Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to increase awareness of a debilitating and ultimately fatal disease that right now, more than 5 million Americans and 35 million people worldwide live with-- Alzheimer's.

Today is World Alzheimer's Day, a day when the individuals and families affected by this devastating disease around the globe unite to increase understanding about the disease and its impact. Unfortunately, as this disease continues to steal an ever growing number of memories and ultimately lives, this global recognition continues to grow in importance.

According to new data released in the 2009 World Alzheimer Report, the 35 million people worldwide suffering from Alzheimer's and dementia is a startling 10 percent increase over the 2005 number. This devastating number is only expected to grow. In fact, according to the newly released report, the number of people with Alzheimer's is expected to nearly double every 20 years, to 65.7 million in 2030 and 115.4 million in 2050.

For too many years the millions of Americans living with this disease and their families suffered silently in a nation that misunderstood the tragedy of Alzheimer's and dementia. In 1994, the courage of one family changed the public face of Alzheimer's when in a letter to the American people Ronald Reagan announced he was one of the millions of Americans living with the disease. With this selfless act, the former President and his wife Nancy increased the public awareness of Alzheimer's and increased the awareness of the need for research into its causes and prevention.

Public awareness is a key part of the fight against this disease, which is why I thank actor David Hyde Pierce for

being a vocal champion in the fight against Alzheimer's and Lisa Genova who wrote the moving book, ``Still Alice,'' about a brilliant woman blindsided by the disease.

In 2004 Senator Mikulski and I first introduced legislation in honor of Ronald Reagan, who took public awareness of Alzheimer's to the national stage. This legislation--a living tribute to the courage of our 40th President-- made a Federal commitment to increase research for Alzheimer's and increase assistance to Alzheimer patients and their families.

Today, Senator Mikulski and I are still leading the fight in the Senate to pass this critical legislation. This year we reintroduced the Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act. This bipartisan legislation strengthens our nation's commitment to Alzheimer's research and to finding cures and treatments for this devastating disease.

This legislation doubles funding for Alzheimer's research at the National Institutes of Health, NIH, to $2 billion and makes Alzheimer's research a priority at NIH. The bill also provides support for families by providing caregivers with the vital resources and tools to assist them.

We can't afford to wait another 5 years to pass this bill. After all, in this country, someone develops Alzheimer's every 70 seconds. Experts estimate Alzheimer's could affect as many as 10 million baby boomers as they age. And in my State of Missouri, there will be as many as 110,000 people age 65 and older who will have Alzheimer's disease by 2010.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me and Senator Mikulski in our fight against this terrible disease and cosponsor the Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act. I also ask that today you keep all those who have lost loved ones to Alzheimer's, all those living with Alzheimer's and all those carrying on the fight against Alzheimer's in your thoughts.

Madam President, the real kudos and plaudits go to my colleague, the chair, Senator Murray, for having worked this through.

It is also a very interesting and challenging measure. But this year, we have advanced a bill, we have had lots of amendments, we have adopted some on strong bipartisan votes. I think this is a great tribute to the way she has worked with us closely on the committee and with the cooperation of all parties on the floor.

This is a bill in which many people have good ideas, and, as I said, we voted on and took a few of them. But I join Senator Murray in thanking her staff: Alex Keenan, Meaghan McCarthy, Rachel Milberg, Joanne Waszczak and Travis Lumpkin for their work. They have worked very closely with us.

Thanks for the hard work on my side to Ellen Beares and Jon Kamarck. The staff contributed. And also the work of the newest member of our team who came in at a time when we were badly understaffed, Dedra Goodman. But a very special thanks to Matt McCardle for his leadership and masterful management on the floor.

This was due to a lot of unforeseen circumstances. There were lots of times when he had to carry the load, and he also did it with good humor. When I was frazzled and confused about where things may be going, Matt had it under control, and he did a truly outstanding job.

Again, I thank our colleagues for allowing us to proceed with this bill. We did not plan on being here this the eighth day, having started last Thursday. But we are very optimistic that this bill can emerge from conference as a freestanding bill and be adopted by this body. I do not want to see this wind up in an ``ominous'' appropriations bill that does not reflect the hard work that went into it. When our work goes into what they call an omnibus, what I call an ``ominous,'' appropriations bill, strange things happen to it. We hope we can work this bill and keep it together as crafted. It is a critical piece of legislation.

It has vitally important safety needs for transportation, particularly in aviation. It continues, although not as robustly as I would like, the development of more transportation infrastructure. There are badly needed elements in the housing part of the bill. We have to continue housing for those people who have assisted housing, public housing authorities, particularly in this economic downturn, when so many

people are feeling the pinch, special needs from the disabled, the elderly, to veterans, who have particularly been well served by the veterans assisted in supportive housing that we have provided.

But also, as I have warned many times before, the FHA program is a high-risk program that could subject us to billions of dollars being thrown on the taxpayers' credit card. And this bill provides resources for HUD to get up the IT systems it needs, to get the people in place. It provides for more oversight. It provides increases for the inspector general to doublecheck to make sure the predatory lending which inflicted the entire economy does not transport itself into FHA- supported housing.

So we do have some more amendments. And we look forward to working on those this afternoon. We thank all our colleagues for letting us come this far. We hope to get it passed and get these badly needed appropriations enacted into law.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, nobody has advised us of objections on our side.

I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

amendment no. 2359

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I urge all Members to return promptly. I know several Members on both sides have other commitments. If we are going to make those, we need to keep those 10 minute votes to at least 15 minutes. Thanks.

amendment no. 2410

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2403, as Modified

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Motion to Recommit with Amendment No. 2421

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I thank Senator Cochran for his comments and agree that PHMSA should produce a report as soon as possible on this topic. We need to ensure that pipeline safety programs are adequately funded and that Congress and the regulated industries that support these programs understand how they are funded.

Madam President, I join with my colleague in thanking all Members and urging an aye vote.

Mr. President, I join with my colleague, the Senator from Washington, in saying please let's get on with it. This will fill out a full week now. This will be Thursday through Wednesday we have been on the floor. We want to bring these amendments forward. I understand we may not need 40 minutes, and we certainly would like to get these votes started so we can wrap them up before we break for the scheduled lunches.

Again, if the Senators could be ready for a vote, we hope as early as 11:30, no later than 11:40, and we will have a series of votes. We look forward to dealing with these amendments and moving on to others.

I thank our colleagues for their attention and let's get on with it. I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2370 Withdrawn

Mr. President, I would urge all Members to stay around and vote and we can get on with the business and anybody who wants to have lunch can have lunch.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I join with my colleague in urging a defeat of the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, while we have an opportunity, there are some important comments I want to make about this bill.

We have heard from some people who are concerned about the deficit and the national debt. They are tremendous concerns. Any discussion of our overall economy must take into consideration the debt we are running up that will be on the backs of our children and our grandchildren. I have opposed many spending packages that have come through and many of the things that have gone on.

But when we are looking at priorities--which are funding ongoing programs which are within the budget of our committees--then we need to focus on spending that will prove beneficial for the American people and the economy.

The bill before us, the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill, funds infrastructure development for everything from roads, to bridges, to airports, which is critical to attracting businesses, creating jobs and economic growth in our communities.

The bill also provides funding to help the Nation's most vulnerable populations: the homeless, low-income families and seniors, housing for the disabled, and housing for our returning veterans who have served overseas.

This bill provides increased investment in the Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA gets money for 200 additional safety inspectors. I have spoken on this floor about the need for safety inspectors because we have airlines flying with very subpar qualifications, and too often they get away with sending out people who are not qualified, should not be pilots, have not been properly trained. For all of us who fly and all of our constituents, that is a major concern. But we need to accelerate programs as well related to reducing congestion and increasing safety. That means getting us to the next generation air traffic system.

Nobody will claim this is a perfect bill, but it is one that provides needed funds for programs that not only make a difference in the lives of everyday Americans but also enables job creation, economic growth, and the kind of treatment we wish to provide for those in need, especially in the housing area.

I have asked my colleagues, and will continue to ask them, to support this bill. There have also been attacks--and there will be some more before we get out of here--on earmarks. Every year we have a debate about whether Congress should have a role in setting priorities or simply pass the buck to those in the executive branch of government.

Within my State are State and local experts I turn to, as well as people whose lives are inextricably linked to housing, transportation, and economic development. Most of these people know a great deal about these issues. They know a lot more about these issues and how they affect the people of Missouri than most folks sitting in a bureaucracy in Washington, DC, who may never have been there, do not know what the challenges are, do not know where the local people are putting their priorities, do not know what their plans are, do not know how they see their communities grow, their State grow. I think a lot of these people know more about housing, transportation, and economic development than people at OMB and those who ultimately produce budget submissions from their distant Washington offices.

We have heard a lot of talk about bad earmarks. I am opposed to bad earmarks, and people who abuse the system, who do so criminally, should be punished and put in jail, as they have been. There is no debate there. The debate is not what is written about, but it is who should earmark because every dollar that is spent by the government is directed by somebody. Who is making the decisions?

Some argue it should be a mix where Congress earmarks roughly 2 percent of discretionary funds, with the balance, roughly 98 percent, being earmarked by agency employees of the executive branch. I think you could make a good argument that it should be even higher.

However, under this scenario, with full disclosure, elected officials have a role in listening to and speaking for the people of their State, the leaders of their communities, the leaders of the institutions. We can make those recommendations, and the full Congress can look at them and the President can ratify them. This is reflected in the bills before us this session.

Others argue Congress should have no role; executive branch officials, elected by no one, should have 100 percent monopoly power over spending. Their position is people unaccountable to the voters should have this monopoly power. Congress can, however, and does set criteria, but the more criteria we set, the more it becomes a congressional earmark. The less criteria we set, the more it remains an executive branch earmark.

In executive agencies, people have their own agendas and political leanings. Their own political bosses--in either the Bush administration or the Obama administration--have their own agenda. I do not like monopoly power of the Obama administration on spending and I did not support it during the Clinton or either Bush administration as well.

I have to admit I find it puzzling to hear some of my self-professed conservative friends suggesting that the way to reform spending is to turn it all over to the Obama administration to earmark. I am not arguing they should have no role. I am arguing today that Congress should have a role.

The Constitution, in article I, section 9, says very clearly that it gives the Congress the power of the purse. It states:

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in

consequence of Appropriations made by law.

Guess what. That is what we are supposed to do, as stated in article I, section 9. I think it would be extreme, probably excessive, to suggest that Congress should earmark all money, just as I believe it would be extreme and wrongheaded to suggest that the Obama administration should earmark all money.

A bad earmark is a bad earmark, no matter who does it. Frankly, when I left the governorship of my State, one of the reasons I believed it was important to run for the Senate was to be able to exercise the voice and the views of Missourians in the spending process because I had seen too many instances where bureaucrats in Washington made very bad decisions.

They made bad decisions that absolutely turned the priorities around. They told us we had to spend all of our money for cleaning up wastewater, putting tertiary treatment on major metropolitan sewer systems, which would then have to put cleaner water into the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers than was already there.

The State's priority was to clean up many of the pristine streams in our State which had, in too many instances, raw sewage flowing into them--streams which were vital parts of our scenic rivers, our scenic waterways, places for hunters and fishermen, where people would like to swim and boat but could not.

But we have seen even more instances of bad earmarks. I thought it was a horrible Pentagon earmark to award an Air Force tanker project worth billions of dollars to a European company--a process which, under pressure, has since been subjected to review and will cost thousands of Missouri jobs if undertaken.

Fundamentally, I see this as a role of Congress and one that should be transparent, self-limiting, and subject to scrutiny. We get that scrutiny. I accept it. I am happy to argue with anybody who disagrees with my views, but at least we do so out in the open. When earmarks are made in the executive branch, nobody knows who did them. If you don't like a decision, you don't even know whom to yell at because it is somebody who is not appointed, not accountable, not obvious to the people we are supposed to serve.

A lot of people criticize me for putting out statements, news releases, when I get some funds for the State, which is another way of saying I was too transparent. I use this process to help empower local people who have local ideas on how best to improve their local communities after having set their own local priorities.

If a Senator doesn't want to request an earmark, that is fine. Some people request earmarks and then vote to strip them out. I think that is a little bit self-contradictory, but I will leave that to the Senators who choose to request them and then move to strike them. If a Senator thinks it is inappropriate or does not trust himself or his local leaders to establish priorities and petition Congress for funding, that is his or her business. But I do trust local officials who answer to their voters and neighbors, as I do, who invest their money and the tax money at the local level, and who understand their own conditions better than anyone else, over the geniuses at OMB who may or may not have had the privilege of traveling to Missouri, to Washington State, to Pennsylvania, to Minnesota, to wherever the Senator comes from.

In short, someone earmarks discretionary money, and I am glad that a small fraction of that earmarking is reserved for those who can be questioned and disparaged and voted out of office if people disagree. I disagree that earmarking and making all spending decisions should be a responsibility exclusive to the typically anonymous executive branch people.

I ask my colleagues to ensure that bureaucrats and politicians in the executive branch are not the sole source of power when it comes to setting spending priorities. In this case, local citizens outside of Washington who live with the project purposes and who are not agency officials should have a stronger voice in setting local priorities, not a weaker voice.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to oppose efforts to take away from Congress not only our constitutional power and authority over the purse but what I view as a high responsibility of someone who holds an office and carries out the duties of a U.S. Senator.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, for too many years, Congress has failed to pass an intelligence authorization bill that could be signed into law. We came close once, only to have our efforts derailed by a problematic interrogation provision. We have solved that problem this year, and now I believe we finally have a product that we can move forward with the hope that it will soon be signed into law.

The intelligence authorization bill before us will give the intelligence community the flexibility and authorities it needs to function effectively and will ensure appropriate intelligence oversight by this committee.

Over the past several months, we have worked closely with the administration and other committees to address their concerns over various provisions. Of course, some concerns were easier to resolve than others. But we are now at a point that I believe we can pass this bill through the Senate.

I have often said that in creating the Director of National Intelligence, we gave him an awful lot of responsibility without all the authority he needed. Well, our bill attempts to address that problem by giving the DNI clearer authority and greater flexibility in overseeing the intelligence community.

There are also a number of provisions in this bill that I believe are essential for promoting good government. Too often, we have seen programs or acquisitions of major systems balloon in cost and decrease in performance. That is unacceptable. We are in difficult economic times and the taxpayers are spending substantial sums of money to ensure that the intelligence community has the tools it needs to keep us safe. If we don't demand accountability for how these tools are operated or created, then we are failing the taxpayers, and we are failing the intelligence community.

So, for the past several years, I have sponsored amendments that require the intelligence community to perform vulnerability assessments of major systems and to keep track of excessive cost growth of major systems. This latter provision is modeled on the Nunn-McCurdy provision which has guided Defense Department acquisitions for years. I am happy to say that these provisions are part of this year's bill too. I believe that these, and other good-government provisions, will encourage earlier identification and solving of problems relating to the acquisition of major systems. Too often, such problems have not been identified until exorbitant sums of money have been spent--and, unfortunately, at that point, there is often reluctance to cancel the project.

Similarly, the intelligence community must get a handle on its personnel levels. Now, I do not share the belief that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is too large; in fact, I think we need to make sure that our National Counterterrorism Center and National Counterproliferation Center have more resources, not less. However, I am concerned about the number of contractors used by the intelligence community to perform functions better left to government employees. There are some jobs that demand the use of contractors--for example, certain technical jobs or short-term functions--but too often, the quick fix is just to hire contractors, not long-term support. So, our bill includes a provision calling for annual personnel level assessments for the intelligence community. These assessments will ensure that, before more people are brought in, there are adequate resources to support them and enough work to keep them busy.

Finally, the CIA's interrogation program has been a hot topic over the past few months. This spring, the administration declassified several Office of Legal Counsel opinions pertaining to the program but redacted much of the information concerning its effectiveness. I am generally opposed to releasing information about some of our most sensitive intelligence sources and methods, but in this case, I believe the record needed to be set straight. So I sponsored an amendment, that was accepted by the committee, requiring the Director of the CIA to release an unclassified summary of several memos that discuss the effectiveness of the interrogation program. The American people may decide for themselves whether or not the CIA's program was effective in preventing terrorist attacks on our nation and our allies.

These are just a few of the provisions in this bill that I believe are important for the success of our intelligence collection efforts and equally important for ensuring sound oversight by the Intelligence Committee.

I commend Senator Feinstein for her leadership in shepherding this bill through the committee and the Senate. I appreciated her willingness to work through the many issues raised throughout this process.

I ask my colleagues to support this bill so that we can get back on track with performing effective intelligence oversight.

Clarifying Responsibilities of Committees

Mr. President, today is an opportunity to honor an unassuming and too often unsung hero, a humanitarian credited with feeding 1 billion people and saving the lives of hundreds of millions of people throughout the world.

There are few who have walked the Earth who have had the impact Norman Borlaug had; not only in his own country but in the areas of the Earth he referred to as the ``forgotten world.''

As an Iowa farm boy, Dr. Borlaug recognized there are no miracles in agricultural production, there is science. Norman Borlaug is the father of the green revolution. He warned that fear-mongering by environmental extremists against pesticides, fertilizers, and genetically improved foods would again put millions at risk of starvation while damaging the very biodiversity those extremists claimed to protect.

In fact, Dr. Borlaug's green movement does not provoke a war of man versus plant, it strengthens that relationship by using science to supplement the Earth's natural resources and provide a stable food source for a stronger and healthier world.

Biotechnology has breathtaking possibilities for improving human health, the environment, and enhancing agricultural production around the world. Already, hundreds of millions of people worldwide have been helped by biotechnology drugs and vaccines. There are many more drugs and vaccines currently being tested which will eventually help us wipe out other diseases as well.

For thousands of years, farmers have fought countless pests and diseases that have destroyed crops and limited production. Biotechnology is bringing hope to those in the developing world by providing crops that are more tolerant of drought and more resistant to insects and weeds and more nutritious.

Biotechnology is also increasing the nutritional value of foods produced by increasing the vitamin and mineral content of crops grown and reducing fat.

Bt, Bacillus thuringiensis, is a natural insecticide in the soil. It is being transplanted into corn, potatoes, cotton, and rice, allowing farmers to produce more food with far fewer chemicals.

In the United States, use of transgenic seeds has reduced pesticide application on our fields by tens of millions of pounds annually. Dr. Borlaug's work focused on the principle that wealthy nations have many problems, hungry nations have only one. He stated that: ``Without food, many can live at most but a few weak; without it, all other components of social justice are meaningless.''

Today, in the United States and in this Congress, we have the luxury of being concerned with so many other issues because our bellies are full. In an excerpt from Dr. Borlaug's epilogue from his biography, ``The Mild Mannered Maverick Who Fed a Billion People,'' he underscored that ``Helping struggling subsistence farmers produce a food surplus is the way to rid the world of much poverty and misery.''

Dr. Borlaug's work will be remembered as the catalyst in solving world hunger and we, as world citizens, are forever indebted to his humanitarianism and a reminder of what science can do and why it should be defended and promoted.

Today, let's all give thanks for the life and honor the memory of one of the foremost humanitarians of our age, Dr. Norman Borlaug. His passing earlier this week is a cause for the celebration of his life and a dedication to continuing his work as the best tribute we can provide to this truly great humanitarian.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I thank my colleague from Arizona for bringing this amendment to the floor. I was hoping to have the chance to discuss some points with him. But first, let me share some clarifications with my colleagues.

If I remember correctly, cash for clunkers was an executive branch decision, using money they had at their discretion. When you talk about money at discretion, huge amounts of money are going to bureaucrats in the administration, and when you look at some of the spending, I think many of us have wondered why it is being spent in that way. Regrettably, I think Congress has given the previous administration and this administration far too much money without any congressional guidelines. If one should look at article I, sections 8 and 9 of the Constitution, you would see that we in the Congress have a responsibility to make sure taxpayer money is spent in ways that are most productive. It is our responsibility. When we make a mistake, we can be held responsible. But who has ever held a bureaucrat responsible for wasting billions and billions of dollars? If my colleague from Arizona doesn't like cash for clunkers, maybe he ought to go after the people in the administration who made that decision.

He mentions a couple of instances of abuse of the earmark process. As he pointed out, those were punished criminally with criminal sanctions against the people who committed criminal activities. That is the way it should be.

We need to be able to have open and free discussions on the floor about how money is spent. That is why I welcome this opportunity to discuss the points raised by my colleague from Arizona.

He has rightfully pointed out the importance of NextGen, the new aviation traffic safety scheme and administration for the FAA. Well, we have been supporting that--the chair, Senator Murray, and I--for years. We put as much money into that program as can reasonably be spent this year. That is why it is such a shock to see that he would propose to throw a billion-plus dollars more into that program when it cannot be properly spent. It will then be subject to use as the administration, in its unfettered discretion, wants to use it.

We believe we must continue to monitor the NextGen progress, and when we have major programs like this, they require not only oversight by the administration but by the Congress. That is our job. We are proud to do it, and we will continue to do it. We will ask the tough questions that, apparently, too infrequently are asked by people in the executive branch. I assure you, we have been, we are, and we will continue to be supportive of all reasonable progress and all the work that can be done on NextGen.

Let's just take one small example of what the Senator's language would eliminate. The chair and I added money for flight safety officers--people who examine airlines to make sure that those who are flying are flying safely.

Everybody heard about it and everybody still remembers, if you think about it, last winter's tragic air crash in northern New York State. There were so many things wrong. It was unbelievable: the black marks on the pilot's record, the failure to have a properly trained and disciplined copilot. The list of mistakes was unbelievable.

I had the pleasure, as I stated earlier, of going to a civic club luncheon in my home State in Mexico, MO, and a regional official for the FAA was talking about those problems. My colleagues in the civic club were astounded, and they said: Aren't you supposed to be regulating that? Isn't the FAA supposed to be regulating that?

He said: Yes, we are, but the problem is that there are not enough FDSOs--safety officers--to inspect the airplanes.

So we added money for that because all of us who fly want to see NextGen work. We know we need it. But in the meantime, while they are doing everything they can to get NextGen working, we need to have flight safety officers now because almost everyone in this Chamber and a huge number of the people we serve back in our States depend upon the FAA to ensure flight safety.

Why do we want to have oversight of NextGen? Unfortunately, the FAA has a horrendous record of program management. In fact, the FAA's air traffic modernization effort has been on the GAO's high-risk list since 1995--high risk. Our Government Accountability Office says it is high risk. Fortunately, though, through strict budgetary controls and increased congressional oversight, this program graduated from the list in 2009.

This is not the time to give the FAA hundreds of millions, or billions, of dollars with no oversight or strings attached. NextGen is a complex effort to modernize the air traffic system. Like many big issues and challenges facing the government, simply providing bundles of funding--more than they can use--is not the answer. The FAA has literally wasted billions of taxpayer dollars on similar efforts in the past. I would like to hear my colleagues who object to congressional oversight explain what they are doing to ensure that those in the administration who handle these dollars do the job better.

Some billions of dollars have been wasted and some efforts, such as LORAN-C, did not even produce a usable product after millions and millions of taxpayer dollars were spent. Currently, 6 of the 18 major FAA modernization programs have experienced unacceptable cost growth and schedule delays. To reduce delays, increase safety, and reduce congestion, the FAA needs further oversight, not resources.

I ask my colleagues to join us in exercising, in those committees where there is jurisdiction, proper oversight of the FAA.

Madam President, I will have much more to say about the importance of congressional responsibility for the dollars we spend in this body. Far too much money now is being spent without congressional oversight. Later on, I will cite an example. When I asked a high-ranking administration official when we would have a chance to oversee a program spending billions and billions of dollars in the stimulus program, I was told: You gave us this money; it is none of your business; we are going to make those decisions. That is a recipe for disaster. We have to exercise our responsibility thoughtfully and take responsibility for what we do.

With that, I yield to the chairman.

Madam President, I join with my colleague in thanking the Senator from Oklahoma for offering these amendments. We are looking at these amendments. I think they are good amendments, and I hope they can be accepted. We have some of our staff looking at the details of some of the amendments to see what impact they have. We have to determine whether there would be any untoward consequences from one of the amendments, which I think probably comes within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee, so I would invite them to come down and look at it.

But I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for offering his amendments and for bringing them up for discussion, and I join with my colleague from Washington, the chair of the subcommittee, in urging that we move forward with a vote. We have lots of work to do. We were on this on Thursday and Friday and Monday. Now it is Tuesday, and we have a short day, and then there is Wednesday and there is Thursday. This bill needs to be passed, so moving the amendments forward, getting votes on them, having the discussions is very important.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I echo what the chairman of our subcommittee, the Senator from Washington, has said. We have had it out now. We have had this bill out. It has been on the floor since Thursday. We had Friday and the weekend to look at it. A number of my colleagues, many on this side of the aisle, have talked about offering amendments. I hope they will be ready to bring those amendments down. I think one or two are going to be offered this afternoon so we can have votes scheduled at 5:30, as the majority leader has suggested. It is not only the majority leader, it is the Senator from Washington and I who are urging people to come down. This is a very important bill. Everybody has transportation needs, concerns, and issues. Housing is such a significant challenge right now, given the situation in the financial markets and the situation with housing. We have many people who are dependent upon federally supported housing. We need to make sure we have the funds made available to take care of their needs.

We have special needs projects such as the VASH program for veterans with assisted housing that the Chair and I have entered into. That is very important for bringing our service men and women home and giving them the right kind of accommodation. All of these things are in the context of significant financial problems in the Federal Housing Administration. FHA, if you read the papers, is at a crisis point. I have described it as a ticking timebomb. Regrettably, I think that is still an accurate calculation. We have funds to provide to HUD and to the Secretary of HUD, to the IG and others, to deal with problems before they become more serious. So we need to get this bill passed.

I hope our colleagues would bring their amendments forward. We will only be able to vote until 3 o'clock tomorrow afternoon. We would appreciate them bringing as many amendments as they can forward before then, this afternoon and tomorrow, so we can go about the business of conferencing with the House, getting a measure that will get to the President so he can sign it and put these critically important funds to work.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Johanns amendment be modified with the changes at the desk.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I rise today to support the amendment offered by my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Johanns. He has proposed an amendment to end taxpayer funding for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

We cannot allow taxpayer funds to support groups engaged in repeated voter registration fraud activities, and now their repeated assistance for housing, tax, and mortgage fraud.

I recognize--and let's be clear about it--that ACORN has helped counsel homeowners through the recent mortgage meltdown. Doubtless, they have helped good people find affordable housing solutions. But that cannot outweigh the numerous and repeated abuses of taxpayer dollars allowed to occur in their name.

In my home State of Missouri, several ACORN workers in Kansas City admitted to voter registration fraud. There have been other investigations throughout the State. Unfortunately, ACORN vote fraud in Missouri is not isolated. ACORN workers in Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, New Mexico, Ohio, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Nevada have all been associated with fraudulent voter registration activities.

This long list shows this is not a problem of a handful of rogue employees but, regrettably, an endemic systemwide culture of fraud and abuse. Now we have disgusting and unacceptable video footage of ACORN housing workers counseling on how prostitutes might circumvent mortgage applications, tax law, and child endangerment laws. Again, this despicable behavior is not isolated to one rogue employee but has occurred repeatedly in Washington, Baltimore, and New York.

For those who say that minority and low-income advocates are being picked upon, I say the causes of expanding housing and voting opportunities and wise counseling and assistance to those who need help are too important to be allowed to be sullied by such a morally fraudulent organization. The tireless volunteers and underpaid staffers toiling to help the impoverished and disenfranchised do not deserve to have their reputation pulled down by the organization they work for which cannot put an end to these abuses. All taxpayers deserve to know their hard-earned tax dollars are not going toward voter, housing, mortgage, or tax fraud assistance.

Congress has the opportunity to end this relationship now. I am hoping we will be able to vote this afternoon, and I urge my colleagues to support the Johanns amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, excuse me. I thought I would have time at 10:30.

The Senator said 2 minutes?

May I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended? I need 15 minutes. I ask that morning business be extended for an additional 10 minutes to accommodate my colleague from Ohio.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask that the Senator from Ohio be recognized for 10 minutes, that I be recognized for 15 minutes, and that following that the Senator from Florida be recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, 8 years ago today, terrorists based in Afghanistan carried out the deadliest attacks on American soil since Pearl Harbor. It was on that horrifying September morning in 2001 that America's worst fears were realized. No longer was terrorism something that only happened on the other side of the globe. Instead, those terrorist killers had struck the very heart of America here at home.

Long before 9/11, there were deadly warnings, warnings that for the most part went unheeded. For over two decades, al-Qaida and other terrorists attacked our Nation, from the marine barracks bombing in Beirut in October 1983 to the Pan Am 103 bombing in 1988, from the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 to the Embassy bombings in 1998, to the USS Cole attacks in 2000. While al-Qaida declared war against the United States a long time ago, it took the tragedy of September 11 and the loss of thousands of lives before America decided to fight back.

Today, as we reflect on the anniversary of 9/11 and the lives lost that day, we can honor the victims and their families by finishing the job in Afghanistan and defeating the terrorists who are bent on death and destruction.

I agree with the comments of my colleague, the Senator from Michigan, who said that we need to build the Afghan Army to 240,000. We need to build and strengthen the Afghan police. But we also must support President Obama's chosen general, GEN Stanley McChrystal, in his request for needed troops and resources.

President Obama has called Afghanistan an ``international security challenge of the highest order.'' I agree. When the President stressed that ``the safety of people around the world is at stake,'' he did not overstate the importance of succeeding in Afghanistan.

President Obama used even starker terms when he spoke to our veterans at this year's VFW convention and said:

Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so

again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an

even larger safe haven from which al-Qaida would plot to kill

more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting,

this is fundamental to the defense of our people.

I could not agree more. While the President has used this week to pitch health care reform, I hope after reflecting on the anniversary of the September 11 attacks, he will refocus his attention and that of the American people on achieving victory in Afghanistan.

To repeat, terrorism is the premiere challenge of our time. If we fail to conquer this challenge, nothing else will matter much, not even health care reform. As Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I can tell you that al-Qaida and other radical Islamic

terrorists have not stopped trying to strike Americans at home and our allies around the world.

It is critical that my own party, Republicans, support President Obama in the fight against terrorists. We Republicans must demonstrate that politics ends at the water's edge and strongly support the strategy the President has laid out with his generals for victory in Afghanistan.

Let's avoid the politics we too often saw in Iraq, declaring defeat where our troops in theater were fighting for their lives and our freedom; undercutting our President while he tried to help rally allies to join us in the battle.

For my Democratic colleagues, I hope they follow the stirring words of the leader of their party at the VFW and do not give in to the pundits peddling pessimism. Do not give in to the leftwing that has prematurely declared defeat in Afghanistan, as they so readily declared in Iraq; much, I might add, to the grave concern of our troops in harm's way, which I heard firsthand by e-mail from my son in Fallujah.

Many of the naysayers are saying that victory in Afghanistan is not possible. We hear the refrain over and over: It has been 8 years. Why have we not left? Unfortunately, our country has a history of abandoning Afghanistan.

Earlier this week in an interview, Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged what a serious strategic mistake our Nation made turning our backs on Afghanistan after Soviet forces were defeated there two decades ago. Sadly, under administrations of both parties America has repeatedly ignored the lessons of history, repeatedly turned our backs on Afghanistan. It is no wonder the people of Afghanistan doubt our commitment to their defense.

The problems we face in Afghanistan today are in many ways more complex than those we faced on September 12, 2001. We know al-Qaida has found sanctuary in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas. The Taliban government is gone, but the Taliban insurgency has risen and has grown in strength. This insurgency has prevented the new Afghan Government from establishing its writ throughout Afghanistan and threatens Afghanistan's long-term stability.

If not stopped, this insurgency could once again allow a terrorist safe haven, whether for al-Qaida or other terrorist groups, to flourish in Afghanistan. We cannot let that happen. President Obama's new strategy, being implemented by General McChrystal, is our best chance of success.

Now, do not get me wrong. While we are on the right path to long-term victory in Afghanistan, the road will not be easy. In fact, it is going to get worse before it gets better. We have seen evidence of this already. The fighting has been tough in Afghanistan the last few months, and too many of our brave troops have been wounded or killed in action. Those recent casualties should not come as a surprise, however, to anyone who has been following events in Afghanistan. U.S. Marines recently began clearing rural areas in southern Afghanistan that have served as Taliban safe havens for years.

Before these operations began, our military commanders very clearly warned Congress and the American people that taking southern Afghanistan back from the Taliban would be costly. As the father of a marine who served two tours of duty in Iraq, I did not take this news lightly. But many of my colleagues in the Senate and I agreed then and agree now that defeating the militants is a job that must be done.

Our brave marines will no doubt succeed in clearing these areas in southern Afghanistan of terrorists, the same terrorists who brazenly throw acid in the faces of young girls on their way to school and coldly murder mullahs who have the audacity to disagree with their brand of hatred. But even after this is accomplished, much work will still need to be done in a country recovering from decades of war.

Key to our success is General McChrystal's recognition of the importance of building sustainable security in Afghanistan through the use of ``smart power,'' combining military power with economic development, education, and diplomatic strategies.

While we need military forces to build security in the short term, sustaining long-term security requires smart power. Before Afghans can choose peace and the democratic process, they need enough food to eat and a stable community in which to live. That is exactly what ``smart power'' seeks to do. This same strategy is already proving successful in Afghanistan's Nangarhar Province.

During a visit to Afghanistan in 2006 with General Eikenberry, I heard from him and President Karzai of the need to improve and rebuild the agricultural sector in Afghanistan. I tried to do so through the creation of a land grant university consortium that would set up an agricultural extension service through USAID. Unfortunately, USAID lacked the capacity to implement this vision.

So I turned to my friends, the soldiers and airmen in the Missouri Guard who, in their civilian lives, were farmers and possessed other agricultural expertise to empower the Afghans. For over a year, the Missouri National Guard's Agricultural Development Teams, ADTs, have been helping Afghans harvest high-value alternatives to opium poppies and build irrigation systems and wells for clean water.

Decades of war in Afghanistan have left most of the country mired in 18th century practices. These ADTs provide agricultural specialists to help the Afghans rebuild their agricultural know-how and literally sow the seeds of peace in Afghanistan. Thanks to the ADTs' dedication and hard work, poppy production in Nangarhar has been virtually eliminated, where it was the second most prolific producer of poppies before.

The first of these teams started to work in Nangarhar in February of 2008. The second rotation is underway. I just joined friends and family back in Missouri to celebrate the send-off of the third rotation of the ADTs. By showing a consistent commitment to the people in Nangarhar, these citizen soldiers have built relationships and trust at the local level, influencing hearts and minds to reject the deadly influence of the radical extremists.

Like ``The Show Me State'' motto, Missourians have shown the way forward. Thanks to their leadership, 10 other States are now sending specialized Agricultural Development Teams to provinces throughout Afghanistan.

These successes make it clear that we need to increase the investment in smart power strategies through these agricultural teams. Ten other State National Guards are now committed to the vital mission of building sustainable economies, protecting them with military force province by province. We need appropriate military protection in every province in Afghanistan. The Guard is uniquely suited to this mission. But we also need Federal military and economic efforts.

In addition to smart power, General McChrystal also understands that a counterinsurgency strategy is key to success in Afghanistan. I have been disappointed to listen to the talking heads in Washington advocate recently for an alternative approach, a mere counterterrorism strategy.

It is easy, of course, to play arm chair general from thousands of miles away. But these talking heads seem to have forgotten that a counterterrorism strategy alone failed in Iraq. Not surprisingly, it has failed so far in Afghanistan.

Counterterrorism by remote control does not cut it. The so-called surgical strikes, whether by air or ground, increase civilian casualties and only allow insurgents, from the Taliban to the drug lords to al-Qaida, to filter back in once the attacks are over. This approach leaves the people in the country subject to retaliation if they do not cooperate with the terrorists, which, not surprisingly, they do.

Conversely, the counterinsurgency strategy will ensure the violent insurgents are defeated and do not come back. I also agree with the administration that part of this strategy must allow some of the ``day fighters,'' those who are hard-core al-Qaida supporters or Taliban ideologues, to lay down their weapons and to return to peaceful lives.

If we are getting the job done right, we will naturally lure desperate young men away from the false promises of extremism. A viable and appropriately resourced counterinsurgency strategy is not only essential for success in Afghanistan, it is pivotal in the future of Pakistan.

Driving terrorist safe havens out of eastern and southern Afghanistan is crucial, but not if al-Qaida and Taliban militants continue to find sanctuary in the remote border regions of west Pakistan. The threat these transplanted terrorists pose has become even more real over the last 6 months as the world watched Taliban militants creep closer to Pakistani nuclear facilities.

We must support the Pakistan Government and its newly aggressive military action to take out the terrorists threatening their country and Afghanistan.

The horrors of nuclear-armed terrorists would be put at risk and put at risk freedom-loving people everywhere. This is not a risk we or the world can take. The stakes of turning our backs on this conflict could not be higher. America ignored the fact that Afghanistan became one giant camp for terrorists in the 1990s, and thousands of Americans died on 9/11 as a result. And thousands of our brave troops have died in defense of our Nation since then.

We face a similar threat today, 8 years after 9/11. Al-Qaida has shifted their terrorist sanctuaries from Afghanistan to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, FATA, of Pakistan. The Taliban, the same people who sheltered Osama bin Laden and defied U.S. demands to hand him over, now fight efforts by the international community to bring stability to Afghanistan.

Our U.S. withdrawal, in whole or in part, from Afghanistan now would be a tacit yet unambiguous approval for the return of Taliban control over Afghanistan. In turn, this would lead to the establishment of safe havens for many of the world's most violent and feared terrorists. American abandonment of Afghanistan now could possibly hand over the keys to a nuclear-armed kingdom to violence-loving terrorists.

I returned this past August from Denmark and Greece, two relatively small countries but steadfast allies in their resolve to support the NATO mission and stabilize Afghanistan. Declaring defeat in Afghanistan today would signal to our allies that Americans no longer have the resolve to defeat terrorists. Declaring defeat in Afghanistan today would signal to our allies that simply by waiting us out, violent extremists can triumph over the combined military and economic might of the international community. Finally, declaring defeat in Afghanistan today would signal to the families of those who died on September 11 and the troops who have fought since then in the years since in service to their country that their loved ones died in vain. These are not signals our great Nation should ever send.

Instead, we must declare unequivocally our courage, resolve, and patience to provide needed resources and more troops to allow the smart power strategy of General McChrystal to succeed. This alone is the signal America should send.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask the Senator to withhold the suggestion of an absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I add to what the Chair, Senator Murray, has said. We are open. We are ready to do business. We have, I believe, close to two dozen amendments that have been filed. This would be an ideal time for people to come in and discuss their amendments, to bring them up. We are scheduled, I believe, to have votes on pending HUD amendments on Monday afternoon when we return, and it would be good for people, without time constraints, to come in and explain why they wish to amend the bill, and to allow us to debate those amendments and be ready for votes.

But we know there is interest. We know amendments have been filed, and we will have at least this morning to consider those amendments. I assume the majority leader will bring us in Monday afternoon. So I urge my colleagues, if you have an amendment to be seriously considered, whether it is on this side or the majority side, please bring it forward and let us have an opportunity to look at it, review it, debate it, discuss it, and prepare it for a vote.

With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as ranking member on the HUD, Transportation, and related agencies fiscal year appropriations bill, I have been very pleased to be able to work with Chair Murray and her great staff. It has been a real pleasure. I agree with all she said, except I cannot do anything but thank her for the very kind and generous words she had. She mentioned a longtime experience. Normally back home we refer to experience as something you get when you are expected to get something else. But working on this committee I have found the experience to be a very pleasant one.

Originally I worked with Senator Mikulski. We alternated as chair and ranking member. I think we did a wonderful job. She was a great partner.

I couldn't ask for any better partner to have than Senator Murray. She has been very helpful and very gracious to us.

I have to say this is a very complicated bill. We could not do it without excellent staff work. I thank the staff. There are some new people on with big challenges ahead, but it is an excellent staff, and I am extremely grateful for all that they have taught me over the years.

This is a bill about which everybody can say we could do it better, but I am proud to support it and urge my colleagues to support it. The legislation has a number of extremely important programs which, in today's economy, are critical to helping families overwhelmed by the national financial crisis. It is especially pleasing that we have been able to provide funding for the Nation's most vulnerable--to our homeless, to low-income families and seniors, and to the disabled. Our committee has increased investment in HUD community development programs to provide assistance needed the most.

The chair mentioned the VASH Program. This was an idea we had several years ago. It has gained great support from the Veterans' Administration, from HUD, and everybody who has looked at the appalling problem of men and women who risk their lives, make great contributions to defend our country, and come home without adequate housing, often supportive housing they need. This program has been able to bring together the support services along with the housing that enables these veterans not just to have a shelter over their heads but to be able to get their lives back on track after going through the rigors and horrors of war. It is certainly a program with which I am delighted to be associated, and I thank the chair for her work on it.

We have also provided assistance in critical areas such as section 8, public housing, community development block grants, the HOME program for the homeless, housing for seniors, housing for persons with disabilities, the Lead Hazard Reduction Program--which Senator Mikulski has been a champion of--and early childhood development capital funding, among others.

As I noted in the committee markup of July 1, our biggest concern remains the solvency of the highway trust fund. This is a problem that must be addressed. We hope to work with Chair Boxer of the EPW Committee to deal with the serious problem they have because everybody knows--and I think almost everyone in this body has talked to me about it--how good roads and bridges are critical to attracting and sustaining business, job creation, and economic growth in our communities. We cannot afford an interruption in providing these much needed funds to the States.

Transportation infrastructure work creates jobs, but most importantly it makes a long-term investment in our communities as a key component in our economic recovery. When I had the pleasure of serving Missourians as Governor, one of my top priorities was economic development. So I asked a good team I had there to figure out what makes economic development work, and they got maps out in Missouri and studied everything. The funniest thing we found, the communities that were growing had the best roads available. People have to have transportation if they are going to get to work and if what they produce at work is going to be shipped out. This is a critical element for economic recovery and the strength of our Nation.

Another area I think is absolutely important is the FAA safety inspectors. I don't think it was planned, but it was certainly fortuitous that I attended a local civic club lunch over August where the main speaker was a representative of the FAA in St. Louis. He went through some of the good safety record but went through the horrendous crash that I think shocked all of us. It happened in Buffalo this past winter. He went through all of the problems.

I said: Don't you have safety inspectors?

He said: The problem is, we don't have enough of them.

Yes, these are things that should have been identified. Think of the loss of life in that tragic crash because we didn't have enough safety inspectors to blow the whistle on things and people who should not have been entrusted with the lives of American citizens.

As we looked at this, I, once again, became an even stronger believer in the need for these safety inspectors. We have to have air traffic controllers. These people are all critically important to the traveling public, and nobody I know of in this body, except maybe a few friends from surrounding States, has not flown on a very regular basis. Even they fly, and our families fly. So that is extremely important.

Talking about challenges, as I have mentioned on this floor many times before, I have been very much concerned about the rapid growth of the FAA Single Family Mortgage Insurance Program. FHA's share of the market has grown dramatically, from 2 percent in 2006 to nearly 24 percent at the end of 2008. Before we pat ourselves on the back and say what a great achievement that is, let's take a look at it.

This year the freeze in the private mortgage markets has driven FHA's market share to 63 percent. As I have said many times before, longstanding management and resource challenges and a substantial growth in risky lending due to political pressures has turned FHA into a powder keg, and I fear it is going to explode and leave taxpayers on the hook for another multihundreds of billions of dollars of losses.

Given the continuing challenges in the housing market and continuing job losses, I believe it is highly likely that the FHA will not meet its statutory 2 percent capital reserve when its latest actuarial study is released in the coming weeks. That is the safety net that keeps it from going in the hole and avoiding a bailout. Frankly, I believe this is the tip of the iceberg for the FHA. That is why we must address FHA's problems now because Americans have been signaling that the taxpayer credit card is maxed out and we don't want to put any more on the Federal debt and thus Americans' credit cards.

To address these FHA challenges, I am pleased we were able to include in this bill $20 million for FHA antifraud activities, as well as $6 million in additional funding for the HUD IG to combat predatory lending. The legislation also provides funding for HUD to modernize the FHA information technology systems in order to track effectively its mortgage and associated obligations.

Too many times I have gone to them and said: Well, what is your portfolio?

They say: Well, we do not know.

That is scary because we as taxpayers are on the hook for it. If they go bad, that is on us and on future generations. We believe very strongly HUD and the IG must work together and leverage these funds to fight mortgage fraud and predatory lending.

I have been very much encouraged based on my discussions with HUD Secretary Shawn Donovan and HUD IG Ken Donahue. They understood the problem. They are willing to work with us.

However, they need more resources and a sustained focus to effectively combat predatory lending and mortgage fraud. It can and must be done. We have heard too many stories of people who have been in the business, a very questionable business, of making

predatory loans, of misrepresenting the terms of the loans and the impact on the potential home buyer.

These people's handiwork can be seen in the number of home loans going bad. They pushed the American dream very hard, not telling the potential homeowner what the downside was. For too many Americans this American dream has turned into the American nightmare. We have to put a stop to it.

We make a strong contribution in this bill toward giving the able leaders in HUD, FHA, and in the IG the resources to deal with it.

Again, I thank my chair and her very good staff for all the hard work. While it is not perfect, it is very good legislation. I look forward to joining with my partner, Senator Murray, in supporting this legislation.

I yield the floor.

I agree with the chair. If somebody has a good amendment, we would sure like to see it and get started on it. Because the sooner you get here, the better consideration and, I might hasten to add, possibly the more favorable consideration you will receive.

I know there are some potentially good ideas lurking out there. So bring the good ideas now. If you have some ideas that are not so good, you can wait to the end and we will see if we can close it out.

There is a declining level of tolerance, I have noticed, sometimes when people are on the floor. So I join and urge the request to all our colleagues to come and offer such amendments as they choose to offer.

Mr. President, auto jobs form the backbone of American manufacturing, especially in the Midwest. Millions of Americans, and in my home--state of Missouri more than 200,000 workers, depend on the auto industry for their livelihoods.

Unfortunately all of those jobs were at risk when the big three domestic auto companies almost went completely under.

Recognizing the importance of this industry to our economy and millions of workers, the government acted to protect these auto jobs.

One of those actions was to pass the Cash for Clunkers Program. I supported this program because I thought it would help save thousands of jobs at auto dealers, parts plant, and assembly plants.

Also, this program was designed to help consumers with the cost of more fuel-efficient cars and, ultimately, in the long-term benefit the environment with reduced exhaust emissions.

This is one government program that has actually exceeded everyone's expectation.

Folks in Missouri and across the Nation have been flocking to once rather empty car lots.

In fact, there were tens of thousands of new car purchases made through the program after only a week.

Cash for Clunkers has given a much needed jump-start to dealers and the auto industry that have been suffering with the worst car sales in recent history.

This program has benefitted consumers who would otherwise not be able to afford a new vehicle and has boosted small business dealers in rural and small communities across Missouri and the country.

It is not to say that the program, like most government-run programs, has had an entirely smooth ride. I have heard from Missouri auto dealers who have been frustrated by government redtape, which has stalled some sales and created confusion among dealers and car buyers.

This uncertainty has rightfully caused some heartburn for dealers who are required under the program to provide funding up front for the consumers and then must receive approval from the government before they receive reimbursement. Redtape and delays due to inadequate government resources to administer the program have left many dealers wondering if they will be left holding the bag.

I have been disappointed and dismayed to learn that the Department of Transportation does not know how many commitments have been made and paid for by dealers. Thus, we cannot even be sure that the existing program will have enough money the meet the commitments.

Under the legislation passed by the House, cash for clunkers would be extended and provided an additional $2 billion by using unspent funds from the so-called stimulus bill.

I say so-called because so far it has only stimulated the growth of the deficit and the growth of government employment. Taking $2 billion from that program is the best way to see we get a boost to the economy, now, when we need it.

Fully offsetting additional funding to extend the program is a critical requirement to ensure that we are not adding to the growing Federal deficit.

I am very concerned about potential shell-games being reported in the media about Democratic leadership plans to backfill the stimulus bill in future appropriations.

To be clear, my support for extending cash for clunkers is contingent upon the program not adding to our deficit and that it be temporary, not a bottomless pit for taxpayers.

The purpose of cash for clunkers was to jump-start the auto industry and provide immediate and temporary help to get consumers back on car lots, not to provide a long-term subsidy to the industry and, thus I will not be supporting continued cash for clunkers.

While cash for clunkers has provided a simulative jolt to get people onto car lots again, we cannot hang our hats on this program and expect to have a lasting recovery. I remain concerned about the credit markets, continuing job losses, and the rising likelihood of higher taxes and larger deficits under the spending plans proposed the, administration.

Nevertheless, as a supporter of the initial $1 billion provided to cash for clunkers to jump-start the struggling auto industry, I believe that the program should be extended one last time as long as it is funded with unspent stimulus funds to ensure dealers are not on the hook for the cost of the rebates due to the government's management failures.

This program was meant to jump-start, not subsidize, auto sales, so I support a one-time extension.

Also, it is critical that the Obama administration make sure that bureaucratic hiccups don't turn this program into a nightmare for our dealers and consumers.

The bottom line is that an extension paid for with unused stimulus dollars makes sense this one time since this program seems to have worked better then the misnamed Recovery Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Few positions carry more honor, or solemn duty, than becoming a Justice of the highest court of the greatest democracy.

Also, few duties carry more honor, or solemn responsibility, than giving advice and consent on who should become a Justice on the highest Court of the greatest democracy.

The walls of that Supreme Court form the vessel that holds the great protections of our liberty.

Those black robes give life to the Constitution's freedoms and the flourishing of our ideas and beliefs.

If the Congress is the heart of our democracy, walking to the drumbeat of the people, then the Supreme Court is our soul guiding us on what is right and what is wrong.

In my role as a Senator voting to fill that vessel, issuing those robes, I have always looked to the Constitution to guide my obligation to give advice and consent.

It is an obligation separate and apart from my role as a legislator, when I vote for or against legislation before this body.

Indeed, if the Constitution meant for us merely to vote on nominees, by simple or super majorities, it could easily have said so.

If we were meant to do nothing more than cast a vote based on whether we agreed or disagreed with a nominee, where would we be then?

Would the halls of government be empty every time a President faced a Congress of the opposite party?

Would the Cabinet sit empty because of partisan divide?

Would vacancies to the Supreme Court go unfilled, because a majority of one party simply disagreed with the President of another?

Of course, that could not have been the intent of the Framers.

What kind of Justices would we have, with nothing more than partisan majority divides?

Would a Senate controlled by the opposite party allow only the most moderate of voices, or justices with no voice at all?

Would it approve only judges that said nothing, or wrote nothing with which the majority disagreed?

If some are saying that a Democratic President should not have a liberal Justice, does that mean a Republican President should not have conservative Justices?

That is not something I could support, for I surely supported judicially conservative Justices such as Roberts and Alito, Thomas and Bork--Scalia certainly if I had been in the Senate at the time.

That is the kind of Justice I support, a judge that calls balls and strikes like an umpire, not letting their own personal views bias the outcome of the trial.

The statue of justice is blindfolded for a reason, so that she cannot tip the scales of justice with the prejudice of bias or belief.

But I have supported Justices with whom I disagreed on this philosophy. Justices Breyer and Ginsberg come to mind.

They take a more active role in shaping their decisions, to fit an ideal of their own vision.

I supported these nominees of a Democratic President, as did 86 of my colleagues for Justice Breyer, and 95 of my colleagues for Justice Ginsberg.

I hope those votes do not reflect a time that has slipped away, when partisanship did not infect every facet of our political life.

I could forget that time, as President Obama did when he was a Senator.

I could easily say, as Senator Obama said, that I disagree with a nominee's judicial approach, and that allows me to oppose the nominee of a different party.

Luckily for President Obama, I do not agree with Senator Obama.

I reject the Obama approach to nominees.

While I reject the way Senator Obama approached nominations, that does not mean that I support the way Judge Sotomayor approaches judging.

I disagree that the civil rights of a firefighter mean so little that they do not deserve even a full opinion before an appeals court.

I disagree that we should inspire with suggestions that wisdom has anything to do with the sex of a person or the color of their skin.

I disagree that judges should ever consider foreign law when looking for meaning in U.S. statutes or the U.S. Constitution.

I disagree that the second amendment's protection of an individual's right to bear arms does not apply to States.

But I do agree that Judge Sotomayor has proven herself a well qualified jurist.

I do agree that she has proven herself as a talented and accomplished student, Federal prosecutor, corporate litigator, Federal trial judge, and Federal appeals court judge.

She has the backing of many in the law enforcement community including the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs Association, and the National Association of District Attorneys.

I do agree that Judge Sotomayor has proven herself as a leader of her community, who inspires the pride and hopes of a large and growing portion of our American melting pot.

I do agree that Judge Sotomayor has proven herself as a symbol of breaking through glass ceilings.

And I do agree that my choice for President did not win the last election, and that our people's democracy has spoken for the change and they are getting it. Elections do have consequences.

Now, hearing the call of that decision of our democracy does not mean that I support the President in everything he has proposed.

I did not agree with a stimulus that has meant only more government spending and national debt as the unemployment continues to rise.

I do not agree with cap and trade legislation that will raise energy taxes and kill millions of lost jobs without even changing the climate because China and India refuse to act the same.

I do not agree with a government takeover of health care that forces millions of Americans off their current health care, drives health care costs even higher for families, rations care, restricts access to the latest cures and treatments, and puts health care decisions in the hands of government bureaucrats rather than doctors and patients.

But I do agree that the country is tired of partisanship infecting every debate. The country is tired of every action by the Congress becoming a political battle.

And so, I will not follow the hypocrisy of many of my Democratic colleagues who refused to support Justices Roberts and Alito because they disagreed with their judicial philosophy and now suggest that Republicans not do the same.

I respect and agree with the legal reasoning of my colleagues who will vote no, but I will follow the direction of the past, and my hope for the future, with less polarization, less confrontation, less partisanship.

My friends in the party can be assured that I will work as hard as anybody to ensure that the next Presidential election has consequences in the opposite direction.

For my conservative friends, the best way to ensure that we have conservative judges on the bench is work to see that we elect Presidents who will nominate them.

Then we can resume filling the bench with more judges like Justice Roberts.

For my liberal friends I hope they remember this day when another qualified nominee is before the Senate who is conservative. The standard set by Senator Obama should not govern the Senate.

As for Judge Sotomayor, she has the accomplishments and qualities that have always meant Senate confirmation for such a nomination.

The Senate has reviewed her nomination and has asked her its questions. There have been no significant findings against her. There has been no public uprising against her.

I do not believe the Constitution tells me I should refuse to support her merely because I disagree with her.

I will support her. I will be proud for her, the community she represents and the American dream she shows possible.

I will cast my vote in favor of the nomination of Judge Sotomayor, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.