to be, they keep at it over and over. in the 1970's, scientists first warned that color row floor row carbons could erode the strategy fear and that would increase human exposure to cancer causing ultraviolet rays. the "wall street journal" editorial page fought back attacking any regulation of c.f.c.'s. in at least two editorials "the wall street journal" proclaimed that the connection between c.f.c.'s and depletion is "only a theory and will remain until further efforts are made to at validity" suggested the ozone layer -- quote -- "may even be increasing" insinuated and i quote, "it is simply not clear to us that real science drives

policy in this area" and warned of a dramatic increase in air conditioning and refrigerating costs with some, they said, $1.52 billion in product exchange expenses as well as 8,700 jobs lovment" those are all actual quotes from the ed page. well, back then americans listened to the science. congress acted. the ozone layer and the public's health were protected. and the economy prospered. all those terrible costs that the "journal" predicted, according to the 1999 progress report, every dollar invested in ozone protection provided $20 of societal health benefits in the united states. $1 spent, $20 saved. when scientists began reporting that acid rain was falling across our northeastern states,

out came "the wall street journal" again saying the data are not conclusive and more studies are needed, arguing that narks not industry, is the primary cause of acid rain. claiming the scientific case for acid rain is dying and charging -- and i quote here again -- "that politics, not nature, is the primary force driving the theories biggest boosters." knows are all actual quotes even as president reagan's own scientific panel said that inaction would risk irreversible damage. which then brings us to "the wall street journal" on climate change. in june 1993 they claimed, "growing evidence that global warming just isn't happening." in september 1999, they reported that, "serious scientists called global warming" -- "one of the greatest hoaxes of all-time."

2005 they asserted that the link between fossil fuels and global warming had -- quote -- "become even more doubtful." february 2010 they said, "we think the science is still disputable." june 2011, they called global warming a "fad scare." december 2011, an editorial said that the global warming debate requires more definitive evidence. and as recently as last january, the page called recent extreme weather business as usual while still erroneously climat -- clio the highate us argument. just this week they published and editorial saying that any link that people had talked about between climate change and national security threats, something we hear from our armed services, from our intelligence services, that that all is silliness, to use the word of the author they quoted. the polluter playbook also produced the usual "journal"

warnings that cost, that co2 tasms tax would make the world poorer than it otherwise would be. about motivations, that this was all really motivated by what they called political actors seeking to gain economic control. and about the science, claiming that global surface temperatures have remained flat. but here's my particular favorite. a december 2009 "wall street journal" editorial claimed that climate scientists were suspect because they -- here's the quote -- "have been on the receiving end of climate change-related funding, so," the journal continues, "all of them must believe in the reality and catastrophic imminence of global warming, just as a priest must believe in the existence of god.

end of quote. set aside their suggestion that funding is why priests believe in god, look at what they are saying about scientific funding. if the "wall street journal" can make it a conflict of interest for scientists to be on the receiving end of scientific funding related to their field of inquiry, that covers virtually all science. that would make virtually all science not discovered by accident a conflict of interest. that's a great trip. -- that's a great trick because if science is itself a conflict of interest, that neatly moots the real conflict of interest of the mass ska raid talk show science produced by the polluting industry's p.r. machinery.

and there is such machinery. according to numerous investigative books, journalist reporting, and academic studies. look at the academic work of professor robert brulle of drexel university and professor reilly dunlap of oklahoma state university and justin farrell of yale university. look at eric conway's book "merchants of doubt," of david michael's book, "doubt is their product." and the book "deceit and denial." look at jeff necessary by the's new book "poison tea." look at lisa song and john curbman jr.'s pulitzer prize looking at what exon mobile new about climate change versus the sthings that it chose to tell the public. look at the parallel probe of

the project at the columbia journalism school published in the los angeles tiesms which brings us to the journal's question, why even raise the possibility of rico suits and suggested to the justice department if mr. whitehouse's goal isn't to punish those who disagree with him on climate? well, one reason is that a rico suit was won by the united states department of justice under the clinton and bush administrations against the tobacco industry. so there's this little matter of this being the law. the journal never seems to mention the fact that the government won the civil case against the tobacco industry. before the rico lawsuit was won by the department of justice, the "wall street journal" editorial page had worked it

over pretty well, calling it abuse, hypocrisy, a understand a shakedown. so i understand that they don't like that fact, but it is now a fact that the department won that case. a second reason is that if there is indeed a core of deliberate fraud at the heart of the climate denial enterprise, no industry should be too big to dodge the legal consequences. most of the writers i mentioned noted themselves similarities between the tobacco fraud scheme and the climate denial operation. as has sharon eubanks, the lawyer who won the tobacco lawsuit for the department of justice. and so it seems have now more than a dozen states attorney generals who are looking at coal and big oil for misleading statements. note the breadth of the "wall street journal" editorial page's

language. i want to -- quote -- "punish those who disagree with me on climate." but that is just false. as the rico case itself shows, the tobacco rico case that is the model that we would like to have the department look at, people who disagree with me on climate change would no more be the targets of such an investigation than smokers or people who disagreed with the surgeon general about tobacco's dangers were targets of the tobacco case. those folks may very well have been victims of the tobacco industry fraud. they may be the dupes. for the record, fraud investigations focus on those who lie, knowing that they are lying, intending to fool others and doing it for gain. for money.

even fossil fuel companies should not be too big to answer for that conduct, if it were proven in court. so why would "the wall street journal" editorial page and other right-wing editorialists be trying to saddle me with an argument that i am not making? well, one obvious reason would be because they don't have a good response to the one that i am making. and if -- if, let's say, that they were operating as a shell for the industry here and emitting industry propaganda, they would be providing their industry clients a very valuable service of misdirection, like squid ink released to help create a -- to croat a helpful distraction, an imaginary argument to quarrel with gives them a advantage. it is going to be tough to convince people that the fossil industry should be too big to sue, no matter what they did, or

that it should deserve different rules under the law than the tobacco industry. so if you're going to lose those arctics, you have to make another -- arguments, you have to make another one, and they invent that i want to jail people, including contrarian scientists and skeptics. this is not rational argument. this is not the kind of rational fact-based argument that a court would demand. it is defensive behavior on behalf of a creature that feels itself threatens and desperately wants to avoid that fair courtroom forum, a forum where the evidence matters, where the truth is required, and where the industry doesn't get to put in the fix. everybody should know that i take climate change very seriously. rhode island is the ocean state. just this week we had major news stories in our statewide paper about drowning seacoast marshes,

endangered historic buildings, and ocean fisheries in upheaval. i'll do it -- all from climate change. here's the first one. "drowning marshes: buying time against the tide" -- "in an uphill fight." currents to sloshings and ocean waters to expand, sea levels are rising at a rate that could eventually wipe out many of rhode island's saltmarshs." just days later, newport sees the firsthand threat of climate change." "the confluence of rising seas and more extreme storms caused by climate change could present an insurmountable challenge for those trying to protect this and thousands of other historical structures near the coast." and then finally, "is commercial fishinfishing sustainable? an industry at a crossroads."

"the regional administrator with noaa's northeast office says that he believes commercial fishing can be successes stainable but a number of issues including climate change need attention for that to happen." so i represent a state whose fishing industry depends on doing something about climate change, whose historic buildings are at risk of being flooded and lost by the insurmountable problem of climate change, and whose saltmarshs, which are very important to our state, are rising at a rate that could eventually wipe them out. am i supposed to ignore that? am i supposed to ignore this? not going to happen. i am proud to stand with our leading research institutions and scientists around the country, our national security experts, corporations like apple, google, mars, national grid. i'm proud to stand with president obama and pope fisherman circumstance who all agree with the seriousness of climate change.

if the polluter p.r. machine wants to squirt more ink, so be it. i cannot stop them. but i am not going anywhere. my state is in the crosshairs. this, mr. president, is just one of those fights worth having. with that, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: thank you, mr. president. i am thankful that the senate is taking up appropriations bills. the appropriations process is the only way the citizens can truly hold their elected representatives accountable. it also allows the american people to see just what the priorities are for the united states senate. through my votes on appropriations bills, i have to decide which government programs to prioritize and which government programs need to be cut.

these are tough choices. but nebraskans sent me to washington to make these hard decisions. again, mr. president, i am hopeful that the senate is taking up these bills and that we can make important spending decisions on behalf of the american people. and that's why i am proud to join senators coats, toomey, and flake to introduce an amendment that go targets what i see as overspending in the energy and water appropriations bills. this amendment would wind down the department of energy's troubled advanced technology vehicles manufacturing loan program. the atvm program, it was designed to provide loans for businesses that produce fuel-efficient advanced technology vehicles and components in the united states. the program was created in 2007.

in 2009, congress appropriated $7.5 billion in subsidies to cover $25 billion in loans authorized under that program. unfortunately, as senator coats and senator toomey have pointed out, this program, it struggled for many years. the record speaks for itself. take fisker automotive as an example. in april of 2010, fisker received a loan through the atvm program for the purpose of producing two lines of plug-in hybrid vehicles at its plant in wilmington, delaware. in 2011, because fisker was not meeting its performance targets, the d.o.e. suspended its original loan of $529 million.

unfortunately, $192 million in taxpayer dollars had already been loaned to the company. fisker halted operations and they filed for bankruptcy in november of 2013. the company's atvm loan was sold at auction for $25 million and the d.o.e. was able to recoup $28 million from an escrow account. however, this loan still resulted in a $139 million loss for taxpayers. in february of 2014, fisker's assets were auctioned to a chinese manufacturer, juang shang through resulting bankruptcy proceedings this was

one of the many failures resulting from the atvm program. in 2013 a government accountability office report found few auto manufacturers and program applicants willing to participate in the program due to the high cost and the limited benefits. as a result, secretary of energy announced a number of changes to the atvm program in april of 2014. not a single new loan has been approved since the announcement of these revisions. this program is a clear example of waste. it reveals the dangers of allowing our government to pick winners and losers in the private sector. and that's why i'm here today to join senators coats and toomey and flake in order to offer an amendment that would prohibit new loan applications from being reviewed if they are not submitted by the date of this

bill's enactment. furthermore, our amendment would prohibit any loan credit subsidies after the end of fiscal year 2020. through these provisions, we can responsibly wind down a very ineffective program. our national debt continues to grow, and it now exceeds $19 trillion. according to the congressional budget office's march 2016 report, annual deficits will exceed $1 trillion in 2022 and every year thereafter. this makes the need for commonsense provisions like ours all the more urgent. we simply cannot afford to continue spending money on programs that are not effective.

so i urge my colleagues to vote for this sensible amendment when it is brought up for a vote. thank you, mr. president. i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. a senator: i would ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president, i ask

unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of calendar number 495, that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order, that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record, the president immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. fischer: i ask unanimous consent that the senate now proceed to calendar number 393, s. 1252 and that casey amendment be agreed to, the committee reported substitute amendment as amended be agreed to, and the bill as amended be read a third time and the senate vote on passage of the bill with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 393, s. 1252, a bill to authorize a

comprehensive strategic approach for united states foreign assistance to developing countries and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. the senate will proceed. the amendments are agreed to. is there further debate? if not all those in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it.

the bill as amended is passed. mrs. fischer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. fischer: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of senate resolution 433 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 433 recognizing linemen, the profession of linemen, and the contributions of these brave men and women who protect public safety and expressing support for the designation of april 18, 2016 as national linemen appreciation day. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mrs. fischer: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. fischer: i ask unanimous

consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of senate resolution 434, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 434 supporting the designation of april 2016 as parkinson's awareness month. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mrs. fischer: i further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. fischer: i understand that there is a bill at the desk and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: h.r. 2666, an act to prohibit the federal communications commission from regulating the rates charged for broadband internet access service. mrs. fischer: i now ask for a

second reading and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will receive its second reading on the next legislative day. mrs. fischer: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. thursday, april 21st. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. further, that following leader remarks the senate be in a period of morning business until 11:00 a.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each. finally, following morning business, the senate then resume consideration of h.r. 2028. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mrs. fischer: if there is no

further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until mr. alexander: mr. president, the next few minutes senator feinstein and i will submit for

the senate's consideration the first appropriations bill of the year. this will be the energy and water appropriations bill. it will be the earliest that any appropriations bill has been submitted since the budget act was passed in 1974. this is a good sign for the united states senate. it means we're serious about our most basic constitutional responsibilities, when is the oversight of the spending of money, the setting of priorities and doing it in a way that allows every senator to participate. i'm privileged to be able to work with senator feinstein who is able to come to a result after we have examined and after we have examined and >> am privileged to work with senator feinstein was able to come to a result pr after we have examined an important piece ofiv t legislation.

she has a background as a manager, mayor, and i am privileged to have a chance to work with her, whether in the majority or the minority. year before ii talk about the bill specifically, since this is the 1st bill, ii would like to say a few words about the money we're spending. this year the budget control act which the united states and adopted in 2015, which is a law, passed by the senate by vote of 64 to 35 october 30 of last year, this year the budget control act sets the amount of money we spend at 1,000,000,700,000 -- $1,000,000,007,000. $37.5 1.07 trillion.nt, our bill will be 37.5 billion of that approximately $1 trillion.

however, mr. president, the entire federal budget is a lot more than 1 trillion. it is four times as much. about the entire federal budget this year is 3.9 billion -- 3.4 trillion. we are talking about we'll spend appropriating a trillion, plus about 3 trillion other dollars that we spend this year for the federal government. that's what we call mandatory or automatic spending, plus interest on debt.be federal health care spending is an example, about 1 trillion. about the same amount as all the corporations that will be considered.considered. the senator from medicare to call the center for medicare and medicaid services and

charges pending about $886 million every year. almost all mandatory spending. so, almost all mandatory spending. so, the part of the budget we are talking about today and will be talking about is one 4th of total federal spending. for i want to thank the senator mcconnell and majority leader for making this a priority.ove want to thank the democratic leader for suggesting that they too want to see us move through the process.s a lot of give people aa chance to see how we spend our money.overnment the american people care because we have a big debt. there's a lot of talk about the debt a colleges 19 trillion.19 trillion. this year the total revenues of the federal governmentabout about 3.36 building but the spending is three-point 69. it's your adding about

534 billion more joy $19 trillion debt this year. it is important to.out the spending we are talking about is not the problem. discreti i would like to ask the chair look at the bottomon line, the blue line. that is what we call a discretionary spending, the mightmoney that the appropriation committee works with the trillion dollars we are perforating. it has been flat since 2,008 and is rising at about the rate of inflation over the next ten years. woul so if the entire budget line on the bottom that is the money we are in charge of the appropriations committee, we would not have a debt problem. the debt problems coming from the automatic mandatory spending which does not even

include the interest on the federal debt. i suggested in our conference maybe with the entire country was seduced turned the budget over to the appropriations committee. we are doing our job. tha senator feinstein and i have been presenting. we have done that through for hearing.fusion they have set priorities, cut wasteful spending and beginning. the construction projects under control. we've g we eliminated funding my million dollars. we have got the processing facility now on a project do that will be 90 percent designed for bill and on-time and on budget before finishing. us

we are working with the job services committee drug do a similar thing. we have the red team that helped us in south carolina working on the new mexico construction projects. and i'm so our oversight working together is saving taxpayers money for staying within the budget,, and i can't say we are not part of the problem. now, sometimes we will start working. senator corker and i have a bill that would reduce that top line growth by chilean dollars of the next ten years. the problem is senator corker and i are the only cosponsors of the bill. tim understand there may be an attempt to change the level of funding that i will talk about this afternoon, but two, w just everyone is thinkinge' about that, the budget

committee of the senate has begun to start its budget process bishop upon the number that the law sets to end our appropriations bills, ty spending and interest on the debt.e approved the now, mr. president, last thursday senator feinstein and i approved the fiscal year 2017 energy and water development appropriations bill by unanimous vote 30 do nothing. that they they all voted for it.ontrol, this bill is very familiar to the american people. things that they would like for us to fund such as flood control,control, navigation on rivers, sources such as

deepening harbors whether california automobile or charleston are savanna rebuilding. the 1717 national labs which are our secret weapon and job growth, such as supercomputers we seek to lead the world, another great source of job growth. in the big part of her budget has to do with weapons of national defense. defense. a time when our world is so unsafe. we work together in a fair and accommodating manner and areunder challenging fiscal constraints to create a b bipartisan bill. spending 37.537.5 billion, 355 million more than last year. reaching a bipartisan consensus was not easy. million we received an allocation for the spent -- defensemen

in those higher than last year, but 808 million lower. the funding includes several federal agencies that do important work including the us department of energy for the nuclear regulatory commission, the army corps of engineers, the bureau of reclamationen. they also started with an unrealistic budget proposalill t would cut the corps of engineers by 1.4 billion and proposed 2.3 billion in new mandatory funding. the bill supports our waterways and puts us one step closer to covering basic energy and research that helps to resolve the nuclear waste still make the clans of hazardous material a cold war sites and maintains a nuclear weapon stockpile.e i also conducted extensive oversight and process budget

requests in the department of energy. that we eliminated at least one and reduced and waste. an that was the international we've experimental reactor in france started in 20052,005 with an initial cost of 1.1 billion. the project is not likely to complete until after 2025. time we work together to keep the projects on time and budget. it is now on-time and on budget. we are also working the other to control the box facility. every mr. president, 77 submitted requests and we were trying to account it requests of every senator. we have had many others.

most senators in the 80s have something that they think is important.e out the senators decide we need to spend less money, they need to be prepared to sendaw this letters suggesting want to take out. last time the united states senate pass this bill under regular order was 2009.rastruct. alec forward to the regular appropriation process and will briefly highlight the bill. one is infrastructure. rec 1.4 billion presidentor proposed to cut, a new record level of funding. many senators have urged us to do this. there is a funding lion the bill. environm rebuilding dams, working to

prevent droughts, storm damage, environmental restoration projects. to c the board would receive less than what congress appropriated in 2006 sending us back more than a decade. we provided enough funding to continue building in fiscal year 2017. last 37 billion will be available the to continue work. only last month and continues to be the 4th highest in a central american waterways.e've we also include the harbor maintenance trust fund, the 3rd consecutive year we have funded consistent with the funding level a congress recommended. this will permit us.prise

doubling basic energy research is one of the most important things we can do. senator durbin and if increased the authorized funding levels by about 7 percent per year which are double the office of science budget, little over 5 billion to more than 10 billion in ten years. that is money basically the united states government spends on energy research. sp the senate adopted are amendment by voice vote innovation which demonstrates how much support there is. the presidents propose to spend even more energy o research including a recent innovation program wants by the united states and 19 other countries at the

climate summit in paris to double clean energy research over the next five years.depart the problem is thaten president obama's request proposed 2.59 billion in new mandatory funding from the department of energy. commitment to doubling clean energy research comes at the expense of other resources and agencies which is the best unhelpful and the worst misleading, wishful thinking command everyone knows it will not happen. instead they focus on priorities for discretionary funding. f that is the bottom line. our top priority includes 5.4 billion to support basic energy research, 50 million more than last year, the 2nd year we have been able to increase funding setting a new record level of funding and regular

appropriations bill. that puts us one step closer to doubling funding. the bill also includes energy 2.7 million for an agency that invests in high-energy technology. 1.7. thethough also supports the department of energy continuing efforts to advance computing and includes a total ofs 285 million to produce next-generation computers. so nuclear power provides 20 percent of our country's electricity, 60% of carbon free electricity. electricity.electricity. we will have the abundance of clean, cheap, reliable energy that we want and needla r made a leash nuclear power. legislation sends a strong signal but our support for new technologies and next generations of nuclear power plants. inclu that includes 34.5 million

for advanced reactors, 21 million more in the presence budget. a 95 million, 32.5 million over last year. a the bill helps for taking important steps sort solving our country stalemate over what to do with nuclear waste. the bipartisan issue that we agree on and have been working toward. legislation therefore includes a pilot program. senator feinstein suggestion three years ago. consolidated nuclear waste storage call which you and i introduced the past 40 years. would not take the truck. felt the legal capacity and provide funding the privatert facilities accrue such as

the one proposed west texas. we also supporting researchin my to help continue the work that is necessary to safely extend nuclear power operating licenses. in my view this is the simplest and easiest way tor. have a large amount of new line carbon free electricity in the near term. the legislation provides a total of 4.9 billion for the national nuclear security administration. the life extension programs recommended by nuclear weapons council in the design of the ohio class submarine. it also supports reference facilities related to national security provides 575 million to the uranium processing facility in oak ridge and keeps the contract completed by 2025 with the

cost no more than 6.5 billion. is the legislation also advances efforts to clean up hazardous materials, total of 5.4 million is provided, 144 million above the presidents budgeting request. c this fully complies with the spending limits established by the budget control act. the budget control act continues spending the appropriated dollars. the blue line that has been flat since 2,008 and only grows with the rate of inflation for the next ten years according to the congressional budget office. of that is not the source of the federal debt but the rest of the line which is three times much is the amount of money we're spending for the corporation bills devoted to the next two.

i think senator feinstein for leadership in cooperation. already working with senators on amendments. we hope to be voting on some this afternoon in an open amendment process.ifornia. "weather on the ones" in support of the fiscal year 2017 energy and water development appropriations bill. firstly, i'd ask unanimous consent that tim dykstra a detailee for the energy and water subcommittee, have full floor privileges during the consideration of this bill. mr. president? the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: thank you very much, mr. president. i want to begin by thanking my friend and colleague, senator alexander. we have served together as

chairman or >> >> more intelligence or has a greater sense of fairness and i just want you to know senator alexander which treats it has been to work with you for these five years. we have a bill that will stand the test of time with each of us have different views on different parts butei that is part of what makes this a great country.yo i just want to say thank you for being who you are and the kind of united states senator that you are. thank you very much. if i may, mr. chairman as the chairman mentioned this bill has reached the floor

for the first time since 2009 it is also considered as an appropriations bill on the floor at the quickest time since the budgeting process began 1974. regular i just want to say thank-you to our leadership bomb both sides for the desire to get i this back to regular order and on the appropriations bills and i would like to think all of my colleagues on the appropriations committee for supporting this bill during last week's markup. as the chairman said the vote was 30 / nothing. this is a good bill and a fair bill it does contain trade-offs and hard choices.$375

and i'm very grateful. with 350 million over f y 16 and with the budget constraints it is a good allocation. billion, let me talk about the defense portion of the bill. defense spending is $20 billion at $450 million increase over a full 16. and to maintain our support -- our navy to keep nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists. equal to it is 9.3 billion.

and above last year equal to the up president's budget request. f the science and engineering activity to maintain the nuclear stockpile without explosive testing. and with those nuclear warheads is also fully funded for the new cruise missile warhead which i will speak a little more about inin a moment. to discuss my concerns with the long-range standoff weapons and with us a defense department is wrong that this is not a new nuclear weapon.

to carry the upgraded warhead capable of immense destruction and fitting f specifically designed with the most advanced missile defense system. i firmly believe this is the necessary. the and has already developed a conventional cruise missile specifically designed to do the same job as the al are so. furthermore the united states has a variety of nuclear ballistic missiles that can reach any targets anywhere in the world no wonder i feel so strongly it is very personal. i am one of the few thaty have seen this. since i was 12 years old when the united states of

america dropped a nuclear weapon just as the hundreds of thousands of bodies as the radiation spread i have never quite gotten over what has happened. with that concept that nuclear weapons are really bad. am with a high likelihood of terrorist seeking out radioactive materials. and to write the following,

and armed bomber force divides the president with a uniquely flexible option with extreme prices.e this suggestion that nuclear weapons should be an option is alarming we should never lower the threshold for use of nuclear weapons. in fact, a believe we could further reduce the role while still maintaining by terminating with conventional on nuclear weapons. chairman. obviously this is a point of disagreement between the two of us. this is why i am very thankful to the chairman who has agreed to to include in the committee report with energy secretary manis -- to

provide information on this warhead with the military justification and the extent to which the conventional weapons systems can reach the same objective. we should have that material so i am also grateful this has not received the attention that it deserves and requires public discussion and.g bac with the exchange i am happy with the report at the fundamental request level it is a $120 million decrease from last year and i would

hope that we could do better next year. and to secure material in that country has slowed but other threats remain at home and abroad. war in we should be investing more. in that is very good with an increase above last year the importance this subcommittee has placed about putting a pilot nuclear waste facility

in our bill. my nuclear waste is piling up all over this country with no place for it to go. southern california edison age utility serving over 60 million people had two big nuclear reactors each one and 1100 megawatts. of those plutonium rides we need a place for nuclear waste in this country to have decommissioned reactors

at the least of which was ecuador in japan. for now let me turn to the non-defense half of the bill. that is roughly 100 million decrease from fiscal year 2016. out one of the anomalies that as defense goes up it crowds out non-defense. i'd like the army corps of engineers. so all non-defense allocations that the bill maintains despite this so many levels for basic

scientific research or development or o infrastructure. year. the office of science sees a modest increase of 5.4 billion this year. states. now the office of science is the largest single funder in the united states think of that. and with 300 universities in all 50 states. if the facilities host more than 24,000 researchers each year. it is a 2.1 billion equal to f weiss 16 and with those to develop the technology to mix our homes and cars and factories more efficient and lowers the cost of the

renewable energy with thee geothermal. while i wish we could have funded the president's proposed mark of climate change i would like my colleagues to know we did the best we could we are unable to make it work with the allocation and that we received. funde with the article of engineers, this is really the federal infrastructure program hit maintains that 1.2 76 billion to divide an estimated 1.3 billion from the trust fund that is the highest level ever while users pay into the fund it

is not dispersed by itself or to appropriate that money and this has been a challenge and it is a challenge because my state california 40 percent of those funds are shortchanged by the disbursement formula. so i am pleased the chairman and the members can provide additional 50 million like long beach and seattle-tacoma that see little benefit from the trust fund.ug once again for the bureau of reclamation that tended of the 70 reclamation's states

are currently suffering from severe through exceptional drought conditions that devastated the agricultural industry without any bader for drinking or beating of tens of millions of trees to have another catastrophic wildfires season. the we in california hoped it would fill the reservoir is but the drought persists and will persist. it is estimated we need a snowpack of 150% of the average by april 1st in order to end the drought it is only a 87%. therefore this 100 millionan is critical to get the systems more flexibly to

restore habitat to ensure that the best science and observational techniques are brought to bear. there also makes critical investments in the water, supply technology to help mitigate the current drought to lessen the impacts of i desalination. as members begin to bring amendments to the floor i very much urge my colleagues cod on this side to exercise restraint with policy amendments the senate has just completed a broad energy authorization bill in nine to stand thele environment will soon be drafting the sources. i want my colleagues to know the subcommittee has had to make some tough choices that these decisions with a

bipartisan number to draft a balanced bill to satisfy members of all sides of the ideal. i yield the floor. >> madam secretary. 72 of our delegate votes. ♪ sealock

[inaudible conversations] in i apologize for being a few minutes late. that is our daytime job we have to do a.

they had been a still affect many regions of the country this morning representing large catholic -- orange county california and u.s. army corps of engineers. for the past six years oklahoma suffered from a devastating drought nothing to do with global warming. as the drought reaches 2014 with an 60% can be the u.s. drought monitors extreme category they were experienced an exceptional drought communities were rationing water in the hardest-hit areas to use the

waste water of those of a marginal quality in order to bring a fresh water supply. and then for them to sell their herds to see -- search for alternatives to continue production and. bonterre rainfall conditions one year ago that caused major situations although greatly improved with our water supply there also overtaxed not only to keep pace isn't exaggeration to say the water supply issues impose a very real threat with the quality of life however communities that

have started to plan with cultural interest in the energy sector with the local level to resume -- with a neutral water problems. it demonstrates it has the key element of the state and local economies that focuses to unify the stakeholders of the short and long term strategy is to diversify the supply of water. it forces us to identify new sources with average assets -- its existing supplies rather than relying on surface water for the infrastructure pipelines with the underused water resources.

building new wells we try that all. city planning and regional planning the most efficient way to address the water supply problems with the federal government to assist our community but for example, one area hardest hit the city of oklahoma one of the of largest production that uses that is treated for waste water eventually this will free up almost 5 million gallons of water that is almost one-half of of the total current usage. the federal government can have a role to play to assist in the infrastructure planning and of the red

river between oklahoma and texas. to be specifically authorized by congress going back through 1956 with those controlled studies with as early as 1959. the broad control actions and with the water supplies and increased irrigation and downstream water quality. i am currently working with the court to develop a general re-evaluation with a plant in oklahoma. it to be in 20 percent capacity now with a multiple year supply although presently if it had decided the plans must continue so

they know it is coming back. we talk about these issues because it is an issue when i was in the state legislature to transport water to western oklahoma and it is a situation that made everybody mad. not just local to oklahoma but across the nation. >> want to thank you so much for this hearing we have contentious hearings don't think this is such because we will discuss innovative technologies in this is very dear to me. and from my home state of california i have gotten into heated conversations i do support these technologies.

if it is too expensive or we should not do this. to me, this is a moment in time that is the difference. the fact is we're dealing with the drought so the issue is dear to me it didn't live up to expectations we know we're looking at long-term promises. between all the stakeholders the agriculture people and the urban and suburban to fight all the way to the courthouse and we know that when you get to the courthouse there is delay and confusion.

we need to have a water supply that is there for us. i am so pleased to have dennis here from orange county. because you have to engaged from the water supply technologies as my latest notes say the sixth largest county in our nation with 2.4 million people just with orange county alone. is that right? >> there is 3.two in total. >> we are literally talking that people can live comfortably with what they need. this has forced our governor to declare a state of

emergency even the el nino has done better we know we can expect more in the future so we do face many challenges including the over tapped aquifers with the delta ecosystem to agriculture when you mention water and california there are so many arguments going on and i don't take sides of the jobs with agriculture their old jobs. i don't take sides. i'm trying to get everyone to the table. and we need to look at these and that means a bigger water supply any talk about

the and that starts the march to the courthouse door but to move toward with recycling and conservation we don't have to fight over the supplies we need to work gether to expand the pool to make sure we are tapping into these technologies. so we are fortunate and i know two of them and how the government can help in the orange county water district will explain how we converted wastewater how we converted that into safe clean drinking water we will talk about his experiences and give the titular with israel with the water supply

activity is occurring hello? were you thinking? but there's also such an important responsibility. and from california the reservoir is at a critical water supply. so the court must employ the latest technologies to make sure they're operated efficiently with those water supply challenges. . .

>> you know, one thing, senator boxer, neither one of us mentioned and it is significant in terms of water and military, it happens we have bill burgess and several from the city of fort sill in lawton and there is an airforce base next to it and it is critical. the need of those two we have gotten to the point of having to shut them down from time to time. that is a huge issue. we welcome you to observe. you are observing a hearing where barbara and i don't have any disagreements. it is rare, but i hope you enjoy it. >> remember this moment. >> we have three witnesses.

mr. -- help me pronounce this. he is the first vise president of the orange county water district. and mr. dalton, and mr. kevin price, senior science and technology advisor of the middle east research center. we welcome all three of you. we will start with you, mr. dalton and work down. try to keep your opening statements close to five minutes. >> chairman, inholfe, and ranking member boxer, and other distinguished members thank you for opportunity to present information about the u.s. army cores civil works program related to drought and drought technology. i would like to talk about drought in general terms and talk about the action we have taken with respect to drought

and touch on drought technology we are investigating. drought is the deficiency in precipitation usually over years, weeks or months resulting in water shortage causing adverse reactions on vegetation. it is a common weather phenomena in north america and occurs to some extent every year in the u.s. and affects our agricultural water supply and many other aspects of your wellbeing. the core performs water management activities at its reservoirs consistent with the project specific purpose of purposes for each reservoir. two missions we balance during needs are during drought management and water supply. it is important to keep in mind

most dams in the current drought area are soly authorized for fluid management. there are 30 dams and 17 of them in california are for single-purpose flood management. 13 have multiple purposes. the core may include water supply as a project that is struck for one of the three more missions of the core of engineer which is storm reduction, aquatic reservoirs. we have a primary development to

the water supplies and water rights are a responsibility of the state. the core doesn't own or sell water. water supply storage in a core reservoir may be a key component for plans for non-federal entities so non-federal entities that don't have storage in core reservoirs may request the core study and reallocate storage from another authorized purpose to water supply. the core includes curves and includes drought plans. the proof of the plans is to provide a basic reference for water decisions that are response to the basin of the drought.

>> and a third effort we have ongoing is the operation research which is a pilot study using atmosphereic water forecasting to inform decisions in a matter that reflects current forecast conditions. the results may indicate whether this technology can be applied in actually operations of certain projects. in summary, the combination of water controls manuals and deviations we can have with those manuals provide a great deal of flexibility to provide to needs based on the best available inferential and science consistent with each congressionalcon gre congressi

congressional authorized purpose. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member boxer and members of the committee, i am deeply honored to discuss the most pressing issue of our time. the orange county water district is in southern california and provides ground water to orange county including 19 cities and serving 2.4 million people. since 1933, we have taken proud in advancement of sustainable water supplies development. in orange county we live in a desert. imported supplies from northern california and colorado are restricted. in the late '80s, we realized the challenges of ground water depletion, sea water intrusion

and unreliable supplies demanned an innovation solution and this grew into the ground water replenish system which is a joint project between my district and the orange county sanitation district. it is the largest advance system that takes treated waste water that would be sent to the pac pacific ocean otherwise and puripur purifies it. it produces high quality water that exceeds state and federal water drinking standards. we are producing hundred million gallons a day, about 25% of our water supply. our next and final planned expansion will provide an additional 30 million gallons a day. senator boxer, it was during your term you were able to seal the first appropriation and over a five year period 20 million in federal funding from the title

16 program leveraged over 72 million in state, local and private funding to provide for the overall 481 million construction of the system. we greatly appreciate that. this has allowed us to take control of our future. there is no one-size-fits-all to water reuse. we design approaches to sustainable water needs. i encourage the community to include funding for water reuse in the authorization. secondly, your district is exploring purchasing 50 thousand acres for enough water for 400,000 people from the proposed hunting beach project as a way to increase local supplies. the proprosed project is schedul schedu

schedu scheduled for a final hearing this year. if approved, our berred will consider moving forward with the purchase. forward -- one of the most cost-effective solutions we avail ourselves involves water conservation. in order to supplement our conservation program my district entered into collaboration with the u.s. army core of engineers to leverage the dam on the saint ann river. whether than using it for single-purpose flood prevention we recognize preserving water that can be recharged into the aquafer. senator boxer, you were instrumental in assisting us with our negotiations with the

army core and we have received 30,000 acres because of your efforts. we appreciate your help with the passage of the word bill a. our recommendations to the committee arise from our experiences over the past few years working with the core to implement a long-term agreement to store water with a priority placed on public safety and environmentally protected manner. a clear statement on the priority to approve and implement water conversation activities needs to be made part of the reauthorized wording. also, we have a clear statement to insure cost are allocated by using the local water agencies. the ability to facilitate an equitable agreement may seem

like an obvious approach, but we need a strong statement on the matter and we stand ready to support the committee. i thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. >> thank you very much. and mr. price? >> chairman inholfe, ranking member boxer, i am kevin price and senior advisor to the middle east center. my passion throughout my career has been the application of new technology to the purification of non-conventional water, reduce the risk of drought, increase living standards and assist in resolving conflict around the world. i am focus on desalination and indirect use. earlier in my career, i was responsible for the desalination agreement with israel. during one of my trips i was

asked by a television reporter why someone from the u.s. was attending the israel desalination society meeting and i explained the problems israel were solving would be important to the u.s. as it faced similar problems in the future. i work for an international institution created as part of the middle east peace process. members of the group include the palestinians, jordanians and israels. they address water and peace. this is done through capacity building and training and research. there is an important distinction here. water purification means a lot of things depending on the audience. for many, this means removing suspended particles, bacteria,

viruses and large molecules by helping the particles stick to each other followed by filtration. it will not work with many conventional sources because a major portion of the contaminants are dissolved. this is a different process than filtration. desalination is a critical component for water reuse. no longer is it is net necessary to thing waste water, drinking water and other waters as different levels. there are many new technologies that people continue to develop to purify the water.

the lessons learned in israel have consequences for the united states. israel's water supply has been limited from the creation. it had to deal with reduced water loss and pricing. because the need for sources was so immediate, new technology that was invented and commercialized in the u.s., worked and they decided to move forward using desalination without perfect information. they have good knowledge from their own research on how to handle the affects of desalination such as optimizing energy use, reducing pitch, mixing of the outfall c concentrate back in the ocean. talking to the deputy general of the israel water authority he said technology is only technology. the real issues are broader like who owns the water, the cost of

the water, and whether the water is appropriate for crops and who sub subdizes it. israel developed an industry that can compete internationally now. it is important to note the differences between israel and california. the control of water is fragmented in california and the state is larger than israel. israel's population is 8 million. california is 130 million and 164 thousand square miles. the opportunity to move water through israel are greater in israel than company. for generating innovation and unsolicited proposal requests and unexpected ideas, innovation should follow progression related to risk-taking and project size. consistent funding at low levels

is better than levels of inconsistent funding. it is important to have views and freedom to accept risks. if research is to solve problems and we need a strong technology transfer to pull innovations from the laboratory into use. the moving technology to rapid implementation provides opportunities to all parties. i would be happy to answer any questions. >> let me restate in oklahoma, we would like to reduce the chlorine in the red river. notable studies dating back many, many years, and designs have been completed, many by there core of engineers, we are talking about over 40 years ago in 1978 when yet a single

project hasn't been constructed in area six, southwestern oklahoma, despite the core spending 3.1 million in area six over the last ten years. my question would be to you, mr. dalton. all of these studies designed have been completed over the past four decades. why is the core asking for yet another study of the project to determine veezability of building projects to reduce -- feasibility -- chlorine in the red river? >> mr. chairman, the study that we are looking at how now for area six started out looking at a revallation of what had been prev hazardously completed for that particular study. and i think it was maybe around 2005 or so that we looked at it.

and we started revising the study or updating the study. at that time, we ran out of money to do that. and since that time, we have been looking and talking with the state, the county, looking for a non-federal partner. >> they have completed studies. we are talking about a period of over 40 years. how do i go back to oklahomans ask ask them to spend money for another feasibility study when we spent millions. did you listen to mr. price's testimony?

>> in terms of reverse osmosis, you are pulling molecules across the membrane and one is being developed by lockede martin and we offered to test it. we are excited about the innovations and want to push them forward because they will have a worldwild implication and hopefully drive down the cost of the water. the water we produce at the ground water replenish system, the non subsidized cost is $850 an acre foot and the cost of desalinated water is about $1200 an acre foot. so it is about 50% more expensive. >> i would note, and i think my colleague agrees, everybody needs clean water. when you are faced with a

situation where you have a water emergency, the cost demenishes. it is not like if the staff elects in so many ways. we are trying to work with my colleague to get a water of my 21 legislation in this. i think so far it has been great. we are looking at reauthorization of the desalination act. we authorize an act that will help communities deal with drought. that would be helpful. i hope week change or modify the sr loan program to better support innovative technology because we haven't updated it in a while.

those four things, would you agree, would be a good start for us? >> absolutely. one of the biggest challenges is the distribution of the water as the system is over a hundred million dollars just to move the water around where we need it. so a loan program would help. >> how about the program that would allow you to leverage funds and get interest-free loans -- would that me helpful as well? >> interest-free? yes, we could certainly use that. >> it is extremely low interest because the interest rate is based on the chance you might default. so it is very low. especially i would say orange county has proven it can get out of some trouble. you did. the worstsituation after the market crash. how well i remember that and how

hard that was. let me turn to mr. price, do you think the u.s. should have a greater role in water technology supply development? you discussed the historic role of the u.s. government in developing desalination and other technologies but you say the investment has declined and we are not participating in the new research as much as we were. is that a correct reading? >> that is correct. one of the ways i investigated that was talking to one of the professional journal editors to get a feel for how the scientific populations that changed over the probably last 30-40 years. basically the u.s. was a leader in the science of desalination 30 years ago. it is now dropped to way below. it is an order that is ten times less in terms of publication

than it was in the past. i think that is probably due to the federal funding. >> i don't have any other questions for the panel. i just want to again, say to may chairman, this is an area where i think the work of this committee could really spark an entire new effort to rekindle the new technologies that defense companies are looking at and looking at the ways to deal with desal. i think it is right there. i think a little spark from this committee could drive change and allevate one of the biggest problems we face as a nation. we always have had these issues. and oklahoma, when you think back in history, the problems oklahoma and california have had with drought. this is like buying a really good insurance policy and while

we have doing it become the leader in the world in these technologies. i am excited to work with you mr. chairman, and i think this committee can really light a fire on the desal and recycling and the kind of things we would like to see happening. >> you know, i think that will happen. the timing couldn't be better. i know there is a simple answer to this but mr. price, when you talk about researching it, you have barbara and me and the big ocean and we have the little red river. is your research into technology and all of that equally applied to both? or do you con centrate in one area or more advanced looming technology in one area or the same? >> the technologies remain the same but for water from the red river it is more affordable to remove the salts because there are less salts.