mentioned, that is going to be terminated. this is our last plan investment pending at least the outcome of our ongoing force structure review. and as i also mentioned, the funding for humvee recap is only in oco, it's $271 million, and it's to provide for continued upgrading of equipment that's being returned from both iraq, and we're now beginning to return, return systems from afghanistan as well. now looking to the future to our research development test and evaluation appropriation, 8.9 billion in the request, that's actually a very slight increase oh the fy-12 appropriated level of about $200 million. and in the interest of time, i'm just going to highlight a couple of key priorities. again, going to the network. we have 546 million included in our request for the -- [inaudible] under the network. i'm sorry, 546 million in total for the network of which 278

million is for win t. that funds increment two which gives the force on the move command and control capability. also included is the common ground system, army, $41 million. that's the army component of the dod-wide family of isr systems. for the army that lets us take a number of independent systems, i think nine independent systems and collapse them into one. want to mention just briefly the network integration evaluations. i think many of you are familiar with them already, but this has been a tremendous success story for the army and a good use of resources and a true key to our modernization strategy. we're doing two per year, and what we do in the nies, and it's attribute bl to the way information technology makes general leaps much more quickly than the defense acquisition process tends to move. so what we're able to do in the nie in partnership with our industry partners, we're able to

concurrently test integration of capabilities before we begin to invest in significant procurementment we've had some tremendous savings in wint, we've had an acceleration. we saved a significant amount from net warrior, and we're very, very proud of the outcomes that are associated with our evaluation. under vehicle development we have 954 million invested, or requested for rdt and e by far the largest point of that is 640 million for one of our key modernization priorities, and that's the ground combat vehicle. we have a three-pronged r&d approach outlined for the gcv that includes the analysis of alternatives, assessment of nondevelopmental vehicles, and then i think you know we have two technology development contracts that are out there now. we have another 72 million requested for the joint light tactical vehicle which is the centerpiece of both the army and the marine corps tactical-wheeled vehicle

modernization strategy. .. >> that is about a third less than last year. the reason for that as you can imagine until the army has determined the outcome of our force structure reductions are revised, combat team structure, and they, enabling force structure and associated stationing impacts, we are conferring those projects,

projects that otherwise, the strategic rail to reinvest those dollars into 14 and 15 president's budget when the outcome of our force structure determinations is results. our active component mil-con does include 400 billion for projects. 173 million to complete army modularity force and that includes modular battalions and aviation and structure people are asking for 232 million for 17 test and range and testing, range and training facility projects, direct contribution to readiness and asking for 165 million for eight new force structure projects seven of which are so see with our new great eagle. >> find past due accounts but it's not a sophisticated name but the money passes through us, the organization still belong to our report to the united states army.

chemical to militarization with 1.5 billion included in this request for ongoing demolition of ammunition and munitions. this also came up quite a bit in the presentation with secretary hale, the okra requested $7.8 billion is a dramatic increase over the last two fiscal years. that reflects two things. it reflects the final at what 11 investment in iraq security forces find it and it's a decrease of $6 billion to just 5.7 and that did come up earlier in the afghanistan security forces fun. there's also a small amount of 400 million included in the afghan infrastructure fund and what that does fund a larger projects outside of the scope of commander's emergency response program projects to help with economic and infrastructure with

our presence in afghanistan. so finally that fy of armies fy '13 budget request, it does begin to take into account the discretionary spending tax but it does so without any risk keep continue to soar are essential but as has been said and i will add my two, the army is the best led, best trained and best equipped ground force in the world. there's nothing this department would allow happen, anything to preclude that. so we continue to meet our commitments in afghanistan and around the world. we are developing the army for the future, continuing to care for soldiers and families. that is one of the most important commitments we could possibly have commensurate with their sacrifice and service. we're reducing active component, hopefully in a measured way and with a solid attention to how to restructure our force to be even more capable force than it was before we grew the army, and

before the drawdown began. we are supporting the transition by using base budget dollars for the first time of the reserve component, army national guard, and the united states army reserve into an operational force. we are supporting as i hope i described our modernization. and with that, we would welcome your questions. >> questions about the network. you are putting $103 million into the net warrior. among the things that have been tested out during, using commercially available smartphones, see if they can get in the network, with all this money going into net warrior, which being smart but not a phone, replicate some of those functions, should we read this, especially given the reductions that are coming in the future, and moving away from experimenting with smart phones and try to be the end user device choice for the network? >> i don't believe that's the case.

i think we will be staying with the technology, the reduction for net warrior reflects the economies and efficiencies were able to identify. during the in ie, i don't think we're suggesting to move way from that technology. >> does the army still maintain that it's going to be cheaper to shut down the production line for three years starting in fy 14 and build about again after that opposed to minimally funding it during that period speakers yes, we do. >> you said there aid program cancellations budget only sci-fi but what are the other three? >> i only mentioned the largest ones. let me flip back. i listed humvee recap, mounted soldier systems, jpl, davis? >> l. rap.

long range advanced systems. targeting under armour for 300 million. >> thank you been on those programs i just want to play by, $5 billion saving? >> that's 4.7 is the number we are projecting right now. >> a separate question on the force structure review. you said it is going to take a while. any idea on the time frame? will that feed into what's going on with iraq at this point? >> we still have a time frame. it could be several months. again, the army staff has a lot of work to do because again we are looking at not only when you start to look at the force structure a look at the basing part of it but when you start to take that force structure down, what kind of a great will to be? when you do that, we start

taking you now, those are different skill sets in there, and so a different great sets in there as compared to it will be very complicated and a long process as we go through it. i would just fall onto the because you asked about brock as well. the army dedicated tremendously from the last round on the active component. we don't see significant change in the army's footprints that will result. so we don't see a link but as general mejia said until we know what arbitrates will look like, are enabling forces in the station we can't see that for sure. >> basically, if i understand that, everything above 490,000 personnel is now being counted contingency and personal that is being carried on oco, not the base budget. how much is that saving you, you, how much taken from one pocket to the other from the base to the budget to oco over

the fight? >> we haven't done it over that because we only to oco a year at a time so we are accounting continued funding of whatever subset of the 49,700 is love. but it is about 4.4.1 billion to we moved into oco for fy 13. >> every serve reduction? >> very small and not in fy 13. >> 4.1 billion that is affected by that, transferred from base to oco? >> in the appropriation, yes. >> i want to ask about the personnel, the force structure review. if i understand you correctly, that the result of that might be additional reductions in the over all strength levels in some of the out years. and also, have you done any

calculation, any projections, ballpark, about what proportion of the currently projected reduction might require a voluntary separation of? >> i want to first make sure that i did not misspeak. it's not additional. at the end of the day we're ramping down to the 57,000. and really for the army leadership, what's most important is not the 490 but it's a rant had to make sure that we do not put ripples in the forest out that we have the ability to we have reversibility, that if something happens between now and the next five or six years as we do this ramp down that we have the capability to reverse that and bring that back up. so there are many things that we can do for it, and so we can start to put a lot of our mid-gravy, majors and lieutenant colonels, back into the generating force. so that if we need to any folder, pull them out, to do the reversibility, we can do so. so it's just the amount of risk

the army leadership is going to want to take as we start to do the planning for this. >> ballpark, what proportion might require that? >> i would probably not even estimate because again, i think you'll have retirements. there's so many tools in the toolkit. we can to retirement, early retirements. you can assess less, you can extend the promotion, promotion list biggest only things we can do, but they keep its we really want to put that minimum stress on the force as we do to the ramp down. and that's the reason the army leadership is so, believe it so important to make sure we get the ramp correct. and so they will not be rushed. >> in the last qdr, it called for the army to build 12 to 13 combat aviation brigade it is the army so many ahead with those plans?

>> yes. the 12th is fielded come at the 13th will be fielded next year. [inaudible] >> yes. >> i would like to ask you to detailed questions about the post command aviation plan from way back when. one is the determination that it was the rebirth. can you tell us how you plan to a conflict that mission without the mars? does that involve guard rail? i going to embark a new program at some future point? on the other end for the scout helicopter, can you talk to us about what your plans are, how this budget supports, supporting that mission after this fiscal 12 demo that is supposed to be done this spring? >> on the armed aerial scout, one of the analysis is complete. the next step is going to be an

rfi proposing, i call it a flat but i don't think that is the technical thing but flying demonstration this summer i think is the time when. and in the determination will be made about the way ahead on that. >> is there a wedge in fy 13 and beyond to support something to come after that? >> there is not. there is not. >> based on the analysis of fly offs and the a '08 they can divert money. >> we don't have anything to cost until we see what happens with face to. >> i think the answer is all the above to what you said. we're continuing investment i think in everything but what you mentioned. and i can't really speak to anything further on recon aircraft. do you have anything to add? no. but we'll be happy to get back with you. >> thank you. if the army believes it's better

to shut down the production plant, why request 129,000,004 in fy 13? >> that's for abrams upgrades, not new production. >> okay. and then a quick follow-up on the humvee recap. how much, i understand there is money left over from previous years. do you have that number handy by chance of? >> we received a very, very large, almost a billion dollars for humvee recap, very late in 11 as remember. a year ago we're talking about the challenges of the continuing. many contending resolution but i don't know how much of that almost a billion we've expended to date but that does carry for a while. we can get back to you on that. >> there was something in here about family housing. i take it is reduction. where is that coming from? can you talk about that a little bit more?

>> we have about 7500 leases that are out of. i mean we have government owned, we have rci housing, but there's also the out the weather is no rci. and there's just no army corps of able and we do the leasing of those. we have done those for years and years and years, and we tried to bring them down as we continue with the rci. [inaudible] >> most of those are in europe. >> i have a question about to of your slides that mention things that are kind of small i suspect in your budget, but very large amount of attention they get from the public. one is page 15 that, there's a whole list that is not included in your copy. the first thing is mentioned is arlington national cemetery. can you give me any numbers on how much is going, the army will spend on arlington national cemetery and whether that's

going to be an increase or decrease over the fy 12, or the fy11 actual spending? and my other question is about page seven there's a brief mention of suicide prevention. do you have any numbers on how that spending is going to go? >> i'll take the arlington question. we have 489 was enacted in fy 12. were asking, i think, this is something to force but i do want to mention that. this is our army's effort to support the improvement and expansion efforts at arlington national cemetery but we're planning $84 million for site surveys, expansion efforts, and than $19 million for a total of 103 million for planning and development, for future efforts. so about double what we got last year. >> and then for health promotion risk reduction in suicide prevention, we'll just go back,

fy11 was 23-point for. fy 12235, in fy 13 is sitting at 20 to one. >> so basically soldier health and suicide prevention is going down by roughly 14? you said million or billion? >> well, actually if you look at the program, a particular program, the answer would be yes on that one but if you look at it holistically the answer is no. so for fy 12 if we look at comprehensive soldier fitness, suicide prevention, for fy 12 was 81, six. fy 13 is 100.130. and so it's gone up dramatically. it's just, of those four programs where those dollars are being put. a lot of it has to do with the efficiencies and whether we can get more efficient as we go through it. much more money being spent, almost 20 million more on those

four programs, and were spent in fy 12. >> thank you very much. >> thank you all. >> thank you. >> energy secretary steven chu outlined his department's budget request yesterday, including the elimination of $4 billion in fossil fuel subsidies. this is 40 minutes. >> okay, good afternoon, everyone. welcome, members of the press, and the media. i believe we have c-span online,

too. so hello to all of our viewers there. i am the deputy chief financial officer here at the department of energy. it's my pleasure to welcome you all to receive our presentation of our fiscal year 20 '13 budget request. i'm just going to run through some ground rules here. we will see from the secretary, hear from the secretary, run three presentation. i will be available also to run through presentation of some of the budgetary numbers that we have. we will be moving to a question and answer period. i will emcee that, both the secretary and myself that we also have the undersecretary, are available to answer questions. and if we are unable to field any specific questions from the session here, we will be sure to make sure we get answer to you before your deadline. so, just to give a flavor of out budget year and a budget cuts we're under, we are down to one

lap. the secretary is running i.t. training for as, so i'm now not to use this. but without further ado, mr. secretary. thank you, owen. so, i want to talk about the budget. begin by quoting president obama who spoke about in america with our reach, a country that leads the world and educating people, america that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacture, high-paying jobs, a future where we are in control of our own energy, our own, our security and prosperity, aren't so tied to unstable parts of the world, in an economy built to last at this budget reflects that to invest in clean energy and save punishing our resource energy. it supports science and innovation. it saves money from family

businesses by saving energy. and it cut costs for u.s. manufacturers to more efficient operation. finally, reduces nuclear dangers, environmental risks. a lot of this is modeled after two very thorough reviews, led by steve coogan, one is a long-term strategic planning, followed by a much more intensive quadrennial technology review, and that quadrennial technology review is reflected in some of the things in this budget. so first budget request is 27.2 billion, and roughly reflects some tough choices to cut back on certain areas. so what are we cutting? well, the president's budget eliminates $4 billion in unnecessary fossil fuel subsidies. it skills backward on certain projects, for example, sodium

ion battery, storage because actually it was successful and it is being commercially deployed. and it's on track of my build. it's also cutting back on the things that we have funded which did not work, and with the consent of, the get discontinued funny for combined total of nearly 35 projects. that did not reach milestones. and we are investing where we think will have the greatest impact. as an example, given the commercial success launcher we were not directly funding longshore went research. that is getting to be an established technology, but we will focus on offshore wind. onshore wind is a very good news story. the level cost of launcher wind

is estimated i a number of independent studies, independent energy to be about 7 cents a kilowatt hour. is becoming very competitive with any form of new energy, natural gas is a little bit less that if you compare the other forms of new energy for the same capital costs, investment cost money. it is next least expected. we're also committed to fiscal management and responsibility. as an example, if you look across department of energy, we have programs in science, in arpa-e and energy. we are coordinating across those different funding streams and we want to maximize the technology r&d that we do across those areas. we are doing this in solar energy. we're doing this in batteries. doing this in biofuels, and is a

coordinated effort so that we actually keep track of what we are doing and we also are approaching this in a business sense, and that's what i mean across the lines of business, so that we can, with the precious u.s. dollars, be the most effective in stimulating -- stimulate new innovation. that would not have occurred without. we are undergoing a number of things to say that taxpayer money through more efficient operations. let me give you a few. we are avoiding $39 in cost fy11 to the reduced travel. we found that the previous policy in the department was to use fully refundable airline tickets. in most cases, it need not come you could save a lot of money by purchasing nonrefundable tickets. and in most cases, that means you just purchased tickets three or four weeks ahead and not refundable, very, very rare

examples where you would not use those tickets. we think we could save a lot of money and travel that way. we achieved roughly 330 men strategic procurement savings, and we've overhauled the energy.gov website and save $10 million annually. we have reduced the fleet in washington headquarters and germantown by roughly 35%. and the labs, using. and some of the labs are redone that, and in others there in the process of completing a. so these are government owned vehicles for reducing debt. and, finally, we are reducing the time to higher by more than 40% and want to continually improve on that. we are better leveraging our information resources and delivered products to the market. so the connection between the national fund, refund, now that

actually gets out to the private sector, we're looking at every nook and cranny to make sure that that process, the intellectual property that is developed the research refund makes it into the private sector. we streamlined the so-called cooperative research and development agreement. so that it can be done much faster. in these agreements, we used to require that the companies provide three months of funding, forward funding before projects would start and they would remain three months ahead, and for small startup is that is a very big hurdle. we reduced that to two months, in looking at whether we can reduce that to one month. but taxpayers are still protected because the contractors let's a national laboratory, within backstop what would happen should there be a shortfall. but that would enable us to work more with a smaller company.

there's another, first we have a top energy innovator initiative. we just completed a contest where small companies with great ideas, run for selection and to vote on a website. you can click on these little video movies, and advertise, yeah, their particular innovation. and there were over half a million likes or dislikes cast, and we are now top three finalists, which is a great thing. we also made it so that if companies, especially this is pertinent again to small or startup companies. if they want to have a low cost option agreement for like international lab, although it have to do in order to get this option is $1000 option fee for up to three patents.

so again, greatly reduced in cost of beginning the process. they can take that option, they can shop it around to the investment community and see if there's any interest there. that doesn't mean it's $1000 to like. it means they can shop it around. but we think it's going to add a lot of flexibility. we are also allowing we realize one time sensitive, so we are saying in certain cases especially again if you're a smaller company, you will not start a business unless you have an exclusive license. because if you don't have an exclusive license you are afraid someone comes in and license it and rolls right over you. and so in many instances, exclusive licenses are preferred approach, and begin it is a case-by-case basis as to what you do. again, all with the intent of getting this out to the private sector, turning discovery and invention into innovation.

and, finally, we've implemented the act or agreement for commercialization technology, the pilot program i think is more than six or eight labs have are reside up for this. again, an alternate way, different from the so-called crada an order to show some flexibility. we are very focused on saving money by saving energy. and so, our budget contains $310 million to improve commercial and residential building efficiency. it supports the president's better buildings initiative to catalyze the private sector investment and commercial building efficiencies, and that's a photograph of president obama, president clinton who has been also very instrumental in helping get this started. we promote, the budget promotes the passage of home start to broaden the rebate, help families invest in home energy upgrades. again, to save money by saving

energy. we want to strengthen u.s. manufacturers. the president come in a state dean spoke out very strongly for this. if you look at advanced technology products, trade about between what we import in advanced technologies and what we export, you find that a at about 2002, 2001, we went negative. we started importing more high-technology goods and exporting. and this is not good. not only is it not good for a lot of reasons, but it is mostly not good because more than anywhere else we believe that they can compete in advanced technology manufacturing. and so our budget reflects that. it asked for $290 million for advanced manufacturing to support r&d. the materials and process to help manufacturers cut costs. so this is not 20 years down the

future. we are talking things that can actually help manufacturers in their factories, produced for example, advanced steels, alloys, lightweight materials, all sorts of things that could help our company's competitive edge. manufacturing also supports d.o.e.'s, there's additional manufacturing, this is specifically tied to advanced manufacturing but if you look within our energy programs within our baby, and a little bits of pieces in science, we are also supporting advanced manufacturing to advance, and also science supports it to advance computing to advanced computing means you design, you reduce the number of prototypes and a number of design faculties before you going to production. this has worked quite well, and it is certain something where we have a good vantage internationally.

and again we are forming coordinate efforts in manufacturing r&d across all sides and arpa-e. we want to lead in clean energy technology. our motto is intent in america made in america, sold were want to our budget calls 4,905,000,000 in wind, then in developing offshore wind reliability. $330 million to develop next-generation technologies that can remain competitive with the rest of the world. it also supports geothermal, biomass. it also supports crosscutting work in advanced alternative fuel, batteries and other vehicle technology. it doesn't support certain paying jobs. -- paint jobs. now, since the first time since 2008, in 2011, the united states reclaimed the title from time in

leading countries in terms of total clean energy investment. you have to look at the numbers, 55.55.9 and 47.4. don't look at the zeros down below. so it's a slight edge. but we are concerned as to whether we will keep this lead. that leadership and 2011 was in large part due to the government programs like the grant in blue of the production tax credits. so the president's budget calls for an extension of the 160 the program and it production of $5 billion for 48 c. for advanced manufacturing. again, to keep the momentum. all right, continuing on this model of intent in america made in america sold worldwide, our budget calls for 143 million through smart grid energy storage technologies. grid modernization cybersecurity. it calls for investments in

nuclear energy. especially important was the launching of the smr program, the end of, now this year, but to continue that and to engage in sports certification licensing with new actors. and 155 million for carbon capture r&d. and also to support carbon capture and utilization sequestration. many of the companies view this as a first step if you're going, if the private sector is going to invest literally hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in carbon capture and storage. they also can have utilization as part of the. lessons learned in utilization, we are talking about captioning carbon and using it for eor, for the department energy consists in the monitoring and verification of the carbon storage, but we also assist in the carbon capture part, we

think this is a good partnersh partnership. we want to safety harness american energy. if you look at this graph, this is a plot of where the natural gas supplies were coming in the united states from 1990 up to 2010. and their predictions going beyond, and so in 2010 if you look at what are called unconventional gas, shale gas, tight gas and methane gas, what you find is that in 2010, about 50% of our gas was from the unconventional sources. and 2011 is going to be well over 60, 65%. the data is not fold in for 2011. i want to remind you of the role that the department of energy played in all these sources of natural gas, there many quotes out there, not from the department of energy but from others. this one from fred was a member of the american petroleum

council. and he said department of energy was there with research funding when no one else was interested, and today we are weeping all the benefit. benefit. early d.o.e. r&d in tight gas, sans, gas shale and coal base nothing helps the development of technologies we are applying today. so, actually begin in the mid '70s we begin to fund this there was recorded program began in 1978, and here, those red bars, you see the department of energy funding. we stopped in 1992. in 1991, the hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. and so is being handed off to industry, and as industry began to realize that hey, maybe there's something in this, you see the increase in tight gas. you see the increase in methane and especially see the increase in shale gas. and so it was that department of

energy funding that led the way. our budget calls in modern amounts, not in shale gas, that is a established technology, but in other things like methane gas. so, this is nothing, nothing guess. this is methane hydrates gas. so any case, we think we still have the opportunity to help fulfill the promise of other energy technologies. the blue-ribbon commission came out with a set of recommendations. we're taking those very seriously, and our budget includes 60 million for nuclear waste r&d that aligns with the recommendations of the blue-ribbon commission. now, and unleashing american innovation, president obama also said the world is shifting to an innovation economy. nobody does innovation better than america. today's innovation economy, we also need a world-class commitment to science and research.

and to that end our budget calls for $5 billion for the office of science, which funds much of our more fundamental research with the commission of course, commission being the department of energy. we have now five hubs, three or that are up and running, two more that are in preparatory stage of foa. these hubs, and then if you add to that the bioenergy centers, which are whether prototype of our hub that were started in the previous administration, there's a lot a very, very good things now coming out of the first set of hubs, but our budget calls for a new hub on -- that means the unification of power dissipation, how do you synchronize a fossil with renewables with energy storage.

budget also calls for 129 to continue this of the 46 energy frontier research centers we have. these centers have published more than 1000 peer-reviewed papers, filed more than 90 pounds applications or patent invention disclosures. very, very productive, as are the hubs. the budget for $350 million to fund arpa-e. arpa-e's project that received $49 of arpa-e funny over the last two years have attracted more than $200 million of private capital funding. after they did the research, and this is again, based on this very strong performance in and early successes, we think this is certainly money very well spent. we're asking for an additional increase in funding. to nuclear security, we are asking for $11.5 billion or nsa

support, the nuclear security objectives, and let me just walk you through this. it means we're responsible for our weapons system. it means we are also trying to lock down and we are ahead of schedule in locking down all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world. we are also responsible for work and nonproliferation. so in terms of the budget, in order to reduce the nuclear dangers, environment the risks, we're asking for 7.6 billion to maintain a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent. 2.5 going for our nonproliferation work, and 5.7 billion to clean up the cold war legacy. and with that, i give it back, i hope as, the visual expert. >> thank you. okay, the next few slides, our

budget is published online so you build a get all of the detailed justification materials. i think if you don't have this presentation already, we will make it of able to you online as well so you will be able to see. i just want to run through some of the numbers are. this is our main budget table. as the secretary mentioned where budget request is $27.2 billion for fy 13. this is 3.2% increase over our enacted budget for fy 12. i think during the process here when we started planning for the formulation of this budget, we were very thoughtful in terms of the priorities that we wanted to emphasize, but also what we wanted to deemphasize and where we to draw from existing resources and redirect them elsewhere. i think we're also very mindful of the economic environment that we've been in, too. and again, challenged ourselves to find resources in the

department to program elsewhere. we have taken real steps, not only have we look in areas where we can't avoid significant amounts of costs through better ways of procuring goods and services, we are looking at some of our program activities. we have done some of the simple things, whether it is something straightforward as setting the default on all of our printers to double-sided copying, to some of the things the secretary mentioned, moving towards a nonrefundable ticket policy which generates real savings every time an employee will contract to travel to and from an accounting a budget perspective, we've had a pretty thorough review of our old balances, for those that are familiar with the department them we are appropriated know your money. so we've gone through and look at some of our older commitments, our congressional directed projects that we believe are not going to bear any fruition.

and we resent those balances and used some money to offset budget request your. pretty significantly. our greatest investment is in the energy efficiency and renewable energy sector. our request is $2.3 billion. this is 29.1% above our fy 12 enacted. this is the material investment within the context of our budget. we didn't just come again, we are very thoughtful in how we put our budget together, and if you go to and look at the various line items in this part of our budget, we have made significant trade-offs between various programs, areas. for example, in advanced manufacturing, $290 million investment. it is up 150%. we have added things to the program which is formally known as the industrial technologies program. we have also looked at some of our program areas, and changed the shape of those programs.

the secretary mentioned what we're doing with the wind programs, staying steady in our budget request this year, but we've looked at at the content of the program and of divesting, de-emphasizing certain areas in offshore wind and focusing on whether real challenges are. so we did a lot, spent a lot of time, a lot of effort goes to the various program areas here in making some pretty significant trade-offs amongst the bottom line. for our office of electricity and delivery, energy reliability, pretty steady here, although this does within the budget fund a new hub for energy systems. for fossil energy. again, pretty steady. we actually, the numbers here look better than they actually are from a 12 to 13 perspective because we canceled a major project last year and use that as an offset in our budget authority.

we also fund within this area the r&d work methane hydrates. in our nuclear energy program area, we are at 770 million which is a decrease of 10%. however, within is where focusing efforts on small modular reactors as well as funding up to $60 million of some of the recommendations coming out of the blue ribbon commission. arpa-e, we are continuing to ramp up our investments in arpa-e to $350 million. this is 27.3% increase over our enacted balance in 2012. again, this is an area where we have looked pretty hard, and what we're doing in the program, and we have actually terminate some of the grants that have been issued early on in the program. these projects were not meeting milestones, technical intent, and so we actually closed down

those projects and put the money back into, into arpa-e, ready for deployment. in science, we are pretty steady here. we are just under 5 billion in our request for 13, which is a to .4% increase over our enacted budget 2012. other agencies, also received increases in their fy 13 requests, indicating an investment, continued investment in science technology. i would also say, too, like eere, we also made some pretty tough choices and what we emphasizing insights and what we were not emphasizing as much. and reflected in this budget. our nsa budget, 11.5 billion this year representing a 4.9% increase over fy 12. again focusing on our weapons activities and nonproliferation

activities, both of those receive pretty significant increases in our investment. ian is pretty much static. no major excitement there, $5.6 billion request about even from our fy 12 enacted legacy management. again, no real excitement here. just ramping up with inflation, and tidy sum our liabilities. our loan programs, we are not seeking any additional loan guarantee authority or appropriated credit subsidy for our programs, but we are continuing to request for administrative expenses, to cover the monitoring of our loan programs, and we will continue to work with the applications that we currently have under the various loan programs that we have. there's plenty there to keep us busy. and, finally, in how we run mission support operations, again we're trying to live within our means here, pretty

flat budget for all of the offices that helped run the department and support the mission of the department, too. and here's where you can find by digging around on this budgetary information. so with that, that concludes our formal presentation here. happy to open up to questions. [inaudible] >> the requested level is 22 million, less than 55 men and a cooperative agree with michigan state. why is it less and what does that mean for the project? >> okay. i'll ask bill to respond to that. dr. bill brinkman. >> what it means is that our priorities are in energy and so the budget of the nuclear physics part of the research has

been, most flat and downs and. so this year we could afford to poll 50 billion. so what we're doing, and we don't see -- at this rate, to spend a budget we don't see me being able to do all the things that were proposed in nuclear physics, we'll probably to a reevaluation of the whole program in nine months. >> on the 60 million nuclear waste r&d that will align the work will align with some of the recommendations, can you give us a more detailed breakdown of what kind of work will be done, if any of that funding is coming from the waist fund? and if any work will also be done administratively that will require funding. >> i will give you a few examples, and you know, as noted

by the blue ribbon commission make me let pashtun let me make one point. there is a way to find, but that waist fund is not directly accessible to the department of energy. it depends on appropriate dollars. so what we have to do is work out of what congress gives us, 2012-2013. we don't have direct access. so with that in mind what we are proposing in our budget, and things, one example, one of the things that we would like to see within our administrative authorities is the blue ribbon commission, for example, talked about as a high priority beginning to take some of the spent fuel in reactor sites that are no longer operating as nuclear reactors, but we're still paying a lot of guards and security to look after that fuel, that particular site is now closed down. when you want to start to consolidate those things, at

least get them to we have operating reactors, and in order to do that it makes a lot of sense to have, as you take this fuel, the spent fuel pool, you want to put it in, take the front, but you also want to put it in a structure which will allow safe transport to another site, and you want to get standardized and licensed by the inner secrets of a number of companies that are doing this, and to support the standardization of licensing of nrc licensing. so it could be much more economically done. that's one example of the steps we can take. >> okay, if you could stay turning an affiliation before the question. >> my name is michael coleman. i'm with the washington do. you had a result with the facility at lost almost or the other facility at tennessee.

tennessee sounds like a postponing the workout lost almost a fight is as i understand. can you talk about the reasoning behind that decision? >> i think, tom, would you like -- >> this isn't a matter of new mexico or tennessee. this is a matter of what does the country meet in order to do its job. we took a look at our capability in both in the plutonium site and the uranium sector it's very clear when you do that that there is a clear and urgent need to move the functions that we have in the 9212 building in germany market, move it out of there because that's a high-risk activity. defense board has told us that. we understand it. we have to get moving on that. with respect to plutonium, which is what the nuclear facility was going to do, we decided to defer that decision to it's not canceled. it is deferred. what that means is we know that we have existing capabilities in our infrastructure. we have a radiological building right next door that we just build it we will maximize the

use of that to get what the country needs in material characterization, take advantage of the capability we have in our superblock facility, and if we need additional storage for material, which was one of the reasons for this nuclear facility, we decrease the font of a true by 70%, if we need additional storage, even though we reduce the volume can we have other options, whether device assembly facility or the like. not for storage but the station future work. so the country had options on plutonium site picketed have any options on the uranium side. didn't let me just reiterate what tom said at the very beginning. i mean, within these budget realities, it was very clear we couldn't do both things at the same time. and so we adjust the ones we thought were the most critical. >> this gentleman your. >> arpa-e program that were cancer, i think you said 38 or

cancels? >> no. that is 38 and including eere and others. i think there were six or seven. six in arpa-e in economic illicit just out of curiosity? >> sure it does the money go back and arpa-e? >> it does go back. if you bear with me, i was giving a talk at a materials workshop, department of energy initiated that could actually bring the national lab close again within industry so there is tighter interaction begin with this idea of, hoping the facility to transfer a lot of the value property. and i've utah, keynote speaker, followed by chief technology officer, senior vice president of united technologies. michael mcquaid got up and gave his talk and he said no to me you don't talk, bracket but if it. but let me tell you about a

failure. and it was and arpa-e funded project. it was a very noble project. he said it was a great idea, this is what we're trying to do, it didn't pay out, we got out, arpa-e got a. it was absolutely the right decision. if it didn't look like he was going to make it, get out fast. there's an old adage that is used to tell all my students that i learned when i was, you know, 30 years old. it's okay to fail, but fail fast and move on. >> i want to get that list. in the the arpa-e guys. >> highlights mentioned to move ahead with the nuclear in the fossil loan guarantees. those are bar were paid as i understand. 10 and 8 billion of credit capacity. how many do you have in house? what kind of timeline to see the fossil projects under? are we going to see some action

this year? i know these are tracked internationally, not just nationally. >> that's a very difficult question to answer. you're absolutely right. we have the money in those programs for that. but any and it depends on the private sector, whether they will make investments, and it's really up to them as to whether they want to go forward. and this is something one can't really predict. we hope, you know, we believe as we have said quite often, nuclear energy is partner, we believe should be part of the portfolio and the century but in the end of the financial system. and what affect some of the financial decisions are things like the price of natural gas, and how do you wait in that with respect to these other things. so, you know, we would like companies to pick up this funding, also the carbon capture as well. and so, but it also depends on private sector and how they

decide, what they want to do. [inaudible] >> yes. well, i think that's one step, you know, it was a positive approval of the application which is wonderful. that means that tried to continue go forward, but, and we expect that one to close and go forward. you know, a number of other milestones, but for other companies to embark on this, they have to decide whether it is in the best financial interest. >> unfortnuately, here i think we are out of time, running at that to 15 and have another event virtually. we have members of our press office here. so we are happy to hang around and answer questions and get your information before your deadlines, if we can do that. so it just leaves me with a chance to say thanks for coming,

appreciate your time and effort here. and for the opportunity to brief our budget. thank you. >> and the computer goes to the next one. >> we're ghana live now to the u.s. senate on this tuesday morning. we will share general speeches until about 11:00 when the senate will then continue consideration for a judicial nomination. also today the senate could start debate on the $109 billion surface transportation bill. live u.s. senate coverage as always on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. god of grace and god of glory,

send your power on capitol hill. may the might of your presence provide our lawmakers with the courage and discipline to follow where you lead. guide them through their challenging decisions to the desired destination of your purposes. as they walk on your path, make them exemplary models of your love and peace. fortify their desire to live with sincerity and self-effacement for the glory of your kingdom. we pray in your sacred 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., february 14, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable christopher a. coons, a senator from the state of delaware, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, we all know the inconvenience of a few potholes as we drive down the street. it's an inconvenience. for companies that ship $10 trillion worth of goods across the country every year, these disintegrating roads are more than an inconvenience, are more than a nuisance. a crowded train ride to an office or broken escalator at a station where you're trying to pick up a subway or what we call here metro may be a hassle, but

for 51 million americans who have disabilities, most of whom rely on some type of public transportation to get around, outdated stations, overcrowded trains are more than a minor inconvenience. mr. president, this country's deteriorating infrastructure is something we should be very concerned about. this great nation of ours has an infrastructure that is falling apart. our highways, our roadways, our bridges, our dams, our railways, they are more than an inconvenience. they are a drain on our economy. 20% of america's roads don't meet safety standards. as the presiding officer heard me say yesterday, i believe you were presiding when i talked about some of these issues, 70,000 bridges need to be replaced or overhauled. we have bridges in america, i'm

told, mr. president, that school buss stop when it gets to the bridge, have the kids walk across the bridge, the bus comes across without the kids in it and off they go because they are afraid the bridge would collapse. our public transportation system simply can't keep up with the pace of growing ridership. nine out of ten americans say we building our crumbling roads and bridges is important, 90%. we agree. democrats agree. modernizing our transit system, rebuilding the roads american families and businesses depend on will help fuel our economy. this legislation that's now before the senate is too important to be bogged down with unrelated ideological amendments. senate republicans should not have this bill diverted by my republican friends who try to take away women's access to health care such as

contraception that we have been dealing with the last week. mammograms and other cancer screenings. and then, mr. president, late last night, we're told that one of the republican senators wants to issue an amendment -- offer an amendment dealing with something totally unrelated to this, dealing with the country of egypt. now, a debate on egypt may be the right thing to do, but shouldn't we start maybe in the foreign relations committee? maybe we should start there. tv cameras can be there. that doesn't hold up this transportation bill that is so important. this bill will create or save two million jobs. it has broad bipartisan support. i have said here, i say it again, i so admire and respect and appreciate the work done by senator boxer, senator inhofe on this bipartisan bill. unfortunately, our house colleagues, our republicans, have gone in the direct opposite direction.

they have a bill that's a love note to the tea party. the house bill didn't get a single democratic vote in committee, and obviously for reasons that are very clear. the senate bill, on the other hand, passed out of the committee unanimously. even some republicans don't support the house bill, the way it's paid for, brilg in anwar. mr. president, that issue has a beard that's turned white. that's so outdated. drilling in anwar. transportation secretary ray lahood -- by the way, mr. president, he is a member of president obama's cabinet, but he is a republican, a long-time republican congressman from illinois, said the house legislation is the worst transportation bill he's seen in the 35 years he's been in public service. that's our secretary of transportation, a republican. there are lots of reasons, but here's a few. the house legislation would gut

public health and environmental protections, and that is a gross understatement. it would ax funding for pedestrian safety even though the pedestrian is injured or killed by a car in this country every seven minutes. it would starve our nation's public transportation system. the house bill reverses 30 years of good policy, of dedicating funding each year for mass transit. the policy was enacted in 1982 by that ultraliberal ronald reagan. mr. president, there are ads on radio and on television where you see president reagan speaking as he did so well as one of his signature issues was doing something about the transportation system in this country. maybe someone had read something to him or told him about general eisenhower, how much he believed that the transportation system should keep moving forward. many house republicans don't support the plan to shortchange

millions of americans. i just don't understand why seniors and people with disabilities who count on public transportation should be hurt by what the house has done in the bill with what they have over there. mr. president, the chamber of commerce, aarp has come out against that drastic approach taken by the house bill. on the other hand, the u.s. chamber and dozens of other -- i shouldn't say dozens -- hundreds, hundreds of other organizations support the boxer-inhofe bill. i'm disappoint thad house republicans have once again chosen this very partisan path. rebuilding a transportation system our economy can rely on shouldn't be divisive. given a choice between working with democrats to create good-paying jobs for american workers and playing politics, house republicans chose politics, and that's too bad. mr. president, this bill before the senate is a good bill.

we need to pass this, and i'm very disappointed that the house has taken this road that has recently been well traveled, that is what we get from the house is the same old stuff, and we have to change. mr. president, following leader remarks, the senate will be in a period of morning business for an hour. the majority will control the first half. the republicans will the will -- control the final half. following morning business, the senate will resume executive session in consideration of the jordan nomination postcloture. the senate will recess from 12:30 until 2:15 for our weekly caucus meetings. we hope to confirm the jordan nomination today and resume consideration of the surface transportation bill at the earliest possible time. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: we have had a little more time now to look at the president's budget, and i have to say the more one looks at it, the harder it is to believe that this is the president's considered response

to the crisis that we face. president obama knows better than anyone in this country that government spending and debt is completely out of control and that america is headed down the same road as europe. this budget was his chance to show it. instead, he decided to basically pretend these problems don't even exist and to the extent that he does acknowledge them, to propose solutions that are either gimmicks or that he knows will never come to pass. just to take two examples, he says he will bank savings by not fighting a war he already declared we wouldn't be fighting. take credit for saving money on a war that he's already declared we're not going to be fighting. a gimmick.

and he had raised -- raised money with tax hikes that had been rejected eight times by both parties. oh, and by the way, forget the fact that government spends a trillion dollars a year more than it takes in. the president says government spending should be even higher. he significantly increases government spending at a time when we have a $15 trillion debt that's as big as our economy. this is what passes for leadership down at the white house. the president looks at our fiscal crisis, throws together a plan that he knows is completely deceptive and then goes on the road to sell it to captive audiences at high schools and colleges across the country. the failure of leadership here is truly breathtaking. the president knows how grave

our nation's fiscal condition is when he thinks it helps him, he admits it. a year ago tomorrow when debt and spending were in the news, he used his budget announcement to reiterate a pledge to cut the deficit in half. here's what he said just a year ago tomorrow. quote, "the only way we can make these investments in our future is if our government starts living within its means. if we start taking responsibility for our deficits. that's why when i was sworn in as president i blend to cut the deficit in half by tend of my first term. the budget i'm proposing today meets that pledge. that was the president a year ago tomorrow. well, here we are a year ago -- a year later and he hasn't even come close. not even close. last month, the president said he wanted an economy that's built to last. what he's given us instead is a blueprint for deficits that are

built to last. and he hasn't done a thoing live up to his pledge to get our nation's fiscal house in order. in fact, he's made it worse. last year's budget wasn't worth the paper it was printed on, and neither is this one. not worth the paper it was printed on. the president's job isn't to tell people what he thinks they want to hear, it's to explain the problems we have, unite people around a solution, and get the job done. this president is truly failing the american people. the only question is how long it will take for that failure to catch up with us. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. and under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each with the time equally

divided and controlled by the two leaders or their designees with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i listened carefully to the statement made by the republican minority leader about deficits and i think it's worthy of note that history suggests an opposite conclusion from what he just said. remember this: the last time the federal government ever balanced its budget and generated a surplus was in the closing years of the presidency of william jefferson clinton, a democrat. when president clinton left office, the national debt accumulated over the history of the united states of america was $5 trillion. clinton left office, handed the keys to president george w. bush and said incidentally, next year, welcome to washington,

another surplus. $120 billion surplus, the economy has created 23 million jobs in my eight years, and i wish you the best. he left, turned the keys over to president george w. bush, and gave him control for eight years. eight years later, another snapshot. the national debt was no longer $5 trillion, it was $11 trillion. more than doubled under president george w. bush. we had lost jobs, dramatically lost jobs in america, unlike president clinton, and when george w. bush handed the keys over to president barack obama and said welcome to washington, incidentally next year's budget deficit is $1.2 trillion. quite different story, isn't it? you wouldn't know that from the speech just given. the suggestion is that democrats just don't get it right when it

comes to deficits, but republicans do. history tells us otherwise. so president barack obama inherited one of the weakest economies since the great depression, in fact we were teetering on another depression. the month that he took the oath of office putting his hand on abraham lincoln's bible, we lost over 750,000 jobs in america. that is what president obama inherited. we didn't hear that from the republican minority leader. mr. president, i want to show one chart that tells the story. tells it graphically and it's a chart which those who follow the floor debates will see over and over again. the red reflects job losses during president george w. bush. the blue lines reflect employment under president obama. this was the month that president obama was sworn into

office. almost 800 million jobs were lost in america. that's what he saw as he came to the presidency. and then look what happened. the job losses started reducing, and finally turned the corner on the positive side. there you have a graphic presentation of two views of the economy. the views of the republicans and george w. bush with all of this job loss, and the views of president obama. and that, mr. president, is the debate we're currently engaged in. the republicans want to us return to these policies. policies which call for tax breaks and cuts for the wealthy in america -- wealthiest in america, and basically innor investments we need to put people back to work. i served on the bowles-simpson deficit commission. i understand this commission a little bit. maybe more than some.

i don't profess to be an expert. the deficits have to be brought under control. you can't borrow 40 cents for every dollar you spend in washington and sustain economic growth in america. period. but i also know this: with ten million, 11 million ml, or 12 million americans out of work, you cannot balance this budget. we have to get america back to work. the workers have to start earning a good wage, paying their fair share of taxes and creating gloat in this economy and growth in revenue which allows us to balance our budget. the president has two accelerators. he has to push them both at the same time. fiscal responsibility on one side, economic growth on the other, and we have to move forward in a straight path. that's what his budget does. there are those who say ignore economic growth, ignore creating jobs, just cut spending.

just cut the deficit. if you did that, if you did that alone, i'm afraid the result would be disastrous. the president understands and we all should, there are three basic pillars to economic growth in america. and they're obvious. training and education. is there a single senator, congressman, or anyone here who doesn't understand they wouldn't be here without an education? we value education in america. it's the ladder of opportunity and president obama in his budget focuses on educating and training the next generation of skilled workers and leaders in the american economy. when we walk away from that commitment to education, we walk away from our future. the second thing the president's budget focuses on is innovation, finding those new technologies, those new discoveries which make our lives less burdensome and create more economic opportunity. it may be the next medical

device, a diagnostic tool which saves a life, it may be the next pharmaceutical breakthrough at the national institutes of health, it may be a new process for developing clean energy in america that puts us back in the race to be the world leader in that field. those investments by our federal government pay off in good businesses, good jobs, and a better life for all of us. education, innovation, and the third piece is the one that's on the floor today, infrastructure. it's kind of a sterile word but what it gets down is it represents the highways, the bridges, the airports, the mass transit, the ports of america that are literally the arteries through which our economic blood will flow. and when they are not as good as they should be, as efficient as they should be, our economy struggles. let me give you one example. i live in illinois and am proud

of it. my family came to that state, my mother as an immigrant to this country, my father off a farm in southern illinois to work in east st. louis at a railroad. you almost equate illinois with railroads. we're in the center of america, and most railroads pass through the state. there are railroads in every direction. right now, it takes as long to take a freight shipment through the city of chicago as it does from the west coast of -- west coast to chicago or from chicago to the east coast. why? our railroad infrastructure hasn't kept up with the growing need for rail freight transportation. we need to invest in that. we have an opportunity to invest in it. when we do, when goods move more quickly, there's more profitability. businesses do better. and they hire more people. the same thing is true with our highway system, with mass transit, with passenger rail. and look what the views -- how they view this issue.

currently we're considering a bill coming over from the house of representatives which would be a disaster for america's infrastructure and for the state of illinois. an unqualified disaster. instead of investing and building the infrastructure so america's economy can grow, this bill sadly cuts the federal investment in transportation by 15% or 20% over the next five years. it cuts the investment in mass transit dramatically by eliminating the transfer of money from the highway trust fund to mass transit, something that's gone on for 30 years and it makes a 25% cut in amtrak. at a time when amtrak is growing and proving itself, they want to basically start shutting it down, closing it down, eliminating trains. that's no vision for the future. that's betting on failure. that's what the house republican transportation bill will do. we can do better. we have a bipartisan bill.

it's a word you don't hear that often in this chamber, but a bipartisan bill with senator barbara boxer of california, senator inhofe of oklahoma. they have agreed on a transportation bill for two years which moves us forward. we need to make that investment. the president understands that in his budget. we should understand it in the senate, and we should make it happen. the last point i'll make is this: mr. president, there was a breakthrough yesterday. some people will be critical perhaps of the house speaker for reversing field and changing his position. it's not a question of whether or not -- it's a question of whether the payroll tax cut which president obama put in place will be continued beyond the end of this month. many may remember the flap that occurred in december when we were questioning whether to extend it for two additional months. i went back to my state and talked about it county by county as to how much it meant to working families and the republicans releapted in the

house and agreed to extend it to the end of february. and, unfortunately, just a short time ago the speaker said, and i with quote, if we're going to extend the payroll tax credit, with reforms and take care of the so-called doc fix, we're going to have to offset the spending, is what the speaker said. that was just a few days ago. yesterday there was a different announcement. the speaker of the house, mr. boehner of ohio, said we are prepared to act to protect small businesses and our economy from the consequences of washington democrats' political games, close quote. in other words, now the republicans are prepared to extend the payroll tax cut without paying for it. it would be easy to take a shot at the speaker because he changed his position, but i won't. i remember this, the week of celebrating abraham lincoln's birth, 203rd anniversary of his birth. he was once criticized for changing his position on an issue. i ask consent for one additional minute.

lincoln said i did change my position, but i'd rather be right some of the time than wrong all of the time. i think speaker boehner is right. the last point i will make, the extension of unemployment benefits, is of equal value to the economy and immeasurable value to those out of work who are struggling to find a job. make sure if we get this done on the payroll tax cut we don't give up on extending unemployment benefits, benefits that will allow people to get back to work. i want to see these blue lines growing, mr. president. i want to see us move in the right direction, creating jobs in america. president obama's payroll tax cut and the unemployment benefits which we have pushed for has pushed us over the line in creating jobs. let's not end this record of success. let's build on it. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: before the senator from illinois departs the floor i want to associate myself with

his remark. what the standpoint majority leader has pointed out in order to build an economy built to last you invest if our people and in our infrastructure and research and development. you can't cut your way to prosperity. every businessman and woman knows that, every economist knows that. as our economy grows, then we can meet the chal that is presented to us when it comes to our deficits and long-term debt. that's how we'll get a handle on that particular problem. i want to thank the senator from illinois for his compelling remarks. mr. president, i've come to the floor today to talk about an environmental problem that affects many parts of colorado as well as other western states. and that's abandoned hardrock mines. these mines pollute thousands of streams and rivers in america with truly a toxic soup of heavy metals including arsenic, lead, and mercury. and that pollution impairs drinking water and kills awk qawtic and plant life for miles downstream. this is a prb that i think

doesn't get enough attention here in the congress and it's my hope by speaking today i can spur all of us in this body and the administration to take greater steps to help solve this problem and by in that spirit invite my colleagues to join me in this effort. if i might first a little background. starting in the 1800's, miners flocked to the west in search of fortune following the discovery of precious metals like gold, lead, copper and silver and settled in places with romantic names like leadville and silverton and gypsum. mining became an important part of our history and our settlement and our development in colorado, but it also left a very dirty and deadly legacy. when a claim was mined for all it was worth, a miner frequently packed up and left without a lasting -- i should say a thought about the lasting problems that the mine would cause. this was an era before modern

mining laws that hold miners accountable for their impacts on the land. and then as a follow-up, in many cases, it then became impossible to identify the persons responsible for the vast majority of these abandoned mines. the government accountability office estimates that there are over 160,000 such abandoned hard rock mines in the west, 160,000. 7,300 are in colorado, 47,000 are in california and another 50,000 are in arizona. today, highly acidic water still drains from these mines, polluting entire watersheds. now, i want to follow the lodge thank a picture is worth a thousand words. in that con next, i want to show my colleagues what acid mine drainage looks like. this is the red and bonita mine in san juan county, colorado, which is near silverton. i want the viewers to note for scale the pickup truck which is on the left side of this

photograph. you can see a couple of individuals up here as well. over 300 gallons of water drain from this mine every minute, and the water is contaminated with all kinds of heavy metals that produce the orange and the red streaks that you see in this photograph. highly acidic water flows into the cement creek and eventually into the adimus river, impairing water quality and quality of life. for a region of colorado that thrives on tourism, including angling, this situation is extremely harmful. from e.p.a. data, we can conservatively estimate that over 10,000 miles of streams and rivers and nearly 350,000 acres of lakes are impaired in this country as the result of acid mine drainage. so, mr. president, with that backdrop, what's being done? for one at those sites where a responsible party can be identified, the federal government has the tools at its disposal to hold them accountable.

also, the federal land management agencies have a variety of programs that mitigate abandoned hard rock mine pollution. however, the efforts i want to focus on today are those undertaken by a third category of people, entities that had no role in creating the pollution at an abandoned mine site yet want to make the situation better. and appropriately enough, we refer to these entities as good samaritans. one such good samaritan is the animus river stakeholders group in southwestern colorado. they are working to find solutions to clean up the red and bonita mine. often good samaritans are nonprofits whose mission is to restore the natural environment. sometimes they are community groups who want to improve their cities and their towns. sometimes they are mining companies looking to be good stewards in the communities in which they operate. and sometimes they are state and local governments. take, for example, the tiger mine near leadville, colorado.

the picture i want to show you was taken before any remediation activities took place. you can see the miles of mine waste and drainage coming from the mines beside it there. it peak flows as much as 150 gallons per minute of water done tam natured with cadmium, copper, lead, zinc andiron flows out of the copper mine. some of the remediation work has been done, as you can see in the second picture here. the mine waste was moved out of the way, capped and revegetated and the ditches were put above the mine to divert -- i should say to divert surface water runoff and further reduce contamination. you can also see in this picture that four pits have been dug below the mine. right here, mr. president. and this represents the next phase of cleanup being led by trout unlimited, another good samaritan.

eventually, these pits will become what is known as a sulfate-reducing bioreactor. now, the presiding officer knows i was not a chemistry major so i won't attempt to describe how this thing works, but the end result is a good thing, i can tell you that. the acid mine drainage flows in and cleaner water flows out. however, trout unlimited has run into a problem that's frustrated many good samaritans. the bioreactor counts as a point source of pollution. therefore, before trout unlimited can turn the bioreactor on, they must obtain a clean water permit. trout unlimited can't meet the stringent permit requirements without investing in far more expensive water treatment options. nor can they afford to assume the liability that comes with a permit. as a result, the bioreactor sits unused. federal law is in effect sidelining some of the best

hopes for remediation. now, mr. president, i've tried for several years -- several years, it feels like a lifetime, i think at least a decade, to give good samaritans some relief. i have introduced legislation every congress since 2002 that creates a unique permit specifically for this kind of work. unfortunately, i haven't been able to convince my colleagues or enough of my colleagues just how good an idea this is, but i'm going to keep trying. and in addition, i have been working with senator boxer to encourage e.p.a. to better use the administrative tools they have at their disposal. good samaritans report to me that administrative tools have been cumbersome to use so far and they don't offer the full clean water act protection they need. mr. president, could i ask for one additional minute? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: so senator boxer and i, along with senator bennet, have asked the e.p.a. to make this tool more accessible to good samaritans, and last week

we asked the agency to provide good samaritans with assurances they will not be subject to enforcement for appropriate actions to clean up acid mine pollution. i am grateful for the work the e.p.a. has done to focus on these issues and for senator boxer's leadership. good samaritans are too valuable a resource to keep on the sidelines. congress should do what is necessary to bring their efforts to bear on the cleanup of abandoned mine pollution. good samaritans, mr. president, they can't solve all of our abandoned mine pollution problems, but we can't afford to turn away those willing to help any longer. mr. president, i thank you for your interest on this important topic to those of us in the west. with that, i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. rockefeller: mr. president, when most americans think of cybersecurity, they conjure up an image of somebody having a credit card number stolen, for

example, or a prankster using their twitter account or somebody downloading a movie without paying, and that is all true and it's important but it's not dangerous. the internet is central to our lives, our economy and our society. any insecurity is -- is a worry, it will expand, but we're here today because the experts are warning us that we are on the brink of something much worse, something that could bring down our economy, rip open our national security or even take lives. the prospect of mass casualty is what has propelled us to make cybersecurity a top priority for

this year, to make it an issue that transcends political party or ideology. consider the warning signs. hackers now seem to be able to routinely crack the codes of our government agencies, including the most sensitive ones. our fortune 500 companies they do routinely, and then everything in between. admiral mike mullen, former joint chiefs chairman, said that a cybersecurity threat is the only other threat that's on the same level as russia's stockpile of nuclear weapons. loose nukes, if you will. f.b.i. director robert mueller testified to congress very recently that the cyberthreat will soon overcome terrorism as the top national security focus of the f.b.i. think about that.

cyber will be as dangerous as terrorism. cyber threats and the widespread prospect of a cyberattack could be as devastating to this country as the terror strikes that tore apart this country just ten short years ago. so how is that possible, you ask. think about how many people could die if the cyberterrorist attack attacked our air traffic control system, both now and when it's made modern, and our planes slammed into one another, or rail-switching networks were hacked, causing trains carrying people, and more than that, perhaps hazardous materials, toxic materials to derail or collide in the midst of our most populated urban areas, like chicago, new york, san

francisco, washington, d.c., et cetera. what about an attack on networks that run a pipeline, refinery or chemical factory, causing temperature and pressure imbalance, leading to an explosion equivalent to a massive bomb or an attack on a power grid, shutting down generators that kill electricity going into cities and our hospitals. in short, we are on the brink of what could be a calamity. george bush's last -- president bush's last director of national intelligence and president obama's first director of national intelligence in consecutive years said that cybersecurity was the major national security threat facing this nation. are we paying attention? now, we can act now and try and prepare ourselves as best as we can, or we can wait and we will

be surprised with what happens. i'm here to argue that we should act now to prevent a cyber disaster. that's what this bill would do. working with my friends senator lieberman, senator collins, we have written legislation that i believe strikes the right balance between addressing the danger without putting an undue new set of regulations on business. our bill would determine the greatest cyber vulnerabilities throughout our critical infrastructure, protect and promote private sector innovation, creativity, and encourage private sector leadership and really accountability in securing their private systems, improve threat and vulnerability information sharing between the government and the private sector while protecting, as best as we can, privacy and civil liberties,

improve the security of the federal government networks including our most sensitive ones that are now being hacked into, clarify the roles and the responsibilities of federal agencies, strengthen our cyber work force, coordinate cybersecurity research and development and promote public awareness of cyber vulnerabilities to ensure a better informed and more alert, frankly, citizenry. let me say again, this is bipartisan and was written to address the many concerns that surfaced three years ago when we first raised this issue and, frankly, when we started writing this bill. we held meetings with all sides, incorporated hundreds of specific suggestions and in short tried to do what we do with any important and large piece of legislation -- make a lot of people really think

deeply and come up with a compromise that everyone can agree to. earlier this month, an association of major higher -- high-tech companies praised our approach. generally they do. we have talked with industry, we've talked with the white house, we've talked with everybody dozens, hundreds of times over a period of three years, and in the end, we settled on a plan that creates no new bureaucracy or heavy-handed regulation. it's premised on companies, however, taking responsibility for securing their own networks. will they, will they do that, and with government assistance as necessary. i think back, mr. president, to 2000 and 2001 when we all saw signs of people moving in and out of the country, we weren't

quite sure what that meant. we saw dots appear to connect, but did they or didn't they, and we knew something new and something different and something dangerous just might be upon us, but we didn't drill down. our in intelligence and national security leadership took these matters very seriously, as best as they possibly could. but in the end, not seriously enough. it was too late. september 11 happened. today, with a new set of warnings flashing before us on a different subject, cybersecurity, and a wide range of new challenges to our security and our safety, we again faceand square canada can canada canand square canada can

mr. johanns: are we in quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. johanns: i ask the quorum call be set aside. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. johanns: i ask to participate in a colloquy with my colleagues, senators blunt, risch, isakson and heller. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. johanns: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, we rise today to talk about the budget that was

just submitted by the president of the united states, actually within the last 24 hours. despite a 2009 promise to literally cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term, president obama released a budget that for the fourth year in a row calls for a deficit in excess of $1 trillion. unfortunately, this proposal is just one more year of the same old story: more taxes, more spending, more borrowing, and yet another punt on the tough issues that we as a nation must face. as a former governor, i understand what it takes to balance a budget. difficult choices do have to be made. even with programs that are popular. in 2001 when i was governor of nebraska, i closed a $220 million budget shortfall

and didn't raise taxes. but $220 million is merely a drop in the bucket for the federal budget. that amounted to more than 7% in nebraska. by comparison, if the president had had submitted a budget that cut spending by 7%, well, he would be cutting more than $260 billion this year, and that wasn't the last we had to do with the post-9/11 economy, we called special session after special session to cut spending. but instead of that, the president is projected to increase spending. leadership is necessary, and sadly, this budget does not display it. instead, america's balance sheet continues to drown in a sea of red ipg for yet another year driving our 2012 deficit to

nearly $1.4 trillion. instead of making tough choices about priorities, the president appears to be doubling down on more stimulus spending. let me just give a few examples, and then i'll invite my colleagues to join me. $2 billion in new tax credits for the production of advanced technology vehicles. $4 billion to extend and modify -- quote -- "certain energy incentives which could include clean, renewable energy bonds." $3 billion to encourage investments in advanced energy manufacturing projects. $4.7 billion for new spending to strengthen the teaching profession, despite g.a.o. finding 82 duplicative and wasteful teacher quality

programs. well, when you add it all up, we are presented with yet another budget that contains the largest tax increase in u.s. history, it raises taxes by more than $1.8 trillion. and i could go on and on, mr. president. this is something a situation where we've seen this budget before, and it just doesn't improve. now, as i turn to my colleague from missouri, senator blunt, you've worked on these before, offer us some insight on what you see in this budget and where it is leading our country in this -- in your opinion. mr. blunt: i thank my friend for putting this discussion together. it is a serious discussion, unlike the budget which is not a serious become. the majority leader in the senate said it wouldn't be voted

on. when the white house spokesman was asked if they had a position on the fact that the senate wasn't going to produce a budget and this budget could be voted on but it won't be debated, it won't be -- there won't be a companion senate budget apparently that goes along with it, the white house spokesman said they didn't have a position on the fact the majority leader said there would be no senate budget this year. and remember, this is the budget that's required by law to be passed by april 15 of every year, and i guess this will be the fourth straight time that april 15 will be missed without having passed a budget. and so what we've got here, unlike a budget document that does what you did as a governor or what eye son matt did when he was governor of missouri, he had a billion dollars deficit, they had to make up for that and they did. you made up for the deficit in your state and governor, now senator risch was responsible to see that the numbers added up. these numbers don't add up.

this is a budget that spends too much, it taxes too much, and it borrows too much. spending goes up under this budget, in this budget year we're spending $3.8 trillion, fy 13, the budget year we're talking about now by seven years from now, fy 22, nine years from now spending almost $6 trillion. from $3.8 trillion to $5.8 trillion, so clearly the spending problem isn't solved by this budget. this budget makes the spending problem worse. and they add almost $2 trillion in new taxes. so it spends too much, it taxes too much, and then it borrows too much. we're going to increase the debt again, we have a deficit of almost a trillion dollars in each of the obama years of responsibility during this first

term. and that can't be allowed to continue. but if you look at this budget document, the ten-year projections, there is no indication that we change any of these trends. but we all understand that these trends are unacceptable. the federal government's total debt has now surpassed the size of the economy. the potential of our economy to produce goods and services, the so-called g.d.p. number, is now exceeded by our debt. now, we know what happened in greece when their debt exceeded the capacity of their economy to produce goods and services. we know what happened in italy, we know what happened in ireland, we know what happened in portugal. why don't we think that's going to happen to us? because it will, and we have to make these numbers add up. and you as a governor had to produce a budget, governor risch produced a budget, and

i'm going to turn to him here in a second, and to talk about the responsibility of the executive to lead. and then frankly, the responsibility of the senate to do its job. and i'm really continually surprised that we can miss this absolute dead line in the law year after year after year, and there's not a press outcry. there's more of a public outcry than a press outcry. my sense is if when i was in the house of representatives we had missed this deadline once, as aposed to -- opposed to over and over and over again, there would have been a marshaling of people around the country to stand on the steps of the capitol and say why isn't the majority in the house doing its job? and this is just something that the current majority in the senate's walked away from in ways that i can't understand when you talk to americans,

getting people back to work and getting control of federal spending are the number one and two domestic priorities, but i don't see those priorities in this budget, and i'd turn to my friend from idaho to see what he's thought of as we've had now a few hours to look at the specifics of the president's budget. mr. risch: well, thank you very much, senator blunt. like everyone, i've been perusing the numbers and trying to figure out whether or not this gets us somewhere, and whether or not it will actually come to fruition. a quick look at history. as you point out, this will be the fourth year if we don't adopt a budget, that we haven't had one. there isn't an entity in the world that operates without a budget. you have to have a budget if you're going to do anything responsible. budgeting is not that difficult. it is merely a way of taking the

money that you've got coming in and allocating it on a priority basis for what you think money should be spent for for. there's never enough money. there isn't an enterprise in the world that has enough money. everyone has to make decisions as to what are the priorities and do the best they can with the money they have. as i side, it's -- said, it's been over a thousand days since the united states senate has adopted a budget. last year, a similar budget that the president produced was actually put on the floor, on the floor here of the united states senate, for a vote. it failed with zero votes to 97 no votes. that's not a party-line vote. this budget, one can only conclude just like the budget produced by the budget last year, spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much. the budgeting process is

something that is extremely important. the american people demand it. common sense demands it. and anyone who has ever operated a government or a business enterprise knows that you must budget. every governor in the united states does it, all 50 states. every legislature does it. as was pointed out by senator johanns when he was governor he had to cut 7%. let me tell you about the state of play in idaho. when i was governor, the budget was $3.5 billion when i left. the current governor is operating with a $2.5 billion budget. he cut $1 billion out of a $3.5 billion budget. the it can be done at the state level, it can be done at the national level, and indeed, it has to be done at the national level. we're going to have to cut. this budget spends, the proposed budget spends about $10.4 billion every day. and i put it in a daily basis because when you start talking

about trillion dollars, people's eyes glaze over, there's no possible way, there is no human being on the face of this planet that can determine what a trillion dollars is, let alone the $3.8 trillion that this budget spends. but if you put it on a daily basis, it's $10.4 billion every day. remember, in the state of idaho for a year the state spends 2.4 -- $2.5 billion in a year. this government spends $10.4 billion every day. that comes down to a $7.2 million every minute. now, you wouldn't have a whole lot of argument about that if indeed the government had $10.4 billion to spend every day or $7.2 million every minute. but indeed, every day under this budget, the federal government will borrow $2.4 billion. every single day. the borrowing comes down to about 1 point million

dollars -- $1.7 million every minute. when you put it in terms of how much it is a day and a minute, it becomes staggering. right now because we've been dealing with every time i see something nationally where a business is doing something that's a huge deal at $5 billion or something like that, you put it in perspective of how the federal government is doing its business. this borrowing that is being done every day by the federal government has yielded us now a $15 trillion debt and, again, nonwhat that is, nobody knows what that is but what i do know we'll never pay it off in our lifetime, interest will be our kids and our grandkids that are saddled with that particular amount. and this is the real deal: i wish everybody could have the experience that i had, the number of senators have done this, but every day the federal government has to pay its bills at the end of the day. they're not like businesses or what have you, they don't pay monthly, they pay every day. how do they do this? when i first got here, i

thought this is staggering, these kind of numbers and what have you. but i went and watched them do it. the treasury has a checkbook like everyone else does. at the end of the day it has to balance like everyone else's does. it balances it by going out and borrowing money. i watched them borrow. this is indeed borrowing. about a quart fourth of it comes from china, about a fourth from other countries and half from wealthy institutions, banks, and trusts and individuals around the world. but it is really borrowing and it has to be paid back. and indeed, they not only borrow the amount they need every day for the daily deficit, but they borrow enough money to pay back the people whose debts are coming due that day. and it is -- after you walk out of there and watch them actually do that, you -- you can't help but walk away from there feeling sick because when you look at the kind of numbers, the government can't pay its bills at the end of the day. the only way it can pay its bills is if it does borrow.

so we need systemic change. everything has to be reformed. if i was -- if i was in charge of everything, the first thing i would reform is this ridiculous idea that we budget on a ten-year basis. i mean, that's outrageous. a ten-year budgeting allows smoke and mirrors and allows gimmicks and games so you can stand up and say, why, this budget saves $4 trillion. it doesn't save a dime next year. all this alleged savings is ten years out, and indeed on this ten-year cycle that they use to budget, the second year never comes. we need an annual budget. we need to look in the mirror and talk about how much we're spending next year versus how much is coming in. forget this ten-year basis. it is absolute nonsense. senator blunt talked about greece. greece is going through what we're going to have to go through at some time, and that is cutting back.

they lived happy for decades while they spent their children's and their grandchildren's money, and all of a sudden what happened to them? nobody would loan them money anymore. if that happens to us, we're out of business. if nobody will loan us any money on a daily basis, we're out of business. so what do we need? we need compromise. it's compromise that got us into the position that we're in. compromise every year caused us to take each budget item and the democrats wanted to spend more, the republicans wanted to spend less, so they compromised somewhere in the middle. and now we're operating at a -- even under this budget, a trillion dollar deficit for the year. it's time to compromise again. but we need to go the other direction. we need to compromise on how much are we going to cut this year. the republicans are going to want to cut more. democrats, i hope will agree that we need to do some cutting and we need to wind up somewhere

in the middle. that's the only way we are going to get this back on track. this budget doesn't cut it. this budget doesn't even come close to it. we're going to bankrupt america if we don't start doing things differently. senator johanns, i see senator isakson has joined us on the floor. mr. johanns: i thank my colleagues for laying out what this budget is all about and the problems that we are seeing. senator isakson has been a leader in trying to reform the budget process. senator isakson, i'd like you to offer thoughts on what you see in this budget and some ideas on how we can improve this situation that we find ourselves in with the president's budget, more taxing, more borrowing, more spending. mr. isakson: i thank you for the opportunity. i commend senator risch for his remarks. i want to make a little addition to those in just a second. specifically, in answer to your question, senator johanns, the only thing you can do with this budget is start over.

senator risch is very important to recognize the ten-year fiasco we look at every year by pushing the saisks out into years eight, nine and ten when this congress won't be here and another congress will be here. talking about compromise, one of the things that senator shaheen from new hampshire and i have pushed for two years is a process that 40% of the states operate under, including yours, if i'm not mistaken, mr. johanns, and that is a by by annual budget process, so instead of talking about ten years, you talk about two. instead of talking about appropriating every year, you appropriate one year or two years, and the second year which happens to be the election year or the even-numbered year, your total obligation is to look for savings, efficiencies and find function in the government. we don't ever do in this congress what our families do and our children do every year at home. we don't ever sit around our kitchen table, reprioritize our expenditures based on our needs and find out how to live within our means. the american people don't get the luxury of printing money. japan doesn't come in and buy notes to fund their money. they have to figure out how they

themselves can manage their budget in such a way to live within the income they have and not go into a big debt. the united states of america ought to do the same thing. and one of the things senator risch talked about that i want to hammer on for just a second because there is a big part of our problem that is solvable, and it's solvable if good people would just be willing to talk about it rather than public about it. and that's one thing known as entitlements. entitlements are social security, welfare, medicare, medicaid, retirement, disability, et cetera, but really two of them aren't really entitlements. two of them are obligations of the united states of america. that's not an entitlement. that's something somebody's paid for. america's people pay 6.2% of their payroll normally, except for the recent holiday we have had, to go into a social security trust fund to pay them a benefit. they pay 1.35% of their income every month from day one since 1968 to pay for medicare. those aren't entitlements they are entitled to.

those are obligations we have committed them to for moneys that they have paid. and this document that we're looking at, this budget doesn't portend a single change in benefits or in obligations for medicare and medicaid and social security, which economy means the day that they go broke comes that much faster. we're defaulting on the obligation we have to the american people. whereas if we sat down honestly, put those programs on the table, looked in the out years when my grandchildren and children may be beneficiaries and modified the obligation, pushing now at the eligibility, we can save the debt, the obligation that we owe the american people for social security and for medicare. but if we don't do it, it will be gone. that's something that they paid for that we took out of the trust fund and used for something else, not the least of which was the $500 billion the president took out of the trust fund for medicare to have enough to pay for the affordable health care bill which hasn't even gone into effect yet. so i think it's time that we ask of ourselves what the american

people have to ask of themselves, sit around our kitchen table, decide what our priorities are, live within our means, and budget for the future, don't budget for failure. this is a budget for failure. mr. johanns: i ask -- or i appreciate the comments made by senator isakson, and if i might take a moment to follow up on his comments relative to medicare and social security, and then i would ask senator blunt maybe to offer a few words on where we go from here, what do we anticipate we have got to do to set the ship of state on the right course, if you will. but let me just speak to the issue of medicare and social security. senator isakson could not be more right. when we get paid, you can literally go to your paycheck stub and you can see the amount of money that is being withheld out of your paycheck throughout

your life for social security benefits and for medicare benefits. when these programs were set up thereabouts, a group was put together, they are referred to as trustees, and they basically do a fair analysis of where these programs are at, where they are headed, and every year they put out a report. and we'll be getting another annual report here in the not-too-distant future, but i think we all know what the report is going to say. the report is going to say that in the vicinity of about 2024, if not a bit sooner, social security literally is going to be insolvent. it's also going to say that medicare is literally in a position where it will be upside-down financially sooner than that. the greatest challenge between

the two, obviously, is medicare. now, what does that mean to people who are currently beneficiaries or fixing to retire and planning on these items being there for them? well, what it means is that that plan could be in serious jeopardy. now, it's not because mike johanns woke up last night and said that or dreamt it or thought about it. it's because people who are empowered to look at social security and medicare have studied it very, very closely, have looked at the financial pieces of this and have come to this conclusion. so now let's examine the president's budget. what plan does he have to protect medicare or social security? well, he doesn't have a plan. these aren't easy issues. i'm not arguing here today that this is easy to take on, but

what i am saying to the american people is if you study this budget or any other budget submitted by this president, he is doing nothing to arrest literally our progress toward these very important programs becoming insolvent. if there was ever an area in this budget where we need presidential leadership, it is right here. senator blunt, i would ask your thoughts on this. you have studied these issues over the years and offered great insight. where do we go from here? what are your thoughts in terms of this budget and how we get back on track? mr. blunt: my first thought here is the insight is not that difficult. it's just that we need to do our job. we can't expect to solve these problems if the senate doesn't do the job it's supposed to do, and we can't expect to solve these problems if we keep letting our -- the size of our

government get out of proportion to the capacity of our economy. in 2008, the year before the administration started, the deficit was higher than i thought it should be by a lot. it was $459 billion. that was 3% of g.d.p., and i thought that was unacceptable. the very next year, the first year of this administration, it went to 10% of g.d.p., $1.4 trillion, and then after that, it's been a trillion, a trillion, a trillion, $1.4 trillion, $1.3 trillion, $1.3 trillion, $1.3 trillion in the year we're in now, and this -- this doesn't change that trajectory at all, and in the budget the president submitted for the first time that any president said this, the president says that the social security trust fund during this ten-year window will run out of money, that it will -- that the money coming in for the first

time ever will not equal the money going out. but proposes nothing to do anything about that. and this is a -- this is a -- this is a commitment that the federal government has made to americans. social security can continue to work if you periodically look at the facts and the demographics and adjust it. you know, we have just about worn out the tip o'neill, ronald reagan example on social security, but, senators, that was 1983, the supposed third rail of politics that the president won't touch. the very next year, ronald reagan carried 49 states. this would have been a great year in divided government to solve this problem because one side couldn't spend the rest of time blaming the area. i don't think the changes in social security made in 1983, to my knowledge, have never been an issue in any political campaign any where. and because they were made in a way that anticipated people's

needs to adjust, we're just now 30 years later getting to the final phase-in of the new retirement age, 30 years later. but if you don't get that started, you will never get there. and whether it's social security or the social security insurance fund gets into trouble even quicker. according to the president, 2008. and no proposal to do anything about that. people who are absolutely depend ent. family members, dependent children who are absolutely dependent on that safety net if something happens to the worker who is paying into social security. five years from now, the president says that's in big trouble, but you go through all of these papers and you see no indication anywhere of what we should do about that, and these are issues that have to be dealt with, and i just suggest the most fundamental way to deal with them is for the senate to

do its job, for the senate to produce a budget, for the senate to get focused, as senator risch suggested we needed to focus, not on some phony pay-for ten years out that never materializes, but what are we going to do this year to change the course of the country, to change the trajectory. you know, the one thing you learn in artillery is you don't have to change the trajectory, you don't have to change the level of the artillery piece very much to make a really big difference out there in the distance, but if you don't change it at all, you keep landing at exactly the same place, and this is a budget that actually lands in even a worse place because it spends more money, it spends too much, it taxes too much, it borrows too much, and the american people know we can't continue to do that, as the case very well made by senator risch. senator, do you have any other thoughts on what we need to be doing and how we need to be doing it?

mr. risch: well, i think, first of all, one of the things that people have got to accept -- and it doesn't happen around here -- and that is we don't have an income problem. we've got a spending problem. all the money in the world wouldn't get us to where you are able to solve every problem comes down the pike and that people want to -- that people want to resolve. the president is urging that somebody is not paying their fair share. now, i wish he would hang more details on it. i wish some media person would ask him, identify these groups for us, please. i think he's trying to create a national dialogue as to who is or who isn't paying their fair share. i think that might be appropriate. i think when the american people started on this and they took the numbers and said okay, if you take the first half of

income earners from the lowest to the median, they're paying 0% in taxes. the top 10% is paying 70% of all the money that the government takes in. so let's have a dialogue a as to which of those two groups is paying their fair share. there are some very good sociological reasons why the upper income pays more than the lower income and i don't think anyone is going to argue with that. but there's only so much you can do and i'm not defending the rich. the rich take care of thence. they can move their capital wherever they want to move it to and indeed we all know that a good deal has moved offshore. there's $2 trillion off shore right now that american -- americans, american businesses, want to bring back but they won't bring it back because there's a war on capital here in this country, with the government trying to take the capital. we need to have a national dialogue about that and we need to land in the middle someplace. again, no one is going to defend the rich. they don't have to. the rich can take care of themselves.

but the fact is we've got to come to the conclusion at some point that the resources the american people of finite, be it the rich, be the poor, be it the middle class, the -- their ability to pay for government is finite. and there is a point at which you've got to say wait. instead of saying we're going to bring in more, we've got to say we're going to have to prioritize the money that we have and how we're going to spend it. and i it's that way that we get out of this situation. is having an acceptance that there is a finite amount of money. it's really too easy for us to borrow money. we've seen that in our own lives. we've seep friends of ours -- seen friends of ours who have gone to the bank and borrowed money and if the money is too easy to borrow, they get into trouble and they get into trouble relatively quickly. well, we've gotten into trouble because it is so easy for us to borrow. people still want to loan us

money, people are still loaning us money. every day they lend us billions and billions. if they didn't, we would be out of business. it's time for this national dialogue on where we're going to go and as i said, the only way this is going to resolve is if we compromise. instead of talking about compromise about how much more wean going to spend, we need to something we haven't done since world war ii and this that is compromise. that is how much we're going to cut. thank you very much, mr. president. the presiding officer: time has expired. mr. johanns: i anticipate senator heller will probably seek the floor but this concludes our colloquy and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to the executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination. phenomenon the judiciary, of adalberto jose jordan of florida to be united states circuit judge for the 11th circuit.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. heller: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for a period of up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. heller: thank you, mr. president. today our nation is more than $15 trillion in debt. the president's budget will increase government spending by $47 trillion over the next decade. included is the largest tax increase in american history

while our national debt increases to 25z $9 trillion over the next ten years. that's right, this budget proposes a massive tax increase, not as a plan to address the national debt but to fuel more reckless big-government spending. our nation cannot afford to continue down this path. this reckless budget will not only saddle our children and grandchildren with massive government debt, but it proposes to raise taxes on the very businesses that we need to create jobs. how can this president and the majority party claim to be pro-jobs when everything they're doing is antibusiness? this budget threatens our long-term economic security and places a greater burden on our children and grandchildren, who will be forced to live and pay for washington's inability to solve this problem.

and while i believe the president's budget spends too much, borrows too much, and taxes too much, here in the senate the majority party has chosen to go to the other extreme. they have now refused, refused to pass a budget for more than a thousand days. it is our responsibility as legislators to develop a real, workable budget that will put our nation back on the path of economic prosperity. unfortunately, the majority has simply not taken this responsibility seriously. now, there are some who claim the spending caps established in the budget control act constitutes a budget, and quite frankly, i disagree. at a time when millions of americans are out of work, this behavior in washington continues to create great uncertainty and stifles economic growth. no state has felt the failures of washington more than the

state of nevada. my state continues to lead the nation in unemployment, with more than 160,000 nevadans looking for a job. with the so-called stimulus plans, cash for clunkers, and bailouts, washington's response to our economic problems have been woefully inadequate and in nevada, a complete failure. here is the kind of stories that i hear all too often from my fellow nevadans. you may recall -- you may recall that my wife pam and i own the straw hat pizza here in carson. pam has owned and operated the restaurant since may of 1985. unfortunately, after 25 years of operation, today is our last day of being in business. we are forced to close our doors, and likely file for bankruptcy due to the horrible economic situation in our state

and carson city in particular. it's a true tragedy, the lifelong endeavor ends this way and pam feels that she is a failure. i keep reminding her that the failures -- that the failure was not hers but rather a failure of liberal elected officials to do what's right for our country and get out of the way. let free enterprise work its magic and in turn, let individuals flourish. members of congress are willfully refusing to put our nation on a path of long-term fiscal responsibility, creating greater uncertainty, contributing to an anemic economy that is forcing small businesses to close their doors. as long as this is the case, americans will continue to be frustrated and angry with washington's inability to produce real results. our nation's capital remains the only place in the country where difficult decisions are not made.

congress continually kicks the can down the road, leaving tough fiscal decisions for future congresses, future administrations, and worse, the next generation. in light of these facts, is it really any mystery why congress is currently experiencing its worst approval ratings in history? i introduced the no budget, no pay to force congress to face reality, take responsibility for running this country. this bipartisan legislation requires that the senate and house of representatives pass a budget and all appropriation bills by the beginning of each fiscal year. failure to do so would result in the loss of pay until congress takes its job seriously. if congress has not completed its constitutional duties, then its members should not be paid. it's that simple. if you do not do your job, then you should not be paid.

this concept resonates with the american people. i know this because i've asked nevadans during a series of telephone town hall meetings last year whether they supported a bill that would hold members of congress' pay if they failed to pass a budget. more than 4,000 nevadans participated in this poll, and 84% of them supported the no budget, no pay concept. the budget is not a trivial piece of legislation or a campaign document. it is a road map that identifies goals, priorities, and establishes a multi-year fiscal course for the nation. if done right, it can provide stability and set expectations for where we want to take our nation. budgeting is not a strange concept. it is something that is done at all levels of government. businesses, large and small, and every kitchen table across the country. it is past time for congress to

actually implement policies that would encourage the economic growth we need to ensure that workers can have good jobs and provide for their families. while the no budget, no pay act will not solve every problem here in washington, i sincerely believe it would be a step in the right direction. these essential functions of congress are vital to fiscal responsibility and creating greater certainty so our job creators can flourish. i was pleased to see reports of reports of growth, small growth in our economy, but lack of clarity provided by washington continues to hamper economic growth. back home, nevadans continue to struggle, small businesses trying to survive, while gridlock in washington is making it harder for employers to know what to expect in the coming year. establishing a responsible budget would be a good first step towards placing our nation on the path to a more process suspect put.

-- future. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. paul: mr. president, some senators are concerned that i may be delaying a vote in the senate. this is not true. i offered yesterday to vote on my amendment with ten minutes of discussion. i've offered to vote immediately

at any point in time, but i do think it's worth ten minutes of our time and ten minutes of americans' time to discuss the plight of u.s. citizens in egypt. i do not think that ten minutes is too much to ask that we discuss, debate and vote on whether or not egypt should continue to get aid from us while detaining our citizens. egypt is unlawfully preventing u.s. citizens from leaving their country. i do not think that ten minutes is too much to ask. we've sent over $60 billion in aid to egypt over the years and they now hold 19 u.s. citizens virtually hostage. will we ever learn? will we ever learn that you can't buy friendship? 19 u.s. citizens who traveled to egypt to help egypt, to help egypt embrace democracy, to help egypt have an elected government and enjoy the freedoms that we

enjoy here and the success that we've enjoyed here having a democratic government. they are now being prevented from leaving egypt. some of these pro-democracy workers, in fact, are now seeking refuge in the u.s. embassy. this is a tragedy. this is something that we should make a clear and unequivocal statement about. does egypt wish to be part of the civilized world or do they wish to descend into the lawlessness of the third world? now, some have argued that we don't need these provisions, that there are already provisions in place to prevent egypt from getting aid. well, apparently the egyptians aren't listenin listening and td to listen very clearly. the amendment that i've proposed will end all aid to egypt, economic aid and military aid. we give over $1.5 billion to egypt every year and we cannot continue to give aid to a

country that is detaining illegally our u.s. citizens. now, some have said the provisions that we already have take care of this. there's a couple of problems. the egyptians aren't hearing that message so the message needs to be louder and more firm. we will not tolerate any country holding u.s. citizens as hostage or lawlessly. i think egypt needs to know that america means business and that's what this debate is all about. and so i don't think it's too much to ask the senate to consider this proposal on egypt, spend ten minutes and let's have a vote to send a message to egypt. the question is: will we ever learn? will we ever learn that you can't buy friendship? we will ever learn that you can't create democrats out of authoritarians simply by buying them off? we have tried it. we have sent billions of dollars to africa and asked authoritarian who rape and

pillage their people, who torture their own people, we give them more money trying to convince them to be democrats. it hasn't worked. we need to have a firmer hand and a firmer hand says no more aid to countries that detain u.s. citizens, no more aid to countries that don't allow their citizens to vote, no more aid to countries who torture and rape and pillage their populations. we've sent billions of dollars to afghanistan, and it's an insult to americans and particularly to american soldiers that the president of pakistan has said if there were a war -- you know, the president of afghanistan has said, if there were a war, that he would side with pakistan against the united states. will we ever learn that we send money, billions of dollars to these countries, and apparently they still dislike us, disrespect us and say they will side with our enemies. we now have officials i in

pakistan. pakistan's gotten billions of dollars from us. we now have officials in pakistan saying that pakistan will side with iran. so afghanistan's telling us they will side with pakistan. pakistan's saying they will side with iran. and what does the -- the chump,, what does the u.s. taxpayer get? send more money. number one, we don't even have the money. we're borrowing the money from china. but we were asked to send more money to people who disrespect us. i think that's an insult and should end. will we ever learn? will we ever learn that you can't buy friendship? will we ever learn that authoritarians, no matter how much money you give them, will not become democrats? egypt must be put on notice and the president is not leading on this issue. just a few weeks ago, the president's undersecretary of state, robert hormat, stated that he wanted to make sure that the administration assured the egyptians that we want to provide more immediate benefits.

do you think that's sending a wrong message to the egyptians? they're detaining 19 u.s. citizens, preventing them from leaving, preventing them from coming home. u.s. citizens are holed up in our embassy and the administration says we need to make sure that the benefits get there immediately. the administration is bragging about sending more aid to egypt. just yesterday, the president comes out with a new budget. guess what? there's $1.5 billion of taxpayer money to be sent to egypt. what kind of message are we sending them? i think the president is not leading the country, is not exemplifying what most americans would want and that is to send a clear and unequivocal message to egypt that we will not tolerate this behavior, we will not subsidize this behavior. think of it. the american taxpaye taxpayers'g asked to subsidize a government that is detaining u.s. citizens. the american taxpayers are being

asked to subsidize pakistan, who says they would side with iran. the american citizen, the american taxpayer is being asked to subsidize afghanistan, who says they would side with pakistan against us. all the while we're running trillion-dollar deficits. all the while we're borrowing this money. all the while we're bankrupting our country. the egyptians need to be sent a clear and unequivocal message. i think it's worth ten minutes of the senate's time to have a vote on this. i think it's worth it for the 19 u.s. citizens. if it were my child in egypt, working there for a pro-democracy group, i would want to think that the senate did have ten minutes of time. i would want to think that the senate could spend ten minutes of time to send the egyptians an unequivocal signal that we will not tolerate this and you must let our citizens come home. the united states will not and should not stand for detention of american citizens, for imprisonment or travel restrictions on citizens.

the united states should not send aid to a government that so casually accuses american citizens of political crimes. so while some will say i'm holding up the business of the senate, i will argue that this is the business of the senate, that foreign policy was delegated, much of it, to the united states senate, that we are abdicating our role, and that we as a united states senate should send a clear and unequivocal message to egypt. so i will continue to argue, despite much opposition, to have a vote on this to send a signal to egypt that we will not tolerate the detention of u.s. citizens. thank you, mr. president. and i yield back the remainder of my time. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: