that will create measurable impact on our economy, world come and way of life. i thank you again in appearing before you, and i look forward to taking your questions. >> thank you, administrator bolden. i know you have given us a former ample and detailed statement. and will reach unanimous consent was your testimony, a detailed statement to be included in the record. we have in other hearings been talking about asking about the consequences of the c.r. you will ask as the consequences. rather than going into that today, here's what i suggest.

and midnight today the senate appropriations committee will present its bill. as i understand it, it will be on the web at www. appropriations.senate's.gov. am i correct? he is the ranking full committee chairman. pretty much will come out around midnight. my suggestion to you, it would be enormously helpful if win that comes out i know you are going to scrub it to see what we did so you know what you need to do. when you do that, it would be useful if you then could share with senator hutchison and myself what you think that means to nasa and what it means to

2012. the speculative number gains and we are rushing to meet those deadlines and leadership here or there. what we want to say is full partners, come back and tell us what it means for 2012. in effect they will be below 2010. >> we will do that. >> let's go to the 2012 as proposed by the president. we join with the president and his national goal of outinnovating and outeducating. at the same time we need to be stewards of the money. i would like to raise some questions about targets for deep cuts particularly those you have

not spent the time like our colleague that the table like the james webb telescope. it is scheduled to be 100 times more powerful than the hubble telescope the we are troubled about its management and the use of money. we ask for a report which then said it was technically sound but we had to really have a real sense of urgency related to management in keeping on track with deadlines and expenditures. you have not had a private conversation of that some weeks ago. could you tell us now what is nasa doing to have a sense of urgency and that it has top-level attention, the coordinator of the coordinator of the coordinator and we have this now, a spectacular

opportunity on track because quite frankly when a bipartisan basis cannot sustain technology with repeated cost overruns, the house won't put up with it and with no money to spare we will either. we want this telescope. is important to our future. tell us what you are going to do to make sure that the management and urgency activities -- >> as we discussed when we talked and as i told you than i don't think there's anyone more disappointed and angry than i when we got to the bottom of the situation when we found ourselves with hubble but we have moved with urgency. as i mentioned in my opening statement the telescope continues to make exceptional technological progress but i have made some significant

management changes in nassau. the program is my responsibility and i have delegated my associate administrator to oversee that program for me and he meets with the team on a regular basis several times a week and also meet with some of your staff. the team consists of wreck howard, project program manager at nasa headquarters, the associated ministry a for science. the program comes directly to him. i extract it from former division in astrophysics because it was unfair to put a program of that magnitude in the astrophysics division. >> what you doing meeting with private sector building it? >> we are working with north grumman which is our prime contractor. we talked to gary irvin. they have made some management changes and i would be for to them to explain what they have

done but we communicate with them on a routine basis. chris is talking to gary irvin every week. >> you have this on track. how much money is needed to keep on track? is it in 2012? >> we are working to complete our baseline bottoms up assessment that will allow us to bring you a draft baseline assessment hopefully by the end of this month. >> this is not argumentative. i am trying to drill deeper on this issue. >> we do not think -- we do not think we need money in fiscal 11 that will allow us to continue to carry the program to the point where we can make what we think now is a reasonable launch date of 2018. if something does happen and we

find we have more funds we will put them to use to it celebrate the testing we are doing and some of the other -- we right now are looking at how much we need to add to 2012 for this committee. >> going back to the cassoni report they need $500 million each year in 2011/2012 and it is not there. >> i with respect to the cassoni report when we look at where we are, in these fiscal times i cannot -- i cannot bring myself to this committee or any other and propose that someone try to find $500 million a year for the foreseeable future. we are looking up a base line and there will be some additional spending that will be required the we have not arrived at that yet.

i hope to have you an original estimate. >> my time is coming to a close. i know of their keen interest because we have big tickets in human space flight and the telescope is a big ticket in space science. we really appreciate the president adding five -- $5 million -- to the science budget. what i worry about, the fiscal time, time of austerity, i am all for that. everyone at this table is for a more frugal government aware i don't want to be is i am ready to be frugal but not foolish. let me tell you what i worry about.

that because we skimmed now we pay two or three times later. that is what i don't want. i need a realistic picture. this is a rational group of people who work together. we need to hear truly what is needed, not what you think you can deal with. or what we can get the house or ourselves to agree to but we need to know that and i need to know if we don't spend the money now, when will we spend it? what will ultimately cost? i might be wrong but i think we have been around the track on some of these things. either things grow and become boondoggles, that won't happen. i am concerned if we don't do the right thing now it will cost us more in the future. we really do look to need your

wise counsel. we thank the president's support of science. senator? >> i am going to door after -- >> senator cochran? >> thank you for your leadership of our subcommittee, working in concert with other committee members. mr administrator, we appreciate your collaboration with the committee and your presentation today. despite some uncertainty about fiscal year 2011 budget i am hopeful that we can stay on track to meet the goal of developing our heavy lift capacity by 2016 and i am hopeful that is 8130 time capacity. i noted your advice is important in keeping us on track in terms

of taking the right steps with funding those activities that will help us reach that goal. we want to be sure we have ample rocket testing results and an infrastructure to support this capability. we know that safety, competence and national interests are all goals but we share and we know that you are on the same team and we appreciate your leadership. you mention in your written testimony about the investment importance of a 20 first century launch complex and it strikes me that is a way to describe what we have in the nasa facilities in mississippi/louisiana area that have become so important to

this launch infrastructure. do you have enough funding requested in this budget request to ensure that we keep the schedule to improve our rocket propulsion test infrastructure? >> we discussed before the 2012 budget will support continued development of our testing capability of stennis. we will complete construction of the ap test ban. as you are aware, status has become rejuvenated and reinvigorated. we have had three tests. the a.j. 26 is the rocket produced by aerojet for orbital science corp.. we have a test that is supposed to be going on today and when we

get the a free test done we will test even bigger and more advanced instruments. >>3 test done we will test even bigger and more advanced instruments. >> what are your views toward easing as the infrastructure to test commercial test vehicles? >> we demonstrated -- first time we tested in stennis in three years of with the aerojet rocket that they modified for domestic production and it is also a rocket that we are currently talking to aeroa jet that has potential for upgrades to heavier left than the taurus ii. >> to future plans improve subsidizing the construction of commercially and propulsion test infrastructure elements? >> i don't use the term subsidizing. we provide the test facility.

they propulsion test center for the united states and we want to get everybody to come to do their test and we will make sure we are competitive in terms of costs and we will take all kinds. >> thank you. >> senator brown? >> thank you. the previous administration declared ten healthy centers in responsibility, we talked prior to your confirmation you assured me this policy was no longer needed because nasa had ten held the center's. last year's budget, glenn and cleveland promised exploration technology development program with fiscal 12 budget requests giving a one billion dollars to the office of the chief technologist being told a significant substantial portion of the work in leadership would be at glen. nasa has a history of allowing its centers to fight among

themselves. not a day goes by that i don't hear cleveland is going to get a mission or somebody else trying to take a mission from nasa glen and from each other. known as the leadership says instead of collaboration between and among centers they want to encourage that competition. a have great respect for dr. brown. i see what happens when congress provides nasa latitude to shift funds. two questions on this issue. you have a serious commitment to the goals of previous policy of ten health the centers and the people who work there and how will you work with congress to detail a more specific plan for ten held the center is? >> i have a very serious commitment to ten functioning effective efficient nasa centers and one laboratory, the jet propulsion laboratory. but healthy is a relative term. because of fiscal constraints we

are all under our centers are stressed. you talk about h.r. 1. a change like that would have a dramatic affect on a center. i have the best directors in the world. i have the best work force in the world and we're doing everything we can to make sure we balance the work across the ten nasa centers. we want to make sure we have a balanced portfolio in the agency. we want to have vibrant involvement in aeronautics and technology development, science and human space flight. what we're trying to do which is different from the way it was before, i am not asking every center to be kef of -- capable of participating in everything we do. i want to find out what their sweet spot is and let them do that. the senate -- center directors enjoy that and the work force and joy is that. and i am committed to making our centers as strong as they can

be. >> i am sure the work will be at glen regardless of where the office of chief technologist is located. >> the answer is yes. >> people at glen don't necessarily believe -- >> the senate director does. he understands and as ray lugo has told you before he is not worried about having titles. he is interested in having the contract and the work. program management office at a center does not mean the center is going to handle the bulk of the work. just that is where the focus of the oversight is going to be. glenn is where much of it is being done. glenn will make out relatively well. >> let me shift to an issue we talked about many times. i would like you to detail the

selection of the shuttle. the process nasa undertook where the retiring shuttles are being exhibited. i never heard you or your top assistant or the white house or anyone else talk about this commission that supposedly was put together four years ago that will apparently decide the disposition policy with the nasa authorization law, the roll the commission is playing. could you explain -- >> deciding where the orders go? if there is such a thing i don't know where -- i will make the decision when i get to my office this afternoon. if i need to consult with them someone will tell me really quick. >> we make the decision based on the last person you talk >> no. [talking over each other] >> would have been much more preferable. [talking over each other]

>> for once i have no -- >> the decision is totally yours. there is no statutory commission to which -- >> not to my knowledge. [talking over each other] >> i have made an effort to keep not the president but people close to the president informed of the process we are following. i have made an attempt to at least keep the staff and the house and senate informed of the process we are falling. we offered to brief people on the process. we established ten criteria for consideration. we had 29 applicants for and orbiter. all of them met the criteria. i will base my decision this afternoon based on points that were assigned the degree to which they met the criteria. it has nothing to do with where

it is or anything. just how they fill out in a matrix of criteria and points awarded for that. there will be 25 people who won't be happy. four will be really happy. >> the three shuttles that will be sent to these three locations, are you also deciding on the enterprise, one that has never and will not flown or are you making that decision on the three that have flown? >> the decision is being made on the distribution of all four orbiters because the smithsonian is in competition with everyone else. i have four orbiters to dispose of. i know i am being picky but all of them have flown. enterprise was the first orbiter. it conducted the approach and landing tests. it flew three times and hadson

challenging things happen to it. it is quite a vehicle in and of itself in terms of being a pioneer vehicles but those four vehicles will be distributed around the country to four places. >> is the enterprise promise or owned in some definition by the smithsonian? >> by law the smithsonian is the recipient of all artifacts from space flight. we are working with the smithsonian to determine how we go about that. i will make an announcement tomorrow at 1:00. >> if one of those three -- can a continued two minutes? i understand. and won't take much -- if those three -- if one of those three that has been defined as having a mission, going up when the enterprise is defined less so

generally. if one of those three goes to washington to the smithsonian does that mean the enterprise will go somewhere else? >> if one of them ends up at the smithsonian they only get one so i will take possession of enterprise and will be of tuned nasa to determine where enterprise goes. >> if one of these three goes to one of the first three goes to the smithsonian when you make your decision tomorrow, you will then write then decide where -- some call it the constellation prize -- [talking over each other] >> determination between when i leave this session and when i announce it tomorrow. we are all for space shuttle orbiters going -- when we announce it tomorrow it will be specific. it will cite the orbiter and its destination. i know everybody -- this process

has been as pure as i could make it and free of any political involvement. i can say that until i am blue in the face but there always be someone who will have the opinion that was not the case but the team that i put together before i became the administrator has done an incredible job the last couple years and i would hate to see their work be castigated by somebody who assumes they were unduly influenced. >> you know that dayton, ohio--60% of america's population. the right brothers and neil armstrong -- [talking over each other] >> i know that from lots of phone calls. >> prominent people i know from ohio were mother teresa and nelson mandela. senator hutcheson -- hutchison?

>> the nasa authorization bill allows nasa to modernize any contract from the constellation program and it seems that orion would be the perfect candidate for such action because the whole theme of the authorization bill is to use the technology, expertise and experience we have invested in to go to the next generation of vehicle. the president himself brought back orion west year. he wanted or ryan continued. your staff and managers agree that orion is the reference vehicle and falls and the scope of the authorization law that you have said you are following. yet it doesn't seem that the contract modification to achieve this results are happening. do you intend to modify the current launch vehicle and orion contract as directed in the

authorization law, or is it going to be strung out so that eventually it just can't be revived? >> there may be no requirement for modification of the contract for orion. the present orion was designed as a deep space exploration vehicle and if it is found -- the basic information that we have at hand today is that the scope of the existing orion contract as a deep space exploration vehicle easily matches the scope of the multipurpose crew vehicle. it may come to the fact that this goat matches so well there is no need to modify the contract. i will tell you that in any of the contract we have today we cannot pay the amount of money that was contracted x number of years ago so there will be negotiations among us and all of

our contractors because we have to get our costs down. we may have to decscope the vehicle. it is the multi-purpose crew vehicle. i don't care what the name of it is -- >> taking the previous contract for constellation which is no longer and modifying those so that we get the next generation, the orion both launch and capsule -- >> that is our hope. we have had the procurement folks and everybody looked at mapping the scope of the existing contracts to what it is we want to to to and evolveable heavy launch vehicle and multi-purpose crew vehicle. because senator cochran mention the one 130 metric ton vehicle that is where we will end.

no question we will end up with a 130 metric ton vehicle because that is what we judge is needed if we are going to do deep space exploration of asteroids and mars and other places. it will be an evil thing program to get there. the first vehicle we fly maybe 70 metric ton vehicle but we will eventually have a 13010 metric ton vehicle. >> the budget requests the level until 2016, are you telling us that you are using the previous experience and expertise from bolden frank micciche -- constellation and it is going to be done in a timely way even with the flat line budget that you are requesting? >> we using the experience and expertise and assets of the constellation program to the greatest extent possible.

the vehicle orion is already in testing as a multipurpose crew vehicle. lockheed martin under its constellation contract which i'm not allowed to terminate because at my direction the constellation program which does still exist i told them that we should focus on putting our money on technology and assets that could move forward to a deep space exploration system and that is what we are doing. we are not making much progress on a heavy lift vehicle because it is not clear that the areas --ares configuration is what you want to go with. it is the shuttled derived system. i note there will be some contract modification to go from area derived system from a shuttle derived system.

>> you are saying you are not able to cancel orion but the authorization bill vitiated or took the place of any previous supplemental appropriations bill. so the law is the authorization bill. are you saying that you believe you are fully utilizing the previous constellation contract for the next generation of vehicle, that we are not wasting money pursuing something that is now obsolete, but that you are expeditiously using that money for the orion vehicle? >> we are complying with the requirements of the authorization act. i am out of my league so i will ask my staff and some of your folks -- my understanding is i am still governed by the 2010

appropriations law. that is what says i cannot cancel -- i can take no action to cancel the constellation program which would stop any expenditures on that program. what i did was say i want to spend the taxpayers' money very prudent leave and so in some cases we stop doing things that were in the constellation program because they weren't bad if we knew they were not going anywhere. things that had not gone anywhere. contract we hadn't started. i said let's not start them. ..let's not start them let's jut stop right there." >> let me jump in. senator hutchison, they are right. the authorization you and senator nelson did did not remove the prohibition on the constellation. however, i think if we all just

sit tight and think of what we will be looking at as of this d.r. moves forward -- as teh c.r. moves forward. >> your questions are excellent. >> they can modify and usee common sense to know that the authorization bill takes thell e place of the original 2010 2010 supplement. and you are going to get more help. our concern is that you had not been using the capabilities that you had for modification to stop obsolete things but continue using the same technology, experience, and people moving forward towards orion.

>> i have directed that we spend money for things useful to the exploration system going forward. you had a report that said we were wasting funds by using money on obsolete constellation contracts. that is not the case. we took issue with the report. we submitted our own report to identify the areas where we were doing exactly what he said. we are spending money on the o'brien vehicle -- orion vehicle. we are spending money on doing some things from the o'brien -- orion -- constellation program that look like they will match up well to a space launch system. we're trying not to spend money on things that will not go forward. we're not wasting the taxpayer'' money. >> that would be our hope. we have worked with your staff

and the gao to completely clarified going forward after this next continuing resolution that you will have complete freedom to follow the orion pursuit in the 2010 law passed for authorization. i do have another question. i know other people -- we can have a second round. >> ask that question and then we can pick up. >> i want to go back to the law passed in 2010 on the orbiter vehicle. senator brown suggested the last person you talked to might be the person you listen to -- i am kidding. you said the criteria should have priority consideration

given to eligible applicants that meet the other conditions. they would be those that have the best potential value for the public. they would advance educational opportunities in science, engineering, mathematics and with a historical relationship with either the launch, flight operations, or processing of the space shuttle orbiters or retrieval or significant contributions to human space flight. if you go back to the priority consideration, it seems to me it would be difficult to leave out both houston and florida. i know you are getting ready to make the decision. i think you have acknowledged that when people think of our space shuttle, they think of

mission control in houston. they think of the astronauts training in houston. they think of the tape where we want. i want to ask you how much is the historical relationship with the flight operations launche, etc., weighing in on the factors in your decision? >> the people who made the recommendations to me did not include the prior authorization from the law. i was aware of it. i think you will find when the announcement is made that every biter has aving an orde connection to human space flight. everyone has a historical connection to the space shuttle.

>> the priority of the law would prevail. correct? >> yes. we will comply fully with the law. >> mr. administrator, i want to come back to senator hutchison's questions about the orion constellation, etc. some time this week, we will pass the final continuing resolution for this year. what i am going to suggest is that your staff review the legislation and the issues ison.d by senator hutcheso

back and brief us on where we are on the topics of we are all aware. we want to make sure that we all understand the same thing. then we can identify if any other further clarification is needed. does this sound like a good way to go? i think there is confusion between the authorization, what you are mandated to do, and what we'vmaybe some activities we do. >> i think as much input as we can get and as much as we can work together, absolutely. i believe so much of our goal was a balanced approach for

manned space flight and that we would have the commercial and nasa experience working hand-in- hand on a dual track for the development of the next generation of vehicles. that is what i am trying to achieve. i hope that is what you are trying to achieve. that is what we're trying to do continuing resolution and the follow on budget. >> the policy goals we have agreed upon through the authorization. the stewardship of federal funds is something we're all committed to. we are in an atmosphere of making every dollar count. we want all talent to count. i was so pleased in your

comments and the opening statement when you acknowledged the incredible talent at nasa. a lot of people put a lot of hard work into that. we do not want to throw out the ideas and what we can benefit from. we do not want to waste money. we are all obsessed with jobs, mr. administrator. as the shuttle winds down, people were deeply concerned in florida. people at all the centers are very worried about jobs. we're looking at how to continued innovation with jobs of the future. i think every member here is concerned about jobs today. we need to talk about that. i want to come back to the frugal government and making dollars account. i know the gao has identified nasa contract management -- they

have nasa on the high-risk list. in the annual review of large- scale nasa projects from the gao found that development costs for the 16 projects that have entered major development had grown nearly 15%. that is not even with the telescope issue. g.a.o. has also told the subcommittee that are encouraged by nasa's corrective action plan. you are on the high risk list. gao says you are making progress. what are you doing to make sure that nasa contract management is implementing the gao recommendations?

should we be moving away from cost plus contract into fixed price contract in? is that just a gimmick? how do you get off of the gao high-risk list? what are you doing so we feel confident about this? also, do you have thoughts on the new world order and contracting? >> in managing expectations, i doubt that nasa will ever be off the high risk list. everything we do is higher risk. we do dangerous and risky things. we take big challenges that nobody else can do. unfortunately, we do one-of-a- kind type programs. we do things that have never been done before. being on the high-risk list, i can still make my program management better. we have established key decision

points in every program we do. those are milestones that they have to take an assessment of on how we are meeting our scheduled goals. we look at life cycle targets. at the outset of a program, we establish how much we think it will cost to design and build a system and how much it will cost to operate the system. when we bring you an estimate for a system today, it is a life cycle cost estimate. we instituted something called the joint confidence levels where we look at cost and schedule. this came about in 2009. we have two examples. both of them will fly before the end of this calendar year. they are on target in every respect. they went through the jcl

process. we're confident that we will deliver. we use independent assessments. that is what we're doing now. we train our program and project managers. we put them through a rigorous training course that they have to finish. one of the things it talks about is discipline. if they are managing a science project, they learn to say no when someone says it would be a good idea to add one more experiment or instrument. we have some things we're going to do away with that do not meet the smell test in this time. >> it to the gao live in yellow lights seriously. what about moving away from cost plus contracts to fixed-price contracts? i am not saying i advocate that.

i am interested in your views. >> we would always prefer to have a fixed price contract. the government signs a contract up front and follows its commitment to pay the contractor as it meets milestones. because we do one-of-a-kind things, sometimes when we are in the development phase, a fixed price contract may not be the most prudent thing to do. we may need a cost plus contract until we get through the uncertain part of the cycle. you will go through multiple types of contracts over the life of a program while it is being developed. you move from a cost plus contract during development to a fixed price contract in the final phases of production. >> today we will not go into this. we are looking at contracting and acquisition and every one of

the agency's in our subcommittee. it is not because we will break new ground. it goes to authorization and working with the executive branch. ing as we know it is going to be reviewed. we signed contracts for things that nobody else does. the fact is it often takes five to seven years to develop. our mission changes or gifts altered. politics changes. technology changes. ck for aare in a tra particular weight and cost. i am not sure what is the best way to go. i do believe lessons have been learned in defense with

secretary gates and others. they're not all applicable. we need to be able to look at it. that is not for today. the cr we need to get a on the web. that's close out this year's appropriations and get a good direction on 2012. did you have any of the questions? >> i do not. >> senator hutchison, the you have any other questions? >> i have questions to submit for the record. i do not need to ask them here. they are general questions i would like to ask you to respond to. i will give them to the chairman. >> i have another couple of questions.

there was a study of u.s. satellites that found that fewer than 10% of spacecraft comply with the military standards suffered failures. almost 2/3 fail. only half of the qualification tests were performed. in 2009, a nasa satellite was lost. a month ago, another nasa satellite was lost. the loss of these two my concern is first for the safety of our astronauts and for the successful launch of supplies and critical hardware to orbit. what type of full-scale, environmental testing is nasa going to require the commercial companies to achieve to get certification for space flight?

how are we going to qualify our own vehicles? >> we are in the process of developing human ratings standards. we have a series of 1000 documents that will deal with what a contractor has to do to qualify to carry either cargo or crew members. my number one objective is the safety of our crews. we will not certify an industrial partner to carry a crew unless we're satisfied they have met all the criteria on human ratings standards and all of our safety requirements. almost all the vehicles go through thermal vacuum testing, vibration testing, radiation testing to make sure they are

radiation hardened and the like. any test that would have been recovered or will be required, my multi-purpose critical, a commercial vendor will have to pass the same test or demonstrate they have passed a we puttest before astronauts on. >> what role do you envision? >> it depends on the vehicle or the capability of the developer and industry partner to find another facility. ray lugo is filling out to industry and advertising the cap abilities -- capabilities we have. patrick sherman is doing that. we are actively going out to industry and saying that we have

the best facilities in the world. please use our facilities. i envision we may have some contractors wanting to bring their vehicles through plum brook for testing. it is the best facility nasa has. i am certain it is better than anything else they can come up with. we're trying to help them with their cost. every facility they do not have to build means more money to their shareholders. we promised we will give them a reasonable price. we do have to get back full value for the taxpayer. we do not have any sales. >> let me ask one more question. nasa has been working on the haut-rhin sa -- orion the ago. the work directly transfers to

the space launch system. what way do you plan on using finesse a glance -- nasa's heritage in these programs? >> i will have ray lugo get in touch with you. any work that glen was doing with orion is the same work they will do with the multipurpose vehicle, no matter what we call it. they are small propulsion. engines andtric india the like. they will continue to be responsible for the same thing's going forward. it is my hope that within the week, we will be able to bring to the staffs a report that my

senior management has been receiving incrementally now on the multi-purpose crew vehicle. it is the plan for the plan. it will be on the 21st century are not complex. we have done incredible work. we have not been standing still. we have been doing this for almost a year. this is was supported making the decision on the design reference vehicles. we're ready to bring that to the committee so that you can get incremental looks at how we are progressing. you can see we're not stalling. we're not wasting time or money. we have a plan. if the plan is sufficiently supported by budget, we will develop the best heavy lift launch system we have ever had and a deep space exploration vehicle that will do the things we have only dreamed about until now. we're going to do that.

it is our desire to bring those reports to this committee in increments as we go along. >> mr. administrator, in two weeks, there will be a historic flight. one of our last shuttles will go into space. we know that captain mike kelly will be leading that effort. we hope that with god's grace and american medical care that congresswoman giffords can see that. we wish them through you godspeed. we hope that nasa continues to do with it does best. good luck to them. may the force be with them. >> i would like to add to that.

i am so looking forward to this. it has a very poignant side to it because of commander kelly and his wife who we are all pulling so hard for to be able to come. also, the spectrometers going up is such a big deal. this is the last major big piece of equipment that will be going. it has enormous potential for the look at dark matter, energy. one of the previous nasa administrators insisted this was the one thing we could do in microgravity it would be so important in the energy field. dr. king is a nobel laureate.

we listened to him. his dream is now becoming a reality in this launch. it has so many important historic, significant aspects to it. i am very excited about it as well. i am looking forward to having that peace. in. -- i am looking forward to having that piece put in. the very last payload lifting is in june. >> we will get it to you soon. may i make one comment? to help people put things into perspective, 134 is an incredibly important mission. it is high profile. it is everything. i wear a bracelet for gabby because she is a personal friend. my number one objective is

making sure that our astronauts are safe. with all the high profile and everything, i want to keep all the pressure away from mark kelly. captain mark kelly is one incredible human being. he is also one incredible professional. he is a person has garnered the respective admiration of his crew and everybody in the astronauts' office. he is focused on flying. he is focused on making sure that his group stays safe and carries out the mission to the best of their ability. my goal is to make sure i facilitate their success in doing that. i will do my best to shield them from everything else that is coming. it is an incredibly high profile mission. we will do nothing any different than we did for 133 or 125 or anything else. if we have a problem, we will not go. i want everybody to understand that there will not be any

special anything for 134 other than that it will be incredibly special to have gabby at the launch because it represents the triumph of good over evil. i think it is incredible for the country if she is able to make it. >> we share your emotions, passion, and hopes and dreams for the mission. if there are no further questions, senators may submit additional questions for the record. we expect a response within 30 days. the subcommittee stands in recess until thursday, april 14, at 10:00 a.m. when we will take the test to many -- testimony of the secretary of commerce. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> the u.s. senate about the gavel in for the day. general speeches out first with a pair of judicial nominations to be debated after 11 a.m. lawmakers will vote on those nominations before recessing at 12:30 p.m. eastern for the weekly party caucus lunches. the senate remains poised to take up a temporary spending measure agreed late friday. now to the floor of the senate for our live coverage here on c-span2. senate will come to order.

the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. o god our father, before whom the lives of all are exposed and the desires of all are known, be at work in our lives. use our lawmakers as instruments of your purposes, so that your will may be done on earth and your kingdom may be established. prompt our senators to yield to the unfolding of your mighty providence, as you remind them that our times are in your hands.

may they refuse to boast about tomorrow, depending upon your strength and sufficiency for each day. great and marvelous are your works, o god. just and true are your ways, o king of kings. we pray in your great name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, april 12, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable jeanne shaheen, a senator from the state of new hampshire, to perform the duties of the chai. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 11:00 a.m. today. the majority will control the first half of that. the republicans will control the second half. at 11:00 a.m., the senate will road to executive session to debate two prospective judges, john kronstadt. there will be a vote on the nomination of the kronstadt nomination. the senate will recess from 12:30 to 2:15 for the weekly kay

caucus luncheons. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under

the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: as the senate gets back to work this week, it's worth noting that a seed change has taken place in washington over the past few weefntle just two months ago the president proposed a vision of government thaig noard the fiscal crisis virtually everyone else in the country knows we need to address. and democrats in congress proposed that rather than cutting washington spending we instead raise taxes on oil and gas companies who, as we know, would pass it along to american consumers in the form of higher gas prices at a time when gas prices are double what they were a mere two years ago. in other words, it wasn't that long ago that both the white house and democratic leaders here in congress were doing everything he could they could to ignore the nation's $14 trillion debt and to preserve the massive growth in government that they presided over over the last couple of years. but at some point in the past fee few weeks democrats in washington finally got the message. the ground shifted and spending

reductions democrats recently described as extreme and draconian, they are now calling historic and commonsense. the debate has turned from how much to grow government to how much to reduce it. this is a major departure from the standard democratic position, and it suggests one of two things: either democrats in washington are finally waking up to the fact that our only hope of averting the kind of disaster we're seeing unfold in europe is by forcing washington to live within its means or they've made a political calculation that americans will no longer take them seriously if they continue to pretend otherwise. but either way, they are there now appears to be a bipartisan agreement in washington that something serious must be done. which brings us to an announcement by the obama administration's top political advisor over the weekend that the president will change his position on entitlement reform, the deficit, and debt in a

speech he'll deliver tomorrow afternoon. according to administration officials, the president will now propose an outline of his goals in these areas. apparently the president is finally ready to acknowledge problems that the rest of the country has been waiting for him to address. it is unfortunate that he had to be dragged into this discussion, but those on the left and right who have been clamoring for presidential leadership on these issues have to welcome the president's long-awaited decision to engage on them. and as we look forward to hearing what the president has to say, but it is my hope that in doing so he offers more than the outline his political advisor suggested. as we know, 0 house republicans have put forward a detailed plan that seeks to preserve and protect medicare for current beneficiaries and strengthen medicaid, in part by giving states more flexibility to implement it. at a time when thousands of baby boom remembers retiring every single day, putting even more pressure on our

already-overburdened finances, creative solutions like these are very much needed. so hopefully the president will put forward a plan that doesn't just pay lip service to the commitments we've made to seniors and the poor but which acknowledges the unique prones problems that this -- problems that this generation faces. too often it seems democrats claim to be interested in helping those in need when what they really seek is to protect big government. republicans see america growing its way to prosperity. democrats seem to want to constrict opportunities for everyone so everyone is forced to do with less, except of course the politically connected and those who are lucky enough to get a waiver. but at least the president is

joining in the conversation. hopefully that conversation is an adult one and doesn't devolve into the kind of unhelpful, scripted and frankly juvenile name-calling we saw in the debate over the continuing resolution last week. we all know that both sides will have to play a part in addressing the crisis we face, so we do well to leave all dishonest rhetoric aside. both sides want to preserve what's best about america. if both sides acknowledge that up front, as we move from a conversation about billions to a conversation about trillions, we'll have much progress ahead of us. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 11:00 a.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10:00 minutes each, with

the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or her designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. mr. reid: my understanding is that -- are we in a quorum call?

officer we are noted. the presiding officer: we are not. mr the clerk: a bill to provide an extension of time for providing individual tax returns in the case of a federal government shutdown. mr. reid: i would object to any further proceedings with respect to this bill. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: it is my understanding that the time for morning business senators are permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. is that right? the presiding officer: correct. mr. reid: madam president, i'm always moved to hear the pledge of allegiance that marks the beginning after new legislative day in the united states senate. on the 105th anniversary of the beginning of the civil war, the words "one narks indivisible" mean more today than most other days. along with chaplain black's inspiring invocation, the pledge reminds us of the true purpose

of our work. we recall our responsibility to our country, our countrymen and to our conscience. i'm particularly pleased to seat senate open this morning. as we all know, la week at this time, even as recently as just a few evenings ago, whether the government would stay open was a very real question. as i said here late on friday night, i am a pleased we reached an agreement on a budget in time to keep the government operating. i am pleased that the budget will make historic cuts saving the country money so we can lower our deficit and do a better job of living within our means. throughout the last few weeks, i reminded the senate this negotiation, like any negotiation, neither side would get everything they wanted. from the start i also expressed my firm belief that what we cut will always be more important than how much we cut. that's because our nation's budget is a representation of our values and what we value. it's one of the many ways we

demonstrate as a congress and as a country what matters most to us, what is important. this concept is not unique to democrats. as the speaker of the house and the chairman of the house budget committee have both said, our budget is a moral document. those following the budget debate have noticed something. while both parties may agree in principle that a budget is more than simply a collection of numbers, our positions couldn't be more different. we stayed tr -- we stayed true to our values. we value americans' right to afford a healthy life. the republicans tried to use the budget to repeal rights. we stayed true to our values and didn't let them. we value women's health, but republicans tried to use the budget to make it harder for women to get contraception that reduces abortions. their budget tried to make it harder for women to get cancer screenings and tried to slash funding for cancer research.

we stayed true to our values and we didn't let them. we also value our seniors' ability to support themselves but republicans tried to use the budget to slice the social security administration. that would have meant delays for seniors who count on the benefits. they also tried to use the budget to reopen the doughnut. we stayed true to our values. we didn't let them. we value our children's education. but republicans tried to use the budget to kick little boys and girls out of prekindergarten programs and slice pell grants that help so many students afford college. we stayed true to our values, and we didn't let them. madam president, we value our environment, but republicans tried to use the budget to give polluters a free pass to poison the air we breathe. we stayed true to our values, and we didn't let them.

we value our economic security, but republicans tried to repeal the promise we made to taxpayers that they will never again be asked to bail out a big bank. they tried to use the budget to reverse those rules and put in place -- which we put in place to hold wall street accountable. we stayed true to our values and we didn't let them. finally, madam president, we value our responsibility to create jobs, but republicans also tried to use the budget to reverse the momentum we've seen in recent months. policies they tried to jam through the budget would have cost us 700,000 jobs and slammed the brakes on economic growth. we stayed true to our values and we didn't let them. there are many more examples in this vast budget, examples of programs republicans wanted to destroy but democrats demanded we protect. there are many examples where they wanted to cut recklessly and we insisted on cutting

responsibly. throughout this debate we stayed true to our values. the american people noticed and they're glad we did. by clear majorities our constituents are glad we stood up for h.r., women's -- up for health reform, women's health and cleaner air and on and on. this budget battle illustrated to the american people the fundamental differences between the two parties. in some cases our priorities are poles apart. that is obvious to the american people, as well as it should be. they are the ones who always decide whether their representatives morals more closely match their own. as we work toward finalizing this year's budget, start the conversation about next year's budget and engage in other issues before us, democrats will continue to reflect and respect our values. i would ask my time be used in leader time and not in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. wyden: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president, in one cruel swoop late last week more than 300,000 americans lost the opportunity to buy affordable health insurance for years to come. specifically, madam president, i'm talking about the removal behind closed doors by the budget negotiators of the free choice voucher provision that would have been a lifeline to hundreds of thousands of low-income americans. now one could say, senator wyden, everybody's got to give a little during tough times. why is this different? the difference here is that hundreds of thousands of americans without health care options, in a process that

doesn't even have any direct cost to the federal budget, are being asked to give up a guarantee of coverage just a year after the passage of the affordable care act. they're going to be forceed to make a hobson's choice between unaffordable insurance and going without health care directly contradicting the theoretical underpinnings of the affordable care act. under tha*es that provision -- under that provision those whose income falls below 400% of the poverty line and whose employer sponsored health care premiums are under 8% and 12% would be exempt from having to purchase health coverage. unfortunately now they're not going to be able to get into the exchanges, they're not going to qualify for government assistance to buy insurance. the provisions leave hundreds of

thousands of americans who need health care as a lifeline out in the cold. with free choice, however, folks who fell into this hole and couldn't afford the plan were offered at work coverage that previously they could have used their employer's contribution. and now because that wouldn't be sufficient with affordable, the provision in the free choice vouchers, they could have gotten a voucher to using a more affordable appropriate plan in exchange. the amount of the voucher would be set at the same percentage that employers pay today, 70% of the cost of a typical plan. the amount would be a fixed number which would give employers certainty in the cost of doing business. for these families, it could mean the difference between being able to buy a health plan they could afford or going without coverage. if they found a plan in the

exchange cheaper than the voucher amount but gives them everything they need, they could have pocketed the difference in the cost. so you have an incentive for people to shop for lower-cost coverage and help everybody hold down health care costs. this kind of concept is not just good for the employee, but it's good for our businesses, particularly the small businesses who so strongly back this provision. when the impact of free choice was proposed during the health reform debate, the congressional budget office and the joint committee on taxation estimated that more than 300,000 families could benefit from this new approach to choice and competition. that was then. and, madam president, since passage of the health care reform law, the need for free choice vouchers is greater than ever. the kaiser family foundation, in their recent analysis, found that employers, even since the law, are shifting more of the

health care costs on to the backs of the workers. the kaiser family foundation recently reported that the typical increase for premiums of workers went up 14% and the employer was paying virtually none of that. the worker was eating almost all of it because costs were being shifted from employers on to the backs of the workers. so if anything, even more people would likely have needed free-choice vouchers and been eligible to use them than was originally envisioned when we passed the law. now, i'm of the view it's not that businesses don't want to provide affordable benefits to their workers. it's just making less and less sense to do so the way the current system operates. incentives won't change in 2014 and it's going to leave an increasing number of families with a choice between the unaffordable and the

unavailable. but up until late last week in the dark of night, the families had a choice, madam president. they had a choice, a third path -- the two that i mentioned, unaffordable and unavailable were not appealing and free-choice vouchers would have created a third option that would have worked for those families. they would have had a chance to take their pretax dollars provided by their employer to the free market and exchange and decide for themselves which plans they could afford that provide the benefits they need. free choice is good for workers. it's good for business. it's good for our country's bottom line. it offers a way to rein in higher health care costs by putting purchasing power back into the hands of the consumer. and once people know what they're paying for their health coverage and can shop for a plan that answers their specific needs, costs are going to come

down. let me close, madam president, by saying that we hear often, colleagues on both sides of the aisle talk about choice and competition and market forces. what this did was provide a chance for both sides to take principles they hold dear, expanding coverage for workers who are hurting with a marketplace approach and say free-choice vouchers did what they were interested in. the arguments against free choice didn't start with democrats or republicans. the argument startd with the interest -- started with the interest groups, the lobbies, the special interests that have a vested stake in holding their employees captive and locking them in to this incredibly inefficient status quo. madam president, this provision has no budget impact in the fiscal year. i say to colleagues, 300,000

americans, low-income americans are being hurt in this budget bill for something that spends no money in the upcoming year. 300,000 americans with no acceptable alternative to make sure that when they go to bed at night with their families, they can take care of an illness or a medical expense that comes up in the morning. i don't think this had to be. clearly, if we had the opportunity in open forum to address this, there would have been a different result, because that's how it got into the law in the first place. madam president, i just want to take the floor to make sure that colleagues knew that we're going to have to be back here to get some relief to the 300,000 americans that we put out in the cold as a result of that particular provision, and i hope once again we can do it in a fashion that brings democrats and republicans together the way free-choice vouchers and the principles it represents did in the first place.

madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: i first want to acknowledge my colleague from oregon for his great leadership in this area, and i know we all look forward to working with you. you have taken such a lead on these important matters. this has been a difficult time for all of us with some of the changes that are being made. i rise today, madam president, to speak about the daunting fiscal challenges our country faces and the urgent need for comprehensive bipartisan action to address our crushing debt burden. i have long believed, as i know you have, that we need to get serious about the deficit. since i came to the senate, i have worked to reform the way congress conducts our own business, reducing the budget of congress, fighting for appropriations project reform, and working to restore pay-as-you-go rules in our budget process to ensure that we're only funding new programs, if outdated or duplicative programs are cut. i was one of a handful of senators that fought for the

creation of the fiscal commission, and i have supported efforts by both republicans and democrats to responsibly reduce the deficit. we wouldn't have even had the commission that worked all this past year and came up with the report that i think many people thought would just collect dust on a shelf. but that hasn't been the case, and that's because a number of senators last year said, you know what? we're not going to take this any more. our country can't take this any more. we're going to stand up and make sure that this deficit commission gets started. we are going to make sure that we get strong people on the commission, which was achieved, and that they produce something that's meaningful. and right now as we speak, as you know, madam president, a number of our colleagues, a small group of six are working on the results from that commission report, and we're very hopeful they'll come together in a bipartisan agreement. last year, madam president, i supported the efforts of my colleagues, senator sessions and senator mccaskill, to enact discretionary spending caps. while this proposal by itself

could not balance the budget, restraining discretionary spending growth is an important piece of the puzzle. i voted with senator coburn to cut hundreds of billions of dollars in federal spending by consolidating duplicative programs and sported senator bennet's -- and supported stpho*r pw ep tkp-rbs senator pw*epb tphofs effort to pay down the deficit. i supported $12 billion in cuts and pushed for many more. these are all important steps, but what our country needs now is for congress to reach across the aisle and build consensus around a comprehensive long-term deficit-reduction package that will put us on track to prosperity. ever since the economic downturn, families across the country have huddled around the kitchen table making tough choices about what they hold most door and what they can -- hold most dear and what they can

live without. they expect and deserve their leaders do the same. the american people are counting on us to put politics aside, to pull together and not pull apart, to not go to the opposite corners of the boxing ring and throw darts at each other. they expect us to agree on a plan, to live within our means, and that will make america strong for the long haul. if we are going to succeed in this challenge, madam president, we will ultimately have to accept things that we don't necessarily agree with in an effort to develop a plan that is both balanced and comprehensive. we already know many of the things that will need to be done. our failure to act has not been because we lack solutions but because congress has lacked the political will to get behind proposals that on their own sometimes are not always that popular. i support the work being done by my colleagues warner, chambliss,

conrad and look forward to working with them to put forward a comprehensive deficit proposal. and tomorrow the president will be laying out his recommendations for a comprehensive deficit-reduction package. much of the recent debate over deficit reduction has been dominated by talk of how best to cut programs and millions of american seniors and the most vulnerable, those kinds of programs that they rely on every day. while i believe that entitlement reforms must be a part of the comprehensive solution, i believe that there also are several other key streps that we can take to -- steps that we can take to address our deficit in a meaningful. as you know, madam president, we started down the road with entitlement reform with some of the efficiency measures that we put in for medicare. those can be expanded. i know my state has always delivered high-quality, low-cost health care and we need to do that in more of the country when it comes to medicare. with social security there's some excellent ideas to

strengthen social security, to make it more solvent. i think we need to look at those, but we have to make very clear that we will not be balancing this budget on the back of seniors. tbhaw any measures we take to reform sks, those savings will go -- to reform social security, those savings will go directly into social security, not be used to reduce the debt but go into social security to make social security stronger in the long term. i think the rest of the world when they look at these ideas they'll say, you know what? america is getting its act fought. it is not stealing from other parts of the budget. it's actually making social security stronger by finding a way to make it last longer and be there for our seniors today as we will well as seniors for the future. i want to talk about a few of the steps that i think we could take and i hope will be included in the president's suggestions and in the deficit commission report. first we need to get serious about making our government work more efficiently by reducing programs that have become

duplicative or outdated. last month the government accountability office released a report that identified 82 different programs with descriptions in ten different agencies. 47 for training and employment, 56 to help people understand finances. the recommendations laid out in this report could save hundreds of billions of dollars, not by making draconian cuts, not by taking drastic measures but simply by eliminating waste. there are plenty of other examples of savings we could find right here in washington with congress and with our federal agencies. to begin, we could eliminate billions of dplars waste in federal contract -- dollars in waste in federal contracts by ending the practice of gives bonuses to government cloarts overcharge and underperform. by requiring federal agencies to set strong standards for awarding contract bonuses,

standards that waite contractors based on the quality of their work and ability to meet deadlines p smed we could save $8 billion right there. we could cut back on unnecessary costs in the federal government's day-to-day spending like printing expenses. civilian federal employees spend an stivmented $1.p 3 billion on office printing every year and it's estimated tha estimate $44f that print sung necessary. if we could cut that $440 million in waste alone on the unnecessary printing, we could save 4.4 billion over ten years. then there's the $4 billion we spend on federal vehicles every year. if we could cut that budget by 20%, we could save $800 million a year and $8 billion over ten years. additionally, the federal government is the largest property owner in the country with an inventory of more than $1.2 -- 1.2 million buildings

and structures, some of it unused. it doesn't make sense for taxpayers to continue paying for upkeep of these properties when we could sell them or repurpose them to make them more efficient. we could capture $15 billion in savings on our deficit by selling properties that have been identified as "excess" and eliminating their upkeep costs. obviously i am not talking about all federal properties, madam president. but there are properties that have been identified as x "excess." there are also a number of ways to cut waste from our health care spending. we should start by cendzing the giveaway to the pharmaceutical companies and allow for price negotiation with prescription drugs and medicare part-d. the noninterference clause in the medicare part-d prescription drug benefit prevents price negotiating. this has imposed substantial and unnecessary costs on america's taxpayers and seniors who are

paying excessive prices for prescription drugs. with medicare barred from negotiating discounts, seniors face inflated prices for their medications while the pharmaceutical industry gets a financial windfall. i'm fighting to change that so that our seniors can have access to their medicines at the lowest possible prices and i have introduced a bill along with senators begich and blumenthal that would allow for price negotiation. allowing medicare to directly negotiate these prices like the veterans administration does could save us $240 billion over the next ten years. we also need to take a serious need at medicare fraud. law enforcement estimates that medicare fraud costs taxpayers more than $60 billion every year. this means that as much as 20% of the total of medicare spend something lost to fraud each year. to help combat these types of fraud, i have introduced the

improve act, improving medicaid, medicare payment policy for reimbursement through oversight and efficiency which would help deter fraud by requiring direct depositing of all payments made to providers under medicaid and under medicare. these criminals scheme the system to rob the american taxpayers of money that should be used to provide health care to those that need it most. we must put a stop to it. putting an end to waste, fraud, and aintuse critical step to save taxpayer dollars as we look for ways to make our health care system more efficient but we need to look for other ways to make our government and the way washington works more efficient as well. i mentioned efforts to reduce dupe ccumu cayive programs in our government but we could also take a close look at the different agencies. for example, we could cut $75 billion from our defense sphendzing by restrusmg our budget and increasing

efficiency. whether it is holding civilian workforce levels where they were in fiscal year 2010, which would saving $13 billion, or making targeted changes to pentagon missions and priorities, which would save $11 billion, or even just going -- doing away with unnecessary studies and internal reports, which would save $1 billion, these cuts all add up. secretary gates has proposed and supports these cuts, and i believe that they are necessary as we look nor ways to streamline our government and reduce our deficit. when secretary gates says he doesn't need a certain type of a plane because he has another plane, i think we should listen to that as we look at how we're going to save money in this government. in addition to cuts in spending and efforts to streamline our government, we also need to take a serious look at revenues and ways we can streamline our tax code to pay down our debt and ensure that the united states

remains competitive in this global world. despite the fact that federal revenues is at its lowest level as a percentage of g.d.p. since 1946, our efforts last year to let the tax rates for the wealthiest americans return to what they were under president clinton were blocked, even though it would save $690 billion over the next decade, even if you said it, mr. president, -- set it, madam president, for people making over $1 million. and for those people you have their taxes set at the levels during the clinton era. if you did that, at a time when we were very prosperous, you would save $400 billion in ten years on the deficit. while not all my colleagues agree on how or even whether we should raise more revenue, every serious bipartisan proposal has made it a clear must. in the quarter century since the last tax reform, the system has

been riddled with benefits to special interests. these add up quickly costing us over $1 trillion a year. for example, despite oil and gas companies reporting record profits in recent years, they will receive an estimated $35 billion in tax breaks over the next decade, and there are many companies that attempt to evade our tax system altogether. closing these loopholes can save tens of billions of dollars. expenditures like these riddle the individual income tax code as well. now, one thing i think is worth looking at and something near an dear to the heart of every american that owns a home is the mortgage interest deduction. i've used it. everyone i know who bought a house has used t but here's the deal. the deduction is expected to lower tax revenues by nearly $500 billion from 2010 to 2013. however, most of the benefits don't go to the middle class. so one idea -- and this came out

of the fiscal commission -- is to make sure those benefits are firm there there for the middle class. that is, to set the credit as equal to 12% of interest payments up to $500 on mortgage debt on principal residence. if you buy a house that's $1 million, you still get the mortgage deduction, but it's you l. up to $500,000 in the value of the home. if you get a house 230*rdz 00,000 or $400 tho, it is not going to change the mortgage deduction at all. this proposal would save $400 billion or more over the next decade. by taking steps like this, we can lower tax rates, broaden the base, simplify the tax code, and at the same time bring down the deficit. this will benefit working families and make america more competitive in the global economy. these ideas are just a few of the ideas that i believe warrant

a closer look and should be considered as we look to reduce our nation's deficit. together they represent at least $1 trillion in savings that could be included as part of a bipartisan long-term deficit-reduction plan in addition to a lot of the work we've already done this year for spending cuts. we can look at some additional ideas for next year and there are many, many more. these are just simply some that i hope the president includes in his proposal and that the deficit commission includes as we will. tomorrow we will hear from the president and i hope we lair a plan that reflects the challenges we face as a nation, that builds on the work of the fiscal charitable contribution and that brings both parties to the table for a grown-up gaivment the sooner we can agree on a long-term package of smart cuts, the better for our economy and the better for our country. i'm hoping that we can put partisan differences aside to work on an agenda that strengthens our economy, promotes fiscal responsibility,

and increases global competitiveness. because if we refuse to have an honest conversation about this, if we insist on just using the debate as a vehicle for angry rhetoric, an excuse for taking cheap political shots, we will not just be doing our scefs a disservice and this institution a disservice, we will be cheating our children and our grandchildren out of knowing the america that we grew up in. the deficit isn't just going to fix itself. we all though in a. we all know that we just can't close our eyes, click our heels and, poof, the debt goes away. in their report, the national commission on fiscal responsibility wrote that every modest sacrifice we refuse to make today only forces far greater sacrifices of hope and opportunity upon the next generation. and they're right. the longer we wait, the more wrerchling the choic -- wrenchie

choices become. the more we set our self up to become another greece or ireland. you know who is going to be making the painful choices if we don't do anything right now? that's right. it's our kids and our kids' kids. is this really the legacy would not we want to leave them? this is our challenge and it will be a hard challenge to meet. but i am confident that we can come together to make these tough choices, to do what's right for our comirks and to renew the american promise of progress and opportunity for generations to come. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. sessions: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: madam president, i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. sessions: and i would ask that i be allowed to speak until 11:00. i think that's the agreed upon time; and that i be notified at 10:55. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, the american people have high expectations of their leaders. they should have that, and they should demand that. and one of the basic expectations that we should have for our president that he would be honest and forthright in discussing the critical issues facing our nation. he should engage in the nation's most important debates and provide leadership and take all appropriate steps to protect our nation when we face a clear and present danger. clearly, the dominant issue of our time, i think there is no

dispute within this chamber, that issue is our fiscal path, the debt course we're on, the fact that we want to see our country be prosperous and grow, create more jobs, not losing jobs. and to do that, we've got to confront the large soaring debt that we have. it dwarfs all other issues. the american people know it. they gave a shellacking to the big spenders in the last election. it's what i hear whenever i'm at home, what my mails and e-mails and phone calls say. people are worried about the future of our country economically, and they are exactly right. the people that are not right are those who say change is not necessary. people who are in the n denial -- people who are in denial, government agencies and departments, people who receive governmental grants and programs think that nothing has changed

in their own minds, but things have changed. i wish it weren't so, but it is so. so the congressional budget act requires that congress pass a budget every year by april 15. that's this friday. the budget that congress has received from the white house a few weeks ago, i have described as the most irresponsible budget ever submitted by a president to the congress and to the nation because it did nothing to confront the problems we face. it made no recommendations about the entitlement programs -- social security, medicare, medicaid. zero. it increased discretionary spending, increased taxes by $1.7 trillion. and according to the congressional budget office who analyzed the president's budget, they conclude that had it increases the debt, when it's

all over, more than the debt would have been increased if we hadn't had a budget from the president, even with the $1.7 trillion in new taxes. that's why it was irresponsible. it did not confront the issues that we so seriously confront today. and he said when he announced it that that budget would cause us to live within our means, that it would not increase the debt and that we're not going to spend any more money than we're taking in. fact check organizations have all found that to be false. it's plainly false. the lowest single year in which we have a deficit -- and we have a deficit every year under the president's budget -- is $740 billion. and it's increasing in the tenth year to $1.2 trillion. the highest deficit president

bush was $450 billion. the lowest president obama projects in ten years is $750 billion and going up in the out years to $1.2 trillion. in contrast, house budget committee chairman paul ryan has made the most serious attempt, i think, maybe in history to deal with the systemic threats our country faces to tackle our long-term fiscal challenges. now, the bowles and simpson debt commission cochairmen appointed by president obama -- his own commission -- described paul ryan's budget this way: a serious, honest, straightforward approach to addressing our nation's enormous fiscal challenges. they went on to say -- quote -- "going forward, anyone who issues an alternative plan to chairman ryan's should be held to the same standard when offering their solutions.

we simply cannot back away from these issues." close quote. rather than defend the president's budget or offer an alternative, what we've been seeing in this chamber are just attacks on congressman ryan, attacks on anybody that says change has got to occur. they act like nothing has to change. many remain in denial. our chairman, senator conrad, who said so many good things -- our democratic chairman -- about the need to challenge the status quo and make changes to put our country on the right path, said representative ryan's proposal is partisan and ideological. he provides dramatic tax cuts for the wealthiest financed by draconian reductions in medicare and medicaid. his proposals are unreasonable and unsustainable.

close quote. well, is this going to be the nature of our discussion? i thought we were supposed to be trying to reach a bipartisan understanding of the challenges facing us and do something about it. you saw what the president's own debt commission cochairman said respectfully of the ryan proposal. and this is what our leadership says. others have called it extreme. they say it's driven by these evil tea party people who don't know anything. they know something. they know the government is spending us into virtual bankruptcy and that congress has failed in its basic responsibilities to protect the nation from economic danger. the american people are right. well, so the president now says

that after really not once discussing with the american people why we have a crisis, i called on him before the state of the union message to enter into a dialogue with the american people, to look them in the eye and explain why we're in trouble, why we've got to change. who wants to go and propose any reduction in any spending? the presiding officer: senator sessions, you have five minutes left. mr. sessions: i thank the president. and who wants to do that? we're in a position where we have to make those kind of tough choices, just like our counties, our cities, our mayors, our state governors are make every day. so now we're told the president is going to give a speech. he hasn't yet even discussed the danger we face. and we're told that the president is planning this major

speech to discuss our long-term fiscal problem. well, i'd say, first of all, it has to be considered a dramatic admission that his previous claims that his budget calls on us to live within our means, to pay down the debt and not add to the debt were false. they say that the president will support some of the recommendations in the fiscal commission, his own commission, bowles and simpson. i hope that's true, but i just want to say this: at this point in history, with the budget supposed to be passed in the senate friday, and we haven't even had a markup to have a hearing on a budget, we've not seen one other than the president's previous budget which is so utterly irresponsible, i think he owes more than a speech. we hear a lot of speeches in this country, a lot from the

president. all we need is numbers. what he needs to do is submit a new budget. if he's going to change his projections for the future and go into -- propose alterations in our entitlement programs, let's see the numbers. he's got, what? 300, 500 people in the president's office of management and budget. so if this is serious, let's have a serious proposal. the house has done it. the house, republican house, they've got a budget. they're going to move that budget. i suspect we'll have that budget passed in the house by friday. it's got real numbers, real integrity, real change. it puts us on a path to prosperity, not debt and decline. the american people know this is serious. they know we're in a dangerous time. and all we have to do is rise up

and make some tough choices like mayors and governors and families are making around their kitchen table every day. this is not -- when we get through this exercise -- and we will; over a period of years probably -- we're not going to find that the government sank into the ocean because we reduced agencies 15%, 20%, 25%, even if they need to be that much. most won't have to be that much. so the president needs to lay out concrete specific details about how he intends to solve these challenges that we face. not a general speech. and the house and senate budget committees must be able to review what he proposes, as the budget act presumes, in real numbers, and add them up. and the congressional budget office needs to be able to analyze it, the nonpartisan budget office to, see what will

actually play out in terms of dollars. the executive office of o.m.b., the president can do this, in 1996 president clinton produced four budgets, and that shutdown occurred during that time, and they had a big fight during that time. but you know what happened three years later? the budget was balanced. yes, it was a messy fight and people made a lot of mistakes. but the end result was the american people said you're spending too much. congress rose up and said we're not going to keep doing this. and they balanced a budget. we're in a deeper hole today. it's going to be a lot harder, but it can be done again if we meet the challenges. so the questions that must be answered by the president in the new budget are some of these:

the fiscal commission recommends $1.3 trillion less in discretionary spending than proposed in the president's budget. how does the president plan to alter his budget to achieve those savings? the fiscal commission recommends finding $600 billion in entitlement savings. but the president's budget would increase entitlement spending by $905 billion. that's his budget he submitted already, a few weeks ago. how does he intend to achieve these savings in enstphaoeuplts the fiscal -- in enstphaoeuplts the fiscal commission recommendations would reduce our debt by $4 trillion. the ryan plan would reduce it by $5 trillion. but the president's budget would increase the debt by $10 trillion and would not produce any savings really. how would the president alter his original budget to reduce the

debt by $4 trillion. i'd like it to see something more than a speech. give me a break. i'd like to see some numbers. sphwhr so we can discuss it. -- where? so we can discuss it. once the president engages, we can have that long overdue national dialogue about solving the nation's problems. but he's got to acknowledge we have one, as every wince has told us. the debt commission chairman, sirch does on an bowles, said this nation has never face add more predictable financial crisis. they see it coming. we've got to change. so i hope in his speech he'll discuss entitlements, discuss whether it is good to burden the energy companies with new taxes, discuss whether we should tax small businesses even moshings discuss the military budget.

these are real tough issues. i think the president should talk about that. rather than trying to drain every cent of tax revenue from the american people, washington should try to drain every cent of waste from the federal budget. i hope this does not continue the pattern of retreat that is already emerging where the president supports deficit reduction in theory but resists it in pravmen practice and clait when he's forced to accept reductions. for a presidency to abdicate his responsibility to lead the effort to meet one of the greatest challenges of our nation's history would be tantamount to leaving the battlefield in a time of war. so i hope we have a speech. i hope it's backed up with real numbers, and i hope and pray that it represents a recognition by the president of the united

states that we have a serious fiscal challenge before us. business as usual cannot continue. change is necessary, and that he intends to participate in that and help lead the good change that's necessary. i thank the president and would yield the floor. and i note the absence of a quorum.madam president, i wouldk that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: i believe there is a nomination that will be moving forward. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to -- to executive session to consider the following nominations which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination: vincent l. briccetti of new york to be united states district judge. john a. kronstadt of california

to be use district judge. the presiding officer: there will now be one hour equally divided between the two sides. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. kirk: i ask unanimous consent at that be allowed to speak out of turn as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kirk: thank you. madam president, last week in chicago we announced tax freedom day, the d day that marks the te when illinois residents have paid off their federal and state tax burdens. the tax foundation, a nonpartisan organization that determines tax freedom day, found that this year americans will pay more on their tax

burdens than they do on food, shelter, and clothing combined. tax freedom day falls on april 15 in illinois and on april 12 nationwide. and yet tax freedom day underestimates how heavy the government's burden is and only reflects the size of the bills that we actually pay to the government, not its spending that we are pushing off on future generations in the form of higher deficits and debt. if we paid all of our bills to the government the way it spends money, then tax freedom day would not come until may 23. with a government that consumes so much, it is fair to ask, is the government spending as efficiently as possible on programs that it's funding? sadly, it is very clear that waste, fraud, and duplication exists widely in the federal government. to call attention to this issue,

i introduced the silver fleece award in owe madge to senator william proxmire's golden fleece. this fleece award is made of silver, not gold because we are headed for more austere times. in the month of february this award was voted by facebook users on the wastebook as given to a program awarding $1 million to provide signs displaying poetry in zoos. i rise today to announce the nominees for the month of march and to announce the winner, the second runnerup was a grant related to the intermodal surface transportation efficiency, ice at th which awad $150,000 to create special tunnels for salamanders to pass under a vermont road. first runnerup was a video game

funded by the federal government called "wolf queest" which was developed using a national science foundation grant of $609,160 to the minnesota zoo. however, the march winner of the silver fleece award with a 63% vote is a grant of $460,000 funding a study on why people lie on txt messages, instant messaging services, social net working sites and other communication systems. yes, we spent as taxpayers over $460,000 of hard-earned taxpayer money to study why people lie when communicating electronically. i would also like to announce that there are new nominees now for if the aprilville certificate -- silver fleece award. this month's nominees were put forward by a leader fighting important government waste in the house of representatives. congressman flake nominated a

$450,000 grant from the state department for art shows in venice, italy. $130,276 in national health foundation funds to sponsor the creation and distribution of a cookbook. and $328,835 spent on an air force photo op over new york city. we invite your votes and your feedback on wastebook on facebook to decide what next month's silver fleece award winner will be. the sad thing in all of this is the only current loser is the american people. and, madam president, i now suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quor

a senator: mr. president? appropriate -- the presiding officer: the senator from iowa.

mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: the senate will confirm two more of the president's judicial nominees. both of these nominees are for seats that are termed judicial emergencies. my republican colleagues and i continue to demonstrate our cooperation. we've worked with the democratic majority in moving consensus nominees through the committee and on to the senate floor. with today's votes, we will have confirmed 17 judicial nominees in just 39 short days the senate has been in session this congress. 12 of these confirmations were, again for those positions that are termed judicial emergencies. we have reported out of committee a total of 32 judicial nominees. that's 51% of the total nominees

that have been submitted to the senate by the president of the united states. to date we've held five nomination hearings with 21 judicial and executive nominees giving their testimony. we have another hearing scheduled for tomorrow with four judicial nominees and one executive nominee on the agenda. with this productive pace, we have taken positive action on 60% of the judicial nominations sent to the committee this year by the president. today the senate will consider two nominations. first, vincent l. briccetti, nominated to u.s. district judge for southern district new york. he received a b.a. from colombia

university and juris doctorate from fordham university. the nominee began his career as a law clerk for the honorable john m. cannella. after a short term in private practice, he served as assistant u.s. attorney, and that was also for the southern district new york. and later he became a deputy chief appellate attorney after work as an associate attorney in a law firm, the nominee started his own firm in 1992. and as i report to my colleagues regularly on the a.b.a. standing committee on the federal judiciary, that committee has unanimously rated this nominee well qualified. the second nominee is john kronstadt, nominated to be u.s. district judge, central district california. he received his b.a. from

cornell university and juris doctorate from yale law school. he began his legal career as law clerk to the honorable william p. gray, u.s. district court, central district california. this nominee practiced law for nearly 24 years, most recently as a partner with arnold and porter. on november 14, 2002, governor gray davis appointed judge kronstadt to "the los angeles ts times" court county superior court. he presided over family law matters. again reporting on the american bar association rating of this nominee, the nominee had substantial majority qualified, a minority

well-qualified. i support these two nominees, urge my colleagues to support them as well and congratulate each of these nominees for their achievement and, more importantly, for their long period of public service which will continue after their confirmation by the united states senate. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: