those who follow the appropriations process around here, particularly with the defense appropriations, realize that southwest pennsylvania needs help with defense procurement like arizona needs more cactus. this is a region that gets billions and billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to private companies and we have an earmark, a specifically designated earmark for defense procurement assistance. now, how ridiculous is that? yet, it's in this legislation, and it was in the prior legislation that we dealt with under, as i said, the legislative equivalent of marshal law earlier this year. the bow tancal institute of texas will enhance its collections. $290,000 to reduce slum in pennsylvania. $700,000 for an arts pavilion in mississippi. again, these may well be worthy programs. i'm not sure if the federal government ought to be funding them. but in any case should any member have the right to designate that portion of funding for his or her district without the ability of other members to challenge it on the house floor, that's the question we have here, and we went through a process

otherwise appropriated.-no funds appropriated under this act, other than funds appropriated under paragraph (1), may be allocated to the cures acceleration network.". sec. 10410. centers of excellence for depression. (a) short title.-this section may be cited as the "establishing a network of health-advancing national centers of excellence for depression act of 2009" or the "enhanced act of 2009". (b) centers of excellence for depression.-subpart 3 of part b of title v of the public health service act (42 u.s.c. 290bb et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 520a the following: "sec. 520b. national centers of excellence for depression. "(a) depressive disorder defined.-in this section, the term 'depressive disorder' means a mental or brain disorder relating to depression, including major depression, bipolar disorder, and related mood disorders. "(b) grant program.- "(1) in general.-the secretary, acting through the administrator, shall award grants on a competitive basis to eligible entities to establi

-out of any funds in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, there are appropriated to the secretary, to carry out the program under this section- "(a) $23,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2010 through 2014; and "(b) $20,000,000 for each 5-fiscal year period thereafter. "(2) availability.-funds appropriated under paragraph (1) shall remain available until expended. "(f) nonapplication.- "(1) in general.-except as provided in paragraph (2), the preceding sections of this title shall not apply to grants awarded under this section. "(2) limitations on use of grants.-section 2005(a) shall apply to a grant awarded under this section to the same extent and in the same manner as such section applies to payments to states under this title, except that paragraph (4) of such section shall not be construed to prohibit grantees from conducting screening for environmental health conditions as authorized under this section.". sec. 10324. protections for frontier states. (a) floor on area wage index for hospitals in frontier states.- (1) in general.-section 1886(d)(3)(e) of the social securit

appropriations act says the following: section 507-a. none of the funds appropriated in this act and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this act shall be expended for any abortion. b, none of the funds appropriated in this act and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this act shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. mrs. hutchison: so that is federal funds prohibited from being used in abortions for that particular pweufplt what about

because they haven't been appropriately vetted. and they haven't been because we weren't allowed a rule, an open rule, for people to bring to the floor amendments that they wanted to offer. i mention i was fortunate in that i got 10 of them. some of my colleagues offered multiple amendments on multiple appropriations bills throughout the year and weren't given the opportunity to offer any of them. not one. here members across the country wanting to represent their constituents and through the entire appropriations process, 12 bills this year, weren't given the opportunity to offer one amendment. because we had the equivalent of martial law on appropriation bills. why? because we were told we had to get it done we wouldn't do any omnibus bills at the end of the year. here we are, we just approved a massive omnibus bill last week and we are here today on -- because the defense bill was held just so that we could tag on additional items that people who didn't -- wouldn't want to vote for them any way would have to because it's a defen

appropriations. there is authorized to be appropriated, and there are appropriated, $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2019, to carry out this part. part iii-indian health care improvement sec. 10221. indian health care improvement. (a) in general. except as provided in subsection (b), s. 1790 entitled "a bill to amend the indian health care improvement act to revise and extend that act, and for other purposes.", as reported by the committee on indian affairs of the senate in december 2009, is enacted into law. (b) amendments. (1) section 119 of the indian health care improvement act (as amended by section 111 of the bill referred to in subsection (a)) is amended- (a) in subsection (d)- (i) in paragraph (2), by striking "in establishing" and inserting "subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), in establishing"; and (ii) by adding at the end the following: "(3) election of indian tribe or tribal organization. "(a) in general. subparagraph (b) of paragraph (2) shall not apply in the case of an

in this appropriation is an appropriation to the office of economic assistance for for $40 million.hat money is appropriated to be competitively granted back to communities for various economic difficulties they have suffered. one of those communities is heinzville, georgia, in liberty county which is the home of fort stewart. fort stewart is the base through which most of our troops who serve today in afghanistan and iraq pass through, and many are trained. it's an outstanding facility and a community with a town the population of about 29,000. it's a rural county near the coast and the great port of savannah where almost all the materiel and equipment is shipped from the united states of america to the theater in the middle east. a few years ago, it was announced by the department of defense that we would add three new brigade combat teams in the united states of america, and that fort stewart would be the host to one of those new brigade combat teams. immediately, the community did what it has always done. it invested tens of millions of dollars in infrastructure, in road improve

"(h) authorization of appropriations. to carry out subsections (a), (b), (c)(1), and (d), there are authorized to be appropriated $9,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2010 through 2014.". subtitle e-provisions relating to title v sec. 10501. amendments to the public health service act, the social security act, and title v of this act. (a) section 5101 of this act is amended- (1) in subsection (c)(2)(b)(i)(ii), by inserting ", including representatives of small business and self-employed individuals" after "employers"; (2) in subsection (d)(4)(a)- (a) by redesignating clause (iv) as clause (v); and (b) by inserting after clause (iii) the following: "(iv) an analysis of, and recommendations for, eliminating the barriers to entering and staying in primary care, including provider compensation."; and (3) in subsection (i)(2)(b), by inserting "optometrists, ophthalmologists," after "occupational therapists,". (b) subtitle b of title v of this act is amended by adding at the end the following: "sec. 5104. interagency task fo

(a) appropriation.-there are authorized to be appropriated, and there are appropriated to the department of health and human services, $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, to remain available for obligation until september 30, 2011, to be used for debt service on, or direct construction or renovation of, a health care facility that provides research, inpatient tertiary care, or outpatient clinical services. such facility shall be affiliated with an academic health center at a public research university in the united states that contains a state's sole public academic medical and dental school. (b) requirement.-amount appropriated under subsection (a) may only be made available by the secretary of health and human services upon the receipt of an application from the governor of a state that certifies that- (1) the new health care facility is critical for the provision of greater access to health care within the state; (2) such facility is essential for the continued financial viability of the state's sole

van hollen: when used properly within the appropriate framework, derivatives can be valuable tools and provide important consumer benefits. that being said, we have learned all too painfully over the last year that derivatives used improperly and outside of an appropriate regulatory framework can become what warren buffet

section 2010, authorization of appropriations.title 3, prevention of chronic disease and improving public health. sub title a, modernizing disease prevention in public health systems. section 3001, national prevention, health promotion, and public health council. section 3002, prevention and public health fund. section 3003, clinical and community preventative services. section 3004, education and outreach campaign regarding preventative benefits. sub title b, increasing access to clinical preventative services. section 3101, school-based health centers. section 3102, oral health care prevention activities. sub title c, creating healthier communities. section 3201, community transformation grants. section 3202, healthy aging, living well evaluation of community-based prevention and wellness programs. section 3203, removing barriers and improving access to wellness for individuals with disabilities. section 3204, immunizations. section 3205, nutrition labeling of standard menu items at chain restaurants. section 3206, demonstration

all appropriations bill. danny inouye is a great chairman. as the senate appropriations committee chairman, this man has taken up a responsibility that few would shoulder and done it with talent and dedication. at his side has been senator cochran, republican of mississippi, who works just as hard to try to make sure that what we are produce is a great credit to this institution and meets the needs of this great country. there is one bill remaining after these six pass. it may be one of the most important, the defense appropriation bill. it was passed by the committee in september an represents the only remaining bill -- and represents the only remaining bill left for us to pass this year and which we want to do before we adjourn at end of this period before christmas. these bills, as i said, were reported out of committee with overwhelming bipartisan votes. nine of the bills were -- nine of the 12 were reported unanimously. however, when we move these bills to the floor, we run -- ran into these obstacles. a

"(i) authorization of appropriations.-there is authorized to be appropriated, such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.". (r) section 1341 of this act is amended- (1) in the section heading, by striking "and small group markets" and inserting "market"; (2) in subsection (b)(2)(b), by striking "paragraph (1)(a)" and inserting "paragraph (1)(b)"; and (3) in subsection (c)(1)(a), by striking "and small group markets" and inserting "market". sec. 10105. amendments to subtitle e. (a) section 36b(b)(3)(a)(ii) of the internal revenue code of 1986, as added by section 1401(a) of this act, is amended by striking "is in excess of" and inserting "equals or exceeds". (b) section 36b(c)(1)(a) of the internal revenue code of 1986, as added by section 1401(a) of this act, is amended by inserting "equals or" before "exceeds". (c) section 36b(c)(2)(c)(iv) of the internal revenue code of 1986, as added by section 1401(a) of this act, is amended by striking "subsection (b)(3)(a)(ii)" and inserting "subsection (b)(3)(a)(iii)".

for purposes of the crosswalk described in paragraph (1), the secretary shall make appropriate revisions and post any such revised crosswalk on the website of the centers for medicare & medicaid services. (3) use of revised crosswalk. for purposes of paragraph (2), any revised crosswalk shall be treated as a code set for which a standard has been adopted by the secretary for purposes of section 1173(c)(1)(b) of the social security act (42 u.s.c. 1320d-2(c)(1)(b)). (4) subsequent crosswalks. for subsequent revisions of the international classification of diseases that are adopted by the secretary as a standard code set under section 1173(c) of the social security act (42 u.s.c. 1320d-2(c)), the secretary shall, after consultation with the appropriate stakeholders, post on the website of the centers for medicare & medicaid services a crosswalk between the previous and subsequent version of the international classification of diseases not later than the date of implementation of such subsequent revision. subtitle b-provisions relating to title ii part i-medicaid and chip sec. 10201. amendme

it's the department of defense appropriations bill. and can you imagine in the midst of a war when the bravest men and women in our nation are risking their lives at war, the republicans are filibustering the bill to pay their salaries, the bill to pay for the equipment they need to stay safe, the bill to pay for the medical care of these soldiers, sailors, air men, marines and their families? it's unthinkable. this is a bill that passed over in the house of representatives overwhelmingly. i think the number was 394-35. 164 republicans voted for it because we want to stand behind our troops. but last night only three republican senators out of 40 would step up and say we should go forward on this bill. only three. the rest of them, led by the minority leader and the minority whip, have said we will stop this bill if this is the only way we can stop the health care debate. why did they pick this bill, of all bills, a bill where we should be standing in solidarity twaoeupbd our troops -- behind our troops. we now have split into partisan

the following: this appropriations bill, this defense appropriations bill -- quote -- "ought to be passed, and it ought to be passed as soon as possible," he said, "in recognition of our respect for service members and their families." close quote. well, our our respect for our s and the sacrifice that they and their families make for our country every day is exactly why this filibuster should be defeated tonight. those who are filibustering this bill because they want to delay a vote on health care legislation should end that filibuster out of respect for our troops and their families, out of respect for our troops and their families, and for the sacrifices that they make for this country every day, that the senate defeat this filibuster tonight. the stakes, mr. president, are huge, and they were set forth in a letter which we received from the secretary of defense. and this is what the secretary of defense is telling us. this is what the stakes are: quote -- "i'm writing to advise you of my serious concern over the prospect that fiscal year 2010 appropriation authority for the departmen

whether or not, you know, bonuses are appropriate and the appropriate level and the balancing between incentivizing talents and retaining talent versus what is an appropriate compensation is probably something that is above my pay grade. >> i've heard that, say, to retain talent, that really goes beyond, you know -- i feel it is so absurd. i don't think, at this point, that you couldn't find a thousand -- or you could find a thousand people out there with tremendous talent. if that talent goes, there are people lined up. we are really being hit hard. i'm talking about my district now, which is los angeles, culver city, hollywood, people have lost their jobs in droves, lost their investments. talent is available, believe me. and so it is a phony, phony excuse. but in putting this all together, i feel there were tremendous failures on all sides. would you agree to that? >> i think there is a lot of -- there is a lot of blame to go around. >> yeah. and my colleague, miss speier, said it was just downright lies that were given, and possibly it was done so that government could support b o

yet, you have appropriations bill, this one being, representing again, as i said earlier, six appropriations bill, individual bills that didn't get done earlier packaged into one big spending bill that is a 12% increase over the previous year. how, mr. president, can we go to the american people and justify year-over-year spending increases that are 12% when they're having to balance their budgets and tighten their belts and live in an economy -- some people losing their jobs, but certainly everybody struggling to survive out there. that's true for small business is. that's true for families. that's true for, i think, pretty much everybody, it seems like except the united states congress. here in washington, d.c. we seem not to be listening to what's happening in america, because marking spending bills up at 12% over last year's level at a time when the c.p.i. is actually running in the negative -- you've got negative cost-of-living increase -- and yet we are marking up appropriations bills that represent a 12% increase over last year's spending level? and you put that on top of a stimulus b

me, senate appropriations committee. there were three bills that received 30-0 votes in the senate appropriations committee and three others that were reported out 29-1, to give you an idea of the kind of support that we had. we brought up the commerce-, justice, and science appropriation bill on october 6. it took us a month to finish that bill on the floor because of the delay tactics of the other side. that's just the reality of what we face. and we'd run ourselves into the ground day after day, week after week with amendments relating to things of little or no consequence. i cannot count how many acorns -- amendments that we voted on. it would be a forest of oak trees if those acorns were planted. but we voted on them regularly, religiously. we made sure we took care of acorn but we didn't take care of the people's business because those amendments just wasted our time. i have a statement here relative to the omnibus bill and my particular appropriation bill, and without objection, i would like to ask that it be ente

appropriations bill on. this is not something that i ran for the house of representatives or the senate. but it's part of my responsibility. this is a great city with great problems, but there are some shining lights on the horizon, and one of them is michelle rhee, chance i don't remember of the public school system in the district of columbia. michelle is an amazing story of a young woman who was attending cornell university and she decided when she graduated to consign sign up-- --sign up for teach for america. she taught in baltimore, took a hopeless classroom situation and in two years turned it around. kids from the nation had test scores nobody dream of because of michelle's skill. brought nontraditional teachers into the teaching classroom. it is a reform which will move us toward pay-for-performance where those teachers who do a good job and improve test scores arare brie rewarded. the results are starting to show. this week in the district of columbia, they reported math scores that showed dramatic

this is all included in the defense appropriations bill. that's what our republican friends on the other side are doing. imagine if democrats were holding up needed assistance in health coverage for americans who lost their jobs and are unemployed in this economy at this time of the year. that's included in that bill as well. but that's what our friends on the other side are doing. what would our colleagues on the other side say of our patriotism if we on this side were delaying funding for our troops? mr. president, patriotism doesn't shift with the political tides. it is not something used to advance a political agenda because if it is, it's not patriotism. mr. presy -- mr. president, we can disagreen on the -- disagree on the issues, we can have opposing views. there is no victory in diminishing the responsibilities of government, the duties of this chamber for calculated political gain. there is no victory in holding up extending desperately need unemployment benefits included in this bill. there is no victory in blocking the extension

so we've been operating without the appropriation -- we've just been continuing last year's appropriations up to the current time. i have some things that i've gleaned from different places. i particularly want to thank the "wall street journal" for their articles and editorials that inform america. i think if i were picking one source of information, that's the one that i would pick. i read "the washington post," "the washington times," the "wall street journal," aeupbd get clips from -- and i get clips from every newspaper in wyoming. and i get a couple of those newspapers complete. so i read a lot of news, but from a national perspective and one that's actually paying attention to what we're doing here, my favorite is the "wall street journal." earlier in the week i quoted from a cost article that i had found in the "wall street journal," and i was chastised for using them as a source. and then countered by a senator using wikepedia. you can go into wikepedia and you can do your own editing on that. i'm not sure that is a good source. i'd prefer to rely on the "wall street journal." the

it's not that i would choose to do it when we are considering the defense appropriation bill. i've served on the armed services committee, the intel committee as the senator knows there is no person stronger for the warriors and men and women in uniform and they will get their money. this bill was going to pass. that's not the issue. the issue is we haven't had enough time and i was asked the senator to comment on my comments and tommy if i'm wrong. >> i would say in response to the senator from kansas to the kansas he has a grievance with consideration of this bill. the health care reform bill, 2000 page bill that i will address in a moment but i would say to the senator from kansas we are considering this bill, department of defense appropriations bill and because of a grievance under the consideration of this bill, the republicans have filibustered the department of defense appropriations bill and are trying to slow down as much as possible the passage of the department of defense appropriations bill. many of us think that that is on fair to the coo -- on fair when we have

appropriations act says the following: section 507-a. none of the funds appropriated in this act and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this act shall be expended for any abortion. b, none of the funds appropriated in this act and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this act shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. mrs. hutchison: so that is federal funds prohibited from being used in abortions for that particular pweufplt what about programs like chip? that was created in the balanced budget act, and in 2009 was reauthorized by congress and signed by the president earlier this year. so what about the chip program? mr. hatch: i know a little bit about kheufp. it was the hatch -- about chip. it was the hatch-kennedy bill. i insisted that the following language be included in the limited statute. in general, payments shall not be made to a state under this section for any amount expended under the state plan to pay for any abort

it's difficult to know if asset prices are appropriate or not. but -- we are -- we are factoring that into our discussion as was mentioned in our last minutes. on the retrospective issue, it remains controversial. my own view is that the conventional wisdom in some quarters that the federal reserve monetary policy in 2003 and 2005 was a major source of the housing bubble, i don't think the evidence is that clear. there are economists on the other side of that. robert shiler. his view is that it had more to do with mortgage financing and policy. if you look across countries, the imf did a study, there's no correlation between monetary policy and housing prices. canada had similar policy with the u.s. as did germany. neither of them had a housing bubble. the united kingdom has a tighter policy, they had a housing bubble. the correlations are weak. not to say it's not an interesting issue. i want to raise some doubt in your mind that this is an established fact. the federal reserve has to know about monetary issues and bubls. and how we can identify

we need to adopt this appropriation bill. now, we've got pay raises and we've got health programs in this bill. we add $1.3 billion more than the president requested for the defense health program. this covers shortfalls that exist in private-sector care. it increases funds for medical research, including what's called t.b.i., which are the brain injuries, as well as the ptsd, which have so afflicted our troops in these wars. we add additional funds for those programs. the quicker this bill is signed, the faster those funds get appropriated and spent, the better off our wounded warriors who suffer from t.b.i. and from psychological health are going to be. in afghanistan now, one of the key issues is going to be whether or not we can get the afghan troops trained quickly enough, supported quickly enou enough, given the equipment that they need so that they hopefully, earlier rather than later, can join with us, partner with us and take responsibility for their own security. regardless of people's differences over the policies

and the appropriate level and the balance scene between incentivizing talents versus what is appropriate conversation -- compensation -- >> to retain talent -- that really goes beyond -- i feel like it is so absurd. i do not think at this point you could find -- you could find 1000 people out there with tremendous talent. if that talent goes, there are people lined up. we are really being hit hard, and i am talking about my district now. people have lost their jobs in droves. talent is available, believe me. it is a phony, a phony excuse. in putting this all together, i feel there were tremendous failures on all sides. wade you agree to that? >> there is a lot of blame to go around. >> gas. my colleague said it was just downright lies that were given and possibly it was done so that government could support bankamerica during the merger. i am thoroughly disappointed that the people that were in place at the sec it look the other way. i yield back my time. >> i yield five minutes to the gentleman from missouri. ressman clay. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and thank you, mr. khuzami

it's difficult to know if asset prices are appropriate or not.-- we are -- we are factoring that into our discussion as was mentioned in our last minutes. on the retrospective issue, it remains controversial. my own view is that the conventional wisdom in some quarters that the federal reserve monetary policy in 2003 and 2005 was a major source of the housing bubble, i don't think the evidence is that clear. there are economists on the other side of that. robert shiler. his view is that it had more to do with mortgage financing and policy. if you look across countries, the imf did a study, there's no correlation between monetary policy and housing prices. canada had similar policy with the u.s. as did germany. neither of them had a housing bubble. the united kingdom has a tighter policy, they had a housing bubble. the correlations are weak. not to say it's not an interesting issue. i want to raise some doubt in your mind that this is an established fact. the federal reserve has to know about monetary issues and bubls. and how we can identify them

young, the ranking member of the defense appropriations subcommittee. and also of the gentleman from washington, mr. dicks, who is the second ranking democrat on the same subcommittee. so in their absence i think we wanted to wish them well. with that, mr. speaker, -- madam speaker, i would simply say this is a simple joint resolution. a continuing resolution which takes the congress to december 23, next wednesday. it is made necessary by the fact that it is just possible that the senate might not finish its work before the 18th. they have been known for their speed, but this may be an exception. it is also useful in order to give the president additional time to review the defense bill before he signs it. with that i would urge support and prepared to yield back after the gentleman has made his remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lewis: madam speaker, a simple five-day c.r. and i happyly yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back his remaining time

that's not -- that's not an appropriate way to proceed here. and i again, you know, it's very difficult when you have a colleague who you want to agree with on everything present a resolution with which you don't agree. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: yes, madam speaker, i yield one minute to the author of this resolution, the gentleman from indiana, mr. donnelly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for one minute. mr. donnelly: and i too have the greatest respect and friendship for my colleague from ohio but i did want to comment that we in fact did meet with the hungarian ambassador and did meet with him in my office here at the capitol and there is no implication in any way that hungary does not respect the rule of law. in fact we are very, very proud of the partnership and friendship that has been built with hungary. what we are trying to do is express our concern about the conduct of the hungarian

as long as the regulator can see the swap has the appropriate tools to mitigate risk to the u.s. financial system, what more does the exchange execution requirement add? it requires unique agreements of no consequence to anyone but the parties involved to be regulated as if it were a credit default swap transacted between two systematically risky counterparties. these swaps no price discovery function. they are conducted between systematically risky parties, and most are unique -- too unique to assess the risk. forcing them to be on an exchange will only artificially increase the cost or discourage legitimate risk management altogether. neither should be the purpose of this legislation. i urge defeat of the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. >> i yield two minutes to mr. van hollen of maryland. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. van hollen: i'm pleased to join with my colleague, mr. stupak, in this amendment. i want to commend chairman frank for bringing a strong bill

here we are today, wrapping six appropriation bills together. we are going to spend half a trillion dollars, and it's got over 5,000 earmarks in the bill. things like $292,000 for the elimination of slum and blight in scranton, pennsylvania. $300,000 for a music and education program at new york city's carnegie hall where they pay the employee who runs this program $530,000 a year in salary and benefits. and there's plenty in here for washington as well. $1350,000 for the national buildling museum. $250,000 for wolf trap center for the performing arts in our concert venue. and i don't know how worthy any of these projects are, i do have to ask the question, are they more important than our kids and grandkids who have to pay the debt? because we don't have the money to spend on this. it's our kids and grandkids that are going to pay for it. and yet we can't find ways to cut spending. before the president took office, he said, he wants to go through the budget and these bills line by line and page by page. after congress passed the $410 billion om

we will hold individuals accountable as appropriate. at this time, five tsa employees have been placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation. this has been a critical incident for tsa and we have managed it as such. we will emerge with stronger internal document control measures for all employees. we will strengthen the electronic process as we use for sharing information and most importantly, we will continue to be called our security programs and what of intelligence and are on testing and training to insure the ongoing security. in closing, i want to assure members of this committee, the traveling public and their partners that our nation's aviation system is strong. we have closed and a potential gaps and we will continue to apply measures that enhance our complex security system. i am happy to answer your questions and can discuss any sensitive material in the closed session to follow. thank you. >> allow me to thank you for your testimony and yield myself five minutes for questioning. before i do that, l

there was a provision tacked onto an appropriations bill called real i.d., to do that. unfortunately, it was tacked on without adequate consultation with the state's elected minister the driver's license program for the working with the national governors' association, working in cross party lines, it was developed and i urge you to see if you can move this legislation forward. the deadline is fast approaching and as mr. jimminy noted, this is something even if we extend the deadline, we have to for the 9/11 commission report which is to get to a more secure driver's license system. >> but you do support the pass id? >> absolutely and we are very interested and i think national security as we build the architecture of it, requires the take on that recommendation a move the agency forward. finally, we need to no, or we look forward to working with you on immigration reform. the president is committed to that. he is committed to reform that includes serious, effective been sustained enforcement that includes improved legal flows for families and workers, and a firm way to

before us now is the department of defense appropriation bill. the conference report from the the -- from the house which i hope that we could move on quickly. i think it's noncontroversial. it's a matter of finding money for our troops who are risking their lives overseas and supporting their families at home and providing health care for members of the military and their families. i don't think there's much debate about that. it also extends the unemployment benefits that people need across america which passed with a 97-0 if i'm not mistaken, not that long ago the last time it was considered here. so these are matters which should move along and do it in a fairly straightforward way. i would hope we can show some bipartisanship when it comes to our men and women in uniform and appraouft department of defense appropriations bill which does not contain anything controversial beyond what i just described. we can then get back to the health care reform bill. i think it's important that at some point soon we bring this to a vote to find if we indee

appropriations in discussing this issue with him.tor from illinois has been saying the republicans are holding up funding for our troops. -- by not conceding to an immediate vote on the defense appropriations bill after the house sent it to the senate. i understand that. and i understand his zeal to get on to other issues, which are the job of the majority, is to get legislation passed. i'd like to point out the real facts here. the real facts about the defense appropriations bill are that the house passed its version on july 30th, last july 30th. the senate passed its version on october 6. by my calculation that's well over two months ago. for over two months -- for over two months this bill -- all they had to do, then, of course, was go to conference and report it out to the floor of the senate. something that could have been done in 24 or 48 hours. instead over two months has gone by and the democratic leadership in both the house and senate held this bill for the troops captive. why would they do that? because they knew that at t

was appropriate accommodations when necessary. so our national policy was that students should do something more than simply attend school. they should be expected to make academic progress that is similar to the nondisabled peers. so why do we have the outcomes that we have? i think there are for clear reasons. one, despite these specific requirements and clear laws, the burden of securing educational opportunities for children with disabilities falls on their parents. low income families are often balancing a series of challenges and do not have the capacity to become expert on specific educational and related services support that their child needs. second, in some cultures, parents are not comfortable challenging the authority of the school system. and even when they know that even when they know the set of support has been provided to the chart is inadequate. third, not all children have access to general curriculum. and students with disabilities will continue to be what we call dictums of the tyranny of low expectatiexpecta

we believe planning and groups is an appropriate way to pursue that. we think three key principals need to be followed. wince reasonable cost, two, reasonable alternatives have been considered and three, costs are appropriately allocated. >> thank you. >> we thank our entire panel. we'll turn and recognize the gentleman from washington state. >> thank you, first i'd like to put into the record a white paper, which is quite instructive entitled green powered super highways >> thank you. i appreciate that. this white paper does confirm what the witnesses talked about. we have 300,000 megawats of wind proyjects. they point out that the lack of transmission is hindering states this would allow and encourage the sources low and in the depreen house gas again rators. would it help in some sense who don't want to see their off shore wind project intruded upon if we could call it dirty resources. >> i think there's a lot of confusion about how the standard would work. it doesn't govern what electrons are on the line. you can't distinguish between depreen and b

they could not report appropriate appropriately with appropriate classification in most areas developmentsn their own areas. that problem has not really been fixed. we have done a work-around now. we accepted them out with the u.s. military using military computers. they have completely different -- it's the same government but they have different standards from stat#@b cannot cross communicate secure communications between nato communications and either the military or our -- american military or ours. i can get a state officer out in a prt with a nato force and they can be friendly and give him, you know, their computer. but he can't send to my account in the embassy. we were physically dealing with this in kabul. we actually were running fiber optic cable off the telephone poles down the street to connect my office with general mcneil's so we had a nato communication. he had separate net, so we could talk, but the headquarters didn't. we had to go out and buy computers not in the state system, run fiber optic cable off telephone poles and connect. then we had to physically handle data.

this is an entirely new six appropriations bills totally nearly $450 billion. which, by the way, the majority leader wanted to pass by unanimous consent. remarkable. mr. thune: i'd say to my colleague and friend from arizona that 12% year over year increase and -- and five bills that have already passed had increases that were -- were in the teens in terms of the year over year increases too. i don't know how when you pass a trillion dollar stimulus bill, much of which was distributed to federal agencies that will get the 12% year over year, 12%, 14% increases in spending, how to justify that to the taxpayer or hard-working americans struggling to make ends meet and having to balance their family budgets. states are struggling to balance their budgets. but here in washington it seems like it is spend, spend, spend. mr. mccain: i would respond to my friend it has to be in the context of a revision over 10 years recently by the office of management and budget fro from $10 trillion to $12 trillion. and the deficit this year i is $1.4 trillion. and i'm not sure wha

they could not report appropriate appropriately with appropriate classification in most areas developments in their own areas. that problem has not really been fixed. we have done a work-around now. we accepted them out with the u.s. military using military computers. they have completely different -- it's the same government but they have different standards from state on what they can take to the field and how they can use it. as long as we're with them, our officers can use their computers or similar computers. they can talk to our computers. as soon as they go off on their own -- if you have big packages like the team you send out for an embassy bomb, they have a big package but a few officers going someplace, state does not own any releasable, useable technology they can give an officer to put him in secure contact with his embassy. he can use his private account, you know, his yahoo. i don't think that's a very good way to handle what we need to control. so either don't control it or we don't know enough protection on what we control. we haven't figured this out. right now, nato for

-appropriated funding. the joint d.o.d.state department team conducting this audit anticipates concluding its final report by the first of 2010. however, the state department has already agreed to transfer responsibility to d.o.d. for the police training contract once it expires. we understand that this decision was based on a mutual recognition that creating a single, unified chain of command responsibility for police training would enhance more flexible program implementation. to facilitate transferring contract responsibility, the audit team recommended establishing a joint transfer oversight working group formed in august of this year which is currently addressing the currency transition issues. among them government property distribution, training center management, logistics support and future contracting. in closing, let me please note that providing oversight support for d.o.d.'s mission in afghanistan, including to build the capability of the country's security forces, is a top priority of our inspector general. we

>> if appropriately marked the s.s.i.document would be appropriately marked and the pages would have a header and a footer on them saying it was s.s.i. information? >> was that in fact appropriately marked as such? >> no, sir t. not and that was the problem. >> do you a sense for what your overall rate of compliance was respect to marking appropriately your documents? >> well, sir, we do a number of self-assessments as part of our s.s.i. programs. we do those routinely and also have a very extensive review by g.a.o. at the end of 2007 who actually gave a good grade to t.s.a. for how we do our program offices and address the s.s.i. >> thank you. i yield back the rest of my time. >> i thank gentleman from connecticut and would like to recognize mr. bill raucus. >> a few minutes before the vote but before we go into executive session i'm struggling a little bit with the underlying premise by refusing to give a document to this committee because you're concerned about a public disclosure, that's what i guess troubles me the m

intervening action or debate, and my statements related to the resolution be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the controlled time be extended for an additional 30 minutes under the control of the republican side and that all additional time, including that already utilized by senator menendez with postcloture time continue to run during this period. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 7:00 a.m. tuesday, december 22. that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, that the senate then resume consideration of h.r. 35890 with postcloture -- 3590, with postcloture time continuing to run during the overnight adjournment and that the time until the expiration of postcloture time be equally divided and controlle

the document is festooned with phrases like, "deemed appropriate," and "appropriate decisions by countriesand really, what's appropriate remains to be hashed out. >> reporter: we're talking about what's going on inside the hall where you are there. we saw those pictures and you reported on the protests outside. can you tell how much of that resonates inside and in the meetings? >> suarez: the protests from earlier in the week were pretty genial, because they were planned. the routes and locations were worked out between the authorities and the protesters. this was something of another order all together -- high levels of confrontation between large numbers of protesters who were ready to push, and shove, and press against the barricades which are being moved further and further away from the convention center where these talks are occurring. widespread use of pepper spray and batons, as we saw in the earlier report. it was a tougher day of confrontation between protesters and police, but i have to tell you, you wouldn't be aware of it here. the security perimeter -- the fences, the barrier

i think there is an appropriate division of labor. congress and the administration, fiscal policy, federal reserve, monetary policy. and i will try to -- to do that. although i should say that i think there are some broad general issues, like the deficit, for example, where the federal reserve chairman does have some responsibility to speak up. and i think i'll have to continue to do that. >> and i'm speaking more just specific policy proposals, and i think -- >> well, even in the cases you cite, i never said anything more than, you know, maybe it's time to think about this general thing. i never endorsed any particular plan, i never endorsed any components of it or any size or anything like that. but i take your point. secondly, some of the steps we have taken, like the aig episode, for example, obviously have hurt the fed a lot politically. we know that. we did it -- and i think that should just be proof that we did it for the good of the country. we didn't do it for ourselves, because it obviously has hurt the federal reserve, and

the ag appropriations discretionary spending. zero in 2005, zero in 2006, .0% in 2007, 1.1% in 2008 and now 15% and 14.5% increase. how can we say we're responsible? we had deficits in these years. we've never seen deficits of $1 trillion a year, which is basically what's going to occur under president obama's budget. i wish it been so. i wish i didn't have to make this speech because it's dangerous to the american economy. so -- now these numbers remain here are just stunning numbers. only one that got a modest increase, our men and women in uniform, the defense department. but state and foreign ops, 32.8%, interior 16.6%, commerce, justice, state, 12.3%, transportation and h.u.d., 23%, agriculture, 14.5%; defense 4.1%. that should tell us something about maybe where the priorities are around here. it's troubling to me. but -- so what do the american people think about this? i've heard a lot of my colleagues say, well, you know, we have a recession and we have this war that's going on and we just got to spend more, the american

it was below what even the administration's only economist thought was appropriate.we now have, i don't know what they were saying then. but what they say now is that the peak impact on jobs is about the middle of this coming year. that there is a widespread fear. a lot of people, you know, independent business economists are worried that as the stimulus fades out, we may be heading for a renewed recession, a double dip. so the time is wasting. if we sit and don't do anything, we could be facing a very, very nasty economy by the time we finally get around to doing something. >> woodruff: you don't agree with that? >> i don't think there's a consensus by any means that we're going into a double-dip or anything like that. the last time i checked the consensus forecast, economists were looking at 2.7% real growth next year which is pretty good. i'm just... one of the things that concerns me is the idea that the administration always said the stimulus is going to take care of itself as far as the budget is concerned. if we make these things kind of semi-permanent, i worr

this is about here have in front of us appropriations bills. we have heavy matters of the deficit.we have heavy matters of how that we're going to get the united states government to bring its fiscal house in order. i remind the senate that it was the last time that we have had a surplus was in 2001, and if we had been wise and had not cut the revenue of this country so significantly, we could have been good stewards of that healthy surplus and we could have paid off the national debt over a 12-year period, and we wouldn't be where we are today, but we are, and in these matters that are weighing heavily on us, it seems that our attention is being continuously diverted to other things, such as white house party crashers and the unfortunate circumstances that one of the most famous athletes finds himself in, tiger woods. we have a debate about the health care bill, and it seems like that in the course of last summer that the whole health care was about one subject, and that was the question of a public option. and we now know that all the experts are telling us that if we have a publ