nasa can live with that. and the exceptional goals that are set in this nasa bill can be achieved if that cut, which is less than 1.6% of the total nasa authorized level, a cut of 1.6% clearly can be done under these very austere times. and so i am hopeful on the basis of what we saw yesterday and heard in the commerce committee that we will be able to go forth, a third shuttle flight that will be added that will fly next summer, as we transition into the new commercial rockets, as we transition into the

development of the new heavy lift rocket, along with its spacecraft known as a capsule, as we transition into the extension of the international space station, the modernization of our space facilities, particularly at the kennedy space center, as we transition into all of that, we will have less of a disruption of the employment in the space community than otherwise would have been the case with employment dropping off precipitously off of a cliff because of the shutdown of the space shuttle program. i'm encouraged, i'm optimistic, i'm grateful, and i was happy to

hear the unequivocal statements by the administration yesterday in support of the nasa bill. madam president, i yield the floor and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. leahy: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: i have six unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during

today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: and that be print ed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: thank you. and, madam president, in a letter sent yesterday to senate leaders, former deputy attorneys general of the united states that served in both republican and democratic administrations urged the senate to consider the nomination of james coe to be the deputy attorney general without further delay. the deputy attorney general is the number-two position at the department of justice. it is a critical national security and federal law enforcement position. these former officials who have served with distinction this that post wrote, supervising its day-to-day operations. the deputy is also a key member of the president's national

security team, a function that has grown in importance and complexity in the years since the terror attacks of september 11. these former deputy attorneys general are right. i thank them for speaking out to urge the senate to complete consideration of this important nomination. in a moment i will ask consent that their full -- their letter -- actually i will ask that their letter be included in the record at the end of my statement. incidentally, the ones that signed this -- and they came from both republican and democratic administrations -- were donald ereh, chairlady ding consequence, mark phillip, jamie gorilic, paul mcnulty, david ogden, and larry thompson.

now, mr. coe's nomination, has been on the executive calendar for 4 1/2 months since it was reported favorably by the executive committee way back in july. i have a hard time remembering any time -- either republican or democratic administrations -- a deputy ag has been held up like this. it was our experience with the last president, republican president, that we moved the deputies through very, very rapidly. now, the republican senators who continue to block us from consideration this well-qualified nominee out to just sto step forward and explain why they feel it's justified to continue leaving america without a crucial resource we need to combat terrorism and keep the country safe. instead of just doing this anonymously, they ought to step forward and say, why can't we have a deputy attorney general, the number-two law enforcement

position for the whole united states of america? so i'm going to ask in a few minutes unanimous consent for a time agreement to debate this nomination and finally have a vote in the full senate. now, i've alerted the distinguished ranking member of the judiciary committee that i will a.b.a. doing that in just a moment. those who oppose the nomination are free to say why and they can vote no. but let's end the stalling. what you've got now with this -- with the number-two law enforcement official in the country, you have people say, well, we don't want to vote yes. we don't want to vote no. we just want to vote maybe. madam president, we all got elected to a six-year term, with everything that goes with it, to vote "yes" or vote "no." not to vote "maybe." voting "maybe" is not serving the interests of the united states. president obama nominated jim

coe to be deputy attorney general on may 24. that was six months asmgh month. and i thank the judiciary committee's ranking member jim session for working with me to schedule a hearing when the senate was preparing for elena kagan's hearing. the problem was not with the senator from alabama. he helped we move forward with that in the committee. and i wish we could have proceeded in the same spirit in the senate. as thetorum deputies -- deputy attorneys general wrote, "because of the responsibility of the position of deputy attorney general, votes on the nomination for this position usually proceed quickly. they also note that of the 11 nominations that filled the position over the last 20 years --" 11, all 11 from republican and democratic presidents, none remained pending for longer than

32 days. indeed, all four of the deputy attorneys general who served under president bush, three of whom signed the letter we received yesterday, were confirmed by the senate by voice vote -- by voice vote -- an average of 21 days after they were reported by the judiciary committee. prior to that time, i would note democrats had the majority and controlled the senate. did it by voice vote. in fact, we confirmed president bush's first nomination to be deputy attorney general the very same day it was reported by the committee. now, we got to treat the nomination of jim coe with the same urgency and seriously with which we treated president bush's nominations of larry thompson, james comey, and mark phillip. we should reject the strategy of some senate republicans of elevating the partisan goal to

weaken the obama administration, especially when dhow did in a way that weak nls the united states. in november, over four months after mr. cole visa sponded to written questions following his confirmation hearing, suddenly two senators sent him additional follow-up questions on a topic that was covered extensively during the earlier questioning. two weeks ago mr. cole promptly answered even these additional questions even though they had been covered months before. so there's no reason for republicans to continue blocking the senate consideration of this nomination. jim cole served as a career prosecutor at the justice department for a dozen years. he has a well-deserved reputation for fairness, integrity, and toughness. he served under both republican and democratic presidents. he clearly demonstrated during his confirmation hearing months ago, he understands the issues of crime and national security

that are at the center of the deputy attorney general's job. the nomination received strong endorsement from republican and democratic public officials, from high-ranking veterans of the justice, including the letter to the senate leaders yesterday from eight former deputy attorney generals who served in the administration of president reagan, president george h.w. bush, president clinton, president george w. bush, as well ages the current administration. former republican senator jack danforth, who worked with jim cole for more than 15 years, described mr. cole to the committee as someone without an ideological or little agenda. -- or political agenda. through the months of delay of this nomination have been unnecessarily debilitating and wrong. so at this time i note that my

colleague from alabama is on the floor. i propound the following dwuct request. -- the following unanimous consent request. i ask unanimous consent as if in executive session that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, following consultation with the republican leader, the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 1002, the nomination of james michael coe to be deputy attorney general, there be two mors of debate with respect to the nomination, to with the time equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the judiciary committee, that upon the use or yielding back of such tiernlg the senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the nomination, that upon confirmation, the the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate then resume legislative session.

the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. sessions: madam president, reserving the right to object, and i will object. i first would thank, thank my colleague, senator leahy, for the courtesy as he's moved forward with this. he's a relentless chairman pushing forward with these nominees, and i respect his responsibility and his belief that this nominee needs to move forward. frankly, it's about time, we need to fish or cut bait on it. i don't think an indefinite delay of it is a matter that is good for the country. this nomination does have controversy. most of the nominations the president has submitted did clear unanimously in our committee, but this nomination resulted in all the republicans on the committee voting against it. but as i understand it, our two leaders -- senator reid and

mcconnell -- are working at this moment to try to figure which nominees should move before we recess and hopefully before too many days, and perhaps this nominee would be in that group. but until those talks are complete, i would object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. a senator: madam president? mr. leahy: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, i'm disappointed. in other words, republicans are saying there is a double standard. all of their deputy attorneys general have been confirmed, most by voice vote within a month. this one has waited six months; can't even get a vote. at least have the courage to vote "yes" or vote "no." somewhere, sometime we've got to stop this voting "maybe." it allows everybody to go home

and say i may be here, i may be there, i may be blah, blah, blah, blah. that's what it amounts to. we are united states senators. have the courage to vote "yes" or vote "no." don't continue to vote "maybe" especially when talking about the number-two law enforcement officer of the united states. this is shameful. president bush's first deputy, reported him in the morning out of committee, we had him confirmed within 24 hours. this has waited six months. vote "yes," vote "no," stop voting "maybe." that is not a profile in courage in the united states senate. i yield to the the senator from maryland. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the recess start in two minutes from now. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. sessions: i object. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. objection is heard. mr. sessions: you said recess in two minutes?

mr. cardin: i'll be glad to make that longer. we have an order, as i understand it, to recess at 12:30. i wanted to make a brief comment. if the gentleman would like some time, i have no objection. mr. sessions: if -- the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask, a unanimous consent request to allow me tough five minutes when the -- allow me to have five minutes when the senator finishes. the presiding officer:. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. leahy: i certainly have no objection. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: we are talking about the number-two person in the department of justice. one of our responsibilities is to make sure that executive agencies perform their functions, and the judiciary committee has a responsibility to make sure the department of justice is doing its work. madam president, we, the judiciary committee, has recommended the confirmation of the deputy attorney general six months ago, and how can we

expect the attorney general to get the work done if we do not give him the help in confirmation process? we should have the courage to vote up or down a deputy attorney general. i really took this time because i find this amazing that jim coe coe -- jim kohl has not been confirmed. i've had experience of working with jim kohl in my official capacity as members of congress. he wasn't selected by me. at the time porter goss was the chairman of our committee, a republican from florida. and he worked with six of us in a very difficult investigation, and he brought the six of us together because of the professional manner in which jim kohl attacks any of the problems he's confronted w. he's not a

partisan. he's a professional. he's a professional who understands what it is in the department of justice and public service. he has worked for both democratic and republican administrations. he's been recommended by both democrats and republicans. he's not at all a partisan. he's the person that you would want to have in the department of justice, and that's why porter goss said that he found the work of jim kohl a brilliant prosecutor and extraordinarily talented. quoting from the republican from florida who, along with the democrats, were very proud of the professional work that jim kohl brought to a very partisan battle in the house of representatives. madam president, we should confirm this nominee. we should at least vote on this nominee. but to use this somewhat

backward approach to deny a vote on the number-two person in the department of justice is just wrong. i understand that senator sessions is saying we'll hopefully have an agreement before the end of this congress. quite frankly, this nominee came out in july. it's not like he came out of committee last week. he came out in july. this is an important position, and i think we have a responsibility to vote up or down this important part of the department of justice's ability to carry out its important mission. so, madam president, i'm disappointed that we had an objection heard on this nominee, and i would just urge everyone to make sure that this nominee is voted on prior to when we leave for this holiday recess. and with that, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: madam president,

the president and the attorney general need a deputy attorney general who can function, who has the confidence of the congress and the american people and will do an excellent, first-rate job. there's questions about this nominee. every nominee that's been nominated for the deputy attorney general or other positions in the department of justice by president bush was not just rubber stamped within a day or two. tim flannigan, i think a highly competent nominee, was opposed by democratic lawmakers aggressively after 9/11, and the president said, okay, and he withdrew him and sent somebody else up that was promptly confirmed. he didn't try to ram it down the throat. frankly, we've got a problem of confidence in the department of

justice. the attorney general himself, perhaps following the lead of the president, but himself is indicating on a number of different occasions a lack of commitment to vigorous action to prosecute terrorists who have attacked the country, and he's taken other steps. i would have liked to have seen a deputy attorney general who was not in that mold, but who is more of a career prosecutor that would help bring some balance there and bring to the attorney general some input from a more traditional view of the role of the attorney general as someone who prosecutes criminals, protects the united states, defends law-abiding americans from terrorists and criminals and thugs who attack them. i was an attorney general.

that's the approach i took. i hired people who worked for me who were proven prosecutors. but, mr. co le, for example -- mr. co le, right after 9/11 indicated his pwhrefrs were not acts of war but criminal acts. he wrote this in an article -- quote -- "for all the rhetoric about war, the september 11 attacks were criminal acts of terrorism against the civilian population." i don't agree with that. the american people don't agree with that. why would the president want to appoint somebody who thinks 9/11 was a criminal act and not an act of war? i think it's a big deal. so that's one of the reasons we raise. is he going to bring balance to attorney general holder or are they going to move further left on the approach to these issues? also, he was given a highly paid

position, i would note, as an independent monitor of a.i.g. this is the big insurance company whose credit default swaps and insurance stuff really triggered this entire collapse of the economic system. he was in the company at the time as some sort of government monitor, and he didn't blow the whistle on what was going on throughout this period of time. it is argued that, well, that wasn't precisely what he was there to monitor. i'll just quote this. sue ricenger of of corporate counsel, she wrote about his handling of that matter -- quote -- "it is as though co le were pakistan kelg cracks in the compliance walls and never noticed a.i.g.'s financial foundation was crumbling under his feet."

beatrice edwards of government accountability project criticized cole for failing to attack the atmosphere of laissez faire in the company. he hasn't -- has been criticized for some of the roles he had. i wish the president nominated somebody like larry thompson, who was deputy attorney general under president bush, who everybody respected and would go right through like a knife through hot butter. i yield the floor. mr. leahy: madam president, in a way -- in a way, the senator's making my point. if you've got questions about him, argue it, debate them, set a time and do it and then vote "yes" or vote "no." what we're doing now is you've

got a -- as some other prominent republicans told me, you guys are voting "maybe." you don't vote "yes." you don't vote "no." you've got all these issues, you hold them up so you don't have to vote on them. and then you can take any position you want back home. all i'm saying is vote "yes." vote "no." don't vote "maybe." we have too many issues around here, whether it's tax matters to don't ask, don't tell to nomination where we never seem to want to get to vote on them. we vote maybe, not yes or no. i know the distinguished senator from alabama has never hesitated to vote yes or no in committee and i commend him for that. many times we agree, a number of times we disagree. but he states his position: yes or no.

i'm i'm -- all i'm asking is he and i have voted in committee on this issue. i'm asking everybody else take a position. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: the chairman of our committee, he is doing what i would do, i'm sure, if i were in his place in saying let's give this nominee an up-or-down vote and let's have a debate about it. our leaders are working on that, and perhaps that can be accomplished before much longer. but there is a nominee that is that does have some controversy. i thank the chairman and would yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate the previous order, the senate

it would be the peace and iraq and it might be a very harsh peace is like ultimately to be imposed once again by the truckers say. we just have to hope that if that does happen, the new rollee a lot more benign. >> john burns, two-time pulitzer prize winner and longtime foreign correspondent for "the new york times" on the future of iraq, sunday night on c-span's q&a. speta pentagon has released its report on the impact of ending "don't ask don't tell." the policy that bans from openly serving in the military. look at the history of "don't

ask don't tell" on line at the c-span video library. search and watch programs outlining the debate and the arguments for and against. it is washington, your way. >> a live picture from the u.s. capitol where as we just mentioned, the senate is in recess until 3:30 this afternoon. the house is also in session today. we expect members to debate and vote on a censure resolution for new york democratic congressman charlie rangel later today. watch the house on our companion at work, c-span, the senate right here on c-span2. yesterday the debt and deficit commission released a report detailing their plan for financial stability. earlier today republican senators tom coburn and mike crapo talk to reporters about the recommendation. this is about 25 minutes.

>> everybody ready? alright, tom and i have put out a statement which i think you all should have now and we are both going to make reef remarks. our purpose for being here today to announce that we are going to support the debt commission report and encourage its adoption by congress. as we stated in our announcement, our debt crisis is a threat not just to our way of life but to our national survival. and the threat that we face is so real and so close that we do not have further time for gridlock or an action. it is necessary that we take strong, aggressive action now. in the near future if we take no action we could see a collapse in the value of the dollar, hyperinflation or other consequences that would force congress and this country to incur consequences and to take actions that are far more

serious and far more painful than anything in this proposal. as painful as some of the provisions in this proposal are. i want to talk for just a moment about what our current circumstance is. we agreed at the beginning of the deliberations of the debt commission to use cbo numbers. if you do that, he would note that the death of our nation has risen from 32% of our gdp, just about eight or nine years ago, 262% today. and the alarming thing is that if we continue on our current policies, that debt will begin to skyrocket. it is projected if we do not change our course, to hit approximately 90% in 2020 and grow as high as 180% by 2035. it probably will never hit that because if we don't take decisive action than the economy will and we will see the kinds of force consequences that will

change those dynamics in very very painful, difficult and damaging ways to every american. the reason that we are supporting this plan is because although it is not everything we wanted and although it contains things that frankly are painful to us and raise heartburn, it does take us dramatically down the path in the right directions toward addressing these issues. first and foremost it addresses the spending issue. under the proposal there will be definite hard caps on spending put into place and to just quickly summarize it will result in us returning to 2008 spending levels by 2013 and reaching a balance in our budget by 2035, but if you look at those debt numbers it will stop that skyrocketing debt that i just talked about and actually by 2035 return our ratios down to

41% of gdp, still not adequate or necessary but are different and far better than what we would see if we take no action. i think equally as important and one of the most beneficial parts of this plan in my opinion is that it doesn't only focus on tax policy, but it also focuses on revenue policy and does so in a way that does not continue our debate in congress and in this country over whether we should raise tax rates are reduced tax rates but instead engages us in tax reform. if we are going to strengthen our nation and preserve the american dream for our people, we need to have a strong, robust economy. yet if you look at our current tax code i'm not sure you could construct one that is more complex, more unfair, more costly to comply with and frankly as anti-competitive to our own businesses as our

current tax code. and we expect that the reforms that are proposed in this plan, which are some of the most dramatic and extensive reforms i have seen in my lifetime, to changing our tax code will help us to move to a more fair, less complex, a less costly and a more competitive tax code that will generate a stronger, more robust and more dynamic economy. and one of the other beneficial parts of this is that in using the cbo numbers, we have not projected the dynamic impact of that kind of tax reform on our revenue. in other words if there is a dynamic impact and we are both confident there will be, that additional revenue as a result of a stronger economy is locked in by this plan to be utilized for either further rate reduction or further debt reduction and is barred from being utilized to justify additional spending relief. it is these kinds of measures

among many others that cause me to be ready to support this plan. like i said at the outset, there is much in this plan with which i have problems, but there is a necessity that we move forward and this plan will get us on the way. as we bring this plan before congress, i am sure there will be need to adjust and to add to it. there are significant things missing from the plan that need to be included but as the debate about whether to add or adjust to this proposal, we must get started. i will and as i started by saying that the time for divisiveness, for gridlock and delay has ended. we must take decisive action now. thank you. >> thank you, mike. the best quote i have heard so far about this plan is the only thing worse than being for it is being against it from kent

conrad. and i think it is really accurate and it says a whole lot i am not typically a warrior, but i can tell you right now i am significantly worried about our short term future, not our long-term future. i think we are in a precarious balance. i think we are in a day of reckoning and it doesn't matter which political party it is or what your philosophical bent is, this is a starting point and that is all it is. it is a starting point. more will have to be done. there will not be one of american that is not called upon to sacrifice if we are to get out of the hole that we are in. the time for action is now. the threat is real. it is urgent. we cannot wait for another election. we cannot wait until we get more of what we want. there is more in this plan that i dislike than i like, but the

urgency requires me to put aside anything other than my constitutional obligation to try to get the federal government rained into the realm and the size and intent that it was originated upon. this bill does not cut spending near enough. we have documented for the press multiple times over $350 billion a year in wasteful spending, fraud. we didn't get there. we got 200 plus billion. we need to get more. attacks rights are not flat enough. they need to be flatter if we really want a robust economy and use both growth and common sense to get out of the problems we are in. the challenge is a matter of national survival. that does not understate the case. if you look at history, no republic has survived as long as we have and they have all failed

and they have all failed for the same reason. they lost control of their fiscal policies long before they ever were conquered. we see it today in our weakness and our foreign policy. we see it today in our weakness to finance our way and get out of the tremendous recession we have been in. all of those are having a detrimental impact, not only on our kids and grandkids, but us as well. be good news is there is not a problem in front of us that we cannot solve. the question is, will we take off our particular hats and work in the best interest of america to cure the real problems that a lot. we will take your questions. >> senators what does it mean to support this if you are also going to be changing and voting for more spending cuts or less tax cuts that congress? i thought the whole idea was it was a package. >> to begin with with you pass

this package and then you do more. this package does not solve our problems. it only cuts 4 trillion. we need to cut 10. and we need to grow the economy, and the flattening of the rates further, lessening the duplicate programs. you know the real essence in terms of looking at america individual initiative and self-reliance has been replaced and the all many instances by dependency and reliance upon government. and the thing that helped the country was that self-reliance and individual initiative and individual responsibility. we have to get back to that or can see. >> let me just add to what tom said and make an exclamation point on it. this plan is a package and it does come as a package but it is not the end. it is the beginning of the significant steps that we must

take and i believe every member of the commission recognizes that additional steps will be needed and tom and i are already committed on a number of those we believe are necessary to continue advocating for them. >> what do you say to the anti-tax in your party like grover norquist who has are to come out a principle statement that seems to be driving a lot of opinion across the way. what do you say in response to that? >> the first thing i would say is our obligation to the country as a whole, not to any special interest group. number two is i don't think we write that pledge at all what this bill, at all. it may in a cursory look at the letter that we did, but if you look we are at about 92% tax reduction versus tax increase in the peace corps that dynamically

we are going to get more tax reduction then you have tax increase, so i don't believe we are in there and if we are in there so was ronald reagan because this tax plan is reagan on steroids that was passed in 1986. >> there are two quick additions to that. you always in every aspect of this plan, you have to look at what is coming if we do not take action. if we do not take action, the tax increases of this congress will face and probably have to pass are far greater than any kind of arguable tax increase in this bill. and secondly, we have put provisions in here, as i mentioned earlier, that if there is a dynamic impact on the economy which we are confident there will be, and a strong one, that the revenue generated from that is to be used for further rate reduction and for further debt reduction, which will all address those issues and i totally agree with tom that this is not breaking that pledge in any way. >> just to make sure everybody

understands, this is a starting point. if we pass this bill tomorrow doesn't get us out of the woods. everybody needs to understand that. it does not get us out of the woods. there are many more difficult choices that this country is going to have to make. we are going to have to do something with medicare. it is impossible. the health care, one of the objections of this plan is it doesn't address the health care costs and because there is a political reason why it can't, because we just had a bill passed that nobody was going to go for on the other side. but the fact is we are going to have to come back and we are going to have to have something like paul ryan's roadmap or something else innovating if we are to achieve any semblance of stability financially in this country, so this is the beginning. this is the start. it is not the end. >> you talked about the provisions in the plan that you think might be the most politically difficult for members of your party to accept.

>> no, i probably can't. it is not a day for politics. we don't have that luxury anymore. america needs to understand, there is not a luxury for politics any more. it is time for us to get our act together. we are really at war. we are on three fronts now, iraq, afghanistan and the financial tsunami that is facing us. and we need to bind together without a hat, without a philosophy and say what do we do to fix our country, and i said in my opening statement, it is going to come a lot quicker than anybody in this room thinks. all you have to do is watch what has happened in europe and we are not far away. >> you mentioned mr. ryan and you mentioned health care. this morning you indicated he would vote against concerns over the lack of health care. do you have any reaction to that? >> he is an independent member of the commission and gets to

vote the way he wants. i believe we will have to address that anyway and i believe this is the first step. i will tell you we have to start somewhere. and it can't be all my way. i would have written a totally different plan. i would have eliminated the income tax completely and we wouldn't have gone to a national sales tax. there wouldn't be a medicare tax or social security tax. we would not have done this at all. i can't have my way but our country deserves us to sacrifice like the call we are going to make to everybody else to sacrifice, to accomplish what we have to accomplish and that is to get out of this hole. ..

>> my initial observations are just like every other member of the commission, they are seeing pain, and they are seeing gain in the proposal. >> let me ask you a question. most of you know me. what would cause me to move from multiple principled positions over the last six years to accomplish what we need to accomplish? you think i'm fearful of what's getting ready to happen to us? i am scared to death at the potential that could unwind this country far greater than anything we've seen before and far sooner than anybody

imagines, and we have to send a signal to the international financial community. look at great britain. they came in, put in austerity pumght, -- budget, and now they are growing. austerity works. i can promise you i'll drive austerity like crazy because our kids and grand kids are worth it. >> can you tell us about the process when president obama created the commission they were thought to be political because there's lawmakers on it. i think people are surprised there's by partisan -- bipartisan support. can you tell us how you got to this point? >> at the outset, i was dubious. i have to give contribute to the six nominees of the commission who came in and in a nonpartisan way helped advance the members who are from the senate from the

house achieve that bipartisan approach, and now the position from the members of the congress were also hopeful we could do this, but having that sixth set of members who were not voting members of congress, in my opinion, actually helped significantly to move us in the direction of discussion to get us here. one of the early things that i think happened was as you recall at the outset there was a concern this commission might be a vehicle to create another taxing engine on top of the income tax in the country, and one of the early things that i think we were helped to achieve there was an understanding that that would not be helpful to solving this problem, and in fact, a major reform and overhaul of our tax policy to help us become more competitive globally would be the better step for the commission to take, and it's those developments in the deliberations that i believe moved us to this point. >> i also would say i believe

the members of the commission understand the severity of what we face, and failing to recognize that, and if the congress doesn't recognize that in this next year, no matter whether it's this plan or some other plan, if we don't act, we have shortened the timeline under which we have an opportunity act number one, and the consequences will grow daily that we will all suffer as americans if we don't act. >> just in terms of the looking ahead, there's -- [inaudible] the white house said yesterday they are looking to evaluate proposals for their budget's commission and ryan thought there was things in there worth borrowing for next year. what do you see as the core elements or principles that if this plan isn't sent to congress

this year should be carried over into the framework for next year? >> well, i hope we get to 14, and i don't think it's out of the question yet. if we don't get to 14, nothing stops us as a country whether it's through presidential or congressional initiative from considering all the provisions and proposals in this plan or pieces of them, and i'm confident that will happen in one way or another. i'm hopeful we'll create a strong dynamic as tom says that causes congress to act because for the very reasons he said, i agree, we do not have time to delay. in addition, though, i believe that the core elements that we must focus on are as i said at the outset, the spending controls. i'm a strong advocate with caps with very strong enforcement mechanisms to make sure congress is on a path that it cannot get off of without extremely strong

margins. secondly, i believe that putting a spending constraint in place and putting the enforcement process in place to keep congress on that spending path, we also need to address the second key big element which is to make our tax code more competitive and reform it in a way that will give us a much stronger and more dynamic opportunity for economic growth. those two pieces, i think, are the core pieces that we got to keep focusing on. >> senator, do you think this will get an up or down vote regardless of if it gets to 14? >> i'd like to see it. >> practically speaking if it gets to 14, is there time to draft proposals? could there be a vote? >> before -- [inaudible] >> the cochairs have got an

assurance from leadership in the house and senate that they will allow that process to go forward in the near future in the new congress. >> sometime early next year. >> what about john boehner? >> i know they got it from harry reed, i don't know about john boehner. >> i'm confident if we have the votes, the congressional leadership on both sides, this congress and the next congress, would give us the opportunity. >> senator, coburn, you know the president well, -- >> i have not talked to him in five or six weeks, and we have not discussed this, but this is his commission. i voted against this process. i think we have a commission, but the commission of the congress has failed to act as we've seen just this week. we ought to be acting on it, and so he set it up, it's his

commission, his report. it's what his commissioners gave him, and now we're going to be above a majority so i think it sends a signal. >> when you talk about the tax cut extensions, how does that fit in with the deficit? >> that's now, but the point is and what are the tax cuts extensions about? it's about not hurting this very fragile recovery, and by the time -- if you took where we are in this and traded that, i think you'd see a recovery if we put the reform to the tax rates especially the corporate tax rates into in in a -- into this in a way that ultimately builds greater revenues for the government, not through increased tax rates, but increased size of the gdp. >> let me make an observation on that.

a number of the economists reporting on deliberations to this reported one of the biggest impacts we could have on our economic growth in the country would be to adopt a plan and give the world economy the confidence that america was going to reverse and correct itself fiscal policy. whatever the conceptings in the plan -- concepts in the plan were. with regard to the tax questions you ask, i believe one of the important elements and one of the very positive elements of this plan is that if adopted, it would move us out of the debate of weather to raise or lower taxes and on what category should taxes be raised or lower, and instead moves us into a new dynamic of tax reform of how our tax reform should look in creating the kind of code as i said earlier, more efficient, less complex, less costly to comply with, and less competitive. this changes the dynamic from

the entire discussion we have in congress today over just rate levels. >> thank you all very much. >> thank you. >> senators coburn coming out of the deficits recommendations. the senate is out at the moment in recess so democratic members can attend a caucus meeting. they are back at 330 p.m. eastern and we'll have live coverage then. a picture of the capitol here where the senate is in recess until 3:30 this afternoon. the house is in session today with members voting on a senture resolution on charles rangel

today. john boehner criticized democrats for extending only the bush era tax cuts for the middle class. he refused to rule out the possibility of ruling out the extension of unemployment benefits if it was tied to all the bush tax cuts. we hear about republican ideas for changing the rules of the house. this is about 15 minutes. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everyone. >> good morning. >> on the floor today, the majority is holding a vote to raise taxes on american families

and small businesses, and the last thing our economy needs right now is a job-killing tax hike, and that's what their plan of theirs would mean. it's clear we need to get the economy going again and create jobs. we need to cut spending and stop all of the coming tax hikes. this is something that even president obama and democratic leaders at the white house the other day acknowledged. now we've got democrats trying to raise taxes, the white house saying they want the next few weeks to resolve this issue. listen, instead of beating around the bush, the act today, to stop the tax hikes, cut spending because it reduces the uncertainty that is affecting employers all around the congress and if the lame duck congress is unwilling or unable to cut the tax hikes, the new

majority in january will. that's what we said in the pledge to america. we meant it when we said it, and that's what we will do. this tax hike only validates the american people's repudiation of the washington and the politicians who refuse to talk to the american people. greg walden and members of the team with me here today have done a great job on focusing the house on fixing the problems here so the house can actually do the people's business openly and honestly, and i'm going to ask greg to talk both some of bsh about some of those issues in a moment. one of the changes i want to highlight is something i talked about in a speech this fall. today, the rules in congress are rigged to make it easy to increase spending and almost impossible to cut spending, and

one change is that we're going to propose is implementing what we call cut goat. this says if you intend to create a new program, you must also terminate or reduce spending on existing government programs of equal or greater size in the same bill. there was a weekend in september where half of the 85 suspension bills on the floor that week would never have made it there if cut bill had not been in place. it's an idea that came from my friend and colleague and about to be the next senator from missouri, roy blunt. his point that he made to me was this. let's turn the activists for big government on each other instead of letting them all gang up on the american taxpayer. i couldn't agree more. >> thank you, leader. as the leader said, the

transition team has been working hard. we got three task forces as many of you know, and our first piece of business was to work on our conference rule, so this week we made recommendations to our members to change the republican rules of the house. while these rules govern only our conference and will have more suggestions for the house rules later on this month, the changes we're proposing this week will substantially alter how congress spends its time. over the past four years as you've all witnessed rchlts the bills coming to the floor of the house have been an abusessive process and abuse of the americans trust for us to solve problems in a meaningful way. as the incoming speaker said, spending is too easy around here and growing government is too easy. we're requiring any new program to be elimination with the other. what's more, if you want to increase the authorization of a

program, reduce authorizations elsewhere in the government. i think most americans can understand and appreciate that, so the authorizers are unnoticed joust as the appropriators have been. next is significant restrictions on the scheduling of come memetive resolutions. if they knew we comeppedded the city of jacksonville, arkansas while there taxes are going to go up, they would send us packing. there's nothing wrong there, but this is not the message, this is not the work that the american people sent us here to do. with explosive deficits, spending out of control, and a horrible economic picture right now, they want us to change how congress operates, and spend our time focused on important

issues. the cocongressmentives will be dealt with in a specific way. we want to honor transpirn sigh and accountability. for the first time we're making our internal conference rules vail to the public online. we think this the people's house, and they should be able to see the rules under which congress is operating. we also hope the democrats will do the same by making their rules available to the public, and to you. now, i want to introduce rob bishop who served as the head of the working group on house and conference rules, really the force behind the changes, and has done a terrific job. please welcome rob. >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity being here realizing full well that the rules talked about are still a work in progress and conference will make the final decision, but it's an exciting

time. usually when we talk to people about process, your eyes glaze over, but you found out in the past few years that when you have good process, good policy results, and if there's a poor process, we continue to do what we've been doing over the last few years, so the process is significant. we will be talking about process changes in conference rules and house rules later and the protocols to get us to where we need to be, all of which have the sing lar goal in mind that members and public as well clearly understand what is before them. they have time to read, un, and time to digest the issues brought to the floor to talk to the american people and have rules in place presented today to reduce run away spending in washington. the new speaker boehner stated

he insists on making sure the committees are respected and enhanced my giving them time to do their work and ensuring what committees do will be transparent so the actions are posted within 24 hours, that there will be a time deadline for prenotice when committees are meeting and dedicate time for committee work when it's not interrupted and bring those actions to the floor and republicking the work -- respecting the work of the committees is extremely important. the deal specifically with suspension is a concept of getting extraneous material off the floor during floor time for substantive work that has been repeatedly abused in the past few years dealing with suspension so that if a suspension coming to the floor, we know the cost. it has offsets if it increases or thoses something and there's clearly something that has been approved by the majority of the committee. the third of the committee

objects to it, it probably will not be there, and at the same time, the minority has input into this process, and all of the honor solutions will be dealt with in another format. it will not consume the time of the floor when substantive issues and actually if you allow the sub tantive issues to be debated on the floor, it's a real debate with real amendments and real time taking place on the floor. as much as i love the details and boring concept of rules and procedures, this is exciting because i think we can change the direction congress takes and it can be more responsive to people and make this body work the way it was intended to work and allow members to connect with their constituents so they clearly understand what congress is doing to the people back home. thank you. >> mr. leader, -- >> i told mr. bishop on the way

in just because he inherited this suit from his grandfather, didn't mean he had to wear it. [laughter] but his hair looks good. [laughter] >> mr. boehner -- >> let me extepid my poag -- extend my apologies to chikhi rod rei goes. >> mr. leader -- >> yes, because you're being persistent. [laughter] >> what are the tax cut hearings meetings actually and the staking points -- sticking points if any if they hurdled, anything you can share with us in terms of what's going on with that in >> well, i think there are substantive discussions going on with the administration to stop all the tax hikes and to cut spending. i'm hopeful those conversations

will continue. >> is it deficit commission able to get 14 votes, would you agree to bring it to the floor next year? >> if hands and butts were candy and nuts, every day would be christmas. you'll have to ask the majority. >> is senator mcconnell predicted it's not a matter of whether all the tax cuts will be extended, but republicans extend unemployment insurance if that's part of extending all tax cuts for some period? >> we'll see. >> you're not ruling it out? >> this morning paul ryan said the one take away from the election is the third rail is no longer third rail. republicans were hit over entitlements across the country, and they won. do you share that? >> i do believe the american people except us to have an adult conversation with each other about the serious situations that face our country.

when you look at the promises us baby boomers made to ourselves, it's clear our kids and grand kids can't afford those promises. we have to have that conversation. we have to do it respectfully and honestly, but it's time to have the conversation, and i think the american people are expecting us to come forward with the conversation. >> does having this vote today sort of injure thousands of negotiations they are trying to do on monday or tuesday in the white house? >> trying to catch my breath so i don't refer to this maneuver going on today as chicken crap, all right? this is nonsense. [laughter] all right? the election was one month ago. we're 23 months from the next election and the political gains already started trying to start up the next election.

we had an honest conversation at the white house about the challenges that we face to get out of here and to take care of what the american people expect of us, and to roll the vote out today, it really just is -- it's what you thought i was going to say anyway. [laughter] >> can you give us a possible senture for today in >> i think it's important for the house to support the by partisan work of the ethics committee. the ethics committee had its share of problems over the last 10 years. i've worked -- i think along with the speaker, to try to make sure we have an ethics committee that works for the benefit of the american people, and the american people have every right to expect the highest ethical standards from members of congress, and this committee has gone through two years of real work, and they've

made recommendations to the house, and i think it's important for members on both sides of the aisle to support the work of the committee. >> when do you plan to bring the plan to the floor next week? have you seen the new proposal, what do you think? >> the american people want us to stop the looming tax hikes and stop spending. that should be the priority of the remaining days we have in this congress. thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> this is a live picture from a meeting of the national commission on the bp deepwater horizon oil spill and offshore

drilling. they are in a lunch break now expected to be back shortly. we'll have live coverage when they return. until they get started, here's the opening remarks of the commission leaders from earlier today. this is about 15 minutes. >> the oil and gas off our shores is an american asset. the american government is not just a regulator of offshore oil. it is also the steward for the american people of this asset. in a real sense, we have a landlord and have an obligation to respond with a public trust has been abused. president john adams said, "facts are hard things." there are some facts that i believe we have uncovered. one, investigation is determined there's fundamental weaknesses in the u.s. government's regulatory approach.

most americans would be surprised and disappointed as i was to learn that america lags behind other countries in how we regulate in oversea oil and gas exploration and production. this fact point towards the need for alternative strategies such as a commitment to safety procedures as a condition of drilling on seabeds which belong to the people of america. two, the oil and gas industry at large has an obligation to respond. it is not enough in my view to lay the view solely on a few rogue companies. the companies involved in this disaster are major players in the gulf and contractors used throughout the world. at last month's hearing, i was very impressed with the ceo of excon mobile and commitment to safety.

they must continue as strong advocates for new and more effective industry-wide regimes that complement federal government regulation and execution of lease conditions. three, america's current energy nonpolicy is unsustainable. with minimal awareness and virtually no considered debate, we have positioned ourselves as the user of 22% of the world's petroleum while we control just 3% of known reserved under america's lands and waters. this commission has a opportunity to speak to this radical imbalance which threatens our national security. last month, the head of our investigative team, mr. fred bartlett, put it well when he said, 100 years from now, we want the world to say they changed the safety regime in

offshore drilling. these were the words with the aspiration with one significant exception. the world should say this in 2011, not in 2110. as a nation, we have the opportunity to make this change. we have a chance to learn the lessons from this disaster in a way that our oil and gas industry is stronger, our workers safer, our environment healthier, and our national security more secure. finally, i would like to note that i am very impressed with what we've been able to accomplish without subpoena power. i remain mist fied as -- mystified why a few senators decided to deny the commission this power when subpoena power has been granted as almost an absolute for congressional commissions which have responsibilities to ours. when subpoena power has --

the lack of s&p power has -- subpoena power has made our commission's work more difficult. our success is a testament both to the determination and skill of our team and to the plain fact that the problems and dirt sighs with the -- deficiencies are egregious. we will post our findings and translate them into reforms worthy of our great nation. thank you. >> good morning. today marks the conclusion phase that the last time this commission will deliberate in public on our responsibilities, and we will consider throughout the course of the day the recommendations that the staff's work has presented to us and will advocate to us. i want to say that this is as good of a staff i have ever

worked with. i think it's a tremendous try di tribt in the resourcefulness and the investigative congeniality which marks their best work. the fact that we are as prepared as we are after just four or so months of work by the commission is a great tribute more than anyone else to the staff itself. today we'll have staff presentations and then deliberate on the safety culture on regulatory oversight on environmental review on drilling in the arctic and on oil spill response. i am struck myself by the evolution in my own thinking in

the course of the time i have spent on serving on this commission. i came into it persuaded as most people in the gas and oil industry may still be persuaded is that this was a case with a company with at least a 5 year safety challenge and misbehavior, and that we were dealing with essentially a rogue company. i think it has been conclusively and indisputely established, we have a bigger problem than that. three major companies that senator graham just observed is there questionable with the decisions made on the rig, and the conception what macondo was the consequence -- >> leaving this portion to go live now to a meeting of the

national commission on the bp deepwater horizon oil spill. this focuses on a environmental review of the incident. live coverage on cell c-span2. >> there's a slide show on what we've been talking about this afternoon. we talked about safety so far, and there's three pieces to the safety equation. there's occupational safety, process safety, and environmental safety. now, this morning we've mainly been talking about process safety to the extent that that includes occupational safety, and what i mean, by that is the practices, the drilling practices and that also includes unintended hydrocarbon surges, and then in terms of occupational safety, death,

injuries, ect.. this afternoon we are talking about environmental safety, and of course, the goal here in terms of regulation is to minimize the impact on the environment so that the oil and gas activity that is taking place has the minimal impact, and not to surprisingly, all these things really are related because if you have good business practices and good process safety, and if you're not having accidents, occupational safety, the odds are high that you're also not having environmental accidents or big impacts. these things are related, and i don't want to make them too separate because of how important they all are and work together. we'll try to focus on the environmental piece. oamp the last dfer over the last several months, we talked to a wide variety of people of the review process undertaken by the department of interior and other

agencies involved in those reviews before key decisions get made. we had the p opportunity to -- we had the opportunity to listen to noaa, former mms directors, and others involved in the structure over the years painting a picture for us how the various laws interact, and we're talking about different agencies with different statutory jurisdictions and areas of expertise. it's a complicated area, but we focused on the questions of how the national environmental policy act, how these processes have been incorporated into decisions made by mms. we have focused on how other agencies have been involved in influencing those decisions, commenting on major actions through the nepa process and offering their expertise and advice, and we have focused on the extent to which the mms

science process and their plans and their programs have basketball adequately and accurately focused on those questions where decisions need to be made by regulators. that's been our principle focus, and in addition to agency people and in washington, d.c. and new orleans and alaska, we've also had rather extensive conversations with scientists. we have talked to scientists in universities, in agencies from industry, from ngo's to better understand from their perspective how science is being used, and how the use of science could be improved in a decision making process both in the preleasing, the five year planning process, the specific lease process of issuing permits, but also in the oil spill response process that requires a lot of information

and probably should require better science, so all of these various conversations with agency people, with scientists, with ngo's, and our studying the various decision points within the agency has led us to a few specific recommendations that i think we need to discuss today as possible recommendations of the commission, and again, primarily it focuses on these the review process. at what level should the environmental assessments or environmental impact statements or the categorical exclusions which became sort of the normal business practice in the gulf of mexico, how those processes should be modified or strengthened, how the reviews and the inner agency consultations should take place to take advantage of the other

agencies whether it's noaa or the coast guard or anyone else, and how to device a more robust oil spill planning process to have better results than what was experienced in the gulf of mexico. i'll stop there. >> thanks, frank. shirley? >> to the slides, did you want me to leave the structural slide up for discussion here? >> i think it would maybe help. >> the last slide from the session before lunch shows the office of environment and science off as sort of a sister agency to the office of leasing and resource management, and i think that is a good spring board into the discussion of how we view the role of environmental and scientific reviews and the decisions that need to be made by mms, now boem, or whatever it ends up

being called. >> shirley, do you want to talk about why that separation? >> as we talked about earlier, the office of leasing and resource management has geologists and economists responsible for assessing what the economic value is of these resources that the government is proposing to lease, and that's its focus, specialized in that area, and that's what it does. the environmental side of this is what are the, you know, the scientists, the environmental studies programs, the marines, the biologists, the same people in the agency right now have a different set of expertise and responsibilities. it's their job to inform the process at the beginning of the five year planning stage and throughout with regard to nepa and the various environmental considerations there and whatever stipulations might need to be applied to leases in areas

where there's a decision to go forward and lease, but with certain caveats. there's different competencies, and they have different goals. they should have different cultures too. that's the view of the staff. >> let me address that briefly. i think our objective here is to really figure out how to make environmental review much more robust than its been up to this point in the department of interior. the question is how best to do that? there's two arguments you can make. one argument would be to separate the environmental review from the leasing process and senator, this is to your point earlier about money has a lot of money on the process, so the more separated they are, for example, taking the environmental science review up to the independent sachet and vierpt -- safety and environmental authority would not have a

connection under the same assistance secretary who is responsible for the leasing, so there's an argument to separate quite distinctly from the other leasing decisions. the other way to consider it is with the proposal identified here is to separate it into a separate office, have a distinct director of that office who would be a chief scientist for the agency, to would be the voice of science in the leasing decisions, and structured in a way that scientific information in the environmental review would actually inform the leasing decisions. i think that our impression from the review that we did is the leasing decisions are pretty much made, the ne prk a review is formal in the decision making, so here we need to discuss what's the best model to ensure that the information on the marine resource and on the

as a vulnerability of the station when the lease is defined, what's the best way to affect that to have them talking together by separate it enough so that the science and environmental review voice is strong and has an impact were separated even further so there's real independence in the view with a totally different director, and as i said, i think there's pros and cons to either approach with the underlying premise that in all cases, and i'll just put this in the context. since the spill, the president in july announced the new ocean policy that directs all the agencies to confer inner agency planning process to determine what's the best way to manage

our ocean resources, so policy has actually moved forward since the spill on the oceans and we should factor that in as well. don, do you have a view of how best to structure? >> well, yes, i think you framed it well. it's a decision whether you agree to make it independent or part of the integral decision making, and i come down in the end it really needs to be housed pretty much as you described it with a working connection to the decision making so that the decision making is informed by the environmental science that's conducted by the program and also synthesized, but we learned from the past particularly with respect to what this tragedy reviewed is the kind of consultations with the other parts of our government which have expertise in environmental

responsibilities and environmental stewardship haven't been what they should be, and i think what we need to make sure what we recommend is there's a real partnership as you said under the national ocean counsel, but it ought to be b mandatory and not advisory that other agencies know in particular they have major resource responsibilities for the ocean, our nation's ocean, ought to be at the table involved not only in the consultation and assessments, but in the studies conducted to better inform decision making. >> uh-huh. >> fran, can i ask a question 1234? >> the one environmental authority, would that be exclusively for offshore isle and gas or -- oil and gas or is that generally for all safety and environment under the department of

interior? >> here it would be exclusively for offshore and the safety and environmental authority. it would have enforcement authority for any environmental stimulations placed on the leases, any permits, ect., that the leases were subject to that the interior had responsibility for. >> second question down in the right hand conner, it says the office of natural resources revenue, royal collection and auditing, change was effective 10/1/10. where is that? >> that's the box over to the left under the secretary for policy management and budget. that's the revenue group that i think you were suggesting earlier maybe to go over to the treasury department. >> does this secretary collect revenue for only offshore oil

and gas or other offices in the department of interior in >> i don't know, i'll turn to shirley. >> that office collects the royalties for all federal lands on on shore and offshore and other minerals. it's all revenues of any sorts, royalties. >> any revenues. >> from federal lands and indian lands. >> and again, what is the -- what's the particular competence of the department of interior to have that responsibility? >> i would say that they have developed the competence over time by congress under the various statutes that directed the secretary of interior to engage in these activities and collect the revenues from them. >> i mean, my impression is just the opposite, that they have

shown a pattern of incompetence whether it was collecting for the indians or collecting leases offshore, and so what, again, what's the rational of putting this revenue collection function in the department? >> i would -- well, as far as, the congress made these decisions, you know, in the 50s with regard to the offshore. the secretary moved it. i can't explain. i didn't do the research on the rational of continuing of the auditing in the department. that wasn't part of my -- this is not our redges. -- recommendation. this is just reflecting what the department has already done. >> oh -- >> this box is showing what they have done, and we are accepting

it and endorsing it. >> okay. >> the area of change is the other two boxes, the environment authority and safety and separating the leasing office into two, one which would be group the geologists or actually doing the leasing plan and the other would be separating out the environmental review and environmental science capacity with the chief scientists, and that could be here at the office or up at the independence safety and vierpt -- environmental authority which i think is the decision we need to make a recommendation on. i think number one the recommendation should be they should be separated and number two the recommendation should be there should be a chief scientist, and then the decision on number three would be whether continue to have a leasing office or move it into the independent authority, and

honestly if an independent authority was created, putting the environmental responsibility all together there, i mean, they still need to be connected because the safety authority has to know what's happening in the leasing operation, but it would give them more independence. do you agree with that, don? >> i do. >> shirley, maybe you want to go on the next slide, the recommendations regarding the environment? >> okay, great. the staff has three recommendations related to the striermt as part of -- environment as part of regulatory oversight. em le is the -- emily is the lead person who came up with this, but she's on her onny moon in australia. the federal government should seek to reduce risk by strengthening science in the ocs

oil and gas decision making process. more specifically on strengthening science, the joint government research program should systematically collect data and fill research gaps to authorize ecosystems and processes, and by joint government this includes all agencyings that have a role and have scientific research activity in this area. the environmental studies program should be reviewed by the national academy of sipeses every five year -- sciences every five years. they developed monitoring protocols implemented by industry and former responses by other agencies and now the agency doesn't provide a formal response, and we're recommending that that be required. >> mr. chairman, i note that we all have come to the conclusion that there's a lot of science that is being done, but it is not all being coordinated or

synthesized in a way that makes it possible for people to understand what the implications of the science is or how that information should guide decision makers, regulators, or for that matter, private participants in this industry so i think the idea is with increased consultation and coordination, we will be able to get more bang for the buck out of the dollars we are spending in federal research in this arena. it's fair to say and should be put on the record that the secretary of interior taxed us with doing a gap assessment of the science which is due in march, i think, march or april of next year, so there will be a comprehensive look of some of the questions we've been asking which is, you know, is there enough science for the arctic where a lot of this issue currently is very hot topic is how adequate is the science, how

much do we know, and how much do we need to know for good decisions to be made, so there are things in process which we shoild recognize and -- should recognize and appreciate. there's a lot of science being done and a lot of focus on this, but there's a lot that can be improved by having a more formal structure for both the scientist s and research coordination and the relevant expertise in the decision making process. >> there's a final aspect to this on strengthening the consultation, and at one of the earlier sessions, we went through a series of options of different ways that agencies consult with one another, and we're recommending that the formal consultation with noaa at both the five year program stage and at the leasing stages, and we put up here the list of the various different options and

narrowed it down to e and f and somewhere in that range seem to be where the general consensus was, and if you'd like to speak for specifically to that, i'll leave this slide up. >> essentially, what we're dealing with here is an agency with expertise authority, scientific capability, and has commented without effect, without having been taken seriously at least in their own view on leasing proposals for quite a considerable amount of time meaning, noaa and therefore the solution is to require when they do make comments, the receiving entity has to respond to those comments. it doesn't have to take the comments. this is not a veto, the decision of the authority still remains with the boemre, but they have to show that they have reacted to, rejected, accommodated the

comments, and if they do not, then the noaa comments are the default position; is that correct? okay. >> the recommendation would be that basically noaa's recommendations would have to be -- would be the structural default unless there was a strong rational explained specifically by the interior department. i think one of the things we learned is that noaa has participated in part, not as fully as i think we would envision, partially because the recommendations haven't received full consideration so if there was more of a defined partnership with a more robust role for noaa, they would participate fully and there would be more information available at the very early stage before money flows which i think is the critical issue here is that environmental review needs to be done in areas of

significance or anything that would alter the way a particular subsea area would be managed need to be identified prior to lease actually being sold. once it's sold, it's very hard to put those kind of stipulations on, so we're trying to push the whole process forward more so that the lease is aware of what the limitations and issues might be when they actually buy the lease. >> deputy secretary hayes said yesterday, noaa would be a cooperating agency. under those circumstances i suppose they don't exactly make comments, just share in the decision; is that -- does that work differently than the conventional proposal? >> maybe shirley or scott can talk to this. cooperating is more than just

submitting comments. >> right. >> there's more to the relationship. the relationship here goes several stages further than just the cooperating underneath that. i think this would actually require an executive order directing this relationship between the two agencies or an amendment to the ocs that defines noaa's role specifically. >> do you recall there's precedent for this where comment was required and if responses are also obligated that has consequences. that causes them to be taken seriously. >> yeah, she landed the federal power act. >> federal power act. okay. i remember their presentation. >> i was just a little bit concerned about what this structural default means i mean, because option e is clearly requiring must consult with and provide reasons for deaf deviating, but option f includes

that process but basically says unless the agency comes back with compelling reasons of the position of the agency rules so extensively if this means that noaa puts in a comment that an area shouldn't be leased, then it's on the agency to come back and say, well, we disagree for the following reasons, but that's actually -- if it's followed through in form, that's included in option e as well, so i'm not quite sure what we gain by this? >> it's more proof under f than e because the agency or in this case the interior would have to say not only do they disagree and here's why, but that following the -- >> it would be inconsistent with some legal duty that they have. >> as opposed to some other reason for disagreeing.

>> right. >> i'm not sure i would go that far. >> that's what f says though. >> yes, i see that. i think e sounds more administratively understandable and efficient. >> did the subcommittee -- >> i think we had language that was in between the two that we were looking at that maybe we could share again for that commission. >> we actually had this conversation -- >> i think it needs to be mandating, but it's difficult to take a responsibility away from an agency. >> that's why we had the conversation with deputy secretary and his colleagues that there ought to be a single decision maker that's sufficient. we ought not try to build in more than one, and if they have to respond to public comments publicly, that's a pretty strong indication or incentive for them to take them seriously. >> interesting question is when the other agency has a statutory

man date to protect a resource as noaa does, and if they made the determination of proposed action that interior would undermind their fulfilling statutory mandate and by that decision you get a very interesting conflict zone, and i think that may be what f was trying to get at that you have competing statutory responsibilities in some cases, not just one agency owning a whole field particularly in offshore drilling seeing that noaa is the ocean agency, you know, you could see how that could be a serious conflict. >> right. these are provisions that are allowed underneath. we just didn't make this up; right? >> these are actually -- >> these are -- >> options, you know what i mean? >> that could be adopted, right. >> the action in the subcommittee is it would be

somewhere between the two, but we have a language -- i don't know if anyone has it here. >> let me say that i think -- >> i don't know where it went. >> i think we should avoid in our recommendation the word consultations because that's such an umbrella, and if we're going to have some merger of e and f, that merger needs to be inserted in lieu of the word consultation so we know what we're recommending. >> we can send some recommendations -- >> yeah, maybe before tomorrow we can revise that language earlier. >> okay. >> they have to take action to solicit comments deviating from the interested agency, no? >> i think on that point, these were friedman's examples of

generic agencies. we wanted to make a recommendation specific to noaa so it's not as big as this but a particular relationship between noaa and the department of interior, so let's look at that language before we finish up tomorrow. .. the nepa review for the five-year leasing program, and for. >> a co-proponent of the action,

right? >> no, the nepa progress. >> not have nepa itself? >> no, it is a cooperating in the environmental review, but not in the least decision, doing a document that is informing the least. >> okay, but it has to, if it is responsible for environmental impact assessment it is a proponent of an action. it affects the quality of the environment, right? i think it is so that point is implicated i think. >> that is interesting. >> i hadn't really thought about it that way. i had been thinking about it as an author adding value in terms of the substance of the analysis of the environmental impact associated with particular projects. i hadn't really thought of it somehow transferring into this other zone of being an advocate, so i actually want to think about that a little bit.

>> the only entity that is required to submit a statement is responsible for the action being proposed underneath so. >> if i could, not being a lawyer i would still point out that the five-year planning processes where the government looks, scopes a number of different areas to determine whether or not they want to be included in the five-year leasing plan. that is where the environmental review as to what will be least is most critical. that is why the recommendation that no of be in cooperating agency at that stage, that is where its voice will be heard with regard to where there will be leasing or not, and if there is leasing, what stipulation should go in the plan? then when you get to the individual leases, and because a lease sale is proposed in a five-year plan does not mean that it will actually take place. it means it can take lace. if it is not in the plan, it

can't. it has to, the area has to be considered at some, in some future plans so this is the planning part where noaa's use or all the other agencies are most critical with regards to whether there will be leasing. >> but there is the individual lease sale and associated as well. >> yes and that follows, but i would just remind you, let me skip back here. we have this chart. i have lost it. it shows that there aren't number of different stages for the environmental review and offshore development, and this state, at the five-year plan, is where any government and our government this is where we decide what we are going to lease and we make an assessment of you know, the resources that are available and we make an assessment or environmental or other considerations, complex with fishing or whatever, we are

not going to lease there. this is the point, so the recommendation to have noaa as a cooperating agency, as the standard procedure and by law, was to ensure that that input was there and part of the decision. >> shirley, what is noaa's role in the five-year plan? >> noaa has the option of choosing to participate as a core operating agency. it does mean that it is a co-author than of the nepa document. what mms has said -- my understanding is it is an agencies option to do that. mms has said we are happy to have corporate image and sees that they want to make sure they do as much of the work. in other words it is a real burden and this is a challenge for noaa. noaa is another one of the agencies that has you know, in many parts to its mission. it is not well resourced and in

fact they have told us in the number of discussions, you have all met with them too, that has been one of their problems. they just haven't had the ability to participate in all of these, whereas if they are --. >> i think that argues why to define their authority more strongly, because i think the view has been we spend all this time and we put in our comments and they are ignored. we have very little resources. we have to put them on something where they have an impact. if you give them more authority and a greater voice than it is worth their while to actually do the analysis and identify what their areas of interest or concern might be. >> this goes back to the overall recommendation that these agencies that should have a role in these activities should be recognized as having that role. it should be in statute, and they should be funded appropriately to be able to perform that role. i think nancy subtly brought that out very well in our hearing back in office -- august

and the congress and administration have to recognize these resources have to be available. >> and there are situations and i gather they are not uncommon, when mms would actually finance in no activity and i've heard them take credit for that. that is discretionary with mms, when they want to finance -- finance noaa's involvement in doing studies in research? >> there is the environmental studies program, which i think david boesch can speak to better than i can. >> just to bring this to a point, i am hearing around the table that there is an agreement that noaa's role is to be mandatory and ought to be substantive. it ought not to have veto authority and it need not be a proponent of the action so i think we can craft something around that. i agree we need to get there. i did want to say a little bit about what you just asked the chairman reilly about the environmental studies aspect,

because i actually was involved in the early part of my career in doing some of the studies myself and actually was a member of the scientific advisory committee and chaired it for a few years some years ago, and it is a program that actually increased very rapidly in the early days, when it was announced for expanded leasing around the country, but after the moratoria -- moratorium, the areawide moratoria around the country and the driving force for information that is necessary for developing dis and so on subsided, the program has dwindled, and so until just recently when it took a little uptick again in terms of budget and it dwindled down to about a third of the level it was in terms of dollars, the that it was at its high points which was about $55 million back in 75.

and to put it in real terms, in inflation-adjusted terms that is 10% of what it was at the highpoint. meanwhile, we have gone into, you say okay we are working in these historically developed areas in the information need isn't there but as we now know it is not true because we have expanded into a new territory, the deep gulf of mexico. and i think what we have seen as a result of this incident is that we came up short in terms of understanding the risk and vulnerability of that environment. when we could not as a nation are agency or as a community even to ask asa questions about where the deep water was flowing you know when this oil was spewing out of the well then putting out this plume of oil droplets, we knew very little about that. we knew very little about what was flowing much less the biological effects and the complex interrelationships within that ecosystem. so i think the lesson learned is that we have developed this

massive activity in an area we knew very little about. and on top of that, the expansion now into the bull ford and the chukchi sea and then on top of that event, the agency's responsibility for development of renewable energy and all of them for mental issues associated with that. you have to conclude that this resource is provided for the studies program are woefully inadequate. so i am very pleased to see the recommendation about listing that is part of the program. i think also it makes sense just as we talk about in terms of the environmental assessment to have that coupled with the decision-making on leasing so you will see in the chart, there is, what is it called? science, yeah environment and science office and leasing and resource management, so that there is a linkage and a coupling to inform decision-making. but just as we discussed with respect to environmental

assessment and evaluation, so with the studies program they ought to be a partnership with the other federal agencies, in particular in this case, not only with noaa but also with a very powerful science agency within the interior of usgs which has great expertise not only about the geological resources but also about certain elements of the living resources so, i think we are thinking about making recommendations along those lines to basically still leave interior and boem or whatever we are now going to call it with that responsibility but having a strong recommendation that it ought to be done in partnership. i have to say also that one of the things we have also learned if we didn't know it before from this spill was the tremendous scientific capacity that exists in my sector and the academic sector in the research laboratories, that they need to be involved in this process as

well so there are programs like the national ocean partnership program which existed to bring academic scientists and federal scientists and energy folks together to work on these kinds of problems. i would like to see some recommendations crafted along those lines to put them a little bit more meat on the general recommendations about boosting this environmental studies program. and his friend mentioned, the needs, information needs really ballooned by me go to the arctic areas and areas that we don't have this history of development and are going to put a substantial demand on our ability, not only monetary ability, financial ability that our intellectual ability to address these questions and to protect the sensitive environments and exploit the resources in a safeway. >> i would also point out that, in particular renewables offshore, wind, department of

energy national are important for this research partnership. >> i agree. is there any further discussion on this? >> i will move to the next recommendation as a continuation. this staff recommends that doi, nepa policies practices and procedures should be revised in strength and to improve the level of environmental analysis, transparency and consistency at all stages of the eeoc is planning leasing, exploration and development process and to meet statutory and compliance. improving the nepa process includes one and administrative but important issue of developing and making maple implementations ham but. that was one of the things that

was identified has not occurred yet in the agency. secondly an environmental impact statement should be conducted for exploration plans in development and production plants in frontier areas. it is not an eif in every case in areas that are more known where there is more experienced but certainly in frontier areas it is a staff recommendation. and, we are moving the 30 day deadline for approval of exploration plans. there has been much discussion about that, but one of the issues here is there really isn't enough time, especially when you look at the sensitivities in the environmental issues. >> to reflect on purposes the areas of eastern gulf in the arctic, that where it is right now? >> the commission and staff have had many discussions and there was no clear definition. >> in the central and western gulf? >> unknown geology and areas where there is not experience.

>> a frontier area can be in an existing area? >> unknown geology. >> do we make a recommendation about this 30 day period? >> we are recommending we do make recommendations, that the recommendation from the staff is that the 30 day deadline should be removed and it should be, application should not be deemed submitted until all and berman took consultations are complete. as far as the timeframe, the department has recommended 90 days. assuming they are not complete until all the documents are there and then they have asked for 90 days as a reasonable time period. >> you have to have a deadline otherwise people go on sabbatical for a year. >> in this list of a summary of all recommendations, which number talks about the 30 day

deadline? >> we have concluded that under recommendation number two. >> it is on page 7. >> he has a different one. >> it is in your --. >> so 90 is what you are proposing? >> well, that is what the department has told us as a reasonable timeframe and they are responsible for the actions. >> nepa certainly has deadline so it is reasonable to line them up. >> these are exploratory wells. these are new, unknown areas. that is why they are exploratory and there are more details to look at. >> right, to be submitted by the operator, by the industry, right? >> if the commission endorsed the recommendations of staff were accepted with regard to

having a risk approach and a risk management safety case type demonstration before these than all of this would be part of a whole and there would be the need for about that amount of time, to discuss the plan. >> sounds good. >> and the other discussion on that? >> this is a procedural concern. i am trying to track what we are talking about with this proposed recommendation list. there is going to be a new list of proposed recommendations coming out on monday i gather. will this language be in the monday version? >> senator, the draft that we have to circulate, the one you are referring to us their first consensus effort to find out whether our general recommendations were in the ballpark. we have put them on the slides to walk through now and they

think that as you complete your deliberations we will to the extent we can narrow them down to refined language so the more you can tell us in the more you can define what you want in the recommendations the easier it will be for us to do that. >> as a stylistic matter we have a number of recommendations that begin with the words, the federal government should do something. that is an awfully big universe, the federal government. where we can, we have to be more specific, like the department of interior so we know which of that big universe we are focused upon. >> i completely agree on that. >> is there some reason why we are using the words, the federal government? >> well, one, there was some discussion earlier in your meetings about whether or not he wanted a responsibility to stay

within the department of interior. >> we shouldn't be vague about that so we should say, this should be the department of interior or if we have another suggestion we should say that just to leave it the federal government is i think unnecessarily. >> i think in a language you are looking at i don't have that document in front of me but it may relate to the fact that when we are talking about the environmental reviews and the environmental science, it was hard to capture all of the agencies that might be relevant, and so i think they read defaulted to the federal government whereas they think in other places we clearly said more specifically, is it that situation? >> we say the federal government should produce a risk rum osce oil and gas activities by strengthening science and technology, interagency consulting so we are truly talking about more than one

agency but i think we mean the department of interior should seek to reduce the risk and one of the strategies to do that is interagency consultation. >> okay, i see. i apologize. i hadn't gone back to that language. but we are saying that the federal government as a whole, and they think as commissioner ulmer and commissioner boesch have spoken to is a science program cuts across many areas. >> in that recommendation it might be the overarching driver for the federal government, and a lot of that comes out of the national awesome policies so if you are going to say federal government you might want to refer to that in the policy as the driver. >> they should actually seek to reduce the risk and that should be in overarching mandate affairs carrying out the new

policy. >> the federal government is advised by the national ocean council. >> makes sense. >> okay. >> and then later on you get into the more specifics of the interior and no etc.. >> reclamation two, we are clearly talking about the department of interior and its nepa policies. you want to move on to the third wax again we are back to the federal government should create a rigorous transparent and meaningful oil spill risk analysis and planning process and here we are clearly talking about the department of interior, the u.s. coast guard, other federal agencies, epa. >> noaa, very specifically. >> definitely. >> that would be doi in partnership with no?

pie will just say that on this issue, you are going to have a lot of discussion here about what agencies are involved and who should be engaged where and to what extent. from my standpoint we were looking at what the department of the interior and minerals management service was doing, what it out its responsibilities were with regard to risk studies, risk analysis and planning when it dealt with the operators when they were proposing exploration and development plans. it is the view of the staff working on this particular issue that you need to really consider why the coast guard and other agencies were not actively reviewing these spill response plans. clearly we have identified that and i will go through this list, that there needs to be improved regulations, guidance and the

review process for these oil spill response plans. there has been criticism that mms wasn't reviewing these or that they weren't giving them to the coast guard. we were told in meetings with the staff that they have been sending them to the coast guard but they weren't reviewing them. >> i thought they were simply entered into the federal register a. had thought that was the coast guard's answers to that question. >> okay. >> it may not be correct. >> whether the coast guard should have eventual responsibilities and whether other agency should be involved and we are suggesting there should be more guidance and interagency review by epa, noaa and the u.s. coast guard. that is the second bullet here. >> i for one would like to see a requirement that the u.s. coast guard approved plans. it is the coast guard on the frontline of actually having to supervise and in some cases clean up after the failed response effort. i just think it is unrealistic

for agencies to simply kind of tip their hat, saying all yeah we understand the u.s. coast guard needs to get a copy of this but they are the ones on the frontline who are doing battle. the same thing for epa and disbursements. i think the current system is far too passive. far too passive in terms of the expertise and other agency responsibilities that are involved. >> another thing that happened in this case completely outside of the planned was the department of energy broaden their scientific team and should they not, they do have relevant expertise. should they not he at least part of the containment plan, as a consultation. >> and then there's the whole

relationship between the individual oil spill response plans for a particular project, and the area of response planning that is done, which is done you know beyond -- it is not just coped around a particular project or a particular permit. to scope to read a particular area and how that fits into the national contingency plan. linking these things up, we ' structure to have those things get integrated and reviewed in a meaningful way. that is what sets up for failure and ultimately being able to implement a meaningful response. and i am not sure that we have spent, we been either the commissioner of the staff, have spent much time puzzling through those links. i am aware of the fact that there is a separate review commission that is looking at coast guard response and it is very possible that commission which i guess we'll be making a

recommendation shortly, maybe looking at the kind of linkages that i'm talking about in all of these response plans. >> commissioner i think it is the same commission that some of my colleagues on the staff who have been looking at it, and some of the members of this commission that were, but yes. it will be coming up --. >> i'm not talking about our commission. i'm talking about the coast guard to mission. >> i don't know whether that is the case. >> well, who was it? was the secretary of the navy that appointed the coast guard review commission? richard, can you help me with this? >> homeland security. >> secretary of homeland security, janet napolitano, test the coast guard to do an internal investigation of the response efforts.

to retired admirals have been doing that for the past several months. we have been working very closely with deputy chief counsel. they basically have been been working hand-in-hand with them for the past several months, looking at the response action, the federal government and the federal agencies but this is a fairly standard practice in the military, to engage in some very intensive internal introspection after a crisis, and they have their own report. they have actually been timing the report to come out about the same time as ours and we are correlating closely with them all along the way. actually it is a very helpful to get a lot of information that we otherwise might not have gotten. >> richard, my question is are they only looking at the way in which the response worked or are they also looking out the sword of statutory and multiagency responsibilities and authorities that i'm talking about in terms of how all of these various response planning efforts at both the individual project

level, the company level, the area planning process and the national contingency plan. are they looking at that sort of structurally? >> my sense is i don't think they actually go into the broader issues, but she will know exactly how to answer that question. >> i think it is really important we look at this in in the system's way just like we are looking at process safety in the system's way and i'm not sure for men many of the materials i have seen so far from our staff that we have done that. >> discussion of the specific recommendations on the oil spill. >> i think there is also response. >> they will be next. there is some overlap and that is why i think surely is speaking to a. >> we were focused primarily on the department of the interior and mms and clearly what we

concluded was that the worst-case scenario calculations that mms was using were flawed and that those need to be improved because they are incorporated in all of the environmental reviews and consultations that go forward, and one of the critical recommendations here is that there should be a credible outside party that reviews on an ongoing basis this oil spill risk analysis model. the earlier bullets on this particular slide spoke to the fact that while mms had these spill response plans after they have gone through their worst-case scenario, they weren't the ones charged with the spill response, so the question then is whether you want to make recommendations that these other agencies should be involved, and we thought it best to leave that to the group that was really looking closely at how this performed during the spill response.

>> let me say, stylistically, if there is an issue that we would normally opined upon, but which we have made a conscious judgment to deferred to another entity, possibly the one that fran has just discussed, i think we should say that, that we recognize this as an appropriate issue, but we are consciously differing to xyz because of their special expertise, but let's don't leave the impression that we didn't think about the issue. >> what do we mean by a credible outside party should review? what is the criteria for credible outside party? >> it could be another federal agency. it could be one of the national

labs, the national academies of science, an academic advisory group. i mean it could he appointed by the agency. >> don't you think, we are supposed to be the experts in this. shouldn't we indicate who we think should be the credible outside party? >> eyed him think we need to get to that level of detail. i think it is a good point though. i could imagine a number of ways to do that. i mean maybe we could, i think even giving some suggestion of who we are talking about. >> the national academy of engineering would be logical. >> one possibility is that the safety and environmental authority, which could include you know both of those entities, the safety one and the environmental one, if they get moved together would have an advisory body, which could be

chosen by the national academy of science. very much like the faa advisory body and that would be a credible third-party. it would be third-party. >> i am not suggesting that we necessarily limit it to one, but make some suggestions. >> but make some suggestions? >> but make some suggestions. >> yeah. >> surely, have we wrapped up? we are now going to go to the atlantic -- excuse me, the arctic. >> if had to put my money on a likely outcome it would be that peace in iraq, and it might be a very harsh peace is likely ultimately to be imposed once again by hateocracy.

we just have to hope that if that does happen, the new ruler, the new dictator, will be a lot more benign than saddam hussein. >> john byrne's two-time pulitzer prize winner and longtime foreign correspondent for "the new york times" on the future of iraq, sunday night on c-span's q&a. >> listen to landmark supreme court cases saturdays on c-span radio. >> the statute to perpetuate the bonds of slavery, that is not a preventable state action. >> this week, loving v. the commonwealth of virginia. by unanimous vote restriction on marriage in the u.s.. listen to the argument saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span radio in washington these d.c. at 91-point fm on xm channel 132 and on line at c-span radio.org. >> the senate is now in recess

until 3:30 eastern. until then we went to take you live to a senate majority leader reid. he is holding a press briefing at 3:00 p.m. eastern following the democratic caucus meeting. while we wait for that to begin a discussion from earlier today on the proposals contained in the debt commission's final report. we will show u.s. much of that as we can before senator reads " remarks began. >> representative javier becerra democrat of california also adet member of the deficit commissior thank you for being with us this morning.ommissio your initial take awn.ay initial take away from the commission's recommendations thus far? guest: i think they set the ground for us to have something in the congress to discuss. there are things all of us can disagree with but did greatest thing is the chair's put out what some of the problems are. i did not think they targeted as well in their proposals as they could have but they did a darn good job bringing up all the sacred cows. host: the wall street journal quoted you as saying "you put

taboos and the table, a sacred cows and your plan, if nothing else we laid before the american public a template to start discussing." how productive is it? discussing is one thing but taking action is another. guest: remember, it is very difficult if you represent a farming community or an urban community, that you've got to protect the interests of those particular communities if he got elected by those folks. sometimes it is very difficult for members to put aside those interests that have and the district when it comes time to vote for the entire nation. we see a fiscal mess that affects all of us. we've got to put aside our particular interest and let the special interests stay outside the door and then try to come up with a solution. the chair has tried to put forward a proposal that tries to do that. i think it misses the mark a little bit but it sure gives us something to work with. host: best item? jiggle like a said, there are some taboos. we talk about cutting spending. few people talk about that the

largest spending we do is in the tax code. we give a far more tax giveaways and cuts to people probably we would not say deserve it, then we do to giving money to a program, a farm subsidy program or through a housing program or education program. but that is a secret that is little discussed. as well as the fact that most of the money we spend, or what people think of it in terms of the federal operating budget, comes out of the department of defense. the department of defense, if we ask them, please account for all the money, cannot do it. we could not audit the department of defense today if we tried because their house is in its fiscal mess. today they cannot tell you how many contractors that have employed at the department of defense. they cannot tell you how much it costs to add to operate certain programs. and yet, they have to make sure that our troops are the best equipped and trained in the world. host: biggest problems? guest: in the report or just --

host: in the report. guest: they missed the mark in who caused this gomez. for the last decade, some folks got to party and now that the party is over, they don't want to clean up their mess. they want to ask the american public -- middle -- middle-class and working america. i did not think the american public should find that social security benefits are cut or programs that help our kids afford college are cut, or take a textbook away from a child in school, because we can't account for all of the costs in iraq and afghanistan or because we can't -- we spent a decade giving millionaires out hundred thousand dollars in tax cut and would give the middle-class -- we spent the 10-years giving middle-class about $500 a year in a tax cut. i hope that what we will do is target those folks who partied to clean up of the mess. i believe that the report pointed when it came to

targeting -- punted when it came to targeting the pain to those who got to whoop it up for 10 years. host: xavier becerra sitting of the deficit commission did 18 members, 14 yes votes are needed to advance this. the seven or so said they supported. when congresswoman says she is against it. where are you? guest: i would like to be for it because, as you said, it puts forward something that puts all of these items on the table. but i am not interested in having them say we needed to cut spending, so we will cut schools, we will cut meals on wheels for seniors. because we spent over $1 trillion in iraq and afghanistan. i say, those folks who believe it was one of going to iraq and afghanistan should say how we are going to, after would cover the training and equipping of our troops, that we have to do, how they are going to make cuts for having to spend so much money in places -- quick point.

let me ask you this. how much would you pay for -- a refrigerator? a lot of us have to pay for a refrigerator? what we do pat? host: our audience can answer that. host: what would you think one cost. host: i honestly have no idea. guest: what about coffee maker? $40 for a coffee table. a hamburger? host: i am inherited my grandfather, $10? guest: toilet. department of defense -- the coffee maker, how much did they pay for the coffee maker? $7,600. the hammer? $435. toilet seat? $640. we did not know that until we

started asking questions. department of defense but not tally its books, and as a result we cannot all did that but we do know on top of training our troops to be the best in the world -- and we do, we trained and well and we did put them well. we also do a lot of very wasteful spending. so, where it takes us about $17,000 to equip our soldiers in iraq and afghanistan, the vests, the weapons -- which could have it put its two soldiers for the coast of that one refrigerator that was put on that aircraft. that is where i think we need to make the cut. get rid of the $32,000 refrigerator. it did not cut taxes put -- textbooks and the schools or meals on wheels. host: you said you would like to vote yes, but it sure sounds like you are a no. guest: if i did not see the commission is set -- chair saying we identified the sacred

cows, but we are not going to deal with them, it is tough for me to say i will vote for them because i know what it means. if i sign off on something that means heavy cuts on middle-class families, i am reducing the affordability of college for my kids and their kids. i am telling the senior who today who is on a fixed income and relies principally on social security that they will not be able to go to the senior center because it may have to close. or because they no longer can offer the subsidized lunches that seniors get. a lot in my district do a lot of things to remain independent adults because of the availability of the senior centers. do i want to tell they will get cut because we cannot account for the cost of a $32,000 refrigerator? host: is there room for negotiation? how much movement can happen question on guest: no reason why there can't be movement. what the chairs of the commission presented is simply their proposal. there are 18 of us.

but the chairs have done as a great favor. where 18 of us might not have been able to come up with something, the two dead and now it is up to us -- each and everyone of us has an obligation to say, if i can vote for this, what can i vote for? the beccerra rule, if you don't like this, replace it for something else. it, is go to tucson, arizona, where deemed joins us on the republican line. caller: good morning. hello? host: you are on. caller: tell me if i am wrong. i don't understand why the government can do their own budget. i am on social security. i make $1,105 a month. i have a couple of programs that i and in, and one of them is -- the one they want to cut, the advantage program with the health care thing when they passed it.

which supplements a lot of my health care. i paid $2 for prescriptions. the government spends billions and billions of dollars to other countries to keep them in check or to help them out and do all of these other things. one of the things they do is, like in the south american countries -- mexico and places like that, sending billions of dollars to fight the drug wars and yet we can't protect our own borders. we should just got -- stop sending it to give them the money, their problem, and now our problem is the borders to keep them from getting in. people are on unemployment -- i've had friends on unemployment, third or fourth extension. they are not looking for work. put them in a wpa program like the depression. let them work for the unemployment checks. i think that would be sensible. all this federal government jobs,

guest: rethink dean is reflecting what i just said. he is living on a $1,100 a month. to some extent, he is relying on his social security check, small pension, and he is worried about what will happen to medicare. on the issue of the government budget, not being able to account for their spending. it is not all of them. if you were to ask the department of education, show me your books, you could do that. hud, we could do it there. we cannot do it with the department of defense. they are important, because they are security, but because they are security, we are afraid to touch them. we have to make sure all of government, not just the

department of education, at epa, hud can be audited, including those that are there to protect us. on the issue of medicare advantage, which has been discussed over and over, medicare is a program in which insurance companies promise to offer to seniors but they were getting before the government got into the business of offering medicare. for the same amount or less, we can do what a doctor is providing independently. give us those seniors as clients. we will package them and offer them with the hospital together, cheaper. that is what they told us in the 1990's. that led up to $1. then it went up to $1.50. today, we are paying insurance

companies more than 100% for these services. what we did in health care reform was say, you should be able to do for $1 what the hospitals and doctors to independently right now. cuts to medicare was simply to put them at par with what doctors and hospitals are ready kent. insurance companies did not want that. they wanted 118% of what dr. scott. all we did was provide the same service for the same amount of money that the doctors and hospitals, independent of insurance companies, are doing today. host: xavier becerra represents the los angeles area of california, a member of the house democratic caucus. he is also on the ways and means committee, involved in the budget committee as well. we are talking about the debt

commission and other issues facing the house. we have a question from ralph on twitter -- do you see the savings? there would be a lot of locals. guest: we have too many jobs being outsourced to other countries, and to many countries -- companies are taking tax breaks to send those jobs overseas. one of the great things the chairs of this commission did it is they put that sacred cow on the table. we are giving corporations a tax cuts when they create jobs somewhere else. there is another issue at what it -- involved. our tax rates are much lower,

but on paper, they are much higher. but because of all the tax loopholes, most corporations can lower their tax rate into the 20's. we need a simple, fair tax system. host: you feel good about that? guest: yes, we should lower the corporate rate, but you have to get rid of some of the locals. -- loopholes. that is where you would lose a lot of money. one of the things we should be doing is taking the tax code and say, if we are going to create incentives for businesses to create jobs, those jobs should be here. that is what we should do. we should have a tax policy that invests in people and the lager

talk about cutting things that are important to our seniors, children, and working-class americans. host: tony from allentown, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: i would really like to see corporation be required to have jobs provided before any incentives are given to them. they have been getting these tax benefits. as you point out, they are paying a smaller amount than what is on paper. they have been given tax benefits and they did not provide the job, so that is one of the things that i think should be considered. for so many years, people like to put the blame on the flood

of welfare, public assistance, social security, medical coverage. when you think about what happens in corporations, when people higher up are earning 400% over what they ever earned in the past, and the people who are actually doing most of the work are earning a much less income. i would also like to see something from the federal government that they have started to cut employees. i hope that includes themselves. they are able to increase their own salaries. that is something that i would like to see stopped. guest: this is what we hear all the time when we go back home.

folks are wondering, are you asking the government and private sector, corporations, to do what americans are having to do? on corporations, if tax incentives work right, they should work only after the company produces something. but you have to admit, you have to give that company a road map on what they have to do to get that tax incentives. creating jobs here in america. they should know what it takes to create that job in america, so that they can take advantage of that tax assistance. i think what we need to do is be far more plane and transparent with how we handle the tax code. i have a chart on the tax cuts enacted by president bush in 2001 and 2003. right now, the debate is, do we extend these tax cuts, or do we

allow them to expire, so we do not have to show the american people how much they really cost? these are more geared toward the wealthy. why do i say that? take a look at this chart. each year, how much did the average american get? i broke this up into five groups, the lowest income group, up to $17,000, a second group -- you can see where you fall. or the top 1/5th of americans to make $1 million or above. you can see how much money you have gotten.

this group, 104,000 and above, if you would prefer that up for -- break that up for people making $1 million or more, you would get back over $20,000 because of the bush tax cuts. if you are an average american, you got $880. that is the difference. if we could go to the second chart -- the consequences of what we do. this is why the commission was tearing but did not go all the way. they ran the ball to the 50 yard line, but they stopped. the causes of the deficit. by the way, and these are numbers from the office of management and budget, congressional budget office, and

other private sector think tanks. without all of these things add up, the deficits would be -- as you can see at the top, very small. what has caused the deficit the most? the recession of 2007 had had a big impact. economic recovery measures, those have been enacted in the past two years to get us back to success. orange, iraq and afghanistan. we have not paid $0.10 for those wars. we are borrowing from china, essentially. and then the blue at the bottom. the bush tax cuts. that is how much they add to the deficit. why?

they were never paid for, and we continue to give them. and we continue to give them, principally, to folks who are wealthy. so millionaires continue to get tax cuts and now we are proposing cutting programs that will hit middle americans, seniors, children. do not put all of the cleanup on those who have been working hard for the past 10 years. host: xavier becerra of california is our guest. we are talking about the debt commission. based on what you said this morning, you are a no-vote unless there are changes to the commission. guest: i would have to believe that we are going to take the time but offer by the chairs, who make sure dea, who,

called a little while ago, does not all of the burden. host: does this amount to a failure, if nothing gets done? guest: think of it this way. this is the report. you can never take it back. it has identified those sacred cows. it has given us a path to get there. it may not be the best path, but it is there. i give them credit for this. i think there are better ways. we can get to the goal line in a different way for the american people. host: you can see the report, called "the moment of truth." york, terry,ew

republican caller. caller: good morning. in my newspaper yesterday, there was an article talking about all the money that is spent on prisoners. it costs about $1 million a year. 7.3 million people in our jails, prisons. 70% of those people are nonviolent drug offenders. the prohibition of alcohol, when that went into effect, the murder rate went up 17%. it stayed that high for 13 years. after they repealed the law, the murder rate went down. a past drug laws, the murder rate went up 100%. so what should be done? on the history channel, they say

every police force spends about half their money on the drug wars. host: let's leave it there. guest: the public understands it much more often than the politicians. what terry is pointing out is true. every time we imprison someone, get ready. you are basically saying, we are going to put someone away for more money than rededicate to -- than we dedicate to put someone through college. in california, we spend more money on prisons and higher education. terry has a great point. we have a lot of non-violent offenders locked up in prison, where we could probably do something to get them to rehabilitate without having them to hang out with the hard core guys, so that when they come out, they are not hardened.

if you ran for congress, i would probably give you a vote. host: an opinion piece about the compromises president obama is making. it says -- he goes on to say -- guest: i think he has it on the money. i believe the president moved,

in good faith, saying we have to do something about the deficit. he talked about restraining the pay of federal workers, who by the way, earn less than private- sector workers for the same type of work. it is a harsh punishment for workers who could work. i would rather go after those who are laggard, who are negligent, instead of saying to everyone in the workforce, you are not going to get a pay raise, even though you are working hard, because we are spending money on $32,000 refrigerators. at the same time, we have to recognize something that he says which is important. to me, it is incredible to believe, that at a time when 2 million americans today will not get unemployment benefits because they have been out of work too long, at the same time, we are talking about giving the

wealthiest americans tax breaks. compromise is something i'm willing to do. democrats want to protect middle-class tax breaks. republicans want to protect the wealthy. but compromise. let's give everyone protection up to their first $250,000. so if you are middle-class or rich, your first $250,000 will not be taxed. but after that, you will be. to me, to hold the middle class hostage for tax cuts for the wealthiest of americans, it is not the way to go. host: mary from north carolina. democratic caller. caller: good morning.

one of the things that i disagree with that the debt commission came out with is the tax on gasoline. that would raise the cost of living on everything we consume because we have to transport fresh vegetables and produce firmware river is grown to the markets. -- from wherever it is grown to the markets. companies would have to charge more. also, bus services, planes, trains, everything needs gasoline. people going to work. the poorest of the poor, that have distances to drive to their construction job, that would raise their cost. they are having a hard time making ends meet now. guest: mary, i'm going to disagree with you, not because of what you said. what you said is fact.

host: and let us just clarify, it would raise the gas tax by $0.15 on the gallon. guest: the commission said, let's raise the gas tax by $0.15 and use it to cover the deficit. i go back to what i said before. somebody party for 10 years. why should you now have to pay for an increase in the cost of gasoline? i do not agree with that. if we are going to raise the gas tax, we should dedicated to transportation. we have a lot of crumbling roads, failing infrastructure. i would be willing to support an increase in the gas tax, if it is dedicated to improving our transportation system, better mass transit, but not to cover

the deficit that someone else caused by being extravagant. my final point is, you are right, if you raise people's taxes, you do what i said. you are raising the taxes for middle-class americans. but if we are putting people to work, that is good. final question, how much are you paying today in gas? how about five years ago? think about how much you have been taxed by oil companies. in some places, you are paying over $3 a gallon. the price of oil has gone down since $140, but they are still charging the same. now it is $80 of merrill for the

oil companies, but they are still charging -- a barrel for the oil companies, but they are still charging you $3. host: next phone call. caller: no offense, but it sounds like a typical politician, but a good one. three comments real quick. love to say these tax cuts will cost americans money. tax cuts do not cost us anything. it is spending that costs us money. number two, you'll feel that everyone in the country should be supported by the government one way or another. these extensions for unemployment -- if i was unemployed, i would definitely want an extension, but should and i have to pay that back? you just talked about this

woman not having to pay back for those who parted. if i am not working, why should i have to pay for these massive on employment programs? give them the money, but make them pay it back, even if it is tax-free or interest-free. that is a way to cover the programs. guest: let me try to respond to those points. tax cut to cost us money. i go back to the chart for the causes of the deficit. you can see how much push tax cuts cost us in lost revenue. when you do not have the revenue to make up for that, to pay for your other services, you have to make a decision. what do i have to cut? i understand what you are saying. that is my money, i am taxed on it.

but you are part of this country. you are a patriot like i am. we have to pay for those things that defend us, keep us educated, and healthy. we have costs. if we run deficits, we have to make up for them somehow. either you pay with more revenue, or you continue to cut. should i cut from our men and women in uniform? most of our costs are in the department of defense today, so it does cost us money. when you give money to the wealthiest of folks and you do not have the money to pay for that, then you make decisions that cost us, as a country. finally, about workers who are unemployed, we are essentially in a depression. it would have been much worse if

not for the programs put in place by the government. we are in a great recession, that is why so many people are out of work. every time you look at your paycheck, there is a deduction to pay for unemployment benefits. every once in awhile -- in this cyclical economy -- he hit a downturn where the money your employer paid for unemployment runs out. that is why we are helping to cover that. these folks were working and could not find a job. it is not fun to see someone out of work for 18 months, but that is the reality of this economy. host: xavier becerra, you sit on the ways and means committee. charlie rangel faces a censure vote in the house today. how would you like to vote?

guest: i would like to vote for reprimand. even though he did not keep track of the paperwork, center, to me, is when you have done something criminal. -- censure, to me, is when you have done something criminal. those things that he did, are wrong, but i do not believe it was intentional. i admire what he did for this country. it is sad to see it come to this point, but he will tell you, he will face up to it. he is just hoping he can be given a penalty that is commensurate to what the ethics committee found. i think you will find that congress will act. host: is it censure or nothing? guest: that is yet to be seen.

charlie rangel is a good man. censure, to me, are for folks that have done really bad things. he did some sloppy things, he will admit that. does that rise to a censure? i will have to see. host: this in "the washington post" -- they also have a breakdown of a variety of groups that benefit. did it go too far, was it necessary? guest: i voted against t.a.r.p., not because we did not have to do something to stop the hemorrhaging of the credit crisis, but i thought of the

once again bailing out industries without requiring assurances that they could pay street --. >> watch washington journal starting every morning at 7:00. live now at the capitol for senate majority leader, harry reid. >> i just finished a two and a half hour caucus, two hours and 45 minutes. are there any questions? we spent a lot of time on taxes. basically we are waiting on what the house is going to do. i've had a couple of conversations today with the speaker and the majority leader, leader hoyer, and they are trying to determine when they are going to send us a long-term cr and what they are going to do on taxes. as i said i had been tied up for

quite a few hours here in this caucus, but before i went to lunch, i was told that we may get something on a 250,000-dollar extension of the tax cuts sometime today. in fact occurred while i was in a meeting that they already issued a rule on that. we will wait and see. i may have to have another caucus today or in the morning to find out how we react to what the house does. i will have to see what it is first. >> why did it take the democrats so long to come to a -- [inaudible] >> well, remember the constitution mandates that this stuff start in the house. we have tried on a number of occasions to started over here and it hasn't worked out so well, so we are waiting to hear from them, and it is no secret. we know there are other discussions going on with the white house and others, and i haven't heard anything definitive from any of them. so we are just going to have to

wait and see how this all develops. >> is it possible that the white house is going to stand up for democratic rarities in these negotiations? if you have to go for a temporary extension that they will push for unemployment benefits and other tax cuts that you support? >> it is also hypothetical. we will have to wait and see. as everyone knows, i have had a number of meetings with the white house this week, and we are trying to work through all of this comment we don't have anything to work through because it is all conjecture. i don't have anything definite now but i can tell you we determined we are going to do. we did have long, good discussions in the caucus here and there are some views that are ranging but not wide-ranging. the number one issue, we want to make sure that we are able to do everything we can to let the american people know that the first concern we have is with the tax cuts for the middle-class. we are going to continue along that way.

>> have you insisted on any tax cut on the floor for unemployment benefits? >> as everyone knows here, there have been a number of states that have been hit very hard economically. nevada is one of those states. we have long-term unemployment in nevada. we know that mark zandi and many economists said the best way to stimulate the economy today, not every day, but today is with extending unemployment benefits. for every dollar that we invest you get almost $2 that. so i would hope anything we come out of here with takes into consideration the millions of people who are desperate during the holiday season for an unemployment check. >> you are supposed to bring up the. >> the question is do i feel in the movement on s.t.a.r.t.? the answer is yes. i feel that, but as far as being able to hear anything that we

have things worked out, the answer is no at this point. [inaudible] >> i am confident and hopeful that we can work our way through all of these things. that is, we are going to make sure that we still are going to move forward on the firefighters. we are going to move forward on the d.r.e.a.m. act. we are going to move forward on the 9/11 new york situation. we are going to do something on "don't ask don't tell." we of course have to do something to fund the government through next year or into next year and we have to do something with the tax cuts. cuts. all of those things are on my agenda. >> what does it feel like? >> i think if we set our minds to it we can get it done. >> okay, thanks. [inaudible conversations]

>> senate majority leader reid speaking to reporters following the democrats caucus meeting. the senate continues in recess but are due back in about 10 minutes. until then we want to show you an exchange from earlier today on the floor. senate minority leader mitch mcconnell had announced yesterday that all 42 republican senators had read to block any legislative work until the federal budget and expiring tax cuts were dealt with. today, rhode island democrat gordon whitehouse tried to move a bill forward providing a cost-of-living increase for elderly social security recipients. true to their plans, republican senator john barrasso objective. their change lasts about 25 minutes but we will show you as much as we can until the senate gavels back into session. >> my distinguished friend, the mr. senator from wyoming here on the floor and i would like to make o

security cola.here's >> there is no time remaining with the majority at this moment. >> may i ask unanimous consent e to speak as if in morningor ten jesiness for 10 minutes?ob >> without objection. >> thankha you. o and at the end of my remarks i will propound ag unanimous consentco request that the minority party is aware it is coming, and i wanted to -- let me find the language of their l requests. i wanted make sure i get that right. thank you. i travel around madam president, my stay pretty often and when i do, i hear a lot in rhode islana the sacrifices that people had

have had to make during what are for our state still very very difficult economic times. t we are still over 11% 11% unemployment.ystitue now, many of my constituents have adjusted to this difficulti economic climate by cutting bacs on extras, and finding savingses in their personal lives wherever they can, but for our seniors s and rhode island has a veryen bg population of seniors, who liven on a limited budget, simply bude cutting back is a very verys a harsh option for them. isl in 2008, rhode island seniors on social security received an average monthlyn payment of abot $1100. $1100 a month is not a lot to rd northeast. w i've hhoeard from seniors who te worry about keeping the heat on in their

prices are so high. seniors i've heard from seniors who have to split pills or skip doses because their prescription costs are so high, and i'm hearingwhov this from people who have worked hard all of their lives, who paid into the system throughout their careers and he believes that they would be able to grow old comfortably, and insteadad o many of them are brilliant just scraping by on their social on security benefits, and the benefits often no longer cover p their daily living expenses.s so for people in this situation every penny counts. this past year, for the first time since 1975, social securitd recipients in rhode island and new york and elsewhere, did nota receive a cost-of-living adjustment or cola and it c appears that they will not receive a cost-of-living adjustment or cola, in 2011

either. these yearly adjustments are dictated by a specific formula that is tied to inflation, and i know that a cousin of the slow economy inflation has been stagnant over the past twow years. ieen so the rigid mathematical formula that drives the cost-of-living adjustment does not presently provide for theg cost-of-living adjustment that seniors need to go this is a misfire in the cost-of-living calculation, because it is based on a market basket that includes things sethat seniors don't buya lot of and it doesn't put adequate weight on heat and oil and energy and prescriptionsnd that seniors do spend a lot of money on. it also overlooks people like a chuck, who is a 67-year-old retiree from north providence, isode island, who wrote to me eh

recently to express his concern that is monthly social securitye income will be frozen at its egar. that r he wrote that regardless of what the cola formula concludes, hisi cost-of-living continues tonu re chuck said crisis has -- prices. medications have also increased in co-payments. today i am paying more and getting less for the dollar. sps madam president i believe chucks speaks for many american seniors when he expresses concern aboutn the lack of an increase in social security payments. tay so today i rise in support of the emergency senior citizens colleague,ea senator sanders, fm vermont.ould help this bill will help ease the our strain on the budget of our spei seniors by providing a special one-time payment in 2011 of $250 to all social securityt would a recipients. replacement.thou

although a 250-dollar color repa replacement may not sound like much money, for those on a limited budget, the extra financial assistancein providesa mi little extra peace of mind amid skyrocketing health care and prescription drug costs.new for seniors in new england, the payment can help keep the heat on through the approachingould n winter.ot be and this assistance would not bt unprecedented while this was tht first year in decades that seniors did not receive a cola.c we enhave taken steps in recents years to provide special help tg seniors into disabled american struggling through this recession. i in 2008, it worked very hard to with my colleagues to secure a 300-dollar rebate for seniors and sst i recipients in that year's economic stimulus act. wd and in 2009 began work to make sure that the american recovery and reinvestment act included ae one-time 250-dollar payment to seniors and sst i recipients.

we now have the chance to once d again lend a helping hand to our pag this seniors. the passing this bill would be the f right thing to doro for seniorss obviously, but it is also a goor thing to do for our struggling e economy.nts in rhode island for example the payments would inject more than $51 million into our economy. money that would quickly be spent on essential items like food and medicine. said at madam president as i said at the beginning, rhode island ist hurting. unemployment stands at 11.4%. tn gas is now more than $3 per sens gallon and are seniors face yet another year of frozen socialcil security payments. emergen senir bypassing the emergency senior nr seniors that they are noteno luab valuable boost to the local grery grocery stores, pharmacies and shoppings centers that remain such an integral part of our so i urge my colleagues to join

me and standing by her nation s seniors and to support the emergency senior citizens relief act. and, what have i just done with that? in that regard, i ask unanimoust consent that the finance committee be discharged of is s. 3976, which is the emergency senior citizens relief act of 2i 2010 that i have been discussine proceed to its immediate consideration, that there be four hours of debate with respect to the bill, divided and controlled by senator sanders s and the republican leader or hin ursignee, and that no amendmentd for motion be in order during dependency of this agreement. that upon use or yielding back a my time, the bill be read the third time and the senate p proceed to vote on passage of the bill.

>> isobje there no objection?si? >> madam president? >> therr senator from wyoming.ei >>ng madam president reserving e right to object. agree t at the senator to agree to include an amendment that would unspent fedhieral funds the text of which i have at the desk? >> at the moment, the unanimous consent that i have propounded is the one that has been clearer oor managers on both sides, and i would stick to whah has been cleared. wit i am happy to discuss with colleagues on the other side how this can be paid for, but i cannot help but note that myo colleagues on the other side did not share their concern for the

payment and paygo side of the equation when it comes to the tax cuts for people making many many millions of dollars a year that we are trying to get exempted as we try to provide tax relief to the middle class. it will be hard for me to hold o seniors getting a 250-dollar, one-time benefit in a year in which the cola formula has when misfired and they are getting nd cola benefits, to fight their cl other costs going up and at the same time, be asked to agree to hundreds of thousands of dollaro per million air in some cases, and tax relief, that is not paid for. if anything the senior should be held to a lowenyr standard than

multimillionaires for home thelr tax benefit would amount to potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars. so whente i set those two i or shake my colleagues very legitimate concern about the ths costs that this would provide.we i would submit that we are least still, at least in my state, in th the stage and the recovery where weec continue to need to revivel the economy, that this will be very beneficial to our country in terms of its economic be recovery and that it would be unfair to hold seniors to a different standard for this $ 250-dollar color replacement att hold our sta multimillionaires o in tax relief. so i stand by the request this propounded for unanimous: madam consent.cer: o is there an objection? >> madam president, reserving to

the right to object and i note on today's front page of "usa of today" jobless data could break the 80's record. 1980' not since the early 1980s has hs the nation's unemployment rate been so grim for so long.ong. the government reports due friday are likely tonm show. sh. it goes onto say the chronic level of high unemployment shows many that many americans are stilltil suffering, even though the government,go the national bureu on economic research has said the recession officially ended. the people of this country knoww what is happening in their owncn communitiesit and in their owntb states, and it doesn't need toet be told different things by the government when they know the fromty in which they are living i heard from my distinguished colleague some concerns that we all share about the economy ande what best way to stimulate economic growth. and i believe members on my sid of the aisle that one of theo things you do is you don't raise taxes on anyone in this country during these economic times.we o

we are unanimous on this side on the aisle in that position, but colleague, there are now actually a growing chorus of cho members from that side of the ae aisle that are agreeing with me, including the two newest memberm of the senate from the other side o side of the aisle, who have come here and the distinguishede from senator from west virginia, the one from delaware, the one from west virginia while running for the senate said i wouldn't raise any taxes referring to the tax cuts that are scheduled to come- expire, come the end of this year. the senator elect and newly signed in, sworn in from terms delaware, in terms of tax cuts, he said i would extend. >> we will receive this recorded ar session to go live to the senate floor where they have just gaveledn backend. that we need to complete before we adjourn. many of these bills represent

the priorities of various senators addressing issues that some have worked on for this entire congress. some for several congresses. other bills are necessary to prevent certain long-standing policies from spierks such as tax leave for working families or needed to avert cuts in key programs such as exphair payments to doctors and protecting rehabilitative services for our seniors. but in addition to making the start of the holiday season -- marking the start of the holiday season, this week also brings a devastating reminder of the economic disaster facing many families. on monday, action to extend unemployment benefits to millions of people was blocked here in the senate by my republican colleagues. so yesterday those benefits expired. my republican colleagues are telling us that we cannot consider any legislation until we take up the tax breaks for millionaires. on december 1, more than 800,000 americans were left without

benefits, and up to 2 million more will soon follow by the end of the year, including 48,000 marylanders. it seems as if there are some in this body who may not recognize the peril facing families whose benefits are being cut off. well, i do. every day i hear from marylanders who are asking congress for help. they want to work but can't find employment. many have been looking for a long time, for over a year, sending hundreds of resumes, pounding the pavement, attending job fairs, and numerous interviews all to no avail. they want us to take steps necessary to help the economy create jobs and they need some assistance in the meantime to help them stay afloat. maryland's unemployment rate stands at 7.4% statewide. although that is lower than the national average in some counties the situation is much more dire. in baltimore stirks the vat 11%. in ambassador cheter county, 9.8%. in somerset county, 9.7%.

several building trade workers visited moo office. for them this is not a recovery, this is not a recession. that is depression. that is because in the construction industry, unemployment rates range from 30 beer t -- from 30% to 50%. in one location near baltimore, one out of every four members has no job. the labor department statistics tell us foyer every job opening, there are five individual activg employment. the odds are not goods for someone trying to find employment today. that is why we have had a long-term unemployment and why we need to extend benefits to those who are in need today. nearly 15 million of my fellow americans cannot find work. of that total, the number of long-term unemployment defined as those who have been jobless for 27 weeks or more is about 6 230eu million.

as of last month, two-fifths of the unemployed persons have been out of work for at least 27 weeks. there's even a deeper sense of despair in many communities. teenage unemployment is over 27%. black unemployment over 5%. latino, over 12 pmplet in addition to the number of people out of work and seeking work, the department of labor also calculates dalt that includes people who want -- dhat includes people who are wit want to workd people who are working part-time because they can't find full-time employment n october 2010, the rate stood at 17%. during the course of this national debate over unemployment compensation, a number of issues are in contention. there are those -- there are knows who state that jobs are just not there, whether this should be paid for or considering emergency spending, whether they should focus on growing the economy rather than on benefits, whether it's time to end benefits because the

economy is recovering, that the unemployment do not deserve extend benefits and more. let me address some of these issues that have been put out there. for those who say the jobs are there, that people just aren't looking for them n september 2010, almost 15 million people were unemployed. but there were only 3 million job openings. in other words, if every available job were filled by unemployed individuals, four out of the five unemployed workers would still be looking for work. last night we heard in this chamber that the objection to extending unemployment benefits is because it's not paid for. well, mr. president, it's all right to extend tax breaks for millionaires and not pay for it because that somehow is an emergency situation, but extending unemployment benefits to those who are in dire need doesn't qualify as emergency spending. historically, unemployed compensation extensions have been treated as emergency spending by congresses and

administrations going back to the reagan administration. families across maryland and across the nation will certainly tell you that when you have a mortgage that is due, when your het is about to be cut off, you cannot buy groceries for your family, that that is an emergency situation. that situation constitutes emergencies and we should treat them as such. for those of my completion who are insisting that extending benefits is not as important as getting the economy back on solid footing, i point out that numerous comiflts have pointed out the value of unemployment insurance benefits. these are dollars that are going back into the market, raising consumption and creating jobs. once again, let me just compare it to what my republican colleagues are saying about tax breaks for millionaires. where is that going to benefit the economy? that money is going to be right back. we know unemployment benefits do go right back into the commitment of the nonpartisan congressional budget ostles says that for every dollar we spend in unemployment compensation, we generate more than $1.90 back into the commitment of it is a

stimulus. the nonpart son congressional budget office has analyzed 11 different measures through their effectiveness at growing the economy and it rates extending unemployment benefits as the single-most effective fool. this helps grow job growth. when people receive unemployment benefits, they spend it immediately. that helps our retail steabtz, our grocery stores, including many small businesses, and the economy. it is the definition of stimulus spending and it is immediate. family's with no sterntion families will have throws spend an will cut back on their purchases of goods and sfts resulting in weaker seacialtion hurting businesses and costing jobs. another sent that i've heard expressed is that we are giving a handout to the unemployed americans. unemployment insurance is not a handout. it is not government largess. unemployment insurance is just that. it is an insurance program. it is an insurance program of which employers and employees

contribute to during difficult -- so that during difficult times there's money available to pay when a person loses their job. people receive benefits had jobs at the time that they worked. it reflects the number of weeks are based upon the number of weeks they worked. this is an insurance program. this is countercyically icle. it is supposed to be available during these tough economic times. that is why unemployment insurance is paid. these funds should be available to help people who need them. i'd like to address a misconception about the amount of unemployment benefits. these are not extravagant payments. the average benefit amounts to $302 per week. once again, mr. president, i want to tell you the reason we said we can't bring this up is because we've got to bring up this tax bill first and we can't get this tax bill up because republicans are insisting that you have to deal with the millionaires. well, the tax breaks for the millionaires are far more money than the $302 per week tabor

someone who is -- unemployment compensation. what these families receive is not a lot of money t keeps food on the table, heat throughout winter mornts montsz, gas in their car while they're continuing to look for jobs. the extension only gives those who are eligible for unemployment benefits the same number of maximum weeks that we've provided others during these economic times. it does not lengthen the total number of eligible weeks of benefits. the highest unemployment rate at which any previous federal emergency unemployment program ended was 7.2% in march of 1985 during the second reagan streasmghts much lower than where we're today. so where do we stand? we have passed several short-term extensions and need to act again. so here we are today as 800,000 americans across the nation have no benefits whatsoever. let my republican colleagues --

yet my republican colleagues object. they object to a short-term extension, they object to any stefntle they say first let's bring up the tax brill that provides breaks for millionaires and we can't brip the middle-income tax relief until we take care of the millionaires. nearly every member of the senate has rinse on this floor to talk about the need for job creation. i believe all of us are sincere about that. each success committed to acting on legislation that will create more job opportunities for americans. we have passed the recovery act and a small business jobs act. we will soon consider tax extenders that will help businesses invest more in jobs. now, rather than abruptly cutting off those who are still in difficult times, because of our economy, we should pass at least a one-year extension of the unemployment compensation benefits. on behalf of the million of american families who believe feactd by what we do or fail to do this week, i call upon my colleagues at the start of the holiday season to recognize the needs of families struggling to

make ends meet and agree to an extension of this essential pravment with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i think the american people deserve to know why we are not legislating. we're all here and we're not passing any bills, bills that are important to the american people. for example, a bill to keep the government operating. we're getting to the point where we're running out of time. we're not doing that today. a bill to authorize the defense department. here we are in the middle of two wars, we're not doing that bill. a bill to help the victims of 9/11, the brave, brave first responders who are suffering because they worked -- some of them almost 24/7 -- in the

debris that is so toxic to them and at the time i remember then the e.p.a. administrator whitman saying it was all fine, it was all savings the air was okay. we need to help them. we're he not doing that. a bill to help our firefighters, a bill to help our firefighters have the dignity to be able to new england goshiate for their wages. a bill called the "dream" ablght to help many productive young people join the military and go to college and help our country. we're not doing that either. we're doing nothing. we're not doing a bill to promote manufacturing that was offered by one of my colleagues. we're not doing a bill to give tax breaks to companies who hire unemployed workers. we're not doing a bill to end tax breaks for companies who

ship jobs overseas. we are not doing the start treaty, mr. president, a treaty that is endorsed by international experts from america on both sides of the iecialtion including george schultz, including people who worked for ronald reagan and george bush. we're not doing that. all of these bills, including unemployment insurance extension, so critical -- i'm going to talk more about that. that you will is being handled hostage -- all in a is being held hostage by my republican friend whose all wrote a letter and put their name on it. many a not making this up. it is in writing. saying they would do nothing until they won tax break bonuses for those who earn over $1 million, the millionaires and the billionaires.

they are holding up all this important work. now, to me, it is shocking. i've heard of having an objection to a bill and it's a strong moral objection to a bill and holding things up. they are heeling every single -- they're holding every single thing up, as my friend, senator stabenow, has talked about for days now. now here's the point. democrats have decreased agreed to give every working american a tax break on their first $250,000 of income, every working american. up to the sky, a tax deduction break on the first $250,000 of income. we even offered to go up to the first $1 million because some of our friends said, oh, $250 isn't high up. there are some small businesses

in there. well, we investigated. it is true. 97% of small businesses would be protected with the $250,000 level, but if you go up to $1 million, all of the small businesses are taken care of. and we have expressed interest in going up to $1 million. guess what? this is not enough for the republicans in the united states senate. they are fighting for those earning over $1 million, over $1 billion. it doesn't matter. they are holding everything hostage. let's be clear, they are fighting, they are united, they are strong, they are adamant in behalf of the billionaires of this country. by the way, many of whom say, please, we don't need any more tax breaks. we're doing great. so if ever people wanted to know which party fights for who, this is it, folks.

this is the clearest example i have ever seen in my life. do you know that under the republican plan, a family earning $10 million a year -- listen. $10 million a year, will get back, under their plan, $460,000 every single year. they're fighting for that. now they say they care about the deficit. i don't see that, because their position on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires will add hundreds of billions of dollars to our deficit. but when you ask them whether they will be willing to help us to extend unemployment benefits to the workers that are caught in this deep, dark recession, they say, oh, we can't afford it.

so, listen, they won't pay for the tax cuts to their millionaire-billionaire friends, but they insist on cutting the federal budget to pay for extending unemployment insurance, which as far as i know has never been done before. it's an emergency funding. and it's, by the way, $50 billion compared to $400 billion. so i hope the american people, i know they have a lot of things to do getting ready for holidays and caring for families. unfortunately, many of them worry this holiday. more than 400,000 workers in california will lose their unemployment benefits by the end of december. and i hope that they see who's fighting for them versus who's fighting for the millionaires and the billionaires. it's right out there. i couldn't believe that one of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle, from

massachusetts, was outraged that we tried to extend unemployment benefits. why is he outraged? he should be outraged that more than 2 million workers nationwide will lose their benefits by the end of december. and we just got a report that 7 million unemployed workers could be denied access to benefits by the end of next year, while my republicans -- my republican friends are fighting to get $460,000 a year for someone who earns $10 million. they would allow 7 million unemployed workers in our country to go without benefits. their proposal is, well, let's cut the program here. well, ask any economist about that. that is harmful to an economic recovery. we know that for every dollar of

unemployment insurance that gets spent it, has an impact of $1.61 to the economy because folks on unemployment, they're not like the $10 million-a-year family that's going to stick it in their trust fund. they're going to go spend it in the corner grocery store, and that has a ripple effect throughout the economy. now i want to read to you a statement by laura from long beach, one of my constituents. "today my parents' unemployment benefits expired. today i don't know how they're going to make it. i don't know what i'm going to do. this morning i woke up to hear that the republicans in the senate have signed letter pledging not to allow anything to pass until bush tax cuts are reinstated. these are the same tax cuts that only help people who are employed, excessively wealthy and people who will never hire my dad, who is a hard worker nearing 60. he experienced losing his jobs

when a lot of americans did, and since then he's been working at low-paying jobs at local businesses, businesses that little by little have cut back. unfortunately, this means they fire their newer employees like my dad. since losing his job, his ten-year-old car has quit working, leaving him bereft of transportation, making it even more difficult to find a job. my mom isn't as healthy as she used to be, and she can't work because she needs to provide child care for my sister who works hectic hours in the health care industry. i'm currently in graduate school, the first of my family to graduate from college. my husband and i are debating whether or not i need to drop out so that i can provide for my parents who live out of state. suffice it to say, when i read the news this morning, i broke down in tears." and let me divert. she heard about the letter from the republicans saying they would do nothing until these tax

cuts went in, and she broke down in tears. she said "my family has lived a hard life, and this just made it harder. but really i'm crying because i can't believe that this is what my country has come to. or more importantly, what my father's country has come to. he was raised believing that this country was the best in the world, it would always look out for the interest of his people. he served in the military, he bought american cars, he worked at the same job for 20 years. so as much as i am writing this letter because i'm upset about my familial circumstances, i'm equally interested in writing to you to remind you of the middle class and those of us who are slipping out of it." i have a number of other letters, but i know other colleagues are here. but no one could be more eloquent than laura, and i want to thank her and everybody else who wrote to me, and i will come

back again during the time we are in session to put these letters in the record. in summing up, it is very clear where we are. my republican friends, to ao person, have all signed on to a strategy. and that strategy is to keep us from passing very important legislation, including unemployment insurance extension, including the defense bill, including the start treaty, everything i put in the record, until they get their tax cuts from millionaires and billionaires. and that, to me, is a shame. and they have a right to do it. i support their right to do it. but i also think the american people ought to know what is going on here. and with that, i would ask unanimous consent that the finance committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 3981, a bill to provide for a temporary extension of

unemployment insurance, that the senate proceed to its immediate consideration, that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: regan serving the right to object -- reserving the right to object. there are a couple of ways we can help people out of work. one is bill extending unemployment benefits for those who have been out of work for 99 weeks -- this is what the extension is all about. mr. president, reserving the right to object, as i just heard from my colleague, would the senator agree to include an amendment that has been proposed by senator brown that would offset the cost of the bill with

unspent federal funds, the text of which is at the desk? would the senator include that amendment that has been proposed? mrs. boxer: absolutely would not agree to that modification. it goes to the very point i was making. they want to give tax breaks to millionaires and not pay for it, but they're forcing cuts in other jobs programs here. it would only make a worse recession, and i object. and i yield the floor. mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i do object to the motion by the distinguished senator from california. as i was say, there are two ways to help those who are looking for work, one of which is to improve the economy. and we can do that by giving some certainty -- certainty -- to people who provide jobs whorbgs build businesses --

provide jobs, who build businesses, who create job opportunities, and we can do that by giving them certainty regarding what their tax rates will be come january 1. right now there is an incredible amount of uncertainty. the second way is to deal with the unemployment benefits, those who have been out of work now 99 weeks. this is about people who have been collecting unemployment benefits for 99 weeks. and i will tell you that there are people across the nation having a tough time due to this poor economy. i want to see the economy improve. the national unemployment rate in october was 9.6%. and today's front page of the "usa today" says jobless data could break 1980's record. november will likely -- mrs. boxer: would the senator yield for a question, please? a very quick one. mr. barrasso: yes. mrs. boxer: oh, thank you so much. and he is my friend.

i just want you to understand that this extension is not for anything beyond 99 weeks. believe me, it is up to 99 wao*efpblgts we do not -- weeks. we do not have any extension beyond 99 weeks. i just wanted my friend to know that. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i appreciate the comments by the senator from california. senator brown, who shares the desk next to mine, was on the floor talking about this just two nights ago and does want to work to extend unemployment benefits, and do it in a way that is paid for. that's why i came to offer the amendment of the senator from california to say let's do, but do it by paying for it using unspent federal funds, the text of which is at the desk. we need to pay to extend this. but what we really need to do is stimulate the economy so that

what we see on the front page of the "usa today" about the jobless data could break the 1980's record in november, likely the 19th month above 9%. we need to give certainty to business. my colleague from california made comments about a letter signed by 42 republican senators. and, in fact, i did sign that. all of the republican members of the national signed it. and in the first paragraph, it says -- i'll quote the paragraph -- "president obama in his first speech after the november election said 'we owe it to the american people to focus on those issues that affect their jobs.' he went on to say that americans want jobs to come back faster. that's why 42 of us signed the letter. let's focus on that. let us get that done. let us provide that certainty. if after that is done, the majority party wants to go and

address the issues of don't ask, don't tell, wants to talk about the dream act, talking about incentives for illegal immigrants for college education, talk about firefighters joining unions, let's get to the fundamentals of what the american people want to have dealt with. that's why i was happy to offer an amendment, to n.i.h. colleague from california, to say just pay for it and then we can move on. because businesses need that sort of certainty. and i heard her many comments about taxes, and i believe that you shouldn't raise taxes on anyone in the middle of economic thaoeupls like these. and my colleagues on this side of the aisle all agree -- and there is actually bipartisan agreement that you shouldn't raise taxes on anyone in the middle of economic times like these. the newest members of the senate, and since the election three new members have been

sworn in, two on that side of the aisle, one on my side of the aisle. and they are unanimous in saying one should not raise taxes on anyone during these economic times. senator manchin from west virginia said "i wouldn't raise any taxes." senator kaopbz from -- senator coons from delaware said i would extend the tax cuts for anyone. when i look at this and see statements from senator lieberman from con, senator ben nelson from alaska, senator conrad from north dakota, it is a growing chorus of democrats saying one should not raise taxes on anyone during these economic times. we need to give certainty to the job-creating segment of this nation. we need to do it in a timely manner. and with it only being four weeks until the end of the year and people wanting to know

what's going to happen with their taxes, i think that the best thing this body could do is to provide that certainty. with that, madam president, i notice a number of colleagues who are waiting to speak. and with that, i will yield the floor. thank you, madam president. ms. stabenow: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, madam president. i agree with my friend from wyoming that we need certainty in the marketplace, and we're happy to do that. we're happy to create certainty right now, today, that middle-class taxpayers, small businesses will be able to receive permanently into the future tax cuts, be able to extend those tax cuts.we also bt to give certainty to people who are out of work through no fault of their own. who yesterday began to lose unemployment benefits. now, i personally believe as long as the economy as -- as sluggish, as slow, as challenged

as it is, that we ought to extend benefits beyond 99 weeks. but the bill that's in front of us is not that. it is the bill that senator boxer talked about, which is the basic program. the program that basically says if you lose your job today, you have the same opportunity to receive some temporary help as the person who lost their job on monday or tuesday. because right now the republicans have been blocking us from even extending the basic program for anyone who is newly unemployed, newly out of work. so i think people who are out of work at this holiday season woulde certainty. i -- i was interested in -- a story in the paper today. i believe it was today quoting the michigan retailers association concerned about christmas and that the inability to have unemployment benefits

extended would directly relate to the ability of families to have any kind of opportunity to have a christmas. and it would affect retailers and small businesses. they would like to see some certainty. i would also like to see a more robust effort and certainty as it relates to jobs. when we look at the way to stimulate the economy, the way to create jobs, the budget folks tell us the number one way right now to keep the economy going is to help those who have no choice but to spend the dollars in their pocket. that's somebody who's out of work. the number one way to stimulate the economy, to try to keep things moving and certainly we heard that from our retailers. on a long list the least effective was to give another

bonus tax cut to millionaires and billionaires. so i agree we want economic certainty. what i'd love to see was to take those dollars that have been ineffective for 10 years -- and we know that simply because it hasn't reyaitd jobs. i've lost over 800,000 jobs in michigan. i have one question, where are the jobs? if you can answer, that i'm happy to support that policy. what i would suggest as an alternative is that now just a little under two years ago we invested in the recovery act for the first time in many, many years to invest in american manufacturing, battery manufacturing, new clean energy manufacturing, making things in america, making things at home and we are beginning to see every month now manufacturing slowly, slowly coming up. the investment in american automobile industry has paid off

for us in turning things around and keeping manufacturing jobs here. we are moving from 2% of the manufacturing of advanced battery technologies in america to 40% of the world's manufacturing in five years because of a strategic investment. now i'm happy to talk about those kinds of investments. but what we have heard from republican colleagues is that they are willing to risk everything, madam president. they will risk everything to get another tax cut -- a bonus tax cut on top of the one everyone's going to get if we extend tax cuts for the first $250,000 income for a couple. they want a bonus tax cut and they are willing to risk everything and stop everything

if they can't get it. so it is very clear what their priorities are and i can speak from michigan that these are not our priorities. when i look at our manufacturers, our suppliers, when i look at small businesses, when i look at families that are struggling to keep their home, to stay in the middle class, maybe trying to get into the middle class, working families, their priority is not to give somebody making a million dollars a year another $100,000 bonus on top of the regular tax cuts. so what are we really talking about? we're talking about everything being risked for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. and what are some of the things we're risking? another $700 billion on the national debt. you know, if we want really to deal with the debt, and i don't know, madam president, about

you, but i heard an awful lot about the debt and concern about the deficit in the election and through the last year, concerns when we were investing in manufacturing, investing in other things to create jobs, helping small businesses, tax cuts for small businesses, lending for small businesses. we heard an awful lot from the other side of the aisle about the fact that we shouldn't be doing these things because of the deficit. the most important thing was the deficit. now, i don't -- i'm not willing to be lectured about the deficit. i learned to balance the budget when i was in the u.s. house under president clinton, we handed president bush a balanced budget. the largest surplus in the history of the country. so i'm not willing to accept that. i -- i have great concern about the deficit. but that concern means i don't want to see another $700 billion put on the national debt for a

bonus tax cut for millionaires and billionaires. so they're willing to risk the national deficit. they're willing to risk jobs. again, the least stimulative way, the least way to create jobs is to put another bonus round of tax cuts in the hands of millionaires and billionaires who, if they invest it -- we don't know if it will be overseas, taking jobs overseas, we don't know where it will be, but we know it hasn't trickled down to the people that i represent certainly in michigan. the sense that i get from the other side of the aisle is that they think we haven't waited long enough. we haven't waited long enough for it to trickle down. well, we're tired of waiting. we're tired of waiting. and we're tired of an economic policy of tax cuts geared to those up here when it doesn't work and we're losing jobs under that policy of trickle-down economics, michigan lost over

800,000 jobs in the last 10 years. i'm tired of that. and i want to see a policies that going to work. that one hasn't worked. i don't see why in the world we would extend it. they're willing to hold up the tax cuts for middle class families and small businesses. and, again, madam president, i'm not about to be lectured to about small business, when we have seen 15 different small business filibusters in the last two years, eight tax cuts in the small business jobs bill. only two colleagues on the other side of the aisle courageously stepped over to support. so we understand the importance of small business. social security and medicare. we have a debt commission that proposed a number of things that are very difficult on social security and medicare. and that's based on the deficit we have now, not anothe another $700 billion. i wonder if my colleagues are -- are willing to support cuts in

social security and medicare, additional cuts to pay for their tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. i don't know. is that what they're suggesting? it certainly is something that could happen if we added anoth another $700 billion to the deficit. and then the one that we've been talking about that really is not only an economic issue but a moral issue for us as a country, are we going to help folks that have got caught up in this economy, that find themselves in a situation that's unprecedented through no fault of their own, they didn't cause the recklessness on wall street. they were not the ones who made the decision not to enforce trade laws in a fair way or tax policy that allows jobs to go overseas. the people in my state were not the ones who made any of the

decisions that caused the situation that they're in. but, yet, wall street did pretty well. a lot of folks did pretty well. a lot of folks now are back doing very, very well. and the folks left holding the bag are working families, folks who have been in the middle east and are now mortified because they've got to go ask for help at a food bank for the first time in their lives. now, that's not an unusual situation in my state. people who have always worked, who want to work, they find themselves in a situation because of an economy they did not create. where they now have to turn and ask that our country be willing to the support them at this time

for their families until we can turn this economy around. who are we if we are not willing to do that? -- that as a country? and i'm, frankly, embarrassed that we are having to debate on the floor of the senate about whether or not to extend help for somebody who's lost their job, the breadwinner who can no longer bring home the bread versus a $100,000 bonus tax cut for a millionaire next year and whatever it is for billionaires. i find that embarrassing. and i find it more than that actually. if -- if ever we are going to really talk about our values and priorities here and -- and -- and get them right in terms of what affects the majority of

americans, it ought to be when we're looking at these choices. now, people in my tate wan stato work. they want us to focus on jobs. they want us to partner with business. they want us to do those things, when necessary to stand back, get out of the pay, partner, do all the things that will allow us in a global economy to compete, to be able to make things "made in america". i prefer they said "made in michigan." but they want jobs. they want the economy to turn around. nobody is out there asking for a handout. but they do want us to understand what they're going through and to be willing to have the same sense of urgency about the -- the average family in this country as we did for the wall street bank. that's ultimately what we are talking about on this floor is

what the priorities are going to be. our colleagues have sent a letter, everybody's signing it, saying they're not willing to do anything else. they're not willing to extend unemployment benefits. two million people started losing their benefits yesterday. temporary help, by the way. 200 to 300 -- $250 to $350 a week, which barely kind of maybe keeps the heat on as it's getting cold in michigan and a roof over their head while they're desperately sending resumes out all over the country. i get on planes now with people flying all over the place in the country because they want to work. they're flying all over the place, coming home on the weekend just trying to find work and our colleagues say, well, you know what? forget them. you know, forget it's -- you know, they need to wait because the most important thing is extending tax cuts for the

wealthiest people in our country. you know, i happen to -- as we all do -- know a lot of people in that category who say to me, i'm willing to do my share. i'm not asking for this tax cut. i'm willing to do my share. i understand that we have a national deficit. i understand that we have a country that has a lot of challenges right now and i'm willing to step up and do my part. so this is not trying to beat up on people or -- or demagogue against people who have worked hard in many cases and done well for themselves. but it is about having a set of priorities here about what is important in the few days that we have left between now and the end of the year, what is the most important thing that we could be doing? so, madam president, i know other colleagues want to speak.

let me just say that, in my judgment, we can create certainty. it certainly doesn't have to be extendling tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. it certainly can be extending tax cuts for the middle class and small businesses, creating certainty with the r&d tax credit for those who want to innovate and invest. there's other kinds of certainty we can create for businesses right now in our tax code. we need to do that before the end of the year. and we need to remember there are a whole lot of families right now who are trying to create some certainty in their lives about whether or not they can put up a christmas tree because they are still going to have their house. and that's not rhetoric. that is happening to people. across my great state and across the country. so, madam president, we as democrats, we're not willing to

risk all this. republicans may be willing to risk everything to give a bonus tax cut for millionaires and billionaires, but we are fighting for everybody else. thank you. i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. dorgan: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. dorgan: madam president, -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. dorgan: i ask the quorum call be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dorgan: are we in morning business? the presiding officer: we are. mr. dorgan: i ask consent to speak for 30 minutes in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dorgan: madam president, i wanted to take some time today to talk about some issues that have been around for a number of years and remain unresolved in a

way that i think is very detrimental to our country and to the american citizens. there is a lot of discussion these days about the size of deficits and debt here at the federal level. we have a $13 trillion federal debt, $1.3 trillion deficit this year. we have a fiscal policy that's in great difficulty. the discussion these days is about extending tax cuts. by the way, none of which are anticipated in the budget numbers that are already unsustainable, showing very large debts for the long term. extending all the tax cuts that were scheduled to expire this year will add $4 trillion to the $13 trillion debt that already exists. the reason i mentioned the fiscal policy issue is when we talk about debt and deficits, most talk about the need to cut spending. we also need some additional revenue from those that aren't now paying their share, but we do need to cut spending.

i have held, i believe, 21 hearings as chairman of the democratic policy committee over the recent years, 21 separate hearings on the subject of waste and fraud and abuse in contracting in the war in iraq and afghanistan, and much of it still goes on in terms of the work with the pentagon on this contracting issue. i have just received a letter from the inspector general and the pentagon that is looking into one of the issues of the last hearings, the issue of soldiers and contractors that were exposed to sodium dichromate, which is a chemical that was the subject of the movie "erin brokovich." but soldiers that were exposed to the deadly carcinogen. some of them have died, regular army soldiers. but in the context of doing a lot of those hearings, i have

discovered and i believe that throughout the last decade, we have seen the greatest waste, fraud and abuse in the history of this country, and it has contributed immeasurably to this overspending and deficits of debt. i wanted to come and talk about that work that we did, myself and my colleagues, over 21 separate hearings. at one of the hearings that we held, we had testimony from a man who in iraq was responsible for trying to root out corruption in the iraqi government. his name was judge al-radi. i have a photograph of judge al-radi. he testified here in this country. he testified that his work as head of the anticorruption unit in iraq, he found that $18 billion, $18 billion was missing. most

most of it american money, most of it coming from the american taxpayer. just missing. now, why was he here in this country testifying at a hearing i held? because he got booted out of iraq and he got no support from the united states government as he was booted out of iraq. and he ended up in this country. but he is the person who was supposed to be rooting out and investigating and then prosecuting waste and fraud and abuse. his investigations and the investigations of his staff, some of whom were assassinated, some of whose families were killed, show that there were $18 billion -- $18 billion was missing and most of it was american money. well, that's the story about judge l. rody. we had a hearing early on in this process and talked about the issue of contractors and

contracting. and as you know, in the early part of of the war in iraq and in afghanistan, money was just shoved out the back door of the pentagon hiring contractors. very large contracts, in most cases no-bid, sole-source contracts. and a very courageous woman came to testify before our committee. her name was bunnatine greenhouse. she was the highest civilian official at the army corps of engineers. the highest civilian official in the pentagon, in charge of contracting. and here's what she said. she objected to the way the pentagon was doing thigh -- doig these contracts, massive contracts, sole source, massive amount of money, and she watched as the normal processes were avoided and ignored. and she nefd publi testified in- quote -- "i can unequivocally state that the contracts awarded

to kellogg, brown and root, represented the most blatant contract abusive witnessed during the course of my professional can." this was an extraordinary woman, the highest civilian person in the army corps of engineers, in charge of contracting. two masters degrees. came from a family in louisiana. all three kids have advanced degrees. her brother, by the way, was one of the 50 top professional basketball players in the last century, alvin hayes. bunnatine greenhouse -- remember that name. very courageous woman. saw abuses, spoke about it publicly, and for that she lost her career. she gave up her career. she was told, resign or be fired. now, let me talk about what she meant when she said the most unbelievable abuses she had seen in contracting abuses. and i want to do it starting small because then i'm going to

talk about billions of dollars. but at one of our hearings, we had a man who kind of looked like a bookkeeper at a john deere dealership in a small town. a good -- you know, kind a good ole guy with glasses. and he had been in charge of purchasing for kellogg, brown and root or halliburton over in kuwait for purchasing the things that our troops needed in iraq. and he came and testified. and he said, you know, as i was purchasing things, i was told by my employer, halliburton, don't worry what the cost is, the taxpayer pays for this. this is cost-plus. and so he -- he told us a number of examples, big examples, but he brought a small one that i thought reflected the entire attitude. this is a towel. let me ask consent to show the towel on the floor of the senate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dorgan: this is a towel and halliburton was to purchase towels for the troops, hand towels. that was -- you know, they were purchasing hand towels to be awarded to the troops. so he ordered some white hand

towels for the troops. and his boss said,, you can't order those white hand towels you have to order hand towels that have the logo of our company, ce kellogg, brown and t on the hand to you. and he said yes, but that was, like, quadruple the cost. and his boss said, that doesn't american, the american taxpayers -- this is a cost-plus contract. order the towels. put our company name on them. i mean, this is such a small but important symbol of 9 behavior that went on -- of the behavior that went on for most of the decade that fleeced the american taxpayers. now, we had a hearing in which we were told by a food service supervisor by kellogg, brown and root, that kellogg, brown and root charged the federal government for serving 42,000 meals a day to american soldiers but they were only serving

14,000 meals. they were charging the taxpayer for 42,000 meals, according to this supervisor who was on the ground and then left the company in disgust, they were charging the taxpayers, the american government, for 42,000 meals a day for soldiers and serving only 14,000 meals a day. we had testimony about brand-new $85,000 trucks being left on the side of the road to be torched because they had a flat tire or a plugged fuel pump. why? cost-plus. a new truck? taxpayers will buy another one. there was a company called custer battles, to whom the previous administration and the pentagon awarded over $100 million in security contracts. we had a man named frank willis who came to testify at a herring i held. frank willis was a classic example of a guy who went there to iraq to see if he could do

some good and wanted to be heldful theldhelpful to our govs effort in iraq. he showed us a photograph which i thought hi -- i think we probably don't -- a photograph of $2 million which was in the basement of the building that he worked in. they cash, only cash. and their message to contractors in iraq, is you bring a bag, we pay cash. and he showed me a photograph of $2 million, $100 bills wrapped in saran wrap that he said they occasionally threw around the office as a football. $2 million sitting on the table. american taxpayers' money. and by the way, much of that was loaded on pallets and flown over to iraq in c-130's and there were even stories about people dispensing 100 bills out of th the -- $100 bills out of the back of pickup trucks. and servic it was. custer battles went on to be charged with defrauding the pentagon of massive overbilling. we had a win named robert

isaacson who said that custer battles handed in $10 million in fake invoices for about $3 million of work. in one example, the company was charged with taking forklifts that they found -- they were to provide security for the baghdad airport. they took forklift as that they found in a building -- forklifts that they found in a building at the baghdad airport, they received the forklifts free because, you know, they took over the security, they got the forklifts, took them someplace, painted them blue and then sold them back to the u.s. governme government. the case against custer battles was thrown out of court on procedural grounds and then a new case is now pending, as i understand it, before the fourth circuit. we had testimony before this committee about something called the whale. it's a prison at kanbani saad. and i want to show what we have in iraq. our country, that is, the coalition provisional government, which was us -- we set it up in iraq and we ran

it -- said we're going to build a prison in iraq. kanbaani saad prison. the iraqis said we don't want a prison there. we said, we're going to build a prison anyway. so we spent $40 million of american money on this. two contractors ended up getting $50 million total and here's what it looks like right now in iraq. never been used. never will be used. the iraqis didn't want it but our country dumped nearly $50 million into this project. you know, the question is: who's accountable for that? who's going to answer to it? and i've watched now holding 21 hearings over a decade and finding very few are held accountable for this kind of thing. this prison was built of a scale to house 3,600 inmates t. it will never be finished. >as you see, you have just a

shelf cinderblocks but the american taxpayers are out about $50 million. we heard from witnesses about the parsons corporation. got a $243 million contract to build or repair 150 health clinics in iraq. two years later, the money was all gone and there weren't 150 health clinics, there were 20. 20. and i had a doctor, a very brave, courageous physician come to this country to testify what he saw with the ones that were completed. unbelievable. so what happened to the money? the american taxpayers lost the money. did this improve the health of the iraqis? and when the physician who came to testify said he went to the minister of health in iraq and said to the minister of health, where are these clinics, because i'm told the americans have spent $243 million to build

health clinics, where are the clinics? and the iraqi health minister says, well, most of them are imaginary clinics. but the money wasn't imaginary. the american taxpayers' money is gone. we had several hearings on the issue of kellogg, brown and root, and i mention them because they got the biggest contract, sole-source contract. that's why they're the ones that are mentioned the most. but providing water treatment to the military facilities in iraq. so our soldiers are in camps, military camps in iraq and k.b.r. gets the water treatment contract. turns out the nonpottable water they were providing to soldiers in the -- the camps that we had a hearing on was more contaminated than raw water from the euphrates river. we actually had from a whistle-blower the internal memorandum from kellogg, brown and root by the guy that was in charge of the water, the water contract for iraq.

and in his memorandum, he said this was a near miss. it could have caused mass sickness or death. but publicly, they said it didn't happen. and so the defense department said it didn't happen. but it did happen. and i asked the inspector general to investigate it. he did. he did a report and said, both the defense department and kellogg, brown and root were wrong, it did happen, in fact. that kind of contaminated water was being served to the troops because the contract was a contract that wasn't provided for appropriately by the company. the company was taking the money and not doing what it was supposed to do with water. and by the way, in the middle of these hearings, while the department of defense -- department of the army, as well as cal log, brown and root -- kellogg, brown and root were denying it all, i got an e-mail here in the senator from an army doctor, a captain, and she wrote to me and said, i'm a physician in the camp. and she said, i had my lieutenant follow the water line to find out what was happening because i had patients here that

showed that they were not -- they were suffering diseases and suffering problems as a result of contaminated water. so that came from the -- the physician who was in iraq on the ground. well, despite all of the denia denials, the inspector general finally issued a report saying, no, no, the defense department was wrong, as was kellogg, brown and root. a contract to provide water to the soldiers across iraq at the army camps was not being appropriately handled and very contaminated water was going to those camps. the list is -- is almost endless. i know that there's a photograph that i have shown on the floor previously because it is another contract to provide electrical capabilities to the army camps. when you put up an army camp, you have the need to provide electricity.

and i held two hearings on this subject. this was a photograph of sergeant ryan masseth. quite a remarkable young man. a green beret from pennsylvania. and he's shown there with his mother, who's a very courageous woman as well. he was killed in iraq, but sergeant masseth wasn't killed by a bullet from an enemy's gun. sergeant masseth was killed taking a shower. he was electrocuted in his shower, and it wasn't just sergeant masseth. others lost their lives as well, electrocuted in a shower, powerwashing a jeep. the fact is, what we discovered when we held the hearings is the work that was done to provide electricity and to wire these camps was done in some cases by people that didn't have the

foggiest idea what they were doing. third-country nationals that couldn't speak english, didn't know the first thing about electricity were working on these issues. the army originally told mrs. masseth that her son died, they thought, because he took an electrical appliance into the shower. no, he didn't. he was killed because shoddy electrical work was done that ended up killing this soldier. now, kellogg, brown and root denied that, as did the defense department. the inspector general did the report and said, oh, yes, yeah, that sure did happen. in fact, let me show you what the -- what the inspector general has said. this is actually from jim childs. i have one from the inspector general's office, i believe. but jim childs, master electrician hired by the army corps of engineers to go out and inspect this electrical work that was does on, for which the

american taxpayer paid a bundle on these contracts. jim childs, master electrician who was the inspector, he went in after i held the hearings. he said, "the electrical work performed by kellogg, brown, and root in iraq was some of the most hazardous, worst quality work i have ever inspectorred." -- inspected." now, let me, if i may, show you that kellogg, brown, and root said, "the assertion that kellogg, brown, and root has a track recovered shoddy electrical work is unfounded." the inspector general did the inspection. we had to go back and redo much of the work in iraq and in afghanistan, inspect it all and redo much of it. in the meantime, people died. we demonstrate that there is evidence of shoddy work in a range of areas and yet the contractors are continued to be given additional contracts. and, by the way, let me just

point out, that for the shoddy electrical work, with which some soldiers gave their lives, this contractor was not only given the money from the contract but bonus awards for excellent work. and i a tried very hard to get the pentagon to take back those bonuses, unsuccessful, i might add. but the reason i'm going through this is to point out that we have for a decade now been shoveling money out the door, at a time when we are deep in debt, spending a great deal of money on the defense of this country, on the defense department, on the war effort and so on. and a substantial portion of it, which goes out of the back of the pentagon in the form of contracts, i think, has represented the most egregious waste in the history of this country. one of my great greets is that we did not and we should have -- i tried very hard; we had sthoat votes on it here - in the senate

-- we never got through truman-type committee that investigate this kind of spending and to try to shut down that spending that is not only injuring our troops and disservicing our troops but injuring our taxpayers. i started by talking about the issue of sodium bicrow mate. we think about 1,000 soldiers were at risk at a place in iraq that is called quarmate ali. some have died. those who were at quarmate ali told of seeing something like sand blowing all over the place. it was red, however, and that was sodium dichromate. a deadly carcinogen, a subject of which a movie was made here in this country called "erin

brochovich." we've tried for a long time to get the pentagon to be as involved as they should be with respect to the soldiers that were potentially exposed. but so for most of these issues, they have been very, very slows to respond. my point is two-fold. one is about supporting america's men and women, doing what's right for them. there have been a number of people in the pentagon, one of whom testified before the armed services committee here in the senate and who i strongly believe knew that he was not telling the truth -- he was a general, as a matter of fact. there have bee been a number ofm over a long period of time who have denied virtually all of these circumstances, and yet inspectors general have investigated and have said,

they're wrong. obviously the contractor. >> at the base there is a recreational facility where you can go in and play pool and play ping-pong and do various things. it was a facility with many different rooms. well, you were to -- she worked for kellogg, brown, and root. she was to keep track of how many people came into the facility because they got paid based on how many people came in. she said, what they told me to do was to keep track of how many people came in to each room, and that's what we billed the government for. if somebody came in and went through three rooms, the government got billed for three visits by soasmtion i went to the people in charge at our base aand i said, this is fraud. we can't do this. we're defrauding the government. they put me in detention in a room under guard immediately and sent me out of the country the next day. i mean, that -- it is the story

at virtually all of the hearings that we have held. now, the point it is, as i said, two-fold. one, to protect america's soldiers and do right by the men and women who have gone to war because this country has asked them to. the second thing is on behalf of the american taxpayer, if we're choking on debt and deficit, to continue doing what we know is wrong, shoveling these contracts out the door without adequate accountability is something we have to pay attention to. now, let me be quick to say, secretary gates, i think, has tried more than others. when i began these hearings that were stretched into 21 hearings, then-secretary of defense had virtually no time for these issues. i have had a chance to talk to secretary geats. he has tried very hard to make some changes. but moving the pentagon on these issues is very, very divment and there is a relationship always between the pentagon and the largest suppliers and the

largest contractors and providers with which they do business. my experience has been you can have the goods and have them just dead-handed. you can have the internal memorandum from the company itself that says, we screwed up, we messed up, could have caused mass sickness and death. and then publicly they say, none of that havmentd i mean, this is about deception. it is about lying. it is about cheating the taxpayers. and it is about not standing up the way we should stand up for america's fighting men and women. this congress needs to do much, much more. congress needs much stronger oversight, much more attentive oversight on this kind of spending. you know, i went back and read that truman committee work. harry truman was a senator in this chamber, and at a time when a president of his own party was in the white house, he insisted that they establish a truman committee, a committee which he

then became chairman of -- wasn't when he insisted on, but he insisted on getting a committee to investigate waste in the pentagon. and they eventually created the committee and they made him chairman of the committee. and they hold 60 hearings a year for seven years. the committee, i believe, was started with $16,000. and in today's dollars, it saved $16 billion. think of that. there's way too little oversight going on on these issues. and i just scratched the surface with 21 hearings that i chaired, and many of my colleagues were parts of those colleagues. this country deserves better. and one of the significant responsibilities of congress is not just to appropriate money and evaluate what money needs to be appropriated for, but to do the oversight. when we send money out the don't, this congress needs to do much better oversight. what i have discovered and decided is that oversight is

sadly lacking at the pentagon. there are too many men and women -- and i didn't name them, but there are too many men and women including bun a teen greenhouse who gave up their careers and lost their jobs because they had the courage to stand up and speak out and say, this is wrong, this is fraud, this is cheating, this undermines our soldiers. and there are too many men and women who gasp their careers because they had the courage to do that. that should not ha happen in this country. yes, we've whistle-blower protection but in many cases it doesn't work the way it should. there's much for us to do. and won't be chairing additional hearings because my 30 years in the congress will be done at the end of this month. it lab a great privilege to be here. but, as you can tell, i feel very passionate about this issue, about our federal deficits, about spending, about accountability, but most especially about doing things that support the soldiers that we ask to go to war for this country. i think this has been an abysmal record and i think in this decade, the amount of money

spent on contractors, in many cases with no-bid, sole-source contracts that weressociated under the most abusive conditions and in violation of many rules, according to the highest civilian official in charge of contracting, i think that is a disgrace and this country needs to do much, much better. now, the work that i and a number of my colleagues did holding these hearings, i think, has in many ways held up a spotlight and tried to put all of the spotlights on the same spot. and we have cajoled and embarrassed shall pushed, threatened in some cases, and i think we've made some progress. but so much more needs to be done and can be done. and my hope is that this work will continue. madam president, i yield the floor. and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: