quorum call:

mr. johnson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. johnson: mr. president, i have five -- the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call, senator. mr. johnson: i ask -- to* dispense with the quorum call.

the presiding without objection. mr. johnson: mr. president, i have five unanimous consent requests for committees to meet tduring today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. johnson: i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. johnson: mr. president, i also ask unanimous consent that following my statement, the banking committee's ranking member be recognized, followed

by senator menendez of new jersey and that all time be consumed be counted towards the postcloture time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i'm pleased to present the banking committee's public transportation bill to the senate as an amendment to the surface transportation legislation now before us. the transit bill was reported by our committee unanimously. maintaining investment in our nation's transportation infrastructure is a priority of mine and of our committee. i want to thank our committee's ranking member, senator shelby, who has worked for a long time on this bill. without his support, this bipartisan legislation would not be possible. i also want to thank our subcommittee chairman, senator

menendez, and all of the other members of the committee that offered contributions to our product. with this bill, we have the opportunity to preserve public transportation funding for two years at current levels and deliver critical investments in the nation's aging transportation infrastructure. in addition, the bill will institute much-needed reforms, such as eliminating earmarks and speeding the construction of public transportation projects. the bill also includes transit safety provisions that have been stalled for two years. these are important reforms that many senators have worked on. now is the time to move them forward. finally, our bill increases funding for all types of transit, urban, rural funds, new money for every state to address

the state of prior needs and more level for federal transit. our nation's transit systems need more than $77 billion to address backlogged repairs. this bill can't address all of those needs but it can ensure that our transit systems don't fall further behind and transit funding will support more than 86,000 jobs. mr. president, -- more than 386,000 jobs. mr. president, americans made 35 million trips on public transit every day -- every weekday. many of these trips are in our cities but in places like south dakota, rural transit service connects seniors with their doctors and helps the workers travel long distances to get to jobs. everyone benefits from public transportation, and i urge my --

urge senators to support this bipartisan bill. i yield the floor to the ranking member of the banking committee. mr. shelby: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. shelby: mr. president, i rise today in support of legislation to authorize -- reauthorize the surface transportation bill and, in particular, mr. president, the federal public transportation act of 2012, which is the transit amendment before us today. mr. president, while we're nearly three years beyond the september 2009 expiration date of safety, i'm pleased that we're -- of safetea, i'm pleased that we're finally moving one step closer to legislation that would allow infrastructure investments to move forward in this country. chairman johnson and i worked together to produce bipartisan legislation that eliminates

outdated, inefficient programs and promotes greater efficiency and effectiveness in public transportation systems all across america. the federal public transportation act passed the banking committee with unanimous support. this legislation before us, reflected in the amendment currently under consideration, maintains funding for public transportation programs at $10.5 billion a year. unlike previous reauthorization bills, the committee was unable to provide an increase in the baseline funding amount for public transportation. we were, however, mr. president, able to provide a substantial increase to existing programs by eliminating the bus discretionary program which previously contained earmarks

totaling $984 million. in fact, mr. president, we did not just eliminate one account that included earmarks. we eliminated all earmarks that were previously included in the reauthorization bill. mr. president, these reforms have allowed us to provide public transportation systems with an increase in their guaranteed formula funding over the next two years. in addition to providing a stable source of funding, i believe that we must institute a system here that ensures greater accountability and encourages real investment in maintaining our aging public transportation infrastructure all over america. mr. president, this issue, also known as state of good repair, is extremely important for public transportation and this amendment before us makes it an integral part of the transit

programs. the new starts process has undergone significant reforms in order to street line and to improve delivery of capital investment projects. it also includes a new pilot project with the sole purpose of expediting project approval and attracting private investment. setting aside for a moment the specific issues related to this amendment, i want to speak briefly to what i believe is the most significant issue surrounding the reauthorization of safetea, the solvency, that is, of the highway trust fund. according to the congressional budget office, the mass transit account of the highway trust fund will end 1013 with -- end 2013 with $2.8 billion, $6 billion short of what it will need, mr. president, to continue to meet its obligations,

resulting from this reauthorization bill before us. and while the senate is considering a two-year authorization bill, others have advocated a longer-term reauthorization. the length of the reauthorization is not as important, however, as the need to pay for all of this spending before us. i believe that the most -- most americans would agree that a reauthorization bill that leaves the program insolvent or near insolvent upon its expiration would be irresponsible. i hope this is not what we're doing with this bill here, mr. president. infrastructure spending is essential to our long-term economic stability and growth in this country. nevertheless, this country cannot continue to deficit spend the way out of its problems, for infrastructure or anything else.

therefore, mr. president, i think we must begin this discussion with the realization that difficult decisions are going to have to be made. and for our part, i believe that the banking committee has begun to make some of these difficult decisions. by providing level funding and eliminating unnecessary earmarks from the program structures. i look forward to continue this debate and moving one step closer to completing a responsible and paid-for reauthorization bill. thank you, mr. president. mr. menendez: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, let me begin by recognizing the hard work and dedication of my friend from south dakota, chairman johnson, for his tireless leadership on this legislation that made it possible to happen. let me also recognize the ranking member, senator shelby, for his efforts to work in an

incredibly positive, cooperative and bipartisan manner that, in fact, created the ultimate result of a unanimous bipartisan vote, something that we'd love to see more of these days. and it was his work, along with the chairman's, that got us to that point. i'm glad to have added as a subcommittee chair as well. mr. president, millions of americans take over $10 billion transit trips a year -- americans take over 10 billion transit trips a year. now, it's taken nearly two years of work and it's part of an overall bill that creates or saves 2 million jorkz bu jobs, e trips and the jobs that get created by it and the opportunity of people to get to employment, to get to a hospital, to go see family and friends are incredibly important in the context of our national economy. at a time when job creation is essential, it invests in every state to keep us competitive as a nation in a global

marketplace. under this legislation, for example, my home state of new jersey stands to receive about $519 million in federal transit funding without any increase in federal spending. this bill cuts waste and eliminates earmarks so that new jersey will see benefits from a $63 million increase in transit funding, more transit funding than in any previous year. this bill invests in our infrastructure and improves public transportation without increasing the federal budget, and it provides more funds to make the improvements states need to ease congestion and mitigate transportation delays. it's good for america because it will help communities concentrate on smart growth around transit hubs that mirror my livable communities act and my state's transit village program that will help make new jersey attractive to businesses and a model job-creation hub.

it can do that for other communities throughout the nation. it's good because it's energy smart and increases competitive funding for clean fuel transit vehicles to help agencies switch from dirty, expensive fuels to cleaner, cheaper fuels. and it not only streamlines the process for federal approval of new transit projects, but it will help upgrade older systems by adding a new station or another track or a bigger train car to increase capacity rather than having to build new systems from scratch. it also includes a provision establishing a program to allow public transportation providers temporary flexibility during periods of high unemployment to use a limited portion of their federal funds for up to two years, provided they meet the established criteria for operating expenses. and one last but perhaps the most important thing the bill accomplishes: you it provides for a strong federal role in transit safety oversight by

establishing a national public transportation safety plan to improve the safety of all public transportation systems that receive federal funding. under this legislation, the secretary will develop minimum performance standards for vehicles used in public transportation and establish a training program for federal and state employees who conduct safety audits of public transportation systems. fundamentally, this bill improves the effectiveness of state safety oversight agencies and increases federal funding for safety and provides new enforcement authority over public transportation safety to the secretary of transportation. at the end of the day, making our transit system as safe as humanly possible in every state from coast to coast must be a national priority. so let me conclude, mr. president, by saying once again thanks to senators johnson and shelby for their leadership for the last two years. i think the bill is a victory

for every american community. it is a commonsense investment that will create jobs, keep this nation competitive, make our communities more productive, accessible, and livable. i.t. a vickery for those who bloaive that we can create jobs, get people back to work and keep us on the cutting edge of a global economy. so now we need to make sure that we continue to reach across the aisle as the chairman and the ranking member and i have done during this process and get this investment in america's future to the president's desk and signed into law as soon as possible. thank you, mr. president. with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until 2:15 p.m.

also this week we're expecting the senate to take up a two-year, $109 billion surface transportation bill. live senate coverage when they return about 2:15 here on c-span. in washington today, visiting washington today, chinese vice president xi jing ping. he is being hosted at a state department luncheon this hour go to facebook.com slash c-span and give your thoughts. the congressional commission on china will hold a meeting they will hear from the wife after chinese human rights activists who disappeared some 20 months ago. we will have that commission meeting at 2:30 eastern. that will be over on c-span3. earlier today on the senate floor the majority leader, harry reid, spoke about the possible pending business and what it will

take to move forward. his comments are just under 10 minutes. >> mr. president, we all know the inconvenience of a few potholes as we drive down a street. it's an inconvenience but for companies that ship $10 trillion worth of goods across the country every year, these disintegrating roads are more than an inconvenience, they're more than a nuisance. 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 a infrastructure that is falling apart. our highways, our roadways, our bridges, our damns, our railways, they're more than an inconvenience. they're a drain on our economy. 20% of the america's roads don't meet safety standards. as prosiding officer heard me say yesterday, i believe i were presiding when i talked about some of these issues, 70,000 bridges need to be rereplaced or overhauled. we have bridges in america, i'm told, mr. president, that school buses stop at at bridge. have the kids walk across the bridge. bus comes across without the kids in it, off they go because they're afraid the bridge would collapse. our public transportation

system simply can't keep up with the pace of growing ridership. nine out of 10 americans say rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges is important. 90%. we agree. democrats agree. modernizing our transit system, rebuilding roads american families business depend on will help fuel our economy. this legislation is now before the senate is too important to be bogged down with unrelated idealogical amendments. senate republicans should not have this bill diverted by my republican friends to try to take away women's access to health care, such as contraception we've 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 an 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 maybe should we start 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 is 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 is paid for, drilling in anwr. mr. president, that issue has a beard that has turned white. that is so outdated. drilling in anwar. -- anwr. transportation secretary ray lahood, a member of the president obama's cabinet, he is republican, long-time republican from illinois, says this is the house transportation bill is the worst he's seen in 35 years of public service that is 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 axe 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. policy was enacted in 1982 but that ultraliberal, ronald reagan. mr. president, there are ads on radio and on television where you see president rage fan speaking as he did so well, one of the signature issues was doing something about the transportation system in this country. maybe someone 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, 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 that

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 disappointed house republicans 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.

>> senator mcconnell from earlier today on the senate floor talking about the transportation bill which is possible to come up today or this week in the u.s. senate. c-span covering a number of budget hearings as the president yesterday released his proposed 2013 federal budget. among the hearings we covered today, the defense department budget for 2013. also treasury. you will see a lot of that later in our program schedule of course at the video library at c-span.org. back on the senate floor, senator mcconnell says president obama's proposed budget is quote, a breathtaking failure of leadership. senator richard durbin of illinois responded to senator mcconnell talking about budget surpluses under president clinton. he talks here about the surface transportation bill you just heard about from senator reid. >> we've 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 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's 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 back savings by not fighting a war he already declared we wouldn't be fighting. take creditor for saving money on a war that he has already declared we're not going to be fighting. a gimmick. and he would raise money

with tax hikes that have 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 is significantly increases government spending at a time when we have a $15 trillion debt, that is 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 that 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 pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term, the budget i'm proposing today meets that pledge. that was the president year ago tomorrow. well, here we are a year later. he hadn't even come close. not even close. last month the president said he wanted and economy that's built to last. what he has given us up stead is a blueprint for

deficits that are built to last. and he hadn't done a thing to live up to his pledge to get our nation's fiscal house in order. in fact he has 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 is 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 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 year of the presidency of william jefferson clinton, a democrat. when president clinton left office, the national debt aaccumulated 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 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 dollars, more than doubled under president george w. bush. we lost jobs dramatically. lost jobs in america, unlike president clinton. and, when george w. bush handed the keys over to president barack obama, said welcome to washington, incidentally next year's budget deficit is $1.2 trillion. quite a 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. months 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 is 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 us to return to these policies. policies which called for tax breaks and cuts for the wealthiest in america. and basically ignore investments we need to put people back to work. i served on the bowles simpson deficit commission. i understand this issue a little bit. maybe more than sum. 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 10, 11 or 12 million americans out of work, you can not balance this budget. we have got to get america

back to work. these workers have to start earning a good wage, paying their fair share of taxes, and creating growth in this economy and also 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 is 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 disasterous. 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 is a 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 that 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 save as 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. it put 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 one that is on the floor today, infrastructure. kind of a sterile word but what it gets down to it represents the highways, the bridges, the airports, the mass transit, the ports of america that are literally the arteries through 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 proud of it. my family came to that state, my mother from 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 this 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 to chicago or from chicago to the east coast. why? our railroad infrastructure hasn't kept up with 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 is 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. look what the republicans view this, 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 in 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 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 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 the and we should make it happen, the last point i will 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 is not a question of whether or not the payroll tax cut, which president obama put in place is going to be continued beyond the end of this month. we, 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 how much it meant it working families. the republicans relented in house and agreed to extend it the end of february. unfortunately, just a short time ago, the speaker said, and i quote, if we're going to extend the payroll tax credit, unemployment benefits with reforms and take care of the so-called doc fix we'll 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're prepared to act to protect small businesses and our economy from the consequences of washington democrats political games, quote clothe. now 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. i would rarity be right some of the time then wrong all the time. speaker boehner is right. let us extend the payroll tax cut. the last point i will make the extension of unemployment benefits is it equal value to the economy and immeasureable value to those out of work 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 the blue lines growing, mr. president. i want to see us move in the right direction, creating jobs in america. the president obama's payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits which we 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 senate back in session at 2:15 eastern live here on c-span2. we are live now at the state department here in washington for a luncheon being hosted by the secretary of state hillary clinton and vice president biden. the lunch chun is for the chinese vice president, xi jinping who is visiting washington and attending a number of events in the nation's capitol. the lunch chun should get underway shortly. in the center of the screen getting his photo taken is new commerce secretary, john bryson.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] . .

>> it's a very busy schedule for xi jinping. he's being hosted at a state department luncheon. we're expecting to get underway shortly. we're asking your opinion about the importance of u.s.-china relations.

go to facebook.com/c-span and share your thoughts. also this afternoon on c-span3, the congressional executive commission on china will hold a hearing on chinese human rights. they're going to hear from the wife of a chinese human rights activist who disappeared 20 months ago. that hearing coming up at 2:30 eastern and that will be live on c-span3. vice president biden at this event today at the state department. he also welcome the chinese vice president to the white house earlier today. here's a look. maude anyw [inaudible] >> and we're a step away from the oval office. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: i welcome your

entire delegation. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: i hope in the next several days to extend at least some of the hospitality you extended to me in my four-day visit in your country this past august. [speaking in native tongue] >> when president obama and i took office, we were determined to -- to renew and intensify the u.s. role in the asia pacific regime and strengthen our ties in particular with china. [speaking in native tongue]

>> we discussed in our visit, my visit to china this bilateral relationship is one of the most important in the world. and from, i think, our mutual perspective, important not only to our country but to the world at large. [speaking in native tongue] >> your visit continues to sustain high level dialog between our countries. [speaking in native tongue] >> as we discussed, we're not always going to see eye-to-eye. we're not always going to see things exactly the same. but we have important -- very

important economic and political concerns that we worked together. [speaking in native tongue] >> i would suggest that if the sign of the strength and the maturity of our relationship that we are able to talk candidly about our differences and make progress in bridging those differences. [speaking in native tongue] >> and as we both have stated, it's very much an interest to the people of china and the united states that we do bridge

those differences. [speaking in native tongue] >> so again welcome to the united states. the american people are looking forward to getting to know you and i'm looking forward for you to see other parts of our country as well. [speaking in native tongue] >> as you can see at the symbol table we're very interested in engaging in a discussion. thank you all for being here. [speaking in native tongue] [inaudible]

[speaking in native tongue] >> honorable vice president biden, it's my great pleasure. i'm looking forward to our meeting today. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: i am an official to the united states for your kind invitation. the united states is very important to my visit and have made very good arrangements. i want to thank you in particular for the detailed preparation that you personally have made for us.

[speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: before my visit, i made it clear that the purpose of the visit is to help implement important decisions reached by the president in the

country and to promote building of the china-u.s. relationship based on mutual respect and mutual benefit and i would like to make effort also to the visit and i hope to engage with a broad cross-section of -- [inaudible] >> translator: to deepen a mutual understanding and a friendship between the chinese and the american people. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: so i hope my visit will be here to strengthen consensus, in cooperation and deepen our friendship. [speaking in native tongue]

>> translator: and i look forward in having a candid exchange of views with you, mr. mr. president, and your colleagues on the china-u.s. relationship and the important international and regional issues of shared interest. >> thank you for being here. [inaudible conversations] >> from the white house earlier today, vice president biden with chinese vice president xi jinping and we're back live at the state department waiting for the luncheon to understand underway in honor of the chinese vice president. it's being hosted by secretary of state clinton and also by vice president biden. among those attending and standing there in the distance

is former secretary of state, henry kissinger. the u.s. senate back in session in about an hour, back from party lunches. and earlier today senator rand paul of kentucky explained his proposed amendment to deny u.s. aid to egypt because it had arrested u.s. citizens on a prodemocracy vote. he's required a full 30 half hour debate in the pending judicial nomination on the debate. here's what he had to say on the senate floor. >> 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 10 minutes of discussion. i've offered to vote immediately at any point in time, but i do think it's worth 10 minutes of our time and 10 minutes of americans' times to discuss the plight of u.s. citizens in egypt. i do not think that 10 minutes is too much to ask, that we

discuss debates 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 10 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're now being prevented from leaving egypt. some of these prodemocracy 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 of argue 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 listening and they need to listen very clearly. the amendment that i had 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 and spend 10 minutes and let's have a vote and send a message to egypt. the question is, will we ever learn? will we ever learn that you can't buy friendship? will we ever learn that you can't create democrats out of authoritarian simply by buying them off? we've tried it. we've sent billions of dollars to africa and asked authoritarians 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 that rape and torture and pillage their populations. we sent billions of dollars to africa. and it's an insult to americans and particularly to american soldiers that the president of pakistan has said, if there were a war, 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 in pakistan. pakistan's has gotten billions of dollars from us. we now have officials in pakistans saying that pakistans will side with iran. so afghanistan say they will side with pakistan. pakistan saying they will side with iran.

and what does the chump -- what does the u.s. solitaire get, send more money. number 1 we don't even having 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 democrat. egypt must be put on notice and the president is not leading on this issue. just a few weeks the president's undersecretary of state stated that he wanted to make sure that the administration assured the egyptians that we want to provide more immediate benefits. 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 hold up in our

debris and the u.s. government says we need to make sure we send the benefits. the president came out with a new budget, guess one there's $4.5 billion of money to be sent to egypt. what kind of message are we sending to them. i think the president is not leading the company, 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 taxpayer is being asked to subsidize a government that is detaining u.s. citizens. the american taxpayer is 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 said 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. i think it's worth 10 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 prodemocracy group, i would want to think that the senate did have 10 minutes of time. i would want to think that the senate can spare 10 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 crime. 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're abdicating our role and that we as united states senate should send a clear and unequivocal message to egypt. so i will continue to argue that 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. >> the senate coming back into session in under an hour, 2:15 eastern. we'll have that here on c-span2, of course. we're live at the state department waiting to hear from secretary of state hillary clinton and vice president biden. they're hosting a luncheon for chinese vice president xi jinping and we expect it to get underway shortly. yesterday the white house unveiled the fiscal year 2013, $3.8 trillion budget proposal.

we covered a number of budget hearings today on the c-span networks, most of them senate hearings and this morning we were joined by house member kevin brady who's chairman of the -- vice chairman of the joint economic committee. he's also on the ways and means committee and he talked with us about the president's proposal. we'll show you some of those comments as we wait for this luncheon to get underway. >> and we're back with congressman kevin brady, republican of texas. i mentioned ways and means committee member, vice chair economic committee but you're also a conferencee for the payroll tax cut negotiation and we got some news coming out of the republicans, house republicans yesterday, ready to go ahead with extending it for 10 months and taking offsets off the table. >> yeah, i think this is a strategic decision. we had hoped to have better negotiations, frankly, with democrats in congress to fill that hole in social security because we think it's real and we think we ought to address it now especially since social security is borrowing, i think, last year $142 billion.

mainly from other investors and foreign investors to pay social security today running permanent cash deficits in the future and we thought it was appropriate to fill that gap but what we're really concerned about is making sure there's not a tax increase, come march 1st so as a backup plan we filed a bill to extend it for the full year without those offsets and to focus on getting some of the unemployment reforms in the medicare solutions we're hoping for. >> do you think you have the votes from your rank-and-file republicans those who came in on 2010 on the notion that things have to be paid for. >> guest: i think at the end of the day, yes. although it won't be easy. i think part of the argument clearly is going to be -- we want to focus on this president and his record heading into november, not on the payroll tax issue. and because we believe extending tax relief shouldn't be paid for. we believe that in tax cuts. we believe that in alternative minimum tax. i think it fits in with our

philosophy there. >> host: how many votes do you think on the republican side you might lose? >> guest: i don't know. there's some who already voted already against it and there were some from an economic standpoint the payroll taxes doesn't deliver much bang for the buck but i think at the end of the day it is extended for the full year. and i think at the end of the day, unemployment benefits and a solution for our medicaid providers for homes will be extended as well. >> host: when do you think that debate comes to the floor? when will there be a vote? >> guest: my guess is this week at some time. i don't know when the timing is set for. i know that we'll be meeting later today after republicans all arrive back in town. we'll be having a meeting to discuss sort of the particulars. >> host: republicans will? >> guest: uh-huh. >> host: let me ask you this here's the "wall street journal" one critique of this plan in not having offsets one source of revenue which could hurt the social security program which is funded by the payroll tax. another concern is the temporary of the lawmakers and that a

fundamental overhaul of the tax code is what is really needed. >> guest: they're exactly right. i think these temporary fixes just aren't having a bang for the buck. >> host: then why do it? >> guest: this is what is frustrating. this is actually sort of consumer-demand driver that congress has passed including the two rebates under president bush. none of them have a bang for the buck a. it's a permanent tax structure that counts and that's what we're pushing for today. the house ways and means committee has already outlined one tax reform on the business side and house republicans and our budget will outline an individual tax reform as well so we think we're heading in the right direction but we need some partners on this. . >> host: you don't believe in it but yet you're going to support this? >> guest: well, we believe we shouldn't be raising taxes now that it's in place, we shouldn't be imposing a tax increase on workers march 1st. that we know. we think ultimately that needs to be replaced with tax cuts of

equal or greater value that doesn't divert from the social security revenue stream. >> host: all right. let's get to the 2013 budget proposal by the president. "the washington post" said this morning on their editorial page. the president at least offers a serious if inadequate effort to put the economy on a sustainable path. his budget recognizes as republicans will not that spending cuts and revenue increases will be needed. it does not slash the social safety net or eviscerate the spending, for example, on research and infrastructure essential to sustaining a vibrant economy. at the same time, the obama budget recognizes that the recovering economy still needs help, not the contractionary fiscal shock that would come from letting all the bush tax cuts expire. >> guest: and i think they miss the mark in two areas. one i think this budget is very poor for the economy that the president has proposed. and thankfully like last year for the senate including democrats rejected 97-0 my guess is it holds the same fate this year. it's bad for the economy.

it double taxes american companies competing successfully overseas. it drives our energy manufacturing out of america, it increases taxes on the number of job trade but what worries me is that if it were to be adopted, i think this budget virtually guarantees a further downgrade of america's grade rating because it doesn't deal with the structural deficits. social security, medicare face serious challenges. we all know that and we know what needs to be done to address that. the president punts -- >> watch all of this online in the video library at c-span.org. we'll break away and take you live to the state department where vice president biden and secretary of state hillary clinton honoring the chinese vice president, live on c-span2. [applause] >> thank you all very much.

please be seated. and it's an honor to welcome all of you to the state department this afternoon. it's always good to have vice president biden here, and we are particularly pleased to have our very special guest of honor. i'd also like to recognize ming si the talented chef who has prepared this delicious lunch for us using the flavors of chinese and american cuisine. [applause] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue]

>> this year marks the 40th anniversary of president nixon's historic trip to china and we are very pleased that dr. kissinger is here with us, who along with joe ann yl was transformational in our two countries. [speaking in native tongue] >> today cooperation between the united states and china is imperative to address the many vexing challenges we face from countering proliferation, to addressing climate change, to

promoting global economic security. now, developing the habits of cooperation is not easy. we have a lot of work to do. but we are both committed to building a lasting framework of trust that will support a cooperative partnership for the next 40 years and beyond. [speaking in native tongue] >> vice president xi first came to the united states on an exchange program over 25 years ago to iowa.

he will travel there tomorrow to see some old friends. that visit illustrates how important the bonds between our people are. that's why we support programs like 100,000 strong to send more american students to study in china. and many more people to people exchanges. [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue]

>> so it is a great pleasure to welcome vice president xi and to celebrate the bonds of friendship between our nation's governments and people and it is my great honor to introduce vice president biden. [applause] >> well, thank you all for being here. and it's an honor to welcome vice president xi along with the entire chinese delegation. [speaking in native tongue] >> i told vice president xi that his visit to iowa tomorrow will assure him more delegates than i got. [laughter] [speaking in native tongue]

>> and mr. vice president, this is not part of the script but lindsey graham is relieved you didn't show up in january. you may have won the republican nomination. [laughter] [speaking in native tongue] >> secretary kissinger, you can see that formality is still my forte. [laughter] [speaking in native tongue] >> madam secretary, this lunch is a great start. i hope we can match the extraordinary hospitality that the vice president showed me in my four-day visit to china last august. [speaking in native tongue]

>> the highlight of that trip for me, mr. vice president, was the time we spent in conversation together in beijing and i look forward to continuing the conversations we started this morning over the next four days you're here. [speaking in native tongue] >> the vice president has already participated in three meetings prior to this lunch and they've covered a broad range of constructive discussions. and we have a very ambitious agenda in the coming days as well. [speaking in native tongue]

>> the vice president and i discussed at some length the united states and china have much to do together. quite frankly, because our relationship was literally going to help shape the 21st century. [speaking in native tongue] >> we're not only the two -- the world's two largest economies, we're both pacific powers and every day the affairs of our nations and the livelihoods of our citizens grow more connected. [speaking in native tongue]

>> the president and i came to office determined to rebalance america's strategic priorities toward those regions that are most critical to our nation's future. and that meant refocusing on asia, the most dynamic region of the global economy. [speaking in native tongue] >> and to state the obvious the u.s.-china relationship is a critical component of our broader asian strategy. our people, both american and chinese, are indeed people -- quite frankly, people all around the world will benefit from this mutual effort to build a more

cooperative partnership between our countries. [speaking in native tongue] >> i first visited china in 1979. and the prosperity it had achieved since then, which i saw as recently as this past august is as all of you know who visit it, stunning. absolutely stunning. >> few other nations in history

have come so far so fast, and it's a great credit to the talent and industriness of the chinese people. [speaking in native tongue] >> but i respectfully suggest that this remarkable growth did not occur in a vacuum. it was cultivated at every turn by an international system that enables rapid development, grounded in rules that apply with equal measure to all nations. [speaking in native tongue]

>> mr. vice president, even as our cooperation grows, as we've discussed, united states and china will continue to compete. and as americans, we welcome competition. it's part of our dna. and it propels our citizens to rise to the challenge. but cooperation, as you and i have spoken about, can only be mutually beneficial if the game is fair. [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue]

>> that's why and the media have had this morning was essentially a continuation of the multiple meetings we had in your country in august and we spent a great deal of time discussing the areas of our greatest concern, including the need to rebalance the global economy, to protect intellectual property rights and trade secrets, to address china's undervalued exchange rate, to level the competitive playing field, to prevent the forced transfer of technology, and to continue a constructive dialog on policies that would benefit our citizens and the world. [speaking in native tongue]

[speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] >> while the united states and china as you pointed out, mr. vice president, will not always see eye-to-eye, it is -- it is a sign of the strength and maturity of our relationship that we can be candid about our

differences as we have been. [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] >> we saw this in the recent u.n. security council debate about syria, where we strongly disagreed with china and russia's veto of a resolution against the unconscionable violence being perpetrated by the assad regime. [speaking in native tongue]

>> and as was brought up by the president in his meeting with you and my meeting with you as well, we see our advocacy for human rights as a fundamental aspect of our foreign policy, and we believe a key to the prosperity and stability of all society. [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] >> we have been clear about our concern over the areas in which from our perspective conditions in china have deteriorated and

about the plight of several very prominent individuals. we appreciate your response. [speaking in native tongue] >> despite our differences china and the united states are working more closely together on a broader range of issues than ever before. [speaking in native tongue] >> these include pressing security challenges, north korea and iran, maritime security, cybersecurity, and the important work of developing cooperation between our militaries. [speaking in native tongue]

>> as you and the president have briefly discussed in the oval office, it also includes our efforts in sudan and in south asia and on global issues, such as climate change and nuclear security. [speaking in native tongue] >> we appreciate your candid responses as we discuss these issues, mr. vice president, and i believe you appreciate ours as

well. [speaking in native tongue] >> so, mr. vice president, once again, welcome to the united states. i've always believed that the best way, sometimes the only way, to truly understand a country is to see it with your own eyes. as you know, there's an old chinese saying, better to travel 10,000 miles than read 10,000 books. [speaking in native tongue] >> although, i read dr. kissinger's book on china --

[laughter] [speaking in native tongue] >> i felt that my trip to your country was at least as important last summer. [laughter] >> actually, mr. vice president, i can't thank you enough for the hospitality you extended to me on my trip and i would like to, with your permission propose a toast. [speaking in native tongue] >> a toast to a successful visit for the vice president and the increase in cooperation, understanding that will help both our nations continue -- continue to increase this relationship and may it benefit not only us but the whole world. [speaking in native tongue]

>> mr. vice-president. [applause] [speaking in native tongue]

[speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: mr. vice president, madam secretary, ladies and gentlemen, dear friends, it gives me great pleasure to attend this luncheon, hosted jointly by vice president biden and secretary clinton, for me and my colleagues. last august, vice president biden paid a successful visit to

china. i'm now in the united states on a return visit as his kind invitation. the purpose of my visit is to implement the agreement between our two presidents, enhance china-u.s. strategic trust, broaden practical cooperation, deepen people to people friendship and further advance the cooperative partnership between our two countries. [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue]

[speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue]

[speaking in native tongue] >> translator: this year marks the 40th anniversary of president nixon's visit to china and the issuance of the shanghai communique. 40 years ago, with the extraordinary courage and the vision of statesmen, the leaders of our two countries opened the door of china-u.s. exchanges that has been sealed off for years. despite some twists and turns over the past four decades, china-u.s. relations have kept moving forward, scoring achievements of historic proportions. the growth of china-u.s. relations has brought huge benefits to the two countries and two peoples. and lent a strong impetus to peace, stability and prosperity in the asia pacific region and the world at large.

china-u.s. relationship has become one of the most important dynamic and promising bilateral relationships in the world. as the saying goes, when you drink water, don't forget those who dock the well. today, when we enjoy the fruits of china-u.s. relations we should be grateful for the chinese and american leaders for their outstanding contributions in the new chapter in the annuals of the u.s.-chinese relationships and their friends including many who are present today for the painstaking and resourceful efforts they have made for the development of china-u.s. relations. [speaking in native tongue]

[speaking in native tongue] >> translator: in the past three years in the obama administration china and the u.s. has positive momentum of growth. in january last year, president hu jintao paid a visit to the united states. he and president obama made an agreement in working together in a china-u.s. partnership based on mutual benefit and mutual benefit charting the course for the long-term development of china-u.s. relations.

we're glad to see that the two countries have further deepened practical cooperation in a variety of areas and carried out productive communication and coordination on the range of major international, regional and global issues. [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue]

[speaking in native tongue] >> translator: this morning, i had a meeting with president obama and house talks with vice president biden at the white house. we had an in-depth exchange of views on bilateral relations and major issues of shared interest and reached a lot of new and important consensus. we all believe that the two sides should focus on our common interests and open a new path of cooperative partnership between major countries featuring harmonious coexistence, sound interactions and win-win cooperation. to this end, our two sides should treat each other with sincerity and candor and in

communication and we should respect each other and strengthen strategic mutual trust. we should keep pace with the times and expand practical cooperation. we should look ahead to the future and step up people to people exchanges. and we should intensify coordination and work together to meet challenges. [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue]

>> president obama, vice president biden and i devoted the greater part of our discussion on economic and trade issue. we shared the view at the international economic and financial situation remains grim and is ensuring growth, adjusting structure and promoting employment, a high on the domestic agenda of both countries. we must continue to make concerted efforts to tie over difficulties, accelerates the building of the comprehensive and the mutually beneficial economic partnership and maintain steady economic recovery and growth in both countries and the world as a whole. we should have competition

potential and strive for greater in trade and investment between the two countries. we should address each other's economic and trade concerns through dialog and consultation, not protectionism. and not hold the mutually beneficial pattern of china-u.s. economic relations and trade. [speaking in native tongue]

[speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] >> we also had a candid exchange of views on human rights and other issues. i stressed that china has made tremendous and well recognized achievements in the field of human rights over the past 30-plus years in reform and

opening up. of course, there is always room for improvement when it comes to human rights given china's huge population and considerable regional diversity and uneven development we're still faced with many challenges improving people's livelihood and advancing human rights. the chinese government will always put people's interests first and take seriously people's aspirations and demands. we will in the light of china's national conditions continue to take concrete and effective policies and measures to promote social fairness, justice, and harmony and push forward china's calls of human rights, at the same time, we're ready to conduct candid and constructive dialog and exchanges on human rights with the united states and other countries on the basis of equality and mutual respect with a view to enhancing understanding, narrowing

differences, learning from each other and achieving common progress. [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue]

>> translator: china is the world's largest developing country while the united states is the largest developed country. to build a new type of cooperative partnership between two countries like ours is a pioneering endeavor with great and far-reaching significance. there is no precedent for us to follow and no ready experience for us to refer to. we'll only do what mr. dung xiox ping said crossing the bridge. and what secretary clinton said

when blocked by a river one finds a way to the other side. a chinese pop song goes like this, may i ask where the past is? it is where you take your first step. i'm convinced that china and the united states have the wisdom, the ability and means to maintain and develop their cooperative partnership based on mutual respect and mutual benefit. and by doing so, will set an unprecedented and inspiring example for countries with different political systems, histories, cultures, and levels of economic development to cultivate positive and a cooperative relation. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: i now propose a

toast to the health of vice president biden and secretary clinton and to all the friends present for the remarkable development of china-u.s. relations in the past 40 years and to an even better tomorrow of china-u.s. relations. cheers. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> live coverage of one of several events with chinese vice president xi jinping in washington. the state department luncheon hosted by vice president biden and the secretary of state. open our facebook to.com/c-span and share your thoughts. also this afternoon, coming up in about 25 minutes, the congressional executive commission on china. they're going to hear from the wife of a chinese human rights activist who disappeared 20 months ago. that meeting live at 2:30 eastern on c-span3. >> you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate on weeknights, watch key public policy events and every weekend, the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our websites and you can join in the

conversation on social media sites. >> u.s. senate will be gaveling back in, in about 10 minutes or so, 2:15 eastern. they've been considering a judicial nomination for the federal appeals court based in atlanta. also possibly today, this week as well, we're expecting them to take up the two-year $109 billion surface transportation bill. and it may depend on the fate of rand paul, senator rand paul's proposed amendment to deny u.s. aid to egypt for one month. he says because it's arrested u.s. citizens for working in prodemocracy groups. without a vote senator paul has threatened to require the full 30 hours of debate on the judicial nomination before the senate today. here's what he had to say in senate comments earlier today. >> 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 10 minutes of discussion. i've offered to vote immediately at any point in time, but i do think it's worth 10 minutes of our time and 10 minutes of americans' time to discuss the plight of u.s. citizens in egypt. i do not think that 10 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 10 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 prodemocracy workers are now seeking refuge at the u.s. embassy. this is a travesty and that we should make it clear 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 argue that we don't need those provisions that there are provisions in place to prevent egypt from getting aid. well, apparently the egyptians aren't listening. and they need to listen very clearly. the amendment that i have 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 to give aid to a country that is detaining illegally our u.s. citizens. now, some of 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 needs 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 and spend 10 minutes and let's have a vote and send a message to egypt. the question is, will we ever learn? will we ever learn that you can't buy friendship? will we ever learn that you can't create democrats out of authoritarians simply by buying them off? we've tried it.

we've sent billions of dollars to africa and asked authoritarians 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, 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 in pakistan. pakistan has gotten billions of dollars from us and now we have officials in pakistan saying that pakistan will side with iran. and afghanistan is telling us they will side with pakistan, pakistan is saying they will side with iran and what does the chump -- what does the u.s. taxpayer get? send more money. number 1, we don't even have the money approximate we're borrowing the money from china but we're asked to send more money to people who disrespect us. i think that's an insult and it 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 stated that he wanted to

make sure that the administration assured the egyptians that we want to provide more immediate benefits. 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 hold up in our debris and the administration says we need to make sure 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 taxpayer is being asked to subsidize a government

that is detaining u.s. citizens. the american taxpayer is 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 10 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 prodemocracy group i would want to think that the senate did have 10 minutes of time. i would want to think that the senate can spare 10 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, for travel restrictions on citizens. the united states should not send aid to a government that so casually accuses american citizens of political crime. 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're abandon indicating our role and that we as 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. >> in an article about senator paul's comments, the hill writes that the senator suggest he plans to continue his delay of

the senate's business until he's granted a vote on his amendment to strip egypt of foreign aid for 30 days in retribution for the country's detention of 19 american prodemocracy workers. they also write that several democrats have blasted senator paul, though, not by name in the last two days claiming his demand for a vote on the amendment is not germane and delaying a, quote, jobs bill. the pending business is of a consideration of a judicial nomination for the federal appeals court based in atlanta. they will be gaveling momentarily back from their party lunches we'll have more on c-span2. >> there's a spirit of disagreement and i believe considerable arguments. but don't let anybody be mislead by that. you have given here in this hall a moving and dramatic proof of

how americans who honestly differ close ranks and move forward for the nation's well-being shoulder to shoulder. >> as candidates campaign for president this year, we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our website, c-span.org/thecontenders to see video of the contenders who had a lasting impact on american politics. >> and what about you? are you now out of debt? do you have a comfortable backlog in the bank? are you paying less for the things that you buy? or more? do you really think things can't be better? of course they can. working together we can and will make them better. >> c-span.org/thecontenders. >> when the senator returns after the party luncheons they will have a judicial nomination for the 11th circuit appeals court in atlanta. live coverage of the senate here

on c-span2.

the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to recognize an important milestone in our nation's history. on february 14, 1912, arizona officially became the 48th member of these 50 united states. i'm proud to salute my home state on this, her centennial celebration. yes, we were the last of the contiguous 48 states to join but we were certainly not the least of them. and today i'd like to tell you just a little bit about why i

say that's so. arizona is not the largest or the oldest member of the union. did not participate in the revolutionary war. it doesn't border on an ocean or on the great lakes, and the declaration andeclaration of ind the constitution do not bear a single arizonan's signature. ask yet there's something about arizona that is great, something that truly sets the grand canyon state apart from the rest. the grand canyon, of course, comes to mind. i'd like to quote one of america's most famous splorrers, john wesley powell, who once said -- quote -- "the wonders of the grand canyon cannot be adequately represented by symbols of speech nor by the speech itself. the graphic art is taxed by their powers in attempting to portray its features. language and illustration combined must fail." mr. president, i agree. i've hyped the grand canyon. i've seen it from above. i've seen it from below. and words literally cannot describe its power or its beauty. that's why every year millions of tourists come from all

corners of our nation and all across the atlantic and across the pacific to experience the majesty that we're fortunate enough to have right there in our own backyard. but as big as it is, the grand canyon is just a small part of the arizona story. there aredded sedona red rocks, the beautiful white mountains, the painted desert, petrified forest, monument valley, suaro gnash park, the 12,000-foot san francisco peaks, and countless other natural wonders that span across our deserts and through our forests. there are almost 4,000 peaks and summits in our state alone. arizona is also home to manmade marvels, including innovative projects that have allowed much-needed fresh water to flow to our communities. these include hoover dam, the glen canyon dam, the central arizona project, the salt river project and its keystone element, the theodore roosevelt dam. arizonans share the land with

owls, oslotte, eagles, jaguars, lots of rattlesnakes and falcons. our landscape is foliated not with the gavi and cacti but with majestic aspen, fur, spruce and the largest ponderosa pine forest in the world. and we're rich in natural resources. from an early age, all arizonans learn about the state's five c's -- copper, cattle, cotton, citrus, and climate. copper, the mineral that attracted many arizonans to our state in the first place, has been used by american indians in tool and weapon making for centuries. today, arizona produces more copper than every other state combined and it's now being used to develop the alternative energy technologies in vehicles of tomorrow. cattle -- along with sheep and hogs, the ranching of cattle is deeply imprinted on our state's cowboy culture and continues to help drive our economy today. cotton -- one of our most important cash crops at the turn

of the last century, cotton is still an important industry in our state. this crop, including our very own pima long staple variety, is used to produce the clothing, fertilizer, fuel and cooking oil used by millions of americans every day. citrus -- the harvesting of fruits like lemons and oranges is one of the important elements of arizona's agricultural industry. with a history that runs deep in our state. we now export about $40 million in fruits and preparations every year. and climate -- arizona mornings are warm and filled with sunshine and our sunsets are the best anywhere. we may not always have a white christmas but we do have a booming tourism industry that attracts nearly 37 million we call them snow birds, conservationallists and adventurers every year. these five c's, along with the national treasures i mentioned earlier, are the physical expression, "god enriches."

because of this, airans are fiercely protective the ecological riches that exist around them. we honor nature for its beauty but we also respect it for its power. i don't need to tell you about arizona's heat. some of my colleagues in this chamber are known to complain when it reaches 80 degrees in washington. well, we arizonans start to get warm when the mercury hits 120. it gets cold at night, too. in fact, arizona can yield the nation's highest and lowest temperatures in the very same day. and there are forest fires. last summer we saw the largest such fire in our history, the wallow mega fire. burned more than 840 square miles of our treasured landscape. but we picked ourselves up and we're rebuilding, just like we always do. the lessons we've learned from the wallow fire will help us defend against similar megafires in the future. some of arizona's forebearers were the prospectors and ranchers who gave up everything

for a chance at a better life. some were the adventurers and cowboys who thrived on freedom and danger. some of us can trace our history directly back to the spanish mission tarries or to our long-standing dynamic hispanic community that has so greatly influenced our distinctive culture and cuisine. and many of us are direct descendants of the very first arizonans, the 21 great american indian tribes that continue to teach us important lessons about working with rather than against the expansive natural beauty and danger that surrounds us. these are arizona's founding fathers. while each has influenced our state in >> unique way, all share these common traits -- a strong sense of independence and a willingness to preserve against the odds. and that is, i believe, one of the reasons why arizona has such out-sized national influence compared to its relatively small senator is recognized population. indeed, the fierce wind of independence that rolls across our desert landscape has propelled not one but two of our

leaders to national political prominence in just the past few decades. we may not have had an arizonan in the white house yet but there are few states that can boast a single 20th century major party presidential nominee, let alone two, in our barry goldwater and john mccain. my friends the other side of the aisle will no doubt recall their very able senate majority leader from arizona, earnest mcfarland, and we'll also remember representative mo udall and senator carl hayden, who served an amazing 57 years in congress, 42 of them in this chamber alone. to put that in perspective, that's longer than arizona's senior senator and i have served in the congress combined. our state has both nurtured and welcomed respected jurists like william rehnquist and sandra day o'connor, world renowned architects like frank lloyd wright, entertainers like waylon jennings, linda ronstadt and glenn campbell. and of course i'd be remiss if i

neglected steven spielberg. he, too, embraced arizona's adventurous entrepreneurial spirit, turning his teenage movie-making hobby in scottsdalephoenix into a multimillion-dollar hollywood empire. had he been born in another state, one without our arizona spirit, would the world have known classics today like "e.t." and "jaws"? we may never know. one thing we do know, mr. president, is that arizona gave rise to the navajo codetalkers. it's a shame more americans aren't aware of the story. their official web site puts it this way -- and i quote -- "it's a great american story that is still largely unknown, the story of a group of young navajo men who answered the call of duty, who performed a service no one else could and in the process became great warriors and patriots. their unbreakable code saved thousands of lives and helped end world war ii." their code, of course, was the navajo language. some of these young men were simple sheepherders on arizona's

great navajo reservation until our nation called them to serve. theythey did so with honor,mr. e american heroes in the process. without them, we may never have achieved victory in the pacific theater. i am proud to pay tribute to them today. arizona honors them and every american owes the code talkers a debt of gratitude. these are just some of the many reasons why i'm proud to call myself and arizonan. i was not born in arizona. i became one by choice and it was one of the most consequential decisions i ever made. i came as a young man to attend the university of arizona. there i met my wife and twoght we raised two children, both of whom earned their five c's from a very early age. i have not left arizona since my days at the university of arizona, nor do i think i ever would or could. there's something about the beauty that surrounds, the spirit that encompasses, the sun that paints the landscape every morning.

there's something different about arizona. and, mr. president, i'm proud of that difference. we are a special people with a distinctive place in the american mosaic. i would like to offer my congratulations to our governor, jan brewer, to my arizona colleagues in the house and senate, to my constituents throughout our state on this historic centennial anniversary. mr. president, i'd notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mccain: i ask consent further proceedings under the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mccain: mr. president, it is my distinct privilege to speak along with my -- mr. president -- the presiding officer: the senior senator from arizona is recognized. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent that speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mccain: i thank you, mr. president. it is my distinct privilege to join with my beloved friend, jon

kyl to speak in honor of the centennial anniversary of arizona's statehood. 100 years ago on february 14, 1912, the state of arizona was officially admitted to the union, effectively completing the contiguous lower 48 states. americans today recognize arizona as the thriving center of the sunbelt, known for its ability to attract businesses, manufacturing, and tourists from around the world. the valley of the sun alone supports about 4 million people and our state capital, phoenix, is the nation's sixth-largest city. compared to its humble beginnings, arizona has enjoyed tremendous growth and productivity. but this wasn't always so. arizona's history began over 10,000 years ago with the migration of early native american tribes to the region. for centuries, the anasazi, and other peoples flourished in the forested highlands and son nor

ran desert lowland. many of the twiebs ar tribes ard decendants of these ancient peoples. it wasn't until later in the towns of tubac and tucson that the land of the people was first reshaped. spanish colonization gave way to mexican independence and in 1848 the mexican-american war concluded with mexico ceding much of arizona to the united states. in 1853, president franklin pierce saw an opportunity to build a transcontinental railroad connecting the south to southern california and purchased the remaining bottom half of the arizona territory from mexico for $10 million. what today would be the equivalent of $244 million. it was around this time that american pioneers began to settle the towns of press scott,

flagstaff, sedona and yuma. during the civil war, arizona became a short-lived strategic interest to the confederacy. the war's western-most battle was fought at pachacho peak. it lasted 90 minutes and involved about 25 soldiers. in the years that followed, cattlemen and mining speculators flocked to develop arizona's natural resources in the towns like tombstone, bisbee, and st. johns, the birthplace of morris udall. the boundaries of the state soon began to take shape thanks to explorers like john wesley powell, whose famous three-month expedition down the mighty colorado charted the first known passage through the grand canyon p. efforts in congress to pass statehood began around the turn of the 20th century. one proposal sought to combine the territories of arizona and new mexico into one massive

state, but arizona settlers would have montana of it and it is unlikely that the people of new mexico were all too excited about the plan either. at the time many outsiders didn't fully appreciate arizona's untapped potential. they considered it nothing more than a desert wasteland, economically des so lat and virtually uninhabitable. one of arizona's first territorial representatives, henry ashhurst, is money to haveries noncongress to argue "all that arizona needs to flourish is good people and water." which an east coast member retorted, "you could say the same about hell." arizonans eventually conceded in convincing congress to grant statehood. this was due to the theodore roosevelt dam in 1903 as part of the salt river project in phoenix, one of the nation's first federal reclamation

projects. the roosevelt dam channeled life-giving water from the salt river into a series of irrigation canals that overlay a canal network dug by the hohocam indians more than 100 years prior. fueled by irrigation water and hydroelectric power, the small community of phoenix, which started as a cavalry hay camp at fort mcdowell, began its rise to national prominence. mr. president, my predecessor in the united states senate, the late-senator barry goldwater, is among arizona's most celebrated statesmen, having served five terms in this body. he was born in phoenix when arizona was still a territory and witnessed remarkable changes to the grand canyon state throughout his lifetime. the smithsonian magazine recently republished an op-ed goldwater wrote in 1962 called "arizona's next 50 years." where he imagines what arizona

would look like by 2012. keep in mind that arizona had barely one million people living across the entire state in the 1960's. modern air-conditioning technology was relatively new, and the 1,500 miles of interstate crisscrossing the state today was still on the drawing board. yet goldwater correctly predicted our rapid population growth comparing phoenix to other major u.s. cities. i'd like to share some of his predictions with you. he wrote, "it will be the deserts that will support the majority of the new homes. phoenix will have a population of about 3 million, and tucson will grow to about 1.5 million. phoenix and tucson will remain the two largest cities in the state. phoenix being either the fourth or sixth-largest city in the united states. the growth of glenndale, peoria and avondale will parallel that of phoenix proper so that 50 years from now all of these

cities will be contiguous with each other and with phoenix and will form a city complex not unlike the present city of los angeles." mr. president, anyone who's flown into phoenix sky harbor international airport can see from the sky day or night the intricate gridlike layout of the senator goldwater understood how this would alter how arizonans relate to the desert, writing, "the men of 2012 would not be able to walk away -- walk from his doorstep into this pastel paradise with its suaro, the leap of a jack rabbit or the smell of wetwood because people will have -- to accommodate a population of slightly over 10 million people. the forests will be protected as well as our parks and mining units, but even they will have

as neighbors the people who today enjoy hardships to visit them. despite the challenges of increased demand on our natural resources, senator goldwater correctly believed that the state would mature into a modern industrious economy with global connections. he said, "arizona's principal economic growth will be in the industrial field with emphasis being on items of a technological nature. it will not be many years before industry will become an important part of the economies of most arizona cities, whereas today it is more or less confined to a few. arizona will continue to be the haven for people who seek an outlet for initiative and a reward for work. the frontier challenges will exist then as they do today, but man's progress never stops unless man stops it." fortunately for our state, our men have always and will always

want to go forward, not backward. so what is arizona today? arizona is open skies and fair climate offer the u.s. military an ideal training environment for our soldiers and high-tech combat systems. luke air force base outside of phoenix will be home to the f-35 fighter jet, the most advanced fighter in the world. the u.s. army's intelligence center is located at fort wachuca in southern arizona war u.a.v. training take place. the air force base near tucson is the nation's premier wart hog base, hosts an array of special operations aircraft. it will hopefully continue to grow in support of our military's drone fleet. across the highway, arizonans in the air national guard fly the newest f-16's to train foreign pilots from over 20 countries and virtually every marine corps

fixed-wing squadron that permitted in operations desert shield and desert storm underwent predeployment training at yuma marine corps station. arizona is also home to nearly 600,000 veterans, many of whom have returned to their families and loved ones from iraq and afghanistan. more cop certificates mined in arizona than all the other states combined. in the morinsi mine, the largest copper producer in all of north america. two of the country's largest man-made lakes is in arizona. they supply drinking water to 25 million people. yuma, arizona, an agriculture powerhouse, produces 90% of the country's winter vegetables. the lettuce in your salad this month almost certainly came from

arizona. we operate the pal low verde nuclear generating station located about 55 miles west of phoenix, which generates more electricity than any other power plant in the nation. it's home to three major state universities: arizona state university, the university of arizona and northern arizona university with an undergraduate and graduate population of over 130,000. arizona is the leader in manufacturing information, medical and defense technologies. we're headquarters to tgen, the translational genomic research institute which conducts cutting-edge genomic research with the goal of curing alzheimer's, parkinson's and numerous forms of cancer. we support critical scientific endeavors to discover our place in thes universe. arizona's unique landscapes like meteor crater and the painted

desert once played a key role in the nasa apollo training missions. the world's largest solar telescope is located at kit peek national observatory in arizona. the university of arizona is activity involved in the ki s*eu ni marshlander and marsh rover missions as well as the mission which will be the first spacecraft to land on an asteroid and return a sample to earth. it's also believed that the chimi c hu nga has its origin in arizona although its exact hometown is a matter of vigorous historical debate amongst locals. mr. president, i'm immensely proud of arizona's rich history. and i'm humbled to represent a state that has earned a special place in the american consciousness. even when i travel overseas, it's seldom that i meet an individual who doesn't know where the grand canyon is or

isn't captivated by the tales of the old west or doesn't admire the rugged individualism of arizona's frontiersmen. i can't presume to exercise the kind of predictive abilities that senator goldwater displayed in his article. all i can say is that arizona's future is perhaps best prof sized by reflecting on our legacy, judging our achievements against our intrep peud beginnings. for as long as arizona stays true to the pioneer spirit, i believe our best days are yet to come. mr. president, if i might ask indulgence to read a very short piece that i put in a -- in the forward to a book. it's a wonderful book by lisa a hidenger, arizona 100 years grand. near the end of his life barry

goldwater tried to describe to an interviewer his affection for arizona. he started to identify some of the many of the natural wonders so beloved by arizonans when he became emotional. arizona, he proclaimed, is 113,400 square miles of heaven that god cut out. fighting back tears and unable to continue at length, he managed only to add, i love it so much. for much of my life i had been rootless. my father was a naval officer and my childhood was an itinerant one as we moved from one place to another more times than i can enumerate. i too made my home in the united states navy and the only play i lived for for more than a year or two was a stay in a foreign country that would not let me leave and would have preferred i had never come. except for that period of involume tarry residence, i had -- involuntary residence, i

always lived my life on the move, part of a tradition that compensate immediate in other ways for the hometown it denied me. i had no connection to one place, no safe harbor where i could rest without car. landscapes and characters all passed too quickly to form attachments of shared history and love that calm your heart when age finally cages your restlessness. i was nearly 45 years old before i could claim a hometown. my ambitions brought me to arizona and my work keeps me away from here for more than half my time. but arizona has given me a home. and in the 30 years that have passed since i moved here, it has worked its magic on me and enchanted me and claimed me. in those 30 years i've been to almost every community that arizonans carve from the wilderness and made thrive. places that have never stopped growing and places where opportunities were exhausted and were banded to history and

places that rose and declined and were reimagined and made to prosper again by the hardworking self-starting dreamers arizona attracts in such large numbers. i marveled at the resourcefulness and visions of generations of arizonans in yuma, bisby and flagstaff, who knew success and fail hraourbgs struggled and -- failure, struggled and achieved to build on the opportunities in the challenging and beautiful places that had won their hearts, strong, prospering and decent communities. at the end of every election, i've stood on the courthouse steps in press cot, our -- in presscot, our territorial capital and thought of the primary families whose names still resonate in contemporary public affairs like udall and goldwater. i look at the bucky o'neill

monument, that memorial to the rough riders of whom he was the roughest and bravest and remember the name of arizonans of every station and walk of life who risked everything so that the freedom arizonans cherish so dearly and make such a good use of would be birthright of all. names like frank luke and ira hayes, laurie peostela and pat tillman. i've experienced every scene of spectacular beauty this blessed, bountiful, beautiful state possesses. i've high canyoned rim to rim in the greatest of our natural wonders the grand canyon. i rafted down the colorado. i waufptd traeulz of s -- i walked trails of suyaro national park. i houseboated on lake powell. many times i've driven through the desert in spring after a wet

winter and felt myself become emotional as i marveled at the profusion of vivid colors, the mesmerizing beauty of desert wild flowers in bloom. we have a home between cotton wood and sedona, to where my family escapes whenever -- excuse me -- whenever we have the chance. it's creeks surrounded by hills, a ghost ranch and indian caves, shade bid tall cotton woods and sick at that mores. -- sycamores. common blackhawks return annually to their nest in the tree beneath which i drank my morning coffee and give thanks for the blessed of living in such natural splendor. i've never in my life loved a place more. and when my public life is over, i will spend the remainder of my

days there giving thanks and enjoying the happiness of belonging to someplace so beautiful and smaller and so intimate than a nation that spans a continent. the state of arizona is at a centennial. 100 years of dreams won and lost and sought again, of progress and struggle and resilience. it's a rough and tumble history, colorful, heroic, bold and inspiring. like the character of the people who made it, you'll see it celebrated appropriately in the splendid book that i referred to earlier. and you'll glimpse the future that today's arizonans, the dreamers, risk takers, lovers of freedom, captivated by the stunning landscapes and resilient enterprising communities that have worked their magic on them will build. it will be a future worthy of our predecessor's achievements and legacies, a future of adversity overcome and opportunities for all. we will change as all places do.

others will come, as i once came, to make a new home or find the only home that they ever really had in towns and cities and rural communities that will be better for their presence and contributions. they will face the challenges of their time and experience unexpected setbacks, but they will stick with it, work harder, dream bigger and prevail. in 100 years from now, their history, character and accomplishments will inspire their fortunate descendants and the newcomers who will come here to live in beauty and make the most of their lives. we will change, but the values and beauty we treasure will remain intact. arizona is 113,400 square miles of heaven that god cut out, and arizonans mean to keep it so. we love it that much.

#. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i came to the floor along with senator collins to introduce the cybersecurity act of 2012. but i must thank my friend, my colleagues, dear friends and colleagues from arizona for an extra bonus in hearing their really rhapsodic and moving tribute to their state on its centennial of real love and loyalty. having spent some time in arizona, i can say every word they said is a word of truth. i congratulate them and wish them and all the people of arizona a joyous centennial celebration. mr. president, i did come to the floor to introduce the cybersecurity act of 2012. i'm here with senator collins. i want to thank her for all the work that we've done together and what has been a wonderfully bipartisan, nonpartisan relationship to deal with a very serious national problem. i'm very honored that we are

joined in introducing this bill by the chairs of two -- the two committees that have been most involved in the questions of cybersecurity: the chairman of the commerce committee, senator rockefeller. and the chair of the intelligence committee of the senate, senator feinstein of california. we've also had the involvement of the chairs and others on the foreign relations committee, on the judiciary committee and the energy committee. but i'm very proud that this is a bill that senator collins and i, senator rockefeller and senator feinstein introduced today. i also want to give a particular thanks to the majority leader, senator reid, for his unflagging support based on his personal concern about america's cyberdefenses based on classified briefings he's received on this problem. he really pushed us to work together across party and committee lines to pull the bill

together that we're introducing today. it's interesting to note, since there have been a lot of commentary in the last 24 hours about president obama's budget, that president obama has recognized in the most tangible terms the danger that confronts us by recommending adding at least $300 million in the coming year to our cybersecurity efforts. still, mr. president, i know while it's february 14, 2012, those of us who have worked on this problem fear that when it comes to protecting america from cyberattack, it may be september 10, 2001, all over again. the question is whether america will confront this grave threat to our security before it happens, before our enemies attack. we were -- we are being bled of

our intellectual property every day by cyberthieves. and the consequences of their thievery are very real to america's economy, our prosperity and indeed our capacity to create jobs and hold the ones we have. enemies probe the weaknesses every day in our critical national assets, waiting until the time is right through cyberattack to cripple our economy or attack, for instance, a city's electric grid with the touch of a key on the other side of the world. the fact is that our cyberdefenses are not what they should be, but such as they are, they are blinking red. yet again, i fear we will not be able to connect the dots to prevent a 9/11-type cyberattack on america before it happens.

the aim of this bill is to make sure that we don't scramble here in congress after such an attack to do what we can and should do today. intellectual property worth billions of dollars, billions of dollars, has already been stolen, given our international competitors' access in the global marketplace, without ever having to invest a dime in research. and the fact is that even the most sophisticated companies are being penetrated and our adversaries are using information learned in one intrusion to plan the next, more sophisticated one. last year, the computer security firm mcafee conducted a study of 70 specific instances of data and issued a report on those instances, and they included 13 defense contractors, six industrial plants and eight american and canadian government

networks. based on that report, the former vice president of mcafee, dmitri alpirovicz issued this warning -- "i am convinced that every company in every conceivable industry with significant size and valuable intellectual property and trade secrets has been compromised or will be shortly, with a great majority of the victims rarely discovering the intrusion or its impact. "in fact, he concluded, i divide the entire set of global 2000 firms into two categories -- those that know they have been compromised and those that don't yet know. end of quote. mr. president, these examples, of course, are deeply alarming, but in addition lurking out in the eater are computer worms like stucksnet that can commandeer the computers that control heavy machinery and

potentially allow a computer to open and close valves and switches and pipelines, refineries, factories, water and sewer systems and electric plants in our country without detection by their operators. i mean, obviously, this capacity could be used by an enemy to attack our country and do damage not only comparable to 9/11 but far in excess of it. depending on the target or targets, these kinds of cyber attacks could lead to terrible physical destruction, massive loss of life, massive evacuations and of course widespread economic disruption. owners of these critical systems -- that is, private sector owners -- remember, most of cyber infrastructure in america is privately owned, and that's what this bill is talking about. owners have sometimes told us that we don't need to worry about the security of their systems because they are not connected to the internet, but

the reality today is that that is simply not correct. the experts have told us that a truly air-gap system as they call it, that is one not connected to the internet is as rare as a blizzard in the caribbean. if it exists, our best cyber experts have yet to see it. and stucksnet has showed us that it doesn't matter if a system is air gap because one thumb drive plugged into a computer can lead to an infection that spreads. mr. president, if we don't act now to secure our computer network sometime in the future -- and i believe it will be in the near future -- we will be forced to act in the middle of a megacyber crisis or right after one that has had enormous, perhaps catastrophic effects on our country. that's why we introduced this

bill and that's why we look forward to the debate on it and why we hope it will pass and be enacted before a cyber catastrophe occurs in america. now, let me just briefly describe some of the important things this bill does. first, it ensures that the computer systems, private systems that control our most critical infrastructure that are currently not secure are made secure. our bill defines critical infrastructure narrowly to include those systems that if brought down or commandeered in a cyber attack would lead to mass casualties, evacuations of major financial centers, the collapse of financial markets, the degradation of our national security. this is really critical infrastructure. after identifying the precise systems that meet the definition, that definition of high risk, the secretary of homeland security would under our legislation then work with

the private sector operators of those systems to develop cybersecurity performance requirements based on risk assessments of those sectors. the private sector owners would then have some flexibility to meet those performance requirements with hardware or software they choose so long as it achieves the required level of security. the department of homeland security will not be picking technological winners and losers, so there is nothing in this bill that would stifle innovation. in fact, i think quite the contrary. if a company can show that it already has met high security standards, it will be exempt from these requirements. the bill focuses on securing that which is not secure today, not on putting new requirements on industries that are doing everything they should be doing to protect themselves and our national security.

mr. president, once these improved security systems come online, i think that many companies will want to apply them to noncritical systems that are not covered by this bill as a way to protect the privacy of their employees and customers as well as giving these companies the chance to offer secure e-commerce services, but that will be up to each company. this bill also seeks to make compliance easier, more rational for covered critical infrastructure operators by creating a more streamlined and efficient cyber organization within the department of homeland security, and at each step in the process created by our bill, the department of homeland security must work with existing federal regulators and the private sector that they regulate to ensure that no rules or regulations are put in place that duplicate or conflict with

existing requirements. and if a company feels that the designation of its networks as critical surface is somehow wrong, it's got the right to appeal that decision, for the law that the -- system that the law requires d.h.s. to set up or they can go to federal district court. this bill also establishes mechanisms for information sharing between the private sector and the federal government and among the private sector operators themselves, senator feinstein and her committee made a significant contribution to this part of our bill. this is important because computer security experts in the private and public sectors need to be able to share information, compare notes in order to protect us against evolving cyber threat. our proposal also creates appropriate security measures and oversight to protect privacy and preserve civil liberties. in fact, i was pleased to read recently that the american civil

liberties union said it had studied our bill and it found it offers the greatest privacy protections of all the cybersecurity legislation that has been proposed. i'm going to jump forward a little bit so i can yield to my distinguished ranking member in a moment. i want to -- i have discussed some of the things the bill does. i want to mention, too, that it -- what it doesn't do. one myth about this bill is that it contains a kill switch that would allow the president of the united states in an emergency to seize control of the internet. not -- there is nothing remotely like that in this bill. at one time, we had considered language that would, in fact, have limited powers the president has under the communications act of 1934 to take over electronic communications in times of war, but that provision was so widely misunderstood or misrepresented

that we dropped it rather than risk losing the chance to pass the rest of this urgently needed legislation. i also want to make clear that nothing in this bill touches on any of the issues that quite recently have inflamed our consideration of the stop online privacy act, sopa or the protect i.p. act known as pipa. many members of the chamber might have metaphorically speaking scars to still show from that experience. no need with this bill. this bill does nothing to affect the day-to-day workings of the internet, internet privacy and protection are important concerns of the digital age. we have to deal with that at some point, but they are simply not part of this bill. one final thing i do want to deal with is a complaint from, among others, our chamber of commerce that we are -- quote -

"rushing forward with legislation that's not been fully vetted. not true. this bipartisan legislation has been three years in the making, and its outlines have not only been shared with stakeholders and the public but their input -- and the public, but their input has helped shape this final version of the bill that we're introducing today. more than 20 hearings on cybersecurity have been held across seven different senate committees with dozens more held on questions related to cybersecurity. in fact, our own committee since 2005 has held nine hearings on the subject and will hold another one this thursday where we will hear reactions to this bill. i'm very pleased to say that senator reid continues to be very committed to seeing us do everything we can to adopt legislation to protect our american cyber systems. i believe its the leader's intent to bring this bill up in

the next work period. i hope so because the truth is that time is not on our side. we are not adequately protected at this moment, and the capabilities of those who are staking us for economic reasons or to prepare to attack us for strategic reasons just grows larger and larger. i do want to say that we have a growing number of companies in the private sector, information technology, cybersecurity and other companies in critical infrastructure areas that are coming to support this bill, too, that i want to mention. here are cisco and oracle which gives you some sense of the range of support for the bill. bottom line, i think this is -- this is a subject around which we should have a good, healthy debate, an open amendment process and a bipartisan agreement because this is all

about not regulation, it's about our most fundamental national economic security and public safety. with that, i yield the floor to my distinguished ranking member, senator -- the senator from maine. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i do rise today to introduce with the chairman of the homeland security committee, senator lieberman, as well as senator rockefeller and senator feinstein, the cybersecurity act of 2012. as always, it's been a great pleasure to work with my friend and colleague from connecticut on which i believe is the most important initiative that we have come together on. perhaps since our 2004 intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act.

i'm also delighted that three senate chairmen who have significant jurisdiction in this area -- senator lieberman, senator rockefeller and senator feinstein -- have come together, we have all worked very hard on this bill. i also want to commend the staff of our committee which has worked extraordinarily hard over several years to produce this bill. our legislation would provide the federal government and the private sector with the tools necessary to protect our most critical infrastructure from growing cyber threats. earlier this month, the f.b.i. director robert mueller warned that the cyber threat will soon equal or surpass the threat from terrorism. he argued that we should be

addressing the cyber threat with the same intensity that we have applied to the terrorist threat. the director of national intelligence, jim clapper, made the point even more strongly. he described the cyber threat as -- quote -- "a profound threat to this country, to its future, its economy, its very being." end quote. these warnings are just the latest in a chorus of warnings from current and former officials. last november, the director of the defense advanced research projects agency or darpa, warned that the malicious cyber attacks threaten a growing number of the systems with which we interact each and every day -- the electric grid, our water treatment plants, key financial

systems. similarly, general keith alexander, the commander of u.s. cyber command and the director of the national security agency, has warned that the cyber vulnerabilities we face are extraordinary and characterized by -- quote -- "a disturbing trend from exploitation to disruption to destruction." end quote. mr. president as senator lieberman has pointed out, the threat is not only to our national security, but also to our economic well-being. a study by the company norton last year calculated the cost of global cyber crime at $114 billion annually. when combined with the value of time that victims lost due to cyber crime, this figure grows

to $388 billion globally, which norton described as significant ly more than the global black market in marijuana, cocaine, and heroin combined. in an op-ed last month titled "china's cyber thievery is national policy and must be challenged," former d.n.i. mike mcconnell, former homeland security secretary, michael chertoff, and former deputy secretary of defense william lindh noted the ability of cyberterrorists to cripple our infrastructure. they sounded an even more urgent alarm about the threat of economic cyber espionage. citing an october, 2011 report to congress by the office of the

national counterintelligence executive, they warned of the catastrophic impact that cyber espionage, particularly that pursued by china, could have on our economy and our competitiveness. they estimated that the cost easily means billions of dollars and millions of jobs. this threat is all the more menacing because it is being pursued by a global competitor seeking to steal the research and development of american firms to undermine our economic leadership. mr. president, the evidence of our cybersecurity vulnerability is overwhelming and compels us to act. as the chairman has mentioned,

since 2005, our homeland security committee has held nine hearings on the cyber threat. in 2010, chairman lieberman, senator carper, and i introduced our cybersecurity bill which was reported by the committee later that same year. since last year, we've been working with chairman rockefeller to merge our bill with legislation he has championed which was reported by the commerce committee. lately, after incorporating changes based on the feedback of our colleagues, the private sector, and the administration, we have produced a new version which we introduced today. now, mr. president, some of our colleagues have urged us to focus very narrowly on the federal information security management act as well as on

federal research and development and improved information sharing. we do need to address those issues, and our bill does address those important issues. and, again, like senator lieberman, i want to commend senator feinstein for her contributions in the area of improved information sharing, and senator carper for the work that he has done on the federal information security management act. but the fact remains, mr. president, that with 85% of our nation's critical infrastructure owned by the private sector, government also has a critical role in ensuring that the most vital parts of that critical infrastructure, those whose disruption could result in truly catastrophic

consequences, such as mass casualties or mass evacuations, meet reasonable risk-based performance standards. in an editorial this week "the washington post" concurred, writing that our critical systems have remained unprotected. to accept the status quo would be an unacceptable risk to u.s. national security. mr. president, the post got it exactly right. now, some of our colleagues are skeptical about the need for any new regulations. mr. president, there's no one who has worked harder than i have to oppose regulations that would unnecessarily burden our economy and cost us jobs. but we need to distinguish

between regulations that hurt our economy and are not necessary and hinder our international competitiveness versus regulations that are necessary for our national security and that promote rather than hinder our economic prosperity. those strengthen our economy and our nation. the fact is that the risk-based performance requirements in our bill are targeted carefully. they only apply to specific systems and assets, not entire companies. that if damage could reasonably be expected to result in mass casualties, huge evacuations, catastrophic economic damages,

or a severe degradation of our national security. in other words, mr. president, we are talking about truly catastrophic impacts. moreover, the owners of critical infrastructure, not the government, would select and implement the cybersecurity measures the owners determine to be best suited to satisfy the risk-based cybersecurity performance requirements. our new bill would also require the secretary of homeland security to select among existing have industry practices and standards or choose performance requirements proposed by the private sector. lots of collaboration and consultation. only if none of these mitigates

the risk identified through this public-private collaboration could the secretary propose something different. that is extremely unlikely to happen. the bill prohibits the regulation of the design and development of commercial i.t. products. it would require that existing requirements and current regulators use wherever possible. the bill would allow federal officials to waive the bill's requirements when existing regulations or security measures are already sufficiently robust. as with our earlier versions of this bill, companies in substantial compliance with the performance requirements at the time of a cyber incident would receive liability protection

from any punitive damages associated with an incident, giving them an incentive to comply. mr. president, the fact remains that improving cybersecurity is absolutely essential. we cannot afford to wait for a cyber 9/11 before taking action. the warnings could not be clearer about the vulnerabilities and the threat to our systems. every day, every single day, nation states, terrorist groups, cyber criminals, hackers, probe our systems, both in the public and the private sectors. and they have been successful

over and over again in their intrusions. we don't want to look back after a catastrophic cyber event and say why didn't we act? how could we have ignored all of these warnings? so i would encourage our colleagues to continue to work with us and to come together and enact this vitally needed legislation. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, what is the parliamentary situation? the presiding officer: the senate is currently on the nomination. mr. leahy: mr. president, let

me just speak briefly to that. it's interesting that we even have to be waiting on something that should have gone through months ago. republican senators delayed the final vote on the nomination of judge adalberto jordan of florida even though the senate voted 89-5 last night to end a republican filibuster that prevented a vote for four months. you know, this is a consensus nominee. he has the strong support of the senior senator from florida, senator bill nelson. he is also strongly supported by the republican senator from florida, senator marco rubio. he should have been confirmed months ago.

in fact, you get a vote of 89-5 on cloture, he should have been able to be -- to go through then instead of obstruction needlessly delayed the senate acting to fill the judicial vacancy in the 11th circuit. and a remarkable person to be there, the first cuban american to go on the 11th circuit. senator nelson worked hard for this nomination and worked to get judge jordan's nomination cleared by every single democratic senator in october. immediately after his -- it was reported unanimously by the judiciary committee. let me just explain what that means. we voted in the judiciary committee, the distinguished presiding officer was there. every single republican, every single democrat voted to report him out of committee for confirmation.

senator nelson immediately got every single democratic senator, this is back in october, to say we have no objection to this nomination going forward, it can pass today. but it was blocked in october. we were ready to vote then. it was blocked by the republicans. so we're ready to vote in november on him. blocked by the republicans. we were ready to vote before the end of the last session of congress in december. blocked by the republicans. we were ready to vote in january when we came back. blocked by the republicans. now it's hard to believe it's now the middle of february, months later, and the senate still has not voted to fill this judicial emergency vacancy. the effect on people of florida, georgia, and alabama. and i understand why senator nelson is frustrated. he expressed that yesterday on the floor. i understand why hispanics for a

fair judiciary and the hispanic national bar association are frustrated, too. they know that every single democrat was ready to vote for this good man in october, november, december, and january and now in february. they can't understand why the other side won't allow a vote. the needless delay, judge jordan's confirm is an example of the harmful tactics that all but paralyze the nomination process. they're damaging our federal court. it shouldn't take four months and require a cloture motion to proceed to a nomination to fill a judicial emergency. vacancy on the 11th circuit. it's irresponsible. it should not take more months of more cloture motions before the senate finally votes on the nearly 20 other superbly

qualified judicial nominees who have been stalled by senate republicans for months while vacancies continue to plague our federal courts and delay justice for the american people. somebody is going to go to a federal court seeking justice, they don't ask whether they're republicans or democrats. they ask is the court open? we have all these vacancies, the court's close. closed. we have judges that could be confirmed tomorrow, today, right now, and fill those vacancies. and the american people need and deserve federal courts ready to serve them. not empty benches and long delays. i'd ask consent my full statement be made part of my my --. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: thank you. mr. president, i also wanted to

respond briefly to comments that the junior senator from kentucky regarding his amendment to cut off all u.s. aid for egypt. let's take a little step back here. let's understand what we're talking about. the new conditions of military aid for egypt, which i wrote with senator lindsey graham, passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in this body, and were signed into law just two months ago, requires certification by the secretary of state that the egyptian military is supporting the transition to civil government and protecting fundamental freedoms and due process. of course, upholding their obligations under the treaties with israel. if the crisis involving the nongovernmental organizations, whose offices were raided and

now facing criminal charges is not resolved satisfactorily, well, there's no way that certification can be made and egypt will not receive $1.3 billion in u.s. military aid. but the leahy-graham conditions give the administration flexibility to respond to this crises. if we take a leap into the lurch and adopt the paul amendment, we risk causing a backlash and the opposite reaction of what we want. right now we have leverage. he's proposing to take away our leverage. and it really is ironic the junior senator from kentucky, who's now insisting on a vote on his amendment to cut off all a aid -- not just military aid but economic aid -- didn't even vote when the omnibus bill that contained the leahy-graham certification requirement came

up. in fact, i asked him when he was here on the floor if he was aware of it. he had not voted, was not, apparentlapparently otherwise od and did not vote the day that came up. but his amendment is all-or-nothing. unfortunately the real world is not that black-and-white. no one disadreez with th disagrl of the amendment from the senator from kentucky, senator paul. the purpose is no different than the leahy-graham provision, which we've all passed. that caused the suspension of military aid. right now there's no military aid going to egypt because of leahy-graham. all of us are outraged by the crackdown against the n.g.o.'s. i've spoken about it not only on the floor but elsewhere. we want the charges dropped.

we were their property returned so they can resume the pro-democracy work. but the scope of the paul amendment is so sweeping that could back fire and make the situation immeasurably worse. the amendment cuts off all u.s. aid to egypt, current and prior year, including hundreds of millions of dollars in economic aid and funding for antiterrorism, nonproliferation programs -- antiterrorism programs like those that are used to help cut off arms going to gaza. those are the arms shipments to gaza. the aid that we give the government of egypt to interdict arms shipments to gaza would be cut off by the paul amendment. there's a lot more at stake. the fate of the 19 american citizens facing criminal charges in egypt and egypt's continued

adherence to the israeli-egyptian peace agreement could be jeopardized. this could jeopardize overflights for u.s. military aircraft or access to the sue wethe suewez canal. but also leaves open the potential for further crackdowns against individuals in the society. now, if the administration were ignoring the leahy-graham amendment and the certification requirement in current law, then i might vote for this amendment, but they're not. in fact, the same n.g.o.'s he claims to be defending have repeatedly praised the administration's efforts on their behalf. they've applauded the new leverage that they have that's provided by the leahy-graham conditions. both the state department and the pentagon are intensely focused on trying to resolve this, as the news accounts

noted, general democrat see wast in egypt dealing with -- with the chairman of the joint chiefs. now, over the coming days and weeks, if the situation continues to deteriorate, our leverage does not accomplish something, well, then, revisit it. but i would urge the junior senator from kentucky to withdraw his amendment until that time and to refrain from obstructing other business in the senate. let's see how things play out. hopefully cooler heads will prevail. the egyptian military recognized that these n.g.o.'s were doing nothing more than supporting the transition to democracy in both an appropriate and transparent manner. and the egyptian military agrees it's in egypt's best interest to

preserve close relations with the unite united states, and itn their best interests to maintain their adherence to the treaty between israel and egypt. let's do that. in the meantime, we're holding back the money and egypt knows we have that leverage. don't take that leverage away. this is not the time to do it. right now we need all the leverage we can have. mr. president, i see other senators on the floor and so i'll yield the floor. mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, we had this morning in the budget committee hearing the testimony of mr. zites, the o.m.b. director who works for the president and prepares, under the president's direction, the budget that they submit to congress for the united states for fiscal year 2013, beginning october 1. it's an important document. it's an important time, because

in it the president lays out his plan for what this nation needs to do. not just this year but for ten years, ten years that call -- during time -- during a time in which our debt crisis remains the number-one threat to ameri america, really. that's what the experts from the president's own debt commission told us. we've never faced a more predictable economic crisis if we don't change our course of borrowing. we are now spending $3,700 billion a year and taking in $2,200 billion, borrowing 40% of what we spend. so it was an important hearing. i was deeply disappointed that the new director, mr. zites, seemed to be focused on one thing and that is regurgitating

the talking points that he had been provided and steadfastly avoiding answering simple, important questions put to him by two members of the committee. we have two members of the committee here that i think would like will be sharing remarks about what we talked about today and how we need to address our debt crisis. senator john thune senator kelley ayotte. they were there and participated and asked questions. i think we all agree that it was one of the worst witness performances in terms of being responsive to the questions that we've seen in our time in the senate. i hate to say that. i know he was told not to say anything, just to keep repeating the talking points. but when america is facing a financial crisis and you're asking the budget director

fundamental, simple questions, you expect and have a right to expect answers. not for me but for the american people. he does not work for the obama political campaign. mr. zients works for the american people. he's a man that has access to the foot-thick, four-volume budget that was sent out. and he helped write it. under his supervision, it was written. so we should be able to get straight answers immediately from this gentleman. for example, i asked a simple question right off the bat: did -- does the president's budget spend more money than the agreement we reached last august over raising the debt limit for america? does it spend more or less? and it went on for four minutes. and i kept repeating again and again, well, is it more or less? is it more or less? finally at some point, he said

the president's bust would spend less -- president's budget would spend less. and that's not accurate. it spends at least $1.5 trillion more. so the budget director can't get straight whether or not the president's budget spends more and is $1.5 trillion off? a trillion dollars is a lot of money. so i -- i felt strongly about it. mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my republican colleagues for up to 30 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, i see senator thune is here and he's been through a lot of these matters and a lot of hearings and his time in the -- in his time o in the senate, part of leadership here in the senate. i would ask him how he felt about the hearing this morning and the issues our country faces. mr. thune: well, i -- mr. president, i thank the distinguished ranking member on the budget committee for engaging this discussion and i'm

anxious to hear from our colleague from new hampshire, senator hey yot. but she was there this morning and was able to ask questions of the witness, the panel as that we had in front of the budget committee. and i guess what struck me about listening to -- to that discussion was just the evasiveness that we got from mr. zients. in fact, as the senator from alabama has mentioned, failure to respond to just very direct questions. not questions that are trick questions, questions just as a matter of the facts. i think what i was struck by, too, is when he was asked about whether or not the administration wants majority leader reid to bring the president's budget to the floor, he couldn't give a direct answer. and his comments indicated that they would not be calling on the majority leader to bring the president's budget before the senate. and the other thing that, too, i was struck by is the president's own budget chief could not confirm, verify that the president had added already

about $5 trillion to the debt since taking office. those were both -- both things that just seemed like very straightforward questions and should have been very straightforward answers. but the fact of the matter is, it's very difficult i think for him or any other official in this administration to defend this budget. and this budget is not a serious budget. and even people on the other side, people in the media have all passed judgment on this and basically said that this is not the kind of budget that takes on the challenges the country faces. and i would say to my colleagues that this is a -- it's hard to take this seriously when they aren't serious about it. but they ought to be, because these are serious times. we live in a time where we're running already a $15 trillion debt. this budget would add $11 trillion to that debt over the next ten years. we are living at a time when we've got european countries whose -- who are on the collapse, that are on the verge of fiscal collapse with regard to their economic and fiscal situations. much of which we are watching on

a daily basis unfold in front of us. and what that might mean for our country. and hopefully there is something instructive about that, because clearly to me we need to be taking a page out of what's happening there and getting our house in order now. we have made promises to the american people that we can't keep. we need to reform our entitlement programs. and that probably more than anything else to me was the biggest disappointment in the president's budget, because it's the fourth year in a row now where he's proposed a budget which does not do anything to address the fundamental drivers of federal spending. and by that, i mean the mandatory part of the budget. that's social security, medicare, medicaid, snap, all those different programs represent today with interest on the debt about 64% of all federal spending. at the end of the ten-year period, they would represent 78% of all federal spending. and so what this budget is, is a dramatic increase in the amount that we are spending on these various programs. that is what is driving federal spending today that. is what will drive federal spending into the future.

and that's why a failure and a lack of leadership when it comes to the issue of entitlement reform is so disturbing. and it really is a missed opportunity. now, i understand this is an election year. everybody says this is a campaign document, this is a political document. that does not absolve the president or us of the responsibility that we have to the american people to start making some decisions around here that will get this country back on the right fiscal track. and so when you take -- when you propose a budget that spends literally $47 trillion over the next ten years, is basic what will we're talking about here, now, you haven't done much to bend the spending curve in the right direction. so i would strongly disagree with mr. zients' statement today that this is a -- quote -- "very tight budget" i think is how he described it. we do have governors around the country who are making some tough decisions to balance their states' budget. the federal government ought to do the same. south dakota is a good example of that. we made some very tough decisions this last year and as a consequence of that, our

budget situation is much better this year. but it was because they had the courage to accept forward and do some things that needed to be done. the budget as has been proposed by the president fails to rein in spending and balance the budget. as i said, it adds $11 trillion to the national debt, which would reach, if you can believe this, nearly $26 trillion by the end of the decade under the proposal that the president put forward. so i can go on, but i would say to my colleague from alabama and to my colleague from new hampshire that based upon what we heard this morning, i have no more -- i don't feel very reassured, i guess, that this administration gets it. and the president's budget submission clearly was an example that they don't get it, and the defense of it this morning that we heard in front of the budget committee certainly reinforced that impression with me. but i'd be interested in knowing what the senator from new hampshire, who was there, was able to ask that panelist, the acting o.m.b. director, what she

thought based on the testimony this morning. ms. ayotte: i thank my colleague from south dakota and also my colleague from alabama, the ranking member of the budget committee. i was deeply troubled this morning because i asked mr. zients about the president's budget and my concern that, under the trajectory of the president's budget, that we would be reaching $26 trillion of debt in the next ten years under his budget, and i was shocked when he described the president's budget as a milestone, leadership. this, to me, is not leadership, and if it's a milestone for anything, this budget is a milestone for bankruptcy and what we see happening in europe and other areas of the world that we don't want to happen to our country. and when, you know, i think about it, i'm the mother of two children, how could we possibly ask our children to pay back $26

trillion in debt, it's outrageous, and i was really surprised that mr. zients couldn't answer basic questions like how much debt has been added under this president, as the senator from south dakota mentioned. it's close to $5 trillion in debt. and also our entitlement programs. i moon, i know my grandparents are relying on medicare, social security. i asked mr. zients, the medicare trustees have said that medicare is going bankrupt in 2024. we know that medicare is a huge driver of our unsustainable debt and that if we don't act to preserve these programs, then the premium who are relying on them are going to be put in a horrible position very soon -- 2024 is coming very quickly. yoi asked mr. zients the questi, what is the president's plan to

preserve medicare? and clearly a complete insufficient answer. that's because in this budget, there is no plan to preserve medicare for my grandparents and forern who's re-- and for everyone who's relying on medicare right now. when i reviewed the president's budget, what it reminded me of was a discussion i had with my kids recently because my kids in the last couple of weeks have been talking about punxsutawney phil, the groundhog who comes out to look at his shadow and see whether we're going to have more winter, right? we will, punxsutawney phil has already come out of his hoacialtion but in washington it's groundhog day all over again when it comes to the president's budget because every year that this president has been in office, his proposed budgets have left us with trillion-dollar deficits, increased gross debt as a percentage of the share of our economy, continued massive

spending, racking up enormous debt to where we will reach $26 trillion in ten years, no plan to reform social security and medicare, to preserve these programs, and they are the mandatory spending, as senator thune mentioned, the largest driver of our debt, and massive tax increases. it's staggering when he think about a budget -- it's staggering when you think about a budget that offers close to the largest, if not the largest, tax increase in the history of our country yet still runs a $1.3 trillion deficit this year and at least a $900 billion deficit in 2013. so it's the worst of all worlds. we're going to increase taxes on small businesses in this country that we're asking to generate revenue and create jobs and yet we're still going to run

trillion-dollar deficits. this is a very irresponsible budget, and we cannot afford a campaign document. we need a budget for this country, because when i think about where we are, when i think about what is happening in our countries around the world, in europe, and ther fiewp o ther -e fiewp of our country and not only those of us here today but what we will be passing on to my children and your children because they can't repay $26 trillion in debt -- how that's going to happen and how fair is that, they didn't incur this debt, we did. we have a responsibility to address this now, and i have been deeply disappointed by this president and his failure of leadership on this issue. think about it. my colleague, senator gregg, served on the president's fiscal commission. the president convenes a fiscal commission and ignores his own fiscal commission. in fact, since that time, we've

incurred $1.5 trillion of debt since the fiscal commission issued a report. last year the president's budget came up for a vote in this body. it was so fiscally irresponsible that not one member of this chamber from either party or the independent voted for the budget. and that really says it all. and yet again, we have a slash budget being proposed -- and yet again we have a similar budget being proposed by this president. that's why i say unfortunately it's groundhog day in washington all over again. and it's unfortunate because the american people have seen this over and over again, and they're very, very tired because they understand at home they have to balance their budgets; they understand that at home they're making the difficult calls that need to be made to prioritize, and yet here in washington with

this president's budget and the trajectory that our country is on because of the failure of leadership, we are in a position where we're hurting our country, where i'm very, very concerned about what we're passing on to the next generation. and i hope -- i hope that my colleagues on the senate budget committee will actually do the work that needs to be done and put together a responsible budget for this country, because it's been over 1,000 days since the democrat-controlled senate budget committee has actually done the work that needs to be done for this country, because if the president is not going to do it, then i hope that in this body, in the united states senate, that we will put together a responsible budget that gets our fiscal house in order for the future of our country. and i hope that this acting budget director, mr. zients, the

next time he comes before the senate budget committee will just answer the questions that he's asked. i mean, this is simple math. when senator sessions asks him whether we're spending more money or not, you would hope you'd get a straight answer. and that's the least that the american people deserve, and i'm hoping that's what they will receive going forward. i would like to ask my colleague, senator sessions, the ranking member of the budget committee, what his impression of the president's budget is in terms of where it leads our country going forward? and what he hopes that the senate budget committee will do. -- will do to address this fiscal crisis. mr. sessions: i thank my colleague. i know senator ayotte wanted to be on the budget committee. we had a host of fabulous senators who wanted to be on it. we got four but many more wanted to be on, senator portman, senator johnson, senator ayotte,

senator toomey were selected. i know how disappointing it was because we talked how we didn't mark up a budget last year. so the people who wanted tock on there to participate in the great issue of our time -- the debt this nation is facing -- got no ability and had no option -- no opportunity to participate in the debate because the majority party in the senate decided that was not what they wanted to do. and the majority leader said it would be fool ties foolish to ha budget. i think it's very, very sad. so the president's budget represents an opportunity and a responsibility to guide this nation for the future. the president has no higher duty, no higher responsibility than to help the nation avoid an obvious crisis. mr. bowles and senator simpson,

who chaired president obama's debt commission, looked us in the eye and issued a joint statement at the budget committee last year about this time that said the nation has never faced a more predictable economic crisis. and what they were saying was, if you don't change what you're doing, we are headed to a crisis. mr. bowles, president clinton's chief of staff, said to us that this crisis could happen within two years. i saw yesterday on the television "morning joe," mr. mr. haas talk about greece, he's internationally recognized. and he said, the united states could be having this next year. but i would say, what's stunning to me is that when you look at this budget, it does not change the debt trajectory and we've looked at those numbers. we've looked at those numbers and it does not change the debt

trajectory. it increases spending and increases taxes and at the end of the day, based on the current law that we achieved last year, minimum steps but was achieved, the budget control act numbers, that would allow the debt to increase $11.5 trillion next year. under the president's budget that he asserts reduces the deficit by $4 trillion, the deficit would increase by $11.2 trillion, almost no change at all. and we needed big change, and he took away some of the spending reductions and replaced it with more tax increases. the reductions we just painfully agreed to last august. so i am disappointed in the president's leadership on that. and senator thiewrntion you've been here -- and senator thune, you've been here and dell with these issues.

maybe you have comments about it smed i would yield to you. mr. thune: i would say to the senator from alabama that it was interesting to me because at the white house fiscal responsibility summit in february 2009, this is in the context of discussing our unsustainable imubt deficits, president obama said the following. "contrary to the prevailing wisdom in washington these past few yeeshes we cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences to the next budget of the next administration or the next generation." that's exactly what he's been doing now for four years. literally, ever budget every year, we think maybe this year the president will get serious because we've got a serious problem in this country. these are serious times in which we are living and we've got to get the situation turned around or we are headed for certain disaster. and yet last year, as was noted, the president's budget, when it was put on the floor of the united states senate, did not garner a single vote here. not a single vote. it was 97-0.

it was unanimously rejected by the united states senate, members both sides voting against it. well, this year you would think, okay, the situation is that much worse, our fiscal situation has deteriorated even more, the amount of debt that we've racked up is continuing to accumulate, and we thought perhaps this year we would see a budget that did address these problems. no, we've got another budget filled with more spend, more debt and higher taxes at a time when we need to be tackling spend, we need to be taking on saving social security and medicare for the next generation and doing something to create economic growth in this country and get jobs created for american workers in this country. and what's really disappointing about it is not just the faght that the -- the fact that the spending and debt situation is out of control but also the impact that has on the economy. the senator from alabama knows full well because we both have studied this subject, and if you

look at the research that's been done with regard to the impact of spending and debt on economic growth and job creation, there is a clear correlation there. when you achieve a certain level of debt as a percentage of your entire economy, 90% is the threshold, it costs you about a percentage point of economic growth every year which means fewer jobs. in this case about a million fewer jobs in our economy. so the high sustained levels, chronic high levels of debt and spending are directly impacting our economy's ability to get out of this cycle that we're in and to start growing and expanding again and creating jobs. mr. sessions: you say it's directly impacting. the way i read the rogoff reinhart study and i think what i hear you saying is that this isn't just that a debt crisis might happen -- and those can happen quickly, as they warn in their book, that crisis can happen when you're at this debt level, out of the blue for

things you never expected and you're in serious financial trouble -plt -- trouble. like our 2006-2007 financial crisis, nobody predicted. they also indicate that huge debt can impact economic growth today. and they say when your debt reaches 90% of g.d.p., your debt is that much, it can slow growth by 1% to 2%. we're already at 100% of g.d.p. do you think it's possible that their study based on empirical data might be telling us that the debt right now, because it weakens confidence and drains investment capital, that our debt now could be slowing our economy? mr. thune: i think it's very clear. and i think if you look at, as you said debt is a percentage of g.d.p., now over 100%. think about that. this is the highest level of debt, highest level of spending

as a percentage of our g.d.p. that we've seen since the end of world war 26789 we have not seen anything that rivals t. we've seen four years in a row where we've run trillion-dollar-plus deficits. we've add to the debt since this president took office. when you get that debt level sustained over time, it does have a direct impact on jobs and the economy. and i believe we're paying a price for that right now. you can look at what's happening obviously with the high levels of debt and the impact it's having on countries in europe. this whole idea with the president reducing his budget, not taking that issue on, not doing anything substantial or meaningful with regard to spending or debt, and then adding to it, making matters even worse, raising taxes by almost $2 trillion, it seems like the most natural instinct. it's just in their d.n.a. everything has to be about raising taxes. clearly that's not the solution. we all know that.

in fact, we need to create policies that will be conducive to economic growth and job creation in this country. and raising taxes on investment, which is what the budget does. and by the way, it would raise capital gains tax rates from 15% to 20% right away. then if you're hit by the buffet rule it would go up to 30%. it would raise the dividend tax rates from 15% up to over 39%, almost triple the tax on dividends in this country which have already been taxed at the corporate, business level. you're talking about almost tripling the tax rate that americans are going to have to pay on investment income in this country. then you look at the obamacare thabgss that would kick -- obamacare taxes that would kick in, you start getting to a marginal income tax rate in this country that is up to the 43%, 44% range, it is very hard to argue that that can be anything but awful when it doms jobs in

this country. the entire budget from the failure to address spending and debt, the failure to take on saving social security and medicare by reforming our entitlement programs and -- it seems like constant reliance upon taxes as their answer to everything, this could not be a worse budget for the american people. it couldn't be a worse budget for the economy. it couldn't be a worse budget for jobs. and it certainly couldn't be a worse budget for seniors in this country as we continue to watch medicare and social security cascade further and further toward bankruptcy. it's a bust as far as i'm concerned. i think that's why people on both sides and people in the media and the american people get it. it's time for this administration to get serious, because these are serious times. and when you're going to do big things, you need presidential leadership. there are 100 senators, 435 members of congress, 535 of us in all. there's only one president, one

person who can sign a bill into law, one person who can engage the american public and the congress in a way that will help us solve these big problems and tackle the challenges that we face as a nation right now. this budget does none of that. mr. sessions: i thank senator thune for your comments and your leadership on all these matters. fundamentally job creation and economic growth, tax increases do not facilitate economic growth. and when you surge debt, it increases more and more pressure to raise taxes. a lot of people in my state say, jeff, i tell you, this -- running up this debt so you'll have to raise taxes. that's what they planned all along. whether it is or not, we're funding it sofplt we need to take steps today to put this country on a sound financial course. just to demonstrate how impactful the debt is, this year the interest on the debt that we will pay, the entire 3.7 billion

that we spend, $225 billion will be spent on paying the interest on the money we borrow. a lot of people don't understand when we borrow money, we pay interest on it. and the interest rates at this point in history are some of the lowest in history for a developed economy. but the president's own budget, the tables he has in his own budget, the assumptions that he has about the expenses we'll have to pay assumes that ten years from today we won't be paying $230 billion, but $850 billion. $850 billion. that's more than social security. that's more than medicare. that's more than the defense department. that's ten times what he -- what we spend on food stamps. it's multiple times what we spend on education and highways. maybe 20 times what we spend on

highways. we're talking about a highway bill today and trying to find the money to keep it on a basic level of funding, to find the money for that. and this interest is going to be hammering us every year because we are running extraordinary deficits every year. and the american people are not happy with us, because they know there can be no excuse for spending $3,700,000,000,000 and borrowing 40 cents of every dollar, having to have interest being the fastest growing time on the entire budget of america, and soon to dwarf the defense department. even social security and medicare and medicaid. this is not right. this is bad policy. there can be no excuses. and the president, the man who's

captain of the ship, is having lunch somewhere while his ship is heading to the shore not provide us any leadership to get us off this path. in fact, worse i would say, the president attacks people who propose serious solutions. paul ryan in the house, they worked hard on a budget. they laid out some good proposals that would have changed the debt course of america. it was an historic budget. don't you think, senator thune? we can disagree about parts of it. and he was attacked by the president who himself proposes nothing. and the leadership in this body won't even bring up a budget. he said twab foolish. why -- he said it was foolish. why is it foolish? because if we have a budget debate on the floor of the senate, people get to offer amendments and they get to debate the honest depth of danger this country faces.

honestly, openly. and you have to vote on it. and the majority leader doesn't want to have to have his members vote on it, because he wants to avoid responsibility for facing the greatest crisis this nation is facing: admiral mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, appointed by president obama, said the greatest threat to our national security is the debt. that is true. it is out there. if we don't deal with it, we're going to have a crisis. so, i'm disappointed at this whole process. i was disappointed at the hearing today. i thought we got irresponsible answers. i think the budget is irresponsible. it in no way deals with the main drivers, as you said, senator thune. medicare, medicaid, social security, food stamps, entitlements. those are not even touched in any serious way.

increasing it 8%, the highest growth rate predicted by the president in their ten-year budget is 4%. so these programs are increasing twice the rate of g.d.p. that's unsustainable. it's unsustainable. and we need some leadership around here to confront it. and we don't need a president who attacks people who have the courage to actually lay out some plans to fix it. mr. thune: if the senator, finally in closing, yield on that point. i do think there will be a vote probably at some point. the house is going to pass a budget. we know that. i suspect what will happen is what happened last year. if the senate fails to produce, the democratic majority tkproepbt dues a budget here -- doesn't produce a budget, we'll end up voting on the house budget, perhaps the president's budget. the regrettable thing about that is we are not doing our job as united states senators. over 1,000 days now, this will be the fourth year in a row in which this body has not adopted a budget.

what we've gotten from the president is not a serious one. and all they want to do is get out and demagogue and attack people who are serious about solving this problem. last year was the case with the house-passed budget. when it came over here, it was routinely attacked and demagogued. but nothing ever put forward that would represent an alternative, because they don't want to deal with these issues. and it's unfortunate -- the presiding officer: the senator's time is expired. mr. thune: we yield our time. mr. sessions: i thank the chair. mr. bingaman: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. bingaman: madam president, i wanted to talk about another subject, and that is the five of the executive branch nominations pending before the senate today. just to put this in context, every day when the senate is in

session, one of the documents that is put on every desk here in the senate chamber is what's called the executive calendar. and the executive calendar is a listing of all of the nominations that have been reported by the various committees of the senate for consideration by the full senate. and these are of course nominations that the president has made and asked the senate to agree with. so there is usually a list of these executive nominations. i've become particularly concerned in recent weeks that this list has grown and grown and grown. and in fact, there are now 79 appointments that the president has made, nominations that the president has made that have been approved by the various committees of the senate but have not been brought up and voted on here in the senate

itself. and that, to me, is a unfortunate result and one that we need to concern ourselves with. i want to particularly talk about five of these nominations for important offices in the department of energy. we have the secretary of energy steven chu coming before the energy committee on thursday to talk about his, the president's proposed budget as it affects the department of energy in the upcoming year. and these are nominations for management positions in his department, which he is very much in favor of us moving ahead with. each of these offices, these five that i'm talking about here, has important responsibilities. together of five of them make up a large part of the management structure of the department of energy. a frequent observation that i hear on the senate floor about

energy policy in our country is that the united states needs to have a -- quote -- "all of the above approach to energy." i don't know how we can execute a -- quote -- "all-of-the-above strategy for energy" when we have vacancies in the key government offices that oversee. fossil energy, nuclear energy, renewable energy, energy efficiency, small and minority business access to energy programs. and we have a vacancy in the legal counsel office for the department of energy as well. the president has nominated five outstanding individuals to fill these all of the above energy posts. and our committee, the energy and natural resources committee, held hearings on each of the nominees, has examined their

qualifications. and i'm pleased to report that the committee reported all five of these nominees unanimously, recommending to the full senate that we approve them. the m -- the most senior of the five positions is in the office of the under secretary of energy. the under secretary's responsibilities include energy efficiency, renewable energy, fossil energy, nuclear energy and electricity. this position has been vacant for nearly a year and a half. the president's nominated dr. arum majumdar to this important post. he is currently the director of the advanced research projects agency located at the department of energy. the senate confirmed dr. majumdar to the position he now holds at arpa-e as the

director of arpa-e in october of 2009. he is currently serving as the under secretary on an acting basis and serving as secretary to the senior advisor. dr. majumdar is a highly distinguished scientist and engineer. before he came to washington, he was the associate laboratory director for energy and environment at lawrence berkeley national laboratory. he was a professor of mechanical engineering and material sciences and engineering at the university of california-berkeley. he holds a dozen patents. he's authored close to 200 j.f.k. jr. papers. he has served as an advisor to both the national sciences foundation and the president's council of advisors on science and technology as well as start-up companies and venture capital firms in silicon valley. he holds a doctorate from u.c.-berkeley and he is a member

of the national academy of engineering. so it's clear to anyone who looks at his qualifications that he is an i am gently qualified scientist and, frankly, we're very fortunate to have someone of his caliber willing to serve as the under secretary of energy. the second nomination i want to talk about is for the general counsel's position at the department. this is, of course, the department's top legal officer. this position has been vacant since last march, nearly a year. the president has nominated gregory woods to be the general counsel. mr. woods is currently the deputy general counsel in the department of transportation. he was previously a partner in a new york law firm. he was a trial lawyer in the department of justice before that. the third office that i want to speak about is the assistant secretary for fossil energy. this important office is responsible for research and development programs that cover

coal, oil and natural gas, and it's a position that has been vacant for over a year. the president has nominated charles mcconnell to be the next assistant secretary for fossil energy. mr. mcconnell is currently the chief operating officer of the office of fossil energy. before coming to the department of energy, he spent two years as a vice president at patell energy technology and 31 years before that at praxai relief, inc, a fortune 300 company that produces industrial gases. the fourth vacant office i want to speak briefly about is that of the assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy. this office is responsible for programs designed to increase the production and use of solar and wind and geothermal and biomass and hydrogen and ethanol

fuels. and for improving energy efficiency in the transportation and building and industrial and utility sectors and for administering programs that provide financial assistance to state energy programs and weatherization for low-income housing. for this position, the president has nominated dr. david danielson. dr. danielson is currently a program director at arpa-e. before that, he was a clean energy venture capitalist, specializing in financing of solar and wind and biofuels and carbon capture and storage and advanced lighting projects. he holds a doctorate in material science and engineering from m.i.t. the fifth and final office i want to mention is that of the director of minority economic impact, which is responsible for advising the secretary on the effects of energy policies on minority business enterprises

and educational institutions and communities and on ways to ensure that minorities are afforded an opportunity to participate fully in the department's programs. this position has been vacant for nearly two years. the president's nominated ladoris harris to head the office. miss harris is currently the president and chief executive officer of jabo industries, a minority woman-owned management consulting firm that specializes in energy and information technology and the -- in the health care industry. she has previously been an executive with the general electric company and has held executive and management positions at a.b.b. and at westinghouse before that. madam president, all five of these nominees are outstanding individuals who are especially well qualified for the positions for which they have been nominated.

these are important positions. they need to be filled. all five nominations were unanimously reported, as i indicated before, by our energy and natural resources committee this last fall. four of them have been on the calendar, the senate's calendar here since november 10. the fifth was added on december 15. i'm not aware of a single objection that has been raised -- any objection by any -- on any substantive basis for any one of these, and in my view, they all deserve to be confirmed and secretary chu deserves to have them confirmed so that he can implement the policies and the laws that we are enacting in a responsible way. madam president, i will ask now for consent to go ahead and approve these nominees and see if we can get at least this five

out of the 79 that are on the executive calendar approved, and hopefully that will allow senators to see that there is a way to get some of these other executive nominees approved as well. so i would ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations -- calendar numbers 493, 494, 495, 496 and 527. that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations, that any related statements be printed in the record and that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection to the request?

mr. paul: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: reserving the right to object, i would like to acome date the president in these nominees. i think the chairman and the distinguished senator from new mexico has made very good points about their qualifications, but i would be remiss if i did not rise in support of 1,200 jobs in paducah, kentucky, who are threatened to be lost because the department of energy is refusing to address the situation. we have a company that has 1,200 jobs in paducah, kentucky, that enriches uranium. for 50 years, uranium has been accumulating and it sits on the ground as a waste product. we could recycle this, it's a green project. it costs no taxes. in fact, it will actually bring back money to the treasury. and what i would like is help from the chairman as well as the president, as well as secretary chu on this issue. i have written to secretary chu

and we haven't heard back. this is very important to us. we are in the midst of a great recession, and 1,200 people are destined to lose their jobs. once again, this doesn't cause any spending, doesn't cost any taxes, and actually if you would allow us to re-enrich this uranium, it would bring money back to the treasury. that is my reason for holding this, and i would hope that we could find some reason and means to accommodate each other. until that time, i would continue to object to these nominations. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from new mexico. mr. bingaman: madam president, maybe if i could just be clear as to exactly what action the senator from kentucky is -- is requesting of the secretary. i know that he indicated that the secretary -- he had contacted the secretary or written to the secretary and had not heard back, but is there some specific action that the secretary is being asked to take

that we could clarify so that we would know whether this is a request that could be accommodateed? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: madam president, in response to that question, yes, the government owns the uranium. it has been sitting there for 50 years. it's my understanding that the department of energy or the president could at any time sign a statement saying that that uranium can be enriched. it is really completely under the prerogative. 1,200 jobs could be saved. these are good-paying jobs. many of these are union jobs. these are people who i would like to help in my state, and it doesn't cost the government anything, it doesn't cost the taxpayer anything. in fact, it uses a waste product that is sitting on the ground. we have an agreement, we have worked with united uranium mine workers, we have worked with senators and congressmen from different states to try to get this figured out, but all it takes is a signature from the department of energy to allow them to enrich this uranium. the defense department has written statements saying that they could use this uranium.

the g.a.o. has said that this would bring back -- and this is the best use of this waste product. but i believe the secretary of energy through a stroke of a pen could save these 1,200 jobs, and that's what i am asking for help with. mr. bingaman: madam president, let me just indicate to my colleague from kentucky that i am encouraged to hear that this is an action that could be taken without any cost to the taxpayer. that, i think, is obviously an important thing. i don't know the -- all the arguments for and against the action that the senator is advocating here or requesting, but we certainly will look into that. let me ask one additional question, if i could, madam president, and that is whether if we are able to accommodate the senator from kentucky with regard to this request he has made to the secretary of energy, is that the only objection he's aware of to the -- to the approval of these five nominees,

or are we going to have additional senators coming to the floor, raising additional objections in the future even if this action is taken? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: madam president, this is my only objection, and if the senator were to help me save these 1,200 jobs, we would eject a monument to you in kentucky. this is a big deal to us, and it doesn't cost anything, and i will do everything within my power to make sure there is no objection on our side. i think it is the president's prerogative, and i will help facilitate this process as soon as possible. this would be a huge thing for us in kentucky if we could save these jobs. mr. bingaman: well, madam president, obviously, i don't want a monument erected to me in kentucky, but i do appreciate the senator from kentucky indicating his commitment to help get these nominees approved if some accommodation could be

found for his concern. as i say, i have no knowledge of this particular issue and i don't know whether this is -- the request that the senator from kentucky is making is within the realm of possibilities or not, but we will certainly go as far as to investigate the issue and try to get a response back to the senator as to what the department of energy's view on this issue is, and that -- that much i can certainly commit to the senator from kentucky. but i appreciate his willingness to discuss the issue here on the senate floor, and i also very much, as i have said before, appreciate his commitment to help us get these nominees approved if some accommodation of his concerns can be agreed upon. madam president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum, unless one of my colleagues wishes to speak, i will withhold that request. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the

senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i rise to speak on the issue of energy security for our nation. i filed the legislation -- or legislation which would approve the keystone x.l. pipeline, i filed our bill as an amendment to the highway bill. that bill is the hoeven-lugar-vitter-mcconnell- johanns-hatch bill, but it actually includes 45 senators as sponsors of the legislation, as i said filed now as an amendment to the highway bill. the fact is that congress needs to act. the administration after more than three years has decided not to act, evidently won't act on this important issue, so we in congress need to. this highway bill provides a tremendous opportunity. the highway bill is about infrastructure, vital infrastructure for our country, and that's exactly what the keystone x.l. pipeline is.

it's vital infrastructure that's very much needed by our country. look at gas prices today. according to the lundberg survey or triple a, gas prices are now more than $3.50 a gallon, that's the highest they've been at this time of year ever. more than $3.50 a gallon. since president obama took office, gas prices are up 88%. they're up 88%. now, that's even though demand is down. we're using less. demand in the united states for gasoline is down by 5%. yet we're seeing record high gas prices. triple a is now projecting that gasoline will go to $4 a gallon by memorial day. $4 a gallon by memorial day, and some analysts are saying we could see $5 gasoline this year. $5 a gallon. why is that? why is that?

all you have to do is look to the middle east to understand what's going on. with the turmoil in the middle east, iran is threatening to blockade the strait of hormuz. something like between 1/5 and 1/6 of all the sea borne oil in the world goes through the strait of hormuz. you can imagine what would happen if iran blockaded that strait. so why are we continuing to get oil from the middle east and places like venezuela? nearly 30% of the crude that we use comes from places like the middle east and venezuela. why is that? why are we doing that when we don't have to? we don't have to. why not produce that oil here in this country, why not get it from our closest friend, our strongest trading partner, canada? the reality is, we can have

north america energy independence. we absolutely can do it. and i believe we can do it within the next five years. in my home state of north dakota we now produce 535,000 barrels a day of light sweet bakken crude oil. 535,000 barrels a day but the problem is we can't get it to mark. in the last five years, we've increased production from about 100,000 barrels a day to more than 500,000 barrels a day and it's continuing to grow. but we need pipelines to get that product to refineries in the united states. that's what the keystone would do, more than 100,000 barrels a day of our oil would go into the keystone pipeline so we could get it to refineries. in canada, 700,000 barrels a day from canada would go into the keystone pipeline as well. we're talking about

80,000 barrels -- 830,000 barrels a day that would flow through the keystone x.l. pipeline that we don't need to get from the middle east. the united states and mexico with some help from mexico building infrastructure, we can produce more than 75% of the crude oil that we need in our country. and that's growing. so when i talk about north american oil independence or north america energy independence, this is very attainable. this is something that we absolutely can do but we need the infrastructure to do it. today in north dakota light sweet bakken crude is suffering a discount, a discount of $27 a barrel. so our oil is suffering a discount of $27 a barrel. because we're constrained by pipeline capacity. in canada, crude coming down from canada is suffering a discount of $21 a barrel because of that pipeline capacity.

even in cushing, oklahoma, a hub for oil in this country, oil there is discounted because it can't move to the refineries because we lack the pipeline capacity. but even with these bottlenecks that i point out, and these discounts, at the pump, at the pump, consumers and businesses are paying more than $3.50 a gallon. the bottlenecks create those constraints. think of the impact on our economy, think of the impact to our consumers. and there are other impacts as well. there's other impacts as well. for example, in north dakota we have more truck traffic on our western highways than ever before. that means more fatalities, more traffic accidents. it also means a lot more wear and tear on our infrastructure. so we're lee are talking about a highway bill to maintain and improve our highway infrastructure throughout the country and in my home state our roads are getting worn out by all that truck traffic.

keystone x.l. pipeline alone would reduce the truck traffic on our highways in just north dakota by 17 million truck miles a year. 17 million truck miles a year. and all of that without one penny of government spending. not one penny, not one penny of federal government spending. so a $7.000000000 -- $7 billion private investment in enhancing our infrastructure that won't cost a penny but will return hundreds of millions to local, state, and federal government. a probably that will provide infrastructure, tens of thousands of jobs, more energy security for our nation, millions in tax revenues with no government spending. and, in fact, the u.s. secretary of energy has said the keystone x.l. pipeline will lower gas prices. not may, will lower gas prices. for the east coast, for the

gulf coast, and for the midwest. but the obama administration says no. so the canadian prime minister, stephen harper, he goes to china last week. while he's there in china he met with the president of china about selling oil, about selling canadian oil to china. prime minister harper said -- and i quote -- "we are -- talking about canada -- we are an emerging energy superpower. we have abundant supplies of virtually every form of energy. and, you know, we want to sell our energy to people who want to buy our energy. it's that simple." he also spoke of a new era in strategic canada,-canada --

china-, champion energy prostate cancership. and he said if you don't want canadian sand crude, china is awaiting. if you don't want our oil, china is a waiting customer. he returned are with a memorandum of understanding to develop energy sales from canada to china. so for those who don't think that the canadian oil sands are going to be produced, that's wrong. they're going to be produced. this oil will be produced. the issue is whether it's going to go to china or come to the united states. and the reality is if it goes to china it will be worse environmental stewardship. if it comes to the united states, there will be better environmental stewardship. let's talk about that for a minute. first off, if it comes to the united states in a pipeline instead of going to china, you don't have to haul it across the ocean in tankers. those tankers produce greenhouse gas. so the oil going to china

creates more greenhouse gas because you have to haul all of it to china. second, if we're not getting it in a pipeline from canada, we're going to have to continue to have tanker loads come in from the middle east and from vens venezuela, again producing more greenhouse gas. third, we have the best refineries in the world. we have the highest standards. we have the lowest emissions in our refineries. so instead this oil goes to refineries in china where you have higher emissions, more greenhouse gas. so the reality you create worse environmental stewardship by sending it to china, not better. another important point: 80% of the new production in the canadian oil sands is in situ. 80% of the new production in the canadian oil sands is in situ. that means drilling, putting steam down like you do with conventional oil. not excavating like they've done

historically but drilling that has the same emissions -- in situ that has the same drilling, the aim greenhouse people missions as con generational drilling. so 80% of the new development is in situ with the same impact as conventional drilling. that's the real solution. the real solution is using technology to not only produce more energy but with better environmental stewardship. that's the real solution. and it means jobs and energy independence for north america. and finally on this issue of reexporting oil, the issue has been brought up that okay, if we bring the oil in from canada, the oil is just going to get exported to some other country, not -- not utilized here in the united states. 99% of the crude in the united states is refined in the united states. 99%. 97% of the gasoline refined in

the united states is used in the united states. 90% of all the transportation fuel -- of all the transportation fuel refined in the united states is used in the united states. with we need this oil. we need the refined products. and the reality is for the small amount exported, think about that. for that, we get jobs, and we get dollars for our economy. think about it like manufacturing. for just a minute. refining is a process. you take crude oil, you refine it, you have a finished product. refined product. lass like manufacturing. you sake your inputs, you manufacture, you have a finished good. would anyone for a minute argue we don't want to manufacture things in -- in the united states and send them overseas? of course we do. because we get jobs and wealth from that, don't we? in other words, we want to manufacture and we want to process goods in the united

states and when we export them we get value, we get jobs here and we get a growing economy. so what's going on with this argument? if you think about this argument in the simplest form, for hose who say jeez, we don't want to build the product here because some product might get exported, let's stop and think for a minute. if you don't build the pipeline, all of the oil goes to china. none of it comes here. none of it. so we're worried that some might get exported? makes no sense, none. i'll wrap up. the reality is this: whether you measure it by jobs, whether you measure it by energy security for this nation, really national security with what's going on in the middle east, whether you measure it from an

environmental stewardship standpoint, it absolutely makes sense to develop this infrastructure. this is an important step in the right direction towards north american energy security. there's a lot more we need to do, but the reality is we can get there with this kind of private investment by creating the right environment for that private investment. the infrastructure, the steps we need to take, we can get to north american energy security. and it's time for congress to act. it is time for congress to step forward. this is vitally important infrastructure for our country, and this is a vitally important step in terms of national security for the american people. thank you, mr. president. madam president. and i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. a senator: madam president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. kyl: i ask unanimous consent further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: thank you, madam president. on behalf of senator mccain and myself, i am pleased today to introduce the navajo hopi little colorado river water rights settlement act of 2012. this is senate bill 2109. it is propitious as the state of arizona today celebrates its centennial, its 100th birthday, that we also have the opportunity to resolve significant water rights issues where the navajo nation, the

hopi tribe and water users throughout the southwest. the legal arguments for the claims being settled predate arizona's induction into the union. it's also worth noting that for more than two decades more than 20% of arizona's statehood time, hundreds of individuals in arizona and here in washington have worked hard to settle all of these claims. the protracted and at times contentious negotiations are a reflection of water's fundamental importance as well as the care and attention communities in the southwest have given to managing this very limited resource. for many on the navajo and hopi reservations, however, management of the resource is nothing more than a mirage. it shocks the conscience that in this day and age many on the navajo and hopi reservations only have access to the am of water they can haul. in some instances literally by horse and wagon to the remote

reaches of the reservations. while this picture of conditions near dilkon on the navajo reservation could be confused at depictions at the time arizona became a state in 1912, madam president, this photograph was taken in august of last year. you can see that it depicts as in many other areas of the reservation between a third and a half of the households lacking complete plumbing facilities and many families being forced to haul water significant distances. that's what you see depicted on this photograph, and it's become a way of life on the reservation. a full-time job that limits economic opportunities and perpetuates a cycle of poverty. what's more, this lack of clean readily available drinking water significantly impacts the health and safety of navajo and hopi people. there are higher rates of disease and infant mortality and