availability as we speak and it will be available here in a couple of months. and we have interceptors in the inventory. and in fact based on requirements we have ships deployed today, 24/7, 365 days a year meeting the requirements. additionally we have proven ourselves in tracking and real-world events such as with north korea and with the iranian tracking ballistic missiles with our ship on station with the capability so we are real proud of it. we also, the more they see, the more they like it, the more they want other. so while i am real proud of that i am always under pressure to get more out there. so capacity in and of itself is a capability and that is a lesson learned. is that it is one thing to declare you have a capability, but if you don't have adequate capacity, then it is a hollow

capability. so we are proud of the fact that very quickly literally in two years we have come from just a couple of engagement ships to the full bmt 18 ships we promised a couple of years ago. because of the urgency had added more to the inventory and are looking for more and i'll talk about that. we have conducted many tests with the gmd system where we have integrated into those systems. and we are very confident of our interoperability with them. that is a good news story. we have also made great progress with the gmd as part of a center for the gmd system. this slide, generally, has not changed. the elements that we told you back in 2005 from what we were expecting in the weapons system and the upgrade we had planned are on track or ahead of schedule. we have the missile which has

gone from testing to is in production today and being delivered to the fleet. the one the missile we will fly late next year. which allows us to deal with the future threat. the two-way missile that i will talk about later with japan is on track but i will tell you that program probably is the one that keeps me up at nights the most. when we signed up this program with the government of japan, because of the operational urgency, we signed up an aggressive schedule. we signed up a very ambitious program, but we feel there was a need for it. i am extremely pleased by not just the government to government interaction between japan and the united states, but i am very pleased with the progress made within the industry to industry relationship between the u.s. and japanese industry teams. so that's a good news story for us. it remains an aggressive schedule. when i talk you into thousand five, there is a change here. c. -based in the lower right

order was a program that did not exist. in 2007, we did a demo in 2006 6 where the navy came forward with some minimal weapon system changes and successfully intercepted a target in the pacific. we then went forward and got the funding that was necessary to modify the inventory to move towards the capability or i will show more about that, which is also led us something beyond a capability which we call terminal. as you also see here, we went to see you recently on lake erie for this most recent test. we have been the most extensive weapons system modification we have ever done with the bmds processor. this is the single most complex change to the aegis weapon system that we have ever attempted. and please to report she went to see and successfully attract the

targets. why is that important? that is made up of the one d. missile that allows us to hatch to the future for advanced threats. additionally, the other significant change here we made with the navy allied to deliver open architecture to go on board uss john paul jones in 2012 as she goes through aegis modernization and we will then take her to see and late 2012 and then go through a series of testing over 18 months to certify aegis open architecture combined with bmds functionality so there is only one computer program on the ship and so today we have a bmd program and we have standard program. that's not to mean that the ship with the bmd configuration can't do a w. but it is a limited aw self-defense. and we go to this configuration in the future it will be one program, the ship will have

total control, able to bounce resources along with the radar upgrade, to do with a capability it needs for the fleet of the other area i want to highlight here is back when i spoke into thousand five i couldn't, other than the number of ships, 18, i couldn't speak to inventory. it was tbd. today, as you can see, that was the goal, by 2015, if you look at 2010, we are now up to 47 ships from the 18 we used to talk about in 2007, and 218 s. and 31 a's and one b's. now i will also tell you that is inadequate for combatant commander needs. so we still have a tremendous demand signal for more missiles in the inventory that we are working in the budgetary process. you also see here we are still on track to do the test firings of the sm to -- s. and three

block for this program. so fast-forward, today, aegis ships on patrol can fire sm-3 missiles which is the year accounted for in inventory. they also, we have successfully modified 47 of the sm-2 blocks with the navy with the navy picked up back cost and contributed those missiles. they have been modified in the terminal mode into atmospheric, and here you see the ships that are in the inventory today. they are deplorable assets. they are managed in a global process along with the missiles they carry. and we have an unceasing demand. so much so that last year a missile defense agency actually would have been late of 2007,

the navy and the missile defense agency got together and determined that we could come forward three additional ships that would allow us to get more capability particularly on the east coast. because of what we thought the threat primarily was driving from north korea at the time we made a decision 16 of the 18 ships to be in the pacific. that leads to ships on the east coast. with the rise of the threat from iran, obviously that wasn't meeting the demand signal. right now uss the sullivans out of florida is being modified as we speak. uss a cruiser in norfolk, will start modification shortly and they will both be on line and certified for deployment this fiscal year. early in 2010, uss moderate, another cruiser in norfolk will be modified. and that was a joint cost share between the navy and defense

agency to meet the requirements. additionally, we're looking at adding six more ships to the fleet for the secretary of defense's announcement on the budget for 2010. we have not identified those specific polls yet but we are in a process of working with the navy to identify specific homes and their home port and the data to get those six chips modified as soon as we can, but our goal is to have those ships on line and available to the fleet sometime in 2012. no later than. i like this one. why do i like this slide? i like this slide because it has hardly changed a bit when i first started in my job. the difference is we used to talk about this, and charged is

because of classification. but you know what? we exercise this kind of training and stationing today for ships. i don't have roughly bmd chips that we have helped contribute to the navy but the capability exists today with the block a missile and a three-point to do what you see here. whether we are doing gmd for the defense of the united states or whether we are defending hawaii with the ships off the hawaiian islands, or that we have a ship in the sea of japan, or off israel, we are there. to meet the nation's requirements. that is a fact. that israel. that is in place today. ages bmd, lots of talk and comment proven operationally

effective and cost-effective. operationally and cost effective. i would contend that aegis bmd is a good buy for the nation. for capability. why do i say that? the nation has invested in an aegis cruiser a 35 year life cycle for about what we used to bill them for back a billion dollars apiece. we add even with the 401(k) figuration, where about $3,540,000,000 plus cost of the missile, less than 10 million when you have a bmd capability on a multimission platform that can sail the nation's oceans, or the world oceans for the nation, for available in multimission capability. with the ability to defend themselves while they are operating. i think that's a pretty flexible viable option for the united states for defense of ourselves and our allies.

we've gone through a very rigorous test program that started way beyond before i came on board where we worked hard with the operational test agencies to make sure that we had the requirements as required and dictated by the indicated in our test program. and we have grown a lot. that's a fun part of the job. although i admit there is a lot of pressure. some days when you're in a drudgery of the pentagon, this is what keeps you going. but we are very proud of this program. we are proud of the fact that we got defense capability field is, although it's not what we want for instate. we have a capability, but sm-3 has gone through a very rigorous process, which has been by deal t. operationally effective. that's about as good a great is you can get from those guys.

and we are very proud of that. and that was recorded last october to the leadership in the pentagon. we additionally supported traveling. we have done to firing off japanese chips. we have a very robust research program with the 2-a program with the japanese and we are very, very proud. you see down here listed ftx 06. we conducted that first shot off that campaign which we will conclude in november is the first series of tracking exercises with that computer program that such a stage for us to come back and see in 200 2000 thank you our first engagement test. again, it kind of build on the whole philosophy of build a little, and it was bred into all of us in the aegis world about how to liberate the ability of the fleet. again, we are very proud of his. we are hoping to next year due

ftm 15 which is where we will fire again a launch on a remote track, a cattle truck, a link track from a downrange ship against an intermediate range ballistic missile threat. we're looking forward to the opportunity to do that just. it is not a stated capability of the current capability of something we are required to do, we have a margin and decide to do this capability and we want to do it in the stretched culprit and obvious obvious the here late next euro due ftm 16 where we'll be flying. if i can, always like to bring everybody's got to bring a movie. okay. and last time i told you i would give you a good one. this one i think is a little bit better. it adjacent to what we do to build the missile and get it to see and through flight system. the only thing missing, but you can get out front with your videos, is the music that really goes with it you won't hear today. so you have to deal with my narration. right as you can see the weapon

station in why the f. in three vertical launch being loaded on board lake erie, ship heading to see from pearl harbor. from the get-go, operating the system. no contractors. sailors operating the system. he said were the thing that most proud about the operation was sailors push the button not an engineer to take the satellite down so you can see them going to hear to launch the target in hawaii. that's the target going through second stage burn. the ship will go through detection. you see here in the weapon system. the ship is set up by cell, planing to defended area. the captain ordering the engagement. the launch, in slow motion.

mizzle accelerated to about over 3 kilometers per second. when its space, you will see the initial burn and then off it goes. that's the second of third stage shift to burn. third stage takes it into space. you will see a nosecone. u.s.a. like a spread. that's the third stage and the nosecone following. it is now, you will see the target coming in the field of view. with intercept. we do talk about an intercept of this type. intercepts in centimeters of what we are aiming for. five to 7 centimeters is a good day. that's not much, but you got a quarter, you've about got it. we talk about dead what we are aiming for on a particular target and we measure distances by pennies, nickels and dimes

and a bad day, a quarter. we are real proud of that fact. we've engage multiple threads at simultaneously i would say this was one of the highlight days of my naval career with us shooting down two ballistic missiles simultaneously. we shut down a cruise missile simultaneously. you can see here the series of tests with intercept separating targets that we have conducted over the years. and a lot of legacy here of good engineering rigor between the government and industry teams. just cannot be replaced, that kind of brainpower. simultaneous here, japanese flight test. indo atmospheric test. you ashley see the second block hitting on debris because we destroyed it on the first of the

salvo. this is another test. is what actually occurred off hawaii also. we literally pulled two ships off the fleet line, went to see and did a short notice test. again, we are real proud of our record here in what we have accomplished. the fact that we have ships with that capability. well done. you have a job for another weekend. [laughter] >> so, operationally realistic, got to pass the test. again, we have done the transition with additional capability. burt frost. december of 2007 we just had finished the first japanese flight test successfully. during the buildup for that just like i got called by my boss and he said isn't possible for aegis

bmd to shoot down a satellite. i had a response. i won't say in public, and i said, sir, i don't know but i will get back to you. so i grabbed the team, and he said this is kind of close hauled. so i grab a small group. and i said okay. we have part of the government team is the john's hopkins applied physics lab who operates the technical design agent for a lot of the navy weapon systems develop programs. and one of these site is, a guy named doctor gary sullins, had done a study before. so we called gary back and said gary, can you pull a study out. he said yesterday he said i can tell you the answer now. it is possible but it depends. that wasn't exactly the appealing answer i was looking

for. so i said it depends. the altitude of the target, the speed, what kind of orbit. so i called my boss back and said can you give me any details? he said no. i said well, it is possible. my answer isn't impossible but it depends. he said i was looking for something a little more specific. i said when i get something more specific. we both laughed. i thought that was the end of a. we have gone through a very aggressive test schedule in 2007 so we were tired. we rollback to the holiday all smiling. can't go back home to japan. will all feeling real good. then on the afternoon of the third of january, my world got turned upside down when i got the vocal. he said you are kind of on the shortlist. i said what the heck does that mean? he said you are on the real shortlist for options to deal with this again satellite. so i said okay. the beauty of this is it's going to be close hauled. and you're going to have to put

together a small team. okay. on the morning of the fourth of january we got the team together and we let on what i call the six weeks from hell. we literally in the first three weeks had to find what we needed -- in order to make the time like this, the system is built not to engage a space object. we in fact build it to prevent the crew from engaging space object. optimizing for satellite intercept for ballistic missile intercept, there are things you kind of want to tell the missile to different. so it is a weapons system. and i mean weapons system, missile to ship to radar to the crew, a rebalancing of the dynamic from training to modification. so we spent the first three weeks understanding what we were going to go after, dealing with a lot of agencies we weren't used to dealing with. and the great news is when we got back to some social logical cultural barriers about sharing

information, everybody was on board. but i will tell you we didn't have a day off, and we had some really long days. but team, and this is the untold story, this engineering team that goes back with a standard missile and each is pulled together, the government engaged industry came with the sailors to do something really incredible the first few weeks. once we determine what we wanted to modify, in the system, and in the missile, then we had to validate that. and i will be very blunt. we have ships at sea doing tracking the satellite that we also used the ship in the cornfield of the new jersey to track the satellite as it passed overhead to gather data. because this was not a stable satellite. it was spinning, tumbling. it was just a really -- and we're going to get something. we're going to hit a target within a target is the way we use to describe. we're going from a 1 yard

diameter tank inside a large suburban. and the closing velocities were attacked late at about a little over 9 kilometers a second, which was faster than anything we had ever intercepted before. also was going to be a higher intercept than we had ever accomplished before. we made the modification, started bringing the missiles off the line to modify the software in the missiles and we started doing the weapons. and validating that for ourselves and in then retraining the crew. on how to do there all the while protecting information. i would never telling some senior navy leaders that we're going to keep this a secret until we go to seek to do the event. they said you will never pull it off. another highlight to me was until the ship sailed, and they made the announcement of the ships were actually pulling out of pearl harbor under way when they made the announcement. and we were very proud. in fact, we protect that information to give the government, the nation's

leadership have option of how they want to do this, allowed us to also deal with our allies to get information out into other embassies around the world to honor that obligation to them that what we're going to do. so we went to see successfully did this event. it was a constantine event that we use lots of other agencies. we used lots of sensors from other agencies to help us characterized the target. one of my guys came up with an analogy. it's kind of like you're in the batters box and you are picking the pitch. you're going for that pitch that is in the strike so that you want to take to hit out of the park. and we did and we were successful. intercepted at about 153 nautical mile's above the earth. and it was about 22500 miles an hour. so it was a significant event for us that we are very proud of, what the team did.

another slide for you here is, this slide has other than a couple of minor words, hasn't changed since i started in 2005. we are incrementally delivering capability nation. this is out there today. we are actually in the process of putting this in place. we are almost done with 361. we are down to our last couple ships without upgrade to give them both at the atmosphere capably. if all goes well, in early 2012, we will certify that computer program and won the missiles will be in production. that is where we merge with the navy's open architecture that mentioned earlier. they will deal 51 which allows us to fire the block and then 52 will be our archer c. -based terminal program. in essence, we aren't firing capably. that is an overused word term sometimes that pentagon state but we literally are spiraling additional capability as we

prove it to ourselves that it works. and also we work with the war fire to make sure it's the right thing they want. c. -based terminal as many of you may know backing years ago, and actually late 2002, or late 2001, the navy area program was canceled. and so we kind of went into a limbo phase. the requirement was out there for capability from ships. and it was a dead program. we literally took a demo, which i mentioned back the next back in the summer of oh six. and then once we were successful there, we were proving it could work your the program got the money program and now we have a capability today. and so again, we didn't waste time. we got it out there and we are real pleased with how that's

going to get that is a joint navy funded program. more robust capability and high demand on a more fighter. we're in the process of getting it out of. a capability is being delivered by 2018. i would be the first to tell you it's not exactly the date that the war fire wanted. they wanted it yesterday. so we are working on the plan as we go through the options for sea-based terminal of what we can do to accelerate that capability. and once we get that first look done later this year, we will report out and offer the options of what we can do to accelerate, if possible. so the sm three evolution, this light has not changed. one a. is in production. 21-inch booster, one b., the only difference, the difference is a brand-new jugular.

to color seeker. advancing the process. this is the missile that will become we believe the workhorse of the fleet of the sm-3 in the future against the advanced threats that we had to deal with. the block to missile which is a 21-inch missile with a full caliber when, this will map out the vertical launch system as we know it today. in fact, we are going to go to a new lightweight canister to help reduce weight. this is cooperative development program with japan. and this is why i tell people, if you want to look out you can work with an ally and you want to establish a golden standard of cooperation, this is it. nation of japan is so committed they have put over a billion other dollars to help us develop this. we have worked out in the latest negotiations, workshare for the missiles. we have gotten through system

design review so that next year, and about a year and a half will go to preliminary design review. and we're getting more and more refined cost effective. the bottom line is it is a very progressive program. in stead of three ships defending japan, you can do it with one chip. that is the reach of this missile. this missile gives the nation options for lots of things, including a land-based option for sm-3 if required by the nation. the 2-a was an come in with this whole nuclear vehicle in later testing. we will build a couple of these rounds before transition to this round and flight test. again, this round covers a lot of defended area which is what you want. internationally, talked about japan as the gold standard we have lots of relationships with

countries aren't exchanging data and analysis of what it takes to do ballistic missile defense. and we are very proud of our relationships we have had and i will talk about who participated. also i would highlight here who has purchased the aegis system. australia, south korea, japan, norway, to name a few. again, we feel that there are other ships, other nations with sensors like the uk, the netherlands, the germans, that have a system capable of tracking, and i will talk a little more about that in a second. they just haven't had the desire to want to commit. norge, they have parts of admission that allow you to engage in ballistic missile if you so choose. so if you look at cooperative development, we talked about

this and i don't want to beat a dead horse, but the cost of the program and i used to talk you has gone a. the more we refine what we want to put in this missile for capability, and also what we want to control in workshare in order to keep the risk hageman has gone a. for those of us who have been in the acquisition business for a while, early on process demanding is more of an art science based on folklore than it is data. as you get the design -- what i have found is, and i am, frankly i came from and background. but what i find is if your requirements are tied up front, the likelihood that you will be successful is much greater. but also, as you go to that requirements definition with the engineering and industrial team, controlling that definition of those requirements, is very critical.

you're going to find a big delta, particularly where there are more high-risk technology answered in this business it is high risk technology. at what we found in this one is with -- before we get to the preliminary design review in 18 months, we probably will be in the 80, 85 percent confidence factor that is pretty darn good. so right now the goal, my responsibility in the program is with the government of japan to contain the requirement with the engineering community. so we deliver on schedule. i would say, and i have seen this in the one b. develop an in space, if you can control costs and growth of two cd-r you doing a great job. because we generally, in aegis, once we get the cd-r we are only at 95 percent. we do a hell of a job at

controlling costs at cd-r. getting the cd-r, critical design is always a challenge. controlling that bounded space to get that design type, understand the requirements, understand the technology, get those technical risk levels down we really understand what you are building. and the japanese program is more complex. we are dealing not with just two nations, but different cultures of how you acquire things. so a lot of it with japan is based on trust in the relationship. real trust. and i think that has been the thing that gives me the greatest conference as this program goes for. we have been in research development with japan for 11 years now with the ballistic missile defense. that confidence of working together and the relationship we have, even though we may have different government approaches as to valid a contract and bring industry on, that understanding and we each business and understanding how we get to where we need to go, is what gives me hope that this program

will be successful. we had a dutch ship sail all the way from the netherlands to participate in test. we have had a spanish ship sail to participate in test, not to say we have had the japanese were just a. and will have another japanese test in the not-too-distant future. so we have an international. we have shown the centers others in aegis system are adamant to track, detect and track ballistic missiles. talk a little bit about needy initiatives. navy air missile defense command was set up at the end of april. which is a command that's about 70 days will eventually get to 75, we're over halfway there. get manned up with some of the best talent in the navy. we have former crew, former

destroyer, former combat system on lake erie is on board. probably some of the strongest lgl talent, in the program. good news. as i mentioned, we did a pop quiz test where we took some missiles that were old initial deployment rounds that were going to go out of inventory, literally pulled to ships off the line and said we're going to go shoot at target short notice. and they did a great job. we move forward with sea-based terminal test where the navy helped foot the bill to get that test off. again, that went very well off point to do. and the other big story in navy initiatives is the navy has skin in the game. navy has over a billion dollars in aegis modernization. with the closure of the missile defense agency, with the navy to get to combined bmd

functionality with the navy system, it is a powerful story. why? for one, the navy put money, real big money. not just missiles, they are investing real money that allows us to put bmd on chips. and they are in fact paying the procurement costs starting in 2012 for those bmd upgrade. we are paying the development of cost and they are paying some of the procurement costs. it is a true cost of share initiative to get bmd capability. what else does this do for you? as the navy goes through modernization of the aegis fleet, 80 some odd ships, the ability to put a bmd capability you can extend through the entire aegis leap should the nation desire to do so. and franca, for operational flexibility, we need more ships.

i did not talk about this before but i get asked a lot what makes you guys successful? culturally those of us that are grown up in aegis standard community grew up in a rigor of where the government had a strong team in the program office and into government labs combined with johns hopkins physics lab, that is a pure of our industry. so that together, we had insight what industry is doing and vice versa. industry will come, wants to know the exact requirements to understand that trade space and design. so having been able in the industry, have to walk in the program office and find that this is what you have in writing. let camp out on exactly what you're trying to achieve. whether it is in that missile or the weapons system. that is truly, had we not had a strong relationship, burnt frost

would not have been possible. because there was stuff we found on models on the government side in the industry, and we found different. and that ability to resolve those differences gave us insight into that design trade space for something that wasn't in the design, i.e., shoot down a satellite which we would not have found otherwise. details, details, details. i was taught by admiral meyer and admiral george meineke were two older star wars of the program, there are a million damn thing that can go wrong with a missile, braggart they are so complex and you better look at every detail. and the weapons system just complex that missile system. it is truly a work of art. frankly, having been operated,

training, i live and breathe it. and frankly, we stress the operational. ships, no notice wanted. we give them as big a lodge as we can. we had one test we kept the ship on station three days. didn't tell them where we were going to shoot for three days. they had to go through watch team rotation. they had been on deployment and they did just fine. never accepting hardware for. if you're going into a multibillion-dollar delta program, and your infrastructure is hardware poor, in other words, not enough test infrastructure to test out stuff, not enough round of testing, control the vehicle testing, test vehicle. if your hardware poor, you will fly at high risk. and i would rather stretch a program schedule than the hardware poor. because inevitably you will pay for it later.

anticipate change. things will happen. technically, programmatically, maybe in guidance from the administration or within the department. you figure it out. change it or break it. do not conquer my sure rigor, but be ready to embrace change when you get it. we have another expression, and praise, access all the data all the time. the most recent test, we flew to targets and we will be going through that data for months. and it will go right into a next test this fall and will still be going through the data. always looking for what we need to work on. as painful as it sounds, i heard this expression once. it's true. i don't like to live in it, but you do it. you learn more off of failure and you do a success. it doesn't sound good. it's like you are biting into an apple with a worm in it. it's not a good day, but i have to tell you, it makes you get --

one, it forces the engineer rigger of how you do failure refute, but it also causes you to be very reflective of what your processes are. make sure you are on track. which is kind of what we did this summer with the most recent test. deliver as you promise, and by god make sure it works as you promised and designed. and if it doesn't, you fix it. while you deliver something you keep coming back. the fleet and evidently overtime will find things don't want you to fix. be prepared to fix it. it's never closed out. you are going to find things in the weapons system. you will want to make better. make sure you sustain stuff correctly. and you find a. there is a cost of doing that. for us in the navy, it's not real hard to look at it this way. the sea is inherent in unforgiving in a harsh

environment. so we kind of prepare for it. by golly, when you go to see be prepared to operate in a less and unfriendly environment. i guess the northlake is the hardest place to operate it is one of the hardest places to operate but until you have been in a sandstorm for about three days and you see sand that's like top about her getting everything that is imaginable on a ship, and heat that just is indescribable. you know, yes, sand will stick to vertical surfaces very well, thank you very much. and it will also creep into things that you just cannot imagine. you better be prepared to operate in that environment, day in and day out. and don't forget that. but again, never test the discovery. you want to go out and confirm. that means a lot of rigor and a lot of analogy beforehand.

i've been doing this now for almost, well, i just hit 33 years. i came in as an ensign. that was my battle space. 40-kilometer miss her, a gun that could shoot to the horizon. and then i went to a 993 and i thought that was about as good as it got. i thought it was a slickest ship i ever set foot on. and up to about 80-kilometer missile, and no, fox. still had, but i had harpoon. so i could at least launch a surface to surface missile on the horizon. and i took command of the uss taylor, and i had a tomahawk. i reverted. i didn't have standard missile. i had sea sparrow so i had my battle station. but look at the battle space that is starting to change. so i go to cape saint george

better missile. good. i got tomahawk. that's good. and i got a great radar. so my battle space is out here now. a little bit better. at this point i've got about 23 years of service. so i think, man, my world has changed a lot. now, uss lake erie. now you talk about space. not only are you just talking about space, engagement in space, you are talking about instead of defending a carrier or some marines going to shore, or yourself, to defending a city or country. and i would contend the stakes are incredibly high. one of the seals that was out on station for the recent north korean event said i know you want aboard ships sometimes, don't screw this one a.

you cannot screw it up. train, train, train. i said until i was on station, i didn't realize it. i was taking this young commander on a bmd chip, literally helping with his sister ship from japan, they are defending tokyo, potentially. millions of people. so what a difference a career makes. and i will tell you, whether it's on a japanese ships or the u.s. ships, you will be in awe of the sailors and what they can do. it is truly incredible. the amount of effort and i'm out of villages they put into this mission. they are excited about it. right now it is cool to be on a bmd chip. everyone wants to be on them. because it's really neat stuff. and it's a game change. it is truly a game changing

capability for the country. it changes the dynamics of how ships deployed and how you operate. so it's been a lot of fun being a part of this. in summary, we're going to become, we're going to be more capable. japan is the gold standard in how to do this. if you are committed to this missionary, go to japan to see how you commit to it. it is a growing interest area by our allies. franca, depend on what goes on with the bmd review this summer in the qdr, i suspect international will see some movement on the international front for sea -based defense. we need to keep them informed based on analysis so that they see performance so that they can make decisions based on their national needs. i have always committed that with the allies. i am not selling you. i am just telling you the data. let's talk about the data, which you can and can't do and you

will make your own informed decisions. c. squared, the biggest thing i worry about every night. how do you convey in this missionary. it is a very complex command-and-control. being a surface warfare officer with a lot of strike groups without experts, it's tough enough for strikers to pull together a tight c. squared and then make a joint. and this missionary if you are talking about thousands of miles of command and control that you have to coordinate with weapons release authority delegated down for a critical missionary down to that 05406 on a ship. or that patriot batterer, or erol. and it's one airspace. some people tend that a ballistic missile defense airspace, hey, anybody thinks it's going to blog something like this is going to go down in a vacuum, and there is not other

things to be flying in the air what you are doing this mission, you need a dose of reality. for the april event off north korea, north koreans were flying, south koreans were flying, u.s. air forces were flying, japanese were flying and the russians were flying. that was one complex airspace. by the way, there were a lot of ship traffic. so it is a very dynamic c. squared, integrated air missile defense in which bmd is a subset. we've got to get it right and he deserves a lot of focus. with that said, you have been patient. i have not heard one bit of snoring, and i stand by for your questions. and then when they're done i want to show you a video. i did bring a video of the test we just did in hawaii so you can see that. thank you. [applause]

>> was your reaction to the public announcement of your intentions? >> my reflection on that is that several things came out of guidance we received from the pentagon and the white house. was, we would be transparent. there are no hidden agendas here. this was a one time event, because the nation decided there was a threat, not just the u.s., but the world from this tank. and everybody we talked to from nasa, to anybody, said okay, likelihood this would land in a popular area, not high, but if they did it was going to be very bad. it was likely, the tank was likely because it was frozen hydrogen, it would come to the atmosphere intact because it was a spherical tank. and it was hydrazine is real nasty.

and so i think what impressed me the most about that was what i heard from guidance early on how we were going to handle the public and how we were going to advise the other embassies around the world what we're doing, through the state department. the fact that held true all the way through is very refreshing. you always hear about these theories about stuff that is going on. i didn't see that once. not one bit. we started with a strategy. it was driven by the white house on how we were going to deal with this. once the president made the decision we're going to engage, and i didn't see one deviation. however, we wanted to hold it close at some point. first to make the decision, keep a close hold because of the decision. the second reason we held onto it was until we timed it, the announcement, to the embassies around the world that what we were going to do to coincide with the ships getting to see because we didn't want to cruise to strike. does that answer your question, sir?

>> you didn't know that you could do it, so you must have felt some personal pressure. >> frankly, after about week four and watching the cruise, and i went to see on the lake erie we did a simulation a couple times. most people do know, i went to see for a while before we toupee can't do it execute with admiral keating. i was very confident we were going to be successful. as long as we didn't wait too long. if we waited too long, you start picking at the drag, and so it would get sporty. and as long as we didn't wait too long and general chilton was the critical piece here i felt confident or did i feel pressure, yes. i got to the point though admiral mullen had actually arrived on the island the night before the event on his way to australia with the secretary for boxer and i briefed him that night before we did the event. and he said you don't seem nervous.

i said sir, imacs are tired and i'm worried the crew, there are three ships, we're going to get to peek beyond. i said we ready to go. i was very confident. i do, i was more confident about this than i have some of my flight test. some of the flight test we really stretch the envelope, in fact, going into some of the flight test, did i sign up for this? and so friendly, when you know you are on the edge we really, like i said we picked the pitch. one thing about it, is going into orbit, 90 minute orbit. you can kind of take the pitch you want. and so we picked that and i felt confident to do that. >> you said that the sm-2 in a project with japan, because of the aggressive schedule but also because of the cost increase. can you see anything on your chart there that is report 1 billion, what were you

expecting, and it also said that the u.s. is going to pick up that extra cost. you know, is it the cost that is giving you -- >> know, when we initially scoped the program with japan, and the cost i would say the reason, when, we go by the independent cost schedule. okay. one, the cost i think right now is conservative at this point of the design. because of the relationship with japan and their side of the cost share that they share. they are very confident where they are as far as risk and what they have. because of the complexity of what we want to put in the kill vehicle, we have made decisions about robustly one that designed to be to make the threat. which is also, so we have actually made sure that requirement is very tight and robust for the future threat. and i will leave it at that.

number two is we have before made a decision that the block 2-a program is going to be a part of a different program for the kill vehicle which used to be in the multi-kill vehicle program. and we're going to build a kill vehicle that had commonality that was the applicable between the unitary on the 2-a and the multiple. frankly, one of the big cost drivers for us has been the cancellation of the program and the fact that we lost that effort. so that our decision. and that is an unintended consequence of that. clearly not a decision i would put on the japanese government to bear. and friendly, it is our commitment to recover from that and go forward. and we are very aggressively working that with our industry partners. but i would tell you also what we did initial investment for this program even before i came aboard programming 2005, that

the estimates were based on some pretty rough order of magnitude estimates which is not uncommon early in a program. and also, what we could disclose in the design between the workshare between the u.s. and japan and then you have to go back to each country and get their models of what they think it will cost. frankly, i don't think it is a bad news story. the biggest risk that we have added to the program is we collapse a multiple unitary airport was in a multiple program and we lost some scheduler, which is also cost. >> if you are three-putt 1 billion now, how much bigger figure was that? >> we were initially about to point for. i use that carefully, to point for. the reason i say that you is this. it's a notional 50/50 cost you between the united states government and japan. whatever is inside their

workshare is their burden to control their cost per the agreement. so if they have cost inside their side, they bear the burden. if it's on our side we bear the burden. since we have the lead for the kill vehicle, we bear that big burden because it's also one of the higher risk areas. doesn't make sense to you? >> yes. [inaudible] >> it's not a concern. it so important i i believe this missile, the ballistic missile defense for the navy is a game changer. the 2-a missile i believe changes the dynamics because then, things like doing earlier intercepts, pre-intercepts gets greater. and so the ability to deal with greater threats. so i say keep me up at night is so important to the nation that we deliver this. it's important to japan and it is important to me that we

deliver that missile. now, i would say the same thing about the 1-b. the problem is, the 1-b, we kept the missile intact and we added a new kill vehicle, right? the 2-a, with the exception of the booster, that's a brand-new missile from end to end. so the complexity of bring that home is a lot different. >> and all concerned that you're not going to meet those goals? >> i intend to be flight testing in 2014. okay. >> i am just curious. from the test that occurred in november with the japanese, i think there was a failure versus this last is. apparently you test it out some modification to fix this time around? isn't specific to a japan configuration or is it a u.s.-japan? >> know. the failure we had last year was

driven by, one, the shifted magnificent job to do pollitt politically correct that was one of the best performance as we've seen today by any ship, u.s. or japan. number two, the missile flew all the way through in game perfectly. phenomenal all the way through. in the last few seconds of flight, the control system had a failure. and we lost it at the very interstate of flight, the last few seconds. so that wasn't anything to do with the ship, or any different. those rounds were the same. now, the process we went through in failure review, flight test better, failure to review process, it was exhausted between the government and industry. we brought in outside experts. we had a great panel,

independent review team overseeing it. it was excruciatingly exhausti exhausting. out of that, we came up with what we thought was the center of the cost area. this flight in july was to verify that our processes were in place that we could fly with acceptable risk and still -- that we believe the fact that we knew the missile would fly correctly. and in fact we did. so now as we roll into the next test with the japanese, we have restored confidence. i call it a vindication of how we do our engineering process and rigor behind it. nothing is ever free in this kind of business where you fly traditional missile programs. if you are flying above, if you're batting above 500, you're going to go in the hall of fame. we're doing a lot better than that. so knock on wood, i worry about it every day, it's something we have to keep on top of.

>> that implies there is something, in terms of fabricating. >> we feel that any divert and attitude control system, that there was some imperfections in a valve inside the divert and attitude control system. on that particular build of that particular round that led us to be, that's okay, it was a bad day out of one missile. we do fly right out of the production line. we don't cherry pick the rounds. it comes off the production line. [inaudible] >> what we have done, it causes us to go back and look at our production process. we can even put more eyes on it and we do our quality assurance, mission assurance that we took another round to how we do that. and we are still, we're going to constantly over the next few months look at that to make sure

we got it right. thank you. >> how effective do you think the system might be at intercepting missile launch a few hundred miles off coast in the atlantic, pacific or the gulf of mexico or 300 miles above the united states? . . how to deal with that

predictive of a potential attack against the united states. but the system is what it is. you've seen the define space. it doesn't care if it's firing off a barge or land if it meets engagement criteria, it will tell you that there's a threat and you can engage it if you so desire. [inaudible] >> we'll watch a very short video and we just completed with stellar avenger and it may help you see here. this was against about a short to medium-range target here. there you go. and we launched two targets. the first was the intercept

target off uss operative engage. and the second target where we had -- again, all three ships participated. you're going to see the launch here shortly. it's a new emd simulated engagement. we had a prototype new kill assessment system. in other words, something that looks at the target and makes a determination of a kill assessment. it's a new technology we've been working on. it helps support the weapon system evaluation for a kill on the lethal object. you've seen the target burn out at the first stage. you won't see it here but the second stage is shortly after that on the target. there's the uss hopper. there's a launch area. it's 4:30 in the afternoon out there.

that was a booster you saw. that's the second stage burning. second stage takes it up to the edge of the atmosphere and then a third stage takes it up into space. so you'll start seeing a shift from visuals -- you'll see some other launches here. you'll see from our airborne platforms, you'll see the tracking. for those of you who have been on ships and seen launches this launch is faster than the normal missile you're used to seeing. that's slow motion. you'll see another one here that's really impressive. that is the venting up through the vent exhaust. this is -- somebody asked me how long is the flame? i don't know. it's about 26-foot long. there's a plume coming out of the back missile once it clears the deck. right now you're going to see --

and again, this was just done -- this was thursday. and there's the intercept. again, we're looking for a kill on the payload part of the warhead. and 5 centimeters was what we were off by, what we were aiming for. definitely a lethal intercept. in fact, the kill diameter -- so that gives you a sense of that. other questions. yes, sir. >> sm3 land use? >> as many of you know, one of the options that was talked about in the -- by congress in the administration was an option in case aero-3 -- an option to aero-3. so there was -- we'd done analysis of what a land-based

sm3 configuration would look like, optimal. and so that program -- there is a program laid into the pb10 budget that starts that effort next year funded by congress. additionally, there is part of the review options for land base sm3 which could be used for other potential uses. anything -- any comment by me, that is predeterminate. certainly, ships and land-based -- you know, it is configuration that has a lot of merit. as far as technical, we believe aegis bmd is what we can make this work. if you can go to sea and make this work, i can put it on dirt. i've got it in wallops and morris town. we know how to do a land-based launch. so this is not something

technically on a bridge too far we believe to go do. is it what the nation wants? and that's a decision for leadership to decide upon. [inaudible] >> thank you so much for your leadership on this program. [applause] >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

>> sunday, frank rich reflects on 15 years of political columns for the "new york times." including his look at the future of the internet from 1995. the white water hearings, and his column following 9/11. q & a sunday night on c-span. >> vice president biden today defended the administration's $787 billion economic stimulus package after a meeting with white house economic advisors. he also talks about the so-called cash for clunkers auto rebate program. this is about 4 minutes.

>> we just finished a briefing with the economic team about the impact and role the recovery act in more optimistic projections that were seen. six months ago we gathered here in the white house worrying about the u.s. economy and whether or not it was falling off a cliff. and today analysts are trying to determine if -- if an official recovery is already underway. to quote my good friend larry summers he said six months ago we were talking about whether or not this recession was going to turn into a depression. and now today we're sitting here talking about whether or not -- not if, but when the recession will turn into recovery. so it's a significant change in the last six months and that's because we're starting to see some signs of stabilization in key parts of the economy. in the final quarter of last year, in the first quarter of this year, the loss rate of g.d.p. was around 6%.

and in the most recent quarter, g.d.p. fell at a much lower rate at 1%. and many economists, many economists left, right and center have attributed in this in large part to the recovery act. one piece of the three pronged approach that the administration has put together to get this economy going again. the recovery act was designed to do three things. it's been mischaracterized intentionally and unintentionally by a lot of people. it really has three pieces to it. first is rescue. the second is recovery. and the third is reinvestment. now, you know, there's now evidence that it's accomplished the goals it set out to do are on the way of accomplishing those goals. after falling in the prior six months, state and local spending has increased 2.4% last quarter and a very unexpected reversal. that links directly to the fiscal relief we have provided to the states.

household income has gotten a much-needed boost in the last quarter, growing at a yearly rate of almost 5% following declines in the previous nine months. and business investment contracted less than expected as confidence is slowly returning to the economy. americans are now confident enough that with certain incentives they're willing to start to go out and spend again. for example, the tax credit for new home buyers has helped stabilize sales and prices of new and existing homes. giving it a boost to and incentive to over 250,000 families have gone out there and purchased a new home without reliance on unsound credit practices of the past. and the cash for clunkers program has been an unqualified success. it has boosted demand for cars and spurred consumer spending. and our critics say they don't think this program is helping.

well, all economic indicia point in the opposite direction. it is helping. i think it would be hard to tell a young family who just bought their first home because of the tax credit or the thousands of people who just traded in gas guzzlers for more efficient cars that this is having no impact. don't get me wrong, we still have a long way to go. less bad is not the same as good. we know that growth in g.d.p. is necessary but not sufficient . it's not a sufficient marker of recovery. for one thing, it's not going to occur until there are jobs. my grand pop used to have the expression when the guy up the line is out of work it's an economic slowdown and when your brother-in-law is out of a recession and when you're out of work it's a depression. well, it's still a serious problem for millions of unemployed americans. too many people are out of work. too many families are in pain. and when that's no longer the

case, that's when we will have recovery. but i can tell you today without reservation, the recovery act is working. and when we do recover, when we finish rebuilding, when we finish rescuing the thousands of people -- tens of thousands of people who are going to fall into a black hole without our help with unemployment insurance and cobra and fmak and the look we would have been through the process in the recovery act begin to lay the groushg for a more stable economy in the investments that we're making through this recovery act. so let me conclude by saying i think -- and it's a fairly widespread and widely held view that the recovery act is working. it was necessary. it continues to be necessary. and we're going to see that we execute the remaining portion of the act with the same kind of fidelity we have. thank you very much.

>> sorry, no questions. >> now a pentagon briefing on afghanistan operations. we'll hear from the u.s. general in charge of forces along the afghanistan/pakistan border. this is about half hour. >> okay, good morning, everyone. general, this is jim turner in the pentagon briefing room. can you hear me? >> i can hear you, thank you. >> great, all right. let's get started. today our briefer is major general. he's a commander of combined task force 82 in afghanistan. the general and his troops are responsible for security and stability operation in nato's regional command east. this is our first opportunity to get an operational update from the general, who assumed command

on june 3rd of this year and with that, general, i'll turn it over to you for opening remarks before taking questions from the press. >> well, thank you. hello, everyone and thank you for joining me this morning in what is my first pentagon press conference as combined joint task force 82 commander. the headquarters replaced the 101st airborne headquarters. i was combined joint task force 101. during the 3 june transition of authority ceremony at bagram air force in afghanistan. since then, combined joint task force 82 has worked hard to build on the work of the 101st with afghan government officials and afghan national security forces within the fourteen provinces of regional command east. although predominantly army, we have significant contributions from the navy, marines, air

force and special operations. these sailors, marines and airmen fill critical needs throughout the command ranging across the entire spectrum of operations. i want to begin by paying tribute to our fallen heroes. here, far from home, brave men and women have given their lives for the cause and freedom in afghanistan but also to keep all americans safe and free. to their families, friends and comrades, i offer my heartfelt condolences. no words can diminish the grief you feel. but i want you to know that all of us honor them for their service. we will remember them and you each and every day. many of you are familiar with regional command east. the land area comprises 120,000 square kilometers, the same sizñ as new york or mississippi. most of the area is steeped mountains and channelized terrain. even in the areas that are relatively flat, the high

altitude is still a limiting factor for a number of agriculture and commercial activities. 9.5 million people live in rc east that radiate from kabul and from 75 kilometers of the pakistan border. that population was mostly along the roads. but a significant number is quite isolated. and these areas and our afghan forces attempt to intimidate through violence and coercion. here in rc east, our main priorities are to protect the population, to help build the afghan government's capacity to serve its people and to help enable sustainable development to improve the lives of all afghans. the security of the afghan people is our main focus and we carry that out through close partnering with afghan government officials and afghan national security forces. a key part of our approach is information, which we see is the key domain some

counterinsurgency. we understand that the true center of gravity is not the taliban but the willing support of the afghan people. here in rc east, we're working hard not only to counter the enemy's propaganda and misinformation but to anticipate and expose them. we are doing this by taking a proactive approach to seas and retain the initiative by preempting events and exploiting opportunities. we see the information line of operation as our primary line of operation. along our security line of operation, we strive to protect the population by, with and through the afghan national security forces. we partner our forces at every level to build their competence, ability and credibility and we also learn from our afghan partners. many of whom are skilled commanders and soldiers. in the areas of development andnance worry working with our civilian counterparts than ever before. in my lone career i've never seen a more focused whole of

government approach pushed down to the lowest levels. for instance, we have integrated civil military action group provincial reconstruction teams, agribusiness teams, district support teams, et cetera. along our governance line of operation, we're working with our civilian colleagues to connect the people to the government by linking local leaders to government resources through accountable measures. the civilian surge now underway will be a critical enabler here. along our development line of operation, we partner with the department of state, usaid and other u.s. government agencies as well as the afghan government to build sustainable development through economic growth. mutually supporting efforts with the u.n., the independent elections commission and other international organizations are also a big part of this effort. this month, afghans will go to the polls to choose their next president. the afghan elections are one of the most important things that will happen during our deployment.

close to 1.5 million people in rc east are registered as first time voters for the upcoming election on 20 august. the afghan people -- the afghan people are clearly making their choice for freedom and did so when they turned out at voter registration drives. this is an afghan-run election and we will not take sides but we have an important role to play in the process. we have troops in the ground to support the afghan national security forces through this process and the afghan people who make the decision to vote in this election. the elections will not be perfect but our outcome will determine who leads afghanistan for the next five years and their fairness will determine the credibility and legitimacy of the afghan government. but this as a backdrop, i'll be happy to take your questions. thank you. >> thank you, general. andrew. >> general, this is andrew gray from reuters.

you mention you see information as your primary line of operation. are you saying that's more important than fighting and protecting the population? and can you explain what that means in practice for your operations. and also provide some reassurance about what the differences is between information and propaganda. >> yes, as i talked about that, i meant of the four lines of operation we have, information operations is the primary line here at the cjtf level. and so i'm making a difference in roles between myself and my subordinate commanders. that does make a difference in terms of the importance of the fight against the enemy. i do see the center of gravity is the people and the people are the most important piece of this. so no question that any of those parts -- or that portion of your question that you asked. i do differentiate between what you call propaganda.

as i look at information operations. it is really holistic in a sense that i'm talking about strategic communicatio:i and messaging ad i'm talking about information operations in terms of the military term of that, which would -- would include psychological operations, et cetera. so it's an umbrella but as you know, this is a war of perception as well. and we believe it is important to emphasize communications in all that we do. here's my greatest emphasis. it is simply that we have a communications process and team here that speaks accurately and quickly to the different audiences. that's the primary piece. and that has to do with accurate, truthful informeoç good or bad, as quickly as we can get it. because again it is a war of perception. as you know, there's been a great deal of discussion about

our enemy and how quick they are in terms of strategic communications. now, they don't have to worry about whether they're accurate or truthful. and most of the time they're not. they just try to be first. so we have a tough job here. we have to be fast but more importantly, i have to make sure that we're accurate. hopefully, that answered your question. >> general, it's lou from abc ná-k general mccrystal entered a tackle defensive recently. can you explain what impact that may have on the operations of your forces in your region since that directive came out or -- have you followed a consistent pattern even before that directive came out? >> well, i'll take the first

part. the tactical directive was issued and general mccrystal's intent -- the center of that is the protection of the afghan people. that's the intent of the order. and as you probably know, it deals with the measured use of force primarily having to do with air power, indirect fire and munitions that can cause greater property and personal damage. but again, it is the measured use of that in order to protect the afghan people. in terms of the impact on operations, we have been very deliberate about our use of any munition and in particular larger munitions. always with the view toward being careful that we employed munitions where we would not endanger noncombatants. we have refocused our efforts as a result of the tactical directive being additionally cautious in this regard. i think that in some cases, it may have slowed the pace of our

operations in the sense that we take more time. we allow a situation to develop to ensure that we know whether or not civilians are in the area. we may maneuver a little more to gain a more advantageous position where we know we can exclude any civilian casualties. we may, in fact, back off and cordon an area and call out the enemy, for instance. so it impacts it in the sense of the pace of operations, but i would tell you that given the predominance of our force, that we can have tactical patience and still defeat the enemy. finally, the protection of the people is more important than the pursuit of an insurgent. and that's really the crux of the tactical directive. >> general, i wonder if you could talk a little bit about

partnering between your combat units and the afghan national security forces in rc east? is it fairly uniform across your area or are some units more closely linked to the afghan army than others and what are your sort of goals that sort of expanding that in the months to come? >> yeah, thank you. it's a good question. and it's an important one to me because as i look at the first principle of protecting the population, the second major priority that i've talked to my forces about is building the afghan national security forces. within rc east, we are not partnered in an even fashion in rc east and that's what we're beginning to plan with our

partners and make some adjustments. that's primarily because the positioning of our forces and the positioning of the a & a or the police forces is just not ideal to get an ideal partnership. partnership to me means that we -- in every case that we can, colocate, particularly, at headquarters level so we're going to attempt to do that. that is -- we do that already in many areas but not all. we, obviously, operate together continuously, and then, i think, that we're going to put greater focus on it now to begin working at every level together throughout the force but also in our planning. my view is that my battle space essentially is the battle space of the 203rd and the 201st army. and so as we develop our plans, execute our operations and consider both the threat and the security of the people, we've got to do that together in a

greater way than what we're doing it today. it's pretty good, but i believe we can make it better, and over the next several months in particular, we'll do that. in fact, today we just concluded a conference, a two-day conference with our afghan national security force partners as well as our combined security force that's responsible for their training to consider the options and the ways that we can improve our partnership. >> just to follow up on that. do you need more forces in order to do the partnership properly or do you think you have enough forces in rc east if you move people around and move headquarters around, et cetera? >> i believe at this time i have enough to do the partnership in the way that i'm describing.

what we'll need to do is just shift some boundaries and shift a & a forces as well. now i would add that in terms of partnership and in terms of where we want to go within rc east, that i do see a need for -- for a greater capacity within the afghan national security forces in rc east. as you know and general mccrystal has stated, we look at not only building their competency at a quicker paste pace than what's laid out now. >> this is joe. could you give us an update about the missing soldier who was captured by the taliban militants? what are the efforts that you're doing to bring him back. >> sir, since the time he we want missing, we started immediately extensive efforts to

locate and bring the private back to our safety. we continue extensive operations throughout our force and also the help of our afghan partners and agencies as well. i'd prefer not to go into it any further than that because i don't believe it's helpful at this time. over. >> general, it's mike mount with cnn. i just wanted to follow up on my colleague luis' question about general mccrystal's directive and if i could, just boil it down to a much more simple question. are you having more or less success in stopping the enemy with this directive? you said it's slowing your operations but in its most basic form are you having more or less success in stopping the enemy with this new directive?

>> in terms of the success, i don't really see a difference. we're operating a little differently but with this directive in mind, we plan a little differently as well. the other thing that i would say is that there are a lot of areas in rc east where i operate that are very rural and very sparse population. and as a result of that -- and those areas in most cases, the tactical directive is not of consequence. there's no population in the area where we fight. >> general, this is viola from bloomberg news. just getting back to the training question. can you give us a status update of like how many afghans you have in training for the army right now and are you also training for the police? if so, what are the numbers for that.

how many are you able to sort of get through that program over a period of time? if you can just give us some figures on that. >> yeah, i'm sorry. i really can't go into the details on that because i'm not responsible for that training regiment. end f-- general formica does th training. and then they come back out to rc east and we take their training from that basic level forward. essentially, there we begin to work at refining their collective skills and in particularly, work very hard and there are leader skills and there are headquarters at company battalion brigade and then corps who i partner with. so those are our focus areas. the pace of training of

production to forces, i'm sorry, you'd have to go to general formica as they look at that. >> general, it's andrew gray from reuters again. i wonder if you could tell us something about the tactics of insurgents in our area? we seem to be seeing some more sophisticated attacks -- we've certainly seen reports of those recently. can you talk about the current tactics of the insurgents in our area and whether you're seeing any development or change in those tactics? >> well, actually, i'll talk a bit about this because their tactics differs in different areas of rc east. i would say, though, that your comment about the sophistication increasing, our look at this in rc east over time, at least in this -- i'd say the last six or seven months as we looked at it in going into this summer that the sophistication is at best

about even and maybe a little bit less in terms of their effectiveness. we have, as you know, had an increase in the number of significant activities, but what i'm saying is the effectiveness in terms of direct fire contacts and their skills has probably diminished some. there has to do with the -- with direct fire contacts. in terms of ieds which is another of their tactics, obviously, it creates 70% of our casualties. there is increasing sophistication there. we're seeing some of the ttps that were used in iraq in common there migrate obviously here to afghanistan. and they seem to be skilled in knowing what areas to use different types of ieds and initiation devices. that's -- that is actually my most difficult challenge right now in terms of enemy tactics and we're working that very hard. as i said, really, the fight is

different in almost every area in rc east and just quickly, you all understand when you go up into the northeast in konar, very mountainous and very close fighting, a very different set of conditions there. and there we will from time to time see more skilled fighters in terms of what we call the ability to conduct a complex attack. in other areas of rc east, direct fire contacts are generally not as skilled. i think we use the term complex attack too frequently. and then obviously as you move into konar and the western side of rc east, the ieds are becoming more common. >> general, it's mike again from cnn. on that same topic, you had said you're seeing a lot of the same skills seen in iraq and you're also getting 70% of your casualties now from ieds.

what is happening there with the u.s. in terms of ieds in terms of the counter-ied effort? the increase seems to be going up. are there lessons learned from iraq in terms of what the u.s. has learned being employed now in afghanistan or is it just a whole new batch of lessons that you're having to learn over there? >> no, predominantly, we're bringing all the expertise from iraq and from the experience here in afghanistan to bear here. we have quite a good counter-ied organization at every level here. i have one at cjtf headquarters that looks at all the different disciplines. we have experts from almost every field that would apply here working on this problem. essentially, what i would say is while the number of ieds is

going up, the percent of casualties caused by those numbers is staying about flat along the lines. so that is -- our expertise and our counter-measures having in effect for the good of the soldier, but, of course, as the numbers climb, the number of wounded will climb right alongside of it. and there's some tough things here that we're dealing with that we dealt with in iraq but they're just difficult problems to solve. in terms of technological solutions. >> general, again, this is joe, do you think the operations in the helmand province had any impact in our area? have you seen any militant crossing in rc east or crossing into the pakistani border? >> i'm sorry. the first part of your question -- you asked whether

the operations in pakistan have influenced me or was it the operations in afghanistan to the southern part of my border? >> i meant -- i meant the operation in the helmand province, the marines operation in the helmand province, if this operation had any impact in the situation in your area, if you have seen any militants crossing into your area or into pakistan? >> i've not seen insurgents entering into pakistan as a result of the rc east south or the southern operations conducted by the marines. we do see that movement. right along the scene between rc east and rc south, in other words my part of my boundary as i enter into rc south, we see movement across the border there and then right along our scene but this is an area the enemy has traditionally used to run

the scene between our two commands and that -- that rise right at the southern part, and we're aware of that. i can't say i saw an increase or a decrease as a result of the operations in the south. i think as they expand their operations, that we will see an impact and as commanders we're planning for that as well. >> general, when you captured ied cells, groups of militants who were planting bombs, have they turned out to be home grown afghans or are they from in rc east or are they from pakistan from other foreign fighters? for the most part they're

afghans. we do see some foreign fighters and the foreign fighters are the ones who bring as the higher skills that act as facilitators and they are not in great numbers. in the last 60 days that we've captured or killed here that were some of the facilitators or trainers or main ied leaders of cells that lead ied cells, the great majority of those are afghan. >> if i could ask you about the pakistani military operations what affect are they having at the borders and there was a couple of weeks there was an impact in kunar that the kinetics have gone down there. has it been a greater impact in other provinces as well?

>> yes, we have seen a decrease in the cross-border activity throughout rc east as a result of the operation. as my commander noted, most notably in the konar that was coupled with complimentary operations in our part along that border in rc east. so there was not only the operations in pakistan but on our side as well and it did have an impact on the enemy's ability to move fighters across the border as well as throughout time here we know that they've had difficulty resupplying those that are deeper in the konar in afghanistan, pakistan and coalition force operations. in the south, while it's not -- there are not full-fledged operations there yet on the pakistan side, they are operating there. we have seen somewhat of a reduction of cross-border

activity there as well compared to the norm in the past. >> thank you very much for your overview and with that i'm going to turn it back to you for any closing remarks. >> well, thank you. i really appreciate the opportunity to talk to you. in closing, thanks again for joining me this morning. i also want to thank all the great and supportive families back home for your unwavering support of the team. we're 23,000 strong and supported by great family members. what makes our team special is the dedication combat experience and the professionalism of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines and the unyielding love and support of the family members in the local communities back home that support us so well. we're able to do what we do because of this kind of support and your support as well.ñ again, i appreciate the opportunity, airborne. >> well, thank you very much. we hope to see you again soon in this format.

thanks. >> you will, thank you. [inaudible conversations]

>> how is c-span funded? >> i have no idea clue. >> maybe some government grants? >> i would say donations. >> advertising for products. >> public money, i'm sure. >> my taxes? >> how is c-span funded? america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private business initiative. no government mandate, no government money. >> the state department refused to comment today on news that former president bill clinton is in north korea to negotiate the release of two journalists held there. the state department did comment on reports concerning three americans allegedly detained by iranian authorities while hiking in that country.

spokesman robert woods speaks with reporters for about 10 minutes. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> we'll keep you abreast of her schedule as we go forward. there isn't anything on the schedule this evening in nairobi. as i said we'll keep you posted. one other -- second item i want to give you an update on the bangkok crash and our thoughts are with those who were injured. our embassy in bangkok with working with thai hospitals to confirm that no americans were among the injured. so we'll keep you abreast of that as we go forward. last item, i'd like to give you

an update on the detained iranian-american scholar. we are deeply concerned of reports that iranian-american scholar was recently charged by an iranian court without the benefit of a lawyer. given that the charges facing the student are without foundation, we call on iran's leadership to release him without delay. he has played absolutely no role in the election and imposes no threat to the iranian government or its national security. as an independent academic, he has always sought political neutrality. the right to due process in iran, which includes the right to legal representation is not only addressed in universal declaration of human rights to which iran is a signatory. it is also ratified in its own constitution. so the world is watching what is happening in iran and will bear witness. and with those, i'm ready to take your questions.

>> i also on iran -- >> they're working now. did you all get what i said previously? >> you're going to put that out, aren't you? >> we can if you'd like. >> mostly for the spelling of the names. >> yeah, absolutely. three americans, backpackers, probably, detained in iran, insinations there may be espionage being involved. and what is one lawmaker is suggesting spying. >> i have nothing -- i've heard nothing about any charges of them being spies. i know there are reports out there. i don't think they are credible at all. we've seen reports by the deputy governor of kurdistan for political security affairs and are awaiting for official confirmation from the government of iran following our request through the swiss ambassador.

as i think you all are aware, on august 2nd, the swiss ambassador had a meeting at the ministry of foreign affairs but could not get confirmation that these americans were being detained and so we're trying, as i said, to still get that confirmation. we do not have it as yet. >> when did you say you saw them? >> august 2nd. >> so this has been going on a while. i didn't realize that. he asked? >> he asked and the officials at the time were not aware of the fact -- >> oh, you said they weren't? >> they had no information on these individuals, but we're going to try to get that information, but we don't have it as i said. >> why is it taking so long? two days have gone by? >> well, i can't give you an answer on that. the swiss ambassador is trying to ascertain the information and location of these individuals. but hasn't been able to do so. but he's going to continue to try to push and get that information for us. >> has the ambassador tried to

go back in today or has he tried to reschedule another meeting? >> i think they're working on trying to do that but i don't think anything has been scheduled at this point. >> the ambassador is a woman, i think? >> it could very well if i -- >> i was trying to determine who it is. >> yeah. let me see if i've got a name for you. i don't have a name here for you but we can get you that. >> staying with iran, i was wondering if i could confirm the administration had received a response from the iranian supreme court leader from the leader that the administration had sent to iran before the elections about the offer for engagement? >> i don't have anything for you on that. sorry. >> could we take the question? >> i'll see if i can get anything for you. but i don't have anything. >> mark? >> can we change? what can you tell us about former president clinton's on north korea. >> i don't have anything for you beyond what the white house has

said. >> can you say if the administration approved it? >> the white house statement spoke for itself and at this point i don't have anything on it. so you might want to save your questions. >> did the secretary know her husband was traveling? [laughter] >> as i said, no comment. >> will the secretary address this in the second couple hours in nairobi? >> at this point, we have nothing that we can add. to what the white house has said so let me just leave it at that. >> the white house basically said they won't say anything until the mission is complete and he's left. is that roughly where you -- >> i'm just saying at this point i don't have any comment. >> another issue? >> one more on north korea. >> yeah. >> north korea media reported that president clinton delivered president obama's message in kim jong-il, are you aware of the message and i think it's a special envoy. >> one more time, i'll try again, nothing to add. >> just on the larger issue of north korea, it does seem in the last few weeks even as

there's -- even as they called the secretary a pensioner, looking to go shopping or something, i mean, it does seem there have been signals both by this administration and by the north koreans that maybe the time was ripe for something of this nature. i mean, secretary clinton had dropped -- had, you know, requested amnesty and kind of made comments about the north koreans coming back to the table and then in late july, the north koreans kind of added to the fodder, so it looks as if, you know, the atmosphere has been improving over the last few weeks for a kind of break in this case. >> i have nothing to add. >> i'm not asking about president clinton. i'm asking about -- >> i have nothing to add to what we've been saying about north korea. >> okay. but do you think this will be a kind of break in the stalemate which could allow north korea ultimately to come back to the table? >> nothing further on that. >> i'm not asking you about

president clinton. president clinton wasn't in the question. >> you're asking me to draw a comparison or talk about the two situations. i'm not going to do that. >> well -- >> are you finished? >> sure. >> i have a north korea question that doesn't involve clinton. >> i want to ask quickly on clinton. if he's really a free agent in other words how long he stays, what he brings up, what he discusses -- we've had a lot of bill richardson is a good example of personal diplomacy. but he's president clinton. is he on his own? is he flying on his own and can we -- he thinks things are progressing, is it up to him to decide or does he have to report back and get a go-ahead or renewal of his presence? >> barry, i've known you a long time and i have a great deal of respect for you but i just don't have anything to add. >> okay. >> one thing on north korea that does not involve this mission at

all. [laughter] >> are you aware of these -- there's an australia media report, i think it's the sydney morning herald that north korea -- that the burmese may be building a nuclear reactor in these tunnels that are sort of in the northern part of the country? and, you know -- i mean, it would seem to lend credence to what secretary clinton alluded last week in asia when she said there was some troubling evidence of nuclear links. >> mark, the best thing i can tell you, look, first of all, we wouldn't get any type of discussion of intelligence reports from the podium as the secretary expressed before, we are concerned about any possible military links between north korea and burma and that concern still remains, but i really can't go beyond that because we'll be getting into intelligence. [inaudible] >> the meeting in hawaii with sun kim, do you have any preview of that meeting?

>> i don't have any update. i know that sun kim will be there with discussion for his counterparts on the republic of korea government but i don't have any readout yet of those discussions. i'll be happy to get you a readout. [inaudible] >> there won't be any north korean officials. >> not that i'm aware. >> is he going to the region after that? >> i don't believe so. i think he's coming back to washington. >> what's your comment on the two detained journalists in north korea that there will be -- >> i think you just heard. i don't have anything to add to what the white house has said. >> give us some idea of how deeply you're looking into the -- the u.s. government is looking into this report about the burmese? are there any questions they're being asked? >> what are you talking about? >> about the tunnels, the nuclear reactor. >> no, i don't want to get into much more detail than i already have on this issue. but it is an issue of concern to us.

we're, obviously, looking into these types of reports but i just don't want to go beyond what we've said on that. yes, ma'am. >> philip had mentioned yesterday in russia that the united states has additional sanctions against north korea. will you tell us more about that. >> well, the ambassador goldberg had some good discussions in moscow. he's there to try to, you know, again get as much support as possible for the implementation of u.n. security council resolution 1874. those efforts continue. we think that's very important. but i don't have an update with regard to that visit. we'll try to get you something once he returns. yes.xqñ >> has a north korean negotiati

had any talks with his u.s. counterparts? >> not that i'm aware. >> either by telephone even? >> i don't think so. i would have heard about that. >> but bosworth had been invited to north korea. do you see that in the not too distant future? >> i hpv heard about him going back. >> does the u.s. still have the same position that six-party talks is a separate issue? >> we've always said that. that hasn't changed. anything else? thank you all. >> democratic leaders went to the white house during the senate recess. those leaders now talking to reporters in the white house driveway. we join it live in progress. >> we dedicate our efforts to reforming the healthcare center i. why because so many countries are taking advantage of way too many americans denying coverage

based on preexisting conditions, health status and so forth. bottom line is, we're going to try to get a bipartisan bill. i think that's the right thing to do for the country. the president does too. but beyond that, we're going to get healthcare reform passed this year working together. senate dodd and i have two separate bills virtually about 80% of that is contained in both bills. there's votes difference here. but we are going to get costs down. we're going to reform the health insurance industry. we're going to get coverage for americans. it was a really wonderful meeting led by a terrific man, our president, barack obama, and one of the senators was saying to me as he walked out, you know, it is so wonderful to hear him speak. you know, it's like ax symphony. it's like a great meal. he's so good. he just has it together for all the right reasons. it was a great motivation by our leader to go out in this month"

of august and we're going to get this done for the right reasons because it's the right thing to do. >>/ks what makes you think you e the democratic votes on a partisan basis especially in the house? >> whati makes you think you could get it done on a partisanw basis? >> a partisan or bipartisan? >> a democratic vote? >>cu the preference is do it together. the american people want us to work together and the american x partisanship but the american people don't like groups of people trying to kill something that should be done. it should get passed, healthcare reform.bb- and we know that we have to reform the healthcare system otherwise the costs are eating us alive. we'll get it down and hopefully we'll get it done together first. [inaudible] >> if we were in nevada it was 115 we'd take a lot of questions but it's not 115 here. high humidity, a couple of questions. >> was there any discussion of

the climate change legislation, senator? >> we sure did. senator bingaman, the chairman of the committee talked about energy legislation, yes, we covered -- we spent a lot of time on a lot of different issues. >> any agreement on the cash for clunkers -- >> we'll pass cash for clunkers? >> when will you do that? >> before we leave here. >> do you think you have the votes? >> yes. [inaudible] >> did anyone ask the president to weigh in with more details on his plan, what he wants? >> as senator bachus said, 80% of the two bills represented by these two chairmen are together anyway. the president has been involved in the very beginning in anyone who thinks president obama and his people have not been involved in healthcare reform haven't faulted what's going on. there isn't a day that goes by that i don't talk to several people in the white house about healthcare reform and the same applies to the two chairmen. >> the main thing here is this

is so right. it's so much the right thing to do when we go out during the august recess and beyond and explain with such conviction why this is the right thing to do, that the american people are going to start to realize that is the case. polls show that when the american people explain that much of healthcare reform is insurance reform, that is our goal. and our goal is to explain why we are doing it and getting the costs down and reforming the insurance industry and making sure that people are able to keep their same doctor and the same plan and have the choice that they want to have. when they understand that, i think it's going to work out quite well. [talking simultaneously] >> one last question. ..

>> you'll have live coverage of any remarks the republicans may make before the senate comes back at 2:15. until then we'll show you a portion of debate on the side, your nomination from yesterday. >> i would like to ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes. >> without objection. >> thank you. today i am pleased to rise in support of judge sonya sotomayor's nomination to be an associate justice of the supreme court of the united states. judge sotomayor's background demonstrates that she is an extremely well-qualified mainstream judge who has the utmost respect for precedent and belief in village it to the law. i have always said that i do not believe in evidence test for

judicial nominees and that i will look to the nominee's record as a whole. judge sotomayor's record in its entirety is nothing short of impressive. with 17 years on the federal bench she has more federal judicial experience than any supreme court nominee in 100 years. judge sotomayor has a compelling pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstr aps personal story. she was raised by a single mom who emphasized education. she struggled to support her family while working as a nurse. with her mother's strong work ethic and focus on education deeply ingrained in her judge sotomayor went on to graduate summa cum laude from princeton and received her law degree from yale law school where she was editor of the yale law journal. she then became a prosecutor in the manhattan district attorney's office where she was tough on criminals and gained

valuable perspective for her later career as a judge. she also became active in many areas of her community showing her desire to serve others and to promote justice and society. having served as a volunteer for many efforts in my hometown of greensboro north carolina i know how serving others can enhance one's understanding and appreciation of the world. after her time as a prosecutor judge sotomayor went into practice as a commercial litigator where she dealt with the business and finance law, an area of importance to my state of north carolina. in 1991 upon the recommendation of the then senator daniel patrick moynihan of new york she was nominated by president george h. w. bush to serve as a federal judge for the 7th district court of new york. in 1992 she was unanimously confirmed by for that position by the united states senate to

. while serving she was known for her toughness, fairness, and dedication to the law, characteristic of a strong judge. because of her outstanding record on the district court level judge sotomayor was nominated in 1993 by president william jefferson clinton to serve as a judge on the united states courts of appeal for the second district -- the 2nd circuit. in 1998 the senate confirmed her by wide margin. among the senators voting for her confirmation was former north carolina senator jesse helm. i would like to think that senator helm saw in judge sotomayor the same qualities that president obama saw: fairness of mind, supreme intellect, and an unsurpassed devotion to the law and to our system of government. some opponents have repeatedly brought up by a few select

comments made by judge sotomayor to suggest that she will not be impartial. however, judge sotomayor has made it clear that she does not let her background influence her interpretation of the law. her statement to the judiciary committee and her 17-year record on the bench confirm this. as judge sotomayor has said, let me quote this, "my record shows that at no point or time have i ever permitted my personal views or sympathies to influence an outcome of the case. in every case where i have identified a sympathy i have articulated it and explained to the litigants why the law requires a different result." judge sotomayor has also said that as much as her experiences influence our perspective they have also taught her to be aware

of other people's perspective. in 2001 she said, "i am reminded each day that i render decisions that affect people concretely and that i owe them constant and impede vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions, and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me that i reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me require." my as judge sotomayor said in her confirmation hearing her underlying judicial philosophy is fidelity to the law. in an independent study supreme court expert tom goldstein looked at 97 race-related cases in which judge sotomayor participated while on the 2nd circuit. he found that she and the rest

of for panel rejected discrimination claims. a margin of 8-1. goldstein wrote, of the 10 cases favoring claims of discrimination nine were unanimous, and of those nine in seven of them the unanimous panel included at least one republican-appointed judge. given that record goldstein concluded it seemed absurd to say that judge sotomayor that allows race to affect her decision making. judge sotomayor has also she d emonstrated that she does not legislate from the bench. the duty of a judge is to follow

the law. i do not believe that congress wishes us to disregard the plain language of any statute or to invent exceptions to this statute it has created. she also said that i trust congress would prefer to make any needed changes itself rather than to have the court to do so before it. additionally, a comprehensive study of judge sotomayor's criminal appellate decisions by the majority staff of the senate judiciary committee found as an appellate judge that sotomayor set with republican-appointed judges on more than 400 criminal cases. in those cases she agreed with all republican-appointed judges at 97% of the time, and she agreed with at least one republican-appointed judge 99% of the time. judge sotomayor's sensible

attitude toward following the law and her ability to objectively evaluate all angles of for cases has resulted in high ratings and endorsements by numerous organizations. the american bar association unanimously found sotomayor to be well qualified, which is the highest rating the aba gives to judicial nominees. the congressional research service conducted an analysis of her opinion and included as a group the opinions. perhaps the most consistent characteristic of judge sotomayor's approach as an appellate judge has been an adherence to the doctrine, in other words the upholding of past judicial precedents. judge sotomayor has an impressive list of law

enforcement endorsements and supporters including the international association of chiefs of police, the national association of police organizations, the national district attorneys association, the fraternal order of police, the national latino peace officers association, the federal law enforcement officer association, the federal hispanic law enforcement officers association, national black law enforcement, and the national sheriffs' association. judge sotomayor has also been endorsed by the u.s. chamber of commerce which stated that chamber evaluated judge sotomayor's records from the standpoint of legal policy, judicial temperament, and an understanding of business and economic issues. based on the chamber's evaluation of her judicial record judge sotomayor is well qualified to serve as an

associate justice of the u.s. supreme court. the nonpartisan center women's center for justice reviewed all of judge sotomayor's constitutional law decisions and said, based on this exhaustive review the conclusion is unmistakable in constitutional law cases that judge sotomayor is probably in the mainstream of the 2nd circuit. judge sotomayor's former law clerks wrote a letter endorsing her nomination in which they said, as former law clerks for judge sotomayor each of us can attest to her intellectual prowess, extraordinary work ethic, and commitment to the rule of law. working for judge sotomayor is an awe-inspiring experience. we each have the privilege of working closely with her as she confronted and resolved incredibly complex and intellectually-demanding legal challenges.

judge sotomayor came to each case with an open mind and arrived at her decision only after carefully considering all of the pertinent facts and applicable rules of law. a law clerk says, as they agree with many of judge sotomayor's other colleagues who respect her intellectual collegiality, balanced, fair, jurisprudence. mr. president, i would like to thank and congratulate the members of the judiciary committee for holding an extra nearly civil and open supreme court who nomination project process. i commend president obama for selecting a woman. i am thrilled to be a part of this historic moment. she is confirmed i believe she will serve our country well. based on my conversations with the nominee, her statements in her confirmation hearing, and my review of her record i intend to

support the confirmation when it is voted upon later this week, and i urge my colleagues to do the same. i yield the floor. >> the senator from wisconsin. >> mr. president, i join my colleagues in congratulating the senators for their work on the sotomayor nomination. i am pleased to rise in support of judge sotomayor. a child of immigrants with modest means she has risen by exemplary academic accomplishments and hard work. judge sotomayor is much more than just a story about was meant. she has shown herself to be a

judge worthy of elevation to the supreme court. both on the bench and before this committee judge sotomayor has proved that she has the necessary character, competence, and integrity to serve on the supreme court. her distinguished 17 year record on the bench demonstrates a commitment to and impartial application of the law and respect for the values which make up our constitution. she will be mindful of the very real and better decisions will have. she pledged fidelity to the constitution and to the court president as well as. >> we leave this now as the senate has gaveled back in. lawmakers hoping to finish work on agriculture spending.

the nomination. live senate coverage on c-span2

mr. harkin: mr. president, i ask further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. harkin: mr. president, i ask consent that becky moyland and michelle habid of my staff be granted floor privileges tore the duration of today's session. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. harkin: mr. president, the senate ag appropriations bill creates $4.9 million to help public television stations meet the federal mandate to provide over-the-air digital signals to rural areas. similar to last year's funding level. rural public television stations throughout the country are at an extreme disadvantage when faced

with the task of converting their stations and vast network of translators from analog to digital transmission. why? because they're spread over a larger geographic area than private and -- than some of the network stations, they have a much smaller population base to draw upon when funding system improvements than what the urban counterparts have and urban stations that have a bigger population base. today, most rural stations have focused their resources are converting transmitters to meet the federal mandate. the funding provided in this agricultural appropriations bill will be critical to helping stations transmit their signals far enough -- far enough to reach people in rural areas far from the transmitters. well, now generally stations have these transmitters send a signal out over the airwaves but in a large number of cases, they need translators. they take the transmitter signal at a certain point and then they booths ththeyboost the power sod

it out. now, that was also true urn the old analog system. but obviously the old analog translators won't work for digital so we need digital translators. for technical reasons, the digital translators cover less of an area, particularly in places that are highliy or mountainous, so additional translators are needed. at present, we have millions of people living in rural america that simply cannot get the over-the-air digital signal. these funds are allocated on a peer-review process in the rural utility service of the department of agriculture. for example, in my state of iowa, a large number of people in the dubuque area are not receiving digital over-the-air signal now because of a lack of a digital translator which gets its signal from cedar rapids -- from the cedar rapids-waterloo transmitter. now, i understand also that the oklahoma public television system received considerable funding through this program a

few years ago, but many other state systems have very real needs that just haven't been met yet. now, a few public it was stations are able -- tv stations are able to acquire the needed funds to do this, and in the current 2009 round, public tv stations requested about three times -- three times -- the available needed funding that we have in the usda program. now, while it is true that both the department of commerce and the corporation for public television do provide equipment for public tv stations, it's also true that these funds are both inadequate to fully meet all of the needs they're intended for and they have not been providing significant funds for translators. the corporation for public broadcasting provides about $36 million for public tv and radio stations for equipment. they've provided digital equipment, shifting analog libraries to digital libraries,

power equipment, but they have not focused on digital translators. and it's not their mission to focus the special needs of rural areas like the rural utility services must do. but even if they do in the future provide some funding for translators, the total that we now need is going to be far more than the funds that are going to be available in the coming fiscal year. so even if they did have some funds, as i pointed out, they asked for three times the amount funding that we have in this bill -- the amount of funding that we have in this bill to build these translators. the department of commerce also has a program which provides equipment, but again, not focused on translators. they provide equipment like network operations that take signals from the national broadcasts, they send it out over their transmitters. they provide some emergency funding when there's local equipment failures. but again, very limited amount of money for these translators. again, there's a very reasonable -- a very

considerable need for additional funds for digital tv to reach rural america. the lack of a single translatos can mean that 100,000 households are not able to get over-the-air digital signals. i think these funds are badly needed and i -- i -- i thank my friend from oklahoma for letting me go first because i have to chair a hearing at 2:30. but i wanted to make these comments because i have -- i have realtime experience with these translators in my own state, as i mentioned in dubuque, but there are other places in rural iowa that are sort of on the fringes of where the transmitters are and they've got to have these translators to get the signal out. and, again, i -- you could say, well, why don't they charge the people? well, there are not that many people. but they deserve to have public television also, and that's what this money was for, the $4.9 million, was to help them get these translators. and it's not just iowa. any state that has a lot of

rural areas, and especially if it's hilly or mountainous, they need these translators. i'm not an expert in this area whatsoever but i do know that they cost money and i do know that the need is there. all i can say is that -- is that they had asked for three times more than what we have in this bill for the money so that if there is some other funds in commerce or in -- in the corporation for public broadcasting, i want rather doubt this they're going to be able to even an anywhere meet te needs that's throughout and we're going to have to ask for more money next year to get these translators built. as we switch from the analog to the digital. so i would respectfully request that -- that the senate oppose the coburn amendment. mr. president, with that, i would yield the floor. mr. coburn: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i'm constantly amazed. we have three separate programs of which this administration says we don't need one penny from the department of agriculture for this. that's what they say. they say we have plenty of money in c.b.p. to do everything that's needed with the translator stations this year. we are 92% complete on everything that has been translated. but this is like every government program. they never die. not only do we have the department of commerce that's going to have additional funding this year for that very same thing, we have corporation for public broadcasting. the fact is, is they want it to go through the agriculture department because there's more control, we can direct it, we can have more control. we're in a crisis. we're going to have close to a $2 trillion deficit this year. and here we've got $4. million that our administration says

isn't needed, absolutely is not needed, they want to get rid of it, and they're right. and what do we do? every time we come to approach a program, we decide that we can't eliminate it. well, every -- every family in america today has eliminated a lot of programs for themselves. this budget is an atrocity, this appropriations bill, and i'm going to go through so everybody can see what it is of the in fiscal 2009 -- see what it is. in fiscal 2009, the grand total for this was $128 billion. it is now $123 billion. but do you know why, why it's there? they got $20 billion for mandatory in the stimulus and another $6 billion -- another $6 billion in the stimulus. so this isn't a decrease. it's outrageous the amount of

money that we're spending, and we'll go through it line by line. the agricultural programs in 2009, discretionary were $6.85 billion. they're $7.22 billion. that's a 6% increase. the mandatory spending was $18 billion. it's now $22 billion. that's a 21% increase. plus, they got a billion dollars in the stimulus. so if you add that to the $30 billion, we actually have $31 billion compared to $24 billion this year. think about what kind of increase that is. title 2, conservation programs. there were $969 million in 2009. we gave $340 million -- hasn't been spent yet, it's going to get spent this year, and yet we come up and we increase it another 4.5% so $1.015 billion.

4.5% increase. rural development, they got $3 billion this year in this bill. they got $2.7 billion. that's 11% increase and that doesn't count the $4.36 billion that was given in the stimulus. domestic food programs went from $76 million to $86 million. we need that now. no complaint there. we've got a lot of people that are requiring our help right now. but they also got $20 billion which. hasn't been spent yet in the stimulus. so we've develop from * $106 to $86. a 4.5% increase. we spent billions on agriculture programs in 2009. this is at $2 billion, a 33% increase, mr. they got $700 million in the stimulus that hasn't been spent yet. so add that together, you've got

$2.1 billion versus $1.5 billi $1.5 billion. it's ridiculous the amount of money that's in this appropriation. they ought to all -- all these ought to be trimmed back based on what the stimulus is doing rather than growing. at four times the rate of inflation, we're growing government in this bill four times the rate of inflation in this country. and we're going to have a $2 trillion deficit and we're proud of this bill. this bill is a stinker. f.d.a. and commodities future trading, $2.1 billion to $2.527 billion, 20% increase. 20% increase in one year. let's talk about some of the separate programs. agricultural recess, got to increase to it00 million by the -- $200 million by the time we add in the stimulus t. goes

from $1.18 to $1.23 billion. that's where most of the earmarks are stolen from, the agricultural research, and most that have money isn't applied to research, it gets directed through an earmark. national institute of food and agricultural research went from $1.22 to $1.3. that's an $0 million increase. that's a 6.76% to be exact increase in that segment. economic researching research, p $3 million. it's just a 4% increase. statistical service up up 7%.animal health inspection . agricultural marketing purposes up 5%. grain inspection packers up -- that's about 4%. food safety up -- food safety, where we should be really increasing because of the problems we've had with food,

it's up only 2%. where we have the problems, we're not creatio increasing the appropriation. we're actually barely even keeping with inflation. but on food safety, we don't increase it. farm service salaries, they increase $90 million. that's a 6.5% increase. plus, we gave $50 million in the stimulus. farm service agency loans. if you add in the stimulus, which haven't been dispensed question the, we goat $195 million from $147 million. that's a 33.3% increase. federal crop insurance up $1 billion from $6.5 billion to $7.5 billion. that's 12%. conservation programs, $340 million, nrsc was given in the

stimulus that hasn't been changed and $962 million we had last year, $1.015, so that is a 33% increase. conservation operations, no money in the stimulus, we go from $853 million to $949 million, an 8% increase. watershed and flood prevention, it's flat. it's flat! we got all the water conservation dams that are falling apart just kind of like our highway bill. we fix the earmarks but we don't take care of the britains. that's what we're doing on the watershed. r.c.d., the president terminated, finally, one is going under. rural development, salaries up 8%. rural housing, counting the $330 million we did in the stimulus that hasn't been spent, you got $430 million increase, $130 million increase over it, about

7%. just keep going. i won't continue to bore my colleagues but the fact is overall in this bill we have a they increase in spending when you consider what we did in the stimulus. not a decrease. taking into account for that. now, back to this amendment. all this amendment does is cut $4.9 million, $4.9 million out of a $124 billion bill. and the reason this amendment's offered is because the administration's doing the right thing. they're eliminating a program that is not needed now. we can say anything we want but we have three agencies doing the same thing and what the administration recognized, to their credit, we don't need three agencies doing the same thing. what we need is one agency

accountable, we're 92% complete and let them be responsible for februarying it and save the american taxpayers some money. that's what the obama administration wanted to do with this elimination, but, no, it comes right back. each of the three programs that presently do this, the usda, the commerce department, ptfd, and the corporation for public broadcasting, are part of their respective agency's budget. unless we eliminate it, we will spend that money and it won't be well spent or wisely spent. it will just be spent. and they'll ask for more next year even when we're at 97% or 98% we will see the same request. now the logic was they asked for three times as much, therefore, 4.9 ought to be okay. 4.9 isn't okay when we need zero

out of the department of agriculture to begin with. one of the things the obama administration wants to do is to streamline this process, not have three agencies going through this. they want to consolidate the country three-pronged effort into one program already in existence and no one denies that c.p.b. has done a pretty good job with public trition stations and translator stations through their money. usda received $14 million in 2004, $10 million in 2005, $5 million in each of the years 2006 through 2008. ptfd, the department of commerce, has gone all the way from 1998 where they got $12.5 million and all the way up to $36 million in 2002 back down to $15 million in 2007 and they did not get any money in 2008 because they didn't need it. corporation for public

broadcasting, however, has gotten over, on average, over $35 million a year and they got $29 million last year. plus, we spent $650 million in the stimulus on this program. it hasn't all been spent so we're lining up, we got plenty of money in the stimulus package and then we're going to ask for another $4.9 million. this is exactly the reason the american people are disgusted with congress. this is a bill that's out of its bounds in terms of spending. it hasn't recognized what's in the stimulus that isn't going to be spent so what we're doing is we're actually going to increase the debt through this bill that's going to be spent. put that in personal terms. what does that mean personally? a $2 trillion deficit is $6,000 for every man, woman and child

in this country. that's what we're going to do this year, we're going to spend $6,000 per man, woman and child more than we take in, for every man, woman and child in this country. and you know what? we're on course to do exactly the same thing next year with this kind of an appropriations bill. there is no check with reality in the senate as far as when it comes to spending money. and i refuse to apologize for looking out for the next two generations when we don't have the courage to say "no" to anybody. what we do is, yes, i'll get that in the bill for you so you can look good at home. whose looking out for the two and three and four and 5-year-olds in the country who permitly when they were born, are taking on almost $500,000 worth of unfunded liabilities? our debt is going to double in the next five years. it's going to triple in the next ten and there is no effort in

this bill to make that less burdensome on those children. with that, i yield the floor on this amendment. mr. coburn: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

is. mr. coburn: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be dispensed. .the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. coburn: i want to talk about an amendment that i offered that has been ruled nongermane by the parliamentarian. i flatly disagree with that ruling and i wanted the american people to understand what we've ruled nongermane.

we submitted an amendment that said grants and contracts under this bill should be competitively bid. now think about that. when we go out to spend money with the six or seven exemptions in the contracting clause and the fact that maybe some things only one person can be applied to which have been excepted in that, we said for american taxpayers to get value, we ought to ask and mandate that competitive bidding take place on the grants and accounts in this bill. now, not one of these has ever passed the senate and i want to tell you request. it's because we really don't want things to be competitively bid. we really don't want your dollars to be spent wisely, efficiently, and effectively

because when we do that we take away our political power to say somebody's going to get a contract or somebody's going to get a grant so this amendment, which was offered, specifically exclude earmarks because the complaint last week when i offered the same amendment on the previous bill was that if they're authorized -- remember, an earmark guess to a specific person, a specific company, those well connected in washington -- i specifically eliminated earmarks from this. so we wouldn't have the excuse to say we don't want things competitively bid. but what we were going to find if this amendment had again to a vote it who have been voted down, too, because the problem isn't in america. the problem's right here. we view political power and incumbency more precious than we view the economic realities and

sustenance of this country and true freedom of the people in this country, we diminish that because we think our positions ought to be enhanced and we ought to secure our next election by making sure we're the dolers of everything good and we can actually connect those who give big campaign contributions to great rewards from the congress when it comes to appropriations bill. what this amendment would have done require the contract be competitively bid according to the law. we actually have a law that says, contracts have to be competitively bid, except congress routinely excuses that on appropriations bills. i notice that my leader is here, and i will yield to hivmen him. mr. mcconnell: i thank my friend from oklahoma. i'll just be a minute. i wanted to make some observations -- the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i wanted to

make a few short observations about a severe storm that hit my hometown today, dumped six inches of rain in 75 minutes in louisville, just today causing major flooding and trapping people in their cars and in their neighborhoods. the louisville police and fire rescue have been working nonstop since early this morning to assist those in need, and i want to commend he them fo them for r courageous and outstanding work that they have been performing throughout the day. not surprisingly, i've heard from a number of my constituents. i appreciate very much their calls to keep me informed on the latest developments. we're going to continue to monitor the situation back home, and in the meantime, our thoughts and prayers go out to everyone in louisville today.

mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. coburn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: just so the american people get this, we don't competitively bid the contracts in these appropriations bills. we don't competitively bid the grants. we don't mandate that they're competitively bid. so some grants are competition-based, not based on dollars, based on performance. so congress wins, and the american people lose. every time one of these bills goes through here without competitive bidding, our children are the real losers. the president of the united states has said it's his policy that anything over $25,000 that the government buys in this country ought to be competitively bid. and yet it routinely -- it is

his supporters that vote against that. president obama means it, but we can't get it through here. we have $350 billion a year of documented waste, fraud, and duplication in the discretionary budget plus medicare fraud every year. there's been no attempt to accept amendments to eliminate that, to lessen that. the fact is that we're on auto pilot to grow this government 8% this year, in spite of a $787 billion stimulus. if you're sitting at home thinking about that, not very many people have 8% more income this year. so one of two things is going to happen in the next 18 months in this country. here's what's going to happen.

either we're going to default on our debt, because people are going to quit loaning us money, or the average middle-income taxpayer is going to see a tax hike. because if you take all the income of the top 5% of people in this country, you cut our deficit only in half. you take all the income -- i'm not talking -- i'm talking about 100% tax rate of the top 5% earners in this country, you will cut our deficit in laugh. so if you're a middle-class american, no matter whether you think people who earn more should pay more -- and they do; the you were 5% pays 80% of the taxes in this country -- you can bet that in the next 18 months, you're going to see a middle-class tax increase go through this body. and the reason it's going to go through is because we won't apply any common sense to the

appropriations bills. most american families are cutting back on their spending, some because they've lost their job, others because they're worried and they're fearful. what's the federal government doing? and i'm not talking about the stimulus bill. we're actually increasing spending. we're not making the hard choices about what is a priority and what is not, what is a necessity and what is not. we're not eliminating anything, and we're building up everything. just like the last amendment we talked about. there's absolutely zero need to for that program in the department -- there's absolutely zero need for that program in the department of agriculture. but it won't die. and next year we'll have the same thing. i have an amendment on cheeses, but i'm not going to do it because there's no reason to waste the i senate's time. but we created a demonstration project in the early 1990's with wisconsin and vermont and we've been funding it ever since. they have this outstanding, large specialty cheese

production in wisconsin and vermont. they don't need any money, but we're going to send them more money this year because we did last year. and the fact is that the specialty cheeses they make cost two and three times what regular cheese does, and they're luxury items, but we're going to fund that, not because they need it, not because they're not competitive, not because they haven't grown their industry, but because we've funded it before. now, ask yoursel yourself, if yd the constitution, where is it in the constitution that we're supposed to give two states millions and millions of dollars for an agricultural program that should be funded by their state, if they want to do it, or funded by the individuals who actually produce the cheese and are making good money off of it? but we're going to continue to do it. so i'm not going to offer that amendment. i'm not going to waste the senate's time on it.

but there is a real question of why we're in the trouble we're in as a nation today. and it's because we ignore what the constitution tells us to do. we ignore what our oath tells us to do. what we swear to do, which is uphold the constitution and within that is the enumerated powers and also within that is the 10th amendment. and the 10th amendment says that whatever is not specifically spelled out -- specific -- and if you read what jefferson san and madison had ty about that amendment, you'll find that all that is left to what the states had to say. that's what it says. we have this cash-for-clunkers program going on. the national is going to vote an increase -- the senate is going to vote an increase in that. but the reason we're having to do that is because we can't manage it. we've proven -- the department of transportation, they don't even know how many applications they've got for that program. they don't even know if they've gone over the number whasm they know is sthef a approved $670

million of the money so far but that doesn't include all the applications that have come in from the dealers. we're taking money from our grandkids and the americans are smart enough to know, if they can get $4,500 back from the federal government, they'll take advantage of that. we've created this demand and increase in demand for autos but why not for boats or r.v.'s or how about refrigerators? they're more efficient. why not give somebody $500 credit on their refrigerator? i mean, why are we limiting this to the automobile industry that we now as taxpayers have the responsibility of bailing out of debt? the fact is we're clueless. we're not plugged in to what the average american family going through in terms of a budget. we won't apply that same standard to their money up here and their kids -- our kids and

our grandkids are the ones who are going to suffer from that. so ask yourself a question: why would the senate not allow an amendment on competitively bidding -- competitively bidding the contracts and grants in this bill? hundreds of millions of dollars that we're going to pay much too much for that we could save a tremendous amount of money, and if it's grant programs that truly do a great job, we could get more that have great job done if we got it done more efficiently. it's pretty disturbing that we are so far off course with what we're doing and, more importantly, how we are doing it. with that, i'd yield the floor. i'd note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

bur burn mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i'd ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. coburn: i want to speak on amendment 2246, which caps the amount of money the u.s. department of agriculture can spend on conferences and requires transparency on the purpose and cost of a conference sponsored or attended by the u.s. department of agriculture. this is a report that i issued a year ago on the $90 million in conference costs that the u.s. department of agriculture spent. it's a pretty detailed report.

you can go to my web site and get it. but it tells you the lack of attention to any sort of fiscal discipline, and by the way, the department of agriculture is the worst practitioner of all the agencies of the federal government on conferences in terms of wasteful conferences, in terms of number of people going to conferences. by far, the worst. in 2001, usda spent $6 million on conferences. within five years, that went to $19 million. they tripled it. what all this amendment says is 2010, nine years later, you can't spend more than double what you spent in 2001. that allows conferences to grow 11% a year. $12 million for conferences is a

lot of money. that is less than the amount that they spent this last year. it's less than any amount they've spent since 2001, but it's still double what they'v ty spent in 2001. this amendment also requires an itemized expenditure on the conference, who the primary sponsor of the conference is, the cost efficiency of the location, the total number of individuals whose travel was paid for by the department and an explanation of how the conference advanced the mission -- how they agency advanced the mission by attending the conference. this is about transparency. you know, i've seen it quoted before, and i believe it is tr true: the greatest pleasure in the world is to spend somebody else's money. and what our agencies are doing

in my instances is not being frugal with the tax dollars that we give them, and the department of agriculture is a great example of that. when they're running close to $20 million a year -- not this last year but it's still above $12 million -- on conferences, where we have the technology now to eliminate half the conferences. i'm not having any problem with travel. i'm not having any problem with them going to conferences that are legitimate. but i do have a problem with a three-and-a-half time fold in expenses. so this is fairly straightforward. we should put a cap on t we should limit it. and it's my hope that my colleagues will do that. with that, i yield the floor and note an absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:: quorum call:

ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. ms. stabenow: i would ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. ms. stabenow: mr. president, i understand we are in the process of putting together a series of votes, but while we have a moment i'd like to ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. ms. stabenow: thank you very much. first, i do want to thank our leaders on this important agriculture bill and the chairman who i appreciate so much all of his hard work.

we have a great bill in front of us. and the ranking member from kansas. i want to actually speak for a moment about legislation that the ranking member, senator brownback, and i have been working on now for some time. it's the first piece of it has proven to be extremely effective, despite the naysayers. it's come back, i think, even more successful than we thought it would. i want to thank senator brownback for working with me. n.i.h. making sure that this is fully paid for within the -- i know that making sure this is fully paid for within the recovery package is important to him. this achieves that. i want to thank you for partnering and understanding the significance of what we've been working to do. it has truly been an incredible success. the cars program, mr. president. in only a week it's proven to be an excellent way to stimulate the economy. dealers haven't seen this level of customer excitement in years. i can tell you, as someone who grew up on a car lot, my dad, my

grandfather have the oldsmobile -- that dates me -- oldsmobile dealership when i was growing up. how important this is to small towns across the country, as well as big cities. we're not only helping to save the over 160,000 dealerships across the country, but it's making our air cleaner and reducing oil consumption. so far we've seen a 61% savings -- 61% increase in fuel economy -- which i think is surprising as we hoped for an increase. we hoped people would turn in vehicles with lower mileage and get a higher-mileage vehicle. but in fact we have seen even greater results than we thought we would. trade-in vehicles averaging 15.8 miles per gallon. new vehicles averaging 25.4 miles per gallon. and so, this is extremely significant. and what's even more important

is that that $700 or $1,000 a year in lower gas prices for the average family. and at this time when money is so tight, when people are concerned about saving every penny, this is a good deal. it's a good deal for consumers. it's a good deal for the environment, for the economy, for small businesses, as well as certainly everyone involved in the auto industry. it's also significant that 83% of the trade-ins are trucks and 60% of the new vehicles are small cars. so we are seeing people move away from their clunker truck into a more energy-efficient car. and that is good news for the environment and for fuel economy for the average family as well. this has been a great program with over 250,000 cars sold. dealers are packed and sales are booming. at a g.m. dealership in

ferndale, michigan, foot traffic was up 60%, mr. president, just last week, according to the general manager. and it's not just dealerships who are being helped, as i indicated. steel and aluminum producers have announced that they expect to benefit from the program as more cars are made to meet demand generated by the program. scrap recyclers who supply the steel industry and those who have been -- and they have been hurting lately as well -- are also seeing a pickup in business. the boost to these industries isn't just immediate. analysts predict the benefits will have a lasting impact. so we're talking broadly about manufacturing and materials as well as the small businesses and the communities involved. getting people into show rooms and getting people excited again is having a psychological impact on consumers and businesses as well. and this is happening all over the country. the houston chronicle reports that more than 70% of the

clunkers be traded in are s.u.v.'s and 84% of the new vehicles are small, fuel-efficient cars. the brownsville herald in texas quotes don johnson, the owner of the real don johnson chrysler jeep hyundai who said "this is a good deal for the people. it's a good deal for us because we'll sell more cars. but it's a good deal for people." the "daily record" in dunn, north carolina, reports strong interest, increased traffic in his dealership. dan lowe from john heister chrysler dodge jeep in lilington, north carolina, said his dealership is getting 25 to 30 calls a day about the cars program. he told the newspaper "we're excited about anything that gets cars off the lot. and this is certainly doing it." the pennsylvania car dealer bill rosado told "the wall street

journal," "i can't believe i'm saying this. i need more chrysler inventory." he said, "my goodness, i've got to rehearse that line a couple more times." this has been a program that's been extremely successful in a very short amount of time. the house, because of its success, as we all know, has acted to add additional dollars by moving from one program in the recovery package into this program, and i thank them very much for doing that and for the leadership of my partner in the house, betty sutton, and the delegation of michiganers who worked so hard in ohio, indiana, and others as well. here in the senate, we have had great bipartisan support, and i again want to thank my bipartisan sponsor, senator brownback, senator voinovich. we are others as well. we have been partnering together on something that makes sense.

this is taking some stimulus dollars and putting it directly into a stimulus that's visible, it's working, it's putting money in the economy, it's saving people money, gas, and it's something that i believe is important to continue. so i will just close by also thanking our leader, senator reid, who has once again been extremely supportive of bringing this forward so that we have an opportunity to vote. and i'm very hopeful that we will see a strong bipartisan vote on this important stimulus. thank you, mr. president. mr. coburn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment 2243, and i'd note that the senator from michigan noted everyone who won in this. let me tell you who doesn't win on that. that's your kids and your grandkids. americans aren't stupid.

you give them $4,500, they're going to find any old car they've got that's running they've held for a long time. all our farmers are going to the barns. they haven't been driving them for years but they're cranking them up to make them run so they can get $4,500. paoeplt who lose on that are our kids. it's $3 billion that is going to go to help people buy cars. where are we going to get the $3 billion? steal it from our children. what part of the economy should we not incentivize? how about the appliance makers? how about the television makers? i also would ask unanimous consent -- actually to have -- have discussed this with the chairman that we will rather than ask for a recorded vote, we'll have a voice vote on amendment 2245. the presiding officer: without objection, ordered on the unanimous consent request without objection, so ordered.

mr. coburn: thank you. i would also note that we will have a vote on the -- on the amendment in terms of eliminating $4.9 million for a duplicative program in department of agriculture. i now -- with that i'd yield the floor and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: at this moment there's not a sufficient second.

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

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. a senator: i ask that further proceedings up the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brownback: we're trying to get to a final kind of conclusion on this bill. it's an important bill, important piece of legislation. also members want to speak about sotomayor and the nomination disort. the attempt is to get to move this off the floor and we're getting close to a final u.c. on this agreement so we can get passage on the bill. i wanted to talk about the importance of the agricultural industry. this key industry to my state. it's a key industry to the leader of this committee, wisconsin, his state. it's an industry that's done better than a number of others

that have done over the recessionary time period. it has been an excellent performer on exports. we have one of the best exporting models as far as business in agriculture in a we have in this country. it's one because it is very competitive, it has a lot of capital, a lot of intellectual brain power put behind it at the public and private level. we compete and do well globally. we're aggressive on our trade policy to be one that pushes for free trade. if other countries are going to subsidize, then we're going to back our guys up. and we're going to say if you subsidize your agricultural industry, we're going to do it to fight you back on it. so we don't take any guff around the world. we want a free-trade world. if you're going to attack us, we're going to respond. if you have mills, we have missiles on this and we're going to do it. this model worked well for a very growth oriented, export oriented business that is

globally competitive, high-technology and one i think that is moving well into future. we've got a lot of things going on agriculture and a number of it's funded in the bill. we want to see the industry expand to an energy business. a number of us are strongly supportive of ethanol. some say i am for it, but we want the next generation of ethanol, and we are getting into that as far as sell ewe osik ethanol -- celluosic ethanol. we're doing a lot of things on wind. wind blows across the plains of your state and my state and a number of others here and harvesting that in such a way that we can get it to other markets, electric markets, and at a cost-competitive rate. so it's not one that drives it up. all of this does take a lot of effort, and i want to acknowledge my colleagues, a number on my side saying, i'm not satisfied with this bill. i don't like some of the things in this bill. i have to say, i agree.

i have things in the bill that i don't like. but it is a process to move an agriculture appropriations bill through that we haven't been able to get through on the floor for over three years on a stand alone type of bill, on a very important industry that's globally competitive. that's been a good one for us in this recessionary time period that we're in. so -- so i would note that we have a lot of problems with this bill, but i'd also say that we've got a lot that we're doing right with it and looking forward into future of what we can do to be very -- very supportive. i note a couple of things that are going on that i think are important for us as a country on agriculture that we can get some cross currents. norman borlog from texas a&m is known as the father of the green revolution that brought a lot of the new tech knowledge eye to feed the world out -- technology to feed the world out. this is over a career of doing

this, won the nobel peace prize in 1970 for his contributions to the green revolution. i mentioned him because he is a key person in looking to the future of how the world is fed and fed at a good level. and he notes that it's important for us to do things in an environmentally sensitive, environmentally sound way. but that we also need to be able to fund high disease resistant wheat varieties, we need to be able to use plant genetics that are being some places around the world they say we don't like the alterations on the plant genetics. we need to be able to do this. he says to feed a hungry world, we need to be able to use agricultural pesticides, herbicides and insecticides. some say that i want all of the agricultural production, but not all of the inputs brought into it. we don't have the model for that to work yet. i think it is important to support organic food markets and

organic food production, but we can't go that way fully. it's the sort of thing that we can't feed a hungry world and we can't feed it on a cost competitive basis on a globally competitive industry if we're going to pull out all of the tools that made the green revolution be able to work. i think it's also important that we fund into the next generation of genetics and technology in this. i was interested in one of my travels across kansas last year we had a period of time where some of my corn farmers couldn't plant for a couple of days and it wasn't because it was wet. it is because the satellite went down and so that their global positioning system on their corn planter wouldn't work so they couldn't plant their corn because the satellite was down. and i'm going, well, that's an interesting excuse. i hadn't heard that one before. but it wasn't an excuse. it was just a fact of life that to be able to plant these crops and to do the best job and they applied just the amount of fertilize area that that soil and that crop in that specific

location will take, takes a global positioning satellite that's had the data read into it and fed back. that's how high-tech the industry is. and i don't want us to move away from that level of technology and input into it because otherwise i think we're going to lose our -- lose our edge. we also have some interesting developments in the environmental field that i think are -- are interesting. we've got people in kansas, other places around the country that are working on things like green concrete. you're saying, well, what would that be? and it's concrete that has soy oil brought into it to help it be an environmentally sound, renewable type of process. they already are make the foam matting in your seat in your car out of soybeans. so when you sit in a new mustang, in particular, i know that car for sure, that foam rubber is made out of soybeans. if you're caught in a colorado

blizzard and don't have anything to eat for a week or two, you can eat the seed. i don't think it is particularly edible. but my point is saying that that is the technology we're putting in through the agricultural appropriation bill to be able to make new things that will work. now, this bill is an increase in funding, and i don't like -- i don't like that. because i think we shouldn't be doing those sort of funding increase. a major portion of that is the w.i.c. program. when you get into a recession, you get more and more people needing food. and -- that aren't able to pay for it themselves. an government steps up. that's the problem with what we have when you get a recession, government costs go up, government receipts go down. one of the things that i think a program like cash for clunkers is interesting, it -- interesting it stimulates the economy, not the government.

i think we have to restrain our spending. i think we have to do a better job with that. i think we also need to be a lot more targeted on our programs on what we spend on. but things like a w.i.c. program and thissing a -- in this agriculture appropriation bill are the consequence of a bad economy. i don't like it. but i think the key for that is for us to get the stimulus to be an economic stimulus and not a government stimulus. so on the whole while i think we've got problems with this, i -- i like the overall trend of what we're doing in the agricultural industry. and i think dish like what the chairman has focused on this. on top of these things, i would note for my colleagues, we've put a special effort on food aid program in getting the food aid programs updated to meet the needs of those who are in very difficult circumstances in refugee camps in different places around the world. we spent too much on transportation and administration on food aid. nearly 60% of that goes into those two.

that number has to come down. we need more food on the target. in many cases we are what stands between that person and death and starvation and it's the food aid -- the generous food aid of the american people that flows through this appropriation bill that does that. food and drug administration is in this bill. that has the increase in it. the development increasing need for different types of drugs are addressed in this as well. i think we have to get more innovative. i think i would like to see the neglected disease area to have truncated -- that's in this bill. there are a number of things to be negative about on this, i think that the chairman has put together an overall good bill and i'm glad we're get together point where i hope we can move this one on through and conference and bring it back separately as well. so we can recognize this very important industry. it is important to my state and

important to all of the members here. that we can do this separately instead of rolling it together into some sort of omnibus bill that we too often have done. with that, mr. president, i'd yield the floor. i would notable we're getting close to getting to a final u.c. would be my hope on this so we can move this bill on forward. note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: thank you. mr. president, i move to vitiate

the quorum call and take a few minutes while we're waiting. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. sanders: to take a few minutes until the procedures get lined up to say a few words about an amendment i'm offering that will come up for a vote fairly soon. and that is an amendment which addresses the crisis in dairy all over this country. and it's an amendment that is supported by senators snowe, senator udall from new mexico, senator schumer, senator bennet of colorado, senator mikulski, senator gillibrand, senator shaheen and senator casey, people from all over the country so we are not talking a regional issue but a national issue. i pick up on a point this senator mccaskill made this morning. all of us know our country today is in a major, major economic crisis. the deepest recess since the

great depression. but sometimes what media does and maybe what we do in congress is we focus on that crisis in areas where there is, if you like, concentrated misery, such as detroit which has undergone terrible problems, thousands on a given day have lost their jobs and sometimes in the midst of the economic crisis facing our country we forget what is happening in rural areas, in small towns all over this country. sometimes when farms go out of business, farms that have been owned by a family for generations, when rural communities go into, literally, an economic depression, we don't pay quite as much attention to that and it's not on the front pages of the "new york times" but the fact of the matter is, right now rural america is in the midst of a very, very serious economic crisis. unemployment is extremely high. and one of the particular areas where we are seeing not just the deep recession, but, in fact, a

depression, a depression, is within the dairy industry. mr. president, in the last year, if you can believe it, the price that dairy farmers -- many of them small, family-based dairy farmers -- have received for their milk has plummeted by 41% in the last year. gone down by 41%. and the reality of what that means is that farmers today, for every gallon of milk they are producing, they are losing money. they are losing money. it's not that they're making a little bit, they are losing money. what we're seeing, not just in the northeast, not just in the midwest, not just in the southeast, not just in the west but all over this country, are family farmers, dairy farmers, going out of business, plunging their rural economies and their communities into depression-type economics. let me just quote, if i might, from some people from different

parts of the country. a minnesota deer farme minnesots "this is unlike any experienced in the past and the wid oath cannot be ignored it is not discriminated on herd size. dairy farmers of all sizes areen during unprecedented disaster." that is from minnesota. the president of the california dairy farmers, the president of the california farmers union, and, by the way, the national farmers union is supporting this amendment and 11 agricultural commissioners and secretaries from states are supporting this amendment, as well. as is the d.f.a., dairy farmers of america, which is the largest dairy farm cooperative in

america. so this is what the fellow who is the head of the california farmers union says and his name is joe keene contente "in my lifetime history as a dairy farmer i have never seen prices remain this far below costs for this long and i have never seen so many deer farmers so desperate for reloaf." relieve with 25 dairies filing for bankruptcy and many closer to bankruptcy every day," from california. from texas, the executive director of the texas association of dairy american said, "this is the worst situation i have seen since 1970. some say it's the worse since the depression." from wisconsin "in my area, farmers are burning off equity accumulated over their lifetimes. one farmer in my area cashed out

his wife's i.r.a. just to get crops planned and my priest has had to counsel one or more dairy farmers a week to prevent their suicides." and this is just reports from minnesota, wisconsin, california, texas -- trust me i could tell you similar stories from the state of vermont. mr. president, once again, as we attempt to revitalize our economy, let us not forget about rural america. let us not forget about dairy farmers. let's support this legislation which provides $350 million to increase dairy support prices. i would look forward to the support of my colleagues. mr. president, i would yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. kohl: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. kohl: i ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside and the senate now consider amendment number 2284. the presiding officer: without t objection, the clerk will report. the clerk: the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin, mr. kohl, for mr. dodd, proposes amendment 2284, to amendment numbered 1908. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, the question is on the amendment.

all those in favor say aye; all those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it and the amendment is get to. mr. kohl: i move to reconsider and table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kohl: mr. president, i now ask unanimous consent the senate consider en bloc 2241 and amendment 2280; and amendments 2271, 2282, 2249, and 2266 be modified with the changes at the desk and the afor mentions amendments, as modified, if modified, be agreed to, en bloc, and th the motion to reconsidere laid upon the table, en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kohl: i make a point of order amendment 2240 is not germane postcloture. the presiding officer: the point of order is well-taken.

the amendment falls. mr. kohl: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, we are. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president, i now ask unanimous consent after senator coburn moves to commit the bill with instructions there

be ten minutes of debate between senator kohl and senator coburn and upon the use of that time the motion be set aside and the senate resume sanders amendment 2276. then senator brownback or his designee be recognized to raise a budget point of order against the amendment and then a motion to waive the relevant point of order be considered made. that the senate then proceed to vote in relation to the coburn motion to commit. that upon disposition of that motion, the senate proceed to vote on the motion to waive the relevant budget act point of order. that if a motion to waive is successful, the amendment be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, that no further amendments or motions be in office order and upon disposition of all amendments, the substitute amendment, as amended be agreed to and the senate vote on passage and the senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the house on the disagreeing votes

and the chair be authorized to appoint conferees and the subcommittee plus senator inouye appointed as conferees. that, also, in addition to senator inouye, senator shelby, be appointed as a conferee. further, if a budget point of order is raised against the substitute amendment, it be in order for another substitute amendment to be offered minus the offending provisions including any amendments which have been agreed to; that no further amendments be in order; that the substitute amendment, as amended, if amended, be get to, and the remainin remain pros beyond the adoption of the original substitute, remain in effect. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president, i further ask consent that in the sequence of votes described above there be two minutes of debate prior to each vote, equally divided and controlled in the usual form, and that after the first vote in the sequence, the remaining votes be limited to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered.

mr. reid: mr. president, i would ask consent that the vote see sequence be the following: coburn, 2244, coburn 2245, coburn motion to commit, sanders to waive the budget act point of order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, with the republican leader here on the floor, now, i would ask unanimous consent that upon disposition of 2997, the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 209 the nomination of sonia sotomayor to be associate justice of the supreme court. and that the first hour of debate be under the control of the chair and ranking member of the committee. senators leahy and sessions. to be followed by two hours of debate with the time equally divide asked controls between the majority and republicans and before i ask whether my friend will suspect this i want to lay out to the body, i'm glad we're

going to this but everyone should understand we have other things to do before relebanese here and we will do it before we have final vote on this supreme court nominee. we have to work something out on travel promotion, we have to work something out on the so-called carbon dioxid "cash f" and work out what we will do when we come back. this is not the end of the work session here for us. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. mcconnell: mr. president, observing the right to object -- and i will not be objecting -- i want to make the point to all of our colleagues the very important debate on the supreme court nominee will commence in a while, and it's important for people not to wait until the end. we need to get people on over to make their speeches. i know there are a number of members on the republican side of the aisle who do intend to speak to the nomination, and i

would encourage them to begin that sometime soon. mr. reid: i appreciate the statement of my friend. everything relating to this nomination has been very sirvelg fair. senator -- has been very civil, nature. senator leahy and senator sessions have done an outstanding job of the how the debate should be here on the floor. there are strong feelings regarding this nomination. that's the way it should be. i was told last night that there's as many as 28 republicans who wish to speak on this matter. a lot of democrats will also want to speak. i want to lay out, as my friend, the republican leader, did -- we're imping to bee working into the evenings. people shouldn't wait around here until tomorrow saying i'll put it off until tomorrow, or maybe i'll thursday. there ma may not be a thursday. we need to get these speeches

done. they're important for the record that this body makes. i would hope that people would work with the floor staff, set up a way to proceed. what we're going to do is if at all possible, have a democrat speak, a republican speak, go back and forth. if there is not one or the other party here, we're not going to wait around until that republican or democrat shows up f there's someone here treed speak, that person will be recognized and the person who was supposed to be here can wait until some subsequent time. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. there will now be time divided on the coburn amendment, number 2244. who yields time?

mr. coburn: mr. president, i have a motion to commit at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. coburn moves to commit the bill h.r. 2997 to the committee on appropriations of the senate with instructions to report the same back to the senate making the following changes: (1) amend the amounts appropriated in the bills so as to report back a bill within aggregate discretionary level of appropriations for fiscal year 2010 at an amount that is 2% greater than the $20,662,300,000 enacted for fiscal year 2009 excluding funds made available nor any discretionary or mandatory direct food assistance program as is appropriate given,

(a,) the minimal budgets of the families and (b) the $2 trillion deficit and $11,500,000,000,000 debt of the united states. mr. coburn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: the reason for this motion to commit is what we see on the discretionary side of this budget, not the food stamp, not the food support, not the areas in this budget that actually help people get through the tough times, is a 15% increase in discretionary spending. we're going to have near $2 trillion deficit this year. we spent $20 billion last year but then we spent another $6 billion in the stimulus, which still hasn't been spent, so if you were to add the stimulus throws it, you'd see a 50%

increase in the agriculture discretionary budget. that's entirely too much money. and what all this motion to commit says is, bring it back to us with a realistic expectation of what families are having to deal with. i would caution my colleagues, this has nothing to do with food. we don't eliminate or lessen those mandatory requirements. but in the operation of the usda and the department of agriculture, let's have the government live within the same parameters that the rest of us are living with now, which is a 2% increase -- actually, we're going to have a negative rate of inflation this year, and incomes that are not going to grow significantly. so what we're asking for is still a rate higher than inflation but some fiscal responsibility that says we should live within our means. so when we spent $20 billion last year through the end of this month, then we gave another $6 billion with the stimulus and now we come forward with a

budget that says we're tabooing spend $23 billion, a full 15% -- 14.0-some% increase in the programs for the department of agriculture. i find it obscene, irresponsible. i find it almost elite that we will not relate to what the rett of the american people are going through, and we have one bill after bill after bill after bill and in a time when our country is on its back on the one hand you are a budget deficits have noser -- and our budget defendandeficitshave never been. we're going to increase discretionary spending at a rate we've never seen in this country. there's no defending it. with that, i'd yield the floor. that in fact every amendment that i've stood up, other than the one senator harkin defends, we haven't had anybody defend

this bill. let's hear a defense of 15% increase for this bill in discretionary spending. the idea is let's don't defend it let's just don't answer the charge. but the fact is, we're growing the discretionary portion of the federal department of agriculture by 15% this year. it ought not to be. i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. without objection, the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. kohl: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be reunderstand ised. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin, without objection. mr. kohl: ace stated at the outset of this bill, is it does reflect an increase in spending over the previous year but let's be clear. 90% of the discretionary increase is for w.i.c. food and drug safety, humanitarian food assistance and rural rein tail housing.

these four items are among the most important things that government z put a little bit more in context on this the largest increases in this bill are not in discretionary programs. the largest single increase in the bill is for nutrition programs like the supplemental nutrition assistance program, a program combined with the school lunch program together funded at $9.1 billion, higher than last year. these are mandatetory programs that reflect the state of ow economy and serve as the basic human safety net. other mandatory increases involve farm support and crap programs, higher than last year. these programs operate as they are authorized and this spending is what is required to pay farmers and ranchers the benefits they are entitled to receive under the law. the senator is correct that the spending in this bill is higher than last year, but much of that increase is attributable to mandatory programs that don't change through an -- that don't

change through an appropriations bill. with regard to overall spending, congress has spoken on that question through the budget resolution and the aloe cautions that are made to each subcommittee for discretionary spending. this bill is about how we apportion that discretionary spending. to best serve the american people and people throughout the world, and i believe this bill has the proper priorities. i'd suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will call the roll. the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i'd ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coburn: the honorable chairman noted that most of the increase in spending is in mandatory. this motion to commit doesn't saying anything about mandatory. this is about discretionary. this is about the things that we get to decide on. this is about the discretionary side of this bill, not the mandatory side. so we're not confused, this is not about those subsidy items

that are mandated through the farm bill. this is about what we have discretion to control, and we have increation with this bill -- and we have indiscretion with this bill because we're going to grow about 15%. with that, i yield the floor and reserve the balance of any time might v. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will call the roll. i'm sorry. mr. coburn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i'd ask unanimous consent that both sides yield back their time and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kohl: without objection. mr. specter: mr. president? the presiding officer: is

there a sufficient second? there appears to be. mr. specter: mr. president? mr. president -- fer officer [inaudible] mr. specter: i ask to speak for up to five minutes in support of the sanders amendment. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. specter: mr. president, the dairy farmers of pennsylvania and the nation are receiving record-low prices for their products, price prices the have not seen since the late-1970's. from january through june of this year, the price received by

farmers was 37% below that of the year earlier. feed costs, by comparison, have risen -- have fallen by just 11%. in this year, the united states department of agriculture expects the price to average between $11.85 per shun-weight and $12.15 per 100-weight, down from $18.29 last year and 18% to 20% below the 10-year average. exports which have driven much of the recent growth in the dairy industry, have fallen from 11% of production last year. according to the pennsylvania department of agriculture, these losses are translating into losses as high as $1,000 per cow per year, so that a farmer milking 100 cows would lose as much as $100,000 thisser i do not.

if this amendment provides the united states department of agriculture with $350 million in additional funds to enable it to increase the level at which government buys surplus dairy products off the market. this fund wooing allow the secretary to raise the support price on three different types of dairy products. mr. president, that is a grave statistical summary of the problems which the dairy farmers are facing not only in my state, pennsylvania, but across the country. i recently convened a session in my office to hear in some detail the plights of the dairy farmers. i've traveled the state. before august is finished, i will have visited all of pennsylvania's 67 counties, which is a practice i make covering virtually every county, virtually every year. and i have seen firsthand the desperate plight of the farmers

of our state. we had been considering a number of amendments to this bill, but they have been ruled germane. for those who may be watching this program, let me -- it is really a program that's really a session of the senate. for those who may be watching, that means that technically we could not offer other legislation. but i compliment the distinguished senator from vermont, who has structured this bill -- structured this amendment in a way which will enable the department of agriculture to meet this pressing problem. recently about a dozen senators met with the secretary of agriculture, and the conclusion was that the department of agriculture, the obama administration wanted to help farmers by raising price supports. but they lacked the money to do so. so this amendment, if adopted --

and i urge my colleagues to adopt it -- and there is a pretty widespread concern about milk prices covering virtually every section of the united states -- to adopt this amendment to give some very much-needed relief to the dairy farmers. i thank the chair and yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. mr. kohl: not withstanding the previous order, i ask unanimous consent that amendment number 2285 be considered and agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection, amendment number 2280 as previously adopted is modified with the changes at the desk. mr. kohl: mr. president, not withstanding the previous order,

i ask unanimous consent that amendment number 2285 be considered and agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kohl: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the previously agreed to amendment number 2280 be modified with the changes at the desk. the presiding officer: without objection. the question is on the coburn amendment number 2244. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the ayes are 37, the nays are 60. the amendment is defeated. the presiding officer: the question is on the coburn amendment 2245. all time is yielded back.

the question is on the amendment. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes appear to have it. the noes do have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the two minutes equally divided on the motion by the senator from oklahoma equally divided. the senate will be in order.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: this is a motion to commit -- the senate's not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: the discretionary portion of this appropriation bill grows 15 times faster than the rate of inflation. this is an amendment that says it ought to come back us to, growing two times the rate of inflation. there's no excuse for us to have this kind of spending in this type of climate. i would ask the support of this amendment. the presiding office -- the presiding officer: who yields the time in opposition? mr. kohl: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. mr. kohl: i oppose the motion to commit. the presiding officer: is all time yielded back? all time is yielded back. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote: .

vote: