[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 119 (Monday, August 3, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8647-S8663]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2997, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2997) making appropriations for Agriculture, 
     Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2010, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Kohl/Brownback amendment No. 1908, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Kohl (for Tester) amendment No. 2230 (to amendment No. 
     1908), to clarify a provision relating to funding for a 
     National Animal Identification Program.
       Brownback amendment No. 2229 (to amendment No. 1908), to 
     establish within the Food and Drug Administration two review 
     groups to recommend solutions for the prevention, diagnosis, 
     and treatment of rare diseases and neglected diseases of the 
     developing world.
       Kohl (for Murray/Baucus) amendment No. 2225 (to amendment 
     No 1908), to allow State and local governments to participate 
     in the Conservation Reserve Program.
       Kohl (for Nelson (FL)) amendment No. 2226 (to amendment No. 
     1908), to prohibit funds made available under this act from 
     being used to enforce a travel or conference policy that 
     prohibits an event from being held in a location based on a 
     perception that the location is a resort or vacation 
     destination.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona is 
recognized.


                Amendment No. 1910 to Amendment No. 1908

  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 1910 
which is at the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.

[[Page S8648]]

  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1910 to Amendment No. 1908.

  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To strike a setaside for certain grants authorized under the 
                       Rural Electrification Act)

       On page 49, strike line 7 and all that follows through 
     ``U.S.C. 918a):'' on line 12.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I intend to have three amendments 
considered. I discussed with the majority leader and the Republican 
leader how we would proceed. So at this time, after I make a brief 
remark about amendment No. 1910, I will be calling up amendment No. 
1912 and amendment No. 2030, both of which are at the desk.
  Amendment No. 1910 eliminates, as suggested and recommended strongly 
by the President of the United States, the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture's High Energy Cost Grant Program. This is a $17.5 million 
subsidy designed to pay for energy generation systems in rural areas. 
This program was proposed for termination by the administration because 
it is duplicative of existing programs, including USDA's own Rural 
Utilities Service Loan Program.
  Under the fiscal year 2010 budget, the Rural Utilities Service 
Program would provide $6.6 billion in electric loans at no cost to the 
taxpayers. In comparison, providing $17.5 million in grants, as opposed 
to a loan, actually costs the taxpayer $17.5 million. Moreover, 
Senators should know there is $20 million in unobligated high energy 
cost grants still available from the previous year.
  This is the submission to Congress, the budget of the U.S. Government 
for fiscal year 2010, by the Office of Management and Budget. Guess 
what. In there is a page that is titled ``Termination: High Energy Cost 
Grant, Department of Agriculture.'' It goes on to say:

       The administration proposes to eliminate the High Energy 
     Cost Grants program because it is duplicative of and less 
     effective than the Rural Utilities Service's electric loan 
     program.

  Those are not my words, those are the words of the Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget, who, at the direction of the President 
of the United States, prepared this document of certain programs that 
should be eliminated.
  It goes on to say:

       The 2010 budget proposes elimination of the duplicative 
     High Energy Cost Grants program in favor of electric loans, 
     which are more cost effective from the standpoint of the 
     taxpayer. Using loans to provide support is less expensive 
     than using grants because loans provide more support . . . 
     with fewer appropriated dollars. For example, the 2010 budget 
     provides for $6.6 billion in electric loans at no cost to the 
     taxpayer. In comparison, providing $18 million in grants 
     costs the taxpayers $18 million. In addition, the funds for 
     High Energy Cost Grants have not been obligated in a timely 
     manner and $20 million in balances from previous year funding 
     are still available.

  In other words, this amendment eliminates a duplicative, unnecessary 
program, according to the Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget, and at the President's request, he has sent over one of the 
programs they want eliminated. So somehow it ends up back in the 
appropriations bill.
  It seems to me it is a pretty clear-cut case again that at some point 
we have to try to make some kinds of cost savings. I admit, as we are 
throwing around billions and trillions of dollars, as we do here 
lately, $17.5 million is probably not much money given the kind of 
behavior the Congress and the administration have been up to lately. I 
would still argue, though, to millions of Americans, including those in 
my home State of Arizona, $17.5 million--in the view of the 
administration and a clear argument, it is not a complicated issue--
should be eliminated.
  I hope we will be able to vote on this amendment.


                Amendment No. 1912 to Amendment No. 1908

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 1912 which is at the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1912 to amendment No. 1908.

  The amendment is as follows:


                amendment no. 1912 to amendment no. 1908

(Purpose: To strike a provision relating to certain watershed and flood 
                         prevention operations)

       On page 31, strike line 20 and all that follows through 
     page 32, line 10.

  Mr. McCAIN. This amendment eliminates the U.S. Watershed and Flood 
Prevention Operations Program, also known as the Small Watersheds 
Program.
  This program is a textbook example of how reckless earmarks can 
devastate a government program. Like the previous four Presidents' 
budgets, the administration proposes to terminate this account because 
Congress has earmarked virtually all of this program in recent years, 
meaning that the agency is unable to prioritize projects on any merit-
based criteria such as cost effectiveness.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, the Small Watersheds 
Program was 97 percent earmarked in fiscal year 2009, which severely 
marginalized the USDA's ability to evaluate and prioritize projects. 
Earmarks may partly be to blame for the findings of a 2003 Office of 
Management and Budget study that showed this program has a lower 
economic return than any other Federal flood prevention program, 
including those in the Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency.
  The onslaught of earmarks over the years has almost certainly 
contributed to the current backlog of about 300 unfunded authorized 
small watershed projects totaling $1.2 billion. As it was originally 
intended, the Small Watersheds Program may be a worthwhile program. I 
am sure we will hear a vigorous defense of this program. But by 
inundating it with so-called congressionally designated projects, the 
program is challenged to function properly to the point where the 
administration would rather see it gone.
  Note this. Our friends on the Appropriations Committee have not given 
up on plundering it yet. This bill provides $24.3 million for this 
program, including $16.5 million in earmarks for projects such as $2 
million for the Pocasset River in Rhode Island, which is not 
authorized; $1.5 million for Dunloup Creek in West Virginia, which is 
not authorized; and $1 million for the DuPage County Watershed in 
Illinois, which is not authorized, to name a few.
  I refer back again to the Office of Management and Budget publication 
entitled ``Terminations, Reductions and Savings,'' where the 
administration proposes to terminate watershed and flood prevention 
operation programs. Congress has earmarked virtually all of this 
program in recent years, meaning that agencies are unable to prioritize 
projects on any merit-based criteria such as cost effectiveness.
  So, again, these first two amendments, the President of the United 
States, the Office of Management and Budget, most any casual observer 
would argue need to be eliminated.


                Amendment No. 2030 to Amendment No. 1908

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 2030, which is at the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2030 to amendment No. 1908.

  The amendment is as follows:


                           amendment no. 2030

             (Purpose: To prohibit funding for an earmark)

       On page 85, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       Sec. 7__.  None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be used for the Iowa Vitality Center, Iowa State 
     University.

  Mr. McCAIN. This amendment is very simple. It prohibits funding of 
the $250,0000 earmark for the Iowa Vitality Center at Iowa State 
University.
  This earmark is a textbook example of how difficult it is to stop 
funding for

[[Page S8649]]

an earmark once it starts. According to the Web site of the earmark 
sponsor, since fiscal year 2001, the Iowa Vitality Center has received 
$2,579,000. For what? What is so vital about the Iowa Vitality Center 
that it has required over $2.5 million of scarce taxpayer funds?
  Well, according to their own Web site, the purpose of the Iowa 
Community Vitality Center is to serve as a catalyst in fostering 
collaborative public-private partnerships among nonmetro community 
interests to stimulate vitality and address barriers to growth.
  I am not making that up. I am not making it up. That is what the Web 
site says. Let me repeat. We spent $2.5 million. The purpose of the 
Iowa Community Vitality Center is to serve as a catalyst in fostering 
collaborative public-private partnerships among nonmetro community 
interests to stimulate vitality and address barriers to growth.
  Is there anyone who has a clue as to what that means? I wanted to be 
clear. I am not questioning the merits of this program, but I am 
questioning the process. Why was this funding earmarked? If the 
Vitality Center is such a critical national priority at this time, why 
wasn't the funding authorized since 2001 or requested by the President 
in his budget submission?
  The funding for the Vitality Center is often justified as helping 
communities ``plan strategically'' and as ``representing diverse 
interest across the state.'' However, the sponsors of the earmark 
neglect to explain why 10 years of strategic planning have been 
insufficient to accomplish this center's stated purpose.
  Our current economic situation and our vital national security 
interest concerns require, now more than ever, that we prioritize our 
Federal spending. We need to prove to the American people that we are 
serious about changing the way we do business and we should start with 
ending the practice of earmarking. We need to put our national 
priorities first and eliminate unnecessary wasteful earmarks such as 
the Iowa Vitality Center.
  The Agriculture appropriations bill for the year 2010 spends about 
$123 billion in direct and mandatory spending, an amount that is 
approximately $234 million above the administration's budget request. 
We debate this legislation in the shadow of the fiscal year 2009 
omnibus bill, the omnibus bill which doled out $108 billion for U.S. 
Department of Agriculture programs, as well as the infamous economic 
stimulus package which provided another $26.5 billion in agricultural 
spending. So 2009 is certainly a good year to be a U.S. Department of 
Agriculture program office.
  I acknowledge that many of the programs funded by this are valid for 
providing important services to the agricultural community at large. I 
commend the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee for 
reporting this bill in a timely manner. I agree we should ensure that 
our farmers stay out of the red and that some Federal involvement is 
necessary to assist low-income families under the nutrition programs.
  Unfortunately, Congress once again has conformed to the practice of 
diverting precious taxpayer dollars into an array of special interest 
projects which have not been authorized or requested, and in the case 
of two of these, they have been requested to be terminated by the 
administration.
  The committee report accompanying this bill contains 296 
congressionally directed spending items, a fancy new term for 
``earmarks,'' totaling over $220 million. None of these projects was 
requested by the administration. Many of them were not authorized or 
competitively bid in any way. No hearings were held to judge whether 
these were national priorities worthy of scarce taxpayer dollars. They 
are in this bill for one reason and one reason only--because of the 
prerogatives of a select few Members of the Senate to serve their own 
interests over those of the American taxpayer.
  Let's take a look at some of the earmarks. Let's take a look at some 
of the earmarks that are in this bill and its accompanying reports. 
There is $250,000 for gypsy moth research in New Jersey. Don't gypsy 
moths travel all over the country? Why just New Jersey? Over the past 
10 years, the taxpayer has funded $42.8 million worth of gypsy moth 
research.
  There is $500,000 for the hemlock woolly adelgid at the University of 
Tennessee. This is an aphid-like insect. That is a lot of money for 
that bug.
  There is $235,000 for noxious weed management in Nevada. I think a 
better term for this one is obnoxious. Over the past 10 years, over 
$15.4 million has been earmarked for Nevada noxious weed management.
  There is $200,000 for cotton research at Texas Tech University. 
Congress subsidizes the industry, the cotton industry, to the tune of 
$3 billion a year.
  There is $300,000 for floriculture at the University of Hawaii. 
Nearly $3.5 million has been earmarked for floriculture in the past 10 
years.
  There is $165,000 for the Maple Research Center at the University of 
Vermont. According to the center's director, Tim Perkins, Maple syrup 
science is a nose-and-mouth science. The technical term is 
organoleptic, which means you put it in your mouth and taste it, says 
Perkins. We get people who know the flavor of maple syrup, and off-
flavors, and they try each one. Laboratory tests using gas 
chromatography provide a breakdown of the many compounds in the syrup, 
which supplements the tastebud approach. Since 1998, the University of 
Vermont Proctor Maple Research Center has received over $2.1 million in 
earmarks.
  There is $75,000 for farm safety education for children in Iowa. Who 
better than a bureaucrat in Washington to teach a farmer's children to 
be safe. The 10-year total for earmarks for Iowa farm safety 
education--over $4.2 million.
  There is $300,000 for shrimp aquaculture research at the University 
of Southern Mississippi Thad Cochran Marine Agricultural Center. Over 
the past 10 years, we have earmarked over $30.4 million on shrimp 
aquaculture research.
  There is $1 million for potato research at Oregon State University. 
We have earmarked, over the past 10 years, $7.1 million for potato 
research.
  There is $600,000 which is gobbled down by the National Wild Turkey 
Federation for projects in Nebraska, Georgia, Mississippi, and South 
Carolina. Since fiscal year 2004, the National Wild Turkey Federation 
has received over $1.7 million in earmarks.
  There is $265,000 for minimizing blackbird damage to sunflowers in 
North and South Dakota. This is an earmark ``regular'' for the 
Agriculture appropriations bill. Evidently the South Dakota sunflowers 
have a rather serious Alfred Hitchcock ``Birds'' problem. According to 
the USDA, blackbird management in North and South Dakota has received 
over $1.2 million over the past 5 years.
  There is $200,000 for Washington State University to study goatgrass. 
Since 2003, $767,000 has been earmarked for goatgrass research.
  There is $372,000 for the University of Pennsylvania to study dairy 
farm profitability. If you are relying on a federally mandated study to 
make your dairy farm profitable, you might want to find a new business 
plan, because nearly $3.8 million has been earmarked for dairy farm 
profitability over the last 10 years.
  There is $288,000 for the Iowa Soybean Association. Since 2002, over 
$3.3 million has been earmarked for the Iowa Soybean Association. There 
is $1 million for Mormon cricket control in Nevada; the 10-year total 
for Mormon cricket control, nearly $13.7 million. There is $260,000 for 
wine grape research at Washington State University. According to 
Washington State University's own Web site, the wine industry generates 
$3 billion in their State, so we are going to pour another $260,000 
into it. There is $350,000 for the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture 
to support the ``specialty meats industry.'' Specialty meats industry? 
Since 2004, the Wisconsin specialty meats industry has received over 
$12.7 million in earmarks. There is $340,000 for the Center for Beef 
Excellence in Pennsylvania. According to their own press release, the 
center was established by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture 
just last year. At least we can agree that a $340,000 handout from 
Congress is quite a good start. Over $1 million has been earmarked to 
the Center for Beef Excellence since 2005. There is $450,000 for the 
University of Northern

[[Page S8650]]

Iowa to study agriculture-based lubricants. They have received over $3 
million in the last 10 years.
  It is not surprising that the largest earmark in this bill goes to 
Hawaii. The Aloha State bags $5 million to continue construction of an 
Agricultural Research Service center to study agricultural practices in 
the Pacific. As my colleagues might know, ARS construction is one of 
the most heavily earmarked accounts in government, so much so that the 
President's budget actually proposed zeroing out Agricultural Research 
Service center construction for fiscal year 2010 because ``Congress 
routinely earmarks small amounts of funding for [these projects] 
located throughout the nation. The result of scattering funding in this 
manner is that . . . few, if any, of the projects are able to reach the 
critical threshold of funding that would allow construction to begin. 
Funding construction over such a long time significantly increases the 
amount of money needed to fully complete these projects as well as 
postponing their completion for many years.''
  So here we have a program that is earmarked so severely that it 
delays and drives up the cost of approved construction projects. Not 
only are we defiantly funding this Hawaiian facility, the bill provides 
a total of $47 million for a list of 15 of these facilities ranging 
from $4 million for a fruit lab in West Virginia to $2 million for an 
animal waste research facility in Kentucky.
  Another amendment I have filed proposes striking the $50.7 million 
contained in this bill for USDA's Resource Conservation and Development 
Program, known as RC&D. The RC&D Program was created in 1962 to promote 
resource conservation through community-based conservation leadership 
councils. The RC&D councils have helped to leverage local funding for 
efforts such as soil mapping or erosion control for rural areas. The 
administration supports terminating this program because, in their own 
words:

       After 47 years, the goal of the RC&D program has been 
     accomplished. These councils have developed sufficiently 
     strong state and local ties . . . and are now able to secure 
     funding for their continued operation without Federal 
     assistance. The program has been in operation for decades and 
     these councils have a proven track record of success, showing 
     that they have outlived the need for Federal funding.

  A half-century-old program proposed for termination by this 
administration, yet retained by appropriators for its spoils.
  I could go on for a long time.
  This bill funds several other government programs that were proposed 
for termination in the President's budget. I filed amendments to strike 
these programs as well as zero out the ARS construction account. If 
successfully adopted, these amendments would save taxpayers over $144.5 
million. As I have said throughout my comments, some of these programs 
may have merit and may be helpful to the designated communities. But 
considering our current budgetary crisis, it is inappropriate to 
include them in this year's agricultural spending bill, especially when 
they have been identified for termination or reduction.
  I hope my colleagues will agree that we have higher spending 
priorities that are directly related to the purposes of this 
Agriculture bill. This bill is intended to address farmers, women, 
children, and rural communities with the greatest need and should not 
be used as a vehicle for piggybacking pet projects to get the support 
of special interest constituents.
  It is no surprise that many of these earmarks are not included for 
practical purposes. I know many of my colleagues have spoken about the 
economic struggles of America's hard-working farmers and low-income 
families. The farmers and struggling families I know are tired of 
watching their hard-earned money go down the drain. I intend to fight 
every single unnecessary, unrequested, unauthorized earmark in this and 
every other appropriations bill.
  I filed 313 amendments to this bill. The bulk of those amendments 
seek to strike the 296 earmarks, now humorously called 
``congressionally directed spending items,'' in the committee report on 
this bill. I have now offered only three of these amendments. Let me 
assure my colleagues I have no problem with offering, debating, and 
voting on each and every one of the amendments I have filed. The time 
has come to end this practice.
  This first amendment, which we may vote on today, I want to 
emphasize, eliminates, as recommended by the President and the Office 
of Management and Budget, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's High 
Energy Cost Grants Program, a $17.5 million subsidy designed to pay for 
energy generation systems in rural areas. It was proposed for 
termination by the administration because it is duplicative of existing 
programs. Under the fiscal year 2010 budget, the rural utility service 
program would provide $6.6 billion in electric loans at no cost to the 
taxpayers. Senators should know there is $20 million in unobligated 
high energy cost grants still available from last year.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KOHL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, the Senate began work on the Agriculture 
appropriations bill last Thursday. Senator Brownback and I were here 
then to consider amendments Senators might wish to offer. We were back 
on the bill Friday, and we were again prepared to consider amendments. 
It is my hope we can complete action on the bill today. The filing 
deadline for first-degree amendments was 3:30, and a cloture vote is 
scheduled for 5:30. Once we finish this bill, the Senate still has 
important work to do this week before the start of the August recess. I 
hope any Senator who has an amendment to offer will come to the floor 
in the next few hours to see if we can dispose of all remaining issues 
and make it possible to go to final passage as early as this evening.


                Amendment No. 2233 to Amendment No. 1908

  I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call 
up the following amendment which is at the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration: Kohl amendment No. 2233.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2233 to amendment No. 1908.

  Mr. KOHL. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide the Food and Drug Administration the ability to 
 collect user fees as authorized by the Family Smoking Prevention and 
                          Tobacco Control Act)

       On page 59, line 22, strike ``2,995,218,000'' and insert 
     ``3,230,218,000''.
       On page 60, line 9, strike ``and''.
       On page 60, line 12, after ``expended'', insert ``; and 
     $235,000,000 shall be derived from tobacco product user fees 
     authorized by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco 
     Control Act (Public Law 111-31) and shall be credited to this 
     account and remain available until expended''.
       On page 60, line 14, strike ``and'', and insert after ``, 
     and tobacco product'' after ``generic drug''.
       On page 61, line 12, strike (7) and insert ``(8)''; after 
     ``Research;'' insert ``(7) $216,523,000 shall be for the 
     Center for Tobacco Products and for related field activities 
     in the Office of Regulatory Affairs;''; and strike 
     ``$115,882,000'' and insert ``$117,225,000''.
       On page 61, line 15, strike ``(8)'' and insert ``(9)''.
       On page 61, line 16, strike $168,728,000'' and insert 
     ``$171,526,000''.
       On page 61, line 17, strike ``(9)'' and insert ``(10)''.
       On page 61, line 18, strike ``$185,793,000'' and insert 
     ``$200,129,000''.

  Mr. KOHL. I ask unanimous consent for the adoption of this amendment 
and the Tester amendment No. 2230 which has been approved by both 
sides.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 2233 and 2230) were agreed to.

[[Page S8651]]

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues, if people have 
amendments, that they come down to the floor now and start working on 
these. It would be my hope we can move through this bill as fast as 
possible so that we can get to the debate on Judge Sotomayor and have 
as much time as possible to deal with that. I urge colleagues to start 
working with us on these issues. By unanimous consent, the cloture vote 
has been scheduled for 5:30 today. There are things we need to get 
resolved; they should be taken care of now.


                    Amendment No. 2229, as Modified

  Mr. BROWN. I send a modification to my amendment No. 2229 to the desk 
and ask unanimous consent that it be accepted as modified.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is 
so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 85, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       Sec. 7__. (a) The Commissioner of Food and Drugs may 
     establish within the Food and Drug Administration a review 
     group which shall recommend to the Commissioner of Food and 
     Drugs appropriate preclinical, trial design, and regulatory 
     paradigms and optimal solutions for the prevention, 
     diagnosis, and treatment of rare diseases: Provided, That the 
     Commissioner of Food and Drugs shall appoint 8 individuals 
     employed by the Food and Drug Administration to serve on the 
     review group: Provided further, That members of the review 
     group shall have specific expertise relating to the 
     development of articles for use in the prevention, diagnosis, 
     or treatment of rare diseases, including specific expertise 
     in developing or carrying out clinical trials.
       (b) The Commissioner of Food and Drugs may establish within 
     the Food and Drug Administration a review group which shall 
     recommend to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs appropriate 
     preclinical, trial design, and regulatory paradigms and 
     optimal solutions for the prevention, diagnosis, and 
     treatment of neglected diseases of the developing world: 
     Provided, That the Commissioner of Food and Drugs shall 
     appoint 8 individuals employed by the Food and Drug 
     Administration to serve on the review group: Provided 
     further, That members of the review group shall have specific 
     expertise relating to the development of articles for use in 
     the prevention, diagnosis, or treatment of neglected diseases 
     of the developing world, including specific expertise in 
     developing or carrying out clinical trials: Provided further, 
     That for the purposes of this section the term ``neglected 
     disease of the developing world'' means a tropical disease, 
     as defined in section 524(a)(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360n(a)(3)).
       (c) The Commissioner of Food and Drugs shall--
       (1) submit, not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     establishment of review groups under subsections (a) and (b), 
     a report to Congress that describes both the findings and 
     recommendations made by the review groups under subsections 
     (a) and (b);
       (2) issue, not later than 180 days after submission of the 
     report to Congress under paragraph (1), guidance based on 
     such recommendations for articles for use in the prevention, 
     diagnosis, and treatment of rare diseases and for such uses 
     in neglected diseases of the developing world; and
       (3) develop, not later than 180 days after submission of 
     the report to Congress under paragraph (1), internal review 
     standards based on such recommendations for articles for use 
     in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of rare diseases 
     and for such uses in neglected diseases of the developing 
     world.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. This is an amendment that has been cleared by both 
sides. It is on neglected and rare diseases. Senator Brown has asked to 
be a cosponsor. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
set aside and that this be considered the pending amendment and that it 
be passed.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered. If there is no further debate on the amendment, the question 
is on agreeing to amendment No. 2229, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2229), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. What we are trying to do is to work through the 
amendments to the degree we can. We certainly want to. I ask our 
colleagues to bring those to the floor as soon as they possibly can.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 
minutes as in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                          Sotomayor Nomination

  Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to rise in support of 
Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to be an Associate Justice of the 
Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Sotomayor's background 
demonstrates that she is an extremely well-qualified, mainstream judge 
who has the utmost respect for precedent and believes in fidelity to 
the law.
  I have always said I do not believe in a litmus test for judicial 
nominees, and I will look at the nominee's record as a whole. Judge 
Sotomayor's record, in its entirety, is nothing short of impressive. 
With 17 years on the Federal bench, she has more Federal judicial 
experience than any Supreme Court nominee in 100 years.
  Judge Sotomayor has a compelling, ``pull yourself up by your 
bootstraps'' personal story. She was raised by a single mom who 
emphasized education as she struggled to support her family while 
working as a nurse. With her mother's strong work ethic and focus on 
education deeply ingrained in her, Judge Sotomayor went on to graduate 
summa cum laude from Princeton University, and she received her law 
degree from Yale Law School, where she was editor of the Yale Law 
Journal.
  She then became a prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney's 
office, where she was tough on criminals and gained valuable 
perspective for her later career as a judge. She also became active in 
many areas of her community, showing her desire to serve others and 
promote justice in society. Having served as a volunteer for many 
efforts in my hometown of Greensboro, North Carolina, I know how 
serving others can enhance one's understanding and appreciation of the 
world.
  After her time as a prosecutor, Judge Sotomayor went into practice as 
a commercial litigator, where she dealt with business and finance law--
an area of importance to my State of North Carolina. In 1991, upon the 
recommendation of then-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, she 
was nominated by President George H.W. Bush to serve as a Federal judge 
for the Southern District Court of New York, and in 1992 she was 
unanimously confirmed for that position by the Senate.
  While serving as a district court judge, she was known for her 
toughness, fairness, and dedication to the law--characteristics of a 
strong judge. Because of her outstanding record on the district court 
level, Judge Sotomayor was nominated, in 1997, by President William 
Jefferson Clinton, to serve as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for 
the Second Circuit. In 1998, the Senate confirmed her by a wide margin.
  Among the Senators voting for her confirmation was former North 
Carolina Senator Jesse Helms. I would like to think that Senator Helms 
saw in Judge Sotomayor the same qualities President Obama saw: fairness 
of mind, supreme intellect, and an unsurpassed devotion to the law and 
to our system of government.
  Some opponents have repeatedly brought up a few select comments made 
by Judge Sotomayor to suggest that she will not be impartial. However, 
Judge Sotomayor has made it clear she does not let her background 
influence her interpretation of the law. Her statements to the 
Judiciary Committee and her 17-year record on the bench confirm this.
  As Judge Sotomayor has said:

       My record shows that at no point or time have I ever 
     permitted my personal views or sympathies to influence an 
     outcome of a case. In every case where I have identified a 
     sympathy, I have articulated it and explained to the litigant 
     why the law requires a different result.

  Judge Sotomayor has also said that as much as her experiences 
influence her perspective, they have also taught

[[Page S8652]]

her to be aware of other people's perspectives. In 2001, she said:

       I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect 
     people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete 
     vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and 
     perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited 
     abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them 
     and change as circumstances and cases before me require.

  As Judge Sotomayor said in her confirmation hearing, her underlying 
judicial philosophy is ``fidelity to the law.'' In an independent 
study, Supreme Court expert Tom Goldstein looked at 97 race-related 
cases in which Judge Sotomayor participated while on the Second 
Circuit. He found that she and the rest of her panel ``rejected 
discrimination claims roughly 80 times and agreed with them 10 times.'' 
The circuit rejected discrimination claims by a margin of 8 to 1. 
Goldstein wrote: ``Of the 10 cases favoring claims of discrimination, 9 
were unanimous'' and ``of those 9, in 7, the unanimous panel included 
at least one Republican-appointed judge.''
  ``Given that record,'' Goldstein concluded, ``it seems absurd to say 
that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decisionmaking.''
  Judge Sotomayor has also demonstrated she does not legislate from the 
bench, and she gives deference to Congress in clarifying the intent of 
laws. In her dissent to the majority's opinion in Hayden v. Pataki, 
Judge Sotomayor wrote:

       The duty of a judge is to follow the law, not to question 
     its plain terms. I do not believe that Congress wishes us to 
     disregard the plain language of any statute or to invent 
     exceptions to the statutes it has created.

  She also said:

       I trust that Congress would prefer to make any needed 
     changes itself, rather than have courts do so for it.

  Additionally, a comprehensive study of Judge Sotomayor's criminal 
appellate decisions by the majority staff of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee found, as an appellate judge, Sotomayor sat with Republican-
appointed judges on more than 400 criminal cases. In those cases, she 
agreed with all Republican-appointed judges 97 percent of the time; and 
she agreed with at least one Republican-appointed judge 99 percent of 
the time.
  Judge Sotomayor's sensible attitude toward following the law and her 
ability to objectively evaluate all angles of her cases has resulted in 
high ratings and endorsements by numerous organizations.
  The American Bar Association unanimously found Sotomayor to be ``well 
qualified,'' which is the highest rating the ABA gives to judicial 
nominees. The Congressional Research Service conducted an analysis of 
her opinions and concluded:

       As a group, the opinions belie easy categorization along 
     any ideological spectrum. . . . Perhaps the most consistent 
     characteristic of Judge Sotomayor's approach as an appellate 
     judge has been an adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis, 
     i.e., the upholding of past judicial precedents.

  Judge Sotomayor has an impressive list of law enforcement 
endorsements and supporters, including the International Association of 
Chiefs of Police; the National Association of Police Organizations; the 
National District Attorneys Association; the Fraternal Order of Police; 
the National Latino Peace Officers Association; the Federal Law 
Enforcement Officers Association; the Federal Hispanic Law Enforcement 
Officers Association; the National Organization of Black Law 
Enforcement Executives; and the National Sheriffs' Association.
  Judge Sotomayor has also been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, which stated:

       The Chamber evaluated Judge Sotomayor's record from the 
     standpoint of legal scholarship, judicial temperament, and an 
     understanding of business and economic issues. Based on the 
     Chamber's evaluation of her judicial record, Judge Sotomayor 
     is well-qualified to serve as an Associate Justice of the 
     U.S. Supreme Court.

  The nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice reviewed all of Judge 
Sotomayor's constitutional law decisions and said:

       Based on this exhaustive review, the conclusion is 
     unmistakable: in constitutional cases, Judge Sotomayor is 
     solidly in the mainstream of the Second Circuit.

  Judge Sotomayor's former law clerks wrote a letter endorsing her 
nomination, in which they said:

       As former law clerks to Judge Sotomayor, each of us can 
     attest to her intellectual prowess, extraordinary work ethic, 
     and commitment to the rule of law. Working for Judge 
     Sotomayor is an awe-inspiring experience. We each had the 
     privilege of working closely with her as she confronted, and 
     resolved, incredibly complex and intellectually demanding 
     legal challenges. Judge Sotomayor approaches each case with 
     an open mind and arrives at her decision only after carefully 
     considering all of the pertinent facts and applicable rules 
     of law.

  The law clerks said they agree with many of Judge Sotomayor's other 
colleagues, who ``respect her intellectual dynamism, collegiality, and 
balanced, fair jurisprudence.''
  I would like to thank and congratulate the members of the Judiciary 
Committee for holding an extraordinarily civil and open Supreme Court 
nomination process. I commend President Obama for selecting a woman, a 
Hispanic, and, above all, an extremely well-qualified nominee. I am 
thrilled to have the opportunity to be a part of this historic moment, 
and if she is confirmed, I believe she will serve our country well.
  Based on my conversations with the nominee, her statements in her 
confirmation hearings, and my review of her record, I intend to support 
her confirmation when it is voted upon later this week, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in congratulating 
Senator Leahy and Senator Sessions for their work on the Sotomayor 
nomination. The process was fair to both sides, and, most importantly, 
fair to the nominee.
  I am pleased to rise in support of Judge Sotomayor, an individual 
whose life story is an inspiration to millions of Americans. A child of 
immigrants with modest means, Judge Sotomayor has risen by dint of 
exemplary academic accomplishment and hard work to the cusp of 
confirmation to our Nation's highest Court.
  But Judge Sotomayor is much more than just a story of accomplishment. 
She has shown herself to be a judge truly worthy of elevation to the 
Supreme Court. Both on the bench and before this committee, Judge 
Sotomayor has proved she has the necessary character, competence, and 
integrity to serve on the Supreme Court. Her distinguished 17-year 
record on the bench demonstrates a commitment to fair and impartial 
application of the law and respect for the values which make up our 
Constitution.
  At her hearing, Judge Sotomayor assured us she will listen with an 
open mind to all sides of an argument and that she will be mindful of 
the very real impact her decisions will have on each and every 
American. She pledged fidelity to the Constitution and to the Court's 
precedent, as well as a responsibility to cautiously review precedent 
when justice requires.
  As we conclude the Senate's action on Judge Sotomayor's nomination 
this week, I believe we need to reflect upon the role that confirmation 
hearings play in the Senate's duty to advise and consent. While I have 
no reservations about my support for Judge Sotomayor, I share the 
concerns expressed by many Americans, legal commentators, and others on 
the Judiciary Committee about our committee's ability to have candid 
and substantive conversations with nominees about the issues Americans 
care about.
  We all know the confirmation process is crucial. It is the public's 
only opportunity to learn about a nominee before he or she serves for 
life on the highest Court in our land. But, for many years now, we have 
seen a familiar pattern from nominees--Democratic and Republican 
alike--who have learned the path of least resistance is to limit their 
responses and cautiously cloak them in generalities.
  Understandably, nominees do not want to risk their confirmation by 
saying anything that might provoke potential opponents. We cannot ask 
nominees to disclose how they would vote on cases that might come 
before them. But it is reasonable for us to ask them to speak more 
openly about past Supreme Court decisions and how they would decide 
cases that are close calls--what reasoning they would use and what 
factors they would consider.
  The concerns I raise do not reflect any personal criticism about 
Judge

[[Page S8653]]

Sotomayor. I think she responded to our committee's questions with 
great intellect and sincerity and that she has rightly earned 
bipartisan praise.
  However, going forward, I hope together we can explore ways to 
achieve the greater candor that the confirmation process demands and 
deserves. For example, we could convene a bipartisan group of Judiciary 
Committee members, members of the bar, constitutional scholars, and 
perhaps even members of the media who have experience following the 
Court and our hearings to help us determine what specific questions we 
can and should expect substantive answers about. If we can do this, 
then the committee's unique opportunity to engage nominees in the great 
legal questions facing our Nation will more effectively serve the 
Senate as we fulfill our constitutional duty.
  In the meantime, I commend President Obama for nominating Judge 
Sotomayor--a woman of great ability who has demonstrated an enduring 
commitment to public service and to the law. I look forward to her 
tenure on the Court.


                Amendment No. 2241 to Amendment No. 1908

  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside so that I may call up amendment No. 2241.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Johanns], for himself and 
     Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, proposes an amendment numbered 2241 
     to amendment No. 1908.

  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide funding for the tuberculosis program of the Animal 
                  and Plant Health Inspection Service)

       On page 19, line 9, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That of the amount available 
     under this heading, at least $17,764,000 shall be used for 
     the tuberculosis program (including at least $3,000,000 for 
     tuberculosis indemnity and depopulation)''.

  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss my amendment to 
increase funding for USDA's tuberculosis program by $2 million.
  In early June, TB was discovered in a beef cattle herd in Rock 
County, NE. As many of my colleagues know, this is a disease that can 
spread very quickly among cattle. It is also transmissible to humans.
  This is not just a Nebraska issue or a Midwest issue. As I speak, 
California, Michigan, Minnesota, and New Mexico are battling the 
effects of TB. Other States, including Colorado, South Dakota, and 
Texas have had TB scares as well. Although, thankfully, up to this 
point they have not seen any change in their TB status. This problem 
could impact the beef industry nationwide, and it is critical that we 
do everything we can to eliminate it immediately when it is discovered.
  In Nebraska, thankfully, only two animals in the entire herd tested 
positive for the disease, and they were put down to prevent further 
spread. Since that time, Nebraska State officials have worked side by 
side with USDA officials to test the infected herd, as well as several 
neighboring herds, which is the process. Based on the latest reports 
from home, 8,900 cattle have been tested to date, and all have, 
thankfully, tested negative for TB. That is great news.
  I commend the efforts of the veterinarians and the government 
officials on the ground in Nebraska. I thank those officials for their 
efforts. They have been aggressively dealing with this issue every day 
since the initial discovery. I wish to thank the USDA specifically for 
providing significant expertise and personnel to assist with the 
ongoing testing. The Department's assistance has been sound and it has 
been steady. We greatly appreciate it, but the work is not yet done. 
The testing is not quite complete. Hopefully, the results will keep 
coming back negative, but, regardless, we are going to remain vigilant.
  We must make sure the USDA has the resources on hand to respond in 
the event that further cases of TB are discovered. That could be 
anywhere in this country. TB can have a crippling impact on a State's 
beef industry. It can negatively impact the ability of State producers 
to shift cattle State to State, and, of course, potentially it can have 
an impact on export markets.
  Ranchers cannot afford to have their State lose its TB-free status. 
Anytime a disease such as TB is discovered in a herd, it is absolutely 
critical the infected herd be depopulated immediately. I say that from 
my experience as a former Secretary of Agriculture. Depopulation is 
oftentimes essential. Doing so significantly decreases the likelihood 
of the spread of the disease. It also reassures the rest of the beef 
industry that we will always respond decisively to combat the spread of 
the animal disease.
  We need to send a strong signal to our producers that they will have 
our support if they come forward when they discover the herd has a 
problem. If depopulation indemnity funds are not available, a producer 
literally may hesitate to disclose the information. Then the problem 
festers and it festers and it spreads. We simply cannot take that kind 
of risk. Consumer confidence and producer trust are far too important.
  It is imperative that we make sure USDA has the funding and the tools 
on hand to deal with existing TB problems and to take swift action in 
the event of future TB discoveries. That is why I am offering this 
amendment--to make sure the resources are there.
  At this point I ask unanimous consent that a letter supporting my 
amendment from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              National Cattlemen's


                                             Beef Association,

                                   Washington, DC, August 3, 2009.
     Hon. Mike Johanns,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Johanns: I am writing today in support of your 
     amendment to the Fiscal Year 2010 Agriculture Appropriations 
     bill that increases United States Department of Agriculture 
     (USDA) funding for bovine tuberculosis (TB) indemnity and 
     depopulation. Bovine TB is a contagious animal disease that 
     the cattle industry and Federal government have been working 
     to eradicate for close to 100 years. In order to eventually 
     eradicate this disease, infected herds must be depopulated 
     quickly and the fanner or rancher must be compensated in a 
     fair and equitable way for the value of lost cattle. Your 
     amendment will go far in helping with this effort.
       The work done by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
     Service (APHIS), the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS), 
     and state and industry partners, has been critical in 
     containing and managing this disease. FSIS maintains a robust 
     TB surveillance program at harvesting facilities to ensure 
     that no cattle with TB enter the food supply. This 
     illustrates the effectiveness of the food safety measures 
     utilized in the beef industry. In recent years, APHIS has 
     intensified their TB surveillance and has indicated that the 
     disease has nearly been eradicated. We also know that 
     wildlife play a critical part in the transmission of the 
     disease, and industry is working with both Federal and state 
     governments to address this.
       In our combined effort for eventual eradication, the 
     national tuberculosis eradication program has successfully 
     reduced the incidence of the disease in U.S. cattle. There 
     continues, however, to be a low incidence of TB as evidenced 
     by the handful of newly identified infected herds over the 
     past several years. These additional cases are in part due to 
     intentional intensified surveillance activities, and the 
     infected animals, along with their herd mates, are then 
     quarantined in order to control the disease and minimize its 
     impact on cattle movement and markets. This has proven to be 
     the most effective method to protect our domestic cattle herd 
     since the national program began in 1917.
       We support USDA's efforts to eradicate this disease, but 
     historically we have not seen enough funding to adequately 
     compensate farmers and ranchers for cattle that had to be 
     depopulated. It is evident with the limitations of current 
     technology, the wildlife vector, and the complicated nature 
     of TB, that the current amount of Federal funding is not 
     adequate. More funding and research is needed to provide 
     better answers and solutions. Until those solutions are 
     found, we need timely and adequate funding to depopulate any 
     current beef herds and compensate cattle producers for their 
     losses. Since TB is a concern across the country, this 
     amendment will help to provide that needed compensation and 
     allow the TB eradication program to be successful.
       We urge the Senate to vote YES on your amendment during 
     floor consideration of this bill. Thank you for your 
     leadership and support of U.S. cattle producers.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Gary Voogt,
                                                        President.


[[Page S8654]]


  Mr. JOHANNS. Finally, I urge my colleagues to support this very 
important amendment to make the resources available to the USDA, and I 
urge my colleagues, if they have any questions, to get in touch with 
us. This is a very important issue.
  With that, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, the Senator's amendment would increase the 
amount in this bill from $15.7 million to $17.7 million. The amendment 
would require at least $3 million to compensate producers for losses. 
The Secretary currently has access to the Commodity Credit Corporation 
to compensate producers, and we hope the Secretary will use those funds 
as needed.
  Since this amendment would reduce other animal and plant health 
activities, I must oppose it at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from Kansas is 
recognized.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as 
in morning business for such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Guantanamo Bay

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, the reason I ask that on this bill--
and I do urge my colleagues to come forward to speak on the Agriculture 
appropriations bill. We have already cleared some amendments, and we 
need to move forward.
  Something happened yesterday that affected my State directly, and 
that was the statement by the administration--or leak from the 
administration--that they are considering moving Guantanamo Bay 
detainees to my State, associated with Fort Leavenworth. This has riled 
up everybody. I was just there this morning, and we had 100 people who 
came out after very short notice. It is virtually unanimous in their 
opinions--not everybody but close to everybody is opposed to this idea 
for a multiple set of reasons.
  Moving the Guantanamo Bay detainees to Fort Leavenworth and the Fort 
Leavenworth area would not work, to start off with, and will 
significantly hurt the core educational and international mission of 
the fort. On top of that it is totally unnecessary. I hope the 
administration will start to rethink this idea of moving the Guantanamo 
Bay detainees. I think it is a bad idea that we replicate the facility 
we already have at Guantanamo Bay somewhere in the United States 
because we already have a facility to hold the detainees. We already 
have a facility to try the detainees. It is all set up. I was there. I 
led a congressional delegation a couple of months ago. They are being 
humanely treated, and if they are not, and if there are credible 
reports that they are not, then let's work on fixing Guantanamo Bay 
rather than moving the detainees to the United States.
  If there are problems, let's fix them rather than just say we are 
going to change the name of the place and we are going to move the 
detainees from Guantanamo Bay to Leavenworth. We are not going to 
change the opinion of the world of the United States one iota by 
substituting the name ``Leavenworth'' for the name ``Guantanamo Bay,'' 
creating a replica of what we already have at Guantanamo Bay, only 
somewhere else. It would cost hundreds of millions of dollars we don't 
have when we already have an $11 trillion debt, and it is growing at a 
rate of nearly $2 trillion a year. So why would we spend hundreds of 
millions of dollars doing something that is not going to change world 
opinion, replicating a facility that we already have, that slows the 
process? This doesn't make any sense.
  On top of that, what is being considered at Leavenworth would not 
work. The fort at Leavenworth--if I could just talk to my colleagues 
about this, and I hope they will look at the factual setting. Fort 
Leavenworth is one of the smallest Army bases we have around the world. 
It is 8 square miles. It butts up in and is a part of an urban area of 
Kansas City. It has on its border a river and a train that goes through 
about every 25 minutes. It is not the secure facility one would need to 
have for these detainees. We don't have any setbacks like we have in a 
number of other facilities, and it has one of the highest population 
densities per square mile or square foot of any of our military bases 
because it houses the Command and General Staff College of the 
military.
  If I could just point out that facility to my colleagues--and I hope 
some of them come and attend and address the Command and General Staff 
College. We get students from around the world on a regular basis at 
that facility. Generally, some 90 countries at any one point in time 
have students at the Command and General Staff College. Of these 90 
countries that send students for their Army training for their 
military, half of those students will become general flag officers 
before their career is done. A number of them will become civilian 
leaders in their own country as well. So you get the cream of the crop 
from around the world. They come here. They also meet with our future 
military leaders, and this is the training center they have. It is the 
Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth.
  The primary mission of Fort Leavenworth is that training as well as 
that relationship and integration between our U.S. Army forces and 
forces of militaries, Army forces from around the world, which is 
critically important when you go into places such as Pakistan or 
Afghanistan or you are working with the Jordanians or the Egyptians, 
just to name a few. They send leaders from all of those countries, 
future flag officers to Fort Leavenworth to be trained. We have already 
heard in canvassing students from Jordan, Egypt, and Pakistan that they 
will pull their students from Fort Leavenworth if the detainees are 
moved there. They don't want to have their military leaders, their 
future military leaders at the same place that the detainees are being 
held in the United States, and they have already stated that to us.
  So we are going to hurt the core mission of Fort Leavenworth in a 
facility that doesn't have setbacks to safely handle this for no gain. 
I would point out that I spoke with the commanding general at Fort 
Leavenworth yesterday. I called him after I heard about this report on 
MS-NBC. That was how I got the news of it. My wife was on the Internet, 
and she was on MSNBC's Web site and she sees that they are thinking 
about moving the Gitmo detainees to either Leavenworth or Michigan. 
That didn't set very well with me, that that is how I learned about 
this to start off with.
  As I started calling around, I called the commanding general, and he 
said he learned about it pretty late as well and has difficulties, 
although he is a military man. He will salute and take orders and do 
what he is directed to do, but he is not--he needs to be asked and 
brought in to testify about what his opinion would be about this issue. 
I talked to the Governor in Kansas last night. The Governor, a 
Democratic Governor, has issued a statement previously opposed to this 
move taking place to Fort Leavenworth. The Congresswoman from the area 
was there this morning opposed to this move. The mayor of Leavenworth 
was there opposed to this move.
  We have voted in this body virtually unanimously--close to a 
unanimous vote--that you have to work with local officials before the 
Gitmo detainees can be moved anywhere into the United States. Well, the 
local officials are uniformly opposed to this at Leavenworth, and we 
wake up and it is in the morning paper and nobody has been consulted 
about it.
  I wish to say the detainees in my estimation deserve appropriate 
humane treatment. They deserve to be treated under our international 
obligations. If they are not getting that, then that needs to be 
changed, and it needs to be changed at Guantanamo Bay. I hope we would 
have international investigations to tell us what is not being met that 
we are required to do, that is not being done. I have not seen any 
credible international reports that say there are things we are not 
doing that we should do at Guantanamo Bay. There is a gray category 
that is involved where you have enemy combatants who don't represent a 
foreign country, and that is a big part of our problem. There is also a 
very tough area, and that is--I saw this when I was at Guantanamo Bay--
a number of the detainees are continuing the fight

[[Page S8655]]

today. While in prison, at Gitmo, they continue the fight. So whoever 
gets these or takes these detainees is going to have to be prepared to 
have the continuation of the war on terrorism happening near them and 
happening in the prison facility. That is not everybody, but some of 
them continue to fight in prison. That is going to be a difficult 
situation for whoever is to handle it.
  On top of that, our folks at Leavenworth--we have prisoners in there, 
and the town is proud of their ability to handle various prisoners. 
Their concern is not keeping the detainees in, because you can staff up 
for that, but it is keeping out people who seek to get in or make a 
statement in that area. Plus, they would have to scale up their 
facilities.
  We have a medium-security Bureau of Prisons facility. It is not 
maximum security. We have a dominated medium-security disciplinary 
barracks there, and we have space for 25 maximum-security prisoners--
only 25. You would have to move out all of the current military 
personnel convicted in military courts who are held in the disciplinary 
barracks. We are not situated to handle this. It would cost a huge 
amount of money, and it would not be safe to do it at Leavenworth. It 
is a bad idea for us to do that there.
  I ask the President to come to Leavenworth. He was invited by the 
mayor this morning. He can look at the facility and examine it himself. 
The Attorney General can come and examine the facility, look at it, and 
see what estimation they come up with after examining and looking at 
the facility. I understand they are looking at some sort of hybrid 
facility. We don't have the situation to be able to house it in Kansas.
  On top of that, I ask the President to really listen to the American 
people. The American people don't want these detainees moved to the 
United States. They don't want to hurry up artificial timelines set for 
moving the detainees to the United States, and they feel the President 
should be listening to them and not to European leaders or somebody 
around the world who doesn't like the Guantanamo Bay facility and 
thinks it has a bad name. Listen to the American people on this issue.
  I ask that the President come and talk to the Members of Congress who 
may be impacted by this and ask our opinions and look at what is taking 
place. This is being rushed. It is on an artificial time deadline. It 
doesn't need to happen. It is replicating a facility we have, at a cost 
of hundreds of millions of dollars, and it will slow the process down. 
It is a bad idea chasing a bad idea with an artificial time limit. I 
ask that the President not do that.
  My colleague and I from Kansas will fight every step of the way to 
keep this facility from being moved to Kansas. We are representing our 
constituents, who don't want these detainees moved to Kansas. We are 
going to fight it every step of the way.
  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I received a Statement of Administration 
Policy from the Executive Office of the President relating to the 
Agriculture appropriations bill. I will read from that document at this 
time:

       The administration strongly supports Senate passage of H.R. 
     2997, with the Committee-reported text of S. 1406, making 
     appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
     Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2010.
       A strong, vibrant rural America is central to the Nation's 
     future. The bill, as reported by the Committee, makes 
     important investments in infrastructure so economic progress 
     does not bypass rural communities. The legislation also 
     provides the resources necessary to keep food and medicines 
     safe and reliable. It provides critical support for farmers 
     to continue the Nation's leading role in feeding the world. 
     In addition, this legislation addresses chronic problems 
     facing Americans, including poverty, nutrition, and housing.
       Moreover, the legislation responds to the President's call 
     for investments in programs that work while ending programs 
     that do not. This legislation gives priority to merit-based 
     funding in critical infrastructure programs. The 
     Administration urges the Congress to continue to apply high 
     standards to funding decisions so taxpayer money is spent 
     efficiently and effectively.

  Madam President, I am grateful that the executive branch has 
recognized the good work done to craft this bill in a way that meets 
the serious requirements of our country. Again, I thank the ranking 
member, Senator Brownback, for his help. This is a good bill, and I 
urge all Senators to support its passage.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to 
speak as in morning business for 12 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Sotomayor Nomination

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I rise today to talk about 
Judge Sotomayor's experience, and I also want to talk about empathy.
  In the period since President Obama nominated Sotomayor, some of her 
opponents have done their best to give empathy a bad name. I think that 
is a shame. It would be sad for us to confirm Sonia Sotomayor but allow 
her empathy to be discredited as a human emotion and a judicial asset.
  During his confirmation hearings, Clarence Thomas said:

       What I bring to this Court, I believe, is an understanding 
     and the ability to stand in the shoes of other people across 
     a broad spectrum of this country.

  Justice Thomas's description of empathy captures one thing Sotomayor 
would bring to this Court: a diversity of experience and the ability to 
stand in the shoes of other people.
  During her opening statement before the Judiciary Committee, Judge 
Sotomayor talked about her experience as a prosecutor in New York for 
legendary district attorney Bob Morgenthau. She said:

       I saw children exploited and abused. I felt the pain and 
     suffering of families torn apart by the needless deaths of 
     loved ones. I saw and learned the tough job law enforcement 
     has in protecting the public.

  According to those who knew and worked with her, Judge Sotomayor was 
an excellent prosecutor. She knew the law, she studied the facts, and 
she did the hard work to keep people safe from crime. In this difficult 
job, she benefited from her empathy. Judge Sotomayor felt the pain and 
suffering of families destroyed by crime. She felt the difficulties law 
enforcement officers face, and she understood that her job was not just 
about enforcing the law, it was about ending the suffering crime 
brings.
  During her testimony, Judge Sotomayor talked about the ``Tarzan'' 
case, a famous burglary and murder case she prosecuted. A quarter 
century later, she still feels deeply the impact of that crime. I was 
struck by her description of how the murder of a son devastated the 
lives of his mother and grandmother, how one act of violence produced 
ripples that destroyed a family and weakened a community, and how the 
family and the community demanded justice.
  When I served as a Federal prosecutor, I learned that empathy is 
every bit as important as legal knowledge and good judgment. A 
prosecutor who reads the facts of a crime and cannot empathize with 
those involved is not just a strange person, he or she is likely to be 
an ineffective lawyer. A proper respect for the law demands a 
recognition that individuals involved in a legal dispute are not 
abstractions; they are sons, daughters, sisters, and brothers, men and 
women who deserve justice. Empathy allows us to recognize that, and 
that is essential to the practice of law. It is also an essential 
quality for judges.
  Some Members of this body have suggested that empathy is inconsistent 
with impartial judgment. I disagree. Judges must, first and foremost, 
apply law to facts. But this process is not a mechanical calculation; 
it requires attention to the human impact of legal decisions. Legal 
reasoning that ignores

[[Page S8656]]

the human dimension risks inhuman outcomes to human problems. Law 
without empathy produces decisions such as Dred Scott and Plessy v. 
Ferguson. It gives you reasoned arguments and unreasonable results.

  When the Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott, its members were applying 
the law to the facts as they saw them. One fact they took for granted 
was that Dred Scott was so different as to be unworthy of legal 
protections. The Taney Court could not put themselves in Scott's shoes, 
and the result was such a rebuke to the values of this Nation that it 
helped drive us to civil war.
  When the Court wrote in Plessy that ``the enforced separation of the 
two races [does not stamp] the colored race with a badge of 
inferiority,'' they were not misinterpreting the law. They just could 
not feel the sting of segregation. Or to put it another way, they 
failed to show empathy, and generations of Black citizens paid the 
price.
  Of course, a judge with empathy must also determine with whom to 
empathize. One of my colleagues has argued that empathy for somebody is 
always discrimination against somebody else. Again, I disagree. I 
believe that justice is not a zero-sum game. Equal justice for 
minorities does not mean less justice for others. A judge who feels 
compassion for those who face the legacy of codified bigotry is not 
less able to sympathize with a White firefighter who has been denied a 
promotion. The law respects the humanity of every individual. Judges 
can and should do the same.
  Judge Sotomayor has explained that her experience has helped her to 
``understand, respect and respond to the concerns and arguments of all 
litigants who appear before me.'' All litigants.
  As a prosecutor, Judge Sotomayor sympathized with the victims of 
crime. But she could also look at a defendant and see a fellow human 
being--somebody who deserves fairness, if not freedom. As a judge, she 
has ruled for civil rights claimants, and she has ruled against them. 
She has ruled for prosecutors and for defendants. Her compassion has 
not led her to come down on one side or the other. It has helped her to 
be both wise and fair--to treat every individual with the respect he or 
she deserves.
  President Obama has nominated a Supreme Court Justice with a wealth 
of both personal and professional experience. Her experience has given 
her the intelligence to understand the law and the wisdom to apply it.
  But it has also given her something more. Judge Sotomayor has seen 
housing projects and Ivy League dorms. She has defended those whom 
society ignores and prosecuted those who ignore society's rules. At the 
trial and appellate level, she has seen the human drama of American law 
play out in countless ways.
  This experience has given her compassion for the diverse experiences 
that make up the American experiment. She understands in a deep and 
personal way that we all deserve equal justice under law. I can think 
of no more important qualification for a Supreme Court Justice.
  She has earned her right to serve on the Nation's highest Court. I 
look forward to supporting her confirmation.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


         Amendment No. 2253, as Modified, to Amendment No. 1908

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, we are attempting to work through 
some amendments. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
set aside so I may call up amendment No. 2253 on behalf of Senator 
Chambliss, and the amendment be modified with the changes at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback], for Mr. Chambliss, 
     for himself and Mr. Harkin, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2253, as modified, to amendment No. 1908.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To require a report on the status of the reorganization of 
  the Foreign Agricultural Service and future plans to modify office 
                              structures)

       On page 85, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       Sec. 7__.  Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Foreign 
     Agricultural Service shall submit to Congress a report that 
     describes the status of the reorganization of the Foreign 
     Agricultural Service and any future plans of the 
     Administrator to modify office structures to meet existing, 
     emerging, and new priorities.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, it is my understanding this amendment 
has been cleared on both sides, so I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment, as modified, be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment No. 2253, as 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 2253), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to 
speak as in morning business for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Clean Energy Jobs

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, as I rise today, the world 
is engaged in a high-stakes competition. The country that wins this 
competition will not only produce jobs today, it will dominate the 
industries of the future. The competition is the race to create clean 
energy jobs. I want America to win, and the Congress will play a key 
role in deciding whether we do.
  But before I talk about the decision we have to make, I want to be 
clear about a decision that America does not have to make. We don't 
have to decide whether clean energy will be the industry of the future. 
It will. The clean energy industry is primed to produce millions of 
jobs in the coming years. The question is whether these jobs will be in 
America. We have to answer this question now.
  If we put our minds to it, Americans can produce the clean energy 
technologies that will power the future. The country that invented the 
light bulb, the automobile, and the Internet is not going to finish 
last when it comes to developing new ideas. But we need policies that 
promote innovation. Right now, we are falling behind.
  Progressive policies have given other countries a lead. With a 
population roughly one-quarter as large as America's, Germany has more 
than twice as many workers developing wind energy and solar 
photovoltaic technologies. By 2020, more Germans will be producing 
clean energy than are producing German cars. Spain has almost five 
times as many workers in the solar thermal industry as the United 
States. China has more than 300 times as many. Do we want to lose this 
race to Germany, to Spain, to China?
  Some have argued that America cannot lead on climate change; that we 
need to wait for countries such as China and India to act first. This 
would be incredibly shortsighted. If America solves its energy problems 
first, every country on Earth will be begging for the technologies we 
develop. If we don't, we will be begging for technologies developed 
elsewhere.
  Americans always prosper by being one step ahead. We mass produced 
the car, and American manufacturing built the middle class. We sparked 
the IT revolution, and our high-tech industry still gives us high-
paying jobs. Today, being one step ahead means developing

[[Page S8657]]

the clean energy technologies of the future before anybody else does. 
Waiting for China to address its emissions problems before we address 
ours is like waiting for an opponent to finish the race before we start 
to lace up our shoes.
  China is not waiting for America to act. It has already implemented 
strong policies to promote clean energy. Chinese fuel efficiency 
economy standards are higher today than ours will be in 2020. They have 
already set a 15-percent renewable energy standard for 2020, and their 
government recently said they could reach 20 percent. In 2009, China 
became the world's largest clean energy investor. It plans to spend 
nearly half a trillion dollars over 10 years to ensure clean energy 
jobs come to China.
  China's policies have already begun to pay off. It is now the leading 
manufacturer of wind turbines and it has 65 percent of the world's 
solar thermal water heating market. China even beats us in industries 
we created. America invented solar photovoltaics, but China now 
dominates that market, while America comes in tenth.
  I am not content to let other countries keep beating us at our own 
game. It is time to act. The clean energy bill currently being 
developed in Congress is the kind of action we need. It is a distinctly 
American solution to this global problem because it relies on private 
markets and private businesses, and that is why it provides real change 
with minimal cost.
  Of course, some people will claim this plan breaks the bank. 
Defenders of the status quo never run out of excuses to do nothing. 
They have made huge profits polluting our air, and clean energy is a 
threat to them. The same people who denied the science of global 
warming will tell you that a clean energy solution is too expensive. 
They were wrong about the science then, and they are wrong about the 
economics now.
  In 1990, polluters told America we could not afford the Clean Air 
Act, a bipartisan bill signed by a Republican President. History has 
shown that the act actually cost one-fortieth of what they said it 
would. The best independent estimate about this bill comes from the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, and they say it will cost 
Americans less than 50 cents per day, and the CBO numbers likely 
overestimate costs. To keep their analysis simple, they ignore the 
impact of increased efficiency. When you factor in efficiency, New 
Mexicans will probably end up ahead about $4 per month on their energy 
bills, and low-income New Mexicans will save even more. The most 
expensive energy policy America can pursue is the status quo.
  In 2006, I introduced a clean energy bill similar to the bill we are 
considering now. The month I introduced it, gas prices were at about 
$2.25 per gallon. Critics claimed clean energy would drive up prices 
and Congress never acted. By 2008, the price of gas had nearly doubled 
to a high of $4.11.
  Much of the money America spends on gas flows right out of this 
country. Today, the United States is importing nearly 70 percent of its 
oil. We sent roughly $4,280 per U.S. family out of the country in 2008 
to pay for oil, and too much of that money goes to individuals who 
finance terrorism and regimes that don't like Americans.
  Some will say the solution is increased oil production, and I support 
increased production. My home State of New Mexico is one of 10 that 
produces more oil than it consumes, and I am proud that we help meet 
America's energy needs. But increased production alone is not enough. 
America has only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. More than 66 
percent of those reserves--those that are left--are in Russia, Iran, 
and six other countries in the Middle East. The more we depend only on 
fossil fuels, the more American money will flow to these countries.
  When it comes to energy, we have to do it all and we have to do it 
now. Since comprehensive clean energy legislation was first introduced 
in 2003, we have sent trillions of dollars abroad every year to pay for 
oil--in fact, $700 billion a year. We cannot afford 6 more years of 
delay.
  But the status quo doesn't just threaten our economy and our 
security; it threatens the basis of our way of life. Scientists predict 
that global warming could give my home State of New Mexico the same 
climate as the Sonoran Desert in Chihuahua, Mexico. If that happens, 
farmers who have worked the land for generations will be forced out of 
business. Forest fires will become more common and more dangerous. Our 
communities will face a bleak economic future. For the children of my 
State and our country, we cannot afford to stay on this path.
  Fortunately, America has what it takes to change course. Even without 
progressive policies on the national level, New Mexico has begun to 
create massive numbers of clean energy jobs. Between 1998 and 2007, 
clean energy jobs grew 25 times faster than other jobs. We call these 
the jobs of the future. Increasingly, they are also the jobs of today.
  There are too many success stories to tell, but I want to mention 
one. Three weeks ago, a company called Schott Solar opened its second 
renewable technologies plant in Albuquerque, NM. The plant currently 
employs 300 people, and it comes 2 months after the company opened a 
plant that will eventually employ 1,500. Schott decided to locate these 
plants in New Mexico after our State passed a series of clean energy 
incentives.
  What I like most about this story is that Schott is a German company. 
It looked at New Mexico's policies and decided to invest German money 
in creating American jobs. For years, while American policymakers 
failed to act, American investors sent our capital to Germany. New 
Mexico's forward-looking policies are helping to reverse the flow. What 
that tells me is that with the right policies, America can lead the 
world in this crucial industry. We can stop creating jobs in Saudi 
Arabia and start creating them in Socorro, NM. We can stop letting 
China develop our technologies and sell them back to us.
  We can win the clean energy revolution the same way we won the high-
tech revolution--by getting there first--or we can wait and watch the 
world pass us by. I think the choice is clear. I hope my colleagues do 
as well, and I hope they will join me in supporting the Senate's clean 
energy legislation when it comes to the floor.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1910

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I would like to take a few minutes 
this afternoon to speak to an amendment to the agriculture bill that 
has been introduced. This is amendment No. 1910. It has to do with the 
high energy cost grants. This is a program within the rural utility 
service.
  I would like to lay out for my colleagues a bit about this program. 
The high energy cost grants are available for improving and providing 
energy generation, transmission, and distribution facilities that serve 
communities with average home energy costs that exceed 275 percent of 
the national average. So 275 percent of the national average--you have 
to see your home energy costs exceed this level in order to make 
yourself available to this High Energy Cost Grant Program.
  These grant funds can be used for on-grid and off-grid renewable 
energy projects, energy efficiency, and energy conservation projects 
serving these eligible communities.
  Some have suggested this is somehow an Alaska aid program. It 
certainly does help in my State, but it has provided aid to utilities 
in more than a dozen States, including Alabama, Arizona, California, 
Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, New 
Mexico, New York, and Washington. In addition to these States, 
applications have been submitted by other eligible communities in more 
than eight States. This is in Colorado, Minnesota, Montana, North 
Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and also out in 
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
  In addition, these are community-driven projects. They reflect the 
local priorities for addressing energy challenges. Some of the projects 
that are

[[Page S8658]]

currently underway with these high energy cost grants are replacing 
failing transmission and distribution lines that serve communities in 
my State and in Arizona, Idaho, Maine, and Nevada.
  As we think about how we are going to move our energy, particularly 
our renewable energy sources, we have to do more within our 
transmission systems. This program allows us to replace our older or 
failing transmission and distribution lines.
  Some of the other projects extend electric distribution lines to 
connect homes in rural communities in States such as Alaska, Arizona, 
California, and Washington, including some homes on Indian 
reservations.
  The other projects replace old inefficient diesel generators in many 
of the remote Alaska villages with more efficient, less polluting 
units, with heat recovery systems. These funds from the high energy 
cost grants go toward constructing community-owned renewable energy 
projects, including wind and solar, small hydroelectric and biomass 
systems. Again, the States where you see these projects are Alaska, 
Arizona, Hawaii, Maine, New Mexico, New York, Washington, to the 
Marshall Islands.
  The last area of the program provides cost savings, energy 
efficiency, and weatherization upgrades for rural homes and community 
facilities in Alabama, Alaska, Florida Hawaii, Kentucky, and 
Massachusetts.
  I go through this list of where these projects are to ensure that 
Members know we are not just talking about a benefit to a State such as 
Alaska, where our energy costs are enormously high, but States such as 
Alabama, where they might not be facing the cold winters but they are 
certainly facing the hot summers and how they, too, can be more energy 
efficient; how they, too, can benefit from programs that help to reduce 
the high energy costs they face in their State.
  This program has been one of the smartest things Congress has done 
since the passage of the rural electrification programs back in the 
1930s. It has provided assistance to run modern power lines on Indian 
reservations, helped to propel economic activity where it is needed 
most in this country. It has provided aid to towns off the interstate 
transmission grid and a number of towns in the West that are isolated 
and not so connected to that grid, thus more subject to the blackouts 
and brownouts.
  This program also motivated many States to step up their individual 
efforts to increase funding for these programs. In my home State of 
Alaska, despite the very dramatic decrease in revenues, we are 
investing tremendous resources toward energy solutions. In the State's 
fiscal year 2010 capital and operating budgets, they include $25.5 
million for Alaska energy authority projects; $25 million for renewable 
energy; $38 million for power cost equalization; and $26.4 million for 
heating assistance. That is a total of about $115 million in funding 
that is coming from the State to help, alongside funding for the high 
energy cost grants.
  If funding sources continue to be eliminated or reduced, the Nation's 
efforts to address the high cost of energy by increasing energy 
efficiencies and renewable resource development are going to be 
severely hindered. This is at a time when we can least afford to do 
this.
  This program has helped with installation of renewable energy 
systems, whether it be solar or wind or hydro, biomass or geothermal 
projects. These are generally financed through guaranteed loans. This 
is exactly in keeping with existing congressional intent and the intent 
of this administration to expand renewable energy and to reduce carbon 
emissions and greenhouse gas emissions and their potential climate 
impacts. It has done so economically. The program has a 4-percent cap 
on planning and administrative expenses. I wish all Federal programs 
did this.
  The program has an excellent track record. According to the 
Congressional Research Service, it has such a low default rate on its 
loans that the guarantee program has a zero subsidy cost; loans being 
secured by the borrower's electric system and assets.
  Earlier on the floor it was argued that this program is somehow 
duplicative of other existing programs, but it is not. The existing 
USDA Rural Utilities Service Loan and Grant Program cannot make loans 
to school districts or to Indian reservations, such as the Navajo 
projects that have been made in Arizona or to off-grid utilities. The 
program can only make loans for electricity programs, not for renewable 
energy projects to tie into grids.
  This is exceptionally important, the fact that the programs currently 
can only make those loans to electricity programs and not the renewable 
energy projects.
  The program was authorized, the High Energy Cost Grant Program was 
authorized by Congress back in the 2000 Rural Electrification Act, 
simply because it covered a gap in existing programs that desperately 
needed to be filled.
  This amendment might not only kill this program in the future, but it 
also might pull the rug out from under the projects that have expended 
funds and which have started and which are waiting for the Federal 
funds to be delivered.
  This program actually lowers Federal unemployment and economic 
assistance costs over time because helping to reduce our energy costs 
is one of the best things we can be doing in government to support 
sustainable economic development in a State or in the region.
  I certainly support the need for fiscal responsibility--absolutely, 
especially given the size of our deficit. Cutting the High Energy Cost 
Grants Program is likely to not only lessen economic activity in rural 
areas but also worsen our overall economy and unemployment across the 
Nation. There is no reason to delete the continuation of funding that 
is proposed for this program.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment when the time 
comes.
  I yield the floor.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KOHL. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to vote in 
relation to the McCain amendment, No. 1910, after the cloture vote with 
respect to the Kohl-Brownback substitute amendment No. 1908, and that 
prior to the vote with respect to amendment No. 1910, there be 4 
minutes of debate, equally divided and controlled in the usual form, 
with no amendment in order to the amendment prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Reserving the right to object, I was asked to come down 
and get my amendments pending. I checked with the staff. All I would 
like to do is get several amendments up, have them pending, and then we 
will have the debate after the cloture vote. Is that agreeable?
  Mr. KOHL. That is agreeable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Kansas is recognized.


                Amendment No. 2240 to Amendment No. 1908

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I have been asked by Senator Barrasso 
to ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside so I may 
call up amendment No. 2240 on behalf of Senator Barrasso.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback], for Mr. Barrasso, 
     for himself, and Mr. Vitter, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Roberts, Mr. 
     Enzi, Mr. Thune, and Mr. Johanns, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2240 to amendment No. 1908.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

[[Page S8659]]

 (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a State-
   by-State analysis of the impacts on agricultural producers of the 
American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2452, as passed by 
             the House by Representatives on June 26, 2009)

       On page 85, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       Sec. 7__. (a) Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     complete a State-by-State analysis of the impacts on 
     agricultural producers of the American Clean Energy and 
     Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2452, as passed by the House of 
     Representatives on June 26, 2009) (referred to in this 
     section as ``H.R. 2452'').
       (b) In conducting the analysis under subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall--
       (1) use a range of peer-reviewed analyses of H.R. 2454 
     conducted by public and private entities, including land 
     grant universities;
       (2) consider a scenario in which the fertilizer industry 
     does not receive any free allowances under H.R. 2454;
       (3) consider the impacts of H.R. 2454 on a range of 
     fishing, aquaculture, livestock, poultry, and swine 
     production and a variety of crop production, including 
     specialty crops; and
       (4) analyze projected land use changes, afforestation 
     patterns, and other market incentives created by H.R. 2454 
     that may impact food or agriculture commodity prices, 
     including specific acreage estimates of parcels of land 
     planted with trees in the United States.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. I wanted to get this for Senator Barrasso. We will be 
handling that at a later point in time.
  I yield the floor.


                Amendment No. 2243 to Amendment No. 1908

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set 
aside and amendment No. 2243 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2243 to amendment No. 1908.

  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To eliminate double-dipped stimulus funds for the Rural 
                 Business-Cooperative Service account)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. 7__.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     each amount provided under the heading ``Rural Business--
     Cooperative Service'' in title III is reduced by the pro rata 
     percentage required to reduce the total amount provided under 
     that heading by $124,800,000.


                Amendment No. 2244 to Amendment No. 1908

       The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is 
     recognized.

  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set 
aside and amendment No. 2244 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2244 to amendment No. 1908.

  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To support the proposal of the President to eliminate funding 
    in the bill for digital conversion efforts of the Department of 
     Agriculture that are duplicative of existing Federal efforts)

       On page 51, beginning on line 10, strike ``: Provided 
     further,'' and all that follows through ``technologies'' on 
     line 20.


                Amendment No. 2245 to Amendment No. 1908

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set 
aside and amendment No. 2245 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2245 to amendment No. 1908.

  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To strike a provision providing $3,000,000 for specialty 
                   cheeses in Vermont and Wisconsin)

       Beginning on page 75, strike line 16 and all that follows 
     through page 76, line 3.


                Amendment No. 2248 to Amendment No. 1908

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set 
aside and amendment No. 2248 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2248 to amendment No. 1908.

  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

           (Purpose: To prohibit no-bid contracts and grants)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:


               prohibition on no-bid contracts and grants

       Sec. __.  (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be--
       (1) used to make any payment in connection with a contract 
     not awarded using competitive procedures in accordance with 
     the requirements of section 303 of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253), section 
     2304 of title 10, United States Code, and the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation;
       (2) awarded by grant not subjected to merit-based 
     competitive procedures, needs-based criteria, and other 
     procedures specifically authorized by law to select the 
     grantee or award recipient; or
       (3) spent on a congressionally directed spending item, as 
     defined by Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, not 
     subjected to merit-based competitive procedures, needs-based 
     criteria, and other procedures specifically authorized by law 
     to select the grantee to perform the activity to be provided 
     by the congressionally directed spending item.
       (b) This prohibition shall not apply to the awarding of 
     contracts or grants with respect to which--
       (1) no more than one applicant submits a bid for a contract 
     or grant; or
       (2) Federal law specifically authorizes a grant or contract 
     to be entered into without regard for these requirements, 
     including formula grants for States.

  Mr. COBURN. I now call for the regular order on amendment No. 2226 
and send a second-degree amendment to the desk, ask for its immediate 
consideration, and ask any consideration be delayed until after the 
cloture vote and that the second-degree amendment is my amendment No. 
2246.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Was there a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. COBURN. Yes, unanimous consent is requested for that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KOHL. I object and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does not have the floor. Objection 
is heard.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.


                Amendment No. 2246 to Amendment No. 2226

  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set 
aside and amendment No. 2246 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The amendment is drafted as a second-degree amendment to amendment 
No. 2226.
  Mr. COBURN. I will change the drafting.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. I call for the regular order on amendment No. 2226, and I 
send a second-degree amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

[[Page S8660]]

  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2246 to amendment No. 2226.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide additional transparency and accountability for 
 spending on conferences and meetings of the Department of Agriculture)

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 7__. (a) In this section, the term ``conference'' 
     means a meeting that--
       (1) is held for consultation, education, awareness, or 
     discussion;
       (2) includes participants who are not all employees of the 
     same agency;
       (3) is not held entirely at an agency facility;
       (4) involves costs associated with travel and lodging for 
     some participants; and
       (5) is sponsored by 1 or more agencies, 1 or more 
     organizations that are not agencies, or a combination of such 
     agencies or organizations.
       (b) Not later than September 30, 2011, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall submit to the appropriate committees of 
     Congress and post on the public Internet website of the 
     Department of Agriculture (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Department'') in a searchable, electronic format, a report 
     on each conference for which the Department paid travel 
     expenses during fiscal year 2010 that includes--
       (1) the itemized expenses paid by the Department, including 
     travel expenses and any Department expenditure to otherwise 
     support the conference;
       (2) the primary sponsor of the conference;
       (3) the location of the conference; and
       (4) in the case of a conference for which the Department 
     was the primary sponsor, a statement that includes--
       (A) a justification of the location selected;
       (B) a description of the cost efficiency of the location;
       (C) the date of the conference;
       (D) a brief explanation of how the conference advanced the 
     mission of the Department; and
       (E) the total number of individuals whose travel or 
     attendance at the conference was paid for in part or full by 
     the Department.
       (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 
     aggregate amount made available under this Act for expenses 
     of the Department relating to conferences in fiscal year 
     2010, including expenses relating to conference programs, 
     staff, travel costs, and other conference matters, may not 
     exceed $12,000,000.

  Mr. KOHL. I send to the desk a second-degree amendment to amendment 
No. 2246.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 2246 is a second-degree 
amendment.
  Mr. KOHL. I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 2248 be pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2288 to Amendment No. 2248

  Mr. KOHL. I send to the desk a second-degree amendment to amendment 
No. 2248.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2288 to amendment No. 2248.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To provide requirements regarding the authority of the 
  Secretary of Agriculture and the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to 
                     enter into certain contracts)

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 7__.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture or the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to enter 
     into any Federal contract unless the contract is--
       (1) entered into in accordance with the requirements of 
     section 303 of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253) or chapter 137 of title 
     10, United States Code, and the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation described in section 6(a) of the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 405(a)); or
       (2) otherwise authorized by law to be entered into without 
     regard to the laws cited in paragraph (1).

  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KOHL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2289 to Amendment No. 1908

  Mr. KOHL. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment, 
and I send to the desk an amendment and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl], for himself and Mr. 
     Brownback, proposes an amendment numbered 2289 to amendment 
     No. 1908.

  Mr. KOHL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KOHL. I ask for its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? The question is on 
agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2289) was agreed to, as follows:

   (Purpose: To ensure the compliance of the United States regarding 
           obligations under international trade agreements)

       On page 85, line 16, strike ``inspections.'' and insert the 
     following:
     inspections: Provided further, That this section shall be 
     applied in a manner consistent with United States obligations 
     under international trade agreements.

  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I move to reconsider that vote.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion upon the table.
  The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.


          Amendments Nos. 2254 and 2255 to Amendment No. 1908

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 2254 on 
behalf of Senator Chambliss and 2255 on behalf of Senator Vitter en 
bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback], for Mr. Chambliss 
     and Mr. Vitter, proposes amendments en bloc numbered 2254 and 
     2255.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I understand these amendments have been cleared on 
both sides. I offer them for Senators Chambliss and Vitter. I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendments be agreed to en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 2254 and 2255) were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 2254

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to assess greenbook charges to 
             agencies or to use previously assessed funds)

       On page 85, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       Sec. 7__.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to pay the salaries and expenses of any employee of 
     the Department of Agriculture to assess any agency any 
     greenbook charge or to use any funds acquired through an 
     assessment of greenbook charges made prior to the date of 
     enactment of this Act.


                           amendment no. 2255

 (Purpose: To require the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to conduct a 
                       study on imported seafood)

       On page 85, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       Sec. 7__.  The Commissioner of Food and Drugs, in 
     consultation with the Administrator of the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration, shall conduct a study and, 
     not later than 240 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, submit a report to Congress on the technical challenges 
     associated with inspecting imported seafood. The study and 
     report shall--
       (1) provide information on the status of seafood 
     importation, including--
       (A) the volume of seafood imported into the United States 
     annually, by product and country of origin;
       (B) the number of physical inspections of imported seafood 
     products conducted annually, by product and country of 
     origin; and
       (C) a listing of the United States ports of entry for 
     seafood imports by volume;
       (2) provide information on imported seafood products, by 
     product and country of origin, that do not meet standards as 
     set forth in the applicable food importation law, including 
     the reason for which each such product does not meet such 
     standards;
       (3) identify the fish, crayfish, shellfish, and other sea 
     species most susceptible to violations of the applicable food 
     importation law;
       (4) identify the aquaculture and mariculture practices that 
     are of greatest concern to human health; and
       (5) suggest methods for improving import inspection 
     policies and procedures to protect consumers in the United 
     States.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S8661]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KOHL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2259, as Modified

  Mr. KOHL. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment 
and call up the following amendment, which is at the desk, and ask for 
its immediate consideration: Landrieu amendment No. 2259, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl], for Ms. Landrieu, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2259, as modified, to 
     amendment No. 1908.

  Mr. KOHL. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

(Purpose: To require a report on increasing the participation of rural 
                small businesses in tourism activities)

       On page 85, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:

     SEC. _745. REPORT ON TOURISM FOR RURAL COMMUNITIES.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall report to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and of the 
     Senate on developing the tourism potential of rural 
     communities.
       (b) Content of the Report.--The report required by 
     subsection (a) shall--
       (1) identify existing Federal programs that provide 
     assistance to rural small businesses in developing tourism 
     marketing and promotion plans relating to tourism in rural 
     areas;
       (2) identify existing Federal programs that assist rural 
     small business concerns in obtaining capital for starting or 
     expanding businesses primarily serving tourists; and
       (3) include recommendations, if any, for improving existing 
     programs or creating new Federal programs that may benefit 
     tourism in rural communities.

  Mr. KOHL. This amendment has been approved by both sides, and I ask 
for its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to amendment No. 2259, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2259), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. KOHL. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the substitute 
     amendment No. 1908 to H.R. 2997, the Agriculture 
     Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010.
         John D. Rockefeller, IV, Tom Udall, Mark L. Pryor, Edward 
           E. Kaufman, Blanche L. Lincoln, Kent Conrad, Kay R. 
           Hagan, Mark Begich, Byron L. Dorgan, Max Baucus, Ben 
           Nelson, Herb Kohl, Daniel K. Inouye, Michael F. Bennet, 
           Mary L. Landrieu, Charles E. Schumer.

  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 
amendment No. 1908 to H.R. 2997, the Agriculture, Rural Development, 
Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
2010, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from 
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Menendez), and the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 83, nays 11, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 255 Leg.]

                                YEAS--83

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Burr
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--11

     Barrasso
     Bunning
     Corker
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Gregg
     Johanns
     Kyl
     McCain
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Byrd
     Cochran
     Kennedy
     Lieberman
     Menendez
     Mikulski
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 83, the nays are 
11. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1910

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 4 minutes of debate equally 
divided on the McCain amendment No. 1910.
  The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, this amendment eliminates the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture's High Energy Cost Grant Program which is a 
$17.5 million subsidy that is designed to pay for energy generation 
systems in rural areas.
  The 2010 budget from the President of the United States and the 
Office of Management and Budget have recommended a number of programs 
be eliminated. Concerning this High Energy Cost Grant Program, it says:

       The administration proposes to eliminate the High Energy 
     Cost Grant Program because it is duplicative of and less 
     effective than the Rural Utility Services Electric Loan 
     Program.

  This recommendation by the administration to eliminate this program 
is because it is both duplicative and unnecessary and there is a $6.6 
billion program in electric loans at no cost to the taxpayer.
  I recommend we agree with the President of the United States and 
eliminate this unnecessary $17.5 million subsidy.
  I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I stand in opposition to this 
amendment. The funds contained within this High Cost Energy Program are 
designed to improve energy generation, transmission, and distribution. 
These are designed to do exactly what we are working so hard in this 
body to do: to improve our energy generation, our transmission 
facilities, our distribution facilities, and we are doing this through 
a program where the qualifications in order to comply are you have to 
serve communities in which the average residential home energy costs 
are 275 percent of the national average.
  There are 14 States across the country that have projects that focus 
on these very high energy areas. We are trying to reduce our energy 
costs for renewables and through the standard energy mechanisms but, 
quite honestly, when your energy costs are 275 percent above the 
national average, it is pretty darn tough.
  So these are funds made available to communities in the State of 
Alaska, but also communities in Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, 
Idaho, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Mexico, Washington, 
and the Marshall Islands, and it allows them to have energy at a more 
affordable cost.

[[Page S8662]]

  I urge defeat of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, this bill includes the programs the 
amendment would strike. The Senator from Alaska has spoken eloquently 
and I believe correctly. So I do oppose the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from 
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Maryland (Ms. 
Mikulski) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 256 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cardin
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kaufman
     Klobuchar
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Nelson (NE)
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Whitehouse

                                NAYS--55

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Byrd
     Kennedy
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
  The amendment (No. 1910) was rejected.
  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 12 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Health Care Reform

  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, in the ongoing debate on health care 
reform, it has become clearer and clearer that this is a competition of 
two very different philosophies of government. On the one hand, there 
are those who think government ought to be the primary sponsor of 
almost everything, including our American health care system. These 
persons basically hope and fervently believe things would be better in 
this country if only the Federal Government took control of more 
aspects of our society.
  The other approach is one that I have advocated. It is the philosophy 
held by those of us who look at history and realize that government 
doesn't run things very well. We believe government can and should set 
standards, establish goals, and create incentives for the right 
behavior, but we do not believe the Federal Government should run 
health care or, for that matter, is capable of running the American 
health care system.
  The debate so far this year has been very instructive for this 
Congress and for the taxpayers. Here are some things we have already 
learned as a result of the very thorough process we have gone through.
  First, we know instead of saving money for our economy, as we were 
promised during the 2008 campaign, health care spending will actually 
go up under the Democrats' proposal. This is true both short term and 
in the long run.
  Second, we have been informed by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office that both the House and Senate bills would add to the Federal 
deficit.
  Third, according to a CBO letter, dated July 17, ``millions of 
Americans would lose their private health care coverage if these plans 
are enacted, and millions more would be forced into a government 
plan.'' That is not me talking, it is the nonpartisan Congressional 
Budget Office.
  Fourth, small businesses and other job creators will pay higher 
taxes, including specifically $163 billion in penalties and $543 
billion in other taxes if the Democrats' plans are enacted.
  Fifth, the provisions of these risky schemes could reduce job 
creation. Again quoting the nonpartisan CBO:

       The play or pay provision could reduce the hiring of low-
     wage workers.

  One has to wonder, if you are a job applicant out there in our 
economy looking to earn a living, applying for a job, would you rather 
see a Federal takeover of the health care system or would you rather 
have a job? I think most American job seekers, given that choice, would 
say: I want a job. Don't reduce my chances of getting that job.
  Then we learned just a few days ago that the Medicaid provisions of 
these proposals could amount to a massive cost shift to the States. The 
outcry against this has been loud and it has been bipartisan.
  Here is what two-term Democratic Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen had 
to say recently. He called the proposal ``the mother of all unfunded 
mandates.'' Governor Bredesen went on to say:

       Medicaid is a poor vehicle for expanding coverage. It is a 
     45-year-old system originally designed for women and 
     children. It's not health care reform to dump more money into 
     Medicaid.

  The words of Democratic Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee.
  And Governor Bredesen is not an isolated example. At the National 
Governors Association meeting in Biloxi, Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a 
Democrat, said the legislation currently making its way through 
Congress would unfairly burden States. Here is some good advice from 
Governor Schweitzer:

       What we need Congress to do is cost control.

  Cost control is something that would actually help in health care 
reform. I appreciate Governor Schweitzer calling for it. I am grateful 
to Governor Schweitzer for his honest assessment.
  In fact, the American people owe a debt of gratitude to Democratic 
and Republican Governors for speaking the truth. These Governors may 
have saved us from a catastrophe by speaking out and telling us what 
the consequences are, as States struggle to meet their current 
obligations. Indeed, there is a great deal of bipartisanship emerging 
on the issue of health care reform, and that bipartisanship is coming 
in the form of alarm--alarm about what the bill proposes to do to State 
budgets, to small businesses, to job creation, and to choice in health 
care.
  We are also learning that when it comes to the discussion of the so-
called public plan or public option, there is a great amount of bait 
and switch lurking about. Bait and switch is basically a form of fraud 
or trickery that, unfortunately, goes on in our economy. It is such a 
problem that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission has issued guidelines 
warning the public about this practice.
  Here is a direct quote from 16 CFR part 238 entitled ``Guides Against 
Bait Advertising.'' The FTC says this:

       Bait advertising is an alluring but insincere offer to sell 
     a product or service which the advertiser in truth does not 
     intend or want to sell. Its purpose is to switch consumers 
     from buying the advertised merchandise in order to sell 
     something else. . . .

  One thing is advertised and the other is attempted to be sold. I 
think this is exactly what is going on in the debate over the public 
option. We are being offered the promise of genuine competition between 
the public plan and private insurance plans when, in fact, the purpose 
is to switch Americans to a European-style, single-payer plan down the 
road.
  By now, it is abundantly clear that citizens of the United States do 
not want to risk putting our country on a path toward a single-payer 
plan such as the ones in Canada or Great Britain.

[[Page S8663]]

Americans do not want a single-payer system. The leadership of both 
parties, House and Senate, understands this fact. The American public 
does not want a wholesale government takeover of one-sixth of our 
economy. We do not want waiting lists such as in Canada. We do not want 
rationing such as in the United Kingdom.
  Realizing where public opinion is on this pivotal issue, the 
advocates of these congressional Democratic plans have gone to great 
lengths to assure people they do not want a single-payer option either. 
These reassurances have come from as high as the White House itself. 
Just last week in North Carolina, President Obama said:

       Nobody is talking about some government takeover of health 
     care. . . .These folks need to stop scaring everybody.

  I wish that were true. But with due respect to our Chief Executive, 
there is a reason people are frightened. They are paying attention, and 
they see that sponsors of this legislation are, in fact, advocating a 
government takeover.
  I found it interesting that just 1 day after the President's remarks, 
I turned on the news to see one of the most senior Democratic chairmen 
in the House of Representatives seem to contradict the President. Here 
is the exact quote from this leading Member of the House on the 
consequences of a public option. He said:

       I think if we get a good public option, it could lead to a 
     single payer and that is the best way to reach single payer.

  I wonder what the Federal Trade Commission would say about that type 
of advertisement. To me, it says: Let's lure people into going along 
with a public plan when we know it will eventually lead to a single 
payer down the road. I don't want to take that risk.
  Another leading House advocate of the public option had this to say 
about a path to a single-payer system:

       This is a fight about strategy about getting there----

  Meaning the single-payer option----

     and I believe we will.

  I think most folks would call this a classic legislative bait and 
switch.
  I recently ran across a blog from Dr. Michael Swickard of New Mexico, 
cautioning about this very tactic. Here is what Dr. Swickard said:

       Given the track record of our government in bait and 
     switch, all of the promises of national health care are just 
     that--promises to be broken. Maybe there will be a few years 
     before the full impact of the bait and switch is felt by 
     citizens. But given the past actions of our government when 
     implementing programs, our future is clear.

  I hope we can avoid that future for our country, but the writer's 
point is this: It may take a while, but the pattern is there. The 
future he fears includes a single-payer takeover that very few 
Americans would vote for today.
  I say to my colleagues, there is much to be said about the ill 
effects of the health care proposals being put forward by the House and 
Senate committees. But among the most troublesome aspects of this so-
called reform is the enactment of a public plan which will inevitably 
lead to a single-payer system Americans don't want and don't need.
  Don't take my word for it on the cost, on the loss of choice, and on 
the effect on small business job creators. Just read the words of the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. On the issue of massive, 
unsustainable cost shifting to State governments, don't take my word 
for it. Listen to the experienced Democratic Governors pleading with us 
not to go down this road. And when it comes to whether the goal of this 
whole exercise is to move us to a European single-payer plan, it is no 
longer necessary to heed the warnings of the political conservatives. 
When you listen closely, the leading advocates of the House and Senate 
legislation, in their unguarded moments, are willing to admit that a 
single-payer government takeover is their ultimate dream. I hope we do 
not go down that road.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. I yield to my colleague from Vermont.


          Amendments Nos. 2276 and 2271 to Amendment No. 1908

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I seek unanimous consent to set aside 
the pending amendment so that I may call up my amendments Nos. 2276 and 
2271.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] proposes amendments 
     numbered 2276 and 2271, en bloc, to amendment No. 1908.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 2276

  (Purpose: To modify the amount made available for the Farm Service 
                                Agency)

       On page 24, line 12, strike ``$1,253,777,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,603,777,000''.


                           amendment no. 2271

   (Purpose: To provide funds for the school community garden pilot 
                        program, with an offset)

       On page 52, lines 22 and (23), strike ``$16,799,584,000, to 
     remain available through September 30, 2011,'' and insert 
     ``$16,802,084,000, to remain available through September 30, 
     2011, of which $2,500,000 shall be used to carry out the 
     school community garden pilot program established under 
     section 18(g)(3) of the Richard B. Russell National School 
     Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1769(g)(3)) and shall be derived by 
     transfer of the amount made available under the heading 
     `Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service' of title I for 
     the National Animal Identification program''.

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, the Senate is considering the fiscal 
year 2010 appropriations bill for the Department of Agriculture, rural 
development, the Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies. I 
thank our two managers, Senators Kohl and Brownback, for their hard 
work on this measure.
  The bill was reported by the Appropriations Committee more than 3 
weeks ago on a bipartisan basis with all members voting in support of 
the measure.
  As my colleagues are aware, as the new chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee this year one of my goals was to increase transparency and 
accountability in the appropriations process. In many respects I have 
followed the lead of former Chairman Senator Byrd in this regard. To 
this end, the Agriculture bill and report have been available on the 
Internet and in printed form for several weeks. All Members have had 
ample time to review the material in this bill.
  As the Senate considers this measure it will find a bill that will 
meet our Nation's critical requirements to support agriculture and 
related programs which are vital to our economy and, frankly, our 
Nation's livelihood.
  Our Nation has been blessed with a wealth of natural resources which 
allows us to be the world's leader in agriculture. This bill offered by 
Senators Kohl and Brownback will help to ensure that we maintain that 
position.
  There is a total funding of $123.9 billion included in this bill, of 
which $23.05 billion is for discretionary programs, the same as the 
302(b) allocation. While this represents an 11-percent increase in 
funding when compared with fiscal year 2009, not including supplemental 
spending, my colleagues should recognize that for too long funding for 
our Agriculture and Rural Development Subcommittee has been severely 
constrained.
  Even with this level of funding, the subcommittee has had to find 
savings in farm programs to live within this allocation.
  I very much thank our two managers for their work in preparing this 
bill. The Committee on Appropriations has offered its unanimous 
support. I believe the full Senate should do the same.

                          ____________________