the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of senate resolution 382, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 3 382, supporting the goals and ideals of observing the national slavery and trafficking prevention month from january 1 through february 1, 2010, to raise awareness of and opposition to modern slavery. mr. durbin:the presiding officee objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any 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, may i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of senate resolution 383, submitted earlier today. th

i ask what the parliamentary situation is. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: is there an agreement, i would ask my friend from montana? i don't want to encroach on anybody's time. but a bay i think we rescind the quorum call first. mr. mccain: i asked. the presiding officer: the quorum call has been dispensed with. mr. mccain: fine. and could i ask what the -- is there a previous agreement on time? the presiding officer: the next hour is equally divided with ten minut ten-minute limit. mr. mccain: thank you. mr. president, i rise in behalf of the amendment which, according to the congressional budget office, this amendment would provide an estimated $100 billion or more in consumer savings over ten years.

the world. but i think that we asked them to do that. but there are cases where things in some countries are not that germane to where we are going. the courts throughout bundling. we are not terribly interested in moving towards things that will just frees capital investment. that one does not strike me as that productive. i have not heard that from anyone in congress or the commission or in the record, people asking for structural separation. but i would also answer both of them by saying one of the problems i had with the critique is that they failed to look at what was really going on in the market, and that applies to the study done by the columbia telecom think tank at columbia university. and what they are pointed out, and it is a big task, there will be two major investments involved in the networks over the next few years. one is to appeal seconds ago, cable company upgrades. the second is large phone companies upgrading the wireless networks to provide broad band of wireless. we know those things are going to happen. that is a p

the presiding officer: time has expired. mr. enzi: i'd ask that a floor statement i did on the job-killing tax be made a part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. enzi: i'd ask unanimous consent that the "wall street journal" article called "obama's longshoremen rules" be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. enzi: it points out how the excise tax -- there be an excise tax in 17 states with the highest cost but yet we made an exception for a number of unions, particularly now adding the longshoremens union to not being subject to some of the taxes in the bill. i'd ask unanimous consent that a letter from a number of contractors be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. enzi: it points out that -- how most businesses have an exclusion of 50 employees or less but they've singled out the construction industry with an exemption of fewer than five employees. and i'd ask unanimous consent that a "wall street journal" article that covers that same topic be include

the measure. ms. klobuchar: i ask unanimous consent that the joint resolution be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, any statements related to the measure be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate now proceed to the consideration of s. res. 375, which was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 375, honoring the life and service of breast cancer advocate stephanie spelman. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. ms. klobuchar: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the appointments at the desk appear separately in the record as i

>> allen, the congress asked for and the president asked for a series of metrics of the benchmarks to measure a progress. those worked laboriously hammered out in the interagency process which was directed by the national security council with input from some of my team. quite honestly, they are pretty technical. and for me to go into them now would be diversionary. all of you can imagine what they are. and so i will just leave it at that. they are publicly available, and they've been shared with the congress, congresswoman is very end of helpless hammer through the. she has been very active in focus in that area. >> over there. >> i am from the "washington post." i would like to raise an issue that is sort of hard to quantify, but it's very powerful. i appreciate everything you have said, and i have no doubts about either the goodwill or the expertise of all the efforts that are going into pakistan today. but as someone who has lived there for much of the past number of years, i don't discount something else. which is an extraordinary sense of what i sadly call defined self destructi

should take the case, but also they are at bottom asking what the federal government feels about theally, these are cases that impact the federal government, but the federal government has not been party, and that is one way in which you do not see this special relationship. they did not call for the views of anyone else. >> i agree. i thought the justices were asking for the views of the united states, but that is not what it says. it calls for the views of solicitor general. so my personal credibility was on the line responding to the court when those requests were made. the other thing about the idea is that the solicitor general and people on his or her staff are repeat players. if you are a private lawyer with the case before the supreme court, you will argue and you may make missteps, you may push over hard on things that perhaps are not entirely accurate, but it is not likely that you will let the heavens fall on your head the next time you appear, because they're usually will not be a next time. but for the solicitor general and staff, having credibility with the court is cri

the senator yield? mr. gregg: i would askhe senator -- the assistant leader if he wishes to offer -- is he offering unanimous consent? then i will yield the floor for the purposes of unanimous consent. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the next amendment in order be one offered by senator whitehouse of rhode island which is at the desk, that the other matter in order during today's session be a hatch motion to commit regarding medicare advantage, that no other amendments or motions to commit be in order during today's session, and that the time in sequence following this unanimous consent request -- i don't want to disadvantage the senator from new hampshire, but if it is our turn on this side of the aisle, i would ask that senator whitehouse first be recognized for the purpose of calling up his amendment, then the senator is chairman -- that i be recognized next for no more than 15 minutes, and at that point it's my understanding senator hatch has asked for the floor for one hour on his amendment. if th

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dorgan: i ask to speak with as much time as i may consume. as much time as i may consume. without objection. >> again, talking about the issue i just described, it traveled through strip clubs, homes, the trunks of cars without proper cooling -- again i am talking about the issue of domestic drug supply that was counterfeit. the amendment that we're offering would fix this supply chain problem and require a pedigree for all drugs, not just those important, all drugs. should have been done long ago and some of us have been trying for a long while. it will allow us to track every single drug from where it is made to the pharmacy where it is sold. in my amendment will require a set of anti counterfeiting measures that are not in place now. if you think of it, i have a $20 bill and most people who have looked at the new bills will understand there's very sophisticated and very substantial anti counterfeiting technology in a new $20 bill. that does not exist by the way, that's sophistication, that relen

i would like to address the one thing i was not asked. protest -- >> you are making me nervous. >> we are, and all of the employees, as you have learned yourself are very dedicated. we will do nothing to impede the mission of the commander on the ground whether it is an ongoing protest or what ever is going on. we're dedicated. >> i believe that is true. i believe it is true for all fr >> coming up on "washington @ journal" we'll take your questions and comments. following that a 2010 census up rakeses and a briefing on the under counting of african-americans in the census. >> this morning a discussion on president barack obama plan toss send 30,000 troops to afghanistan. with ashraf haidari of the embassy of afghanistan. and a look at auto industry problems with justin hyde of the ellen degeneras. also a discussion on the human % rights agenda with michael er

i reserve the balance of my time. and i asknanimous consent that the remainder of my time be controlled by the gentleman from texas, mr. brady. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from north dakota. mr. pomeroy: mr. chairman, i yield myself three minutes and i will approach the well. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. pomeroy: mr. chairman, i want to thank the speaker, leader hoyer, chairman rangel for bringing this bill to the floor today. the purpose of this bill is very straightforward. establish clarity and certainty in the tax road for the estate tax while exempting 99.7% of the estates in this country from this estate tax altogether. the estate tax has changed 10 times in the last 11 years. now, this has been a bonanza for the attorneys, the accountants, the planners, but it has been very unfortunate for the american people trying to make reasonable plans for their estates. the next two years become completely absurd when it comes to the estate tax

and this goes to the other study we asked for which was the study done by the columbia telecom think tank up at columbia university. and what they're pointing out -- and it's a really big fact -- that there's going to be two very major investments in broadband networks in the united states over the next few years. one is we talked about it just a few seconds ago, the cable industry is updating. the second is two large phone companies are upgrading the wireless networks to really for the first time provide broadband on a wireless mobile basis, so-called lte or 4g, fourth generation. we know those things are going to happen. those are baked in. that's a profound change in market. that's probably the biggest change in the last five years. what we don't know is, number one, how will consumers respond to that? we pointed out in the september meeting that if consumers respond to those changes by suddenly saying, hey, we really love the greater speed and we're going to move up to higher levels of speed, cable's going to be in a fabulous position. and, in fact, they'll actually be the only p

gregg: i appreciate the assistant leader asking me that question. regrettably, i'm not immediately familiar with it. i've probably seen it although i apologize for not being immediately familiar with it, and therefore i presume the assistant leader is going to remind me or at least reacquaint me with its terms. i would note that the term ponzi act did not come from me. it came from the chairman of the budget committee. mr. durbin: i would just say it's unfortunate that the senator from new hampshire has not seen this letter because if he had had an opportunity -- and it's impossible to read everything here. had he had an opportunity to read that letter, i don't think he would have made the speeches he just made on the floor about the class act because the congressional budget office tells us that in the first ten years, the class act will reduce the federal budget deficit by by $72.5 billion. in the second ten years by a substantial amount although somewhat less than than $72.5 billion. and in the third ten years, 30 years out, it's anticipated that

the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? mr. kucinich: i ask nor the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. engel: i move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, h.con.res. 213, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 213, concurrent resolution expressing the sense of congress for and solidarity with the people of el salvador as they persevere through the aftermath of torrential rain which caused devastating flooding and deadly mudslides. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from new york, mr. engel, and the gentlewoman

the street. i saw them and say, why these guys doing here? i stop and i ask them. ays, the day laborers spend the whole day on the corner hoping to get a job. says, if we have a job, we got money to eat. if not, we don't eat nothing today. so i say, okay. wait for me tomorrow here and i'm going to bring something to eat. i get up at like 5:15 in the morning. getting on my bus around 6:30. i finish my work around 5:00. be back home around 6:00. and i start my second job. ♪ this is a family operation. justin! la pasta, por favor. the beginning, friend of mine, he donated a lot of bread, and then later i got more donations. the food start to come in big and big. little, little by little, the whole inside of the house is getting smaller, smaller. now i have six refrigerators in my house. today, we're going to cook chicken, rice and beans. we're going to pack them up, drive to the corner. ♪ in the beginning it was eight guys. two weeks later it was like 110, 120. sometimes 140. but things got, i got enough food for everybody. i have my family, my sister i have at home. i

president, that the vote begin, i ask unanimous consent. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 3326, the department of defense appropriations act for fiscal year 2010. signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is: is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to concur in the amendment of the house to the amendment of the senate to h.r. 3326 shall be brought to a clo close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the presiding officer: may we have order, please. the clerk may resume. vote: vote: the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vot

surprise, surprise, the head of the ap cc -- apcc, one must ask, the question i would like to ask, is that official policy -- let me finish. let me finish. >> the insinuation that you may, i cannot comment. if i was the person involved, i would put them in court. concerning the issue at stake, and you said that the british government said this was the position of the european union. if there is a government that has been pushing the european union, it is precisely the government of your country whether you like it or not. in fact, it is a common agenda today, to reduce the global emissions and to -- this has consequences. we want industry to be kept in europe. what we want is another kind of industry that is less energy conservation and it is more friendly to the environment. >> thank you, very much. >> he did not answer my question. it the question was, is this policy? would you please answer the question? >> can i come back one more time? >> i want a response to this. >> thank you, very much. the blue card is not working now because it is a discussion between two people. it is diffi

you are the person asking for the money. you are the candidate and you are asking for the money. they will be asking someone else. i need a brave volunteer to ask for the money. i can believe not everyone of you wants to do it. i will have to pick someone. thank you. if it is logistically possible can you come here with your chair? here we go. we will need two. i know this is a hard -- this next one but i need someone who has the money who wants to give it away or doesn't want to give it away. anybody want to do that? thank you. >> these are some things you're going to want to focus on. [inaudible] >> the blue dog is supporting health-care or not? >> my guess is they are probably not enthusiastically supporting it. they might be supporting the senate version. i don't know. i would say they are not enthusiastically supporting it but they are not against it and they're trying to make up their mind because they are. this is not a phone call. this is a meeting. why don't you look at each other? okay. you are welcome to introduce yourself. >> we met before i guess. how are you doing? >

the american people are asking where are the jobs? but all they have been shown is more deficits and more debt. let's be honest with the american people. it really isn't $290 billion the majority wants to increase the debt limit by, it's more like $1.8 trillion. in a few short months we'll be right back here voting on another bill to increase the debt limit probably by another $1.5 trillion. at the end of of twetch, the public debt eke -- of 2007, the public debt equal 65% of the g.d.p. by the end of 2009 the figure will exceed 83%. according to president obama's own budget projections, it will exceed 100% of g.d.p. by 2011. think about it. at that rate the majority is spending the federal debt in 2011 will exceed the value of goods and services produced by the economy that year. this isn't just a democrat or republican problem. it's a huge problem for every single american. it threatens our economic recovery and our future prosperity. so let's remember the words of then senator obama in 2006 who warned of the dangers of raising the d

you can't even ask the question? is--would anyone ask the question more directly? "i noticed that your daughter's white." will anyone ask that question? >> absolutely. >> ogletree: mr. shannon, you would ask it? >> mr. mason, you expect to open, i assume, a very expensive metroplex. you're coming back to the deep south, southernton. and it's rather unusual to have a caucasian daughter. can you tell us about how you came to have her as a daughter? >> ogletree: before you answer the question, tell me what you're thinking about that question. putting aside what your answer's going to be, tell me how you, emotionally, react to that answer-- the question. what is he asking? >> it doesn't bother me, and i'll tell you why. if i have a chance to run a photo of my family in the paper, i see that as a great p.r. opportunity, because if my project is going to work, i'm going to need white folks' money to help make it work. and a lot of times-- >> we're tv now. a lot of times, the fear factor is minimized if they think that you know how to talk to them in their own terms. >> og

the second thing i ask for, is there a better way? and this is where, for example, there is a project underway that if successfully completed they allow us to get rid of the liquid limitation, which is a real -- it's a problem for travelers who don't want to have to necessarily check a bag. so we're consistently asking those types of questions. and they're the kinds of questions that we ought to be asking 'cause, you know, travel and ease of travel and all of that is something we want to foster. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we mentioned -- touched earlier my statement but by december 31st, a short time from now, states will have to be complying with real id under the act that was zipped through for the citizens that aren't going to be able to use driver's license as identification according to commercial airports across the country. 36 states are not complying. i mentioned i have than horror of seeing thousands of americans who have flown to visit friends or family or relatives for the holidays with

i yield back the balance of my time. and ask that we -- the speaker pro tempore: all time yielded back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 939. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? mr. gordon: i move the house suspend the rules and agree to h.r. 515, the radioactive import deterrence act as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 200, h.r. 515, the bill to prohibit the importation of certain low level radioactive waste into the united states. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. gordon, and the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ten

the next. it is very distant polling data is what we ask them they question the way we did. e asked whether on based on where you have read or heard about under consideration and that is a question we have passed before. this way we could get a trend on what people think is going on through their eyes and the only thing polling can do. cannot say with this guy is talking about so we will not count his appended because other people know what turin not, that is the universe rear interested in finding out about. >> [inaudible] >> obviously as 2010 dawns over the 10 months between january and november elections, quinnipiac polls are aimed at trying to find out what people think of the pathway of issues that will play out in the 2010 election. the state police florida ohio pennsylvania and new jersey those are the key senate races. florida, and primaries between governor chris has gotten a great deal of attention and our inspector has been a senator 29 years as a republican and now a democrat that is a high-profile race. chris dodd in congress 30 years and he has a tough reelectio

the world cup -- >> i would like to ask. same time, i'm aware that it's really hard. the infrastructure currently does not correspond to the conditions. >> i fully agree with you. first of all, you said a very important thing. you'd like russia to pass the world cup. infrastructure is not sufficient. actually, infrastructure was inadequate for the winter olympic games as well in 2014. our infrastructure was insufficient for the games in 2012. but we need to develop our infrastructure. we need to do this. our infrastructure isn't sufficient for the apex summit in the far east as far as the olympic games 2014 are concerned. we have almost completed it. there was no normal water supply, no normal services in a mainly resort city. everything was dumped into the sea. talk about environment. we built a new electric power station. we'll build another power station soon and this is a major problem because electric wires in the mountains get icy. i can tell you, frankly, unless we had such an occasion, probably we would not have done

so let's not denigrate the word "reform." i ask unanimous consent, along with my last remarks, to put a letter from the afl-cio in the -- in the record. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, the vote that we had earlier this morning moving forward to the omnibus spending bill that's before us is a stunning statement that we are not listening to the american people, that we are unaware or indifferent to the level of spending that's occurring in this country, and that it is unlike what has occurred before. many have complained that president bush overspent -- on some occasions he did. one expert told me recently that they compared president bush's misdemeanors to felony murder when you look at the seriousness of the spending levels that we are now undertaking i

thank you for the initial steps that have been taken. let me ask one pointed question because when we started this unfortunate incident, a lot of hysteria was created in terms of the media reported it. it looked devastating. tell me what level of participation now is the it? how comprehensive is the it's investigation? >> they are specifically looking at what happened, who was involved, how did it happen, and what measures the recommendations can they make to tsa so this does not happen again. they are looking at papers and doing an extensive forensic on the technology, looking at the electronic transmission of the documents. >> on the sop, did you indicate that members could have individual classified or confidential briefings on the new procedures? >> yes, we have offered and will continue to offer as we go through this process, briefings to any of the members for their staff on the current sop that is in place across the aviation system so that the members can get a full understanding and appreciation of the fact that many systems improvements h

the senator from idaho. mr. crapo: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to use the balance of my time as well as that of the leader, the republican leader. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. crapo: thank you so much, mr. president. i'd like to respond to a couple of points that have been made about whether this bill truly addresses what the american people are asking it to address. if you ask most people in america what they want in health care reform -- and they do want health care reform -- what they will tell you is they want to see some control over the skyrocketing costs over health care, particularly the skyrocketing costs over insurance premiums. and they'd like to see increased access to quality medical care. it's been said a number of times by the proponents of this legislation that this bill accomplishes some of those objectivities but let's look at what the congressional budget office told us on the core issue, namely, what's going to happen to your insurance premiums if this bill is passed. and what the congression

the senator from idaho. mr. crapo: mr. president, i askunanimous consent to speak for up to 40 minutes and to use that 40 minutes in a colloquy with other of my colleagues. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. crapo: i would also ask, mr. president, if you'd give me notice when there are five minutes remaining. the presiding officer: yes. mr. crapo: mr. president, i'm going to engage in a colloquy with some of my colleagues today about the motion that is now pending on which we will vote later this afternoon or early evening. it's simply a motion to commit the bill to the finance committee and have the finance committee make the bill comply with the president's pledge. here's the president's pledge. in the president's own words, "i can make a firm pledge, no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes. you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." now you've just heard my colleague from montana say

and so he is, and now like every other failed monster of the universe, he's coming to the taxpayer and asking to be bailed out. and he must remember this, that most bailouts stop at the start. >> and coming to be table, saying that it was clear that britain's problems are great. >> there have been many at the top, and they would not have been obsessed as the chancellor is today of drawing tactical dividing lines. >> saying that this would be a good budget for bingos and accused mr. darling of that. >> what the government is assuming of the increase, anfql what is the basis of this assumption. it's like the story of the economist and giving them something to eat and saying let's assume the tin opener. and the government is assuming the growth. why. half of the government has made an estimate've -- estimate of the risk. >> the scottish nationalist said it wasn't a budget for growth. >> what this is to confirm the cuts. why did the chancellor not take the advice of even his own scotland people of scotland to assure the recovery and yet to weaken the ability of scotland to recover. >> so how did

the other side. mr. mccain: can i ask the senator from new hampshire, what happens -- what happens -- the senior member on the budget committee, a person that is well-phone for his knowledge of the comirks of the budgetary situation in america -- what happens, what happens, i ask the senator from new hampshire, if we pass this massive bill? what happens to america's economy? mr. gregg: well, my view is this: first off we know a couple of facts. that we grow the government by $2.5 trillion over a ten-year period when this bill is fully implemented. we also know that the tax increases during that period will be approximately $1.2 trillion, tax tax increases and fees. and they aren't going to fall on the wlty. they are going to fall on the small business person trying to create the extra job. we also know that there will be an entire seed change in the way people get their health care. the government will be stepping in between you and your doctor and basically making a decision as to what your doctor can tell you what you c

here's the bottom line. we have to ask is america better if this passes or not and the answer is overwhelmingly it is better. howard dean is my friend and medical doctor and former governor and he said he would vote against this bill but i would say to dr. howard dean, don't you believe the 30 million americans with health insurance is worth the effort? i think you do. i think most people do. we can do better in short and we will work to improve this bill both with the house and later. mr. president, i yield the floor. >> before he leaves the floor i want to commend the distinguished senator from illinois for his statement and also make sure that the body recognizes that it has been senator sanders who has championed the cause relentlessly making the case dollar for dollar the is no better investment in american health care than these community health centers, and i was going to spend my time this morning talking about the opportunities for democrats and republicans to continue to team up on this health reform issue, and i

the measure. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 4 -- 4217 which was received from the house. the clerk: h.r. 4217, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to extend the funding and the expenditure authority of the airport and airway trust fund and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and any statements related to the bill be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without

it is usually through the afghan trust fund. and we are asking our partners to change some of the traditional ways they are spending their money. to strengthen the institution of the afghan government we would like to see the budget being allocated to afghanistan increased to 40% by next year. there has been talk about direct support for qualified institutions and officials as part of the new strategy. this is very much welcomed. i would encourage institutions to perform better. we have always been in favor of benchmarks and deadlines that pushes institutions to perform better, but the focus should be on developing capacity, not replacing capacity. to bypass the government for ignoring the constitution is not a sustainable when of development. -- to bypass the government or ignore the constitution is not a sustainable way of development. they are offering partnership. let's stay focused on what the mission is. your mission is to destroy, distract, and feet al qaeda. and, prevent the return of taliban and help the afghan people. your presence is w

the senator from idaho. mr. crapo: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that marcus chavez be granted floor privileges for the remainder of today's session. the presiding officer: without objection. khaeup khaeup thank you, madam president. madam president -- mr. crapo: thank you, madam president. madam president, as we approach the vote tomorrow morning, i know a lot of people are calling it an historic vote, and in some context i guess it is. however, many of us are concerned that it is an historic mistake rather than a history-making opportunity. we've had a lot of debate about whether this legislation is the right or the wrong way to improve health care for all americans. we've had hours and hours, in fact days and weeks of committee hearings and meetings with good bipartisan discussion on options and ways to accomplish this. but now apparently we have a mandate by the majority that are demanding that we have the final vote in the senate before christmas. while we debate this, let me say i believe we need to hear more from the people

in the rulemaking to ask stakeholders to provide their views on the scope of their authority, and we'll see different stakeholders weigh in in that regard. if they don't have the authority at some point, it's likely these rules are challenged no matter what happens, and that'll be before the courts. but i think it's pretty clear they have authority to engage in the rule-making process. and, in fact, i should say that in the comcast debate which happened two years ago where comcast was held to have illegally blocked lawful content, one of the arguments from many in the broadband community was that the fcc should have engaged in a rulemaking first before penalizing comcast. so i think this is the right way to go to create some rules that provide some certainty to the marketplace, that allow for a healthy ecosystem. i think the broadband providers are going to benefit from that certainty as well as the application providers and consumers. >> guest: well, i think it's ironic that mr. erickson's coalition has been pushing for net neutrality le

the american people. mrs. hutchison: i would just askhe senator from south dakota, because it is our amendment, the hutchison-thune amendment, and surely the american people who would look at this debate would say we're missing something. this cannot be right. you can't have taxes that are increasing our premiums, increasing our prescription drug costs, increasing our medical devices that we have to have for our health care for four years. did he say that right? did he say we would be paying those higher costs for four years before there is any option available to allow more people to have health care coverage? mr. thune: i would say to my friend from texas that it's kind of the same old washington game, the same old washington gimmick, the same old backroom deal that's been cut basically that -- of course we've had no input to. incidentally, there is another now latest permutation of this discussion going on right now behind closed doors, which is the the medicare expansion, which is the subject for a whole nother day. i think what the

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of senate resolution 376 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 376 honoring the 60th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate proceeds to the measure. mr. durbin: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to this resolution. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the resolution be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. thursday, december 17. that followi

the case. and they're asking for the views on the law, the underlying law, they're asking for the office's view about whether or not the court should take the case, but they're also, i think, really at bottom asking what the federal government feels about the importance of this case. generally, these are cases that at one level or another impact the federal government, but the federal government has not been a party. and i think that's one way in which you really see this special relationship between the office and the justices. they don't call for the views of anyone else. >> well, i agree with that very much indeed. when i got cvsg messages from the court, i thought that the justices were, of course, asking the views of the united states, but that's not what it says. it says call for the views of the solicitor general, so i felt my personal credibility was on the line in responding to the court when those requests for made. the other thing about the tenth justice idea is that the solicitor general and people on his or her staff are repeat players. if you're a private lawyer and you have a cas

the gentleman from texas. mr. cuellar: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the bill that's under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cuellar: mr. speaker, i also ask unanimous consent that an exchange of letters between the committee of homeland security and oversight and government reform be included into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cuellar: mr. speaker, rise in support of this bill and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cuellar: h.r. 1517 would help fix a previous hiring error for select number of employees serving overseas in positions for customs and border frokes. through no fault of their own, there is about 35 employees, preclearance locations across the globe that were hired under a limited term appointment by the immigration and naturalization service. some of those workers have been employed,

everything he wanted when he asked for 30,000 troops. and the question i'd ask -- i've never known a general to get all he wanted. i've known them to get all they formally requested but not all they wanted. and i would just ask you, are you saying to this committee that all general mccrystal ever wanted was 30,000 troops to wage the war that he is having to wage now? so mr. secretary, i'd give you that time and then admiral mullen. >> first of all, with respect to the 30-year aviation plan and ship-building plan, it was important for us to be able to get a five-year defense plan from the administration so that we had some predictability. and we are in the process of doing that. the five-year defense plan has been put forward. it was not for fy10. i can provide you that kind of -- i can provide you a list. it'll be meaningless because we don't know. we don't know what the resources will be until we get the -- >> mr. secretary, and again, i don't mean to bankrupt you. -- interrupt. the law is if you submit a plan, if we have a new plan we need to

the economy. again, positive numbers.ç but when we askedabout personal financial situation, 15% say that president obama's policies have helped their personal financial situation. 26% say it's hurt their personal financial situation. and as we look to the future, 31% say it will help their personal financial situation, 37% think it will hurt their personal financial situation. we ask people whether anyone in their household has been laid off or lost a job.xd in the last -- and 28% of the population say that someone in their household has lost a job or been laid off.i] on the question of the $200 billion left over from the bank bailout, 52% say that it should go for job stimulus, whereas 42% want that money used to reduce the federal deficit. moving on, now on health care. we asked the following question. from what you have heard or read, do you mostly approve or mostly disapprove of the proposed changes to the health care system under consideration in congress? 53% mostly disapproved. 36% mostly approved. among independents, for instance, w

now adults ask the government for president -- now adults ask the government for presence and they have the kids pay later. one fact is there is a discussion of the deficit in washington in a room in which there are more people than shares. that is kind of a leading indicator of things. we see it in our polls @ "the wall street journal" that public concern about the deficit has definitely reason, as had -- has opposition to spending cuts and tax increases. the ultimate dilemma here is quite clear, as doug allen north put it, but the problem is the american people have asked the government for benefits, many retirees, that exceed the amount of money the american people so far are willing to spend -- send to washington to pay the bills. so i admire all of these people for once again trying to deal with this issue. some have been dealing with it since i was a lot younger. and i think it is important to note that not all of them are on social security. doug holz egan is only 51 but he points out the way things are going in the senate health care debate he may be soon eligible at least for p

your question if you could come to the front and ask us because we want to be sure we are able to recorded on the microphone. >> in the early days was the well served by his advisers, and it seems to me when he made serious error is when he did not go with his intuition. >> absolutely. when reagan had his best, when he relied on his own judgment and temperament i think also what comes through in the book and came through at that time was reagan was best when he was mad. wirthlin said he never met a candidate who loved confrontation as much as reagan. he relished confrontation. mike said he was the most competitive so be that ever lived. this idea that reagan floated from opportunity to opportunity is nonsense. everything that he had in his life he fought for and when he took matters in his own hands as he did in new hampshire and won the primary and as he did in the fall when he decided he was going to be dated jimmy carter that reagan was best off when he took matters into his own career and his own hands, absolutely. any other questions?

the floor? madam president, i ask consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: madam president, we 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 wh

>> i did mention the president suggesting. our report asked the president and congress to work together to make this logon. traditionally, when there have been, congress and the president working together, presidential leadership has been required. it's been an essential. and the president has as tough a job as the congress does in applying some of his leadership. he has to be the first actor. he has got to bring them together. he may have to lay out the plan, but his participation is absolutely necessary to make this plan work. and in fact, in the beginning he has to be the major player. >> i think the health reform bill that's going to the congress that is going to be a first test of the president. he has said that it has either got to be deficit neutral or not increase the deficit. i think he has to seriously enforce that as the bill winds its way to his desk. secondly, the president can create an atmosphere of national league like no other member of congress can individually or even as a small group. so i think he has to over the next year

the gentleman. mr. speaker, i'd ask the gentleman, i note that he did announce that we will be considering h.r. 4173 the financial regulation bill and perhaps seven appropriations bills. i don't know which form that would be in. whether it be separately or in an omnibus form, but nonetheless all of these are incredibly large measures costing billions of dollars of taxpayer money, stretching over thousands of pages. and my question, mr. speaker, is, what is the gentleman's intention as to the period of time which members and the public have to to -- public will have to review prior to the members voting on them, and does that mean that we will still be consistent with the gentleman's representations on other bills prior to this session that we would have 72 hours for consideration and review of those bills as well as any manager's amendment and self-executing amendments in the rule? i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. he is correct. i have made that representation that i want to try and accomplish tha

the '80 campaign. so he actually -- he and mrs. reagan sat down with bill clark and askedbill clark if he would run the campaign, of course, judge clark was chief justice of the california state court and he de-muir and they came up with this fellow billier who worked on the nixon administration and they reached up bill casey and he ended up replacing john but it was because reagan, you know, had been pushed hard enough -- he just had to get rid of john. and as a matter of fact, charlie black, i think, had one of the wisest takes on john sears' role in the campaign. he said ronald reagan never would have been important if he hadn't hired john sears in 1975 and fired him in 1980. >> well put. i don't know if any of you that have either read craig's book or heard about it have seen any number of the book reviews but it's getting great reviews. and what i notice in it, craig, is that one of the news items that's popping out in these reviews is the story about putting the finger on the individual that you believe was involved in this famous incident of the theft in the turning

the roll. quorum call: mr. dorgan: mr. president, i ask the quorum call be waived. i ask the quorum call be charged equally against all sides. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from new jersey. mr. lautenberg: to having the time equally divided expressed by the senator from iowa. i -- how much time is -- how much time is available on our side, mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey controls seven minutes. mr. lautenberg: seven? the presiding officer: seven. mr. lautenberg: seven minutes? the presiding officer: seven minutes. mr. lautenberg: all right, well, mr. president, i, too, have people who want to speak to the issue, but if we can equally divide the quorum call, that's all right with me, i have no objection. mr. dorgan: mr. president, i believe the quorum call will be momentary. we have people coming to speak. if not, i will take additional time as perhaps with the senator from new jersey, but i ask consent that the -- i make a point of order that a quorum is not present and ask consent that it be charged against

the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. garrett: i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the letters of support. the chair: that request will be covered by general leave. all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. garrett: madam chair, we would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 13 printed in house report 111-370. mr. frank: is it not in order for the gentleman from california to offer his amendment now? the chair: it is now in order no consider amendment number 14 printed in house report 111-370 -- >> parliamentary inquiry. amendment number 13 was in order. is the majority party skipping number 13? the chair: the proponent of number 13 did not appear. the gentleman from mas

for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman has one minute. mr. wilson: madam speaker, i rise today to address the issue of key importance to my constituents, jobs and the economy. i am proud of the work that congress has done to bolster the economy and create new jobs across our country. in ohio we continue to see new funds awarded and released every week. communities across the state and my district have been positively impacted by these funds. today, over $225 million of recovery funds have been announced to counties i represent along the ohio river. improvements in technology, investments in education funding, substantial things for our future. just last week $75 million recovery money was announced in ohio. these funds include $8.6 million for water projects in 10 of my 12 counties. that investment represents jobs for our workers, clean water for our residents, and i'm proud to work for the results that these investmen