mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: mr. president, today we are debating the proposal of the senate democratic leadership to raise taxes on the american people. pursuit of this tax hike strategy is clearly being instigated by the president's reelection efforts. i suspect that many of my friends on the other side of the aisle are very uncomfortable with this strategy. i can think of a number of senate democrats whose constituents would be surprised to learn their senator supports tax increases on small businesses, an increase in the a.m.t., the alternative minimum tax, and hikes in the death tax. with the economy still on the ropes, i think they would be surprised to learn their senator supported a tax hike strategy that might win some votes but at

the risk of sparking a recession. that is what the president wants. we will see if that is what he gets. he has pitched his tax hike plan as a way to be fiscally responsible. that could not be further from the truth. one need only look at my friends on the other side's treatment of the house budget. that budget received more votes than any other budget considered by the senate, including the phantom budget advanced by the senate democratic caucus. the house budget provided $180 billion more in deficit reduction than the president's budget for 2013. the house's budget -- the house budget's extra deficit reduction of $180 billion exceeds the differences in deficit impact between the proposal i introduced with my friend and colleague, the republican leader, and the proposal advanced by my democratic friends. and that's true even if you

apply the other side' side's dit accounting of the differences between the two proposals. more on that in aempt mo. -- more on that in a moment. so when we hear our friends say that they must risk going off the fiscal cliff for deficit reduction, consider this: they rejected out of hand spending restraints that provided more deficit reduction than is at stake here today. not only are the deficit-reduction numbers phony, but the president and his democratic allies in the senate have repeatedly suggested that they are willing to intentiona intentionally drive our economy off what federal -- the fed chairman, ben bernanke, has called the fiscal cliff in order to make a political argument about the top marginal tax rates. the president thinks he has struck political gold with this

argument. he will be rabel to run for re-- he will be able to run for reelection with a platform under the mantle of deficit reduction. this may be politically advantage you but i doubt it. but i do know that from a fiscal and economic perspective, the president's signature proposal threatens serious damage to our already fragile economy. the president's tax increases on those he deems the rich in fact represent a massive tax hike on the small businesses that are necessary for economic and job growth. moreover, until he gets his way on raising taxes on these small businesses, he is threatening every single american taxpayer with a tax hike. like a petulant child, he is insisting that it is his way or the highway. we've had far too much of that. he'll get his way on raising taxes on the small business mend and entrepreneurs who find no shelter in today's democratic coalition of unions, lawyers,

and government employees, or he will let the current tax relief expire, raising taxes on all americans. now, this is the antithesis of statesmanship at a time when our economy requires serious deficit reduction. it is the political equivalents of a temper tantrum. i expect that american voters have about as much patient for this as they would a similar fit from their children. the american people want a grown-up in the white house but on tax policy we appear to be dealing with adolescents. i've said before that the president's proposal is the policy equivalent of thelma and louise intentionally driving their car off the cliff. there is at least some ambiguity about the fate of thelma and lee wees. if the president gets his way and either raise taxes on small businesses or denies relief to

all american taxpayers, there will be no ambiguity about who to hold responsible when our economy crashes. when a liberal democratic president has lost "the new york times," he has lost america. and even the "times" understands what is coming if the president continues to put the pedal to the floor and drive us over the fiscal cliff. the "times" rote that with the economy having slowed in recent weeks, business leaders and policy-makers are growing concerned that the tax increases and government spending cuts set to take effect at year's end have already begun to cause companies to hold back on hiring and investments. that is 100% right. the election is not for another three months. and already the president's lack of direction and the threats emanating from democratic leadership is about letting the tax relief expire are leading businesses to slow down. how can businesses plan for next

year? how can they make hiring or investment decisions? when they have no idea what their tax rates are going to be. they simply can't. and the president and senate democratic leadership with their delay and confusion about how to extend this tax relief are doing absolutely nothing to inspire confidence in these job creators. rather than address the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 bipartisan tax relief, we have been debating campaign commercials masquerading as serious legislation. last week the senate wasted its time on yet another piece of legislation that had absolutely no chance of becoming law and zero prospects for creating jobs. it is worth comparing the puny impact of the bill considered last week to the size of the coming tax hikes, tax hikes so

large that the "washington post" has referred to their impending arrival as "tax-mageddon." take a look at this impact of 20% tax credit versus tax-mageddon over the next ten years. if we bring jobs -- the bring jobs home act that only cost about $87 billion. tax-mageddon is going to cost us $4.538 trillion. make no mistake, our small businesses and our economy face an existential threat at the end of 2012. yet the majority leader schedules votes that generate campaign fodder rather than jobs or lasting economic growth. facing a fragile economy and a weak jobs market, president obama seems content to sit idly by and allow the scheduled $4.5 trillion tax hike to occur just

to make a populous political argument about the need for the so-called rich to pay what he thinks is their fair share. mr. president, congress needs to act now in order to prevent this tax hike on america's families, individuals, and job creators. just look at this chart. look at the difference between "bringing the jobs home act" and "tax-mageddon." it is pretty clear they're just driving us off the cliff. and they're willing to do it for political reasons. it's critically important for our economy and the american people that we act now to extend the bipartisan tax relief originally signed into law by president bush and extended by president obama. back in 2010. as you can see, the tax legislation "to do" list -- nothing done on tax extenders, although we're willing to work

on that with our committee chairman in the finance committee. nothing done on the a.m.t. patch. we're willing to worth that in the overall -- we're willing to work on that in the overall scope of things. nothing done on death tax refo reform. the suggestion by democrats is to increase it so that all the small farms in this country -- or many of them are going to get hammered by taxes. nothing done to prevent the it 2013 tax hikes. no, no, no, no on everything. this is the most crucial piece of legislation congress can address this year. if we allow this tax relief to expire as scheduled, almost every federal income taxpayer in america will see an increase in their rates. -- an increase in their rates. that's what our friends on the other side said they'll do if they don't get their way. some will see a rate increase of 9%. others will see a rate increase of as much as 87% because the

vast majority of small businesses are flow-thru entities. these small businesses will get hit with a tax increase. this tax increase lands on the small business owners even if they do not take one penny out of their business. that's what the democrats are going to do to them. they're willing to go over the cliff and do this? our economy simply cannot afford to tak take on such a fiscal sh. in 2010, the president said the economy is so fragile, we needed to carry over the 2001, 2003 tax cuts. we're in worst shape today than in 20 10, but unfortunately -- fortunately or unfortunately -- we're in an election year, but unfortunately the president is playing games with these very serious matters. no our economy simply cannot

afford to take on such a fiscal shock. economists estimate that if these current tax rates are allowed to expire, the economy could -- could contract by approximately three percentage points. now, considering that the first quarter g.d.p. growth was 1.% and that expectations are even lower for the second quarter growth that will be reported this friday, going over the fiscal cliff would almost certainly throw us into a recession. and i don't know many economists who would disagree with that. certainly the fed doesn't disagree. we're going to go into a recession if the democrats get their way. we could even slip into recession in the second half of this year, given businesses' reluctance to hire and invest due to fiscal uncertainty. for the president and others who

argue that we should raise the top two tax rates in the name of fiscal responsibility, i would just like to point out a few things. the senate majority leader introduced his tax bill, one that largely mirrors the president's proposal, under the auspices of deficit reduction. it closing adheres to the democratic talking point that the only thing standing between our deficits and fiscal stability is the current top marginal tax rates. we have heard this argument for a year and a half with the president and his democratic allies insisting that it is not their out-of-control spending that got us into this mess but the republicans' refusal to allow for tax hikes on the so-called rich. that's laughable. this argument sounds nice but it's belied by the actual facts. according to the joint committee on taxation, an apples-to-apples

comparison of the democrats' tax proposal and the proposal i introduce with my friend, the republican leader, shows a difference $54.5 billion. the democrats' bill, which raises the top rates and expands the death tax while patching the a.m.t. for one year is scored at $249.7 billion. and the score of my bill without the 2013 a.m.t. patch, is $304.2 billion. so we have a debt that is fast approaching $16 trillion. taxes are set to go up by $4. $4.5 trillion. and senate democrats are crowing about their fiscal responsibility, throughening to drive the -- threatening to drive the economy off the cliff over $54.5 billion of tax relief? i believe this is called missing the forest for the trees. in order to satisfy their urge

to redistribute $54 billion of tax -- of taxpayer dollars, they are willing to risk a recession and see taxes go up by $4.5 trillion? the president recently claimed that we need to raise the top two tax rates because -- quote -- "it's a major driver of our deficits." the numbers show that this is a -- this is plain and simple nonsense. the real difference between the democratic a republican plans is only $54.5 billion, or about 5% of the deficit. that represents 34% of our national debt. to put it another way, the democrats' tax hike proposal would only provide enough additional revenue to pay for five days of federal government spending. five days of federal government

spending. it is also worth noting that exactly -- what exactly the democrats' refusal to provide two years of a.m.t. relief means for their constituents. if senate democrats do not patch the a.m.t. in 2013, their a.m.t. will take away over 40% of the tax relief they claim to be providing with their bill. now, this is their prerogative but i hope that the hometown papers, the northern virginia, new jersey, new york, florida and colorado are paying attention. i hope they're paying close attention to what a lack of a.m.t. relief will mean for middle-income families in those states. now, these tax proposals in the end have nothing to do with sound tax policy that maximizes economic growth, and they have nothing to do with deficit reduction. they have everything to do with pursuing an a.m.t. economic

philosophy that is principally concerned with running down the economy's job creators and entrepreneurs. and the explicit tax policy is only the half of it. we learned yesterday from the congressional budget office that the true tax bill for obama-care is over $1 trillion. we were promised there wouldn't be any tax increases. it is the biggest fiasco that i've seen around here almost in the whole time i've been here. i can't think of anything bigger. all of the new obama-care regulations will cost mcdonald's franchises alone more than $400 million in health care costs. the president might think that ray crock did not build mcdonald's but this is delusional. he might view the small businessman who took a chance and opened those franchises as

not especially smart, not responsible for their own success. but this is a view that could only be embraced by an academic and activist who has no experience in the private sect sector. the joint committee on taxation tells us that 53% of all flow-through business income in the united states would be subject to the president's proposed tax hikes. take that, small business, the president's saying. we don't really care about you, i guess. well, i do. and republicans certainly do. the president's proposal would take the marginal tax rate on small businesses from 33% and 35% to 39.6% and 41% respectively. look at this. this is the increase of small

business, the top marginal rate. as you can see, it goes up from 33% and 35% to 40% and 41%. how could that not help but ruin our economy? this is the kind of economic thinking that we're putting up with around here. and it's all coming from the white house and our friends on the other side apparently don't want to take the white house on. it's an increase of 17% to 24% on the marginal tax rates for small businesses. ernst & young recently released a study showing that these proposed tax hikes on top of obama-care's 16.8% increase on dividends, interest and capital gains, would reduce our economic output by 1.3%. the ernst & young study also found that real after-tax wages would fall by 1.8% as a result of president obama's policies. not surprisingly, the study

noted that 54% of the entire private-sector work force is employed by flow-through businesses, such as s corporations and partnerships, the majority of which would see their taxes go up under the president's plan. that's where the jobs are. what kind of thinking is -- are they willing to accept on the other side of the aisle? it's hard for me to believe. there's isn't -- there isn't a person over there i don't care for. it's hard for me to believe that they aren't willing to stand up to this president and say, hey, the game's over. the truth is, many of the people targeted by democrats as wealthy are, in fact, middle-income small business owners who spend their whole lives building a business and then sell it, getting thrown into a top bracket just for the year of sale. consider a real-life example provided by the associated builders and contractors.

a husband and a wife from pennsylvania who retired to florida owned an s corporation. in 2009, the couple paid no federal income tax because they did not have enough taxable income to owe any tax. in 2010, when they sold the business, their adjusted gross income was about $780,000 and they paid $170,000 in taxes. if they had not sold their business in 2010, they would have paid no taxes. so the one-time sale of a business built up over many years caused these small business owners to be in one of the two top brackets for just one year after years of building their business. and then having to sell it, have this catastrophe follow them. yet the president would have the american people believe that this couple was part of some ritchie sleet is refusing to pay its first share. and that's not all.

or as ron popeale would say, "but wait, there's more." last week before the i think was even dry on the democratic leader's small business tax hike legislation, the bill was changed to substantially increase -- get this -- substantially increase the death tax. now, why was that? because we found there's only $28 billion difference between the democrat bill and our bill. and they wanted to find a way of getting it up to $50 billion, which is, like you say, five days of spending around here. now, it might be hard to belie believe, but this proposal is even worse than president obama's. the proposal by the democratic leader would impose the death tax on 15 times the number of estates than under current tax policy, according to the jointed committee on taxation, the nonpartisan joint committee on taxation. it would increase the number of estates hit by the death fraction 3600 estates to 55,200.

according to the joint committee on taxation, 24 times more farming estates would be hit by the democrats' death tax proposal. what's going on over there? these are intelligent people, our friends on the other side. how can they possibly live with this? according to the joint committee on taxation, 24 times more farming estates would be hit by the democrats' death tax proposal that they wrote in here. now, i believe to believe they just did it so they could raise the difference between the -- the difference between $28 billion -- three days spending by the federal government -- to $50 -- a little over $50 billion, five days' spending. let's call it eight days' spending. according to -- the number of small businesses hit by this death tax spike

would grow by 13 times. what would that do to the incentives for people to build small businesses? small businesses that could become big businesses and employ thousands of people? now, this proposal would subject subject 2,400% more farms and 1,300% more businesses to the death tax. working their whole lives hoping to sell the farm to the children. they'll have to sell the farm to be able to pay the death taxes that our friends on the other side have written into this bill. they can't be serious. but they are. i would like to be a fly on the wall when some members of this body go home and attempt to defend their support for a proposal effectively designed to hobble small businesses and family farms. the president might think it is

no big deal. i'm not sure he's ever been on a farm other than since he's been president. and i'm not sure he's ever worked with a small business. he's been a community organizer. that's important. that doesn't necessarily qualify you for president. after all, according to the president, those farmers and businessmen really were not responsible for their success anyway. now, i'm going to give the president the benefit of the doubt on that one. i think he maybe misspoke. but i sometimes think that he thinks these folks around very smart, at least in the president's view. they really owe it all to the bureaucrats stationed at the departments of ago kilt and -- agriculture and labor and their helpful, investment creating regulations. we all know about those, don't we? the sweat and tears and sacrifice of the families and individuals who created -- who

create and run small businesses have nothing on the hard work and commitment of the mid-level bureaucrats who make their success possible. my guess is that some members of this body i have a slightly more nuanced understanding of the importance of thee farms ask businesses to their communities -- these farms and businesses to their communities on both sides of the aisle. they have to. there's a limit to what this president should ask of my democrat friends and he's asking way too much and they should stand up and say, "we've had it. we're not going to do this." madam president, it seems clear what the agenda of the senate should be. we should be focused like hawks on preventing tax-mageddon. we should be focused on job creation. yet instead of addressing these important matters, president obama and his democrat allies are spinning their wheels trying to raise taxes on politically

unpopular groups. even the democrats' treasured keynesian economics says that you do not raise taxes in a weak economy if you want to create more jobs. the president is devoting his entire re-election campaign toward tax hiking in the name of fishes. we have voted twice on proposals to raise taxes on oil and gas companies for no other reason than that democrat pollsters, democratic pollsters found that the president's base does not like oil and gas companies. then a few months ago, we voted on the silly buffett rule. this was not serious tax policy. it was a statutory talking point and not a very good one at that. then there was last week's bill on overseas investment that was a little more than a campaign advertisement with cosponsors.

the american people are tired of these political stunts. they're tired of the senate doing nothing. they're tired of the senate bringing up bills that aren't going to go anywhere. every minute democrats spend playing politics is a minute that we fail to prevent the largest tax increase in american history, but instead of working to be prevent this massive tax hike on small businesses, the president and the congressional democratic leadership have doubled down on their tax hike strategy. believe it or not, while doubling down on their tax hike strategy, our friends on the other side are pushing the canard that the hatch-mcconnell proposal is a tax hike. yesterday one of our colleagues highway won't name, although he named me, said the following, and i quote -- "republicans claim not to want to raise taxes, but the republican tax bill would let very popular lower and middle-class

provisions expire that would cost 25 million americans an average of $1,000 each. under the republican bill, 12 million families would see an end to the smaller child tax credit. six million fans would lose their earned income tax credit. 11 million americans would lose their american opportunity tax credit, unquote. a little over 11 years ago, 1/4 of the democratic caucus supported the bipartisan 2001 relief plan, which is the foundation of the policy underlying the hatch-mcconnell bill. at that time, the joint committee on taxation showed that the bill distributed as an across-the-board tax cut, which made the tax code more progressive, the 2003 bill was passed on a narrower bipartisan basis and extended on a broader bipartisan basis in 2004 and 2006, bipartisan.

joint committee on taxation data showed that against current law, the fiscal cliff my friends are threatening is not surprisingly basically the same as it was in 2001-2003 -- 2001, 2003 and 2006. in other words, the hatch-mcconnell proposal provides across-the-board tax relief benefiting virtually every income taxpayer, yielding a tax system that is more progressive than what we would face if we went over the fiscal cliff. let me just repeat that again. the hatch-mcconnell proposal provides across-the-board tax relief benefiting virtually every income taxpayer, yielding a tax system that is more progressive than what we would face if we went over the fiscal cliff. the joint committee on taxation analysis includes -- or indicates a similar result today. to be sure, if you count

continuous stimulus checks issued by the government to folks that do not pay income tax as tax cuts, the democrats' proposal does more of that than the hatch-mcconnell proposal. no question about that. but when is it going to end? when is the upper 49% all going to have to continue to just carry everything in this country? under federal budget law, those continuous stimulus checks are counted in the main as spending. i would say to the colleague i referred to a moment ago that if the democrats want to use that talking point, one at odds with conventional budget accounting, it's a free country, but if democrats are going to make that strained and tortured charge, then they should also answer for the failure of their bill to patch the a.m.t. for the year

that they claim to be delivering middle-class tax relief. their plan exposes 28 million middle-class families to a tax stealth tax increase of over $3,500 per family. so while they claim that our bill raises taxes by cutting stimulus spending, they are mum on the massive tax increase on 28 million american families implicated in their own bill. i think we might have a case here of folks in class houses throwing stones. make no mistake, madam president, tax-mageddon is coming. the only good news is that congress can prevent this historic tax increase from happening. as i mentioned, i have a bill that i have introduced with senator mcconnell, s. 3413, the tax hike prevention act of 2012, that will prevent this historic tax increase and will pave the way for tax reform in

2013. that is where my focus will be until tax-mageddon is averted, and i hope that my colleagues will join me in preventing this looming tax increase from being imposed on the american people. 40 of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted to temporarily extend this tax relief in 2010, recognizing that we were in financial difficulty. we're in worse difficulty today, and they should do so again. at that time, president obama said that it would be foolish to raisees economic downturn, and he acted accordingly. and i respect him for that. but he's not acting that way now. this is an election year. our economy remains weak today. in fact, it's weaker in terms of growth in g.d.p. than it was at

the end of 2010. and incoming data clearly point to even more slowing in the economy as uncertainty from the fiscal cliff has begun to strangle hiring and investment. my friends on the other side have got to wake up to these facts. the only thing that appears to have changed is that president obama has apparently chosen the path of class warfare and is pursuing a politics-driven tax agenda. i remember days in the past when my friends on the other side would rise up against even their own president when it comes to good economics, but -- and i hope they will again. it appears like it's not so today. my hope is that my colleagues who have supported this tax relief in the past will put the president's shortsighted and self-interested partisanship aside and vote on behalf of their constituents in favor of

s. 3413 to extend this tax relief to america's families and small businesses. for the sake of the more than 12.7 unemployed -- 12.7 million unemployed americans, my hope is that we act to prevent the president's campaign drive to malign small businesses and raise their taxes, that it does not get in the way of sound tax policy and job creation. to put us through this for a difference of a little more than $50 billion between the two bills is amazing to me. that amounts to, like i say, about five days of federal spending. did you just do this because the president wants it done? sometimes it's really good for this body to stand up and say mr. president, you're going too far. now, what have i proposed?

i have proposed that we -- since it's even worse than 2010 when the president thought it was the wise thing to do in a fragile economy, that we put over 2001, 2003 tax cuts for one year, one year, and that we strike out a new force in this senate and in the house to do tax reform in that year on a bipartisan basis. i don't think that's an unreasonable request, especially under the circumstances that we've seen with the potential of tax-mageddon. i actually believe that -- that it would be very, very wise on the part of all senators in the senate to do exactly that. and wouldn't it be wonderful if

we could work together for a change over the next year, knowing that -- that that year is devoted to tax -- taxes and to tax reform? let me just read a letter from the associated builders and contractors, which i won't read it because i have it -- i have been referring to it in my remarks today. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that a letter from the associated builders and contractors, dated july 25, 2012, be placed in the record at this point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: i thank you, madam president. look, i yearn for the day when we can see both sides come together and work together and work together in the best interests of the country. we know that this presidential election is close.

we know that they are virtually in a tie right now. let that play itself out, but let's do what is right here. let's not hammer small business. let's not have the biggest tax increase in history. let's not put this country into -- into a recession and maybe even a depression. it was irresponsible in my eyes for any democrat or any republican to say that if you don't give us what we want, we're going to just go into -- we're going to allow thelma and louise to go off the cliff. and we're thelma and louise in this situation. we can stop that, prevent that, work together and hopefully come up with an economic program that everybody in this body can support or at least a vast majority can support in a bipartisan way. i hope we can get through this.

i'm very, very concerned about our country. i'm very, very concerned about this election year, the way these type of things are being brought up. and let me just make one last comment. the senate is not being run like a senate. they're not voting according to the regular order. we're not going through the committees. it's pure politics. i expect a little bit of that, but i don't expect everything to be pure politics. our side isn't even given a chance under many circumstances to even bring up amendments in the greatest deliberative body in the world. you can see why there are some bad feelings around here. it's all being done just to protect -- protect some members here rather than doing what's right for the economy and for our country. i think we have got to wake up and start doing things in a little better fashion around

here, and i hope we can. i hope that my colleagues on the other side will accept my suggestion here. it's done in good faith. i believe we can dedicate next year to tax reform, and i believe we can get it done if we work together. i believe we can bring this country out of the morass that it's in. i suspect that if my colleagues on the other side will support what i have suggested here today , the economy will start to turn around almost immediately. and it would be for their benefit, it seems to me, in this presidential election year. even though i don't trust what some have done in the past. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum -- or i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. begich: madam president, i have 10 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during 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. mr. begich: i have prepared comments, i'm going to deviate, listening to my good friend and colleague senator hatch from utah. i respect him greatly but i want to take note to his comments and clarify a few things and also comment on this important piece of legislation that we have in front of us as one of if not only small business person in the body and chamber, actually runs a small business, small business defined not by the s.b.a. which is 500 and below, i don't know about you, when i

talk to small business people they wish they had 500 employees. it would be a dream. but it's not. that's not the fact. and we have to be careful with the numbers, a lot of numbers thrown around but let's be clear. it was the story about tax reform florida -- the gentleman from florida who sold his business and paid more taxes. my guess is, i'll be corrected on the record if necessary, but when you sell your small business you pay actually capital gains tax which is about 15%. so when you made more money when you sold your business, i've sold several small businesses over the years and if you don't reinvest you pay a rate and when you reinvest you can bypass it through an exchange that our afforded buy the tax code. i know my friend from utah knows that because he sits on the finance committee. but i'm guessing that small business person actually had a pretty good rate, 15 points which isn't bad. let me also make sure it's very

clear, again, there's a loft numbers thrown around, the bills are very simple. they both cost money. one costs $930 billion over the next ten years, one costs $250 billion. the proposal that my friend from utah suggested costs $930 billion over ten years. that's how the congressional budget office scores these things. you can argue if you agree or disagree, it's amazing on days people like the numbers they agree, on days they don't like the numbers, they disagree but the c.b.o. is the-. i don't like the group in the sense. i like the people but i think they have some black magic box they come up with numbers but the fact is that's the numbers, that's the bipartisan organization selected by this body jointly to determine these numbers. we can argue over them after the fact. for example, when this extension that my friend talks about over there and just one more year, one more year, how many times have we heard, i've heard it twice since i've been

here. it was a ten-year deal when it was first passed. that would bring this relief and this growth in this economy beyond our belief. well, in the last three and a half years i don't know, economy crashed, it's recovering now, struggling, when i came here they said we need to stepped it just for two years, two years to help the economy. so we extended it. i voted to extend them all for two years. i'm not doing that again. we can't afford it. for two years we had this extension, supposed to boom the economy. we've had a slow-growth economy but the people building this economy are the small business people. these are people who have 25 or less employees, real small business people. as a matter of fact, this bill and i heard the number and, again, i ask people to listen to the numbers and the twisted commentary that everyone gives on both sides at times, i try to keep it simple.

in alaska we tell it like it is, the facts as we see them and we saw them a in documents and whatever presented to us. 97% of the small businesses in this country will not see a tax increase. will not see a tax increase. because they're real small business people. when we walk out of this building and we go down the street here, for lunch and we see the restauranteurs that are operating, there are not 500 employees. there are 10 or 15. or like alaska growth company, talked to today, has 15 employees. the largest s.b.a. lender in the state of alaska, bigger than wells fargo, bigger than key bank, bigger than all of them. 15 employees. that's a small business. that's the people we're talking about. so when people sit down here and proclaim -- and i again respect my friend, he's been a lawyer all his life. i'm no lawyer, no disrespect to lawyers.

i'm a small business person. that's where i made my living. that's why i made -- where i made my living, where my family makes our living. so let's make sure it is clear when we talk about, i don't remember the exact percent, 54% are pass-through dollars he talked about, yeah, because the 3% or the employers over 25 or 50 employees have huge revenue streams. but the small business people in this economy, 97% of them make less than a quarter of a million dollars net income. that's what we're talking about. you know, i think every small business would love to have net income over a quarter of a million dollars. they would -- they strive for it every day. i know i do in my small business. i hope every day that we achieve -- achieve these numbers. as the public listens carefully

to the debate and as the minority leader said earlier today, there is a difference, a clear difference. we cannot afford their bill. the taxpayers cannot afford their bill. $930 billion over the next ten years plus interest costs. they -- i've heard over and over again from the other side, 40% of what we borrow, you know, we've got to borrow it to pay our bills, 40% of everything we pay we've got to borrow. okay, where are they getting the $930 billion? where is that coming from? it costs money, costs interest, we don't have it. because the last decade and a half of people and how they operated this body, democrats, republicans, spent like there was no tomorrow. well, tomorrow is here. and we have to determine what our priorities are. my priorities, despite the fear

tactics, i support small businesses. 100%. many bills i presented and supported over the last three and a half years are about protecting and growing our small business community and defined as real small business. people who have to take their credit cards and figure out how to get capital because banks won't give them the money. because they have -- they have the dream of an opportunity that people look at them and say, well, you know, how much money you got in our bank? can you mortgage your two homes or one home or can you put everything up you you have as collateral plus maybe your first-born? i've been through this. you know, my wife started her small business with a small investment out of our retirement funds, her own funds and a small $30,000 s.b.a. loan. an s.b.a. loan and just a side note, here, madam president, i get so frustrated when i hear these ads, everyone's going to exaggerate what they hear and see, what people -- i'm sure whatever i say today two years from now they'll take a couple

words and use them against me. i expect that. they'll make it up, say whatever they want. that's what they do. what opponents do in campaigns. it's too bad we can't talk about the issues. but i'm not here to defend the president, the president gets to defend himself. that's what he does. i've disagreed with the president more than once. i've disagreed with my national party more than once. but his point was when you build a business, there's other elements that help you build it. my wife's business, s.b.a. loan. you know, my business, i had a vending business when i had those trucks on the street those roads were built by a collective group of taxpayers that helped pay for those roads. it's a combination of things. but don't get me wrong. it is the blood, sweat, and tears of small businesses that -- the people that come up with the dreams and the ideas that create these businesses. and push it forward. so i -- i sat here patiently, i listened as i was presiding, now here. the numbers are simple.

one costs more, one costs less. taxpayers can't afford it. two years ago like i said i supported the extension because i was told that we're going to invest. we're going to grow this economy significantly. well, we've grown it on the backs of small business people. that's who we've grown this economy on. that's where the fastest growing population of new employees are coming from. to my friend on the a other side, we gave that idea a shot. didn't really perform. i have to say that thelma and louise, thank god they were driving an american car because my bet is they landed safely on the other side wherever they went. but the fact is it was in this dy, i heard the same arguments on the other side, we can't help our auto industry, we can't help them out of what they're struggling with. we took a risk, calculated risk to support those businesses that

manufacture and employ people and today they are thriving because this body said we're going to take the risk. again, thelma and louise, thank you for driving an american car. madam president, this is simple. it is about making sure 98% of americans today continue to have tax relief. it's about 97% of the businesses continuing to have tax relief. small businesses. it's important that we do this not only for the economy but for these families that are struggling. 300,000 families in alaska alone will benefit from this relief. you know, there's a comment, you know, and i think senator lieberman said it earlier and i recognize his point. his point is we should real reform. i agree. that's why i've sponsored a bill with dismor wyden and senator coats on real tax reform. we're moving down that bath path

but we've got to deep keystone doing some things here, keeping the economy moving forward in the right direction. a typical family of four in alaska if not without this relief will pay another $2,200 a year in taxes. a married couple of $80,000 with one teenager at home and another in college will see their taxes go up by $2,250. i can go on and 0 with a couple earning $130,000 will see their taxes go up $4,000. i could go on and on with these examples but the point is we have some choices to make and they are not going to be fun. those days are gone. we did that the last decade and a half when we had money to spend and did all kinds of stuff different situation. and invest in 97%.

and continue to see tax relief. the 90% of america looking at the data to make ends meet, these are the folks i am focused on and i recognize my colleagues want to see massive tax reform. we haven't had it since the early 80s. i know a lot of you have been here a long time. i am all game. for amendments on the floor i am all game. we have had 80 amendments and the transportation bill. doesn't bother me a bit. let me add one point. i respect my colleagues on the other side and we have agreed many times, we disagree on this

issue. we don't have the money. we have to limit our ability where we can put our resources and target them the best way we can. as i said i've voted a couple years ago for this extension on everything and these big companies and certain things happen that show the economy grow. what did happen? small-businesses did grow. home prices for the first time in five years reported last week of. new home starts are up for the first time in many months. why are those up? because the small business community in middle america is starting to put money in those areas. and -- to have the train moving at the speed but we were moving

at before the crash, we can't do it. we can't extend these tax rates for everyone. everyone has to give a little. we ask the top 2% to give a little bit. at an end of the year against one not extend the payroll tax. people on the other end will have to give a little bit. everyone needs to give a little bit. we are going to do that. from my end i see the give-and-take that is necessary. tough decisions. that is what we got elected for. that is why we are here. to keep business as usual and say just one more year and we will do tax reform some day. the date is here. there is no tomorrow and we have to make tough calls so why not give the relief to the real 97% of small-businesses? i have to clarify. i know -- i understand this.

even if the owner didn't take a dime my lc made money. it is a combination of corporations. everyone needs to give a little to make it work and today we are asking one group to give little. making sure the bulk of our economy continues to move forward. making sure the 300,000 alaskans that i see on a regular basis still get the relief. for the small businesses they really creating businesses, creating a dream where they have to put daymac on the charge card to build their business so they can't get capital from the banks are spending time cashing out retirement because they believe this might be their opportunity. i appreciate the time. i wish we had -- we come down

and speak and leave. there's no real give and take. i wish my friend would here from utah. we could have a conversation about the data. very simple point. one cost almost $1 trillion and one cost $250 billion. we can afford the lower-cost. 97% of our small businesses. thank you. i yield the floor. >> madam president. >> senator from minnesota. >> thank you. i would like to thank the senator for his courtesy in allowing me to speak now. madame president, i rise today to urge my colleagues to support our economic recovery. endorse fiscal responsibility and bolster the middle class by voting to extend tax cuts on

income up to $250,000. minnesota is still struggling and we need to act now so people making $250,000 will keep their tax cuts. middle-class families need every bit of help they can get. at the same time we need to make sure the richest 2% of americans are paying their fair share so we can pay down the deficit. it would be irresponsible not to. thanks to the policies of the recovery act we emerge from one of the worst recessions in generations and stopped it from becoming the second great depression. that being said too many working families are still struggling to

find work, pay their rent for their mortgages, find affordable child care and send their kids to college. by extending tax cuts to these families we will be putting money in their pockets and will likely spend the money in their communities at their local small-businesses and further bolster recovery. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle look at this a bit differently. they put forward a proposal that would extend tax cuts on income over $250,000 a year as well which would cost us over $800 billion in revenue over ten years. they argue that if we let taxes go up on the richest 2% of americans we are inviting another recession, stifling growth. they can make that claim over

and over again but there's no evidence of this. it would be more helpful to examine the facts and what recent history has taught us. the first it is essential to clarify who would get a tax cut under the democratic proposal. luckily the answer is easy. essentially everyone. if we pass the bill proposed by the majority leader, everyone who currently pays income taxes will get a tax cut extension. if you make $50,000 are bill preserves your entire tax cut. if you make $100,000 this bill preserves your entire tax cut. if you make $250,000 it preserves your entire tax cuts. the tax cut you get is a lot

bigger than the guy making $50,000 or $100,000. that may not be clear from some of the rhetoric we have been hearing lately but it is true. people making $250,000 would still get a tax cut were thousands of dollars. it would be larger than anybody else's tax cut. the only portion of their taxes that would increase or stay the same as under the law which we had which is to not extend the bush tax cuts would be on any additional income above $250,000. if you make $250,000 you pay 39.6% on the extra dollar. difference of four.six cents.

a little less than a nickel. for those people under this plan, they get the benefit of thousands and thousands of dollars in tax cuts. secondly claims of not extending the extra tax rates for the richest 2% will cause harm to the economy just are not supported by history. let's take a look at president clinton. when he proposed his tax reduction plan in 1993 every republican in the house and every republican in the senate opposed it. and what was their claim? their claim, that it would hurt

business and cause a recession. every republican. what really happened in the ensuing years? not only did we have an unprecedented expansion of our economy for eight years creating more than twenty-two million new net jobs at the very tax rate we are talking about the personal people over $250,000 but at the same time we turned up the biggest deficits in history to the biggest surplus in history. president clinton handed president george w. bush a record surplus. the only time in the last 30 years in which we actually had the budget in balance was after

we raised taxes on those at the very top. the very level we are talking about now. between 1993, and 2001 this country created an unprecedented number of jobs, 22.7 million net. and did so while benefiting everyone up and down the economic ladder. not every individual but every quarter. economic growth in every quarter. we witnessed a decrease in the number of americans in poverty and we saw the creation of more millionaires and billionaires than ever before. president clinton's deficit reduction plan not only reduced

the deficit but eliminated entirely. not only did we create that prosperity but president clinton handed off a record surplus. it needs to be said and handed off a record surplus to incoming president george w. bush. in fact when president bush took office we are on track to complete a often national debt. with $5 trillion of surpluses projected in the next ten years. and the national debt last year and no debt. he cut taxes in 2001. unprecedented. in our nation's history. the decision before us today is

a fundamental one. should we extend these tax cuts on income up to $250,000 deserving tax cuts for every one. the largest tax cuts going to those with incomes of $250,000 more. the largest tax cuts. but asking the the richest 2% to pay their fair share, to pay 4.6% extra on income over $250,000 which has been shown historically to create jobs. it poses a question about choices. we can do the economically responsible thing or we can choose to provide additional tax cuts for people who least need them. when everyone pays their fair share, our nation can get back

on a path of fiscal responsibility and at the same time invest in quality education, infrastructure and r&d for high-tech industries. these things create prosperity. we can create jobs in the manufacturing sector and other emerging industries. investing in the middle class is a win for everyone. the buying power of the middle-class is what sustains our economy, make it grow. our economy doesn't grow from the top down. if our experience of the last 30 years teaches us anything it is that. it grows from the middle class out. president clinton understood that and so does president obama. i have friends who have been very successful in the business

world. i have enormous respect for them and what they have accomplished and i do for almost every american who has been successful in building their businesses. there are some people who have taken some short cuts and maybe don't deserve our approval. that is a very small fraction. we honor and celebrate people who have been successful. this is what my friends who have been successful tell me. they say when the middle class is stronger, when they have customers, when they have customers they grow their businesses and can make more money. believe me, i had friends tell

me exactly this. they would rather pay 39.6% marginal rate on $2 million of income than a 35% on $1 billion of income. that is the difference between a booming economy and a stagnant one. how many times have we heard the deficit is what is hurting the economy? we are talking a difference of $900 billion here. to get our deficit under control. all this is just common sense. it is common sense and taking a little look at history. the history of the last 30 years. policies that support and grow the middle class benefit everyone and increased

prosperity all along the economic spectrum. in the end we have a big decision to make today. do we stand up for our economic recovery and middle-class families and for addressing the budget deficit with the democratic proposal or do we continue to give extra tax breaks to the richest 2% of americans? instead of extending improvements on the child tax credit and earn income tax credit affecting thirteen million working families while adding hundreds of billions of dollars -- let's be clear here. be clear here. the republican plan would raise taxes on thirteen million

middle-class and working-class families. it is where the expanded income tax credits. people who are working so that we can pay for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. i hope we can show the american people the common-sense still prevails here by acting in unison across the aisle to do the responsible thing. i urge all of my colleagues to extend the middle-class tax cuts and to vote for the majority leader's bill. >> a tax hike on a middle-class has just been defeated. their plan would raise taxes by $1,000 for twenty-five million middle-class families. listen to this. giving millionaires and average

of $160,000 to pay benefits. tax benefits. tax break. so let's look at that. what their bill would do is raise taxes for twenty-five million middle-class families by $1,000 a year and give millionaires $160,000 tax credit. those numbers are staggering. their bill would raise taxes on parents trying to pay for college and family, especially large families with children so it is no wonder the majority of united states senator opposed that legislation. in just a short time there will be a bill that will pass to cut taxes for 90% of americans

including every middle-class taxpayer and 97% of small businesses. this plan proposed by president obama would cut taxes for 1 fourteen million american families. and raises taxes for twenty-five million middle-class families. this is the only bill that has a chance of becoming law and give the middle-class family security of avoiding their fiscal cliff. the house should take this legislation up and pass it. president obama believes in 90% of americans. democrats agree and so does the majority of americans. mr president, the majority of americans including a majority of republicans around this country believe taxes should remain low for the middle-class but the top 2% should pay their fair -- to reduce the debt. the bill the senate is about to pass respect the will of the

american people including a majority of republicans in america outside the halls of this congress. members of congress, the republicans disagree with the majority of republicans. the president said he would sign the bill immediately. now republicans are threatening to hide behind another arcane procedural maneuver to stall this legislation. they are threatening to do something and get the attention of the american people. they say oh no. they are threatening to do something because revenue-raising legislation must reach the house of representatives but my republican colleagues have short memories. senate republicans are happy to

suit their purposes. willing to go around it, and willing to sidestep it as we passed violence against women in the senate and willing to dodge it when passing the transportation bill that is so important to this country but there excuse for stalling a tax cut for 98% of the american people is an old procedural trick the american people do not understand and rightly so. republicans failed to act on this bill taxes will rise by $2,200 for a typical middle-class family of 4. that is $1,200 less to spend on gas, groceries, rand and life in general. the tax hike on ordinary families couldn't come at a worse time just as the economy is doing its utmost to get back on its feet. republicans should not force middle-class families of the fiscal cliff to protect more wasteful giveaways to

millionaires and billionaires in average of $160,000 a year her millionaire. democrats believe the country can't afford budget busting giveaways to 2% of earners. and again republicans in america agree with us. only here in the senate that republicans don't agree. that is the debate we are willing to have. house republicans need not hold the middle class hostage to have that debate. they should have the middle class tax cut immediately. once we do that we can spend the next five months debating whether wealthy families need more tax breaks. we know how the american people feel, just like we do. >> let me welcome the vice president serve so many years in the senate. it reminds me of the negotiation

he and i conducted in december of 2010. i got a call from the vice president who said the president thought we should talk over the possibility of extending the current tax rates for everyone because the economy is not doing very well and the worst thing to do is raise taxes on anyone in the middle of this economic situation. i said i think that is something we would be interested in so the vice president and i negotiated for a period of time and agreed that because the economy was not doing well in december of 2010 we should extend the tax rates for every one. i remember the signing ceremony. i was there. the majority leader was not. the speaker of the house was not. the president made a speech and signing an extension of current tax rates for everyone that i

could have made myself. 40 members of the senate on the democratic side voted for it. today, my colleagues, economy is growing slower than it was in december of 2010. so we know this is not about the economy. we know this is about the election. we all know there is an election going on. errors politics from time to time practice here in the senate. i am not offended by that. what the american people i think would like to hear from us is our response to the economic situation. this proposal guarantees taxes are going to go up on roughly a million of our most successful small businesses. over 50% of small business income, 25% of the work force will be affected by it. it guarantees taxes go up on

capital gains, on dividends, which provides the income for a huge number of our senior citizens. this is the uniquely bad idea. it may poll well. the majority leader indicated. but of course the fact that he needed to mention that illustrates the point that this is more about the e election than the economy. so i would predict probably bipartisan opposition to this proposal. i am sure a few arms have been twisted in order to get the results. the vice president is at a disadvantage and can't speak to the chair. [laughter] >> in this particular instance he is actually better not to because he would have the dilemma of trying to explain the

difference between the economic situation the country confronts today and the condition the country confronted in december of 2010 when the economy was doing better. so be grateful i say to my friend of vice president. this is a debate i don't think you would want to meet. with that my colleagues and friends i urge a no vote on this very bad idea for the u.s. economy. >> mr. president. in 2010 the country was looking at what took place the prior eight years. eight million jobs lost. what is happening in the years since 2010 that my friend republican leader talks about? this administration has created 4.5 million jobs. we haven't filled everything we lost but we made some progress.

we all acknowledge we need to do more but don't ever compare today with 2010. mr. president, everyone understands all you folks who love to give tax cuts to be millionaires, our bill does that also. the first two fifty thousand dollars that they make is just like a middle-class family. we are also going to point everyone to this. i have talked about the republicans around the country supporting this legislation. of course they do. they know it needs to be handled and $1 trillion is what our legislation will do to fill the hole. but also people in this great country of ours who have done so well, they understand they are

supposed to contribute more. they know that. my friend doesn't white tipples but let me give him another one. 65% of these really rich people are willing to pay more taxes. again, the people who are unwilling to do this are people who signed a pledge for this person, grover norquist and remember, there was vacillating a month ago. he came up here. and renew their vows with him. we are on the side of the american people because this legislation which is going to pass is what is good for the american people. i asked we have a vote now. >> let me briefly add -- [laughter] >> let me briefly had not listened carefully to what my friend the majority leader said. he once again was making it

clear this was about the campaign and not the economy. ..is these million businesses didn't create this success, that we somehow need to take this money because we'll spend it better on their behalf. now, i know my colleague is going to get the last word, and that's fine, i'm happy for him to have it, but the fact of the matter is this -- the economy is in worse shape today than it was in december of 2010, worse shape today. the growth rate is slower. the president signed this bill, the president signed this bill, advocated its passage back then because the economy didn't need e to get hit with a big tax increase. the growth rate is slower today, the economic situation remains largely the same. the worst thing we could do in the middle of this economic condition is to pass this tax

increase. now, my friend, the majorityy leader, can have the last word,d and then we'll be happy to go to a vote. >> mr. president? mr. rei president? >> the majority leader. >> they may have different newspapers in kentucky than i read. i get my nevada clips every day, i try to read some papers fromwh back here. we have, now, 28 months -- 28onh months -- of job growth in the private sector. 20 months in a row. that's pretty good. now, mr. president, this legislation is about the debt. it's about the debt. we have to do something aboutut the debt, and we've tried mightily to do that. tha we've tried mightily.we we had the conrad-judd gregg legislation. seven people who are republicana senators co-sponsored that anded adopted the leader's philosophy

that the most important thing wr can do is defeat president obamn for re-election. then we went to bowles-simpson which was the program we put together that we couldn't get that legislation that was so s good by judd gregg and kent conrad. and bowles-simpson didn't makehd it. of then we had a series of talks with the president and thespea speaker. always we could never quite get it done. why? even though my friend, and i care about him, john boehner, said i want to do big things,o not little things, one of the t little things he couldn't do is get his caucus to agree just acs little wit of revenue -- bit of revenue so we could make a deall then we tried the biden talks. the majority leader in the house and the senate walked out onit thosey talks.alke then we had the supercommittee. and about a week before i got report by statute, patty murrayy and her troops were supposed to

offer legislation, i got a relater signed by virtually every republican senator signed, no thanks, grover wins again. no revenues. so, mr. president, this is about our country, about doing something about a debt. it will contribute about a trillion dollars to the debt. that's not bad. >> mr. president? >> here we go again. >> i heard my good friend, the majority leader, say this is about the deficit.orit this would produce about enought revenue to operate the government for ant -- for about a week.ce this would produce about enough revenue to operate the government for about a week. this is not about the deficit or the debt, this is about the campaign. we all know there's a campaign going on. but why don't we do serious legislating here?

no budget, no appropriation bills, no dod authorization bills. when are we gonna actually passn things in the spat? the senate? thisquel is a uniquely bad idear the economy. the good news i can say to the american people, it isn't going to happen. today. o it ought motto happen anytime. this is part of the fiscal cliff that we're facing at the end of the year. the chairman of the fed is concerned about it, the congressional budget office, which republicans certainly don't run, is concerned about it. we've heard talk on the other side we should have thelma and louise economics. just drive the country right off the cliff. all get in the car and go right off the cliff together. and see what it's like.

look, the american people know a campaign is going on but why don't we in here try to do something important for the country now? the campaign will take care of itself. this is not a serious piece of legislation because it's not going anywhere, and thank goodness it's not going anywhere because it would be bad for the economy. the single worst thing we could do to the country. mr. reid: mr. president? the vice president: the majority leader. mr. reid: required reading for decades now has been george orwell. college students now read it just like i did when i was in college. george orwell. he came to the conclusion that we would arrive at a time where up was down and down was up. and that's what my friend the republican leader has done. if there were ever a statement that's orwellian, it's his. we haven't done the

appropriation bill. do you think, just stop and think just a minute, do you think 85 filibusters had a thing to do with that? 85. we haven't done a budget. that is poppy cock. we have one. we did it, and my republican friends, i appreciate it, voted with us. we have our numbers right now and we could have done every appropriation bill, senator inouye marked them up, chairman inouye but we can't do them because we have to overcome 85 filibusters. and for my friend to talk about let's do something important, please. is this bill we're going to pass important? you bet it is. and he said it wouldn't pay for the government for a week or whatever the number was. mr. president, over ten years it's a trillion bucks. one year, a hundred billion. that's even in las vegas not chump change. chump change.

>> the senate went on yesterday to pass the senate democrats' measure to extend most of the bush era tax cuts while letting those for top earners expire in january. the 551-48 vote was mostly oi long party lines. the senate is back in this morning, lye coverage here on c-span2. the worst drought in the u.s. in nearly 50 years is expected to drive up the price of milk, beef and pork next year. the house science committee held a hearing about the current drought. secretary geithner returns to capitol hill this morning. this time he'll talk to the senate banking committee about the state of the economy and the financial stability oversight council. live coverage begins at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span3 and c-span.org.

>> this weekend on american history tv -- >> so let me just begin to open up the discussion by ask is it this way, what exactly is the nature of the clash between mac arthur and truman? is this a clash over policy? is this a problem of personalities? >> from lectures in history, truman and macarthur, eliot cohen on the relationship that led a president to relieve a general at the height of the korean war, saturday night at 8 eastern. and sunday, more from the con thenders -- contenders, key political figures who ran for president but lost. this week, adlai stevenson. he once said he had a bad case of hereditary politics. his great grandfather was first to suggest abraham lincoln as president, and he ran twice against eisenhower. the contenders at 7:30 eastern and pacific. american history tv this weekend

on c-span3. >> u.s. consumers will not feel the impact of higher food prices caused by the serious drought until 2013 according to a government report. witnesses from noaa's national integrated drought information system, the director of oklahoma's water resources board and indianapolis mayor gregory ballard testified at this house science and technology committee. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> okay. the committee on science, space, technology will come to order, and i say good morning to you and welcome, everyone, to today's hearing on drought forecasting, monitoring and dig making. a review of the national integrated drought information system, unquote. this hearing is particularly timely given the current drought conditions that are impacting a lot of the country including much of my home state of texas. and i'm going to a take a little of my time out to tell you a story about i passed a bill some five years ago, and i was over in paris, texas, making a speech about it. and can one of my good friends over there just to put it on me said, congressman, will you be able to make it rain? it was dry and hadn't rained in days and days.

i thought a minute or so and i said, yeah, it will. that's section four of the third page. he said, really? i said, hell, no, i just gave you a silly answer to a silly question. he was a good friend of mine. but three years later we had, i mean, rainfall that drowned people above texoma and all the programs, farm programs below it. ruined everybody. rained incessantly for day and night. i called him about 3:00 one morning, and his wife said when he got to the phone, hit his toe on the phone, and he was mad when he got to the phone, but he said, hello. i said, hello, hal. do you remember that question you asked me about my bill? go outside. i have to go through that every time i go to paris, texas, now. but he was a good enough friend that i could talk to him like that. but we know how important it is and how really timely this

hearing is, and we're very grateful to y'all for your time, preparation and time to get here and the time to help us. according to the u.s. drought monitor, over 70% of the united states is currently classified as abnormally dry or worse. and further, over half the continental u.s. is experiencing moderate to extreme drought, and a third of the country is characterized as being in severe to extreme drought. these widespread conditions are negatively affecting corn and soybean crops as of july 17th the department of agriculture reported that 88% of the nation's corn and 87% of the nation's soybeans were in drought-stricken areas. in response to pervasiveness, secretary of agriculture tom vilsack designated 3,055 -- 1,055 counties across the country as disaster areas. droughts, unfortunately, have long been and continue to be recurring events used in noaa's

own document over the past 110-plus years. we see a drought that's frequently occurred in the united states, the worst being the dust bowl years of the 1930s and the droughts of the '50s. these are some, of course. there are those who would attribute this year's drought to climate change, but the congressional research service tells us that drought has afflicted portions of north america for thousands of years, and history suggests that severe and extended droughts are inevitable and part of a natural climate cycle. in any event, debating the causes of drought is not to be in front of us today. the real question is what can be done to provide better and timelier information to help enable federal, state and local governments and individual citizens better deal with droughts' impacts and quicker reaction by government entities. that's kind of what i think my bill did. and my bill was really just to let 'em know that we were concerned about what they were going through and that we were

sorry for them, but there wasn't a he can -- a heck of a lot we could do for them at the time. the national integrated drought information system established by the act of 2006 is one of the such efforts that's undertaken to answer this question. the climate program office been the office of noaa, its goal is to prove -- to, quote, improve the nation's capacity to proactively manage drought-related risk and by providing those with the best available information and tools to assess the potential impact of drought and to better prepare for and mitigate the effects of the drought. this program currently operates in the u.s. drought portal, a web site that features a range of services related to drought including historical data on past droughts, current data from climate observations, early

warnings about emerging and potential droughts, report services for managing droughts and a form for stakeholders to discuss drought-related issues. authorization expires at the end of this year, so we'll receive testimony from witnesses representing federal, state and local governments as well as stakeholders on the program and the decision drought. the system reauthorization act of 2012. and i welcome our witnesses and look forward to their testimony and now recognize ranking member mrs. johnson for her opening statement. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. this hearing to discussion legislation reauthorizing the national integrated drought information system or nibis. in recent weeks, virtually every media outlet has shown a map that depicts over half the

continental united states as experiencing severe drought conditions. the federal government has declared one-third of the nation's counties -- roughly 1300 of them across 29 states -- as federal disaster areas as a result of the drought. in my own home state of texas over the last few years, rainfall and high temperatures have conspired to wreak havoc on the economy. farmers and ranchers always bear the brunt of it. and that hits the pocketbook of every american as food prices go up. but the damage is not limited to agriculture. for instance, in texas conditions are again ripe for the kind of extreme wildfires that scarred large portions of the state last year. tourism is suffering as water levels and lakes and rivers

plummet leaving boats and marinas stranded on dry land, communities are imposing water restrictions and exploring new and more expensive water resources and technologies. and power plants and grid operators are taking a serious look at emergency plans if pooling water supplies fall short. given the potential for massive economic damage, we need to recognize droughts for what they are, an extreme weather event, and design policies accordingly. unlike disasters such as tornadoes, floods and hurricanes, droughts do not leave people scrambling for cover. there are no sirens or emergency evacuation plans. the onset is slow with no defined beginning or end. the path of a drought's destruction is sprawling, often

encompassing whole regions of a country. while durations are typically measured in years. just as we design policies, programs and infrastructure to make predictions and limit the impacts of other extreme weather events, we should strengthen our capacity to do the same for droughts. one tool at our disposal is noaa's nidis program. in its six years of existence, nidis has provided important seasonal and long-term drought information that has aided countless communities in preparing for and mitigating the impacts of drought. but we cannot have a comprehensive approach to drought research and mitigation without exploring the potential linkages with a changing global climate. while i will be the first to urge caution and jumping to conclusions about the present-day impacts of a warming

planet, i know that climatologists around the world are coming to a much better understanding of this complex relationship. we should leave the science to the scientists. to play politics and categorically deny the linkage between climate change and extreme weather is both irrational and irresponsible. policymakers at every level have a duty to protect public welfare, and ignoring the realities of climate change simply leaves us less informed and ill prepared for catastrophic events such as droughts and floods. reauthorizing nidis is an important step, and i commend the chairman for considering this bill. but this is only one step. while i am not typically one to look a gift horse in the mouth, i must say that the bipartisan support for nidis leaves me a bit baffled at my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who

have otherwise been relentless this congress in trying to undermine or or outright kill every other climate-related product, service or research program. i'm encouraged to see republicans' recognition of the valuable services of nidis and what they provide. and just hope that other climate-related programs receive similar treatment. again, i thank the witnesses for joining us today and thank you, mr. chairman. look forward to the testimony. i yield back. >> thank you, ms. johnson. gentlelady from texas yields back. if there are other members who wish to submit additional opening statements, your statements will be added to the record at this point. at this time i'd like to begin to introduce our panel of witnesses. i plan to introduce three of the witnesses and then recognize the the -- recognize two representatives to introduce

witnesses from their home states our first witness is dr. pulwarty, chief of the climate program, offices of climate and societal interactions division at the national oceanic and atmospheric administration. dr. pulwarty's research and publications have been on extreme events and disaster risk reduction in the western united states, latin america and the caribbean. he served on committees of the u.s. national academy of science. our third witness is mr. j.d. strong, the executive director of the oklahoma water resources board. under mr. strong's leadership, the oklahoma water resources board updated the oklahoma comprehensive water plan. it's a 50-year water supply assessment and policy strategy designed to meet oklahoma's future water need. mr. strong also oversees the administration of oklahoma's

aaa-rates 2.7 billion financial assistance program. mr. strong began his career at the oklahoma water resources board working as an environmental specialist. our next witness is dr. james famiglietti, did i do pretty good with that? okay. a professor and director of earth systems sciences at the university of california at irvine. his research group uses nasa gravity recovery and climate experiment mission for satellite remote sensing and to track water availability and groundwater demeese on land -- depletion on land. before joining the faculty in 2001, he was an assistant and associate professor in the department of geological sciences at the university of texas. glad to have you there. i now recognize representative pew champion to introduce our

second witness. >> thank you, mr. chairman. our second witness today is the mayor of indianapolis, the honorable gregory a. ballard. greg ballard was elected the 48th mayor of indianapolis on november 6, 2007, and the city reelected mayor ballard to a second term on november 8, 2011. in 2010 mayor ballard launched an initiative to rebuild residential streets, sidewalks and this is on a successful pathway. mayor ballard also helped lead a team that very successfully hosted this year's super bowl, congratulations to the city of indianapolis. and based on that success, will be competing and winning -- we hope -- the super bowl in 2018. welcome, mayor ballard. >> thank you. thank the gentleman from indiana. i now recognize representative harris to introduce our final

witness, final for this hearing. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. it's my pleasure to introduce mrs. patrick langenfelder to the committee, the president of the maryland farm bureau. in addition, she's commissioner of the kent county planning commission and a member of the agricultural fair board. she and her husband and family operate a large grain farm in the congressional district, diso she has the hands-on experience that she will bring to her testimony. among her recognitions, she and her husband were inducted into the governor's agricultural hall of fame in maryland in 2001. they were honored as cooperators of the year by the kent county soil conservation district. so, again, it's a pleasure to have mrs. langenfelder join ughs this morning -- join us this morning. i yield back. >> thank you for yielding back and for the good introductions to both of you. as our witnesses should know, spoken testimony's limited the to five minutes, after which members of the committee will

have five minutes each to ask questions, and we'll be liberal with your five minutes. we're going to be a little tighter with those of us up here to where we're not here all day. but we're honored to have you, and we thank you very much. i now recognize some of the witnesses to present that testimony. dr. pulwarty, you're recognized for five minutes to present your testimony. you're not relegated to five minutes, give us what you think we really need. thank you. >> thank you. good morning, chairman hall and members of the committee. my name is roger pulwarty, i'm the program director of at noaa and the department of commerce. it's an honor to be here today. in this testimony, i will highlight nidis' role in improving the nation's capacity for understanding and responding to drought. from the southwest long dry period in the 13th century to the events of the '50s and the '30s in the 20th century. the average annual land area

affected by drought in the u.s. was 25%. recently, over the past month, over half of the country has experienced moderate or stronger drought conditions. nidis is authorized to provide an effective drought early warning system that includes indicators of severity and impacts reflecting regional and state differences. it is directed to do so in part by coordinating and integrating relevant federal research and by building on existing forecasts and assessments programs. to fulfill this task, nidis supports four elements. firstly, coping with drought research which provides grants to academic and other researchers to assess the impacts of drought and to develop drought support tools. secondly, the climate test bed which accelerates the transition of scientific research to improve the operational climate forecast products. thirdly, the nidis portal, drought.gov, provides a one-top shop for drought--related

monitoring products. and the fourth element is a network of early warning information systems which recognizes the drought impacts vary from region to region as we will hear. the drought's early warning system integrates information from the above three elements, from the portal, the observations, the research, and from our federal and local partners to develop drought outlooks for specific regions. a recent example of an outlook product for wyoming, utah and colorado, where i live s provided as a supplement to this testimony. to date, nidis has implemented a regional early warning system, the very first of its kind in the u.s., in the upper colorado river basin is and is developing systems in the state of california. the approaches and tools developed for these systems are intended to be transferred to other regions such as the pacific northwest, the great plains, the carolinas and the chesapeake bay tributaries. since the program was authorized in 2006, nidis has increased the number of states and

institutions with data and capacity to inform drought risk management, the number of impact studies and user information needs assessments and most critically, the percentage of the u.s. population covered by adequate drought early warning information systems. i will now provide a few specific examples of nidis products, services and their impacts. since spring of 2010, nidis has supported weekly drought updates and web fares, the centerpiece of the early warning system. bringing together stakeholders from federal and state agencies, recreation and tourism throughout the upper basin to raise awareness of the status of snow pack, reservoir conditions and wildfire risks. nidis products now include linking seasonal climate forecasts and monthly stream flow estimates. according to the web far, since the early warning system was initiated, local public and

private entities have refined the national level product into a more useful product for basin-specific needs. this was long sought after by groups. the second example comes from a southeastern city. throughout the coping with drought research efforts, the researchers worked with alabama where you have 53,000 residents on using seasonal to yearly climate forecast to reduce the impacts of drought. in march 2011 based on this information, the city issued a drought update in an effort to manage water demand. as a result of the city's proactive response, its water supply was not greatly affected. the city now uses the seasonal drought information and demand management on an ongoing basis. many other examples of research, product development and early warning exist. as acknowledged by our partners in the states, the research data and outlooks supported by nidis

such as during the southern droughts of 2011-2012, significantly improved planning and coordination relative to that of previous events prior to the nidis legislation. nidis' ability is strongly dependent on an enabling observational capability. these include the usda natural resources conservation services, the usgs water census under the department of interior's water smart efforts, stream flow and reservoir levels from the u.s. army corps of engineers and the national weather service cooperative program. the university of nebraska at lincoln works actively with nidis to improve and inform drought planning at every level. while onset is important, warning of drought intensification, warnings of duration and the potential recurrence are also critical. to achieve the thoroughly

national drought early warning presence envisioned by the nidis act requires improvements that nidis has begun to address. these include understanding drought variability and forecast reliability from a season to a year and even to a decade. including understanding the role of precipitation vents in ending drought. collaboration among researchers, resource managers and the public to enhance the use and the value of our existing observation networks and the transfer of successful tools and approaches to regions not yet having active early warning systems. most critically is working with the private sector and others on guidance and standards for developing value-added products to support drought plans. key to the success is credible, consistent and authoritative observations. we at noaa are grateful for the committee's continued interest in nidis. i look forward to helping the nation and our communities take full advantage of nidis.

thank you for the opportunity to speak with you. >> and we thank you. now recognize mayor ballard to present his testimony. >> thank you, chairman hall. thank you, chairman hall, ranking member johnson and to the full u.s. house of representatives committee on science, space and technology for inviting me to testify at today's hearing. my name is greg ballard, i am the mayor of indianapolis, indiana, the 11th largest city in the country. how the drought has impacted the city of understood annapolis, our residents and -- the drought is one of historic proportion and has been come pounded by extreme temperatures. the indianapolis division of homeland security, which considers nidis to be extremely important, monitored the weather using data provided by the national weather service. repeated activation of the division's extreme heat plan first prompted them to seriously consider -- seriously evaluate

the potential risk of drought conditions. similarly, indianapolis water utility which operates the city's water supply used weekly drought status updates for the area as published on the u.s. drought monitor web site which is a part of nidis to determine whether enhanced water conservation efforts were necessary in response to progressing drought conditions. by late june citizens have been delivering record amounts of water amidst the record-breaking heat. they estimated that 30-40% of their water load was for lawn irrigation. citizens asked customers to stop watering their lawns july 6th. on july 13th i enacted mandatory water use restrictions to protect the city's dwindling water supply and insure there was adequate water for the public safety and well being. tease restrictions included a ban on watering lawns, washing vehicles, using water to clean

sidewalks or driveways, filling swimming pools, installing new landscaping. water hydrants were authorized solely for fire suppression unless otherwise directed. in less than a week, water usage dropped an additional 58 million gallons a day. some businesses that depended on water to operate were exempted from the ban. examples include nurseries, commercial car washes, golf courses, parks and the like. at this time, we do not have comprehensive information on the impact of in this drought to the residents and to government or to businesses in marion county, but many businesses voicedden cans over the impact of water use restrictions. these include pool companies, lawn care baizs, painting companies, power washing companies, car dealerships that detail their own vehicles and contractors and builders. none of these businesses were exempted from the mandatory water use ban, and many are small business other thans who provide jobs in indianapolis, so jobs have definitely been affected.

it will be sometime before we understand the full economic impact of the drought on indianapolis. anecdotally, we know that the drought and the ensuing water restrictions have placed an incredible burden on businesses that rely on water to operate and to homeowners who need water to maintain their property. these restrictions have been an unfortunate but necessary response to a severe and serious drought that is expected to persist into the fall. clearly, the sooner indianapolis knows about drought conditions, the sooner we can begin planning public information and preparing our leaders in our community for water conservation. that said, the expected accuracy of the prediction would likely have to be quite high before it would result in an earlier implementation and restrictions. regarding nidis, i certainly support more timely drought information services. it certainly would help all of us. >> thank you. >> thank you, mayor. i now recognize mr. strong for five minutes to present his testimony.

>> thank you, mr. chairman and members of the committee, and for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss an issue of critical importance to oklahoma and other western states, and that is drought monitoring, forecasting and coordination. my name is j.d. strong, i serve as executive director of the oklahoma water resources board. in addition to coordinating state drought monitoring activities, my agency carries out numerous water-related responsibilities for the state of oklahoma, all of which are heavily impacted and influences by drought. wheel i testify -- while i testify as director of the state's water management agency, i know through my involvement and coordination with those involved in the western states' water council that many other western states share similar thoughts and suggests about reauthorization of the national integrated drought information system or nidis. why is drought such a challenge if or us? -- for us? unlike other natural disasters such as floods and tornadoes which strike suddenly, the

effects of drought settle in slowly and often subtly over months or even years. that's why it's often referred to as the creeping disaster. it is often difficult to know when a drought has started and even more challenging to know when droughts will end. additionally, and partly because of its subtle onset, society too often falls into what we call the hydroillogical cycle, that is we ignore drought until the situation is dire, we lament the impacts, justifiably scream for help and clamor for emergency funding, but invariably it rains at which point we go back to business as usual. we must break this cycle. drought also means different things to different regions and different water users. which highlights the importance of focusing research and monitoring and reporting not so much on a national scale, but on measures and predictions that are relevant to state, regional and local and tribal stakeholders. oklahoma is no stranger to drought. some 80 years removed from the

infamous dust bowl e rah, we are experiencing our third major drought episode within just six short years. virtually every year in oklahoma one-quarter or more of the state is classified in at least the severe drought category. notably, my agency and the water development board in texas were created in 1957 on the heels of what is the worse drought of record on the great plains. we've come far in oklahoma in understanding and mitigating drought's impacts. oklahoma's world renowned weather research community utilizing our 120 climate monitoring stations scattered across the state has developed advanced tools utilizing realtime information on precipitation, temperature, soil moisture and other parameters impacting water management and water stakeholders. augmenting this essential weather data in research conducted at the national weather center is stream flow information collected by the

usgs cooperative stream gauging program, corps of engineers reservoir gauges, land sat, thermal imaging and numerous other sources of critical data. still oklahoma remains largely vulnerable to the vagaries of drought and its annual multibillion dollar impacts. reducing those impacts requires improved insight into this recurring disaster. that, as you know, is the goal of the still relatively new nidis program. thanks largely to the foresight and resolve of congress including the leadership of chairman hall and with much input and assistance from agencies like the national b drought integrated information system was launched in 2006 to focus research on advancing our predictive capabilities while establishing a communication link between the scientific community and those most affected by drought. what has it accomplished? from data integration to improved communication of outlooks to engagement with

local, state, tribal and regional and federal off thes, nidis has established an ea educative drought-monitoring network. prior to nidis there was none, and state coordination was lacking to nonexistent. in oklahoma nidis has a strong presence due to the national weather center as well as funding the program provides to the southern climate impact's planning program, one of noaa's regional integrated science and assessment teams. information provided through nidis' drought portal has made my agency's job much easier in allowing us to focus our attention and assistance on regions of the tate that warrant heightened mitigation efforts. of particular important, nidis provides a seasonal drought outlook from the noaa climate applications center and forecasts from the noaa river forecasts center. while nidis has been largely success. , much work remains including

expanded coordination between sectors and agencies and integration of drought preparedness and response into state water and hazard plans. more importantly, we eagerly await development of a drought early warning system for our area which is a key goal of the program and central to effective drought preparedness and response. specific to the drought legislation, we appreciate chairman hall's sponsorship of nidis reauthorization and applaud this committee for giving it due consideration. specifically, i would respectfully urge the committee to add language explicitly focusing on those nidis components that are still lacking full implementation, perhaps including a firm requirement and deadline for development of early warning systems and drought prediction strategies. in closing, drought is a real and present danger that effects this nation to the tune of billions of dollars and countless lives every year. as my congressman, frank lucas -- who i know is chairing an ag committee meeting at this

moment -- can attest from if his chairmanship, the disaster assistance that federal and state governments provides is mammoth compared to the minute sums spent on data collection, analysis and reporting, and yet decisions that involve billions of taxpayer dollars and american lives should be well informed. we as a nation can ill afford to step backwards when dealing with what is arguably the nation's most menacing and costly natural disaster. rather, we need to take the next step forward by building on the fundamental work accomplished under nidis since 2006 to establish the most valuable product of this endeavor, an efficient and accurate early warning system that can save both money and lives. even incremental improvements in the accuracy of predictions regarding the location, duration and intensity of drought -- particularly if on a seasonal to one-year scale -- would be extraordinarily beneficial in establishing contingencies and informing decisions made by water managers, farmers, ranchers, energy producers and

countless other water interests. i respectfully urge reauthorization of nidis with particular emphasis on those components not fully operational as well as full funding to insure implementation. thank you. >> thank you. i now recognize dr. famiglietti for five minutes to present his testimony. >> chairman hall, ranking member johnson and other members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today. my name is james famiglietti, and i'm a hydrologist and professor at the university of california irvine and formerly at the university of texas. drought is an insidious and patient killer of food and fuel crops, of livestock, of nor rah and fauna and of humans, and it has emerged as a major threat to our nation's food, health, economic and water security. unfortunately, these all may be at greater risk in the coming

decades as increasing temperatures are expected to result in more frequent and prolonged drought. in spite of the enormous emotional and financial toll, current investment in drought forecasting, monitoring and planning tools such as those that we are discussing today remains far too small to effect timely progress towards critical improvements. the stated goals of nidis are absolutely essential for a national scale drought monitoring prediction and awareness strategy. i fully support the continuation and proposed incoo's in -- in crease in nidis funding. key successes are coordination of drought research in the united states. the nidis drought early warning system is emerging a as a crucial step. nidis funding has supported many innovative research projects that are yielding insights towards improved drought monitoring, prediction and mitigation. one of the most widely used and visible drought awareness tool is the the u.s. drought monitor,

an important partner of the nidis program. the gaps identified in the nidis implementation plan drastically limit the confidence of predictions and the accuracy of early warning systems. of these, in my opinion, the most important are related to deficiencies in the nation's hydrological modeling assets, a lack of observations of the water environment and their inte graig. all of these underlie drought information systems like nidis. in fact, our nation's ability to monitor and predict the state of its water environment is well behind where it needs to be to address not only issues of drought, but also of water availability, flooding, groundwater depletion, of human v. ecological water requirements and of the impacts of global change. moreover, we are falling behind

the capabilities of other nations while significantly constraining our domestic efforts to insure sustainable water management. the following are critical steps toward an advanced drought monitoring and prediction strategy. first, more realistic computer simulation models are needed that represent all major natural and human components of the water cycle. a significant acceleration in the development of advanced computer models for hydrology and water management including an integrated national water model is essential for effectively managing drought and arrange critical water issues. second, we must fill in fundamental knowledge gaps of earth's water environment. at the surface and the shallow subsurface. we know very little about the unseen topography beneath the water service. for example, the symmetry of thousands of river channels,

floodplains and lakes or of soils or hydrogeology at the national scale. third, we need your support for key satellite observations of water. since dr. pulwarty summarized the need for continued ground-based measurements, let me emphasize those for satellites. several current and future nasa missions are making fundamental contributions towards understanding drought and improving it prediction. the grace mission has been quite successful in identifying areas of water stress and of groundwater depletion. the figures shown on the screen, for example, shows areas which have lost significant amounts of water over the last ten years, shown in red, due either to ice melting or groundwater depletion while the areas shown in blue have gained water. note that the regions where groundwater is being rapidly depleted are in the air rid and semi-aid portions of the world.

in other words, it won't be getting any better in those locations. upcoming nasa missions will map changes in surface water storage including areas of high and low river flows, lake and reservoir levels. the continued support of congress for these core water missions is essential for effective and sustainable water management including advancing our drought preparedness capabilities in the united states. water is on a trajectory to rival energy in its importance in the united states, yet the investment in observations models and exproration of the subsurface pales in comparison. we have the potential to be world leaders in characterizing, monitoring and predicting all aspects of the water environment. from forecasting droughts and floods to science-informed,

technology-based, long-term, sustainable water management. the vision and the technology are in place. leadership in congress is what will make it a reality. thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. >> and we thank you. now recognize our final witness for today, ms. patricia langenfelder, for five minutes. >> good morning, mr. chairman and members of the committee. my name is patricia langenfelder. my husband is a fifth generation father, and together with our three children we farm 3,000 acres in kent county, maryland, about 80 miles east of here where we grow corn, soybeans, wall street and barley. we also have a livestock operation. i currently serve as president of the maryland farm bureau, and i also serve on the board of the american farm bureau federation, the nation's largest general farm organization on whose behalf i am speaking today. and i would like to commend the chairman and ranking member for

holding this hearing today on this very important matter. as has been stated a million times already today and on the news and in the media, much of the nation is currently gripped -- in the grip of a significant drought that will ultimately touch the lives of every ag producer and consumer in this country. for this reason alone, it is important to have the best, most up-to-date can information on the nation's drought conditions. farm bureau strongly supports legislation to reauthorize the national integrated drought information system, nidis, and is ready to work with you for swift approval of this legislation. i would like to give the committee an idea of the magnitude of the drought now facing farmers. this year's drought is the worst in recent memory. objective measures of the drought's extent and severity are striking. around 80% of the country is classified as abnormally dry, and more than 60% is classified as being in moderate to

exceptional drought conditions, the highest percentages in the drought monitor data going back to 2000 with. to 2000. more than 54% of the country's pasture and range land is rated as poor or very poor, by far the highest percentage in the available data going back to 1995. corn crop condition ratings are the worst for this point in the growing season since the devastating drought of 1988. dry pasture conditions have begun to force many ranchers to sell their cattle. given the long biological lags in livestock and poultry production systems, it may take many months -- in cases, years -- for the full effects to be reversed. ultimately, the reduced production of beef, pork, poultry, eggs and dairy products will be felt by consumers as higher retail prices. it is clear what a shan't and

integral role nidis plays in providing timely information to farmers and to markets. it provides an unparalleled set of data and graphics on drought conditions in the united states. nidis data is available with greater frequency than most other market-related information. preectly update -- frequently updated data and maps and even realtime information on precipitation and temperature allow more informed adjustments to expectations for important usda reports like the weekly crop progress and the monthly crop production reports. this makes it less likely that these reports will catch the market by surprise resulting in episodes of extreme price volatility. in conclusion, farm bureau supports the national integrated drought information system act because it provides the nation's

farmers, ranchers and markets an effective drought warning system for key indicators of drought conditions and impacts. it is vitally important that congress reauthorize the national integrated drought information system, and farm bureau will do everything we can to assist you in this effort. we look forward to working with you to reauthorize in this important legislation. thank you, and i will be pleased to respond to my questions. >> and we thank you. >> uh-huh. >> and thank all of you for your testimony. and i'll remind members of the committee, the committee rules limit the questioning to five minutes, and the chair at this point will open the round of questions, and i recognize myself for five minutes. i'd like to ask you folks who live in the real world, and each of you have touched on cities' rulings and, mayor, you've had to enforce it.

i've had a touch of that in my hometown i'll tell you about later if we have time. but i'll ask you all there on the ground, mr. strong, mayor ballard and mrs. langenfelder, does nidis really, does it really provide the necessary drought information that you all think we need, and what improvements do you suggest for it? and, remember, we just have five minutes. >> i can, mr. chairman, i can speak generally to it. i can't speak about all the details. i would tell you our homeland security system and our eocs relien o it. so it's been a big part of kind of planning, getting ahead of it. i think anything that can be added to that that would allow us to look even more into the future with some sort of accuracy, i think would be beneficial also. but we certainly use it at the city level which i'm not sure that was the original extent. but the fact is, we do use it at

a city level quite a bit, and our folks appreciate it. >> good. anyone else want to tie into that one? >> and i would just echo what the mayor said as well. i think that nidis has definitely improved in this integrating the data and information in one place that we can use to make decisions going forward. the holy grail, though, will be more accurate, longer-term predictions of drought into the future so that we can actually make, um, some mitigation measures helpful a season or even in a year in advance. >> and i would echo the same, and i just think that it's important that the agricultural community be aware -- early warning would be wonderful so, you know, it helps when you're doing planting preparations to know that, gee, there's a drought coming. when you planted earlier this year, we did not know that. some areas of the country did not know that, did not realize

it, and so, therefore, a lot of money and expenditures was put into the ground, and there was no -- there's no crop coming back out. >> well, i thank you. and you've given us a lot of practical information. you know what you're talking about for sure. i just thank all of you and instead of that five minute speech i gave to begin, i should have just said we need to know more about when a drought's going to hit us and then give some reaction to it a little bit quicker. that's what this hearing's really all about. and, dr. pulwarty, how good are the current drought forecasts issued by nidis, and how accurate are the forecasts for a month, three months or a year? 30 days or 20 minutes, whatever? >> certainly on the seasonal, the 30-day to 90-day when there are conditions such as el niño

events in the pacific, the forecasts are fairly reliable. in fact, as early as summer of 2010 because of the events noaa was able to say the likelihood of drought development in the southern states was pretty high. so from the standpoint of reliability, the seasonal forecasts are fairly reliable. moving out to the year what ends up, um, creating issues related to predictability and the reliability of forecasts has to do with the background variability on the ten-year time scale. so from our standpoint linking the seasonal forecast and the reliability of those forecasts to what's happening in the background, the atlantic multidecadal oscillation, the pacific decadal, natural variability changes the reliability of the forecast as an area of research and, in fact, an area of applications. >> very chose to the -- very close to the end of my questions, so i'll recognize

mrs. johnson for her five minute questions. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. noaa recently released the 2011 state of climate report detailing global climate indicators and notable weather events. it included details on a number of extreme weather events such as a deadly tornado outbreak in the u.s. and the extreme droughts in texas. also released was an article published in the bulletin of the american meteorological society that examines the potential linkages between climate change and the extreme weather events of 2011 such as the drought. i know that many of my colleagues on the the other side like nidis, but for the past couple of years they have done

everything possible to block investments in climate change research and providing climate services more efficiently. i think the only way for us to know how to mitigate and respond to these events is to understand what is happening and the extent to which climate change is contributing to the severity and duration. in addition to coordinating monitoring activity or other coordinated information services and research needed to understand global warming's potential role in driving the severity and frequency of such extreme weather events, i'd like to hear from you, mr. strong, as well as dr. famiglietti on your comments on this. >> well, um, he's certainly the scientist, so i'm sure he has a lot to say about that.

i'll just reiterate what i said earlier. i think, um, long-term predictions of climate and it variability over 10, 20, 30, 40, 50-year time scales would be great. but as a practical matter what we're more interested in at this moment is can we get to a year forecast of drought that will be something that we can take, take to the bank? that, to us, is really as a practical matter more important than those longer-term forecasts even though longer-term forecasts certainly have value. i think the the adage you've got to walk before you can run is applicable here. so getting those shorter-term, more accurate drought predictions in place would certainly help us do our jobs much easier. >> famiglietti, a silent g.

the links between climate change and increasing extremes like flooding and drought are becoming much better established. they have been predicted by the ipcc for a number of years now, and more research is being conducted, and it is being conducted that is bearing that out. i can just mention some of our own research using the grace mission which has only been operating for ten years, but in that ten-year time period -- and that's the slide that i showed, behind me that showed the trends -- there's a corps responding map that goes with that trend map that i don't have in my testimony that actually shows how the water cycle and where it is strengthening. and by strengthening we mean more precipitation and more evaporation and, therefore, more storms and more broughts. so we're woking on

quantifying -- working on quantifying the frequency and the intensity of flooding and drought, and even in a time -- even in just a ten-year time period we're seeing some increases and at least are figuring out how to quantify them. >> thank you. how does nidis aid in water planning and management during time of drought? i know that immediate information makes a difference, but as a climate prediction for future droughts to aid and also early warning, shortness of time but also having time to plan when you can predict longer times, could you comment on that? >> thank you. i appreciate dr. fall getty's comment -- famiglietti's excellents and his name. usually, mine is the most

difficult to pronounce announce. [laughter] in the midst of the development of drought while the onset is very critical as we've seen in texas and elsewhere, it is the development of drought intensification that begins to matter. when the reservoirs are lower, when food prices for livestock begin to go up. one of the things that we do is very much from the onset before any of that happens, insure that the way the federal drought plans and the state drought plans are developed, people develop them on their own, it's their role to do so, we insure that the information that we're going to be able to provide can be used more effectively up front by those plans. and so from that stand point we try not to just, you know, show up when a drought's happening, but instead work from a research standpoint on insuring that the plans can take full advantage of the monitoring of the forecast and so on. where planning begins to take place from our standpoint is in

improving the local assimilation of data that a national product that informs the national product such as the drought monitor. the drought plans and wart plans in many -- and water plans in many areas are not as well linked, and part of our role is to insure they both receive the same data and information. from a water resources management standpoint, we make certain or try to make certain in the areas that we've been able to put early warning systems the way the entry points for information are in those plans are identified long up front. so that we're not trying to find them during a drought event. >> thank you very much. i yield. >> thank you, and now recognize congressman smith, the gentleman from texas, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and, mr. chairman, i want to say that i concur with the comments you made about the effect of the drought in texas. all the friends i have who engaged in dryland farming in south texas have now lost their crops two years in a row because

of a lack of rain, and it literally looks like a desert. i was there last weekend. first of all, dr. pulwarty, i'd like to complement your way. the lower colorado river authority indexes that you're familiar with has told me that they very much appreciate your willingness to disseminate information to them, to land other thans, to the farmers, to the policymakers as well, and they appreciate that good communication. i'd like to direct, though, my questions to the other panelist. dr. pulwarty, i expect you to defend the president's budget, so i'm not going to ask you budget questions. but i would like to ask the other panelists if they feel that in the or current budget proposal nidis has received a high enough priority, or should there have been greater sense of urgency and a greater priority given to what nidis does? and, mayor ballard, i guess we'll start with you. >> that's a great question.

i'm not familiar with all the, all that goes on in this city, as you can tell all the time, but i would suggest to you, sir, that anything that can mitigate the costs, the losses if you will of the last few months across the nation and as you mentioned last year also, needs to be upgraded in a priority listing because it saves all of us. it not only keeps people working, but it also increases the tax base for municipalities, for states and for the federal government eventually. so, you know, this could be the, end up being the penny wise in this instance. >> okay. thank you. mr. strong, do you feel nidis gets a high enough priority in the budget proposal? >> well, i don't know specific budget proposal, but typically i would say that given the billions of dollars and number of lives that are at stake that it certainly deserves heightened importance both in the budget

and just in terms of attention. i know dr. famiglietti can talk more specifically about the shortfalls and gaps and did in his testimony. so, certainly, additional funds and resources would help. but given the billions of taxpayer dollars that are going to go out to address this issue, being able to avoid that by having some proactive measures in place using drought, um, outlooks, for example, would be extremely helpful. >> dr. famiglietti? >> so by priority do you mean higher amount? >> that and more emphasis, perhaps, higher priority? >> okay. so i make a comment in my written testimony that if nidis is to continue to play mostly a coordinating role, then i think the amount of money that' been allocated -- that's been allocated is sufficient. but to really do a great job, you know, what underlies what dr. pulwarty is trying to accomplish is the models. and so, you know, i made the

point that i think the models are far from where they need to be. >> okay. >> and so that's a much greater investment. >> great. mrs. langenfelder? >> well, your talking to someone -- you're talking to someone who doesn't know very much about how much it is budgeted for, so i would just say the an important factor in reporting, but i don't have -- >> i was going to guess the farm bureau can always use more -- >> oh, we can always use lots more of everything. [laughter] >> last quick question here. let me start again with the four panelists, is there anything more that nidis should be doing? what other practical improvements can be made in their programs? >> well, it's easy to state the obvious i think for most folks, i always like more research, no question about that. but the longer and more accurate we can make these forecasts, i think -- >> the number one priority? is okay. >> mr. strong? >> number one priority for us as

well. if we could get early warning systems, especially for oklahoma, in place right away, that would be great. >> great. >> i think education and awareness amongst the general public's critical. >> okay. and, ms. langenfelder? >> and early warning for the agriculture community. >> thank you all for your answers. mr. chairman, i can't help but make a plug here because one of the great spin-offs of the space program has, in fact, been better weather forecasting. so that's an example where what you all are talking about and our space program are interconnected, and that's one of the great spin-offs that we've had. thank you, mr. chairman. >> and i thank you. ms. lofgren, california, five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i -- this is, obviously, a very timely hearing, and i think i'm hearing general consensus from the panel that when our chairman and then-colleague mark udall put together this scheme, it actually has resulted in a good thing, and it's been

helpful, nidis has. and the question, i guess, before us is can we make it even more useful to the country. dr. famiglietti, i was struck by your chart that you showed and is also in your testimony about trends in freshwater availability. what is the reddest spot on that map are the poles. massive loss of ice at both poles which is, brings to the forefront the question that so many americans have which is what is the role on the changing climate to the weather that we're experiencing. if we are going to move beyond a mere coordinating role for ni dix -- nidis as you suggest, how would we inte integrate the climate change data that is

being collected throughout the world into this mission that is nidis'? i mean, that's a huge challenge. >> that's right. and so we're actually blessed in this country to have a great set of observations on the ground, and so your support in continuing those and increasing some of those will be greatly appreciated. but i think the key thing is some of these satellite migs like the ones -- missions like the ones i've mentioned. yo you mentioned the grace mission, and there's a future mission called smap, a soil moisture mission that will measure the wetness to soils. it'll be great for agriculture, for flood prediction, and the s.w.a.t. mission which i mentioned on tracking surface water storage changes over land. so i think one of the key frontiers for predictive modeling of the sort that underlies nidis is to be able to

tightly integrate that satellite information with our models. and that is a huge task because the sensors make measuringments at different -- measurements at different times, different spatial resolutions, and if we want to integrate the measurements, it's a difficult problem but essential. >> as a fellow californian and welcome to the committee, i'm wondering if you could discuss how nidis might be used to, in assessing complex water planning that goes on -- whether sure. >> for example, as you know our governor has just made a proposal relative to the sacramento delta. it's pretty controversial given the amount of water that would be removed. >> right. >> implicit in that discussion is not just the water quality issue -- >> right. >> -- but what's going to happen in terms of water flow, the

impact on the ecosystem of the bay, of the san francisco bay as well as the delta, the collapse of the snow pack -- >> right, right. >> can this data be used not just for the prediction of a drought for planting -- because that is, obviously, important -- but for a broader assess on assessment of how we're going to cope? >> right. absolutely. that's exactly what i'm talking about. so by this tight integration of, say, california, high resolution computer models of the water cycle for california integrated with the space-based and ground-based measurements will give us the very best available picture of what's happening with the snow pack, what's happening with the stream flow, what's happening with the soil moisture and what's happening with the groundwater. once we have that, then we can give that to the department of water resources. to the governor's office and say this is what we see, and we can also do some predictions in the

future about planning options based on the best available science. >> and finally, in terms of planning options, and you may not be able to answer this question, but, um, the pace of climate change has exceeded all the computer models that i ever saw. i mean, it's in the worst case analysis that i saw back in '95 when the brits did the first modeling. how far out given that the reality has exceeded the worst case prediction on climate change do you think we could predict using the model that you're talking about? >> so it's a very difficult, it's a very difficult question, and i think once you go past, you know, a few decades, um, the uncertainty grow, of course, but you can see general trends, and you can think about options, and you can plan out a range of options. it's just that the uncertainty gets greater because it's further out in the future. there's a difference between, say, forecasting like what's

going to happen in the next week or the next month and long-term planning. so, you know, with the forecasting very similar to what dr. pulwarty is working on, we can probably go out a few months, a season. once you get to a year, there's not much value. but from a planning and sort of future perspective thinking about the possibilities of what will happen with, say, water resources in california or the western u.s., we can go out a few decades and really start to think about what might happen and start to plan for that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my time has expired. >> thank you. and i recognize dr. harris, gentleman, for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. you know, with regards to predicting the outcome decades out and the ipcc report, let's just remember that the 2012 ipcc report on managing the extreme

risks and disasters to advance climate change mitigation concluded that, quote: there is low confidence in the attribution of changes and droughts in the level of single regions due to inconsistent or insufficient evidence. maybe we just need more evidence, but they went on on to say in north america there is medium confidence that there has been a slight tendency towards less dryness, end quote. just in case some members or some folks want to say there is some definite connection and that this climate change has some, you know, some definite long-standing effects, this is the ipcc. this is not, you know, this is not a, a anti-environmental group coming out saying there is a medium confidence that there has been an overall slight tendency towards less dryness. i can tell you, i can't see more hedging than that in the wording. ms. langenfelder, let me ask you, in your testimony, you

spoke of the impacts drought can obviously have on farmers and how it will effect the price of corn, feed stock and related agricultural commodities. i will tell you, as you're well aware, corn went over $8 a bushel i think if it wasn't earlier this week, it was late last week. a record high. and we know the price of gas just went up. affordability's becoming a problem for more americans even those who are jobs. i mean, they say, look, things are not affordable. the price of grain affects not only directly the price of food, but in terms of livestock the kind of drought effects it in two ways. one, it raises the price of grain. the other is that you lose livestock. owners thin their herds, or they just don't raise as much either because it's no longer profitable to raise the livestock. is that, is that correct? is that what we're going to see in the next few months, that the price of these, the price of

grain commodities in food directly and then livestock indirectly are going to increase, become even less affordable for americans? >> that is anticipated. that will happen only because the price of feed gets so extremely high that the farmers, ranchers cut back on their livestock numbers. they'll market them, maybe in the short term there'll be a downturn in the some of the pricing for some of the meats if you're talking about the meat specifically. but in the long term if they've thinned the herds out, then in order to rebuild it takes -- for cattle it takes years for it to reverse and chicken -- poultry is a little quicker turn around on that, and hogs are kind of in the middle. so, yeah, it could effect it in the long term, and that's an unfortunate outcome of a drought. because we lose the crop, the cash crop, the grain, and then the farmers who are feeding can't afford it, so then they cut back on their herds, so

there's less meat out there. >> and we know, in fact, that's -- and the gentleman from texas brought it up and the chairman, i'm sure, is well aware that, you know, this is what's happened to the price of, certainly to the price of beef. i mean, you know, i was in the store over the weekend. we all go to the store over the weekend. it's different because the american herds have been thinned. now, dr. pulwarty, let me ask you because, you know, nidis, hopefully, if we could predict with some confidence even in the short term, even the seasonal term that we knew what sections -- and we know where we're growing the grain, so we could, we could make a guess at some of the prices of grain. the reason why this is important is because there was an article in this morning's "wall street journal" reporting that one of the largest hog producers in the united states is going to buy its grain now from brazil, okay? so we're basically -- we, the grain exporters to the world, now are going to import grain because the price is so high. so what is your, what are the

folks over at noaa doing to talk to the folks at epa to say wait a minute, if we can predict that we're going to have a drought and that the price of corn may well go over $8 and, in fact, we're going to drive some of our production, some of our acquisition of grain overseas, we're going to have the price of gasoline and fuel go up because of the renewable fuels standard, we're going to have the price of beef go up and chicken go up and cereal, breakfast cereal go up, have you been talking to the folks at epa to say wait a minute, why don't we talk, why doesn't the administration talk about controlling the affordability of things like gas and food by thinking of maybe freezing the renewable fuel standards or? because this is something -- could you have predicted this two months ago? i mean, could you have predicted the fact that it looked like grain prices were going to rise a couple months ago? >> so to answer the question, the main groups that we work with from that standpoint is, in fact, usda. and we look to other parts of the world for where droughts

like these are happening and where purchasing can be much less there our standpoint. in terms of the near future, we can certainly say something about the persistence of drought in the midwest, in the upper midwest and maybe the relief of drought conditions in the sows. from that standpoint, our major collaborator has been the water agencies such as the corps of engineers, reclamation and the usda. but not with epa other than on low-flow water quality issues during dough. dough -- drought. >> and if i might just take ten more seconds, mr. chairman? why not the epa since the renewable fuel standard combine with the the drought is what causes corn to be near $8 a bushel right now? >> the major role of nidis is to produce an information system that allows people to have the information they need to make their decisions. so we do not make recommendations about what they should be doing.

>> oh. thank you, mr. chairman. i hope they'd send something over to the epa. thanks. >> all right, thank you. chair recognizes mr. mcnerney, gentleman from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing. i think it's important information. in my mind it's critical that programs like the nidis be in place to provide critical information and support, and i'm really delighted to see many of my republican colleagues agree on this. mr. famiglietti, can you give us an idea of how accurate programs such as nidis can be in providing drought early warning? >> um, yes. nidis, you know, what underlies nidis are weather prediction models. so we really won't be doing that much better with drought prediction than we will on our short and medium-range weather prediction. so in that sense, um, the problems that underlie or the

ways to increase or improve our drought reliability forecasts are the same that we need to do to improve our weather forecasts and our hydrological forecasts. so i think that we can realize great decreases in uncertainty mainly by integrating available measurements both on the ground and from satellites into our models. so i think that we could get our uncertainties down. you know, at some point we'll be moving out to from having much more reliability in our seasonal forecast, sort of the next horizon. >> you mentioned the needing more realistic modeling in the national water model. now, that includes data from noaa's geosynchronous satellite -- >> sure. >> the poe hard systems, is that right? >> right. >> what else do we need aside from those additional pieces of -- >> okay. so some of the key things that are missing, and this is an

important question because it draws a link between what dr. pulwarty is talking about which is predicting a drought and the work that we do in our research group which is sort of understanding what happens to the water. so many ople don't realize that we do not have a national scale water model that can help us predict stream flow, you know, in any of the major rivers of the united states. we don't have it. we don't have a national model that can tell us how much money is in the ocalala aquifer in the coastal plains or in the central valley. we don't have that. so that's something that's absolutely essential to take the step from the occurrence of drought to knowing how much water is available. >> um, so one of the things you said that was kind of striking is that we can lead the world in long-term water, um, management understanding. how would we get there? >> so i think with help from you

and encouraging more research funding for funding agencies like nasa, the national science foundation and noaa. but also i think that there's a lot of potential benefit in public/private partnerships. a lot of resources available there, and there is a lot of technology. so i think the time is ripe for those sorts of partnerships. because we could really, we could really surge ahead. >> thank you. i know noaa was hurt by the cutoff of the polar satellite system, and i would expect that would impact this program as well, the nidis program as well. >> right. i'm actually not familiar with that satellite, with those satellites that you're talking about. >> mr. pulwarty, you're familiar with that? could you address that a little bit? >> the addition of information

that provides shorter-term risk analyses as some of those satellites provided helps us understand when a drought might end from the standpoint of whether or not you get heavy rainfall events, and that was one of the contributions of that satellite. >> well, i mean, it seems what you're talking about needs consistent, reliable research data and information, and cutting off programs like that is going to set us back whenever it happens. these programs, these satellite programs, they have long-term, long-lead items that take six months, nine months, years, and companies need to plan ahead for those purchases. so what you guys need, in my opinion, is just a reliable budget so you'll know what to plan for and how to use the resources that are available. not just additional resources, but consistency of resources. >> that's right. mostly we operate on three to five-year at best, on average

three-year funding cycle, at best a five-year funding cycle. and it's really tough to get any momentum. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll yield back. >> all right, i thank you. chair recognizes mr.-- [inaudible] again from michigan for fife minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks for being here this morning. it was great to hear from you all. um, my question is for mrs. langenfelder. as you may know, i represent northern michigan where agriculture is a critical part of our economy. we have fruit orchards, dairy farms and a lot of business and industry that support those farmers. and i'm impressed with the results of the drought-related research and the data that nidis has been able to produce, but i'm wondering how individual farmers can best use this data. you know, i'm a friend to farmers, i want to support farmers in any way i can in my

district, but do you feel that the farmers are up to speed on this? does it have the technology, the information, the education they need to implement this data or use it effectively? >> well, the data would be, obviously, what we're interested in is the weather and also the soil moisture, content and things like that were discussed earlier. and, yes, most farmers are -- if they want to stay in business, they try to stay up with technology and information and do, do learn about those kind of things that they need to use and utilize in order to stay this business. i mean -- >> so at your farm you access this site weekly or -- i mean, how do you get your information from this? >> well, you know, the internet and all the things come on smartphones and all that, and my son and daughters are quite agile with those, unlike their parents. [laughter] >> so you don't access it yourself then? >> personally, no. [laughter] >> well, that's the kind of thing i'm wondering about, you

know, if there's been enough education of farmers that they have, you know, day-to-day access, you know, do they know how to do it? is the farm bureau talking to those guys? >> certainly, there's education. you have the extension helps quite a bit in the education to the farmers, and we get a lot of publications, and you get information in weekly or monthly reports from soil conservation service, and you get it from extension all the time. i mean, we -- so there is updated information out there for farmers, and if they're internet savvy, they certainly are on top of it. >> dr. pulwarty, did you have a comment there? you kind of looked like you wanted to chime in. >> thanks for the question. one of the major contributions we've tried to make is by working with the national drought mitigation center, with the extension services, with state climatologists on helping communities, local folks, become