&d both in

the public and private sector, it's startling. in the pharmaceuticals, it's close to 19%. of total revenue sales in research. aerospace and defense, 11.5. computers and electronics, 8%. what about energy? .03%. if you look at the federal budget, that the 2010 federal budget is $6.3 trillion. how much of that is on energy research and development? .014%. $5.1 billion. the total science is $12 billion. the trend is even more alarming, peaking in 1979 with a few bumps and wiggles going downhill ever since then. and although the stimulus funding provided a huge down payment of the additional r&d, the question is poststimulus are

we going to return to the downward trend or are we going to do something about it? and so this report goes on to say that government must play the key role in accelerating energy innovation. it says innovations can benefit quality if iable public benefits. these benefits -- i'm quoting from the report -- these benefits are cleaner air, international diplomacy, reduce risk of climate change, and protection from energy prices and shocks related to economic disruptions. currently, these benefits are neither recognized nor rewarded by the free market. this report also went on to say cars investment at capital scale that's beyond the risk of most private sector investors. it exacerbates the news idea and

creating a vicious cycle of status quo behavioral. now in this report, i urge you to look at it. there are little snippets from the industrial leaders. one of my favorites is from norm augustine. he says the one thing that's clear based on my own career in industry and government, when faced with the major challenges of high-tech logical content in a time of austerity, the last thing that would be unfunded is r&d. to do so is the equivalent of removing the engine from the aircraft in order to reduce it's weight. [laughter] there's a report on science and technology that's been released this morning. it says many similar things about the need to take energy investment very seriously. all right. so what can investments do?

what we see and what the department of energy is know investing is are very exciting technologies, and affordable electric vehicle battery that would allow 500 mile range. this would be three or five times better than today's battery. new transformer approaching for making biofuels that could dramatically lower the cost. a program that will produce abundant domestic fuel directly from sunlight. we have a program -- a road map saying how to get solar energy down by a factor of four in price. why a factor of four in price? at a factor of four, you don't need any subsidies. it slides. that's the magic number. in all of the technologies, we are now developing plans at what point do you not need subsidy? can you get there? if we can, we are designing programs to do that. we need to dramatically reduce the carbon capture and storage

cost. we're having a program to use technology that we are still number one in. that's the use of super computers and super computer simulation to actually skip very expensive design steps. and there's been already a case proven in a collaboration with cummings diesel and the department of energy labs where they actually design for the first time a diesel engine on the computer, simulated it, and built it. and they didn't need any more prototyping. the people in the company were skeptical it could happen. it's believed it decreases the development cost by 15%. and we can do this in many other areas. we have introduced two innovative research funding programs. one is called advanced research projects agency for energy, or rbe. john is the director here on the

dis. and what this is a research program that's short term, two, maximum three years, then you yank the chain. you got to get the private funder or something else. it's high risk, high reward. we are not interested in incremental work, we are interested in game changing work. the example that i gave you before, an electric battery that would be three to five times lower in cost than today's lithium battery, it's take off from what is called zinc air batteries that are used in people's hearing aids today. can you make it rechargeable, last a lot longer, using whatever combination of metals and oxides, we think it has a distinct possibility of giving cars with 100 miles range, 500 ranges. there's a good shot at it. another thing we are doing is

energy innovation hubs. these are the same high risk, high reward. we have to recognize that some research can't be done in two or three years. it needs a bigger group of scientists working under one roof in the much of the same spirit as the manhattan project and the development of radar, and many of the groups at the laboratories that are developing technology. and for that reason, i'd like to call them little bell lablets. for other wiser people good at public affairs, decided that energy innovation hubs would have been a better name. anyway. as an example, you look at the way a plant makes chemical energy. it takes sunlight, water, and uses sunlight and energy to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen. it takes carbon dioxide, and reduces it and building a carbohydrate. we can turn it into a sugar or

fuel -- or we can eat it. it's also a fuel. the question is can we design using nanotechnology something that beginning to replicate what a plant does. but we have an advantage. we have access to materials that the rest of the biological world doesn't have access to. therefore, we in principal, can design something better. just as when we learned to fly, we looked at the way the large soaring birds flew. they had the big planes that looped around. just like birds. but they used the gasoline engine instead of muscle power. now today's jet engines use materials that nature can't produce. single crystals of metal in the turbine blade. the question can we do this in artificial synthesis, skip the hydrate, go to water to hydrogen

carbon dioxide to a hydro fuel. it's been around for a while. we decided in the last couple of years there's been enough advances in science and nanotechnology, maybe in five years this can happen in a cost effective way. an energy innovation hub has been started to fund that research. we face the choice today, will we maintain the american leadership or fall behind? i would say let's seize this opportunity. and we really can't afford not to. so in closing, let me say there's some differences between what i call this sputnik event, and today's -- and the sputnik event of 1957. as was noted in the introduction, while we are compete, there's an opportunity to also collaborate. and we have much to collaborate with china, india, and other countries. why? in the next two decades, china

is going to be building a new infrastructure of buildings, cities, roads, transmission lines, equivalent to the entire infrastructure of the united states. in 20 -- 2030, india -- what india will look like in 2030 doesn't exist. 80% of what it has today -- what it will have in 2030 doesn't exist today. okay. 80% of it's infrastructure has yet to be built. so these countries present new markets. they also present a means of laboratory. okay. we can test this. this is going to work. while we -- our infrastructure is largely grown, it's a replacement because our population, although growing, is not growing the way india's and the mass migration of chinese people from the farmland into cities is not occurring. so there's an opportunity so work with china and india.

and so in this sputnik moment of today, i urge that we do two things. we should formulate sensible, long-range energy technology to guide the sector in the united states. china is doing this. it seems to be working. we should do this. long-range policies. and what about increasing the support of energy research and development. why? well, in research development, private investments don't recoop the value of the benefit. companies are reluctant to do some of the early stage research and development and quite frankly, a lot of the new technologies could displace an embedded way and could be met with resistance. therefore, the government has to say this is the path that we should be going in for long-term future prosperity. and we have to do that. let me emphasize that wealth

creation is driven by innovation, and it is not conserved quality. if we collaborate with china and india, we both come out better for it. so with that, i will stop and take questions. [applause] [applause] >> thank you again for speaking with us today, secretary chu. we have numerous, high quality questions from the audience. keep them coming. our first question, during his 2008 presidential company, now president obama referred to a new energy economy as my number one priority. in the past two years, congress has passed health care reform, financial reform has also passed, stimulus bill passed, an energy bill, didn't pass. are you disappointed? >> well, of course, i'm disappointed. but i think the thing is that,

you know, we are here now. let's -- i don't think there's a lot of good that can become of saying i'm disappointing. therefore what? therefore you stop trying. no, i'm hoping that the united states can recognize the economic opportunity that virtually all of europe, western europe has recognized and developed countries in asia and the developing countries around the world are beginning to recognize. this is so important. america, i am optimistic will wake up and seize the opportunity. when it does, it still has the greatest innovation machine in the world. >> much of your strategy for solving the climate change problem, such as setting the economic stage for nuclear and carbon capture and storage, for example, is based for the price on carbon. now that is looking almost impossible for congress to pass

something like that which would set a price on carbon, are you concerned the economics for fixing the climate are now impossible? >> well, i think the price will be based on carbon eventually worldwide and we are going to go forward with what we can do now. now having said that, it is certainly true that carbon capture and storage in you have a stationary emitter like a goal plant, gas plant, cement plant, to the immediate microcost of that industry, will it also cost more to capture and store it. that's equivalent to saying that if you are a city and you get the abstract debate as whether you want to treat the sewage or dump it into the river. the lowest cost is to dump it into the river. it's cheaper for you, but not cheaper for the city downstream. so the total integrated cost of the effects of doing this are much, much cheaper if you say it's better to treat it at the

source and eliminate that. so we -- this is why there should be a price on carbon. nuclear -- i think, you know, we are still hopeful that it can get to be cost effective, built on time and schedule, it can hold it's own. also remember that one the drivers that we are trying in wind and solar and all of the other technologies, we think it can be cheaper than fossil fuel. >> what is d.o.e.'s role in the international meetings on climate change that began in cancun? can they meet the promises they made in copenhagen? >> well -- excuse me. i think the answer is yes. of course, we can. i think it requires again bipartisan will and support to do this. now i'm -- as pointed out -- was i the geek or the nerd?

but in any case, my task and the department of energy's task is to develop and nuture those technologies. because in the end, when push comes to shove when the rubber hits the road, this is what's going to allow us to do what we have to do. >> i think the clips have you as a self-described geek. are you sticking with that assessment? >> sure. i'll stick with that. >> for many years, u.s. graduate programs in the hard sciences have drawn large numbers of foreign students and u.s. innovation has benefited. changing to u.s. immigration policy post 9/11 and rising economic opportunity in home countries are leading more such students to return home after earning their degrees. what can the u.s. do to offset this trend and it's consequences for u.s. innovation? >> one over rising above the gathering storm, but many, many reports when a student comes to the united states, gets a phd

in science and engineers, does well, staple a green card next to the diploma. because in actual fact, what happens in graduate education and science and engineering in the united states, grants pay for it. the united states is investing in these people. and if they do well, you do not want to encourage that investment to go back. so -- and you are quite right. things are changing. they come to the united states to get an education. why? because they -- the research universities in the united states still are the best in the world, bar none. and that's recognized. but if they come here, get an education, get a phd, and then go back, as a young person, then we in the united states have lost a great deal. it's also pointed out in rising above the gathering storm revisited that the majority now

of grad people getting phds in science and engineering are now foreign born. now the good news, there's always some good news in this. the good news if you look across the country in the last three or four years, especially, the young people are waking up to the energy and climate change problem. and that is drawing them into science. just as in my day, this little 184 pound thing goes beep, beep, beep across the united states said maybe i should go into science and engineering. so the young kids now want to two back into this. this is a good sign. and so, i think, you know, it's important that the government, federal government, state government recognize this is a good sign. take advantage of it. because in the end, this will be a corner stone for our economic prosperity. >> just before this program began, we started seeing news report that president obama may shortly be announcing a pay freeze for federal employees.

one the issues at d.o.e. has been attracting talent? are you aware of a pay freeze? how does it affect your efforts to recruit quality scientists? >> i'm aware of the action. we'll see how it unfolds. because this ultimately has to be approved by congress. we'll see how it unfolds. i think in terms of the ability to attract quality people into the d.o.e., surprisingly, a number of people have been willing to takes cut in pay, cuts in pay, factor of two, four, ten to live in a fish bowl if you will. because they feel it's that important. and so a room, for example, was elected member of the national academic of science -- engineering, rather he was 42 or 43. he's still in his 40s, he had

to resign from uc berkeley to work for the government. he gave up a tenure position. well, science is losing it, might as well work for the government. no. he was entering into his incredible years of high productivity. we have a bunch of others like that. so it's tough. and you have to be kind of a little bit crazy and a whole lot patriotic. but we can still get some people. >> some republicans are congress has intimated they may try to rescind some recovery act funds. what will that mean for your department and their efforts? >> i hope they don't. these recovery funds in the department of energy are an important down payment to what we have to do. and the real question that i pose in my talk was certainly after recovery act, you can't spend at that rate. we are looking very hard at how we can use our precious

resources going into the future in order to go forward. and again, i think this fundamentally is a bipartisan/nonpartisan issue. it's all about economic prosperity. >> also, among the new majority -- republican majority in the house, several fairly vocal climate change skeptics. given the increasingly vocal voices on the climate change debate and criticism of climate change science, do you anticipate you will be going back to fighting the climate change debate itself rather than pushing for solutions to it? >> well, i hope not. i think that if anything over the last half a dozen years, the evidence has gotten more compelling. but the issue -- because i think sometimes you get a little bit sideways on the debate if you say have you proven with 100% certainty that this is happening and some bad things as to what you say with the climate

scientists say are happening. and i maintain that you don't need 100% certainty. you know, 80, 90% and maybe of half of the bad things that happened with 80 or 90% certainty is enough to say, okay, how do you want to plant your personal life? let me use this as an analogy. you just bought a home. electrician comes in. your wiring is shot. you have to replace it. how much is it going to cost? $15,000. you are strapped. you just bought the house. what do you think, get another estimate. the next electrician says you have to do it because it's going to be bad if you don't. okay. do you shop around for the one in the 1,000 electricians who say it's okay? not really. do you actually go and you say, well, okay, that's a threat.

but i think it's more cost effective. just make sure my fire insurance is up to date. up, your family is living in the home. it could burn down while they are asleep. you bite the bullet and say i'm going to do it. okay. but it isn't even that. what i'm trying to tell the american public is that this is an economic opportunity. so it's not even though you are -- you have to make this exspendture. you -- expenditure. you are making the expenditure because in the long-run economic health future of the country. that's not 20 years in the future, we're talking 1, 2, 3 years you have to make the investments. >> you addressed china in it's own alternative energy development in your remarks. many of the new green technologies that you mentioned depend on rare earth materials using mining and processing china now dominates. what research or development is

the energy department pursuing to develop u.s. capacity to produce those rare earth materials or alternatives to them? >> all of the above. i think that was a wake-up call if you depend on supply from china producing roughly 95 or more parent of the rarest around the world and you have a single supplier, that you run a risk. and so there has been a mine in cal point that's been shut down. we're in discussions with that mine to help them start up again. there are a number of -- rarest or not that rare -- and -- but is it today, however, is that you have to be very careful in how to mine them. how to mine them in a environmentally responsible way. so we are working on that. many other countries have gone concerned and are looking at other places for supply.

but we are also going deeper than that. we are also looking at ways to use them more efficiently, but also technological ways to get the same benefit of the rarest. and it depends on whether it's used in electronics for very high efficiency motors or in displays for flat screen tvs, and a number of things. looking at alternative substitutes. what has happened in the rarers, the price has gone up by tenfold. that in itself is worrisome. we are doing exactly what you say, looking for substitutes. >> also on the topic of energy independence, you do a lot of work with the fda, and production. december 21st, there's a tariff and subsidy for corn-based ethanol that's up for

expiration. do corn ethanol subsidies still need to occur and do trade protections for corn need to continue in the current energy climate? >> well, let me just say what the department of energy, you know, this is a complicated economic issue as well. what the department of energy, as you said, is focusing on is, you know, corn-based ethanol is a good way of getting it going, realizing that americans can drive their vehicles using agriculture-based fuels. but we are primarily focused, as you noted, on developing the new technologies that can supersede ethanol made from starches, sugars, like corn, but we're also focusing on ways that we can actually go beyond ethanol. ethanol is not an ideal transportation fuel. gasoline, jet fuel, mostly

kerosene in jet fuel. they don't require changing the infrastructure. one the things we are focusing very much on, how do you take biofuels but make direct substitutes for these fuels that can be stuck and blended in any ratio directly into the gas tank? let me just add because of this, we've actually started some -- four years ago, before my time when i was director of lb & l, three biology research centers on the same rubric of the energy hubs. you say this is your task. come up with dramatically new technologies, and within six montes -- months after the start, they took bacteria e e.ci

found in your stomach, they will produce gasoline for diesel fuel and jet fuel. when they reported the discovery, i called up the director of this. it was a friend of mine. i had some help in getting this going. that's great. what do you need to make it commercially viable? pick a price. any price. $80 a barrel. he said, well, it's got to be within 80% of what we think is the organisms can produce. we are not there yet. it has to be there price. but by then, by the time it got published, a private company had already picked it up. running with it. the scientists who did the research, they are saying this would work. we can find out in a year or two. let's do a little benchtop prototype production to see what we need to figure out. so again the idea that you got really, really smart people

trying to solve a problem, not just publish a paper is the way we've got to go. and so we see lots of good evidence of that coming along. >> this is sort of a mash up of two questions, which is always dangerous to ask. we'll give it a go here. both questions from the audience. the administration has indicated desire to pursue development of nuclear, but also a position against dumping spent fuel at yuca mountain. how off the table is the yuca project? assuming that it is, how does the administration plan to deal with the lingering issue of nuclear waste disposal as it's giving money to credit projects? >> first two things. we believe it's the right and proper thing to do to restart the american nuclear industry. we believe that this is not only good for going to decrease our

carbon emissions, but we also think it's good technologically, it's good for us economically. the united states used to be the leader in this. but it's again one of those things that we've lost, the leadership is now in france, it's in japan, it's in korea. and now china is going in such a big way that as plans to go forward in the nuclear foundries for the castings in china. i think the problem of the nuclear waste is a problem that actually fundamentally i think can be solved. but it's both a scientific problem and a political problem. the political problem is you have to engage very, very early and make it -- the people in the area want it to happen. and you might say how can that be? we actually have an existence proof. there's a low level waste repository that we run in new mexico. initially, the people were a

little bit worried about this. because they are worried, you know, this is -- so you stick the stuff on the ground in a salt formation. it has a disadvantage because once you stick it -- you mine down to the salt formation. it's been proven to be stable for tens of millions of years. even in the time the continents are drifting around, this is okay. you can radioactively date that. so the downside is after you stick it in, the salt loses around it and encapsulating, and you can't get back at it. this isn't the requirements. at yuca, don't you want to it lose around and you can't get back at it. the thing has been operating now for ten years. it's -- there's been no accidents. it's been done very safely. it's income generation for the communities around it. so i think one has to do that. but -- so the story has two parts to it. one is that there maybe better

strategies, better ways of approaching it. and that's why there's this commission that's looking into this. that the nuclear regulatory agency has already said that we can keep the storage where it is now and dry cast storage for 50, perhaps even 100 plus years. the commissions task is tell us technically what we should be doing. it's not a signing commission. but tell us technically what are the best options? what type of storage do you want dual thing, inner plus pep than disposal. they are free to decide what to do. but knowing that you have 50 years. that we are not at a crisis situation. and so we can do a much better job this time. and so that's the task of the commission. now having said that, this is the realization that it's solvable, would you say let's not do anything for the next 50 years until we prove it?

no, not really. there's lots of things we say. okay. if we think about it, this is going to work. we know it's going to work. let's move ahead and then restart our nuclear industry. and again it's important also to restart not only for the economic issues but also for the nonproliferation issue. the united states is still one the leaders in fighting for nonproliferation. the fact that if we are a player in the civilian industry, that will help us as well. there's a variety of reasons, economic, world peace, a lot of reasons why we should become players. >> one topic that has not been discussed in great detail today has been energy efficiency. what do you see as some of the most promising initiatives this that area that d.o.e. or other researchers are pursuing?

>> yes, energy efficiency. i'm so glad that you raised this. it is -- as you may know, i'm fond of saying it is the lowest hanging fruit. it's got the low hanging fruit but actually something that we are pushing very, very strongly. kathy zoy, who's the assistant secretary for eera, energy efficiency, under the department of energy is here. we are pushing very hard to show that you can actually -- energy efficiency means saving money. if it really means saving money, then it should -- this is something that should be -- it should happen by itself. so it isn't happening by itself. why isn't it happening? look at things. whether it's capital and initial investments, whether it's ignorance, whether it's a lot of

things, habits to change that. but we do firmly believe that energy efficiency is the fastest quickest way to make us more competitive, save money that would go into our pockets, that will go back into the economy, many, many things. and it's ultimately going to be saving lots of dollars and lots of carbon. so these -- this energy efficiency is something very big. especially, you know, you think of cars. we can do better there. but buildings, there is a very big deal. we think you can build a building that can decrease the energy consumption of building by a factor of four. and in ways that would pay for itself that so it pays for itself in a quarter of the lifetime of the building. and we start in innovation hub to actually show that you can design these using computer aid and design, it can be built and new buildings especially,

retrofits maybe a factor too. and demonstrate that if you do this, you actually save money. and once you begin to dip strait -- demonstrate this, we hope it takes off by itself. however, there's something that you have to be conscious of. you have to be willing -- for the first factor of two, just a better design. no more additional money. okay. just know the current technology that exists today and you are right off of the bat. no additional money. you are saving energy. the next factor two will require additional investments. and the question is are you willing to invest in the lifetime of a 60-year building to get pay back time in ten years? if you say no, then you can't do some of those things. okay? and so that's something that, you know, investment in the long term is one of the issues that we have to over come in our thinking of investments. >> we are almost out of time. but before asking the last

question, we have a couple of important matters to take care of. to remind our members and guest on future speakers. we have the chairman and ceo of coca-cola company, and first luncheon in 2011 will be on january 12. :

lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. o lord, our god and provider, we thank you for the many blessings we enjoy as citizens of this great nation. may we be good stewards of your gifts. as we reflect on the future we pray that your sovereign presence will protect us from evil and equip us to do what is right and just and good. we pray for our senators today,

asking that you would keep them in good health and focused on your plans to guide and prosper them and the nation they serve. we're grateful that you are here on capitol hill, listening, watching, and judging. may all of our elected leaders do what is right for your everlasting glory. we pray in your loving name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic

for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., november 29, 2010. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable al franken, a senator from the state of minnesota, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks there will be morning business until 4:00 p.m. today with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes during that period of time. following morning business the senate will resume consideration of the food safety modernization act. at 5:30 today senator-elect mark kirk will be sworn to be senator from the state of illinois. at 6:30 the senate will proceed to cloture vote on the substitute amendment to the food

safety bill. in if cloture sin invoked all -- is invoked all postcloture debate time will be yielded back except for time allotted in the agreement. one related to earmarks and other -- a complete substitute for the bill. if cloture sin invoked, we'll debate the motions and stack the votes for later tonight, up to one hour total opbd johanns and baucus amendment and four hours on the kpwurpbs -- coburn motion. upon disposition of the motion, the senate will proceed to final passage on the food safety bill. i spoke to senator coburn today and it is suggested what we'll do if we get permission from the senate is have the cloture vote on the johanns and baucus. and then there's four hours of

debate, which would put us until 11:00, 11:30 tonight. i think it would be in everyone's interest to have those three votes at 9:00 in the morning. so that's where we'll try to get. i want you to be alerted to the schedule issue. mr. president, when you talk about top teams in college football since the start of the century you have to talk about boise state university. a lot of people know about their famous blue turf and quick offenses. even football fans who talk like experts. it's decidedly one of the most dominant programs of the decade. how dominant? since boise state joined the western athletic conference in 2001, it lost four games in ten

years. on friday night it lost its fifth conference game. boise state came in ranked third in the country, on track for its third undefeated season in five years. it had a shot at the national championship. thanks to the university of nevada, boise state is no longer in the running. now when you talk about the top upsets in college football over all time, you have to talked about -- you have to talk about what happened friday night. nevada and boise state have been revalues for a long time -- have been rivals for a long time. they'll soon join the mountain west conference and the rivalry will continue. some games have been close -- for example, the 2007 game went to four overtimes. nevada hadn't won since 1998 in that rivalry. this year's nevada's team has been one of the best in the

country this year. it leads the country in offense and points scored. it has ranked 14th in the nation. still beating a powerhouse like boise state was no piece of cake. no one had beaten the broncos since december 2008. the wolf pack were 14-point underdogs. they were down 17-0 in the second quarter. then the quarterback led an incredible comeback. for me it was a special pleasure. i watched them play. i watched one game earlier this year. the sunday before the election, i was in reno attending church, and in came a man that sat beside me. i looked at him. i thought are you who i think you are? he said i'm colin kapernick. he's 6'6", can run very fast and

throw a long way. a nice young man; i was so happy to see he had done so well the night of the game. he is the only person in the history of division 1 football to pass three years in a row for 2,000 yards and each year run for 1,000 yards. that's what he has done. that's one of the records he holds. before the season is over, more than likely he'll break the record for division 1 quarterback the number of touchdowns score. the game was won. they won the game when a freshman from a high school in reno, anthony martinez, kicked the most important field goal in the state's history. it wasn't long ago the university of nevada would field a division one game. it is no fluke.

the coach is an exceptional leader and good man. he is my friend. i've known him for a long time. when he was 23 years old, i wasn't much older, he was the coach of the bishop minot miners, a parochial school in reno. i was lieutenant governor of the state. the governor's son, the governor at the time, played on his team; a big, big tackle. i've known chris all these many years and we maintained close contact. when he was 23 years old, he was the youngest high school coach in the state leading that team in reno. i was impressed with him from that first day i met him. he led the wolf pack as its quarterback in the 1960's as athletic director two decades later and has been its head coach three times totaling 26

years. he's one of the smartest coaches. a few years ago he developed the pistol offense, which is unique offensive formation and now schools across the nation and even some nfl teams are copying what he insrepbtd, the -- invented. two hall of famers are still actively coaching at the sport's highest levels. at the end of october, i was so happy to be able to meet colin kopernick, as i indicated. it was really quite a thrill to sit right next to this great athlete. sometimes it's true what they say, that it's just a game. but this is one of those times twhe's much more -- when it's much more. this remarkable, memorable win means so much for the underrated

athletic program, for the tkpwraoeufrt, for the state -- great university, for the state of nevada. congratulations to the nevada wolf pack. after talking to the coach a few weekends before, i really felt that nevada was going to win that game because of the confidence the coach had and the confidence that great young quarterback had. would the chair now announce morning business, mr. president? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, there will now be a period of morning business until 4:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. specter: mr. president, i have sought recognition principally to urge my

colleagues to ratify the start treaty with russia. i ask consent at the outset that the text of a memorandum from senator jon kyl and senator bob corker to republican members dated november 24, 2010, regarding progress in defining nuclear modernization requirements, ask consent that that be included at the conclusion of my statement. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. specter: i urge my colleagues to move ahead with the prompt ratification of this treaty. i have long been interested in the relationship between the united states and the soviet union, predecessor to russia, on

the issue of arms control, going back to my college days as a student of international relations. and one of the first items which attracted my concern on election to the senate was a saturday speech made by then-president reagan, where he said essentially that the united states had sufficient weapons to destroy the soviet union, and similarly, the soviet union had sufficient weapons to destroy the united states. and for decades the two countries lived under the truce, so to speak, of mutual assured destruction. and that has given way to arms control negotiations and the successful negotiation of

treaties. for example, the start 1 treaty in 1992 was approved by a margin of 93-6. the start 2 treaty, 1996, was approved by a margin of 87-4. and the moscow treaty of 2003 was approved by a vote of 98-0. the memorandum that i have referenced raises a number of concerns which i submit to my colleagues ought not to stop us from moving ahead with ratification. for example, the memorandum makes this point on page 5 -- quote -- "additional funding could be applied to accelerate the construction of these facilities to ensure on-schedule

completion." well, there is no showing of a problem on on-schedule completion, to talk about additional funding could be applied is far from saying that it is necessary for our national security. the memorandum further says -- quote -- "further administration effort to advance funding is the best path to successful completion of these facilities." well, here again there's no showing of that advanced funding is necessary for successful completion. it simply says that it is the best path to successful completion of these facilities, but no showing that the current path is not an adequate path.

the memorandum in another spot makes this statement -- quote -- "the nnsa is reviewing an updated surveillance plan that could lead to greater budget requirements." could. doesn't say that it would lead to greater budget requirements. and what is speculative as to what cop happen ought not -- could happen ought not to be taken as any reason to objecting to the ratification. still later in the memorandum bears the statement -- quote -- "there are still no or funding commitments beyond fiscal year 2015." well, that is not surprising when we're in the year 2010. adequate time to consider and make commitments beyond 2015.

hardly a reason not to move ahead with ratification. and then on page 5 under the category of conclusion, there is a statement about -- quote -- "assurances from the appropriate authorizers and appropriators must be obtained to ensure that the enacted budget reflects the president's request." well, that's unrealistic. there's no way to get assurances from authorizers. that's referring to the armed services committee or the appropriators, specifically the defense appropriations subcommittee, a subcommittee i've served during my tenure. and when you talk about getting assurances from legislators, from senators, from members of the house of representatives,

that, simply stated, is unrealistic, i submit. the concerns that i had in the early days of my tenure in the senate led me to propose a resolution for a summit meeting which was contested by senator tour who was then -- senator tower who was then in the armed services committee. i can tell see you, senator tower on the in seat in the third row back and i in the junior league my first couple of years in the senate. senator tower was a tough advocate and we had quite a protracted debate about the triad. and i had done my homework. i had been to grand forks, north

dakota, seen the invented man two, and my first experience seeing a nuclear weapon, and it was quite a sight. as i recall looking down a -- a -- an open space. i think it went close to 100 feet, perhaps 90 feet. i wouldn't affirm exactly what it was, but seeing the minuteman ii, but that was, in effect, small potatoes compared to what we have had since. and i went to the air force base in california to look at b-bomber, b-1 or b-2 at that time and to south carolina, to charleston, to see the nuclear submarineses, and had quite a debate with senator tower as to whether the subs were detectable

or not which bore on the issue of whether we had sufficient strength. and the tabling motion was defeated on a vote of 60-38. i recall senator walking down the aisle and voting no and starting to head for the republican cloakroom and senator tower walked fast chasing him up the aisle and said you know this is a tabling motion. i'm looking for an eye. and he turned and said, i understand what you're after, john, but agree with arlen specter and senator tower said he's trying to tell the president what to do and the senator said so is everybody else, really, in effect, saying that's what senators do from time to time, just express their opinions, tabling motion was defeated 60-38 and the resolution was adopted 90- --

90-8. there has been a lot of unease and really con ter station -- consternation as to what is going on in the united states senate. i do not question the motives of the writers of the memorandum. i do not question their motives or their good faith. but there is considerable concern both at home and abroad as to the gridlock which now confronts the united states senate. that is inevitable when one senator says that we're going to see to it that this is president obama's waterloo and when leadership on the other side of the aisle says our principal

objective is to defeat president obama in 2012. there is a concern about what is happening. whether there are really bona fried objections to the start -- bona fide objections with the start talks. and talking in india, a congressional delegation, a group of us met with the prime minister of india, concerned about agreements made with our executive branch, whether they will be upheld. meetings with officials in china on certain trade issues. talking to leaders in other foreign countries, a real question about what is going on with the government of the united states. and in this interdependent

world, i suggest it is very, very important that we project a national image, a national posture of rationality in what we are doing and not to throw up roadblocks to international agreements like start without good reason in the context where the -- at least appearances that there is obstructionism. when you talk about risks involved, my own view is that we are really far at this point from a threat with the russian government. this is not the day of the cuban missile crisis in 1962 when the world may have teetered on the edge of a nuclear confrontation. the relations with the soviet

union was just disintegrated. the relations with russia are vastly improved. and we need the cooperation of russia in dealing with many very vexing international problems, paramount are dealings with iran and the need to have russians join us in sanctions against iran and to promote the russian offer to enrich the uranium from iran so they don't enrich it themselves, posing a threat of what iran would do with enriched uranium, a threat that is not present if it is not in iran's hands when uranium is enriched which could be used for peaceful purposes. we see today the importance of the cooperation of china in the -- and the concerns which we have with north korea. when that problem broke last week, my first comment publicly

on a television interview on msnbc to state when was really the obvious that we had to engage china to deal with north korea. and china's initial comments were muted, were not very encouraging. i'm pleased to see the most recent reports are that china is moving ahead to try to deal with the threat posed by north korea and having shuttle talks between north korea and -- and south korea. so it is in this overall context of having the ey assurances registered with foreign government that's there is rationality. when you talked about risks, my own assessment, and i studied this situation closely, was a member of the united states

arms -- arms talks in geneva going back into 1987, during that decade and beyond, that the risks are not what they once were and that it is ever possible to eliminate risks entirely, but when we're looking to evaluate the value of risks and international cooperation with russia and our conduct with start as we project an image of strength with other countries, that the risk is well worth taking to the extent that it exists. and, again, i say my own evaluation is that there is not much of a -- much of a risk involved. the "washington post" last friday, november 28th, quotes one of the authors of the memorandum expressing

satisfaction. quote -- "i've come to the conclusion that the administration is intellectually committed to modernization now." "whether weather they're committed in the heart is another matter. suppose start is ratified, will they continue to press for the money?" well, if you concede that there is a commitment be it an intellectual commitment, there's not a whole lot more you can ask for. just one or two other comments on another subject. i had spoken about this when we reconvened several weeks ago. it is my hope that congress, the senate specifically, will take up legislation which i have introduced which would authorize the use of federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. embryonic stem-cell research has enormous potential. you take the embryos which are

the most flexible of all of the stem cells and they can replace diseased parts of the body and they offer promise of a veritable fountain of youth. of the united states district court for the district of columbia said that the executive order issued by president obama was invalid, but congress has the authority to legislate to cure any defect. cases on appeal to the circuit court that a stay has been issued, but the scientists are very apprehensive as they testified before the labor, health, human services subcommittee. and there's some 200 projects with some 200 -- $200 million involved. and it is not a constitutional matter. it is a matter of statutory interp association on the --

interpretation on the existing statute. but to the extent that there is any ambiguity, this is something that we ought to address and ought to address promptly because it is a life and death party. and as long as the lit -- matter. as long as the litigation is pending in court, the scientists don't know which way to turn. so they have made their point very clear. the case could go on for a very long protracted period of time when you have to file briefs and have argument and a decision in court of appeals in the district of columbia and possible petition for certiorari could take a matter of years. and with the ideological issues involved, who knows what the final outcome would be in the judicial system. but that can all be put to rest by legislation. one of -- one other point briefly. i see a colleague awaiting an opportunity to speak. and that is my hope that we will

address before the end of the year the issue of televising the supreme court of the united states. this is an issue that i have worked on on the judiciary committee for a couple of decades now. it has been reported the number of -- it's been reported a number of times out of committee. certainly on the senate agenda, the supreme court of the united states decides all of the cutting edge questions. there ought to be transparency. when the case of bush v. gore was argued, then-senator biden and i wrote to the chief justice urging that the proceedings be televised. we got a response back in the negative, but on that day there was a simultaneously audio released. i noticed two weeks ago that now on c-span, there was a supreme court argument which was a couple of weeks old with an

audio. when you had a picture of the justice, he was speaking and a picture of the lawyer arguing the case, sort of like movies before they were talkies, sort of like silence. there was an audio, but it's high time that the public's business be open. newspaper reporters can walk into the supreme court, make notes upheld by the supreme court of the united states. visitors are limited to some three minutes. the chambers can only hold about 250 people. it is time that the court was televised, and i hope the senate will act on that. i have discussed the issue with the leadership in the house, and there are positive responses on the issue. i thank the chair and yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, today we have a distingt -- distinct opportunity to take what i regard is very clear and decisive action to uphold two very important principles. we as a senate can, number one, senator enabling job creation. in this regard, repealing the 1099 paperwork mandate helps fulfill our promise to clear federal roadblocks that are stopping small businesses from expanding and putting americans to work. small businesses want to expand. they want to hire more workers. millions of americans want to get back to work. yet, the tax paperwork mandate hidden in the health care law requires businesses to file a mountain of additional 1099 tax

forms. it will consume resources that would otherwise be spent on wages for new employees. our job creators need to be focusing their time and energy on hiring and expanding, not dealing with government-directed mounds of paperwork. in addition to halting this enormous amount of tax paperwork, full repeal will prevent erroneous i.r.s. fines and hefty account bills from slamming our job creators. as the president of the national federation of independent businesses put it, and i'm quoting -- "you can't operate and grow your business if you are spending all your time filling out i.r.s. forms and haggling with auditors." well, i couldn't agree more, and that is why i have been actively advocating for a complete and

full repeal of this burdensome 1099 requirement for many months now. anything less than a complete repeal is just simply unacceptable. number two, we take seriously the concerns of so many americans with our government's out-of-control spending, and that second principle we can stand up for today. the elections that were recently held, i believe, send a very clear message about washington's spending habits and our enormous $14 trillion debt. voters express dismay and alarm with the rate of government spending and with enormously good reason. spending has increased by more than 21% since 2008, and annual deficits weigh in at more

than $1 trillion. american households across this great country are doing the best they can to put food on the table and pay the mortgage in the case of very a very difficult economic environment, they are doing everything to survive. our families have seen their wages slashed, jobs lost and home values plummet. their solution to these difficulties isn't to continue spending with disregard for the level of their dead. instead, they dig deep and figure out ways to cut costs and to make ends meet. meanwhile, they look at their federal government in disbelief when they see how we continue to spend money that we don't have. my amendment takes their concerns to heart by fully

offsetting the cost of the 1099 repeal. the alternative amendment piles $19 billion of debt onto the backs of future generations, further kicking the fiscal responsibility can down the road. then-senator obama said this in 2006 -- "america has a debt problem and a failure of leadership." when he refers to the debt problem, he is absolutely right. how true that is. even the sponsor of the alternative has spoken very well on this issue, and again i'm quoting and the board shows the quote here. "there is no one here who would argue the point that our deficits are too high. we have to pay our national debt and then go on and find ways to

reduce the budget deficits. i think all of us can agree that is something we have to do." getting our fiscal house in order won't be easy, but for the sake of the country's future, we have to take action. today we have an opportunity to do just that. number one, repeal the onerous 1099 requirement, and number two, without adding a single penny to our deficit or to the cost of the health care law. now, some here today may try to argue that we don't have to pay for the repeal, and i could not disagree more. this repeal should and must be offset. as you may recall, in september, i offered a similar repeal that also was fully offset.

it did receive significant bipartisan support, but some objected to my proposed offsets came to me on the floor here and said i would be with you on this but for the offsets. opponents explained they voted no because they opposed taking money from the new health care law. so we sat down, and in the spirit of compromise, i took those criticisms to heart and came up with a new noncontroversial way to pay for this needed repeal. my amendment uses unspent and unobligated funds from federal accounts to fully pay for the repeal of the 10 9 -- of the 1099 mandate. this fiscally responsible approach is not controversial, and it's been done many times before.

at the end of every year, there is money left in the accounts of federal agencies that has not been obligated for specific purpose. according to the most recent o.m.b. estimate, roughly roughly $684 billion is just sitting in these accounts at the end of fiscal year 2010. and this almost $70 billion does not include, does not include the department of defense or veterans affairs accounts. we leave them off the table. so my amendment boils down to using about 5% of these funds, 5%. additionally, my amendment gives the office of management and budget discretion to decide what programs from which the funds can come, and again, this is not

unusual. it's been done before. this approach is better than an across-the-board cut. it allows important programs to be spared any reduction. however, let's face it, this funding has been available all year long, some of it for several fiscal years. if it was important to our nation, federal agencies would have spent it now. as a former cabinet member, i ran one of these agencies. so there is no basis for the claims about what vital programs this amendment might reduce, and again, i emphasize it's been done many times before. it's simply 5% of the nonsecurity related funding that was just lying dormant in federal accounts at the end of the year. if we cannot agree to this

noncontroversial offset, then the public demand for fiscal responsibility voiced in november has fallen on deaf ears. in september when the senate first voted down my 1099 amendment, the concern was about the source of the offsets. no one argued that we simply did not need to pay for the repeal. no one got up here and said well, we don't have to pay for this. that was never a part of anyone's argument. yet, today that's exactly what the baucus alternative amendment proposes. it says to our children and grandchildren it's too tough for us to find $19 billion, so we're just going to add it to the debt that you will have to assume. it's a rejection of fiscal responsibility. after all of the hoopla over pay-as-you-go, the alternative

amendment doesn't include a single budgetary offset to cover cost. the amendment simply says let our kids and our grandkids sort it out on top of the the $14 trillion of debt we're leaving them, and that's unfortunate. if we can't come together to agree on a few billion dollars in budget constraint, how do we ever hope to address the the $14 trillion national debt? any senator who votes for the baucus amendment is sending a clear message to his or her constituents that fiscal responsibility is not a priority. any claim otherwise truly does ring hollow. so i urge my colleagues to oppose the baucus alternative and vote for the johanns amendment. it will be a vote to protect our job creators and the prosperity

of our children and grandchildren. we simply cannot just keep kicking the fiscal responsibility can down the road. mr. president, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak up to 15 minutes -- the presiding officer: the senate in a quorum call. ms. mikulski: i ask that the call of the quorum be indicated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: is the senate -- mr. president, is the senate in morning business? the presiding officer: it is. ms. mikulski: well, thank you, mr. president. i, therefore, ask unanimous consent to speak up to and no more than 15 minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: thank you. mr. president, i rise today to talk about my opposition to an

amendment that's going to be offered by the senator from oklahoma to eliminate congressionally designated projects. mr. president, for me, the job has always been about the people, and the best ideas do come from the people. and as i've traveled around the state of maryland, whether it's been to work sites or round tables or unfettered, uncensored conversations at diners, i listen to the people, and what they tell me, they're mad because they're mad at washington because when all is said and done, more gets said than gets done. families are stretched, and they're stressed, and they want a government that's on their side. they want a strong economy, a safer country, and a government that's as frugal and as thrifty as they are, and they want us also to be focused on a more constitutionally based government. i support the people because i

feel the same way. i do think we've got to focus on building a strong economy. we do have to focus on being a more frugal government. however, i would say to my colleagues, getting rid of congressionally designated projects is really a false journey to be on p. if we eliminated every congressional designated project, otherwise known as earmarks, we won't do anything to reduce the deficit. because congressionally designated projects are less than .5% of the total federal spending. what it will do, however, is make it harder to meet compelling human or community needs that many of us feel and hear from our constituents. without these congressionally designated projects, often their

needs will be cast aside by a big government or a big bureaucracy. i think we need to fight for real deficit reduction. and i think the way we do it is look at the recommendations of the various commissions that are being put forward from whether it's the simpson-bowles or domenici-rivlin or others. but what i do think is we also should maintain our constitutional prerogatives of fighting for our constituents and fighting by being able to put special projects into the federal check and balance. -- the federal checkbook. now, i have been clearly on the side of reform.

and in reform, i have called for -- it's so dry in here, mr. president. i'm used to a wetter atmosphere in baltimore's harbored taverns. we get many requests for earmarks in my own subcommittee of commerce, justice, science. i get $3 million worth of requests. $580 million came for priser technology. another $980 million came for fighting crime, drugs, and gangs through enforcement, prevention, and intervention. also we got $220 million worth of requests in science and in education. we did not fund those at those

levels, and in fact we severely reduced them and stayed within what we think are acceptable limits. but i want to give everyone the magnitude, the pent-up demand and local communities to keep our communities safe, to educate our children in science and technology, to make sure we keep our police officers safe, with earmarks of $3 billion. i acknowledge that there's been abuses of congressionally designated projects. that's why i support reform. in reform refocused on in the year 2007, new senate rules that required full disclosure of these projects. in 2009, senator inouye insisted on more stringent reforms. every project must be posted by

senators on their web sites. every project must be less than 1% of the discretionary budget. today congressionally designated projects, otherwise known as earmarks, are 50% below what they were when republicans controlled the congress. mr. president, i want to emphasize this. under democratic leadership, we reduced earmarks by 50% below what they were in 2006. and we made the process open and transparent. i think that this is really important. and then in the commerce-justice bill, i instituted my own reforms. i even went a step further. i established strict criteria that it must meet a community need. it must be supported by a viable organization, and it must have

matching funds. i've also fought and led the subcommittee in a more regressive reform effort. i've provided robust funding to inspector generals to be the watchdogs at the agencies. i am the first senator on the appropriations subcommittee to insist that the inspector general testify in every one of my subcommittee hearings in front of an agency on what were issues related to abuse. i also established an early-warning system on cost overruns. then i reduced overhead by 10% by getting rid of lavish banquets in conferences and cutting the cost on what they could spent on giveaway at the conferences they did have.

that may sound like small things, but my gosh, getting an inspector general there, we failed all kind of things that under every rock was another couple hundred hidden. we got rid of meat balls and others at a department of justice breakfast. we said let's get rid of the folly, let's get rid of the fraud. we were able to do this. i would hope that we could instutionalize these reforms. there are reforms we could put in place that are common sense but would enable colleagues to exercise their constitutional prerogative of not letting big bureaucracies and big government determine the destiny of our communities. and i'm always going to fight for maryland. and i'm not here to defend

earmarks. i'm here to defend my ability to help maryland. so i oppose coburn. coburn would have a moratorium for three years in appropriations bills, authorizing bills and tax bills. and i oppose it because i do not think, number one, it will reduce the federal deficit. number two, it takes away my constitutional power, the power of the purse that was given to congress to be able to help my constituents. and most of all, i want to have every tool at my disposal to make sure that big bureaucracies don't forget the little people who pay the taxes. so i hope we defeat coburn. but at the same time, what i want to be able to do is stand on the side of reform. and i can assure my colleagues if coburn is defeated, i will do

everything in the institution to follow the leadership already established by senator inouye -- a real reformer -- to further reform our process. let's get rid of abuse, but let's not give our ability away to stand up and fight for our constituents. let me just close by giving you a couple examples. the port of baltimore that provides over 1,000 jobs, i want to get ready when those big ships come through the panama canal, so i've got a dredging earmark in, a dredging earmark that makes my port fit for duty for the 21st century. i also have another earmark in for ocean city beach replenishment which we've done. it protects over billions of dollars in real estate along maryland's coast where we generate over $10 billion in tourism. i've also funded small projects like to help with a building of

a children's hospice. can you imagine to have a child so sick that requires hospice care? the least america can do and the least the senator can do is partner with families, the local government and people of great institutions like hopkins to make sure children in the end stage of life have a place to be. so do i fight for congressional projects? you bet i do. has it made a difference in the lives and the economy of maryland? you bet it does. so, we can have this moratorium, but i will predict that we'll be back 15 months from now to reinstate it. but let's keep it. let's reform it. let's have a stronger economy, safer communities and a more frugal above the. mr. president, i yield the floor. ms. klobuchar: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i ask to speak for up to ten

minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i first would like to acknowledge the senator from maryland and appreciate her work in reforming the system of congressionally initiated projects. i also wanted to mention before i get to my main topic here today, which is the expiration of the volume methyl ethanol excise tax, i wanted to talk about the issue of food safety. coming from the state of minnesota, we had three people die in the last foodborne illness tragedy, the salmonella, peanut butter, where we had three people died including shirley ulmer, mother of jeff ulmer, who worked so hard to get this bill passed. we are hopeful we have finally gotten the votes to improve our food safety system which hasn't been improved since the 1930's.

we have seen a lot of changes to our food supply since then and it's long overdue. i rise today to underscore the need to invest in homegrown energy and reduce our dependence on foreign energy. our nation's ability to produce a reliable, low-cost domestic source of energy is both an economic issue and a national security issue. two years ago our nation got a wakeup call. gas prices exceeded $4 per gallon, even $5 in some places. it was a chilling reminder that the united states spends more than $400,000 per minute on foreign oil. that money is shipped out of our economy, adding to our enormous trade deficit and economic woes and leaving us reliant on unstable parts of the world to meet our basic energy needs. now, some of our colleagues have called for the volumetric tax credit to expire at the end of december. this tax credit was created five

years ago to help bring ethanol from farms to gas pumps. it helped us start investing in the farmers and workers of the midwest instead of the oil cartels of the mideast. now, my colleagues talk about how we need to let the free market solve our dependence on foreign energy. well, i wholly support free markets, but i say let's have a level playing field and let the best ideas succeed. and i'd like to know if my colleagues truly think there is a level playing field for those that are trying to compete with the oil industry. we've had an oil industry that has received decades of government support, and we have an emerging biofuels industry powered by american farmers who are just starting to grow the crops to improve the ethanol that is finally displacing our demand for oil. over the last few decades, more than 360 billion dollars worth of taxpayer subsidies and loopholes have lined the pockets of oil companies.

this is nearly ten times greater than the investments we've made in homegrown biofuels. meanwhile, in just the last five years the top five oil companies recorded $560 billion in profits. since the ethanol tax credit was first adopted, it's helped the renewable fuel industries grow, rand grow not just with the same kind of renewable fuel but begin to expand, as you know, mr. president, from our home state of minnesota into cellulosic ethanol, into conserving water and to using all kinds of new ideas. but to just pull the rug out from under this new growing industry when it's competing against the big guys, when it's competing against big oil is the wrong thing to do. in our state alone employment from the biofuels industry has doubled. this year biofuels industry in minnesota is expected to exceed

1 billion gallons creating an economic impact of more than $3 billion. instead we want to give all those jobs to the mideast, to give them to countries we don't want to be doing business with? nationally homegrown ethanol displaces about 5% of our oil consumption or about 350 million barrels. the ethanol industry employs nearly half a million americans to produce the ethanol right here in our country. letting this tax credit expire would almost certainly put thousands of jobs in jeopardy and would also increase our dependence on foreign oil and thereby hurt our national security. the oil spill in the gulf was a poignant reminder, our addiction to oil comes with serious costs and it's about time our nation gets serious about investing in alternatives. you didn't see a windmill blowing up in the middle of a cornfield. you didn't see ethanol blowing up in the middle of a cornfield. not an ethanol plant.

senators conrad and grassley called for a fie five-year extension of the ethanol tax credit and i supported their bipartisan legislation. senator johnson and i introduced the securing america's future with energy and sustainable technologies, the safest act, with similar provisions calling for an extension of the tax credit. but it also includes a strong renewable energy standard, something that we need in this country, something senator snowe and i have worked on. i see senator kerry from massachusetts here, who has devoted the last year in focusing on alternative energy and ways to focus on our homegrown energy industry. now i know that this ethanol tax credit won't always be necessary. that's why i've also been working to develop a new, more cost-effective tax credit that would replace the existing v-tech credit and would more directly benefit and focus on the farmers who are growing our transportation fuel. no one is denying that we can improve this tax credit to make it even more effective with

investments in alternative fuel. but the private investors with billions of dollars in capital need to know that our nation is serious about supporting alternative fuels. are we just going to pull the rug out from under them? are we going to put our head in the sand and send all that money instead to the mideast, allowing this tax credit to expire before we can come up with a long-term agreement about how to continue to invest in homegrown energy would send the wrong signal to investors. letting this tax credit expire with no replacement would say that america is not serious about finding alternatives to oil and that we're not serious about reducing our dependence on foreign energy. mr. president, our nation has an unemployment rate of 9.6%. we continue to send $730 million a day to foreign countries, many of which have been known to funnel money to terrorists, to meet our basic fuel needs. now is not the time to pull that

rug out from underneath the largest, most established domestic alternative to petroleum fuel. now is not the time to put in jeopardy tens of thousands of jobs. now is the time to extend the biofuels tax credits and invest in those farmers in the midwest instead of those oil cartels in the mideast. now is the time to increase our support for alternative energy. these investments will help us to lower the unemployment rate, reduce the amount of money we send overseas to meet our energy needs. and these investments will help make our nation less reliant on unfriendly nations, on those we don't want to be doing business with. thank you, mr. president. i hope that my colleagues will listen to this argument and look at those numbers with how much money oil is getting. i note that the senator from massachusetts is here. i yield the floor. thank you. mr. kerry: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: mr. president, i

ask unanimous consent to proceed as if in morning business for such time as i will consume. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kerry: mr. president, we live in what we all understand are very difficult times, challenging in every respect and certainly with respect to the national security concerns of the country. as we speak, american soldiers are fighting a war in afghanistan, winding down a war in iraq. our nation is engaged with young men and women in harm's way in many parts of the world against a persistent challenge against global terrorism. iran's nuclear program continues to advance. in north korea, they're building a uranium enrichment facility and provoking the south on a regular basis with its military aggress. every single one of these is a complex challenge without any easy solution. but in the middle of all these

challenges, the united states senate has been given an opportunity to actually reduce the dangers that our country faces. we've been given an opportunity to set an example for the world. we've been given an opportunity to make a decision that helps to put greater pressure on iran, on north korea, on any other country that might be contemplating the notion of moving towards nuclear weapons. the united states senate has been given the opportunity in the next days to express the leadership of our country with respect to moving in the opposite direction, away from nuclear weapons, to greater controls, greater accountability, greater security and safety for our people. with one simple vote, one simple vote before we leave here in the next days, we could approve the new start treaty and make america and the world more

secure. and take an important step forward in leadership as we express to the world our sense of responsibility with respect to the challenge of nuclear weapons. that's the opportunity we have. and the question before every united states senator is going to be whether or not we come here in these next days to do the business of the american people, to do our constitutional responsibility, to advise and consent to a treaty negotiated by the executive department of the country. mr. president, new start is quite simply a commonsense agreement to control the world's most dangerous weapons and enhance stability between the two countries -- two countries that possess over 90% of them. just think of statement it makes to those countries contemplating

where iran may be going when the countries that possess 90% of these weapons begin to dismantle more weapons and provide intrusive verification steps between us for how we will both behave. what an important statement that this moment -- in this moment of time with respect to iranian behavior, with respect to north korean behavior and what a completely opposite irresponsible decision it would be if the united states senate just got bogged down in politics and walked away from this moment unwilling to make the kind of decision that the leadership and the world and the american people expect us to make. this treaty will limit the number of nuclear weapons that russia can deploy to 1 -- from 1,500 to 50 warheads.

with the potential damage of one weapon, 10 weapons, 0 weapons, what american doesn't understand the common sense of limiting russia to 1,550 weapons pointing at the united states of america. some of them directly pointing at us even as i stand here and speak today. this treaty will give us flexibility in deploying our own arsenal so we don't have to live by a strict restraint with respect to land or sea or air. we have flexibility in which weapons we want to put into what momodality. and the verification will deeply -- deepen our understanding of russian forces. mr. president, it has been almost a full year now since the

original start treaty and its verification procedures expired. and every day since then, insight that that treaty provided has been degrading. the new start does more than just restrain the weapons. it does more than just provide verification. it actually strengthens the relationship between the united states and russia. and it enhances the global nonproliferation regime that we have signed up to years and years ago during the cold war. it will improve and -- our efforts to constrain iran and, most importantly, to contain the loose nuclear materials that we all fear could one day fall into the hands of terrorists. and if not, result in a nuclear explosion, result in what we call a dirty bomb explosion where nuclear material is, in

fact, scattered for want of the ability to create a nuclear weapon itself, but with gave consequences of -- of radioactive material doing enormous injury to large populations as a result. already, mr. president, in the seven months since we signed the new start, russia has shown greater definition to this renewed relationship. they have supported harsher sanctions against iran. they've suspended the sale of the s-300 air defense system to tehran and the original start agreement, which was the bedrock of the nunn-lugar cooperative threat reduction program, a program where by we are currently reducing nuclear warheads with russia and containing the nuclear material, one of the great contributions to nonproliferation of modern times, that is the most

successful nonproliferation effort to date than any country has engaged in. and that would be threatened if this start agreement does not pass, it is strengthened if the start agreement does pass. so, mr. president, without the start treaty, the new start treaty, i think nobody expresses concern greater than senator lugar. senator lugar, republican senator, has been an enormous leader on this issue for years and years now, respected all across the globe by those people who follow these issues, and he has expressed the urgency of passing this treaty now in this senate, in this congress, in this session. so in summary, mr. president, the new start helps the united states to lead other countries

so that we help each other to address the lingering dangers of the old nuclear age. and it gives us a very important set of tools in order to combat the threats of the new nuclear age. indeed, the single most significant question being raised at this point in time is not about the substance of treaty within the four corners of the treaty. it is about language external to the treaty with respect to whether or not it somehow might limit our missle defenses. now, all of us acknowledge that those missle defense investment that's we've made to date will go a long way towards helping us to be able to address the threat of rogue states. let me just say as unreqificably as i know -- unequivocally as i

know how, there is nothing in this treaty, there is no way in this treaty, there is no way in the policy of this administration, there is no way that any language that is formal or binding between our nations or any other language, in fact, biendz the united states or re -- binds the united states or restrains us from pursuing missle defense. the answer with respect to any question on missle defense in this treaty is, no, it unequivocally does not restrain america's ability to develop and deploy missle defense. what's more, mr. president, the evidence of that was clear in lisbon where the president, together with other european countries, publicly announced the procedure which we are going forward to deploy a missle defense in europe in order to deal with the rogue threat problem. now, let me be even more clear

with respect to the question of any limitation of missle defense. the secretary of defense, appointed by president george w. bush, says, no, there is no limit on the missle defense. the joint chairman of the chiefs of staff says there is no limit on the missle defense. the commander of our armed forces says no limitation on the missle defense, the director of the missle defense agency says there is no limitation on the missle defense. senior leaders have said this treaty does not limit our missle defense plans, and so in my yument and the judgment of most -- judgment and the judgment of others say there is no limit of missle defense. now we're beginning to hear people say, maybe we don't have time. maybe we don't have time in the context of the lame duck session

to deal with this question of american leadership, this constitutional responsibility that ought to properly be executed by the senate that has done all of the work on this treaty. well, there is in that statement about lack of time to some degree a sort of question, maybe there are a whole bunch of issues out there that just haven't been resolved. so let me deal with that for a moment. because i want to make it very clear that the new start treaty's inspection and evaluation and -- and -- and analysis process by the united d states senate and appropriate committees has been extensive and exhaustive. and i want to make it clear what the record says about the time that we have to consider this treaty. the senate has been working on this treaty for the past year and a half. ever since the negotiations first began. starting in june of 2009 the

foreign relations committee was briefed at least five times during the talks with the russians. senators from the armed services committee, the select committee on intelligence, the senate's national security working group, all of them, took part in those briefings. that was an obligation of this congress, this congress was present during the briefings with the negotiators. this congress was privy to those negotiations as they went along. something that a future congress couldn't be because the negotiations are over. so that even underscores even more why this is the congress that is the appropriate congress to deal with this treaty. roughly 60 united states senators through those committees i named were able to follow the negotiations in detail. and individual senators had additional opportunities to meet with our negotiating team and a delegation of senators even traveled to geneva in the fall

of 2009 to meet with the negotiators. i might add that that included senator kyl whose been one of the leading senators on the other side involved in our discussions on this treaty. so, in other words, by the time the new start treaty was formally submitted to the senate in may, the 111th congress was steeped in this, deeply steeped in this. no other senate can now replicate the input that we had into these negotiations. and over the next six months, after the treaty was submitted, the senate became even more emersed in those treaty's details through hearings, briefings, documents and hundreds, upon hundreds of questions that were submitted to the administration. something like 900 questions were submitted to the administration and all of them have been answered in full. this senate has done its

homework on the new start treaty. and it is this senate that has an obligation to complete the advice and consent on that treaty. the fact is there are also very important security reasons for us not to wait. next sunday, december 5, it will have been one year since the original start treaty expired. a whole year without on the ground inspections in russia. now, some people say, well, it doesn't really make a difference whether it be a month or two months or whatever. well, i've got to tell you something, mr. president, when it comes to nuclear arsenals, every day matters. without this treaty, we know too little about the only arsenal in the world that has the potential to destroy the united states. as james clapurn, the director of national intelligence says, and he doesn't have an opinion clouded by politics, he doesn't

come to us as a democrat or republican, he comes to us as a professional whose task it is to defend the security of our country and who has a lifetime career wearing the uniform of our nation, defending our country, and he says that ratifying the new start, he says -- quote -- "i think the earlier, the sooner, the better." now, one of our most solemn responsibilities is this responsibility of advice and consent. we've been through a tough political year, mr. president. the american people, we all understand, senators keep coming to the floor and referring to the anger. and it is real. it's there. we know the american people are angry. but they're angry because the business of the country doesn't seem to get done. they're angry because they see a partisan food fight, a political food fight taking place instead of the serious business of our nation.

and i believe other countries are watching us to see whether or not we can fulfill our constitutional responsibilities. just how well does this democracy that we sell all over the world actually work? if we can't make it work here at home and we can't deliver here now, what kind of message does it send about the power of the united states to leverage its values an its interests in the challenging world that we face today? every senator has an obligation to ask that question of themselves over the course of these next days. are we a credible partner? can other nations rely on us? what happens when the president of the united states negotiates a treaty and he comes back here and the rest of the world sees that treaty bogged down, not in the substance of the treaty but in the politics of the day? with this vote, we can demonstrate our resolve and our

leadership, and we can demonstrate something about the quality of our democracy. now, i think the schedule of the foreign relations committee shows the good-faith efforts which we have applied to live up to the senate's responsibility here. after the treaty was signed in april, senator lugar and i worked together to set up a bipartisan review of the treaty. never once did nor lugar or i approach this in a partisan way, and i am grateful to senator lugar for his exceptional leadership and his willingness to stand up to some of the currents of the day and act on the interests of the country as he sees them. our primary consideration in the scheduling of witnesses before our committee, mr. president, was not whether they would support or oppose the treaty. we looked for expertise, and we looked for experience. on april 29, the committee heard from bill perry, former

secretary of defense, and jim schlesinger, former secretary of defense, secretary of energy, and director of central intelligence. these men recently led the congressionally mandated strategic posture commission, and they both said that we should approve the new start treaty. dr. schlesinger said -- this is a quote -- dr. schlesinger, who served a republican president, said that it is -- quote -- "object licktory" -- that's his word, obligatory for the united states to ratify a new start. dr. perry told us that this treaty advances american treaty objectives particularly with respect to nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism. on may 18, the committee held a hearing with secretary clinton, secretary gates, admiral muscle

muscle -- admiral mullen. admiral mullen told us the new start treaty has the -- quote -- full support of the uniformed military. secretary gates made clear the treaty will not constrain u.s. missile defense efforts. he said -- quote -- "from the very beginning of this process, more than 40 years ago, the russians have hated missile defense. they don't want to devote the resources to it, and so they try and stop us from doing it through political means. this treaty doesn't accomplish that for them." that's what secretary gates said. the next day, former secretary of state jim baker, who helped negotiate start 1 and helped negotiate start ii said that the new start -- quote -- "appears to take our country in a direction that can enhance our national security while at the same time reducing the number of nuclear warheads on the planet. and a week later, on may 25, henry kissinger recommended

ratification of the treaty. he also cautioned us that rejection of the treaty would, in his words, have an unsettling impact on the international environment. we also heard from two former national security advisors, steven hadley who served under george w. bush, and i told us that the treaty is -- quote -- "a modest but nonetheless useful contribution to the national security of the united states and to international security." and brent scowcroft who served under george h.w. bush said that he supports the treaty and he told us the new start does not restrict our missile defense plans and he said that the russian unilateral statement was simply an issue of -- quote -- "domestic politics for the russians." so we heard from some of the most eminent statesmen that this country has produced, republicans and democrats, with decades and decades of public service. they said that we should approve this treaty.

in all, six former secretaries of state, five former secretaries of defense, the chair and vice chair of the 9/11 commission, numerous other distinguished americans have said it is important that we approve new start. an on july 14, december 7, former heads of the u.s. strategic command and strategic air command sent the committee a letter urging approval of the treaty. indeed, some of the strongest support for this military has -- treaty has come from the military. on june 16, i chaired a hearing on the u.s. nuclear posture, modernization of our nuclear weapons complex and our missile defense plans. the commander of the u.s. strategic command, responsible for overseeing our nuclear deterrent explains why the military supports the new start. he said -- quote -- "if we don't get the treaty, a, the russians are not constrained in

their development of force structure, and b, we have no insight into what they're doing. so it's the worst of both possible worlds." again, commander of the u.s. strategic command says not ratifying this treaty is the worst of both possible worlds. and lieutenant general patrick o'reilly who heads the missile defense agency told us that the new start does not limit our missile defense plans." i have briefed the russians personally in moscow on every aspect of our missile defense development. i believe they understand what that is and that those plans for development are not limited by this treaty. in other words, the russians know what we intend to do, and they signed the treaty nonetheless. on july 14, the committee held a closed hearing of monitoring verification of treaty compliance with senior officials from the intelligence community. now, obviously, that was a

highly classified briefing, but every senator is welcome to go down to the office of senate security and read the transcript of that hearing, which i suspect will stay there and not appear in wikileaks. if my colleagues want a public statement on verification, i would once again cite what james clapper, the director of national intelligence said last week about ratifying the new start treaty." i think the earlier, the sooner the better. you know the thing is from an intelligence perspective only -- "this is general clapper speaking -- are we better off with it or are we better off without it? we're better off with it." the committee also heard from the directors of the nation's three nuclear laboratories. as we all know, much of the debate on the treaty is focused op the resources that are needed to sustain our nuclear deterrent and to modernize our nuclear weapons' infrastructure, and it was important for our committee

to hear from the responsible officials directly. they praised the obama administration's budget request for this fiscal year, and i suspect that my colleague from north dakota in a few minutes will have something to say about that additional funding for the nuclear mod -- modernization program and the plan of action that has been outlined. i will simply say again and again the administration has bent over backwards to work in good faith, openly and accountably with senator kyl. i have been part of those discussions all along, and i think we have acted in good faith to try to meet the need, so much so that we put money into the arlington resolution a few months ago in order to show our good faith for this effort to try to produce the modernization funding as we go forward. in all, the foreign relations committee conducted 12 open and classified hearings featuring more than 20 witnesses. the armed services and intelligence committees held

more than eight hearings of class -- and classified briefings of their own. we didn't stack the deck with democrats. in fact, most of the former officials who testified were republicans. even the executive branch witnesses included several holdovers from the last administration -- secretary gates, admiral mullen, general chilten, lieutenant general o'reilly, all originally appointed to their posts by president bush. overwhelmingly, these witnesses supported timely ratification of the new start treaty, and as i have said, some of the strongest endorsements came from america's military leaders. the combined wisdom of our current and former military and civilian leaders accumulated over decades in service, not to political parties but service to the nation as a whole was clear. all of them said this treaty should be ratified. over the summer, the committee also reviewed a number of important documents, including a national intelligence estimate assessing the u.s. capability to

monitor compliance with the terms of the new start treaty, a state department report assessing international compliance with arms control agreements, including russia's compliance with the original start treaty, the state department's analysis of new start treaty's verify ability, a classified summary of discussions during the treaty negotiations on the issue of missile defense. by the end of july, mr. president, the foreign relations committee had compiled an extensive record. we could have reported the treaty out of committee then. we had the votes. i was prepared to move forward, but because some republican senators knew we were prepared to move forward, they came and asked for more time to review the treaty and to look at the testimony and the documents that we have gathered. so in august, in direct response to this republican request, i made a decision as chairman to

postpone for six weeks over the course of the august recess until after that some members would have more time to review the record, as the republicans requested. now, frankly, the treaty, i have said again and again, is too important to get caught up in partisan politics, so i thought it was very important not to allow anybody to say we were rushing it. we gave that additional time, even though we had the votes. we came back afterwards, and we dealt with each and every one of the concerns that were raised in good faith, and frankly it's important to have reciprocal good faith in the workings of the united states senate. over the next six weeks, i encouraged senators to contact senator lugar and me with their comments on a draft resolution of ratification. in the discussions with senator lugar, senator corker, senator isakson, i made it clear that we welcomed and needed their input, and indeed we got their input. at the same time, the armed

services and intelligence committees were wrapping up their work on the treaty. senators levin and mccain each wrote to the foreign relations committee with their views on the committee as did senators feinstein and bond from the intelligence committee. we received the answers to several outstanding questions that senators had posed to the administration. in all, over the past seven months, senators have formally submitted 900 questions to the obama administration and they have received thorough responses to every one of them. by mid september, our bipartisan work produced a resolution of ratification that we should all be able to support. our review process was not designed to cheerlead for the treaty. it was designed to probe every aspect of the treaty and to come up with a resolution that provided the senate's input and protected the prerogatives of the senate and indeed of individual senators' points of views. and that's what we have done.

at 28 pages, the resolution of ratification, including 13 conditions, thee understandings, 10 declarations, addresses every serious pop i can that we have discussed over these months. if a senator was worried about the treaty and missile defense, then condition five, understanding one, and declarations one and two address those issues. if they were worried about modernization of our nuclear weapons complex as strategic delivery vehicles, then conditions nine and declaration 13 increase those concerns. if they are worried about conventional prop, global strike capabilities, then conditions six and seven, understanding three and declaration three address those. worried about tactical nuclear weapons. well, that's in there. verifying russian compliance, it's in there. even the concern that was raised about rail mobile missiles was fully addressed in the

resolution of ratification. in short, the resolution is the product of careful bipartisan deliberation, collaboration, intended to address each of the concerns that was raised. now, that doesn't mean the resolution is perfect. it doesn't mean it could possibly be further improved. in the past weeks, i have been reaching out to colleagues to get additional ideas, and i will be happy to consider any germane amendment that colleagues might propose, but the only way to do that, mr. president, is by having the floor debate on this treaty. with the senate now back in session, there are 3 days before the end of the year. all of us would obviously not like to repeat what happened last year and not be here right up until christmas eve, but there is plenty of time in the next three weeks for debate. just look at the record. the original start agreement was a far more dramatic treaty than the new start because its cuts were sharper and because the soviet union had just collapsed,

leaving tremendous uncertainty in its wake. and yet, the full senate needed only five days of floor time before it approved that treaty by a vote of 93-6. a far more complicated and far more provocative, if you will, treaty at that time. the start ii treaty took only two days on the floor of the senate before it was approved by 87-4. so, leave the precedent aside for a moment. when it comes to protecting our national security, mr. president, the american people expect us to make time, and that's exactly what we're prepared to do. we're prepared to work around the clock if time is the only concern, then we have no concerns. given the thyme it this ait took to consider past treaties, it is clear that we can do this. we're not new to this business. we're he not new to this treaty.

we can get this done, if there is a will to do so. now, i know that some senators still worry about the administration's plans with respect to modernization of the nuclear weapons complex. that is not directly within the four corners of the treaty. but i understand their concerns. so let's review the work just very quickly that's been done there. the obama administration proposed spending $80 billion over the next ten years. that's a 15% increase over the baseline budget, even after accounting for inflation. and it's much, much more than was spent during the bush administration's eight years. still some senators have concerns, so on september 15, the vice president assured our committee that the ten-year plan would be updated and a revised 2012 budget figure would be provided this fall. in the meantime, because i believe that the nuclear weapons program ought to be adequately

funded, i worked with other colleagues, with the leader and senator dorgan and senator inouye to guarantee that an anomaly in the continuing resolution that we passed in october provided an additional $100 million for the past two months and it ensured that we would get the updated figures from the administration. the administration has now provided those figures and it is asking for an additional $5 billion over the next ten years. so i'd like to remind my colleagues that according to the resolution of ratification, if any of these funding does not materialize in future years, the president will be required to report to congress as to how he is going to address the shortfall. but if the senate does not now approve the ratification of the new start pret, it'll -- start treaty, it'll being increasingly difficult without any requirement for a report, and it'll being increasingly difficult to provide that funding. i think that's a solid reason

why we ought to get this done now. ultimately, mr. president, bottom line -- and i close remending colleagues of this -- we need to approve this treaty because it is critical to the security of our country. it is better to have fewer nuclear weapons aimed at the united states. it is better to have the right to inspect russia facilities. it is better to have russia as an ally in our efforts to contain iran and north korea, and in order to deal with the global proliferation challenge. our military thinks it's better to have these things. if any of my colleagues disagree, then let me make their case to the full senate. that's the way the a supposed to work around here. let them make their case to the american people. if the american people said anything in this election year, it is that congress needs to get down to the real business of our nation, and if the national

security of our nation isn't the real business, i don't know what is. they've asked us to protect american interests. and by ratifying this treaty, we will do so. i yield the floor. mr. dorgan: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. dorgan: mr. president, let me thank the senator from massachusetts. i think senator kerry, as chairman of the committee, has done an extraordinary job. let me also mention senator lugar and others who have worked very hard on these issues, the issue of the ratification of the start treaty. mr. president, i was a member of the national security working group, and we were informed all along the way during the negotiations with the russians -- we had meetings in various locations and were briefed by the negotiators who would describe to us what the negotiations were about, what the progress was and so on -- and some of my colleagues from this chamber were a part of that national security working group,

came to the meetings, we all have an opportunity to ask a lot of questions. so it is not as if someone just dropped on this united states senate some package called the start treaty with the russians. i mean, we have been a part of that all along and been a part of having discussions and descriptions of the work of this treaty for some long while. i wanted to go through a couple of things today. first of all, some colleagues are deciding that we should not proceed with the ratification of this new arms-reduction treaty that we've negotiated with the russians. some have alleged that there are all kinds of difficulties with it, it would limit our ability to produce and deploy anti-ballistic missile weapons. that is not the case -- or an anti-ballistic missile system, i should saivmenshould saivment te case. they are suggesting that our modernization program of the lifetime existence programs for

our is not funded adequately. that is not the case. they indicated that it would not meet our national security requirementrequirement to go ahh this treaty. that is not the case. let me describe what some distinguished americans have said. admiral mike mullen said, "i, as well as our combatant commanders around the world, stand solidly behind this new treaties." "stand solidly behind this new treaty." that's from the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. this is general chilton, the commander the strategic command in charge of our nuclear wesms he says "the united states strategic command was closely consulted throughout the development of the nuclear posture review and during negotiations on the new strategic arms reduction treaty. what we negotiated is absolutely acceptable to the united states strategic command for what we need to do to provide the defernts for our country." this from general chilton.

former nuclear command theirs support this treaty -- general davis, general welch, general chain, general butler, admiral chiles, general habinger, admiral ellis. all of them believe this treaty is the right thing for this country and its security. dr. henry kissinger, he says "it should be noted, i come from the hawkish side of this debate, so i'm not here advocating these measures in the be a strafnlgt i try to build them into my perception of the national center. i recommend ratification of this treaty." there's just one more. this shows america's most prominent national security experts who support this new start treaty, republicans and democrats, the most -- i think the most significant thinkers

about foreign policy in this country today, and they say they support this treaty and when it means to our country. now some have said that there's not enough funding for our modernization program for existing nuclear weapons or for the lifetime extension program for existing nuclear weapons, and that would be a problem. they're wrong about that. let me describe what linton brooks, the former nnsa administrator in charge of these areas of nuclear weapons and the modernization and the lifetime extension programs. he says -- this is someone who served under the bush administration in that role -- he says, "as i understand it, it is a good idea on its own merits. but i think for those who think it is only a good idea if you only have a strong weapons program, this budget ought to take care of that. coupled with the out-year projections it cakes aifort concerns about the complex and does very good things about the stockpile and should keep the labs healthy." then he said, "i would have killed for this budget.

"things from the man who headed nnsa during the bush administration. now, mr. president, let me go through the issue of spending because one of the principal concerns has been we're not spending enough money on the existing nuclear weapons stock - stockpile. there's roughly 25,000 nuclear weapons in this country. with respect to our portion of the nuclear weapons, we modernize them, we have life extension programs to make certain they can be certified and certified as workable nuclear weapons, notwithstanding the fact that we don't ever want to have to see that one works because it seems to me the explosion of a nuclear weapon in a major city on this planet will change everything in the future. so -- but nonetheless we have a certification program and we spend a great deal of money modern icing and keeping -- modernizing and keeping up to

date the existing stock of nuclear weapons. i chair the appropriations subcommittee that fund the nuclear weapons stockpile, among other thifnlings the appropriations committee considered a request from the president this year for $7 billion. that's $7 billion for these weapons programs. now, in my subcommittee, which does a lot of things -- energy and water programs and nuclear weapons -- in my subcommittee, almost everything else was either flat-lined or reduced. but nuclear weapons was increased substantially. the $7 billion that the president requested was a 10% increase over the previous year, a 10% increase over the previous year. now, some of my colleagues have said, well, that leaves us way short of what we need. and so what happened to the $7 billion is that was put into the

continuing resolution in november -- wasn't much discussion that -- but it was put into the -- the $7 billion was included in the continuing resolution so that virtually all over functions of government will continue it function at last year's appropriations level, but the nuclear -- nnsa -- nuclear weapons function will continue with the new funding of $7 billion, up 10% from the previous year. now let me also describe what has happened with respect to the fy 2011 to 2015 -- a five-year plan -- in the president's budget was $5.4 billion above the previous plan. so this president has proposed generous appropriations to make certain that modernization of the life sentence programs of our existing nuclear weapons is funded well. so i mentioned -- len then it went to $7 billion.

now in november, a report called "the 1251 report" was transmitted to cofnlgt the new plan is to request $7.6 billion for the year 2012, and that's a $600 million increase over 2011, which was a $600 million increase over 2010, and overall the request on this new report is $4.1 billion increase over the baseline during the 2012 to 2016. so then we'll be spending $85 billion in the 10-year period, $85 billion on modernization of our current nuclear stockpile and the life extension program in our current nuclear stockpile and even that is not enough. we are told that's not nearly enough money. well, how much is enough? if you can certify that the stockpile works and the

stockpile provides a deterrent, how much is enough? this president has robustly funded the requests that were needed. and now we are told not nearly enough money has been appropriated. and, by the way, i must say, those who are saying this are saying that we must stngs substantially cut funding and reduce the federal deficit. very interesting. let me describe, as i have in the past, something that happened nearly 10 years ago -- 9 1/2 years ago, to describe the importance of this subject. 9/11/2001 this country was attacked, one month later, october 11, 2001, there was a report by a could i agent code named dragon fire in this country, one of our agents that

had a report that said that there was a nuclear weapon that had been smuggled into new york, a ten-kiloton nuclear weapon smuggled and stolen and smuggled into new york. it was one month to the day from 9/11. that report from a c.i.a. agent had a report that caused apoe plexy among the entire intelligence community p. it was not public at that point. it was not made public. after about a month, they decided i it was perhaps not a credible piece of intelligence. clearly someone could have stolen a russian nuclear weapon, perhaps a 10-kiloton weapon, could have smuggled it into new york city and a terrorist group could have detain tated it. and people could have perished. one stolen nuclear weapon. there are 25,000 of them on the planet. 25,000. the question is, do these agreements matter?

do they make a difference? of course they do. the fact is, nuclear arms agreements have made a very big difference. and i have had on the desk -- my senate desk for a long period -- a couple of things, i'd like by consent to show. this is a piece of metal from a russian backfirebomber, a soviet backfirebomber. we didn't shoot this bomber down. it was sawed off. they sawed the wings off this bomber and they did it because we paid for it nders the nunn-lugar agreement. in which we have actually reduced nuclear weapons, both delivery vehicles and nuclear weapons. so i have on my desk a piece of soviet bomber that had its wings sheared off by agreement, and that delivery system is gone. i have a hinge that was on a silo for a missile that had on it a nuclear weapon aimed at this country that was in the ukraine. that missile is now gone. i have the hinge in my hand.

that missile that held a nuclear warhead aimed at america is gone. in its place on that field are sunflowers. sunflowers, not missiles. i have in this desk as well some copper wire that was ground up from a submarine, a soviet submarine dismantled as a result of arms control agreements. these agreements work. we know they work. we have reduced the number of delivery vehicles. we have submarines, bombers, missiles. we have reduced the number of nuclear weapons. and this agreement will further reduce the number of nuclear weapons. now, mr. president, if it is not the responsibility of our country to begin addressing the ability to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and to reduce the number of nuclear weapons on the face of this earth, then whose responsibility is it? it is clearly our responsibility to shoulder that leadership. and one important element of that is when we negotiate these

kinds of treaties, arms reduction treaties, that virtually everyone, republicans and democrats who know anything at all about national security and about arms reduction agreements, have said makes sense for our country, when we do that it seems to me that we ought not have the same old thing here on the floor of the senate. this ought not be a part of gridlock. this is a negotiation between our country and russia with respect to reducing delivery vehicles and reducing nuclear weapons. the national security working group of which i was a member, and a number of my colleagues were members, met in this capitol building, and we were briefed and briefed and briefed again by those who were negotiating this treaty. this is not a surprise. there is nothing surprising he. and in my judgment, this senate should in this month do what is necessary to have the debate and ratify this treaty. again, let me just say this president sent to the congress a

budget request that had ample and robust funding with a 10% increase for modernization and life extension programs for our nuclear weapons. i know that because i chaired the committee that put the money in at the president's request. and then even more than that, that money was put in in a continuing resolution so that of all the spending in the federal government everything else goes on at last year's level except because those who believed you had to have the extra money for the nuclear weapons program put that in the c.r. that was put in the c.r. in november so, that that's the program that goes ahead with the 10% increase. i didn't object to that. but i do object when they say there's not ample funding here. a 10% increase this year, a 10% increase next year, a testimony by everyone who knows about these weapons programs, the cost of them and the effectiveness of these treaties ought to be demonstration enough for us to do our job and do our job right.

we've got a lot of important issues in front of us; i understand that. but all these issues will pale by comparison if we do not find a way to get our arms around this question of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and reducing the number of nuclear weapons. if one -- god forbid -- one nuclear weapon is exploded in a city on this planet, life on this planet will change. and so, the question of whether we assume the responsibility of leadership, whether we're willing to assume that responsibility will determine in large part, it seems to me, about our future and about whether we will have a world in which we systematically and consistently reduce the number of nuclear weapons and, therefore, reduce the threat of nuclear weapons in the future. i do hope that my colleagues -- by the way, i don't suggest they are operating in bad faith at

all. but some of my colleagues have insisted -- insisted -- that there's not enough funding here. it is just not the case. the demonstration is clear. it is the one area that has had consistent, robust increases in funding requested by this president and complied with by this congress. and now even advanced funding through the continuing resolution, it seems to me it's time to take yes for an answer on the question of funding and let's move ahead and debate this treaty and do what this country has a responsibility to do: ratify this treaty and do it soon. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 510 which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 247, s. 510, a bill to amend the federal food, drug and cosmetic act with respect to the safety of the food supply.

mr. johanns: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: i don't see senator baucus in the chamber, so i'll go ahead and get started. my understanding is, mr. president, we'll be going back and forth. i'll finish my opening remarks, and then if he arrives, i'll yield to him. mr. president, in just a few hours senators are going to have a distinct choice. two amendments are going to be offered -- will be offered to repeal what i think we've all come to regard as a very nonsensical tax paperwork mandate that was included in the health care reform bill. there is broad agreement the 1099 repeal is necessary to remove federal roadblocks to job

creation. but today we have a choice on the two amendments. today's choice comes down to what i regard is a very straightforward choice, a choice relative to fiscal responsibility. and it's illustrated by the chart we've put up here. you see, mr. president, my amendment fully offsets the cost of the 1099 repeal. the alternative baucus amendment piles $19 billion of debt on to the backs of future generations. the irony of this is just unmistakable. on one hand, we have a provision in the health care law that we've all come to regard as crazy foolishness. even the president has said it doesn't make any sense, or words to that effect. and, on one hand, to repeal it, we're adding to the debt of

future generations. on the other hand, my amendment fully offsets that cost. americans have sounded an alarm regarding washington's out-of-control spending. they demand that we address what is a huge $14 trillion debt. they look at their federal government in disbelief when they see washington continuing to spend money we simply don't have. yet, the alternative amendment proposes to do more of the same. it doesn't have a single offset. it simply passes the buck. and in this case, it passes the buck to our children and grandchildren. now, both amendments, as you can see, repeal the 1099 requirement. but in the case of the johanns amendment, it repeals the 1099 requirement without adding a

single penny to our deficit or to the cost of the health care bill. it also has taken care of the issue of the controversial offsets. mr. president, as my colleagues remember, i listened in september when many came up to me and said, look, i'm with you on repealing this 1099 provision. my small businesses are asking me to get it repealed. but i just can't go along with your offsets. well, my new 1099 amendment uses unspent and unobligated funds from federal accounts to fully pay for the repeal. at the end of every year there is money left in the accounts of federal agencies that hasn't been obligated. as someone who is a cabinet official in a previous life, i can tell you that that occurs. my amendment boils down to using

about 5% of these funds. 5%. additionally, the amendment i'm offering gives the office of management and budget the ability to decide what programs to pull funds from and in what amounts. this approach is far better than the across-the-board cut and it allows important programs to continue to be funded. now, some are probably going to argue, this is historic, this has never been done before. but, mr. president, i want to assure my colleagues it has been done repeatedly before. if my colleagues choose the alternative amendment in a few hours, then the public demand for fiscal responsibility will have fallen on deaf ears. in september when the senate first voted down my 1099 amendment, the concern was about the source of the offsets.

it was the health care bill, and many said to me, look, i'm with you but i can't go long with these offsets, so we changed them. but back then no one, no one argued that we simply did not need to pay for the repeal. no one argued that. yet today, the baucus alternative amendment proposes no pay-fors, adding $19 billion to the national debt without a dime of budgetary offsets. so after all the hoopla about pay-as-you-go, there's not a single budgetary offset to cover the cost of this amendment. so i urge all of my colleagues to vote for the fully offset johanns amendment. it will be a vote to protect our job creators. it will be a bipartisan vote because we've all come to agree that this 1099 provision just

doesn't make any sense. and most importantly, when we talk to our constituents about how we did this, we'll be able to clearly tell them that we paid for it that, we took care of the cost of repealing the 1099 amendment with offsets that were a compromise to try to get this done and get this behind us. now, mr. president, several of my colleagues also want to speak on this, so i'm going to yield five minutes of my time to senator enzi, followed by five minutes to senator thune, five minutes to senator brown and five minutes to senator hutchison. so i will yield to senator enzi. mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: thank you, mr. president. i rise to speak about the johanns amendment that would

repeal a provision in the health care reform law that if not repealed today will impose significant burdens on small businesses across this country. repealing this provision has the support of many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. even the president has commented that this provision is onerous on small business and warrants immediate adjustment. starting in 2012, the new health care law will require that all businesses purchasing $600 or more in property or services from another entity, including corporations, must provide the vendor and the internal revenue service with tax information returned. this new government mandate will impose significant burdens on both small and large businesses and taxpayers' costs will increase as a result of accumulating the information and preparing the tax forms necessary to comply with this kpapbded mandate. -- expanded mandate. imagine if you're a freelance writer and you buy a new laptop. now tough send form 1099 to apple and to the i.r.s. or be

labeled a tax cheat. you'll need the taxpayer, the apple taxpayer's identification number too, so don't forget to ask the salesman for that. this new reporting requirement hits small businesses hardest because they typically don't have in-house accounting departments and have to hire outside help. every penny a small business spends on these services is money they can't spend on hiring new workers and expanding their business. every hour a small business owner spends filling out these new tax forms is time he or she is not making a sale, manufacturing a product or working with a customer. i understand the challenges this can create for a small business. before i came to the united states senate, my wife and i owned shoe stores in wyoming. when you own a small business, you have to be the c.e.o., bookkeeper, salesman and the person who cleans the bathroom. every hour i spent filling out government-mandated paperwork was an hour i couldn't spend selling shoes.

government mandates like the new 1099 requirement have a real cost, and it is small business who will end up having to pay them. this new 1099 reporting requirement is just one of many things in the new health care reform law that need to be reexamined immediately. our small businesses need to be focused on creating jobs and helping our economy recover, not spending countless hours on new government paperwork burdens. we all would do well to remember the claims of the sponsors of the health care reform law who said this new law would actually reduce the federal deficit. most americans didn't believe those claims when they were made and today they're seeing the first evidence of their falsity. today when confronted with the nationwide opposition with this expanded information reporting policy, one of the leading proponents of the new health care law in the senate is offering an amendment that will eliminate it, but it eliminates the revenues it produces and more importantly his amendment makes no attempt to pay for the lost revenues.

that means this amendment will further increase the federal deficit. while this may be the first time we see this, it certainly will not be the last. the funding for the entire health care law was built on a fiction of cost estimates and actuarial assumptions as each provision confronts the reality of the light of day, we will see more and more provisions come undone in the coming years. when we see those face escalating out-of-pocket costs, there will be an urgent push to restore these benefits. when hospitals, nursing homes and health home agencies begin to close their doors because medicare payment rates cause them to operate at a loss, congress will move to undo those costs at a cost to the deficit. when the new insurance benefits are slashed as result of formula gimmicks, that will force automatic reductions in benefits. i suspect many of the supporters of the new law will argue for the urgent necessity of delaying

these cuts. we can make a statement right now to america's small businesses that we want you creating more jobs, hiring more employees, growing your business, not worrying what washington will require of you next. let's tell our small business men and women that we stand behind them, not on top of their backs and repeal the newspaper work burden in a fiscally responsible way. i yield the floor and reserve the balance of my time. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president, at 6:30 this evening -- excuse me, mr. president, i ask consent that the following staff be allowed floor privileges during consideration of food safety bill, james baker, mary baker, will kel og, nicole lamer, nicole marchman, jack mcgillis,

ken masario, lisa yen. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: at 6:30 the senate will vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the substitute amendment to the food safety bill. under a previous order once cloture is invoked there is to be up to 60 minutes of debate on competing motions to suspend rule 22 offered by senator johanns and me. i understand that the two leaders intend to propound an agreement that would provide for the senate to vote on our two motions immediately after the cloture vote this evening. so senators should be on notice that there may be three back-to-back votes beginning at 6:30. the senator from nebraska and i share a common goal. we both want to repeal some i.r.s. reporting requirements scheduled to take effect in the year 2012. each of our two motions would

allow consideration of an amendment to prevent the expansion of those i.r.s. reporting rules. thus each of our two amendments would help small businesses across america. how? by repealing these burdensome paperwork requirements. but there are two big differences between our two amendments. first, my alternative is especially friendly to small businesses. it takes extra measures to permit the i.r.s. to waive certain duplicative reporting requirements that small businesses now must experience, that is, small businesses that use credit cards to pay their bills. my alternative goes farther and gives more relief to small business. second, our two versions differ about paying for the change. the alternative offered by my colleague from nebraska would give the unelected director of

o.m.b. unprecedented authority to slash spending all on his own. the johanns alternative would abdicate congress's responsibility over the budget. for these reasons i urge my colleagues to oppose the johanns amendment and support my alternative. first, let me talk about what we have in common. each of our two amendments is designed to get rid of a set of rules that requires reporting to the i.r.s. many folks refer to these ruse as a 1099 provision. that's because these new rules require filing more of i.r.s. forms numbered 1099. these rules would impose newspaper work burdens and costs on small businesses and these burdens would fall on small businesses just as they're struggling to emerge from the great recession. the new rules expand existing

information reporting to the i.r.s. to include participates that businesses make to corporations and payments they make for goods and property. as i travel around my home state of montana, small business owners like darryl cap, he owns the dixie inn. darryl and his wife jean run a tight ship. they're hardworking. they pay their taxes. darryl told me that he and his wife just do not have the manpower or the software to make the new reporting rules work. and darryl and his wife run just one business of the many mom and pop businesses in montana that have told me this. i dare say that most of our -- the members of the body hear the same thing. i've listened to small businesses. i've heard them. and i'm responding to small businesses by offering this amendment.

my amendment would fully repeal the new reporting requirements. fully. my amendment also responds to the concerns of owners of rental property. some of these owners were concerned about their ability to comply with new rental expense information reporting rules included in the small business bill that congress enacted just this last september. my amendment would scale back those rules. my amendment 0 would apply the same rules to rental expense reporting as it applies to all businesses. now, let me turn to the differences between my amendment and the johanns amendment. first, my amendment includes another feature that would further reduce the paperwork burdens on small businesses. my amendment would grant the secretary of treasury the authority to issue regulations to avoid duplicative reporting. the treasury has issued guidance under similar authority to allow small businesses that use credit

cards to forgo the reporting expenses that they pay with their credit cards. under this new guidance to the extent that small businesses use their credit cards to pay service vendors, they would have actually less compliance burden than they did under the old law that is before the new requirement. the competing amendment offered by my colleague from nebraska would repeal the treasury's authority to make rules to avoid duplicative reporting. it would repeal it. doing so would thus risk placing undo and unnecessary paperwork burdens on small businesses that use credit cards that pay their bills. so my alternative is especially friendly to small businesses. it takes extra measures to permit the i.r.s. to waive duplicative reporting, especially those requirements for small businesses that use credit cards. the second main difference between our two amendments is the offset of the johanns amendment. this is a big difference.

the joint tax committee estimates that the tax law changes in the johanns amendment would cost about $22 billion. in -- and the johanns amendment also includes a cut o of $39 billion in appropriated funds to be determined by the office of management and budget. the johanns amendment cuts about twice what it needs to do to pay for the repeal of the reporting requirement. as a matter of dollars and cents the johanns amendment is mostly about cutting appropriated spending. that's what it really is. to make these spending cuts the johanns amendment would give the unelected director of o.m.b. unprecedented authority to determine the source of this money. and that would abdicate congressional responsibility over the budget. the joint tax committee estimates that my amendment would cost about $19 billion. that's a little less than the tax part of the johanns

amendment, but my amendment does not include an offset. these days finding a $19 billion offset that can get 67 votes is pretty close to impossible. we have spent much of this year haggling over one offset or another. my amendment tries to avoid that. we are talking about a paperwork requirement that has not yet even taken effect. in fact, will not take effect if not repealed until the year 2012. let's repeal this reporting requirement. let's get it done with. let's repeal it lock, stock, and barrel. let's just get it done. not do all these extra other things which really is not good policy. the i.r.s. has used form 1099 for decades to better track income. but the new reporting rules just went too far. the time and expense for small businesses to comply with the new rules far exceed any benefit.

especially in these tough economic times now is not the time to put additional stress on small businesses to meet complicated government rules. rather now is the time to eliminate this paperwork burden. small businesses are the backbone of the american economy. that's especially true in montana. in montana a greater share of workers work in small businesses than in any other state in the country. in greater proportion than in any other state in the country. business owners need to focus their efforts on growing their business and creating jobs, not filling out paperwork. small businesses in montana and across america want to comply with the tax laws. with these new rules stretch their ability to do that. it went too far. i urge my colleagues to support their full repeal. but let's not hand over a blank check to the o.m.b. director to

slash $19 billion wherever he wants. that part of the johanns amendment also goes too far. and so i urge my colleagues to help out small businesses. i urge my colleagues to avoid sweeping dell graition of power -- delegation of power to the o.m.b. director. i ask my colleagues to oppose the johanns amendment and support the baucus amendment when it comes up for votes this evening. mr. president, before -- mr. president, i have unanimous consent requests, which i understand has been cleared on both sides. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the agreement with respect to s. 510 be modified as follows: that after the cloture vote at 6:30 today and if cloture is invoked that all debate time with respect to the johanns and baucus emotions --

motions be considered expired. senator johanns be recognized to offer his amendment to suspend. that once the motion has been made, senator baucus then be recognized to offer his motion to suspend. that once made, the senate then proceed to vote with respect to the johanns amendment to suspend. and upon dissolution of that motion, the senate proceed to vote with respect to the baucus motion to sus. then upon disposition of the two motions, senator coburn then be recognized as provided for under the order on november 18 and 19. that all debate time with respect to the coburn motions be utilized during today's session. that at 9:00 a.m. on tuesday, november 30, after the prayer and the pledge, and any leader time, the senate then resume consideration of s. 510, with two minutes of debate equally divided and controlled between senators coburn and inouye. prior to the vote in relation to

the coburn motion regarding reamerica number 4697. that upon disposition of that motion there be two minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form, that the senate proceed to vote with respect to the coburn amendment regarding a substitute amendment number 4696. further, that any other provisions of the previous order remain in effect. provided further that prior to passage of the bill, the budget committee paygo statement be read into the record. further, that after the first vote today and tomorrow, that succeeding votes be limited to 10 minutes each. and prior to the succeeding votes tonight there be two minutes equally divided and controlled in the usual form. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: with the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. a senator: mr. president, it's my intention that i be heard tonight concerning some of the amendments that will be voted on

tomorrow. mr. inhofe: it is my understanding that senator enzi from wyoming has the time between 5:30 and 6:00. and i request that i be recognized for 15 minutes during that time frame. mr. baucus: mr. president, i'd like to object. mr. baucus: mr. president, -- may i further amend that request? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: after the

swearing-in of senator-elect kirk, that the time be equally divided until 6:30 this evening, and that the senator from oklahoma be recognized to speak for 15 minutes. and the time to be divided between the two leaders or their designees. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. inhofe: the question i have is what time would that be, approximately? right after the votes or right before? no objection. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: i would ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to the johanns amendment 4702 to the senate bill 510, the food safety modernization act. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, i want to compliment the senator from nebraska for his leadership on this issue. he has done a great job of advocating on behalf of small businesses, farmers, ranchers. people all across this country

are going to be impacted by this onerous provision in the health care bill. my fear is this is something we will be doing and a pattern we will be repeating quite frequently in the years ahead as more and more americans find out what was actually in the democrats' health care bill, but this particular provision really is egregious because it requires various entities to send their suppliers 1099 forms if they engage in business-to-business transactions that total more than $600 in a single year. let me just say, mr. president, that i believe that everyone ought to pay their fair share of taxes, but i'm concerned that the burdens of compliance falls not on the tax delinquents but sneddon the countless businesses, churches, local governments and nonprofits who pay their taxes on time and in full or may not even have a tax liability to start with. this means that these entities will have less time to fulfill their core missions, whether that's building products, ministering to the poor, helping students learn or building local

infrastructure. instead, they are going to be filling out form after form to be compliant with this measure. because of the heavy compliance costs associated with this measures, its repeal is supported by a wide variety of business organizations and agricultural organizations across the country, and those include the chamber of commerce, the national federation of independent business, the american farm bureau, to name a few. however, let me just say it's not just national organizations that i've heard from. in numerous constituent meetings across my state of south dakota, i have heard from the citizens of south dakota, whether they be farmers, ranchers, small businesses, c.p.a.'s and others about the effect that this measure would have on them, on their businesses and on their employees. now, while this requirement is not set to take effect until next year, i believe it's important that we act now to give these types of entities certainty, that they will not have to take steps to comply

with this measure. i would add, mr. president, our government now has a debt that is approaching $14 trillion, and we need to do everything we can to make sure that that debt does not increase because it's a debt that we continue to pile more and more on and hand to the next generation of americans, and because of that concern, i'm also very pleased that this amendment is fully offset by rescinding unspent federal funds. the senator from nebraska has come up with a way through rescinding unspent federal funds to offset this amendment in a commonsense way. of course it accepts department of defense and the department of veterans affairs which protect both our national security -- our national security interests and those who serve our country, but i believe that the rescissions that he calls for in unspent federal funds are a good way to make sure that this doesn't add to our debt. this amendment perfectly captures that belief. i think it's a belief that's shared by many of our colleagues here, i hope at least in the senate, and by citizens all across this country that we need

to be focused on bringing down our debt and that we start doing that by limiting government spending, not with putting new burdensome requirements on businesses and charities. fortunately, there were numerous other provisions in the health care bill and other bills approved by congress in the past two years which shifted the burden on to small businesses and employers. we will have to revisit, as i said earlier, each of those to ensure that they don't slow economic growth and job creation, which is the thing the american people want us to be singularly focused on right now. so i hope we can take this first step today, mr. president, and support the senator from nebraska's amendment, the johanns amendment, which does address this critical issue, this egregious provision in the health care bill that puts this new costly burden on our small businesses, but doing it in a way that is fiscally responsible, that doesn't add to the debt, that doesn't saddle and burden future generations with more and more debt, and i think that the -- the senator from nebraska has come up with a great solution, and i would hope that colleagues here on both

sides of the aisle, both republicans and democrats who have heard like i have from their constituents back home will take this very commonsense amendment and pass it out of here with a big margin, and let's get this particular provision in the health care bill repealed and the impact, the negative impact it would have on economic growth and job creation in this country. mr. president, with that, i yield the balance of my time. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. inouye: mr. president, the amendment offered by senator johanns proposes to rescind unobligated balances of appropriated funds that are designated for specific purposes in various appropriations measures previously enacted by this congress. the senator offers these rescissions in order to offset the loss of revenues resulting from his amendment. much like similar amendments offered in the past, this

amendment simply provides for a generic rescission of funds. with the authority and decisionmaking for which programs are impacted, delegated entirely through the executive branch. consideration of this amendment is the first of two attempts this evening to shift the power of and responsibility for the nation's purse strings from the legislative branch to the executive branch. rescinding funds in this manner, mr. president, should this amendment be adopted, may be politically expedient because it simply cites a dollar failure, but it is also reckless and irresponsible and hides the accountability for future actions when legitimate programs are shut down. mr. president, we should make no mistake about it.

across-the-board cuts in legislative improvement or -- is performing surgery with a meat cleaver, and senators should have the right to reject this amendment for this reason alone. i can assure my colleagues, mr. president, that if this amendment passes, the impact will be felt throughout this country, and the arbitrary nature of the cuts will only intensify the pain. and why do i know this? because for the past several months, senator cochran and i have instructed our staffs to scrub the books of every single federal agency in order to fund pell grants while at the same time maintaining the discretionary funding level for f.y. 2011 proposed by senator sessions and senator mccaskill.

even after reviewing in great detail unobligated balances across all the agencies in rescinding these funds that were truly unobligated balances, we still have to cut spending for fiscal year 2011 in order to pay for pell grants to the level at which almost everyone in this chamber desires it be funded. consequently, mr. president, the only unobligated balances remaining are those in accounts that have slow spend rates such as construction and infrastructure accounts. to rescind $39 billion from these remaining accounts with our congressional -- without congressional guidance and without any analysis of the resulting cost and benefits, mr. president, i believe is irresponsible. throughout this past year, every

time an amendment limited to this one has been offered, i and my colleagues on the appropriations committee have come to the floor and provided real examples of real programs that would be impacted by such an amendment. while i will not go into such detail tonight, i'd like to take a moment and give members a sense of which agency accounts and unobligated balances. first, international narcotics control and law enforcement programs which provide police training and counterdrug programs in afghanistan, pakistan, mexico, colombia, among others. second, the global health and child survival which impacts global hiv-aids, malaria, t.b., polio and other programs.

we have third the state department's worldwide security program, including funding for requirements in iraq, again impacting our embassy and personnel costs worldwide. fourth, the coast guard construction of ships and planes, including the national security cover, the maritime patrol aircraft, and fast response cutters. six, the funds to maintain and upgrade the southwest border fence in arizona and california. seven, the fema disaster relief fund which is still paying, mr. president, for katrina, rita, gustav and ike. eighth, cybersecurity investments to secure federal information systems. for us to procure and install t.s.a. advanced imaging

technology and other explosive detection systems. ninth, funds to build border patrol stations in texas, arizona, california and washington. and 11th, funds to build schools and hospitals under the bureau of indian affairs and indian health services. and 12th, the $500 million in nonemergency unobligated fire suppression funds remaining in the forest service and interior wildlife fire accounts is the minimum needed to make certain there are enough funds available in case the fire season turns out to be worse than forecast. and, mr. president, every year the forecast is not as good as what happens. next, section 8 project base

rental assistance. these programs receive advance appropriations to run through the end of the calendar year. if these funds are rescinded, there would be no funding to continue to provide housing for low-income families living in housing today. next, in the case of homeless assistance grants, there is a time-consuming competitive process that communities go through in order to get these funds. accordingly, these funds are unobligated funds. if these funds were rescinded, existing homeless programs in communities across the country would not have sufficient funds to continue serving the homeless, literally leaving people on the streets. and finally, as one would

imagine, the corps of engineers construction projects as well as funding for flood control and coastal emergencies have substantial unobligated balances. supporters of this amendment may claim that i and my colleagues on the appropriations committee are simply citing the worst case scenario of where unobligated balances may come from. mr. president, the fact of the matter is that these accounts are exactly where the unobligated balances will come from. and let me also point out to my colleagues that if this amendment is enacted, we cannot stop rescissions of unobligated balances from any of the accounts mentioned because the amendment gives sole decision-making power regarding where to cut through the executive branch. unlike the situation with deciding how to fund the 2011

omnibus where ranking member cochran and i along with our committee members decided after much scrutiny of accounts which unobligated balances were truly available for rescission. this amendment places all authority with the executive branch. mr. president, this amendment is not the way to do business. this is certainly not the way to fund the federal government. we need to stop trying to shift our fiscal responsibilities to the executive branch. we need to stop claiming there is an excess in federal funds where none exists. and if we want to cut funds and ham pehamper those critical dec, need to stop hiding. i urge my colleagues to vote against the johanns amendment. i yield the floor.

mr. johanns: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator nebraska. mr. johanns: may i inquire how much time we have left on this side. the presiding officer: 13 minutes. mr. johanns: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, let me address some of the arguments that have been raised here. first of all, on this issue of the baucus amendment simply doing more than the johanns amendment -- or its a especially friendly -- here's what i would tell you: we checked into that, and we have an e-mail from the chief of staff of the joint committee on taxation and he says the two amendmentamendments do the same. they repeal the 1099 requirement. that seems to be especially friendly. and as senator baucus pointed out, we're both going to accomplish the same thing. that is, we're going to repeal the 1099 requirement.

now, to get to the issue of this being an unprecedented grant of power to the executive brancher versus the legislative branch, we also researched that. this consolidated appropriations act for fiscal year 2004 basically gave the secretary of commerce the sole discretion to determine from which accounts and in what amounts funds would be rescinded. in other words, the secretary has sole discretion to decide how to rescind that. the consolidated appropriations act for fiscal year 2008 when my friends on the other side of the aisle were in control of both the house and the senate reas you understanded more than -- rescinded more than $192 million in unobligated balances available to nasa and gave the administrator sole discretion.

the consolidated appropriations act of fiscal year 2008 -- again, when my friends on the other sued of the aisle were in sole control of the house and senate -- rescinded $33 million in unobligated balances for the national science found ever foundation and -- the national science foundation and gave the director sole discretion. the gas guarantee loan act rescinded $270 million of non-defense administrative and travel funds, and again gave sole discretion to the executive branch. very simply, the argument that somehow this is new, this is unprecedented, this has never happened before just simply doesn't hold water. then i heard the the argument of the member -- my colleague from

hawaii, a very, very respected member. but i look at these unobligated balances. the department of agriculture $9.6 billion. now, i ran that department for about three years, mr. president. he talks about fire suppression. we dealt with fire suppression every year. and, yes, some years were worse than others when this came to fire suppression. and if we had a year that literally we had to go find additional funding because the fires were works we worked and we got through that, we solved the proficiency and we dealt with that issue when it was presented to us. you know, here's what i would say: in september i came to the floor and i said, look, here's how i want to pay for this. came out of the health care bill. my colleagues said to me, oh, we can't do that. but i'm with you on this 1099 repeal. i listened.

this repeal is paid for by using money that is literally sitting there in federal accounts. the other thing i'd point out is the alternative is the but baus amendment. here's what it z it handles the problem, just like congress has been handling the problem for way too long. it says to our children and grandchildren, out of this multitrillion-dollar budget, annual budget, $1 trillion in deficit, 40% of the money being literally borrowed, we can't find $19 billion. it's just too hard. it's just too hard, and so our kids and our grandkids are going to have to deal with it. and that's exactly what the bauer cuss amendment does. it says it's too hard. you know, it's going to be the

president's own budget director who is goingwho is going to idee funds that will pay for this. and my colleagues on the other side are saying, we can't trust that process? well, mr. president, if we can't solve this problem and pay for it, how do we ever solve the multitrillion-dollar deficit that this country is facing? congress has allowed the administration to deal with this kind of issue on other occasions, to somehow claim that on this occasion it can't just simply misses the point. with that, mr. president, i will yield to senator hutchison from texas, who wishes to speak on this issue. mrs. hutchison: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: i want to thank the 1240 the senator froma for offering this amendment.

obviously, it's been offered before. but every time i go home, it renews my energy to try to stop this from taking effect. the small business people are approaching me and saying, this is just crazy. to have to report every to the office depot? to have to report every travel voucher for $600 because i'm going to a meeting in california? this -- it defies description except to say that it's one more overbearing government intrusion on free enterprise in our country. so i hope very much that because of the message of the elections in november that more people will see that this is not necessary. it's certainly not a part of health care reform.

in fact, when i saw this come out, that there was this little provision tucked in the enormous health care reform bill, my thought was two things. one is that they are paying for this enormous cost of the government takeover of health care on the backs of small business people in our country. that would be one interpretation. and the other would be that all the talk coming out of washington about new taxes and possibly a value-added tax, that maybe they're starting to want to get the reports that would be the basis of the -- of a new tax system, neither of which should be part of health care reform in this country. so i am hopeful that we can put this to a stop right now. i think the people of america

well-understand the burdens that this health care reform bill that was passed christmas eve of last year, over our objections on this side of the aisle, that maybe we can start peeling away some of the most onerous provisions -- and particularly this one, which takes effect in 23012 -- to at least begi2013 -t we're going to begin to mitigate the damage in this health care bill has done. and we are going to do it a little bit at a time, until we can repeal the whole thing and start all over. it's not that our system doesn't need reform. but having to report a trip to the office defoe buy stationery or a fax machine is not the way to a better health care system. it is a nonsequitur.

so i hope that senator johanns, that your bill passes, that your amendment to this bill passes. it is a free-standing bill, but it is a great amendment to this bill. if we can stop this bill, that will be one thing that we can take off the table as we're addressing the major issues that actually do deal with health care reform and maybe we can bring it down to a level that we would be able to address it in a more responsible way. so i thank you. in fact, i will just say that even the national taxpayer advocate division of the i.r.s. has said that they would have significant challenges in processing and analyzing the enormous volume if this piece of the health care reform act goes through. even the i.r.s. is saying, how

could we do it? which then would lead to -- what? more employees at the i.r.s. well that should scare the people of america. the last thing we need is a bigger government created to try to go into the small businesses and see if they are complying with a $600 requirement for every transaction that they would take. so i commend the senator from nebraska for offering this amendment. i am a cosponsor of this amendment. and i hope that we will have enough votes to stop this provision in its tracks, take it off the table, and then deal with health care reform on issueissues that actual li a eft health care reform -- that actually affect health care reform, not issues like this that just burden small business in 0 country, at a time when we want them to hire people, we want them to open their doors.

but the more restrictions and the more burdensome paperwork we put on them, the less chance there is that they're going to hire people. and that's what i'm hearing from my constituents, and i know it is the same for all of us who have been home listening to what the people are saying. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. mr. johanns: mr. president, may i inquire how much time is left on our side? the presiding officer: three mns. three minutes. mr. johanns: mr. president, i will use that three minutes just to wrap up with a couple of thoughts. the first point i want to make in wrapping up here this evening is this: there has been a 21% -- 21% -- increase in appropriated funding over the last two years. 21%. so every small business out there is asking the question,

why is the cost, at least in part of this health care bill, falling on my back when there's been a 21% increase in appropriated funding over the last two years? why are you punishing me when i'm trying to do everything i can to stay afloat? senator hutchison said it so wevment you can't go anywhere in this country without a small businessperson saying to you, what is it about this 1099 requirement? they are dreading the fact that they will spend valuable resources on accountants and compliance to try to deal with this requirement. they're asking the question, why are you picking on us? the second point i want to make is that the money from unappropriated, unobligated

accounts -- again, excluding the department of defense and veterans affairs -- is 5%. it is 5% of the total. and i look at that massive federal budget, i look at what we are dealing with here, and i get down to the same point: $19 billion. why would you add that to the federal deficit? and that's affect what the baucus amendment does. you simply won't find offsets that are better-equipped to deal with this problem than the one i am proposing. and again i just want to emphasize, mr. president, in september when we were arguing this on the floor and my colleagues were coming to me and saying, mike, look, i'm works i want to repeal this, this doesn't make any sense, and my phone is ringing off the hook, but i can't