is that the choice of nuclear is an individual choice of individual member states. there is no opposition, no obligation, or no other requirement. it is a choice. the majority of our member states have said yes to nuclear energy. we have 14 member states using nuclear energy. one-third of the electricity generation in europe comes from nuclear. european nuclear industry is a world leader in terms of technology but also in terms of safety and security. nuclear is a key element of our energy mix. it contributes to three areas of

policy -- security of supply, lowering our dependence on fuels, competitiveness of our economy, and the contribution to fight climate change. as the secretary of -- guess secretary poneman said, this is an important component of our strategy for our goals as far as climate changes concern. -- change is concerned. it is an individual state of member states. it is of collective concern.

it is a collective responsibility. that explains why since the very beginning of the european union process, back in 1957, nuclear energy was at the heart of the european project. together with a treaty of rome that set up the european communities, we created and ratified a treaty on nuclear energy. exactly because issues of nuclear energy, even if they are and remain a matter of national choice, it has implications for the wider economic space for the european union. there is a responsibility that is put upon the european

institutions to guarantee a number of aspects linked to nuclear energy. we're proud to say we have the most advanced legal framework, setting the highest standards on safety, security, but also non proliferation. i would like to underline that this is what we have today. this is what we have been developing since the late 1950's. this is not something we're doing after fukushima or even after chernobyl. after chernobyl, we have fine tuned, but the basic elements of our safety apparatus are there. a word about the public debate.

as we know, nuclear energy has benefited from the attention of public opinion in the last decade. the debate is sometimes intense. sometimes it is lively. but it is always there. we believe it is important the public opinion debates about this -- energy. if you look at europe, sometimes they are more favorable to nuclear. sometimes they are less favorable. i would say as an observer that before fukushima we were on the upward trend in term of nuclear energy's role and public image. fukushima raised legitimate concerns. in the united states, and

europe, we wanted to help japan deal with this major accident. we cooperated as much as we could. we are still doing so on helping the japanese authorities. it also triggered more intense public debate in the european union. it has also left some of our member states to make some decisions. particular the case of germany but also the case of italy. it also triggered political action at the highest level. the issue has been discussed by heads of state and our energy ministers.

we have decided to launch a major review of our safety situation. as i was saying earlier, these operations start tomorrow. the first of june, we will launch what is commonly known as a stress test of our nuclear installations. we will go over 1143 nuclear plants throughout the european union. -- 143 nuclear plants throughout the european union. including airplane crashes, and terrorist attacks. we will look at the whole set of evens that can affect the safety of our nuclear installations. it will be done in cooperation between european commission,

which has a responsibility to ensure implementation of the year rosellen -- eurozone regulations. they have great criteria. the tests will start tomorrow. it will be a three step process is to explain how serious we take it. the first one is a pre assessment by the operators. they will reply to a long questionnaire which has been established by the commission and the regulators. they will have to provide documents, studies, all documentation that will answer this question in. the second step is that all of this will be analyzed and reviewed by the national

regulator. to assess the extent of the seriousness of the operator's reply to this process. the third stage, which is an important one, is the peer review. multinational teams composed of the european commission and representatives of regulators from other countries will review. allowing the possibility for on- site inspections by those authorities. we expect the process to last for the next few months until the end of the year. then they will produce reports and recommendations at the highest flow of heads and state

and government. i would like to stress the importance of this operation. a major review of our safety, not because we don't trust where we are, but because we want to be sure that we are on the right track, that we can reassure our public opinion about where our nuclear industry is. my last point is to say that we cannot stop when we hit the borders of the european union. chernobyl and fukushima have proven that an accident here is an accident everywhere. we would like to see the strain -- the strengthening of rules that an international level. we believe atomic energy are the right framework

to do this. we look forward to participating on the meeting in vienna later in the month of june. as a conclusion, keeping loyal to the theme of the seminar, after fukushima, the european union is learning lessons of what we have learned, is cooperating with international partners, we are showing no complacency with save your security matters. we believe this is the best way to reassure public opinion and to allow nuclear energy to play the role it should play in addressing all the issues i referred to earlier. in doing so, the european union will continue to respect the

national decisions of its member states on whether or not to continue to invest further in the nuclear industry. discussion about nuclear is an important one. a cool-headed one. based on facts and get rational approaches but respecting concerns that may occur, especially after an accident like fukushima. [applause] >> i would like to welcome to the podium the ambassador of france. few countries have invested as much reliance on nuclear power as france. they have been able to produce among the safest reactors and the most versatile in the world.

>> ambassadors, ladies and gentlemen, i am delighted to join you here today for this conference. i presented my credentials to president obama three months ago. it is an honor to be back in this great country and to see familiar and friendly faces and representatives from the edf. two french companies among the world's leaders in the nuclear energy. i would like to paint -- thank the general and ambassador for the invitation and warm welcome.

i would like to express to our japanese friends sympathy for the tragedy. the hundreds of thousands of displaced persons and the residents of the region who lost everything, their families, their homes, and their livelihood. we know japan will overcome this tragedy. i would like to convey two messages to you today. the first is that france strongly believes in the future of nuclear energy as a key component of the global energy mix. secondly, fukushima is a strong reminder, nuclear safety and security must be the number-one

priority for any sustainable and nuclear energy policy. let me remind you of the basic tenants of my country's and a clear policy. -- nuclear policy. in 1973, after the first oil shock, our government launched an ambitious nuclear program that gradually erase the share of electricity produced by nuclear power to more than 75% today. with 58 nuclear reactors throughout the country. this program was retained

overtime, was implemented by other policy initiatives, promoting sustainable development. they involved both the recycling of nuclear materials and waste management. moreover, nuclear energy reduces our greenhouse gas emissions. it is also a key environmental assets. . this decision was the results of a de matt -- democratic process involving every aspect of society, the state, the government, local communities, industries, the public, through

a process that assesses the risks and benefits of that policy. in 2005, our policy or notations confirmed the role of nuclear energy in the future energy mix with three key objectives -- energy independence, security of supply, environmental protection, and economic competitiveness. by establishing the legal framework for the construction of the first, it open the way to long term nuclear facilities based on the decisions that will be taken by the safety.

at the european level, i will not be too long on this, despite differing national vision's on the means of production to implement in the future, france helped to develop common objectives in 2008 for the energy climate package. at international level, france promotes nuclear energy as well as components of -- we have long worked with certain countries, particularly the united states, our partner, with which we have developed ties of cooperation in research, security, and industrial partnerships in particular. a me also mention -- let me also mention the trusting relations

between safety authorities which gave birth to the multilateral partnership. beyond these important partnerships, our president wants to give new momentum to helping countries that want to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes provided these countries adhere to the strictest safety standards. the respect of international treaties, and nonproliferation. for us, this is one of the keys to strengthening international nuclear non-proliferation regime. france supports these countries

through preliminary and part -- preparatory states including train, and the -- training and other safety measures. this was underscored at a meeting held in paris in march of last year. the favorable prospects that existed not so long ago threat the world for the development of nuclear energy were stymied by the fukushima nuclear accident. france immediately expressed its support and offered its assistance to japan. it offered emergency aid and personal goods.

and through the aiea, -- edf is very active. we are taking part in operations on the ground with the current installation of the waste processing plant that should be operational within -- in the coming days. it is vital to show solidarity in such situations. our nuclear operators must know they can count on immediate international support given the need to move fast and rely on all available expertise and means of intervention around the globe. immediately after the fukushima accident, the prime minister of

france requested the french safety authority conduct a review of our 58 reactors in light of the accident and its lessons. in a spirit of openness and transparency to the public. they focused on risk such as those encountered in japan but also on the operational investment of the emerging -- emergency situations. operators must submit an initial report which will be reviewed by our safety authority in november. on the european level, france supported the principle of stress test to be carried out on all nuclear plants operated were scheduled to be bill.

the european council adopted this position shortly after the fukushima accidents. now what about the medium term agenda to strengthen global nuclear safety? during his visit to japan, a president reaffirmed his confidence in nuclear energy. the confidence goes hand-in- hand with the need to ensure the safety of nuclear facilities. the president recalled our resolve to promote the highest levels of nuclear security throughout the world.

to promote the highest levels of nuclear safety throughout the world. as part of the g-8 presidency, france's active on nuclear issues. the summit just a few days ago provided the opportunity to engage and deliver a message of confidence in nuclear energy for the future along with the heightened demand for safety. france organized to debut meetings -- two meetings this year. france will actively contribute to the conference that will take place in vienna on june 20-24. the objective of this conference

will be to draw the initial lessons of the fukushima accident, initiate an international process to establish a security regime, and strengthen our collective ability ly supports the initiative. it has called for a preliminary safety seminar on june 7, bringing together the members of the g-8 as well as the key countries and -- involved in nuclear energy production. identify consensus elements that a government bubble -- beyond a government level will send a message to organizations involved in the approach.

this key message will be received -- there will me the following day and later again at the conference at the end of june. our goal is to ensure a higher and joint commitment to safety. each national authority must remain a fully independent in its responsibilities. no supranational authority should undermine the responsibility of the country's national safety. in conclusion, let me reiterate our commitment, our strong commitment to nuclear energy not only for our own energy needs, but as part of a global energy mix. the commitment rests upon our

determination to promote the highest safety standards worldwide and the initiatives taken by france referred to earlier highlight this. [applause] >> merci. --a veryt heard bay strong commitment to nuclear energy. that is a great opening for our next speaker. >> thank you for having me in spite of my views. [laughter] thank you for having me. dear colleagues, ladies and

gentleman, i would like to make comments on three questions. i would like to tell you a little bit about germany and nuclear energy before and after fukushima. in the second part, i would like to explain why we made the decision we made yesterday. the third part of my remarks will deal with what we intend to do and how we intend to solve the problems ahead. germany had a love affair with nuclear energy. you probably on the that 73 years ago it was discovered by

people who pay the way to energy. germany was first. the first reaction happened in the united states four years later. when i grew up in the 1950's, nuclear energy had a positive image. there was no other field where the german government would spend it much money. we invested 27 billion german marks, just the government, into research and development of nuclear energy. it was a love affair. it first happened at three mile island. the incident, i do not have to mention it here.

there were repercussions all over the world. nuclear energy was more difficult to push forward to the states. in europe, you had chernobyl. it was much worse than three mile island. after chernobyl, the wind blew from the east. in germany, you had some fallout. you could not drink milk for four weeks. you could not eat venison or vegetables. you still cannot eat certain types of barry's now many years later. everybody felt the impact. immediately after chernobyl, the image of nuclear energy began to change.

by that time, we got 40% of our power from nuclear energy. we had 23 reactors. the share of nuclear energy seemed to increase. it seemed to increase every year. then there was a reversed policy because of what the people thought. it was not a government decision, it was a grass root movement by people all over germany. we began to investigate into alternative renewable energy. it took awhile. we made all the errors you could think of in the first few years. in 2001, we passed a new energy concept that aimed at replacing

nuclear energy overtime for renewable energy. by that time, we had a share of renewable energy that was slightly over 6%. with these new concepts and subsidies and a new kind of care of the gives privilege to renewable energy, we could increase the share of renewable energy from 6% to 17%. we are confident that by 2020, it will be 35%. by 2015, at 80%. -- 2050 80%.

we currently have reduced it already by 23%. we are well inside our promises made at kyoto. we would further like to reduce that until 2015 by 80%. in 2010, there was discussion if nuclear energy should not be needed, to bridge the time until renewable would be in a position to replace it. that all changed after fukushima. the german government yesterday decided that we will shut down all nuclear plants by 2022. we have shut down already eight which will never go back to the grid. we currently have 17 and we will

have nine that will continue to operate until 2021 and 2022. why the change? there was one new reason and three old reasons. the new reason was after fukushima a different risk assessment. we had thought that chernobyl had to do with the kind of reactors you had there. that this was highly unlikely to happen in a country like germany or japan or the united states. but the risk assessment is different. we had to come to the conclusion that there are complicated technologies which

you cannot get under control 100%. nuclear energy is not the only one. there are others like the space shuttle. it is cutting edge technology. it is impossible to say with 100% security, and nothing would ever happen. if something happens, it affects 7, 12, people, but nuclear energy affects 30,000, hundred thousand, 2 million. if the reactor is north of new york, you would have to evacuate 10 million people. what we believe is you have to multiplied the minimum chance

that something can go wrong with the affect it would have on the country. would it affect seven people or half a million, 1 million, 2 million. that is the new reason. there are two -- three older reasons. we are troubled that the problem of storage of waste has not been fully solved. japan again showed there is a problem. you cannot store them at the nuclear facilities. the second reason is we do believe it is not easy to protect the plant against terrorists. related to that is a third reason. knowing that, you have to take extreme precautions.

that drives the cost of nuclear energy tremendously high. in other calculations we did not include these costs in our calculations. those are the four reasons. what is the plan for the future? it is very simple. we leave those seven oldest it clear pellet -- plants off the grid. we of also decided to take another one off the grid. there will not go back to the grid again. we currently produced 22.5% of our power by nuclear. that is the same as the united states. we will reduce that to zero by 2022.

we will have something after we have cut off those eight nuclear reactors. we'll have something like 14% of power production which we can replace by renewable energy. we are confident that we will remain the main exporter of power. germany needs 40 to 80,000 megawatts. it depends on the weather. on a winter night, it is 80,000. currently we have the capacity of 93,000 megawatts without the nuclear power plants which we are supposed to switch off. it will be about 83,000 megawatts.

exporter ofa net electricity. how to replace that. we believe that we can increase the share of renewable, 35% by 2020. 80% by 5050. -- 2050. we have to invest into the grade because when you have energy from wind and solar, as will be the case in the future in germany, about 7% of the electricity comes from wind. 4% from hydro. 1.2 -- then you need a different

grade. -- grid. to transport electricity for more the sun shines and where the wind blows to other parts of the country where you do not have the sun shining and wind blowing. yesterday we decided to spend 1 billion euro every year on the extension of our grid. that is key. that has to follow if you do not want to do these investments. second, we will have to research and investigate into storage. you need storage for the time when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining. you need storage facilities. the easiest way is to pump water uphill. that is limited in germany but we will cooperate with our neighboring countries like switzerland and australia.

-- austria. what i would finally like to say, from our point of view, this is win, win, win. we enhance security. we enhance security in the sense we will need less import of fossil fuels in the future. we will save about $30 billion per year in imports of oil and gas by 2020. the last point is it creates jobs. we are created in those 10 years 370,000 jobs just in the renewable energy sector.

it is the fastest growing sector of the german economy. we are confident that we will be successful in this experiment. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much. hour session was due to end at 10:15. i want to allow time for questions. with the permission of our speakers, i would like to take another 10 or 15 minutes. i also want to thank all of our speakers. he just proved again what a great speaker he is. a crystal clear presentation backed up by specific facts and figures and not a single note. it is very impressive. if i could turn into our audience for questions.

please introduce yourself. a microphone will come to you. here in the fourth row. >> i am from the u.s. department of state. great presentations. two questions, ambassador. from germany. your solar growth is very impressive but the actual production is small. 1.2%. in your portfolio, where do you expect that to grow most within the technologies? your calculation of risk has changed. how do -- this is probably a complicated answer -- how you assess the risk of the more

using coal or fossil fuels purses this dramatic assessment of nuclear risk. >> on the first question, it depends on the time. the makes is currently 7.5% of arles -- of our electricity. 3.2 hydro. hydro will remain the same because we are at the limit. there is no more possibility to go to hydro. in the short run, it will be mostly wind. every month we asked our people, which one would you prefer?

wind is no. 2. solar is the most popular form of energy. wind is no. 2. bio is third because that has some negative aspects. my feeling is we will get wind offshore. it will go up to 20%. then you get solar. solar will meet the price you pay as a household. it has gone down to exactly the same price of electricity and then to germany. -- in germany. seller will -- solar will rise

dramatically. by 2015, most of it will be solar. more than 50% of our energy will come from solar. in the short run, it is wind. on the comparable risk calculations, we do not intend to increase -- we want to reduce the share. we have about 40% just the same as united states. we will reduce that continually. there is the problem of co2 emissions. we're in the process of experimenting. if that should secede -- succeed, if it does not, the jury is still out. we were the first to have a

pilot plan on that. we have so much: germany. it is too early to say. if it works, it is the future. if it does not, you will have coal no longer in the mix. >> here in the front row. >> thank you. i'm from the u.s. department of state. we all agree there is a need for reliable energy sources. we see there are some, but it is difficult to know which possibilities are going to be here. there is one we have not mentioned, fusion. we know that works because we just have to look up at the sun and see the sun or the stars and that is being run by fusion.

the problem is to make use and work on earth, there are two ways of doing that. magnetic or with inertial. i will not go into the details. ambassadors and are concerned about that. the politics are important because we do not know which of those methods is going to work the best. we should be looking into developing both. i know germany is doing things with fusion. france has a major program in fusion. united states as well. in fact, europe has a major interest infusion. none of this is as coordinated as it should be. especially inertial fusion where

france is doing its own thing. united states is doing its own thing. since i'm from the state department, what i'm really talking about is to try to put all this together so that we can do it in a coordinated way and look at the possibility. it takes time to put fusion in place. it is about the same time to bring in these other technologies that you have been mentioning. it is very important to have non-carbon generating sources of energy of which fusion is certainly one. the other advantage of fusion is, if you turn it off, it is completely stopped. there is not a problem of the likes at fukushima or any other

place. it is an inexhaustible supply of energy. there are all those things. however the problem is it costs money. it is necessary for the various countries to put money into it. that is not completely clear where the president has said he wants inexhaustible sources of energy. to get the white house to focus on what's expensive is not so easy. we have a lot of problems to deal with. this was no way of long when the talk but i'm trying to convince you it is important to look at fusion. to use that method in an international forum rather than to do with the way we are doing it now, individually.

i would like to bring that message over to your countries and your ambassadors. >> thank you very much. i take that more is a common than a question but if somebody would like to address it. the me take another question. -- let me take another question. >> tom formerly of the u.s. government, the arms control related to the state department. ambassador, i would like to ask you a brief question. the united arab emirates has been organizing an experiment to run an entire city on renewable, solar and wind. i wonder whether german authorities have looked at that

and draw many conclusions from it if so. >> we believe this can easily be done. last year we had many days when we got all of our electricity from grenoble's in germany. you rarely see the sun. we had about coming from wind, sun, hydro. imagine many days when germany did not need any other energy source for electricity. we believe these things are doable. we have experiments like that ourselves that works extremely well. there are challenges that you have to invest heavily into the grid and storage and all of these other things. i must add that the energy supply of the future will be much more decentralized.

it will be different than that of today. that is the duty of renewable energy. you can produce it where you use it. that is why examples like you mentioned are very important. they show was the energy of the future will be different. the grid has to also be different. that is why we spend this 1 billion euro per year. if you want to make a decision like we just did, you also have to follow the consequences and to the things the investment to reshape the interests are search for energy. this is a huge opportunity. we believe it is the future. it is less dependence on fossil fuels. it is better climate.

win, win, win. >> i work for an inter messin -- informations systems. a question for the ambassador. could you comment on how the decision of germany to withdraw from nuclear power would affect research on nuclear technology in general in terms of funds, reactors, waste, things like that. >> they will have an impact. that is why i mentioned this figure that between 56 and 88, we spent 27 billion marks just on the nuclear research. this does not include the money spent by companies which is

probably even higher. you also have to see that you live in a world where you have to make tough decisions. you cannot have research on everything. in 2001, when we switched to a different energy concept, we made tough decisions. we said this money will go into that research. more money goes into the research of solar, wind, other things. this has implications. they are crystal clear. there will be very little money spent on for the research there. the money will go to other places. that is why we have come to the conclusion you have to make these hard choices. you cannot just say, i continue to do nuclear and do all of the other things too. who pays for it? you have a limited amount of

research money. we spend a little less than 3% of our gdp on research and development. you cannot do that without limits. taxpayers would not be ready to pay it. you have to make these difficult choices. that is what we did yesterday. >> is there one -- yes you. >> my name is thomas. i recently attended a lecture on the future of nuclear power at a respective location and was surprised to hear that resources of uranium may be limited to 50 years. could you discuss the credibility of this opinion?

>> i do not know whether our ambassadors are comfortable enough to answer that. hold on to that question. we're having an expert industry panel later on. i would like to bring up that question there. we will take another one. fourth row. >> this question as off for the ambassador from germany. the marginal electric demand has been met by natural gas in germany. what steps has germany taken to secure adequate supplies of gas from russia or pipelines? >> i am not sure this is correct. we need some gas plants for the moments when you do not have the

wind and sun. no doubt about that. of all the fossil fuels, and gases the most elegant. -- gas is the most elegant because that has less co2. it is not true we use more gas. it is in our power production at 11%. something like that. it will be there because it is nice. you can shut it off within minutes. you can put it on within minutes. that is nice. as i said, in the long run, we want to get away from oil and gas because we want to enhance our security of energy supply. it is not our policy to

increase consumption of gas for electricity production. that is not our intention. >> i would like to ask a final question. the difference between the tip of your presentations from our french and german ambassadors. klaus, you outlined a compelling rationale. not only a decision that is based on the risks of nuclear power but also a way forward which i think is very compelling. that was in contrast from the presentation from the french ambassador which was talking about the commitment to nuclear energy and safety at a national, european, and global level. those would be interesting presentations except your next door to each other. how do you reconcile the

philosophy of germany with the philosophy that france's bringing? if i continue to first, address your perspective, and then we will turn to klaus to wrap up. >> just a quick word to answer your tough question. i am sure klaus will agree. to say that we are so close and have been so close over the years in terms of policy, european integration, does not mean we have to agree on everything. it is clear that on nuclear energy, it is not a new thing. we have a slight [unintelligible] to put it in diplomatic terms.

it is not a problem for our friendship. france's commitment to nuclear energy goes hand-in-hand with our commitment to renewable energies, too. that is one thing in which germany and france have to work closely together and will on solar, wind, we are working very closely together.

any bill to increase the debt limit and is a necessary part of the proelse is. a no vote today is a vote to put us on a path toward exactly what the markets and the american people are demanding. an america that is a strong, reliable and secure financial investment for the future. i urge all my colleagues to vote no on this unconditional increase and, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: mr. speaker, i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. levin: bringing up this bill in this fashion is a employ so egregious the republicans pleaded with washington not to take it seriously and risk our economic recovery. if republicans were being truthful, they'd admit their looking for political cover, but in their doing so, they risk blowing a whole in our nation's economy. they'd acknowledge that the time something an effort to

change the subject, less than a week after their plan to end medicare, they were dealt a major setback by with the voters whose democratic winner will be sworn in tomorrow. . to act in good faith. to solve our nation's fiscal problems, the republicans should focus on the employ, but on the budget notion -- ploy, but on the budget notions. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: at this time i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield to a member

of our committee, a minute and a half. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and 30 seconds. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker. we better not forget how we got here in the first place. the president, when he raised his hand in january of 2009 inherited a $10.6 trillion debt. let us not forget history. i know this is like a kabuke dance today. you are not only not sincere about this but this is all process. the american people, the folks in my district are not interested in process, they are interested in results. what are the results? how does this help the guy or gal on main street? that's what we should be talking about. this bill we know is going to fail. you already told your wall street friends, don't worry about it, don't take it serious. it's just like a reality show. the republicans have warned their wall street friends and as

"the wall street journal" said today, they're in on this, quote-unquote, joke. but as in poker, they're not all in. alexander hamilton founded my city of patterson, new jersey, understood that good credit is integral to being a world power. it is by no means a joke. failure to act will have immediate and dire consequences. now, the world is not going to collapse this afternoon or tomorrow when this thing goes down, this legislation goes down in a few hours. the majority is willing to risk all that is in order to play political games, to force their failed economic policies. it didn't work in the last 0 years, it's not going to work -- 10 years, it's not going to work now. mr. speaker, this is serious business. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr.

levin, reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: i reserve at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i now yield a minute and a half to another member of the ways and means committee, mr. blumenauer of oregon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon voiced for a minute and a half. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. there's no more important agenda item currently phasing congress -- facing congress than ensuring america pays its bills and honors its obligation. the accumulated choices of congresses and administrations past and present have created the debt and the need to honor the obligations. like an unfunded war with in iraq that's going to cost trillions of dollars or an unfunded medicare prescription drug program from our republican friends. we're not going to default on our debt. with over 100 of my colleagues, i signed a letter calling for a kleenex tension and offering to

work with the republican leadership so they wouldn't be held hostage to the most extreme members of their part -- party in order to push through draconian proposals that had no chance of being passed which would unsettle the markets and do damage to things that americans care about. like the reckless proposal for medicaid. and additional tax cuts that are unaffordable. unfortunately the republican leadership decided not to treat this seriously. they're bringing a bill to the floor, they're not supporting it, they've put it on the suspension calendar so it had no chance of passing --age and -- passage and they think somehow this is constructive. well with, it's not. mr. speaker, it's time for us to be serious, to avoid taking legislative hostages, maybe the chamber with of commerce thinks that wall street is in on the joke that is represented by their legislative employ here

today but i'm not certain that the american public is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. blumenauer: it is time to stop the games. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i yield myself such time as i may consume. and i would just say during the eight years of the bush administration the debt limit was raised seven times for a total of 5 -- $5.365 trillion. according to the c.b.o., the congressional budget office, the nonpartisan c.b.o., the score of president obama's f.y. 2012 budget, the debt limit will have to be raised a total of $35.38 trillion during the four years he's president. that means that president obama will have raise the debt limit at twice the pace that president bush did. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i'll take 10 seconds. i think, mr. camp, s&p 500 did

not down grade the threatened, let's be accurate. i now yield a minute and a half to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, mr. rangel. mr. rangel: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. rangel: i think for those of us who are members of congress or within the beltway understand that this is a political things that's going on during one of the most serious financial times that our nation is facing. i only wonder whether or not our friends and creditors abroad or those that respect the united states and even try to follow our fiscal ways are they i -- thinking that this is the strongest country in the entire world. but for them to follow what we are doing, it is an embarrassment to the house as well as the senate, that the president of the united states of america would ask that our

country be safe from a fiscal point of view by allowing the traditional increase in the debt ceiling. notwithstanding the political differences we had, we come together as a nation, not to play games on each other for political reasons, but we come together as a symbol for the free world with to understand that if it's the united states of america, you can depend on us. but now on the suspension calendar, which is an insult to those people who study the constitution in the house of representatives, which is reserved for noncontroversial controversial issues, when the whole world knows that this is controversial but is certainly not the subject that should be on a calendar called a suspension calendar, so we still have some time to rehabilitate ourselves. i don't know how much more ridiculous we can get. but i do hope that we avoid --

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: i yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the chairman of the trade subcommittee, mr. brady from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. brady, is recognized for two minutes. mr. brady: mr. speaker, mr. speaker, members, america is undergoing a terribly subpar recovery, one of the worst we've seen, three times worse than the economic recovery under president reagan, a worse recovery than even what president obama promised us when he spent all those hundreds of billions of dollars of stimulus money. we have $13 -- 13 million americans out of work, our unemployment rate sky high and it's only -- the only reason it's come down a little is we have fewer people working in the work force than we've had for a quart of a toer a of a century -- for a quarter of a century.

one of the strongest signals we can send to consumers and families and businesses to restore their confidence is make sure we understand america is going to get its financial house in order. republicans in congress are going to send a statement today that america will get its house in order. this vote today basically says we are not going to grant the president unconditional increase in how much america can borrow, here is a good reason why. we took a look at who ran up the debt for america over the years. this chart shows and we basically said, who controls the purse strings? congress. we take a look at all the debt that's been incurred since world war ii and what it shows is that the debt held by the public, that's by people, by countries like china, like firms in the federal reserve board, 90% of the debt that's been run up since world war ii has been accrued by a democrat, 10% by a republican. that doesn't leave us as republicans off the hook. in fact, we're committed to

lowering this debt and getting control of spending, but there is a special obligation by our democrat friends and the president to get this spending under control, to put discipline on the side of government, to restore some financial soundness , to in effect cut up the credit cards, that's what republicans are committed to do, that's what americans say we need to do as a nation, that's why a no vote on this unconditional debt increase is the right vote, not just for the country, but for our future. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back his time. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: how much time is on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, has 14 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, has 13 minutes. mr. levin: we have 14 1/2 minutes?

the speaker pro tempore: correct. len levin i yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland, the ranking member on the budget committee, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minute. mr. van hollen: i thank my colleague and, ladies and gentlemen, this is a political stunt. i just heard our friend from texas on the republican side say republicans wanted to tear up the credit card. it was just a few weeks ago when the republican budget passed this house all but four republicans voted for it. let me show you what that did to our credit card. here we are. we are about $14 trillion in debt. the budget, all but four republicans voted for, takes us up toward $23 trillion, $24 trillion in debt. $8 trillion increase in the national debt by passing the republican budget. so clearly this isn't about tearing up the credit card. what is this about? this is about threatening to

default on the full faith and credit of the united states unless we put into place the republican budget, including their plan to end the medicare guarantee and to slash medicare benefits. that's what this is all about. they said, whoa, we're going to hold this whole thing up until we get our way. let me tell you what their way would do to seniors, and we've seen it before on the floor of the house. what it means is that seniors will be paying thousands and thousands of dollars more for medicare or getting their benefits slashed beginning in 2002 and it gets worse and worse and worse so that by the year 2030 you're talking about seniors having to pay $12,000 more for their medicare because the support they're getting is going down while the costs in the private market, which the republican plan forces them to go into, go up and up and up. so while the cost they face go up and up and up, the help they

get under medicare goes down, down, down and they're left holding the bill. what's been interesting the last couple weeks in connection with this debt ceiling debate is to hear these republican proposals to say, hey, don't worry about it. you know what? we'll pay china. we'll pay our overseas foreign creditors on their bonds. we'll take care of them, but guess what, we don't have to pay our full faith and credit and our obligations to america's seniors. we don't have to pay medicare. we don't have to pay social security, pay off the bondholders, take care of them. but let's follow through on this plan to dess apate, decimate medicare. at the end of the day this is what it's all about. we all understand we have to get the debt under control. we're having negotiations with the vice president to have a balanced plan. but you're trying to force the republican plan, which newt

impinge rich acknowledged the other day was a right-wing piece of social engineering until, of course, he was bludgeoned by the right wing to withdrawal his statement. he was calling the shots as it was. he said, you know what, this isn't such a good idea. and what's really outrageous about this charade is you are now threatening the entire u.s. economy in order to get your way on a radical right-wing medicare plan that's bad for american seniors. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: at this time i yield a minute and a half to a distinguished member from the ways and means committee, the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. black. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized for a minute and a half. mrs. black: thank you, mr. speaker. i came to washington because i knew we had a debt problem. but you know what, once i got here and i started getting all the facts, i realized that we didn't have a debt problem. we have a debt crisis.

we are $14.2 trillion in debt, and you know what, that number is even hard to comprehend it's so large. over and over we hear from economists, both conservative and liberal, that we have less than five years to turn things around or the united states will sink under all this debt. we've seen what happened in greece and ireland and i reject that future for the united states. the time is now to fix this because we're out of time and we have an opportunity to change for the good the way washington is spending. but it doesn't seem the other end of pennsylvania avenue thinks we node to change anything. they are happy to keep kicking the can down the road, but you know what, the road has run out. in fact, the administration and over 100 democrats in this congress want a straight up and down vote on the debt ceiling.

well, that's what we're going to get today. and when this measure to raise the nation's debt limit fails, on the house floor tonight we will be sending the white house a message loud and clear, you will not get another blake check from us, mr. -- blank check from us, mr. president. that's why because i and 87 freshmen colleagues were sent to washington with strict orders, to change the spending cycle that is bringing our country down. and tonight the people back home will see -- mr. camp: yield an additional 30 second. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from tennessee has an additional 30 seconds. mrs. black: and we are acting for them. the american people will reject the ideal to reject a clean vote and so will the house tonight. enough is enough. the gig is up, mr. president. so now is the time to get serious. get serious about ending this debt, get serious about ending washington spending addiction, and get serious about getting this country back on track.

i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back her time. members are advised to address their remarks to the chair and not each other. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: how much time is left, please? the speaker pro tempore: both sides have 11 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. levin: i now yield to a member of our leadership and to a member of ways and means committee, mr. becerra, a minute and a half. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. becerra: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, the last thing we need right now is for our republican colleagues to play russian roulette with a recovering economy by threatening to default on america's bills and triggering an escalation of interest rates and mortgage rates that will have repercussions on every single american family and certainly on every sector of

our economy. yet, that's what we have today. republicans have presented a bill that they have said they are going to vote against. so this whole charade, which is costing taxpayers money because we have to pay for the lights, for the printing, for all the members of congress and our staff who are working, we have to pay for this so we could simply send a message that we are going to vote no. "the new york times" further tells us today that republican leaders have, quote, privately assured wall street executives that this vote is a show. furthermore, they cite that an executive from the u.s. chamber of commerce tells us that, quote, wall street is in on the joke. the reality is that wh our colleagues on the republican side are trying to do is furiously try to deflect the public's attention from what they recklessly tried to do to medicare, by ending it, because that is in their proposal, in their budget.

they are doing everything they can to try to get people to stop focusing on the fact that seniors are being asked to pay for this debt by getting less when it comes to medicare and certainly every single american as they age into seniority as well. mr. speaker, every family in america has to balance its checkbook. they have to do so responsibly. they have to pay the mortgage and pay their credit card bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. becerra: congress should do the same and this is not the time to play jokes. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: before i yield to the gentleman from new mexico, i would just yield myself such time as i may consume and say that the medicare trustees have said that medicare goes broke in 2024. and so if you support an unconditional debt limit increase, as 100 democrats wrote to their leaders and ask

be made a position of the democrat caucus, that does nothing about preserving and protecting medicare for the future. so i would say -- no, i will not yield. i will not yield. i control the time, mr. van hollen. and so i would say that by supporting an unconditional increase in the debt limit, as more than 100 wrote in to their leaders, again, it does nothing to preserve for the future. at this time i yield to the gentleman from new mexico one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pearce, is recognized for one minute. mr. pearce: i thank the gentleman for yielding. in my district people ask, what is this vote about, this debt ceiling vote? so i've created a simple chart that says it as plainly as we can. we're spending $3.5 trillion in the country each year and we're bringing in $.2 trillion. it doesn't work for your pamly. it doesn't work for your business, and the not working for the country. in order to make up the difference we have to borrow that money, except that our

bankers are saying no more, just as your bankers are saying no more. so we're printing the money to make this system work. it's a scheme that's not working. this chart in the upper right-hand corner says that the whole economy collapses about 2038. so o.m.b. and c.b.o. are saying that we must take care of the spending problem that we have in this country. that's what the debt ceiling is about. we have a law that says we can't borrow within a certain amount of money. if we just extend with know provisions with reform then we'll continue to spend this much money every year we don't have. so let's take care of the problems. let's do structural reforms in the way we're spending our money, let's do structural reforms in our budget. let's get it under control so we don't give our kids a failed economy. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: it's now my pleasure to yield a minute and a half to a member of our committee, mr.

neal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute and a half. mr. neal: he said, let me tell you what this is about. i came from a memorial. 278 veterans. i represent a veterans hospital. that's what this vote is about. the gentlelady from tennessee, i wish she was here on january 20 of 2001 when that political party spent their day and night saying, yes, mr. president, to george bush. they went along with everything he said. they never even bothered to read article 1 of the constitution. this vote is about one and one thing only. paying your bills. they ran up the debt and now they don't want to pay their bills. january 19, 2001, bill clinton said goodbye to the country. a $5.7 trillion surplus onhand. $2.3 trillion in tax cuts, a war in iraq over weapons of

mass destruction, a drug prescription benefit called part d, and they're talking about who owes the bill. this is about responsibility. this is about those v.a. centers. this is about their men's and women in iraq that needs to be equipped with the best possible weaponry. this is about paying the credit card bill that has come in for what they did for all of those years. i would debate any member of the republican party, you choose the forum. in the house and the senate. and we'll go through what those eight years were about. count me in. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: well, thank you. i'm certainly concerned about the last eight years but i'm more concerned about the last two. i think we have the third year in a row of trillion-dollar deficit. i'd like to introduce in the

record the standard & poor's report on the united states debt. and quote from that report. and without objection. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. camp: because, and i quote, a very large budget deficit and rising government indebtedness in the past to addressing these is not clear. we've revised our outlook on the long-term rating from negative to stable, end quote. the path to addressing these is not clear. . we think it's essential we don't have an increase, that we have the structural reforms we so desperately need in this country. we have 110 members of the other party wrote a letter saying we want an unconditional increase in the debt. just keep spending. don't bring any spending reductions or long-term reforms, keep going the way we've been going. ed is and poors says if we don't -- standard & poor's says if we don't address this issue -- what does it mean?

it means buying a car or house is more expensive. certainly our ability to sell our bonds around the world will be very difficult to do and make that much more expensive. a downgrade in our debt limit would have the same impact as not increasing the debt limit at all, financial markets would be disrupted, borrowing costs would skyrocket, the dollar would plunge, driving up the costs of imports like gasoline and causing higher inflation and would wreak havoc on our economy. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, reserves, the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself five seconds. mr. camp, you were the ones that said just keep spending. we don't say that. i now yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett, is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. doggett: today's vote represents just one more step in the republican effort to dismantle medicare. this condrived procedure demanding an extraordinary 2/3 vote right after the republican

majority announces they won't vote for it is just a gimmick. you don't have to be much of a math whiz to know if you don't have half the votes in this body you probably are not going to get 2/3 of the vote. but it's not about the vote. it's about republicans who are withholding their support of an eventual necessary increase in the limit by demanding that any agreement on that include a weakening of medicare by imposing something like the ryan republican medicare voucher plan that they all voted for, or some other scheme to just let medicare wither on the vine. republicans are willing to jeopardize the full faith and credit of the united states of america, exposing us to great potential economic harm. they think the president will once again yield to their ransom, as he did last december, by yielding on more tax breaks for billionaires. don't yield to this maneuver, mr. president, say no to gimmicks and say yes to

medicare, one of the best programs ever initiated by this congress to assure a little retirement security. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the chair would remind all members to address their remarks to the chair and not to the other party in the second person. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. we're not talking about what the other side would contend as a joke. this is a serious issue and rise in opposition to an increase in the debt sealing that would give the president another couple trillion to keep spending the way they have the last two years. mr. scalise: i think the americans realize that wild spending spree the president has been on the last two years has to come to an end and will have to come on the house floor where we'll invoke fiscal discipline.

the other members want a clean vote and want another $2 trillion to keep spending, money we don't have. in fact, if you look at their plan, their plan not only will double the national debt in five years, which i guess they're ok with, but also allows medicare to go corrupt -- bankrupt. we're not going to sit by and let medicare go bankrupt or let them keep spending money we don't have. we're going to say enough is enough. we'll put spending controls in place and frankly would be irresponsible to increase the debt ceiling without reforms that actually start cutting spending and putting our country back on a path to a balanced budget. now, there may be some on the other side who don't want to see us get to a balanced budget which is why they dramatically increased spending over the last four years up until when speaker pelosi was fired. but frankly, the american people said enough is enough, stop the spending binge. enough of giving the president this uncontrolled use of the american credit card. let's start reigning in spending. let's put those controls in place. let's get this country back on

a path of fiscal sanity so we don't have groups like s&p saying they'll downgrade the bond rating of the united states. and maybe the gentleman on the other side might want to and during your time you'll have an opportunity to address that. >> i'd like to ask you a question. mr. scalise: we need to start installing fiscal discipline in this house and we're doing it now and it means no more blank checked and no more unbridled spending. the president will have an opportunity to join us in that debate but frankly it starts tonight and we're saying we're not going to keep giving the credit limit. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. levin: it's now my pleasure to yield to the whip, mr. hoyer from maryland, three minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the

gentleman for yielding, unfortunately, this is a serious issue on which serious time has not been allotted because you put this on suspension. this is a serious issue. our country is in crisis from a fiscal standpoint. i wanted the gentleman to yield because i don't think he has any idea what the facts are. 89% increase in the debt under ronald reagan. he could have vetoed every one of those bills. under george bush, 115% increase in the debt. under bill clinton, less than 40%. ladies and gentlemen, this issue is an important issue that is being treated not as an adult. this is not the adult moment of which speaker boehner spoke. and you didn't mention that the budget you voted for, i presume, i'm not sure, increased the debt by $1.9 trillion between now and october 1 of this year. ladies and gentlemen, this is

not an honest debate. this is not an honest proposal. this is a serious issue. tarp is a serious issue and the american public didn't want to see it passed. and if not we would have gone in depression. who said that, george bush and benefit bernanke, the appointed head of the federal reserve. it was a tough vote. what do we do for america? we came together, republicans and democrats. more democrats supporting the president's request than his own party, to save america from depression. we need to deal with this issue, ladies and gentlemen of america, seriously. not in 20-minute debates on each side. not as a simplistic suggestion that somehow president obama caused this. $1.3 trillion in wars we haven't paid for, a drug prescription bill we haven't paid for, tax cuts that your

party voted for, not mine, that we didn't pay for. should we have tax cuts? that's fine. but we ought to pay for them, not have my great grandson who was just born a week ago pay for it. that's what you're doing. ladies and gentlemen, i'm going to vote no on this. we ought to vote for this. we ought to have a clean bill. and we ought to have both sides coming together and saying america needs this for debts that we have incurred. what i tell town meetings is like you go to macy's and take out your credit card and charge $200 worth of goods and then you go home that night, your husband or your wife and you sit down and say look, we've got too much debt, we need to have a debt limit, put a $100 debt limit on us and then macy's sends you a bill and you send back a letter and say no, i have a debt limit, $100. so you send them a check for $100 and they send back a letter saying hey, no more credit, and guess what, we're

suing you. this debt limit extension is for what we have already incurred. this debt limit extension vote is about whether or not we're going to pay our bills. but i will tell you this, we'll see who votes for paying our bills. mr. levin: i yield another 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for another 30 seconds. mr. hoyer: i want to see how many of your folks say yes, we need to pay our bills. america, we need to be a good debtor as well as a good creditor. we'll see how many of your folks vote. i've got just a sneaky suspension -- suspicion it won't be very many if any. it's a good demagogue vote, ladies and gentlemen. and if we vote for it, guess what? you're for raising the debt limit without any fiscal discipline. well, when we were in charge, when the president of the united states wouldn't let you do some of the things you wanted to do, bill clinton was there to veto things, we had a surplus for four years in a row

and we didn't increase the debt limit once. under george bush we increased it seven times. i yield back the balance of my time and urge a no vote on this irresponsible piece of legislation that should have been handled. >> real order, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, reserves, the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. 114 members of the other party signed a letter to the leader who just spoke and asked for an unconditional increase in the debt limit. i know that's not maybe a fact they want to acknowledge now, but it is so important that we have a clear path for it on given what the rating agencies are saying about our debt. they're saying it's not clear how we're going to deal with our indebtedness. it's so important that we set forward that when we address this issue, there is going to be the kind of spending reductions and structural reforms we need. that is going to have to be

part of this discussion. we can't continue to have it clouded with this idea that we might have a debt limit increase without any of those. that's why it is so important to send this very strong signal today. i hope all of the members of your party join me in voting no on this bill. and at this time i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from michigan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the gentleman for yielding me this moment to address the american people and the students who may be watching are in the gallery. once again you see the problem we have in washington. we cannot have a fact-based conversation with the american people which they desperately want. i talk to a lot of students back at home and i say, how many of you will have a summer job? a lot of them raise their hands and say, ok, we'll say you'll make $220 a week, they've got a problem. they take your credit card and

say you're going to spend $370 a week. how long do you think you can do that as you're saving for college or that car or piece of computer equipment? can you do that all summer? the kid is looking at me says of course not, don't be dumb. you can't do that. then i say you know what, add 10 zeros to that and that's exactly what we're doing in the united states house of congress, what we've been doing repeatedly, both sides of the aisle with both administrations. it doesn't matter. we've got to get it under control. mr. huizenga: when you add those two zeros like my friend from new mexico was talking about, we take in $2.2 trillion a year and spend $3.7 trillion a year. it's time to tear up that credit card, mr. speaker. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: how much time is there from our minimum 20 minutes? how much time do we have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, has 3 1/2 minutes.

mr. levin: i yield to -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, has 4 1/2 minutes. mr. levin: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: at this time i yield two minutes to the distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from north dakota. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> mr. speaker, every time i talk to north dakotans, washington is on an unsustainable path and it needs changed. out of control spending is unacceptable. mr. berg: our rising debt is unacceptable. and allowing this debt to grow without reform is unacceptable. this country borrows $4 billion a day. fixing this mess will require

real reforms. it requires a serious, honest conversation about where this country stands today and how we want to leave this country for the next generation. it's irresponsible to leave our children with a nation that has a mountain of debt. it's unacceptable to increase our debt without making any attempt to reduce it. we cannot expect to do the same thing -- we cannot do the same thing over and over and expect different results. i've heard the north dakota people. and i will not support any debt limit increase that does not contain significant cuts and budgetary reforms. it's time to stop the reckless spending. it's time to reduce the size of government. it's time to enact policies that will put america back on track. thank you and i yield the

remainder of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north dakota yields back the remainder of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from vermont, mr. walsh. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. wal -- one, we must pay our bills. whether those were incurred for wars, whether it's for a prescription drug program that you were for or against, bail incurred. an obligation incurred is an obligation that must be paid. that is the fundamental responsibility that i acknowledge as the citizen that i acknowledge as an american,

that i acknowledge as a congressman. this question of a long-term deficit reduction plan, we need it. you are right. we understand that. where is it? you have the opportunity in this legislation to present your plan that will get us on a glide path to fiscal balance. it's not here. suggesting either you don't have a plan or the plan you've wanted -- present does not have the support of the american people. we are playing russian roulette with a loaded gun in the american economy, and the deficit clock is ticking. this requires a substantial response. the approach taken, a suspension vote trivializes our short-term obligation to pay our bills and a long-term obligation to have a long-term deficit reduction plan. this bill being sponsored by folks who were against what they propose and then making phone calls to wall street saying they were for is washington business as usual

that people are tired of and not solving our problems. the default clock is ticking. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan, in levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i want to be sure of the time. we have two minutes, do we have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has two minutes. mr. levin: and the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, has three minutes. mr. levin: i'd ask mr. camp, do you have other speakers? mr. camp: not at this time. mr. levin: i now yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, if the treasury had a dollar for every time someone says they want to cut the deficit we wouldn't have one. so let's stop talking about

cutting the deficit and talk about how we can cut the deficit. let's let medicare negotiate the price of prescription drugs rather than pay whatever the drug companies demand and save $300 billion over 10 years. let's stop occupying iraq and afghanistan and paying their bills to the tune of $110 billion a year and bring the troops home. let's stop giving $80 billion in tax breaks to the oil companies that made record profits last year. let's require people making over $1 million a year to pay just a little bit more to help reduce this problem. and let's have sensible reductions in other departments of government. this is not a time for us to provide cover to a political party. it's a time for us to cover the obligations to our seniors, not by abolishing medicare but by improving it, to cover obligations to our veterans and

cover obligations to the country. we will come back in a couple weeks and do what we should be doing tonight which is to raise the debt ceiling and protect our country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: mr. speaker, i have no further speakers. i will just reserve and close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. levin: thank you, mr. camp. you are going to close. i now yield a final minute to our leader who will close on our behalf, ms. pelosi from the great state of california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. pelosi: thank you for your compliment to our great state of california. thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, when i first heard that this legislation was coming to the floor i anticipated with some positive thought of, yes, this is the right thing to do. america must pay its bills.

we know how to do that. we want to go forward assuring the american people that when we decide not to default on our debt that we are showing our strength even though it may be difficult for people to support that. then, i heard that it was going to come up like this on sunday. they said it would be up on tuesday. the bill is predicated on a false premise. it says the congress signs that the president's budget proposed, budget of the united states government, fiscal year 2012, necessitates an increase in the staffary debt of $2.4 trillion. -- staff wear debt of $.4 trillion. that's not the case. the bill never passed the house and never passed the united states senate. what passed was a republican budget which gives tax breaks to big oip, sending jobs overseas, weakens the middle

class and does not create jobs and in fact increases the deficit by $1.9 trillion. $1.9 trillion increases the deficit. so what are we doing here today in what are we doing? the republicans have introduced a bill which have now resoundingly said they will oppose. where is the good faith effort here? we are, i believe, in good faith effort, house and senate, democrats and republicans, with vice president biden, to find ways to make sure we don't find ourselves in this situation again. as a mother and grandmother i have absolutely no attention of passing any bills, personal or official, onto my children or grandchildren. and let me say the democrats know how to clean up the debt. we've had to do it before. the reagan-bush debt that president clinton inherited, it was a massive debt and because we took the vote for the

economic plan and -- in 1993. we were on a path to fiscal soundness. the last four years of the clinton administration was in balance or in surplus. i believe the democratic whip, mr. hoyer, addressed these numbers earlier. i associate myself with his remarks and his passion on this subject. coming into the bush years, president clinton put us on a path of $5.6 trillion, a trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus. one of the biggest turnarounds in fiscal -- the fiscal situation in our country happened under president bush. so all this talk about deficits and their immorality and the rest, i agree. but where was everybody when president bush was giving tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country which did not create jobs, was giving away money to the pharmaceutical industry at the cost -- a

tremendous cost to the deficit and not paying for the wars? again, we place our men and women in uniform in harm's way. they make us the home of the brave, the land of the free. we want them to have what they need. they want us to pay for it. we owe them an obligation to build a future worthy of their sacrifice, and that future does not contain unlimited growing debt. unlimited growing debt. never before in the history of our country have we lowered taxes for the rich while we were at war. this is an all-time first. so here we are. we inherit this debt of the bush administration. that's why we're in the situation we're in. so as our colleagues try to characterize this as we're raising the debt limit so there can be more spending, no, we're not. we're avoiding default of the massive debt created during the bush administration. that's why we're here. so to predicate this legislation, which i really -- coming out of last week thought

something i would support. i'm incumbered legislation so we will pay our bills and not be a death beat nation. instead, -- and not be a deadbeat nation. instead they predicate it on a false premise. the facts is these -- the republican budget did -- they just want to change the subject to medicare. they just want to change the subject to medicare. let's drop this the first day from memorial day. the facts are these -- in their budget, they abolish medicare. not only that, they make prescription drugs more expensive for seniors. they eliminate prevention services for seniors which make them healthier and lower costs to us. they do all of this while also,

where their children are concerned -- cutting education for their children, making college more expensive for nearly 10 million young adults. all of this, a travesty in terms of the hopes and aspirations of middle-class, low-income families in our country. and then to add insult to that injury, they come in here with a bill that they have to bring up immediately so they can oppose it. well, even the chamber of commerce said we're all in on the joke. but it just isn't that funny if you're a struggling family in america who are struggling to keep your job, your home, try to send your child to college, have some confidence about your economic security. if you're a senior and you depend on medicare, to have it

abolished hurts your economic as well as your health security. so this is about priorities. a budget should be a statement of our national values. what is important to us as a country, the education of our children, the respect of the dignified retirement for our seniors, job creation that we have a moral obligation to create jobs so we can have jobs for our workers and they can have their better future as well as make our country more competitive. reducing the deficit. we've done it once, the democrats did. we can do it again. hopefully in a bipartisan way under the auspices that have been created for this purpose. we're right in the middle of it. we come in and say, ok, let's introduce a bill based on a false premise and then let's all oppose it. well, i'm glad you're opposing it because you're voting a false premise in this bill. but let's get serious. let's get serious about this. the american people are crying out for help.

do you know that the tax cuts on which this deficit has grown, the tax cuts of the wealthy, did not create jobs? they increased the deficit. they did not create jobs. more jobs were created in the second year of the obama administration in the private sector than in the eight years of the bush administration. so this talk that tax cuts or the high end are going to create jobs, it just didn't happen. so we want to talk about the past. we want to know what we're going to do in the future, but it's important to learn from the past so we don't do it again so we're not in this situation again. so as i said, the thought of an unincurvered, if that would be the -- unincumbered, if that would be the bill before us, this bill isn't right and i'm glad that hopefully will have a big, strong vote against it. i want to commend my colleague,

congressman welsh. he was -- in his letter, he did not demand anything. he's saying, let's get together and talk about how we can have a clean debt limit bill. why don't we follow his lead on that and get together and see how we can do this in a way that's clean and/or at the same time has a plan, a bipartisan plan to reduce the deficit so that we can do just that as we increase jobs and strengthen the middle class? that -- thank you, mr. welsh, for your leadership in that regard. i know it has been mischaracterized here, but i salute you for your leadership on that score. so, my colleagues, you vote the way you vote. but the fact is that what's happening on the floor is not serious. it's not serious. but the subject it addresses is serious. it's time for this congress of the united states to get

serious about debt reduction, job creation and to stop this assault on medicare which is the basis for this legislation today. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california, the minority leader, yields back her time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. camp: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on h.r. 1954. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. camp: mr. speaker, last february when the president submitted his budget for 2012 he did not provide any plan for reining in deficits and debt. and the administration called for a clean increase in the debt limit or an increase in the debt limit that had -- that was unconditional, that had no spending reductions or

structural reforms to troy to address the problems we face. -- to atry to address the problems we face. and to increase the debt limit of about $2.4 trillion. 104 democrats have asked for an unconditional vote on the debt limit. and i would say that my colleagues on the other side have been very reminiscent about the bush years and i would just say that in four years the debt under the obama administration will exceed the bush administration in eight years. another way of putting it, the debt under this president is going up at twice the rate as it did under president bush. . i would just say it's important we send a clear signal, that there will not be an unconditional increase in the debt limit and we're serious about dressing our debt limits in the country and we've seen

the signals from the financial markets and heard what our constituents have said and it's very important we bring the kind of spending reductions and reforms that we need to this debate. ntntntntntntntntntntntntntntntn

electric grid from cyber attacks and other attacks. >> national security and of course our national economic interests. cyber security threats and vulnerabilities to the electric grid have increased in recent years and were the subject of several hearings in the 110th and 111th congresses. there is evidence that bad

actors have conducted cyber probes of u.s. grid systems and that cyber attacks have been conductanned against critical electric infrastructure in other countries. this past february a cyber attack dubbed knight dragon which is believed to have emanated from are china targeted th integral energy and petro chemical companies in the u.s. the knight dragon attack was not overly sophisticated but was successful in breaching the computer systems of key assets. this example is one of several and is really the tip of the iceberg and illustrates that we must be more vigilant in securing the nation's critical energy infrastructure, including the electric grid. beyond potential cyber attacks, the bulk power system remains exposed to physical vulnerabilitys and threats including direct terrorist

attacks, weapons that can create an electromagnetic pulse, and geomagnetic storms. federal and state agencies and industry stakeholders have sought to address many of these concerns. in particular, through an extensive stakeholder process, the north american electric reliability corporation pursuant to its authority under section 215 of the federal power act has worked over the last several years to develop and implement reliability standards and to address grid security v vulnerabilities in a timely manner. to address the shortcomings, the committee recently released a discussion draft entitled "the grid reliability and infrastructure defense act" or the grid act. the bill is identical to bipartisan legislation developed by this committee last congress by chairman upton and mr. markey.

the grid act provides the federal energy regulatory commission with emergency authority to respond to imminent physical and cyber threats to the bulk power system and electric infrastrture that rves facilities vital to our national defense. this emergency authority can be triggered only upon a directive from the president. the discuson draft also provides ferc with authority to identify and remedy weaknesses that leave the grid vult eshlt to attacks and events. notably, this legislation also directs ferc to develop regulations to facilitate the sharinof information as appropriate between government agencies, nerc and owners and operators of the bulk power system. doing so will improve communication among effective

sta holder stakeholders which will will result in we hope a more secure grid. although the draft is identical to last year's bill, we expect that input from today's witnesses and insight provided by those witnesses will help us improve the bill to reflect current conditions and any change ed circumstances. i know, for example, that congressman franks has introduced legislation that is i believe more narrowly focused than this broader approach, and we look forward to his testimony to explain his views on this area because he has spent a great deal of time on it, as has congressman langovin. so i want to thank the witnesses in advance for being with us today. i will introduce them a little bit later, but at this time i would like to yield for the purposes of an opening statement to mr. rush, the rankin member. >> i want to thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you to all the distinguished guests for

being here today. mr. chairman, today we are holding a hearing on the grid reliability and infrastructure defense act or the grid act for short. this bipartisan piece of legislation is identical to the bill that was favorably reported out of the committee u man nusly last year d went on to pass the house by a voice vote before getting stalled in the senate. mr. chairman, this bill represents the type of legislation that advances the curity interests of all americans and shows what can be accomplished when we choose to work together in a bipartisan manner. so i appreciate you conducting this hearing today, mr. chairman, and i hope and expect that we will move this bill with the same type of cooperation and collaboration that we experienced last session

as this legislation moves through the committee. mr. chairman, the u.s. electric grid consists of interconnected transmission lines and local distribution systems that deliver electricity to our holm homes, schools, offices, generation facilities and related communication system. the intricate design of the grid makes all of our components highly interdependent so that problems in one location can lead to a number of reliability concerns in other areas. in today's highly digitized world, the operational controls over the transmission grid at generators are increasingly managed by computer systems.

such as the supervisory control and data acquisition or scada systems, which are linked to other systems as well as to each other. this rely arability on two-way communication emphasizes the grid's vulnerability to remote cyber attacks. the increased use of advanced metering systems and other smart grid capabilities leaves our electric grid even more open for attack. mr. chairman, this bill will amend the federal power act to add a new section, section 2015a, which will give the federal energy regulatory commission, ferc, new authorities to protect the electric grid om cyber

attacks, as well as from other threats, including those caused from geomagnetic storms created by solar activity. initially, this bill will provide ferc with the authority to issue emergency orders to protect against a grid security threat whether by malicious act, a geomagnetic storm, or by targeted physical attack. if the president notifies the commission that such a threat exists. mr. chairman, we are all aware of the constant potential threats that our nation faces, whether by countries such as china and russia, who have already conducted cyber probes of the u.s. grid system, or by

terrorist organizations looking for ways to -- our capabilities. cyber attacks can cause untold harm to our nation's grid and it can be done from faraway locations at very, very low cost and with low ability to trace the source of these threats. so it is imperative that we provide those agencies that are responsible for protecting us, protecting our nation's grid, protecting all americans with all the tools, all the authority and all the resources that they need to keep us safe. so, mr. chairman, i applaud you for holding this very important hearing today. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses and our experts on this critical issue. with that, i yield back all of the time which i have, which is one second. >> thank you for being so

generous, once again, mr. rush. at this time, i recognize the ranking member of the full committee, mr. waxman, for the purposes of an opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. today the subcommittee examines the grid reliability infrastructure defense act. this legislation is as bipartisan as they come. this legislation was born out of a bipartisan realization that our electric grid simply isn't adequately protected from a range of potential threats and the current process for addressing vulnerabilities in the electric grid is not sufficient in an emergency situation where the grid faces an imminent threat. the federal energy regulatory commission currently lacks authority to require the necessary protective measures. there are also an evergrowing number of grid security vulnerabilities. these are are weaknesseses in the grid that could be exploited by criminals, terrorists, or other countries to damage o

electric grid. these same weaknesses even make the grid vulnerable to naturally occurring geomagnetic storms. during the last congress, chairman upton, ed markey, joe barton and i developed the grid act on a bipartisan basis, the majority of minority staffs had extensive discussions with interested stakeholders and agencies. we worked with many members to answer their questions, addrs their concerns and consider their constructive suggestions. this cooperative process produced strong bipartisan legislation. on april 15, 2010, the committee favoray reported the bill by a unanimous vote of 47-0. on june 9, it 2010, the grid act passed the house by voice vote on the suspension calendar. unfortunately, the grid act did not become law in the last congress. i commend the chairman for taking up the grid act for consideration in this congress, this bipartisan legislation will provide ferc with the

authorities it needs to address imminent threats to electric grid with temporary emergency orders. it also directs the commission to address longer term grid vulnerabilities with standards wrinlt or approved by the commission. in addition, the bill includes provisions that focus specifically on the portions of the grid that serve facilities critical to the defense of the u.s. and the bill is budget neutral. these are important national security and gridz reliability issues. in the last congress we heard from the defense department and former defense secretaries, national security advisers and cia directors. they all told us that the changes made by this bill are critical to our national security. i look forward to hearing from today's witnesses, although we're likely to hear some industry argue against providing ferc authority to address the serious threats, we worked across the aisle in the last congress to develop workable

legislation. i hope today marks the beginning of a similar process in this congress. the grid act is simply too important it to allow special interests to weaken its effectiveness. the committee needs to act to prott the nation's electric grid from cyber attacks, direct physical attacks, electromagnetic pulses, and solar storms. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. terry, would you like to make an option statement? >> today we have three panels of witnesses, and on the first panel we have two members of congress, the honorable trent franks of arizona, and mr. jim langovin of rhode island. we appreate both of you being here very much, and mr. franks i'll recognize you for a five-minute option statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good afternoon to you, sir, and to chairman -- to ranking members rush and waxman and the rest of the fellow members on the committee. i believe the subject of today's hearing is one of profound

implication and importance. consequently, i hope the members will feel inclined to read my written testimony. i ank you again for allowing me to testify he today. mr. chairman, in our technological advancement we've captured the electron and transported its utility into almost every business, home and industrial endeavor tlohroughou the industrialized world. we've grown profoundly dependent on electricity and incute ramentes. we find among our greatest strengths an unsettling vulnerability to enp. the effects of geomagnetic storms are well documented with nearly every space weather and emp expert recognizing the collapses these pulses can bring to electric grids. in 2008, the emp commission testified before the armed services committee of which i will a member that the u.s.

society and economy are so critically dependent upon the availability of electricity that significant collapse of the grid precipitated by a major natural or manmade emp event could result in catastrophic civilian casualties. this conclusion is echoed by separate reports recently compiled by the dod, dhs, doe and national academyof sciences along with various other agencies and researchers. all of them, mr. chairman, came to very similar conclusions. the sobering reality is that this vulnerability, if left unaddressed, could have grave societal altering consequences. like many of you, i believe federal regulation could should be very limited. however, our first national priority is national security. and to protect our national security, we must protect our major transformers from cascading destruction. to that end, i've introduced the shield act, which differs primarily from your discussion dlast in three areas.

unlike the grid act, which i commend this committee deeply for passing last year, the shield act thoriz ferc to promulgate standards necessary to protect our elecicity infrastructure against both natural and manmade electromagnetic pulse events if the standards developed by the ero are inadequate to protect national security. the shield act additionally requires automated hardware-based solutions rather than procedural and operational safety measures one. and the shield act does not contain sign other security provisionseaving the confliing approaches to that extremely important issue among the members of the senate in particularo be debated in a separate bill. automated hardware, mr. chairman, is picularly important when one considers the shortcomings of procedural and operional safety measures alone in response to an emp event. according to solar weather experts, there is only 20 to 30 minutes warning from the time we

predict a solar storm that may effect us to the time it actually does. this is simply not enough time to implement procedures that will adequately protect the grid. furthermore, these predictions are only accurate one out of three times. this places a crushing dilemma on industry who must decide whether or not to heed the warning with the knowledge that a wrong decision either way could result in the loss of thousands or even millions of lives, and massive legal ramifications beyond expression. mr. chairman and members, we are now 65 years into the nuclear age and the ominous intersection of jihadist terrorism and nuclear oliferation has been relentlessly hurdling toward america and e free world for decades. but when we add the dension of asymmetric electromagnetic pulses to the equation, we face a menaces that may represent the gravest short-term threat to the peaces and security of the human family in the world today. certainly there are those who believe the likelihood of

terrorist or rogue states obtaining nuclear weapons and using them in an emp is remote and may reach a reasonable conclusion in the moment. but in the rece events in the arab spring which our intelligence did not foresee, it shows that regimes can change very quickly. if terrorists or rogue states do acquire nuclear weapons, hardening our electric grid would immediately become a desperate national priority. oufr, that process will take several years an while a regime change only takes a few weeks, a missile launch only takes a few minutes. the fact that we are now 100% vulnerable means thate should start securing our electric infrastructure now. indeed, by reducing our vulnerability we may reduce the likelihood that terrorist or rogue states would attempt such an tack in the first place. thankfully, mr. chairman and members, there is a moment in the life of nearly every problem when it is big enough to be seen by responsible, reasonable people and still small enough to be solved. you and i live in that moment

when there still may be time for the free world to address and mitigate the vulnerability that is natural occurring or weapon si sizeized emp threats. your actions today to protect america may gain you no fame or fan fare in the anals of history. however, it may happen in your lifeti a natural or manmade event so big has an effect so small that none but a few will recognize the disaster that was averted. for the sake of our children and future generations, i pray it happens exactly that way. thank you, and god bless you all. >> thank you, mr. franks. mr. langavei, you're recognized for a five-minute opening statement. >> i'd like to thank you, chairman wit field and ranking member rush and waxman for allowing me to testify on what i believe to be one of the most critical natural security issues facing our country, securing our

electric grid from cyber vulnerabilities, an sue to which i've devoted several years of my time and effort. i wanted to be here with my colleague mr. franks as both a heb of the house armed services committee as well as the house permanent select committee on intelligence i sit at an interesting nexus which gives me broad transparency in the national security challenges that face our nation today. i previously testified on this issue in 2009 after a bill that i drafted with then-home land security chairman benny thompson, which was adopted into chairman markey's grid act, i want to thank the committee for includeding me in this discussion here today. we know there are a number of agentors who seek to do harm to our networks from foreign states to domestic hackers to disgruntled employees. as threat and capability grows, so does the risk to our critical

infrastructure. now, this threat is not new, and in the 110th congress as chairman of the homeland security, i condued a detailed examination of cyber threats to our critical infrastructure. i want to reiterate what i made clear in my previous testimony before this subcommittee. i believe we remain vulnerable to a cyber attack against the electric grid tt could caus severe damage to our critical infrastructure, our economy and security and even american lives. the vast majority of our critical assets are in private hands because fixi vulnerabilities can be costly, security confined itself in conflict with profit, competition, and accountability to shareholders. sadly, the american people are the ones placed at risk when the owners of our critical infrastructure fail to prepare for the worst-case scenarios. i was pleased by the early attention paid to the issue of cyber security by the obama administrationnd despite some delays in the process, i'd like it to commend the administration for taking some very serious

steps in the right direction. under the leadership of cyber coordinator howard submit and his staff, the white house has released guidance that envisions nor government involvement in setting practices and standards for signer protection across all sectors of our infrastructure. this mirrors philosophically the framework of legislation i introduced earlier this year. dhs has also taken important steps to become more involved in securing our critical infrastructure. the establishment of the industrial control systems, computer emergency response team or icscert formalized a group of experts and flyaway teams that could respond to cyber incints across all sectors of our utili utilities. however, a mpany must still request help from the government before it can be deployed. and the simple act of having to ask often forces decision makers in industry to steer clear of seeking help for these complex problems.

i am pleased to see industry players increasingly stepping up to the plate to combat these threats, buti fear they cannot move fast or far enough under the current system. as the president of the national board of information security examiners and former chief security officer at the north american electric reliability corporation or nerc testified last year, quote, we're not only susceptible but we'rnot very well prepared, end quote. i supported the grid act as it moved through the house last year because it seeks to address some of the unique political and regulatory challenges in our power industry today. currently, we live under a system that does not prioritize security, though, but actively penalizes open reporting and cooperation. the legislation that is before us today aims to correct this by allowing federal regulators greater authority to protect americans during times of imminent crisis. it also provides for the

issuance of orders to fied and mitigate vulnerables to protect the system from cyber attacks. while this measure is a significant step forward, i'd also encourage the committee to consider provisions in my legislation and in senate and administration's proposals that expand this model to other sectors of critical infrastructure and enhance the ongoing efforts of dhs to quickly respond to a major crisis. i also would note my concern that by specifying only the bulk power system, this legislation excludes critical distribution systems that would leave major cities like new york and washington unprotected by the broader provisions of this bill. i'll conclude by cautioning again that inaction on this issue will make our nation increasingly vulnerable toyber attacks from both outside and within. we know the threat exists, and we have an opportunity to address it before any further damage is caused.

it is the responsibility of congress and administration to take the steps to protect this nation. once again, i'd like to thank you, chairman whitfield and ranking members for the attention to this issue and the opportunity to testify. i certainly look forward to working with the energy and commerce committee and spurting your efforts to raise awareness of securing our infrastructure and protecting our citizens from cyber attack. thank you and i yield back. >> thank you, mr. longevin. we appreciate the testimony of both of you. as you know, this is an important issue with great consequences for the country. and last year, of course, the grid act did pass the house of representatives but was unable to get through the senate. and we are quite familiar with that. we pass a lot of things here that don't get through the senate, but our objective is to get something through the house and the senate and signed by the president.

basically reflects the administration's proposal. is that correct? or t? >> i wouldn't go so far as to say that, but they both move in awe similar direction. >> okay. i would like for maybe both of you to just give advice to this committee on what you think we need to do to maximize our opportunitto get this passed in the senate. mr. franks? >> mr. chairman, as it happened last year i personally lobbied the senate as hard as i could on the grid act, even though as i've laid out today i think there's critically important things that need to be added to it or changed, met with senator

murkowski and others there in the chamber, and the big challenge was that they had differing strategies on what should be done about cyber security. now, let me make it so desperately clear here i believe that cyber security is a critically important issue, and i think i would find myself largely in mr. longevin's camp on that issue. but the problem is the rsonalities there had a little different strategy o how to addresses it. i'm trying to maintain protocol here, mr. chairman. they couldn't get together on that, and that's why we felt like the issue should be separated, not because that one is more important than the other per se, but because i just think it's going to be especially difficult -- that's complicated thisear, you know the white house just a few weeks ago released a legislative proposal for nationwide cross-sector cyber security efforts and the senate is working to produce a goal to meet those needs. and my concern is that, if we

tie them together, we may weaken both of them because there's very little disagreement on the emp aspects of it. the senators were very supportive of being able to protect the grid itself, just had some very seriously differing approaches to the cyber security element of it. >> mr. langevin? >> i would just say that last year we were a bit frustrated by the senate still contemplating which path forward they were going to take. i was fortunate to get an amendment included in the house armed services fense authorization bill last year that would have established a white house office on cyber security with a director's position that would have been senate confirmed and would have included updates to the fisma law.

that did not get through the conference committee last year. the senate was still struggling to determine which direction they were going to take, whether it was rockefeller/o rockefeller/or --/lieberman. i believe the senate is moving in the direction of resolving those issues and i'm hopeful that now that the white house has come out with its guidance on their views on cyber security going forward that that will clear some of the hurdles in the senate and they'll be able to come together and reach broader agreement, which hopefully will allow the grid act, which is obviously an aspect, important aspect, of securing our bulk power system, will allow tese issues to clear the hurdles that remain ahead. so i would say perseverance. we're going to have to keep the pressure on the senate, but hopefully -- and i would say that i'm in close contact with senator sheldon whitehouse,

who's also from rhode island and who's aso one of the leaders in the senate on cyber security, he believes that we will see bipartisan progress on the iue of cyber security in t senate. i'm hopeful we'll see a lot of these issues addressed and we'll be able to get them through conference. >> thank you all very much. we do look forward to continue working with you because both of you have been leaders in this area. we hope to be able to continue to call on you for your input. at this time, we'll recognize the gentleman from illinois. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm ing to be brief. mr. langevin, you have expressed a level of restraint regarding this bill, in that if you think we strengthen in certain areas and i'm curious to say i know that we want to send the best

bi that we can to the senate, and then again we can persevere as you have indicated. how do you think we can strengthen this bill? >> well, a couple of things, congressman rush. i'd like to see the approach that we're taking here addressing the challenges to the bulk power system broadened to include other areas of critical infrastructu infrastructure. because some of them would be in this jurisdiction of the full energy and commerce committee others may be in the area of the financial services area committee. but i think the approach that you're taking here is a positive one, with respect to the electric grid. in addition to that, i would like to see this bill address distribution systems, not just transmission b distribution

systems. as i said, it's my understanding that because distribution is not dealt with in the bill, that areas like washington, d.c., and new york would be left out of the intent and hopefully the coverage that this legislation would provide. protection it would provide to our electric grid. so i'd encourage the committee to look further at that issue. >> congressman franks, do you have any suggestions along the same lines? >> well, i think that congressman langevin has it absolutely right. i know have pictures of new york and washington but we want to keep them around for a while. i think that's wise to extend that to the transmission lines. again, my focus is to try to focus as narrowly as i can on maintaining the base electric grid. because if that goes down, our cyber security issues are no longer an issue because we don't

have computer systems, we don't have the electric to run them. and it might behoove the committee to consider a possibility of sending the grid act over as it is and, in a separate version, just addressing the emp issue in case there is the issue where the senate can't come together on exactly how they want to do the cyber security. but i emphasize one last time that the cyber security issue is absolutely critical. i visited the palo verde nuclear power plant just outside my district in arizona, the largest one in the nation and we had a hacker two strokes away from being able to go innd monkey with the reactor itself. >> mr. chairman, my state -- my general assembly and my state legislature, they just yesterday passed a bill out and sechnt ito the governor addressing these

same matters. i'm interested in new york, and i'm interested in the other cities that you name. but i'm also interested in the third city, the city by the lake, chicago, and what the threats are to chicago also. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balancof my time. >> thank you, mr. rush. generally speaking, when we have members of the house or senate testifying, chairman and ranking member are the only ones that ask questions. however, i would ask our friends on this side of the aisle if they have any questions? >> i don't, but i've worked with trent on his bill and i just wanted to thank both of you for your good work. th is an extremely important issue, and, as the ranking member and chairman both said, we need to get this to the point where the senate can passes it and we get it to the president's desk. thank you for your efforts.

yield back. >> thank you, mr. terry. once again, thank you all so much for your concern and leadership on this issue, and we will continue to work with you as we move forward. unless you allant to stay and hear the other panel, we'll let you go on to your other activities. so thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> at thistime, i'd like to call up our second panel, which includes t honorable patricia hoffman, who is the assistant secretary office of elecicity devery and energy reliability at the department of energy, and we have the honorable paul stockton, assistant secretary of fense for homeland defense and america's security affairs at the u.s. department of defense, and we have mr. joseph mcclellan who is the director of office of

electric reliability at ferc. so welcome to the hearing, and thank you all for taking time to be with us and to give us your expertise and thoughts on this issue. so, at this time, ms. hoffman, i will recognize you for a five-minute opening statement. and i would just point o that there's little devices on the top of the table that has a red, green and yell light. en it turns red, we'd like fo you to maybe think about coming to an end. but weon't hold you strictly to that. ms. hoffman, you're recognized for five minutes. >> good afternoon, mr. chairman, members of the committee. i would like to extend my thanks to the chairman and esteemed members of the committee for inviting me here today to discuss cyber security issues faci the electric industry as well a potential legislation

intended to strengthen protection of the bulk power system and the electric infrastructure. ensuring a resilient electric grid is particularly important since it is arguably the most complex and critical infrastructure that others depend upon to deliver essential services. the department of energy's office of electricity delivery and energy reliability supports the administration's strategic comprehensive approach to cyber security and specific with respect to the electric grid, we recognize that our focus should be on seven key areas. one is facilitating public/private partnerships to accelerate grid cyber security efforts. two, funding research and development of advanced technology to create secure and resilient electrocity infrastructure. three, developing cyber security standards that provide a baseline to protect against v

vulnerabilities. four, timely sharing of infoation. five, the development of mraichkment frameworks. six, facilitation of incident management and response capabilities. but also address the unique issues to the electric control systems such as scada systems and other control devices. the cyberspace policy reare view underscores the need to strength private/public partnerships to improve resilience of the critical government and industr systems networks. as directed by hspd-7, a public/private partner pship must be established to effectively aaddress national security concerns for critical infrastructure. however, private industry alone cannot be responsible for

preventing, deterring, mitigating the effects of deliberate efforts to destroy or exploit critical infrastructure systems. our office has long recognized that neither the government nor the private sector nor individual citizens can meet cyber security challenges alone. we must work together. nearly all of the cyber security activities involve public and private partnerships. through partnerships and competitive solicitations with the doe, oe has sponsored resech and development of several advanced cyber security technologies that are commercially available and a couple of examples include a secure serial cmunications for control system has been commercialized by switzer engineering lablts. a software tool kit that provides auditing of scada

security settings. this was commercialized by digital bond, a small business. vulnerability assess thes of 38 different scada systems and a common vulnerabilities report. supporting the development of cyber security standards, our office is collaborating with agencies and organizations to develop a framework and road p for inner operatability standards that include cyber security as a critical llt. the group releas the cyber security guidelines for the smart grid. oe also partnered with utilities to develop cyber security profiles to provide vendor-ni t vendor-night -- neutral development.

including sae ining implementin safeguards when integrated into the grid. oe supports develop iing work force. working with state and local governments and agencies to put together technical briefs, education forums, workshops and exercises just to name a few. the department fully supports the administration's proposed comprehensive cyber security legislation focused on cyber security for the american people our nation's critical infrastructure and the federal government's own networks and security. specifically the administration proposes the following legislative changes to enhance protection. voluntary government assistance to industry, voluntary sharing with industry and state and critical infrastructure security risks mitigation. in conclusion, i'd like to thank the committee for its leadership inupporting the protection of the bulk power system and

critical infrastructure against cyber threats. doe looks forward to future dialogue. i would be pleased to answer any questions yohave. >> mr. stockton, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, mr. ranking member and the distinguished members of the committee. i have a detailed statement which i'll submit for the record. but i want to focus on a few key points that i hope will be helpful to you as you exercise the leadership that we need cong from the house of representatives and the congress as a whole. first of all, the department of defense is not in in the lead f energy security in the united states. for the federal government, that's my colleagues at the department of energy, department of homeland security, department of defense is in support of them, but let me emphasize the department of defense cannot execute its core missions in service ofhis nation unless we have a secure flow of commercial

electric power. that's for a simple reason. the deptment of defense depends for its energy 99% on the commercial sector. we have no regulatory authority over it, but way are utterly dependent on the flow of that commercial power. let me talk about why that is the case. in the modern way of warfare since 9/11, our forces deployed abroad operating elsewhere depend to an creasing extent on military facilities back here in the united states to conduct and support those operations, to generate, deploy and operate forces abroad. we depend on military faciliti in the states represented here today. if there is an interruion in

the flow of commercial power to those facilities for a short period, they have backup power generation, but for a longer disruption of the grid, we'd be facing a situation of potentially devastating effects on our conduct of defense operations abroad. we could face serious challenges at home. i'll talk about those consequences in a moment, but first, i want to talk a little bit about the nature of the threat. first of all, the cyber threat is something we take very, very seriously. that's why i'm so strongly in support of the administration's cyber security legislative proposal. but i want to emphasize that cyber is only one of the threat vects that the nation faces. simple connetic attacks could

have significant disruption on the flow of power to the department of defense in the united states. we heard about the risk of solar flares. again, something we take very, very seriously. mr. chairman, looking at you and the ranking member as well as the states you're from, i'd like to turn to the new madrid fault and threat that earthquakes pose as sort of a representative way of looking at the nature of natural hazards. a national menl exercise we just conducted two weeks ago that posited a 7.7 earthquake on the new madrid fault. our friends at nerc estimated there would be a multistate, long-terpower outage, long term, weeks, potentially months, rolling blackouts in chicago, and in the eastcoast. what i'd like for you to think about is the down stream effects of such an event, both on

critical department of defense operations in ft. campbell, for example, every place else, all the facilities represented here today. but also in the immediate area. two things to think about. first of all, the way that the loss of ectric power would magnitude the scale of the catastrophe to which we would all be responding. municipal water systems in memphis and elsewhere, they depend on the flow of commercial power. when that power stops, drinking water gradually gets turned off. in a situation like new madrid fault, gasoline s are going te broken. where is the water pressure to fight those fires? is where the gas to fuel the trucks that we go to fight the fires or collect water elsewhere? as you all know, gas pumps and diesel pumps run on electric

power. we would quicklbe in a situation where we need to get emergency power flowing to power plants, state operation centers, everything else required to deal with the disaster, and there would be in a situation where roads and bridges are down, and there is so much demand for backup diesel power compared to the amount of diesel fuel prepositioned at these facilities. these examples of the kinds of ways in which disaster would be magnified, but i'm looking at it from additional perspective. the department of defense would be supporting the governors of your states throughfema, of course, and there would be big demand pull on the department of defense to provide additional support. at the same time our response operations would be severely disrupted. with the loss of electric power, how are we going to receive the

masses forces coming in? how are we going to stage them? move them forward? these are challenges we need to take on very, very seriously. the department of defense is doing so. what i want to do briefly is talk about some of the remediation efforts we are taking. first of all, we are working closely with the department of energy to partner together in the federal government so we can reach out to industry, and find out how we can work together with the industry to provide industry with what we ca a better design basis to ensure the resilience of the electric power grid against all of these hazards. i believe todas power grid has very strong resilience. but it's not designed for the kinds of threats that we're talking about today. above all cyber or carefully-designed kenetic attacks.

we need to find a way to enable them to build more resilience in their grid and inside the department of defense family, we need to do a better job securing the flow of electric power to our critical defense facilities in all of the states represented here today, to make sure that single points of failure on the flow of electric power coming in, we take care of those problems and remedy those in partnership with utilities in the me neighborhoods as our military facilities. mr. chairman, i look forrd to answering your questions. >> you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you for the privilege to appear before you today to discuss the security of the power gri i'm joe mcclland director of the office at the federal energy regulatory commission. my remarks do not necessarily represent the views of the commission or any individual commissioner. in the energy policy act of

2005, congress entrusted the mmission with a mjor new responsibility to oversee mandatory enforcible reliability and cyber security standards for the nation's system. it is important to note ferc's authority is limited to the bulk power system, which excludes alaska and hawaii, transmission facilities in certain large cities such as new york, as well as local distribution systems. under section 215, ferc cannot author or modify reliability or cyber security standards, but must depend upon an electric reliability organization or ero to perform this task. the commission expected the north american electric reliability corporation or nerc as the ero. they develop standards or modifications of the commission's review, which it can then either approve or

remand. if the commission approves the proposed cyber security standard, it becomes mandatory in the united states, applying to the years, owners and operators of the bulk power system. if it remands the proposed standard, it is sent back to ero for further consideration. persuant to its responsibility to oversee the reliability and cyber security of the power grid, in january 2008, ferc approved eight cyber security standards known as the critical infrastructure protection or cip standards. compliance with these eight cip standards first became mandatory july 1, 2010. nerc filed modification, the modifications to the cip stanrds have not been addressed by nerc. it's not clear how lg it will take for the cip standards to be modified to protect the significant gaps in them.

the smart grid technologies added to the bulk power system. greater cyber security protection will be required, given that this technology provides more access points, thereby increasing the grids' vulnerabilities. the cyber security standards will apply some, but not most smart grid applications. moreover, there are noncyber threats that also pose national secuty concerns. naturally-occurring events or physical attacks against the power grid can cause equal or greater destruction than cyber attacks and the federal government should have no less ability to protect against them. one is electric row magnetic pulse or emp. emp event could shut down a large part of the power grid. emp events are naturally generated, caused by solar flares disrupting the earth's magnetic field. such events are inevitable, can be powerful and can cause significant and long disruptions to the grid.

ferc, dhs and doe recently completed a joint study. man-madend naturally-occurring events and their effects on the power system and measures that could be installed. included among its findings was wiout effective mitigation, if the solar storm of 1921, which has been termed the 1-100 year event were to occur today, over 300 extra high voltage transformers could be damaged or destroyed, interrupting power to 130 million people for a period of years. though section 215 of the federal power act can't provide an adequate statutory foundation for the development of routine reliability standards to the bulk power system, the threat of cyber attacks or other intent n intentional malicious acts against the grid are different. these dangers may be posed by criminal organizations, terrorist groups, foreign

nations or others intent on attacking the united states through its electrical grid. widespread disruption of electrical service can undermine our government, our military, our economy, as well as endanger the health and safety of millions of our citizens. given the national security dimension to this threat, there may be a need to act quickly. to act in a manner where action is mandatory rather than voluntary, and to protect certain information from bulb disclosure. faced with a cyber or other national security threat, there may be a need to react decisively in hours or days rather than weeks, months or year. the gal authority is inadequate for such action. new legislation should address several concerns. ferc should be permitted to take action before a cyber or physical national security incident has occurred. second, ferc should be allowed to maintain appropriate confidentiality of security-sensitive information. third, the limitations of the term, quote, bulk power system,

end quote, should be understood. r currt jurisdiction does not apply to alaska and hawaii as well as some france mission facilities and all local distribution facilities. fourth, entities should be able to recover costs they incur to mitigate vulnerabilities and threats. finally, any legislation on national security threats should recover not only cyber security threats but also natural events and intentional physical malicious acts including threats from an emp. the grid act draft addresses many of these issues. thank you for your attention today. i look forward to any questions that you may have. >> thank you all for your testimony. many of you heard congressman fran franks, and mr. langevin, also talk about the need to expand. i notice the white house and their cyber security proposal is exactly that.

it's focused only on cyber security. that was a suggestion that mr. franks made, let's do cyber security in one bill, let's address the other issues in a separate bill. do you all have any thoughts as far asstrategy,if that is something the committee should attempt to do or not? >> as was mentioned earlier, is that cyber security is a difficult and complex issue. emp and other issues are different in nature. although the impact to the country can be devastating, either one. so in order to tackle things one at a time, the administration is looking just comprehensively at the cyber legislation individually. >> okay. do you have a comment? >> yes, sir. i think that the cyber legislation proposed by the administration is a critical step towards protection of

infrastructure as a whole, greatly benefitting the energy sector, as well. clearly, there are threats we've been discussing that would be encompassed by thislegislation. it's a critical building block on which we need to make progress. >> i don't see where the administration's bill would conflict with the grid act. the administration's bill provides a broad umbrella to partner with the industry to bring th practices to a higher level. the commission's authority under 215 doesn't have to conflict. with that concept, and in fact any further enhancement of the commission's authority or regulatory authority may actual complement that concept. >> mr. langevin pointed out the need to expand from bulk systems to expand your section 215 authority. do all of you agree that should be done? i'm assuming you do, mr.

mcclelland. >> as i pointed out in my testimony, my position is that the distribution systems aren't covered. we wish to point out if the term bulk power system is followed, there would be significant pieces of the power grid that would not be protective if the grid act passes, either from a cyber security or physical perspective. >> mr. stockton, do you or ms. hoffman have any comments? >> i think it's important to take a holistic look at cyber security. as you look at the administration's proposal, it wants to take a comprehensive approach so that would include entities tt would be defined as critical whether they are in the bulk power system or the distribution. the important thing to notice we need everybody to understand how to advance cyber security procedures and postures. i would say that includes state governments as well as any feral action. >> how would you all describe

the coordination between doe, dod and ferc today on these types of issues? >> the coordination between dod and d.o.e. primarily lookst the facilities and interface with the energy sector. we provide support work on studies and looking at the interdependency between the energy sector and defense. we are looking at micro grids, advanced technologies in support of the defense facilities. our coordination with ferc provides tools and technologies to look at improved reliability for the electric sector. we do coordinate it with information sharing to the extent possible, looking at technologies that will actually improve the posture of the system. so the coordination with ferc is they're a regulatory entity. e department of energy funds private partnerships. in a sense, we are incentivizing

changes with an industry and ferc looks at regulating aspects of it. >> anybody else have any comment? >> i'd say there are formulaize mechanisms such as the department of energy sits as the energy secr lead, ferc participates in these initiatives with the other agencies we have excellent working relationships on an informal or impromptu basis th the department of energy, department of defense, department of homeland security, cia, nsa and nrc. we reach out as necessary to borrow expertise to power grids and individual needs on the grid. >> when we talk about cyber security attacks in the u.s., i am not aware of any major attack. and internationally what comes to my mind is the stets-net in

iran that shut down nuclear power systems. are you aware of any other major cyber security attacks that had significant pact? >> and set-net was an attack over the nuclear issue. the focus we have is there are incidents that may occur and we need to be able to be prepared to respond to those incidents quickly and promptly. how do we have an incident management plan or incident response plan to be able to address the event quickly. so looking at information exchange,iagnostics and the ability to deter and prevent any

further damage. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, i want to thank the witnesses. in the last congress, when we worked on this issue in a bipartisan manner, the administration provided the members of this committee with classied briefing that helped us understand the vulnerability to our electric grid and the need to protect tha same grid. i just have to ask each of you, in light of the fact we have some new members, a lot of new members on this subcommittee, would each of you agree at a time determined by the chairman, to return and brief the members of this committee again on the

vulnerability of our cyber security area? would each of you do that? >> yes, sir. >> yes. >> let me just ask ms. hoffman. you seem to feel as though -- the impression i get, is that you seem to feel as though, okay, this is a step in the right direction, but it's narrow. what the administration is looking at is much broader view. taking a more universal, broader view of this particular issue. if you were to overlay the administration's efforts, this bill, this proposal, and the grid act, what would we see and what would you see as being some

of the most significant differences? >> the administration's proposed discussion draft focuses on several things. it looks at criminal aspects with respect to criminal charges and an enforcement. it looks at voluntary information sharing. it looks at voluntary assistance. it's building a public/private partnership to actually build capabilities and support to the industry sector, which is critically needed at this point in time. it also looks at the ability to develop plans, risk-based plans. most of the critical infrastructure definition and the development of risk-based plans will, of course, be done through a rule-making process through dhs. the administration has taken a holistic approach trying to get all the sectors up to a cyber

security baseline performance. in deference the grid act is focusing on transformers, emp, focusing on emergency and standard development, which is a slightly different approach from what the administration's position is, but both those could be worked for complementary efforts. any other witness have any comments on this? let me ask you this. it seems as though my state, as i indicated earlier, yesterday members of the general assembly passed the sma grid regulation. it seems as though some of the states are starting to move on their own, but the administration has a discussion draft or bill, opinion bill, and i'm not sure whether or not

these states are starting to take actions basing their efforts on what the administration is ultimately looking at. how much cooperation, how much sharing of information, how much enlightenment is the administration providing to these states so they won't have to come back and redo whatever legislation they might pass prior to the administration getting its bill passed? and what is the status of the administration's proposal right now? >> the status is the discussion draft and the administration is looking forward to work wi members of congress to continue that discussion, to advance the components of that discussion draft. with respect to smart grid, there are security profiles and standards that are currently under development to provide

security within the devices as they are being built. we are working cyber security standards with devopment of the device as we deploy and implement smart grid technologies. we are trying to provide system performance which can aid and provide benefit for restoration time out as management, so more preventive versus looking at the consequences if an event occurs. >> my time is out. >> recognize the gentleman from virginia mr. mckinley for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. hoffman, i've got some -- i wasn't here when this bill passed last year. i'm curious if you could walk me through it or someone else on the panel perhaps. the way i'm reading this, the

grid act, is we start with subsection a and definitions, en we move into b which is emergency response measures. that refers very specifically to security threat. under that subsection b, it has a subsection 6, which has cost recovery. so there is a vehicle, a mechanism to recover costs for threat. then if we can skip c just for the moment that has to do with vulnerability and then you do he to d, which is called critical defense facilies. under critical defense facilities, there is a subsection on page 15 about cost recovery. i'm just curious back on the one i skipped over, b -- i'm sorry,

yes, b, or c, that's the section that refers to grid security vulnerabilities. under vulnerabilities, there is no cost recovery by this particular piece of legislation. was th intentional? was vulnerabilities would not be able to recover the cost, the utility companies and anyone else would not be able to recover their costs? i'm sorry. i singled you out, but i don't care who it is that answers that question. >> i can take a shot at that. i believe you're correct. i believe threats are singled out focost recovery. i believe under the 100 most critical facilities for the dod, the user is rured to pay for upgrades or enhanced measures. i didn't see cost recovered for vulnerabilities either. >> does that make sense that there is someone that could have

the expense, if you read down through all the issues, that you have if nothing else large transformer vulnerability, there would be no way to have that cost added onboard? >> we consistently said there must be three aspects present, if you would like to have someone move on one of these issues. one, identify it as a priority. second, identify mitigation, and third, you have to pvide cost recovery. >> are you agreement we should have cost recovery under vulnerability? >> personally, i say yes. >> do the rest of you have any problem on cost recovery on vulnerability? >> wdon't have any problem on cost recovery. no matter what the actions are it's going to be recovered somewhere from the rate payers, from the entities that's being protected. eventually. >> the others are very clear. i'm not an attorney, i'm an engineer. it tells me when you leave something else, it looks like we left it out deliberately.

there was another line that i caught under, i think must have been page eight. page eight on line 22. it talks about there under cost recovery, only those that were substantial costs. could we get that clarified somehow? can you all help us with some language that might be more appropriate to define what substantial costs would be? >> sorry. were you looking for a comment there? >> given the time, no. hopefully we can get back to that. much of our defense is actually overseas. we are going to be very reliant on their other countries' responses to threats and vulnerability.

you said we woul respond quickly. you said youidn't know any necessary atck. do we have any evidence of probe i ing, inquiries, photography, suspicious work? is there something goi on? one thing to have an attack, the other is to have someone in preparation for it. >> i don't have any information on that. with respect to overseas, i look at that, my focus is on the domestic u.s. infrastruure. >> what should we do if overseas we know that is certainly a possibility with the terrorism going on. do we just simply rely on them and react -- rely on the other countries to provide the same type of responses to threa or vulnerabilities? what role do you see us playing trying to promulgate something

w. >> europe has mechanisms for any emergency that happens on their system. i have to admit i don't have a great insight or detail how to respond to overseas. >> is there any way we can maybe work something like that into here, something you could provide to us later? how we might be able to integrate both the european and american grid together? at least in terms of cyber security? >> thank you very much. >> yes, i'm willing to have further dialogue. thanks. >> i recognize the gentleman from massachusetts for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, ve mu. thank you for having this very important hearing. thanks to mr. franks and everyone else here for this issue. chairman upton has continued his efforts on the bipartisan grid

act, which i introduced with him in the last coress. that legislation passed the house one year ago today. we wked together to pass a bill a year ago. this is a perfect example of bipartisanship. remarkably, 99% of the electric energy used to power our military facilities, including critical strategic command assets comes from the commercially operated grid. over the last several years, the grid's vulnerability has come into focus. hackers could use communications networks to physically destroy electric generators, transformers and other critical ass assets. over a week ago, lockheed martin suffered what it called a significant and tenacious cyber attack on its system. in today's "wa street

journal," a description of the defense department's cyber security plan has a military official quoted as saying that if a terrorist or other adversary shuts down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down one of your smoke stacks. unlike the frequent outages experienced by pepco's customer every time the washington, d.c., area experiences a serious storm, a coordinated attack on the grid could literally shut do the u.s. economy. putting lives at risk. damages could take months or years to recover from. recovery may not just be a matter of rebuilding. three nuclear reactors in japan suffered near complete core meltdowns after the earthquake caused a loss of electricity needed to cool them down. the meltdown likely began a few short hours after the earthquake, tsunami and

blackout. the hot, radioactive fuel is believed to have burned holes as much as ten centimeters wide through the pressure vessels. it is expected to take months to stabilize the reactors and decades to clean up the damage that the meltdown caused. mr. stockton mentioned that the power outage risk associated with ethquakes near the new madrid fault line is notable because tre are extra nuclear reactors located near it. those several reactors could be vulnerable. let me ask you this. there have been 69 reports of emergency diesel generators failing at 48 nuclear reactors. 19 of these failor oo oures lase

than six weeks and more required months. there aren't any requirements for backup power at all when there is no fuel in the reactor core. clearly, a blackout could cause a meltdown in this country, too. do you believe that the portions of the grid that supply electricity to our nuclear reactors are more secure than the rest of the grid? >> the commission has been working with the nuclear regulatory commission on this issue. there is the offsite power you asked about. >> they are more secure? >> are you saying they are more secure? >> there are agreements in place between the nuclear regulatory commission -- >> today, are they more secure than the rest of thesystem on not? today. >> in many cases, no. >> the answer is no. thank you. since the legislative hearing this committee heldn october 2009, have sufficient measures been put in place to secure the

american electrical grid from cyber and physical attack? >> there has been some progress on the nerc standards. >> have suffient measures been put in place? >> we are -- >> sufficient is the keyword. >> we have issued inquiries to the nerc. >> are you saying there are sufficient -- >> there have been filings made and we are checking thetatus of the filings to see whether or not they do indeed represent progress. >> given that the number of cyber access points to the grid is increasing rapidly with the growth of smart grid applications, do you believe the threat facing the grid is greater or less than it was a year ago when the house overwhelmingly passed grid security legislation, given the fact a smart grid actually winds up with more vulnerabilities, ironically? >> yes. >> you think there could be greater vulnerability? >> undoubtedly, yes.

>> do you believe the way the grids are set to lead to standards sufficient to responding to the threat that our grid faces? >> the commissioner said when it comes to national security, the process is too slow. it's too open and too unpredictable. >> do you agree with that? >> he is better positioned to assess. >> yes or no? >> there is room for improvement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> you're recognized for five minus. >> thank you. mr. mcclelland, i appreciate it. in the shield act versus the grid act on ferc authority, do you feel you need additional level of authority to respond to

a national security threat? can you be more specific in that? on the flip side of that additial authority is how we balance that with state regulatory entities? >> the shield act provides the commission with a proviso if it finds the nerc standard insufficient, it can offer a measure to put into place to address a security vulnerability. the commission currently under the 15 process cannot author or modify reliability standards. we can provide input, but we cannot author or modify. i feel it's important that the coission be given that direct authority to be able to order measures to be put into place to write those measures, and to direct they be put into place to address vulnerabilities to the power system or threats.

>> do you see working with the state regulatory issues? >> i think it's very important the commission cooperate with the electric reliability organization and entities the commission communicates with. s, it's very important. >> ms. hoffman,do you have any thoughts in regard to the jurisdictional request? >> i think it's absolutely important for the federal ferc to coordinate with the state entities in looking at cyber security vulnerabilities, mitigation measures, solutions. as we move forward, the more consistent across the board, the more we'll benefit, not only the electric seor but other sectors that may have the involvemt with states or other entities. >> thank you.