that we should act. but i strongly oppose one of the methods proposed to address this problem. that method would undermine congress's role in the constitutional scheme of separation of powers among the branches of government and it would abdicate congress's responsibility to decide on the spending of taxpayers' dollars. we can and we should remove the 1099 burden on small businesses. we can and we should do so without abandoning our role in determining federal spending. the power of the purse should not be handed to the president, any president. the challenge that we face is that repealing the section 1099 provision cars cost of about $22 billion over ten years. the mechanism that some support to meet that cost would empower the director of the office of management and budget to decide, by himself, which funds we have

appropriated but that have not yet been obligated, which of those unobligated funds should be cut to pay the cost of repeal. to some, this may be a convenient way to relieve congress of its responsibility to make difficult choices. to others, it may be a convenient way to shift the blame. for the painful impact of any cuts from congress onto the president. but what is convenient is not always right. the constitution places in our hands, and ours alone, the authority appropriate funds. we cannot statutorily pass that buck, and we shouldn't. the framers of the constitution, consciously and deliberately, placed the power of the purse in the hand of the congress. james madison described this authority as -- quote -- "the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the

people." close quote. mr. president, we don't know what programs that the director of o.m.b. will decide to reduce under the approach that some have proposed, but i do know that what they are proposing is that this would be his decision and his decision alone. what are some areas that the o.m.b. director could unilaterally cut? what is the universe of the potential cuts? do we care? we surely should. because the implications for our constituents will be significant. disaster relief enhancement funds were set aside to help states affected by natural disasters in 2008. according to the appropriations committee, 13 states received such funding, and they all have unobligated balances. would the senators from those states turn over to the o.m.b. director the decision whether to eliminate the unobligated balances affecting their states? we will, i wouldn't.

but that is what could happen under the proposal that is going to be considered here later. the appropriations committee tells us that the e.p.a. has $624 million in unobligated balances in the clean water act state revolving fund and $343 million in the drinking water state revolving fund. in addition, there's $388 million unobligated in specific state sewer programs approved by congress. the two state revolving funds $966 million total, include projects in all 50 of our states. so there is ads 1.3 billion tarkt that could affect sewer and drinking water infrastructure in every one of our states. we appropriated those funds. and if they're going to be cut, then we should do the cutting and not hand that power over to the executive branch, to the president's o.m.b. director. according to our appropriations committee, the department of

justice had a total of $1.25 billion in unobligated funds as of november 30 of last year. it's probably lower now, but what is it? what programs are part of it? do we know? do we care? we surely should. will the o.m.b. director decide to cut funding for u.s. attorneys' investigations and prosecutions? what about u.s. marshals who provide security to our courthouses? will the o.m.b. director decide to reduce funding for project gunrunner which is focused on fire jarnl enforcement along the southwest border? nasa had a total unobligated balance of $15 million as of the end of january. about $10 million of that is for constellation, the follow-on manned space vehicle to the shuttle. according to the appropriations committee in recent years spend for women, infants, and children program, the w.i.c. program, has totaled more than $6 billion.

is the o.m.b. director going to decide to cut unobligated balances in the w.i.c. program? we will, he could do so if we adopt the approach that is going to be before us after the vote onon our amendment. i might agree to some of this cuts in a larger package, but i would surely want to know what is in the whole package so we can adopt some priorities. so, mr. president, i favor the repeal of the 1099 reporting requirement and i favor paying the cost of repeal, whether through spending reductions or closing tax loopholes, but i strongly oppose paying for the repeal by abdicating our power of the purse, the power we have under the constitution. we cannot and we should not abdicate this to the executive branch to unilaterally make spending cuts to programs that we have previously enacted. now, there are provisions that we a-- the provision that we

adopt today -- are going to debate today but hopefully not adopt, must also be understood in a larger context, one that foresees the difficult consequences ahead. there are many, perhaps some in this chamber, who believe that we in the senate and in the congress are incapable of making these decisions. they point out that there are only two whic ways to lower the deficit -- reducing spending or increasing taxes, neither are popular with our constituents. they tharg we are unable to muster the political courage to make decisions that we know will be unpopular and there's some truth in those sentiments. restoring fiscal balance would be painful and we are in the deficit hole that we're in because spending is popular and so are fcts. -- and so are tax cuts and we have provided plenty of both. it would be easier for all of us if we could hand somebody else the authority to decide thousand remedy some of the excesses of the past.

but, mr. president, we cannot and should not run from this responsibility. justice kenzie once put it this way. "failure of political will does not justify unconstitutional remedies." he added, "the constitution is a compact, enduring for more than our time, and one congress cannot yield up its own powers, did i indication of responsibility, he said, is not -- abdication of responsibility, he said, is not part of the constitutional design." so we must not run from painful decisions, difficult or not. only the congress can decide how to pay for repeal of these reporting requirements. and difficult or not, only congress can decide the larger issue of how to bring our spending in line with our revenues. if we cannot today exercise our responsibility on the finding of $22 billion to pay for the repeal of these reporting requirements, how can we expect to tackle the much larger budget deficit that we face?

so, there's an alternative amendment which we are offering today. i along with senator inouye and others am proposing today an amendment which will make specific reductions on spending increases to account for the cost of repealing this provision. we would reform unjustified tax expenditures related to oil and gas exploration by large companies that are enormously profitable with or without these expenditures. our amendment would provide a loophole that provides tax credits to filers who pay taxes both in the united states and foreign countries and our amendment will eliminate some unintended loopholes used to avoid clearly intended rules on gift tax exemptions. if there are better alternatives than the ones that we are proposing, fine. let's consider them. but what we cannot support is the be a did i indication of our responsibility to make these

decisions. it was the will and the wisdom of the framers of the constitution to give us that responsibility, and i urge our colleagues not to slin shrink ft but to exercise t mr. president, i yield the floor. i send an amendment to the desk. it is there. i calm our amendment and ask for its consideration. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. levin proposes amendment numbered 28. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. inouye: mr. president, i rise today in support of the levin amendment which i believe is far superior alter national to the stabenow amendment, as it currently stands. the levin amendment offered today by -- the amendment offered today by senator stabenow proposes to rescind $44

billion from unobligated balances of appropriated funds that are designated for specific purposes in various appropriations bills previously enacted by congress. the senator offers these rescissions in order to offset the loss of revenues resulting from their amendment. mr. president, this amendment is a perfect representation of what i expect to be a flood of similar amendments and stand-alone bills that seek to eviscerate the non-defense functions of the federal government. with the exception of the proposal from the junior senator from kentucky, which had the courage to list each and every cut that he proposed, i expect that many other bills and amendments will be blanket rescissions that leave it to the executive branch to decide how the taxpayers' moneys will be spent.

these bills and amendments turn the constitution's step reagan administration of powers on its -- separation of powers on its read. in the case of the stab gnaw amendment, it simply provides for generic rescission of funds with the authority and decision making on the programs to be impacted, delegated entirely to the executive branch p. rescinding funds in this manner, as pointed out by senator levin, may be politically convenient, as it simply cites the topline number of $44 billion, but it is also thoughtless and rash. it will serve to shelter those who vote in this favor from the righteous anger of americans, whose lives are disrupted when important and in some cases vital projects and programs are shut down, as they inevitably

will be should the amendment pass. i can also promise that if this amendment is enacted into law, the force of these cuts will be felt in each of the 50 states and the capricious nature of the cuts will only deepen the pain. i know that because we are in the middle of a second quarter operating under a c.r., consequently, ace explained in november, the only unobligated balances remaining outside of those operating under the c.r. in 201 are those accounts that are -- in 2011 are those accounts that are slow spend rates such as infrastructure accounts. that is why it has taken $44 billion in rescissions to pay for a $19 billion problem. as a result, we'll be cutting

deeply into nondiswens discretionary -- non-defense discretionary programs, without any analysis of the ultimate cost of impacts. this approach is simply irresponsible. while we can't say with certainty what the cuts will be, because the executive branch will have complete authority over what programs will be impacted, i believe the following cuts are likely: stated local enforcement will face cuts of $200 million to $3 00 million in grant programs including $82 million in violence against women grants, $81 million in burn and other justice program grants, and $10 million in juvenile justice grants. cutting these grants funds will take funding from programs

already expected to be awarded and will fall particularly hard on states with large problems with crime. a cut of $95 million from the d.e.a. would mean halting efforts to go after and take down mexican drug cartels, to enforce narco-terrorism investigations and information-sharing, and to address emerging technologies used by drug traffickers. the t.s.a. stands to lose $674 million in funds to procure and install over 200 explosive detective systems in airports across the nation. finally, the u.s. marshals would face a cut of $48.7 million, bringing an end to courthouse security equipment projects and also halting marshals'

operations in the southwest border where they engage in activities such as tracking fujitives. supporters of the stabenow amendment would claim that i'm using scare tactics. painting a dark picture when the real cuts are not as devastating. now, mr. president, how can anyone stand here and claim that we can cut $44 billion and not have it hurt our states and our constituents? this amount is the equivalent of funding the entire department of homeland security, which covers everything from the coast guard to fema, from secret service to the border patrol. no one denies that waste, fraud and abuse exists and that we need to continue to enact reforms that will lessen waste, convict those who would with

defraud the government and eliminate abuses of programs that are designed to help those who need it most. but if this amendment is signed into law, then six days later we will all get a harsh reminder that campaigning against waste, fraud and abuse is not the same thing as implementing a policy that cuts out billions of dollars in useful spending. these rescissions will hurt individuals, they will hurt communities and jeopardize safety of life and our security. mr. president, let me also point out to our colleagues that if this amendment is enacted, we cannot stop rescissions of unobligated balances from a single account that we may view as vital because the amendment gives sole decision-making power to identifying cuts -- of

identifying cuts to the executive branch. and i'll say this again, mr. president. this amendment is not in the best interest of the senate. it is not in the best interest of our democratic priorities. and it is certainly not in the best interest of the american people. if indeed the will of the senate to eviscerate these critical programs, let's stop hiding behind generic decisions. mr. president, let us instead support the levin amendment which offsets a revenue loss with a revenue gain, which eliminates unnecessary tax loopholes and which will leave important national priorities intact. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the -- the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 28 offered by the senator from

michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: is there anyone on the other side? then i would yield. i ask unanimous consent that we then be allowed to yield back the time on both sides. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. all time is yielded back. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second. there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote: #s

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: does any senator still wish to vote on this amendment? if not, the yeas are 44, the nays are 54. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is withdrawn. under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 9 offered by the senator from michigan, mrs. stabenow. may we have order? may we have order.

may we have order in the senate. the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. we all know that small business is the engine of the economy and this amendment will address a burdensome regulation that we have all talked about, the need to repeal an unnecessary burdensome provision, a law that would require 40 million businesses in america, most of them small businesses, to file 2,000% more paperwork to the i.r.s. we have a chance to do something about that with this amendment. i want to thank senator baucus and his staff for their work. i want to thank senator johanns for his work and my colleagues who are cosponsoring this amendment. i also want to thank the 11 business organizations supporting this, including the chamber, the farm bureau, the motor an equipment manufacturers, the national association of manufacturers, realtors, nfib, small business and entrepreneurial council. this is an amendment fully paid for without raising taxes while it protects our nation's defense, our veterans and our

social security. so i would hope that we would all join together in supporting this effort to make a need change that eliminates burdensome paperwork for our small businesses. the presiding officer: senator's time has expired. who yields time in opposition? a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. inouye: mr. president, i yield back my time, but i make a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 311 of s. con. res. 70, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2009. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: mr. president, pursuant to section 904 of the congressional budget act of 1974, the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions in section 43-g, i move to waive all applicable sections of those acts and applicable budget

resolutions for the purposes of the pending amendment and i would ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is a sufficient second. the question is on the motion to waive. the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: does any senator still wish to vote on this amendment? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 81, the nays are 17. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. the motion to waive having been agreed to, the amendment is also agreed to. under the previous order. under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment numbered 13 offered by the

republican leader, mr. mcconnell. the presiding officer: may we have order. may we have order in the senate, please. may we have order in the senate, please. may there be order in the senate, please.

mr. conrad: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. conrad: i rise to make a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 311 of senate concurrent resolution 70, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2009. mr. president, the amendment will significantly worsen the deficit, a fact confirmed by the congressional budget office in a letter to speaker boehner on january 6. mr. president, could i have order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. conrad: mr. president, the c.b.o. letter says clearly that they estimate that enacting the health care law repeal would

increase federal deficits in the decade after 2019 by an amount that is in the broad range around one-half percent of g.d.p. for that period. the g.d.p. for that period is $293 trillion. $293 trillion. mr. president, one-half of 1% is an increase in the deficit and debt of this country of more than $1.4 trillion. now, we've heard colleagues on all sides say we've got to get our deficits and debt under control and yet one of the first measures here is to explode the deficits and debt, add $1.4 trillion to the debt. mr. president, that is not just irresponsible, it is reckless. i urge my colleagues to support

the budget point of order. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: only in washington could you argue with a straight face that starting a new multitrillion-dollar entitlement program is going to save money. c.b.o. could only look at the proposition that was presented to us which front loads tax increases and medicare cuts and back loads benefits. therefore, pursuant to section 904 of the congressional budget act of 1974 and section 4g-3 of the statutory pay-as-you-go act of 2010, i move to waive all the applicable sections of those acts and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of my amendment and ask for the yeas and phase. mr. reid: mr. president? mr. president? we're going to have no more votes tonight. we have an amendment that senator whitehouse is ready to offer and there are a number of other f.a.a.-related amendments that people are waiting to off offer.

we hope to have a very product tuf day tomorrow -- productive day tomorrow. and in the near future we hope to be able to dwp a finite list of -- develop a finite list of amendments so we can work towards concluding this most important bill. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the question is on the motion to waive. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 47, the flais 51. i was there of the senators duel -- three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the afirmive, the motion is not agreed to. the point of order is success staining and the amendment falls falls.

ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. i rise this evening to introduce the federal employees compensation reform act of 2011. this bill would preserve the essential purpose of the federal workers' compensation program, which is to ensure income for injured federal and postal workers while at the same time it would protect the program from fraud and abuse. mr. president, the federal employees compensation act, which is known as fica, provides benefits that serve as a safety net for federal employees and postal employees who are injured on the job, providing income until the healing process and

rehabilitation allow them to return to work. obviously, we want to support those employees until they can return to work. that is both humane and just. over the years, however, this program has unintentionally morphed into an alternative retirement program that is far more financially lucrative for recipients than the standard federal retirement system. because of the way the program is structured, for some individuals fica has become a gold-plated retirement system tainted by unfairness, perverse incentives and the potential for abuse and fraud. this program pays monthly

benefits to about 49,000 recipients. those are recipients who have suffered a work-related injury and have been approved for worker comp benefits. in the past fiscal year, this program costs $2.78 billion. of that amount, nearly $1.1 billion went to postal service employees receiving these benefits. mr. president, this program has become increasingly expensive and requires some commonsense reforms, reforms that many states have already implemented in their own workers' comp programs. as it currently operates, feca includes a perverse financial

incentive that encourages older employees who otherwise would have retired to continue to receive workers' comp benefits. remember, these payments are designed as a bridge to help injured workers until they are able to return to work. that's the important phrase, mr. president. "return to work." this program was never intended to serve as a higher-paying alternative to the federal retirement system. federal employees on feca receive an average of 73% of their gross pay. moreover, these workers' comp benefits are tax-free -- another substantial benefit. by chrono traft, a federal

employee with -- by contrast, a federal employee with 30 years of service under the system would average slightly more than 56% of his or her gross pay as a retirement benefit, and these retirement benefits are taxed. it pays then to stay on workers' comp for as long as possible, since many recipients receive more money under that program than they would if they were to retire. and let me again emphasize that these workers' comp payments are tax-free -- another big difference. in fact, according to the numbers produced by the department of labor, nearly 30% of the current workers' comp

siments are age 66 and older. while the average retirement age for both federal employees and postal workers is age 60. with no mandatory federal retirement age, feca recipients are allowed to stay on workers' comp rolls for their entire lifetimes, even when there is no expectation that they will return to work because of their advanced age. some employees have continued to receive federal workers' comp benefits into their 100's, mr. president. for the u.s. postal service alone, let's look at the statistics. as you can see, there are more than 15,000 recipients in total.

of those, more than 2,000 recipients are age 70 or older. 927 recipients are age 80 or older. 132 recipients are age 90 or older. and astonishingly enough, three postal employees receiving workers comp are age 98 or older. mr. president, it is obvious that these workers are not going back to work. they clearly should be transitioned to the retirement system. i must ask the obvious question:

is there any likelihood at all that these recipients are ever going to return to the workforce? no. then why aren't they transitioning to the retirement system when they reach retirement age? and think how unfair that is to the worker who does retire, say, at age 65 and gets a lesser amount. right now the way the system is structured, it does not encourage people to go back to work or to transfer to retirement at an age when most of their fellow workers would have retired. to prevent this continued abuse, my bill would convert retirement-eligible postal and federal employees on workers

compensation to the retirement system when they reach age 65. now that's generous, mr. president, because we know the average retirement age is actually 60. i would choose age 65. this is a commonsense change that would save millions of dollars that the postal service, the federal government and the american taxpayer cannot afford to spend. and it's also a matter of fairness, mr. president. but we must also examine other elements of the feca program to determine whether or not there are some additional improvements that are necessary. unlike many state programs, the federal workers comp program has no cap nor time limits on benefits. moreover, the federal department of labor acknowledges a 2% to 3%

fraud rate in the program. i suspect it may be even higher. we need to reduce this rate of fraud by examining whether or not the medical certification requirements and other internal controls should be strengthened. are we doing medical reviews to see if these individuals could go back to work? for example, a former postal worker was sentenced just a week or so ago to five months in jail after pleading guilty to workers comp fraud. the employee claimed that he was unable to walk from his parked car to the post office. but at the same time that he was receiving tax-free workers comp benefits, he was also operating a snow removal and lawn care

business. in addition, about 100 other claimants per year are prosecuted by the department of labor's office of inspector general because they receive workers comp and their retirement pay. these are the so-called double dippers. mr. president, as part of my effort to strengthen oversight of this program, i have asked the government accountability office along with senator coburn and senator mccaskill to audit the feca program and report on the length of time individuals remain on the program, the number of recipients who exceed the standard federal retirement age and how the federal program compares to state workers compensation's best practices. i expect that these findings will lead to additional reform

proposals as the bill proceeds through the senate. i also intend to work with stakeholders to determine if changes in the federal employee retirement system, the fers system, as opposed to the old civil service retirement system, are necessary to make sure that workers comp recipients would be treated fairly when they are converted to fers retirement benefits under this bill. for example, this may require the department of labor to administer the thrift savings plan contributions for recipients or to require social security contributions from workers comp recipients. what is clear, however, is that this program is in need of urgent reform. the program is costing too much. injured workers are not being

monitored sufficiently and helped to return to productive work. recipients who should be in the retirement system are instead receiving tax-free benefits. and some agencies have high claim rates, suggesting that safety improvements are needed. for the sake of fairness and fiscal responsibility, we must reform this program now. not doing so is an affront to the thousands of federal employees who enter the retirement system. it is a disservice to those federal and postal employees who truly need workers compensation benefits and it is an unnecessary burden on taxpayers. thank you, mr. president. i am going to send the bill to the desk and ask that it be

appropriately referred. thank you. the presiding officer: the bill will be received and appropriately referred. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to set aside any pending amendment and call up amendment number 8. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from rhode island, mr. whitehouse, proposes amendment numbered 8. at the end of title 7 add the following: section 733, prohibition against aiming a slayer pointer at an -- a laser pointer at an aircraft. four, a. o.f.a. offenses. chapter 2 of title 18 united states code is amended by -- mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to waive further reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i rise to speak in support of this amendment that i have offered with senators kirk, boxer, durbin, casey, menendez and schumer to secure aircraft cockpits against lasers. this commonsense and bipartisan amendment would protect passengers and pilots by making it a federal criminal offense to knowingly aim the beam of a laser at an aircraft. as explained in a recent article in "the new york times," a beam that is 125th of an inch wide at its origin can be two to three feet wide by the time it reaches an airliner approaching or departing an airport. end quote. as a result, when targeted at aircraft, laser strikes can instantly flash across the cockpit, temporarily blinding the pilot and the crew.

one pilot described the feeling of being hit by a laser like this: "it immediately lit up the whole cockpit and it hit both of my eyes and burned both of my corneas. instantly i was blinded. it felt like i was hit in the face with a baseball bat, just an intense burning pain." end quote. f.a.a. administrator randy babbitt similarly recently warned that lasers can -- and i quote -- "damage a pilot's eyes or cause temporary blindness." indeed pilots have described the need to hand control of their aircraft to a copilot as a result of one of these incidents. it goes without saying that such a threat to a pilot's sight, particularly during the critical phases of takeoff and landing, poses an unacceptable risk to

the traveling public, to our pilots and to citizens on the ground. for this reason, secretary of transportation ray lahood recently described laser incidents as a serious safety issue. the problem, mr. president, is growing. according to a recent report by the federal aviation administration, 2,836 pilots reported that they were targeted with lasers in 2010. nearly double the number in 2009. in other words, every day eight pilots and the passengers that they fly are put at risk in the manner i described. the problem affects airports of all sizes across the country. at t.f. green airport, for instance, in my home state of rhode island, there were 12 such reported incidents just in the

last year. the problem also is worsening as new and more powerful lasers become commercially available. these new lasers emit an increasingly bright beam that can reach aircraft miles away from the airport. current federal law does not provide prosecutors with ready tools to prosecute and, thus, deter this dangerous conduct. ill-fitting existing statutes occasionally can be used, but only in limited cases, leaving even identified perpetrators to go unpunished. my amendment would solve this problem by creating a criminal offense that clearly and distinctly covers this harmful conduct. it would explicitly criminalize knowingly aiming the beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft.

violations would lead to punishment of imprisonment for up to five years or fines of up to $250,000. the legislation would exempt valid uses of lasers in the aviation context, such as designated research and development activities, flight test operations, training, and emergency signaling. prosecutors would gain a new valuable tool to protect air safety without any burden being imposed on legitimate users of lasers. comparable bipartisan legislation has previously passed the house of representatives and was reported favorably out of the house judiciary committee last year -- this year it is widely supported. for example, this amendment is supported by the airline pilots association and the national association of police organizations.

and i ask unanimous consent to introduce letters from those organizations into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. and let me also thank senators kirk, boxer, durbin, casey, menendez, and schumer for their leadership on this issue. let me thank our partners in the house for their work, and let me thank chairman rockefeller and ranking member hutchison for considering this amendment. i hope senators from both sides of the aisle will join me in voting for this amendment that will protect our public safety against this new hazard. i thank you and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. rockefeller: i ask unanimous consent that i be added as a cosponsor to this amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rockefeller: mr. president, i have some notes

here but the distinguished senator from rhode island has exhausted my brilliant notes in his own speech. just let it be said that it is an extraordinarily dangerous situation. the whole concept of stronger lasers, more carefully targeted lasers from greater distances, being able to do it from behind trees and hidden places, blinding and probably temporarily at this point, but maybe permanently as they become really strong or do damage to the eye. when the senator spoke about having to turn over the duties of landing the airplane or taking over the airport to the copilot because of this threat, it just makes me worry that it's going to get worse because it's kind of easy to do. in essence, it becomes an act of terrorism. not just the problem of safety for the airplane, its passengers and the pilots.

but it is a superb amendment. it is my strong feeling that it will pass this body easily and will become law. and the senator from rhode island deserves enormous credit for bringing this to the attention of the congress. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: may i thank the distinguished chairman for his very kind words. let me thank him for his efforts to support this amendment. his expoarp -- coresponsible sorship is extremely important. i look to get this bill successfully passed. i very much appreciate the chairman's distinguished leadership on this. thank you. mr. rockefeller: mr. president, i reluctantly note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. rockefeller: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. rockefeller: is a quorum call in effect? the presiding officer: yes, it is. mr. rockefeller: i ask unanimous

consent that the order of the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rockefeller: i ask unanimous consent that the -- that the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rockefeller: that would be on tomorrow. i ask unanimoui ask unanimous ce judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 30. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 30, celebrating february 2, 2011, as the 25th anniversary of national women and girls in sports day. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. mr. rockefeller: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rockefeller: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration

en bloc of the following resolutions which were submitted earlier today: s. res. 36, s. res. 37, s. res. 38, s. res. 39, and s. res. 40. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed en bloc. mr. rockefeller: and i ask unanimous consent the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table en bloc with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the resolutions be printed in the record at the appropriate place. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rockefeller: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the appointments at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rockefeller: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completessity

business today, it a-- completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on thursday, february 3. that following the prayer and the pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and following any leader remarks, the senate resume consideration of calendar number 5, s. 223, the federal aviation administration authorization bill. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rockefeller: mr. president, senators should expect roll call votes to occur throughout the day in relation to amendments to the f.a.a. authorization bill. senators will be notified when any votes are scheduled. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow.

>> during this morning's question time, british prime minister david cameron and opposition leader ed miliband talked about the unfolding developments in egypt including the british government's reaction to the announcement that egyptian president hosni mubarak will not run the coming fall election. they also discussed the security of british nationals and the encouragement of democracy in the middle east. this is 30 minutes. by

>> question one but, mr. speaker. >> thain mr. speaker.mi i'm sure the whole house will wish to join me in paying tribute to private martin fell. from second battalion the parachute regiment who died last week in helmand province. m he died h. or hero, showing exceptional bravery and selflessness as he went to the aid of an injured colleague. is clear from the tributes paid by those who served with him that he was a hugely respected and well-liked soldier. went tof an injured colleague. it's true from the tributes paid that he was a hugely respected and well liked shoulder. our thoughts and our deepest condolences should be with his, friends and his colleagues. >> mr. speaker i had meetings ministerial colleagues and unconstitutional my duties with the house i shall have further duties. >> i thank the prime minister for those generous words back to private bell because his

battalion is based at the colchester garrison. does the prime minister share my concern that some local authorities and some health trusts are using their perceived cuts is an excuse to make cuts thus undermining organizations and charities with a big society concert? >> i-absolutely share the honorable gentleman's concern and i think he's right to air it. in the case of the department of health, of course, there are cuts of the department of health budget, the budget is going up but it's very important that the department of health as i know my right honorable friend is doing so -- and she does everything to try and protect the very important voluntary organizations working in that department. in terms of local government, yes, there are reductions in spending as there would be, frankly, whoever was standing at this dispatch box but i would urge local authorities to look

first at their own costs. it's only when they can show they are share chief executives, they're cutting out their own bureaucracies that they can show they can make reduction elsewhere and in some cases they're not yet be convincing. >> miliband? >> can i first join the prime minister for sergeant bell. he showed bravery and dedication and as the prime minister we send condolences to his family and friends. last weekend i saw myself the bravery and the commitment of our troops in afghanistan and all of those involved in our wider effort there. i think everyone who visits i came away with an overwhelming sense of admiration and humility and i pay tribute to everyone who's based in afghanistan. can i stop by asking the prime minister of the unfolding situation in egypt? can i ask him to update the important issue of the security of british nationals? can he inform us of the

arrangements being made for his who want to return to the u.k.? >> can i thank the right honorable gentleman to his visit to the troops to the troops and i think it's very important that we go on this difficult endeavor and i braise him for what he said. in terms of egypt, of course, he's right. the first concern should be for our own u.k. nationals and for the situation that they're in. of course, there are around 30,000 u.k. nationals in the red sea area which at the moment remains calm and stable and we've not yet changed travel advice in terms of egypt. in terms of the rest of the egypt there are 3,000 citizens in cake and 300 -- in cairo. and there are still very good commercial flights and we have added a flight commissioned by the british government. in the last 48 hours thousands of u.k. citizens have returned. i think the u.k. government has acted swiftly.

we had a rapidly deployment of 25 special concert staff to cairo. the military logistics team of 8 were sent out immediately and we were a first country to set out a team in cairo. i don't take any of this granted. but i think the ambassador and his team have done an excellent job and we should praise them. >> i'm grateful to him for that apply. let me ask him on the wider issues on egypt. i think mr. speaker everybody has been moved by the images we've seen on our screens in the last few days of hundreds of thousands of people against overwhelming odds demanding a more democratic future. following president mubarak's statement last night can i ask the prime minister whether he agrees with president obama that the stable and orderly transition to democracy must be meaningful, peaceful, and begin now? >> we absolutely take that view. the transition needs to be rapid and credible and it needs to

start now and i think as the honorable gentleman says we should be clear. we stand with those in this country who want freedom, who want democracy and rights the world over. that should always be our view. and you can't watch the scenes in kirowithout finding incredibly moving for people who want to have those aspirations in egypt as we have them in our country. now, the government takes the very strong view that political reform is what's required, not repression and we made that clear in all the calls i've made including to president mubarak and the egyptian minister. the key question is have they done enough? now, president mubarak says he's going and we respect that. what matters is not just the orderly transition but also that it is urgent, it is credible and it starts now. and the more they can do with a timetable to convince people that it's true, the more i think the country can settle down to a stable and more democratic future. >> i think the whole house will be pleased by the prime minister's answer and share the view he has expressed. isn't it also clear that far

from indicating support for extremism the people on the streets of egypt are actually demanding some very basic things, jobs, freedom of speech and their right to choose by whom they are governed. now, we have a clear interest in stability in all countries in the region but isn't it now apparent that the best route to egypt is precisely through democracy? >> i agree with that. i think that we should take the view that the long-term interests of britain from a stable middle east and a stable arab world and we won't get that stability unless they make moves towards greater democracy. where i think we need to be clear is that when we talk about greater democracy we don't just mean the act of holding an election. with them able block of democracy. i want to encourage stronger democracy, strong rule of law, a proper place for the army in society. proper independent judiciary. it's these things, the building

blocks, that i think can give us a stronger, more stable, more democratic future that will very much be in our interests and theirs as well. >> i'm sure there's a consensus in the house on the points he'll make and i know he'll he keep the house updated on the situation in egypt. i want to turn now to afghanistan, mr. speaker. can i say to the prime minister that we support the mission and we support the timetable he has set for the end of combat operations by british troops. now, during my visit, the commanders on the ground told me that we are bringing real pressure to bear on the insurgency. can we provide the house with his latest assessment of the overall progress of our mission in the light of the timetable that has been set? >> i'm grateful for that. we are making progress in helmand you but i think it's important not to just focus on helmand we have to look at the rest of afghanistan too. if we look where we're responsible for, helmand itself, government authority has gone from six provinces in helmand to now 12. that's where the afghan

government has control. that's out of a total of 14 of that. and that is progress. and the national afghan army is on target for the 171,000 soldiers this year and 13,000 police i think the key of this is the better balance of forces that we now have. there has been a surge in the number of troops and we got a better balance between the u.s. and the u.k. forces so we are more thickly concentrated in fewer areas and better able to do the job. we set this clear timetable of saying we do not want u.k. forces to be in combat or in large numbers by 2015. i believe that is achievable but we're going to have to work hard on training up the afghan national army on pursuing a political track to reintegrate those that have been involved in insurgency and we also need to make sure that the government of afghanistan improves in the way that i know he believes, too, is important. >> mr. speaker, it's that point about the political track that i want to pursue with the prime minister. does he agree with me setting a

timetable makes it even more important that we have a lasting political settlement? and one that is of drawn beyond the departure of british troop. does he agree with that inclusive political settlement must reach out to the insurgency while prepared to break holdings with al-qaeda, renounce violence and respect the afghan constitution? >> those are the absolutely key conditions and to those who worry about a timetable, i would say actually setting a timetable encourages people in afghanistan themselves to recognize that they have to take the steps necessary to take control of their country again. so, yes, we do need this political track. we need to work much harder at it. the keys are separating the taliban from al-qaeda rejecting violence and accepting the basic tenets of the afghanistan constitution. those are the keys and we should to push this extremely hard so that we can do what we all want to do which is to bring our brave soldiers home at the end of this conflict. >> i sense mr. speaker people respondent's exhibit used to

these sort of pmq's. [laughter] >> let me finally emphasize to him the urgency of supporting the afghan government in establishing that political settlement. and let me say to him that i will support him in all the efforts he makes with the united nations, the united states and all our nato partners on this. committee tell me then what concrete steps he believes we can take between now and the bond conference at the end of the year to make this happen? well, first of all i'm sure he's right from all the noises who prefer a bond fight but sometimes it's sensible to have a serious conversation about the issues we face and i know and he knows when you visit our troops in afghanistan they want us to discuss what they're doing, to discuss it sensibly and try can get it right. in terms of encouraging the political track, i think it's very important that we engage not just with the afghanistan government but also with the pakistan government. we're not going to create a

stable afghanistan that should be our name. an afghanistan that is stable enough to take our troops home without it becoming a hot bed of terrorism. we won't be able to do that unless we engage with the pakistanis i think that's the absolute key of solving this problem and having a political track so those who have been opposed to us recognize there is a democratic path, a peaceful path they can follow but they have to give up violence. they have to announce al-qaeda before that can happen. >> simon wright? >> the announcement -- the government had put aside the funding required to complete the a11 and the support of the prime minister then was very much welcomed. will he now join with me and our coalition colleagues across the region in pressing for an early start date for this game so the economic benefits can be delivered as soon as possible? >> i think all of us who visit remember how important the a11 is to people. what i can tell him is that we have guaranteed the funding in

the spending review. we're spending over 30 billion pounds on transport infrastructure over the next four years. work on the a 11 is an important project. the highway's agency is preparing a program for how it will be 11 and construction work will start in the current spending review period. >> dylan skullan is a 6-year-old austic boy in my constituency. at 6 years old he's had his speech and language therapy school taken away because he's too old. what does the prime minister think i should say to his mother, rachel, who's absolutely outraged at the support of the austic education to get away. >> going to the county council and arguing the case as many of us have had to do not only with

constituents but also with our own children as well. you have to make the fight. we are going to be producing a paper on special educational needs which will actually try and reform the way these things are done and make it less confrontational 'cause i know as a patient how incredibly tough it is to get what your family needs? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the prime minister and the ministers who have been so helpful over the last 24 hours with regard to the pfizer closure in my constituency in sandwich. i want the prime minister to assure me and my honorable colleagues from east kent that the government will do everything it can to secure the site, secure the high skilled employees and the local economy in east kent? >> i think the honorable lady is absolutely right to speak about this. it is -- it is depressing news. it is bad news, pfizer's decision. my office has been in contact with them. i spoke to them again this

morning. there's no doubt that the decision is being taken not because of some u.k.-based issue but because the company has decided to exit some whole areas of endeavor. the company is keeping all the options open in terms of what should happen to the site including getting partner organizations to continue work there and to get other companies to come in 'cause the fact is, it is a state-of-the-art site, it has brilliant employees doing great work there and the government will do everything it can coordinated by david willits to try and make sure we make the best of what, yes, is a depressing piece of news. >> i'm very grateful, mr. speaker. can the prime minister confirm a reports in today's financial times that the debit prime minister has written to him suggesting the councils be given the power to raise their own fuel duty and does he agree with them? >> the deputy prime minister write to each other and speak to

each other on a frequent basis. what we both -- what we both want to see is we want to see well resourced local councils that have greater powers and greater devolution and less top-down bureaucracy than what we had under the party opposite. >> thank you, mr. speaker. on friday, hundreds of residents, 24 parish councils, the action group and myself will provide a very warm welcome to the visiting members of the ipc who will be coming to make a decision as to whether or not they will grant planning commission to the huge incinerator which they publish to put in my constituency. if we truly are the party of localism will the prime minister give us our assurance that the national policy statements which will guide the ipc in their decision will be amended in order that the weight is given to the wishes of local people if they don't want it it should not be imposed upon them? >> well, i think the honorable lady for her question.

we can go further than. i can confirm in her own case yes the ipc will be taking representations from local people. s but, of course, as a government we have committed to abolish the ipc because actually we think it's too much of a top-down bureaucratic method and we should there should be ministerial decisions take account and be better run? >> thank you, mr. speaker. and the prime minister share my dismay that the fact that despite being 86% publicly own the rbs banker is still dishing out huge bonuses. may i have a course of action that might be helpful, i don't know. would agree that these bankers who defy these bankers to get these bonuses should not be considered for any honors in the future. >> first of all, can i congratulate the right honorable

gentleman for his new position -- [applause] >> that's probably ended his career, i'm sure for that. [laughter] >> look, we are in discussions with rbs. we are bound by a contract that was signed by the government but i'm absolutely clear. what we want to see from the banks is we want to see a lower bonus pool. we want to see more lending and we want to see them contributing more in tax to the exchequer. i'm quite convinced we will see all of those things from the discussions we're having. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the local trust structure are currently proposing major reconfiguration changes in services including preddic and maternity and these are causing local concerns for gp's and patient groups can i ask for an assurance that these concerns will be taken on board and acted upon before any changes are made

and can i say my honorable friend whose constituents use the hospital shares my views? >> i can certainly give him that assurance because the health secretary has put in place much stronger arrangements for making sure local people are listened to when there are these discussions taking place. so no changes will be allowed unless they focus on changing patient outcomes, unless they consider patient choice, unless they have the support of the gp commissioners and remember in the future health system it will be the decisions of gp's and people that drive the provision of health services, not top-down decisions made by ministers

billion election war chest at the expense of these vulnerable hard-working people? they are all each and every one the consequence of the o governmenth that he has supported pensions, about welfare they are all each and every one the consequence of the government that he spent 13 years supporting. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this week i'm at a college of gathering of students. unfortunately, sadly too many students start school and don't speak english. does the prime minister agree with me it's an responsibility and an obligation upon patients to make sure their children speak english? >> i completely agree with my honorable friend and the fact is in too many cases this isn't happening. the last government did make some progress on making sure people learned english when they came to our country. i think we need to go further and if you look at the figures for the number of people who are

brought over as husbands and wives, particularly from the indian subcontinent, we should be putting in place and we will be putting in place tougher rules to make sure that they do learn english, so when they come, if they come they can be more integrated into our country. >> there are disabled workers if the factory in my constituency. they've all been offered voluntary redundant si. they take great pride in the product they make. two years ago the deputy prime minister pledged his support to the employed workers. >> we inherited a plan that was actually phasing out support for the workers. that is actually what we inherited. i will get back to the lady if that is not correct. but we will do everything we can to try to support and help people who are disabled into work. and that is exactly what the new benefit system and the new work

program will be all about. >> would my right honorable friend describe the biggest structural deficit in the g7 as a golden economic inheritance? [laughter] >> i certainly wouldn't. and my right honorable friend makes an extremely good point. at the weekend the shadow chancellor stated boldly that there was no structural settlement when labour left office. he's nodding now. even though the institute for fiscal studies could not be clearer that we had one of the biggest structural developments anywhere in the advanced world. i have to say if you start in opposition in a position of complete deficit denial you will never be taken seriously again. >> mr. speaker, with youth unemployment at the highest levels since records began, will the prime minister reconsider the decision to scrap the future jobs fund? >> first of all, can i say how

good it is to see the honorable gentleman back and well and in his place. what i would say -- what i would say about youth unemployment what i said last week. this is a problem that got worse during the boom years under the last government and then got even worse during the recession and say still, yes, a very good problem today. i don't believe the future jobs fund is the answer because it was five times more expensive than other schemes. and in some places like birmingham, only 3% of the jobs were in the private sector. it wasn't a good scheme. it will be replaced with better schemes but frankly everyone in this house needs to work together on how we tackle youth unemployment, a scourge that has got worse over the last 13 years. >> zach goldsmith. >> mr. speaker, will the prime minister commit to making continued support of the common fisheries policy absolutely conditional upon the poish -- of

current regime of discarding fish that is not healthy has got to change. we've got an opportunity to try to work to that end. >> dr. william mccray. >> the prime minister before the election you came to the province and you entered into a contract with the people of the northern ireland, promised to bring change to our economy and in that speech you told the people to keep -- to read the contract, keep it. it on your ephedrine and use it -- use it in your hand. can you get your eyes on any progress to radically reduce northern ireland's level of corporation tax bear in mind we're in competition with the other public that this company has built out recently. >> i remember one of the things we need we would sort out the presbyterian mutual society. and i'm proud to say we've actually done that and delivered that important pledge to people

in northern ireland. we've got to rebalance the public sector. the private sector is too small. the secretary is looking at all the things at different tax rates to try to bring that out. >> i was told apprenticeships were their number one priority. with schemes and operating the area, will the prime minister back the skills to work campaign to encourage more youngsters in the northeast to take up more apprenticeship there is. >> my right honorable friend is right to raise this. we have done is actually increased the funding for apprenticeships so that we will actually be funding 75,000 more apprenticeships than what was planned under the party leaders. it will help for the young

people not only in the short term but to have good worthwhile careers in our balanced economy. >> thank you, mr. speaker. my constituency is a little world leader company that makes parachutes not for the u.k. but internationally. however, they are in danger of being stuffed in a competition that is currently going on which will cost 50 jobs that will go to a french company. they are cheaper, they are better and there is an opportunity for the prime minister to intervene and allow the company to at their own cost put this into trial for the u.k. it will lead to exports as well. >> well, the honorable gentleman makes a passionate plea for a business in his constituency. he's absolutely right in that. i'm sure the ministry of justice will hear this. i want every opportunity for british defense manufacturers to compete and succeed. and we're doing everything we can to help them. we've just been talking about apprenticeships and we're also delivering the lowest rate of

corporation tax in the g7. all of these things will help us compete, take on and beat our competitors. >> john glenn. >> thank you, mr. speaker. following the report in december of the right honorable member on how to prevent poor children from becoming poor adults. what actions does the prime minister intend to take to address the central recommendation of the report that greater prominence should be given to the earliest years in public policy? >> the honorable gentleman is quite right and i think it's good that the honorable member has produced this report about how we try and help children out of poverty. the two most important steps we are taking is funding 2-year-olds in nursery education, a pledge never made, never delivered by the party opposite and the second thing is a pupil premium for all children who are on free school meals so that the money follows them into school. they shake their heads. they had 13 years to do it. they never did. >> thomas?

>> thank you, mr. speaker. there were 4,000 stillbirths in the united kingdom last year. the pain for those families is utterly unimaginely. will there be no cut in funding in the stillbirths. >> we're putting $10.6 billion extra into the national health service during this parliament that is against the advice of many including his on front bench. i will get back to him on the specific research that he speaks about but i know and every honorable member will have met constituents who had this situation and how heartbreaking it can be and where we can get to understand more, what the cause of stillbirth is, of course, we should be doing that work. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the school in my constituency last month celebrated becoming a academy. and they are delighted with the freedoms becoming an academy has

given them could my right honorable friend in other constituencies who are considering doing the same step. >> i would encourage all schools looking at the academy status because of the extra freedom it gives you, the extra responsibility it gives you and i think the evidence is now clear that academy schools particularly in less well off has transformed those results in those places and what we've managed to do in a coalition government we have created as many academy schools in the last government did in the last seven years. we're making good pressure with this but we should keep up the pressure. >> 48% of the british people feel the government has lost control of the economy and the chancellor himself has admitted that he has no plan b. given that this government has ax the future jobs fund, has trebled scrip fees the question people up and down the country has been asking has this country have a plan a for our people?

>> what is clear is that there is only one side in this house that's got a plan at all. the prime minister has absolutely no plan to deny the deficit to say there wasn't a problem and to pretend that somehow they held onto a golden inheritance although we had the biggest deficit and a debt to deal with? >> given the commitment of the coalition government to reinvigorate occupational pensions, would the prime minister welcome the launch yesterday by the national association of pension funds of its workplace retirement income commission which is designed to produce proposals to improve the adequacy of pensions so that people can live with dignity and with enough money in retirement? >> well, my honorable friend makes a very good point is we want to see strong private sector pension provision.

and i think the history over the last 13 years has been depressing when so much money has been taken out of the pension system not least by the pensions tax that happened year after year proposed probably by the two people now running the labour party. we want people to have independence and dignity in their old age. >> mr. speaker, 200 years ago, the privileged people in this country managed to steal the english common land from the english common people. why is his government returning to that kind of activity by taking away the forests and woods of our country? >> i have to say, this government is taking a completely different approach to the last government. the last government sold off forestry with no guarantees of access, nogators -- gar tees of

habitat. is the the case that there are organizations like the woodland trust, like the national trust that do a better job than the forestry commission? i believe yes, there are. is there a problem with the forestry commission that is -- >> order, i apologize for interrupting the prime minister. the prime minister must not be shouted at. the question was heard and the answer must be heard. the prime minister? >> what i would say to the honorable gentleman is there a problem when you have the forestry commission that is responsible for regulating forestry but is also a massive owner of forestry. we don't accept that with the bank of england or with other organizations so this is worth looking at to see >> the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m.

>> joint chiefs of staff chairman mike allen delivered a speech today on the evolving relationship between the pentagon and the state department. this is part of the first-ever conference for u.s. ambassadors abroad taking place in washington. secretary of state hillary clinton introduces chairman mullen. this is 15 minutes. >> good afternoon everyone, and i love the volume of conversation that is occurring. it is one of the ancillary benefits that we hoped would occur because of the opportunity

for people to come together and share ideas and catch up with each other. we are really fortunate today to have someone who really understands what civilian power means, although he has committed his life to serving our country in the united states navy. he is someone who grasps in a very deep and profound way a vision of integrated american power and is one of the state department and usaid's strongest advocates and champions. i have personally really appreciated the opportunity to get to know admiral mullen, to work with him. before i had this job, i did not

know how many hours i would spend in the situation room. usually sitting across from secretary gaetz and the chairman of the joint chiefs, admiral mullen, so we have spent many quality hours together. talking through some thorny difficult problems that don't have any easy answer or they wouldn't be the subject of our meetings. time and time again, he has wrought sensitivity and an insight into the causes of the dilemmas we are watching unfold, the forces that are at work and he has also graciously on two occasions opened his home on maybe he'll -- navy hill across from serious discussions with high-ranking civilian and

military leaders from pakistan to try to get the yawns our usual dialogue into the kind of strategic consideration that we hope tightly to some better understanding and mutual efforts. so we are very fortunate to have mike mullen here today and he has graciously offered to make some remarks, but then he wants to answer questions and when he finishes his remarks, we will have the press leave so you can ask him anything. if that isn't inviting enough, we will think of something else. but please join me in welcoming the chairman of the joint chiefs, admiral mike mullen. [applause] >> thank you madam secretary.

i certainly appreciate that kind introduction, and just the introduction alone says an awful lot about the time we have spent together and certainly not just myself and bob gates, but so many in this room who work so closely with those of us in the pentagon. i would hope to leave several messages today but first of all one of them would he just to say thanks, thanks for what you do, thanks for what you do for our country and thanks for what you do for people around the world. certainly as someone that grew up in the navy, i was trained very early in ports around the world how important a country team was and actually it was a very well blended interagency team in whatever country i existed, and so came to have an understanding about that and certainly look at that at a much higher level and can't say

enough about the importance of the team right now. as someone who has spent over four decades in the military, i am very fond of saying that you know we don't create policies, we execute policy. policy has the lead antiwar at the floor in that regard. obviously we have been going through some fairly significant challenges in the last few days. and it is very easy to see in that this relationship between policy -- i'm sorry, between the civilian lead and obviously the military support. and i'll just use this as an example. there isn't a better example of that right now. and i appreciate all that, in a very difficult situation, the strength of that leadership and the conviction of that

leadership. and obviously, we are from a military standpoint here to support. it hasn't just been a $1.3 billion investment in egypt over the last 30 years. it hasn't just been dollars and it hasn't just been a military investment in their armed services, which have been a critical part. it has been an investment on the part of the united states that goes back actually a long way, it even further back than 30 years in terms of the relationship -- the historic relationship we have had with a country. so this part of it, to see it jealous and to see it focus and it's very very difficult time is a wonderful example. as i look around the room in fact i didn't realize we had, i am not sure i knew we had this many countries in the world. i think the number was 178 of you who are here and it's just terrific that the field can come

to washington every now and again, because washington has in mind of its own and i don't have to tell you that in that regard. but your participation and feedback is absolutely critical and everything that we are doing. and many of you know and any of you i don't. but i will tell you a story. part of what i tried to focus on, i have always tried to focus on our young ones because i'm always concerned about who comes next. how are we growing the bench? and i think it was last july, i was having lunch in kandahar at the prt and there were half a dozen to 10, 30-something sitting around the table at lunch that were in the prt who were so engaged and so enthused about what they were doing and what i thought was a little ironic was when i asked them where they came from, my recollection was they had come

from lima and from london and from tokyo and from lisbon and places that probably when they joined up, they thought they'd want to go in and of there and they had. but when i asked them how many of them expected to be in kandahar, the answer was none at that point. but they were providing such an important part of our mission and that interface between the two in support of our military, and to listen to them and their plans and their enthusiasm and their dedication and kandahar is a pretty tough town. it was last july and still is. if i go back even to the summer of 09 i was in helmand right after the marines went in, 10 bells of them and you see marines all over the place and i got all that. but the individual i remember is this young state department foreign service officer who was they are the second day after the marines went in. and i have seen that time and time again, whether quite

frankly and iraq or afghanistan. and i don't get to travel -- i get invited to london and i get invited to paris -- and which are places i used to spend a lot of time in. i think i've been to london once in this job and to paris once in this job. but i i don't get together any more. i am in baghdad and kabul and islamabad and others that we have challenges in. that doesn't mean that those countries and allies aren't critically important because they are and the relationships are important. but what i have seen, the merging of these two teams in these wars -- in these wars have changed us. they have changed how we think. they have changed how career path certainly the military have been and are going to be. and i think and hope that they would certainly have that kind of impact in the foreign service world as well. i had the great pleasure of

rejoining up just a few minutes with ann patterson and i have watched ann in pakistan. and it's another country which presents an exceptional number of challenges to say the least. but i can remember in the long march a couple of years ago the impact that she had and the state department and diplomacy had in resolving a hugely critical, it time sensitive situation at that time. i see cameron munter is here and is certainly jumped into the challenges that are there. where is bill brownfield? not here. but i think the challenges and the evolution over time with bill having come from venezuela, gone to columbia and you look at where columbia is and that has been another wonderful example and some of our most difficult military challenges were, in fact, supported by great

judgment on the part of an ambassador like bill. icier great russian ambassador here and actually we just came from the white house where we signed the s.t.a.r.t. and ambassador byerly and others, many people. that is changing the world and we do that in ways now that some of us didn't imagine we could a few years ago. kathy stevens is here and certainly the whole issue of this team with respect to what's going on in the peninsula. so, i guess one -- the criticality of it, the policy league -- the policy and diplomacy lead of it and the constancy of it. there seemed to be a growing number of challenges that get on the plate and sometimes are pretty difficult to get off the plate these days. so it is an extraordinary time. and didn't really sort of the cap -- my capstone view is to be

fortunate to literally watched two masters in secretaries clinton and gates together. many of you have grown up in this business where the secretary of state and and and secretary of defense didn't necessarily have each other over for dinner very often. [laughter] and it's actually fun listening sometimes particularly to secretary gates regale me with the stories of the past. but quite frankly those are stories of the past. we cannot in this world we are living in right now live without the kind of relationship that we have right now between these two secretaries. the difference that they make in terms of setting the example, the standard and it resonates throughout both organizations. you can see it, whether from the very top to the most jr. people we have in the field. and i think it is an example for the 21st century that we fundamentally need to adopt.

but i have also -- and i've seen that here in town as well, where for the first time certainly in my career, we now testified -- secretary gates and i testify in front of the foreign relations committee. we didn't seek to do that. we have enough hearings of our own. but in fact, it's a very powerful message. and secretary clinton does -- has testified on our side so there are an awful lot of signs of change that we are -- that are ongoing because of the world we are living in. i think we we have got to contie to fall meant that, to meet the challenges that we have. are going to just give you in in so many other people great credit. icy raj shah here and i ran into cheryl mills. whenever i see cheryl, i just wanted update on haiti among other things because of the huge challenges that are there. but i have watched cheryl and raj and others just make a huge difference. even though i use haiti as an example. we had a big footprint

initially, obviously the concern that we were going to say -- stay. we have in state and yet the enduring part of this to continue to support the efforts there is being led by cheryl and others as well. secretary clinton live this qddr and actually we were close enough to that to see what's going on, and they think if you compare the qdr but the qddr, that again is another example of how we move to the future together. also, i said a long time ago, he said i think in 2004 in 2005, i've really think we have got to get the state department budget right. and this has nothing to do with the past. again it has everything to do with the future. we took too much money way. when you take money way from the state department more than anything else you take people away, because in our terms, people are your main battery,

your main effort. and so having a robust enough budget to be able to meet the needs of our times is absolutely mandatory. now i haven't gone so far as to say you can have some of mine, which is what -- [laughter] which is what the secretary of state would like me to say. but believe me, i recognize that if this team is going to work together those budgets have to be about right and one of the things you will see if you are back in town for a little while is a little closer view of the fiscal crisis, which we all recognize we are in and we all have to purchase bait and quite frankly, including the department of defense and secretary gates led an effort this year to do that. so, more than invading else, i want to say thanks. thanks for your sacrifices, tank is for the difference that you make. many of you i know well, and many of you i don't know what all of though if i shook your hand you probably would say great to meet you, when are you

coming to botswana for example. [laughter] and actually i did ask about a year ago how many countries there were in the world and i think the answer got that was at least 192 may be depending on how you count. so there are lots of places and clearly our focus has been where the sites have been and i understand that. but we are also trying to invest in places so that they fight never occurs and it's a small footprint and we want to do that. hearing from you on how we can do that is absolutely critical. that is also a part of what we do. jim jeffrey is here and he said something to me. we were talking recently, think when i was out in iraq and had dinner with him over the holidays. there is sometimes -- speed does not get -- there is not enough speed to deliver the kind of capability we'd like in iraq or afghanistan or pakistan or some of these countries that are so

so -- where the sense of urgency must be what it is. at and as jim said there's another 250 ambassadors out here who are doing the lord's work around the world that the state department also have to focus on so it is not just this main effort. it is in fact where we are losing our people and i recognize that. so, thanks for all you are doing. i hope and i have great confidence actually that you are raising your young to continue to do this, because it is a wonderfully impactful way of life. this generation that is coming up, i actually am someone, an american, who has great confidence in our future because this young generation is wired to serve. i think we just have to figure out how to give them paths to serve. and that's a responsibility we all have because at some point

in time we are all going to transcend this business to another part of our life. so thanks and it is great to be with you. i would be happy to take a few questions. [applause] >> the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. thursday. today members voted down an attempt by minority leader mc connell to repeal the health care bill approved last year.

>> today newly-elected kentucky senator rand paul spoke on the senate floor for the first time. history marx focused on his plans for the chamber as well as his affiliation with the tea party. his remarks are about 10ma minutes. >> i am honored by the privilege of serving in the united statesn senate. i am both honored and humbled at the responsibility of defending our constitution and individual freedoms. i will say that henry clay's desk. there is likely no legislator from kentucky more famous than henry clay. he was the speaker of the house. he was a leader in the senate. he ran for president four times and nearly bested james cole. henry clay was called the great compromise or. during my orientation one of my colleagues came up to me andyas asked, will you be a great compromise or? i thought long and hard about that. is compromised a noble positiong is compromised a sign of

enlightenment?o will compromise allow us to avoid the looming debt crisis? henry clay's life is at best a mixed message. c his compromises were over slavery. one could argue that he rose above sectional strife to keepo the union together, to preserve the union, but one could also argue that he was morally wrongd and that his decisions on slavery to extendsl slavery were decisions that actually may have even ultimately invited the war that came.an that his compromises meant that during the 50 years of his legislative career, he not only accepted slavery but he accepted the slave trade. in the name of compromise, henry clay was by most accounts not a cruel master, but he was a master nonetheless of 48 slaves, most ofst which they did not fre during his lifetime and some of which he only freed belatedly 28

years after his death. he supported the fugitive slave law throughout his career. he compromised on the extension of slavery.wh when he was the speaker of thehe house there was a vote onry extending slavery into arkansas and the votehe was 88-88. he came down extraordinarily from the speaker's chair to boat in favor of extending slavery into arkansas. before we eulogize henry clay wd should acknowledge and appreciate the contrast withrars contemporaries who refuse to. come for mice. william lloyd garrison toiled at a small abolitionist press for 30 years refusing to come for mice with clay with clay's s desire to send the slaves back to africa. harrison was beaten, chased by mobs and imprisoned for his principled stand. frederick douglass traveled the country at the time and he was a free black man but he traveledso at great personal risk throughout the countryside and he proved ultimately that he was a living breathing example that

intellect and leadership could come from a recently freed slave. c caches clay was a cousin of henry clay, and in abolitionist. in the heidler's biography of henry clay they describe caches clay as follows. a venomous pen was his first weapon and a billy knight his second weapon. he was so effective with this firstpon. weapon that he was wie have the second weapon handy. he parted ways with his cousinwo henryrk clay although they workn together on some things in henry clay got him out of a few difficult times with the law but they parted ways when cascius clay published a letter where henry l clay seemed to be more n favor of emancipation than hef was publicly. they never spoke again after that of henry clay disavowed the letter and condemns cascius clay. cascius clay was an unapologetic

abolitionist. mad he was an agitator and makewn people mad particularly slaveowners and slaveer traders. one night in fox down, he was ambushed fox by squire turner ad his boys. they were slave traders. they came at him a with cudgels and knives and ambushed him from behind and stabbed him in the back repeatedly. as he fell to the ground, tom turner held his pistol to the head of cassius clay and fired.n and the gun misfired. i he fired again and it misfired. he fired at their time and is if misfired for a third time, cassius clay was able to reachow into his belt and pulleys billy knife and gutted one of the turner boys, killing him. t cassius clay refused to compromise. cassius clay was a hero but he was permanently estranged from henry clay.y henry clay made no room for tru. believers. henry clay made no room for thed abolitionist. who are our heroes?ar hralwe fascinated and enthrallet

at the great compromise or or by cassius clay?it henry clay came within 38,000 votes of winning the the presid. he almost beathe a james polk. he lost one state and if hene would have won the one state he would have been president. the state was new york, and he lost it because a small fledgling party, a precursor to the republican party in abolitionist party refuse to vote for henry clay because of r his muddled views on slavery.ha one could argue that clay's compromises ultimately cost him the presidency. those activists who didn't compromise, garrison, wendell phillips, frederick douglass, cassius clay are heroes becausea they said slavery is wrong andng they would not come for mice.e now today we have no issues, no moral issues that have equivalency with the issue ofle slavery.ery, yet we do face a fiscalen nightmare, potentially a debt cu crisis in our country.

is the answer to compromise? should we compromise by raising taxes and cutting spending as at debt commission proposes? is that the compromise that will save us from financial ruin? a several facts argue against that particular compromise. government now spends more money than they ever havey before, raising taxes seems to only encourage more spending. government now spends one in four gdp dollars.25 25% of our economy is governmen. spending. any compromise must shrink the government sector and expand the private any compromise should be clear s we cut federal spending, not where we raise taxes. the problem we face is not a revenue problem. it is a spending problem. it is spending that is nowwo swollen to nearly a fourth of our economy. the annual deficit is nearlytl $2 trillion.em

entitlement and interest will consume the entire debt, the entire budget if we do nothing. within a decade, there will be no money left for defense, no money left for infrastructure, no money left for anything other than entitlements and interest if we don't tackle this d probl. many ask, will the tea partyty compromise and the tea partyd work with others to find a solution? the answer is of course there must be dialogue and ultimately compromise, but the compromise must occur on where we cut spending. even across the aisle now have democrats who are now saying, you know what? it is a problem. we shouldn't raise taxes in a recession so we are finding some agreement. the compromise that we as conserva