>> we can have further discussion of it. we have a chance to examine it. my initial reaction is that we should see if we cannot find a way to accept it. >> i appreciate that. i would be happy to differ. >> have we got on our side we do have someone caught in amendment that is ready to go?

it is amendment that senator chris bo and i put on the floor recently. -- kap and i put on the floor recently. we found that in number of stimulus funded programs have not met the requirements in terms of reports. it did not put in place in a metric factors. the one it to focus on those areas that receive a great deal of new spending, high-speed reels, smart grids. areas where i think there may be a large bipartisan agreement that even if he did that like the stimulus, they can make a

long-term sense for the country. we want to make sure that as these programs ratchet up that there are business plans in place by which we can evaluate these programs. we can put in place penalties for those entities that do not report back in a timely manner. >> that is a good amendment. >> i just also want to indicate my strong support for this. >> could you pull the microphone a little closer? >> as you move forward to in the many spending programs that congress is engaged in, we will have some spirited debate bedewed this is an accountability amendment and make sure as they move forward that we do put in place the procedures that help this as congress and evaluates this.

it is a helpful amendment. >> i do as well. i think we can go to the next amendments. are you prepared to offer an amendment? >> yes. my amendment i titled the truth and debt of the incident. when the budget documents come out, i always come to the documents. i look for the summaries. i try to find a the bottom line on some of these particular issues that are important. what is happening to the national debt and so forth. sometimes, sorting through this budget documents is an experience like the astrology that senator cornyn mentioned before. it is not clear how you sort through the numbers and what they mean panet.

this would required that the public debt that currently totals nearly $15 trillion be identified in the budget that we put forward. there are several specific disclosures. the gross debt. secondly, the amount of dead person that the budget document contemplates. third, a summer for a five-year peak view of what this budget will do it we approached by a pitch from -- if we vote it. it would about the budget to increase our utilization of trust fund dollars or spending then there would be a rationale placed in the budget document for why in the interest of the country to adopt a budget that would do so.

this is not to stop the committee from adopting a budget it is to help us and all americans get a very quick handle on what the budget does with regard to our national debt, which i believe is becoming one of the most significant issues among the public. this is spending, deficit, and debt. it could only be appropriate that the help provide the in the summer is of our budget as a move forward. >> i think it is a good amendment myself. whatever the administration has, i think it is a good thing to do senator white house, i know you have an amendment that deals with the same issue. >> i will be offering this as a side by side. i think senator kerrey. -- my colleague's amendment is

a great start. i fear that is looking at a single snapshot in time does the provide an accurate narrative. my amendment includes a word for disclosure required by the other amendment. it would require additional disclosures. they would have a flip book that will illustrate how are debt levels became so dire. as a foot through the region as a victory the -- as they look through the facts, they would to the trajectory that would wipe out the debt by 2009. we are not facing a white dot national debt proposal -- debt.

the difference between the forgone surpluses and the new debt is an astounding $8.90 trillion. i would offer this as an alternative for my colleagues to consider while voting on these amendments i think the american people deserve the full story and not a snapshot. >> further discussion, center." -- senator crapo? >> i do not understand how it will work. by understand your rationale, in not only want to have the dead confirmation identified, but you want to have some kind of an explanation for how we got there put into place. i understand that. i also understand that if you were to ask the members of this committee to give you the answer to how we got here, you would

have very, very different explanations. how does the amendment get past the politics? are you proposing that we adopt a political thing that i do not think you are. >> it does not require an explanation. it simply takes your amendment and rented back the past dozen years so that the exact information you are asking is available retrospectively as well. people can draw the conclusions they want. there is not an opinion part to it. it is the same fact that you are asking. >> this is a sense of the senate resolution. we are ready to do the resolutions, i am ready. we have about 50. >> i understand there is an

intention to modify? >> yes prada this is framed on the senate resolution. we did not have time to get it into make of language. it would be framed as a regular amendment in order for this proceeding. >> the last section is a senate resolution. >> we will need to change the language. >> the center has a right to do that. >> and maybe we should put off consideration until we have that. >> i want to ask why you chose 12 years? why did you not to to go back to the beginning of the debt? >> that texas back an awfully

long way. but not too far. >> the last time we were current was in president jackson's time. it would have been a long run. president clinton left is on the putting to get back to a debt- free america that had not existed since president jackson. if you are interesting an amendment to move a further back, i would be happy to consider that produce with the this is a reasonable time. >> [inaudible] >> correct. senator in san is next. then we will come back to senator merkley. do you have an amendment as well? we will come back to the side. then senator warner. >> my amendment is to provide

reconciliation instructions for the senate judiciary committee to reduce the deficit by $13.6 billion over the year 2011 through 2015. the purpose of this amendment is for reconciliation instructions for the judiciary committee so that they will come back with medical liability reform that we know said his country money. during the health care reform debate, we heard from many many folks out there who practiced and heard the stories of how the current laws that we have in the medical field drive up the cost of health care in the united states unnecessarily. they drive up the cost by a lot of defensive medicine type tests, a lot of unnecessary tests. they dried up because by driving up the medical liability

insurance premiums by providers. also, because of the frivolous nature of medical liability, losses that are brought out there, what happens is that the true victims and of not getting compensation for years and years and years. many of them die in the process. mr. chairman, this is a a very simple amendment. we will report back with reconciliation instructions. >> i am struggling to understand the implications. >> i think this is a really important amendment.

it will have an impact on reducing the budget deficit. this is the biggest one. it is totally logical. he is suggesting that we pick up what the president has asked for, which is that we pick of the dollars that are sitting on the table as a result of malpractice reform and put them to reduce the deficit. we know from cbo that malpractice reform scores about $54 billion over 10-years. the estimate of excesses' offensive madison -- excessive appointed medicine over a 10- year period is $250 billion.

we know this is fertile ground for doing some of it in savings. what he is asking is that we direct the judiciary committee to come back with the malpractice reform. there are different levels that you can do it back. i had a bill that said we would protect baby doctors from lawsuits. you can do that. you could do it on a number of levels. a very conservative number is for the purposes of reducing deficits by accomplishing malpractice reform in doing it through reconciliation. this is an important amendment. if help save money and reduce the deficit and get the policy right. >> this committee does not have

the power or authority to tell the judiciary committee to do this. that is not the role of the budget committee. we could extend the authority, but we have no authority on telling them how to use it. for that reason, i would resist this amendment. second, if we do this, here on the committee, that opens up the prospect of more committees. people want to think clearly about what they really want to go down that path to thh. >> that does not have legs. we do have the authority to get reconciliation instructions.

you want to withdraw its, then fine. withdraw the reconciliation instruction. one authority we have is to give other committees reconciliation instruction. we think it can be saved with malpractice reform. that is why we are doing this to do two years ago, we gave them a reconciliation instructions for $18 billion fre. we knew where it was coming from. it is coming from restructuring the student loan system. we cannot say to do it. that is the sentence that was made. last year, there is a $2 billion construction. the discussion was pretty open

that it would be used for health care. it is used rather aggressively. it is not reasonable to argue that because they say it is not part is reform that we cannot give the instruction -- the concept is will we give a reconciliation -- that there is a policy behind and the person not to pursue the policy, that is their choice. they can find it somewhere else in their jurisdiction. we know because the score is there that they can find upward of $54 million. if they wanted. this is a reasonable reconciliation instruction. >> just one last comment. the $54 billion is just what cbo

said it did save the government. it does is sit in the amount to the private sector. listen, to me, it is common sense. we should be doing this. it is part of the jurisdiction. we need to do deficit reduction. we need to do reconciliation. if you do not want to do it, do it for some of the reasons. we do know the medical liability will save more for this number. >> in the group of six, senator enzi was there. i argued for medical malpractice. i believe they have a balanced package. you need that. i must say that i keep that this

takes us to a place where we really do not have the authority. we can give the reconciliation centers to multiple committees. we are limited to reconciliation instruction for debt, spending, and one for revenue. that is all we can do. i do not think we have the authority to tell any committee -- in fact, i know we do not -- how there to use the reconciliation instruction. -- they are to use the reconciliation in short term. >> [inaudible]

>> it is consistent with your underlying bill. you could have made that number 20. he could and made it 10 to finance. you made it -- what is in the bill is finance is instructed to come up with at least $2 billion for deficit reduction. frankly, as i see it, it is a place holder for more deficit reduction than that. it is clearly needed. judiciary is a committee that has almost no ability to reduce deficit savings. that then becomes us compelling them to do something we do not have the authority to do. but how you are you against what we do with the health committee? >> we gave them the instructions. winged there was money they could save. how'd you are before the

consistency that we did that for them? >> i did not favor the reconciliation instruction. all right. coming back, we said senator merkley. >> thank you. this amendment establishes a new reserve fund for improving water shed held resiliency. this is essentially to draw attention to a huge problem for many states with public forces. it has been a double fisted blow. the first has been that many have been an intended, resulting in enormous overgrowths to burn

down, very poor for timber. the second growths floors have now been hit by the second blow, but is pine beetle. i have a chance to fly over a huge swath of my state in central to southern oregon, which is called the red zone. it is a massive area devastated forests. every single tree is either red with the beatles, dead, or brown. this is not only a challenge but an opportunity. there could be a tremendous number of jobs in the rural parts of our nation.

it helps you focus your opera -- your attention. >> man be a co-sponsor? >> without objection. >> does the senator have an idea how he would pay for this? >> i have many ideas for how we would pay for its. this is contingent upon finding a political consensus or majority that would support one specific source. that's is why does not make that determination at this point prad. senator crapo has an amendment. >> according to the cbo director, after the u.s. government assumed control in 2008 of fannie mae and freddie

mac, the provided credit guarantees for almost half of the house in mortgages in the u.s., the cbo concluded that the institutions had effectively become a government entities whose operation should be included in the federal budget. the purpose is to include the debt obligations of fannie mae and freddie mac. it shows them the true picture, at our national debt has been increased. at the end of calendar year 2009, there is a total of one of 15 $5 trillion. -- $1.55 trillion. the combined business is almost but when $5 trillion.

the congressional budget office estimated that in the wake of the housing bubble and deflationary in housing values, the government's cost will reach $381 billion. that estimate may be too optimistic. last christmas eve, treasury announced the lifting the $4 billion loss cap on these two companies, creating a liability. according to jerry 2010 cbo background paper, cbo "police said the belgian government's turn operational relationship with fannie mae and freddie mac warrant their inclusion in the budget. by contrast, is outside the

federal budget. the of this management and budget of the u.s. government fiscal year 2011 states that " under the approach in the budget, all of the transactions with the public are non- budgetary because the gse's and not considered to be government agencies." cbo has included it in the budget baseline but does not include their debt in the competition's of debt. cbo to a narrow view of debt. -- the treatment of the entity's debt does not constitute a statement about whether or not it should be considered federal debt. palin light of the decision to back decisions, we should have

correct and accurate budget by including the debt operations. >> what did he say? bu>> let me say that the leadership of the budget committee in the house in the senate had previously concluded that freddie mae and fannie mac should be on the books. what is not is their previous accumulated debt. i personally think it would be a bad mistake for us to take the dead but is on their books and take it on 2 hours prada -- the debt that is on their books and take it on 2 hours. they believe there is an opportunity to restructure and

leave them with their dead and give them the requirement to pay off the maximum amount possible. if we shipped all of that on to our balance sheet, i think the motivations for them would be diminished and eliminated. i do not think this will be a good idea. >> i do nothing in the context of what has happened that we can any longer ignore the facts but the taxpayers are there. to not have reflected is an incomplete step of what the government is. we are not only not reducing the debt right now, it is going up

dramatically. they are using it to this grapevine and a lot of things that are essentially government operations. -- this to finance a lot of things that are essentially government operations. if you talk to the folks better selling the debt, they are using it to sell our debt. that is how they are doing it. we have to start accounting for this accurately the them right now we should be bringing this into the book. police in some form that in makes it clear that this is part of a liability that we as the government had predicted.

>> we use to not keep a lot of debt on the books will be dealt with social security. it is not much different now. >> i hear the senator. he makes a very important point. the reluctance i have is removing motivation from those organizations to deal with their debt. i am very concerned that if we take what is their debt on to our books we take away in a motivation for them to clear debt that they encourage. at the same time, the point that senator crapo makes has ballistvalidity. i'm not sure how we square this. there is a part of that gap that

we will wind up incurring. i'm sure they want to minimize it to the extent possible. i want to keep intense pressure on them. >> i understand your point. you do not believe they should the government institutions. i agree with them. and do not want to see anything to inhibit our ability to reform the management of them. they are in receivership right now. we talked about the incentive to pay proper attention, that is us. some of us have been fighting hard to get those reforms made. there is not one word in the

reform bill that is before congress right now that deals with them. with the core part of the problem that we are facing is not even included in the bill. for us to not even included in the budget i think is misstating the facts for the american people. at any time, if we choose to, we can reform the manner in which they are operating. that can be reflected in the budget. for us not reflect reality today creates the reapers incentive. >> limit go back to the point made at the beginning bedewed the ranking member of the house and senate budget committees last year made the determination that they be put on budget.

their operation is now going for it. what has not been done is bring on their accumulated debt. i am very concerned if we did that we would take pressure off of them to pay down that debt to the maximum extent possible. here are things better in my mind. that makes more possible bonuses and their executives, which no -- which we know they have a pattern of providing. they were way over the top. i think it would be a mistake that this point to take pressure off of them to pay down their own dead. >> it strikes me that the debt calculations is an area where there could be significant

unintended consequences. i am wondering if we have any opinion on the merits of this amendment from the department of treasury or from the federal reserve or from the department of justice. they are in a better position to evaluate the unintended consequences. >> i am not aware that there is any specific opinion on this amendment. i am aware that congress has been very created over the years

in the way that they calculate debt. what i'm trying to do is to try to get us to be much more accurate and straightforward as a budget committee. i can study it that the debt is subject to the national debt limit. it descended, it ought to be reflected in the budget. >> my question is whether the it minister did agencies who have to do with the consequences have declined in way that may be dangerous to litigation positions. i do not know the answers to that.

>> i understand your concern. i do not want to do anything that will get the debt in the private sector it is on our books. we are using it. we've been using fannie mae and freddie mac for a lot of things. it has to do the general purposes of the original instruction. ha i just think it requires that we start recognizing the debt in some way. maybe it is the model 5 recognition. it has to be stated in some way. >> let me just say that we are

told there is plenty be a vote about noon. it to be our intention to come back at 12:30 and begin voting. that is what we indicated yesterday. i think we need to stick with that. then we will take a break. -- for 45 minutes or so for a bunch and then come back and just keep going until we are done. >> the break would be after the vote? >> yes. >> we are back on your side . >> for the purposes of a new amendment, we went considerably over on that one. it is not your fault. this is a noncontroversial amend them. i want to thank senator gregg for cosponsoring. it states around the healthcare

reform activities -- like the more hate them, one of the challenges is that this will be the mother of of implementation issues. this puts together an effort from this community and reserve funds. it puts in place specific metrics and milestones on healthcare implementation not only around coverage, affordability and quality, but to make sure there is an appropriately when to recognize how the jurisdiction spreads. there is an ability to have these measurements in place. it is so we can gauge and see where necessary tweaks may be needed.

>> i want to join in this amendment. this is a big hole in the health care bill. they are trying to push deliver services to be based off of quality and cost. we really do need to come back. and do hope the amendments will be to that. >> i very strongly agree with senator gregg and senator warner. senator gregg and i had written the cbo during the debate. we ask them what to the most effective things to do. one of the two top choice by cbo was delivery system reforms. one was to reduce the tax subsidy. those were the two top

reccomendations. i think it would be imp ortant. >> i think it is a wonderful idea. >> without objection. >> further debate? >> i would t hank thetranking member who want to support it. if we do not have metrics the milestones, we have an ability to judge against and we will not get there. i think the members. as before to working with them. >-- i thank the members. i look forward to working with them. >> this will delay the tax increases that are the putin

place on the health care reform bill. the new law raises taxes by half a trillion dollars to pay for the unprecedented spending. raising taxes is never good for an economy. now when needs to be reminded that the economy is not good today. raising taxes appears to be moving in the right direction. now is not the time to do that producs. >> i have chart. the second chart has more tax increases on businesses. taxes are raised on individuals

as early as july of this year. one of business is retracted january 1 this year. another was effective march 30, the date of inaction. how did the 20 tax increases under the new health care bill, 16 begin january 1, 2014. it is when most of the major health reforms become effective. it they include the subsidy for health insurance. the subsidy intended to help low income and middle income americans buy health insurance is not affected until january 1 to -- 2014. it is not effective until january 1.

the tax increases on americans began four years before this government assistance for health insurance is ever offered. health insurance exchanges are also not affected until 2014. it would be in effect. in total, the government will have collected 60 billion from individuals and businesses by 2014. my democratic colleagues have had an opportunity to explain to the american people by these taxes, 60 billion before the major changes are in place.

i do not recall hearing a compelling reason. there are none. my command them would make sure these tax increases make sure that they do not go into the effect until january 1, 2014 when the major health reform go into affect. this is a straightforward amendment. it speaks for itself. >> i think the senator. the center has provided this amendment in the context of a neutral reserve fund. is that correct? >> yes. if there is another way of financing this, he would require it to be deficit neutral. i personally do not see any problem with taking this amendment. it is another opportunity to

find an alternative way of financing. if someone comes up with a better idea, good for them britm. >> it is a little short. but you have an amendment that is ready? >> it is pretty simple and straightforward. it would create a deficit funds that the cheese savings through tax policies that ensure they paid no fair share. they use savings to reduce the deficit. you should report that one out

of every four corporations in the united states pay no federal income taxes in 2005 on revenue of 1.1 trillion dollars. two out of every three corporations in the united states paid no federal income taxes according to this report. in april 2010, they reported "as you work on your taxes this month, here is something to raise your hackles. some the biggest corporations enjoys a tax break. that is if they pay taxes at all. the article goes on to report that exxon is able to avoid paying taxes "with the help of 20 subsidiaries in the bahamas in the cayman islands that

legally shelter the cash flow from operations." in fact, exxon mobile, the most profitable corporation in the history of the world reported to the sec that not only did it avoid paying federal income taxes, it actually received a $46 billion refund from the irs. some people may think that is a good tax policy. i happen not to think so. i think it is time the limits of fundamental changes. that is my amendment. >> further debate? this is a reserve fund, i take it? >> yes.

>> i think we are running pretty close. >> i'm having a hard time hearing you. >> you really do not need a reserve fund. >> i mean, there is no reason to have a reserve fund of the purpose of the language is to actually reduce the deficit. >> there is, though. >> how would you offset? >> we do not want the money. it is raised, it goes in the spend. they will take it and make sure it is used to reduce the deficit. >> i do not want to get into this. >> i do not either. >> ok. on that issues, i sense the senate.

i would hope he would include the widening tax reform package. then he would result of this. >> you and ryan can offer that amendment. senator grassley, you can only do it if you do not have such a busy and confusing chart. it is only if there is a simple chart. >> let me use your chart machine. you want to charge me so much rent and i cannot afford it. >> the boat started on the floor. can you go quickly? >> [inaudible] >> ok. >> as i pointed out when discussing my first amendment, there was a wide variety of tax increases under the new health care law.

when the simplest examples on individuals making less than $2,000 and families making less than two entity thousand is a provision that restrict the eligibility for medical reduction. it limits the deduction a person can take for certain medical expenses that they incur operati. outed the 14 million individuals who would be affected, in 2019 when the new law is fully in effect, 14.7 million of them earned less than 200,000 a year. that means that 99% of the people who will see their taxes go up are less than 200,000. democratic friend of mine will say that they enacted the largest tax increase to cut in the history of the country. they are referring to the

subsidy for health insurance. it is not effective until january 1, 2014. the joint committee on taxation data also tells us that only 7% of the households would actually receive the subsidy for health insurance in 2019. the remaining 93% of the households would not receive a tax benefit under the new health care reform law. what this data tells me is that the medical expense deduction would affect more households than those households benefiting under the new law. a majority of the households that would be affected by the medical expense deduction will not be held as a subsidy for

health insurance. how can a person receives a tax cut if they do not receive a tax benefit? what they will see is a tax increase. another tax increase is a provision that eliminates the business reduction for expenses allowable to the medicare part b subsidy. i will not debate whether eliminating this deduction was a good tax policy or not. -here to tell everybody that this change is akin to winning the battle but losing the war. that is because my friends may have closed the tax loophole. this proposal is currently providing prescription drug coverage. i would like to remind my colleagues that providing prescription drug coverage to retirees puts this change -- it

could cause employers to drop their retiree prescription drug coverage. it appears that the majority overlooked the consequences of their action. it to shoot more than 14 million low and middle income households. >> i think you have done this and irresponsible way. he provided a dead the senator

reserve a fund. if someone can find a better way to do this, i think we ought to empower them to come up with better ideas. we have a boat pending. it is my intention to take a resource -- take a recess. we think your staff can conclude which ones to take. >> we have more amendments to go. we have more until we can reach a conclusion. >> i think when we are done, we

want to go to the votes. we have been making very good progress in terms of considering amendments. let's break until 1230 pm [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> the committee eventually pass the budget blueprint of mostly 12-tamp10. it postponed major distances -- decisions. in a few minutes, and house debate on a bill that would enact additional sanctions against iran in an hour, michelle obama speaks to the the children at the white house. after that, a hearing on nasa's budget. when mrs. incluse former officers of both companies. that is live here on c-span at

10:00 a.m. eastern. >> i think there is a huge black of knowledge about how this town works. >> aegis have to do the work yourself. >> this weekend, richard norton smith and douglas brinkley will talk about their work, their books, and their profession. >> all this month, see the winners of c-span's studentscam competition. they submitted the ideas on one of the country's greatest strengths or a challenge. what the top winning videos every morning on c-span at 60 a.m. eastern. but a 30 a.m. during the program, meet the students to make them.

the house on thursday voted to send a bill imposing additional iran sanctions to negotiations with the senate. members debated the issue for a little more than in the dollar. ized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you. mr. speaker, this motion comes at a critical time in our effort to prevent iran from dealing a devastating blow to the security of our nation, the security of our closest allies, and to global security and stability. the gravest threat comes from iran's rapidly advancing nuclear weapons program. last week lieutenant general burgess, the director of the defense intelligence agency, and general cartwright, the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, testified that iran could produce enough weapons grade fuel for nuclear weapon within one year. about even with this alarming scenario, we may be too optimistic given the iranian regime's long history of

deception. last december yet another secret iranian nuclear facility was revealed. revealed. an underground ukraine yun inspectors reportedly concluded that this facility's capacity is too small to reduce fuel for civilian nuclear power it is welcome to geared to produce materials for one or two nuclear weapons a year. but the regime has announced it intends to build 10 new plants and will start construction and this coming year. there is mounting evidence that iran has been working on a nuclear warhead for many years panett. they stated the inspectors had uncovered extensive evidence of "past or current undisclosed activity" to develop a nuclear

warhead. that same report about the possible existence of an undisclosed activities related to a development of a nuclear payload. iran has long been at work on ballistic missiles. it has the ability to strike as and israel and other areas. a recent unclassified report by the department of defense estimated that iran may be able to strike the united states with a missile by the year 2015. the threat posed by the unconventional weapons capabilities is magnified by the continued support of violent extremism.

iran is a book would furnishing lethal aid to militants and afghan insurgents." nd iran provide lebanese, hezbollah, and palestinian terrorist groups with funding, weapons, and training to oppose israel." the same report stated that, "iran through its long-standing relationship with lebanese hezbollah maintains the capability to strike israel directly and to threaten israeli and u.s. interest worldwide." we know that iran has a long track record in using these capabilities. the pentagon report confirms that the iranian regime has been involved in or has been behind what the report describes as "some of the deadliest terrorist attacks of the past two decades ," mr. speaker, including the 1983 and 1984 bombing of the u.s. embassy and annex in

beirut, the 1983 coming of the marine barracks in beirut, the 1994 attack on the amia jewish community center in argentina, the 1996 khobar towers bombing in saudi arabia, and many of the insurgent attacks on coalition and iraqi security forces in iraq since 2003, end quote. in other words, when the iranian regime threatens america and israel with disruption, over and over again, they may mean it. today the iranian revolutionary guard is scheduled to begin a three-day exercise involving the missiles and other weapons to demonstrate their ability to dominate the persian gulf and the strait of hormuz, the choke point for much of the world oil supply. 7. diplomacy and engagement has

had nothing on tehran. deadlines set by the obama administration for compliance has been repeatedly disregarded. now, the strategy appears to be resting on securing a new u.n. security council resolution. however, russia and china see themselves as friends of the regime in tehran and have public low stated that they will not support -- publicly stated that they will not support a resolution that will put significant pressure on tehran. in fact, "the new york times" reported last week that secretary of defense robert gates, quote, in a secret memorandum to top white house officials that the united states does not have, does not have an effective long-range policy for dealing with iran's steady progress toward nuclear capability, end quote. mr. speaker, the congress must

fill this vacuum. we must not sit idly by and wait for iran to detonate a nuclear device. in february of 2006, the congress adopted a concurrent resolution citing the iranian regime's repeated violations of its international obligations, underscoring that as a result of these violations iran no longer has the right to develop any aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle and urging responsible nations to impose economic sanctions to deny iran the resources and the ability to develop nuclear weapons. then, we moved to strengthen u.s. sanctions on iran and to render support to iranian human rights and pro-democracy advocates through the passage of the iran freedom support act of 2006. yet again, the u.s. has yet to bring to bare the full supports

of -- bear the full support. we have failed to act decisively before. this may be the last chance to apply pressure on iran before it is too late. so the motion to instruct asks the conferees to conclude their work by may 28, it is my hope, mr. speaker, that we will not wait that long. we must strike at the regime's vulnerabilities and do so quickly and effectively. as such, the motion to instruct conferees insists on the house passed version of h.r. 2194, the iran refined petroleum sanctions act, also known as irpsa. chairman berman and i along with several members of the foreign house subcommittee have wanted to deal with imported

petroleum products, especially gasoline. the house passed it overwhelmingly on december 15 by a vote of 412-12. the sanctions bill we enact must match the gravity of the grow threat. there are several provisions that the conference report must contain if this legislation is to have any signature impact. because iran's energy sector and its dependence on refined petroleum are the regime's achilles' heel, in the motion to instruct we must insist on sections 3-a and 3-b regarding the development of iran's petroleum resources and the export of refined petroleum products to iran. we must not reward countries that allow their businesses and citizens to provide assistance to iran's nuclear missile or

advance conventional weapons program to be rewarded with a peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement. therefore, the house must insist on section 3-c, which prohibits such agreements being submitted to congress or entering into force. we must -- we must insist, mr. speaker, on those provisions because the executive branch has not once applied sanctions under the iran sanctions act on investments in the iranian energy sector. this problem originated more than a decade ago when former secretary state albright exercised a sweeping waiver that turned that act into a paper tiger. and the state department continues to ignore mandatory sanctions under that act on those who are assisting iran's proliferation activities. we must also ensure that section 3-d removes ambiguities

regarding the president's waiver authority and thereby will ensure the speedy implementation of sanctions. and we must insist on section 3-f which expands the definition of petroleum resources and products and closes loopholes in the original iran sanctions act that have been repeatedly exploited by others. because the iranian threat will continue to grow, the house must insist also on section 3-h, which extends the iranian sanctions act by five years. and because we must not let those who have already violated our laws off the hook, we must insist on sections 4-a-1, 4-a-2 and 4-b-1. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this motion and ask conferees to embrace it and commit to sending the strongest possible

bill to the president's desk. the clock is ticking. the centrifuges in iran are spinning. our time has almost run out. and with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has agree to h.con.res 222, recognizing the leadership and hiss tore contributions -- historical contributions of dr. hector garcia to the hispanic community. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of the ranking member's motion to instruct. the world faces no security threat greater than the prospect of a nuclear armed

iran. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. berman: we must make certain that the prospect never becomes a reality. a nuclear iran would menace, intimidate and ultimately dominate its neighbors. it would be virtually impervious from any type of pressure from the west, regardless of any support of terrorism or the question of freedom and human rights at home and would touch off a nuclear arms race in the middle east that would almost inevitably lead to can t.s.a. row free. and -- catastrophe. and worst of all, they may use its nuclear arms against those they see as enemies. iran quite possibly will be capable of developing and delivering a nuclear weapon in the next three to five years. in our -- and our task of preventing iran from achieving nuclear weapons capability is

made more complicated by the fact that we all know that our best weapon for fighting this battle, economic sanctions, takes time to work. so we need the strongest possible sanctions and we need them fast. that's why i support this motion to instruct. the house bill, h.r. 2194, the iran refined petroleum sanctions act, is a good, strong measure, and i and my colleagues will fight for it in conference. we will work with the senate on measures to help iran's brave dissidents circumvent regime efforts to block their communications. the gentleman from florida, our colleague from florida will speak about an additional provision with respect to state decisions to disinvest that we want to include in this conference report. and i want to send this bill to the president by or before the may 28 deadline proposed in the motion to instruct. this bill, along with the senate bill, has already done

much good. in recent months in anticipation of our sanctions becoming law, several major energy companies have ceased selling refined petroleum to iran. others have announced they will not make new investments in iranian energy. they are making the sensible choice that our bill encourages, choosing the u.s. market over the iranian market. more will make that choice when our bill becomes law. meanwhile, our bill is goating other nations to intensify their efforts to achieve a sanctions resolution in the u.n. security council, and our own executive branch is getting the message that congress is able and willing to take the grave matter of sanctions into our own hands. april 30 will make one year since we first introduced this sanctions legislation. since then iran has increased the number of its working centrifuges and reached the one bomb equivalent level on the

stock of low-enriched uranium. it has reached uranium to 20%, a big step to mastering the process of weapons-grade uranium and has installed 21st century sentry fugse and has built a secret reactor near kohm that could have only been intended for bomb-making purposes and has announced plans to build 10 more reactors. iran is contempt of the international community, and i had hoped that a u.n. security council resolution requiring tough sanctions following immediately thereafter by additional muscular sanctions imposed by the european union would have happened by now. i know the administration is doing everything possible to bring that result about. unfortunately, we're now nearly four months into 2010 with iran on the verge of nuclear weapons capability and a u.n. security council resolution remains an

uncertain prospect. we cannot wait any longer. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm so pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr. burton, the ranking member of the foreign affairs subcommittee on middle east and south asia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. burton: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. you know, i think my colleagues have very eloquently explained the contents of the bill and what we need to do. but the thing i'd like to talk about for a minute or two is the ramifications for america and the rest of the world if we don't do something. we get about 30% to 40% of our energy from the middle east, and if i were talking to the american people i would just say to you that if you look at your lights and you look at the energy you need for your car and for everything else, heating your house, you need to realize that if iran develops a nuclear capability and that

whole area becomes a war zone, the persian gulf, where a lot of oil is transported to, we will see a terrible problem as far as our energy is concerned and that would directly effect our energy. it's important we do something and do something very, very quickly. we've waited too long. we've talked about negotiating with iran and putting sanctions on them for the past four or five years, trying to get our allies to work with us. the fact of the matter is nothing has happened and iran continues to thumb their nose at the rest of the world. and this is a terrible, terrible threat, a terrorist state, iran, with nuclear weapons is not only a threat to the middle east, to israel, our best ally over there, but it's a threat to every single one of us. and they're also working on intermediate range missiles and possibly intercontinental ballistic missiles. and if they get those, nobody's safe. so it's extremely important that we take whatever measures is necessary to stop iran from developing nuclear weapons.

now, today we're taking a great first step, and i hope that when this goes to the conference committee we will come out with something strong that it will have an impact on what iran does. but if it doesn't, it's important that everybody in the world realize we have to stop iran from developing nuclear weapons because it's a threat to every single person on this planet in one way or another. we got to stop nuclear proliferation, but the first thing we have to do is stop iran, a terrorist state, from getting nuclear weapons. i thank the gentlelady for the time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. berman: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the distinguished member of the foreign affairs committee, the gentlelady from texas, ms. sheila jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chairman very much both for his leadership and for this opportunity with the ranking member to really discuss and

reinforce some of the principles that many of us support in a bipartisan manner. i rise today to simply encourage the conference on this legislation and to be able to chronicle simply efforts that i think were not wasteful but constructive. i do believe the administration's effort at engagement was constructive and not wasteful. it is always important for those of us who are lawyers to create the record. the building blocks for the final decision of the court of law. in this instance the court of law is the combination of the american people, this congress, and this administration. and it is likewise the world community, the united nations. also the people of iran are speaking and they are speaking loudly. no one can forget that fateful picture of a young lady lying in her own blood during the rising

of the people of iran, not provoked by any world standards or provocation, but for the people of iran simply saying, enough of the despotism of this administration of their country, enough is enough. and they were willing to die in the streets. they took to the buildings to make loud noises at night. and they continue to pounce over and over again. iran is a challenge and it is a terrorist around the world. having just come back from yemen, bahrain, qatar, and pakistan, everywhere you went individuals, leaders in government were willing to indicate what a threat iran was. just yesterday in a hearing on syria, questions are now rising as to iran's participation in funding hezbollah to go into lebanon. of course some of those

particular points are being denied. but frankly i think if there is any reason to move forward on a conference, it is the concept of the disruption of iran in the region. there are those in the middle east who want peace, from jordan to israel to other places around, they want peace. we begin to look at yemen, that is in a distant low case, place where i visited, we know it is an al qaeda cresse pool. we know there are -- cesspool. we know there are young men there susceptible to recruitment. we here in this country must provide the moral standarding of peace and democracy for those who desire so. so i rise to support the people of iran, those who are willing to sacrifice their lives and go into the streets. it is well-known that whatever we have tried to do, the engagement of a cold war, the standoff iran continues to seemingly put forward its

nuclear efforts. i ask for support of this legislation and i ask for our colleagues to vote for this motion. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm honored to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. royce, the ranking member on the foreign affairs subcommittee on terrorism, nonproliferation, and trade. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. royce: i thank the gentlelady for yielding time. as ranking member of the subcommittee on terrorism, nonproliferation, and trade, i strongly support this motion to instruct. i think it's important for all of us to realize that right now iran is at its weakest point in terms of its capacity to manufacture enough refined petroleum. it has to, it has to at this point for its gasoline import that into the nation. and already the impact, the effect of this legislation even coming up on the floor has been effective in backing companies

away from doing business with iran. imagine what the effect will be if we pass this legislation. imagine the impact it will have and the pressure that it will bring to bear, because the threat of this legislation has already produced a situation in iran that is very, very difficult for civil society and is making people understand the costs and consequences for iran to continue down this road. now, this morning the g.a.o. will release a report that shows that foreign commercial activity in iran's energy sector is going to begin to increase. and that will provide cash for iran's nuclear program. that's why this bill is so important. a similar report three years ago showed half as many companies involved in this sector. now it's on the increase. the usual way of doing business, of not standing up to the russians and the chinese and to others, cannot continue.

we have to take action. time is not on our side. enrichment capability, the key aspect of a nuclear weapons program is being mastered by that government. not so long ago i remember talking here on the floor about iran's 164 center fugse and now the progress is -- centrifuges and now the progress is measured in thousands. it is working on a weapon design, my colleagues. and may have a missile to carry that warhead to the united states within five years' time. today the world's top terrorist state has its tent cals throughout the region. i thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. moran: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the chairman for his leadership on this issue.

as the chairman knows, i have some reservations about the effectiveness of a sanctions regime, but there's no question in my mind but the worst thing that can happen is military confrontation, because that would, in fact, unite the iranian people against america and on the wrong side of history. you no, 7 -- now, it is too easy to think of iran as a monolithic people. the reality is that iran is the successor to the great persian civilization and is a very diverse civilization. i share the chairman's concern about the current government of iran, which i doubt think is consistent with persia's history. and in fact their actions have been inexplicable and inexcusable. and the chairman is right,

obviously, to respond. but the reality is that a very substantial portion of the iranian population, perhaps the majority, in fact embraces american values of democracy and human rights and individual freedoms of expression, collective gathering, and freedom of worship. but they are not able to do that today. and i appreciate the fact that the chairman is determined to allow the technology that would enable the population to communicate, to communicate their ideas. in fact, to mobilize for the best interest of their nation and their future. we also limit the availability of technology that the regime is using for precisely the opposite purposes. to censor and provide -- perform surveillance against those people who would like to empower the iranian people to take

control of their own future. this bill will be supported, it should be supported. i appreciate the chairman's leadership. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to yield an additional minute to the gentleman from -- mr. royce, the ranking member of the foreign affairs subcommittee on terrorism, nonproliferation, and trade, he was about to finish his thought and i wasn't looking up. i apologize. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. royce: for those of us who have engaged this region and watched neighboring countries to iran watched their propensity to react as iran has sped up its development, each of these countries are now looking at going nuclear. and i'd ask my colleagues to think about those neighbors of iran that would create a heavily nuclearized middle east should iran succeed in this and what the impact would be. we can only imagine the turmoil

and the tensions that will come to the middle east should we not succeed in this effort to prevent iran from developing these nuclear weapons. tomorrow's nuclear iran would thus have a compounding effect with severe consequences for regional security and as i pointed out earlier for u.s. security. the time for action is long past -- passed. this bill will greatly help because it targets iran's achilles' heel at perhaps the only time that we can effectively do that. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the author of florida legislation, with respect to

disinvestment from iran's energy sector, our newest member, the gentleman from florida, mr. deutch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. deutch: thank you, mr. speaker. the motion before us today is based on the simple fact that a nuclear armed iran is an unacceptable threat to our national security. poses an exy tension threat to our vital ally, israel, and unite a destabilizing arms race. we must take whatever action is necessary to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. its president denies the holocaust and openly declared his intention to wipe israel off the map. to be included among the powerful sanctions in this legislation is the removal of barriers that state pension boards raise which prevent the divestment of holdings in companies that help to fund iran's nuclear weapons program. in 2007, the florida legislature passed critical legislation that

mandated that workers' pension funds could not be used to support iranian nuclear weapons. in florida alone we removed more than $1 billion from companies that put their profits ahead of this nation's national security. that is but one state. this legislation will permit every state to die vest from iran just as florida and 20 other states have already done. the divestment effort will become a full-fledged movement. the threat from iran is real. this threat is unacceptable and it demands this aggressive effort on the part of the united states and our allies. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, judge poe, a member of the committee on foreign affairs , because that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. poe: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. mr. speaker, iran is the world threat. they along with north korea are working together to plot and

build nuclear weapons to threaten the rest of the world. ahmadinejad, the little fellow from the desert, has already said that when he gets nuclear weapons his first target is tel aviv in israel. he's made it clear to the world he wants to destroy israel and he wants nuclear weapons. he wants missiles from north korea to do that. but his threat is not just to the israelis, it's to the entire region. and even to the united states. he continues to rant about how he wants the destruction of the west. he helps hezbollah in the north and he helps hamas in the south. both to engage and cause terror in israel. his answer, our answer has been let's talk to them. let's tell the iranians they are not playing nice. that they are going to cause problems in the world. mr. speaker, we cannot adopt the neble chamberlain philosophy and fool ourselves that the iranians will honestly negotiate with the world. they lie to the world and the

united states so they can buy time to build their nuclear weapons. more talking will not bring peace in our time. it will only allow them to build nuclear weapons. so this sanction must work. it must be enforced. prevent companies from dealing with our enemy government, the iranian government, and not allow iran to receive refined gasoline. and we must mean it and we must enforce this. the long-term solution with iran is, there is a regime change. we hope the good people of iran change their rogue government. a government that doesn't even represent the people. a government that had fraudulent elections last year and took over control again. our government, our country, our people must be vocal about the support of the resistance movement and hopefully remove their government by themselves and peaceably set up a government that represents the world and will bring peace to the world. that is the great hope for iran. that is the great hope for the

world as a peaceable regime change in iran. but right now we need sanctions. and we need to let them know we mean it because we are not going to continue to talk forever and hope that they will negotiate and play nice. that's just the way it is. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: yes. i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. harman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. harman: i thank my california colleague for yielding to me and commend him for his leadership on this issue. mr. speaker, in the course of my service on virtually all of the security-related committees in this house, i have visited some of the most dangerous and austere places on the planet, rugged and remote areas that has terrorists. i am asked to name those countries i think poses a

threat to the united states. iraq, pakistan, afghanistan, yemen. my answer every time is iran, iran, iran. given the zeal with which it promotes and supports instability in the middle east, it's my -- it's arming of and financial assistance to hezbollah and hamas and its march towards a nuclear weapons capability in my view no other country comes close. the question that confronts us is how to confront their government to abandon a nuclear weapons program. most agree that a multilateral approach is likely to sked. our efforts with the e.u. led by stuart levy have been effective but they haven't yet changed iran's course. our country must continue its leadership role, our efforts to diplomacy and economic

sanctions must drive stronger, multilateral diplomacy and sanctions. that's why congress must move to conference on iran sanctions legislation and enact by an overwhelming bipartisan package that includes sanctions on iran and cripple iran's ability to import refined petroleum products. let me be clear, mr. speaker. our problem is not with the iranian people but with its government's reckless policies. iran with nuclear weapons not only poses an exowe tension threat to israel, but to us and to countries everywhere which espouse democratic values. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm honored to yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. kirk, an esteemed member of the committee on appropriations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes.

mr. kirk: thank you, mr. speaker. as the iranians accelerate their nuclear program, indications are that america may be losing its nerve. in its latest report to congress, the c.i.a. said iran continued to expand its nuclear infrastructure and continued uranium enrichment. this follows a report by the u.n.'s iaea that iran has enriched uranium and is halfway to its goal of making bomb-grade fissile material. we know that iran's greatest weakness is its dependence on foreign gasoline. they have mishandled iran's economy since 1979 that this leading opec leading nation is depending on gasoline for 40% of its needs. i wrote a material -- an

article trying to end gasoline sales. i want to thank chairman berman and ranking member ros-lehtinen for bringing this bill to the floor. in these partisan times now, when have 54 senators and congressmen agreed on anything? but they agree on cutting off iran's gasoline. but now without decisive bipartisan action soon, the security of our children and our allies may depend on the good behavior of a terrorist nation now armed with the most dangerous weapon. so as congress has been sleeping, i think we should wake up. we should finally sign this bipartisan bill. to congress, pass this legislation. to the president, sign it and then seal off iran's gasoline. without unilateral actions to cut off iran's gasoline, no other sanctions policy is serious. we it we have a chance to remove a great danger to the

security of americans and israeli children. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: yes, mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from new york, mrs. lowey, the chair of the foreign operations subcommittee of appropriations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i want to thank the chair for your leadership on this very important issue, and i want to express my strong support for h.r. 2194, the iran refined petroleum sanctions act that mandates tighter sanctions against the iranian regime. with its continued defiance of the international community and the clock ticking on their nuclear capabilities, now is the time for action. this week iran announced testing of various missiles and

weapons capability. u.s. officials have said that iran could develop a ballistic missile capable of striking the u.s. by 2015. and iran's continued threats to our strongest ally in the middle east, israel, presents dire global security implications. i urge the conferees to act with haste to address these urgent challenges with tough, crippling sanctions. but the speed with which congress finalizes this legislation, to sanction iran, the message to the international community that time is of the essence if we are to contain iran's threats through security, stability and prosperity worldwide. again, i thank the gentleman from california and the gentlewoman from florida for their efforts. i urge my colleagues to vote in support of this motion to instruct, and i yield back the balance.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the motion to instruct. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, sir. and i yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. roskam, a member of the committee on ways and means. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. roskam: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentlelady for yielding. you know, not long ago i was briefed by an official on iran's provocative action and he gave a challenge in that briefing and he said, print out on your computer a red line. print a big, thinking red bar on a white sheet of paper. you think it's a solid red line, but if you look at it up close what you will see is a series of tiny little pink lines all pushed together. but they're individual little lines. he said what iran has figured out is they have figured out a way to break through one tiny

little line at a time, just one at a time, one at a time, one at a time. and that is why we're here today, because we in the west, we in the united states are onto what the iranian leadership is doing. they're being incredibly provocative. there is no nuclear ambition for iran. this is a regime that has said that israel, our greatest ally in the middle east, has no right to exist. they said one provocative thing after another. and history is filled, mr. speaker, with examples of weakness and ambiguity in foreign affairs. and what is the result? largely the result is calamity. now, we have a chance to be united, for all of us to come together and say we are not going to stand with this, we have come up with a remedy and it's time for the conferees to move forward and to create this very tough and solid sanctions against the petroleum products going into iran.

and i urge the conferees to move quickly, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: yes, mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. kucinich: i support the obama administration's historic efforts at nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear security. it's a recognition that our security depends on dialogue and negotiation between nations. it was reflected in a proposal that was made last year to freeze iran's nuclear programs at existing levels. now, in december of last year, i led the effort to oppose h.r. 2194, the iran refined petroleum sanctions act, and i stand here today almost five months later to reaffirm my objection to the underlying bill. five months later we have not come any closer to diplomatic resolutions to objections to iran's nuclear proliferation program or attempted to amend the language of the iran

sanctions bill to ensure it has not come at the cost of the well-being of the iranian people we come to support. iran imports 40% of its gasoline. leaders of iran are not going to lack for gasoline, but the people of iran will suffer. we have to ask ourselves, will this cause them to turn against their government or will it cause them to turn against the united states and our efforts to bring about a succession of iran's nuclear program? if we cared aboutite rainian people, we would not be -- if we cared about the iranian people, we would not be on the house floor talking about this. we need to focus on efforts to address the egregious human rights, civil liberties and civil rights abuses that they endure. the legislation under consideration will only play into their hands of the iranian regime by diverting attention away from the significant social and economic problems that must be addressed. i fear that this legislation will actually strengthen the hard liners in iran and i'm sure that's not what we want to

happen. this legislation will undermine any future references by the administration to engage diplomatic low with iran by limiting the tools the administration can use, reports suggest that had iranians have delayed any agreements with the united states for fuel swap due to internal divisions. we must stand in support of the courageous battle for human rights and democracy that the iranian people are engaged in. many at the cost of their lives. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks, a member of the armed services and judiciary committees. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. franks: and i thank the gentlelady. mr. speaker, the ominous intersection of jihadist terrorism and nuclear proliferation has been relentlessly rolling toward america and the free world for decades. we now find ourselves living in a time when the terrorist state of iran is on the brink of developing nuclear weapons.

mr. speaker, if that occurs, all other issues will be wiped from the table because whatever challenges we have in dealing with iran today will pale in comparison in dealing with iran that has nuclear weapons. and yet, mr. speaker, the obama administration seems to remain asleep at the wheel. we see repeated signals that the obama administration may already be adopting a policy of containment. it is beyond my ability to express the danger of such a policy, mr. speaker. i am afraid that the last window we will ever have to stop iran from gaining nuclear weapons is rapidly closing. and while it is unlikely that the bill before us will be enough to prevent iran from gaining nuclear weapons by itself, it is a step in the right direction, and i applaud its sponsors and i only pray that the obama administration will wake up in time to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear

armed nation and begin to threaten the peace of the human family and bring nuclear terrorism to this and future generations. and, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: yes, mr. speaker. could i get the time remaining on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 13 1/2 minutes. the gentlelady from florida has 6 1/2. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i am going to yield myself -- i am going to yield myself one minute at this time. the speaker pro tempore: one minute? mr. berman: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. berman: thank you. my friend from ohio, mr. kucinich, articulated his reasons for opposing this legislation. we are now, of course, voting on a motion to instruct on the legislation, but i want to just take issue with several of his points. the reason there has not been a

diplomatic resolution of the problem is because the regime in iran has refused to engage in any meaningful and serious way in a resolution which would require them to change their behavior, to end their ambition to obtain a nuclear weapons capability and that is where the blame lies. it is not because diplomatic alternatives have been ignored. it's because they've been undertaken and rebuffed by the regime in iran. secondly, i very much disagree with the notion that our response flew hopefully tough robust sanctions, the kinds of sanctions -- i yield myself an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. berman: the -- i disagree very much with the gentleman's contention that our effort to seek to change iranian behavior

and reverse iran's decision to pursue nuclear weapons through the imp position of strong -- imposition of strong, robust, meaningful legislation through tough international sanctions by the community of nations is going to cause the iranian people to turn against us and on behalf of their regime. . these are people who have been subject to execution, murder, imprisonment, all kinds of repression, efforts to suppress their speech and their political liberties by that regime and have taken great risks, notwithstanding the way that regime has reacted. i would suggest that those people will no more than anyone that the consequences that are befalling the people of iran are a result of the regime's behavior not the international community and american efforts

-- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, i'm so honored to yield five minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. cantor, our esteemed republican whip and a member of the committee of ways and means. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. cantor: i thank the gentlelady and thank you, mr. speaker. i want to salute first of all the gentlelady's leadership on this issue as well as that of the gentleman from california in bringing this to the floor. and would also like to thank the majority leader for bringing this to the floor as well. mr. speaker, last year the new administration came to power insisting it had a new approach that would head off the looming threat of a nuclear iran. by talking to and engaging with the regime in tehran, the administration said we could convince the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism to abandon its nuclear weapons program. and if that didn't work, america

ostensibly would gain the moral authority to galvanize china, russia, and the rest of the world to go along with a regime of crippling sanctions against tehran. 15 months and countless missed deadlines later, the administration's strategy has failed. our lack of resolve has only enabled iran to accelerate its illegal activities. let us take this opportunity to remember how high the stakes are. the danger of a nuclear iran is not hypothetical. it is real. it is a direct and serious threat to america. it is a game changer that would set off a nuclear arms race throughout the middle east, permanently destabilizing the world's most dangerous region. top u.s. military officials

recently warned congress that within one year iran will have the fiffle -- fissile material it needs to make a nuclear weapon. once iran gets the bomb, the concept of deter rens that underpins u.s. -- deterrence that underpins u.s. national security is no longer valid. the resounding voice of history reminds us that we ignore the threats of dangerous men and dangerous regimes at our own peril. that's why congress must rise to the occasion and send the message to the world that the united states will not tolerate a nuclear iran. it's time for a concerted effort to impose sanctions with real teeth. and that begins here today with the iran refined petroleum sanctions act. we must block the shipment of all refined petroleum to iran, and we must cut off all international companies who do business with iran revolutionary

guard from the u.s. financial system. iran's trading partners must understand that they will no longer conduct business with the regime in tehran with impunity. mr. speaker, these are times of sharp partisan divide in our nation's capital, but today we have a chance to together to take a major step forward in the interest of world peace. the time for decisive action to head off the regime in iran's nuclear program is now. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i yield myself -- before i yield to the majority leader, i'm just going to yield to myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. berman: one year and three months ago america's goal -- america was pretty isolated in

its goal of trying to stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon. we absolutely need to move quickly because iran is moving quickly. but there can be no doubt that the result of the events of the past 15 months have changed the dynamic fundamentally where the international community now recognizes the threat of iran's nuclear weapons proposes, and it is iran that's isolated not america. that is a direct result of the fundamental change of power. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. berman: i now am pleased to yield one minute to the great advocate of this legislation, and achieving this goal, the majority leader. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend of some 45 years, the chairman of the committee, for yielding. and i want to, before i start my remarks, say that i agree with you. with respect to his observations

regarding the obama administration's efforts that are bearing positive fruit with respect to our allies around the world. we are not where we need to be and they are not all allies, but they certainly are partners in responding to this threat to the international community. we know what a grave danger a nuclear iran would pose to america's security, to our ally israel security, and indeed to the security of the international community. that is why, mr. berman, ms. ros-lehtinen reported out a bill, that is why we passed a bill, that's why the senate has passed a bill, now it's time to go to conference. it's time to resolve the differences that exist and send a clear and unmistakable message. the dangerous consequences of inaction range from a fierce regional arms race to a nuclear

umbrella for terrorism, to the unthinkable with american and international security at stake, iran's nuclearization is a grave, proximate threat and cannot stand. that is why the united states must do everything in its power, mr. speaker, to stop iran's nuclear pursuit. through years of diplomatic silence, iran's nuclear program grew. president obama took a course of patient engagement. and while iran's unwillingness to negotiate in good faith has been exposed to the world, it has grown even closer to its goal. today the international atomic energy agency feels that iran has enough low enriched uranium for two nuclear bombs. so time is of the essence. by proceeding with this motion, congress moves closer to the

imposition of sanctions that will hit the iranian economy at its weakest point. its banking system, the revolution card -- guard corps, and the refined petroleum that iran defends upon. i support strongly this motion knowing full well that sanctions are never a perfectly precise instrument and that they may mean hardship for ordinary iranians who already suffer under the repressive regime in iran. but i support sanctions nonetheless because they can work with the international community recognizes the outlaw nation poses a common threat to us all. a case president obama and secretary clinton are making persuasively as was the point of the chairman of the committee to our fellow security council members. and the case the administration continued to make at this month's nuclear security summit.

an extraordinary summit, i might add, of historical precedence, where 47 nations from around the world came here to washington to meet together, including the president of china, to say that nuclear proliferation poses a danger to all, not just a single nation, not just to a regional group of nations, but to all. i support sanctions because tehran can choose at any time to negotiate in good faith and setaside its aggressive nuclear pursuit. i support sanctions because when properly designed they can be a source of powerful pressure on the iranian regime. pressure both external and internal. as britain's telegraph newspaper reported on monday, i report, there is now increasing resentment that iran's once popular nuclear program could be distracting from more urgent needs in the face of economic

mismanagement and sanctions. far from resenting the u.s. designed sanctions, iranians blame the slowdown on their own government. going on to quote, nuclear energy is something that i supported but why go about it in this way? asked an iranian citizen. a pensioner and father of two. he went on to ask, if it is legitimate, then why are we suffering for it in this way? if it's not legitimate, then do it in the right way or give it up. we are paying too heavy a price. so said an iranian citizen about that country's nuclear ambitions. it is my belief, my colleagues, that if smart sanctions take effect, more and more iranians will come to the same conclusion. and so, hopefully, will the iranian regime. sanctions will show the regime

that its embrace of nuclear proliferation carries a cost that is far too high. we cannot expect a change of heart from tehran, but we can demand a change of behavior. my colleagues, this action is timely and perhaps past time, but it is always timely to do the right thing. to speak up, to act, and to encourage our allies as well. and our partners, and our fellow citizens in this globe to act in a way that will protect them and protect our international community. so i rise in strong support of this motion to go to conference. and the motion to instruct and i thank my chairman for his leadership on this issue. he is working both to have effective action taken by the

congress and to assist the administration in reaching the objective in as positive a way as possible. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i continue to reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves her time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. nadler: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, we all know that the prospect of an iranian state armed with nuclear weapons is simply intolerable for the world. it o poses an exi sention threat to our ally, israel. it would pose a threat of terrorism all over the middle east under a nuclear umbrella so we wouldn't be able to oppose what iran was doing. it poses a threat of a nuclear arms race in the middle east. it poses the threat that we

cannot rule out that this regood morning, america will give a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group like al qaeda to use, we can only guess where. and finally, some people say, you know, we coexist with a nuclear soviet union for 40 years, 50 years. we deterred them. deterrence works. deterrence cannot work when you have a government that is religious in nature, many of whose elements are of the belief that the final destruction of israel, even if it cause as nuclear war, would bring on the return of the hidden i amman more -- imman more quickly. you cannot deter a suicide bomber which is in essence what parts of the identify rain government are. we must prevent iran from getting nuclear weapons. we must avoid the hobson choice of having the situation where the advisors come into the president and say, mr. president, here are the two

choices. one, do nothing and iran will have nuclear weapons in a couple weeks. two, militarily attack iran. we don't want that choice. we have to avoid a choice of military action or nuclear iran. the bush administration was here for eight years. they pursued a policy of talk tough and carry a tooth pick. they talked tough, but stopped nothing. and for eight years the centrifuges increasesed -- increased in number and went round and round and came closer to a nuclear iran. now we have an administration that comes with a policy of big sticks and carrots. and says first we will engage the iranians. we'll show them the advantages and we will by so doing establish the foundation for unified not unilateral sanctions action against iran if necessary. now we have reached the stage where we have to start engaging in real sanctions. and we have allies and we will get those sanctions and we must take tough sanctions to avoid the hobson's choice.

this resolution before us is part of that to impose tough sanctions on the iranians to make them reconsider or to make it impossible to them to develop nuclear weapons. . so we must pass this resolution because we don't want a hobson's choice of a military action or a nuclear iran. the latter of which is intolerable and the first of which is something we should not ever want. so i urge my colleagues to pass this resolution, and i thank the gentleman from california, the gentlelady from florida for bringing it to the floor. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady. ms. ros-lehtinen: we continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: reserves her time. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, one of the original creators of the concept to refined

petroleum sanctions two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. speaker, and thank you, mr. chairman. there is a jfble broad consensus in this country -- justifiable broad consensus in this country and in this congress that iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. the issue is how to achieve that objective and why to achieve that objective. we cannot act in isolation to achieve the optive. we must act to isolate iran. this has been the fruit of the persistent diplomacy engaged in by the administration, assisted very nobly by our chairman berman, our ranking member, that has brought us to the point where the world is now isolating iran. iran stands essentially alone in support of the proposition that its behavior has been justifiable. the sanctions that are proposed

by the underlying bill will be effective because they will force the iranian leadership to choose between the prospect of prosperity if they drop their nuclear she connery and the certainly of economic distress if they persist in retaining it. the sanctions -- the iranians should switch from gasoline to natural gas as a means. in the early 1930's there were ugly statements and vicious images coming out of europe. people insisted that people who worried about that were exaggerating the threat. so much of the world, including, sadly, the united states turned away as those

ugly signals were sent. the tragedy was of unspokeable proportions, six million people killed in the holocaust. today, there are ugly words coming out of iran -- i would ask for 30 more seconds. mr. berman: i'm pleased to yield 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 second. mr. andrews: there are some that say that one holocaust is not enough, that the jewish state should not exist. we should learn the terrible histories of the 1930's and not repeat it. we should act decisively, swiftly with the rest of the world to impose sanctions on the iranian government. i thank the chairman for his leadership on this issue, urge a yes vote and the swift adoption of the underlying legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time.

the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i have one additional speaker requesting time. i believe the gentlelady has the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has the right to close. mr. berman: so shall we -- my speaker and your right to close. i am pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, chairman of the committee on the western hemisphere, mr. engel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. engel: i thank the chairman for yielding to me. i thank the gentlewoman from florida for her strong voice. boy, if there's anything that is bipartisan it's this resolution. the one good thing that iran has done is brought us all together because we realize that the iranian threat to the world is the world's biggest threat. iran remains the leading sponsor of terrorism around the world, and as mentioned before,

the president of iran, ahmadinejad, has threatened to wipe israel if the face of the earth but the threat is not to i ale alone, it's to europe, it's to the united states, it's to the entire world. and the entire world must be with one voice. i am a proud co-sponsor of h.r. 2194, the iran refined petroleum sanctions act, and i want to commend chairman berman for this initiative and congresswoman ileana ros-lehtinen as well. only a few short months ago the world learned of the secret iranian enrichment uranium facility. if there was ever any doubt that iran was going to build a nuclear weapon, this was kept secret from the iaea, the international atomic energy agency. it was built on a mountain near a protective military base. this is how a country conseals a nuclear weapons program and defies u.n. security council resolution, not how it develops

peaceful energy technology. however, although iran is the leading producer of crude oil, it has limited refining capacity. and this bill will increase leverage against iran by penalizing companies that export refined petroleum products to iran or finance the refining capabilities. it's my hope that the administration will make clear to the iranian regime that the world will not accept its nuclear ambition. as commarme of the subcommittee on the western hemisphere of the house foreign affairs committee, i'd also like to raise one additional concern which arose at my october hearing on iran's role in the western hemisphere. venezuela leader, hugo chavez, agreed to provide 25,000 barrels of gasoline to iran. the deal may be covered by the bill we are considered today. while some question whether venezuela has the ability to provide gasoline to iran, since it imports some gasoline to meet its own demand, chavez is

meeting a perilous area. i hope chavez considers this unwise step. we must consider and keep focusing on iran in the western hemisphere as well. the u.s., our allies and the u.n. security council has agreed that a nuclear armed iran would be a danger to our ally, israel, the middle east, the entire world. the regime murders its own citizens, represses people who want to demonstrate against its stolen election, and it's time for us to stand up. so i'm glad in a bipartisan voice this morning we say no to iran, no to nuclear weapons for

.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> "washington journal" is live at 7:00 eastern with immigration legislation and the value-added tax and british politics. this morning, live coverage of

the hearing to have 2008 financial crisis and the role of credit-rating agencies, particularly and poor's and moody's. witnesses include former officers of both companies. that's live at 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> c-span, our public affairs content is available on television, radio and online and you can also connect with us on twitter, facebook and youtube. >> now a hearing on the fiscal year 2011 budget request for nasa. president obama's plan for nasa scales back planned missions to the moon and relies more on commercial spaceflight. this is a little less than two hours.

>> the administrator and very interested parties including our good insert a -- insert from utah, orrin hatch. i would like to make my opening remarks, turn to my colleague and senator hatch to you. if that is agreeable, senator? well, we're going to be welcoming administrator bolden and our colleague, senator hatch and john frost who'll be speaking to the committee to ensure no matter what we decide we ensure the safety of the astronauts. the 2011 nasa budget is $19 billion.

$276 million more than 2010. to continue its operation through 2020 and possibly beyond. manying better value for the dollar and better value for our astronauts' efforts. we have spent a lot of time building the space station. now we have to spend our time using the space station. it is time to retire the space shuttle. only three more flights to go after 30 years of exceptional

service. $72 million above 2010 for aeronautic service. there are extremely dramatic changes to the constellation program to be -- and that will be a subject i know a great deal of focus. what -- and in the area of the constellation program, we want to be sure is the president talking about canceling the constellation program or restructuring the constellation program? it will be a major source of -- from this committee. i just want to come back to the science budget, which i think we're going to focus a lot on constellation, we must focus on the other aspects of nasa.

there is a strong emphasis on earth science. the budget includes $1.5 billion. all that we need to go in order to get ready to go there. there is also within the astro physics budget request $680 million for cosmic origins. remember the astro physics appropriation also supports the hubble space telescope celebrating its 20th anniversary space and also the building of the james webb telescope. we look at how the sun's solar flares affect our lives. we note how important that is because solar flares could take down our power grid and all that we need to know about, early warnings and information is

there. as i said, the president retires the shuttle and we want to work with the committee and all in florida connected to the shuttle for an honorable retirement. let's go directly to the area of human spaceflight. the area of controversy is huge. nasa requests $2.4 billion for exploreation. it is below the 2010 level by $1.4 billion. that is big. the budget -- canceled the constellation program. the president in going to florida elaborated and some say clarified that we're not canceling -- he is not recommending the cancellation of constellation but restructuring. this is very, very, very keen interest to this committee. constellation was to be a way to go to the moon and to mars.

a vehicle made up of ares, the rocket. the cargo vehicle made up of ares number five and also the moon lander. let me just say what my position is. i need to know more and that is the purpose of this hearing and if we need to have more we're going to do it. congress needs to know more. we owe it to the american people. we owe it to the taxpayers and to the astronauts to be very clear about what we're going to do and how are we going to do it? i need to know more details. i want to know if this is the program that the congress and the american people are going to support from one administration to next. we cannot reinvent nasa every four years. every new president can't have a new nasa agenda. that's the purpose of today's hearing. we're here to get the facts. it is not about finger pointing.

it is about pinpointing. i have been in contact with the leaders in the space field including their colleague senator shelby as well as bill nelson, our commerce committee authorizer. i outlined a basic set of principles they will guide me in this hearing and guide me as i do the appropriation. first of all, no matter what we do, my number one priority is astronaut safety. we must have a reliable transportation system to protect our astronauts during launch, mission, execution and re-entry and i want to be sure that we're applying the same safety standards for deep space exploreation as we will for orbit work. we want to be sure that the astronauts when they suit up know that we care for them and want to protect them. second, we need a destination. nasa has been a mission-driven agency since its creation.

having a clear direction and a clear destination tend to keep us focused on what we need to do and the budget in which we need to adhere to and the involvement of our international partners. i would hope that whatever we do focus on the fact that we do need a balanced space program that includes human exploreation, a' reliable and safe transportation system for both low orbit and deep space. robust science to explore and save our universe and aeronautics research to keep our country competitive. the key purpose of space exploreation must always include science. we also need a plan for whatever we decide for workforce transition. retirement to have space shuttle is anticipated to proceed as

planned. this causes job dislocation anyway. we don't want to be dismissal of that. we have to be mindful of that. this is really a big transition. then if we're going to cancel or restructure consolation it causes major dislocation in a variety of states, all of whom i know will articulate their concerns. we also need to protect the taxpayer. this new plan has significant issues with contract termination. so that we need to be sure that we're not paying for closing down one -- are we going to be paying down one set of contracts to close them out and paying out to start new. i'm very puzzled about how we are going to do it.

so we look forward to hearing where we're going to go. how we're going to get there. how we're going to protect the astronauts and the taxpayer. we have a lot of questions as we launch this hearing. i would like to now turn to my colleague, senator shelby. >> thank you, madam chairman for having this critical hearing for examining the administration's continually changing plans for the future of human spaceflight. the president's new plan like the old one shows they still do not understand the issues at stake. while they may have realized the initial budget request was a failure, the new plan from the same team still ends this country's human flight space program. your plan does nothing but continue the -- of america's

leadership in space. the president's own commission highlighted what we all believe. that our human spaceflight program must be worthy of a great nation. i read nasa's budget and read it to be anything but great. the president's plan ensures the united states will be subservient to and rely on other countries for our access to space. future generation also learn how to chinese, the russians and the indians took space exploreation away from the united states. this request i believe beapeds our country's own -- abandons our country's only chance to be the leaders in space. it is a plan where taxpayer subsidies subsidizes billionaires to build rockets and hope one day it will allow our millionaires and astronauts

to travel into space. the administration claims if we build up this commercial rocket industry the private sector market will magically materialize to produce more expendable launches at an earlier cost. what nasa and this administration have failed to disclose close to the u.s. taxpayer is that nasa has no verifyable data to support their claim. the head of the policy, as well as you plrks administrator, have testified that nasa did not conduct independent market research to show this launch market even exist. let me repeat that, the white house adviser tified there was no research or verification on the viability of the approach to the market to sustain america's space future. instead this administration is relying on the information provided by the very people who

stand to receive billions in taxpayer subsidies or to promote their own proven product. the primary source they can cite is the 2002 fmp ulon study that has proven to be overly optimistic. it predicted 33 commercial passenger would have flown between 2002 and 2010. today eight space tourist have gone beyond suborbital space. thomas young testified before congress that the air force in 1990's tried to commercialize their space program. is the air force then as nasa is proposing now seated those in the program under a contracting approach called total system performance responsibility. tspr required air force project managers to stand back and let

industry have total responsibility in the space system they created for the u.s. government. mr. young stated that the results were devastating and the adverse impact is still with us today. those were his words. this costed the taxpayers billions to correct. also in 1990's commercial companies made significant investments in space launch vehicles based on a commercial market that never materialized to support their vehicles. in the end the government had to keep this commercial launch provider alive with billions of taxpayer dollars. we have made these mistakes before, mr. administrator. albert einstein said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. i believe that is the case here. with this past experience in mind, where are the truly rent independent market analysis of

the booming commercial sector for delivering people to lower earth orbit and back. we should make those public and debate whether taxpayers should carry the cost building space shuttles for millionaires. the taxpayers i believe will be called upon to bailout these programs and their investors. a recurring theme within this administration. there is no evidence that nasa has done any in depth analysis related to the safety concerns of putting humans on a commercial rocket. i remain steadfast in insisting on safety as a priority for the space program. nothing less is acceptable. contrary to nasa's position on safety, the advisory panel whose sole focus is to ensure that

lives are not needlessly lost our space program stated in a 2009 report that no commercial manufacturer is currently human rating requirements qualified despite some claims to the contrary. i find these abrupt changes in opinion to be highly suspect. nasa safety experts agree that current commercial vehicles are untested and unworthy of carrying our most valuable assets, our nation's astronauts.

the aerospace safety advisory panel reaffirmed what has been known for stipe. to beaped ares one without demonstrated capability nor proven superiority is un unequivalent. switching from a temperature stravet well-designed safety opped optimized system, one based on nothing more than unsubstamplinguated claims would seem an poor choice. the inherent safety of that approach must be assessed to ensure it offers a greater degree of safety. a year ago i had some very strong criticism and those criticisms are just as valid today as they were then.

this request represents nothing more than a commercially led faith-based program. today the providers that nasa has contracted with cannot even carry the trash back from the space station. these providers have yet to live up to the promises they have already made to the taxpayer. not a single rocket or ounce of cargo has been launched since we met last year. the president's budget promises to reward those commercial providers with an additional bailout. yet this visionary company's first foray was four years delayed in launching a successful rocket. after three failures.

they flime got the robert. it is the future for nasa. it is two years behind schedule and counting. the president's budget rewards the commercial space industry with an additional $300 million bailout. in the hopes they will actually be able to deliver something some day. given the current record of repeated failure to deliver on their agreements, the continued schedule delays and now the cost overrun, i believe that the president canceled the wrong rocket program. this plan lacks vision and is unrealistic and jeopardizes our entire human space exploration program. it has maligned the hard work by our own engineers. congress has the responsibility,

i believe to those who you are planning to put in the unemployment line. something your leadership team dismisses as mere collateral damage. however we don't see it that way. they are those who have been maintaining the leadership and heritage of 50 years of spaceflight. the jobs that have been promised to be created will not materialize before the pink slips arrive. given the way they have been treated so far this year, i can hardly blame them. your destructive actions toward the constellation program will only ensure that members cannot trust you. mr. administrator, you are creating an atmosphere where you and your leadership team have become a major impediment i believe to moving forward. nasa will never be the same.

today nasa is immediately associated with success in spite of the insurment -- insurmountable of the odds. if this proposal is the best we can do as a nation then we do not deserve i believe the rich heritage that previous generations sacrificed for to make the country's space program what it is, great. it will devastate any goals that the united states has in exploring beyond orbit. the president's announcement of these new plans last week merely replace one visionless plan with another. it is clear that the administration and you, mr. administrator do not believe that human leadership and american spaceflight is a priority worth fighting for.

no matter how much praise you conduct, hope is not a strategy. it is penning our hopes for success on unproven commercial companies. thank you. >> senator hatch? >> thank you. it is a privilege for me to be with you. i would ask that my full statement be placed in the record. >> without objection. >> i'm puzzled by the administration's requests. >> senator hatch, is the microphone on? >> yeah, it is on. senator feinstein always says i have to quit mumbling.

i've got to speak louder, i'm afraid. this program calls for the end of constellation. our nation could capitulate our position as leader in spagse space exploreation. let me be clear. project constellation is canceled our nation will not be able to travel beyond low-earth orbit. this is ironic considering the president's and senator boldin's recent statements. on the fair, the president has spoken of choosing a heavy-lift system by 2015, yet in a time of greatly diminished financial resources we can't afford to throw away the $10 billion and

then spend billions more to research and develop new heavy-lift technologies. the other heavy-lift technologies contemplated may or may not match the capabilities of solid rocket i believe armstrong and sernin said it best. if we follow the administration's plan we will have lost the many years required to rate the equivalent of what will be discarded. this was echoed by the safety advisory panel which in 2009 stated to abandon ares one as a baseline vehicle without temperature illustrated capability or proven superiority is unwise and probably not cost-effective. in order, an alternative will take years of additional time and cost billions of dollars

more. some argue that project constellation is a troubled endeavor. the truth is to the contrary. we witnessed the launch of the ares rocket from the kept space center in a stunning and successful test. ares five is using the technologies used in ares one. in the end, there will overall savings using this comprehensive approach versus the piece male approach by the administration. together it provides our nation and astronauts with the most reliable and dependable system. ares is a safe system. nothing else comes close. the 2005 nasa exploration systems architecture study in which administrator boldin was a

member, conclude it is 10 times safer than current space shuttle. the safety advisory panel stated the ability of any current design to close the gap is speck lavet. the pam also concluded switching from a demonstrated well-designed safety -- the panel also concluded switching from a well designed safety -- this underscores the proposal relies on ute ligse private businesses as the means to transport our astronauts to the space station. these new start-ups don't have experience in carrying humans or even cargo into space. in addition even under these corporation's most optimistic proposals their systems will not be able to travel beyond

low-earth orbit. some would argue that project constellation is simply too expensive. this is not the case. the proposed plan actually increases nasa's budget by more than $6 billion over the next five fiscal years. in the plans associated with it, it will cost the taxpayer an additional $2.5 billion because of contractal obligations. they never developed a low-earth system, where -- or a heavy-lifting system to explore deeper into the cosmos one can hype of the size lengthy delays. when the inevitable delays and cost overruns occur, these private enter surprises will turn to the government --

enterprises are request different returns. stuzzies have shown for every -- studies have shown for every dollar invested $7 has been returned to the economy for new technologies and industries. congress must also consider the next us between the ares system to develop future strategic deterrent programs. the ares rockets, use solid rocket motors. our nation will surely complete the modernizeation of the fleet. since the early 1990's nasa has served as the backbone prospriding stability to offset the inconsistent production requirements. therefore the termination of ares would triple the solid rocket motor industrial base and could push it beyond recovery for this and future generations. let me just say again, madam

chairwoman and all of the other senators on this illustrious committee. i have much more in my original statement but i just want to get some of these ideas across. >> thank you, very much, senator hatch. your support of science is well known within the institution. we have worked well together on the f.d.a.. we were happy to have you. i know also i'm devoted to the fact that senator garn, another man of utah once chaired this subcommittee. he was a great friend and a mentor to me when i got started. i want to say he would also like to submit a testimony for someone i would be enthusiastic about welcoming his -- look

forward to welcoming him. thank you. he will want to do that. >> and i would welcome that and any conversations with him. >> you have been great and i really appreciate it. thank you so much. >> i'm going to call up administrator bolden to present the administration's testimony. administrator bolden is also general bolden who served in the marine corps. a marine helicopter pilot who went on to be an astronaut in the astronaut hall of fame so we look forward to his testimony. i want to remind member nass we have a two tier hearing. we will also hear from john frost of the aerospace advisory committee and i know that committee's deep commitment.

i understand you have a time challenge. i would like for r for administrator bolden to present his testimony and then let's see how we can accommodate everyone. >> thank you for the opportunity to discuss the president's fiscal year 2011 budget request for nasa. i'm incredibly grateful for the support and guidance of this subcommittee and i look forward to working with you on consideration for the president's bold new plans for the agency. he said i'm 100% committed to the mission of nasa and its future because broadening our capabilities in space will continue to serve our society in ways we can scarcely imagine because exploration will once more inspire wonder in a new generation, sparking passions and launching careers.

if we fail to press forward, we're -- our future. many have asked what is the destination for human spaceflight beyond lower orbit under the president's plan? as the president made clear last thursday, the efforts will include crude test flights of vehicles for human exploration, a human mission to an asteroid by 2025 and a human mission to orbit mars and return safely to earth by the 2030's. we will use them to help define many of the goals of our emerging technology and development. le it will allow us to map out a realistic path to this destination.

it will inspire schoolchildren as it inspired me many years ago growing up in california watching buck rodgers go to mars with ease each week. budget includes an increase of $276 million over the 2010 level. long-term i'm pleased the bum commits to an in-- budget commits to an increase over the next five years compared with last year's plan. all of us at nasa appreciate the president making nasa such a high priority. as we celebrate the 40th anniversary of earth day today, i want no to know that the proposed budgets robust program of science and research, either observation from space produces the critical data we need to understand our changing planet.

at the same time we will continue our robust efforts to observe the rest of the universe through missions like the hubble telescope and the dynamics observatory. with the president's new vision, the nasa budget will invest much more heavily on technology, research and development than recent nasa budgets. this will foster new tech logical approaches standard and capabilities that are critical to a next generation of spaceflights. these investments will produce additional opportunities for the u.s. industry and spare new business such as the recently announced partnership between nasa and general motors to build a new robot. i want to thank all of the nasa employees and contractors who have worked so hard on the program. their commitment has brought great value to the agency and to

our nation and they will continue to play a pivotal role in nasa's future. many of the things nasa has learned from the constellation program will be critical as the agency moves forward. especially as we restructure the orion project, increment test flight missions at lower orbit. the spaceflight program is on an unsustainable tra squeaktry. -- trajectory. terminating support of the international space station early and reducing our science aeronautics efforts. it enables us to present a 2011 budget that includes a flag ship technology demonstration and development program that allows us with our government programs and other government entities to demonstrate critical

technologies and close loop life support systems. support development and test launch vehicles sooner than projected for the constellation program. as the president committed, no later than 2015. robotic precursor missions in support of future human exploration. missions to the moon, mars and its moons. further cargo capabilities in concert with our international partners extension of the utilization of the international space station to 2020 and beyond. pursuit of cross-cutting space technology led us to the office of the chieftologist spawn

game-changing innovations to make space travel for affordable and sustainable. it will enable nasa to substantially accelerate and expand its earth science capabilities including a replacement for the orbitting carbon observatory. aeronautics, including the air transportation system, greena united nation and safe integration -- green aviation msm the pilot program to inspire middle school students and better equip their teachers for improved class performance. we understand that many concerns are being expleasanted about this budget but i believe it is the right vision for nasa. i look forward to this continued discussion with you and your authorizors how we might discuss them. i acknowledge -- i apologize and

ask for your continued patience as we finalize the details in this historic change in nasa's direction. americans and people worldwide have turned to nasa for inspiration. our work gives people to imagine what is barely possible. we get to turn their dreams into achievements. this budget gives nasa a road map to more historic achieve identicals as it spurs innovation and employees americans in exciting jobs. madam chair, thank you again for your support and that of this subcommittee. i would be pleased to respond to any questions from you or other members. >> thank you very much, administrator bolden. i'm going to ask a few questions and then we will turn to senator bennett and then our regular order and go straight on down.

does that sound like a good way to go? administrator bolden, i have many questions. in fact, i have 13 pages of questions. my original questions were going to focus on space science as well as human exploration. i think we have to get right to the human exploration aspect. my number one concern, while we always have to look at the budget, is the safety of the astronauts. many members of the committee have been to launches but we have also been there when the challenger went down, with the terrible tragedy of the columbia. whatever course of action, we don't want to forget. my question will be the safety standards. will nasa have -- first of all, how will you ensure the safety of the astronauts in this new proposed program? and will nasa have one safety

standards for human in space, not one for government-developed programs that are very tough and another for commercial companies? one commercial company said they could produce a vehicle in three years. well, that sounds promising. it also sounds ambitious. my look at the history books shows that the shuttle took 12 years from when president nixon approved it to the first human test from 1969 to 1981. again, tell me about the safety standards and are we going to have one set of safety standards for orbit and commercial vehicles and so on, because it would be my hope that there is one safety standard. >> madam chair, as has been pointed out already by several speakers, i was a member of the nasa safety advisory panel that now advises me. when i was a member of that

panel as john frost who'll testify after me will comment, we are concerned nasa was not sharing its human rating requirements along with the commercial vendors. i hope mr. frost will attest to the fact that since i have become the nasa administrator, we -- whether they are large or small business, entrepreneurial or not, we are developing a set of human rating requirements for commercial veebs that will take the mass -- vehicles that will take the massive numbers of engineering requirements and put them in one source document that will be available for all who wish to enter the commercial launch market. in terms of safety, safety and reliability are very interesting factors and when we -- when i talk about safety of a vehicle and satisfying myself that a vehicle is safe, there are a number of criteria that have to be met. the number one criteria is

demonstrated liability. i would point out that we have three candidate vehicles at the time. the demonstrated reliability of all three vehicles is zero. we have never flown an ares one or a falcon 9 or a towers 2. the safety of all of these vehicles and their reliability they are equal. all zero. i was always point out when we flew the space shuttle, when came to nasa in 1980, the predictability of and reliability factors, i think was going to be 1 in 1,000 and we were going to fly 50 flights a year. i think we had a banner year in which we flew nine space shuttle missions, i think. that was an incredible year for us. the demonstrated reliability for the space shuttle today is one in 25 or somewhere in that

neighborhood. so i would caution anyone to get carried away with predicted safety and predicted reliability? s because we all know as we say in the military no plan survives crossing the line of departure. i'm very comfortable. i can guarantee before i put a human being in any vehicle whether it is government-produced or commercial-produced it will meet the standards. there will be one safety standard for any vehicle. >> thank you for that. i would like to ask a contract termination question. because if you're -- if this is what you want -- if this is what the president is proposing, how do you intend to handle contract termination. the workforce dislocation, but for obviously, i know others

will be asking questions about safety. >> yes, ma'am. >> but what is your plan for the contractors who'll be forced to terminate your work if this proposal is accepted and are you planning to terminate all constellation contracts? technology is one thing but this has tremendous implications for our budget. >> we're in the middle of transitioning the constellation program from where it was when i inherited it to where it is going to be in the future. the term termination liability is one that has caused a lot of angst recently and it is because it is a term that is used in procurement and it is a factor in all of nasa contracts. every nasa contract has a stipulation that the contractor should provide for termination expenses and every contractor

knows that. so we are not changing requirements. we are not modifying requirements. those have existed in prior nasa contracts and they exist in our contracts today. >> i'm puzzled by this. how do you square -- you have been reminding contractors of their obligation to have reserve funds. how does that square with the provision that prevents you fra terminating restructuring contracts for this fiscal year? >> i cannot terminate anything that has to do with the constellation program and we are doing that. we are not informing contractors that they have to maintain reserver funds. we are reminding them that it is their responsibility to look at -- to determine i guess technically for them, it is to determine what level of risk the company is willing to accept in terms of being able to handle a termination if it should come. we are not telling them thai

that they need to reserve funds. they do have to be aware of the fact that termination liabilities, some of them lie on them by their contract. it is the company's determination what level of risk they want to incur. whether they put aside funds or determine they are not going to need them. >> i want to ask more about this. i want to make sure other members have a chance. senator bennett? >> thank you very much, madam chairman. i very much appreciate your courtesy in allowing me to participate in this. general bolden. i'm a businessman. if i were sitting on the board of directors and you were making this pitch to the board of directors as to direction you are going to take the company, i would tell you you haven't made the sale. let me give you four areas where i think you have failed to make the sale. by the way, madam chairman, i

have a formal statement i would appreciate it being put in the record. the four areas that i think you haven't made the sale are number one, the science. number two, protecting the industrial base. number three, the money. and number four, the law. let me run through those very quickly and then you can respond to them as you will. you made a statement just now that i find incredible. when you say the demonstrated reliability of ares is zero. now, you have probably seen this but let me show it to you. "time" just six months ago in november 2009 published the 50 best inventions of the year and number one of the 50 is ares. the best invention of the year.

doesn't sound like shabby science to me. doesn't sound like something that is obsolete. they say you can contradict this. they talk about this, i'ming from "time" in 2004 the u.s. committed itself to sending astronauts back to the moon and later to mars and for that you need something new and nifty for them to fly. the answer is the ares one which had its first unmanned flight on october 28 and dazzled even the skeptics. that doesn't sound like there is no demonstration of reliability. i think there is a definition problem here. none of the other things you talked about here can match the tested perfection of ares with the test that has already been done. so i challenge that one. number two, the industrial base. you said the president will make a decision as to what will be done by 2015. if you kill the industrial base of solid rocket motors now with

this action in 2015, you cannot get it back. this is not like -- it is not saying well, we're going to stop buying this kind of car and we'll look at buying another kind of car or pickup truck or s.u.v. four or five years from now and there is an industrial base that will have those cars and troubles available to us. this is only the game in town. when you shut down the industrial base of rockets, solid rocket motors and there will be no contractors available in 2015 if you make the decision that's the way you want to go. and i think that is a very significant issue you have to address. now, money. number three. you have not made the case that this is going to save money. let me point out two particular things. with respect to money. on the -- senator shelby has

referred to this already. the fiscal 11 budget includes $2 billion on termination costs. $6 billion for new commercial providers and we don't really know who they are. they will likely suffer the normal cost and schedule growth that has been refered to in the opening statements already. so you got the $2.5 billion and the uncertainty of where you're going and a much more responsible use of taxpayer dollars being used to combine $8.8 billion that is represented in your budget to finish the program that has had five years worth of progress and accomplishments and is defined to deliver a safer and more reliable way to send our astronauts to orbit than something we are just guessing about. i think the prudent financial

circumstance is to stay with what we've got instead of plunging into the unknown and looking at -- looking at construction costs, i would like you to address what i find a significant gap in your money calculations. you stated in congressional testimony that the ares program to fly would cost. $4 billion a year. doug cook, the associate administrator recently stated in testimony that the recurring cost for ares is $14 million per flight. you have to have a lot of flights at $140 million to get to the $4 billion per year. i find that a disturbing kind of thing you need to explain. finally, the law. this committee, congress, in the

fiscal 2010 appropriations bill expressley prohibited using any 2010 funds to terminate or in any way change or modify the constellation program. just yesterday, a.d.k. received a notice that funds for their contract will be limit and no additional funds will be forth come after april 30, 2010. that's week away. it seems to me this is a clear violation of the law that says no money will be used -- no funs will be used in any way -- funds lsh used in any way to modify program for 2010. 2010 has not run out yet. i think your conclusion on science runs afoul of the experience of what we have found with the testing of ares. yming the threat to the

industrial base -- i think the threat to the industrial base casts doubt upon your ability to do something in 2015 if the president decides or whatever president it is decides they want to go back to solid rocket motors, they won't be able to. i think your numbers on the money don't add up and i think what is being done now is a countervention of the law. i appreciate your answers >> thank you, senator. i'll try and go down the line. first of all the science. with all due respect, we're very proud of being recognized as the number one invention of the year by a number of different publications. perhaps we were not good at explaining ares 1 x is not ares. it had a dummy fifth segment and a dummy interstage and a dummy nose cap. the ares one vehicle is a

five-segmented solid robert motor that has never flown. we are very proud of ares 1 x and its recognition for what it did. it gave us 700 pieces of data from crens ofs that were put on the vehicle. i told people it was the greatest wind tunnel test conducted by humans ever but that was not ares 1. that was ares 1-ex that we wanted to do a number of things. the science does -- >> in the interest of time we're not going to have a debate and if you could also -- we appreciate the extensive data but if you could answer the question because there are several other members and i would like to keep a well-paced hearing. >> yes, ma'am. the money -- there is a big difference between the per flight cost and the recurring cost. most of the recurring cost from

shuttle would be just maintaining the infrastructure. that is the reason that the money difference is. the law, we have not terminated any contracts or directed anyone to stop work on anything and if you were talking about the launch abort system test that is still scheduled for may. i may be misunderstanding your comment but the launch abort system test is still scheduled for may 5 and we are very much looking forward to seing that because again we'll get a lot of data from that test and the industrial base, unfortunately the rocket industry has been overcapitalized for many, many years. it was far overcapitalized for shuttle because we said we were going to fly 50 missions a year and that's what it was set up to service. we ended up flying eight missions a year. it was overcapitalized for shuttle. it would have been grossly overcapitalized for conkslation.

the business decision that theeds to be made by the only company that is in that industry now is how do i -- constellation. there is a big difference between what nasa uses in solid rocket motors. we use large, segments solid rocket motors. there is no other use for that type of solid rocket motor. we are carrying 70% of the industry for a capability that nobody uses but nasa. i am concerned about the industrial base and we're doing everything we can to work with our counterparts in d.o.d. to work with a.t.k. to help them in any way we can because we still need solid rocket motors. >> we need really shorter -- i need good answers. >> i'm done. >> he asked about the law. >> i said, ma'am, we have not violated the 2010 appropriations act and the stipulations in that. i have not terminated any

contracts nor directed people not to go forward with, you know, to my knowledge. >> i know you have many more questions. i must turn to other members. i want to ask the administrator to submit other questions in writing, to leave them open for the record so that there will be an extensive record on these deliberations and proceed that way. is that satisfactory? >> absolutely, madam chairman. i very much appreciate your courtesy and apologize for my enthusiasm and desire to engage get hold of me. >> we've got a lot of people that want to talk and ask questions. let's turn to senator shelby, the ranking member. >> thank you, madam chairman. i have two articles. one appeared in on tuesday in

toronto regarding the space program. and one appeared in florida today. i would like to ask that that be made part of the record. >> without objection. >> i would like to quote just a little from first tuesday's globe about the obama plan. this plan, basically they say and i paraphrase u.s. president barack obama has lowered the ambition of america. under the obama plan space is not the final frontier. earth is. that's part of the article. under the florida today article april 16. it say it is obama doesn't get it. space is the last frontier. president obama in effect pulled the plug on our space program in a speech here thursday. talking about in florida. although he masked it with some vague long-term suggest.