the estimated deficit reflects outlays of $147 an incredible, an incredible burden to lay on future generations of americans. so i'm sure -- i am sure that this amendment will probably lose.

i am sure that proponents of the advanced training center leadership academy in west virginia will be stoutly defended and its essential functions will be graphically described by the opponents of this amendment. it's time we stopped. it's time we stopped. isn't $1 trillion deficit for the first nine months of this year enough of a signal that maybe we ought to tighten our belts, that maybe we ought to stop adding $39.7 billion to an already requested $30 million to operate and equip a advanced training center, a training facility that is located in the state of west virginia? i understand that. and our thoughts and prayers are -- go out for the senior senator from west virginia and

we hope he regains his health soon and we hope he continues in his very effective membership and service in this body. but the fact is that the committee -- the committee earmarked an additional $39.7 million to equip, furnish and expand the leadership academy at the center. can't we delay -- can't we delay expanding, equipping and furnishing a leadership academy? can't we do that? probably not. probably not. probably not. but as long as americans are bearing this incredible burksd a burgeoning deficit that we're laying on our children and grandchildren, i and some others will be coming to this floor to try to point out that it's time that we got rid of things that are maybe even necessary but not vital to our nation's future. madam prpresident, i ask for the

yeas and nays on the amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. mr. mccain: madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? madam president, i -- i don't think -- the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. voinovich: i don't think there is a senator in this body that's talked more about deficits or our national debt than the senator -- the senior senator from ohio. senator lear man and i have a bill -- senator lieberman and i have a bill in to deal with tax reform and entitlements. i've had a bill in called the safe commission for the last four years, saving america's future economy. and there's no one more aware of where we are, and we will have a deficit this year i believe of over $2 trillion when you take into consideration the amount of money that we're borrowing from our governmental trust funds. that being said, i respectfully

oppose the amendment from my good friend *7, the senato friem arizona. this amendment seeks to strike the requirement in the bill for $39.7 million for the advanced training center. now, this advanced training center is designed to serve the specialized needs of u.s. customs and border protection officially opened in august of 2005. now, there may be some people that object to the fact that it's in west virginia, but the fact of the matter is, it is in west virginia. this year alone, the center will provide advanced training to over 3,200 u.s. customs and border protection employees. now, we've already mentioned that we've increased the number of these employees substantially to do what most people want us to do and that's to protect the border and to go after those individuals that are illegal immigrants. there's no question about that.

but i also know from my work on the governmental affairs committee and my subcommittee on oversight of management and the government work force, that the people we hire have to be trained. you just can't bring them on, you've got to train them. so this is a critical training facility for frontline employees. in fact, the department of homeland security and and the office of management and budget have endorsed the expansion of this facility as well when they approved and sent forward to congress their five-year master facility plan. so this is not a boondoggle, this is not a waste of money, this is something to support a facility that's there and needs to be expanded because we decided we want to hire a lot more employees. and when you hire employees, you have to provide them the training, and that's exactly what this is do -- this is what

it's going to try to -- what it's doing. and, again, i just want to emphasize, if we're going to secure the border, if we're going to spend, it's going to cost a lot of money, including training people we're going to hire. so we should oppose this amendment. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murkowsk mrs. murray: mr. president, i thank my colleague from ohio in opposition to the mccain amendment, and i rise as well to speak on behalf of senator byrd who, as we all know, is home recovering from a serious illness. this bill -- the committee bill does include $39.7 million for the continued expansion of the u.s. customs and border protection c.b.p. advanced training center. the a.t.c., which opened back in

2005, provides advanced firearms and text cal training -- tactical training to c.b.p. law enforcement personnel and personnel of other federal agencies. the center is expanding in phases. it is consistent with this master plan. it was -- this plan actually was transmitted to congress back in 2007 and was approved then by the office of management and budget and the department of homeland security. this master plan accommodates advanced training consistent with the mission of securing our borders and c.b.p. employees are stationed throughout the nation at land and border crossings, at airports, at seaports and other urban environments with a need for practical, unique, progressive and flexible training. there is no other training of this kind, i want my colleagues to know, and there's never been a time when it is needed more. senator byrd strongly, he wants us to know, supports the advanced training center and its mission and is going to continue to fight hard for the security of this great country. customs and border protection

needs and deserves the advanced training facility to assure that the more than 50,000 customs and border protection agent officers and other personnel have the training they require when they're spent in harm's way. this facility's expected to train over 3,200 law enforcement and other employees in fiscal year 2009 and is expected to grow more than 5,000 each year. so i urge our colleagues to vote against this amendment, and i again would like everyone to know that we are hoping that senator rockefeller will be back shortly. he will speak on this amendment, and we're hoping to set this amendment up for a vote around around2:00. and, madam president, with that, i would rise to offer the dodd-lieberman amendment number 1458, which i understand is at the desk. the presiding officer: without objection, the pending amendments are set aside. mr. vitter: i reserve the right to object. the presiding officer: does the senator object? mr. vitter: yes.

the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. hatch: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask for the regular order. the presiding officer: the senator is asking for regular order with respect to your pending amendment? mr. hatch: with respect to a modification to amendment number 1428. and i would like to send that modification to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the senator has the right to modify his amendment. the amendment is so modified. mr. hatch: i thank the chair.

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

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. johanns: and, madam president, i ask for -- the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska is recognized. mr. johanns: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to seven minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. johanns: madam president, i rise today i think at a very appropriate time, while we're talking about budget and deficits and numbers, to say that rarely has a crystal ball proved so regrettably accurate. many warned, as did i, that the stimulus would amount to a mountain of wasted money. it produced record deficits and thus far it's produced little beyond that. but i'm not here to ask the

senate to take my word for this. you can read it in black and white in two reports that were released yesterday, as c.b.o. report and a g.a.o. report. according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office, the federal budget deficit for the first nine months, as senator mccain just mentioned, was a whopping $1.1 trillion. this is the first time in our nation's history that the annual deficit has been this high. if that guiness book record sized debt wasn't astonishing enough, we'd all be floored that the this debt was only from the first three quarters of this year. it's mystifying to me, horrifying to the american taxpayers and their children who eventually will have to pay the bill. and it represents a dangerous reality for our future. only 4% of the first stimulus funding has been spent and yet we're shattering national

deficit records already. now, this was easily predicted. look back a few short months to february, when we were debating the stimulus, a bill that we were told we had to do right away. on february 4, 2009, i delivered my first speech as a united states senator. i made some simple predictions, madam president, based upon my experience as a city council member, a mayor and as a governor. serving in those roles, i learned a few things about how money is spent at the local level, especially the hidden costs of money from the federal government that seemingly come with no strings attached. i warned in that speech what would happen with the so-called stimulus legislation and predicted state government's would use the funds to replace state dollars and shore up their budget problems. well, sure enough, the government accounting office, known as the g.a.o., reported

this -- and i quote -- "states reported using recovery funds to stabilize state budgets and to cope with fiscal distress." the report states that 90% of the money distributed has come in the form of increased federal education and health care guarantees to state governments. this money has helped many state governments to partially offset what they are facing which is budget shortfalls. i also warned that the result of replacing state funds with federal funds would lead to an enormous funding cliff for state budgets when that "temporary" stimulus money ran out. the g.a.o. report sends up that warning flare because states have not addressed the situation that they will be in when the stimulus funding runs out or how they will come up with the

funding to cushion the fall. i wish i had been wrong in february. in fact, i think i said that at the time. i wish i had been wrong when i said that the transportation sector jobs estimated to be created by the major infrastructure projects wouldn't materialize. because the funding would, instead, go to repaving. i urge my colleagues to reconsider because repaving projects just would not lead to long-term economic growth or good jobs. so what is the consensus since the stimulus bill went into law? the g.a.o. report states that nearly 50% of all transportation projects are for resurfacing. another 18% of the funds are being used to widen already-existing roads. that adds up to nearly 70% on temporary road improvement projects. so even though president obama said there's nothing he would have done differently i find

that hard to believe considering his earlier remarks that predicted a much different result. in a speech on february 10, soon after becoming president, he said -- and i quote -- "we can use a crisis and turn it into an opportunity because if we use this moment to address some things that we probably should have been doing over the last 10, 15, 20 years, then when we merge from the crisis the economy will be that much stronger." i doubt he had remaybing projects in mind -- repaving projects in mind. the stimulus bill is not laying down the essential groundwork for sustained economic growth, long-term initiatives or jobs. in, unemployment reached 9.5%, the highest rate in 26 years. this means since the stimulus was signed into law 2,964 jobs

have been lost every hour of every workday. clearly, the stimulus bill was sold to the american people as a quick fix to solve our economic woes but it is failing. and now the obama administration and the supporters in congress want to quickly tack on to the $1 trillion stimulus, a litany of big spending initiatives -- health care reform, c.a.p, cap , and new government programs that increase deficits is sobering leading to a huge train wreck with stacks of i.o.u.'s all the way to china. some have the audacity to raise the possibility of second stimulus which defies logic. i conclude by saying, madam president, the last thing the federal government should

do, directly or indirectly, is stifle american businesses. in hard-working families just as they are doing their best to crawl out i from the economic ye of death and taxes and a stag thant economy. before we drive the federal budget off another cliff and take state budgets with us we need to put our foot on the brakes, slow down and correct our course. with that, madam president, i yield the floor, and i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. whitehouse: madam president, may i ask consent to speak as if in morning business for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call. mr. whitehouse: may i ask the

quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you. may i ask permission to speak in morning business for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you very much, madam president. madam president, i'm here to talk about judge sonia sotomayor. i am looking forward to her confirmation hearing which begins next monday. i continue to review her record and i will not make my ultimate judgment until after the heari hearing. but i must say that i am very impressed with judge sotomayor's qualifications, including her restrained and fact-based approach to deciding cases. i'm also impressed, as a former prosecutor myself, by her experience as a practicing attorney and as a line prosecutor, and i think we are all impressed by her educational achievements. like millions of americans, i've

been inspired by her personal story. frankly, it gives me goosebumps to think of that little girl growing up in the projects in the bronx and growing into the woman we see before us now at the top of the legal profession, with a career of exemplary conduct, exemplary academic achievement, exemplary judicial experience already behind her. it is really a great story of american discipline and achievement. unfortunately, critics of judge sotomayor's confirmation have unleashed an avalanche of innuendo meant to weaken the case for her confirmation. these criticisms began among the right-wing talking heads, but unfortunately some of them are now voiced by my republican leagues here on the floor.

indeed, rather than waiting for the hearing to ask her about her record and her judicial philosophy, a number of my colleagues have come to the floor attack her and her nomination. -- floor to attack her and her nomination. today i'd like to briefly address two particular and, frankly, very surprising attacks on judge sotomayor. first, the suggestion that her judicial philosophy is somehow outside of the mainstream. and, second, the suggestion that her life experience is somehow unhelpful to the judgment that she would bring to the supreme court. first, judge sotomayor's judicial philosophy. my republican colleagues like to suggest that judges appointed by republican presidents are neutral umpires and the judges appointed by democratic presidents are judicial activists. but chief justice roberts

himself, who, indeed, raised the umpire metaphor at his own confirmation hearing, reveals the falsity of that comparison. jeffrey toobin, a well-respected legal commentator, recently described a pronounced ideological predisposition in chief justice roberts -- and i quote -- "in every major case since he became the nation's 17th chief justice, roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff." let me say that again, "in every major case since he became the nation's 17th chief justice, roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned,

the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff." maybe this is a pure coincidence and maybe it is a further coincidence, to again quote toobin, that this record -- quote -- "has served the interests and reflected the values of the contemporary republican party." and maybe it is also a coincidence that in the heller decision, the d.c. gun law indicatecase,the roberts-led coe block of the court discovered a new constitutional right that had previously gone unnoticed through 220 years of the united states supreme court's history and which just happens to appeal to the n.r.a. and the republican base.

perhaps that is all a coincidence, but i will confess to you i doubt it. i think that this record goes a long way toward disproving the metaphor of the republican judge as neutral umpire. so let's put aside the notion that conservative men from "the federalist" society have no predispositions in legal matters but that anyone who differs from their views is the activist. that is just rhetoric. and what it's seeking to do is to normalize the right-wing activism that the republican party has calculatedly and over many years moved on to our court. if you want to decide whether judge sotomayor has an appropriate judicial philosophy, look at her full record. throughout her long career as a federal judge, longer than any

supreme court nominee since the 19th century, judge sotomayor has on every major issue shown that the facts and the law drive her determination of cases. on the second circuit, judge sotomayor agreed with her more conservative colleagues far more frequently than she disagreed with them. in 434 published panel decisions where the panel included at least one judge appointed by a republican president, she agreed with the result favored by the republican appointee in 413 cases. 413 out of 434. that is 95% of the time and it is no record of extremism. indeed, it would seem to put her on the conservative side of the main street. and consider what she told chairman leahy -- quote --

"ultimately and completely as a judge, you follow the law. there is not one law for one race or another. there is not one law for one color or another. there is not one law for rich and a different one for poor. there is only one law." furthermore, the idea that because the supreme court disagreed with judge sotomayor's second circuit panel decision in ritchie v.stefano, she's somehow outside the mainstream is patently absurd. first, four justices of the supreme court agreed with the second circuit's interpretation of the law. are justices stevens, souter, ginsburg, and breyer outside of the mainstream? hardly. second, judge sotomayor and her panel were faithfully a applying the settled precedent of the second circuit when they rendered their decision. just what a circuit court judge of the united states is supposed

to do. the five justices on the supreme court in the ritchie majority in deciding the case invented an entirely new test for resolving title 7 claims that according to legal experts reported in "the new york times" -- quote -- "will change the landscape of civil rights law." and it's hardly fair to criticize judge sotomayor for not applying a test that did not each exist when she decided the case, nor for failing to venture into landscape of civil rights law. in the ricci decisions and others, judge sotomayor's career is demonstrated long to faithfully applying the law and thbased on the fact before her d the careful discrimination.

that brings me to the next point. wise discretion is the long-standing tradition underlying the american system of law. it is harsh, narrow-minded, and ahistoric to contend that a rich life experience and natural empathy are at odds with that judicial tradition. any lawyer knows the importance of judicial discretion both in our common law system and to the interpretation of the constitution. as justice john paul stevens has explained, the work of federal judges from the days of john marshall to the present requires the exercise of judgment, a faculty that inevitably calls into play notions of justice, fairness, and concern about the future impact of a decision, end quote. that faculty has served the nation well for over two centuries. indeed, discretion is at the heart of the judicial role.

our legal system bears the imprint of the experience and wisdom of generations of judges. as justice holmes famously explained, "the life of the law has not been logic, it has been experience." indeed, as holmes continued, "the law embodies the story of a nation's development through many centuries and it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics." this discretion, of course, does not mean that judges are without bounds, but there exists a broad and lively discretion that falls far short of judicial activism. justice benjamin cardozo put it this way, "the j judge is not to innovate at pleasure. he is not a night errant, roaming at will in purr - pursuf

his own goodness. he is to own his decision from consecrated principles. he is to exercise a discretion informed by tradition, methodized by analogy, disciplined by system, and subordinated to the primordial necessity of order in the social life, wide enough in all conscience is the field of discretion that remains." madam president, within this wide field of discretions, judges do not, cannot and should not close their minds to their experience of the world nor to what their experience teechedz s them about the effects of their -- teaches them about the effects of their decisions on the world there. has been plenty of empathy at the supreme court recently for the rich and powerful, resulting in decisions that frustrate congressional intent and deprive americans of crucial statutory and constitutional protections.

there has been plenty of empathy for right-wing ideology and plenty of empathy for big corporations. should we not also admit to the court a nominee who has commonsense, who can appreciate how american laws affect different citizens, and who can also empathize with the poor and the weak as well as the more fortunate? if reaching correct outcomes were as simple as plugging a few factors and elements into a exiewrkts wcomputer, we would ne supreme court justices. quite simply, a broadened range of perspectives and experiences will make for better judgment by our court. one final thing is worth noting about the judicial branch of government. it is designed to be a check and balance to the elected branches. the founders were keenly aware of the corruption and passing

passions to which those elected branches are vulnerable. and they established the judiciary as a place where all were equal before the law and where power and money and influence were intended to hold no sway. the courtroom can be the only sanctuary for the little guy when the forces of society are arrayed against him, when proper opinion and elected officialdom will lend him no ear. this is a correct, a fitting, and an intended function of our judiciary, and the empathy president obama saw in judge sotomayor has a constitutionally proper place in that structure. if everyone on the court always voted for the prosecution, against the defendant; for the

corporation, against the plaintiffs; and for the government, against the condemned, a vital spark of american democracy would be extinguished. a courtroom is supposed to be a place where the status quo can be disrupted, where the comfortable can be afflicted and the afflicted fine some comfort when no one else will listen. a judge of the united states is not an orderly, neutered little functionary of the power structure. judge sotomayor's broad background and empathy prepare her better for that proper judicial role than would grooming in correspondent boardrooms, scrubbing by the federalist society and fealty to party ideology. i am looking forward to judge sotomayor's hearing. as an opportunity to finally reply to her right-wing

detractors, to demonstrate her intellect and qualifications, and to explain her judicial philosophy. my preliminary review of her records suggests that she understands the importance of judicial restraint and modesty, of adherence to precedent, of respect for the legislative branch and of the timeless values enshrined in the constitution and she has articulated a desire to be scrupulously fair by keeping sight of the lessons she has learned during her extraordinary life. judge sotomayor appears more than anything else to be a careful and conscientious judge. let us not throw care and conscience to the wind by hurling unjustified, unhelpful and tired labels at her. let us be proud to have a justice of the supreme court with the type of broad life experience that will inform her good and proper judgment.

thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, i ask consent to lift the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. nelson: mr. president, i ask consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. nelson: mr. president, yesterday the commerce committee had its hearing for the nominee for nasa administrator and for the deputy nasa administrator. charles bolden and laurie ga garverifygarver, respectively. i have known charlie bolden for the better part of a quarter of a century. in addition to all of the numerous accolades that were heaped upon him yesterday by members of the house and the

senate that came to the commerce committee to say a word on his behalf, many of those talking about his distinguished career as a graduate of annapolis, marine test pilot, astronaut, back into the marines after four times flying in space on the space shuttle, flies a, twice at and twice as commander and in various positions in the active duty marines, retiring at the rank of major general. and those accolades were extensive and they were accurate. i would merely add to those attributes given to them, all of which were so laudatory, i would

add at try beauty, the characteristic that americans have come to honor, and that is charlie bolden is an overcomer. charlie bolden, one of the first instances of this, is in his nature you have columbia, south carolina, in 1964. he could not get an appointment to annapolis from his congressional delegation because they were still embroiled with the fact that he is an african-american. and the administration at that time, the johnson administration, had appointed a retired judge with the specific purpose of going around the country and finding qualified minorities so they could go into

the academies. and this gentleman found charlie. arranged for a congressman from chicago to appoint him to annapolis, and when charlie arrived, he was promptly elected president of the freshman class. he and today, admiral dennis blair, now the director of national intelligence, interestingly in the same class, alternated all four years at annapolis, being president of the class. and so therein is a story in itself as an overcomer. i would tell you another part of charlie's life where he represents an overcomer.

charlie went back into the marines corps after four space shultz flights and came back in as a full colonel. marines corps wasn't keen on promoting marine astronauts to general officer. so the first time that charlie was in the doesn't of consideration, they passed him over. charlie said, instead of retiring, i want to go back to annapolis, and i want to give back to the institution that gave me so much, including an education. and he did so as the deputy superintendent which is a marine slot. his superiors were so impressed by his attitude and his service that the next time he was in for

consideration as general officer they promoted him. a second instance in charlie's life. and i would mention just one other incidence of an overcomer. because he was so well prepared and so expert at his task -- that of a naval aviator and of a pilot astronaut -- 23 1/2 years ago after having the most delayed american space flight in our country's history, the 24th flight of the space shuttle having been scrubbed four times on the course of a

month, finally on the fifth try, that 24th flight of the space shuttle lifted off. charlie was the pilot sitting in the right seat, the commander sits in the left seat; the pilot in nasa jargon, the pilot, has all of the systems to monitor. and as we had just cleared the launch tower on lift off on the intercom i could hear charlie's voice, "we have a problem, we have a helium leak." had that not been a faulty sensor which ultimately we discovered but at the time none of us knew that was a faulty sensor, a real helium leak would have caused a serious problem to

the mission but charlie was all over those switches and those systems. he got it under control. and we went on to an almost flawless six-day mission in space only to return to earth and ten days later, challenger launches and blows up. it was another instance of charlie being an overcomer, being presented with almost an insurmountable problem of which he overcame the problem. so just this little aspect of the life of general charlie bolden, is it any wonder there were so many people that came in front of the senate commerce committee yesterday to say a word on his behalf?

and now as we will consider his nomination, first in the commerce committee which ought to be very shortly; and then, in front of the senate. i don't think there's any expectation of any opposition. i believe that then charlie, as the newly installed nasa administrator; going to take on a task of which he's going to have to be an overcomer again because nasa is at a crossroads. america's space program is at a crossroads. it needs a vigorous leader but it not only needs a leader of nasa it needs to be led by the president of the united states who is the only one that can be the leader of america's

adventures in space. i'm hoping the combination of the two of them will put us on a path of reliving a lot of the excitement and the magic this country lived several decades ago when we were achieving extraordinary achievements and which gave a whole new perspective to the human race when astronauts outside of the bounds ofth could look back at this extraordinary planet, suspended in the middle of a void and recognize that is our home. planet earth. in the immortal words of astronaut scott carpenter when astronaut john glenn lifted off on the first american successful

orbital flight, "godspeed, john glenn," said scott carpenter on that immortal day. i think we in the senate will unite in saying "godspeed, charlie bolden, in your new assignment." i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. mr. president, for the information of all senators, we

are hoping to get a vote in the next 15 minutes, about 2:00, so that we can continue to move this bill forward. i note that there is a senator here who wishes to speak in morning business and i'm happy to accommodate him. but hopefully we will have this agreement and be able to move forward on that fairly shortly and wanted to advise all senators. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in

morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. cardin: mr. president, i applaud the administration for promptly issuing guidelines implementing president obama's march 2009 executive order stem cell research removing barriers to responsible scientific research involving embryonic stem cells that have been imposed by the previous administration in 2001. the new guidelines establish sound policies and procedures under which the federal government will fund such research and help ensure the research is ethically responsible. scientifically worthy and conducted in accordance with applicable laws. president obama's action will have a profound impact on the long-term health and well-being of millions of americans. more than 100 million americans have chronic debilitating diseases such as parkinsons, alzheimers, diabetes, and a.l.s.

and many have serious spinal cord injuries. embryonic stem cell research offers hope for advancements and treatment that will improve the quality of life for countless numbers of americans. for the past eight years, american scientists have received limited federal funding for stem cell research. in 2001, soon after taking office, president bush issued the stem cell policy permitting the use of federal funds to support research only on the stem cell lines that were in existence as of the daift his executive order -- date of his executive order, august 9, 2001 is seemed reasonable to many in the scientific community at the time as researchers believed between 60 to 78 stem cell lines would be available for use. in fact, only 22 lines were available. and some of these were found to have been contaminated. in addition, the 22 lines were being developed using science that has since seen

improvements. scientists have testified these lines lack the diswersty diversy necessary to help diseases that affected minority populations. in short, there were real deficiencies in the former administration's policy. it reduced the opportunities available to our scientists and undermined progress and it discouraged scientific exploration. perhaps the best case for stem cell research comes from the patients in the communities we represent here in congress. i've learned of the importance of moving forward on ground-breaking research through my friendship with three individuals. a few years ago my closest friend in law school was diagnosed with a.l.s. his body experienced the rapid decline from symptoms of the debilitating disease and he died soon after his diagnosis. later i was privileged to meet a young man named josh bazel who

served as an intern in my house office. three years before he came to capitol hill he was a healthy young man leading an active life. but while waiting in the atlantic -- wading in the atlantic ocean a wave caught him and he became quad pleejic. he is -- quadriplegic. he is dedicated to help others make strides. through hard work and rebill dangerous he has regained movement that many doctors thought was impossible. he is also asking the federal government to do its part by funding research and allowing scientists access to tools they need to make medical advances possible. later in 2006 i came to know michael j. foxx a bill quantity and talented actor with a remarkable spirit. in 1991, michael was diagnosed with parkinson's disease and he has used his public exposure in

a tireless advocate for stem cell research. at the time i spent with these three has taught me about the burdens of debilitating diseases the those with loved ones in similar circumstances should promote medical research. our scientists need the tools to discover cures and treatments and stem cell research holds out hope for dramatic progress. there's an added benefit to our nation beyond improving the health and lives of parents. we are talking about maintaining the international preeminence of the united states in the field of medical research. my state of maryland is home to some of the world's leading research institutions including johns hopkins university and the university of maryland medical centers. these institutions have cutting-edge research technology and freeing up these important stem cell lines will jump start the numerous promising research

tracks in this area. i meet regularly with scientists like dr. john gearheart and douglas kur to get a better understanding of this issue. i am not a scientist nor do i know the tk any calculates but i -- technicalities but i have had a chance to mean with the scientists to see what they are doing, implanting embryonic growth in mice and see movement where there was paralysis before. this is promising research and happening right here in my own state of maryland. the new national institutes of health funding guidelines for human embryonic stem cell research are the next important step to expand this research even further. it will result in the availability of approximately 700 lines for research, a dramatic increase over the number currently available lines. the new guidelines are based on solid principles. first, that the federal funding for responsible research with human embryonic stem cells has the potential to improve our

understanding of human health and illness and discover new ways to prevent and treat illness. second, individuals donating embryos for research purposes must do so freely, voluntarilily, and with informed consent. they must be derived from embryos that were created from fertilization and not for research purposes and they must be excess embryos that otherwise would be destroyed. to be eligible for the funding, the embryonic stem cells cannot be obtained through monetary payments or other inducements. additionally human embryonic stem cell eligible for testing must have original natured from facilities with -- originated from facilities with proper documentation that they were obtained in a voluntary manner. finally, the guide lines prohibit federal funding of research to introduce human embryonic stem cells into breeding animals or nonhuman primates. the guidelines are responsible. they have stringent safeguards and they are ethically sound.

as a new n.i.h. guidelines are implemented america's knowledge of the potential will continue to broaden. president obama's courageous actions will accelerate this process. the guidelines send a clear message to scientists across the united states that their important work is now backed by the confidence and resources of the federal government. i commend the administration for this decisive action which will strengthen america's position as a global leader in medical research and with tremendous hope and promise this new policy is bringing to millions of americans. mr. president, with that i would yield the floor. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent at 2:00 p.m. the senate proceed to vote in relation to the mccain amendment number 1378 with the time between now and then equally divided and controlled in the usual form with no amendment in order to the amendment prior to a vote in relation thereto. the presiding officer: without objection.

the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. rockefeller: mr. president, i rise in clear, strong opposition to this amendment. let me just say that the fact that this is located in west virginia is not part of my consideration. i'm thinking about national security, border patrol. i served as intelligence -- chairman of the intelligence intelligence and i know something about these things and what the senator from arizona wants to do is -- doesn't make any sense at all. we're talking about a one of a

kind -- the only one in the country -- that trains senior officers as well as others in the border protection, customs, and other things regarding homeland security. there's no other place in the country that does this. i think there are 3,300 students there now and i think they are planning on 5,000 next year. there's no other place this can be done. so if you cut this, there's no substitute. so we talk about border patrol, we talk about all of those things. this is where, particularly on the senior officers' side, people are trained. there's a huge master plan which i will not hold up. it's been approved by the office of management and budget, by the homeland security folks. and it was submitted to congress in 2007. the facilities are used to train

officers in waterboard tactics, and things that be obscure, and including a firing range, which is not only used by c.p.b. officers but local law enforcement, d.e.a., fish and wildlife service personnel, as well as the capitol facility. it's at only facility of its kind in the nation. so these are crucial jobs and there is no place to take its place. if we cut it there's no way to make it up. and carry out our responsibility for homeland security. i think it's a very grievously formulated amendment. i strongly urge my colleagues to vote against it.

mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i thank the senator from west virginia for his remarks. i remind him that this amendment strikes $39.7 million which have been added to the $30 million that is already there for the center. and the $39.7 million is described to equip, furnish, and expand a leadership academy at the center so all the missions that the senator from west virginia just described don't have anything to do with the additional $39.7 million. it does strike an unrequested, unauthorized, unnecessary earmark. the administration didn't ask

for the additional $39.7, nearly $40 million. no member of congress, regardless of position or seniority, should be able to spend $40 million on a pet project with no scrutiny, no hearing, and no competitive bidding process. i will take the senator from west virginia's word that this is important. if it's important, why didn't we have a hearing on it before the homeland security committee? why didn't we have competition from other parts of america? why didn't we have a request for it from the administration? so this is just another one of these egregious earmarks that may or may not have merit. it may or may not. we may actually need a leadership academy that needs to be equipped, furnished and expanded in someplace in west virginia. but no one will ever know that

because we've never undergone the scrutiny that should be required before we spend $40 million of the taxpayers' dollars. now, mr. president, i probably talked enough about it but here we are about to spend -- and i would imagine that we will lose this amendment again -- it is in the backdrop of the federal budget deficit for the first nine months, the first nine months, of the fiscal year of 2009, three more months to go, is $1.1 trillion. estimated to be as high as $1.8 trillion. the last budget deficit that was anywhere near this in recent history was about $450 billion so we're talking, looking at a deficit, it is of massive proportions and we have to pile on additional millions and millions and tens of millions

and even billions of dollars in projects that are of questionable value and they may even be valuable but there has been no authorization, no request, no scrutiny, no competition. it's simply put into a bill in a process that we call "earmarking." that's not fair to the american taxpayers. mr. president, i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. the senator's time is expired. the presiding officer: ail is yielded back. the question is on amendment 1378. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote: vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber who wish to vote or to change a vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 35, the nays are 61. the amendment is not agreed to.

mrs. murray: mr. president, move to reconsider. move to lay on the table. mr. president, we are -- the presiding officer: the senator from washington is recognized. mrs. murray: mr. president, we are working with the republicans at this time to come up with a list of remaining amendments this afternoon. we're making really good progress and hope to very shortly be able to move forward on a number of amendments that we have pending or will be pending shortly that we have agreed on. while we're doing, that the senator from illinois would like unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. how much time will the senator -- a senator: about three minutes. mrs. murray: i will yield four minutes to the senator from illinois. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois is recognized. mr. burris: thank you, mr. president. i would like to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. burris: i would like to thank the senator from washington for yielding and allowing me to speak.

thank you, mr. president. as a member of the armed services committee, i often have the opportunity to meet with the fine men and women who serve this country in uniform. every day we demand the very best from each of them and in return we owe them the best we have to offer. that means keeping our commitment to this nation's veterans. but it also means supporting our troops in the field with the resources, equipment, and perhaps the most importantly the sound leadership at the very highest level. no one understands this better than general james cartwright, the current vice chairman of the joint chief of staff. our committee met with general carcartwright just this morning. the senate has been asked to confirm his nomination 42nd term as vice chairman. i rise today to offer him my

strongest support in that capacity. after speaking with general cartwright, i'm convinced that his long record of loyal service, impeccable judgment and bold leadership make him the very best choice to continue in this very important post. up to this point his tenure as a member of the joint chiefs has been marked by innovative thinking. along with admiral mullin, general cartwright helped to shape the modern military as we confront a range of new threats from across the globe. a native of my home state, general cartwright was born in rockford, illinois, and began his service as a marine fighter pilot more than 30 years ago. he's a distinguished graduate of the air command and a graduate of the maxwell air force base

and served all over the world. as an aviator he put his training to good use on the frontlines of the global defense network. as a u.s. marine, he has never waivered in -- wavered in his commitment to the country we all love. as a former head of the united states strategic command, general cartwright demonstrated his leadership skills and the deep understanding of the threats we faced. he has led the fight for cybersecurity technology, helping to protect america from the evolving threats of the 2 1s century. he's a credit to the fighting men and women of the arm forces and an asset to the elected leaders who depend on him every day. time and again he has answered the call. when secretary gates first recommended him for nomination two years ago, he understood that james cartwright was someone he could rely on.

so, mr. president, today we consider whether we should -- whether or not he should remain vice chairman of the joint chiefs. i believe his record speaks for itself. i ask that my colleagues join me supporting the speedy nomination of general cartwright. thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vacated. the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi is recognized. without objection, so ordered. mr. wicker: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, we need serious

substantive health care reform. the reasons for reform are well known and there is a consensus in congress that something needs to be done to make health care more affordable and assessable. the american people also want us to act, but this desire for action shouldn't give way to legislative haste. americans want us -- do not want us to rush at the expense of getting it right. they have questions, and they deserve answers. there are two very basic and important questions with regard to health care reform. number one, how much is it going to cost? and, number two, how will we pay for it? so first let's look at the question of cost. the american public is alarmed about the massive debt we are accumulating. they realize that in the past year, on top of the almost $1

trillion stimulus bill, the federal government has also purchased banks and insurance company and an auto company all using borrowed money that we as taxpayers will need to pay back. all of this massive borrowing and spending was done quickly and with little debate. this was done, the public was told, in order to save the economy. well, how's that turned out? at the beginning of the year the obama administration told the american people that massive stimulus spending, if done quickly, would create 3 million to 4 million jobs and would keep the country's unemployment rate at 8%. today, sadly, unemployment is at 9.5%, the highest level since 1983. the jobs that were promised have not materialized. in fact, 467,000 additional jobs were lost last month alone. the administration now says they

misread the economy. our government rushed to borrow and spend $1 trillion, but now we're basically being told they were wrong. vice president biden said as much only a few days ago. unfortunately, the american taxpayers are not going to get a do-over on this spending. they're still on the hook for the almost $1 trillion we borrowed plus interest. now there's talk of yet another expensive stimulus package to make up for the one that didn't work. so considering this, it's no surprise that the american public is skeptical about the rush to spend yet another $1 trillion or more to create a washington-run health care scheme. we have a number of proposals in congress that attempt to fix health care. there are workable reform proposals that go at the problem in a way that doesn't incur such prohibitive costs for taxpayers.

unfortunately, however, our democratic colleagues have plans accompanied by astronomical costs to taxpayers. the finance committee is struggling to keep its bill at $# trillion over ten years. we're told -- at $1 trillion over ten years. we're told a portion of the "help" committee bill will cost over $# trillion. that's just a portion of their bill. and some have estimated that the total cost for that bill will be over $3 trillion. these are not scare tactics, mr. president. these are congressional budget office estimates. on the other side of the capitol, the house democrats' bill is expected to cost closer to $2 trillion, and over and above these federal costs there are frightening costs to the states. if the "help" committee proposal to expand medicaid is enacted, we can expect a wholesale collapse of state budgets.

and of course we're already seeing the collapse of some state budgets. they're already struggling under the unsustainable cost of the current program. these spending figures are startling by themselves and even more troubling taken on top of the massive amount of debt we've already acquired. even more troubling is the expectation that cost of the democrat proposals will continue to rise year after year, well beyond the ten-year budget window used to figure the price tag of these proposals. the congressional budget office estimated the annual cost of the insurance subsidy program contained in an earlier version of the "help" bill would rise 6.7% per year until it's fully phased in. this potential spending explosion shouldn't come as a surprise. medicare and medicaid, two programs that we need to strengthen and help and sustain, are both already on

unsustainable paths with enormous unfunded liabilities. this daunting amount of spending has taxpayers worried, and they are beginning to speak up. one of my democratic colleagues acknowledged this recently saying -- quote -- "the big challenge -- and i actually heard this at home during the recess -- is the sticker shock." unquote. other supporters of the president are also warning him and his democratic colleagues in congress to slow down and be more careful with taxpayer dollars. on sunday former secretary of state colin powell, an obama supporter last year, warned the president about the ongoing spending spree, saying, "you could have so many things on the table, you can't absorb it all." and to quote secretary powell, "and we can't pay for it all." in addition to the massive costs associated with these proposals,

no one can yet tell us where the money will come from to pay for them. all the proposals we have seen are creative in the way they spend tax dollars, but very short on specifics on how to fund them. our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have vaguely outlined some ways they may pay for their plan, including a series of cuts to medicare and medicaid. i repeat: cuts to medicare and medicaid along with new taxes. but they've not been as forthcoming and specific as they need to be with the american taxpayers. there is a reason why more details have yet to be released. since we don't have the money to pay for a government takeover of health care, there will need to be massive tax increases or more borrowing, or a combination of the two.

in fact, one leading senate democrat was quoted in wednesday's "wall street journal" as saying they were -- quote -- "broadening the search for revenue." broadening the search for revenue to pay for this massive plan. what that really means, of course, they're intensifying their search for ways to raise taxes on the american people, whether it be taxes on small business, which we've been hearing about lately, or on health insurance plans or surtaxes on soft drinks or anything else they can think of. massive tax increases for the american people for plans which admittedly will only cover one-third of the uninsured persons in the united states of america. all the while this is being done quickly and without time needed to provide the scrutiny the american public expects and deserves. all americans -- republicans, democrats, and independents -- want health care reform, but they don't want a government-run

health care plan. they don't want to pay for it with medicare and medicaid cuts. and they don't want to drive up the debt. getting it right is more important than getting it done quickly. let's learn from the mistakes that were made in hastily passing the stimulus bill. massive new amounts of borrowing, spending and taxes are not the way to successful health care reform. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: madam president, i ask that the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: madam president, i would like to speak as if in morning business. however, if anybody comes in with an amendment or anything, i'll immediately stop. i just want to make -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: all right. madam president, i only wanted to be on the floor for one reason, and that is that it's my intention next week, probably tuesday or wednesday -- whenever i can get the floor time -- to give a rather long history of the whole issue of the cap-and-trade. and what i intend to do is start in the very beginning. and while the occupyer of the chair was not in that position during the kyoto treaty several years ago, i was. at that time the republicans were a majority, and i happened

to be the chairman of the committee that had the jurisdiction. and i have to tell you, madam president, that at that time i was a believer that man-made gases, co2, methane, were the cause of global warming. and the reason i was was because everybody said it. nobody had a dissenting view. and it wasn't until the wharton school came out with the wharton econometrics survey and said if we were to pass, to ratify the kyoto treaty and live by its emission requirements, that it would cost the, somewhere between $300 billion and $330 billion a year. i started thinking about that, and i remembered a tax increase that was in 1993 that was the clinton-gore tax increase that at that time was the largest one in a long period of time. and this would have been ten times greater than that. i thought let's be sure the

science is there, and that's when i discovered that there are many scientists who had been intimidated, who through the use of the manipulation of the granting of grants from the federal government, or from the heinz foundation or many of these organizations, that really had not been able to -- were suppressed very much like the man in the e.p.a. was suppressed last week. well, in looking at that, we started examining it and finding out that many, many scientists around know that -- around said, no, that isn't the case. i will be specific because this was back when president clinton was in office and al gore was the vice president. at that time he wanted to determine how much we could do, could accomplish if the developed nations live by and -- ratified a lived by the kyoto treaty. he went to thomas wig sp*lgly,

top scientists at that time, khoepben by the -- chosen by al gore. he said if all developed nations would ratify and live by the emission standards of this treaty, how much would it reduce the temperature over a 50-year period? when the results came out, it was .07 of one degree celsius. in other words, not even measurable. that is what began to catch on and people realized that this really is a lot of pain, a lot of punishment, a lot the heavy taxes like the cap-and-trade proposal is, or like the one that passed the house. and yet, there's not any gain. and even if you were to believe, as i don't, that a major cause of global warming is co2, then what good would it do for us unilaterally to do it if the

developing nations aren't doing it. so we discovered yesterday in a hearing. i have a great deal of respect for lisa jackson, who is the new administrator of the e.p.a., and her honesty was just incredible yesterday. i asked her the question, showing her a chart saying that this is what we used during the consideration 13 months ago of the warner-lieberman bill, and it showed that with or without the rationing or the living within the limits of the emissions of co2, if we only did it in the united states, would it make any difference at all in the world amount of co2? she said, no, it wouldn't. i think that is the most significant thing because individuals, and well-meaning individuals, who really believe that man-made gases are causing global warming, they should realize that doesn't do it even if you believed it. in fact, the reverse would be true. there's no doubt -- and we have

all kinds of studies to show -- that if we had passed any of the last three cap-and-trade bills that we considered on the floor of this senate, that that would have the effect of pushing the manufacturing jobs out of america into countries where they have no emission requirements, such as china. and that would have a net increase -- a net increase -- of co2. so i think that was a major thing yesterday that took place. so it's my intention next week to go back and to go through the history of this, bring us up to the present time and then look into the future as to what we might be doing with this legislation. i was very happy to hear just a few minutes ago that chairman barbara boxer had decided not to come out from committee with a bill until after the august recess. quite frankly, i think it's -- it works in my favor, the longer we have to inform people as to some of the misinformation, the

better i think it's going to be in terms of a vote that would take place. i can't imagine that if there are only some 35, 36 votes that would have been there to pass the warner-lieberman bill 13 months ago right now that there would be any way today to get up to 60 votes. so, quite frankly, i don't think it's going to pass anyway, but i do think during the recess we're going to have the opportunity to talk about this issue. just today i visited with a national farm group, and we were talking about how it would disproportionately hurt the farmers. the fact that they, that 70% of the wheat cost is in fertilizer and in energy, well, fertilizer and energy are where the costs would be increased dramatically if we were to pass some kind of a cap-and-trade bill. then, of course, there's the regressive feature. the fact that the poor people in america, they have to have gasoline in their cars, they have to heat their homes, and

they spend a larger percentage of their disposable income on heating and using energy than wealthy people do. and so i think with all these things working right now that we're in a position to stand back and say cap-and-trade is not going to work. it's going to be history, and we can start approaching this in ways perhaps somewhat like president bush tried to do with the clear skies act, where he talked about nox and mercury and have meaningful reductions in that to protect our environment. that's what our plans are for next week and i look forward to sharing these thoughts with anyone whots willing to listen. -- with anyone who is willing to listen. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: