procurement stage where they will say to industry here is what we want to purchase. you need to get certain security standards met before we will consider your proposal. there are some in the industry they don't like that. they feel it is government dictating to much in terms of development and what they need to do with their own products. how do you feel about that? should security be rolled into the purchasing process of the federal government especially when you talk about agencies like nsa who is a allowed to protect? >> guest: well jill in many ways there are certain certifications that are required particularly for security products today. we go through pretty extensive testing of our products and again this is where the public and private archbishop work out. certainly to have our products on gsa and some of their procurement program models we have to meet certifications and we do that. but to your point, could we do

more? yes. certainly when we look at the supply chain and we look at products that are required into a government, sometimes those are the critical areas that we need to make sure our secure, and when we look at those environments many times the procurement process doesn't have security standards for lots of products that are a choir. they do for security in some areas but let's say they just buy a mobile phone or a pc or a usb stick. is a secured and how do we create the proper balance between keeping the speed for procurement but also keeping the safety they are too. those are the important areas for us to advance as we move forward so i am in favor of a little bit more security posture clearly and we are procuring a little bit more certification for that. i think it is needed. >> guest: should the onus be on industry to ensure that the products through the supply chain, from a reliable source? i know it is difficult because these days the supply chain comes from across the globe.

should they had energy to make sure the products being used within their development meet certain security standards? >> guest: i think it can be, jill. certainly in many parts of our high-tech communities we already have standards like that for safety. and again, i used the power example where you have safety standards that have to be built right into your product. doing a little bit more for security is certainly something it the industry should take responsibility for but again it goes back to what is missing in the world with security standards. and again, we as an industry need to evolve a bid to create standards that allow us to have certain levels of security architecture baked right into the product we deliver and vendors to adhere to those standards. again we don't have that and that is another level that i have ford vice is we need that kind of standard created, built

and certainly as one company and one person i would help lead that if we could. >> host: dave dewalt do you find that washington understands silicon valley and vice versa? >> guest: you know, some days we do. certainly we have a lot of relationship there particularly as the high-tech community. i'm involved with the number of groups, what we call the silicon valley leadership group here. we meet with washington and with congressman and women and senators regularly. i'm involved with what is called the business roundtable as well as collection of ceos of the largest companies. we have a great public-private interlock as well where we are always seeking to understand one another. and it could always be better. that you know certainly we do have a good relationship. i think that relationship is getting better. i am really encouraged by the work the trt has done, the work that the silicon leadership group has done to really create education on both sides.

again like anything things are dynamic. we need to keep evolving and i think washington could always improving but i'm encouraged by what we are doing. >> host: unfortunately we are out of time, david dewalt president and ceo of mcafee and jill aitoro senior reporter with the washington business journal. thank you both for being on the program. >> guest: thank you for having me. >> secretary of state hillary clinton met with house speaker john to talk about proposed cuts to the state department budget. >> when i was sworn in as president i pledge to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term. the budget i am proposing today meets that pledge. >> president obama send congress a $3.7 trillion budget that would reduce the deficit by 1.1

gillian dollars over the next 10 years. this wiki are the details from the administration including cabinet officials and watch reaction from house and senate members on line at the c-span video library. search, watch clip and share any time. at his washington your way. secretary of state hillary clinton spoke with reporters at the u.s. capital following a meeting with house speaker john boehner. they talk about the federal spending levels for the rest of this fiscal year and the president's 2012 budget request. secretary clinton said the proposed cuts by house republicans would be "detrimental to america's national security." this is 15 minutes. >> a productive meeting and lunch with the speaker. i greatly appreciated his gracious hospitality and the opportunity we had to cover so many issues on the minds of members of congress, the administration, the american public and indeed the world.

as we discussed, this has been a historic several days. all of us have been inspired to see the egyptian people lay claim to their own future. it is also clear that egyptians have a great deal of work to do in order to get the full promise and potential of their efforts realized as they look toward a future that will give each egyptian they write to fulfill his or her god-given potential. and we look forward to working with the congress in the coming days to ensure that we have the funding and the authority necessary to support the egyptian people. it in sydney chip show how important it is that we have a global, diplomatic presence. a presence that will be ready to handle crises, prevent conflicts, protect american citizens overseas, and protect the american economic and strategic interests. now you see it is not just in egypt.

it is not just in afghanistan, not just in yemen. but in mexico in so many other places around the world where our diplomats and development professionals are working every single day to promote america's security interests and values. the state department and usaid are on the frontlines of just about every national security challenge we face, and we are promoting american jobs and advancing economic opportunity for americans as well. to be successful if these vital tasks, we need the resources to do the job. otherwise, we will pay a higher price later in crises that are allowed to simmer and boil over into conflict. i was very clear with the speaker about the deep concerns we have regarding the fy11 spending bill moving to the house floor this week. and what those funding levels would mean for the vital work

done by state and usaid. state and usaid would face a 16% cut from fy10. we would be forced to scale back significantly our mission in the front-line states of iraq, afghanistan and pakistan where we work side-by-side with the american military. we would also be required to roll back critical health, food security, climate change, border security and trade promotion efforts abroad as well. we certainly understand a tight budget environment. i had the privilege of serving here for eight years in the congress, and we have undertaken over the last two years our own sweeping reform effort to put taxpayer dollars to work more effectively. but the scope of the proposed house cuts is massive. the truth is that cuts about level will be detrimental to

america's national security. and i shared with the speaker a letter i sent today to appropriations chairman rogers, which lays out our concerns about the fy11 bill. over the coming days and weeks, i will be meeting with members of congress and testifying on the hill to highlight the presidents 2012 budget. how we reach 2012 is just as critical. we need to ensure that 2011 and the process surrounding it doesn't pull the right out from under the civilian experts that are working in every corner of the world to pursue america's security and interests. i thanked the speaker for his leadership on egypt's and in the very constructive advice and counsel that he has provided to the administration. i remain hopeful that when members consider the national security and economic consequences of these cuts, they will chart a different course. it is somewhat frustrating when

what usaid and the state department doing in these front-line states is not classified as security and there is a different category for security discretionary funding and what is called non-security discretionary funding and of course you talk to any member of the prt in iraq or moving in with the marines in kandahar, they clearly are part of our national security efforts in those countries. we can still reach a reasonable bipartisan consensus and move forward together. we work closely with the last congress to protect our security and advance our values and interests and i'm confident we can work with this one as well. so happy valentine's day and i would be glad to take questions. >> madam secretary? madam secretary?

you were first lady 15 years ago when we had a republican congress and proposed deep cuts particular in that diplomacy and foreign aid sector. us is reminiscent of that and if you could indicate that to the speaker. >> well i think that what we learned, certainly i think the lesson from the '90s were very important today, is that we cannot precede from our presence anywhere in the world. what we are living through is a historic period, where all kinds of changes, some of them in support of american values and some of them directly opposed to american values are occurring. and i think it is important not to have to keep learning those lessons. one of the reasons we are in afghanistan today is because we left after the soviet unions -- left and fell. and we learned that lesson.

it is expensive. it is particularly painful when we see young men and women losing their lives being injured in the pursuit of american security interests and values, but we can't go back to where we don't have a strong american presence in order to assert american leadership and influence the forces -- course of events. so i am hoping that we will be given the resources that we need in order to fulfill the mission. i will just give you one quick example. in iraq as our troops leave, there will be a savings in direct military expenditures that will total about $45 billion. we are asking for about $4 billion to make sure we have a civilian presence to continue working with the iraqi government in order that the enormous sacrifice that our men and women in uniform made and that this country made to try to

give iraqis the opportunity to chart their own democratic future is not lost. because we are not the only country that is going to be in a position to influence what happens to iraq in the future. so i give that as one example because i think it is a stark one. we will be saving many billions of dollars and in return we need a commitment and an investment of far fewer billions of dollars in order to establish the robust civilian presence that is required. >> the news reports today that there were thousands in the streets around iran out now. the opposition party is possibly under siege. there are thousands of protesters and internet lines are being jammed. can you comment on the situation in iran and what is your message to the iranian industry? >> first let me clearly and directly supports the aspirations of the people who are in the streets in iran today

all through the crisis in egypt, we had three very consistent messages. we were against violence and we stated it often and we communicated it directly to egyptian authorities. secondly, we supported the universal human rights of the egyptian people and third, we stood for political change that would result in positive outcomes that would give the egyptian people a better economic and political future. we believe the same for iran. we are against violence and we would call to account the iranian government that is once again using its security forces and resorting to violence to prevent the free expression of ideas from their own people. secondly, we support the universal human rights of the iranian people. they deserve to have the same rights that they saw being played out in egypt and that are

part of their own birthright. and thirdly, we thank that there needs to be a commitment to open up the political system in iran, to hear the voices of the opposition and civil society. and i would add that what we see happening in iran today is a testament to the courage of the iranian people and an indictment of the hypocrisy of the iranian regime. a regime which over the last three weeks, has constantly hailed what went on in egypt and now when given the opportunity to afford their people the same rights as they called for on behalf of the egyptian people, once again, illustrate their true nature. so, our messages been consistent and it remains the same, and we wish the opposition and the brave people in the streets across cities in iran the same

opportunity that they saw their egyptian counterparts saw in the last few weeks. >> can you tell us what the speaker said you when you told him the cuts would hurt national security and the estates the states operation a broad? >> i thanked the speaker because he has traveled to many of these places over the course of his career in congress and has kept up to date by consulting with our military leadership knows that we have to support our government's efforts in our front-line states and those efforts are both military and civilian. our strongest supporters as the speaker mentioned to me are the leaders of our military, and our defense department, secretary gates, admiral mullen, general cartwright and so many others. why? because they understand that if we don't have a robust civilian

presence in these front-line states, we cannot make the progress that we are seeking. you know, the strategy of both iraq and now refined and furthered in afghanistan clear, hold, builds transition, the military is responsible for clear. we are both responsible for hold. we are responsible for build and for transition, so our colleagues in the defense department have been our strongest supporters and the speaker is well aware of that. >> madam secretary -- [inaudible] >> you now, one of the most important relationships that we developed over 30 years with egypt is the relationship between our military and the egyptian military. many of the officers have been educated in the american military schools. there have been close collegial

relationships built up over this period of time. i think the egyptian military demonstrated its very strong commitment to the people of egypt and its restraint and its support of their right demonstrate. they are now being asked to assume a responsibility that wasn't in the guidebook for young officers, how to lead a country through an orderly, peaceful, meaningful transition to a democratic future. the steps they have taken so far are reassuring, but there is a long way to go and the united states has made it clear that we stand ready to assist in any way appropriate. the ongoing dialogue between our defense and military leadership with ayers has been very fruitful and i expected to continue. but, this is a very challenging moment for the egyptian military. i would say thus far they have

demonstrated a seriousness of purpose and a commitment to pursuing the kind of transition that we hope will lead to free and fair elections but also in addition to elections, a broad i am to what democracy really means, because as i've said many times before democracy is not just about one election where whoever wins it never wants to have another election. be at independent judiciary coming a free press, you need independent support for minority rights and there is just so much else that goes into what democracy represents. by that we are going to continue working not just with the military, with civil society, with a broad range of representatives from across egypt, the full breadth and depth on the economy, on academia, the professions and every other aspect of their very exciting commitment now to a

different future. thank you all very much. >> now we'll get an update from the state department present obama's 2012 budget request. it proposes $47 billion for the state department and u.s. agency for international development. we will also hear about usaid to egypt and funding for the wars in iraq and afghanistan. this briefing is 20 minutes. >> thank you p.j.. that but they get situated here. good afternoon. let me tell you there is probably no better way to note an organization then in six weeks into a new job i get to stand up and explained the budget. so i hope you will understand that and thank you very much, appreciate that. my wife said the same thing to me this morning. [laughter] but with that, i'm pleased to

present the 2012 budget for the department of state and usaid. we are here to discuss just 1% of the federal budget, how state and usaid prevents complex abroad, promotes prosperity at home and delivers real results for the american people. most importantly how state department and the usaid advance our national security. the private sector we often talk about roi, a return on investment from countering extremism in yemen to train police force. what we do is critical to our national security. with an investment of just 1% of the federal budget, the men and women of the state department and the usaid deliver remarkable returns. we recognize this request comes at a difficult budgetary

assignment and environment. the cicilline budget for lean times. we have a painful but responsible choice. we have scrubbed the entire budget for savings. we have a limited to foreign assistance programs in several countries. we have reduced development assistance by over half and 20 others. we have cut funding to europe and eurasia by 15%. we have even managed to identify over $100 million in the administrative savings for more efficient travel and procurement. in the wake of the first quadrennial development and diplomacy review better known as the qddr, we have aggressively sought to find new efficiencies and change the way we do business. they qdr recommends we move forward at an integrated national security budget. this budget represents our assessment of the funding we need need to use civilian power to advance american security and

accomplish our mission. no more and no less. this year, for the first time our request is divided into two parts. the first part is very familiar to all of you. it is our core budget. it is our foreign assistance and operations budget. this represents our ongoing investment to advance american security and economic interests. it supports our presence in about every nation in the world. our core budget request or 2012 is $47 billion. the second part is our extraordinary temporary costs in iraq, afghanistan and pakistan. as their civilian employees take on more responsibilities. for the first time a omb is presenting our war funding as they do with the department of defense and a separate account

called oh, which is short for the contingency operation. this will allow for a full, transparency and a unified approach for a cost we believe are not part of our core budget. estate and usaid request for 2012 is $8.7 billion. i will come back into it in greater detail in a moment. finally, i am sure some of you will be confused with the comparison to last years budget. i assure you you are not alone. here is why. congress has finalized 2000. we are operating under a continuing resolution basically an extension of art 2010 operating levels. to complicate things even further in 2010, or a number of supplemental spending bills and

adjustments. said to anchor our conversation today we have created a single chart that lays out the relevant points of comparisons between 2010, 11 and 12. our core 2012 request for $47 billion supports our diplomatic and development in 190 countries. it represents a 1% increase over are comparable 2010 levels, less than the rate of inflation. and make no mistake, even without the extraordinary war cost, the core budget is part of the u.s. government's national security budget. to stabilize the conflict zones, reduces the threat of nuclear weapons. it restores old alliances. it supports democratic transitions. it counters extremism. it opens global markets and protect citizens abroad.

it accomplishes this by investing in four principle areas. first, we jiabao 23% or $11 billion of our 47 billion-dollar core budget to prevent conflicts, foster economic security, and support fragile states. as we all know, this is a complex and interconnected and fast changing world. we have the capacity to prevent conflicts and stabilize fragile states. for an example, this money funds development, humanitarian and military efforts in yemen and somalia. we are working to prevent these countries from becoming safe havens for terrorists. it supports intensive american diplomacy in sudan where the government peacefully accepted a vote many said would lead to war. and it sustains peacekeeping missions all over the world.

and it funds non-war related economic assistance to the front-line states of iraq, afghanistan and pakistan. second, we spend 16% or approximately $7.4 billion of the $47 billion of our core budget to support key allies and partners. this includes over $3 billion for israel and a strong support for west bank and jordan. it funds support for nations recovering from conflicts like liberia and emerging partners like indonesia. it funds military-to-military partnerships in over 70 countries and in egypt, it gives us the funds to respond as situations involve. third, we invest 31% or

approximately $14.6 billion of the $47 billion of our core budget to advance human security. we have targeted disease, hunger and climate change. these challenges not only threaten the security of individuals across the world, they plant seeds for future conflict. we invest $8.7 billion in the global health programs. this includes money to fund treatment and prevention of hiv/aids to the continued support of the bush administration's pet bar program. and unfair fight against malaria and tuberculosis. we are investing over a billion won and food security, another cornerstone of global security and $650 million to respond to climate change. these are tool hole of government efforts against serious and growing threats.

this budget also reflects $4 billion in humanitarian assistance for victims of war, refugees and survivors of natural disasters. fourth forth and finally, we spend 30% or approximately $14 billion of our 47 billion-dollar core budget to strengthen and sustain our diplomatic and development presence. we fly the flag of it embassies and consulates in 190 countries. in each of these countries we are serving americans, advancing our security and promoting our economic interests. our political officers work with foreign governments and monitor elections and promote democracies and human rights. our economic offices open markets promote u.s. exports and championed american companies. our development officers are improving lives and driving growth.

and since taking this job i have learned just how much arab consular officers do to help the american people. last year, they issued 14 million task -- passports and assisted in 11,000 intercountry adoptions and i was amazed to learn that they worked on over 101,100 new child abduction cases, which actually helps to return 485 children to their parents. ..

afghanistan and pakistan presence in those countries. in some extraordinary and temporary costs, so this year we are taking a more unified and transparent approach. the budget includes the state department's war cost along with the department of defense. the request represents a small fraction of total u.s. government womack cost of over $126 billion. but if you ask our commanders on the ground, they will tell you how vital hour civilian missions or. as a military transition to the state department and usaid, the total cost of the american tax

payers will drop dramatically. the overall pentagon saving is $45 billion this year from 2010 levels, while our war related expenses are rising by $4 billion. as secretary clinton says, every business owner she knows would gladly invest $4 to save 41. the iraq portion of the 2012 request for the state and usaid is $5.2 billion. i just returned from iraq last week where i saw the remarkable sacrifices our soldiers and civilians are making. we have to use this moment to help iraq emerge as a stable strategic partner. especially in the key strategic

areas like kirkuk and mosul to diffuse the crisis and find long-term solutions. they take the lead from the military ready to take on new responsibilities but we need to report and resources to do the job. our oco budget includes to treen iraq police and assist the iraqi security forces. again, both of these programs were previously led by the pentagon. the afghanistan and pakistan portion of the 2012 oco fer usaid is $3.5 billion. these funds support those who are vital to the strategy. they already serve civilians in afghanistan and now the challenge is to sustain our presence and build on the military gain and show results.

working to give general petraeus and ambassador eikenberry the support they need to execute the strategy. this budget request funding for 1500 civilian staffers. two years ago we had 320. taken together, our poor budget is an extraordinary temporary four cost but through the oco budget represents the exercised civilian power as part of america's leadership in the world. we recognize these are exceptionally tight times. the resources of land in this budget the state department and u.s. aid can continue to project our values, promote growth, and above all, serve our national security. with that i will take a couple

of questions. >> meter of the figures you this the function of the budget is it? >> this obviously a number of these guys could give. >> doesn't the one function all international observations? im understand what you're really not, but in terms of the actual -- and the money does the department is going to spend isn't it to function 159, isn't that what this? >> so this is not the entire international operations budget. >> this isn't the 150 account. it is the seat and the u.s. -- usaid. they will give you all the information they need. >> okay. that's fine. >> for the 2012 budget has it

been altered in any way to reflect the development going on in egypt now? >> the request for 2012 is 1.57 billion for the full allocation. the military portion is 1.3253 billion is the economic which is the same as last year. obviously we are willing and ready to help the egyptian people as 2011 we will have funds available as well until we hear from with the egyptian people will need and then communicate that to the congress for the authorization. >> can the 2011 mauney -- >> this is for 2012 the budget numbers for 2012 which is the $1.5 billion. >> in the summary documents released by the white house this morning, it said that the 2012

request would cut the foreign military financing, eliminate completely for five countries, and a net the funding for nine countries. can you talk about the statement tied eliminating those accounts? >> sure and they will walk through the individual countries to but we had to make trade-offs as you know, secretary clinton gave it very clear the one reason we are basically flat to 2012 to 2010 is we had to cut some things to grow other things, so we made some very serious and very concrete decisions about how to prioritize and those priorities you get rich countries that did and which countries did not. >> you plan to cut or increase the support for russia? >> i don't have the russian numbers and will be able to give those to you -- [inaudible] >> yeah understand the other

people will get details. on the last chart since you don't know what to the 2011 numbers are going to be it is probably a true statement. in fact, if we don't go from 2010, the act of 2010, would we go from the 2011 request this is a decrease in funding, correct? >> to be clear if in fact the numbers that are talking about on the hill today, the number that could be cut -- >> i'm talking about the what the request was. >> without question. >> apartment just released a letter for converse man about 16%. if they go to that 16%, then this becomes a rather significant increase over the 2011 budget, right?

>> as my mother used to say i hope we don't have that problem. the reality is if the 2011 numbers -- currently what we requested in 2011 gets cut below the fy 12 numbers we have a substantial almost 20% reduction in the budget of the state department usaid. i don't think anybody believes we should be doing that. at least certainly the people of this building and what we were doing around the world. obviously we will be very much focused on what's going to happen on capitol hill, the purpose of this discussion is about 2012 budgets that there's no question we are very concerned about what could happen in 2011. >> given all that and the uncertainty isn't it kind of pointless to talk about the percentage increases and decreases as you have no idea what the baseline is going to be? if you go back to years ago the situation was totally changed. it was totally different.

for the purpose of argument here in this briefing if you want to look at it from the 2010 enactment >> listen, i feel that you're point is well taken. if you look at what our members are compared to either one, let's look at 2012 compared to 2010. we are basically flat. if you look what was requested in 2011 either way you cut this the reality is the budget reflects very tight budgeting to reflect what we believe are the reprioritization for the department of state. >> when asking very quickly as the senate foreign aid is concerned there are some and on the u.s. demonstrations and some of the country and amnesty international and even the

pakistanis aid isn't going to the people. >> i think that the amount of money that we were given reflects what we believe not only the department priorities before what we believe we need to do to keep ourselves safe here at home. this is a national security budget. we are making the decision to give these funds both on military aid and economic. >> which is our national security. >> we will take a moment to -- >> next, administrator charles bolden talks to reporters about the agency's 2012 budget. president obama's bill print calls for a five-year freeze on spending levels at the space agency. we will also hear from nasa chief financial officer elizabeth robinson. >> good afternoon and welcome to

the nasa headquarters in washington, d.c. for the presentation of fiscal year 2012 budget. joining us will be the chief financial officer elizabeth robinson and it is my pleasure to introduce the nasa administrator, charles bolden. [applause] >> thank you. let me welcome you on this -- will it was beautiful when i came in, valentine's day. there will be time for dinner so i wish you luck. i want to acknowledge the presence of my deputy administrator and other members of our leadership team. i call it a tremendous leadership team and i want to thank them for their dedicated public service and the deep love of the space exploration and its endless possibilities. this entire nasa leadership team is working hard every day to help move nasa to the level of

innovation and excellence in by thank each of them for their service on behalf of the american people. i also wanted to comment to offer thanks for the miraculous progress being made by a true friend and supporter, congresswoman grabriel giffords as she attends the full recovery for her assassination attempt several weeks ago. we hold gabbie and her family who rejoined the 130 to resume training as commander of the april mission. it is now our privilege to present president obama's fiscal year 2012 budget. the budget requests $1,837,000,000,000 for nasa to read this but it requires us to live within our means so we can invest in our future.

it connects to the human space flight and new technologies. it establishes critical priorities and invests in excellent science, erotic research and education programs that will help us when the future. at its core, nasa's vision remains the same as it always has been. to reach for new heights and revealed the unknown so that what we do and what we learn that all humankind. but now, at we've carried out this mission and fulfillment of our vision with a renewed commitment to focusing on what we do best while in power in today's innovators and entrepreneurs to carry out the rest. in these difficult times the budget supports all elements of the partisan authorization act of 2010 and carries held our

national goal of innovation, education and of building the rest of the world. because these are tough fiscal times, tough choices had to be made. our number-one priority safely flying a shuttle and maintaining the safety and well-being of the american astronauts currently living and working in space and those like mark kelly and his 134 shuttle crew members who were trying to serve this nation on the frontiers of tomorrow. the president fiscal year 2012 budget funds the debtors a ray of human spaceflight programs that maximize the use of current capabilities such as the international space station, facilitate and of the approaches to ensure u.s. leadership in low earth orbit and position to explore frontiers of deep space. taken together these human space flight initiatives will allow america to retain its position

as a leader in space exploration for generations to come. in the low earth orbit the space station remains the anchor. in this amazing laboratory we have to collaborate with other nations to live and work together in space and perform cutting edge research and technology demonstrations that are critical to our exploration beyond terrorist orbit with humans. to sustain a crucial role of the international space station in our long-term exploration plan, we must have a safe, reliable and affordable access for our partnership with the commercial space industry. and prioritized our efforts to insure that american astronauts and the cargo the need are transported by american companies rather than continuing to outsource this work to the

foreign governments. this new approach in getting their crews and cargo into orbit will create good jobs and expand opportunities for our american economy. if we are to win the future and out build our competitors, it is the essential that we make this program a success. we have also made a responsible choice to fund the full pension liability of the americans this alliance. not only is it contractually required, but it is the right thing to do. these workers have supported our flagship program the space shuttle as well as the international space station and other missions heart and soul for many years. in addition to supporting the iss and commercial crew to stand a lower orbit we need to invest in the two primary areas, the flight systems to take us beyond low earth orbit including a deep space crude vehicle and an evil heavy lift rocket and key

research and technology to enable the long journeys into deep space to read the budget funds work in these critical areas. the heavy lift rocket and the vehicle are crucial to exploring all of our beyond earth destinations. so we need to get started on them now. nasa is actively pursuing the space launch system or sls at the multi purpose crew vehicle and will release plans for them late this spring. our destination for humans yonder have not changed. among them are the moon, asteroids and mars. we will prioritize investments in the systems, research and technology for deep space to enable a logical sequence of human exploration missions to read these are difficult fiscal times and we have long term challenges that will not be fully addressed in any single year, but we keep faith with a bipartisan agreement reached

last year and begin to focus on them in this budget to read this budget provides for many new milestones in scientific discovery both new missions and ongoing support for the many space and earth observatory is successfully carrying out their work now. in fact this evening we expect to reach images of comet temple one for the space grant. this innovative and cost-effective reuse of in existing space craft will allow scientists for the first time to look for changes on the comic surface but occur following that urban it around the son. to solve this approach last november with the repurchased missions in counter as epoxy. the kepler spacecraft, the space telescope continues to find new planets orbiting other sons. a leader this year the messenger spacecraft will arrive at

mercury and the more science laboratory set to launch early in fiscal year 2012 taking the most advanced payload of scientific gear ever used to the surface of mars. the president responsibly insisted on the nasa of the future and we are proud to be part of the nation's reinvigorated research technology and innovation agenda. the technology investments will stimulate the economy and build america's global economic competitiveness through the creation of new products and services. new business and industries and high-quality sustainable jobs. by investing in the high pay off, i risc technology that the industry cannot tackle today, nasa matures the technology required for its future missions while proving the capabilities and a lowering of the cost of other government and commercial space activities. through these technologies nasa

and our nation will remain on the cutting edge and will out innovate of our competitors. our work is not without challenges. and it will take a lot of effort in all of nasa's creative and problem-solving skills to meet them. delivering a space launch system and a multipurpose vehicle that are affordable and fit within the guidelines established by congress and the president in order to meet our nation's exploration goals is not an easy task, but it is a task we must achieve to maintain u.s. leadership and technology and exploration. remember, your nasa we will strive on easy. nasa does the hard stuff. on the the ways we are looking at addressing these challenges of our innovative acquisition approaches that may include the transition of current contracts as well as increased competition to reduce development cost.

this year we learned some hard lessons as the report week requested on the james web space telescope highlighted the ongoing problems of the flagship mission. we faced the facts and make corrections. we are on the right path with jwst as we improve project management. we will continue this vigilance in the other missions also. as we have with the upcoming juneau and creole which are on cost and on schedule. today we are focused on bringing about the leaner more responsive nasa. we are going to live within our means and responsibly invest in the future. we are going to manage or programs better and look for new ways of doing business. we will slow the hiring headquarters and the human space flight centers in the coming months to align the workforce numbers and skills with our requirements. each of the centers will benefit

from the revitalization plans that will help us be better stewards of our communities. make better use of our infrastructure and help us meet the president clean energy goals. we have released our strategic plan today in tandem with this budget. it outlines the core mission and values we will adhere to as we make the necessary changes to perform at an even higher level and to the big things you all expect of us. despite the challenges, this budget sets ambitious but achievable goals that foster america's continued leadership in space and science exploration. goals to implement the rare bipartisan agreement on how this nation should invest in its future success. in order to win the future, we must -- we must help educate,

how to innovate and out build every one of our competitors and at nasa, we are at the forefront of this bold endeavor. now come here to go over the specific details of the 2012 budget of one to introduce the chief financial officer dr. beth robinson. >> thank you, charlie. can everyone here? wonderful. i'm going to be taking you through the presentation that will show up on the screens. there we are. this is the cover of the budget which you will see both on the web and in hard copy to write on the cover of course is the international space station. i did you heard charlie talked about how it is a centerpiece of this budget and of course the humanities presence in space. next slide. charlie also mentioned we released the strategic plan today. here's a copy in hard copy. you can also get it on the web

and we have a new vision statement that he also quoted which is written here to reach for new heights and revealed the unknown so what we do and learn will benefit all of mankind. next slide. okay. turning back to the 2012 budget, the budget provides $18.7 billion for nasa in 2012 which should be a familiar numbers to those of you who follow nasa budgets. it's the number that we had in the fy ten appropriations and is the number that we are currently living with. the budget supports all the major elements of the authorization act including the legal limit of the heavy lift launch vehicle and the space crew vehicle and its alliance with the president's priority of innovation, education and infrastructure. as charlie mentioned we had to make a number of tough choices including reductions to earth science and administrative cost, the elimination of the

exploration focus robotics program and maintaining the heavy lift vehicle and crew capsule at approximately the 2011 model. but throughout all of those decision meetings, we prioritized investments in the international space station and safety of our astronauts on the station and going to and from. next slide. these are -- i try to capture all the highlights in one slide but this is nasa so we will have to slides of highlights because we do so much. the first is that we maintain the commitment which is the national laboratory and exploration platform. it's also a place where nations come together in a common pursuit as they are doing right now as we speak in order to provide safe and reliable and cost-effective access to the station, we are increasing in partnership with the u.s. commercial space industry, and we also hope that as they

develop capabilities we can lessen our reliance on foreign services. we are developing a heavy lift rocket and capsule to carry exporters beyond low earth orbit and we are investing in the research and technology that enabled that exploration. many of you know there are significant technological hurdles we still have to overcome in order to put humans on the long duration space flights and as you saw in the video, we are following a capability driven approach, where as we develop the to devotees and conquered those hurdles, we will proceed to the destinations they allow us to do. asked charlie said the destinations remain the same as they were last year which is the moon, astra ways, mars and their environment. the second page highlights one cannot go past the nasa web site and not see the recent discovery by our scientific programs. the year following the national

and science community priorities sending robotic missions to explore the solar system creating space observatories and studying the earth. we are also, don't share on earth, investing in high pay off, high-risk technology, the kind the industry can't tackle alone. and hoping to transform the nation's capabilities for exploding and utilizing space in the future. we are conducting cutting its aeronautics research with increased focus on aviation safety and air space sufficiency and reducing environmental impacts. i think you know that our aeronautics program is very well aligned with the next-gen and other collaboration's and this is another year they will be contributing to that important crosscutting work. then all the fuss that work at nasa are blessed in that what we do helps develop and inspire adults as well as the next generation through our focus on education and indeed all of the work the missions to.

finally, again, as charlie stressed this budget will focus on the long-term affordability and efficiency to royte sizing and renewing nasa's capabilities and infrastructure, and we also want to be responsible in the closeout programs and in the case of the shuttle leo a top of payment for the attention of the workers who worked there for so many years as well as contractually required we are happy to pay because it's important that those workers, you know, can transition to other careers with a strong financial footing. next slide. okay. any budget takes place in a context. perhaps the context of this year is a little more complicated than others. but as always it is a combination of internal and external factors. both internal and external is that we still don't know what is happening for the funding levels

in 2011 to the agency is proceeding in all of its programs, but commitment to the lifecycle cost and states are likely to be impacted buy whenever we get in 2011. and external -- i'm sorry, internal consideration is that the administrator said he intends to combine the space operations and exploration directorates as a management consolidation, and we also looked at it in terms of a budget consolidation and decided the account structure we had in place would serve well for 2012, so you will still seek the space operations and exploration systems account. as i'm sure you've heard all ready if you follow the rollout of the president's budget the funding assumptions are notional. in a time of fiscal austerity, nasa has accepted the challenge to plan a flout out here. for those of you that look at the detail in the president's budget you will note that nasa's out years do not manage the that

is the level we were given by the office of management and budget to plan to read the president's budget will say that out years are notional and we will also say that they are emotional but nasa needs to have felt years in order to plan its missions. everything we do takes five, six, seven years, and so we need a planning assumption and our assumption is topline and indeed flat at each account and you will see that reflected in the slides to come. finally, as our portfolio is migrating to the nasa authorization act portfolio, there are a number of changes that the project level, and nasa has been operating under the full cost methodology where we allocate labor to the projects that use them to read this is something we will continue but in the execution year where we actually spend the money, we want to consolidate cleaver into

a specific allocation within each account. that will allow us to more efficiently as labor from the project to project into can imagine as the portly was taking over it is very difficult to manage every single person every two weeks for the government pay cycle. we hope it will make it more efficient and allow us to focus on our strategic work force and provide funding study for the work civilian civil service. we will see the funding for them and they will be able to see it in the details of the budget. next slide. the slide is entirely too small to read what you will see it. there are a couple of things i would like to point out. one is that everything adds up. as we go through line by line one might lose the picture but yes indeed everything does lineup, and in another feature that you will see especially in

the detail of the budget is how we present 2011. in 2011 we are operating under a cr. those are under the account level but we are also operating with another law, the authorization act, and we have to marry both of those laws in particular the saab account allocations provided by the authorization act. so you will see us to display both in this budget so that you can use them as comparisons. next slide. >> this slide is also very busy, but i would like to point out that the bottom part of the chart which goes out from 2010 to a 2020 shows all of the launches that we are planning and nasa is planning a robust schedule throughout this decade of science missions, exploration missions, and we have a lot to do. so, next slide. okay, now as we go through a

program by program the first is earth science. in 2012 by come s map and icesat2 we did take reductions in the that has primarily affected the speed with which we will put the next generation of missions of into space. here i would like to also make a note that you will see the out years of flat. in the areas where we have lifecycle mission costs that we have committed to we have allowed and planned for them in the budget under a top line for signs that is flat. another program you will see that it's flat and maintain some of those because we haven't made a life cycle commitment that we need to make sure to plan for. next slide. i'm not going to read all fees. the good thing is you can find them on the web at nasa.gov, and

so, they do contain some detail, and we of course you will find cj which could contain more detail than you might want. the planetary science, we have requested over $1.5 billion for 2012. as you saw on the video, we are launching a the science laboratory in the fall and continuing the development of the many of the missions you know about and we are a reading the results of the survey and we will do some work after that to align the portfolio with those results. next slide. >> astrophysics come again, those of you familiar with the numbers, these numbers look small, and the reason is that in the wake of the jw report, james webb telescope report, he made the decision to change the project and the project will be reporting directly to the science at weiler, and so we

changed the budget structure to reflect that as well, so we told the jwst out of this committee will see it on the next slide, but this is what remains in the astrophysics portfolio. this reflects the scientific priorities of the recent year reemphasizing decorah research support and explore missions and continues the work that we have on existing projects except for one. we have one slight change in the area of dvorkin energy. in this budget we are determining the dark energy mission and using the results of the nrc we are pursuing a number of potential missions. w first was in that the cable and we are pursuing more near-term looking at collaborations with the egg european space agency on their mission, euclid. while we are formulating the the

path towards euclid and w first, we are not reflected in the budget, so there is money in the out years that we are not reflecting the specifics. we expect to have that by next year in the 2013 budget. and finally, s.o.f.i.a. has been flogging successfully in the first competed observations will occur on s.o.f.i.a. in 2012. next slide. here is the james whether telescope. in 2012 we requested record $75 million for this project. the independent review said we would need additional announcement money and we are looking into that. in the meantime, charlie has gone ahead and followed the recommendations on changing the management approach. this funding level will provide stability for j.w. and the author science projects in 2012, but in this spring what we are

doing is developing a revised cost profile that will vary in the out years, 2013 and beyond, and we will communicate about that this summer and then of course reflect the profile in the 2013 budget. but i do want to say that in the midst of all of this, the project technical achievements have been stupendous. they've produced mirrors and infrared sensors and it's going along even with this uncertainty. next slide. heliophysics, this portfolio was on the debt 622, $622 million in 2012. this is a portfolio that has been fairly stable. the major change is that we have added an explorer mission selection in 2012. i was inline with the recommendations of the astrophysics. next slide. another featured you will see reflected directly in the budget

is our reimbursable work. this year we've consolidated the reimbursable working to a division of its own and that is because we took the responsibility for the joint polar satellite system and with something that big we wanted to make sure we had the management structure to associate with it, and then it made sense to combine all of the work that we plan to do for noah and then for usgs commesso this division exists but works on a reimbursable basis so you won't actually see the money in our budget because it is in the noval budget. and this is our chance to provide our project management and other capabilities to customers around the government. next slide. >> okay. moving on from the science account to the aeronautics account, aeronautics this year in 2012 is requesting

$569 million. there are some changes a model portfolio. there's the increased research in the utilization of the advanced ground base technologies and automation. the effect, to look at the effect of the high-altitude crystals, composite structures and materials and the utilization of alternative fuel. it also continues support for the 2011 new initiatives that we proposed in the two aligned with next-gen and another to reduce the environmental impact of aviation. while those have not started yet waiting for the completion of the fy 11 appropriations, they are fully funded in 2012. finally, in order to make some of these adjustments we have refocused and remain slightly smaller the hypersonic project and focus them on the foundation research. next slide. >> space technology.

space technology was a new feature as a separate entity in the 2011 budget and we continue it here but i would like to say there's been notable changes. one is that we transferred part of the technology development portfolio from exploration to space technology in order to provide synergy and that is $310 million of essentially the billion dollars that we have requested. also, the sbr and sttr are funded at 184 million. and this program has advancements and innovation and tries to advance to the next generation technologies on a broad range of areas useful to both nasa and other agencies and focuses on communication centers, robotics, and uses some of our more novel funding mechanisms like prices and things like that.

next slide. okay. moving on to the exploration system. exploration systems has three major components. first is what we call the human exploration capability, and we have requested $2.81 billion for that, and this is where we fund the space launch and the multi-purpose cruelty hinkle. as charlie said we have to make some tough choices, and we are choosing to fund these approximately the levels in dhaka 2011 levels and the authorization act that provides a steady amount of funding, and we believe we can make progress at these levels. the heavy lift vehicles funded at $1.8 million in 2011, 2012, sorry. and you know that we have a reference vehicle designed this shuttled derived but we are still colavita with the industry and contracts to evaluate that design to see if it is the most

cost-effective and efficient approach. in a parallel with those acquisition activities we are continuing work on the constellation contracts to try to maximize their contribution to the portfolio. next slide. we also have the multipurpose vehicle which the funding request is 1 billion in 2012. nasa selected the beyond leo version as the reference vehicle design, but we will also be working throughout the spring in conjunction with the sls to become creative program that meets available funding and will pace both of the programs to be able to optimize their development. so the final decisions will be made on this in the spring and summer time frame. next slide. >> the second component is the commercial space flight program where we of request data and $50 million in 2012. this investment leverage is

significant private sector investments to further the development of the u.s. commercial human space flight and it builds off the success we are already heading into a commercial development activity that started with a recovery fund and we believe that this level we can support multiple competitive milestone based agreements with potential competitors for the eventual services. next slide. finally, the -- as i mentioned, there was the part of the exploration technology portfolio that moved to the space technology portfolio. this is what remains. the human research program and what we are now calling the advanced exploration systems program that contains our high technology readiness level activity prototyping the life support, habitation and vehicular activity.

we also had to make a tough choice in eliminating the expiration focus for the precursor program, but there are some fun this year to collaborate to build instruments that will fly on science missions to meet the needs of the explorer precursor program. next slide. okay, moving to the space operation account, we will fly out the remaining three shuttle missions this year but then continue the disposition and of the property and capability has to continue. for a least two years. also in 2012, this is where we are booking the roughly $550 million of the pension payments for shuttle workers could that will occur in 2012 and an additional for $100 million of this position and property retirement costs and those will continue into

2013. i you know how complicated that is to get much of the property is to the radiation environment and fuel and quite a lot of it so it is going to take some time to close of the program. next slide. the international space station we are requesting in 2012, $2.8 billion. we are maintaining the same commitment to keep it flying to 2012 or beyond, but the program is working hard to see how long beyond that it can be certified, and it will be -- it is now fully operational so it will be able to conduct our experiments and also looking at improvement to our ability to operate in space and demonstrate new technologies. also in here we book of the services that was need for the

resupply services through about 2015 or so, the reason i say that is -- next slide -- this is the space flight support, and first i would like to note the numbers in the out years ago up, and that relates to what i was just talking about, which is there's about $400 million per year that we have booked to purchase seats going back and forth to the international space station bulkeley, and we plan to be from our u.s. commercial partners, and those moneys actually have to start earlier because the nature of these agreements is that you have to put money down two or three years earlier. also, this account supports space communication and navigation capabilities for all of nasa's missions and also for the other agencies, and we are working with our partners to look at the future of the satellite system, and we have

booked some money for that. next slide. okay. education. as was mentioned in the video, we have a poor education effort that affect all of our missions for the education and dissemination. but for the core education effort we are requesting 148 million in 2012 to it that continues programs of which you're familiar. the minority university research and education program and the states grant colleges. it will also continue the pile wet summer of innovation which started last year and will be continuing this summer and this will be the final a year of the 2012 year for the pilot. also, the education team has been working with an outside review called the design team, and they have restructured much of their portfolio to align with those recommendations.

nasa with beano where it didn't have its facilities and its centers, and this is where we fund the infrastructure base, the nine nasa field centers and headquarters as well, and in 2012 we are maintaining steady funding at 3192. we are also a thing our construction request to 450 million that is because we really want to emphasize that we are maintaining as well as reviewing our infrastructure, and so these are the necessary funds to do that. also, this is where you are going to see much of the administrative cost savings booked. this is where we have accepted the challenge to reduce costs and travel and printing and other things, so you will see the details there. next slide.

okay. so, in summary, this has been a tough year, but we used our priorities as the guide for making those tough choices and finding the international space station and maintaining of the health and safety of the people on it with the foremost priorities. we are also lucky in that we have a bipartisan strategy that has been laid forth in the authorization act of 2010 and the budget for the alliance with that act. thank you. >> all right, we will start with the question and answer period of the conference. we will start in headquarters and then go to the nasa field centers. please limit your question to a question and a follow-up and come back if possible. we will start here in the front. >> give your name and affiliation. >> for chiarelli death just said

there is an out your account of $400 million a year to those international space stations and i am still very curious about how the business case is closed for the commercial crew with that kind of market with which it isn't even a sure that this point since those are notional figures. bolden not sure what you mean when you say the commercial seats that we are purchasing has not assured. it is vital for us if i understand the question properly. >> it has to do with attracting private investment to go for that market. it's been a couple of things. our emphasis is the safety of the crew, both on the way to the station weigel they are in orbit on station, and additionally as we begin the exploration program so that remains a big focus as we talk about the fact that it's a tough fiscal times and we have got to try to keep our spending under control, we find that

reliance on the commercial entities to provide the transportation for the cargo and crew allowed us to decrease the amount of cost but we have had in the historic infrastructure day-to-day operations and the like while we go explore so that's our focus to try to help the nation as we try to out innovate and out innovate to be to educate and help build everybody. >> it's my understanding that the project companies would be taking nasa for the infrastructure that taxpayers are paying for right now so again i would repeat the same question. what evidence do you have that that -- that this grant be enough private investment to do that for $400 million a year market? >> what you mentioned is the hope in terms of infrastructure is ever hope we will be about to maximize the utilization of existing infrastructure. some of the existing infrastructure will go away in time, but my plea has been to

academia, industry, and other agencies to look at the infrastructure that exists in the nation and make sure that we utilize it to the best we can speed it the best bank for the buck. if you're looking at the amount of money that nasa is investing in the crew and cargo that is an investment. we are a partner in that endeavor so the commercial entities up front are paying quite a bit more than we are and we are working with them now to steady their business models and make sure that they have a viable industry from which we can draw. >> just for the administrator bolden, in terms of the timing would this budget proposal -- linwood to see the first human mission beyond the low earth orbit, either asteroid or whatever, and has that changed because of the budget

constraints? when do you see that heavy lift and the commercial crew going with nasa? >> as i see it and beth briefed on the numbers, the times today are very difficult fiscally and we are going to live within a budget. you heard me say the mantra what we do has to be affordable, sustainable and make sense. it's too early for me to give you a definitive dates for any of the exploration missions we are going to fly. the president and congress have given some dates and you will see that nasa is being the can do organization as it is our goal is to meet the dates the president and congress have given. if i look at some it's putting people on mars by 2013 or putting people on the war in an asteroid in 2025. if we can see the way through to working with the industry partners and international partners and do better some of those may accelerate, but i

think that what you are going to find is that as i try to emphasize, you know, we have to make small steps, so we will be moving incrementally. our goals have not changed at all. the time to obtain those goals will be influenced by the out here funding that's coming so it is premature for me to try to project a date that we will do anything certain right now. >> a follow-up i guess. when we talk to you and if you of the other commercial crew, they are talking that once they start to get more seed money they think they can do three or four more years, maybe even two years for the commercial crew. when do you in your plans see the switching to whatever commercial crew and how much money do you think that will save you? >> i didn't say i was ever going to switch, so you misquote me if you say that.

our intent is to as soon as we can have a viable domestic u.s. set of vehicles that we can take the cargo and crew dominant for nasa to the international space station. you know, to think that other nations will not still want to have their own spacecraft for their own purposes, that is not up to us, but i want to have is a u.s. family spacecraft commercially available to us in compliance with the will of the congress and the president again, to keep our astronauts' safe because we know they've been developed here in the united states with our oversight and partnership with them and i want to do that as soon as i can. you cited three years from the time the contractors left and i think that's the agreement we have in our partnership with the commercial entities. later on when you do the specific brief whiff of the space folk and exploration

systems they will probably give you a better answer than i did, more definitive, and this is a budget briefs i want to put my cfo to work and ask her some questions. [laughter] >> martha matthews with the sentinel and i am sorry to >> martha matthews with the sentinel and i am sorry to disappoint. why does this budget differ greatly from the nasa authorization act compared to the 2012 funding levels, it cuts $1 billion from heavy lift, it doubles the amount of money and space technology and invests $350 million more commercial space. right now pete wilson from texas already called it a nonstarter. again, why does it differ so much and how are you going to convince the hill to accept it? >> i guess i would disagree with you that it differs so much. as i said it keeps our faced with the authorization act and carries all of the elements from the 2010 authorization act signed into law by the

president. as i explained earlier and beth delude -- big board was going to use that she elaborated, it is difficult fiscal times and we had to make difficult choices. the centerpiece for us in exploration and living in space is the international space station. if i want to sustain it, have it safe i need to get the cargo and the crew there as quickly as we can to decrease or pulled the gap between the end of the era when we then have to rely on the foreign entities to get there in the beginning of a domestic or commercial capability. with that goal in mind, we have changed the balance of funding to the commercial crew and the vehicles themselves, but they are both -- i hate the word robust, it is a bad word. we adequately fund both commercial crew with funds more

than the authorization act because we want to make sure we can keep our astronauts' safe and have an american cable the to get to the international space station so i had to put increased funding. i hope that answers your question or gives you an idea. >> just one follow-up, with of this importance of the commercial crew i think someone earlier mentioned that you hope to have capability by 2016. is that accurate? >> it's premature for me to give you dates. i asked you to bear with me. we are following the element of the authorization act, con pollo with of the law trying to produce vehicles safe for american crew members and also if i go back to the three things we really need to do for the nation, we have got to help increase the amount of innovation that goes on in this country. we've got to help educate our students because there's going to be nobody to replace me and the leaders you see where the

engineers we have turned the centers if we don't focus on that, and then in order to make a vibrant economy we've got to start building things again. this is where the commercial entities come in and pitted one of the things you heard me talk to them -- you always hear me talk to them about. we are about facilitating the success and building a vibrant and a viable commercial space industry. that industry is not just transportation vehicles, it is people like bob who are building on orbit habitats. i don't even want to begin to imagine what american ingenuity would do as we support the commercial entities and let them do what they are accustomed to doing. i always have to remind people and i apologize for being redundant here. nasa has never built -- we have never built a spacecraft. that's not true. we build satellites. but when you talk about the vehicles and the like it has always been the industry

partnership from the very beginning and that is not changing. .. with their dragon capsule, that she did something that is unheralded. you know, there have been three entities that have done with a fixed it by sheer and that is launch a capsule from earth, habit or bitter, habit come back and do with it and landed

intact. spacek became the fourth entity to do that. interestingly, the other three are nations. so that success. people say that's only one. you know, when they landed on the moon, that was one, but we went from there. so we've got to start somewhere. i had an incredible time at the space center last monday. i've never seen a rocket jet before, believe it or not. i float on them and i've watched friends play on them from a long, long ways away, but i want something with a really incredible. it was a contractor for orbital testing the h. 826 engine that orbital is going to use to take third spacecraft in orbit. we are doing really, really exciting and important things, but redoing them with industry and redoing them with academia

were trying to go back to what i call the glory days when we pulled together and we did with this nation does so while in that it innovate. we can out innovate the beat anybody. i defy anybody who says that american industry can't do what it is i have faith in them doing. >> without we have some questions. before we go there, just remainder of the news briefing thursday following teleconference at the individual director and supporting budget information on our website www.nasa.gov/budget. with that, with a question from the johnson space center. go ahead. >> thank you. mark correll asking for aviation week and space technology. i'm wondering if you decided whether johnson space center will play a lead center role in the program that emerges from comp elation to develop a heavy lift rocket and multi-crew vehicle or are you envisioning a different kind of management in

development structure. >> mark, i will take that one and we don't have defenders, so they won't play in the center role. however, hopefully by the end of this week or sometime pretty soon, we are going to make announcement on where program offices are going to be. the three we will make immediately will be the space launch systems come in the multipurpose crew vehicle and commercial crew. those will be announced. you know, the human spaceflight centers that have been in the same began will continue to play a critical role in everything we do. we have nine nasa field centers. we have one laboratory at the jet propulsion lab and then we have a group of really talented people here at headquarters. and all of us are going to play a role in where we go forward. give us a couple of weeks and i think you'll be pleased that where we've put program offices and where we put the management

responsibility for these programs. i would caution you about one thing, though. management responsibility or program management at the center, you know, that does not define where the funds are spent. so just because the center does not have program management responsibility, doesn't mean that they are not going to manage projects and pieces of the programs and they are not going to let people in their local communities who are helping us to grow our economy. >> i believe we have a follow-up question. is that you, mark? >> yes, thank you very much. i do follow up with comes elation, nasa play the role of immigration contractor anything than i am wondering if nasa will continue to play the role in future develop and test heavy lift and multipurpose crew vehicle or do you envision having an integration?

>> mark, i doubt that anyone will be able to answer that question for you today, but i'm not even going to hazard a guess. but me ask you to ask that question of doug cook or somebody from as the wendy when you get to them later on because we are still looking at those kinds of details. >> alright. i believe we are coming back to headquarters. any follow-ups? no? [inaudible] >> are we just going to learn -- [inaudible] >> will go to alan landry. we did that last year and got in trouble. that's all the questions we have. mark, when marcello would. >> just to follow up with charlie, what reaction do you expect from a? how we solve the hill on this

land? >> you know, mark, we have heard he breathed -- i think all of the appropriate stance. laurie and i have had personal calls with members of congress, both in the house and senate and i don't want to seem too confident, but i am confident that we have sufficiently angered enough people insufficiently pleased enough that we're probably just about right. the thing that's important -- i listened to the president this morning when he was talking in the middle-school baltimore and i listen to shaklee this weekend. the point you here from all this is as these are difficult fiscal tasks. you know, i think most members of congress, while not happy, they understand that the budgets for everything had to come down in nasa was no different. the important thing for us as we

are living within the elements of the authorization act. we are really staying focused on safely flying the shuttle and providing following vehicles whether they are commercially procured or whether nasa operates at sea for their crews to get them to orbit, get them to wherever they are going in safely back home and that we stay within our budget constraints. so i'm really excited about it. i know we can do it. there's no question we can do it. we got to make a difficult decision and that's what you see on this budget. so you know, when you look at the funds for the 21st century, there are funds that go into the intent of 21st century when we talk about ground systems for the heavy lift launch vehicle, for example. they're not reflected in the 21st century, but that's 21st century funds. and again when you get into the more detailed briefs and somd,

they may be able to give you a better idea of where those funds lie. again, when we decided to fly shuttles well into this year, remember they have been finished with shuttles in calendar year 2010. and when we extended into this year, in order to provide safety and stability for the international space station, we incurred additional expenses that were not originally planned for and i made the decision that it was most important for us to maintain the safety of crews and maintain viability of the international space station so he listed some of the 21st century money. we do not think we would be able to spend and 20 above them, 2012 and programs that were immediately needed. it was sort of a promise that we would go back and get it to

them. we have a challenge, but we intend to put whatever funds are appropriate into the kennedy space center to facilitate the ease of our commercial partners operating from those tuesday and facilitate the successful launch of a heavy lift launch vehicle that's taking all and being sung for deep space exploration, so we will get there. we are very cognizant of this strife in our contractor workforce is undergoing, but we're looking at ways to help them, whether it's through retraining or moving them to other positions or the like. so we continue to work that with bob cabana at kfc. >> another follow-up. >> thanks. i'm wondering if you can talk a little bit about the heavy lift program and may be what type of

flight test regime you envision -- whether you think that program will help you bridge the gap in maintaining critical skills between shuttle and whatever comes next. >> one thing, remember i said whatever we do has to be affordable, sustainable and real estate. and without going into too much detail on the heavy lift, one of the things people should understand that they will be unsolvable. what does that mean quakes than if it doesn't start out as the biggest on the land. it means will produce something the neighborhood of 75 to 100 metric tons because that is what we will need a restart of of the early precursors. by the time you're talking about sending somebody to mars, you'll be up to 130 metric ton vehicle with the my guest. it would be premature for me to say that. the thing that we want to get

american entities involved as quickly as possible in building and operating our vehicles. the quickest way for me and nasa was to increase our partnership with the commercial entities that want to provide access to low earth orbit and those commercial entities are going and eight tk's and space and anyone else who is entering in competition for commercial crew to low earth orbit. the quicker we can bring them on board, the quicker we can facilitate the success, the better we will be at nearly the gap in putting people back to work or leaving the space shuttle program for another program to turn to. >> thanks. that will conclude today's news briefing. as we mentioned, there will be follow-up media teleconferences with the individual speakers, the beginning at 3:30 eastern time a space operations. for a complete list of briefings

and budget details, go to our website, www.nasa.us lash budget. how that could have turned in. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] !

>> house rules committee debate the continuing revolution which will extend government spending for fiscal year 2011. includes $100 billion in her post cut. 81 billion from nonsecurity programs and 19 billion from $23 security related programs. california republican coming congressman david dreier chairs the committee. ideal macer room. [inaudible] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> hey, mr. chairman. good. >> the rules committee will come >>thrder. we are a guest first the oversight plan, okay, so first e ay.are here for consideration of adoption of the oversight plan of the committee for the 112th congress.th congress, and we have a motion from the gentlewoman from grandfather

community. the gentlewoman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i move that the committee adopt the oversight plan for the 112th congress and authorize its transmission to the committee on oversight and government reform and the committee on house administration in accordance with the rules of the house. >> you've heard the gentlewoman's motion. let me just say clause 2d-1 of the rules require each standing committee not later than february 15th, the first session, to adopt an oversight plan and since this is valentine's day, february 14th, i guess we're just getting in there. the committee staff has circulated the text to all members last wednesday, which more than meets the 24-hour required period, and i'd like to see if there's any discussion or amendment. >> yes, thank you, mr. chairman. i have written these myself in recent years and i understand -- [ inaudible ]. but we do have some

disagreements about statements and characterizations and so we would like to submit our own -- >> oh, absolutely. we'll certainly welcome that. without objection the minority views will be included in the record. so the vote occurs on the motion of the gentlewoman. all those in favor say aye. the ayes have it. the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. so thank you all very much for that. now, we will proceed with consideration of hr-1, the full-year continuing appropriations act of 2011. we're very happy to welcome as witnesses the distinguished new chair of the committee on appropriations, my good friend and classmate, mr. rogers, and, of course, my also very good friend, he's been here a little longer than mr. rogers and i have, but my fellow westerner, the gentleman from washington, mr. dix. let me say that without

objection, if you have any prepared remarks, they will appear in their entirety in the record and we welcome your comments. mr. rogers. >> good afternoon, mr. chairman, and ranking member slaughter, members of the committee. and my colleague, mr. dix. i'm pleased to appear to present hr-1, the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution. let me just cut to the chase. i'm here seeking an open rule, an open rule so that all members, republicans and democrats alike, have the opportunity to try to put forward their ideas to cut spending or move money around in thec r. while open rules have not been common for appropriations bills over the last four years, i believe and i'm sure mr. dix would agree, it's time we return to the practice of bringing appropriations bills to the floor under regular order.

he and i have talked about that and have agreed that's what we both will strive to do. this legislation represents the largest reduction in nonsecurity discretionary spending in the history of the country and is a massive down payment on the new republican majority's commitment to drastically decrease discretionary funding in order to help our economy thrive and spur job creation. this will be the first of many appropriations bills this year that will significantly reduce spending beginning a pattern of cuts that will help put our nation's budgets back into balance and stop the dangerous spiral of unsustainable deficits and debt. this bold legislation reverses the trend of massive discretionary spending increases over the last two years. in total the legislation will save american taxpayers more

than $100 billion compared to the president's fiscal year request for '11. of this amount, $81 billion has been cut from nonsecurity programs and security related programs have been reduced by $19 billion. these cuts are not ambiguous across the board reductions. they're hard-nosed, tough, line by line reductions in specific programs. these cuts were determined through careful and fair analysis of all discretionary agencies and programs without regard to political sacred cows. and they affect nearly every facet of the federal government. the cr also includes a provision to eliminate any unobligated stimulus funding approved in the american recovery and reinvestment act saving the taxpayers as much as $5 billion.

in addition, this cr provides critical funding for our national defense giving our troops and commanders the resources they need to the maintain the security of our nation and advance our missions abroad. in total the legislation will increase funding for the department of defense by 2% over current year's level giving military leaders the budgetary certainty they need to continue successful operations for the remainder of this fiscal year. the cr includes no earmarked funding. it eliminates all previous earmarked funding from fiscal year 2010 saving the taxpayers approximately $8.5 billion. in addition, the bill includes language specifically negating any and all earmarks as defined by house rules. in closing, mr. chairman, this bill makes the tough but

necessary choices to begin getting our fiscal house in order and fulfill our pledge to the american people to cut spending now. >> thank you very much, mr. rogers. mr. dix. >> chairman and ranking member slaughter, members of the committee, this bill, hr-1 is very unusual. it's a general appropriations bill but it's also a continuing resolution. we will be considering it under house rules that are entirely new. the text has only been available since friday night. the tight time frame, the new restrictions on appropriations amendments, and the unusual form of the bill will, unfortunately, frustrate members as they try to draft amounts. if a committee considers a preprinting requirement for amendments, i would hope that the rule takes into account the short time frame in which members have to draft amendments. so if the committee does decide on a preprinting requirement, we request that the members be

given the authority to make technical changes to their amendments after they've been submitted. i strongly support the defense chapter of this bill. chairman bill young and i drafted this bill last year with bipartisan support from the entire defense subcommittee and we believe it is a cost-effective response to our national security needs. let me speak about the bill more broadly. it is clear that a debt crisis is looming. there is no denying that we need a comprehensive plan to reduce the debt over the long term. what the majority offers instead in this bill is a one-dimensional focus on the smallest segment of spending in the federal government budget. we believe that at this time we should be putting everything on the table, all spending, discretionary, entitlements, taxes, and without a more comprehensive approach to the debt crisis, we cannot effectively change the trajectory and begin to bring our public debt downward. without a more comprehensive

budgetary approach, what we would be offering to the american people would be what senator allen simpson has called a sparrow's belch in the midst of a typhoon. as we address the debt crisis, it's fundamental that we should first do no harm to the fragile economic recovery. i am just echoing what many others have said. as the bipartisan fiscal commission put it, in order to avoid shocking the fragile economy, the commission recommends waiting until 2012 to begin enacting programatic spending cuts and waiting until fiscal year '13 before making large nominal cuts. mr. bernanke in his testimony last week to the house budget committee said to the extent you can change programs, that will have long-term effects on spending and revenue, that will be a more effective and credible program than one that focuses only on the current fiscal year. the right way to do this doesn't

put too much pressure on the ongoing recovery. my concern with this bill is its unintended consequences. i know my friends on the other side want to reduce the deficit, but if you jam on the fiscal brakes so abruptly, it will be counterproductive. you will slow economic growth, increase unemployment, and thereby increase the deficit. we believe the president's approach is a better course to follow. it is a five-year freeze that will accomplish real savings. more than $400 billion in five years. but it will do so gradually making deeper cuts only as the economy grows stronger. it will bring nonsecurity spending down to the lowest share of gdp since the eisenhower administration. so that is our recommendation, and we would have preferred one of the fiscal options for the remainder of the fisal year 2011 that was offered to the house was a freeze. not only was that option not available to us, but after the appropriations committee met in

open session debating the allocation levels and ultimately approving them, the house leadership -- the house republican leadership convened its members and unilaterally chose to cut $26 billion more from the current year's spending levels. with only about half the year remaining. the resulting cuts to programs that allow our government to function properly and respond to the needs of the citizens across america are by any analysis excessive. an $88 million cut to the food safety and inspection service. a $1 billion reduction in the wic program, women and infant children which provides supplemental nutrition to pregnant mothers and young kids. the bill eliminates the cops hiring program and reduces funding for all state and local law enforcement by 35%. another $578 million is cut from the irs enforcement budget making it harder to bring in the revenue by going after the people that are not paying their taxes that help reduce the

taxes. head start is cut below 2008 levels. meaning more than 200,000 children across the country will be eliminated from the program. pell grants are reduced by more than $800 per student making it harder for traditional and older returning students to afford college. one of the most egregious examples is the termination of the housing voucher program for homeless veterans. the hud voucher program according to secretary donovan, there are still more than 30,000 veterans, many from the iraq and afghanistan wars, who need these vouchers. so my point is this -- we must be extremely careful at this time as we move forward with this appropriation bill for the remainder of this fiscal year. the economy is showing clear signs of recovery. there's some private sector job growth, an increased confidence among the business community that could lead to more hiring. but unemployment is still 9%. with many long-term and discouraged workers across the

nation. state and local budgets are hurting. the safety net is stretched beyond its capacity. while we agree that it's prudent to restrain federal spending, we believe it must be done more thoughtfully than would be accomplished by approve this legislation. we had urge a more strategic approach to reducing reductions rather than the approach drafted in this -- by the republican conference with little input from the minority. now, i will say that i completely agree with the chairman that we want to go back to regular order this year, and we want to bring out -- go through the subcommittee, full committee process. we are prepared to work to see that that is done and we are going to cooperate and try to be reasonable on the number of amendments when we're on the floor. we think this is in the best interests of the house. we've gotten away from that. it's a big mistake. the chairman and i are trying to work together to get this thing moving in the right direction. >> thank you very much, mr.

dicks, and i greatly appreciate the spirit in which you have just made the statement about the desire to work together. it's obvious that everyone shares this goal of trying to reduce the size and scope and reach of government and spending and we all want to do it without inflicting pain, but the fact is there is -- we're now dealing with budgets where we've seen a double or a tripling over the past few years. as we all know the last two years we have seen 84% increase in nondefense discretionary spending. congratulations on your great work on that. now, i know that there will be an attempt made to characterize those of us who are making tough decisions as being inhumane and all. we've heard all those arguments, and i think that if you look at the issue of veterans spending, it's my understanding from the consultations that chairman rogers and i have had through this is that there is

actually -- there are areas where we are going to be focusing attention, including veterans, and i don't know if you'd like to comment on that. >> the chairman is right. there's only two items in this cr where there's actually increased spending. one is dod for defense. and the other is for veterans health care. everything else is minus. look, just this morning it was announced that the deficit this year is going to be 1$1.6 billion. we've got a problem. we're spending -- every dollar we spend we're borrowing 42 cents of it, and we can't go on like this. so we've determined to try to begin the process of bringing the deficit back under control, and it's going to require shared

sacrifice. it's going to require sacrifice. but it's got to be shared. it's got to touch everybody and i think this bill does just that. >> well, thank you for that. let me just say in response to some of the comments that you made, norm, i know this will be an interesting debate that takes place on the floor, and as you know it is virtually unprecedented for us to continue a continuing resolution under anything other than a closed rule. every single member of this house, republican or democrat, will have the opportunity to file on the record an amendment that meets the germaneness and other rules of the house. members will be able to file those amendments, and that's what we is we want a free flowing and rigorous debate. to your point on the issue of reducing spending as it relates to getting the economy growing

again, it's interesting, mr. rogers and i were in a meeting earlier with the chairman of the joint economic committee, kevin brady, and he was talking about a lot of empirical evidence coming before them showing that throughout history nations that have focused to debt redukts have more rapidly gotten to economic growth and job creation than those that have not. i don't mean to have the debate but since you just brought it up, i thought it interesting to put forward. this will be a debate that will clearly take place on the house floor as to whether or not it's wise for us to proceed with this. i will say that the american people last november made a conscious decision, and it was -- it's been three-quarters of a century since we've seen my party have the kinds of gains that we did, and i believe that it came about in large part due to the fact that we said that we were going to bring about reductions in spending, and this

proposal that chairman rogers has come forward with is far beyond what was promised, and the proposal is one that i think is a very positive one in our quest to do exactly what we all want to do, create jobs, get the economy going, and move towards a greater degree of fiscal responsibility. so i thank you again for your cooperation in proceeding with this, and i believe that, again, with this virtually unprecedented procedure for consideration of a measure like this on the house floor, that we will have an opportunity for a great exchange. having said that you know that the idea of engaging in by ament kind of thing really undermines our ability to get what we want too do as we look toward the march 4th date that is looming. >> last year we suffered under that problem. >> right. >> with a lot of amendments coming over and over again, and

i hope both sides can be reasonable. i mean, that's how this process has to work. i mean, we have to have a number of amendments. one of the things we used to do around here is we used to once the bill got on the floor and you went through maybe a dozen amendments the chairman and the ranking member would get together and work out a list. and then by unanimous consent get an agreement so we could finish in a reasonable way so we could move through these bills. >> right. that's exactly -- that's very much what we're hoping to do. i will say that last year there was 20 minutes to debate before it was shut down, and every bill then was shut down beyond that. and it was a grand total of 20 minutes. we're trying very much to avoid that and we do want to get back to, again, regular orders. >> time committed to. >> yes. >> one point on history. >> sure. >> i was here in the '80s. i think you were. >> yes, i was. >> and of course we had kind of

the tip o'neil/robert dole group that got together and worked on all aspects of the budget including social security. now, to be honest about this, as we all know, we have to -- this has to get to the entitlements. this has to get to taxes. or at least tax reform. >> right. >> and in order to really get this deficit under control, we can't do it all on the back of one-third of the budget, which is discretionary spending. >> you're absolutely right. >> but i will also say, as former chairman on the defense subcommittee, defense has to play a role here and gates has laid out a plan where we're going to cut at least 78 billion over the next five years. you shouldn't waste money anywhere. i'm pleased to hear voices on your side saying defense should be analyzed. >> i think everyone concurs with that. i like the way chairman rogers put it when he said there are no sacred cows, in fact, they died

of gluttony, a perfect way to put it. only someone from kentucky could come up with something like that. ms. fox. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the chairman and the ranking member both. i think that your comments were very thoughtful, mr. dicks, i appreciate your talking about the fact that we have to do this. it's good to show that our callings on the other side of the aisle recognize that. i do have a concern, though, when you talk about our slamming on the brakes on spending and recommending that we go with what the president has recommended. i was here six years ago, by the way, when republicans were in charge and we had the open amendment process, and the chairman and the ranking member did get together. and i saw that. then the last four years i've

seen the process that has gone on, which has denied the minority the ability not only to offer amendments but as the chairman said even to debate the bill. and that hasn't been very good. but i find it really interesting that you talk about going with the president's proposal. we've had two years -- well, we've had four years of expanded spending. we know, as the chairman has said, 84% increase in nondiscretionary spending in the last two years, and where did it get us? our unemployment rate has gone up, up, and up. and it seems to me that that would be a message to you all that continuing the way of the last four years is not the way to go. you all want to stop spending, you say, and it seems to me that our approach should be we do need to put the brakes on this. >> let me just give you my

perspective. i'm not going to speak for anybody but myself on this. we lost 7.5 million jobs between 2007 and 2009. i believe that what we did with t.a.r.p., which was done on a bipartisan basis, and the stimulus package had a great deal to do with stopping the job loss and starting to lower unemployment. there are a lot of economists that say, had we not done the stimulus -- and if i was doing stimulus i would have put more of it into infrastructure -- unemployment today would be at 12%, not 9%. the most important thing to remember here is the way to get the deficit down is to get people back to work and to lower the unemployment rate. that's what it has to be about. and what i'm worried about and i

only took about two or three economics courses, but what i worry about is if we cut the spending too deeply that it will slow the recovery and we won't achieve our objective, which is to lower the deficit and get people back to work. i mean, this is -- you're rolling the dice here because there was a pledge made in the campaign that you were going to do certain things, but if that isn't -- every respected economist that i have talk to, including bernanke and members of the commission, they all say take this a little slower until you get unemployment moving down more rapidly and then we have to really come to grips with this and do the entire budget, not just the discretionary domestic spending. >> i think mr. rogers wants to say something. before that, mr. rogers, i'd like for you to speak, but i'd like to say, mr. dicks, have you

read the book "the forgotten man". >> no. >> i would highly recommend it to you because i read it a couple of years ago. it's about all of the -- not all the mistakes but a lot of the mistakes that were made by both president hoover and president roosevelt in the depression. and the mistakes that they made then are the same mistakes that the democrats have been making since they've been in control. and it is -- i don't know about your respected economists, but we have lots of economists -- i think 150 of them signed a letter yesterday that went to the president -- saying if we want to get this economy to recover, we have to slow down government spending, reduce the deficit, and reduce the debt. again -- >> and nobody disagrees with that. how you do it, a plan that you have to do it, and how you execute it is going to make the difference whether it works or not. you want it to work.

we all want it to work. that's why we're worried if we're too precipitous we're going to slow down economic growth. we're going to increase unemployment. and the deficit will go up, not down. and so -- then we've harmed all these programs needlessly. >> i think just -- >> mr. rogers. >> -- the opposite, that the employers out there are waiting for a signal from washington that we're going to get control of this deficit, because they see nothing but problems in the future if we continue down this course. and i think if they see we're deadly serious about cutting spending and getting the deficit under control they're going to invest their money, which they're holding back now, to hire people and build this economy back and create jobs. so i think just the opposite. the fact that we are taking precipitous, hard, tough choices to cut spending here i think will give great confidence to the employers to hire people and

get back in business. >> and i want to say, mr. rogers, i agree with you because, as i said, we've tried the four years worth of other policies. where lots and lots of money has been spent. and it's taken us in the wrong direction. mr. dicks, i'd like to say i think we have a 17% real unemployment rate in this country, not a 9%. >> i agree with that. >> because you guys are playing fast and loose i think with the numbers. it appears as though unemployment went from 9.4% to 9% when i think it really went up to probably 17.7% because so many people have been discouraged. but i think we tried it y'all's way for -- >> or underemployed. and minorities are twice as hard hit. >> right. >> so we better have this right. >> speaking of economists and people who know what they're talking about, chairman of the federal reserve, chairman

bernanke, he says that we have dire problems ums we get the deficit under control. same thingor from the chairman of the joint chiefs. we've got the chairman of the federal reserve and chairman of the joint chiefs saying, get your spending under control. >> if i could just have one rebuttal second. here's a direct quote from bernanke -- to a stint you can change programs that will have a long-term effects on spending and revenue -- i think he's talking about the entitlements -- that will be more credible and effective than one that focuses on the current fiscal year. the right way doesn't put too much pressure on the ongoing recovery. i guess that's the issue that divides us today. and let's hope that whatever we do is going to work and help the people in the country who are unemployed. >> mr. dicks, then i think that you and your colleagues should make a presentation on how we're

going to get the funding for medicare and social security under control. we're dealing with what we have on our plate right now, the continuing resolution runs out march 4th. we're dealing with that. that's what we're doing. that's what we've done since we became majority, dealing with each issue as it comes up. and i cannot wait until we see a recommendation from you and your colleagues on the appropriations committee as to how we're going to really get this deficit under control by dealing with -- i won't even use the word because i think it's a four-letter word, that most people call it -- medicare, medicaid and social security. >> but you know this. going back to the example of tip o'neil and bob dole, until both parties are willing to go in the room together and shut the door and work out a plan, that both

parties are willing to support, this isn't going to happen. it's going to take that kind of cooperation. you've got a group of senators that are doing the same thing over in the senate, that the commission was doing. we have to get the same effort under way in the house. >> well, this is an open amendment process, and you all have that opportunity. we were not allowed in the last four years to even offer our ideas on the floor to be voted on. and i think that we've really come a lodng way. you're going to have a chance to do that. again, i'd love to see the recommendation that's are going to come from your side on how to solve this problem. and when you say you'd better get it right -- >> we better get it right. >> that's right. that's right. >> together. >> that's exactly right. because you're throwing the gauntlet down to us in that respect, and that's not being very bipartisan. i hope we do -- >> that's why i'm here in a very

respectful way pointing out my concerns and i do it because i, too, care about this country. we all do. and we want to make sure that whatever we do is going to work. >> well, i care very much about the country, too, and -- >> i know that. >> historically, your methods has failed. >> disagree with that. >> this has not failed. >> president roosevelt did the same thing and that's why the economy never recovered until world war ii. he was under the same pressure, hold down spend, hold down spending. didn't work. didn't work for the japanese. they had a decade. >> ten years of a recession in japan because of it. >> ms. slaughter. >> thank you. >> i too pray for bipartisan and hope to live to see it. how much input did you have on this cr? >> had a lot to do with the

defense part of it, but the rest of it was done by the new majority. they put together the cr. i had some -- i was consulted and talked to. i offered some ideas. they did this. this wasn't done in the committee of the appropriations. it was done by the majority members. >> we haven't had anything that came through committees up here yet. but we knew there with were going to be cuts. it's absolutely true. the people all voted for that in november. the majority is right to do it. but it did strike me, the fact they were going to cut 32 billion, and then suddenly it becomes 100 billion and so what we were hoping they were doing judiciously became meat cleaver, just cut it out. >> let me correct that. >> let me finish, mr. rogers. i've waited a long time to get here. >> but i need to correct something you said that isn't correct. >> that was somewhat troubling to me. but you know you said there

aren't any sacred cows here. there sure is one. neither one of you will like this. if we really want to cut this deficit in half, what we're serious, what we never talk about is spending $8 billion a month in afghanistan. $2 billion a week in afghanistan for what? we've been there for ten years we've got, what, 36,000 troops up in korea on the dmz. we need to look at those things at ways we can save some money. but i would really love to str somebody really talk to me quite honestly about, what is the end product of afghanistan other than making all of those people extraordinarily rich? but if we really wanted to cut the deficit in half -- and i hope everyone understands we can do that in six months simply by getting out of afghanistan. i know we won't do it, but i hope this works out. buff i must tell you, and i'm seriously hoping this works out because my district is hurting as much as everybody else's district. but what i'm afraid of is we're

going to have a precipitous unemployment rise that we're not going to be able to do anything about. there are no jobs available in my district now. talking to a father this morg morning, his kids are lucky if they can get a job at the burger joint. >> the state and local government are having the problems. >> new york state is about ready to cut thousands ost state payroll. then this comes along and i don't know where these people are going to work at all. i sure don't think we're going to have much luck trying to extend any unemployment insurance. i think we are moving too precipitously on this without nearly enough thought, and certainly what struck me -- one thing i've got a comment that really trouble me here. the oil business. they've got $5 billion worth of -- that's still in here. the oil companies, they're unnecessary, the former ceo of shell oil said, and i quote, the

fear of low oil prices drives some companies to say it should be sustained. ex-shell ceo john hofmeister said, and i quote, my point of view is that with high oil prices these subsidies are not necessary. so i guess my question would be, why are the oil company subsidies still in this cr? >> well, first -- >> when head start -- >> first let me correct what you said. we did not increase the cuts from 35 billion to 100 billion. >> 32. >> 32. we did not do that. >> well, that was all the talk. i know none of us were there, but that's what i read almost every day. >> what i'm trying to tell you is the truth. we're talking about two different things here, oranges to oranges here. the $100 billion cut is from the president's budget request of '11.

we're cutting that much off his budget request. that amounts to about $61 billion off of current spending. we first started out with a $35 billion cut to spending from current -- that's now at 61 billion. but from the president's request, it went from 78 -- 74 to 100. >> didn't you start by saying this was going to be a $100 billion savings? >> yes. and it is. >> from the president's 2011 budget. >> from his request. >> and by the way we did cut defense $15 billion. >> what about this oil company subsidy? why are they getting 5 billion l? >> you'll have to ask the authorizing committee. that's the law of the land. we follow the law of the land. if you want to change it, go right ahead. >> if we all want to talk about taking away police and teachers and cutting headstart and

college kids, why in the world would we give money to the oil companies? they're swimming in it. you know, i just -- i just don't see any reality here. it's sort of like "alice in wonderland" and i believed in impossible things before breakfast. afraid not. >> this appropriations committee inherited a fiscal year where your party had not passed a single appropriations bill. >> and i agree with you it was a mistake. >> and the cr that you passed, until march 4th back in december, included those oil subsidies. >> right. >> your party included those oil subsidies in the cr. >> well, now -- >> we're left with a cr that we've got to finish out as quickly as we can, and we can't -- >> did the democrats make you do it? >> you gave us a cr that included it.

>> it's in here? >> we'll take a look at this. >> i certainly -- wouldn't that be nice to cut 5 billion right off the top for people who don't need it? >> we'll look at it. we'll offer amendments on the floor. >> i'm not so sure there are going to be so many amendments. i think the democrats have about two. it's technically very difficult to amend this bill. well, it's not an open rule. i haven't seen the rule, but i expect there will be a time cap. it's modified to a great degree. >> ms. slaughter, i recommend to you, if that offends you, offer an amendment to cut it out. >> no money shalling spent -- >> we can't. >> sure you can. you draft it. come over and see me. >> dicks will get you a hearing. >> we'd be working on this all day long. it's almost impossible. all right. >> no money shall be spent. limitation. >> bring it up. >> if you could take it out, i'd really be happy about that.

>> the congress -- if you want to do it, offer an amendment. >> i'd love to. no other questions. thank you very much. >> mr. bishop. >> mr. mcgovern. >> i thank you both for being here. and i want to associate myself with some of the remarks of ranking member ms. slaughter on a couple offiissues. she mentioned the war in afghanistan. i'm a critic of that war as well as the war in iraq. but i have on a number of occasions tried to get members of congress of both part yits to pay for it. rather than have it be part of some emergency supplemental bill that is not paid for. last year alone -- in fy 2010 we spent $450 billion in afghanistan alone. 450 billion. i think it was a mistake, but if you think it's the best thing that we should do, then you

ought to pay for it. because the way we're doing it now is we're just putting it on the backs of our kids. that's borrowed money, and to not even talk about that as an issue and then come in here and to cut programs like headstart and pell grants and infrastructure, things that i think have a real impact on people here in this country, you know, i fiernd it a little disconcerting. if you don't want a war tax, then find more offsets in spending. but if you're going to go to war, you should pay for it. the only people that are sacrificing in this war are the soldiers and their families. the rest of us have been asked to do nothing. nothing. we're not paying for it. it's going on our credit card. i have an amendment that will not -- i'm sure it will be ruled out of order simply says we should pay for the war. i think that's the right thing to do.

and i'm a critic. but i don't want my kids to pay for it. ms. slaughter talk eed about th oil companies. i'll be interested to see if there's a way to get after the subsidies the way the bill is currently written without getting into this issue of legislating on an appropriations bill. to put something in perspective, you know, the oil companies have enjoyed a lot of special, wonderful tax deals, under both parties. the president of the united states in his state of the union talked about ending those su subsi subsidies. these tax loopholes have helped bp, chevron, convioco and shello make near loy $1 trillion over the past decade. we're asking taxpayers to subsidize them and we're cutting headstart and pell grants and infrastructure grants and we're cutting the small business

administration. it just doesn't make any sebs to me. it shows that our priorities are a little bit twisted here. in education, our estimates are that more than 200,000 children will be kicked out of headstart if, in fact, this bill were to go forward as is. and thousands of teach hers wou lose their jobs. mr. dicks is absolutely right, the way to reduce this deficit is to create jobs and put more people back to work. you know, we're going to take an action here that's going to put more people out of work. we estimated an $800 reduction per student in the maximum pell grant award. you know, sometimes you have to invest to make money. and the reality here is that by not investing in education we are putting ourselves at risk of not being able to compete in this 21st century economy in countries like china. investing in education and

making sure that everybody who wants to get additional education can get it and that they're not somehow denied it because they can't afford it i think is something that we should actually in a bipartisan way want to come together on. cuts in nia, national institutes of health, you want to know how you can help keep medicaid solvent? help find a cure to alwazheimer disease. i mean, the cuts in nih the national institutes of health in this bill, as wliritten, represt a significant setback for cancer research and other disease research. on the floor talking about the bill that we passed to instruct committees to find savings in their budgets and the chairman of the rules committee said, we're not talking about cutting nih or cops or foyer firefighters. but we are in this bill. co-ops are going to be cut. firefighters are going to be

cut. and important research in the kwlas of cancer, alwazheimer'sa hiv/aids -- we used to come together in a bipartisan way to support medical research it's not just about finding cures, it'ses an incredible job creator all over this country. this bill would rescind $2.5 billion for high-speed rail projects that have already been awarded. a loss of over 25,000 new construction jobs and the cancellation of 76 projects in 40 states. $234 million in cuts to improve our nation's air traffic control system. you know, cuts in the cops hiring program, consuluts in th safer grants which help fund our firefighters. i mean, when we talk about making cuts in those areas, we're not doing anything to help the economy. we're actually