is backward-looking rather thank forward-looking, that's why turning and facing forward is the approach we need to take. ms. mikulski: thank the gentleman for his really insight fled and cogent comments, a greater fighter for virginia. i want to work with you, too. so we create a climate that senator shelby and i do, no brinkmanship, no ultimatums, let's get the job done. we need to do our job so we are people get to do their job. and keep america rolling. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. begich: if i can have 15 minutes to speak, 15 minutes to speak for a topic on revenue sharing.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. begich: thank you very much. madam president, first i want -- i wasn't coming down to speak on appropriations and the c.r. but i want to say thank you to the chairwoman and the ranking member for working in a bipartisan way to try to find a solution to find an ability to ensure that at the end of the day we keep this government operating and moving forward. i thank them for that. madam president, today i rise to make some exceptions i want to take some exceptions with some of my colleagues and i hate to say this, colleagues on my side of the aisle which is very frustrating. i'm referring to a letter that i have reviewed and it's from march 8 and it's a letter to the senate energy committee that talks about revenue sharing and offshore oil and gas development, and how that federal revenue should be shared. and in some ways as i read this letter they make it sound like some evil monster lurking in the deep which is far from the truth. and it's just very frustrating

as i continue to see and i hate to say this, from my side of the aisle, my fellow democrats trying to make energy policy without talking to folks who are in the energy-producing states. let me make it very clear. i'm talking about revenue sharing as this letter is laid out about revenue sharing but when i read the letter, it's really about just opposing offshore oil and gas development of any kind. and i come from a state that is heavily invested in this endeavor and to say that revenue sharing is inherently neck taliban is -- inekable is somewhat comiccable. to drain resources from our energy-producing states without compensating them for the impacts of this needed development. i introduced legislation six weeks ago to make sure alaskans get their fair share of the resources being developed along our coastline. our communities are greatly impacted by the development.

my goal is to share federal energy resources generated off alaska's coast with the state and local governments as well as the alaskan native peoples. it's just common sense. my bill not only encourages increasing responsible development of alaska's energy resources, but also makes sure our communities benefit directly from oil and gas being produced in our state. ideas to help -- my idea is the to help state, local and tribal governments pay for the private-sector infrastructure required to develop these resources. my bill requires oil produced in the federal waters of the beaufort sea and for those who may not always know where alaska is, it's not by the coast of california which every map seems to show it, it's actually up north near canada, and it actually has an enormous amount of resources in the arctic area. it's called the beaufort sea. the idea is to require -- my bill requires oil produced in

the federal waters from those seas, the chucin and beaufort to be brought by pipeline. this is safer and ensures throughput for the alaska pipeline that feeds this country. it provides alaska with 37.5% of the royalty share from energy development, fossil or renewable. now, let me make this clear. again, i read this letter and they seem to be outraged by revenue sharing but, again, as i look at it, it's really about they just don't like offshore development. they don't like oil and gas. that's what i read here. the fact is this congress before i got here passed revenue sharing for the gulf states. not alaska. they seclude alaska even though it's the farthest area away from access to the lower 48 for their fuel sources and yet no revenue stream at all, period. yet we have huge impact just in the start of development stage in our housing and our

transportation, in our water and sewer and the capacity for these communities to support this large development. my bill provides just what the gulf states get, 37.5% of federal revenues -- we're not adding new taxes, we're taking what's collected or in the future what would be collected, 37.5% woog the following way. 25% of that amount would go to local governments. 25% would go to alaskan native villages and regional corporations which are similar in some respects to indian country in the lower 48 but much different in how they operate but provide services to alaska native communities. and 10% would go directly to tribal governments. and the remaining 40% for the state of alaska to deal with the impacts. this bill also requires 15% of the federal share of royalties be directed to the land and water conservation fund. why is that important?

because that not only touches coastal states, it touches every state, almost $900 million annually would be directed for the purposes of land and water conservation all throughout this country. finally, a percentage, 7.5% of the federal share would be dedicated directly, directly, to deficit reduction. you know, again as i read the letter, they make it sound very evil like it's some monster lurking in the waters. this doesn't sound so evil. this is just about a fairness, it's a treatment for our state and any coastal state that develops oil and gas off their shores. as i read the letter it's clear that my friends, colleagues on my side of the aisle don't get what it means when you do have this type of development and what infrastructure you have to provide to balance off against that infrastructure to ensure that the people of that state get the resources they need and the development they need

especially when you extract from our state because because that's where our state has been, people come and extract and use it elsewhere, that the state should be left left with some stream of revenue. i know they make a point here that this bill does direct, again, 37.5% of these resources to states and the answer is simply yes. yes, it does. because relying on the federal government to determine what's best for these states doesn't always work out so well. we're now finally doing a c.r. with some modifications and i'm glad we are. but the way this place prailts after four years i'll put my bet on state governments and local governments and tribal governments to deliver the services we need and in it means we take money from the federal government and give it to local communities to do the job, then i'm all for it. as a former mayor, i know what we can do when we're given the resources and how we will spend it very efficiently and do the right thing for the community that we represent. so, again, madam president

chair, i appreciate the moments to talk on this. it's more in frustration when i see these letters and i mean you're from an energy state, you know exactly what it's like when people propose ideas about our states and never talk to us about it or they oppose something we're working on and we should have some communication but but to have people on my own side of the aisle oppose something that makes so much sense about giving more control to people on the local level how to spend the resources that are extracted off their coastline, yet not saying we won't share it with the rest of the country which we do. so, again, i thank you for the moment to speak on this and i at this time yield the floor back. mr. begich: madam president, i

note an absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. mikulski: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: madam president, i ask that a call of the quorum be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: madam president, we will be adjoining shortly around 12:30 for our respective party caucuses. i understand we're going to be joining by the president of the united states to share with us his insights and memtions to deal with our economy and get it going. but i know one of the issues that often comes up is so-called entitlement reform, madam president. this is not the subject

ordinarily of an appropriations committee, but i'd like to just talk briefly about how we do impact the funding of both social security, medicare, and medicaid, and i'd like to take a minute to talk about medicaid. so, madam president, i want to just talk about what medicaid funds. remember, medicaid by and large is not in our appropriations committee. medicaid is not in our appropriations committee, but the people who work for medicaid are. that's a different topic. here's what i want everybody to understand about medicaid, because it's a subject of great debate and often prickly debate. 80% of the beneficiaries of medicaid are children. children. usually children of the working poor.

and it helps them get their health care, often early detection for hearing problems, maybe that childhood diabetes that we're concerned about. though 80% of the beneficiaries are children, madam president, 80% of the money is in senior -- or in people in nursing homes or assisted nursing homes because of some form of neurological or cognitive impediment. i don't want to sound like an m.d., don't even have a ph.d., but what i do know from talking to my constituents is that that 80% in long-term care facilities is often related to something related to dementia like alzheimer's or a neurological impediment like parkinson's. so, madam president, let's go

then to n.i.h. and remember, n.i.h. does funding at the bethesda campus here in maryland, okay, and then it also gives grants to brilliant researchers, usually working in academic centers of excellence. that could be johns hopkins and the university of maryland, it could be the university of alabama, kentucky, just about -- you know, those grants are competitive and peer reviewed. let me get to the point that i'm making. by funding n.i.h., by funding the national institutes of aging, we are on a breakthrough trajectory for finding the cognitive stretchout for alzheimer's. now, i have been on this for more than 20 years because my dear father, who ensured my education and looked out for me

all the way through raising me as a young lady, died of the consequences of alzheimer's. alzheimer's is an equal opportunity catastrophe for the high and mighty and for the ordinary. our own endearing president reagan died of the consequences of alzheimer's. my father, ordinary people, men and women who helped build america. so what do we want to do though? we need to make public investments in the research to find both the cure for alzheimer's and also to find if not a cure, cognitive stretchout. what do i mean by cognitive stretchout? it means if we have early detection, new tools, new m.r.i. imaging, new kinds of ways of identifying it early on, what could we do to prevent memory

loss? if we could do it three to five years, we would reduce the cost of medicaid spending. if we find a cure, a cure for alzheimer's alone -- and i'm not even talking about lou gehrig's disease or parkinson's -- we could reduce the medicaid budget by 50% -- 5-0." 5-0. nancy reagan's spoke been it. sandra day o'connor's spoken about it. barbara mikulski is speaking about it. most of all america speaks. the alzheimer's association and other groups, they march for the cure, they march for the stretchout. we, in that one area alone, could have a dramatic impact on the lives of american families and on the future of federal spending in medicaid. it would mean a compelling human need when a family -- when a

person has alzheimer's, the whole family has alzheimer's. i remember my dear mother, and as my father became more and more lost -- losing his memory, we had to work a 36-hour day looking out for him. we were more than willing to do it. you know, i was born in the 1930's. i was a schoolgirl in the 1940's and 1950's. there wasn't much talk about educating girls. but not from my father. i have two wonderful sisters. my father wanted his girls to have an education. he felt that by giving us an education, he could give us somebody that nobody would ever take away from us, that we would be ready for whatever life sent us. you're holding up that? what's that mean, time's up? the presiding officer: the majority time has expired. ms. mikulski: i ask for three additional minutes, unanimous consent. the presiding officer: without objection.

a senator: no objection. ms. mikulski: i'm sorry. i didn't realize -- >> no objection, i just want to know how much time i have, i need about seven or eight minutes. ms. mikulski: let me just finish this, if i might, two minutes. i didn't realize the gentleman from south carolina was on the floor, and i'm going to add -- i just want to make this point. my father saw to my education, my mother and father. my father's business burned down when i was a senior in high school. my mother moved heaven and earth for me to go to college. and when my father was stricken with the consequences, i was ready to move heaven and earth from him to find help for him. there was very little available. madam president, it's not about my father. it's about mothers and fathers everywhere. let's spend the federal money where the people want us to spend it. let's meet a compelling human need now and do the research that we need to do to help those families and help our federal budget in the future. i yield the floor. mr. graham: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you.

i would like to bring the body's attention to a recent decision by the obama administration to place the son-in-law of osama bin laden, mr. abu ghaith -- i think i'm saying his name correctly -- into federal district court in new york, charged with conspiracy to kill american citizens. he has been presented to our criminal justice system. he is, in my view, the classic example of an enemy combatant. i will be, along with senator ayotte, writing the attorney general, asking a rundown of how long he was interrogated before he was read his miranda rights. and i just believe this is a classic example of a person of great intelligence value that should have been held as an enemy combatant at guantanamo bay for intelligence gathering

purposes as long as it took to get good intelligence. he, in my view, is a treasure-trove of information about not only al qaeda but maybe things going on in iran. there's an allegation he was being held in iran for a very long time as their houseguest, for lack of a better word. but i fear greatly that we're beginning to go back to the criminal justice model that preceded 9/11. the first time the world trade centers were attacked, you had the blind sheikh case and the prosecutors did a wonderful job in prosecuting the blind sheikh and his conspirators in federal court. but everybody at that time treated al qaeda and terrorism as a criminal threat. after 9/11 we changed our model. the attacks of 9/11 were viewed as an act of war and we authorized military force to go after al qaeda and affiliates. by allowing us to use the law of war model regarding al qaeda

operatives from 9/11 forward, we can now hold them as enemy combatants. and under the law of war -- i've been a military lawyer for 30 years -- there is no miranda right component. if you're captured as an enemy prisoner, you're not read your rights, you're not provided a lawyer. when a commander hears that we have a high-value member of the enemy in our custody, the first thing the commander wants to know is what intelligence have you gathered. the last thing on the commander's mind is, where are you going to prosecute them. so when you're fighting a washing the purpose of -- of winning -- fighting a war, the purpose of interrogating an enemy prisoner is to find out information about enemy activities so we can win the war and protect our troops. in criminal law, the purpose is to convict somebody for a ciel. under criminal law, domestic criminal law, you cannot hold someone for interrogation purposes, you can't ask them about what they've been up to, what they know, and i don't suggest you should. they're entitled to a lawyer, they're entitled to miranda rights and that's the way it should be. but we're fighting a war, at least in my view we're fighting

a war. i would like to remind the nation -- i doubt if we need a whole lot of reminding but every now and again apparently we do -- this is the twin towers on fire beginning to crumble from an attack of 9/11. this is the pentagon, the damage done to the pentagon, 300 people lost their lives there. and this is the shanksville, pennsylvania, sight of flight 93. to those who suggest that we're not in a war, i could not disagree with you more. i would say the single biggest loss of life in the war on terror was the first day. the very first day the war began, september 11, 2001. do you remember where you were at? do you remember your reaction? the first three battles in this war cost us the most lives of any day in the war. we've lost a lot of soldiers and our heart goes out to them. but there's never been a day where americans bled more than 9/11 itself. and there are three battlefields in this war: new york, over

2,000 people killed; pentagon, around 300 killed; shanksville, pennsylvania, the entire membership of that airplane. to the people flight 93, you fought back. you weren't fighting against a bunch of criminals, you fought back against a bunch of terrorists who were trying to take the last airplane and crash it into this building or some other building in washington. to those who died on that flig flight, you're the first line of defense. you, above all others, were the first ones to fight back. and i will not let your -- your fight go unnoticed. you were not fighting a bunch of criminals, you were fighting people who were at war with us. and i wish we had understood in 1998 we're at war and not used a criminal model. what if we would have kept the sheikh, the blind sheikh, in military custody, interrogated him for a very long time, lawfully and humanely? because i believe that as a military lawyer, maybe we could

have gotten information to prevent 9/11. but here's why i'm so upset. the person that's in custody in new york is the son-in-law of osama bin laden. and, again, i remind you, this is the bloodiest day in the war on terror. these are three battlefields that cost us 2,900 lives -- over 2,900 american citizens decide in the first day of the war. now, years later -- years later, we're still capturing people. and the person we captured -- and i want to congratulate all those who were involved in -- in bringing this man into our custody. this person over here to the left sitting by osama bin laden is his son-in-law. he left kuwait in 2000, he went to afghanistan. he pledged allegiance to bin laden. he was the spokesperson for -- spokesperson for al qaeda. he was one of the key guys trying to get other people to pledge allegiance to al qaeda and bin laden. so in 2000 he went to afghanistan and he joined up with bin laden and became his

son-in-law. he founded a charity that was used to support terrorist organizations. on 9/11, after the attacks, he was one of the first people to speak and to glorify the attacks about how they attacked our homeland. and i'll get that quote later. i don't have it with me. but he said, my brothers, we have finally hit the homeland, we finally hit them in the heart of where they live. on october the 10th in a video, he said, "americans should know the storm of the planes will not stop. there are thousands of islamic nation's youth who are eager to die just as the americans are eager to live." all i can say is that this man was interrogated by our intelligence officials and the f.b.i. for hours, not days, before he was read his miranda rights. under the law of war, we had the opportunity available to us to hold him indefinitely as a prisoner, enemy combatant, a member of the enemy force and to lawfully interrogate him without a lawyer, without reading him

his miranda rights because we're trying to gather intelligence to make sure we can prevent future attacks and to find out what this vicious enemy is up to. we -- we did not take that opportunity. this administration is refusing to use guantanamo bay, one of the best military jails in the history of the world, very transparent, well run, and it is the place he should be today, not in new york city awaiting trial in federal court. it's not about federal court not being available in the war on terror. article 3 courts have done a good job in many cases of prosecuting terrorists. but so have military commission tribunals at guantanamo bay, where k.s.m., the architect of 9/11, is being prosecuted under the military commissions act. my beef, my complaint is that this man was within hours read his miranda rights and given a lawyer and cut off the ability of our government to find out what he knew about the war on terror, current operations and future operations. he should have been at

guantanamo bay interrogated by our military for as long as it took to find out what he knew. and if you tell me, if the administration's telling me we got all we needed from this man in one day, you're offending my intelligence. i've been a military lawyer for 30 years. i understand what's going on at guantanamo bay, the information we received over years. in some cases, it took months, if not years to get the total picture of what a detainee knew. so if you're telling me and the american public the time you had with this man before you read him his miranda rights was enough, then you're offending my intelligence. you're making a huge mistake. the decision not to treat him as an enemy combatant, put him at guantanamo bay for interrogation purposes under the law of war is one of the most serious mistakes we've made since 9/11. we're beginning to criminalize the war. this was not an intelligence decision. this was not a military decisi

decision. this was a political decision. because you will never convince me or almost anybody else in america that interrogating him for hours was enough. the reason he was interrogated for hours and not days is they did not want to take him to guantanamo bay. the reason he was read his miranda rights is they're pushing everybody back into the criminal justice system. all i can say is that guantanamo bay has been reformed. it should be the place we take people like him as an enemy combatant to be interrogated under the law of war, and we're using the criminal justice model in a way that will come back to haunt our nation. we're beginning to criminalize the war and i want my colleagues to know that we're going down a very dangerous path. and i will do everything in my power to get this administration and future administrations back into the game when it comes to fighting a war. because i believe very much, dear colleagues, that we're in a state of war with a enemy that does not wear a uniform, that has no capital to conquer, no air force to shoot down, no navy

to sink but they will destroy us if they k. and the only thing between them and us is our brave men and women in the military and good information. and this man was interrogated for hours when he should have been interrogated for months. and we're beginning to do what got us in this mess to begin with, looking at al qaeda as a group of common criminal thugs rather than the warriors they are. these people right here mean to kill us all. they're at war with us. i intend to be at war with them. i yield. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: madam president, seeing the press of business here, i will be brief. but i wanted to take the opportunity to rise today and simply speak to the importance of the poultry industry, something that spreads across the delmarva peninsula, is central to the state of maryland and the state of delaware and many other states in our count country. with the sequester having kicked in, many of us who are from

states that have livestock or poultry processing are aware of the impending and significant negative impact on our home states and our economies, on people's employment and on their opportunity to continue to support their families. and so i wanted to briefly speak in support of what i know are senator mikulski's tireless efforts to ensure that the 6,200 meat and poultry processing plants in this country do not get needlessly shut down. in the last quarter of the last calendar year alone, $2.2 billion -- 2.2 billion chickens and turkeys were inspected by the meat inspectors of the food safety inspection service, and this poultry industry, which is nationwide, provides vital employment to the people of delaware, of maryland and many other states. secretary vilsack of the united states department of agriculture estimates that furloughs, if implemented, of these safety inspectors could cost $10 billion a year in losses and $400 million a year in lost wages just for those directly employed.

the private sector dwroas and the -- grows and the private sector has opportunity when federal inspectors are a part of the total ecosystem of poultry in this country. we raise great turkeys, we raise great chick independence this country. we have the world leading poultry industry, but the food safety and inspection service is a vital part of it. so i commend senator mikulski for her tireless effort to make sure that we find some responsible way through the sequester to ensure it doesn't needlessly harm and put out of work the tens of thousands of delawareans and marylanders who rely on this vital industry for their opportunities going forward. thank you. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. coons: madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be terminated. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to calendar number 21, h.r. 933. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: the motion to proceed to calendar number 21, h.r. 933, an act making appropriations for the department of defense, the department of veterans affairs and other departments and agencies for fiscal year ending september 30, 2013, and for other purposes. mr. reid: madam president, we expect to adopt the motion to proceed to this bill this afternoon and start on the amendment process. i have spoken to the chair and the ranking member of this committee, and we're anxious to move forward and start doing some legislating here. as i have said this morning when i opened the senate, this is exemplary the work done with the two managers of this bill, and we need to make sure that we move forward on it. it would be good if we could have amendments that would be in some way germane and relevant to what we're doing, but we're going to take all amendments and try to work through them as quickly as we can. i hope people would agree to very short time agreements, and

i would hope that we don't need to table the amendments. i hope we can move forward and set up votes on every one of them. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate shall stand in recess until 2:30. current spending authority runs out at the end of this month. live coverage when senators gavel back in here on c-span2. house budget committee chairman paul ryan released the house republicans budget plan for 2014 this morning.

you can read it online at c-span.org. senate democrats plan to offer a counter proposal on wednesday. the white house is not said when president obama will release his budget. and white house spokesman jay carney will be asked for his reaction to the republican plan during today's briefing scheduled to begin shortly. while we wait, a look at this morning's washington journnal and a discussion of the nation's flood insurance program. >> host: we're back. let me introduce you to james lee witt, the former fema director for the clinton administration from 1993 to 2000 bun. and admiral james loy, a former deputy secretary of homeland security, former tsa administrator and commandant of the coast guard. welcome to both of you. you are cochairs of the protecting america.org group. james lee witt, what is it? >> guest: our main concern with admiral loy and myself and several coalition partners was the fact we're

seeing events more frequent and more devastating than we've ever seen. we've seen insurance rates go so high. it is not available or affordable anymore. we're seeing less people have insurance to cover losses when there is an event. that way it costs taxpayers more money helping them to recover in these efforts, particularly these big events. we thought if we could put together a program that would make insurance more available and affordable so that more people would be covered but the important thing too is that that if an event happened they could recover much faster, the economy would recover much faster in those communities by developing a national fund as well as a state fund, then this fund would grow and build and it would create more competition in the insurance market. so insurance would be available and affordable. >> host: so, admiral loy, how does it work now and describe how you would change it? >> guest: well, it works now

basically as we watched sandy perhaps one of the most graphic example of the most recent one at least where in the course of watching the storm go by by devastate the homes in new jersey and new york and impact the area up in the northeast corridor, at the other end of the day the process by which we're making an effort to rebuild those communities and bail out, i will use that word for the moment and come back to it in just a second, the homeowners that were involved, interestingly the $60 billion that we watched in two segments find their way toward relief from the congress was all appropriated money. no offsets. so it goes directly to the deficit and onto the national debt and part of our design construction here is to find a better financial piece of infrastructure that will support that notion for the idea that james lee mentioned a moment ago which is our goal which is affordable, available insurance for homeowners. >> host: explain how it work as little bit more.

>> guest: fundamentally it would be based on actuarily sound premiums paid by you and i the homeowner into our normal insurance companies. there are sort of a three level layered approach to the designed intent on pa.org gameplan. the first level is the insurance companies that served the country very well for hundreds of years and will continue to do that for hundreds of years down the road. they will probably handle well in excess of 90% of the these events as they go by in the normal course of events. it is the true catastrophes that we're really focusing in on with regard to earthquakes or wildfires or floods or hurricanes, any kind of a natural disaster. so the system works very simply. the homeowner pays his premium, acutarily sound premium. the insurance company make as contribution to the state level fund on those states who volunteer to put a fund together at the state level. so if a trigger level, a threshold is met in terms of

damages from that storm, the insurance companies who are already assisting homeowners get assisted by the state fund to add to that assist level. then in those truly megaevents, a national backstop is established as well where those states volunteering to be part of the system take a portion of what has been provided to them. they make that contribution to the national level. those, we're sort of referring to that as a catastrophe ira because at the other end of the day on a tax advantaged basis just like iras or 401(k)s, those funds accrue over time and then become available when the storm hits as opposed to becoming a challenge to the congress in the aftermath to use appropriated dollars. >> host: acutarily sound insurance premium. they're not now? >> guest: the point, any insurance company is going to offer you an acutarily sound premium but they're also in the competition. it is a market place. they're looking for profit as well. the point is whether or not the actuaries who looked at

risk are going to define what kind of a premium is appropriate for that particular place and for that particular time. that's what we mean by actuarily sound premium suches that the industry's actuaries blessed so to speak the premiums used in the system. >> host: are states right now subsidizing rates for homeowners? >> guest: florida has the citizens fund which is a similar to what this fund would be. i wouldn't say it is subsidizing. it is basically kind of a establishing an insurance fund where they were not able to buy insurance through the market and some would call it subsidized. some wouldn't. it is another way of purchasing insurance but this program is privately-funded. it is not taxpayers dollars and, we have to do something different with budget cuts we're seeing today and with

the events that we're seeing today, much more frequent, much more devastating than we've seen in the past, we have to think out of that box and we have to be creative and come up with a different way to help people recover from these events and this is what we're trying to do. >> host: would insurance companies benefit from your proposal? >> guest: all that participates in this program. >> host: explain that a little bit more. >> guest: well, you've got state farm, you've got allstate, you've got, who else is in there? >> guest: essentially all of the pnc companies will be part and parcel of the marketplace and always will be. the beauty here the competition that is bred, rather than leaving the marketplace after one of these major catastrophes, we believe the competition that will be bred by the fact that it is not an appropriated bailout any longer, but rather a system that actually works and works on a prefunded basis

will actually entice all of those companies to come back into the very place that was just hit and compete for the insurance as a part of the marketplace. >> host: want to let our viewers know james lee witt here now, executive chairman. board of witt, o'brien, a leading company in preparedness, crisis management, disaster response. senior counselor, admiral, at the cohen group. do you have clients that would benefit from what you're putting forward? >> guest: i don't know, we're not in the business so to speak at the cohen group. our client basis sort of a much wider defense space establishment but with a very wide portfolio of interests. so in terms of relief for any of our clients based on this program that's not part of what we're doing. >> guest: no. >> host: so you've been at this for quite a while now, protectingamerica.org. >> guest: eight years. >> host: eight years trying to get it passed. i watched an interview with an nbc affiliate you did in

new york, you said 2011, this is the year. it is 2013. who is opposing this idea and why? what is difficult? >> guest: well, i think this is the year interestingly enough. every time we have one of these major storms go by it is yet another opportunity for us as a nation to think through whether or not we're doing this efficiently and effectively or whether we're not and i think it's pretty clear we're not. the current system is essentially broken and the people that bear most of the burden interestingly are lower middle class citizens and homeowners. for example in sandy, i think i saw a report of the 518,000 homes that were impacted by the sandy storm as it went by, fully 43% of those homeowners made less than $30,000 a year. so there's a disproportionate burden being borne by the lower and middle income families of our country. and to deal then with an appropriated bailout where $60 billion goes to that relief because it was either

uninsured or underinsured affords the challenge of a broken system. in other words, taxpayers in idaho and montana are sending their tax dollars to washington to do a, b, and c and all of sudden they're diverted to do storm relief. the reality there, those not offset, all those dollars go right to the deficit for the year. it just seems to me on a plan basis we know there is sort of a, if there is a big pie on the table and one segment of that deficit pie is something we can take out of there forever and not have to worry about that again, that is precisely what we ought to be doing. we ought to be progressively thinking about a comprehensively integrated system. >> host: we're talking about national disaster preparedness for two veterans on that process. we're taking phone calls. ron in new england. >> caller: i'm from long island in the hamptons. >> host: got it. >> caller: i would like to know why, i lived out here all my life. i was a commercial fishermen.

we used to haul things and fish off with the nets. i seen the shore change day-to-day. some days we could fish. some days we couldn't. out there when we get a bad nor'easter, doesn't even have to be bad, it takes a lot of the sand away from the beach. next thing you do you got all these millionaires out there crying that, to the government, to the state, to the town, to whoever they can cry about, we didn't do enough to protect their houses. now, my feelings are is, you can't stop mother nature. if you're familiar with the outer, what do you call it, the barrier beaches out there in west hampton beach where it has been washing through, i remember being a little kid with my father and they would dump cars in the breach to slow the water down coming in from the ocean to the bay so they could backfill it. this has been happening ever since i was a little child. >> host: ron, we'll get an answer. james lee witt, is this about the expensive homes on the east coast?

>> guest: i think, not expensive homes. it is about every home. every home owned around any coast. you know, we are seeing, you know, more erosion. than we've seen in the past but this is about making insurance available and affordable for anyone. it is not just trying to bailout rich people or anyone else. this is to help people feel that they can, get help if they get hit. you know, if you look at, when i was director of fema, if you looked at just natural beach erosion, the study that we did, that was each year, without a storm there was probably 1500 homes would be lost just from natural beach erosion. >> host: so what does it mean then to you, to both of you when the gao puts out their high-risk theories that they did this year and the first item on their agenda is, limiting the federal government's fiscal exposure by better managing

climate change risks? >> guest: i think the gao, this is their annual high-risk list that they put out. they take a couple things off and put a couple things on. this instance this year, again prompted by the sandy experience you saw gao add what you just described to their list of high-risk exposure of the federal government. we have watched now for several years, as we have sort of kicked the can down the road here with regard to financial seriousness and finding a compromise to the deficit debt challenge. again, this becomes an opportunity to, at the pa.org agenda as referenced in mr. serrie's bill which we believe will drop today today, this goes to the very issue that the gao puts on its high-risk list. which is to say we are at the moment exposed as a nation to these massive

bailouts in the aftermath of the big storm that goes by. if we can design a system whereby we accrue moneys in advance have it available to do that for us, then we would see, i would think, next year perhaps that item come off the high-risk list. >> host: who is leading this bill? who is leading sponsor. >> guest: representative series from new jersey will drop the bill today, we believe or certainly within the next couple days. we have a good history on this piece of legislation actually going back to 2007 when the house passed what was then known as the homeowners defense act. >> we're leaving this recorded program as today's white house brief something getting underway. >> good afternoon, everyone. thanks for being here. just a quick thing i want to mention at the top if i may. today the senate judiciary committee voted to send the full senate two more important pieces of the president's plan to reduce gun violence.

providing districts with resources to make their schools safer and closing loopholes that allow felons, the mentally ill and others who should not have guns to avoid background checks are important measures that will help save lives. we look forward to continuing to work with congress on this and on the other important pieces of legislation that are part of the president's comprehensive plan to reduce gun violence. with that i will go to your questions. darlene? >> thank you, jay. i wanted to start off by objecting to the decision this morning to limit the president's remarks to just print and not broader -- [inaudible] >> i take your objection. i think it was live streamed so everyone in america with electricity and a computer could see it today. >> that's true -- >> live streamed on whitehouse.gov why not allow it. involve cameras. >> i take your objection. >> we don't want to see a situation where live striming of us being there. >> that is certainly not the case.

but i appreciate the, i appreciate the point. >> jay, what was the reason for it? >> again, we made a decision based on the fact it was live streamed. there is print pooler there or was there. and it was available for everyone to see. >> how many events have been live screened and do you let the pool in and other reporters in? why the change this time? >> i again i think because of logistics of this and the fact it was live streamed and print pooler was sent. there is no, i would not read anything bigger than the decision today into today's decision. >> on the gun vote in the senate judiciary committee, how will, will that factor into the president's discussions today with senate democrats? >> i think it's safe to say that when the president meets with senate democrats as he will in a little bit he will discuss an array of topics. i think he will commend the

senate democrats for their focus and persistence in making sure that the violence, violence against women act was reauthorized and the president was very glad to be able it sign that. he will focus on the work that senate democrats have done with senate republicans to advance bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform. he will, i'm sure, as you note, darlene, talk about the progress that senate democrats have made towards the goal of bipartisan measures to reduce gun violence in america. and he will certainly discuss, well, as i mentioned yesterday, he may bring up concerns he has about the unnecessary delays that have confronted our nominations, the historic delays. just yesterday i believe, the senate finally confirmed someone to the federal

circuit court of appeals who was filibustered for something like 464 days. so you would think there must have been something disturbing about his nomination. that there must have been great opposition to it. instead he was voted an confirmed 91-0. i think that is emblem matic of a problem we have in the confirmation process. he will also of course talk about budget and fiscal issues. the work that senator murray is doing on a budget for the senate. and the work that he is enskbageed in discussing with lawmakers of both parties to try to find common ground on these issues, on the need to reduce our deficit in a balanced way. the need to move forward with comprehensive immigration reform. to move forward with measures to reduce gun violence. to take action to ensure we're investing in education and infrastructure and innovation, the areas that

will allow our economy to grow and create jobs in the future. you know, there is a big agenda here and the american people want action on all of it. so those will likely be the subjects. yes, steve. >> in the ryan budget is there anything in there that you could find positive about it that might prompt some breakthrough on a major deficit reduction deal? >> well, as you know the president had lunch with chairman ryan last week as well as congressman van hollen. he is engaging with lawmakers of both parties, and has notably had the dinner with senate republicans but the engagement is broader and deeper and continues. you know, we put out a statement today. i put out a statement about our view of the ryan budget and, you know the president certainly believes that congressman ryan is sincere in what he believes his budget represents in terms of policy priorities and he commends senator -- congressman ryan for the

effort but there is no question that the ryan budget, again, represents a series of policy choice this is president profoundly disagrees with. as i noted in my statement it aims to reduce the deficit but the math doesn't add up and you know, you have a situation where you either have to, as we saw last year when there was a proposal put forward by congressman ryan's running mate, in order to lower the rates the way that he proposes there is no way to do that in a revenue neutral way without raising taxes substantially on middle class families. there is simply no way. outside economists made that clear last year. the problem is more severe with this budget because some, the fact is that chairman ryan takes as his baseline the increase in

rates for the wealthiest americans that was achieved through the fiscal cliff compromise and, instead of going therefore from 35% down to 28% which is what governor romney proposed in his tax reform plan that was untenable and would have resulted in massive tax hikes for the middle class, chairman ryan would make that cut from the 39.6 to 25%. and the result would be even more punishing for middle class americans. the, on the other side, again, i guess it's, you know, we look at the ryan budget as a perfect example why balance is so necessary because this is what, this is the alternative to balance. it results in unfair tax hikes on middle class americans and it results in undue burden on middle class americans through the cuts envisioned, either on education or, investment in

infrastructure and elsewhere and innovation. those cuts of course harm our future, our future growth. but then on the entitlement side voucherizing medicare is an option the public, i think overwhelmingly rejects. it rejected last year. rejected the year before. it does not believe it is good policy. beyond public disapproval, it does nothing to deal with the fundamental problem here which is rising health care costs. it actually exacerbates that problem but shifts the burden from the medicare program to seniors. asks them to pay the difference, and that doesn't obviously keep true to the promise of the guarantee that the medicare program represents. so we see a lot of differences. there is no question. but the president does believe that there is consensus in america about the need for a balances approach. there is the consensus, a majority of, certainly

consensus in the senate for a need for a balanced approach. senate democrats, house democrats, the president, the public, and a lot of senate republicans have expressed interests in a balanced approach. so, for that reason, the president believes there is cause to continue the effort to try to find common ground and compromise. >> you cited a number of things that the president will say today. up on the hill. is he going up there to give a speech or is it a conversation? >> i think it's a conversation but he will certainly have some things to say at the top and he will interact with members about as he will i believe in his other meetings with both democrats in the house and republicans in the senate and the house. yes, jim. >> this morning the "national journal" quoted a senior administration official who spoke anonymously about the president's trips to the hill and this outreach to republicans, quote, this is a joke. we're wasting the president's time and hours.

i hope you all in parentheses here in the need yaw that you're happy because we're doing it for you. is this a show? does the president feel that is a joke? >> i saw that story and i appreciate the question because i have no idea who said that i can tell you that opinion has never been voiced in my presence, in the president's presence, in the west wing. it does not represent the president's view. it does not represent the white house's view and does not represent the administration's view. >> did you talk to the president personally about this to make sure this was not his view? >> i talked to the president every day about this very issue and the answer is, he believes, strongly, that it is important to engage with lawmakers of both parties in order to find common ground so that we can move forward, not just on our budget issues, but on the other issues that confront us. and there is great opportunity to do that. we have seen progress on immigration reform. we have seen progress, as i

mentioned at the top, in the congress, in the senate, on efforts to reduce gun violence. we need to make progress on enhancing our energy independence. we need to make progress on rebuilding our infrastructure because it puts people to work now and it makes us more competitive, economically in the future. and there is, there is reason to believe that we can do that. we're not naive. there are disagreements and obstacles, but the president is at the head of this effort because he believes deeply in it. and, that comment again, i'm not sure who said it. i have no idea but it, does not represent in any way the president's view or the views of this white house. >> and about the ryan budget, does away with the president's signature achievement health care reform and i was just curious, does the president view or white house view that as bargaining in good

faith? >> the president believes chairman ryan is sincere in his views. i think -- >> is he delusional? >> house republicans have voted more than 30 times to repeal obamacare. that seems at some point to be time not well-spent. and the president believes it is important to expand health insurance coverage to the millions of americans who will be covered because of the affordable care act. and we have been moving forward with implementation of the affordable care act, working with states around the country on establishment of exchanges. working with states around the country on the expansion of medicaid coverage, and working with governors of both parties as you know. there has been some news in that regard just recently. so, again, i, we have profound differences at a

substantive level with budget proposed by chairman ryan. it is in many ways a reiteration of his proposals of the past. the biggest difference is that he's able to take advantage for baseline purposes and at least deficit reduction on paper the revenue increases that he opposed but the president put forward and the medicare savings that he opposed and the president put forward. but, what it didn't do is plausibly deal with deficit reduction in a way, there is a choice here. either you reduce the deficit or balance the budget as he says by having to raise taxes on the middle class and voucherizing medicare and all the other deep cuts and unnecessary programmatic changes that are included in there. . .

>> the result is the middle class ends up paying for tax cuts that disproportionally benefit the wealthy. after all, those in the top bracket see a 37% tax cut, 37% tax cut from 39.6 to 25%. that's pretty hefty, and it doesn't reflect the principle that the president put forward

that we have to ask the welt yi to cricket to deficit reduction, and that's a position that, you know, the public widely supports. john? >> you talked about the need for balance many times, and the president put out entitlement reforms, a critical part of the balance. do you expect, do you hope when the senate democrats release their budget tomorrow that it has entitlement reforms along the lines of what the president proposed? >> well, i'll wait for the budget to be put forward and senator murray to do that. we expect it to be balanced, that it has the principle of balance inherit in the proposals. if it's not, and i don't expect it will be in agreement on every item of the president's proposal, but it will be consistent with the president's approach we expect. >> will it fall short with entitlement reforms -- >> i have not seen it yet. i wait until it's put forward, but i would simply say it will

be consistent in the terms of balance that we expect. that is where it would strongly differentiate from the house republican budget, and the president commands senate democrats for pursuing a budget that includes balance he believes is necessary, the public believes is necessary, and the simpson commission made clear it's necessary, and so we look forward to working with senate democrats and senate republicans and everyone on capitol hill including house republicans in hopes of achieving a compromise that achieves that has within it the balance that's essential because that's what is so instructive about the budget proposal from chairman ryan is that it doesn't make the case for balance because if you don't have balance. if instead of asking the wealthy to contribute to deficit reduction, we want to give the wealthyist a huge tax cut, the

result is that everybody else, the burden is doubled on tripled on everyone else. it's not fair or good economics. >> when you say "balance," you mean -- >> balance that's deficit reduction that includes everyone to pay their share. what the president's budget proposal will do as his previous proposals have done is achieve the economically important goal of bringing our debt to gdp down below 3%. that was the target set under the simpson commission, the president's fiscal commission. it's the target widely recognized by economists as a necessary goal to get the house in order, and it is a goal that's achievable in a way that also allows other roles to be achieved like investing in our economy so that it grows like building roads and bridges so we're competitive with europe and china and india, and

investing in education so your children and mine are getting the jobs that pay the best, and they are getting the jobs here in the united states in 25-30 years. you know, those -- that's why the president never viewed budget proposals as or proposals in the negotiations for deficit reduction as having as their only goal of deficit reduction. deficit reduction is an absolutely important goal and important to bring deficits down and bring debt to gdp, but they are part of -- those goals are part of the broader purpose here which is to grow the economy, and strengthen the middle class, and if you achieve one without the other two, you have not done right by the middle class of the country, and you probably have undermind the future economy of the united states so that's why the president focuses on

balance, on the important goal of deficit reduction, signed into law, as you know, john, $2.5 trillion of deficit reduction so far and looks forward to working with congress to bring that total to beyond $4 trillion, which, in turn, if done in a balanced way, achieves the goal laid out. >> will the president be disappointed in senate democrats did not include one of the reforms that you often talk about on the podium on entitlements? >> the president has a proposal he made to the speaker of the does -- >> endorsedded by the party and suggested as political radio activity to it that people are afraid to touch. >> i think the question supports what i've been saying all along which is that the president's proposal includes items in it that are tough choices for democrats to go along with, a; b, that stands in stark contrast to the republican budget that makes the tough choice about

medicare giving tax cuts to the wealthy. >> so will they vote for that? what's the point of it? >> it's a process putting the senate and house a budget and hopefully with regular order, which leaders of both parties said they would like to see, and which the president would like to see, we'll see a compromise that results in a balanced package of deficit reduction that allows the economy to grow and to continue to create jobs, and that includes -- that will include tough choices for democrats on the entitlement side and tough choices for republicans on the revenue side. >> [inaudible] >> you're getting down into the weeds of process. you know, covered the hill, and that's fun stuff, but the president's looking at a higher objective here which is to work together with lawmakers of both parties to find that commonground and compromise that is essential if we're going to move forward in a way that helps

the economy, reduces deficit, protects seniors, and protects the middle class. >> paul ryan says it's economically essential to get to balance. does the white house believe that balance means zero? no deficit? is that economically irrelevant? >> no. we believe the economically important goal as economists have said repeatedly outside independent economists as well as the much venerateed alan simpson commission and bowles commission is reducing the goal of debt to gdp ratio to 20%, and the president's budget will do that. the goal of balance is worthy, and it should be pursued, but it should not be pursued if it is done in a way that does harm to the economy, does harm to senior citizens, does harm to the middle class, and gives benefits to the wealthy because in the end everybody suffers if the

american economy is weaker because of an inclination of the budget proposals so unfoundly unbalanced that it does not allow for the growth of the middle class. >> you referenced the ryan's budget, and are you say without saying publicly that tax increase and revenue from the health care law make his job easier? >> well, i wouldn't put words into his mouth, but it's my understanding he includes as part of the baseline the revenue achieved through the fiscal cliff deal, the atra, and that means the revenue achieved from raising rates on the wealthiest individuals the president fought for, and it achieves the savings in the affordable care agent that the president put forward, the medicare savings, getting rid of waste, fraud, and abuse, and reducing payments to insurance companies, subsidies to insurance companies and the like. those are savings that, of course, are highlighted against the president last year and

criticized greatly, but they are included in the budget. yes? >> on balance, talked about everyone paying their fair share. the irs that has a report saying 300 federal employees owe 300 million in taxes including 40 employees of the executive office of the president. will the president ensure everyone in the federal government pays their fair share? >> the president agrees everybody ought to pay their taxes, and for details on the report, i refer you to the irs, but, absolutely, the president believes everybody ought to pay taxes, and i believe the irs is the place to go for more specifics. >> in terms of the ryan budget, how can you attack the ryan budget when you stand here without an obama budget? >> well, i appreciate the question. the president will be putting forward a budget in the next several weeks, probably the week of april 8th, i would expect. the -- the -- what's that out

there i hear? as you know, ed, the president put forward a proposal that will be reflected in the budget, and the principles will be reflected in his budget, and that proposal, as you know because you covered it, that he made the speaker of the house, demonstrated his willingness to find commonground with the republicans on both revenue and entitlement cuts, demonstrated his seriousness of purpose, demonstrated his belief that balance is essential in our pursuit of deficit reduction, and, you know, that offer has been on the table ever since he made it to the speaker, and, sadly, the speaker has not taken it up. in fact, he declare he'd never negotiate with the president again which was a rather stark proclamation. >> glad you mention the

president's proposal. it's on the website as you said, printed to ensure i have it, but last question on this, it says, for example, the president's proposal with spiker boehner, $100 billion in cuts to defense discretionary spending. as you i understand, that's not a budget, though; right? we don't know where the cuts will be. what programs of the defense department does it want to cut specifically? >> well, i appreciate the opportunity to provide the budget in advance, but we provided -- >> [inaudible] >> have you looked at the ryan budget? can you find a single item to receive $5 trillion, $5 trillion, man, that's a lot of money. i challenge you to find any entitlement reform in the budget beyond the adoption of the president -- >> [inaudible] >> the ample detail in the president's previous budget going into his defense -- a

level he calls defense spending consistent with the national security plan laid out by his national security team, and, you know, the budget the president put forward will have the detail that presidential budgets tend to have which are, unfortunately, lacking in the house republican budget. yes? >> the ryan budget calls for moving forward with construction of the keystone xl pipeline, and they said it won't impact the environment, and the president now give that project a green light? >> i have no updates for you on that. that's an assessment that is housed at the state department. there are series of steps that are there, and the assessment is one of them and keeping with years of tradition talking about trends, border, pipeline as this one is, and when there is an announcement to make, we'll be

ready to announce it. >> taking it another way, is it a potential area of commonground? >> again, i set aside -- i have nothing to say to project about an announcement that's not ready to be made, and it is part of a process undertaken at the state department. i will make the point that because this president came into office, we have dray mat click increased our energy production, reduced our imports of foreign oil, and we have dramatically expanded the production of the renewable energy and investments in clean energy technology, which all of which represent the president's all of the above energy approach, an approach to allow us to become increasingly energy independent, assist in the effort to create high paying jobs in p cutting edge

industries in the future in the united states, and that will io low us to, in the future, withstand the shock caused by fluxuations in global energy prices, global oil prices. we are experiencing elevated prices right now. this is another reminder as to why we have to pursue the comprehensive all of the above approach which the president pursued and yielded results. he'll continue to pursue that in the second term. >> back to the timing of the budget which you confirmed comes out in april. senate minority leader, mitch mcconnell said, the plan in april is like dropping a bomb on the legislative action. how could the president not in some way make the impact -- >> i have no doubt any time the president introduces his budget that, perhaps, senator mcconnell and other republicans say it's wildly inappropriate to do it that week, day, or that month, but to stipulate that when the

president introduces his budget, it will be an important contribution to what we hope will be a process of regular order where a compromise is reached, that embodies the principles of balance when it comes to deficit reduction that the president supports, senate democrats support, house democrats support, and a will the of senate republicans support. the vast majority of the people support, and that enables us to deal with the important issues even as we deal with other challenges like comprehensive immigration reform, like reducing gun violence and investing in innovation and infrastructure because, you know, these are -- our fiscal challenges are important, and our budget priorities are very important, but we have other priorities too, and the american people expect us to be working on all of them. yes? >> you mentioned the white house doesn't believe that this sort of outreach is a waste of time,

but we heard the president talk about the limitations of personal diplomacy, mentioned the gulf game with speaker boehner, and nothing really came of that. what is the white house view? is it that personal diplomacy and engagement is helpful in the legislative process, or is it that partisanship is derooted that it's up realistic to think that outreach breaks through barriers? >> the president believes that personal engagement is important, that relationships are important, that conversation and discussion are important, and he is engaged in that process as we was in a series of negotiations with speaker boehner, senator mcconnell, and others, and as he was in the first term on other issues, but engauged, as we noted in a more intensified process of the consultations with lawmakers, republican lawmakers as well as

democratic lawmakers because he believed that there are circumstances now, partly born of misfortune, the decision to embrace sequester by the republicans, but out of what circumstances allowed for the time and space, if you will, for serious conversation and debate within the regular order process to move forward on budget issues, and to hopefully create or improve the environment when it comes to bipart san cooperation on the other issues. i think i noted yesterday it's worth standing back and assessing the landscape here and acknowledges despite the partisan differences, there is important quality work being done by republicans and democrats together on some very important issues, and that extends beyond deficit reduction and budge issues into immigration reform and gun violence and other areas, so the president believes it's an

important process, and he enjoyed the consultations thus far and looking forward to the meetings with the conferences and caucuses this week on capitol hill, and that process will continue. yes? >> we've been hearing from various sources, jay, what the president has intended to be delivered in terms of the message to the leaders in the middle east neex week. on the flip side, what is the president looking forward to hearing from the leaders in ramala and in haman and jerusalem with their message to them? >> looking forward to all the meetings on his trip, and i don't want to get ahead of it, and as we do traditionally, there's a background briefing prior to the trip to fill you in on details of what we expect from the trip, but the president will hope to hear from the leaders he meets with, assessments of all the issues

that are top of the agenda when you consider, you know, israel, west bank, jordan, and the leaders that he'll be meeting with, but i don't have anything more specific for you than that. >> how will the president measure the success of his trip? >> we made clear the president greatly looks forward to this visit, that he will be engaging with leaders on the range of issues of importance in the region, and with the leaders specifically, but we're not, you know, laying out markers for success on the peace process or otherwise. these will be part of important conversations that the president will be having. >> thank you. >> you said the ryan budget results in tax hikes for middle class americans. he envisions the 25% top rate and 10% rate. where are the tax hikes? >> as you remember, the question i was using shorthand, and i

shouldn't have, last year when governor romney had a proposal to reduce a tax reform proposal that would have cut rates not quite as far, but i believe the top rates at 28% and the other rate, i forget what, john, do you remember? anyway, not as well as chairman ryan and 28 was the top rate, and there was assessments done by outside economists that made clear the way to achieve the goal of that tax revenue, lowering the rates dramatically and making it revenue neutral when you make the massive tax cuts would be to -- for tax reform, stick it to the middle class to the tune of more than $2,000, eliminating deductions and the like that middle class americans depend on whether it's deductions for health insurance or education or -- >> the net income is higher? >> by significant amount. the romney plan was $2 ,000, i

believe, and since the gap is larger here, the reduction in the ryan plan is from 39.6 to 25, and from 35 to 28. the hole to be filled is even larger. scott? >> just curious about what specifically the president talks about when you say he talks to the hill about energy independence. is it spending more money on this being an american green economy? is it other -- increasing natural gas exports? can you -- is it climate change related? what exactly -- >> well, torture you with a phrase of all of the above, but the president embraced increased development of our traditional forms of energy that includes, you know, our remarkable steroids in -- strides in development of

natural gas swelt oil, and includes investment in and development of renewable energy sources. it includes measures taken when it comes to the environmental side of it, the climate side of it. you know, important actions taken, most specifically the car rule that dramatically reduces our increased fuel efficiency to reduce cop consumption nearby which contributes in two ways, to our environmental health, but, also, reduces, again, our demand for fossil fuels which reduces continued reduction in the demand for foreign sources of oil. this is an approach that the president really sees as comprehensive, and only through that exrens of approach can we achieve the kind of independence from outside energy sources we all believe to the economic and national security. >> talking about legislation as

well? >> i don't have any legislative proposals to preview for you. you know, the president believes we can take steps to increase development of energy resources in the united states, both traditional and renewable, and as well as take steps to enhance efficiency and improve the quality of our air, and, you know, that's what he did in the first term, and he'll continue to do that. donovan? >> the risk of getting a move a little bit, i want to ask about the budget. how does the white house envision the process for reaching a fiscal deal? leave it up to the committee, then congress and provide technical assistance or have the president get directly involved, like, how does this look? what does this look like? >> well, as i was saying earlier, leaders of both parties and houses expressed interest in returning to regular order, and that's shorthand, but those who don't understand the picture i'm trying to paint here, we have

been, as the president notes, living in and governing by crisis, going from crisis to crisis to crisis. often crisis determined by fabricated deadlines around debt ceilings, fiscal cliffs, or sequesters that have taken us out of the regular process, the budgetary process which has been the one that is tradition nailingly pursued to set up budget priorities and allocate spending and decide what our revenue streams look like, and i think everybody in washington -- there is a consensus, and this was the topic of conversation at the dinner as participants noted. there is a growing consensus about the desire and need to return to normalcy, to regular orders, and through that process, budget produced in the senate and in the house and the president's budget that we can come together and find some agreement on a budget that from the president's view represents

the will of the american people as reflected in data seen every day as reflected in the election, and that is, you know, for a balanced approach deficit reduction, it doesn't, in the name of deficits of reduction, you know, slash our investments in education or in innovation or research, you know, because these are things, this is doing that and makes it right economically for the whole country, and we need to make wise choices in deficit reduction and those when it's spending cuts and spending investments. >> a return to normalcy, that means -- >> i thought i explained it in great detail. the president will be engaged. the white house will be. the administration will be. this is something that is legislatively moved through congress, and i want to say all of this and make clear that i am not being naive about challenges

that clearly remain. the president's position is clear. the president has put forward proposals and continues proposals that remit balance, that represent tough choices for him and for democrats that compromise on the issue of revenues as he has done in the past, but achieve the balance because it's necessary. he's engauging with republican lawmakers trying to find commonground around the idea that we can do enfite lment reform and tax reform together in a balanced way, the way that the american people want, but it remains to be seen if the result is this, embrace of regular order and embrace of commonground is, you know, an achievement that fits the bill here, which is a resolution, a budget that reduces the deficit in a balanced way, hits the target at $4 trillion plus in ten years, and lows for investments to keep the economy

growing and protect middle class and seniors. we'll see. we are mindful of the challenges, but we believe there can be and should be commonground and compromise. yes? >> in the runup to the president's middle east trip, meeting with jewish and arab-american leaders. one of the participants in the arab-american group's meeting said it's the first meeting of its kind they had with the president. why has there not been one before this? >> i'm not sure that is the case, but i'll take the question. the president has been engaged with, you know, leaders of communities throughout the presidency in the first term and now in the second term, entirely appropriate in advance of the trip to have these meetings, both very productive meetings and helpful to the president and hopefully those who heard the president's views about the various issues that will be discussed on his trip.

>> [inaudible] >> well, i don't want to, you know, read out a private meeting, but the president values greatly, provided by, in this case, both jewish american leaders and arab american leaders in the meetings as he does appreciate the outside advice and observations that he receives on a variety of issues. it's -- >> jay, has the president received a letter from chairwoman marsha fudge about the president's nomination of african-americans in the second term? >> i believe we have received the letter, and the president is deeply committed to diversity in the cabinet and ensuring the administration reflects the bredth of our country believing the best decisions are made when surrounded by people who share different perspectives as we work towards improving the economy and build a strong middle class together. >> does that mean that the

president will in the next couple weeks nominate an african-american to -- >> i don't have any personnel announcements to make today. when the president's ready to announce, he'll make them. >> what has the president said about this because it's been clear in the letter that many african-americans around the country are calling into those offices very upset because they supported him overwhelmingly and have yet to' see an african-american nominated to a post right now. >> i don't have any announcements to make. there's appointments the president will be making and i'll tell you, as i made clear at the top, the president is committed to diversity and believes in a diverse cabinet and diverse set of advisers enhances decision making in the deliberation process for him and any president, and so he values it greatly and that's why he pursued it, both in the first time and continues to pursue it in the second term. >> [inaudible] >> ann, sorry.

>> thank you, does the white house believe that the information that hackers claim they have put on the internet is legitimate, mrs. obama's social security, some of her financial information, along with other officials including the fbi director? >> on this, i have to refer you to the secret service. i don't have anything for you on that, no assessments to offer, just a reference to the secret service. yes, chris? >> a follow-up on april's questioning there. reports that the president's supposed to make the no , nomis for the labor and commerce secretary. there's a lot of focus on the president -- [inaudible] just mentioned how the president's values excludes lgtb people and president believes sexual orientation is an adeptty, but they are not in the administration. >> there's no personal announcements to make and not confirming speculation in the

press that the president would make. i refer you to what i said and what the president said about the value he places on diversity, and encourage you to, you know, assess diversity of his appointments once they have all been made. >> but -- >> again, i think, i mean, i think -- you're asking me to make a statement about appointments that have not been made, and i'm not going to do that. i'm not going to get ahead of the president. >> on the values, president -- >> the president values diversity. >> special orientation -- >> absolutely. the president values diversity. roger? >> back to the other from this morning. the council has a territorial tax system, and i know the president disagreed with them in the pass. any reevaluation going on in the administration on a territorial tax? >> i don't have anything new on that. i think what the president said about this represents his views,

but i don't have anything new for you. the president believes we have to reform the corporate tax code, but i don't have anything new from what we said in the past about it. all the way in the back. >> one foreign and domestic. first foreign, the u.s. and south korea joined in joint military activity now, is the president considering leaving behind assets like a nuclear armed sub or anything to assist with deterrence against north korea provocation? >> that's a speculative question. it's not a question that i can answer from here. i would just tell you that these are, you know, military exercises like all forces need exercises and designed to enhance readiness and ability to respond any contingency that could arrive. you heard me talk yesterday about the view of the

provocative rhetoric imnating, and you heard me talk about actions taken at the united nations security council in response to north korea behavior and decisions, you know, and we continue to work with allies on this issue, but i don't have any defense posture announcements to make from here. >> in the budget, on its face, looks like the president is waiting for the democrats to come out with their plan that's unpaletteble, the republicans have their plan, and then come out in april with his own compromised plan -- >> it will be entirely paletteble. >> out of regular order when the law requires the president put a budget out in february. is it worth ignoring the law in order to own the compromise? >> the -- well, i think it's worth -- yes, if there's republicans willing to get the yes, if that's the question. i don't think the timing of the

budget is reflective of that goal, but i think the goal here is to find willing partners who embrace the idea of a balanced approach to deficit reduction as well as who embrace the idea of bipartisan cooperation in tackling other challenges that will not be solved if we don't do it in a bipartisan way. >> the president have a budget in the first week of february in >> i think that the president's budget will be a useful and valuable contribution to a process that at least potentially could result in a bipartisan compromise that achieves balance, deficit reduction, that includes the social investments in the economy that allows it to grow and protect the middle class, and that it would be part of the process, again, in an ideal world that would see bipartisan cooperation on not just these issues but other issues because

the american people expect and want that, and the president is focused not just on deficit reduction and budget matters, but on the other things that we can do together in washington that will help the country, help the economy, and help the middle class. thanks, all. [inaudible conversations] >> jay carney was asked about the house republican budget plan for 2014. we'll have house budget committee chair ryan's comments in a few moments who released the plan this morning. reaction from the senate floor by the democratic and republican leaders. [inaudible conversations] >> cardinals from around the world about to begin the task of

choosing a new pope. they held a mass this morning, and from here on, they'll be sequestered inside the vatican walls only allowedded to go from the vatican hotel, through the gardens, the sistine chapel and back again until they elected a pope. there's no tfns, newspapers, or television, and there will be no tweeting. >> when it comes to the secretary of state and the people around her, what i found striking is her ability to stay focused at all times as much as possible on what is happening. she doesn't get distracted by the details if they are not important, details often matter, but she has an ability to stay focused on the big picture. how is what is happening in afghanistan impacting what they might be doing in the middle east. how is what is happening in the middle east impacts what they are trying to do in asia? i think she had a good sense of what is the big picture? what is the strategy here?

of course, she's surrounded by people who are helping her. you know, i have to carry my own suitcase, but she has staff. that allows her, an i talked about that a little bit, that allows her to be focused on what matters. she doesn't have to worry about lunch. it just arrives, and when it does, she'll have it while she's thinking about the bigger picture. >> the bbc's kim ghattas looks at hillary clinton and ten year of secretary of state on booktv this weekend on c-span2. >> george washington enjoyed a long 50-year relationship with alexandria. when it was founded when he was 17 until he died in 1799 at the age of 67, made a political life of the city, he was a trustee of alexandria, and he was a justice of the people in fairfax county and represented alexandria in the house of the virginia

legislature, and even when he was president, he made sure when they -- be prepared to be the nation's capitol, that alexandria was included in the original district of columbia. we're in now the barroom of jesse's tavern, and george washington loved to dance, and all the ladies wanted to dance with him, the most famous person in the united states was a big thrill. they had balls here for george washington in 1788 and 89. they had birthday balls here. the birthday balls have been here every year since then, but they didn't have one in 1800 because that was too close to the death, and they didn't have them in world war ii. today, alexandria's main street is named after washington, the george washington memorial towers over the city, and he has the largest george washington birthday parade in the nation. alexandria says this is george

washington's hometown. >> next weekend, more from alexandria, virginia asbooktive, american history tv, and c-span's local content vehicle go behind the scenes of the i literary life of ale, virginia on booktv and sunday on c-span3. >> the u.s. senate is in a recess while members attend weekly party meet lings. president obama will be joining democrats at their meeting, and he'll return to capitol hill thursday to talk to senate republicans. when senators return at 2:30 eastern, they'll begin work on funding the federal government through the remainder of this budget year. current spending authority runs out at the end of this month. we'll have live coverage of that debate. house republicans unvailed their latest budget outline this morning sticking to their plans to try to repeal the so-called

obamacare, cut domestic programs ranging from medicaid to college grant and require medicaid toe bear more of the program's cost. chairman ryan said it was possible to balance the budget in temperature years by cutting -- here's what he had to say this morning. >> good morning, everyone. what we have here is the house budget committee republican majority putting out, yet again, a budget, a budget that balances a budget, it's a path to prosperity, irresponsible balanced budget. we believe we owe the american people a balanced budget, and for the third straight year, we delivered and balanced it in ten years. this is a document, a plan that balanced it in ten years. now, the house budget committee spent weeks working together with each other just like family's and businesses do around the country. we've been assembling a budget so that we can make sure that

our country can live within its means. it's a reasonable goal, balancing the budget, and we keep spending money. we just can't spend money we don't have. that's the basic acknowledgement. when you budget like families and businesses do that you cannot continue to kick the can down the road, that you cannot spend money we just don't have. how do we do this? cut wasteful spending, repair the safety net to help those in need. we protect and strengthen key priorities like medicare, a program going bankrupt jeopardizing the health for millions of american seniors and foster a healthier economy to create jobs and growth more. balancing the budget is not simply an act of math, not just getting expendtures and revenues to add up. balancing the budget is a means to an end, a healthier economy, a progrowth society, a progrowth economy that delivers opportunity. that's first and foremost why we do that. i'll walk through a few.

now, here's essentially what we do to begin with. this budget cuts spending by 4.6 trillion over the next ten years. historically, we paid one fifty of the government, but the government paid a lot more, spends a lot more. we match revenues with expenditures. the budget matches spending like every family in business must do throughout america. in fact, we bring deficits downright away. this shows you how deficit path goes down precipitously to begin with to the point where we end up with a surplus in 2023. now, in the 1990s, democratic president worked with a republican congress to balance the budget. this is a goal that both parties have achieved in the past. we think it's something we ought to do again. number three, this is the picture that should scare everybody. this is the president that shows

you the path we're on today. we know without a shred of doubt we are consigning the next generation to an inferior standard of living. we know, just like in europe, we are facing a debt crisis in the country, and a debt crisis hurts everybody. the people who a debt crisis hurts the most are the poor, the elderly, the people who need government the most, they get hurt the first, the worst in a debt crisis. what are we doing? addressing the worst crisis in this country's history, the debt. the red line shows the path this country is on right now, the green line shows you that debt reduction path that we achieve by putting this budget into law, not only do we balance the budget, but pay off the debt to give our children a debt free nation that helps grow the economy as well. at this time, i want to turn it over to one of the distinguished member of the budget committee, ways and means, that talk about progrowth economic policy.

please know by balancing the budget we grow the economy. by including progrowth reform like tax reform, it's easier for business to create jobs and be competitive. we were more jobs, higher wages, family getting into the middle class, one of the corner stone policies we have here in tax reform. let me turn it over to diane black to explain exactly what we're doing. >> thank you, mr. chairman. our budget is an opportunity to change the course of the nation. we have a responsibility to avoid the debt crisis that the chairman already said, and to move forward with a prosperous future. now, common sense and math tell us that balancing a budget requires two things: cutting spending and economic growth. a huge obstacle right now to this is our complicated tax code. today, the tax code is merelily four million words long and about 60% of our taxpayers need

to hire a professional to help them prepare their returns. every year, america spends 6 billion hours and $160 billion filling out their returns. clearly, something is wrong. now, our budget pays the way for tax reform, and it reaffirms the ways and means committee will pass comprehensive, progrowth tax reform legislation this year. now, this budget builds on bipartisan consensus in favor of lowering the rates to create jobs and broadening the base to ensure fairness and simplicity for our families. the purpose of tax reform is not to take more money from our families to spend more money here in washington. it's to create jobs and to increase the wages for our working families. i look forward to working with my budget members and also the

ways and means committee to advance comprehensive tax reform this year to help us to strengthen our economy, reduce our deficit, and get americans back to work. thank you. >> thank you. >> at this time, i'd like to turn the podium over to the vice chairman of the budget committee, dr. tom price from georgia. >> thank you, paul, so much. you know, budgets are about priorities, and priorities that the american people overwhelmingly support include getting federal spending under control, getting our economy moving again so that folks get back to work, and getting the debt crisis under control so we may preserve the american dream for future generations. within our path of prosperity and our budget. this path to prosperity is the way to a responsible balanced budget. american families all across this great land know that the federal government shouldn't spend more than it takes in, and

we agree. sadly, the budgets proposed by president obama have never, ever, ever gotten to balance. the legal deadline for the president to present a budget to congress this year was february 4th. it's now march 12th. past experience tells us when he doesn't bring a budget, that one won't likely balance either. american families can't live this way and neither should the federal government. republicans believe people work too hard, too hard to have the federal government take more of their money to spend more here in washington. we want to the american people to keep more of their hard earned money to save and spend and invest as they see fit. now, senate democrats, on the other hand, have not adopted a budget in nearly four years. they'll do one this year because of the no budget no pay act passed in the house earlier this year. will they continue to say we need more taxes to have ever increasing spending? the truth is they can't tax the

american people enough to pay for skyrocketing levels of spending that they want. now, we look forward to seeing their budget. the next test will be whether or not they pass the budget they introduce. will enough senate democrats be willing to end dorse a plan that taxes more so washington can spend more? that washington way is not working. the american people are sick and tired of political games played in the economy, where special interests and back room deals dominate policymaking. our plan, the house republican budget finally puts a stop to that so washington uses hard earned tax dollars in an accountable and effective way. now, we wonder will the white house and senate democrats be able to say the same thing about their budget? will rejust see more accounting tricks and gimmicks and wasteful spending? this path to prosperity, this budget here, will create a healthier economy where job creators hire, job seekers find

more jobs, work, and more american families and entrepreneurs realize their dreams. this path to prosperity ensures we honor the commitment that americans most important priority. our budget strengthens medicare, protects the national security, cares for the poor and sick by repairing america's safety net program, and expands economic opportunity for every single american. republicans will protect these vital programs while we will control spending and solve our nation's debt crisis. our hope, our hope is that democrats see these as vital programs as something they want to see and strengthen, not simply to demagogue. we believe in the industrialness, ingenuity, and american dreams of the american people. it's time that the government starts acting worthy of the people that we represent. thank you. >> thank you, dr. price. this is not only a responsible, reasonable balanced plan, but it's an invitation. this is an invitation to the

president of the united states, to the senate democrats to come together to fix these problems. we don't think it's fair to let critical programs like medicare go bankrupt. we don't think it's fair to take more from hard working families to spend more in washington. most important question is not how we balance the budget, but why. a budget is a means to an end, an end is the well being of the american people, and end is a growing economy that produces opportunity and upward mobility, a balanced budget provides the economic security we need for families, help secure retirement for our seniors, and it helps expands opportunity for young people who have a hard time finding careers and jobs in this stagnant economy. now, the final point want to make is, and i mentioned it to the president the other day, we want to revise a budget process so that we have regular order. what's that mean? that means let's do our job. that means we want to pass a budget here in the house, we're

very pleased the senate is going to pass a budget or is going to attempt to pass a budget. what that means is we're reviving a process that is not in the back room, but that shows how we're going to accomplish these goals. we want to revive this budget process so at the end of the day we can have a vehicle to get something done, and i don't think the president disagrees with that, and so this is an invitation, show us how to balance the budget. if we don't liege the way we propose to balance the budget, how do you propose to balance the beget? are we going to be come police sit with never, ever balancing the budget and guaranteeing an inferior standard of living for the next generation? we know the debt and deficit hurts the economy today and destroys the future of tomorrow. this is a specific plan to show how to get it under control. it's our vision for a progrowth upper mobile society. the time point i make is this, far too long in washington we measure success of our efforts by input, how much money are we

spending on these programs rather than measuring success by outputs. are they working? we have put so much money into our welfare programs, into our poverty fighting programs, yet 46 million people live in poverty. some among the highest rates of poverty we 4 in a generation. rather than measuring how much money we spend in the programs, let's think about measuring, are we helping people? are we getting people out of poverty? are we getting people op their feet again in the lives of self-sufficiency and upward mobility? these are the questions we're tackling in this budget, and as we do this, we're showing the country a plan to balance the budget and grow the economy to get people out of poverty, to get the american dream reignited, especially for those people who have seemingly seen it slip away from them. let's take your questions. right here. >> many argue against raising taxes, oppose raising taxes as

part of the fiscal cliff deal, but in the budget, you say that you balance in ten years using $600 billion in new taxes that you oppose. isn't that disinjen ewous? >> not at all. it's behind us. with the fiscal cliff and everything else that occurred in the path, which spending is going down as well, that's clearly making it easier to balance the budget, but we're saying replace this antigrowth tax bill, cronnyism written tax code with one that helps family and businesses. get rid of the tax system we have to replace with a progrowth system, lower tax rates, fewer loopholes, and balance the budget in doing so. we will not -- law is law. we know that's not going to change, especially with respect to the issues. that's why we say not only can we not balance the budget faster. we always did, we can do it faster, but better, consistent

with the plan. >> mr. chairman, the budget is being political care agent, and we hear the general despite the last war is, you know, why go through that again or a big part of spending, and the second part of the question is did you feel you had to approve repeal of the affordable care act because it would not -- >> not a doubt in our mine. back to point one and two. the fiscal cliff occurred, but we don't like the tax code produced. we produce a new one that's a progrowth tax code. take obamacare, for example, the affordable care act. we don't like this law. this is why we propose to refuel the law in the budget. more importantly, we believe this law will collapse under its own weight. please know that when americans see exactly what the law entails, and those who work on

the oversight committees and know what happens to the provider networks and knows what happens to those who lose health insurance in the job, they will not like the law. this is why we not only repeal the law because we can't afford to borrow $11 -- $1.8 trillion, but we think we can have a better health care system. not only how you save and strength b medicare, but this is a better patient centered system to replace obamacare. this is perfectly consistent with everything we believe in which is getting rid of obamacare because it destroys the health care system. it's going to make it an infear yo #* your quality of care system. there's a better way to go. this, to us, is something we will not give up on because we're not going to destroy the health care system for the american system. we want to prevent the law which we really do believe will do great damage to families in the health care system of america. john? >> senator murray will probably offer something in balancing the

debt to gdp ratio, more of a goal to get near balance. why is it important to you to reach mere balance in a year certain versus getting the debt to stabilize as economists say. >> getting the debt stabilized in this era does not fix the problem because the debt is already too large. i question the integrity of the statistics on what primary balance means. let's say it another way. we believe we have to balance the budget, but we have to get the debt down. you can't start paying down this debt in a serious way until you balance the budget. we have to run surpluses 23420 # 23 -- in 2023 and there on and get the debt under control. the high levels of debt today are a threat to the economy, and they guarantee that we will destroy the future for the next generation, and so trying to

make it less bad is not much of a budget, and the senate democrats are going down that path. >> how -- if you can't repeal obamacare, how long would it take you to balance the budget under your plan? >> well, we believe that obamacare will be so unpopular in the country because of all the broken promises it will prove. remember when the president said if you like your health care plan, you can keep it? america will have a rude awakening and find out that's not the case. remember the lower health care prices and costs, it's going up ever since obamacare passed. it was a back room deal. look at all the things providers experience with obamacare. sub standard health care. you're going to see young people not wanting to go into the field of health care because of obamacare. we believe in the interest for seniors, family, and making medicaid work better for low income people, we need to repeal

and replace obamacare with a better system, with a patient centered system, and we'll never balance the budget if you keep obamacare going because obama care is a fiscal train wreck. >> [inaudible] 716 billion, part of the medicare cuts of the president's health care law. you said in your speech, 716 billion funneled out of medicare by president obama, an obligation we have as parents and grandparents, all to pay for entitlements we didn't ask for. you included it and count savings from the miss calg cliff deal as deficit reduction. if the 716 billion from the president's health care plan deficit reduction goes to 600 billion in the fiscal cliff plan is very much his deficit reduction, and it brings you closer to a balanced budget, suspect that sort of going against everything the

conference stands for, that deficit reduction are birthed out of the white house? >> so we believe opts revenue side there's a progrowth system that broadens the base at the line we have. this is why we say to the president and democrats who want to continue raising taxes and spend money in washington, you destroy tax reform if you do that. we think with the revenue line we have, which, granted, makes it easier to balance the budget, we can have a good program. what we do in the budget is stop the raid of medicare. remember, president obama took money from medicare to spend on creating obamacare. we end that raid and ensure all dollars go back to medicare to extend the solvency of the trust fund. another appointment is we are concerned about provider networks and issues that aride like what we had with the doctor fix that there's a special fund and procedure to address any

inadequacies we have in the medicare provider system if those situations arise. it has to extend solvency, and if we find like we've found with doctors if there's a problem that needs addressing, we have a special procedured to do just that. >> people outside the process might look at this press conference today, pretty similar to the one last year standing there and we sat here. >> right. [laughter] >> he was on the ticket, ran on this, you know, not exactly the ryan budget, but close, president obama ran on what he called the balance approach raising taxes on the wealthy, you know, and his medicare and social security position. he won that election.

senate republicans lost seats in the senate, and people outside the process might wonder if elections have consequences on the budgeting process, do they if >> the question is is the election didn't go our way. believe me, i know what that feels like. that means we surrender our principles? that means we stop believing in what we believe in? look, whether the country intended it or not, we have divided government. we have the second largest house majority we've had since world war ii, and what we believe in this divided government era, we need to put out our vision. we think we owe the country a ambulanced budget. we owe the country solutions to the big problems plaguing our nation, a debt crisis on the horizon, a slow growing economy, people trap in poverty. we are showing answers. elections do have consequences. we are in the majority.

the president won reelection and the democrats. this is our offer, our vision. what you do is show the country what you believe in. the senate has not passed a budget in four years despite the fact that the law requires them to do so each and every year because of the budget, no budget, no pay act, the senate's finally doing a budget. we think that's good. look, i'm pleased that patty murray is attempting to pass a budget because we have not seen that attempt in a long time. the reason i'm encouraged about that is because if she passes a budget, we have a process out in the public for the nation to see that gets us going down the path of solving problems. this is what we talked about. let's revive the budget process so that at the enof the day, we have a down payment on the problem. will the president take every one of the solutions? probably not. are they popular, and did we win these arguments in the campaign? i think so. what we're saying is here is our offer, our vision, he's how we propose plans that the balances

the budget, grows the economy, repair the safety net, save medicare. we hope that the senate follows suit and shows their vision because if they put their plan on the table, we can start talking and looking for common ground. we think that's a constructive way forward and why we are doing it. >> mr. chairman, you want to get down to the two tax brackets, 10% and 25%. what do you say to the argument that in order to do that, you have to go after middle class tax breaks like mortgage interest, charitable donations, and a health care education collusion. >> so we have -- this is what the ways and means committee is going to do, which is, as you probably know, the ways and means committee has working groups, is doing hearing after hearing, going through the tax code and trying to figure out a better tax system. we believe we can -- our goal is for a two bracket system that actually is progrowth. what that means is closing down

loopholes and maintain ones that have those important for middle income taxpayers and i argue with nose who think we need to keep raising taxes on higher income people, there's ways of doing this, you know. you can actually plug loopholes and subject more of a higher income for earnings' income in taxation through a lower tax rate. it's smarterment don't forget, eight out of ten businesses in america are not corporations. they file taxes as people, as individuals. those tax rates are as high as 88.4% today. i represent wisconsin. among our greatest competitors are canadians. last year, canada lowered tax rates 15%. the top tax rates on our small businesses, nine out of ten businesses file as individuals, it's 44.8%. how can you compete when your competitors tax them at lower tax rates than we tax ours? we think the current tax code destroys jobs, growth, and

opportunity. it's making american businesses in the global economy much less competitive. that is why the ways and means committee opposes this framework and will advance legislation to plug loopholes to lower tax rates to get more people working again. yeah? >> live now to capitol hill where a senate republican leader mitch mcconnell is speaking to reporters following today's party caucus lunch. >> exchange, i told the president friday i hope he invites all members down for the small dinners because it it wasa good opportunity to have a candid conversation, and with the president's request to raise the debt ceiling again here later this summer, we'll be discussing, again, the possibility of timely solving our huge deficit and debt problem by making the kind of changes to the entitlement side that we all know we have to make if we're going to save these programs and save our country.

>> not since 1921 has a president failed to meet the timetable to submit his proposed budget to the united states congress except for the current occupant in the white house that missed that four times out of five. if there's a better way to render yourself irish-catholics -- irrelevant, that may well be -- that may well take the cake because the president's budget will not even get here until half the house and senate passed their own budget so it's the preponderate who wants to be constructive and have suggestions on what the budget ought to look like be taken into account, debated, and voted on, send your budget here before the house and before the senate passed their own beget. that may be why we're $16.5

trillion in debt on the on the cusp of the potential fiscal crisis because the president has shown absolutely no leadership on this, indeed, encysted on leading from behind. >> my colleagues said this is budget week in the senate, and i think the question we ought to ask in budget week is what is this budget going to do to result in economic growth and grow the economy? that is the question that ought to be asked of every budget proposal out there. obviously, the house of representatives is in the process of doing their budget, and senate democrats, we're told, are doing theirs over here, but look at the last four years, and the policy the obama administration put in place, it's higher taxes. it's massive amount of debt. burdensome regulations made it more expensive for job creators to create jobs and have resulted in sluggish economic growth.

as a result, we have for the average, the past four years, .8% growth. eight tenths of 1% is what we have seen in economic growth in four years under this administration's policies. you hope the democrats, as they prepare the budget, look at policies that will grow the economy. unfortunately, what we hear is that it's going to be more of the same. we're talking about a trillion dollar tax increase. we're talking about more spending, and nothing to save social security and medicarely reforming the programs in a way that will align them with the future demographics of the this country, and so it's more of the same policies with regards to their budget. we think there's a better way. we'll be looking for opportunities to offer amendments that point that out. bottom line is that the democrat budget, as we know it today, is going to hurt jobs, hurt the economy, make it more difficult for our job creators to get americans back to work, and that ought to be the fundamental question that we ask about the budget process as we enter this next week.

>> there was a front page story today on one of the papers on the hill that talked about the number of democrats who are now griping about the president's health care law because as these washington democrats go to their homes and talk to folks, they realize the health care law stands for patients and provide for the nurses and doctors who care for the patients, and it's terrible for taxpayers. they are now at the new one trillion taxes on hard working americans as a result of the president's health care law, and this is hurting the economy, hurting our country, and even the federal reserve in their beige book came out, the report last week said that there are impacts, and they note it all around the country that there's a negative impact on hiring, that many businesses are either laying people off, making decisions not to hire, or if they hire, hire part time workers all related to the health care law. the one part that says if

they -- the business grows to over 50 employees, that then they have to provide care or pay large fines, and they decide on full-time employees based on 30 hours a week for that employee. more and more businesses are hiring people at only 29 hours or fewer so they are not considered and counted as full time. as a result, even the federal reserve says the president's health care law is hurting the economy. at a time, we're dealing with the budget and continuing resolution. there's no better time to repeal and defund the president's health care law so that people can finally get what they want, which is the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower cost. >> well, on the budget, four years is a long time not to show up for work. it's a long time not to do your job. hard to imagine -- this must be a budgetary masterpiece if it's taken four years now to be able

to put budgets on paper, and we'll be looking forward to seeing that budget, hearing the debate on that budget, finding out how much of is fact and fiction, but there's a big gap to fill between the last time senate democrats said what they were for and what they say they are for right now. >> all the democrats can come up with for a budget is a trillion dollar increase in taxes. we're going to find out which members of the united states senate are for balancing budgets, which ones are for continued irresponsibility. we'll find out which senators want to reign in government spending and which want to increase the deficit, and it's going to make clear in this debate which members of the united states senate want to create jobs and which want to continue to rely upon government handouts.

democrats will have the opportunity to explain to their voters why in four years the only solution they have towards the country fiscal problems are to raise taxes, to increase spending, and to do nothing to create a path towards a balanced budget. >> on a positive note, we're going to do a budget, and i can tell you as a member of the budget committee, this is, to me, been a top priority, and for our conference, it's -- when i go home to new hampshire, shocking for people to hear it's been four years since we've done a budget for the country. that's positive the senate democrats committed to doing a budget, but on the other side, on the negative note, from what has been released about their budget so far, they have indicated they are going to increase taxes a trillion dollars, and from what we hear, and i'll look at it carefully, and i hope it's not true, but

essentially a trillion dollar tax increase without balancing the budget in the ten year window, without saving the entightment program. those seniors out there with medicare going bankrupt in 20 # 24, with social security bankrupt in 2033, the increased tax is a trillion dollars, and to not pay those programs is unconscionable, and then what's the trillion dollars do after already increasing taxes $6 billion as a result of what happened in the fiscal cliff at the end of december to our economy at a time we need stronger economic growth? i can tell you what i hear out on the street from the small businesses. they cannot afford the health care costs going up because of obama care, that they are having a hard time, they want to grow businesses, but, please, don't increase taxes on us again. i've been hearing that from the regulatory framework so i guess

the final question for me would be to the democrats if there is a trillion dollar tax increase, you know, what will that do for the businesses in terms of trying to grow the economy right now? we know the one way that we can have the most dramatic impact on our debt is to grow our economy, so on a final note, i was really disaappointmented and quite disturbed by the president, certainly the attorney's general, and, really backed up by the president's decision to close guantanamo bay, that we have brought bin laden's son-in-law to new york city, and i will be writing the attorney general asking him how long did we actually interrogate osama bin laden's son-in-law, how long did we spend trying to find out what he knows about al-qaeda as a top, certainly a very close associate of osama bin laden with him the day after issue on september 12th, right after the

terrorist attacks against our country, and i think this is a very important issue that the american people need to be aware of. we need to gather intelligence, prevent future attacks on the country, and, by the way, what was he doing in iran? we would like answers to that as well. thank you. >> knowing full well you're run as the president comes out. i understand that. are there any questions? >> you can't save america, you can't save the health care system, and you can't save america. we all know that revenue side is completely irrelevant to solving this problem. we gave the president 650 or so billion dollars in taxes at the end of the year, and not by our votes, but by the expiration of the law, and now we need to deal

with the spending problem. we're doing part of it, not a lot, but part of it on the discretionary side with the implementation of the sequester and cr reflects that lower number. the second part of the equation is to deal with where the huge expenses are, and that's on the entitlement side. there is no revenue solution to that, i would say to you. it has to be done by making the eligibility fit the demographics of america today and tomorrow. whenever the president's willing to have that discussion, we're ready to have it. >> what other issues do you expect -- [inaudible] >> you know, both on the cr, which will be open for amendment and on the budget that has plenty of amendment, which there's other subjects addressed, but we all anticipate that the president's request of

us to raise the debt ceiling which will come due sometime in summer will generate another, hopefully, another discussion about solving the real problem, and we all know the only way to straighten america out is to fix the entitlement issue. nothing else gets the job done. only that. we're hopeful that, finally, he will be willing to step up with us and solve that problem. we're ready to talk about that, and i think the outreach that he's been having is a good thing. i'm all for it. as i said, i think i have recommended to him that he have the rest of our members down and the small dinners. the reports were it was a candid and fruitful discussion. i think having more of that rather than less of that is a good idea. thanks a lot.

>> senate democrats plan to offer a counter budget proposal wednesday to the republican budget outline with higher spending on domestic programs and additional tax hikes on top of the higher rates imposessed on top bracket earners in january. shortly, the senate will consider federal spending to fund the government through the end of the budget year in september. right now, president obama is meeting with senate democrats to talk about federal spending. reaction to the house republican 2014 budget plan now from senate democratic leaders harry reid and republican leader mitch mcconnell. mr. pr >> earlier this year, the elections were fresh in their es mind. top republicans promised a top

kinder, gentler republican party. the republican party that careda very american achieving their dreams.merican that was a quote. republicans bantied about words like "fairness and opportunity," making truths towards women and hispanics promising cooperation and bringsmanship. house majority leader spoke of,r quote, an agenda on a shared agd vision of creating conditions of for health, happiness and prosperity, close quote. thoughs underway. then a few weeks passed and the republicans emphasis on fairness equity made a direct u-turn, back to where they started. today the house budget committee chairman paul ryan will unveil an extreme budget that's anything but balanced. this budget reflects the same skewed priorities the republican party has championed for years, the same skewed priorities

americans rejected in november. the ryan republican budget will call for more tax breaks for the wealthy and an end to medicare as we know it and draconian cuts to education and other programs to help america's economy grow and prosper. we've heard it many times, and i'll repeat it, yogi bera famously said this. it's deja vu all over again, mr. president, and it really is, mr. president. we've seen this before, deja vu all over again. the ryan budget will shower more tax breaks on millionaires and tax breaks on millionaires and >> now, i know that congressman ryan held out to be this cool, d understand, things so well, buto he understands gimmicks, and that's what he's done so well, le pull the wool over the eyes in the people of the house. they continue to follow him,used but, mr. president, his budget is anything but balanced, anything but fair, and members,

the house should look what they are led into or out of. this plan, just like last year refused to close a single tax loophole to reduce the deficit.s they have education, scientific research, and job cleaning energy technology. the ryan budget ends it andwave. force seniors into a voucher foe program. it would prevent health care like cancer screenings, charge seniors more for prescription, a further reduces the funding forf food inspectors, police, and first respooonders generally.ers it's protecting wealthy special interests is not bad enough, itg devrainterest't bad devastates the economy and the passing jobs as foreign grow.hio budget, number three, has done it two other times. budge it's the same thing, gym ricks,

in the previous budgets. as the there's an accounting thatve ats created to reduce deficitelieve reduction. we have to stabilize the deficit without taking more than of thee counting gimmicks to achieve ace real deficit reduction, and at s time corporations make recordroe profits, stock market is soaring, and american incomentio continue the to rise, the deficit reduction shouldn't be taxes middle class families, senior citizens, and the poor. that demand is the fair approach to all americans, democrats, emdependents, and republicans. d they want a fair deficitroach. reduction that makes sensible cutses, has profitable corporations and the wealthiest among us to share the burden, l, and that's why they introduced y the budget that reflects the mua balanced w priorities.hat her plan, the democratic plan, , cuts wasteful spending and and

closes tax loopholes and invests what the economy needs to go, to go really hard, continue to rea build, to grow and lead to a stg strong middle class.. congre congressmanss ryan and the ic colleagues in ancongress took an different approach, an approach that makes it plain they missed the actions.r their budget puts money to wil special interests they had of mid of class families, and no ir amount of rebranding hides that, mr. president. >> as we know, president obama missed this year's legal deadline to submit a budget to congress, just like he has nearly every year of his presidency. this year, it's worse. we now know he do you want plan to submit a budget until after the house and senate enacted the past one. this never happened in more than 90 years that have gone by since the modern budget process was established in the 1920s. somehow, president managed to submit budgets on time in the

middle of world war ii, during the great depression, but somehow not today. there's simply no excuse. rather than helping lead congress towards a reasonable outcome, it appears the president is happy to drop a bomb on the congressional budget process instead by releasing his budget plan after, after the house and senate have already acted. now, presumably, this is so he can campaign against republicans if the process fails as he no doubt hopes. let's hope he doesn't try to use the tired political playbook again. the president should send over the budget now, not neex week or next month, but today. both sides can consider it at a time when it might be helpful rather than destructive to the entire process. speaking of serious delays, for four years, my constituents in

kentucky and americans across the country asked senate democrats a simple question. where's the budget? where's the budget? most families put one together. they want to know what democrats who run the senate have planned. for four years, senate democrats have ignored these concerns year after year, neglected one of the most important legitsive responsibilities, but, evidently, that's about to change. senate democrats are pledging to finally, finally produce a budget. it'll be interesting to see what they put forward. i hope senate democrats take the exercise seriously and propose real spending reforms that put our country op a stronger, more sustainable fiscal path. for reforms that control spending and lead to row best private sector growth and job creation. we'll find out soon.

what about republicans? well, republicans lead the house, and they produce bummings every year, right on schedule, budgets that would put our country on a path to growth and job creation, and it would put our creeky entitlement programs on a sunday footing. they are around when people need them. today, house republicans will unvail this year's budget blueprint. if the past is indication, the reforms it con tapes jump start the economy, help americans join the middle class, and begin to tax l the debt that threatens all futures because republicans understand -- understand we need to grow the economy, not grow the government. what's more, it gets us back to a balanced budget within just a few short years. call me a skeptic, but there's little chance the budget my senate democratic plans balances either today, ten years from today, or ever. i doubt it will contain much in the way of spending reform

either. we'll probably just get more of what we come to expect from them the past few years, lots of budget gym ricks, lots of wasteful spending, and more tax hikes. that type of budget won't grow the economy nor shrink the debt. here's the thing. the budgeting process is a great way for both parties to outline their priorities for the country. that's something senate democrats refused to do until now. if they want to put forward a budget that allows medicare to go bankrupt, that hikes up taxes on families and small businesses that can least afford them, and then proposes a future of massive deficits without end, that's really how they want to define themselves for the american people, then let the battle of ideas begin. we need to see their budget first. it's time to end years of delays and put the ideas out there on the table and it's well past time for the president to do the same, not after congress acts,

but before. republicans have managed to play by the rules every year and produce serious budgets for our country. i hope democrats are finally ready to get to work to do the same. president obama barack obama is meeting with senate democrats on capitol hill to get help in proposals that are part of the second term agenda. the meeting today comes on the first of three days of presidential trips down pennsylvania avenue with partisan caucuses in both parties. white house spokesman carney says president obama wants to discuss immigration reform and gun control and other priorities that require congressional action and the president plans to meet with house republicans wednesday and scheduled to talk to senate republicans and house democrats on thursday.

shortly, the senate gavels in and begin debating federal spending to fund the government through the end of the budget year. live coverage here on c-span2.

ms. landrieu: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: thank you, madam president. as we begin our work this afternoon i wanted to come to the floor and make a few comments about the homeland security appropriations bill that is now going to be included in the amendment offered by senator mikulski and senator shelby as part of an appropriation bill that is coming over from the house. this is such an important step forward, madam president, not just for the government but for the private sector jobs that depend on reliable, transparent, and appropriate government spending, but for the whole country. because we have been in gridlock, stopped on our funding bills for months now.

and not talking about the things that make americans happy and prosperous, which are smart investments in their future, in their interest. we've been just fighting about appropriation bills. well, that fight, hopefully, is coming to an end because of the really extraordinary leadership of the senator from maryland, senator mikulski, the senior senator from and the newly minted, but not new to the committee, a veteran of the appropriations committee but newly minted chairwoman of our committee, and the able partnership with senator shelby from alabama, again, a long-standing appropriator who understands practical politics and compromise is necessary to move anything of importance through this body, and i can't thank them enough and their staff for salvaging several of these important bills. now, they weren't able to come

to agreement on everything. we still are -- i am and others, troubled that we're not going to see much progress in the area of education and health as much as we would like. but that's for another day. but we're going to move forward on what we can move forward together, and one of those areas is the homeland security funding -- funding for homeland security. which is a pretty big bill by federal government standards. it's not the largest, it's not the smallest, it's $42 billion. that is not chump change, it's a significant amount of money that the taxpayers provide us to make decisions about their security. and it funds everything from border patrol and protection to customs and immigration. it funds the coast guard, which is very, very important part of our operations and, of course, we feel that directly as a

coastal state in louisiana, and very familiar with the needs of coastal communities, the coast guard is always there. it funds a number of other entities. i do not want to fail to mexico cybersecurity which is one of the -- mention cybersecurity which is one of the newest, most frightening threats to our country. this didn't exist at all 20 years ago. you can see the ever-evolving capacity of people who would do us harm, not just governments that don't like the united states, not just groups that don't like the united states, but individuals who have some bone or some beef, some anger, an actually take it out in really unbelievable ways through the internet, attacking sensitive material and data. this is not just an attack to the government functions of our

country, but we have seen any number of attacks on our private infrastructure, which is so critical to our existence, whether it's our water systems, our financial systems, our utility systems, electricity systems, i could go on and on. this is a very important responsibility for the federal government to step up and try to figure this out, working really with the department of defense, the department of commerce, and the department of homeland security, which i fund, and this is no insignificant matter. on the contrary, it's important for us to not only have the right money but investing it in the right places. and we're trying very hard to do that. that's why it would have been very dangerous in my view to have this bill stuck. we would be funding last year's priorities, not being able to

account all the new intelligence that has come in over the last 12 months, and this is an evolving, ever-growing, ever changing threat. we would have been spending taxpayer money, madam president, funding last year's threats, not tomorrow's threats. that's why barbara mikulski as the chair of our committee, the chairman fought so hard to say we must move some of these appropriation bills forward so that we're funding the right things and not wasting taxpayer money. and she was right. so she was able to negotiate with senator shelby a yes, not a no, not a maybe, but a yes for the homeland security bill, and i could not be a happier chairman. i also want to thank senator coats, who is my able ranking member from indiana. he worked hand and glove with me to put this bill together. our staffs worked very, very closely together. we had a few minor disagreements

in views, we were able i think to work them out and work through it, obviously this bill is here with his signature and mine on it, and we were able to negotiate in very good faith with our house counterparts and i want to thank them. so what barbara mikulski says, the four corners have signed off on our appropriations bill, both in the house and the senate, republicans and democrats, and it took some give and take, but, you know, that's what we have to do. i want to just highlight a few things that are in the bill that people have been very interested in, and just take a few more minutes to do so. first, the bill includes total discretionary spending of $39.6 billion. i said $42 billion, that's what it was a few years ago. like every committee, we've taken a cut, we've taken a reduction. contrary to what you might

hear, we are tightening our belts. we are cutting into some muscle. we are cutting into some bone. it is not easy but it is necessary. but there is a point where you can't keep cutting or you won't be able to provide the security in the word "homeland security." it will be just "homeland." there won't be a big security piece around us because we've chopped it up. and when people want to harm this doesn't country see that, they will find the weakness. i'm not trying to scare up additional funding but i'm just speaking the truth if you want to secure a border, you can talk about it or you can actually build one. if you want a strong customs department that moves people through quickly but makes sure no bad things come into our country, you need to fund it. this does not happen on just a wish and a prayer. so we have a flat budget. we've reorganized things to

accommodate what i believe and senator coats believes are the priorities for the members here representing the people. the coast guard cybersecurity, border security, travel facilitation, i'll come back to that in a minute. for the coast guard, $9 billion in discretionary spending, which is $400 million above the president's request. we cut out some other things but those of us on the committee believe the coast guard's important. the coast guard is on the front line for drug interdiction which i don't have to explain to people, it's not just classified that now we have drug kingpins owning submarines that can bring drugs into the united states. people read about this, it's true, it's not science fiction. we have to make sure the coast guard has assets to stop drugs coming into our country in smart, aggressive ways, working in partnership with other governments. i don't have to remind everyone

about the oil spill, the terrible accident. that trial is still going on in new orleans as i speak. hundreds of lawyers still debating the worst oil spill in the history of the country, who showed up? the coast guard. they have to have all sorts of equipment to be able to respond for drug interdiction which is different than oil spill cleanup, and, of course, people are rescued literally every day by the brave memorial of the coast guard that risk their lives to keep our commerce and our recreational boating moving throughout this nation. we have $557 million for production of the sixth national security cutter. let me say -- i see my good friend, dick shelby, he most certainly understands this, the senator from alabama, but i want people that are not on our appropriations committee to understand something. you know, when most people in

america buy a big item like a house or even when they send their kids to college, they finance that. they take that big hit like $40,000 to send their child to college for one year or $120,000 for -- $160,000 for four years if you're going to a very fancy, expensive school. happily for us at l.s.u., we get a great bargained -- great bargain and great education for $10,000. but for a lot of families, even $10,000 a year is a lot of money. they don't pay cash for that. they finance it. the senator from alabama knows that. our problem is under the rules of washington, we cannot finance most things. people don't understand this. we have to pay cash. so i had to find -- because we need that national security cutter, senator, i had to find

$557 million in our budget to pay for it this year even though it takes a long time to build it. now, i think this should be changed. senator snowe, who was the chair of this committee and defense, navy for many years thought it needed to be changed, but it's not changed yet, so i just want people to know the pressures that are under our bill sometimes. we have to fund these big items in our year and basically pay cash. now, yes, ultimately this money is being borrowed through the general fund, and i don't want to get into technical arguments, but as far as we're concerned, we're paying cash for it in our budget, $557 million this year for the national security cutter. $77 million for long lead time. 337 -- i mean $335 million for six new fans response cutters. $90 million for a new c-130-j

aircraft. i have invested at my priority $10 million for military housing for the coast guard. the army, the navy, the air force have been really upgrading their housing. the poor coast guard because they're smaller, they are more isolated, they are not in areas where we can take advantage of that public-private partnership that's working so well. i think our coast guard families need some support and was able to find some funding there for them. i don't need to take much more time. i know the senator from alabama is here to speak. i will take five more minutes, and if he needs me to cease, i will. but we also put some investments in here for -- to address the cyber threat which the president has described, and i agree with him, one of the most serious economic and national security challenges we face as a nation. this bill includes $757 million, which is $313 million above last year, and i was happy to do that. i think this is a priority. we have moved other things around in the budget, but this

is a real threat. it's evolving every day, and we have got to have the research and technology to address it and work with the private sector to see what we can do to keep their network safe and our government strong. $7 billion for disaster relief fund. this was also a battle that we fought. the money is in there for sandy, for isaac, for irene, for ike, for argues staff, for rita and katrina, and there are a few other storms that still even after six or seven years are still open. there is money for them to finish their recovery. and science and technology, the bill includes $835 million, a 25% increase, and i want to say this as well. one other thing, i think, senator shelby, that people don't really understand is how much and how important research and development is, that the federal government invest. now, companies do, private

companies, invest in research and development, but some of the investment that we do is truly so far-fetched that no one in their right mind would invest in it because there is no immediate return, but you have seen time and time again when the federal government steps up and makes those long-term investments in research what happens. something is discovered and sooner -- the internet was a good example. by research in the department of defense. i can give you other examples. soon enough, though, the private sector realizes oh, my gosh, this research is breakthrough, whether it's coming from our d.n.a., research in health on our d.n.a. and all the new exciting technologies in health. i can tell you, our state is benefiting greatly from the research done 20 years ago on fracking. that wasn't done by exxon, it wasn't done by mobil. it was done by the federal labs out west because of research money in the -- in one of our bills, i'm not sure which, but

potentially in energy, and that is what is leading to the revolution in natural gas. so this baloney that the federal government doesn't have to invest in research and technology, we do it in partnership with the private sector. it's the best system in the world, and we would be shortchanging ourselves and our future economic growth if we didn't continue. and finally, just one more word of a priority. i have put some additional funding by moving some things around for customs and immigration and for t.s.a. i am not the only senator that represents a state that depends in large part on the hospitality, tourism and trade. i could list many states in our country, but let me just tell you about louisiana. we believe in hospitality. we believe it's a good business. we enjoy having people come to our state. they come, we all have a great deal of fun and excitement with our festivals and our fairs, but you know what? at the end of the day, we make

money and we create jobs, and it's an important industry. i am alarmed since 9/11 at the fallout of international travel to the united states. it's only increased by 1%. now, to put this in perspective, i believe that this number's correct and i will check it for the record, the senator from alabama knows that international travel in the world i think has increased by like 400%. so people are going to china, they are going to korea. you know, there is a growing middle class, and what middle-class people do, besides buy homes and send their kids to school, is they travel. it's just a middle-class thing. we now have more middle-class people in the world than ever in the existence of the world. but they're not coming to the united states because we are not investing in the kinds of infrastructure in our airports and ports that provide a safe but pleasant environment. so i am working very closely

with the international travel association. i want to thank them publicly for the work that they're doing. i'm one senator that believes in this, and i think the president has also said that international travel means jobs for americans right here at home. it's something they cannot transport, and i am very happy to -- to speak about this bill. so i see the leaders that are on the floor, the senator from -- the chairman and the ranking member, and i am going to put the rest of my remarks into the record, but i want to personally thank them both for bringing our appropriations bills to the floor. i have spoken about homeland security. there are other bills that need to be talked about this afternoon. i'm happy that we could work out this agreement with my republican counterparts, and again, i thank the chairman and the ranking member for their extraordinary leadership and want to submit the rest of my comments to the record. the presiding officer: without

objection. the senator from alabama. mr. shelby: madam president, i just want to follow up on some of the comments the senator from louisiana had made here, very positive comments about research, the role of the federal government in all aspects of research. she is a very hard-working member of the appropriations committee and she has been involved in a lot of this. whether it's research in health -- in the health issues at the national national institutes of health -- at the national institutes of health, cancer, energy technology, so many things that you referenced, so many good things come out of this. i believe overall that the senate and the house on both sides of the aisle realize this, but with all the breakthroughs in information technology that we have had, we can just go back to the research and development that the federal government did that brought us basically our

internet. that just didn't happen. it was built over many, many years and many, many ideas of research and look at it today. we have all benefited from this overall, but there are threats to this with information technology and everything that we use today dealing with energy, for example, our power grid. a lot of that, as we all know, is computer driven and operated. our banking system, information technology. our military. our traffic control system that we rely on every day. i'm sure that our trains and other vehicles that we run, but there are threats to this today. a lot of it is cybersecurity and they are real. we have got to, as we do

research in this area, continued research, we can't forget that. that's a job that we have all got to work together, and i believe on the appropriations committee, this is a good start today for challenges for the future, and that's the security of our information system, our grid, our banking system, our federal reserve. you just go on and on. it affects everything in our everyday life, and we shouldn't forget it. but i think we're off to a good start here today, senator mikulski, the chairperson of the committee and i, and i believe this is the first time in a few years that we have come to the floor trying to work together on appropriations and we're determined to make this regular order work. and i believe that the majority of the senators on my side of the aisle, the republicans and the democratic side of the aisle will in a few days bring this to a head and we'll do something good for the american people,

bring some certainty and some good legislation. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, other senators will be coming to the floor to describe the various -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i apologize. i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: mr. president, as

i said, other senators on the appropriations committee -- and all are welcome to come and comment -- but those on the appropriations committee actually assigned to do the work will be coming throughout the afternoon to actually describe the content in the bill. i'd like to just talk about the content. you know, we on appropriations have 12 subcommittees. of those 12 subcommittees, each has a chair and a ranking member from the other party. the reason i'm telling you this is what is takes to do a bill. so through all of last week, after we got the guidance of our caucus, the guidance of the authorizing committee, guidance from the leadership, we began to put a bill together. well, it is not easy. my own staff worked through the -- and senator shelby's through that faux snow form we

had, took computers home, worked all day, through the evening, i was back and forth, and we wanted to make sure there was no fog in our bill. and then out of that, the subcommittees gave recommendations. the reason i say that is that that took us to thursday. we didn't complete from our end the framework and substance of the bill until saturday. that means me, the democratic majority -- the majority party has the responsibility of putting the bill together. but this is not a one-woman show here. so after we did, we gave it to our counterparts, who had been in consultation, broad principles, negotiation between the subcommittees, consultation with the authorizing committees on policy so -- where we were heading. then it was -- when we got it to senator shelby and his staff, they had to exercise their due

diligence. we wanted them to do the due diligence. we wanted them to look through every aspect of that bill to make sure our word of honor -- which we've had together for more than 25 years -- there were no surprises, there were no hidden little -- little agreements, there were no surprises parachuted in that if we woke up, neither would be happy about. and i must say, i have to compliment senator shelby and his staff, they worked through the weekend doing every line item to make sure when they gave he and senator mcconnell and the republican caucus their best assessment, they had a chance to look at every single line item. and they sure did it and they worked hard. so there are those who would say we would have liked to have had the bill sooner. we would have liked to get the bill sooner. but we are talking about the funding for the entire united

states of america, the entire funding for the united states of america. that's a lot of lines and that's a lot of items that had to be gone through methodically, diligently, meticulously. and we have moved as expeditiously as we can. so we then had our bill. we could not -- and i really wanted to share it with the house. i think we've been working with the house in a very constructive way communicating. but it didn't take us until very late yesterday afternoon for us to complete our process as a member of the appropriations committee. i would have really loved getting this bill to the floor -- i mean, filing this bill sooner, but in order to do it right and in order to do it the right -- not only the right content but the right way, to make sure that the appropriate committees were able to exercise

their due diligence, their vigilance, their scrutiny, we now present to the entire senate a bill. so i hope that we can move forward on our legislation. we want members to take a look at it. we would hope that we could be working on amendments this afternoon. i hope we have permission to go to our bill. we've got two great amendments lined up, different philosophies. but, you know, that's what it is. that's what i talked to senator ayotte on the floor a couple weeks ago during sequester, bring up the amendments. we have an amendment by senator harkin on the labor-h.h.s. content, but we have an amendment to be offered on president obama's health care bill, there's -- there's a senator who would like to have the full senate decide, should we defund it. now, this is an important national debate. let it come on out.

and the only way we can get to that is by letting us go to the bill. we have an arcane procedure in the senate called motion to proceed. we have to get -- now -- we have -- we've made -- in order to be able to vote, we have to get permission to proceed. i want to get to amendments. i want to have real debate on real issues. where are we on labor-h.h.s.? what -- what is the senate's full view on the funding of obamacare? let's get out there. and instead of fussing over procedure, let's get to real content, let's talk about the real issues around funding and what we should be doing to really pass the continuing resolution to keep america's funding going but where the majority rules and we have our bill. so let's get to the situation where we can move to the bill, where we can offer amendments, regardless of how you feel about an amendment, we all feel that

senators have the right to offer amendments. let's get to it. let's get the job done. and let's show we can function as the greatest parliamentary body in the world. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i'm somewhat amazed, stunned. you would think that someone who has given an answer to the question "yes" should pretty much satisfy them. we've been trying to keep the government from shutting down. i appreciate the work done by the speaker. i didn't agree with his bill but i appreciate what he did and he did it in a timely fashion. the chairwoman of the appropriations committee, senator mikulski, has been negotiating with the republican counterpart, richard shelby, for days now. they worked all weekend. they worked late into sunday

night. and they worked out a bipartisan agreement. they offered the amendment here. now we hear from a couple of senators that, let's not take the bill up. they need more time. i thought people wanted to have an open amendment process on this bill. offer amendments. now, it appears today's gone. we won't be able to offer amendments i guess today. i've said all along that we would turn to it as soon as possible. our republican colleagues said that they wanted to see the first amendment that was to be offered. they saw that. they were originally given to certain people in the leadership office, that on saturday, saturday about 12:00 noon. and there's been every effort to work together on this matter. they wanted to see the first amendment that would be offered. i've indicated that it was done, they saw it. there was negotiations to get to where that is.

but now senators want to prevent us from going to the bill. now, remember, if i file cloture today, the earliest we can have the vote is thursday. now, mr. president, we are going to finish this c.r. and we're going to finish the budget before there will be an easter recess. that's a fact. so everyone should understand that delaying on this because they want to read the bill more deeply, i guess, doesn't really make a lot of sense. we're going to do the budget resolution. i've made that clear. i emphasize it now. and the republicans have been talking about, even though it's basically without foundation, that we haven't had a budget resolution. we haven't needed one. we had one that was not a resolution, it was a law that

set the standards for what we would do with our budget, it set ceilings on how much we would spend. as a result of that, we were able to get the funding for our subcommitteecommitteescommitteed appropriations. but they want a budget resolution, which is as good as law, we want to do that and we're going to do everything we can to get that done. so if republicans object to allowing the senate to begin consideration of a bill negotiated with republicans, then the only people who will be disadvantaged will be other republicans who want to be able to offer amendments. so i regret again -- again -- we've come to this. just when you think it can't get worse, it gets worse. there are things we have to do. the c.r. is one of those. if it means cutting into the april recess, which we have two weeks to do a lot of things people planned for some time, then that's what we'll need to do. but i am stunned. i learned about this when we had the president at our caucus. i just really am flabbergasted,

mr. president, that here we are on the eve of doing something together, regular order, that the regular order around here is stopping every bill from going on the floor. that's what the regular order is. we -- i thought we had some kind of an agreement at the beginning of this congress that this wasn't going to go on anymore. we had that two years ago. we changed the rules here a little bit. but, mr. president, there is going to be tremendous angst within my caucus and i think the country to continue trying to legislate with the burdens that we bear, that just one or two people do everything they can to throw a monkey wrench into everything we do. as a country, we are being looked at as being inoperable. it is too bad. it's not good for this institution and it's really not good for the country.

mr. shelby: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, spiewk the call of the quorum be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: thank you, mr. president. you know, if you're watching us on c-span and they do, in our own country and around the world they say it's tuesday afternoon, 3:30, what's happening in the united states senate? we see two senators there, able, seasoned, experienced. where's the debate? where's the amendments? where's the cac -- clash. ideas in an open and public forum on what's the best way?

well, we're not doing that because we have arcane rules that people can put what they call a hold on the bill so we can't proceed to that. now, in the old days that was a good idea. you placed a hold -- this goes to stagecoach days. you're an indiana man. you understand that. i say to the chair respectfully. but it was so you could get back -- if i put a hold, you would put a hold on a bill if you thought i offered legislation that you think could hurt indiana. your stagecoach, you could dash back here. we don't have stagecoaches anymore. we're all right here. i would like to move this bill. there are those senators who want more time. they could actually be looking at the bill if they would let us go this afternoon because we have two amendments that would take us to 5:00 or 6:00 --

gosh, now, till this evening but we would get to amendments dub dunn with two pretty big topics, one of which should be are we or are we not going to fund the president's health care initiative? we need to move this bill. what is it that senator shelby and i are trying to do? to pass a continuing resolution to fully fund the federal government with the scrutiny and oversight of the congress by october 1. okay? right now we have the c.r., as it's called, the funding, the continued funding expires march 27. some people might say, well, that's 12 -- that's -- that's 15 days from now. but not really, mr. president, because we have to pass our bill, we have to go to the

house, and -- go to the house and then have a bill to be signed by the president. we would like to do that before the easter/passover recess which is we break meaks week. so he we would really like to do it and i know one of my colleagues is on the floor. you know, i recognize the right for senators to really review and scrutinize a bill. i've done it myself, so i respect that. the other, mr. president, is that in the days of really where we're skeptical and even suspicious of one another, you really wanted to look at it to make sure there was no cute gimmicks, no little -- you know, fast-hand motions, no earmarks extra parachuted in. but i can say this. after the democrats finished the bill and we gave it to senator shelby and his staff, this bill has been very scrutinized so that any of those tricks of the

old days are not here. and i really need everybody's attention. there's a lot of conversation going on. but what i want to say is this -- and if anyone spots something that they think is a cute gimmick, i would sure like to know about it. but i recognize the senators' rights but i ask them -- yes, i ask them if we could at least proceed to the bill where while we're debating these two two big amendments we'd do it. would i like to make it available 72 hours? the answer is yes but the magnitude of what we did and the due diligence necessary by the republicans just it was physically and intellectually, not meaning the scrutiny involved, oversight, until very late yesterday. i would have liked to have done better. when we get back to regular order, it will be better. but, you know, i feel like i've got the multiple decks we've been dealt, a real deck, a

pinochle deck, a poker deck and so on. i'm making a plea, recognizing that the senators should scrutinize the bills and recognizing senators' right to offer amendments. so that's just simply my plea. and some of my colleagues are on the floor and i'll be happy to engage in a conversation with him, two of whom i have an enormous respect for. mr. coburn: i want to tell the chairwoman of the appropriation committee i very much appreciate her work and i actually trust her to do the right thing. but we got this bill last night at 9:00. it's a 500-page bill, and it has multiple levels of authorizations in it that we found so far, authorization on an appropriation bill. it has what i would consider -- and we haven't been completely through it -- some things that are totally counterintuitive to

where we find ourselves in terms of spending money and before i could grant a unanimous consent -- and i will as soon as we get through the bill, i plan on granting a unanimous consent. but i want to know, we just heard the majority leader say he can't understand why somebody wants to read this bill. talk about in excess of a trillion dollars. that's one of the problems, one of the reasons we're $17 trillion in debt is people don't read the bills. so i have -- and i also want to say to my friend from alabama, i have greatest praise for you. you know some of the heartburns i have in this but we knew that was coming from the house. but to not allow us to time -- the time to assess what you have produced by being able to read and study the bill is -- is really going against the best traditions of the senate but it's also going against common sense. how do we know whether we want to offer amendments unless we've been able to read the bill?

are we just blindly to say whatever you want to do, we're going to approve it because we have a deadline at the end of this month? i'm willing to do what is necessary to make sure we get a continuing resolution. but i'm not willing to do that blindly. and so i'm going to study this bill. we've got three members' staffs working full time, we have had since last night, investigating, looking at this bill, and i won't go into the details of the things we've seen so far but we at least ought to have an opportunity before being rushed into granting a unanimous consent to go forward and plain on allowing that, but i'm not going to allow it until i know what the agreement is going to be in terms of amendments and whether or not even if we've red the bill -- read the bill and had have some good ideas we'll be allowed to offer them. this is an appropriation bill. we ought to be allowed to offer amendments with our ideas on

ways to save this country money and increase its efficiency and effectiveness and still meet the deadline that the chairwoman outlined. i hope you will understand why we're not in any mood right now to grant it until we actually know what we're talking about. and to ask anything less of us, you're asking us to deny the very oath that we took when we came here. so with that, i would yield the floor and thank my colleague, john mccain, for being down here. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, i intend to object, along with the senator from oklahoma, and i think he made the case. i would remind my colleagues that a week ago, senator coburn and i sent a letter to senator reid and senator mcconnell, with copies to senator mikulski and senator shelby, and we stated in one sentence, "we write to inform you of our intention to object to entering into a time agreement for floor

consideration of a continuing resolution until we've had at least 72 hours to review its contents." that's -- that's what we wrote. that's what we asked for. and i would remind my colleagues again, it's a 597-page bill of over a trillion dollars that we got at 9:00 last night. is there anyone who has had time to read this entire bill of 597 pages long? and we're talking about a trillion dollars? a trillion dollars and we are holding up the united states senate over not having since 9:00 last night until 3:30 this afternoon to examine a 587-page bill, over a trillion dollars. now, and what i've already found -- what we've already found -- and we haven't finished and we hope to be finished within a few hours examining

this legislation -- is the most egregious pork-barrel spending at a time of sequestration. this is -- i find it mind-boggling. you know, we spent three weeks in december on the floor of this senate doing the fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill. there are provisions in the c.r. that directly were prohibited -- prohibited -- in the defense authorization bill. now, i respect the knowledge of the senator from alabama and the senator from maryland on defense issues, but we spent three weeks and hundreds of hours of hearings and amendments and markup and we said, for example, that there would be no money for guam until we have a -- a coherent strategy laid out by the administration as to how we

were going to implement the base realignment. i won't go -- but the fiscal year 2013 national defense authorization act prohibited spending -- expending that money. now, what have -- what have they crammed into this 587-page bill? $120 million for a public regional health laboratory and civil juacivilian wastewater ims on guam. why? why? i ask my friend from alabama, why would you directly contradict the authorization bill that was just passed that said no money would be given to guam for these purposes until such time as we had developed the strategy for the base realignment in guam? is it because the senator from alabama, the senator from maryland know something more than the again authorization -- authorizers did, that we had debate and discussion and authorization of and we specifically prohibited it? so here we are, we have had to

not deploy an aircraft carrier because of sequestration, we have had to cut down on flying hours, we've had to reduce maintenance, we've had to make all kinds of tough decisions as to the men and women who are serving and the equipment and operations and maintenance. so what have we already found out? what have we already found out in this bill, and i want to assure my colleagues, i am not making this up. i am not making this up. okay? $5 million additional for the national guard youth challenge program. now, i think the national guard youth challenge program is a pretty -- a pretty worthwhile project, but while we're having to keep a carrier from deployment, $5 million for the national guard star base youth program. $154 million for army, navy and air force -- quote -- "alternative energy research initiatives." this type of research has developed such shining examples

as the department of the navy's purchase of 450,000 gallons of alternative fuels for $12 million, over $26 per gallon. $18 million for unspecified -- quote -- "industrial preparedness." $16 million for parkinson's disease research. that's on defense, my friends. that's not out of health and human services, it's out of defense. $16 million for neurofibro mitosis research. $16 million for hiv-aids research, which is a worthy cause, taken out of defense. $9 million for unspecified radar research. $567 million for unrequested medical research. $20 million for university research initiatives. $7 million for civil air patrol program increase. $45...-th.the list goes on and n

and we haven't finished. how in the world, how in the world do you have a provision -- quote -- "for an incentive program that directs the department of defense to overpay on contracts by an additional 5% if the contractor is a native hawaiian owned company?" how, how in the world is this justified when -- in these times of sequestration? i note the presence of our leader on the floor and i want to assure the leader, with all respect, that this is a 587-page bill of over a trillion dollars. we got it at 9:00 last night. i hope that in a few hours that we will be able to finish examining this bill. but what we've found so far is -- is -- is so egregious, is so egregious that it's hard to imagine that anybody, in light of the sequestration and the damage that it does to the lives of the men and women who are

serving in the military, could have added these kinds of provisions is, frankly, beyond anything i think that i have ever seen in the years that i've served in the united states senate. i yield to the -- to the distinguished majority leader. and before i do, i object. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: object to what? mr. president, through the chair to my friend from arizona, it's a 587-page bill that has been available to the public because this -- the vast, vast majority of this bill is identical to what the house already passed. identical. so, i mean, he and his staff and the senator from oklahoma have had days and days to look this over. now, mr. president, i want to make sure everyone understands, i can only do so much. i mean, i'm really -- you know,

i -- i try to be not too sensitive, but the senator from observinoklahoma seems to have m with -- i assume he's referring to me, he's referring to durbin, he's referring to schumer and murray. here's what he said on sunday on one of the shows. "the senate's not nearly as dysfunctional as it's made out to be, coburn said. our problem in the senate is the leadership in the senate." well, i don't know if he's referring to senator mcconnell. i don't know who he's referring to, but one day he should look in the mirror. now, mr. president, i want to try to get along here. the -- the vast majority of the stuff that's in this bill came from the house of representatives. it's been available for days. i can't remember what day we got this. i think last wednesday or thereabouts. so it's been many days. i -- i have -- i know senator mccain very well. he and i came to the house

together. we came to the senate together. and i understand how he feels about these issues, and i don't blame him for being upset about some of the things in this bill. but it's not our fault. we're trying to get a bill to fund the government. and what we need to do is get on the bill. i'm criticized around here for not allowing amendments to be offered. we can't have amendments offered until we get on the bill. so i think it would be much better if we could get on the bill and people want to offer amendments, it's kind of jump ball here. we have a hundred senators and there are a few of them want to offer amendments. well, we can't dictate what amendments are going to be offered before we even get on the bill. so i would hope that my friend from arizona would take some time with his staff, look over the bill that's been around since last wednesday or thereabouts and decide when we can get on the bill. i mean, the time's really wasting. we have to finish this and the budget before we leave here for

the easter vacation. now, we can do it this week, we can do it next week or we can do it the week after. we've got to get this done. and i'm not trying to fight with anybody, but, as i said, i do have some sensitivities about my friend from oklahoma continually berating the leadership in the senate. and i've come to the rationalization maybe he's talking about his own leadership. i don't know. mr. mccain: from that, i yield for a question, i guess. first of all, i -- i appreciate very much that the majority leader's responsibility, in fact, is to make sure that the trains run and that we take up and pass legislation and there are many times when i have to say that the majority leader has been frustrated by some events

and individuals that arouses my sympathy for the responsibility that he has and his inability to carry out those. i would point out to my friend from nevada that we really just got this bill last night, and to rely on the fact of a house bill to be our guide when we know that there were many provision provisions -- at least some provisions that were added that we've already found in the senate version of the bill, i would hope that he would understand that we just need a little more time to try to get through the entire bill. and i hope that will be sooner rather than later. and then we can, as the majority leader has said, be open for amendments. i just hope that the majority leader might understand our point of view that this is over a trillion-dollar bill, it's 587 pages, and for us to take sort

of an act of faith that this is the exact bill that came out of the house obviously is not the case. so, again, i appreciate -- mr. reid: will the senator yield? mr. mccain: yes. could i just finally say, sir, i appreciate the majority leader's responsibilities, i appreciate his frustration. i hope that he will understand ours and we'll try and get this done -- move as quickly as possible. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: for many, many years, for decades, senator mcconnell has been a watchdog of what goes on with spending in this country. i expect it of him and i don't say that in a negative fashion. so i have no problem with senator mccain taking whatever time is necessary to look over this legislation so he feels comfortable moving on it. and then if he has amendments to offer, move on to these amendments. so i have no complaint about john mccain. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, let

me thank the senators from maryland and alabama for their leadership on this bill, and i might say to my friend, the senator from arizona, i have a new assignment in the appropriations committee following on the departure and passing of our great friend, senator dann danny inouye. and i'm trying my best to make sure that we do right by our national defense, which i know is near and dear to the senator from arizona. there was an extraordinary effort made in the house to accommodate the department of defense when it came to this continuing resolution, as well as military construction and veterans and i think that it's a good bill. and it comes over to us with provisions that will be helpful with some of the problems that they will face and challenges that they will face. what these senators have tried to do is to add several other areas of agreement -- agreement -- in the appropriations process. and if i'm not mistaken, most everything they've added has been subject to the debate within the committee, within the

subcommittee and the full committee. so there's no attempt here to conceal anything and we knew full well that the watchful eye of the senator from arizona and his friends would be applied to this bill. i think what we were trying to achieve today was to start the amendment process. not to close it down but to start the amendment process. and that would give members who want to come forward with an amendment a time to offer those amendments and other the time to review this legislation closely. i think that was our goal. and now to have this shut down where no amendments can be taken up or considered without foreclosing the senator from arizona or the senator from oklahoma, wouldn't it be a healthier situation for us to be actively considering amendments of members who know what they'd like to offer at this point? mr. mccain: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the senator from illinois. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i'd say to my friend, your point is very well

made, but unless we know the entirety of the bill, we don't know what our priorities are as far as amendments are concerned. i'm sure you know that even though amendments are going to be allowed, there is going to be a limited number of amendments. it's just we know how things work around this place come thursday afternoon. so all i'm asking -- all we're asking is to give us a little more time from 9:00 last night was when we received the final version of the bill. and i'd say to my friend from illinois, unless we know what's in the bill in its entirety, it's hard for us to know what the prior -- priority amendments that we intendon proposing. i think that we are nearly through the examination of the bill. i don't -- i do not wish to impede the progress of the senate on this legislation. i know how important it is, but i also hope that my friend would understand that we asked a week ago to have 72 hours, which is

the normal senate procedure, to examine the bill before we consider it. now, i understand the exigencies of the moment and all the back and forth between both sides of the capitol, but i don't believe in a trillion-dollar bill, 587 pages, that it's too much to ask for about 12 hours or 14 hours or 15 hours in to -- we have our staff working full time, and i want to assure you we will have it done soon. mr. durbin: if i might engage further in this dialogue? i see the chair is seeking recognition, but there are senators on both sides who have amendments ready to go. they have ideas that they would like to present to the senate for consideration. without foreclosing your possibilities and your opportunities to offer amendments tomorrow or whatever you're prepared to, i don't know why we would want to shut down this deliberation today. we can consider some of these

amendments and still not in any way prejudice your right as a senator to review the bill and affair the amendment of your choice. mr. mccain: senator, look, my dear friend, every senator has their responsibilities in this body. i have the responsibility particularly where defense is concerned. we spent three weeks on this legislation, hundreds of amendments, hours and hours of debate, markup in the committee of hours and hours, hundreds of hours of hearings by the leaders of our military and the administration. i haven't finished examining the defense part of this bill. now, why am i so worried about the provisions of this bill? because there are provisions in this bill that could directly contradict the defense authorization bill that we spent weeks on. we prohibited money for guam, okay? we prohibited it. and now there is $120 million in

there for it. now, -- so that makes me curious as to what else is in this bill. so i think for me to go back and tell my constituents in arizona who are heavily dependent on our national defense and our bases to say i went ahead without even reading the whole bill, without even my staff going through the entire bill. we were in such a hurry of our trillion-dollar -- over trillion-dollar legislation that you didn't even want -- you didn't want me to hold up the senate so that people could propose amendments. that's not my duty to the citizens of arizona. so i say with respect to my friend i respect the rights of all other senators. i would hope that the senator from oklahoma and my rights would be respected, and that is to read a piece of legislation that's 587 pages long. mr. durbin: i would respond to the senator.

the department of defense appropriations act for 2013 provides $600.9 billion including $87.2 billion for overseas contingency operations. that is a reduction from the 2012 level of $633.2 billion. there are no changes in the defense section of this bill, there are no changes in the bill that was passed by the house of representatives last week. the bill fully complies with the spending caps in the budget control act, contains no member-requested earmarks in compliance with earmark moratorium, and it is -- there are cuts in it to the defense budget to define programs with excess funding, schedule delays and the like. the bill includes 671 cuts as it came out of the house to programs in the budget request of funds that are not needed for the remaining six and a half months of the year. i might say to my friend from arizona, this is what the house passed. we have not added anything to it that would -- i think would be

of senate authorship, that changes it in substance. so i understand, it is your right, i respect your right and i'll fight for your right as a senator, but i would hope that at least for those senators prepared to offer amendments without in any way prejudicing your right to do so, we could proceed with the amendment process. mr. mccain: well, again, i thank my friend from illinois and i thank him for his point of view and i understand it. i understand the frustration of our two leaders on the appropriations committee and their desire to get this done. i understand that the time clock is running out. we're talking about a very short period of time. but i just have to repeat to you one more time, i'm not going to go back to my state and say by the way, i started the amending process and debating on a bill that i hadn't read. i -- i just don't do that, and i hope that the senator from illinois respects it, and i hope in a very short period of time we can agree to proceed and have vigorous debate and amendments,

but i also have to say that, you know, this is really remarkable. here we are, i say to my friend from illinois, in periods of sequestration, and there is a provision in here that for $15 million, there is an incentive program that directs the department of defense to overpay contracts by an additional 5% if the contractor is a native hawaiian-owned company. that boggles the mind. that -- that's so -- it's unbelievable. while we're keeping ships tied up at the pier because we can't deploy them, we're now going to tell native hawaiian companies that you're going to be overpaid by an additional 5% if you're based in hawaii. what's that all about? that's why the senator from oklahoma and i have to read the bill. i thank -- and i thank my colleagues.

the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: will the senator from arizona yield for a question? we acknowledge the validity of your concerns. we also acknowledge that we would have liked very much to give you this 72 hours in advance. there was no intent to stiffarm. please understand that. so we weren't trying to be cute and come in late and all that. it was just the sheer physicality of moving the bill, not getting it from the house until thursday. so there was no intent to not honor your request, which you were very plain and you have been consistent in every bill. so, sir, your request was not unusual and it was no surprise. so that's essentially where we are. mr. mccain: let me say to the senator, distinguished chairperson, i respect that and i would never impugn the motives. i said i thought i understood the time constraints that you are under given the house and senate and all that. i certainly did not intent to

believe that there was anything underhanded going on here. mr. mikulski: i have respect for you and the way you are guardian of the purse. now, if i -- do you have a sense, though, when you would be finished reviewing the bill? mr. mccain: i think in a very short time. i have to coordinate with the senator from oklahoma, but i think within a couple of hours. ms. mikulski: well, senator, we would just appreciate any way that you feel you can exercise your traditional due diligence and we're not going to engage in arguments with you, so -- but we would like to go ahead and even if we could get something going even later on this evening because -- mr. mccain: distinguished chairwoman, i will go back to my office right now, get together with senator coburn, and see if we can't come up with a definite time for you, and i assure you it will be a short period of

time. ms. mikulski: and a direction perhaps of amendments that you could share with senator shelby and the leadership. i expected there to be amendments from senators mccain and coburn. it wouldn't have been a real bill if you didn't offer amendments. it just somehow or another wouldn't have counted in the process. so we look forward to it. if we can move it in an expeditious way and understanding your right to offer amendments, i think we can get going. thank you. mr. mccain: now i will try to go out and carry out my mission as assigned by the distinguished chairperson. i thank her for her leadership and her excellent work. i thank both leaders. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i will not engage the senator from arizona in questions because i don't want to delay his reading time, but i -- i appreciate the work the distinguished chair of the appropriations committee has done and the distinguished ranking member, the senior

senator from bam. i have worked with both of them for decades on the appropriations committee and i know they -- i know they are diligent in their work, they are hard working. in fact, i recall a discussion with the distinguished senior senator from maryland when she agreed to take this assignment. i told her i didn't think of anybody better on our side of the aisle to be chair of this committee because i know how hard she works and how well she worked and i talked also to my distinguished friend from alabama at the time. again, somebody who knows how to work on appropriations. he and i have negotiated things over the years. we have always kept our word to each other just as the senator from maryland has.

but you can't negotiate what is going object in a bill until the bill is on the floor. i think that it's unfortunate that we're at a continuing resolution because if left to the three senators who are currently on the floor here, the senator from alabama, the senator from maryland and myself, we know that we would have been fully capable of completing action on individual appropriations bills. in fact, we have -- they were painstakingly negotiated by the senate and the house as part of an omnibus legislative package last december. but then for reasons we won't go into here, a year's worth of the appropriations subcommittee has been dumped in the wastebasket, not because of the two leaders but because of others. and unfortunately it means we fund on auto pilot. none of us who have spent time

on the appropriations committee want to do that, because we know that it wastes money, sequestration will make a bad scwaition even worse. now, i think chairwoman mikulski and senator shelby have done with this continuing resolution is far we are than putting the country on auto pilot. i have talked about title 7 of the resolution, the department of state, foreign operations. the house continuing resolution included several changes in the fiscal year 2012 appropriations act. the senate had incorporated those changes with minor modifications. senator lindsey graham and i included changes that we think are critical to our national security, and top officials at the state department, the pentagon agreed with us. we did our best to avoid

spending money that may have made sense in fiscal year 2012, but it would be a waste today. i will give you an example. the house continuing resolution includes another $250 million for the iraq police training program. the state department plans to spend zero. iraqis don't want to spend money on it. we don't want to spend money on it. but it's a quarter of a billion dollars the house put in there. now, that's just an example why we should go, we could by the regular order, because nobody wants this money. there is a lot of changes since december, 2011, when that 2012 bill was signed in by the president. the catastrophe in syria, millions of people fleeing their homes, a horrible refugee

situation, and a number of countries that we work with all the time. i'm thinking of jordan, turkey, countries that have strained their resources to help. benghazi and mali are other examples. conditions are changing in egypt, afghanistan. in our own hemisphere, we have -- we have challenges in east asia and the pacific. now, you don't say as these challenges come up, sometimes overnight, that well, that's okay, two or three years ago we passed a bill so whatever we did then will work today. it doesn't do it. so i think the chairwoman is doing a superb job, and ranking member shelby, as usual, very good experience and hard work on this. and i think senator lindsey graham and his staff.

con -- constructive input. you know, in the past, the appropriations bill is always a bipartisan issue. i think of senator byrd and senator stevens on this floor working things out. my predecessor is the president pro tempore, senator inouye, and senator cochran working things out. the title 7 of the resolution is a grand total of 11 1/2 pages. out of 587, it's 11 1/2 pages. we don't expect amendments but if we get them, i hope we can move them quickly. and -- and, mr. president, if nobody is seeking the floor, i would ask consent to continue for five minutes as though in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, last week the obama administration announced that osama bin laden's

son-in-law, abu ghaith, had been brought to the united states to be prosecuted. several of us who have oversight, particularly committees, were notified a week before this became public. we were briefed on what was happening as he was being flown here to this country to be prosecuted. and i want to commend the work of our nation's dedicated law enforcement and intelligence officials for help in bringing him to justice. i was briefed on exactly what they did, how they did it. it was a superb combination of both intelligence and justice, c.i.a., f.b.i., and others. and i applaud the obama administration for their unanimous decision within the national security council to prosecute him in a federal cou court. you know, we're -- we have reason to be proud of our cour courts. our federal courts are an example of impartiality,

competence, integrity seen the world over. we should -- we as americans are not afraid to take somebody who's acted against us and prosecute them before those courts. we shouldn't act like we're afraid and say, oh, we -- we can't have him in our federal court. let's lock him up in guantanamo. i would say another reason, just a practical reason, our federal prosecutors have established a tremendous record. they've convicted over 450 terrorism-related defendants since september 11, 2001. now, the military commissions at guantanamo bay, where some say they want to send abu ghaith, they're largely untested. there's only been eight convictions there. not the 450 we've seen in federal courts. they've been eight -- there's been eight. on average, the sentences are

shorter than those given in the federal court. in fact, two of these military commissions convictions were overturned just last year. and it's actually -- when you look at what the decisions of the circuit court of the d.c. circuit, where that would go, it's unclear whether a conspiracy case against this defendant could even be legally sustained in a military commission at guantanamo bay. why do we act as though we are afraid to bring this terrorist before our federal courts, where we bring mass murderers and everybody else, and send them off somewhere where they may never be convicted? you know, regardless of the outcome of a military proceeding against him, he could have been stuck there without the possibility of a federal prosecution. i think when you look at how well the federal courts have done, i'm surprised to hear

people criticize the decision to bring them before our article 3 court. i'd say that using our justice system is not mutually exclusive from gathering intelligence. in fact, from public accounts -- and i refer to what's been in the press -- it appears the f.b.i. gathered information and intelligence from him for about a week before he was formally even arraigned in court last week. in fact, according to one of the prosecutors, law enforcement officials were able to obtain detailed, extensive audio recordings and roughly 22 pages of post-arrest statements from abu ghaith. and, you know, the fact also, as we've seen in some of these other cases, once you present them in court, oftentimes they continue to cooperate and talk. it's clear to me president oba

obama's national security team did the right -- did the right thing. but we also show the rest of the world we are not afraid, as americans we are not cowering and afraid to use our courts. we are not afraid to use the procedures that have made us free and strong. now, we've had several hearings in the judiciary committee how best to handle terrorism suspects. i'm convinced the attorney general and the administration must have all options available. we had the forthoo fort hood sh. that went to a military trial, as it should. it was a military person committing a crime on a military base against other military personnel. even though directed by somebody from al qaeda overseas. but in this case, we have

somebody we can prosecute conspiracy charges. as a former prosecutor, i've looked at that. i have absolute faith in the abilities of our federal courts, our prosecutors, law enforcement officials to bring terrorists to justice. they have a tremendous record. let's not be afraid of these people. let's not say, oh, we've got to hide them down there in cuba, at guantanamo bay. no, we're americans. we're americans. we're not afraid of these people. bring them before our courts. let them face american justice. let them face our prosecutors and our courts. let's do it in a way that we can show the rest of the world when we tell them, why aren't you running your courts in an open way, when we criticize other countries, as we often do. don't give them an opportunity to come back and say, "well, you

don't do it that way." no, we can say, "we do." we take the son-in-law of osama bin laden, who conspired with him to commit this horrible crime, and we caught him. took us years to find him but we got him, we brought him back here, and now we're taking him to court and we're going to let a jury decide his guilt or innocence. that's the way it should be do done. that's the american way. and that shows that we don't have to hide, we americans are willing to stand up and face those who would attack us. mr. president, i -- i yield the floor. ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: before the distinguished senator from vermont leaves the floor, i -- i really wish to compliment him not only in the way he's moved legislation but really the values, the american values behind it. i think he has worked steadfastly on a bipartisan

basis with senator lindsey graham on our foreign operations. this is what has been called soft power. but there's nothing soft about it. it's part of our smart power strategy. and what has it meant? it has meant healing the sick, feeding the hungry, making sure children whose legs have been blown off with land mines have an opportunity for rehabilitation. for the children of haiti that lost their legs because of th the -- or limbs because of the horrific nature of the earthquake, taking lessons learned from other places in the world that they have a chance to do it. mr. president, i'm the home -- or baltimore is the home to the catholic relief organization. these are people who serve the world without, you know,

religious creed. they serve who's ever in the need. and the way they extol the virtues of what they've been able to do has been amazing. and what they say to me is that because of the work that senator leahy has done, they're able to leverage philanthropic dollars rather than being in lieu of government, they can leverage it because we're coming in to help the children. we help the children learn to walk. they can then come in with community development so that they learn a trade, so that we're literally rebuilding the lives of children in haiti but giving them a future where they're going to earn a livelihood. this is kind of pretty terrific. now, we have president clinton who does his global initiative, like in haiti, but we all have to be in it together. whether it's bill gates. the women of the senate on a bipartisan basis last week met with melinda gates in term of

the great gates foundation, and they talked about their health care initiatives. so we said, well, what does all this mean in terms of us? and they said, if you do the job government -- only government can do, we can then do what we need to do. this is a unique -- i don't know of other countries in the world who quite work with this synergy, letting our private philanthropic community do just splendid, inspirational things but they need a government. the other thing that we are able to do in this bill is preside some -- provide something very near and dear which is embassy security. we know we wanted to do more. we know that over the last couple of years, the house has denied $400 million in embassy security. so we're heartsick at the way our ambassador died. and while there's all that back

and forth over talking points, which we're not getting in, the fact is that we need to protect our american men and women working at embassies because they're at a duty station. and now that duty station has become a battle station. we need to make sure that we provide embassy security in the best way possible. we can debate policy, management and so on. but at the end of the day, we need to put money in the federal checkbook to do that. we lost an ambassador in been benghazi. i lost an ambassador and many others -- america lost many others a few years ago at khobar towers. one was our consular general. his name was bartley. highest-ranking african-american in the -- in the foreign service. his son was interning with him. they blew up the embassy. he and his son died. we need -- we need to look out for these people.

there was also a young lady who was there from the community -- from c.d.c. working again to make sure we were doing the right health initiatives, teaching, educating the leadership there. she died. these, again -- they were at their duty station which has now become a battle station. so i just want to compliment you for the children, your work on land mines, your work in feeding the hungry. and you know what this we make wise use because of the strong oversight. i know the gentleman from vermont listens to the inspector general, scrutinizes those g.a.o. reports. we get a dollar's worth of assistance. and at the end of the day, america is stronger because of what we do in this bill. and i just want to salute you for your sense of bipartisanship, your leadership and stewardship not only on this bill but over the years. you should be saluted. and i want to make sure this

bill moves forward so we can get on to next year and even do a better, smarter job. mr. leahy: mr. president, i thank -- i thank the senior senator from maryland for her kind comments. we do a lot, and people -- you know, it's interesting on the foreign aid part, it's less than 1% of our budget, but what we do showing the face of america, the best of the face of america throughout the world. and the distinguished senator has been throughout her career, both in the other body and here, she's been a strong supporter of those programs and made life better for an awful lot of people who never know who senator mikulski is or senator leahy or really anybody else. all they know is that lives are better because of the things we've done. i was in haiti just a couple of weeks ago. i've been there several times since the -- since the

earthquake. i've seen how our programs have helped, including the leahy war victims fund, which we used -- which we used in -- which we used for land mine victims around the world. but as the senator from alabama knows, because he was there with me a year ago, we saw how it's used in haiti to help people. i saw youngsters now with prosthetics learning to walk again. i saw people who were so inspired by what the united states was doing, they came from other parts of the world to help. i remember a noted physician from brussels who came to haiti. when asked him why he spent so much time volunteering for the children, i still remember the emotion as we were speaking.

i remember the emotion in his voice as he grabbed my arm and he said [speaking french]. for the children. "for the children." those children, they are not powerful. they will never vote for us. but we're human beings and we show responsibility. the senator from maryland talked about security in our embassies, how important it is to people we tell to go to the most dangerous parts of the world and give the best face of america. we have a responsibility to protect them. and we tried to get that money through. it was held up in the other body. let's continue our work here. i see our senators on the floor, and i yield the floor. i request the absence -- the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota.

mr. johnson: mr. president, the bill that chairwoman mikulski and senator shelby have compiled is an excellent example of how hard work, cooperation and good-faith negotiating can produce results in a body that is too often paralyzed by gridlock. the combined omnibus and c.r., while not all that i would wish for, has a balanced approach to keeping the government functioning through the remainder of the fiscal year while avoiding the specter of a government shutdown. the military construction is one of the five bills in this package, and it was the agreement between the senate and the house last fall. the senate bill is identical to

the house-passed milcon v.e. bills and it sends a strong message of support to a nation with military families including appropriate advances for medical care, the fy 2013 bill provides a total of $144.8 billion for military construction and family housing. the v.a. and related agencies including arlington national cemetery. of that amount, $71.9 billion is discretionary funding. this includes $10.6 billion for military construction, essentially $1 billion for the v.a. and $347 million for related agencies. this bill deserves the full support of the senate.

the alternative is a continuing resolution that is out of step with current requirements or a crippling government shutdown. a c.r. would be disastrous for military construction. the c.r. prohibits new starts which would block execution of 97% of the fy 2013 military construction program. as a result, more than 250 milcon projects in 42 states, the district of columbia and overseas that are funded in the bill before us would be put on indefinite hold in the c.r. for the v.a., a c.r. would not provide advanced funding for fy 2014 for vets' health care. advanced funding is an important

tool to protect funding for vets' health care from the very predicament we find ourselves in today. another small but important program in this bill that would be scuttled by c.r. is funding for cemetery expansion at arlington national cemetery. all of these problems are solved in this omnibus package. our nation's vets and our military troops and their families have made and are continuing to make great sacrifices in defense of this nation. the bill before us recognizes and honors that commitment by funding a wide array of programs essential to the health and well-being of both vets and military families. and i urge the senate to support it. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call. ms. mikulski: mr. president? poeup the senator from -- the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i would like to compliment the senator -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. ms. mikulski: i didn't think we kicked it in but that's okay. i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: i would really like to compliment the senator from south dakota for his excellent job on this as the chairman of the subcommittee on military construction v.a. he has worked steadfastly to bring this bill up. we are in agreement with the house. and i just want to give a sense of urgency why this has to happen. in this bill, thanks to the leadership provided here, it

increases funding to improve and accelerate claims processing through increased staff, business processes and enhancements. mr. president, that kind of sounds bloodless and technocratic, but i stand before you today to tell you we have a claims processing crisis for our veterans, particularly in the area of applying for disability benefits. and i hate to tell you that baltimore has one of the worst records. there are many reasons for that. it wasn't my fault. but we have let the infrastructure deteriorate, staffing issues, and the incredible number of our men and women coming back from the longest war we have fought with

incredible injuries, and some bearing the permanent impact of the war. and they're eligible. and many have multiple problems. this is not your world war ii benefit claim. so we have a backlog. we've got to deal with that backlog. otherwise, shame on us. those men and women fought hard. they gave it everything they had. and thanks to the skill and dedication of military medicine, we saved more lives in combat than in any other war. i don't want to sound like an epidemiologist. i'm a senator. but the fact is we have reduced what docs call morbidity and mortality. that's the good news. back to the hospital from battlefields with trained medics all the way to germany, all the way to now walter reed naval bethesda. but what is it when they come

back home? because we've saved their lives, they have injuries. it means they have some level of disability. they might not be totally disabled, but they are eligible, if they have a permanent injury, they should have a permanent benefit from their government. and while they were on the front line there, they shouldn't have to stand in 9-9-9 get their claims -- stand in line to get their claims processed. we have some claims that take as many as three to four years to get done. we've got to pick it up here. we've got to up our game here. these improvements -- and we've talked to general shinseki. i know the gentleman, the chairman of the committee has talked to him, held hearings, been quite vigorous in insistent in his advocacy. i was ballistic about the claims situation in baltimore. but what did we need? we needed increased staff. did you know that we do most of

our disability claims by paper? we might as well be doing it by papyrus. we might as well be doing it by papyrus. when you look at it, i'm short here. i'm rarely brief, but i am short. if you look at the average disability claim, which i know you've gone yourself to look at that, sir, it's sometimes 6, 8 and 12 inches. and that's the v.a. but in order to be certified, you've got to get the military to give you information. you have to get social security to give you information. you've got to get doctors' information. and in the meantime, somebody who's lost a leg, somebody who's lost an eye, somebody who's lost so much time fighting a war, and we ask too much from too few for so long are there waiting for their benefit. so we've got to go digital. we've got to go digital.

if we're going to run government like a business, let's give them the standard business tools. that means going technology. so i really want to thank the senator from south dakota and his republican vice chair for many of the good things that you've done in this bill, many of the good things. but for me, what is nearest and dearest to me is two things: increased funding to deal with the claims process. and also advanced funding for v.a. medical so that whatever we're doing here, those veterans get the health care they were promised, that they need, and that they deserve. if you ever want to talk about an earned benefit -- an earned benefit -- it's the men and women who need v.a. medical care and the men and women who need their claims processed to get -- to get what they deserve and get

what they're entitled to. this in and of itself is a moot reason to make sure we don't have a government shutdown and blow this program out the window. so i want to thank the senator for his advocacy and also taking good intentions and putting it in the federal checkbook. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

worry quoru quorum call:

mr. rubio: madam president irk ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. rube rube thank you, madam president. i -- mr. rubio: thank you, madam president. i rise to speak about an amendment to the pending matter. i intend to file it when it becomes appropriate to do so. the amendment i intend to file is about foreign aid to egypt. let me talk about foreign aid in general because there is a lot of concern about foreign aid. in a lot of places where i go, people ask me, with things so tough here in the united states, why do we give money to other

countries? that's a very good dough ask. first i would just say and i would caution people that foreign aid is not 20% of our budget. it is not 30% of our budget. it's actually on some days less than 1%, 2%, 3% of our total budget. foreign aid has a very useful role. i think people need to understand that foreign i had -- foreign aid has accomplished a tremendous amount of good. the programs to fight hiv-aids in africa has helped save millions of people. millions are alive because of the generosity of the american taxpayer. it has helped to alleviate poverty. like the marshall plan and the work to rebuild japan. one of the great stories of foreign aid is south korea, a beneficiary of foreign aid not just from the united states but from the world and today is a donor in many of these forums. these are good news about foreign aid. foreign aid is important because it increases our influence. it's part of how we can influence what is increasingly a

global economy. i think that's important to understand that when people talk about the american economy, don't want just live in a national economy anymore. we live in a world where increasingly things that happen to you on a daily basis, the price of things that you're buying, some of these things are settle halfway around the world, not halfway down the street or halfway across the city. foreign aid is important because it deals with america's influence around the world and in particular our ability to influence things towards our national interests. but foirnd is not charity -- foreign aid is not charity. although it may be charitable and motivated by us and our efforts to advance our principles and the things we think are right, foreign aid is not charity. foreign aid is designed to further our intints. -- national interests. every dime we give in foreign aid should be conditioned about furthering our nintd national interest. whether it's military aid or foreign aid, economic aid, but i think today we have one example of a place where we should start to examine how we

give our foreign aid and examine it in a way that allows us to maximize our national interest and that doesn't that i want to talk about today is egypt. there's a lot of concerning things happening in egypt. we've all been witness to the arab spring and the changes it brought about to the region, potentially democracy, etc., and egypt obviously has been a prime example of that, a country where all this has been occurring and it's brought to power a government that largely is governed today by the muslim brotherhood. and here's the good news. the good news is that these changes have occurred and that theoretically there's a more open society. the bad news is some of the people have been brought to power bring with them an ideology that is troubling and in practice has been deem deeply troubling. we've seen eferlt to undermine democratic institutions. efforts to undermine the judiciary. the freedom of religion being undermined and women and women's rights regress.

we've seen irresponsible economic behavior in egypt. and we can talk about the causes but this is the reality of what's going on in egypt. we should be deeply concerned about egypt's ability or willingness to live up to their security arrangements with their neighbors, particularly our strong allies in israel. they have a commitment they made years ago to securing the sinai, to preventing weapons and terrorists and others from crossing through the sinai into the gaza strip and into israel. this isn't is an a commitment and an obligation they have. we should be concerned about their unwillingness to live up to thee commitments. what i'm asking is for to us reexamine how we give foreign aid to egypt, not to get rid of it. there's a danger we can start to lose some of these foreign aid programs. the american people are fed up with story after story of countries that are benefiting from our generosity and then they open up the newspaper and they read inflammatory comments they're making about us. they open up the newspaper or

turn on cable television and see reports from these countries where democracy is being combliend, where the rights of -- undermined, where the rights are women are undermined and they have a right to ask why are we giving so much money to these countries? we actually have a record in egypt of working closely with their military organizations. and we hope that that can continue but we want tony sure that egypt continues to move towards a direction of true democracy. democracy is not just having elections. having elections is one part of the democracy. you have to govern like a democrat in an open process where you allow people to speak out, opposition parties to organize, a court system that doesn't skew things in your favor against the opposition. you don't have just elections, you need a lot more than that. we saw last week where former secretary kerry awarded a sum -- we've given over $70 billion of aid to egypt since the 1940's. not an insignificant sum. but we look now at the $250 million in aid that they

received last week and i believe that was unfortunate. we have significant interests in ensuring that egypt remains at peace with israel, that the government does not undermine the democratic process and that human and political rights of all egyptians including that of religious minorities and women are respected and our foreign aid should reflect that. what this amendment that i intend to propose does is a few things. let me begin by saying this is not about canceling foreign aid to egypt per se. this is about restructuring it in a way that lines up with the national interests of the taxpayers of the united states of america. and i'll have more to say about this amendment when the appropriate time to file it comes up, but let me briefly describe it and hope to gain support from my colleagues and the public at large. the first is that it would block the disbursement of additional support funds and new, not the existing but new military financing contracts until egypt begins to enact economic reforms and the administration certifies egyptian has done a few of the

following things. it's adopted and implemented legal reforms which protect the political, the economic and religious freedoms. it's not acting to restrict the political and economic freedoms and human rights of the citizens and residents of egypt. continuing to demonstrate a commitment to free and fair elections and not taking any steps to interfere with or undermine the credit credibility of such elections. another condition is that it's lifted restrictions and law and practice on the work and the funding of egyptian and national n.g.o. comprising in the human rights and democracy field including the national democratic institute and freedom house. that it's fully implementing the egypt-israel peace treaty, that it's taking all the necessary actions to eliminate smuggling networks and to detect and destroy tunnels between egypt and the gaza strip used to smuggle weapons and terrorists into the gaza strip and taking all other necessary actions to combat terrorism in an

increasingly ungovernable space of the sinai. the second thing, it begins to recalibrate the u.s.-egypt security relationship towards egypt's actual needs. it dots not appear that egypt is in imminent threat of being invaded by any one of their neighbors. it's not going to happen. egypt's real security needs are its ability number one to live up to its obligations, to stamp out terrorism within its borders in particular to secure the sinai, close those tunnels that lead to gaza but its second security need it has is internal. in particular street crime. not one of the ways egypt is able to rebuild its economy is through tourism. i'm not a tourism expert but i think muggings and murder and all -- and kidnappings, these things are not good for tour itch. people don't usually visit countries where these are happening. this is the actual aid egypt needs in terms of security. it doesn't need tanks, it doesn't need jet firefighters. it's not going to be -- jet

fighters. that's not the real threat. i understand their desire to have those things and, by the way, there are existing contracts to give them those things but the real security needs are largely internal and we want to recalibrate our military aid in the future to israel to meet their actual needs. one of the things the amendment would require is an analysis of egypt's security requirements produced by the department of defense in consultation with the egyptian government and shared with the relevant committees here in the house and senate. we also want the administration to certify that the department of defense has allocated a portion of egypt's foreign military financing, no less than $100 million toward counterterrorism tools including border security and to address the instability in the sinai. and we also want to a report on all f.m.f. contracts that the department of defense has carried out over the last ten years. as well as the department's plans for contracting over the next decade. i think it's wise to look at

what we've done in the pars to fully understand the contributions that the american taxpayer has made to egypt's security in the past. but also we need to see the contracts that are pending, moving forward and all these things need to be aligned so we can be assure the aid we're giving them isn't just what they want, in fact it's what they need within the confines of our national security and national interest because this is our money. last but not least, we should begin to shift assistance away from military programs and increasingly towards civilian asips. what this amount would do is require the administration to begin a dialogue with the egyptian government and with egyptian civil society about the need to rebalance our system away from its current almost obsessive focus on military aid by reallocating economic funds not provided to egypt during periods when certification is not in effect towards democracy and governance programs including direct support for secular, democratic, nongovernmental organizations as well as programming and support for rule of law and human

rights, good governance, political competition, and consensus building and civil society. we should look at transferring the interest earned in egypt's account. they have this account where the money sits. those accounts are a lot of money, generate a lot of interest. what happens to that interest, we should be able to take the interest and reallocate them. reallocate them towards -- make them available and allocate these funds for democracy and governance efforts. last but not least we should require the president to submit a report to congress describing the specific results of an egypt policy review that includes a dialogue with the government of egypt and also civil society on how to rebalance the military and economic assistance. as most of these bills will have in them, it has a national security waiver. the secretary of state says it's in our national security to not fully implement this amendment at this time. they would have the right to do

that. but they're going to have to do it every 180 days, at least twice a year so we can be sure we're keeping up with the transition going on in egypt. let me me briefly address some of the arguments against this potentially. one, we have this inscreddably strong -- incredibly strong relationship with the egyptian moiment. this is not end intended to undermine that. we hope it will grow stronger. but the reality these are hard-earned taxpayer dollars. at a time the united states of america doesn't have a lot of money to throw away, in fact, has no money to throw away. we have to make sure the aid is effective that's doing what it needs to be doing, not simply going to a wish list some of general or military official somewhere. this is about recalibrating our relationship with them to ensure that what we're making available to them is not just what they want but it's what they need. and that's the first thing i would say in that argument. the second argument i would have and we hope this day will never

come but as egypt continues to transition don't want know what the egyptian military will look like two years from now, five years from now, ten years from now. in fact, many of the top people we've been dealing with in the past aren't in those positions anymore. they've been replaced by the new government. i would tell you that history is a lesson. if the muslim brotherhood take egypt in a direction direction not in the best interests of our region or the world, they're not going to be able to do that unless they replace the military leadership with people who agrees agree with them. while we hope that never happens and we hope that the egyptian military will continue to be governed and run by professional military men and women, we can't guarantee that. and we don't know what the egyptian military will look like five years from now and that's why why it's so important that this waiver provision requires the secretary of state to do so twice a year so we can keep up on the recent events. who would have predicted three

years ago the events in egypt would happen in our time yet they did. we can't predict what egypt will look live three years from now. we hope it will be better but we don't know. the argument i've heard is this is going to offend their sovereignty. they don't like us to tell us what to do with the aid we give them. the egyptians are not going to take kindly to the idea of the united states dictating things to them. i, frankly, don't understand that. this is our money. they don't have to take our foreign aid. they don't have to accept it. but our foreign aid has never been or never should have been a blank check. this idea we're going to make money available to people, it should be unconditional, that doesn't make any sense to me. this is our money. they don't want the aid, they don't have to take it but if they're going to accept our aid we should have some say in it. if it's the u.s. dollars of the u.s. taxpayer that's going towards these programs, shouldn't the american people through their elected representatives and their government have some say if not a predominant amount of say over how the dollars are spent and what these dollars are spent on

and shouldn't we ensure those countries are headed in a positive direction, not in the direction that acts against our national interests? i believe in foreign aid. i think foreign aid is important for the united states. but it needs to be done the right way. i think it needs to be done the right way across-the-board in all of our aid programs. i recently took a cripp tripp to the middle east, wint to jordan and israel and many places where i went i heard over and over again a lot of concern about the direction egypt was headed in. and they're going through a balancing act right now is what it appears. on the one hand you have a deeply seated ideology many people would find offensive. we've heard some of the past comments of the president. the president of egypt. we've heard some of the past comments of some of the leadership in the muslim brotherhood. it's downright offensive. that's their ideology. we've seen some seep through in their public policymaking. we understand there's a pragmatic argument going on. they know they can't survive in