week call. we've had a big flu summit and asked governors to send in their education secretaries, their homeland security, their emergency planner, their health, so the school folks have been part of this conversation in a very robust way from day one. >> thank you very much. >> gentleman from georgia, mr. bare row. >> madam secretary, thank you for your service and thank you for coming here and speaking with us on this. i represent augusta, georgia, and all points in between. our prior response to seasonal flu might not be the best guide for what we should do, but it's probably a pretty good guide as to what we will do unless we do something different. and i am given to understand that less than half the targeted populations we reach out to on a regular seasonal basis get the vaccine that is suited for that situation. and so we got to anticipate unless we do something different

we're going to have a similar success rate in response to this new threat. i understand that one of the targeted populations we are trying to reach in response to the h1n1 is the population of children and young adults six months to 24 years of age. kind of sets it apart from the seasonal flu. i'm having a telephone conference call this afternoon with a pretty influential bunch of folks with respect to that targeted population. my public health expert, ms. betty dixon, is with me today, and she's going to be participating in this conference. we're going to be talking with every superintendent, every assistant superintendent, the principals from every elementary, middle and high school in the district, and the deans of students at many of the 18 institutions of higher learning that we have in my district. so my question to you is sort of a general one, but what can we do, what can we say in the course of that conversation with that captive and very influential audience to help

them get a higher success rate in reaching the targeted population they have some influence over than we've been able to do so far with respect to seasonal flu? what can we tell them that we're not already telling them? do with respect to seasonal flu. what can we tell them that we're not already tell them? >> that they know they have the target population and if it's nothing more than just lots of folks getting the flu, that has a huge disruptive factor, so having minimizing the spread right now and then vaccinating we know is the best defense against the flu spread. we do have some great information on the website. i would suggest maybe if you put the wijts on your website and urge them to come and >> this is how to do hings. what can we tell them to motivate them to make a greater

effort? >> they can keep people from being hospitalized and dying. if 6,000 children die i will suggest that they will have a huge impact on communities around the country. that is the average death rate for seasonal flu. so even if it is just like regular flu, given the population that basically they are responsible for that is what it looks like. and i think you need to convince them that even the regular flu is particularly different because it is kids and young adults. they have no immunity to this whatsoever. so anybody with the underlying health conditions is really at far higher risk, and i think, i think this is in their hands around 200,000 hospitalizations year and year out with seasonal flu, .

typically because of the age of the population and not sure that it has the kind of societal impact and to me it's the impact. there is, i am told, a new "tool kit for school immunization that will be on line -- will, that went on line on the 13th. >> available at? >> i just think it's in their attention about how even mild flu is very serious. people die, people get sick. anything we can do to prevent that we need them to do. >> thank you. >> mr. pitts is not recognized for three minutes. >> thank you, madam chairman. madam secretary, what's geographic regions in the country does hhs expect to be

hit hardest by the h1n1 strain? is there any projections that your department has made? it seems like the south has reported an increase in cases. that might be because they start school earlier in the south. i don't know. do you have any ideas on that? >> we really, congressman, saw very scattered cases throughout the country over the spring. during the outbreak there was no one region, one area isolated. we think that the rise in cases in the southeast that showed up first is because of the fact that they did start school earlier, and kids can together earlier. we're starting to see cases, though, spread oregon, kansas. so it is beginning to spread out as people come back to school and college is a real ingates. so we don't have any information that gives us regional or local

looks. that is why it is important for us to monitor it closely. >> have all of the states implemented what you consider adequately prepared ness plans for this? >> well, congressman, all states were required in order to access the funding available to help them implement, they were all required to submit plans. i think that the assessment was that many states are ready in a very robust way. others are in okay shape, and some needed a lot of help. we have provided technical assistance, support, on the ground surveillance. we also had teams that did said this is to try to verify that what was coming in in the region plan was actually accurate in terms of what was available. so we are trying to provide resources, help, support, and it sits ready to go because a lot of this will have to be -- the

shots in the arm are really going to be a state and local effort. >> will there be enough vaccine for all of the states to have? >> yes. >> and are they adequately stockpiled? >> well, the vaccine isn't s tockpiled because it has not been produced. the vaccine, we hope, will begin to be widely available on the 15th of october which is the target date. some early supplies as early as ten days before that, and it will be distributed as soon as it comes off the production lines. >> my time is up. thank you. >> the lady from california. >> thank you, madam secretary. it's wonderful to see you. i want to salute you for your very steady, strong, sensible leadership whether you are testifying here, i see and hear you on it whatever tv program.

i think that you speak very clearly to the american people, and i think that we all appreciate that. there are, what, five companies that are making, responsible for the making the vaccine. one of them is metamune, and they are in my congressional district. theirs is a nasal spray, while the others are the traditional injections. what i would like to know is, is this something that would be better used for children? i you going to make its choice relative to that? doesn't really matter? is it good for adults? for children? how do you think that it might affect the voluntary compliance

rate for those opting to get the h1n1 vaccine? and what i'm going to do, since we only can have one question, is to follow up on some funding questions relative to this whole thing, but i'll just stick with that for now. >> what i'm told is that it isn't -- that is all messed is not recommended for the youngest children. >> oh, it's not? >> two to 49 seems to be the target population as long as they don't have underlying health conditions. some of the highest risk children would not be recommended. it certainly is a viable alternative for a lot of the population. >> good. well, thank you again for what i think is really special and highly needed leadership. we are proud of you. thank you. >> the gentleman. >> yes, i just wanted, again, i

was here for some of the opening statements, welcome madam secretary. education, education, education is the key, especially for a couple of things. obviously the passing of the flu, germs, and the other stuff. but also we already have a run on hospitals and emergency rooms with people who are, in essence, just having the everyday flu-like concerns, and i know that we have to do a good job calming the public so that they use the services when they are needed, but don't overutilize them when they are not. and i don't know -- i'm not a health practitioner, so i don't know how you gauge that. but i do think that education is key. i would agree with my friend with the calming presence that

your position is going to be required to hold, especially as we come in to this season of the year. i have a junior, a freshman, and a fourth grader. so we are all concerned. we are all concerned with the start closing down schools. maybe before they should. and so i want to encourage you. i don't have any answer. i would like to yield the rest of my time to dr. burgess. >> thanks. i just have a follow-up question that came up. one of the questions that he was on the funding issue. there was a little over seven-and-a-half billion dollars for the h1 n1 flu in the stimuls bill. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> have these funds been disbursed? are they really available to you? are they still being held somewhere in the stimulus pot? do you have all of the money you need? do you have the funding needed this point? >> at this point, congressman, we do.

we are drawing that money down. we have made a couple of drawdowns to buy vaccine and get ready to distribute it. now that we have a little bit more clinical data we are likely to have a more accurate picture of how much vaccine we are going to need. we have used some of it to replenish the stockpiles of antivurals that we send to the state to help. as i say, about a billion for has gone out. we are trying to do a step in that time. at this time the funding provided is extraordinarily helpful, and we -- >> at the present time he done anticipate having additional funding requirements that we'll be asked to do with? >> at this point i don't have them. again, we are watching this very closely. if this turns more lethal, if it begins to present itself in a

different way. you know, things change in the surge capacity. at the think we are on target, s a day-by-day operation. >> let me ask you one other follow-up for mr. walton who alluded to the fact that to we have got -- and this is off the subject of avian flu, but it is still important. three months time of physicians who practice in the medical system are going to receive a 21% reduction if congress doesn't do something. we still have a vacancy at the head of the center for medicare and medicaid services, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> how close are we to filling the position? >> very close. >> this is a critical issue, and i would encourage you to get that done. congress has an obligation to its provider community to step up in did the right thing.

it is difficult to even get an answer. >> we do have, as you probably know, a new leader for medicare and medicaid are in place. they are doing a spectacular job. i share your concern about the leadership, and we are very close. >> thank you. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from maryland for three minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. thanks so much for spending all this much time with us. you are close to the end. so i know we are very grateful that you are in this position. you have handled things so superbly, and i think with a sense of calm that is contagious in a good way. so just don't get the flu. >> maybe i can walk people through it. >> right. exactly. i think you answered the first question i was going to ask which is the legality, the

the lethality of this thing could change. and initially there was concerned . you just alluded to the fact that it could turn back in the of the direction. >> that's correct. i was just curious. i imagine you have ways of assessing our overall readiness to address this pandemic going forward which would include clearly looking at the number. i would imagine how well we are doing addressing these high risk groups out of the gate, what is happening with particular communities in terms of the modeling that suggests. i wonder if you could point to any other prime indicators you are going to be looking at and also comment on whether you anticipate that there will be pitted pivot points along the we we may need to regroup and move in a kind of different direction than we are anticipating right

now. >> great question. acting that one of the lessons learned from the 76 experts was that there do need to be points along the way that we make sure we're still on track. as people keep telling me that predictable fact about the flu is it is unpredictable. it could change. some monitoring very closely what we are seeing. and part of the the fatality is really watching watching what hn h1n1 begins to mix. we found the southern hemisphere is still encouraging. did not mutate into a significantly more dangerous virus. that's good news. can it happen? there will be continued monitoring and testing, but it does the more serious cases when it comes to the hospital and making sure that we know we are on target. the vaccine seems to be exactly

what it should be the target h1n1. the robust response is great. the limited time that is taking is very good, and the fact that one dose seems to actually produce a good immunity response, all of that is very good news. but i think that watching the outbreak, certainly monitoring very carefully hospital capacity, how to deal with the more seriously ill folks. we really worry about right now antiviral treatments. we are, unfortunately, seeing many providers give antivirals

prophylactically, suggesting that people would give the prescription and taken to prevent the flu. our scientists tell us that is the wrong direction. it could make them far sicker in the long run, and will draw down our stockpile. that is a particular concern. so we are doing aggressive outreach to the provider community is trying to remind them that really is a strategy which is very counterproductive in the long run. so i don't know what's the next challenge like that, but we'll have them. >> thank you. the gentleman from washington, mr. inslee. >> thank you. do you have any issues as far as geographically or otherwise? when we have a vaccine that will become available? >> there is certainly no geographic priority. we have asked the states for that plan, which they have. and the community on

immunization, the committee on immunizations has developed a priority list based on the science. five categories of people who total about 160 million americans, pregnant women, caregivers, infants under the age of six months, children and six months to 24, particularly those with underlying health conditions. adults 24 and up with the underlying health conditions, and health care workers. that is about 160 million people. to figure out how to get the spoke to the front of the line, what are the best of opportunities, and that is for the vaccine will flow. there will be about 90,000 sites that will receive vaccine. so we are not making -- we are just trying to use our pulpit of communication to say to this target populations, you really need to think about this. one of the challenges, as you all know, will be to get parents

ready to sign consent forms for kids. so information is going home in school than to say to parents, this will be available, we think, by mid-october. here is what the consent form is going to look like. think about it and get ready to sign it. that way your child can be vaccinated. >> i heard a surprising comment by an e.r. room doc last week suggesting that one of the problems may be over utilization. they are concerned about people coming in. >> the worried well. >> the worried well. >> we understand worried. we would all like to be well. what would you tell us all sick so when should people really

feel compelled to go? >> i would back it up a step. if someone comes down with the flu, either an adult or child, and there are no serious consequences more than a fever and aches and pains, cut to bed, chicken soup, , stay away from other folks. i'm not sure you need to take additional steps. anyone with the underlying health conditions, asthma, diabetes, neuromuscular disorders should contact the physician on presentation of food like symptoms. that is the population for antiviral. that is who needs tamiflu or relenza. that it -- and certainly anybody who is more seriously ill. you know, there are tips on the web site.

it is really a triage. people who come down with the flu probably don't need to call a doctor or have an antiviral or certainly not go to the hospital. >> thank you. thanks for your work. >> thank you very much. the chair of now recognize herself for, i think, the last question. i want to thank you, madam secretary and also the cdc staff, again, for the remarkable gemology have done in getting the information and stamping down panic. i think that the public health effort is going really well here. several times in your testimony you referred to the concern that we have that bit of this virus could mutate. we hope that it won't. it didn't in the southern hemisphere. we had a number of hearings in this committee over the years

about various flu strains. of course, the avian flu has been a big concern of this committee over the years. i am wondering first of all how are we coming in developing a cell-based vaccine rather than the traditional egg-based vaccine that we are still using for development of the h1n1 vaccine? >> we are still a couple of years away from the different technology. cell-based, i think, is the sort of high-tech version. actually tobacco growing is also regarded as sort of promising, but we are not close to -- the last time we talked to folks it's still a couple of years away. >> are we making a real effort towards these others? part of the problem we have an part of our concern last spring with h1n1 was that we might not be able to identify the strain

quickly enough to make a vaccination. we do have to produce the eggs. >> well, that's would be investing in developing a faster, newer technology, still very much underway. it's part of what we're doing on an ongoing basis. we are trying to accelerate the work, but it is not imminent that we will have another methodology for developing a vaccine then the egg-based methodology. >> i think you can expect more hearings on this topic. you will also ask some of the experts. >> i was going to say, i welcome. >> what will happen is if we have avian flu or some other epidemic that is as fast moving as this then we would have really been in trouble. >> at think you are absolutely right. a think this is, you know, --

hopefully it won't be more than this, but i wake up call. up until now it has been a hypothetical. not only in this country, but it is now presented in about 120 countries around the world. we know this is real. >> right. and with great rapidity. what are we doing with people who are allergic to the egg-based vaccine with the h1n1 vaccine? >> i was just told the cannot get it. vaccinating those around them. >> what is the status right now of the avian flu virus? is it still lurking out there? >> it is still there. it is continuing to cause

disease, but it is not being transmitted very easily. >> i have a last question. ms. castor has the nine and ten-year-olds. i have the college students. this is like when our kids were little, and we had the chicken pox parties. college students are having flu parties. i don't want to know exactly how they're trying to share the virus, but they are. she and her friends asked me to ask you what is your advice about this practice? >> i would say it is a pretty bad idea. >> that was my mother the advice, too. at just want to know from the expert. >> and sure they won't listen anymore to meet and see you. again, this is a serious disease. most people getting the flu it's

a problem. you miss work. but for a lot of people this is deadly. doing anything to transmit the disease, and particularly i would say to our young and people who think they are invincible, a number of the younger folks may have health conditions that they are not even aware of. they really could be in serious trouble by voluntarily giving this flu. >> so, i mean, in all seriousness the advice of the cdc and everybody else is that for every one they should be taking hand-washing protocol, doing their best if they feel sick to isolate themselves. >> keep this from spreading. >> and 6-24 year olds, including the college age group are in the first priority to get vaccinated. that is the best way on a college campus to keep kids

safe. we have done a lot of outreach. find a dorm. find an isolation room. you can't send kids who are away from school home, but isolating them from one another. don't have them go to the school cafeteria to get meals. keep them away from roommates. really what we know is this spreads very, very rapidly. >> and when the vaccine does come out the college students should all get vaccinated, correct? >> yes. >> thank you so much. we are very appreciative of your testimony. adjourned. before i adjourned the hearing the record will stay open for seven days for members to submit additional questions. [inaudible conversations]

he's going to get more than two touchdowns. i have him ranked number 10 overall for the week but you might want to look elsewhere for your starting quarterback. now at running. take a look at -- brian westbrook even with kevin kolb at quarterback will have a huge game against the saints. the lions scoreboard on the saints. philadelphia certainly will. it will be a high scoring game. i would not use kevin kolb, not my top 20 quarterback. brian westbrook in my top five for running back. for the colts with anthony gonzalez out i like dallas clark a lot. with the colts, i like dallas clark a lot. my number two tight end. reggie wayne, we rank him number one at wide receiver. don't worry about any other colts wide receivers. i'm eric karabell. check out all our stuff on espn.com fantasy. >> d'backs third baseman mark reynolds struck out four more times wednesday giving him 200 this year. season. >> wednesday's home runs. adrian gonzalez hit his 38th. hatice nate colbert for most

home runs in a season by a padres first baseman. colbert did it if 1970 and 1972 check out all our stuff on espn.com fantasy. >> coming up on espnews, the giants desperate to stay in the wild card race. a dramatic ninth inning. a day after a stare-down which led to a throw-down in the boogie-down, baseball has responded and the yankees roster has taken a hit. the jets and brett favre. why gang green is still paying for number four. captioning by captionmax >> keeping you current with the >> keeping you current with the

latest news, scores and highlights this is espnews available in high definition, along with j.w. stewart, mike yam with you, and j.w., it was a walk-off wednesday which we'll get to. we start with the giants still in the thick of things. >> they were 4 1/2 out in the wild card. four days later, the giants are right back in it. giants began the night 2 1/2 games behind the rockies in the wild card. bottom nine, juan uribe, grounder to short. should be two. but troy tulowitzki throws it away, pablo sandovaly big win bt at the same time, if we dropped the game tonight there is no reason to be down on ourselves -- we came from a long way -- been what we have been through to start off the first month of the season, and to be in the playoff race here is something special. >> jorge de la rosa's 15 wins since june 1st are most in the majors and

the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., september 17, 2009. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable kirsten r. gillibrand, a senator from the state of new york, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, presidet pro tempore. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: mr. majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks the senate will be in a period of morning business for one hour with senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each. however, i would ask consent that the full 30 minutes of the majority be controlled by the senator from pennsylvania, senator specter. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. reid: the majority will control the first 30 minutes, the republicans will control the second 30 minutes. following morning business the senate will begin consideration of h.r. 2996, the interior appropriations bill. following the managers opening statements, the floor will be open for senators to offer amendments. at 2:00 p.m. we will resume consideration of the transportation appropriations bill and proceed to a series of up to six roll call votes and complete action on that. madam president, i feel it's important to say that everyone, that we're now in a mode of doing some legislation. i appreciate very much the cooperation of all senators, democrats and republicans. i think we're now in the mode when the bill comes up, people can offer amendments. we, for a number of years that simply was not the case.

when circumstances come that decisions may not allow amendments, i understand after people are in the habit of being able to offer amendments, how concerned they become. there's a decision made to so-called fill the tree and not allow amendments. in the way that we're working. we're taking some tough votes. democrats are offering some difficult amendments. republicans are offering difficult amendments. but that's okay, we're working through these bills. we could have been voting on cloture on the interior appropriations bill. we didn't have to do that. we're going to complete that bill -- i'm sorry, the transportation appropriations bill. we could have been invoking cloture on that this morning. it simply has not been necessary. there are some nominations we're still working our way through.

i have one republican senator on a nomination that's been held up for quite some time, came to me yesterday and said you can go ahead and put that one through. so i'm satisfied and confident that this is the way the senate should operate. we have on the horizon the health care bill. that's going -- if we're able to get 60 votes to proceed to it, it's going to take everyone's cooperation to be patient and work through the amendments that will be necessary to go forward on that. i'm hopeful and confident that we can work through that bill. if not, we'll have to go to the reconciliation, which i hope that we don't have to do. but if we have to, we have to do that. anyway, i feel good about what we've been able to accomplish the last -- this week. i repeat -- it sets a pattern of how we should legislate.

senator specter came to me a number of times last year and said are there going to be amendments allowed? and i said, yes. we had -- he would vote to move forward on the bill. and i think there were other people who felt just like him. they just weren't as vocal as senator specter. so i appreciate the good work, including that of my colleague, the senior senator from kentucky, who is one of the people that has stressed how important it is to have amendments. i recognize he can't control his senators all the time, or can i. but in spite of that, we'll get them all worked through. i want to get the appropriations bills done, as tkor senator mcconnell. he and i have been members of the appropriations committee during his entire tenure here in the senate. as of today we will have completed five of them. we're going to do our utmost and

do the conference reports before the first of october. and we may have to have a short -- not may. we will have to have a short-term c.r. by the end of that short-term c.r., hopefully we can complete all the appropriations bills. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: madam president, over the past few months the american people have been sending us a clear message on health care. they want reforms that make health care more affordable and more accessible, that increase choice and keep government out of their health care decisions. what they don't want are so-called reforms that cut seniors' health care, force americans off private health plans they have, cost hundreds of billions of dollars, raise taxes, and put government bureaucrats in charge of health care. but that's exactly what they'd get under the plan that was released by the chairman of the

senate finance committee just yesterday. so while i appreciate the hard work of the senior senator from montana on this legislation -- and he certainly has spent enormous amounts of time on it -- i'm extremely disappointed that it does not reflect the concerns americans have been expressing for weeks about health care reform. that much is very clear. now it's time to let the american people study the bill themselves. before we bring any legislation to the floor, we need to make sure that the american people and all of our colleagues -- every single one of them -- have the time to carefully read it and evaluate its potential effects on our health care system and the economy in general. americans got rushed on the stimulus. they won't be rushed on health care. not on an issue that affects every single american. before we discuss or vote on any plan, we need to know what it does, how much it costs, and how it will be paid for.

here's what we know now about the finance committee plan. first, the finance committee proposal would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from seniors' medicare benefits to pay for new government programs. america's seniors want us to fix medicare, not take money from it to pay for a new untested trillion-dollar government program. this bill would also break the president's promise to seniors that they won't be required to change the coverage they have. right now 11 million seniors are enrolled in medicare advantage, a program that gives them more options and choices when it comes to their health care. 90% of these seniors are satisfied with their plans. the finance bill would make massive cuts to medicare advantage and force some seniors to give it up, something that even one of our democratic friends just yesterday called intolerable.

senators from both sides of the aisle are concerned about the new burdens this bill would impose on states in the form of medicaid expansion. unlike the federal government, many states are constitutionally -- in fact, i think virtually all of them are constitutionally required to have balanced budgets. this means that if politicians in washington force them to increase spending on medicaid, they'll very likely have to cut services or raise taxes right in the middle of a recession. the finance bill would kill jobs by forcing employers to provide insurance, regardless of whether or not they can afford it. and while advocates of the bill say it doesn't contain an employer mandate, the claim just doesn't square with the facts. if you tell an employer that they either have to provide insurance or pay a penalty, that's a mandate. the finance bill contains approximately $350 billion in new taxes. and some of these taxes, such as

those on medical devices, ranging from m.r.i.'s to q-tips and new taxes on insurance plans will drive up insurance premiums and make health care even more expensive for american families. if there's one thing we thought everybody agreed on, it was that any reform should not make health care more expensive. yet, this q-tip tax would actually increase health care costs, and that's skwr senators from both parties -- why senators from both parties warned it would put thousands of jobs in jeopardy and deter innovation. the senate finance bill also contains a co-op, which is just another name for a government plan. and it still gives the government far too much control over our health care system. it cuts seniors' benefits, spends hundreds of billions of dollars, and raises taxs to pay for another $1 trillion

government program. and it still doesn't contain the kind of commonsense reforms that the american people support and republicans have consistently recommended, such as meaningful reforms to get rid of junk lawsuits against doctors and hospitals, and reforms to level the playing field when it comes to taxes on health care plans. there's no question that americans want health care reform, but they want the right reforms and they want us to take the time we need to get it right. during the month of august, the american people sent us a clear message on health care. i'm disappointed that many of my colleagues apparently weren't listening. now, madam president, on another matter, the national constitution center in philadelphia first opened its doors on july 4, 2003. situated just steps away from

the liberty bell and historic independence hall, it is the only museum in america solely dedicated to honoring america's constitution. our constitution was signed on this day -- this very day -- in 1787 by 39 brave, outstanding americans. now 222 years later we thank them for devising the finest system of government mankind has ever produced. by recognizing the rights -- that rights flow from people to their government and not the other way around, our constitution is firmly dedicated to the preservation of liberty. that's why we celebrate every september 17 as constitution day. it's a day for all americans to learn more about the constitution, to understand how it works, and to appreciate how it has guided our nation through growth and through change. i want to thank the senior senator from west virginia, senator byrd, for sponsoring

this legislation five years ago to observe this historic day. we all know the love senator byrd has for his country and his country's history. he knows that you cannot truly understand how liberty is preserved in america without understanding the constitution. so, thank you, senator, for your efforts to ensure that future generations also learn this important lesson. so on this day, madam president, we recognize citizens across the nation who are honoring our constitution by honoring its values and passing them along to our children and grandchildren. and we say a special thanks for the men and women in uniform who defend it. thanks to them, the constitution's promise will be there for the next generation of americans. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the second half. mr. specter: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. specter: madam president, i have sought recognition to comment about u.s. policy in afghanistan. during the course of the august recess and of course with my customary practice, i traveled to pennsylvania's 67 counties to take the pulse of my constituents. and while there are many problems, there is considerable concern about what our policy is going to be in afghanistan. i note that at this time, according to yesterday's "new

york times," there have been 821 american service members killed in afghanistan, some $189 billion has been appropriated for afghanistan. by the end of this year, there will be 68,000 american military personnel and an additional 38,000 nato troops from other countries in afghanistan. i ask consent that an extensive floor statement be included in the text of the "congressional record" at the conclusion of my statement. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. specter: and i intend now to summarize the substance of my concerns. the approach on our policy has been outlined in testimony earlier this week by admiral

michael mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, in these two statement statements. our policy -- quote -- "is to provide sanctuary to al qaeda and the taliban now and to generate a stable and secure afghanistan capable of denying al qaeda a return after the withdrawal of 0 our combat forces and while we sustain partnership and commitment to political and economic development in that nation." admiral mullen told the committee -- quote -- "a properly resourced counterinsurgency probably means more forces, without question, more time, and more commitment to the protection of the afghan people and to the development of good government." while i think it is laudable to want to protect the afghan people and to provide good

governance there, it is my view that that is not a sufficient national interest for the united states to put our troops at risk or to expend substantial additional sums there. the principal question, as i see it, is whether afghanistan is indispensable to be secure to prevent al qaeda from launching another attack against the united states. if that is the purpose, that is the necessity, that we must undertake anything, whatever it costs, to stop al qaeda from again attacking the united states. but i believe that there are a series of questions which have to be answered before we can assess whether that is an indispensable part of u.s. policy. and toward that end, i have

written to the secretary of defense, secretary of state, the director of national intelligence, and the director of the central intelligence agency on a series of questions, which i think require answers before we can make an informed judgment as to whether the expenditures in afghanistan are in our specific national interest. these are the questions which i have posed for these leaders: what are the prospects for military success in afghanistan against al qaeda and the taliban? what will the requirements be in the next year as to additional u.s. troops and the cost of our involvement in afghanistan? what may we reasonably expect nato or other allies to

contribute in troops and dollars to our efforts in afghanistan? what other areas around the world are open to al qaeda as potential bases for another attack on the united states? what will be done besides military action, such as nation building and stabilizing and developing afghanistan, so that they will be prepared to handle their own problems, so that we could withdraw? what assistance can we reasonably expect from pakistan in fighting al qaeda and the taliban and stopping both from seeking refuge by moving in and out of pakistan? how does the questionable legitimacy of president karzai's status as a result of allegations of proof of election fraud impact on our ability to succeed in afghanistan? how does the illegal drug trafficking and alleged involvement of high-ranking

officials in the karzai government in such drug trafficking impact on oifortses in afghanistan -- on our efforts in afghanistan? what does u.s. intelligence show has to any possible plans of al qaeda to attack the united states or anyone else? what does u.s. intelligence show as to whether india poses a real threat to attack pakistan? what does u.s. intelligence show as to whether pakistan poses a real threat to attack india? what does u.s. intelligence show as to whether pakistan could reasonably devote additional military force to assist us in the fight against the taliban? what does u.s. intelligence show as to whether the government of pakistan or influential officials in the pakistani government would consider negotiating with india for reducing nuclear weapons or other confidence-building measures to diffuse the tension

with india if actively encouraged to do so by the united states? what does united states intelligence show as to whether the government of india or some influential officials in the indian government would consider negotiating with pakistan for reducing nuclear weapons or other confidence-building measures to diffuse the tension with pakistan if actively encouraged by the united states to do so? we have learned a bitter lesson from iraq that we do not have answers to important questions in formulating our policy there. had we known that saddam hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, i think the united states would not have gone into iraq. these questions were posed by me when we had the debate on the

resolution for authorizing the use of force. on october 7, 200 it i said the following: "what was the extent of saddam hussein's control over weapons of mass destruction? what would it cost by way of casualties to topple saddam hussein? what would be the consequences in iraq? who would govern after saddam was toppled? what would happen in the region, the impact on the arab world and the impact on israel?" close quote. the president, as commander in chief, as we all know, has primary responsibility to conduct war; but the constitution vests in the congress the sole authority to declare war. regreregrettably, the congressil authority and responsibility has been dissipated with what we have seen in korea and in vietnam and in the

authorizations for the use of force in iraq in both 2001 and then in -- in the two incursions into iraq. we do not have the authority under separation of powers to delegate that authority. and had we asked the tough questions and had we gotten correct, honest, accurate answers, it would have been of great help to president george bush yogi berra in form late -- to president bush administration in for formulating policy in ir. and now i think it would be a great help to barack obama for the united states congress to exercise our persistence in finding correct answers to these kinds of tough questions.

we have a situation with pakistan today which gives us great pause. the united states has advanced $15.5 billion to pakistan since 9/11, some $10.9 billion of that money has gone for security. and there is a real question as to whether we have gotten our money's worth. the comments from the "new york times" on december 24 raise these issues: money which has been expended by the united states in pakistan has been diverted to help finance weapons systems designed to counter india, not al qaeda or the taliban. the united states has paid tens of millions of dollars to

inflated pakistani reimbursement claims for fuel and ammunition and other costs. dr. anthony cordesman at the center for strategic and international studies, wrote on april 10 of this year -- quote -- "far too much of the military portion of the past aid to pakistan never was used to help fight the taliban in al qaeda or can't be accounted for. future aid should clearly be tied to clearly defined goals for pakistani action, a full accounting for the money." "the new york times" on august 30 of this year pointed out -- quote -- "the accusations have been made of pakistan illegally modifying american-made missiles to eng expand its capability to

attack land targets, a mow tension threat t -- a potential threat to india." the questions which have been posed in the series of letters which i have outlined go to the issue as to whether india poses a threat to pakistan. it is hard for me to contemplate that that is a really serious problem, but we ought to be informed. and we ought to be putting puttr efforts to seeing if we could not broker a peace treaty between india and pakistan, which would enable us to get really substantial help from pakistan in our fight against the taliban. in 1995 when i was chairman of the intelligence committee, senator hank brown of colorado and i visited india and pakistan. when we were in india, we went

with prime minister rao, who brought up the subject of a potential nuclear confrontation between india and pakistan and said that he would like to see the subcontinent nuclear-free. he knew that we were en route to pakistan to see prime minister benazir bhutto, and he asked us to take up the subject with her, which she did. as a result, i wrote the following letter to president clinton a day after we left india. and i think it is worth reading in full. august 28, 1995: "dear mr. president: , i think it important to call to your personal attention the substance of meetings which senator hank brown and i had in the last two days with indian prime minister rao and pakistan prime minister benazir bhutto. prime minister rao stated that he would be very interested in

negotiations which would lead to the elimination of any nuclear weapons on the subcontinent within 10 or 15 years, including renouncing first use of such weapons. his interest in such negotiations with pakistan would cover bilateral talks, a regional conference, which would include the united states, china, and russia, in addition to india and pakistan. when we asked prime minister bhutto whether she had last -- when she had last talked to prime minister rao, she said she had had no conversations with him during her tenure as prime minister. prime minister bhutto did say that she had initiated the contact through an intermediary but that was termtded when a new controversy arose between pakistan and india. from our conversations with prime minister rao and prime minister bhutto, it is my sense that both would be very receptive to discussions

initiated and brokered by the united states as to nuclear weapons and also delivery missile systems. i am dictating this letter to you by telephone from damascus, so you will have it at your earliest convenience. i am also telefaxing a copy of this letter to secretary of state warren christopher. in my letter to secretary of state clinton, which i sent her last week, i asked her what efforts have been made to broker such a peace treaty between india and pakistan and sent on to her a copy of the letter which i have written to president clinton. if we could ease the tension between those two countries, if we could persuade pakistan that

india does not pose a threat so that pakistan does not have to marshal their forces along the india border but instead aid the united states in our fight against the taliban, it would be a very different proposition. the suggestion has been made now to extend $7.5 billion in additional funding to pakistan. it seems to me that it is not a good use of our money if it is to follow the same trail as the $10.5 billion which we have expended in the immediate past. if we can get the assistance of pakistan in fighting taliban, it would be one thing. if we could be sure that the money was used for the intended purpose and not diverted for the other purposes, as it appears the other $10.5 billion was, it would be a very, very different

picture. in sum, it seems to me that before we ought to commit additional troops to afghanistan, it ought to be a matter of paramount importance, really indispensable, as a matter of stopping another attack by al qaeda. if al qaeda can organize in some other spot, the issues raised by my questions, it would bear heavily on what our policy in afghanistan should be. madam president, in addition to the full text of my statement being included in the record, i ask consent that copies of my letters to secretary of state hillary clinton, secretary of defense robert gates, c.i.a. director and the director of

national intelligence dennis blair all be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. specter: i thank the chair and yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma o*rbg. mr. inhofe: could i inquire as to the regular order? the presiding officer: the minority has 30 minutes remaining in morning business. mr. inhofe: and then i would ask when the majority would then be recognized? the presiding officer: the majority has 12 minutes remaining. mr. inhofe: all right. thank you very much. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. inhofe: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: madam president, if the senator controlling the majority of time would like to reserve the balance of his time, i'll go ahead and start. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: madam president, i was, as we speak there is an announcement coming from the white house. it's my understanding that they're going to canceling the sites, the east earn european sites that we've been working on for such a long time. i think it's appropriate to quote something that i saw many years ago and was foreseen by president reagan when he was president. he said -- and i quote -- "since the dawn of the atomic age we have sought to reduce the risk of war by phae tank a strong deterrent, by seeking genuine

arms control, deterrents, making sure the adversary thinking about attacking the united states or allies or vital interests concluded that the risks to him outweigh potential gains. once he understands that, he won't attack. we maintain peace through our strength. weakness only invites aggression." i wish that people today would understand those words of ronald reagan quite some time ago and how prophetic they were. as we look right now, we see that talking about the administration is canceling this program. madam president, i put myself -- i arranged to be in afghanistan at the time that secretary of defense gates announced the budget. i believe it was last february, the obama budget insofar as defense was concerned. i was very much concerned. i was concerned about what happened to the f-22 initially when we were going to have the only fifth-generation fighter

that this country has. we initially were going to have 750 of them, and he terminated the program at 187. i was concerned about the termination of the c-17 program. i was concerned about the termination of the future combat system. the future combat system is the only ground system that has gone through a major change in probably 50 or 60 years. and so we don't have -- won't have that improved ground capability for our young men and women who go into harm's way. but also i made the comment that the, i suspected at that time when he suspended the radar site in the czech republic and the interception capability in poland that that was easing in to terminate that program. i think we're finding out today that he is terminating that program. on february 3 of 2009, iran

launched a satellite on the 30th anniversary of the 1979 islamic revolution. on july 9 of 2008, iran tested nine missiles, including the chab3, which has a range of 340 miles. i recognize the threat to western europe. this wouldn't quite do it. 1,240 miles, i think the range in order to get something to italy would be about 2,000 miles. on the other hand, we never guess these things right. i remember so well in 1998 during the clinton administration that they made the statement in response to a question that i asked on the 24th of august 1998, how long will it be until they have the multiple-stage capability in north korea. the white house responded, it's going to be between 10 and 15 years. seven days later, on the 31st of august 1998, they fired it.

this is how far off we are in our intelligence. we don't know. i don't want to guess this thing too close. ricky ellison said -- and i quote -- "the islamic republic of iran has proved for the first time that it has the capability to place satellites in space. by successfully launching a three-state liquid fueled rocket that has placed two objects in the low-earth orbit, iran has demonstrated the key technologies of propulsion, staging and guidance to deliver the weapon of mass destruction globally." i'm hoping the white house doesn't come out and say that's launching a satellite. madam president, it's the same technology of launching a nuclear warhead. this is getting very, very serious right now. the u.s. intelligence community has estimated that iran may have long-range ballistic missiles capable of threatening all of western europe and the united states by 2015.

2015, that sounds reminiscent of august of 1998 when they said it would be 10 to 15 years. so, delaying this creates all kinds of problems for us. our credibility in easter than europe is something that really -- in iran europe really bothers me. -- in eastern europe. the parliament debated. they decided we could put a radar site in there, a radar site that would allow to us see something coming in. otherwise we wouldn't be able to do it. then next door in poland, to have an interception capability, they agreed to do that. the parliament didn't want to do it. they were concerned about russia's response and a lot of opposition that there might be. the thing that i don't understand is why western europe isn't lining up with us and saying we've got to have those two sites. they are the ones that are naked now if we don't have that. i'm very much concerned about

that. major general vladimir vorkin, the head of the center for strategic nuclear forces, in moscow recently said iran is actively working on a missile development program, adding that iran is one or two years away from having a nuclear weapon. this really concerns me that we have, even those individuals that we seem to be catering to -- the russians -- in order to leave ourselves without a type of defensive system to protect western europe and the eastern united states, it's very troubling to me. on april of 2009, north korea, furthered their missile of nuclear development by launching a taepo dong ii missile in the south china sea. that has a range of over 2,000 -- about 2,500 miles. that would reach rome. that would reach berlin. and there's got to be a concern that they have this capability. they have demonstrated this capability very clearly.

the nato leaders stated in december of 2008 -- last christmas -- they said the ballistic missile proliferation poses an increasing threat to allies forces, territory and populations. missile defense forms, part of the broader response to counter this threat. we therefore recognize the substantial contribution to the protection of allies from long-range ballistic missiles to be provided by a planned development of the east of the european-based united states missile events assets. that's what we're talking about. in poland, the site in poland would include up to ten silo-based long-range interceptor capable of shooting down hostile missiles from iran in their midcourse -- let's put the chart up here. in midcourse. a lot of people don't realize this is a very sophisticated thing. our missile defense system is, takes into consideration three courses. the segment here, the blue

space, we don't have anything there yet. we're supposed to be working on it. i was disturbed that one of the things that was terminated by this administration is that effort. the terminal defense segment is one that we're working on right now. the airborne laser and the boost phase is one of the programs that i believe that the administration is canceling. so the site in poland would include up to ten silo-based long-range interceptor. the radar site in the czech republic would house a narrow beam midcourse tracking radar that is currently used by our missile defense system in the pacific. things that we know work. so i am very concerned about it. i have not heard the statement from the white house, but i have a feeling we're going to hear the same thing that we heard back in 1998, and it's very disturbing. this is something that we can be -- should be an act of desperation in terms of western europe at this time.

now, having said that, there was some good news. that's the bad news. the good news is that we have noticed this morning that the democratic caucus is reported in "politico" as split over the bill. this is the bill, this is the cap-and-trade thing we're talking about, with cooil manufacturing states democrats raising concerns that a cap-and-trade system would disproportionately spike electricity bills for consumers and businesses in their regions. there is a recognition now that this thing that we've been talking about ever since the kyoto treaty, the threat at that time that they were talking about is now, everyone realizes is not what it was. science has been something that has changed dramatically. and most of the scientists now are saying that this is something that was overstated at one time. the cost, though, is the big thing. science, i quit arguing about the science a long time ago. i gave a speech from this podium not too long ago. if anyone is interested in my --

i'd ask my colleagues to go to my web site inhofe.senate.gov where we listed 700 scientists who were on the other side of this issue who are now on our side, the skeptics' side recognizing that the science is not there. they actually made that statement. david bell my from great britain was one of them who was always talking about the -- he's on al gore's side on this thing. after going through and resetting and reevaluating the science, he agreed it wasn't there. the same thing is true with leaders in france and israel. what we have now is something that was, that people do understand. that is the cost of this thing. the consistent cost, kyoto's cost, if we live by emission standards, would have been somewhere, according to the wharton school of, the wharton econometrics survey, i think it was called, back during the kyoto days, would be between $300 billion and $330 billion

every year. as bad as the stimulus was, at least that was a one-shot deal and people aren't going to have to pay for it every year. this would be every year. then alongcame mccain-lieberman3 and 2005 and the same estimates were made at that time. i can remember going back and remembering in 1993 when we had the clinton-gore tax increase which is the largest tax increase in three decade decaded during that time we looked at it. it was a $32 billion tax increase, increasing inheritance taxes, capital gains and all of that. and that was only $32 billion. this is 10 thymes that size. well, the -- this is 10 times that size. well, the white house is trying to say and several on the other side -- the chairman of our committee said it is just going to cost a postage stamp a day. well, those postage stamps must be getting pretty expensive because now we foindz out there

was an analysis released by the u.s. department of energy, now we know what it is, and they said that the cost would be between $1 billion and $00 bill0 billion a year. the cost to the american household would be an extra $1,760 a year. this is -- this is their analysis. well, i think that's light. we've seen the c.r.a. report that shows that the cost of this -- and m.i.t. agrees with it, i might add because they evaluated the warner-lieberman bill just 12 months ago right now -- being closer to $366 a year. my state would be the highest taxed. it would be $3,366 per year a year. that's huge. that's a little more than half of that on the west coast.

now, finally, the -- this report that was put together by the department of treasury has been released and they admit it, so we can quit talking about some of these things that are just not realistic. so we no what the cost s we know also that the likelihood of this coming up this year is most unusual. i don't think it's going to happen. the senate majority leader just stated, i think tw, two days ago that the senate may not act on climate change legislation. they've said, we have enough on our plate with the fight on health care reform. the senate majority leader whip, dick durbin, said last week, adding that it's a difficult schedule. members are already anxious about health care reform. so i don't think it is going to come up. and i frankly will be here ready

to fight to make sure it doesn't come up when the new year comes in. i don't think there are too many people in the united states senate who want to go into their reelection in 2010 having voted for the largest tax increase in the history of america. and this is exactly what it would be. let's keep in mind, what was the largest tax increase in the history of america was the 1993 tax increase this. would be 10 times greater than that, and the people now realize that. well, that was good news today. let me -- since the senator from tennessee is not here yet -- he was due to be here right now -- let me add my comments to a few other comments on the mel martinez, that we all love so much. i don't think i've ever seen anyone since jesse helms who was really loved by so many people, like mel martinez. my colleagues have already come

to the floor and talked about his escape from cuba and how he came over and then he was able to get his father over. and it's a story that america will always remember. it will always be in our history books. he was such -- always such a great guy. he really will be missed around here. but one thing that wasn't said much about him was his sense of humor. i have to say this. i enjoyed being around him because he was really, in his own subtle way, a very humorous person. i can remember -- and i've had the occasion, i think, more than any other member, of going into the areas in iraq and afghanistan and africa where there is -- there are hostilities, but i was making probably my 12th or 14th trip into baghdad on a c-130, and it happened to be mel march teen he is's first trip. he had never been in. we're going to go in there and once you get out, you're going to run over to the helicopter and they'll take to you the

green zone, all the things to anticipate. i said to him, one of the problems that we're going to have is that when we leave, we have these old c-130(e) models. we have not been able to upgrade those systems. so when we climb out of here, it is going to be in a c-130(e) model and we're not going to be able to climb as high and fast that we want. there are surface-to-air missiles that we have to be concerned b we have very capable pilots and crews in these c-130's. so i said we'll be well-taken care of if something happens. now, the first thing you do when you get out of your helicopter in baghdad to get on a c-130, to come back to kuwait or whenever you might be going, is you take all of your -- your helmet and your vest off, because they're so heavy and uncomfortable.

you get in there and you take them off. we doll that. i was setting up, as i do so often, with the piments when all of a sudden the explosion came, the light was there and we deployed the heat-seeking devices that are hon a c-130 and of course that is very, very loud and someone who has never gone through that experience before would assume that we're about to go down. and i ran downstairs and i saw mel martinez signature there without his medical met, without his protective vest on, and he had put them back on again. and i said, mel, what are you doing putting your vest and your helmet back on? he said, well, i assumed that we were going to be shot down. and if kitty -- that's his wife -- if she found out that i didn't have my vest and my helmet on, she'd kill me. well, that's mel martinez. he has all these jewels, and i just think he's going to be missed by a lot of us for all the reasons that we have articulated on the floor. with that, madam president, i

will yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. alexander: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the yoarm

call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: how much time is remaining? the presiding officer: 12 minutes. mr. alexander: thank youvestment would the chair please let me know when we have -- i have one minute remaining. madam president, on monday, on the senate floor, i expressed my concern about the number of so-called czars in the white house and in the administration. i said then that the number of czars -- i believe the number is now 32 -- is an affront to the constitution, it is antidemocratic, it's a poor example of what was promised to be a new era of transparency, a poor way to manage the government, and it's a -- it's the most visible symptom of this administration's eight-month record of too many washington takeovers. yesterday something called "a white house blog" and the white house press secretary objected to what i had said on monday

pointing out that i had supported manufacturing czars and aids czars six years ago. of course i did. i acknowledged that in my remarks on monday. there have always been, as i said monday, some czars in the white house and in the government since franklin d. roosevelt was president. some of them were appointed by presidents, some of them were appointed by statute, a few of them were confirmed by the senate, but there's never been anything like what we've seen with this administration. also on monday i joined in a letter from senator collins and senator bond, senator crapo, senator bennett, senator roberts making clear that not every czar is a problem. and in that letter, we identified at least 18 czar positions created by the obama administration who's reported responsibilities may be undermining, we said, may be

undermining the constitutional oversight responsibilities or express statutory assignment of responsibilities to other executive branch officials. in this letter from senator collins, which the rest of us joined, we said, "with regard to each ofees positions, we ask that you do the following: explain the specific authorities and responsibilities of the position, including any limitations you've placed on the position to ensure that it does not encroach on the legitimate statutory responsibilities of other executive branch officials. second, the process by which the administration examines the character and qualifications of the individuals appointed by the president to fill the position. and, third, whether the individual occupying the position will agree to any reasonable request to appear before or provide information to congress. ""the letter goes on to say from the five senators, "we also urge you to refrain from creating

similar additional positions while macing appointments to any -- while making appointments to any vacant czar positions novel a fully consulted with the appropriate congressional committees. scwee that you reconsider your approach of centralizing authority at the white house. congress has grappled repeatedly with the question of how to organize the federal government." we went into some detail with that. "we ask respectfully that the president consult carefully with congress prior to establishing any additional czar." madam president, i ask unanimous consent that this letter from the five senators be included in the record following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: actually, six -- five senators plus senator collins. senator collins and the five of us who joined in her letter were not the only senators to be

concerned about this. on wednesday, senator feingold, a democrat from wisconsin, questioned president obama's policy of policy czars and sent a letter to the president, just as we did. in that letter, senator feingold urged the president to release information about the role and responsibility of these czars, wheys we asked him to do as well. -- which is what we asked him to do as well. and then senator hutchison of texas in "the washington post" on september 13 wrote an excellent op-ed describing how the system of checks and balances is upset by an excessive number of washington czars who are unconfirmed and unaccountable to the congress and who don't ask -- answer

questions from those of us who are elected to ask such questions. i ask unanimous consent that senator feingold's letter to the president and senator hutchison's "washington post" op-ed be included in the record following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: and then on monday, madam president, i pointed out it's not only senator hutchison and senator collins and the other republican senators -- and now senator feingold from the democratic side of the aisle; senator byrd of west virginia, who is widely considered by all of us in the senate to be the constitutional conscience of this senate, senator byrd was the first to write the president expressing concerns over the increasing appointment of white house czars. i mentioned this monday, but i want to repeat it in case the white house press office missed it because senator byrd, our president pro tempore, said -- and i quote -- "too often i have

seen these lines of authority and responsibility become tangled and blurred, sometimes purposely, to shield information and to obscure the decision-making process." senator byrd went on to say that "the rapid and easy acumulation of power by the white house staff can threaten the constitutional system of checks and balances. at the worst, white house staff have taken direction and control of problematic areas that are the statutory responsibility of senate-confirmed officials." senator byrd continues, "as presidential assistants and advisors, these white house staffers are not accountable for their actions to congress, the cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but the president. they rarely testify before congressional committees and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege." in too many instances the white house staff have been allowed to

inhibit openness and transparency and reduce accountability, senator byrd's letter continued. i ask unanimous consent to include a press release from senator byrd's office on february 25, 2009, describing his letter to president obama. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: madam president, finally, i would like to include in the record following my remarks, the list of the 18 new czars created by the obama administration. i want to make it clear to the white house press office that we're focused on those 18 new czars, that we recognize there have been czars before. that for the reasons that senator byrd and senator hutchison, senator collins and others have described, we think this is too many. and we take seriously our responsibilities under article 1 of the constitution to you confirm officials who manage the

government, to ask them questions, to approve their appropriations, to withhold their appropriations when it's appropriate. we have these positions in the executive office of the president, central region czar dennis ross, cyber security czar, energy and environment czar, health czar. those are two of the biggest issues facing our congress, and here are these czars with authority for policy close to the president but unaccountable to us. we have senior director for information sharing policy, urban affairs czar, w.m.d. policy czar, green jobs czar. he has resigned resently. those are the positions in the executive office of the president. that's ten new ones. there are eight more in departments or agencies. afghanistan czar, auto recovery czar, car czar, great lakes czar, pay czar, guantanamo

closure czar, special representative for border affairs and border czar. so, madam president, i said on monday, as senator byrd said more eloquently, the problems with too many czars. the first problem is the constitutional checks and balances described by senator byrd. the second with the problem is a poor way to manage the government. i was always taught when i was a young white house aide that the job of the white house staff is to push the merely important issues out of the white house so you can reserve to the president the handful of truly presidential issues for his attention. his job is to set the country's agenda, to see an urgent need, advise a strategy to meet the need and persuade at least half the people he's right. he can do that much more effectively if the government is managed by secretaries and cabinet officers.

and then finally, czars are antidemocratic. czars are usually russian, not american. czars are usually imperialists, not democrats. the dictionary says czars are autocratic rulers or leaders. that is not consistent with the kind of government we want to have in america. it's alien to our way of thinking. czars, unfortunately, are becoming the most visible symbol of this administration's determination to have an increasing number of washington takeovers. banks, insurance companies, student loans, car companies, even farm ponds. some want to take over health care. many americans feel we have a runaway government with too many washington takeovers. and the last thing we need are 18 new czars unaccountable to the elected officials whose job it is -- our job -- to check and balance that government.

so i am glad in a way that the white house has noticed my comments and those of senator collins, senator hutchison and the other senators. i hope they will respond to senator collins letter, to senator feingold's request. thank you very much. and to the other admonitions. we call on the administration to answer the questions posed by senator collins, senator feingold and the others that were specifically outlined. who are these czars? what is their role? what is their responsibility? how were they vetted? what limitations are on their positions to make sure that they don't encroach on the legitimate statutory responsibility of other executive branch officials? and whether they will agree to a reasonable request to appear before or provide information to

congress. i thank the president, and i yield the floor. mrs. feinstein: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: madam president, i'm informed that there's 12 minutes left on the democratic side for morning business. i note that there is no one on the floor. i would yield back that time. the presiding officer: the time is yielded back. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to the consideration of h.r. 2996, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 98, h.r. 2996, an act making

appropriations for the department of interior, environment and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010, and for other purposes. mrs. feinstein: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: thank you very much. i'm pleased to join my distinguished colleague, senator alexander, in presenting the fiscal year 2010 interior and related agencies appropriations bill. this is the first year senator alexander and i have worked together as chairman and ranking member of the interior appropriations subcommittee, and i'm very pleased to report that it could not have been a better experience. we have consulted on several occasions and worked through several different issues. as a result, i think we've

produced a fair, balanced, and workable bill. and so i want to thank him very much and his able staff for all their hard work and cooperation. in total, madam chair, the fiscal year 2010 interior appropriations bill provides $32.1 billion in nonemergency discretionary spending. that amount is $4.5 billion above the equivalent 2009 enacted level. but $225 million below the president's request. and i want to stress that. this bill is $225 million below the president's request. and the reason is to make it consistent with the subcommittee's 302-b allocation for both budget authority and outlays. our allocation is substantially

lower than that of the house of representatives. therefore, our bill is necessarily constrained. we cannot spend above our allocation. so there are going to be several items that are going to be conferencable in that regard. because the committee's report which spells out all of the funding details has been publicly available for more than two months, i won't go through each and every line-item, but i'd like to emphasize the great strides we've been able to make in five critical areas. water and sewer infrastructure, wild fewer suppression and prevention on public land, bolstering our public land management agencies, investment in the land and water conservation fund, and helping the most vulnerable in indian country. first, in these five key areas, the bill provides $3.6 billion

for water and sewer infrastructure projects. i'm very proud of this. that's a very significant increase over last year's level of $1.6 billion. in fact, this is the largest single commitment of funds that has ever been provided in an annual appropriations bill. now let me say something about this. when you look at america's infrastructure, i can say that i'm old enough, regretfully -- i guess i'm delighted i survived -- to remember when everyone could drink water out of every tap anywhere in america. so you can imagine what i thought when i saw the front of the "new york times" with the young lab from west virginia -- young lad from west virginia with tpeulgz all over his mouth because he couldn't drink water out of the tap when there was other evidence of people in that

great state bathing in water that created skin lee shones. that should -- skin lesions. that should not be the case in the united states of america. the significant increase in water and sewer infrastructure, i think, is extraordinarily important. additionally, we will have report language in our bill, i hope, in consultation with the ranking member, that will really instruct e.p.a. to put much more regulatory authority in the area of water quality so that we don't run into these areas. this is something i have not yet had a chance to talk with the ranking member about, but i do intend to do that. when you factor in the $6 billion that was included in the stimulus bill in february, we are providing nearly $10 billion this calendar year to our state and local water authorities. this is a major investment in

public infrastructure and one that as a former mayor i strongly support and am very pleased to be able, along with my ranking member, to accomplish. this money will allow our state and local water authorities to begin to tackle 1,327 waste water and drinking water projects all across this nation. for those that may not be aware, the environmental protection agency, which add administers te grants, has estimated that over a 20-year period, our communities will need to spend $660 billion -- billion, not million, madam president -- for drinking water and waste water infrastructure, repairs and innovations -- rein separations. obviously we can't provide that level of funding during

these tough times. but what we were able to provide during our reduced allocation will go a long way in helping our communities tackle crumbling infrastructure and provide residents with more reliable and cleaner water. it will also have the benefit of creating thousands of construction jobs to put more americans back to work. secondly, the bill provides $1.8 billion for wild land fire suppression activities. and it's very important that we're providing that level of funding, because that's the same amount that has been spent on average in each of the last three fiscal years. so for the first time in more than ten years, we will be providing our federal firefighters the resources they need well before they run out of money. the fact that we're providing this level of funding is extremely important. by appropriating up front what

we know is actually going to be needed, based on prior experience, we allow the forest service and the interior department to break the cycle of borrowing from other accounts and then hoping congress agrees to repay that money. we've been criticized for doing this. it is good, solid criticism. in this bill, it has been remedied. the bill also includes $107 million in grants to help state and local cooperators fund fire fighting and fuels-reduction efforts. that's a 2% increase over the 2009 level. and it provides $556 million for hazardous fuels-reduction projects on federal lands nationwide, a 7% increase over last year. now that's critical. my state is burning up.

other states in the west -- we lost 1.5 million acres last year from fire. and so hazardous mitigation of fuels becomes very critical. as important as it is to provide our federal firefighters with the funds they need for suppression, just as important that we make these fuel-reduction funds available so that these agencies can begin to get in front of the problem and prevent these catastrophic wild land fires or at least reduce their catastrophic potential. the money provided in this bill will allow the forest service and the interior department to treat 3.5 million acres of fire-prone federal lands. that's 3.35 million acres of fire-prone federal land. this will reduce the risk of

catastrophic wildfires, like the one being fought right now in southern california. and let me say something about that fire. the station fire in southern california is still burning in the foothills of los angeles. the fire has swept through canyons that are drowning under decades' worth of dense vegetation. as of tuesday, the fire has burned 160,000 acres, destroyed 183 homes and other buildings, and cost more than $90 million to fight. more than 8,000 firefighters have battled the blaze, and tragically, two firefighters have lost their lives. the station fire is now the largest fire in los angeles county history. it's also a reminder of how important it is to increase funding for fuels reduction and fire suppression, and i am very

proud that this bill accomplishes both things. third, the bill shores up our public land management agencies by providing a total of $6 billion for basic operations and backlog maintenance of our national parks, national forests, national wildlife refuges, and on bureau of land management land. for too long we've neglected these agencies and forced program cuts on them by underfunding the fixed costs they incur every year. in this bill, fixed costs are fully funded. that's important. included in these funds are $2.2 billion for basic operations in our national parks -- excuse me -- our national parks, 391 of them, an increase of $130

million. these funds will allow the park service to continue utilizing the 3,000 seasonal employees that have made a real difference in the condition and enjoyment of our parks. additional maintenance personnel -- additional law enforcement officers, and additional park rangers will all be brought back as a way of enhancing the visitor experience now and preparing our parks for the centennial in 2016. our national parks are jewels throughout the united states of america. they cannot be allowed to grow into poor condition. they must be maintained and they must be operated properly. and also, i want to point out that the funding being provided in this bill will allow the park

service to continue the drug eradication program started next year. and i can tell you, in california this has become a major problem, with literally hundreds of thousands of acres in our national parks taken over by mexican cartels who have moved in to the back areas and set up marijuana production facilities. they are armed, their danger arks and they have taken the resources -- they are dangerous, and they have taken the resources of local, state, and federal officers to go in and route these areas out and also eradicate the planing that has been done. more than $10 million has been made available so law enforcement personnel can work with other federal and state agencies to extricate the illegal drug operations that are

increasingly invading our national parks. and this effort isn't just limited to the park service. included in the $1.56 billion in a bill provides for operation of the national forests is a new $10 million increase for the forest service's law enforcement program. these funds mean that the service will be able to hire up to 50 new law enforcement officers to battle the epidemic of these marijuana gardens on our public lands. and the bill also contains a $5 million increase to begin cleaning up more than 25,000 acres of forestlands nationwide that have suffered environmental damage because of these drug -- the word is "gardens." i hate that word applied to these drug projects. so i will just say "drug projects." fourth, the bill increases the

production -- excuse me, the protection and cefertion of sensitive -- and conservation of sensitive lands by providing $419 million through the land and water conservation fund. that amount, $262 million, is set aside for four federal land management agencies for conservation of sensitive lands that provide habitat to wildland and recreation visitors. $55 million is for conservation easements through the forest legacy program. and $54 million is for acquisitions associated with habitat conservation plans. and $35 million is for state grants through the park service's state assistance program. finally, the bill helps some of the most vulnerable among us by providing a total of $6.6 billion for the indian health service and the bureau of indian affairs. there is an 11% increase over

the 2009-enacted level and the bill includes increases of $450 million in direct health care services. $81 million in k-12 and college education programs, and $83 million in law enforcement programs, which will allow for additional police officer staffing on the streets and in detention centers. with these funds, more than 10,000 additional doctor visits will take place that would not otherwise happen. this means additional well-baby care to prevent problems before they happen. it means additional alcohol and substance abuse treatment, which is truly a plague in indian country. and it means additional public health nursing visits so that those rural areas are not left out. funding provided to the bureau

of indian affairs will improve programs and infrastructure at the bureau's 183 schools. the $81 million increase in education programs will allow the bureau to substantially increase the number of schools that meet the adequate yearly progress goals spelled out in "no child left behind." for the first time -- and i'm proud of this -- nearly half of all schools will meet this milestone. additional funding for law enforcement programs will allow the bureau to increase staffing throughout indian country. but it's not just funding for staff that's going to make a real difference. the bill includes a threefold increase in funds for repair and rehabilitation of detention facilities. too often bureau police officers are forced to spend useless time

transporting detainees, sometimes hundreds of miles, to be incarcerated in adequate detention facilities. these funds will allow the bureau to repair several local facilities so that less time is spent in transit. all in all, mr. president, i believe senator alexander and i have been fair and conscientious in crafting this bill, and i urge my colleagues to let us move forward with this measure as soon as possible. i want my ranking member to know that i am very proud of this bill, not only because it is a good bill, it's the first start that we have had together. and i look forward to more years where we can build our fire suppression, our care and concern for our national parks, the smithsonian, all of the 19 institutions it represents, the kennedy center, and all of the

various -- well, departments that we are concerned with in this appropriations bill. it is necessarily, i think, dull to put forward figures, but as both of us have learned from our prior lives, budgets and appropriations condition policy. and so i think this is not only a good appropriation bill, but it's a very good policy bill for the departments that are included within the bill, and its a been a sheer delight for me to work with you, senator alexander, and now i'd like to defer to you for any comments that you might care to make. mr. alexander: thank the senator from california. the presiding officer: the senator from tenton. tenton -- the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: it is a joy for me to work on this legislation because, first, i care so much about it -- just as she does. this is about the great american

outdoors, which is an essential part of our american character. second, because of the privilege of working with senator feinstein. she has the great advantage of having been a mayor of a big city. and she's exaivel making a decision and she's results-oriented. so we're able to work easily together. it was the way i liked to work when i was governor. and we -- she's broad-gaged and cares about this country and about its environment and its outdoors and about the not only protecting and conserving the outdoors but making it possible for americans, the 300 million of us, to enjoy the outdoors. so sometimes it is always -- it is always a privilege to be in the united states senate but it is a special privilege to work on the outdoors, the great american outdoors wit with senar feinstein from california. madam president, last week we celebrated the 75th anniversary of the great smoky

mountain national park. i am very -- i'm not objective at all about the great smoky mountain national pancht i grew up there, went hiking there, and i live -- i live two miles from its border. one are incare about the trails so much is because i've hiked them. the ol' on one reason i care abe quality of the care is because i breathe it. the reason i care about the rangers and making sure their salaries are paid is because i know them. that helps in my objective. but it is also a reminder -- it was a beautiful day up on newfound gap right on the border of north carolina and tennessee, with our mountains in the east not being as big as the mountains in the west -- they're older, more mature. but the oldest of the mountains in the eastern united states are along the north carolina and tennessee border, 71 miles long, the appalachian trail in the great smoky mountain park. there we were at the place where

president franklin delano roosevelt on the same day in 1940, a few days after the mark was formed, dedicated the great smokies. but among other things on that beautiful day -- and the secretary of the tear was there ken salazar. it is good for our western secretary to get a look at the eastern park. dolly parton was there. she grew up in the next county. she is our special ambassador for the great smokies and all of our members of congress who were there from the area. but when we look back 75 years what did we see? it was 1934. so here we were in the middle of the greatest depression in our country's history, and what were we doing? well, in tennessee, we had the state legislature appropriating $2 million to buy land from families and from lumde lumber

companies to create a park. in north carolina they did the same thing. that only made $4 million and $10 million was needed. they collected the other millions of dollars from the people in the area. schoolchildren put pennies in jars. it is a wonderful story of how they got up to $5 million. then one of the recallly leaders of the group organizing the great smoky national park convinced john d. rockefeller jr., who i guess is the grandfather -- great-grandfather of our senator rockefeller, to come and the rockefellers gave $5 million in honor of laura spelman rockefeller to match the $5 million that the two states and all the people had contributed. that $10 million bought the park, gave it to the country. this was not like almost every other park. it wasn't just carved out of land the people already owned. it was given to the country in the midst of the great depression. and the reason i bring that up today is because it is a

reminder that even in difficult times, we kept our priorities right. india has its taj mahal. rome has its art. england has its history. but we have the great american outdoors. and if, as ken burns has said, our national parks are america's best idea, we intend t we in ted north carolina tend to think the great smoky mountains are the very best idea because so many people visit it than visit any other park in america. but what those people did, whether it was the schoolchildren with the pennies, the governors of the states, the legislatlegislators, whether ite people of north cearld and tennessee, it shows the foresight of thinking ahead for the benefit of future generations. in in 1934 the assistant new ranger

of this park wrote a memo to the superintendent outlining the wildlife he found there. there were 100 black bears in 1934. there are 1,600 today. there were 315 wild turkeys in 1934. the other day i saw 21 outside my window two miles from the park. 75 years ago there were 12 white-tailed deer in tennessee and only six in north carolina. they're all over the place today. there are no falcons, no elk. they are there today. 25 years ago as governor of tennessee, i spoke at the 50th anniversary of the great smoky mountain national park, there was no federal law controlling acid rain. there was no organization called friends of the smokies. but both are great successes today. those federal laws are passed, and the friends of the smokies contributed $30 million. so that celebration last week reminded us of the foresight 75

years ago. those examples are everywhere in our culture today. i'm reading douglas brinkley's book about teddy roosevelt called the "wilderness warrior." it's so thick, it will break your back if you carry it around. but it's a wonderful story of how our president, teddy roosevelt, during his relatively short term in office, had the foresight to make sure that we have many of the wildlife refugees -- refuges, the national parks, national forests, the others that we enjoy today. this bill, this bill that senator feinstein so ably described, is the responsibility we have as stewards of that great tradition today to look ahead to the future about preserving and protecting the great american outdoors, looking to the future, as teddy roosevelt did, as the schoolchildren did in tennessee,

as john murer did when yosemite was created, as lady bird johnson did a half-century ago. as we look ahead, we should remember that we are custodians of that tradition. and what should we hope for as we work on this bill and we plan ahead? my picture of the future is that we finish cleaning up the air so fewer children have respiratory diseases in california and in the great smokies we can celebrate the great haze about which the chair says instead of seeing smog. i hope we can use our national park properties to teach about what it means to be an american so our children and our immigrants can know that story. i hope we can become better students of the remarkable environmental diversity of our country. just within our great smoky mountain national park, we have

128 species of trees, as many as they have in all of europe. i hope we do a better job of creating picturesque entrances and conservation easements to protect the whaoeuld life and -- wildlife and -- in and near our parks. i'm going to do our best and senator feinstein and i have talked about our concern about this. i've shared that concern with secretary salazar on many occasions. i'm going to make sure that we pay attention to the perils of what some con sraeugs *eufts are calling -- conservationists are calling the energy sprawl so that in our enthusiasm for renewable energy and alternative energy, which we need, that we don't place 50-story wind turbines and acres of square miles of solar thermal plants in areas that damage the treasured landscapes that we've spent a century trying to protect. it doesn't make sense to destroy

the environment in the name of saving the environment. i hope we can build on the legislation too that congress enacted in 2007, when we expanded exploration for natural gas and oil in the gulf of mexico and for the first time created what i like to call a conservation royalty that contributes one-eighth of the revenues that are collected from that drilling -- one-eighth of those revenues go to the land and water conservation fund. in this case it just goes to the state side of the land and water conservation fund which is used by communities for local parks and local green ways. suffice it to say, the most popular parks in america are not the great smokies and not yosemite. the most popular parks are the city parks and the community parks and the suburban parks, the parks done the street. and the land and water conservation fund is the source of funding for many of those

parks and much of that open space. in the 1960's, this congress, as a result of a report by the first commission on american outdoors that was chaired by lawrence rockefeller, recommended that we take some of the money that we receive from offshore drilling and exploration and use it for the land and water conservation fund. we've never really done that. but it makes good sense. it's good stewardship where there is an environmental burden which we sometimes have to authorize. we should pay for it with an environmental benefit. that's the trade between offshore exploration and money for land and water conservation fund that creates city parks. chairman feinstein gave a very -- and one other thing. i hope we find additional ways through increased private contributions as well as the kind of federal appropriations that we talk about today to support and care for the nearly

400 different national parks properties that we have, but also our other public lands and treasured landscapes and national forests and along our coastlines in this country. the senator from california gave a very thorough statement of the various programs in our bill, and i won't repeat all those numbers. but i do have just a handful of observations i'd like to make. obviously we don't agree on every detail, but we're not here to agree on every detail. we're here to see if we can produce a result. and i believe we've done that. and in the process, i want to thank senator feinstein for addressing a number of the concerns that i had and many of our colleagues on the republican side of the aisle had. she's been terrific to work with in that respect. as she said, this bill is $225 million below the president's budget request, even though it is substantially higher than

last year's funding levels. i suppose if i were doing this all by myself, i would have spent less money, but that's not the way our system works. we each make our arguments, fight our spending battles, decide on a budget resolution, and we go from there. so i believe that the chairman inouye, and the vice chairman thad cochran allocated the funds made available to the appropriations committee by the senate in a fair and responsible way. and similarly, with the funds we've had to work with on the interior bill, chairman feinstein and i have made our best judgment and done our best to meet the many competing priorities for the very programs here. she mentioned some of the good things. i'd like to underscore just a few. we've continued the centennial initiative started under president bush by adding over $130 million to increase park operations in preparation for the national parks centennial in

2016. this is a good time to think about the condition of our national parks. many of us visit them, so we're familiar with their maintenance needs and their personnel needs. but some are reading the book i mentioned about teddy roosevelt, and millions more, starting september 27, will see ken burns' film about the national park called "america's best idea." i'm confident that that will remind us of how important those parks are to our national character and how determined we are to make sure that over the next several years, as we approach the centennial, that we support them properly. these include the law enforcement rangers who ensure the safety of the public in our parks, the interpreters who explain its history, and america's history, biologists and scientists who teach us about the plants and animals who

live there. this bill helps to expand and improve that experience. we've also provided necessary increases to pay for the rangers that keep visitors to all our national forests safe, health care professionals that provide for medical care at the indian health, service teaches who provide education in the indian community. the senator described that. simply keeping pace with the inflationary pay costs and health benefits for park and forest rangers, indian health care professionals and other critical personnel required a $540 million increase in funding over the last year. senator feinstein talked about fires. it seems like when we read about fires or see them on television, they're all in california, and our hearts go out to the families who have lost their homes and a few, their lives as a result of these fires. but the fires are not all in

california. the national forest service is busy spending too much of its time on fire protection. it has an effective fire protection unit that's part of its job. but what we've been doing is paying for fire fighting the way we used to pay for the iraq war. we did it off budget. we did it a little later. i would congratulate the administration and senator feinstein for putting into in budget the amount of money we think we'll actually need to fight fires this year. we've added over $570 million compared to last year for fire fighting and fire prevention program. i hope that's enough. i hope we've made a budget that allows us to deal with that so that we don't find ourselves coming back with supplementary appropriations and so that we don't disrupt all the other

important programs in forest service and the department of interior. as important as the fire fighting function is to the united states forest service, we don't want to turn the u.s. forest service into the u.s. fire service. let me make one comment about our process. one of the major criticisms of the appropriations process in recent years has been the failure of the senate to take up each bill individually. this denies the members of this body an opportunity to offer amendments and help shape the final bill. i think it's important to note that this is the first time in four years that the interior bill has been brought to the floor of the senate as a stand-alone measure for purposes of examination and amendment by all senators. this is a tribute to chairman inouye and vice chairman cochran. and we think -- i thank senator reid and senator mcconnell for the fact that we are here today and the senators may come forward and offer their amendments. madam president, this is the

sixth appropriations bill to complete senate floor action. we're nearly halfway through the process. i believe all my colleagues share my desire that we're able to complete all 12 individual appropriations bills through the normal order, send them to the president for his signature. it's a much fairer way to operate. it gives those of us who are elected a chance to have our say, and it saves the taxpayer a lot of money by permitting the efficient operation of the government on an orderly budgeted basis. let me close by saying again how much i have enjoyed working with senator feinstein and how much i look forward to that privilege in the future. i thank the president, and i yield the floor. mrs. feinstein: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: if i may, i'd like to thank the ranking member for those very gracious remarks. they are reciprocated in whole. i think his expressions about the bill were very well-taken,

and we'll just proceed from there. but there is one thing i'd like to do before we go to amendments. first of all, i'd like to ask unanimous consent that tomer hassan, an environmental legislative fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the pendency of h.r. 2996, the interior aprops bill. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: thank you very much, madam president. i also would like senators to be fully aware that any amendment which proposes to increase spending in one area of the bill will need to be offset with a commensurate cut in another area. the bill is at its allocation level, and the overall effect of the bill's bottom line must remain neutral. not to do so is to create a 60-vote point of order against the amendment. everyone that would like to do

an amendment should bear that in mind. i think both of us will fight vociferously to see that the financial integrity of our bill is continued. i very much appreciate senator alexander pointing out that this is the first time since 2005 that the full senate hasn't had an opportunity to consider this bill. considering the landmarks, the vital aspects of this american government, of which people are singularly proud -- i mean, you don't hear much criticism about the federal government providing national parks or a forest service or an environmental protection agency. so this is a bill of which we are very proud. so i, too, would like to encourage senators to come to the floor is now. we would like to pass this bill as quickly as we can and the floor should be open to amendments. with that in mind, i yield the

floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: thank you, madam president. i would like to call up my amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from nebraska, mr. johanns, proposes amendment numbered 2394. mr. johanns: madam president, i ask that -- unanimous consent that the rest o reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. johanns: let me start out, madam president, by complimenting both senators who just spoke, the senator from california, the senator from tennessee. they -- you underscore why we are so proud to live in this great country and underscore the importance of these resources. i would also like to say, as a former secretary of agriculture, i know the importance of adequate funding for fire fighting. without it, our forests are in

serious jeopardy. so i just wanted to express that. madam president, i rise today, though, to talk about something that is enormously important. just three days ago i was here on the senate floor urging my colleagues to vote in favor of an amendment that i offered to another appropriations bill, the transportation, housing appropriations bill. the amendment had a very specific purpose. the purpose was to prohibit funds from going to the association of community organizations for reform now, known as acorn. i'm very pleased to report that in a really true display of bipartisanship, 82 -- 82 of my colleagues joined with me in voting in favor of protecting taxpayer dollars by voting for

the amendment. now, this was a significant and important vote for this body for a number of reasons. such a strong bipartisan vote sent a very powerful message that the united states senate is serious about eliminating the flow of taxpayer funds to an organization that can besting described as in an absolute freefall when it comes to allegations of illegal activity -- illegal activity that in many respects is funded with taxpayer dollars. senators came to this floor just a couple of days ago. they threw aside partisan loyalties in favor of prohibiting funds to an organization besieged by allegations of fraud and corruption and employed wrongdoing. the bottom line: my colleagues -- and i am so proud of them -- answered the

call to defend taxpayers against waste, fraud, abuse. but, madam president, because of the limitations of that amendment, our job just simply is not complete. of course, in order to comply with the germaneness rules, we could only do so much with that amendment, and, therefore, i come here again today to offer the same amendment to this bill. the amendment to the thud bill was just a first step. the overwhelming vote on monday stopped the flow of funds from transportation or housing funding that would otherwise go to acorn, at least in terms of senate action. there's more process left there. but, unfortunately, acorn is still eligible to receive federal dollars from innumerable sources in the federal budget. that is why i'm here today to

offer the identical amendment to the interior appropriations bill and to call on my colleagues again to stand up for the american taxpayer. there is unbelievable evidence that acorn -- or its estimated 360-plus affiliates -- could be eligible for department of interior funding. the following words appear in the text of bill 193 -- or in this bill 193 times. contracts, grants, nonprofits, cooperative agreements. there are so much ways that acorn can receive funds from the interior bill. for example, acorn subsidiaries openly publicize their advocacy for environmental cause. acorn groups are heavily involved in community redevelopment and so is the department of interior.

the links are obvious. they're undeniable. in fact, on page 66 of the bill, just to pull out specific language, there is included in the great lakes restoration project money that would go to nonprofits for planning and monitoring and implementing. this is a project that president obama has appointed a specific person to oversee. do any of us have the certainty that acorn won't receive any of that money? well, i certainly don't. acorn is able to tap into taxpayer moneys from so many other ways besides competitive grants. they or their web of affiliates are able to work out memorandums of understanding, cooperative agreements, even subcontracts with the federal government. additionally, states that receive grants from the federal government can funnel money to

acorn affiliates, and there really is very sill oversight in that. my amendment will stop that. it will stop the money, the taxpayer dollars, being directed to this group. now, the question before us today is whether my colleagues will again come to the floor and say, you know, this actity is just wrong. it's damning, and we need to stand up and say, no money will go to a group engaged in this activity. you know, just last night i was watching a news program -- yet another videotape surfaced of acorn employee bein activity. it was shocking. this videotape displayed someone saying to an acorn employee that they intended to bringing underaged minors into this

country from other countries for the purposes of engaging in prostitution. there was active involvement by the acorn employee in how this might happen, and even to the extent of describing the context that this person had -- the contacts that this person had. i just want to say, we cannot relent just because some taxpayer money was safeguarded. until a full government reserving is launched -- until a full government investigation is launched and completed. we just can't rest until that is done and we are assured and we can assure our citizens back home that no taxpayer money is being used in this organization. it doesn't make sense to just stop with the transportation and housing appropriations bill.

we need to stand up and prohibit all sources of federal funding and any possibility of federal funding going to acorn. i wrap up with a statement of deep respect for what my colleagues did on monday. i believe it was really the right thing to do. it was really the right thing to step here to the senate floor and cast a vote and say, enough is enough. it stops here. it stops today. we need to do everything we can to assure our taxpayers that there is no possibility -- no possibility -- that somebody can access this funding from acorn. so my hope is that we come together, like we did on monday, that we do the right thing. with that, i yield the floor. mrs. feinstein: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california.

mrs. feinstein: i would like to respond to the senator from nebraska. my intleef that we had an amendment -- my belief is that we had an amendment passed yesterday, passed overwhelmingly by this body, prohibiting the ute of federal funds for acorn, period. the staff has been researching this bill. we do not believe there are any federal funds in this bill. i believe that if there were a roll call vote it would come out essentially the same as it did yesterday. so i would say to the distinguished senator, both the ranking member and i would be prepared to take this amendment by unanimous consent. mr. johanns: this is such an important issue. this is an issue that people all across the country are watching the senate floor. therefore, madam president, i feel very strongly that if there was ever an opportunity for senators to come to the floor and cast a vote in a roll call

fashion, this is israelily one to make a very strong -- this is really one to make a very strong statement once again about acorn not receiving this funding. i appreciate the offer of the senator from california, but i -- i just must insist, because of the nature of what we're dealing with, the claims of alleged wrongdoing, the history of wrongdoing with employees from this organization, the videotapes, the potential to access the funding, that we need a roll call vote on this issue. mrs. feinstein: if i may, through the chair, to the senator -- senator, to the best our knowledge, there is no funding in this bill for acorn, and the staff is looking, has found no funding in the bill for acorn. therefore, there's a redundancy. this is going to have to be done on every single appropriations bill, which doesn't seem to me to make very good sense.

i think an 80-plus vote, whatever it was, yesterday is a very substantial vote. i think everybody that's interested has access to know. we're trying very hard -- i hope you'll not be upset by what i'm saying -- we're trying very hard to move our bill, and we will take your amendment, so that your amendment then, if there is any funding, it still can't be used, even without this amendment. so you are covered, senator. mr. johanns: madam chair -- or, madam president, speaking to my colleague from california, let me just say, i appreciate your offer an accepting this by unanimous consent. i appreciate your claim that you believe there is no way that they can access funding. but i will tell you, i have operated a federal department

myself, a very, very large department where we administered millions and billions of dollars of grants and loans, et cetera. once that appropriations bill is passed, you know what i know. unless there is some real trouble, we are free at the departmental level to pretty much administer the money. so there just can't be a guarantee that they won't get money out of this program. the second thing that i will offer here is this: this is not one of those issues that just comes along. this involves an organization that has had a history, a very, very serious -- of very, very serious problems, very serious problems. i couldn't feel more sphrongly that the american people want -- i couldn't feel more strongly that the american people want us to come to the floor and cast our vote on this issue. the final thing i wanted to say

here, madam president, is this -- and i really feel this is an important issue: there is a way to solve this problem so i don't have to come down with every appropriations bill. we will be introducing a bill today -- and we've reached out in a very bipartisan way to democrats and republicans asking for people to join in this bill -- that says very simply across the entire federal government, no money for acorn. and my hope -- my hope is that we can pass this bill expeditiously and we can get that, in effect, quiet because quite honestly i had -- because quite honestly, i'd like nothing more than to avoid having to come down here each and every appropriations bill. but again i appreciate the offer that this is an important vote to constituents all across the united states. i think we owe it to them to

show how we're going to vote on this issue. mrs. feinstein: thank you very y much. madam president, if i may? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: i would like to signal to all members that the floor is open. amendments will be received to this bill and i will say to colleagues, if you have an amendment to the interior appropriations bill, please come to the floor. mrs. feinstein: madam president? the presiding officer: the

senator from california. mrs. feinstein: i ask unanimous consent that the september 16th order with respect to h.r. 3288 be modified to provide that the senate resume consideration of the bill at 2:30, with the remaining provisions still in effect. that's the housing bill and transportation bill. further, that -- that as if in executive session, i ask unanimous consent that at 12:30 p.m. today the senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of gerard e. lynch to be united states circuit court judge, second circuit, that there be two hours of debate with the time equally divided and controlled by senator leahy and senator sessions or their designees. upon the use or yielding back of time, that the nomination be set

aside to occur upon passage of h.r. 3288. prior to the vote on confirmation of the nomination and the senate resuming executive session, there be two minutes of debate equally divided and controlled upon that confirmation. the motion to consider the vote be considered made and laid upon the table, that no further motions be in order and that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there an objection? without objection, so ordered. mrs. feinstein: thank you very much. i ask unanimous consent that the vote in relation to the johanns amendment 2394 occur on the disposition of the nomination of gerard lynch and no amendment be in order to the amendment prior to the vote with two minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote. the presiding officer: there is an objection? without objection, so ordered.

mrs. feinstein: madam president, i have a unanimous consent ask for the committees to meet today during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: thank you very much, madam president. madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. dorgan: madam president? the presidini ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vacated. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota, without objection. mr. dorgan: i have just checked with the manager of the bill, senator feinstein and asked if i could speak for five minutes in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dorgan: madam president, i -- the other day when our colleagues were talking about our departed colleague, senator ted kennedy, i was not able to be on the floor, and i did want to say just a few words about

ted kennedy. i had the american of serving here -- i had the pleasure of serving here in this chamber for 16 years. he sat in the row behind me and i had plenty of opportunities to spend time and swap stories and talk about public policy with him. i knew him before i came to the united states senate. as a very young man i worked in his brother robert kennedy's campaign for the presidency and met ted kennedy then, supported ted kennedy in his 1980 presidential campaign and met him then. when i came to the senate, i was able to from time to time be invited to for example to hyannis port, the kennedy compound, and visited senator kennedy and his family, went sailing with him. to sail with senator ted kennedy was an extraordinary experience. he was a wonderful sailor. many things have been said and written about ted kennedy over the years, and especially in recent weeks since his death.

and i don't need to repeat the many accomplishments here in the senate. my colleagues have done a great job about that. but those accomplishments span 47 years and would take far too long and too much time to detail, and many have done it, as i said. i won't repeat his love of all things irish. everyone understood that, especially he was a great irish storyteller. no prouder irishman in the world, i dare say, than ted kennedy. and i don't need to tell of his many acts of thoughtfulness and kindness, large and small, to the powerful and powerless. they are well-known and much-missed. many have talked about his wit and love of storytelling, a good joke. that, too, was ted kennedy. laughing and making people laugh was part of the hallmark of his character. often when i think of him, i think of booming laughter that filled the entire room when he was full of joy.

i don't need either to talk about his doggedness or his tireless work ethic or his determination, for they, too, were well-known to all of us who worked with him. those were the pillars on which he built success after success, often small and then building and building, step by step, until it was consequential and often big. those were the pillars on which he builts of relationships. those -- on which he built decades of relationships. those were key to understanding the man with whom we served. didn't matter much whether you were a dernlings an independent, a republican. didn't matter if you were a businessman, janitor, rich or old, white or black, powerful or powerless. ted kennedy wanted to work with you to try to reach compromise, in order to reach accomplishment and see what could be achieved together. and he just never, ever stopped. never gave up. the great american essayist and

author ralph waldo emerson once said, "the characteristic of heroism is its persistton sivment all men have wandering impulses, fits and starts of generosity. but when you have chosen your part, abide by it and do not weekly try to reconcile yourself with the world." no one in this chamber i know was more persistent than ted kennedy. he chose his pamplet he abided by t he didn't try to reconcile his principles to the moment or the world. and he fought and fought for what he believed in and what he thought was right. sometimes it was very controversial. but he was persistent and fought long and very hard until the end, even when he was sick and tired and worn out. he fought because he loved his country and he knew his colleagues and others loved his country as much as he did. he knew there was always that

common ground of country, and he knew that people of good faith, regardless of party and regardless of position, could achieve great things for a country they all loved. when he was done, he'd cast more than 15,000 votes, more than 300 laws bear the name of senator ted kennedy. he cosponsored more than 2,000 others. and that doesn't include the thousands of laws he just merely influenced. much of that work was done right here on the senate floor. it was his life's work, and if the senate was his home, this senate floor surely was his front porch, for he would let everyone know what was on his mind. when senator ted kennedy, a that desk was on the floor, you may not have agreed with him, you might not even cared about the subject before he began to speak, but you had to listen, you had to resporntiondz and you had to take sides. he was called the lion of the senate by many. when he was on the floor

roaring, it was quite a sight and sound to behold. a sound that moved hearts, it moved mind and this very institution and indeed the country itself. he could be quietly persuasive but on the senate floor his passion literally poured out of him. it was said long ago of daniel webster, another famous senator from massachusetts, that he was a -- quote -- "great canon, loaded to the lips." well, senator kennedy was a great canon loaded to the lips and this institution will long miss that passion, those words, his spirit, his love of life, and his love of this institution and our country. there's an old saying that all men die but not all men live. well, surely, ted kennedy lived. senator ted kennedy lives in our hearts and in his good works and his life's work. and i just wanted today to join my colleagues in saying, "ted,

godspeed. rest in peace. and all members of this senate miss i you dearly." madam president, i yield the floor and make a point of order that a quorum is not presents. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quoash quorum calquorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: if i may, once again, i'd just advise our colleagues -- i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: thank you. i note that no colleagues are on the floor. the floor is open for amendments. i'd like to urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, if you have an amendment, please bring it to the floor. thank you, ma madam chairwoman. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: