<p><pi><b>This package/segment contains third party material. Unless otherwise noted, this material may only be used within this package/segment.</b></pi></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><pi><b>Stations Please Note: This package is being delivered to you for use only in its entirety. This means that if you choose to run any of this package, you must run the entire package, including any standups or tags. You may not cut down, alter or pull clips from this package.</b></pi></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>Supers/Fonts: </b> Sheriff William Snyder, Martin County </p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>Story Location: </b> Martin County</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>State/Province: </b> Florida</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>Shot Date: </b> 01/17/2024</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>URL: </b> https://www.wpbf.com/article/florida-martin-county-stuart-tornado-i95/46414395</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>Notes and Restrictions: </b> This package includes 3rd party material that needs to be cleared ONLY if you want to run the items as standalones outside of the affiliate package. If your show or platform is interested please contact RACI directly.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>Newsource Notes: </b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>Story Description: </b></p>\n<p>Elements: video of tornado from Michael Jaycocks / phone SOTs from Michael Jaycocks / video of tornado in mirror from Donald Wadsworth / Sheriff William Snyder, Martin County SOTs </p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Wire/StoryDescription:</p>\n<p>MARTIN COUNTY, Fla. </p>\n<p>Michael Jaycocks was driving home on Interstate 95 towards Stuart on Monday evening when he realized something unusual was going on.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>"Im driving south, its raining, everybodys driving pretty slow, and all of a sudden, once we get around the corner around the bend, I look over and see this big, dark funnel cloud looming in the distance," Michael Jaycocks, who took video of the tornado on the highway, told WPBF 25 News. "And as I get closer, I realized its really a funnel cloud. Its really a tornado that touched down and is about to come across the interstate in front of me."</p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Advertisement</p>\n<p>The National Weather Service confirmed on Tuesday morning that an EF-O tornado touched down Monday, southwest of I-95 near mile marker 107. It then continued northeastward for about eight miles across Palm City and Stuart.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Martin County Sheriff William Snyder provided some helpful tips on what to do if you're on the road and a tornado is approaching.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>"First misconception that people have is somehow driving under an overpass makes them safer. Thats actually the worst thing to do," Sheriff William Snyder told WPBF 25 News. "Every authority says dont go under an overpass, because there are no walls on the side. It becomes a wind tunnel. So, the chances of you being blown out from under there are even higher."</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>"If the tornado, on the other hand, appears to be stationary, but getting larger? Its moving towards you. Thats when you have to make a decision. If you cannot get out of car, keep your seatbelt on, cover your head and try to get below the windows," he said.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>WPBF 25 News also talked to Martin County Fire Rescue on what happened on their end when the first tornado touched down.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Sally Waite, the emergency management director of Martin County Fire Rescue, said she was notified by the Stuart Airport tower around 4:30 p.m.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>"I automatically picked up my phone to call the National Weather Service, apparently it wasnt quite on their radar yet," Waite said. "But as soon as I was talking to them, it came on their radar, we did a tornado warning notification out immediately. The national weather service is responsible for sending those tornado warnings out."</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>And on Tuesday morning, crews had been working to clean up the debris in Martin County.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>"Our public works team has been out clearing up debris, the right of entry roads, just make sure roads were clear for regular traffic to resume this morning," Waite said.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>She also said it's important to make sure you are always prepared, especially with the El Nino season.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>"I think that it's always important to keep everything trimmed. I think once we get out of hurricane season, we kind of lose sight of what really needs to happen," she added.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Station Notes/Scripts:</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Michael Jaycocks of Stuart was driving back home I-95 when he realized something unusual was happening - a tornado sweeping through the highway.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p>"I'm driving south, it's raining. Everybody's driving pretty slow. And then all of a sudden once we get around the corner around the bend, I look over and I see this big dark funnel cloud looming in the distance. And as I get closer, I realize that it's really a funnel cloud. It's really a tornado that's touched down and it's about to come across the interstate in front of me."</p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p>The National Weather service confirmed on Tuesday morning that an EF zero tornado touched down Monday evening, southwest of I 95 near mile marker 107.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>It then continued northeastward for about eight miles across Palm City and Stuart.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p>"eventually everybody stopped and probably I would say a half a mile from, from the, uh, the actual tornado itself and I was able to bust out my camera and take a video of it."</p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p>So what if you're driving on the road and see a tornado is nearby?</p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p>"First misconception that people have is that somehow driving under an overpass makes them safer. Actually, that's the worst thing to do. Every authority says don't go under an overpass because there's no walls on the side it becomes a wind tunnel. So the chances of you getting blown out from under there are even higher."</p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Martin County Sheriff William Snyder has this helpful tip - if you're ever caught in this situation.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p>"If the tornado on the other hand appears to be stationary and getting larger, it's moving towards you. And that's when you have to make a decision. If, if you cannot get out of your car, keep your seatbelt on, cover your head and try to get below the windows."</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--SUPERS</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--VIDEO SHOWS</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--VO SCRIPT</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--LEAD IN</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--SOT</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--TAG</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--REPORTER PKG-AS FOLLOWS</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>-----END-----CNN.SCRIPT-----</b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--KEYWORD TAGS--</b></p>\n<p></p>

Universal Newsreels

INTERVIEW WITH A WOMAN

FIRST INTERSTATE BANK / PRESS CONFERENCE

PERSON ON THE STREET INTVS AND PRESS CONFERENCE W/ LOS ANGELES DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF DONALD ANTHONY ABOUT A FIRE WHICH DESTROYED SEVERAL FLOORS IN THE FIRST INTERSTATE TOWER BUILDING. 00:00:24:24 Intvs w/ people who work in the building about their surprise and shock upon seeing the building wreckage. 00:10:55:15 Ms of Anthony describing actions by the fire department to control the fire in the 64 floor building. He reports one fatality due to the fire. CI: PERSONALITIES: ANTHONY, DONALD. DISASTERS: FIRE, OFFICE BUILDING (ABOUT).

NAME: US FIRE 240605N TAPE: EF05/0558 IN_TIME: 10:14:34:06 DURATION: 00:01:28:23 SOURCES: ABC DATELINE: St Louis - 24 June 2005 RESTRICTIONS: No Access Internet SHOTLIST 1. Various aerial shots of fire 2. Cars on fire 3. SOUNDBITE (English) Vox Pop, Rick Jurkowski: "I was in the back parking lot underneath the truck and I heard a small boom and I got out and under and I saw a small flame and I thought maybe they are just letting some gas out and then the flame went down. And next thing you know it started going up again and it sounded more and more like tanks blowing up." (Question: Did you see anyone running from the building?) "Yes, as soon as I saw the first flame, I saw some heads behind the fence running towards their building, telling people to get out." 4. Wide shot of fire 5. Medium shot of fire 6. SOUNDBITE (English) Vox Pop, George Malaeey: (Question: What do you think about this fire? Ever seen anything like this?) "No, but it sure does make me understand what my kids might be going through over in Iraq." 7. Wide shot of firefighters and emergency officials STORYLINE A blaze at an industrial plant in St. Louis in the US state of Missouri sent huge fireballs shooting into the sky on Friday, casting a towering cloud of black smoke over the area. There were no injuries, police said, but the fire caused traffic congestion and forced the evacuation of nearby residents from their homes. There was no word on the cause of the rapid-fire series of spectacular explosions at Praxair Distribution, which processes propane and other gases for industrial use. The explosions appeared to come from tanks outside the plant and from the plant itself. Cars and trucks parked nearby caught fire. Firefighters were held back at first before trying to battle the blaze as the blasts sent flames more than 150 feet (45.72 metres) into the air. The fire and smoke could be seen for several miles (kilometres). Homes and businesses were evacuated in the mostly residential area south of downtown and major traffic congestion caused by the fire delayed the start of the St. Louis Cardinals baseball game by a half-hour. Police said Interstate 64 was shut near the site for fear that additional cylinders might explode. By late afternoon, officials said they believed the materials had stabilised. The company's primary products are atmospheric gases such as oxygen, nitrogen, argon and rare gases, along with process and specialty gases such as carbon dioxide, helium, hydrogen, semiconductor process gases and acetylene. A company spokeswoman said she was unsure how many of the plant's 70 employees were present at the time of the explosions, but all were evacuated safely.

WH INFRASTRUCTURE REMARKS HEAD ON POOL 3 FS-23-HD 20220114 122642 CBS POOL Remarks by President Biden on the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law JANUARY 14, 2022 South Court Auditorium Eisenhower Executive Office Building 1:06 P.M. EST THE PRESIDENT:  Well, thank you very much, Mitch.  It is - there's a lot of talk about disappointments and things we haven't gotten done.  We're going to get a lot of them done, I might add.  But this is something we did get done, and it's of enormous consequence to the country. One of the reasons I put Mitch Landrieu in charge of implementing the Infrastructure Bill is because he gets it.  He's a former mayor who knows that the real measure of success is not: Did we score some partisan points?  It's: Did we fix the problem?  Did we fix the problem? This is all about fixing the problem.  I ran for President to unite the country.  This Bipartisan Infrastructure Law I signed two months ago unites us around things we all depend on.  Whether you're in rural Kentucky or downtown Philadelphia, you should be able to turn on a faucet and drink clean water.  Students should be able to get the Internet if they need it to do their homework at home, instead of having to drive to a park- - fast-food parking lot.  People need good jobs.  Mitch has told me about the man he met in Jackson, Mississippi, who told him, quote: "I don't mind working three jobs.  I just don't want one paycheck across all three jobs." You know, we've heard it said, "Talent is equally distributed, but opportunity is not." When we invest in infrastructure, we're really investing in opportunity.  These are investments that will build a better America.  It sounds like hyperbole, but it's real.  So today I want to talk about the progress we've made in two months since I signed the bill into law and to make a big announcement as well. Here's some of what we've done so far: The Department of Transportation has released nearly $53 billion - billion dollars - to states to modernize highways.  So, you have to leave 30 minutes earlier to get to work just because of a traffic jam?  That's going to be fixed. We've announced more than $240 million in grants to improve ports in 19 states to speed up and strengthen our supply chains, lower cost, and get you the things you need more quickly. We've announced $3 billion for over 3,000 airports around the country to make them more modern, safe, and sustainable. And we're kicking off the largest investment in affordable, reliable, high-speed Internet in our nation's history: $65 billion to get to every corner of our country connected - urban, rural, and suburban. Our infrastructure work also protects health, cleans up the environment, and helps us fight climate change. Across this country, people have been struck and they - and they've been struck by all of the changes that are needed.  They're stuck.  They're angry.  They're sickened by the broken water and sewer systems - polluted water from the faucets, raw sewage in their backyards. I want you to know: I see you, I hear you.  We understand.  And I've seen and we've - understand the damage done in places like Flint, Michigan, and Jackson, Mississippi. So, we've already announced over $7 billion in clean water funding to states so they can fix and upgrade their aging water systems and sewer systems.  It's going to take some time, but the money is there and they're getting the money.  Our children deserve no less. We've also released an action plan to replace all of our nation's lead pipes in the next decade. This is the United States of America, for God's sake.  Everyone in this country should be able to turn on the faucet and drink clean water. And it's time to get back to the business of cleaning up the hazardous waste sites that poison our land and water and have stricken entire communities, and getting back to holding polluters accountable to keep that pollution from happening in the first place. The Environmental Protection Agency has announced $1 billion to clean up 49 Superfund sites in 24 states. We're talking about cleaning up rivers in Ohio, chemical plants and sites in Florida, polluted lakes in Michigan, and many more.  This is long overdue, and we have to stick with it. The Department of the Interior is launching a program to cap and plug orphaned oil and gas wells that are spewing methane into the air and are dangerous.  Many of these wells are in Southwestern Pennsylvania and Eastern Ohio, but there are hundreds of thousands of them all across the nation. Capping them is going to create quality jobs.  Just as it took to dig the well, union jobs - union jobs to close the well to keep it safe. One of the ways we're going to reach my goal of a 100 percent carbon-pollution free electricity by 2035 is with wind energy.  I visited one of the renewable energy labs in Colorado about a month ago and saw the technologies being developed there. And just this week, the Department of the Interior also announced the largest-ever offshore wind lease sale, which could generate enough clean energy to power nearly 2 million homes and create thousands of jobs in manufacturing, construction, operations, and maintenance.  It's just the beginning.  Jobs that can't be outsourced.  We've also seen the impact of extreme weather - taking down transmission lines, leaving cities and communities dark for weeks.  So, the Department of Energy launched a new initiative to speed up our efforts to strengthen our energy grid with new and upgraded transmission lines and towers - keeping the power flowing for Americans with cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable energy.  And that's going to happen, and it's going to make a big difference.  I also want to be clear: We are in this to win.  And, you know, there is - there is a lot of work underway.  And it's going to create a whole lot of jobs.  And that brings me to the announcement I want to make today that's just part of the infrastructure bill.  My Bipartisan Infrastructure Law includes the largest investment in our nation's bridges since the creation of the Interstate Highway System.  Bridges to connect us.  Bridges to make America work.  Across our country right now, there are 45,000 bridges - 45,000 - that are in poor condition.  We're seeing photos of some of them behind me in all 50 states.  And I've had a chance to see some of them myself as I've traveled the country. I was up in New Hampshire.  I visited a bridge where, if it's not upgraded, weight restrictions could mean that school buses and fire trucks would have to travel an additional 10 miles out of their way to get to the other side of the river to deal with getting to school and/or putting out a fire.  In New Jersey, I just visited the busiest rail bridge in the Western Hemisphere.  But because it's not tall enough for ship traffic, it needs to swing open to let barges through.  And, sometimes, when it closes, the rails need to be manually sledgehammered back into place.  This slows commerce, increases costs. I went down to Louisiana and saw the I-10 bridge.  I stood with the mayor and looked at that bridge.  It is 20 years past its planned life, it's handling more than double the number of crossings it was designed to handle, and it's two lanes narrower than the interstate that feeds into it, causing backups and accidents. Today, the Secretary of Transportation, Pete Buttigieg, is in Philadelphia at the Martin Luther King bridge, which crosses the Schuylkill River.  That bridge is no longer safe for vehicles, even though it used to carry 25,000 vehicles a day. As we prepare to celebrate Dr. King's birthday, we're also reminded that too often bridges and highways were built through the heart of historic communities, particularly Black communities, cutting off families and churches and businesses. We're going to use our infrastructure investments to re-connect communities. One thing I'm certain of: Everyone out there knows what I'm talking about.  People have written to me about the bridges they depend on.  One man told me that the bridge he traveled on every day is "a tragedy waiting to happen." One woman wrote that the bridge near the center of her town had to be closed, and now she drives - and now drivers and tourists bypass downtown, consequently devastating local businesses. And one person wrote to me to say, quote, "This is your chance to show the people [in my area] that they matter" to you. End of quote.  I hear you.  I hear you.  You do matter to me.  And we are going to get it done. My infrastructure law includes a total of $40 billion in funding for bridge improvements.  $12.5 billion of that is going replace most - the most economically significant bridges in the country. These are bridges like - and I've seen them - the Brent Spence Bridge connecting Ohio and Kentucky; the I-5 Columbia River Crossing connecting Washington and Oregon; you know, the Blatnik Bridge connecting Minnesota and Wisconsin.  But about two thirds of the bridges in need of repair in this country are considered what they call "off system" because they're not directly connected to the Interstate Highway System. These are the bridges that are often overlooked when decisions are being made.  But they are essential for small towns, rural towns, farmers to get their products to market, small businesses to be able to serve customers. These are the bridges that, when they're closed, shut off deliveries and routes to school, work, and home.  They create longer delays for first responders when every second counts. So, we've included $27.5 billion for smaller bridges, including dedicated funding for these "off system" bridges I just described.  And because maintaining these bridges is often the responsibility of counties or towns whose budgets are stretched thin already, we decided to get rid of the requirement that counties or towns share in the cost.  The federal government is going to pay for 100 percent of the cost for repairing these small bridges. Today, we're releasing the first year of that program, which is $5.5 billion.  Five and half billion dollars to states and Tribes to repair and rebuild bridges to make them safer and more usable.  This is an investment that's going to help connect entire towns and regions to new opportunities. With this investment, we're sending a message to those communities and to the people who call them home: You matter.  We're building back, and building back better with you.  We're making sure you're not left behind or left out.  I'll end with this: These investments are consequential, and we're just getting started.  We're building back better than ever before.  Clean water for every American.  We're - never done that.  Now we're going to do it.  High-speed Internet for every American.  We've never done that before.  Now we are. Connecting forgotten communities, capping wells that are dangerous, strengthening our power grid to make it more resilient to extreme weather changes: These are investments - these are investments our country has never fully made.  Now we are. You know, and we've arrived at this by a bipartisan agreement. There's nothing beyond our capacity when we work together.  When we get this done, we'll get back to beating the world again.  We've [We'll] once again be number one in the world, instead of where we sit now at number 13, in terms of the quality of our infrastructure. And that's going to mean more jobs, good-paying jobs, safer communities, and lower costs.  We can do this.  This is what America - a better America is going to look like. I want to thank you all for listening.  And we've got a lot of work to do. And the reason I asked Mitch to do this is because he knows how to get things done.  I want every penny watched - how this is spent, just like when I did the Recovery Act in our - the last administration.  It matters.  It matters.  So, thank you all very much.  Appreciate it.    1:19 P.M. EST

WH INFRASTRUCTURE REMARKS CUTS POOL 4 FS-24-HD 20220114 122705 CBS POOL Remarks by President Biden on the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law JANUARY 14, 2022 South Court Auditorium Eisenhower Executive Office Building 1:06 P.M. EST THE PRESIDENT:  Well, thank you very much, Mitch.  It is - there's a lot of talk about disappointments and things we haven't gotten done.  We're going to get a lot of them done, I might add.  But this is something we did get done, and it's of enormous consequence to the country. One of the reasons I put Mitch Landrieu in charge of implementing the Infrastructure Bill is because he gets it.  He's a former mayor who knows that the real measure of success is not: Did we score some partisan points?  It's: Did we fix the problem?  Did we fix the problem? This is all about fixing the problem.  I ran for President to unite the country.  This Bipartisan Infrastructure Law I signed two months ago unites us around things we all depend on.  Whether you're in rural Kentucky or downtown Philadelphia, you should be able to turn on a faucet and drink clean water.  Students should be able to get the Internet if they need it to do their homework at home, instead of having to drive to a park- - fast-food parking lot.  People need good jobs.  Mitch has told me about the man he met in Jackson, Mississippi, who told him, quote: "I don't mind working three jobs.  I just don't want one paycheck across all three jobs." You know, we've heard it said, "Talent is equally distributed, but opportunity is not." When we invest in infrastructure, we're really investing in opportunity.  These are investments that will build a better America.  It sounds like hyperbole, but it's real.  So today I want to talk about the progress we've made in two months since I signed the bill into law and to make a big announcement as well. Here's some of what we've done so far: The Department of Transportation has released nearly $53 billion - billion dollars - to states to modernize highways.  So, you have to leave 30 minutes earlier to get to work just because of a traffic jam?  That's going to be fixed. We've announced more than $240 million in grants to improve ports in 19 states to speed up and strengthen our supply chains, lower cost, and get you the things you need more quickly. We've announced $3 billion for over 3,000 airports around the country to make them more modern, safe, and sustainable. And we're kicking off the largest investment in affordable, reliable, high-speed Internet in our nation's history: $65 billion to get to every corner of our country connected - urban, rural, and suburban. Our infrastructure work also protects health, cleans up the environment, and helps us fight climate change. Across this country, people have been struck and they - and they've been struck by all of the changes that are needed.  They're stuck.  They're angry.  They're sickened by the broken water and sewer systems - polluted water from the faucets, raw sewage in their backyards. I want you to know: I see you, I hear you.  We understand.  And I've seen and we've - understand the damage done in places like Flint, Michigan, and Jackson, Mississippi. So, we've already announced over $7 billion in clean water funding to states so they can fix and upgrade their aging water systems and sewer systems.  It's going to take some time, but the money is there and they're getting the money.  Our children deserve no less. We've also released an action plan to replace all of our nation's lead pipes in the next decade. This is the United States of America, for God's sake.  Everyone in this country should be able to turn on the faucet and drink clean water. And it's time to get back to the business of cleaning up the hazardous waste sites that poison our land and water and have stricken entire communities, and getting back to holding polluters accountable to keep that pollution from happening in the first place. The Environmental Protection Agency has announced $1 billion to clean up 49 Superfund sites in 24 states. We're talking about cleaning up rivers in Ohio, chemical plants and sites in Florida, polluted lakes in Michigan, and many more.  This is long overdue, and we have to stick with it. The Department of the Interior is launching a program to cap and plug orphaned oil and gas wells that are spewing methane into the air and are dangerous.  Many of these wells are in Southwestern Pennsylvania and Eastern Ohio, but there are hundreds of thousands of them all across the nation. Capping them is going to create quality jobs.  Just as it took to dig the well, union jobs - union jobs to close the well to keep it safe. One of the ways we're going to reach my goal of a 100 percent carbon-pollution free electricity by 2035 is with wind energy.  I visited one of the renewable energy labs in Colorado about a month ago and saw the technologies being developed there. And just this week, the Department of the Interior also announced the largest-ever offshore wind lease sale, which could generate enough clean energy to power nearly 2 million homes and create thousands of jobs in manufacturing, construction, operations, and maintenance.  It's just the beginning.  Jobs that can't be outsourced.  We've also seen the impact of extreme weather - taking down transmission lines, leaving cities and communities dark for weeks.  So, the Department of Energy launched a new initiative to speed up our efforts to strengthen our energy grid with new and upgraded transmission lines and towers - keeping the power flowing for Americans with cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable energy.  And that's going to happen, and it's going to make a big difference.  I also want to be clear: We are in this to win.  And, you know, there is - there is a lot of work underway.  And it's going to create a whole lot of jobs.  And that brings me to the announcement I want to make today that's just part of the infrastructure bill.  My Bipartisan Infrastructure Law includes the largest investment in our nation's bridges since the creation of the Interstate Highway System.  Bridges to connect us.  Bridges to make America work.  Across our country right now, there are 45,000 bridges - 45,000 - that are in poor condition.  We're seeing photos of some of them behind me in all 50 states.  And I've had a chance to see some of them myself as I've traveled the country. I was up in New Hampshire.  I visited a bridge where, if it's not upgraded, weight restrictions could mean that school buses and fire trucks would have to travel an additional 10 miles out of their way to get to the other side of the river to deal with getting to school and/or putting out a fire.  In New Jersey, I just visited the busiest rail bridge in the Western Hemisphere.  But because it's not tall enough for ship traffic, it needs to swing open to let barges through.  And, sometimes, when it closes, the rails need to be manually sledgehammered back into place.  This slows commerce, increases costs. I went down to Louisiana and saw the I-10 bridge.  I stood with the mayor and looked at that bridge.  It is 20 years past its planned life, it's handling more than double the number of crossings it was designed to handle, and it's two lanes narrower than the interstate that feeds into it, causing backups and accidents. Today, the Secretary of Transportation, Pete Buttigieg, is in Philadelphia at the Martin Luther King bridge, which crosses the Schuylkill River.  That bridge is no longer safe for vehicles, even though it used to carry 25,000 vehicles a day. As we prepare to celebrate Dr. King's birthday, we're also reminded that too often bridges and highways were built through the heart of historic communities, particularly Black communities, cutting off families and churches and businesses. We're going to use our infrastructure investments to re-connect communities. One thing I'm certain of: Everyone out there knows what I'm talking about.  People have written to me about the bridges they depend on.  One man told me that the bridge he traveled on every day is "a tragedy waiting to happen." One woman wrote that the bridge near the center of her town had to be closed, and now she drives - and now drivers and tourists bypass downtown, consequently devastating local businesses. And one person wrote to me to say, quote, "This is your chance to show the people [in my area] that they matter" to you. End of quote.  I hear you.  I hear you.  You do matter to me.  And we are going to get it done. My infrastructure law includes a total of $40 billion in funding for bridge improvements.  $12.5 billion of that is going replace most - the most economically significant bridges in the country. These are bridges like - and I've seen them - the Brent Spence Bridge connecting Ohio and Kentucky; the I-5 Columbia River Crossing connecting Washington and Oregon; you know, the Blatnik Bridge connecting Minnesota and Wisconsin.  But about two thirds of the bridges in need of repair in this country are considered what they call "off system" because they're not directly connected to the Interstate Highway System. These are the bridges that are often overlooked when decisions are being made.  But they are essential for small towns, rural towns, farmers to get their products to market, small businesses to be able to serve customers. These are the bridges that, when they're closed, shut off deliveries and routes to school, work, and home.  They create longer delays for first responders when every second counts. So, we've included $27.5 billion for smaller bridges, including dedicated funding for these "off system" bridges I just described.  And because maintaining these bridges is often the responsibility of counties or towns whose budgets are stretched thin already, we decided to get rid of the requirement that counties or towns share in the cost.  The federal government is going to pay for 100 percent of the cost for repairing these small bridges. Today, we're releasing the first year of that program, which is $5.5 billion.  Five and half billion dollars to states and Tribes to repair and rebuild bridges to make them safer and more usable.  This is an investment that's going to help connect entire towns and regions to new opportunities. With this investment, we're sending a message to those communities and to the people who call them home: You matter.  We're building back, and building back better with you.  We're making sure you're not left behind or left out.  I'll end with this: These investments are consequential, and we're just getting started.  We're building back better than ever before.  Clean water for every American.  We're - never done that.  Now we're going to do it.  High-speed Internet for every American.  We've never done that before.  Now we are. Connecting forgotten communities, capping wells that are dangerous, strengthening our power grid to make it more resilient to extreme weather changes: These are investments - these are investments our country has never fully made.  Now we are. You know, and we've arrived at this by a bipartisan agreement. There's nothing beyond our capacity when we work together.  When we get this done, we'll get back to beating the world again.  We've [We'll] once again be number one in the world, instead of where we sit now at number 13, in terms of the quality of our infrastructure. And that's going to mean more jobs, good-paying jobs, safer communities, and lower costs.  We can do this.  This is what America - a better America is going to look like. I want to thank you all for listening.  And we've got a lot of work to do. And the reason I asked Mitch to do this is because he knows how to get things done.  I want every penny watched - how this is spent, just like when I did the Recovery Act in our - the last administration.  It matters.  It matters.  So, thank you all very much.  Appreciate it.    1:19 P.M. EST

President Barack Obama remarks at Northern Michigan University in Marquette, Michigan on the National Wireless Initiative. NOTE: Egypt remarks are full transcript. Rest is taken from prepared remarks with blanks filled in (as best as possible in realtime.) / INCLUDES CUTS (Cheers, applause.) 13:35:24 PRESIDENT OBAMA: Hello! (Cheers, applause.) Hello! Hello, Marquette! Thank you so much. (Cheers, applause.) Thank you! Thank you. Thank you so much. Everybody, please have a seat. Have a seat. It is wonderful to be here in the Upper Peninsula with so many Yoopers. (Cheers, applause.) How many of you are Green Bay fans too? (Cheers, applause.) Yeah, I've been seeing too many Green Bay fans lately. (Laughter.) It is great to be here. It is great to be at Northern Michigan University. We've got some wonderful guests here that I just want to mention. 13:36:24 First of all, somebody who is as good a public servant -- not just good at what he does but good at heart -- and works tirelessly on behalf of the entire state, your senior senator, Carl Levin, is here. (Cheers, applause.) Now, his -- his -- his partner in the Senate could not be here because she's actually leading a Democratic caucus retreat, but she's been fighting for manufacturing, for broadband, for a lot of the things that we're talking about here today. So I just want to acknowledge Debbie Stabenow -- (cheers, applause) -- who deeply cares about the work that you do up here. (Cheers, applause continue.) 13:36:57 I want to thank the great hospitality of Mayor John Kivela, who's been showing me around town. Thank you so much, Mayor Kivela. (Cheers, applause.) The president of Northern Michigan University, Dr. Les Wong is here. (Cheers, applause.) And all of you are here. (Laughter, cheers.) And you guys are pretty special -- (cheers, applause) -- absolutely. 13:37:33 The -- before I begin, I just want to say that we are following today's events in Egypt very closely. And we'll have more to say as this plays out. But what is absolutely clear is that we are witnessing history unfold. It's a moment of transformation that's taking place because the people of Egypt are calling for change. They've turned out in extraordinary numbers, representing all ages and all walks of life, but it's young people who've been at the forefront -- a new generation, your generation, who want their voices to be heard. And so going forward, we want those young people and we want all Egyptians to know America will continue to do everything that we can support an orderly and genuine transition to democracy in Egypt. 13:38:38 Now as we watch what's taking place, we're also reminded that we live in an interconnected world. What happens across the globe has an impact on each and every one of us. And that's why I've come to Marquette today, not only because it's beautiful and the people are really nice -- (laughter, cheers, applause) -- which is true, but I've come here because in the 21st century it's not just the big cities where change is happening. 13:39:28 It's also towns like this, where the jobs and businesses of tomorrow will take root and where young and talented Americans can lead. It's towns like this where our economic future will be won. In the short-term, the best thing we can do to speed up economic growth is to make sure families and businesses have more money to spend. And that's exactly what the tax cuts we passed in December are doing. Because Democrats and Republicans came together, Americans' paychecks will be a little bigger this year. Businesses will be able to write off their investments. Companies will grow and add workers. But we have to do more. Our measure of success has to be whether every American who wants a job can find one; whether this country is still the place where you can make it if you try. In a world that's more connected and more competitive, other nations look at this as their moment - their turn to win the jobs and industries of our time. I see things differently. I see this as America's moment to win the future. So that the 21st century is America's century just like the 20th century was. Yes we can. 13:40:36 To do this, though, we have to up our game. To attract the best jobs and newest industries, we've got to out-innovate, out-educate, out-build and out-hustle the rest of the world. That means investing in cutting-edge research and technology, like the new advanced battery manufacturing industry that's taking root right here in Michigan. It means investing in the skills and training of our people. It means investing in transportation and communication networks that move goods and information as fast as possible. 13:41:44 And to make room for these investments, we have to cut whatever spending we can do without. We've got a real issue with debts and deficits. We've got to live within our means. That's why I've proposed that we freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years, which would reduce the deficit by more than $400 billion over the next decade, and bring that spending to the lowest share of our economy since Eisenhower was President. It's a long time. Even I wasn't born yet. 13:42:36 So government has to start doing what American families do every day: we have to live within our means. But even as we do so, we cannot sacrifice our future. I'll just give you guys an analogy. If you're trying to cut back, you might decide not to go out to dinner or take a vacation or remodel the kitchen. But you wouldn't stop saving for your kids' college or your retirement. If your boiler was broken or your roof had a leak you wouldn't cut that -- The same is true with our country. I know you wouldn't go eat at a restaurant. I know there's a few restaurant owners here. I'm just making a general point. 13:43:32 Even as we cut out the things we can afford to do without, we have a responsibility to invest in those areas that will have the biggest impact our future - innovation, education, and infrastructure. That last area - infrastructure - is why I've come here today. Connecting a country of our size has never been easy. Just imagine what Americans experienced when they fanned out from thirteen colonies to settle a continent. If you wanted to get from one coast to the other, it would take you months and cost you a small fortune. If you settled in the heartland, you were an island, with no real market to sell your goods or buy what you needed. You might have to wait before the traders came by to stock up. 13:44:21 So we decided to build a railroad to span a continent - one that would blast through mountains of granite, use thousands of miles of steel, and put to work an army of citizens and immigrants to work. It was an endeavor that would also require support from our government. It didn't just happen on it's own. As General William T. Sherman said, "Uncle Sam is the only giant I know who can grapple the subject." 13:44:56 Even as President Lincoln tried to hold together North and South, he was determined to see this railroad unite East and West. Private companies joined the charge, racing one another to meet in the middle. And eventually, a telegraph operator sent out a simple message to the cheers of a waiting nation. The telegraph just said "DONE. DONE." If he knew we'd still be talking about it today, he might have come up with something more inspiring. 13:45:33 Overnight, the transcontinental railroad laid the way for a nationwide economy. Not a bunch of local economies but a nation wide economy. Suddenly a cross-country trip was cut from months to days. The cost to move goods and mail plummeted. Cowboys drove cattle to railcars that whisked them East. Entrepreneurs could sell anything, anywhere. 13:45:59 After the railroad was completed, a newspaper proclaimed: "We are the youngest of peoples. But we are teaching the world to march forward." That's who we are - a nation that has always been built to compete. That's why, decades later, FDR set up the Rural Electrification Administration - to help bring power to vast swaths of America that were still in darkness. Companies said that building lines to rural areas would be too costly. Big cities already had electricity. It's too costly to go into remote areas. Too costly to get into the Upper Peninsula. So Americans in these towns simply went without refrigeration or running water. If you wanted a glimpse of the larger world, your town might run a movie off a small diesel engine - but it might not even last for the full film. 13:47:10 Once power lines were laid down, electricity flowed to farms across the country and transformed millions of lives. There's a well known story of when a Texas family returned home the first night their farmhouse was hooked up, a woman thought it was on fire. "No mama," said her daughter, "the lights are on."Think about that. It wasn't so long ago. The government was there to make sure everybody, not just some, not just those who made an immediate profit off of it, everybody had access to electricity. 13:48:17 Years later, as our nation grew by leaps and bounds, we realized that a patchwork system of back roads and dirt paths couldn't handle the biggest economy in the world. So President Eisenhower helped make possible an Interstate Highway System that transformed the nation as much as the railways had. Finally, we could ship goods and services to places that railroads didn't reach. We could live apart from where we worked. We could travel and see America. 13:48:39 Each of these achievements.none of them just happened. We chose to do them. We chose to do big things. And every American benefited - not just from new conveniences. Not just from the jobs created by laying down new lines or tracks or pavement. We benefited from new economic growth - from the scores of new businesses that opened near each town's new train station, new power lines, or new off-ramp. But this is a new century. And we cannot expect tomorrow's economy to take root along yesterday's infrastructure. We got to think about what's the next thing. What's the next big thing. Today new companies are going to seek out the fastest, most reliable ways to move people, goods, and information - whether they're in Shanghai or Chicago. So if we want new jobs and businesses in America, we have to have the best transportation and communication networks in the world. Just like the movie, Field of Dreams: if we build it, they will come. But we have to build it. Over the last two years, we have begun rebuilding for the 21st century, a national project that has meant thousands of good jobs for the hard-hit construction industry. And I have I proposed redoubling these efforts. We want to put more Americans to work repairing crumbling roads and bridges. Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail, which could allow you go places in half the time it takes to travel by car. And within five years, we want to make it possible for businesses to put high-speed wireless services in reach of virtually every American. 13:50:50 That last part high speed wireless is why I chose to come to Northern Michigan University today. Now let me give you some context: Today, more than 90 percent of homes in South Korea subscribe to high-speed broadband. Meanwhile, in America, the nation that created the internet, by the way because of government investment. It didn't just happen magically. Because of government R and D. Only 65 percent of households can say the same. When it comes to high-speed internet, the lights are still off in one-third of our households. For millions of Americans, the railway hasn't come yet. 13:52:03 For our families and businesses, high-speed wireless service is the next train station; the next off-ramp. It's how we'll spark new innovation, new investments, and new jobs. You already know this here at Northern Michigan. For a decade now, this university has given a new laptop to every incoming student. WiFi stretched across campus. But if you lived off-campus, like most students and teachers here, you were largely out of luck. Broadband was often too expensive to afford. And if you lived a bit further out of town, you were completely out of luck - broadband providers often won't build networks where it's not profitable. Just like they wouldn't build electrical lines where it wasn't profitable. 13:53:03 So this university tried something new. You partnered with various companies to build a high-speed, next-generation wireless network. And you managed to install it with six people in only four days - without raising tuition. Good job. By the way if you give me the name of these six people there's a whole lot of stuff I'd like to see done in Washington in four days with six people. Today, this is one of America's most connected universities, and enrollment is near the highest it's been in 30 years. 13:54:09 What's more, and this is what makes this special, you told nearby towns that if they allowed you to retrofit their towers with new equipment to expand your network, then their schools, first responders, and city governments could use it too. As a result, police officers can access crime databases in their cars. Firefighters can download blueprints on the way to a burning building. Public works officials can save money by monitoring pumps and equipment remotely. 13:54:36 And you've created new online learning opportunities for K-12 students as far as 30 miles away, some of whom can't always make it to school in a place that averages 200 inches of snow a year. Now, I'm sure some of the students don't exactly see the end of snow days as an opportunity. But it's good for their education, and it's good for our economy. In fact, I've just come from a demonstration of online learning in action. With a Professor Leuben (sp?) He plugged in a two high schools. I felt like I was in Star Trek being beamed around the Upper Peninsula. But these classes can have a chemistry experiment and compare their results to a class in Boston. It's opening up an entire world for them. One of the young people I spoke to talked about foreign policy and he said what's amazing is now we have a window to the entire world. We can start understanding other places and other cultures in ways we could never do without the technology. 13:57:01 For local businesses, broadband access is helping them grow, prosper, and compete in a global economy. In fact, Marquette has been rated one of the top five "eCities" in Michigan for entrepreneurship. Consider Getz's Clothiers, the Getz's are here, where are they? There they aer. This is a third-generation, family-owned Marquette institution. They've occupied the same downtown store for more than a century - but with the help of broadband, they were recently listed as one of America's 5,000 fastest-growing companies. Online sales make up more than two-thirds of its annual revenue. Think about that. You've got a downtown department store with two thirds of its sales online. It can process more than 1,000 orders a day, and its workforce has more than doubled. So you've got a local business with a global footprint. 13:58:32 If you can do this in the snowy wilderness of the U.P., we can do this all across America. In fact, many places already are. In Wagner, South Dakota, patients can receive high-quality, life-saving medical care from a Sioux Falls specialist who can monitor their EKG and listen to their breathing - from 100 miles away. In Ten Sleep, Wyoming, a town of about 300 people, a fiber-optic network allowed a company to employ several hundred teachers who teach English to students in Asia over the internet, 24 hours a day. You've all heard about outsourcing. Well this is what we call "insourcing" - where overseas work is done right here in America. 13:59:33 We want to multiply these stories - and yours - all over the country. We want to invest in the next-generation of high-speed wireless coverage for 98 percent of Americans. This isn't just about a faster internet or being able to find a friend on Facebook. It's about connecting every corner of America to the digital age. It's about a rural community in Iowa or Alabama where farmers can monitor weather across the state and markets across the globe. It's about an entrepreneur on Main Street with a great idea she hopes to sell to the big city. It's about every young person who no longer has to leave his hometown to seek new opportunity - because opportunity's right here at his or her fingertips. 14:00:28 To make this happen, we'll invest in research and development of emerging technologies and applications. We'll accelerate breakthroughs in health, education, and transportation; and deploy a new nationwide, interoperable wireless network for first responders - making sure they have the funding and the frequencies that they were promised and that they need to keep us safe. And by selling private companies the rights to these airwaves, we won't just encourage private investment and expand wireless access; we'll actually bring in revenues that lower our deficits. Now, access to high-speed internet by itself won't make a business more successful, or a student smarter, or a citizen more informed. That takes hard work. 14:01:21 It takes those late nights. It takes that quintessentially American drive to be the best. But we have always believed that we have a responsibility to guarantee all our people every tool necessary for them to meet their full potential. And in a 21st century economy, that has never been more important. Every American deserves access to the world's information. Every American deserves access to the global economy. We have promised this for fifteen years. It is time we delivered on that promise. 14:02:03 Connecting our people. Competing with the rest of the world. Living within our means without sacrificing what's required to win the future. We can do all this. We have done it before. In 1960, at the height of his presidential campaign, John F. Kennedy came to Michigan. It was a moment similar to this one, when other nations were doing their best to take our place at the top. And here, he made it clear that if we wanted to keep from being knocked off or perch, then there could only be one goal for the United States, and it could be summed up in one word: "first." 14:03:00 "I do not mean first, but," he said. "I do not mean first, when. I do not mean first, if. I mean first - period." "The real question now," he continued, "is whether we are up to the task - whether each and every one of us is willing to face the facts, to bear the burdens, to provide the risks, [and] to meet our dangers." That was 50 years ago but things havent' changed in terms of what is needed to succeed. 14:03:57 We were up to the task then. We are up to the task today. Time and time again, whether westward or skyward, with each rail and road we've laid, in every community we've connected with our own science and imagination, we have forged anew our faith that we can do anything. We do big things. That's who we are. That's who we must be once more - that young nation that teaches the world to march forward. That's what you're doing here at Northern Michigan University, and that's what all of us are going to do together in the months and years to come. Thank you, God Bless You, and God Bless the United States of America. TRAVEL POOL CUTS - President Barack Obama remarks at Northern Michigan University. 14:13:41 Walk on, gladhands. 14:13:54 Clapping front row audience. 14:14:05 Walk on, profile FS tilt up Obama at podium. 14:14:52 Tilt up FS Obama at podium. 14:16:11 Various audience 14:16:53 Tilt up profile FS Obama at podium. 14:17:10 Unknown possible VIP's in audience 14:17:33 Senator Carl Levin in audience 14:18:08 Profile tilt up FS Obama at podium. 14:18:51 speech ends, president

NEW ORLEANS - 0900EDT - Third session of the Joint Investigation -There will be a public hearing for the joint BOEM/USCG investigation into the circumstances surrounding the explosion, fire, pollution, and sinking of the Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit Deepwater Horizon, with multiple loss of life in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010. Media coverage of the hearing proceedings is permitted by the Joint Investigation Co-Chairmen as long as it remains consistent with the proper and orderly functioning of the investigation. There will be morning and afternoon sessions, and a media pool will be in effect for the duration of the hearing. The BOEM/USCG Joint Investigation into the Deepwater Horizon Incident What: Third session of the Joint Investigation Where: Radisson New Orleans Airport, 2150 Veterans Blvd., Kenner, La. - Bayou Meeting Room When: July 19-23, 2010 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. (CDT) daily Witness list below. Session (all times eastern) 9-1p then break until 2p, ends 6pEST Witness List - July 19, 2010 The purpose of this joint investigation is to develop conclusions and recommendations as they relate to the Deepwater Horizon MODU explosion and loss of life on April 20, 2010. The facts collected at this hearing, along with the lead investigators' conclusions and recommendations will be forwarded to Coast Guard Headquarters and BOEM for approval. Once approved, the final investigative report will be made available to the public and the media. No analysis or conclusions will be presented during the hearing. The following is a list of witnesses who will be questioned during this FACT-FINDING joint investigation. Monday July 19, 2010: 1. Stephen Bertone - Transocean, Chief Engineer, providing status and proper maintenance of generators and electrical distribution system. 2. Lance John - Weatherford, Rig System Specialist, providing information on the casing running and the presence of ruptured disks in the 16" casing string. 3. Leo Linder - MI-Swaco, Drilling Fluid Specialist, providing information on the displacement path from the riser to Deepwater Horizon MODU. 4. Wyman Wheeler - Transocean, Toolpusher, providing recollection of incident aboard Deepwater Horizon. 5. Tyrone Benton - Oceaneering, ROV Technician, providing information on the leaks associated with BOP stack. LOG of first half of Proceedings 08:59:49 Start of proceedings CH--Capt Hong Quin?, Head of invesgation panel 09:00:32 CH: Objective Determine source of emission and vessel stability two examine why backup and standby generator didn't work, three determine adequacy of oil plan, four adequacy of drilling equipment testing five adequacy of safeguards of drilling six determine oil control issues, seven oil crew actions, eight receive testimony 01:24 CH: Receive testimony on witnesses, wyatt willer will not be appearing 09:04:44 Attorneys object not having enough time to examine documents to be introduced into the proceedings. 16:25 CH: I would ike to call on Steven Berone SB-Steven Bertone, Chief engineer of transocean, deep water horizon 16:37 SB walks in and takes oath for testimoiny 16:58 SP: Steven London, attorney of Steve Bertone, is he a person of interst? 17:18 CH: No sir the board has not designated him 17:26 do you anticipate designation CH: No. 17:41 Steven Ray Bertone, employed by transocean, chief engineer Q: prior to being engineer, did you hold any other postion with transoceawn SB: I was a electrical supervisior, for 7 years Q: was it all aboard the deepwater horizon? SB: No sir Q: what other rigs did you work on SB: Ive been on the f100 and transocearn marianis Q: had experience with transcoen outside of deepwater SB: I started with falcon drilling, purcharsed by reading and bates purchased by transocean Q: how long have you been assigne to deepwater horizxon/. SB: since 2003 9:18:521 Q: and how long have you been chief engineer? SB: since November 2008 Q: prior to aspril 20th, how long have you been on your hitch? SB: probably for 18 days Q: Was there any safety issues on deepwater horizon 19:27 Do you know what A chair Bchiar and C chair is? SB: yes, sir Q: Were there any problems with any of those? SB: I Dont recall. Q: were there any problems specifically with the a chiar where there was a loss of power? SB: I don't'. Q: Can you define what the A chair is? SB: The A Chiar is where the driller sits. 19:48 Q: and where does the colonel of the driller sits? What is he monitoring? SB He's monitoring the block placement the top drive torque, depth of the well, mud pumps Q: any incident wth a chair assoc with loss of electrical power? SB: during the event or prior to? Q: prior to SB; yes there was. Q: and when were those, the latest? SB: I don't recall. 09:20:14 Q: was there any problesm with number four thruster SB: Yes. Q: for how long SB: Roughly eight months. Q: any alarms bypassed of any visual alarms for any gas situations? SB: I don't know Q:Were any alarms bypassed on deepwater horizon? SB: I don't know. Q: you are the chief enginerr and you don't know? SB: I'm not in control of those alarms. Q: Who is in control of those alarms? SB: DP operators. 09:2:10 Q: Dp operators? Who are the DP operators? On april 20th A: Yancy Keplinger and andrea Fuentes Q: if there was a alarm that was bypassed would it have to be under your approval? SB: No sir. Q: Alright lets go to april 20th Can you give us a detail of that day up until the incident. SB: From the time I woke up? Q: Yes sir: 21:49 SB: We had a 630 meeting between OIM Capt, senior tool pusher, RSTC and myself. That was a phone call to town where we spoke to james kent, asset manager and Paul Johnson performance manager. After that at around 830 we always have our supervisors meeting where all supervisors are required to attend. After that I went back to my office to work on upcoming rig move and second rig move preparing budgetary items for bp officials that were arriving later that day. 22:42 went to lunch at 1130 11 45 went back to office to continue working on documents and at apporx 330 4pm, we had a meeting with sp officials and transocean and deemed that we would go tour the rig. We toured several spaced, made our way to floor. And when ed got to floor we went to drill shack. I was last one in the drill shack out was standing room only. At that point I knew there was something going on but didn't know what it was. I was asked by jimmy and randy to please continue the toru==our without them. They needed to stay up there. We went to pump rooms and showed them thrusters and went to dinner at 630. After dinner we had supervisor meeting with bp and transocean officials until 9 915. Afer that I had a cigarette, went to state room, took a shower and went to bed. 24:21 I just opened up my book, reading, when I heard what sounded like the tensioners being blown off. I thought that was kind of strange bc I just spoke with chris pleasant who said they were just finished leading off the tensioners. It got louder, it sounded like a freight train going through my bedroom, and there was a loud thumping, and with each thumping I felt a shake. There was an initial boom, the lights went out. I ran out of my room to the door to get dressed by emergency lights. 25:03 when I opened up the door I smelt some kind of fuel and tasted it. When I turned to get my clothing the second explosion occurred which threw me across the room. I ran into hallway to center stairwell and observed four five ppl standing there froze looking at stairwell. I shouted to head to the port forward or spiral forward staircase and go to your emergency stations. I ran to the port spiral staircase and made my way to the bridge. (speaks with attorney) 26:16 Once I arrived to the bridge I went to my station which is the port side computer station system. A t that point I observed that we had no engines, no thrusters, no power whatsoever. I picked up the phone and called the engine control room and there was no dial tone. There were no phones. I hollered out that we have no comms. At this point I ran to the starboard window to the bridge to look out the the derricks. 26:56 Whatever the second explosion everything did not register with me. I initially thought that the block had not parted and that thumping sound was the block coming down the derrick. I was expecting to see steel and pipe from the floor. When I looked out at the derrick I saw fire, derrick leg to derrick leg as high as I could see. At that point I realized that we had a blow out. 27:23 I ran back to my station thinking that the engines should be starting up because after 25 to 30 secs two engines start up come on line and start filling the KG filler breakers as well as starting up thrusters. There was still no power of any kind. No indication of engines starting. I heard the water tight door band which was behind me. And I heard someone saying the engine room, ECr and pump room are gone. Theyre all gone. I turned around and I didn't' recognize who it was at the time because he was covered in blood. 28:05 And I asked him what you mean gone. And he said they're blown up. It was mike wiliams the chief BDT. He had a laceration across his forehead. I hollered out the medical supplies were. They said the restroom at the back of the bridge. I ran to there. Tried to find some kind of gauze or something. I found a roll of toilet paper, ran back and stuck it to his head. I ran back to my station, still not truly believing that these engines were gone. I couldn't fathom that. I looked back at my screen and there was nothing. No engines starting no thrusters. We were dead ship. 28:58 I heard the water tight door slam again. When I turned around I saw an individual holding a rag to his head. He hollered im hurt. I'm hurt real bad chief. At that point I recognized his voice because he was covered in blood as well. I ran back and pulled the rag away from his head and looked as his wound and hollered for a medic. There was no medic at the time. I ran to the starboard door and hollered to lifeboats we need a medic now. I ran back to my station hoping that the engines would start-nothing. I turned back to Brent and noticed that standing behind him was chris pleasant. The sub C supervisor was standing at the bop panel. 30:03 I hollered out to chris pleasant have you EDSed. HE said he needed permission to EDS. When I turned to my left, Don winslow, the performance operations manager for transocean was standing right next to me. I asked if we could eds, and he said yes. Chris pleasant somebody on the bridge hollered out, he cannot eds with out the OIM's approval. I spun back around and saw Jimmy hearald the OIM running across the bridge by the BP consoles. I hollered out to jimmy can we eds we said yes, eds, eds. When I turned back to chris he was in a panel pushing a button. 30:42 I hollered to chris I need confirmation that we EDSed. He said yes, I reconfirmed and he pointed out a light on the panel. At that point I turned to the forward at the bridge and hollered to kurt for permission to go to the standby generator room and manually start it. My thinking was the BOP had latched, what would be remaining of the fuel would be burned away, and we were going to need power as well as fire pumps. Kurt said yes go. The Chief mate came over to me running with a radio. We looked at the radios turned them on and tried to get comms through the radios. 31:33 For whatever reason we could not get comms through the radios standing five feet from each other. We verified that we were on the same channel and still no comms. I said don't worry about it and I laid the radio down. When I went to the bridge I shut the water tight door for whatever reason, and mike Williams pushed it back and said, you're not going alone chief. I said well come on. Paul mineheart, the motorman also fell in line and we ran to the standby generator. As I listened to the standby generator, I looked at the part where the crown should be and I could see nothing but flames way past the crown. I remember looking down at the deck because it was very slick, and I saw a substance that had the consistency of snot. 32:24 I remember thinking to myself, why is this snot on this deck. It was approx inch to an inch and a half thick. As I mad e my way to the standby generator room, we walked past the bop house which has a huge door, which is 80 90 feet tall 50 feet wide, that you can look down into moon pool. When you looked down into that space all I could see were flames. There was no equipment whatsoever. It was solid flames. 32:59 When we walked into standby generator room, myself and mike Williams ran to the start up panel. I flipped the switch from auto to manual hit the reset and start button, there was no returning of the engine. I tried again and again nothing happened. Mike shouted out that we have 24 bolts. Stood by fr a second. Paul mineheart was standing by the door, I looked at him and told him to shut the door because he was standing there looking at the flames. At that point I thought if the engines are all gone, maybe there is some electrical interference or something that is nto allowing the generator to start. So I turned and ran to the 480 switch gear for the standby generator room, I closed the main feeder breaker for the generator and I reopened it. SO I turned the witch for automatic sync on the panel to manual. 34:17 I ran back to the panel and tried again to reset and to start. T here was no turning over for the engine. Mike hollered out try the second battery pack just in case. Paul I think flipped the switch. There was nothing. The engine didn't turn. I said lets go back to the bridge.. When we reopened the watertight doors, that was the first time that I actually felt the heat. IT was very very intense. We ran to the bridge, we came in to the port side watertight door. I observed that yancy and andrea were still standing with radios. I ran across the bridge to the starboard side, kurt was standing at the door and looking at the lifeboat station. When I ran over I saw lifeboat number one pulling away from the rig. Lifeboat two was already gone. 35:35 At that point I turned to mike and Paul and hollered out, that's it abandon ship let's go! They ran past by me. I turned and looked, yancy and andrea were still by the radios and I hollered at them that's it lets abandon ship lets go now. I turned and went out the watertight door. Capt Kurt was in front of me and we made our way to the lifeboat deck as we were coming down the stairs, I observed a man on the gurney at the bottom of the stairs, with three people trying to get a life vest on him. 36:12 The three ppl were stan carton, chad murray and randy essel. At this point I did not know who was in that gurney. At this point we made it down the stairs to the DAVIT the life raft. We hooked the life raft up and proceed to crank out of lift and drop it to inflate raft and clear the rig. There was a shackling device that had two metal hooks. I do not know what this rope was for but it hindered the life raft and davit to clear the rig. At that point we hollered for a knife, no one had one, mike tried to remove the shackles but could not. He pulled out a pair of ET dikes which are nail clippers on steroids. He unscrewed the shackles and freed the life raft to the side of the rig. 37:27 We started pulling the painter line. I looked at the man on the gurney and tried to get him to the life raft. There were two people already on the life raft, one was david young , I do not know who the other person was. But I made eye contact with david young. I shoved lyman into the life raft and followed him directly afterwards. As I entered the life raft there was, prior to that , there were a lot of smaller explosions still going on and immense heat. All the flames and heat from the rig floor were coming down the front part of the deck, as well as all the flame and heat form under the rig were meeting like at vortex under the life raft. 38:44 As I jumped in I had my leather work gloves on. I can remember feeling the intense heat through those gloves and on my knees. I went to the far side of the life raft and heard the injured person on the gurney start hollering my leg my leg. I also heard andreas screaming we're going to die. At that point I honestly thought we were going to cook right there. 39:15 I guess from hurriedness from jumping there, it--- 39:30 At that point the life raft actually dipped forward and back. It started rocking back and forth. There was smoke in the life raft and it started descending into the water. the smoke cleared out when we touched the water. I heard someone say where are the panels. I was by the exit door and jumped out of the life raft and grabbed hold of the rope by the side of the life raft, trying the push the life raft away from the boat. I know chad murray jumped out and was right behind me. mineheart jumped in front of me. I was swimming on my side looking at the rig, I would say 25 30 feet above me. There was a tremendous amount of smoke bellowing out of the rig. At that point I saw a person's boots and his clothing come shooting through the smoke. Just before he landed I noticed that it was Kurt. 40:39 He landed approx five feet from me. Within seconds, Half a second later, another person and boots came flying out of the smoke. And he was approx ten feet from me. Just before he hit the water, I noticed that it was Yancy Keplinger. As were swimming trying to pull the life raft form the rig, I got to the point where I could see the helideck and witnessed an individual running at full speed across the helideck. When he jumped off he was still running, just before he splashed into the water, he was actually looking right at us and that was mike Williams. I noticed that shortly after that we were not going any further away form the rig. 41:30 About that time I heard someone hollering out omg the painter line is tied to the rig. I looked and saw the white painter line going into the smoke. I heard Chad murray shouting out for help. I looked out to see, and prob 50 60 yards away there was the fast rescue craft from daimon bankston. I saw two flashing light in the water just as I looked at it, one of those was being hauled into the boat. And seconds later, the second person was hauled into the boat. The FRC started driving towards us, and we were hollering we need a knife, we need a knife. When they got 10 or 15 feet from us, an individual came to the bowel of the boat with a very large folding pocket knife. Kurt swam out, grabbed the knife and swam back to the life boat. 42:34 I followed kurt to the back of the life raft to assist, he cut the rope I start swimming puling the life raft again. Chad murray and paul were tying to the FRC to the life raft, and it began backing away from the rig. When we got to the boat, we were all still in the water, the ones that got out of the life raft. The only people who are still in the life raft were Randy Essel, Stan Carotn and the injured person on the gurney. When we exited the water I stayed on the FRC and assisted in getting the injured person out of the life raft which I learned was Wyman Wheeler. Once on deck, Once all the lifeboats and life rafts were empty we had the first muster that I had witnessed. At that point it was determined that 11 individuals didn't make it. 43:47 From there I went and stared checking to make sure that all my people were accounted for. I did not find Brent Mansfield. I learned of the makeshift hospital on the vessel itself and found Brent there. He was laying on the floor. He had bandages and gauze around his head. He had cuts on his mouth and he also had a neck brace. His head was facing a man that was on a bunk. I stepped between them and was trying to keep brent from going to sleep. The man on the bed was buddy trahan and tried talking to him as well to keep him awake. 33:59 When the coast guard arrived, he came in and asked who's the critical. At that point troy had the rstc and bill stated that buddy trahan was the worst. They brought in the gurney and put buddy on gurney. He was screaming that his leg was hurt. He had a severe laceration and a twisted mangled calf. His fingernails were gone, he had a hole in his neck, he had multiple lacerations all over him. As I rolled him to get a second position, bill was standing on the other side and said omg, and I looked and buddy's back was burnt from belt to head. 46:24 One we got him on the gurney I helped brent best I could. I stayed with them until they got brent. Made my way up to the upper levels and watched the rig burn. 47:02 Q: Thank you for the detailed summary. In the statement you said there was standing room only in the driller's shed. What time was that at? 47:13 SB: IT was apprx 530. Q: And is that common practice to have standing room only? SB: Generally during tower change around 1130 and 12. Q: Were there additional people in the shed around 530 because of the people from BP and Transocean? SB: Yes, there were several people there. Q: Any activity on rig floor? SB: I don't recall 47:52 During your conversation with chris pleasant, you said he said yes we have multiple times when you asked about ETS. Did he ever mention that we have no hydraulics? SB: No sir. Q: Any time did he point to the panel and indicate problems? SB: No sir. Q: In written statement you said the capt was screaming at Adriana for pushing the distress button--- Attorney: I want to lodge objection for statement after being detained for 26 hours and will not be questioned on minute in statement. Will not clarify statement. 50:05 Q: Does Adriana have the authority to start the ETS or call out distress? SB: I don't know. Q: Is Mike Williams a subordinate of yours? SB: Correct. Q: And in chain of command how does he communicate DPL? Earlier you said that the DP officer would be aware of any alarms, would he report that to you or the dynamic positions officer? SB: Generally the DP officer. They would call the electronic supervisor or the chief tower directly. 51:02 Q: While you were in your room was there any indication to evacuate? SB: Not to evacuate no. Q: To muster? SB: As I opened up, as I was running to the door I heard Yancy Keplinger and he started yelling fire fire fire, and he started naming engine rooms ECR multiple locations. After the second explosion I didn't hear any more PA announcements. Q: And that was just audio to the whole rig? SB: Yes sir. 51:47 Q: If there was a gas alarm that had detected too high gas in one zone would it trip a general alarm? SB: Yes sir. Q: Did you hear a general alarm? SB: I don't recall. Q: Would you hear it from where you were located? SB: Yes. 52:09 Q: At any point were you told to leave anyone behind? Attorney: Objection! (inaudible) Q: Which engines were running at the time of the incident. SB: Not sure. Q: are you familiar with the engines? SB: Yes. Q: Is there any safety devices to prevent engine overspeed? SB: Yes. Q: And what are those? SB: Your overspeed device. Q: Mechanical or electronic? SB: IT's both mechanical and electronic. 53:06 Q: Do you know when they were last tested and inspected SB: A week prior. Q; Did you witness that inspection? SB: No not personally. Q: Who would have witnessed that? SB: first engineer. Brent Mansfeld. Or the engineer in the tower. Q; What was the frequency of inspecting those devices? SB: I don't recall. Q: were you responsible? Who is? SB: The engineers. First engineer, third and second engineer. 53:58 Q: And do they report to you? SB: They report to the RMS system if there are any problems they notify me. Q: So you don't know the inspection frequency? SB: I don't recall. Q: Have you seen any inspectors on the rig outside of motorspect auditors? SB: Yes the coast guard. As well as bp auditors. 54:46 Q: is there an emergency shut down system in the control room? SB: Yes. Q: Do know if anyone in the engine room was told to shut down their engines? SB: I do not know. Q: DO you know if there is a policy in place for ppl in engine room to shut down if given any warning? SB: NO. 55:15 Q: Earlier you said you heard a discussion in the driller shack. How familiar are you with well operations? SB: Very very limited. Q: Do you recall any part of that conversation? SB: No Q: Who was leading the conversation do you know? SB: No. Q: Are you familiar with the air intake systems for the engine rooms? SB: Yes. Q: Is that the detailed map of the engine floor in front of you sir?' 57:06 SB: Yes that is the hazardous area. Q: How far away are the air intake systems for the engine room? SB: I don't know the actual distance. 57:35 SB walks up to map of engine room to highlight intake sites. 58:18 I don't know the actual intake site for engine three. 58:48 Q: Do you know how often they inspected the air intake systems that prevented the flow of gas into the engine rooms. SB: I don't recall from the BM system. Q: Who is responsible for that? SB: The engineers. 59:17 Q: Were you aware of this BP audit "Deepwater horizon audit sept 2009"? Did you participate in that audit performed by BP? 10:00:43 SB: Yes. Q: Who is the Deep water horizon supervisor? SB: That is technically classified as well. Q: Are you responsible for responding that what's in that audit? SB: Yes. Q: And how do you respond to that audit and actually complete the recommendations that are made by BP? SB: When we receive back audit and convert to Excel spreadsheet and assigned to department heads. Dept heads report back to me in regards to progress and I forward on the asset manager and performance manager. Q: That audit references repairs had deteriorated again or not addressed since final instance. 10:01:50 Attorney objects. 02:06 Q: Was the equipment deterioration presented to you from that audit? SB: Yes. From the initial audit. Q: What was the follow up audit? Were the problems form the initial audit not properly addressed? SB: I don't know. Q: Please elaborate on RMS. SB: Rig maintenance systems. IT'S where all the Pms and equipment ordering systems, all the orders are carried out. It's a transocean maintenance system. 02:55 Q: Was there any excessive jobs overdue on deepwater horizon? Objection. Was there a problem on deepwater horizon that was not addressed because of lack of personnel. 03:36 SB: The thing was the RMS system, was it was just implemented back in 2009 marine assurance audit. There were also a lot of PMs and crafts that were not appropriate. Many were duplicates and we were going through the process of eliminating those. If you look back at history of it, you would see that there were a lot of PMs not done in an allotted time, but a lot of those did not apply to this vessel. 04:33 SB: Most of those as I recall were not major PMs past due. Most of them were moderate to minor. Q: at the time of the incidents were there any problems being behind planned or scheduled maintenance. SB: No. I don't know. Q: Were there personnel changes under your supervision? SB: Yes. Q: How many? SB: I don't know. Q: Did personnel turnover had effect on maintenance operation? SB: I don't know. 06:34 Q: IS there a competency assurance program for maintenance on deepwater horizon? SB: Are you referring the rules and responsibility? Q: I'm talking about competency that ensures the job you are performing. SB: Yes. Q: Did Transocean have personnel from outside that they would bring in when they were behind schedule on jobs? SB: Yes. Q: Were they qualified to do their jobs? Based on your evaluation? Sb: Yes. 06:49 Q: The report that I referred to cited that marine supervisor said lack of man power was reasons for delayed maintenance of engines. SB: I don't recall. Q: Do you know who the auditors were? SB: I don't recall their names. Q: Did you participate in the motorspec audit? SB: I was there at the motorspec. Q: Did you participate at engine level? SB: No. 07:38 Q: Reports said tests on overdrive on engines were successful? How were they tested? SB: They were manually oversped. Q: Did they shut down? SB: From my knowledge yes. My engineers relayed it back to me. Q: Was deepwater horizon scheduled to go to the ship yard? SB: yes. Q: When was that? SB: IT was supposed to be early part of 2011. 08:35 Q: Do you know how long it was going to be in the shipyard for? SB: I don't recall the number of days.Q:Was there any information passed to you along the lines of maintence being the reason going to the ship yard? Post motorspec audit. SB: I did not hear them talking about it. Q: What was planned for the ship yard visit? SB: There were many items planned but I don't have specifics of what it was. Q: What was most important part of maintenance that needs to get done in the ship yard? SB: That would be your thrusters your engines your seawater systems your ballast systems and your drilling systems. Q: Based on that what needed to be performed? SB: I don't want to speculate. Q: But you were chief engineer. Did you have a punch list of items that needed to be taken care of at the shipyard? SB: Yes. Q; What was on the punch list? SB: Thrusters, sea water systems, ballast, engines and drilling equipment.' 11:26 Q: On April 20th did you discuss with any bp or transocean execs rig maintenance? SB: Yes. Q: And what did you discuss? SB: We discussed out of service periods between wells. For the upcoming rig move, as well as the next upcoming rig move. Q: And what was scheduled to be repaired during the out of service period? SB: Multiple items. Q: What were they? SB: I don't recall. Q: You've been on deepwater horizon since 2003 correct? SB: Yes. Q: Have you seen able bodied men in the bridge go into areas that had high gas alarms go off with gas detectors? In lieu of an electric alarm that sends off general alarm? SB: No I have not.

FS36 WH BRFG HEAD ON ROBO 1230 CBS POOL [13:14:13] PSAKI>> Hi, everyone. Happy Friday. Okay. A couple of notes for you at the top. Today, the Biden/Harris administration took additional steps to provide stability and relief to homeowners who are still feeling the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. HUD, USDA, and VA announced details to help people with government backed mortgages stay in their homes through monthly payment reductions and potential loan modifications. Homeowners could see reductions in their monthly payments of roughly 20-25%, allowing them to remain in their homes and build long term equity. We're working hard to get the word out to Americans who may benefit from these new programs. And thanks to the work of the consumer financial protection borough and today's actions, most servicers of mortgages are required to provide borrowers' information about these options.Homeowners can visit consumerfinance.gov/housing for update information and more details. 131515 I also would note on our delegation in Haiti, the presidential delegation is safe and accounted for in light of the reported shootings outside of the funeral. They're on their way back to the United States. We are deeply concerned about unrest in Haiti. In this critical moment, Haiti's leaders must come together to chart a united path that reflects the will of the Haitian people. We remain committed to supporting the people of Haiti in this challenging time. [13:15:39] Also a vaccine sharing update for you, we shipped a record number of doses to a record number of countries this week. 22 million doses went out to 23 countries, including Guatemala, Senegal, Zambia. The jet, Gambia, El Salvador, Honduras, the Central African Republic, Cameroon, Lesotho, Panama, Vietnam, Georgia, Pakistan, Tanzania, Mozambique. Been in Morocco, Tajikistan, Colombia, Madagascar, Liberia and the scrutiny. Our teams across the government are working to get more and more doses out every day, but this was a record week for efforts to provide supply to the global community. Finally, a week ahead. 131619 On Monday, the President will host an event in the Rose Garden to celebrate the 31st anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which the President proudly co-sponsored as a senator. While we have much work to do to realize the full aspiration of the ADA, our country has made progress toward its goals of equality of opportunity, full participation, self sufficiency, and respect for the 61 million Americans with disabilities. 131643 Also Monday, the President will welcome the prime minister-- the prime minister of Iraq to theThe White House. The prime minister's visit will highlight the strategic partnership between the United States and Iraq and advance bilateral cooperation under a strategic -- the strategic framework agreement. The visit will also focus on key areas of shared interests, including through education, health, cultural, economic, energy, and climate initiatives. 131707 President Biden looks forward to strengthening bilateral cooperation with Iraq on political, economic, and security issues, including joint efforts to ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS. On Wednesday, the president will travel to Pennsylvania and Lehigh Valley -- in the Lehigh Valley area, where he will emphasize the importance of American manufacturing, buying products made in America, and supporting good paying jobs for American workers. We'll have more details for you over the weekend as things get finalized. Josh, why don't you kick us off? [13:17:35] Q>> Thanks Jed. Choose subject areas First. Hey, that's conservative. 45% of the unvaccinated and say they would definitely not get fascinated. Another 35% say they probably won't get vaccinated. What is this opposition still exist after all the public outreach and shouldn't more governments and employers mandate vaccinations? 131758 PSAKI>> Well, Josh, I think let's take a step back first. In December, before the President took office, the percentage of Americans willing to get a shot was in the thirties. Today, over 68% of adult Americans have taken a shot. So, what that shows you is that in a relatively short period of time, we've been able to influence a whole lot of people to change their minds, take an action -- take action, get a shot, save their lives and the lives of people around them. I'd also note that we've seen some encouraging data over the last couple of weeks. 131830 The five states with the highest case rates, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri and Nevada, had a higher rate of people getting newly vaccinated compared to the national average. That is a good sign. This is the second week in a row, I noted this last week. And, finally in the past 10 days, more than 5.2 million Americans have gotten a shot. Now, there will be institutions, there will be private sector companies and others who make decisions about how to keep their communities safe. That's -- certainly appropriate, but I would just note that we're going to continue our efforts to go community by community, case by case, to convey the accurate information about the efficacy of vaccines. 131911 Q>> Gotcha. Secondly, the Taliban has said that as a condition for peace in Afghanistan, Ashraf Ghani has to be removed as president in a new negotiated government forum. [13:19:23] Does the administration believe that that's in the best interests of the Afghan people and us National security? PSAKI>> Well first, the president and the administration supports the leadership of the Afghan people, including Ashraf Ghani, the president was scheduled to speak with him today. I believe, and I don't believe there's a readout that's come out about that call quite yet. It may while we're speaking here. I would note that there are ongoing political negotiations and discussions that we certainly support between Afghan leaders, members of the Afghan government and the Taliban, 131955 And we believe a political solution is the only outcome to lasting peace in Afghanistan. But, we will continue to provide support to the government in the form of humanitarian support, security support, training. And we will also continue to encourage them to take a leading role in defending and protecting their own people. Go ahead. Q>> Thanks, Jen. Alabama's Republican governor says it is time to start blaming the unvaccinated folk who are letting us down. What do you think about that take? Should the administration be taking a sharper tone against unvaccinated people for putting vaccinated people at risk? 132031 PSAKI>> Well, I don't think our role is to place blame, but what we can do is provide accurate information to people who are not yet vaccinated about the risk they are incurring, not only on themselves but also the people around them. [13:20:44] And well, if you are a young person, you may think you are Superman or Superwoman and immune from the from getting the virus. That is not true. That is not accurate. You can get very sick. You can die from the virus. You can also make your grandparents sick and your parents sick. That is factual information. We're not, 132102 But we're not here to place blame or threats. We're here to provide accurate information. Q>> She says that she doesn't know what else she can do at this point, that she's hit a brick wall with trying to convince people to get vaccinated. Is that a sign that perhaps the federal government should step in and issue mandates? And if not, are you putting the needs of unvaccinated people ahead of the needs of vaccinated people? 132125 PSAKI>> Well, I think the question here -- One, that's not the role of the federal government. That is the role that institutions, private sector entities, and others may take. That certainly is appropriate. Also, local communities are going to take steps they need to take in order to protect people in their communities. 132142 I will say, we understand her frustration, and we understand the frustration of leaders out there and public voices who are trying to say the right thing, advocate for the efficacy of the virus, save people in their communities. What our role is and what we are going to continue to do is make the vaccine available. [13:21:58] We're going to continue to work in partnership to fight misinformation, and we're going to continue to advocate and work in partnership with local officials and entrusted voices to get the word out. Q>> Is there something to be learned from our neighbors to the North Canada? They got a much slower start. They didn't have nearly as many vaccines as we did early on, And yet now they a shot past us and 70% of the population is at least [13:22:27] partially vaccinated. What's the difference between the two countries? What can we learn from their experience? PSAKI>> Well first, I would say 162 Million Americans are now vaccinated. That certainly is a positive step. Were the first to say, and we have long said that that's not enough. We need to ensure more people and more communities are vaccinated and it is now we reached a point where there are some communities, even states where there's 70% 80% or higher vaccination rates. Other communities where there's 40% 50% or otherwise, That's not just a health issue. It's a huge health issue. It's an economic issue. We have seen how that can impact local communities that as it may lead to shut downs of different businesses that can bids an economic issue as well. So of course we work in close partnership with our neighbors, But we have 100 and 62 Million Americans vaccinated, where the world's largest provider of vaccines to the global community. That's progress. In our view, even as we've said From the beginning, there's more work to be done. Q>> Thank you [13:23:27] about the economics of folk that you just mentioned now that daily doses administered the vaccine or down below 300,000. For the first time since December. We've heard. Talk about updating the mask. Guys, do you know if there's been any talk here about updating guidance to start shutting businesses down in places that have very low vaccination rates? PSAKI>> No there has not been no. Q>> Okay, and then on, uh. Crime Generally PSAKI>> can I note though two things just for your public information purposes? One is that, um well, we have seen well, well, we don't look at one week of data as an indication of as you know, we talk about weekly averages. We did see larger numbers of unemployment claims in areas where there are lower vaccination rates we do. It's not enough data to draw conclusions. I'm just noting it for all of you. I would also note that. On the American rescue plan. The way we design that is for the impact and the assistance that we're providing to communities across the country to be long lasting not [13:24:28] to stop all in July are all in September. It extends far beyond it was that is a lesson learned from the past. And so there are different components of that package that's providing assistance to Businesses to organizations to communities that is going to be lasting for months to come. Q>> Okay. And then I'm crying with the intersection in D. C that was shot up last night, only about a mile and a half from here. President Biden have lunch in that neighborhood this summer. What is your message to innocent people to live in cities like this one who might start to get worried about being caught in the crossfire? PSAKI>> Well, either messages that, um, the cornerstone of the president's comprehensive plan to reduce gun violence is providing communities with the tools and resources they need to reduce gun crime, including in Washington, D. C And there are a couple of steps specific to Washington, D. C I mean, a lot of us live there or live in the neighboring communities or know people who are on 14th Street or in the neighbouring. Areas and for people who are not who are watching or hearing this. We're not from those neighborhoods. There's a lot of restaurants there a lot of foot traffic. This is a pretty popular part of the city. Many [13:25:28] of us live in. It's one of D C is one of the five areas Nation wide, where dj launched gun trafficking Strike forces just yesterday, which are going to focus law enforcement resources across jurisdictions to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. D. C is also a part of our 16 city community Violence Intervention Collaborative, which is helping cities implement evidence based strategies. Which have been shown to reduce violence by as much as 60% and in Washington, D. C is also taking advantage of the historic funding that they've gotten through the rescue plan to bolster public safety Mayor Bowser's budget. Proposal would invest $59 million from the rescue plan to reduce violent crime. It would add 100 new slots to the cadet program and add $14 million for youth safety initiatives. So we're certainly seeing this and feeling this even in our. Community here, and it is one of the cities that doj is focused on. Q>> And you just mentioned the White House is working with the sea as part of this collaborative, But just in the last week and a half or so since the mayor of D. C was here. A six year old girl was [13:26:32] shot and killed. Nationals game had to be evacuated. And then there's this incident last night, where diners served time for cover. So at what point would the president maybe reconsider his strategy? PSAKI>> Well, I would say we're just implementing our strategy, which is a multi pronged effort to work in partnership with local leaders, including Mayor Bowser, who has been a great partner to us in this effort to address gun violence that's rising in cities across the country, including Washington and the events of the last week are just examples of that. Go ahead. Q>> It's secretary yelling, just said free came to the podium Bet. The Treasure Department take extraordinary measures. Element isn't raised by August, and she indicated to run out shortly after lawmakers return, possibly as soon as October. So does the White House. Is you guys setting a deadline before recess? Do you want to see that element raised And what is the White House doing to urge lawmakers to Address the debt limit. PSAKI>> This is like the Olympics for Bloomberg these days. Um so I would say, um, friend, Reuters Sorry, and [13:27:34] other financial outlets in the room. Um let me let me give you just a little bit of context. For those of you who have not seen the letter that just went from Secretary Yellen, too. The hill. 132738 So, this is a letter that's standard practice for treasury secretaries when a debt limit is going to be reimposed, which there's a timeline coming up at the end of this month. That is different -- I'm not saying you're suggesting this -- that is different from defaulting, which has never happened in the history of the United States, and would clearly be a catastrophic event. But it is a timeline for the debt limit to be -- to be raised or extended. So, during the previous two administrations, the treasury secretary sent nearly 50 letters to the Hill on the debt limit, some of which were very similar in wording and asked -- and updates to this letter. 132814 And raising or suspending the debt limit does not authorize new spending commitments; it simply enables the government to pay for obligations that congresses and presidents of both parties have already approved. [13:28:24] And Congress find the last piece of history has raised or suspended the debt limit approximately 80 times, which has happened Uh huh under both Republican and democratic presidents, I will say, just for historical fact more often under Republican presidents, but. But it has happened under both, and it has been supported a bipartisan away, so we expect Congress to act promptly to raise or suspend the debt limit and protect the full faith and credit of the United States. Now it is not. I give you all that context because it is not. Out of the ordinary, even though they're called extraordinary measures for Treasury secretaries to present to capital health steps that they are going to take, even as this is being litigated on Capitol Hill. That was that this is what that was what this update was to provide. In that letter. She also noted that. The period of time. That extraordinary measures may last is subject to considerable uncertainty due to a variety of factors, which are exacerbated this year by uncertainty related to the pandemic and calculations about inflows and outflows to the October timeline that she rose referenced in there or the October 1st date. I should say it was referenced was because there's a very large. Reduction [13:29:36] in the cast balance on October 1st. Or we're projecting that due to outflows on that day to meet our obligations to the Department of Defense, so she was giving a sense of what the timeline looks like, Well, not well, also conveying that we can't give a sense at this point on the length of time for extraordinary measures. 132947 We certainly expect Congress to act in a bipartisan manner, as they did three times under the prior administration to raise the debt limit. [13:29:54] Q>> Given that uncertainty is the White House communicating to congressional leaders that you'd like to see this debt limit extended before the recess for August. PSAKI>> I'm not here to set a new deadline. I'm conveying to the history and conveying to you that we think it's clear Congress should act. In a bipartisan manner to raise the debt limit as they have in the past, Q>> and then just one more on the bipartisan infrastructure framework. 133014 Is the White House getting involved in this dispute between Democrats and Republicans over transit funding? And are you recommending any solutions as to how that should be resolved? Are you backing Democrats who say it should remain with the 80-20 highway transit split? 133027 PSAKI>> Well, transit funding is obviously extremely important to the President, the Amtrak President, as we may call him. And -- But we believe that members can get this work done and can work through these issues quite quickly. And, as you know, the issue is about the balance of funding and how it would be allocated between different forms of infrastructure. 133048 But we're encouraged by their progress. They're having conversations, and we believe they can work through any disagreement. I'm just going to go to the back, because I'm not always good at that. Mike Memoli, do have a question today? [13:31:01] Q>> Uh distant. Thank you. Okay. PSAKI>> You didn't raise your hand but usually have a question. Um I'll go to the back back to you know, Q>> everyone's into it. Um, We've talked a lot about this. This week. The protocols are in place at the White House to ensure the president's safety. Interest with Covid 19. But we've seen over the last few weeks the president has been traveling the country quite a bit. He's been engaging in. More controlled environments [13:31:38] went to an ice cream. Stop on a rope line for almost an hour in Philly last week, he's doing a campaign PSAKI>> best hour he spent probably in a while. Q>> Well how Covid changed the way he would campaign last year. What What extends the rise in cases that we're seeing in this country leading to any discussions behind the scenes about whether the president would continue to engage. This kind of activity in public settings where you can't control for people's vaccinations. PSAKI>> Sure. Well, first, we're always going to abide by public health guidelines. And right now the public health guidelines continue to be that if you're vaccinated, and we expect them to continue to be if you're vaccinated, you are very much protected from severe illness from the virus and the president will continue to be a model and following those guidelines and also engaging. Uh with the public in a manner that one is his role as president of the United States, and it's certainly aligned with an appropriate according to those guidelines, as you all know, he has an event later this evening with. Governor Future governor, maybe former [13:32:39] Governor Terry Mcauliffe in Virginia, where he will be, um, certainly engaging with people and with people of Virginia who are making decisions about their future leadership, But I expect he'll be engaging as he did at events last week, so nothing has changed about. Our approach or protocols over the past week or how you've seen him engaged at the ice cream shop or larger crowd events we've had 133256 Q>> And then a question about infrastructure. With some key votes coming up, obviously, next week again, we've seen the President not necessarily engaging in the kind of meetings at the White House with lawmakers on this specific set of proposals in the way we have earlier on in the process. He's been meeting more with outside stakeholders. It seems like there's an outside pressure campaign. But can you give us an update on what his specific conversations might be with lawmakers involved in this process? We haven't really heard much about that. 133323 PSAKI>> He has had a range of conversations with lawmakers over the phone. And he's always conveyed to his team that if it would be helpful to bring members down here, as he has continued to do, he's always happy to do that. The door to the Oval Office is always open, and he is available and will be through the course of the weekend, but also through the coming pivotal weeks as we work to get the infrastructure package across the finish line in the Senate and also the reconciliation bill moved forward. [13:33:50] Okay We're gonna go all the way to the very back. Todd Gillman. I see you somewhere there. Q>> Thank you. Um so the Texas Democrats who require me from the Legislature. Um but they're about halfway through their one month farm break. They've been trying really hard to get in to a meeting, even if it's a zoom meeting with the president. Is he going to meet with them? Is he specifically not meeting with them because of fears that they are spreading covid. PSAKI>> No. He's the vice president who is leading our voting rights effort and our voting rights movement. We're building across the country met with these lawmakers last week, as you well know, uh and the president is very proud of their activism. Their vocal support and [13:34:40] advocacy for voting rights, But I don't have any meeting scheduled for him. Q>> Kind of similar vein regarding coated. Well, the first lady be quarantined away from the president. When she gets back from Japan. PSAKI>> The first lady will follow all public health guidelines. I don't believe that's part of the protocols. Alright let's go. Let's see to the middle here. I'm just jumping around today because, you know, try and better go ahead. Q>> Um, since the White House have a reaction to Mississippi's descend past the Supreme Court to overturn Roe V. Wade. PSAKI>> Well, certainly we are prominent support. We are supporters, the president supporter of preserving Roe V. Wade that is our position in terms of a legislator, a legal reaction I would point to the Department of Justice. Um, let's go to you, Patsy. Go ahead. Q>> Jim I have a question on China trying to just announced sanctions. Yep Again. Six individuals and an entity in the us and retaliations of sanctions imposed by the bike by the administration. On Chinese officials over Hong [13:35:40] Kong. Do you think that this announcement will complicate or impact any plans for a deputy secretary of State Wendy Sherman's visit Changin and is the administration concern. On the escalating sanctions potential escalating sanctions war. PSAKI>> Well, first, I'm not aware of any changes to her planned trip, and certainly we discussed not only areas where we agree, but areas where we disagree, Uh, when we have engagements and diplomatic meetings. In terms of the sanctions. We are aware, of course of the reports that the prc has imposed sanctions on several individuals and ngos, including at least one official from the previous administration, were undeterred by these actions when we remain fully committed. Implementing all relevant U. S sanctions authorities. These actions are the latest examples of how Beijing punishes private citizens companies and civil society organizations as a way to send political signals and further illustrate the prc's deteriorating it deteriorating investment climate and rising political risk. These actions would follow the baseless sanctioning in March of two [13:36:41] commissioners from the U. S Commission on International Religious Freedom. The prc's January sanctions on 21 28. U. S officials and their July 2020 sanctions on us officials and organizations promoting democracy and human rights around the world. Americans of both parties opposed these outrageous moves to target those who defend universal human rights and fundamental freedoms and Beijing's attempt to intimidate and bully internationally respected ngos only demonstrate its further isolation from the world. Let's keep going. I'm just going to keep going around because. Go ahead. Go ahead in the back. I'm just gonna keep going around saying get smart people Q>> on vaccines. Yeah you've been asked about the travel restrictions for international Yeah, before but reflect something different with the president drop those restrictions and airlines adopted vaccine passports or vaccine mandates. I know you've. Sort of encouraged businesses to take steps to get everyone vaccinated that they prosecute. PSAKI>> I would say first that their ongoing working groups that are having discussions about how to [13:37:41] hopefully move forward to a point where there is international travel and is returning something we would all like to see not just for tourism, but for families to be reunited. There are a range of topics and those discussions that are ongoing. The president receives regular briefings on them, but we rely on public health. And medical advice on when we're going to determine changes to be made, Q>> as the president continued engaging with Chancellor Merkel on the subject. I know they talked about that. In the bilateral press conference here with me PSAKI>> that was raised. He has not had another follow up conversation with her since that point in time, why don't I go to the young man next to you? Hmm. Q>> A lot of parents are concerned about the coming school year. What's the White House doing so? Make sure that we're not. We're not doing remote learning again. Nationwide PSAKI>> Well, our plan and our objective and our desire and commitment is to, uh to push for and ensure 100% of schools are open across the country. That's also of course, up to school districts to implement but from the federal government, the role we have played is by, uh. We're [13:38:43] advocating for funding in the American rescue plan that can help provide funding for mitigation member measures for schools so that they can invest in social distancing opportunities or repairing events that need to improve ventilation. We're also we've also put out public health guidance from the CDC that includes specific mitigation measures that schools can take and our secretary of education has been focused on. This issue from the first day he was sworn into office working across school districts to share best practices and ensure we can work towards returning kids to in school. Learning Q>> Delta doesn't change that right? PSAKI>> Delta has not changed our public health guidelines. No. Okay, let's go back to the front Go ahead 133920 RACHEL SCOTT Q>> Just a quick follow up on infrastructure. On the transit spending, we know that's important to the President. Is that a red line for him if that is dropped from this package? Would he still support it? 133927 PSAKI>> I'm not setting red lines here, but we are confident that they can work through the funding issues and the breakdown of funding issues between Democrats and Republicans over the coming days. 133937 RACHEL SCOTT Q>> And then just one other question just on Alabama, and then I have one on Hunter Biden. On Alabama, the big concern here and the reason why these comments from the governor are so alarming is because of the low vaccination rates, right? So, is there some concern from the White House and does the administration fear that some elected leaders may just get so frustrated and accept this fact that there are just some people in this country that just may not want to get vaccinated? 133959 PSAKI>> Well, I don't -- I didn't hear those comments as accepting the fact. I heard those comments as being frustrated that, you know, it's an effort to protect the citizens in your state and trying to figure out what steps you can take to encourage people to get vaccinated and save their lives and the lives of their loved ones. We always knew it would be harder as more people got vaccinated. That's the stage we're in now. But we also believe that there is still opportunity through a range of approaches and tactics and partnerships with governors and leaders and civic leaders to get more people vaccinated. There are a range of factors, you all -- many of you have reported on, that are leading individuals in these five states with lower vaccination rates to get vaccinated. 134041 Some are -- is the Delta variant, and reporting, frankly, and fears of the transmissibility of the Delta variant. Some is, unfortunately, individuals are experiencing people in their communities, family members, who are getting sick and getting hospitalized because of the transmissibility of the Delta variant. 134059 I don't think we have complex data quite yet to determine what is leading to the increase in vaccination rates in some of these states, but we think that's an encouraging sign. We know it's frustrating, we get it. But we have to stay at it to save people's lives. 134111 RACHEL SCOTT Q>> And last one on Hunter Biden. You confirmed yesterday that he will be meeting with prospective buyers, but you also said that he's not going to have any conversation -- PSAKI>> Not that he's meeting with prospective buyers. That he is attending gallery events that had been prior -- prior planned and announced. RACHEL SCOTT Q>> There could be prospective buyers there. PSAKI>> He's not -- Those discussions will be happening with the gallerist, but that is different than meeting with prospective buyers. 134134 RACHEL SCOTT Q>> If there are prospective buyers there, you said yesterday that he is not going to have any conversations related to the selling of art. How can the administration guarantee that? 134145 PSAKI>> The selling of his art will all happen through gal -- the gallerist, and the names and individuals will be kept confidential. We will not be aware, neither will he be aware. RACHEL SCOTT Q>> Is there anything stopping anyone from directly telling, though, Hunter Biden, that they're going to purchase his art? And if they do, the American people won't know who they are. 134203 PSAKI>> He will not know. We will not know who purchases his art. Go ahead, Jeff. [13:42:07] Q>> The president said yesterday that 25% Covid group is quote investigating every aspect of any change. What specifically, are they doing? Or is you looking for them to do in regards to the adult? A. Very and what information is he looking for them to bring back to him? PSAKI>> You mean the CDC or discussions with our public health experts? I think what he was conveying Jeff is that he gets regular weekly, if not more frequent. Updates from his Koba team about. What is happening with the virus. The rise of certain variants, including the delta variant, [13:42:46] and certainly steps that they suggest we take as a result, that's an ongoing process. That's not new, So I think he's of course, um. Looking for their updates and guidance on what the spread is where we're seeing the spread. What impacts we're having, and any mitigation measures they recommend we take from a public health and data driven perspective Q>> on testing specifically, does the president believe that more testing should be done? It's fallen some 75% or so since November, specifically, do you think should be done to see. Industry done untested. PSAKI>> He relies on the guidance of his health and medical experts if they are advising that that is a factor than certainly his role would be to advocate for expanding it. If in his role as president, bu that they obviously provide recommendations publicly as well. Q>> Final thing here, you said, it's not your role to place planned, but the president has a remarkable ability to use the bully pulpit. Pick up the telephone. It happens all the time with. With the corporations and things. What is he doing specifically [13:43:46] with celebrities, perhaps, or with a business leaders like we saw the NFL this week to use his power of the office to try and get some companies or groups to Do mandates will make changes. Is he doing anything himself? Uh reaching out. PSAKI>> We mean aside from getting aside from getting enough vaccine to make sure every American is vaccinated and donating more to the world than any other country and ensuring we're expanding accessibility to pharmacies, too. Community groups and giving $3 billion to empower local voices to get into local communities to get people vaccinated. That's a that's a fair amount that he's done. Q>> You said several times. It's not the role of the government to, uh. Essentially talked to private corporations. But president talks to corporations leaders all the time. Certainly during the rest of you don't know his vice president happened all the time talking to private corporations. If a corner is to be turned here on the hesitancy. Is there anything that he believes that he personally can [13:44:47] do among some different leaders, Not giving a public speech meant that he can do? PSAKI>> Well first. I think I reference the $3 billion because the most powerful and impactful role we've seen across the country from community to community is engaging. Educating and empowering those trusted local voices. We know the president, the vice president, Olivia Rodrigo, who are very grateful to and others have been out there advocating for the efficacy of the vaccine, and we're hopeful that's effective and it can be and he'll continue to do that, and we'll continue to look to partner with. More voices and more creative, you know, well known individuals to elevate the issue of vaccine of the effectiveness of the vaccine. But we've seen that that's that. Actually local voices people, you may not know who may not have a Twitter Following are actually the most powerful people in this fight and will continue to empower and fund those efforts. Oh, Jeff, Go ahead, and I'll go to Karen. Go ahead. Q>> Thank you. Pfizer says the U. S government is [13:45:47] purchasing a dollar 200 million doses of its taxi for Children and for potential booster shots, community. Confirm the purchase. And can you say whether they're thinking about the need for booster shots has crystallized with the maintenance? Think PSAKI>> uh, First, HHS has all the specifics, but yes, we have made that purchase. Here's the bottom line. We've always prepared for every scenario. The federal government is exercising an option in its contract advisor to purchase these 200 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine to be delivered between the fall of 2021 in the spring of 2022 to prepare for future vaccination needs, including as you referenced Jeff. Vaccines for Children under 12 and possible booster shots. If studies show they are necessary, I will note I have said from the podium many times that we were like Boy Scouts and Girl scouts and we were going to prepare for every contingency. That's the job of the federal government right to ensure we have maximum flexibility. We don't know if we'll need a booster shot. That's going to be up to the research that's ongoing with the fda. That's [13:46:48] not. Recommendation that's currently made. We also don't know. We also can't predict what the outcome will be of research on kids under 12 or certainly hopeful, and we don't know which vaccine will be most effective, but we want to have maximum flexibility. So this is an effort to provide us with that, Q>> All right. They just want an infrastructure. We understand that Senate. Negotiators are looking at repurposing covid relief funds for hospitals and nursing homes pays for parts of the bill. Is that something the White House would support. PSAKI>> There's a range of final nitty gritty discussions between both sides, but I'm not going to give feedback on each of the discussions from here. Okay as my God, Karen. Oh Karen. Sorry. Go ahead. Karen. 134731 KAREN TRAVERS Q>> Thank you. Sort of keying off of what Jeff -- PSAKI>> Yeah. KAREN TRAVERS Q>> was asking, the NFL is telling teams that they could potentially forfeit games for a COVID outbreak among unvaccinated players, and the players could lose their pay for any missed games. Does the administration support a policy where players or, more broadly, employees could lose pay if they are unvaccinated and cause a COVID outbreak at their place of work? 134751 PSAKI>> Well, first, I'm not gonna make a sweeping private sector conclusion here. What I will say is the NFL policy is making clear how they're going to proceed with their season. That's their role to do, right? We certainly believe the biggest takeaway is that getting vaccinated is our ticket back to normal and that vaccines are effective and allow all of us a high degree of protection, importantly, avoid hospitalization or death. So, this provides --this is guidance they determined, the NFL, about how they're going to proceed with their season. That is their role to do. 134828 KAREN TAVERS Q>> And there is a new model out from an organization that consults with the CDC, and it's predicting that the current surge in cases right now could continue until a peak in mid October, the daily deaths potentially more than tripling where they are right now. What can the President do right now to prepare Americans for that possibility? You talk so much about the long winter last year. What about a potentially long fall? 134851 PSAKI>> Well, I think the President's role right now is to continue to encourage people to get vaccinated, because it is incredibly effective, and protect -- protecting them from serious illness, from death, from hospitalization from the virus. That's the most powerful role he can play at this point in time. George, go ahead. 134908 Q>> This morning, the Cleveland Indians announced they're changing their name to Guardians, and that's already become an issue in the Ohio Senate race. And the former president just minutes ago attacked it. Any reaction by the President or the White House? 134924 PSAKI>> We certainly support their change of name. We may be on the other side of the president, former president, on that front, I would guess. I haven't seen his tweet, or however he's communicating these days. Go ahead. 134935 Q>> Jen, two questions on the vaccine. [13:49:36] I'm first you have mentioned yesterday that every individual at at ts White House has been offered a vaccine. So can you clarify the administration? Not mandating vaccines for White House step. No we have not met. Okay And do you have a total? Can you offer any confirmation to us on the percentage of employees who are vaccinated? PSAKI>> I'm not going to provide that. I will see if there's more information to provide Q>> you offer any guidance stint on how you're confirming vaccination status of important PSAKI>> they're vaccinated here in the White House Medical unit for the most part. Go ahead. I'll call Kelly. I'm sorry. I'll come to you next one. Q>> This administration has long claimed that you're trying to most transparent history. If that's the case, why won't you just release the number of breaking. Pieces that you've had fascinated staffers. PSAKI>> Well I think first we're in a very different place than we were 6 to 7 months ago as it relates to the virus, and as many medical experts have said, inside and outside of the government. Those who are vaccinated are protected from serious illness. Most asymptomatic if they are individuals were vaccinated to get the virus and you know we are in a different place in terms of the impact of individuals who may have, as you said breakthrough cases, [13:50:52] Q>> Why not just provide the number. Are you trying to hide something? PSAKI>> But what is the Why do you need to have that information Q>> case of transparency interest the public going understood, having a better understanding of how breakfast cases work here in the White House. PSAKI>> Well, first there are the CDC tracks and let me give you this information to The CDC tracks across the country, of course, hospitalizations and deaths as we have seen, they also do a great deal of tracking in cohorts and ensure that so let me give you a little more information on this, which I think. I don't know if it hopefully, it's of interest. Um so the way that because people have asked us before, so the way the CDC is actively tracking big through cases, there are tens of thousands of people across the country, of course. Who are in what were what they call cohort Studies, which the CDCs actively monitoring. For example, the CDC has a long term care facility study where it is getting data from more than 14,000 long term care facilities. CDC has a health care worker study where they monitor vaccinated healthcare workers who got tested who get [13:51:53] tested with pcr tests every single week. And CDC also collects what they call passive surveillance, which is where hospitals provide CDC with data when they identify someone who was hospitalized but has been vaccinated, so there's a range of means our public health officials are tracking across the country across D C across any individuals here about who is vaccinated, who is. Getting the virus getting hospitalized, hopefully not remains a small percentage 135215 Q>> And following up on the question about Hunter Biden and his art shows, are there any specific procedures you can tell us that are being put in place to ensure these conversations remain, as you say, not about the sales? Will he get ethics training, will he have to report afterwards about the conversations? Anything specific you can tell us about how you are monitoring this? 135233 PSAKI>> Well again, I think it is certainly a commitment that has been made by all parties involved. He is not involved in the sale or discussions about the sale of his art, and he will not be informed of the -- of the sale of his art and who is purchasing that art. That is a commitment that's been made, and we expect that all parties would abide by it. Go ahead, Kelly. [13:52:54] Q>> I wanted to ask about the CDC shirking because and you gave us some information now, But as of May 1st they stopped tracking breakthrough cases that did not result. Hospitalization or death, with the exception of those kinds of tests that you just described. Should there be a more broader net on breakthrough cases with the president's support that to get a better picture of breakthrough, and those White House employees staff? GOP on the campus in any capacity, who are not vaccinated. Are they working here? Or are they working from home? PSAKI>> Uh will any individual who has chosen not to be vaccinated? Same as in the press corps? The public health guidance is to wear a mask that is the public health guidance that's provided to employees as well. In terms of the it is much more expensive than hospitalizations. That what that was what I was trying to convey. What the CDC does is they have these they actively [13:53:54] track breakthrough cases through these cohorts of individuals who are. Vulnerable populations who are had high risks of exposure, and they, of course, include it as I noted, long term care facilities, health care workers and others who would be in those cohorts and categories. I would also note that because the vast majority of individuals who are vaccinated who who get test positive for Covid may be asymptomatic or have moderate or minimal cases. Those are cases. We may not know we may not know about right. Q>> Um the CDC says as they first they stopped tracking right through cases that don't result in hospital is, um, PSAKI>> they do track through these cohorts, which is a large swath of people who would be vulnerable or on the front lines of exposure. Q>> My periodic question, She asked six months. When can we expect to know about a physical exam for the president? And what are the plans for that? PSAKI>> There is absolutely he will have a physical exam. Absolutely You will know about the physical exam. I don't have a date for you at this point in time, and [13:54:54] I expect it will continue to ask as you should. Go ahead. Q>> Thank you. This is some sort of rhetorical. Question vaccination. It is a shame that people have to get very sick and some people have to DI In order to increase the vaccination rate in many parts of this country. Isn't that I guess a logical order of how this would play out or is there a political component to teach them? PSAKI>> I'm not sure I'm following your question. Try again. Q>> Tell me more about what? You're looking for Standard practice that people more people are getting sick in a certain area. That. Those people in that area who are unvaccinated was a G. I really need to go get vaccinated. Isn't that a logical order? For this or is there a political component? Do you think that has kept people away from being vaccine? PSAKI>> I think there are a range of reasons we've seen across the country where individuals have not yet been vaccinated. Some of it is [13:55:55] misinformation, a large amount. In our view. Some of it is fear. Some of it is they may feel time. Some of it is they're young, and they feel they're Superman or superwoman, and they're not going to get sick. That shouldn't be. We don't want that to be the order of events. It shouldn't be that someone should have to know. A neighbor who gets sick and hospitalized to motivate them to go to a hospital to go to get vaccinated. We don't want that to be the case. Um we have seen anecdotally and through some of your all of your reporting that that has been the case in some. Communities But certainly our objective is to communicate to people. This is not a political issue. It is not a partisan issue. This is about protecting lives. The virus does not discriminate between political party affiliation go ahead of Q>> the White House noted yesterday that. 40% of cases are coming from three states before vaccination rights. Florida Texas Them deserved all three of those states of governors, who in recent weeks of criticized the White House's strategy. One of them is even fundraising off of it as you. Probably aware what's being done to engage those governors [13:56:55] come up with a common message. Common strategy to try. Be one team with those governors in terms of fighting stars. PSAKI>> Well I would say first our public health experts work with governors from across the country and work with local health officials from across the country and all of these states, especially the ones at this point in time where there are lower vaccination rates, and we're seeing the delta variant spread, and this is one of the reasons we rely so much on. That Miss knees. Okay hold on. Okay Maybe we'll come back was his wife. Sorry So we're really didn. This is why we rely on local messengers. And with my real, we rely on trusted voices because whether it's the president of the United States. Or the governor. Sometimes those aren't the people you trust. Sometimes that is too political or partisan for people. We understand that. That's why we rely on and we're funding and empowering local trusted voices who aren't seen through a political prism Q>> and little bits of coast right now we're seeing wildfires in Oregon. In northern California. What steps is the administration taking to combat the Kirk fires and also additional fires this summer? PSAKI>> Um well, I [13:57:58] appreciate you asking about this because this has gotten a lot of attention across the country and we haven't talked about it. A lot of so much going on. One. The president receives regular reports on the wildfire situation. He's quite focused on it as I think you're probably aware, but others may not be the national Wild wild Land Fire preparedness level is at five, which is the highest level due to significant fire activity. And as of today 2.5 million acres have burned across the United States In the past two weeks alone, the number of large uncontained fires across the United States has increased by nearly 90% So right now what we're doing one. The President's very focused on this and wants regular updates. He's regularly met with Western governors and I expect we'll do that again. Soon. The FEMA administrator is visiting. Idaho, Oregon and California this week to meet with state, federal and tribal partners, an emergency groups about the worsening wildfire situation to coordinate response efforts and discuss how the regions are addressing. Climate change and ongoing resilience work. We are also closely coordinating with officials on the front lines to [13:58:58] provide federal assistance as needed, including by recently approving fire management assistance grants for fire departments in Oregon, California. And Washington, which are where there's the collective threat to homes and major communities, and we are also continue to monitor monitor these fires from here again. The president receives regular updates, and he's quite focused on this. Go ahead. Q>> Cuba Yeah, function with Salazar says that the administration could turn the Internet back on for Cubans within minutes. I guess it's just technology to allow high textile is float. Over Cuba to act as towers. What's being done, Or can you provide an update on interstate? I'm restoring Internet service to Cuba and PSAKI>> I wish it was that easy. We are exploring aange of options. We are quite focused and interested in restoring Internet access to the people of Cuba. Which we actually which we absolutely believe and agree, I would say [13:59:58] would provide, um, information would allow individuals to communicate and we feel if we can get it done. That would be a great step forward and beneficial to the people of Cuba. Go ahead here and, um. Q>> You mentioned at the top of that Republicans had also increased the debt sailing and certainly pending bipartisan for many years. I'm wondering what the president's long term you. Country's balance sheets are given that under current long term, cbo estimates, debt is never again expected dip below 100% of gross domestic product and then within 30 years as projected to hit 202% of gross domestic product. PSAKI>> Well, first, I would say the president's proposed a way to pay for his proposals, which is something that is a fiscally responsible step some of his predecessors, the most recent one did not do when worked in advocated to support the passing of $2 trillion in tax cuts that did not. Bear out the financial benefit, he promised, and also certainly added to the [14:00:59] deficit. The president takes these issues seriously. He is focused on being a president who cares about the future of our. The next generations, and I think his actions have borne that out. Q>> And then I quit felt There was a lot of discussion about masking the other day. This administration has always followed CDC guy. Yeah if the CDC was to say. We need to return to masking with this administration policy. PSAKI>> We're always going to follow the guidance of our health and medical experts go ahead Q>> on the vaccine immunity and given advisers now seem waiting. Immunity and suffered from who is vaccinated and who is not the White House looking at models and projections that say in the next year as everyone who has been vaccinated could start to lose that immunity. What does that look like for hospitalizations and deaths? PSAKI>> Well, first, I would certainly point to our health and medical experts to answer questions about future projections about the impact of waning immunity. I will say that as they look at this data and assess from are from the CDC and other public health entities in the government, they certainly [14:02:02] talked to private sector companies like Pfizer, but that's only one source of data and engagement. They look at a range of data across the board as they make projections, so we really rely on there. Broad data and projections as we assess what the future looks like Q>> honest, honest while you mentioned continuing us support does that include continuing military support when we've seen a number of airstrikes at the U. S has launched on Taliban targets over the last 30 days? Could that continue? At the end of the military mission at the end of August. PSAKI>> I don't have anything on that for you. I'd certainly point to the department of Defense, but what I'm what I was communicating about was, uh, over the coming weeks. We maintain our authorities as you know, and we provide. We provided a range of training and security assistance equipment to the Afghans and the leaders. Of Afghanistan as we transition to bringing our men and women home. Thanks so much. Everyone have a great weekend. [end]

FS37 WH BRFG CUTS ROBO 1230 CBS POOL [13:14:13] PSAKI>> Hi, everyone. Happy Friday. Okay. A couple of notes for you at the top. Today, the Biden/Harris administration took additional steps to provide stability and relief to homeowners who are still feeling the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. HUD, USDA, and VA announced details to help people with government backed mortgages stay in their homes through monthly payment reductions and potential loan modifications. Homeowners could see reductions in their monthly payments of roughly 20-25%, allowing them to remain in their homes and build long term equity. We're working hard to get the word out to Americans who may benefit from these new programs. And thanks to the work of the consumer financial protection borough and today's actions, most servicers of mortgages are required to provide borrowers' information about these options.Homeowners can visit consumerfinance.gov/housing for update information and more details. 131515 I also would note on our delegation in Haiti, the presidential delegation is safe and accounted for in light of the reported shootings outside of the funeral. They're on their way back to the United States. We are deeply concerned about unrest in Haiti. In this critical moment, Haiti's leaders must come together to chart a united path that reflects the will of the Haitian people. We remain committed to supporting the people of Haiti in this challenging time. [13:15:39] Also a vaccine sharing update for you, we shipped a record number of doses to a record number of countries this week. 22 million doses went out to 23 countries, including Guatemala, Senegal, Zambia. The jet, Gambia, El Salvador, Honduras, the Central African Republic, Cameroon, Lesotho, Panama, Vietnam, Georgia, Pakistan, Tanzania, Mozambique. Been in Morocco, Tajikistan, Colombia, Madagascar, Liberia and the scrutiny. Our teams across the government are working to get more and more doses out every day, but this was a record week for efforts to provide supply to the global community. Finally, a week ahead. 131619 On Monday, the President will host an event in the Rose Garden to celebrate the 31st anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which the President proudly co-sponsored as a senator. While we have much work to do to realize the full aspiration of the ADA, our country has made progress toward its goals of equality of opportunity, full participation, self sufficiency, and respect for the 61 million Americans with disabilities. 131643 Also Monday, the President will welcome the prime minister-- the prime minister of Iraq to theThe White House. The prime minister's visit will highlight the strategic partnership between the United States and Iraq and advance bilateral cooperation under a strategic -- the strategic framework agreement. The visit will also focus on key areas of shared interests, including through education, health, cultural, economic, energy, and climate initiatives. 131707 President Biden looks forward to strengthening bilateral cooperation with Iraq on political, economic, and security issues, including joint efforts to ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS. On Wednesday, the president will travel to Pennsylvania and Lehigh Valley -- in the Lehigh Valley area, where he will emphasize the importance of American manufacturing, buying products made in America, and supporting good paying jobs for American workers. We'll have more details for you over the weekend as things get finalized. Josh, why don't you kick us off? [13:17:35] Q>> Thanks Jed. Choose subject areas First. Hey, that's conservative. 45% of the unvaccinated and say they would definitely not get fascinated. Another 35% say they probably won't get vaccinated. What is this opposition still exist after all the public outreach and shouldn't more governments and employers mandate vaccinations? 131758 PSAKI>> Well, Josh, I think let's take a step back first. In December, before the President took office, the percentage of Americans willing to get a shot was in the thirties. Today, over 68% of adult Americans have taken a shot. So, what that shows you is that in a relatively short period of time, we've been able to influence a whole lot of people to change their minds, take an action -- take action, get a shot, save their lives and the lives of people around them. I'd also note that we've seen some encouraging data over the last couple of weeks. 131830 The five states with the highest case rates, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri and Nevada, had a higher rate of people getting newly vaccinated compared to the national average. That is a good sign. This is the second week in a row, I noted this last week. And, finally in the past 10 days, more than 5.2 million Americans have gotten a shot. Now, there will be institutions, there will be private sector companies and others who make decisions about how to keep their communities safe. That's -- certainly appropriate, but I would just note that we're going to continue our efforts to go community by community, case by case, to convey the accurate information about the efficacy of vaccines. 131911 Q>> Gotcha. Secondly, the Taliban has said that as a condition for peace in Afghanistan, Ashraf Ghani has to be removed as president in a new negotiated government forum. [13:19:23] Does the administration believe that that's in the best interests of the Afghan people and us National security? PSAKI>> Well first, the president and the administration supports the leadership of the Afghan people, including Ashraf Ghani, the president was scheduled to speak with him today. I believe, and I don't believe there's a readout that's come out about that call quite yet. It may while we're speaking here. I would note that there are ongoing political negotiations and discussions that we certainly support between Afghan leaders, members of the Afghan government and the Taliban, 131955 And we believe a political solution is the only outcome to lasting peace in Afghanistan. But, we will continue to provide support to the government in the form of humanitarian support, security support, training. And we will also continue to encourage them to take a leading role in defending and protecting their own people. Go ahead. Q>> Thanks, Jen. Alabama's Republican governor says it is time to start blaming the unvaccinated folk who are letting us down. What do you think about that take? Should the administration be taking a sharper tone against unvaccinated people for putting vaccinated people at risk? 132031 PSAKI>> Well, I don't think our role is to place blame, but what we can do is provide accurate information to people who are not yet vaccinated about the risk they are incurring, not only on themselves but also the people around them. [13:20:44] And well, if you are a young person, you may think you are Superman or Superwoman and immune from the from getting the virus. That is not true. That is not accurate. You can get very sick. You can die from the virus. You can also make your grandparents sick and your parents sick. That is factual information. We're not, 132102 But we're not here to place blame or threats. We're here to provide accurate information. Q>> She says that she doesn't know what else she can do at this point, that she's hit a brick wall with trying to convince people to get vaccinated. Is that a sign that perhaps the federal government should step in and issue mandates? And if not, are you putting the needs of unvaccinated people ahead of the needs of vaccinated people? 132125 PSAKI>> Well, I think the question here -- One, that's not the role of the federal government. That is the role that institutions, private sector entities, and others may take. That certainly is appropriate. Also, local communities are going to take steps they need to take in order to protect people in their communities. 132142 I will say, we understand her frustration, and we understand the frustration of leaders out there and public voices who are trying to say the right thing, advocate for the efficacy of the virus, save people in their communities. What our role is and what we are going to continue to do is make the vaccine available. [13:21:58] We're going to continue to work in partnership to fight misinformation, and we're going to continue to advocate and work in partnership with local officials and entrusted voices to get the word out. Q>> Is there something to be learned from our neighbors to the North Canada? They got a much slower start. They didn't have nearly as many vaccines as we did early on, And yet now they a shot past us and 70% of the population is at least [13:22:27] partially vaccinated. What's the difference between the two countries? What can we learn from their experience? PSAKI>> Well first, I would say 162 Million Americans are now vaccinated. That certainly is a positive step. Were the first to say, and we have long said that that's not enough. We need to ensure more people and more communities are vaccinated and it is now we reached a point where there are some communities, even states where there's 70% 80% or higher vaccination rates. Other communities where there's 40% 50% or otherwise, That's not just a health issue. It's a huge health issue. It's an economic issue. We have seen how that can impact local communities that as it may lead to shut downs of different businesses that can bids an economic issue as well. So of course we work in close partnership with our neighbors, But we have 100 and 62 Million Americans vaccinated, where the world's largest provider of vaccines to the global community. That's progress. In our view, even as we've said From the beginning, there's more work to be done. Q>> Thank you [13:23:27] about the economics of folk that you just mentioned now that daily doses administered the vaccine or down below 300,000. For the first time since December. We've heard. Talk about updating the mask. Guys, do you know if there's been any talk here about updating guidance to start shutting businesses down in places that have very low vaccination rates? PSAKI>> No there has not been no. Q>> Okay, and then on, uh. Crime Generally PSAKI>> can I note though two things just for your public information purposes? One is that, um well, we have seen well, well, we don't look at one week of data as an indication of as you know, we talk about weekly averages. We did see larger numbers of unemployment claims in areas where there are lower vaccination rates we do. It's not enough data to draw conclusions. I'm just noting it for all of you. I would also note that. On the American rescue plan. The way we design that is for the impact and the assistance that we're providing to communities across the country to be long lasting not [13:24:28] to stop all in July are all in September. It extends far beyond it was that is a lesson learned from the past. And so there are different components of that package that's providing assistance to Businesses to organizations to communities that is going to be lasting for months to come. Q>> Okay. And then I'm crying with the intersection in D. C that was shot up last night, only about a mile and a half from here. President Biden have lunch in that neighborhood this summer. What is your message to innocent people to live in cities like this one who might start to get worried about being caught in the crossfire? PSAKI>> Well, either messages that, um, the cornerstone of the president's comprehensive plan to reduce gun violence is providing communities with the tools and resources they need to reduce gun crime, including in Washington, D. C And there are a couple of steps specific to Washington, D. C I mean, a lot of us live there or live in the neighboring communities or know people who are on 14th Street or in the neighbouring. Areas and for people who are not who are watching or hearing this. We're not from those neighborhoods. There's a lot of restaurants there a lot of foot traffic. This is a pretty popular part of the city. Many [13:25:28] of us live in. It's one of D C is one of the five areas Nation wide, where dj launched gun trafficking Strike forces just yesterday, which are going to focus law enforcement resources across jurisdictions to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. D. C is also a part of our 16 city community Violence Intervention Collaborative, which is helping cities implement evidence based strategies. Which have been shown to reduce violence by as much as 60% and in Washington, D. C is also taking advantage of the historic funding that they've gotten through the rescue plan to bolster public safety Mayor Bowser's budget. Proposal would invest $59 million from the rescue plan to reduce violent crime. It would add 100 new slots to the cadet program and add $14 million for youth safety initiatives. So we're certainly seeing this and feeling this even in our. Community here, and it is one of the cities that doj is focused on. Q>> And you just mentioned the White House is working with the sea as part of this collaborative, But just in the last week and a half or so since the mayor of D. C was here. A six year old girl was [13:26:32] shot and killed. Nationals game had to be evacuated. And then there's this incident last night, where diners served time for cover. So at what point would the president maybe reconsider his strategy? PSAKI>> Well, I would say we're just implementing our strategy, which is a multi pronged effort to work in partnership with local leaders, including Mayor Bowser, who has been a great partner to us in this effort to address gun violence that's rising in cities across the country, including Washington and the events of the last week are just examples of that. Go ahead. Q>> It's secretary yelling, just said free came to the podium Bet. The Treasure Department take extraordinary measures. Element isn't raised by August, and she indicated to run out shortly after lawmakers return, possibly as soon as October. So does the White House. Is you guys setting a deadline before recess? Do you want to see that element raised And what is the White House doing to urge lawmakers to Address the debt limit. PSAKI>> This is like the Olympics for Bloomberg these days. Um so I would say, um, friend, Reuters Sorry, and [13:27:34] other financial outlets in the room. Um let me let me give you just a little bit of context. For those of you who have not seen the letter that just went from Secretary Yellen, too. The hill. 132738 So, this is a letter that's standard practice for treasury secretaries when a debt limit is going to be reimposed, which there's a timeline coming up at the end of this month. That is different -- I'm not saying you're suggesting this -- that is different from defaulting, which has never happened in the history of the United States, and would clearly be a catastrophic event. But it is a timeline for the debt limit to be -- to be raised or extended. So, during the previous two administrations, the treasury secretary sent nearly 50 letters to the Hill on the debt limit, some of which were very similar in wording and asked -- and updates to this letter. 132814 And raising or suspending the debt limit does not authorize new spending commitments; it simply enables the government to pay for obligations that congresses and presidents of both parties have already approved. [13:28:24] And Congress find the last piece of history has raised or suspended the debt limit approximately 80 times, which has happened Uh huh under both Republican and democratic presidents, I will say, just for historical fact more often under Republican presidents, but. But it has happened under both, and it has been supported a bipartisan away, so we expect Congress to act promptly to raise or suspend the debt limit and protect the full faith and credit of the United States. Now it is not. I give you all that context because it is not. Out of the ordinary, even though they're called extraordinary measures for Treasury secretaries to present to capital health steps that they are going to take, even as this is being litigated on Capitol Hill. That was that this is what that was what this update was to provide. In that letter. She also noted that. The period of time. That extraordinary measures may last is subject to considerable uncertainty due to a variety of factors, which are exacerbated this year by uncertainty related to the pandemic and calculations about inflows and outflows to the October timeline that she rose referenced in there or the October 1st date. I should say it was referenced was because there's a very large. Reduction [13:29:36] in the cast balance on October 1st. Or we're projecting that due to outflows on that day to meet our obligations to the Department of Defense, so she was giving a sense of what the timeline looks like, Well, not well, also conveying that we can't give a sense at this point on the length of time for extraordinary measures. 132947 We certainly expect Congress to act in a bipartisan manner, as they did three times under the prior administration to raise the debt limit. [13:29:54] Q>> Given that uncertainty is the White House communicating to congressional leaders that you'd like to see this debt limit extended before the recess for August. PSAKI>> I'm not here to set a new deadline. I'm conveying to the history and conveying to you that we think it's clear Congress should act. In a bipartisan manner to raise the debt limit as they have in the past, Q>> and then just one more on the bipartisan infrastructure framework. 133014 Is the White House getting involved in this dispute between Democrats and Republicans over transit funding? And are you recommending any solutions as to how that should be resolved? Are you backing Democrats who say it should remain with the 80-20 highway transit split? 133027 PSAKI>> Well, transit funding is obviously extremely important to the President, the Amtrak President, as we may call him. And -- But we believe that members can get this work done and can work through these issues quite quickly. And, as you know, the issue is about the balance of funding and how it would be allocated between different forms of infrastructure. 133048 But we're encouraged by their progress. They're having conversations, and we believe they can work through any disagreement. I'm just going to go to the back, because I'm not always good at that. Mike Memoli, do have a question today? [13:31:01] Q>> Uh distant. Thank you. Okay. PSAKI>> You didn't raise your hand but usually have a question. Um I'll go to the back back to you know, Q>> everyone's into it. Um, We've talked a lot about this. This week. The protocols are in place at the White House to ensure the president's safety. Interest with Covid 19. But we've seen over the last few weeks the president has been traveling the country quite a bit. He's been engaging in. More controlled environments [13:31:38] went to an ice cream. Stop on a rope line for almost an hour in Philly last week, he's doing a campaign PSAKI>> best hour he spent probably in a while. Q>> Well how Covid changed the way he would campaign last year. What What extends the rise in cases that we're seeing in this country leading to any discussions behind the scenes about whether the president would continue to engage. This kind of activity in public settings where you can't control for people's vaccinations. PSAKI>> Sure. Well, first, we're always going to abide by public health guidelines. And right now the public health guidelines continue to be that if you're vaccinated, and we expect them to continue to be if you're vaccinated, you are very much protected from severe illness from the virus and the president will continue to be a model and following those guidelines and also engaging. Uh with the public in a manner that one is his role as president of the United States, and it's certainly aligned with an appropriate according to those guidelines, as you all know, he has an event later this evening with. Governor Future governor, maybe former [13:32:39] Governor Terry Mcauliffe in Virginia, where he will be, um, certainly engaging with people and with people of Virginia who are making decisions about their future leadership, But I expect he'll be engaging as he did at events last week, so nothing has changed about. Our approach or protocols over the past week or how you've seen him engaged at the ice cream shop or larger crowd events we've had 133256 Q>> And then a question about infrastructure. With some key votes coming up, obviously, next week again, we've seen the President not necessarily engaging in the kind of meetings at the White House with lawmakers on this specific set of proposals in the way we have earlier on in the process. He's been meeting more with outside stakeholders. It seems like there's an outside pressure campaign. But can you give us an update on what his specific conversations might be with lawmakers involved in this process? We haven't really heard much about that. 133323 PSAKI>> He has had a range of conversations with lawmakers over the phone. And he's always conveyed to his team that if it would be helpful to bring members down here, as he has continued to do, he's always happy to do that. The door to the Oval Office is always open, and he is available and will be through the course of the weekend, but also through the coming pivotal weeks as we work to get the infrastructure package across the finish line in the Senate and also the reconciliation bill moved forward. [13:33:50] Okay We're gonna go all the way to the very back. Todd Gillman. I see you somewhere there. Q>> Thank you. Um so the Texas Democrats who require me from the Legislature. Um but they're about halfway through their one month farm break. They've been trying really hard to get in to a meeting, even if it's a zoom meeting with the president. Is he going to meet with them? Is he specifically not meeting with them because of fears that they are spreading covid. PSAKI>> No. He's the vice president who is leading our voting rights effort and our voting rights movement. We're building across the country met with these lawmakers last week, as you well know, uh and the president is very proud of their activism. Their vocal support and [13:34:40] advocacy for voting rights, But I don't have any meeting scheduled for him. Q>> Kind of similar vein regarding coated. Well, the first lady be quarantined away from the president. When she gets back from Japan. PSAKI>> The first lady will follow all public health guidelines. I don't believe that's part of the protocols. Alright let's go. Let's see to the middle here. I'm just jumping around today because, you know, try and better go ahead. Q>> Um, since the White House have a reaction to Mississippi's descend past the Supreme Court to overturn Roe V. Wade. PSAKI>> Well, certainly we are prominent support. We are supporters, the president supporter of preserving Roe V. Wade that is our position in terms of a legislator, a legal reaction I would point to the Department of Justice. Um, let's go to you, Patsy. Go ahead. Q>> Jim I have a question on China trying to just announced sanctions. Yep Again. Six individuals and an entity in the us and retaliations of sanctions imposed by the bike by the administration. On Chinese officials over Hong [13:35:40] Kong. Do you think that this announcement will complicate or impact any plans for a deputy secretary of State Wendy Sherman's visit Changin and is the administration concern. On the escalating sanctions potential escalating sanctions war. PSAKI>> Well, first, I'm not aware of any changes to her planned trip, and certainly we discussed not only areas where we agree, but areas where we disagree, Uh, when we have engagements and diplomatic meetings. In terms of the sanctions. We are aware, of course of the reports that the prc has imposed sanctions on several individuals and ngos, including at least one official from the previous administration, were undeterred by these actions when we remain fully committed. Implementing all relevant U. S sanctions authorities. These actions are the latest examples of how Beijing punishes private citizens companies and civil society organizations as a way to send political signals and further illustrate the prc's deteriorating it deteriorating investment climate and rising political risk. These actions would follow the baseless sanctioning in March of two [13:36:41] commissioners from the U. S Commission on International Religious Freedom. The prc's January sanctions on 21 28. U. S officials and their July 2020 sanctions on us officials and organizations promoting democracy and human rights around the world. Americans of both parties opposed these outrageous moves to target those who defend universal human rights and fundamental freedoms and Beijing's attempt to intimidate and bully internationally respected ngos only demonstrate its further isolation from the world. Let's keep going. I'm just going to keep going around because. Go ahead. Go ahead in the back. I'm just gonna keep going around saying get smart people Q>> on vaccines. Yeah you've been asked about the travel restrictions for international Yeah, before but reflect something different with the president drop those restrictions and airlines adopted vaccine passports or vaccine mandates. I know you've. Sort of encouraged businesses to take steps to get everyone vaccinated that they prosecute. PSAKI>> I would say first that their ongoing working groups that are having discussions about how to [13:37:41] hopefully move forward to a point where there is international travel and is returning something we would all like to see not just for tourism, but for families to be reunited. There are a range of topics and those discussions that are ongoing. The president receives regular briefings on them, but we rely on public health. And medical advice on when we're going to determine changes to be made, Q>> as the president continued engaging with Chancellor Merkel on the subject. I know they talked about that. In the bilateral press conference here with me PSAKI>> that was raised. He has not had another follow up conversation with her since that point in time, why don't I go to the young man next to you? Hmm. Q>> A lot of parents are concerned about the coming school year. What's the White House doing so? Make sure that we're not. We're not doing remote learning again. Nationwide PSAKI>> Well, our plan and our objective and our desire and commitment is to, uh to push for and ensure 100% of schools are open across the country. That's also of course, up to school districts to implement but from the federal government, the role we have played is by, uh. We're [13:38:43] advocating for funding in the American rescue plan that can help provide funding for mitigation member measures for schools so that they can invest in social distancing opportunities or repairing events that need to improve ventilation. We're also we've also put out public health guidance from the CDC that includes specific mitigation measures that schools can take and our secretary of education has been focused on. This issue from the first day he was sworn into office working across school districts to share best practices and ensure we can work towards returning kids to in school. Learning Q>> Delta doesn't change that right? PSAKI>> Delta has not changed our public health guidelines. No. Okay, let's go back to the front Go ahead 133920 RACHEL SCOTT Q>> Just a quick follow up on infrastructure. On the transit spending, we know that's important to the President. Is that a red line for him if that is dropped from this package? Would he still support it? 133927 PSAKI>> I'm not setting red lines here, but we are confident that they can work through the funding issues and the breakdown of funding issues between Democrats and Republicans over the coming days. 133937 RACHEL SCOTT Q>> And then just one other question just on Alabama, and then I have one on Hunter Biden. On Alabama, the big concern here and the reason why these comments from the governor are so alarming is because of the low vaccination rates, right? So, is there some concern from the White House and does the administration fear that some elected leaders may just get so frustrated and accept this fact that there are just some people in this country that just may not want to get vaccinated? 133959 PSAKI>> Well, I don't -- I didn't hear those comments as accepting the fact. I heard those comments as being frustrated that, you know, it's an effort to protect the citizens in your state and trying to figure out what steps you can take to encourage people to get vaccinated and save their lives and the lives of their loved ones. We always knew it would be harder as more people got vaccinated. That's the stage we're in now. But we also believe that there is still opportunity through a range of approaches and tactics and partnerships with governors and leaders and civic leaders to get more people vaccinated. There are a range of factors, you all -- many of you have reported on, that are leading individuals in these five states with lower vaccination rates to get vaccinated. 134041 Some are -- is the Delta variant, and reporting, frankly, and fears of the transmissibility of the Delta variant. Some is, unfortunately, individuals are experiencing people in their communities, family members, who are getting sick and getting hospitalized because of the transmissibility of the Delta variant. 134059 I don't think we have complex data quite yet to determine what is leading to the increase in vaccination rates in some of these states, but we think that's an encouraging sign. We know it's frustrating, we get it. But we have to stay at it to save people's lives. 134111 RACHEL SCOTT Q>> And last one on Hunter Biden. You confirmed yesterday that he will be meeting with prospective buyers, but you also said that he's not going to have any conversation -- PSAKI>> Not that he's meeting with prospective buyers. That he is attending gallery events that had been prior -- prior planned and announced. RACHEL SCOTT Q>> There could be prospective buyers there. PSAKI>> He's not -- Those discussions will be happening with the gallerist, but that is different than meeting with prospective buyers. 134134 RACHEL SCOTT Q>> If there are prospective buyers there, you said yesterday that he is not going to have any conversations related to the selling of art. How can the administration guarantee that? 134145 PSAKI>> The selling of his art will all happen through gal -- the gallerist, and the names and individuals will be kept confidential. We will not be aware, neither will he be aware. RACHEL SCOTT Q>> Is there anything stopping anyone from directly telling, though, Hunter Biden, that they're going to purchase his art? And if they do, the American people won't know who they are. 134203 PSAKI>> He will not know. We will not know who purchases his art. Go ahead, Jeff. [13:42:07] Q>> The president said yesterday that 25% Covid group is quote investigating every aspect of any change. What specifically, are they doing? Or is you looking for them to do in regards to the adult? A. Very and what information is he looking for them to bring back to him? PSAKI>> You mean the CDC or discussions with our public health experts? I think what he was conveying Jeff is that he gets regular weekly, if not more frequent. Updates from his Koba team about. What is happening with the virus. The rise of certain variants, including the delta variant, [13:42:46] and certainly steps that they suggest we take as a result, that's an ongoing process. That's not new, So I think he's of course, um. Looking for their updates and guidance on what the spread is where we're seeing the spread. What impacts we're having, and any mitigation measures they recommend we take from a public health and data driven perspective Q>> on testing specifically, does the president believe that more testing should be done? It's fallen some 75% or so since November, specifically, do you think should be done to see. Industry done untested. PSAKI>> He relies on the guidance of his health and medical experts if they are advising that that is a factor than certainly his role would be to advocate for expanding it. If in his role as president, bu that they obviously provide recommendations publicly as well. Q>> Final thing here, you said, it's not your role to place planned, but the president has a remarkable ability to use the bully pulpit. Pick up the telephone. It happens all the time with. With the corporations and things. What is he doing specifically [13:43:46] with celebrities, perhaps, or with a business leaders like we saw the NFL this week to use his power of the office to try and get some companies or groups to Do mandates will make changes. Is he doing anything himself? Uh reaching out. PSAKI>> We mean aside from getting aside from getting enough vaccine to make sure every American is vaccinated and donating more to the world than any other country and ensuring we're expanding accessibility to pharmacies, too. Community groups and giving $3 billion to empower local voices to get into local communities to get people vaccinated. That's a that's a fair amount that he's done. Q>> You said several times. It's not the role of the government to, uh. Essentially talked to private corporations. But president talks to corporations leaders all the time. Certainly during the rest of you don't know his vice president happened all the time talking to private corporations. If a corner is to be turned here on the hesitancy. Is there anything that he believes that he personally can [13:44:47] do among some different leaders, Not giving a public speech meant that he can do? PSAKI>> Well first. I think I reference the $3 billion because the most powerful and impactful role we've seen across the country from community to community is engaging. Educating and empowering those trusted local voices. We know the president, the vice president, Olivia Rodrigo, who are very grateful to and others have been out there advocating for the efficacy of the vaccine, and we're hopeful that's effective and it can be and he'll continue to do that, and we'll continue to look to partner with. More voices and more creative, you know, well known individuals to elevate the issue of vaccine of the effectiveness of the vaccine. But we've seen that that's that. Actually local voices people, you may not know who may not have a Twitter Following are actually the most powerful people in this fight and will continue to empower and fund those efforts. Oh, Jeff, Go ahead, and I'll go to Karen. Go ahead. Q>> Thank you. Pfizer says the U. S government is [13:45:47] purchasing a dollar 200 million doses of its taxi for Children and for potential booster shots, community. Confirm the purchase. And can you say whether they're thinking about the need for booster shots has crystallized with the maintenance? Think PSAKI>> uh, First, HHS has all the specifics, but yes, we have made that purchase. Here's the bottom line. We've always prepared for every scenario. The federal government is exercising an option in its contract advisor to purchase these 200 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine to be delivered between the fall of 2021 in the spring of 2022 to prepare for future vaccination needs, including as you referenced Jeff. Vaccines for Children under 12 and possible booster shots. If studies show they are necessary, I will note I have said from the podium many times that we were like Boy Scouts and Girl scouts and we were going to prepare for every contingency. That's the job of the federal government right to ensure we have maximum flexibility. We don't know if we'll need a booster shot. That's going to be up to the research that's ongoing with the fda. That's [13:46:48] not. Recommendation that's currently made. We also don't know. We also can't predict what the outcome will be of research on kids under 12 or certainly hopeful, and we don't know which vaccine will be most effective, but we want to have maximum flexibility. So this is an effort to provide us with that, Q>> All right. They just want an infrastructure. We understand that Senate. Negotiators are looking at repurposing covid relief funds for hospitals and nursing homes pays for parts of the bill. Is that something the White House would support. PSAKI>> There's a range of final nitty gritty discussions between both sides, but I'm not going to give feedback on each of the discussions from here. Okay as my God, Karen. Oh Karen. Sorry. Go ahead. Karen. 134731 KAREN TRAVERS Q>> Thank you. Sort of keying off of what Jeff -- PSAKI>> Yeah. KAREN TRAVERS Q>> was asking, the NFL is telling teams that they could potentially forfeit games for a COVID outbreak among unvaccinated players, and the players could lose their pay for any missed games. Does the administration support a policy where players or, more broadly, employees could lose pay if they are unvaccinated and cause a COVID outbreak at their place of work? 134751 PSAKI>> Well, first, I'm not gonna make a sweeping private sector conclusion here. What I will say is the NFL policy is making clear how they're going to proceed with their season. That's their role to do, right? We certainly believe the biggest takeaway is that getting vaccinated is our ticket back to normal and that vaccines are effective and allow all of us a high degree of protection, importantly, avoid hospitalization or death. So, this provides --this is guidance they determined, the NFL, about how they're going to proceed with their season. That is their role to do. 134828 KAREN TAVERS Q>> And there is a new model out from an organization that consults with the CDC, and it's predicting that the current surge in cases right now could continue until a peak in mid October, the daily deaths potentially more than tripling where they are right now. What can the President do right now to prepare Americans for that possibility? You talk so much about the long winter last year. What about a potentially long fall? 134851 PSAKI>> Well, I think the President's role right now is to continue to encourage people to get vaccinated, because it is incredibly effective, and protect -- protecting them from serious illness, from death, from hospitalization from the virus. That's the most powerful role he can play at this point in time. George, go ahead. 134908 Q>> This morning, the Cleveland Indians announced they're changing their name to Guardians, and that's already become an issue in the Ohio Senate race. And the former president just minutes ago attacked it. Any reaction by the President or the White House? 134924 PSAKI>> We certainly support their change of name. We may be on the other side of the president, former president, on that front, I would guess. I haven't seen his tweet, or however he's communicating these days. Go ahead. 134935 Q>> Jen, two questions on the vaccine. [13:49:36] I'm first you have mentioned yesterday that every individual at at ts White House has been offered a vaccine. So can you clarify the administration? Not mandating vaccines for White House step. No we have not met. Okay And do you have a total? Can you offer any confirmation to us on the percentage of employees who are vaccinated? PSAKI>> I'm not going to provide that. I will see if there's more information to provide Q>> you offer any guidance stint on how you're confirming vaccination status of important PSAKI>> they're vaccinated here in the White House Medical unit for the most part. Go ahead. I'll call Kelly. I'm sorry. I'll come to you next one. Q>> This administration has long claimed that you're trying to most transparent history. If that's the case, why won't you just release the number of breaking. Pieces that you've had fascinated staffers. PSAKI>> Well I think first we're in a very different place than we were 6 to 7 months ago as it relates to the virus, and as many medical experts have said, inside and outside of the government. Those who are vaccinated are protected from serious illness. Most asymptomatic if they are individuals were vaccinated to get the virus and you know we are in a different place in terms of the impact of individuals who may have, as you said breakthrough cases, [13:50:52] Q>> Why not just provide the number. Are you trying to hide something? PSAKI>> But what is the Why do you need to have that information Q>> case of transparency interest the public going understood, having a better understanding of how breakfast cases work here in the White House. PSAKI>> Well, first there are the CDC tracks and let me give you this information to The CDC tracks across the country, of course, hospitalizations and deaths as we have seen, they also do a great deal of tracking in cohorts and ensure that so let me give you a little more information on this, which I think. I don't know if it hopefully, it's of interest. Um so the way that because people have asked us before, so the way the CDC is actively tracking big through cases, there are tens of thousands of people across the country, of course. Who are in what were what they call cohort Studies, which the CDCs actively monitoring. For example, the CDC has a long term care facility study where it is getting data from more than 14,000 long term care facilities. CDC has a health care worker study where they monitor vaccinated healthcare workers who got tested who get [13:51:53] tested with pcr tests every single week. And CDC also collects what they call passive surveillance, which is where hospitals provide CDC with data when they identify someone who was hospitalized but has been vaccinated, so there's a range of means our public health officials are tracking across the country across D C across any individuals here about who is vaccinated, who is. Getting the virus getting hospitalized, hopefully not remains a small percentage 135215 Q>> And following up on the question about Hunter Biden and his art shows, are there any specific procedures you can tell us that are being put in place to ensure these conversations remain, as you say, not about the sales? Will he get ethics training, will he have to report afterwards about the conversations? Anything specific you can tell us about how you are monitoring this? 135233 PSAKI>> Well again, I think it is certainly a commitment that has been made by all parties involved. He is not involved in the sale or discussions about the sale of his art, and he will not be informed of the -- of the sale of his art and who is purchasing that art. That is a commitment that's been made, and we expect that all parties would abide by it. Go ahead, Kelly. [13:52:54] Q>> I wanted to ask about the CDC shirking because and you gave us some information now, But as of May 1st they stopped tracking breakthrough cases that did not result. Hospitalization or death, with the exception of those kinds of tests that you just described. Should there be a more broader net on breakthrough cases with the president's support that to get a better picture of breakthrough, and those White House employees staff? GOP on the campus in any capacity, who are not vaccinated. Are they working here? Or are they working from home? PSAKI>> Uh will any individual who has chosen not to be vaccinated? Same as in the press corps? The public health guidance is to wear a mask that is the public health guidance that's provided to employees as well. In terms of the it is much more expensive than hospitalizations. That what that was what I was trying to convey. What the CDC does is they have these they actively [13:53:54] track breakthrough cases through these cohorts of individuals who are. Vulnerable populations who are had high risks of exposure, and they, of course, include it as I noted, long term care facilities, health care workers and others who would be in those cohorts and categories. I would also note that because the vast majority of individuals who are vaccinated who who get test positive for Covid may be asymptomatic or have moderate or minimal cases. Those are cases. We may not know we may not know about right. Q>> Um the CDC says as they first they stopped tracking right through cases that don't result in hospital is, um, PSAKI>> they do track through these cohorts, which is a large swath of people who would be vulnerable or on the front lines of exposure. Q>> My periodic question, She asked six months. When can we expect to know about a physical exam for the president? And what are the plans for that? PSAKI>> There is absolutely he will have a physical exam. Absolutely You will know about the physical exam. I don't have a date for you at this point in time, and [13:54:54] I expect it will continue to ask as you should. Go ahead. Q>> Thank you. This is some sort of rhetorical. Question vaccination. It is a shame that people have to get very sick and some people have to DI In order to increase the vaccination rate in many parts of this country. Isn't that I guess a logical order of how this would play out or is there a political component to teach them? PSAKI>> I'm not sure I'm following your question. Try again. Q>> Tell me more about what? You're looking for Standard practice that people more people are getting sick in a certain area. That. Those people in that area who are unvaccinated was a G. I really need to go get vaccinated. Isn't that a logical order? For this or is there a political component? Do you think that has kept people away from being vaccine? PSAKI>> I think there are a range of reasons we've seen across the country where individuals have not yet been vaccinated. Some of it is [13:55:55] misinformation, a large amount. In our view. Some of it is fear. Some of it is they may feel time. Some of it is they're young, and they feel they're Superman or superwoman, and they're not going to get sick. That shouldn't be. We don't want that to be the order of events. It shouldn't be that someone should have to know. A neighbor who gets sick and hospitalized to motivate them to go to a hospital to go to get vaccinated. We don't want that to be the case. Um we have seen anecdotally and through some of your all of your reporting that that has been the case in some. Communities But certainly our objective is to communicate to people. This is not a political issue. It is not a partisan issue. This is about protecting lives. The virus does not discriminate between political party affiliation go ahead of Q>> the White House noted yesterday that. 40% of cases are coming from three states before vaccination rights. Florida Texas Them deserved all three of those states of governors, who in recent weeks of criticized the White House's strategy. One of them is even fundraising off of it as you. Probably aware what's being done to engage those governors [13:56:55] come up with a common message. Common strategy to try. Be one team with those governors in terms of fighting stars. PSAKI>> Well I would say first our public health experts work with governors from across the country and work with local health officials from across the country and all of these states, especially the ones at this point in time where there are lower vaccination rates, and we're seeing the delta variant spread, and this is one of the reasons we rely so much on. That Miss knees. Okay hold on. Okay Maybe we'll come back was his wife. Sorry So we're really didn. This is why we rely on local messengers. And with my real, we rely on trusted voices because whether it's the president of the United States. Or the governor. Sometimes those aren't the people you trust. Sometimes that is too political or partisan for people. We understand that. That's why we rely on and we're funding and empowering local trusted voices who aren't seen through a political prism Q>> and little bits of coast right now we're seeing wildfires in Oregon. In northern California. What steps is the administration taking to combat the Kirk fires and also additional fires this summer? PSAKI>> Um well, I [13:57:58] appreciate you asking about this because this has gotten a lot of attention across the country and we haven't talked about it. A lot of so much going on. One. The president receives regular reports on the wildfire situation. He's quite focused on it as I think you're probably aware, but others may not be the national Wild wild Land Fire preparedness level is at five, which is the highest level due to significant fire activity. And as of today 2.5 million acres have burned across the United States In the past two weeks alone, the number of large uncontained fires across the United States has increased by nearly 90% So right now what we're doing one. The President's very focused on this and wants regular updates. He's regularly met with Western governors and I expect we'll do that again. Soon. The FEMA administrator is visiting. Idaho, Oregon and California this week to meet with state, federal and tribal partners, an emergency groups about the worsening wildfire situation to coordinate response efforts and discuss how the regions are addressing. Climate change and ongoing resilience work. We are also closely coordinating with officials on the front lines to [13:58:58] provide federal assistance as needed, including by recently approving fire management assistance grants for fire departments in Oregon, California. And Washington, which are where there's the collective threat to homes and major communities, and we are also continue to monitor monitor these fires from here again. The president receives regular updates, and he's quite focused on this. Go ahead. Q>> Cuba Yeah, function with Salazar says that the administration could turn the Internet back on for Cubans within minutes. I guess it's just technology to allow high textile is float. Over Cuba to act as towers. What's being done, Or can you provide an update on interstate? I'm restoring Internet service to Cuba and PSAKI>> I wish it was that easy. We are exploring aange of options. We are quite focused and interested in restoring Internet access to the people of Cuba. Which we actually which we absolutely believe and agree, I would say [13:59:58] would provide, um, information would allow individuals to communicate and we feel if we can get it done. That would be a great step forward and beneficial to the people of Cuba. Go ahead here and, um. Q>> You mentioned at the top of that Republicans had also increased the debt sailing and certainly pending bipartisan for many years. I'm wondering what the president's long term you. Country's balance sheets are given that under current long term, cbo estimates, debt is never again expected dip below 100% of gross domestic product and then within 30 years as projected to hit 202% of gross domestic product. PSAKI>> Well, first, I would say the president's proposed a way to pay for his proposals, which is something that is a fiscally responsible step some of his predecessors, the most recent one did not do when worked in advocated to support the passing of $2 trillion in tax cuts that did not. Bear out the financial benefit, he promised, and also certainly added to the [14:00:59] deficit. The president takes these issues seriously. He is focused on being a president who cares about the future of our. The next generations, and I think his actions have borne that out. Q>> And then I quit felt There was a lot of discussion about masking the other day. This administration has always followed CDC guy. Yeah if the CDC was to say. We need to return to masking with this administration policy. PSAKI>> We're always going to follow the guidance of our health and medical experts go ahead Q>> on the vaccine immunity and given advisers now seem waiting. Immunity and suffered from who is vaccinated and who is not the White House looking at models and projections that say in the next year as everyone who has been vaccinated could start to lose that immunity. What does that look like for hospitalizations and deaths? PSAKI>> Well, first, I would certainly point to our health and medical experts to answer questions about future projections about the impact of waning immunity. I will say that as they look at this data and assess from are from the CDC and other public health entities in the government, they certainly [14:02:02] talked to private sector companies like Pfizer, but that's only one source of data and engagement. They look at a range of data across the board as they make projections, so we really rely on there. Broad data and projections as we assess what the future looks like Q>> honest, honest while you mentioned continuing us support does that include continuing military support when we've seen a number of airstrikes at the U. S has launched on Taliban targets over the last 30 days? Could that continue? At the end of the military mission at the end of August. PSAKI>> I don't have anything on that for you. I'd certainly point to the department of Defense, but what I'm what I was communicating about was, uh, over the coming weeks. We maintain our authorities as you know, and we provide. We provided a range of training and security assistance equipment to the Afghans and the leaders. Of Afghanistan as we transition to bringing our men and women home. Thanks so much. Everyone have a great weekend. [end]

FS23 WH BRFG HEAD ON POOL 3 1230 CBS POOL [13:14:13] PSAKI>> Hi, everyone. Happy Friday. Okay. A couple of notes for you at the top. Today, the Biden/Harris administration took additional steps to provide stability and relief to homeowners who are still feeling the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. HUD, USDA, and VA announced details to help people with government backed mortgages stay in their homes through monthly payment reductions and potential loan modifications. Homeowners could see reductions in their monthly payments of roughly 20-25%, allowing them to remain in their homes and build long term equity. We're working hard to get the word out to Americans who may benefit from these new programs. And thanks to the work of the consumer financial protection borough and today's actions, most servicers of mortgages are required to provide borrowers' information about these options.Homeowners can visit consumerfinance.gov/housing for update information and more details. 131515 I also would note on our delegation in Haiti, the presidential delegation is safe and accounted for in light of the reported shootings outside of the funeral. They're on their way back to the United States. We are deeply concerned about unrest in Haiti. In this critical moment, Haiti's leaders must come together to chart a united path that reflects the will of the Haitian people. We remain committed to supporting the people of Haiti in this challenging time. [13:15:39] Also a vaccine sharing update for you, we shipped a record number of doses to a record number of countries this week. 22 million doses went out to 23 countries, including Guatemala, Senegal, Zambia. The jet, Gambia, El Salvador, Honduras, the Central African Republic, Cameroon, Lesotho, Panama, Vietnam, Georgia, Pakistan, Tanzania, Mozambique. Been in Morocco, Tajikistan, Colombia, Madagascar, Liberia and the scrutiny. Our teams across the government are working to get more and more doses out every day, but this was a record week for efforts to provide supply to the global community. Finally, a week ahead. 131619 On Monday, the President will host an event in the Rose Garden to celebrate the 31st anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which the President proudly co-sponsored as a senator. While we have much work to do to realize the full aspiration of the ADA, our country has made progress toward its goals of equality of opportunity, full participation, self sufficiency, and respect for the 61 million Americans with disabilities. 131643 Also Monday, the President will welcome the prime minister-- the prime minister of Iraq to theThe White House. The prime minister's visit will highlight the strategic partnership between the United States and Iraq and advance bilateral cooperation under a strategic -- the strategic framework agreement. The visit will also focus on key areas of shared interests, including through education, health, cultural, economic, energy, and climate initiatives. 131707 President Biden looks forward to strengthening bilateral cooperation with Iraq on political, economic, and security issues, including joint efforts to ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS. On Wednesday, the president will travel to Pennsylvania and Lehigh Valley -- in the Lehigh Valley area, where he will emphasize the importance of American manufacturing, buying products made in America, and supporting good paying jobs for American workers. We'll have more details for you over the weekend as things get finalized. Josh, why don't you kick us off? [13:17:35] Q>> Thanks Jed. Choose subject areas First. Hey, that's conservative. 45% of the unvaccinated and say they would definitely not get fascinated. Another 35% say they probably won't get vaccinated. What is this opposition still exist after all the public outreach and shouldn't more governments and employers mandate vaccinations? 131758 PSAKI>> Well, Josh, I think let's take a step back first. In December, before the President took office, the percentage of Americans willing to get a shot was in the thirties. Today, over 68% of adult Americans have taken a shot. So, what that shows you is that in a relatively short period of time, we've been able to influence a whole lot of people to change their minds, take an action -- take action, get a shot, save their lives and the lives of people around them. I'd also note that we've seen some encouraging data over the last couple of weeks. 131830 The five states with the highest case rates, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri and Nevada, had a higher rate of people getting newly vaccinated compared to the national average. That is a good sign. This is the second week in a row, I noted this last week. And, finally in the past 10 days, more than 5.2 million Americans have gotten a shot. Now, there will be institutions, there will be private sector companies and others who make decisions about how to keep their communities safe. That's -- certainly appropriate, but I would just note that we're going to continue our efforts to go community by community, case by case, to convey the accurate information about the efficacy of vaccines. 131911 Q>> Gotcha. Secondly, the Taliban has said that as a condition for peace in Afghanistan, Ashraf Ghani has to be removed as president in a new negotiated government forum. [13:19:23] Does the administration believe that that's in the best interests of the Afghan people and us National security? PSAKI>> Well first, the president and the administration supports the leadership of the Afghan people, including Ashraf Ghani, the president was scheduled to speak with him today. I believe, and I don't believe there's a readout that's come out about that call quite yet. It may while we're speaking here. I would note that there are ongoing political negotiations and discussions that we certainly support between Afghan leaders, members of the Afghan government and the Taliban, 131955 And we believe a political solution is the only outcome to lasting peace in Afghanistan. But, we will continue to provide support to the government in the form of humanitarian support, security support, training. And we will also continue to encourage them to take a leading role in defending and protecting their own people. Go ahead. Q>> Thanks, Jen. Alabama's Republican governor says it is time to start blaming the unvaccinated folk who are letting us down. What do you think about that take? Should the administration be taking a sharper tone against unvaccinated people for putting vaccinated people at risk? 132031 PSAKI>> Well, I don't think our role is to place blame, but what we can do is provide accurate information to people who are not yet vaccinated about the risk they are incurring, not only on themselves but also the people around them. [13:20:44] And well, if you are a young person, you may think you are Superman or Superwoman and immune from the from getting the virus. That is not true. That is not accurate. You can get very sick. You can die from the virus. You can also make your grandparents sick and your parents sick. That is factual information. We're not, 132102 But we're not here to place blame or threats. We're here to provide accurate information. Q>> She says that she doesn't know what else she can do at this point, that she's hit a brick wall with trying to convince people to get vaccinated. Is that a sign that perhaps the federal government should step in and issue mandates? And if not, are you putting the needs of unvaccinated people ahead of the needs of vaccinated people? 132125 PSAKI>> Well, I think the question here -- One, that's not the role of the federal government. That is the role that institutions, private sector entities, and others may take. That certainly is appropriate. Also, local communities are going to take steps they need to take in order to protect people in their communities. 132142 I will say, we understand her frustration, and we understand the frustration of leaders out there and public voices who are trying to say the right thing, advocate for the efficacy of the virus, save people in their communities. What our role is and what we are going to continue to do is make the vaccine available. [13:21:58] We're going to continue to work in partnership to fight misinformation, and we're going to continue to advocate and work in partnership with local officials and entrusted voices to get the word out. Q>> Is there something to be learned from our neighbors to the North Canada? They got a much slower start. They didn't have nearly as many vaccines as we did early on, And yet now they a shot past us and 70% of the population is at least [13:22:27] partially vaccinated. What's the difference between the two countries? What can we learn from their experience? PSAKI>> Well first, I would say 162 Million Americans are now vaccinated. That certainly is a positive step. Were the first to say, and we have long said that that's not enough. We need to ensure more people and more communities are vaccinated and it is now we reached a point where there are some communities, even states where there's 70% 80% or higher vaccination rates. Other communities where there's 40% 50% or otherwise, That's not just a health issue. It's a huge health issue. It's an economic issue. We have seen how that can impact local communities that as it may lead to shut downs of different businesses that can bids an economic issue as well. So of course we work in close partnership with our neighbors, But we have 100 and 62 Million Americans vaccinated, where the world's largest provider of vaccines to the global community. That's progress. In our view, even as we've said From the beginning, there's more work to be done. Q>> Thank you [13:23:27] about the economics of folk that you just mentioned now that daily doses administered the vaccine or down below 300,000. For the first time since December. We've heard. Talk about updating the mask. Guys, do you know if there's been any talk here about updating guidance to start shutting businesses down in places that have very low vaccination rates? PSAKI>> No there has not been no. Q>> Okay, and then on, uh. Crime Generally PSAKI>> can I note though two things just for your public information purposes? One is that, um well, we have seen well, well, we don't look at one week of data as an indication of as you know, we talk about weekly averages. We did see larger numbers of unemployment claims in areas where there are lower vaccination rates we do. It's not enough data to draw conclusions. I'm just noting it for all of you. I would also note that. On the American rescue plan. The way we design that is for the impact and the assistance that we're providing to communities across the country to be long lasting not [13:24:28] to stop all in July are all in September. It extends far beyond it was that is a lesson learned from the past. And so there are different components of that package that's providing assistance to Businesses to organizations to communities that is going to be lasting for months to come. Q>> Okay. And then I'm crying with the intersection in D. C that was shot up last night, only about a mile and a half from here. President Biden have lunch in that neighborhood this summer. What is your message to innocent people to live in cities like this one who might start to get worried about being caught in the crossfire? PSAKI>> Well, either messages that, um, the cornerstone of the president's comprehensive plan to reduce gun violence is providing communities with the tools and resources they need to reduce gun crime, including in Washington, D. C And there are a couple of steps specific to Washington, D. C I mean, a lot of us live there or live in the neighboring communities or know people who are on 14th Street or in the neighbouring. Areas and for people who are not who are watching or hearing this. We're not from those neighborhoods. There's a lot of restaurants there a lot of foot traffic. This is a pretty popular part of the city. Many [13:25:28] of us live in. It's one of D C is one of the five areas Nation wide, where dj launched gun trafficking Strike forces just yesterday, which are going to focus law enforcement resources across jurisdictions to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. D. C is also a part of our 16 city community Violence Intervention Collaborative, which is helping cities implement evidence based strategies. Which have been shown to reduce violence by as much as 60% and in Washington, D. C is also taking advantage of the historic funding that they've gotten through the rescue plan to bolster public safety Mayor Bowser's budget. Proposal would invest $59 million from the rescue plan to reduce violent crime. It would add 100 new slots to the cadet program and add $14 million for youth safety initiatives. So we're certainly seeing this and feeling this even in our. Community here, and it is one of the cities that doj is focused on. Q>> And you just mentioned the White House is working with the sea as part of this collaborative, But just in the last week and a half or so since the mayor of D. C was here. A six year old girl was [13:26:32] shot and killed. Nationals game had to be evacuated. And then there's this incident last night, where diners served time for cover. So at what point would the president maybe reconsider his strategy? PSAKI>> Well, I would say we're just implementing our strategy, which is a multi pronged effort to work in partnership with local leaders, including Mayor Bowser, who has been a great partner to us in this effort to address gun violence that's rising in cities across the country, including Washington and the events of the last week are just examples of that. Go ahead. Q>> It's secretary yelling, just said free came to the podium Bet. The Treasure Department take extraordinary measures. Element isn't raised by August, and she indicated to run out shortly after lawmakers return, possibly as soon as October. So does the White House. Is you guys setting a deadline before recess? Do you want to see that element raised And what is the White House doing to urge lawmakers to Address the debt limit. PSAKI>> This is like the Olympics for Bloomberg these days. Um so I would say, um, friend, Reuters Sorry, and [13:27:34] other financial outlets in the room. Um let me let me give you just a little bit of context. For those of you who have not seen the letter that just went from Secretary Yellen, too. The hill. 132738 So, this is a letter that's standard practice for treasury secretaries when a debt limit is going to be reimposed, which there's a timeline coming up at the end of this month. That is different -- I'm not saying you're suggesting this -- that is different from defaulting, which has never happened in the history of the United States, and would clearly be a catastrophic event. But it is a timeline for the debt limit to be -- to be raised or extended. So, during the previous two administrations, the treasury secretary sent nearly 50 letters to the Hill on the debt limit, some of which were very similar in wording and asked -- and updates to this letter. 132814 And raising or suspending the debt limit does not authorize new spending commitments; it simply enables the government to pay for obligations that congresses and presidents of both parties have already approved. [13:28:24] And Congress find the last piece of history has raised or suspended the debt limit approximately 80 times, which has happened Uh huh under both Republican and democratic presidents, I will say, just for historical fact more often under Republican presidents, but. But it has happened under both, and it has been supported a bipartisan away, so we expect Congress to act promptly to raise or suspend the debt limit and protect the full faith and credit of the United States. Now it is not. I give you all that context because it is not. Out of the ordinary, even though they're called extraordinary measures for Treasury secretaries to present to capital health steps that they are going to take, even as this is being litigated on Capitol Hill. That was that this is what that was what this update was to provide. In that letter. She also noted that. The period of time. That extraordinary measures may last is subject to considerable uncertainty due to a variety of factors, which are exacerbated this year by uncertainty related to the pandemic and calculations about inflows and outflows to the October timeline that she rose referenced in there or the October 1st date. I should say it was referenced was because there's a very large. Reduction [13:29:36] in the cast balance on October 1st. Or we're projecting that due to outflows on that day to meet our obligations to the Department of Defense, so she was giving a sense of what the timeline looks like, Well, not well, also conveying that we can't give a sense at this point on the length of time for extraordinary measures. 132947 We certainly expect Congress to act in a bipartisan manner, as they did three times under the prior administration to raise the debt limit. [13:29:54] Q>> Given that uncertainty is the White House communicating to congressional leaders that you'd like to see this debt limit extended before the recess for August. PSAKI>> I'm not here to set a new deadline. I'm conveying to the history and conveying to you that we think it's clear Congress should act. In a bipartisan manner to raise the debt limit as they have in the past, Q>> and then just one more on the bipartisan infrastructure framework. 133014 Is the White House getting involved in this dispute between Democrats and Republicans over transit funding? And are you recommending any solutions as to how that should be resolved? Are you backing Democrats who say it should remain with the 80-20 highway transit split? 133027 PSAKI>> Well, transit funding is obviously extremely important to the President, the Amtrak President, as we may call him. And -- But we believe that members can get this work done and can work through these issues quite quickly. And, as you know, the issue is about the balance of funding and how it would be allocated between different forms of infrastructure. 133048 But we're encouraged by their progress. They're having conversations, and we believe they can work through any disagreement. I'm just going to go to the back, because I'm not always good at that. Mike Memoli, do have a question today? [13:31:01] Q>> Uh distant. Thank you. Okay. PSAKI>> You didn't raise your hand but usually have a question. Um I'll go to the back back to you know, Q>> everyone's into it. Um, We've talked a lot about this. This week. The protocols are in place at the White House to ensure the president's safety. Interest with Covid 19. But we've seen over the last few weeks the president has been traveling the country quite a bit. He's been engaging in. More controlled environments [13:31:38] went to an ice cream. Stop on a rope line for almost an hour in Philly last week, he's doing a campaign PSAKI>> best hour he spent probably in a while. Q>> Well how Covid changed the way he would campaign last year. What What extends the rise in cases that we're seeing in this country leading to any discussions behind the scenes about whether the president would continue to engage. This kind of activity in public settings where you can't control for people's vaccinations. PSAKI>> Sure. Well, first, we're always going to abide by public health guidelines. And right now the public health guidelines continue to be that if you're vaccinated, and we expect them to continue to be if you're vaccinated, you are very much protected from severe illness from the virus and the president will continue to be a model and following those guidelines and also engaging. Uh with the public in a manner that one is his role as president of the United States, and it's certainly aligned with an appropriate according to those guidelines, as you all know, he has an event later this evening with. Governor Future governor, maybe former [13:32:39] Governor Terry Mcauliffe in Virginia, where he will be, um, certainly engaging with people and with people of Virginia who are making decisions about their future leadership, But I expect he'll be engaging as he did at events last week, so nothing has changed about. Our approach or protocols over the past week or how you've seen him engaged at the ice cream shop or larger crowd events we've had 133256 Q>> And then a question about infrastructure. With some key votes coming up, obviously, next week again, we've seen the President not necessarily engaging in the kind of meetings at the White House with lawmakers on this specific set of proposals in the way we have earlier on in the process. He's been meeting more with outside stakeholders. It seems like there's an outside pressure campaign. But can you give us an update on what his specific conversations might be with lawmakers involved in this process? We haven't really heard much about that. 133323 PSAKI>> He has had a range of conversations with lawmakers over the phone. And he's always conveyed to his team that if it would be helpful to bring members down here, as he has continued to do, he's always happy to do that. The door to the Oval Office is always open, and he is available and will be through the course of the weekend, but also through the coming pivotal weeks as we work to get the infrastructure package across the finish line in the Senate and also the reconciliation bill moved forward. [13:33:50] Okay We're gonna go all the way to the very back. Todd Gillman. I see you somewhere there. Q>> Thank you. Um so the Texas Democrats who require me from the Legislature. Um but they're about halfway through their one month farm break. They've been trying really hard to get in to a meeting, even if it's a zoom meeting with the president. Is he going to meet with them? Is he specifically not meeting with them because of fears that they are spreading covid. PSAKI>> No. He's the vice president who is leading our voting rights effort and our voting rights movement. We're building across the country met with these lawmakers last week, as you well know, uh and the president is very proud of their activism. Their vocal support and [13:34:40] advocacy for voting rights, But I don't have any meeting scheduled for him. Q>> Kind of similar vein regarding coated. Well, the first lady be quarantined away from the president. When she gets back from Japan. PSAKI>> The first lady will follow all public health guidelines. I don't believe that's part of the protocols. Alright let's go. Let's see to the middle here. I'm just jumping around today because, you know, try and better go ahead. Q>> Um, since the White House have a reaction to Mississippi's descend past the Supreme Court to overturn Roe V. Wade. PSAKI>> Well, certainly we are prominent support. We are supporters, the president supporter of preserving Roe V. Wade that is our position in terms of a legislator, a legal reaction I would point to the Department of Justice. Um, let's go to you, Patsy. Go ahead. Q>> Jim I have a question on China trying to just announced sanctions. Yep Again. Six individuals and an entity in the us and retaliations of sanctions imposed by the bike by the administration. On Chinese officials over Hong [13:35:40] Kong. Do you think that this announcement will complicate or impact any plans for a deputy secretary of State Wendy Sherman's visit Changin and is the administration concern. On the escalating sanctions potential escalating sanctions war. PSAKI>> Well, first, I'm not aware of any changes to her planned trip, and certainly we discussed not only areas where we agree, but areas where we disagree, Uh, when we have engagements and diplomatic meetings. In terms of the sanctions. We are aware, of course of the reports that the prc has imposed sanctions on several individuals and ngos, including at least one official from the previous administration, were undeterred by these actions when we remain fully committed. Implementing all relevant U. S sanctions authorities. These actions are the latest examples of how Beijing punishes private citizens companies and civil society organizations as a way to send political signals and further illustrate the prc's deteriorating it deteriorating investment climate and rising political risk. These actions would follow the baseless sanctioning in March of two [13:36:41] commissioners from the U. S Commission on International Religious Freedom. The prc's January sanctions on 21 28. U. S officials and their July 2020 sanctions on us officials and organizations promoting democracy and human rights around the world. Americans of both parties opposed these outrageous moves to target those who defend universal human rights and fundamental freedoms and Beijing's attempt to intimidate and bully internationally respected ngos only demonstrate its further isolation from the world. Let's keep going. I'm just going to keep going around because. Go ahead. Go ahead in the back. I'm just gonna keep going around saying get smart people Q>> on vaccines. Yeah you've been asked about the travel restrictions for international Yeah, before but reflect something different with the president drop those restrictions and airlines adopted vaccine passports or vaccine mandates. I know you've. Sort of encouraged businesses to take steps to get everyone vaccinated that they prosecute. PSAKI>> I would say first that their ongoing working groups that are having discussions about how to [13:37:41] hopefully move forward to a point where there is international travel and is returning something we would all like to see not just for tourism, but for families to be reunited. There are a range of topics and those discussions that are ongoing. The president receives regular briefings on them, but we rely on public health. And medical advice on when we're going to determine changes to be made, Q>> as the president continued engaging with Chancellor Merkel on the subject. I know they talked about that. In the bilateral press conference here with me PSAKI>> that was raised. He has not had another follow up conversation with her since that point in time, why don't I go to the young man next to you? Hmm. Q>> A lot of parents are concerned about the coming school year. What's the White House doing so? Make sure that we're not. We're not doing remote learning again. Nationwide PSAKI>> Well, our plan and our objective and our desire and commitment is to, uh to push for and ensure 100% of schools are open across the country. That's also of course, up to school districts to implement but from the federal government, the role we have played is by, uh. We're [13:38:43] advocating for funding in the American rescue plan that can help provide funding for mitigation member measures for schools so that they can invest in social distancing opportunities or repairing events that need to improve ventilation. We're also we've also put out public health guidance from the CDC that includes specific mitigation measures that schools can take and our secretary of education has been focused on. This issue from the first day he was sworn into office working across school districts to share best practices and ensure we can work towards returning kids to in school. Learning Q>> Delta doesn't change that right? PSAKI>> Delta has not changed our public health guidelines. No. Okay, let's go back to the front Go ahead 133920 RACHEL SCOTT Q>> Just a quick follow up on infrastructure. On the transit spending, we know that's important to the President. Is that a red line for him if that is dropped from this package? Would he still support it? 133927 PSAKI>> I'm not setting red lines here, but we are confident that they can work through the funding issues and the breakdown of funding issues between Democrats and Republicans over the coming days. 133937 RACHEL SCOTT Q>> And then just one other question just on Alabama, and then I have one on Hunter Biden. On Alabama, the big concern here and the reason why these comments from the governor are so alarming is because of the low vaccination rates, right? So, is there some concern from the White House and does the administration fear that some elected leaders may just get so frustrated and accept this fact that there are just some people in this country that just may not want to get vaccinated? 133959 PSAKI>> Well, I don't -- I didn't hear those comments as accepting the fact. I heard those comments as being frustrated that, you know, it's an effort to protect the citizens in your state and trying to figure out what steps you can take to encourage people to get vaccinated and save their lives and the lives of their loved ones. We always knew it would be harder as more people got vaccinated. That's the stage we're in now. But we also believe that there is still opportunity through a range of approaches and tactics and partnerships with governors and leaders and civic leaders to get more people vaccinated. There are a range of factors, you all -- many of you have reported on, that are leading individuals in these five states with lower vaccination rates to get vaccinated. 134041 Some are -- is the Delta variant, and reporting, frankly, and fears of the transmissibility of the Delta variant. Some is, unfortunately, individuals are experiencing people in their communities, family members, who are getting sick and getting hospitalized because of the transmissibility of the Delta variant. 134059 I don't think we have complex data quite yet to determine what is leading to the increase in vaccination rates in some of these states, but we think that's an encouraging sign. We know it's frustrating, we get it. But we have to stay at it to save people's lives. 134111 RACHEL SCOTT Q>> And last one on Hunter Biden. You confirmed yesterday that he will be meeting with prospective buyers, but you also said that he's not going to have any conversation -- PSAKI>> Not that he's meeting with prospective buyers. That he is attending gallery events that had been prior -- prior planned and announced. RACHEL SCOTT Q>> There could be prospective buyers there. PSAKI>> He's not -- Those discussions will be happening with the gallerist, but that is different than meeting with prospective buyers. 134134 RACHEL SCOTT Q>> If there are prospective buyers there, you said yesterday that he is not going to have any conversations related to the selling of art. How can the administration guarantee that? 134145 PSAKI>> The selling of his art will all happen through gal -- the gallerist, and the names and individuals will be kept confidential. We will not be aware, neither will he be aware. RACHEL SCOTT Q>> Is there anything stopping anyone from directly telling, though, Hunter Biden, that they're going to purchase his art? And if they do, the American people won't know who they are. 134203 PSAKI>> He will not know. We will not know who purchases his art. Go ahead, Jeff. [13:42:07] Q>> The president said yesterday that 25% Covid group is quote investigating every aspect of any change. What specifically, are they doing? Or is you looking for them to do in regards to the adult? A. Very and what information is he looking for them to bring back to him? PSAKI>> You mean the CDC or discussions with our public health experts? I think what he was conveying Jeff is that he gets regular weekly, if not more frequent. Updates from his Koba team about. What is happening with the virus. The rise of certain variants, including the delta variant, [13:42:46] and certainly steps that they suggest we take as a result, that's an ongoing process. That's not new, So I think he's of course, um. Looking for their updates and guidance on what the spread is where we're seeing the spread. What impacts we're having, and any mitigation measures they recommend we take from a public health and data driven perspective Q>> on testing specifically, does the president believe that more testing should be done? It's fallen some 75% or so since November, specifically, do you think should be done to see. Industry done untested. PSAKI>> He relies on the guidance of his health and medical experts if they are advising that that is a factor than certainly his role would be to advocate for expanding it. If in his role as president, bu that they obviously provide recommendations publicly as well. Q>> Final thing here, you said, it's not your role to place planned, but the president has a remarkable ability to use the bully pulpit. Pick up the telephone. It happens all the time with. With the corporations and things. What is he doing specifically [13:43:46] with celebrities, perhaps, or with a business leaders like we saw the NFL this week to use his power of the office to try and get some companies or groups to Do mandates will make changes. Is he doing anything himself? Uh reaching out. PSAKI>> We mean aside from getting aside from getting enough vaccine to make sure every American is vaccinated and donating more to the world than any other country and ensuring we're expanding accessibility to pharmacies, too. Community groups and giving $3 billion to empower local voices to get into local communities to get people vaccinated. That's a that's a fair amount that he's done. Q>> You said several times. It's not the role of the government to, uh. Essentially talked to private corporations. But president talks to corporations leaders all the time. Certainly during the rest of you don't know his vice president happened all the time talking to private corporations. If a corner is to be turned here on the hesitancy. Is there anything that he believes that he personally can [13:44:47] do among some different leaders, Not giving a public speech meant that he can do? PSAKI>> Well first. I think I reference the $3 billion because the most powerful and impactful role we've seen across the country from community to community is engaging. Educating and empowering those trusted local voices. We know the president, the vice president, Olivia Rodrigo, who are very grateful to and others have been out there advocating for the efficacy of the vaccine, and we're hopeful that's effective and it can be and he'll continue to do that, and we'll continue to look to partner with. More voices and more creative, you know, well known individuals to elevate the issue of vaccine of the effectiveness of the vaccine. But we've seen that that's that. Actually local voices people, you may not know who may not have a Twitter Following are actually the most powerful people in this fight and will continue to empower and fund those efforts. Oh, Jeff, Go ahead, and I'll go to Karen. Go ahead. Q>> Thank you. Pfizer says the U. S government is [13:45:47] purchasing a dollar 200 million doses of its taxi for Children and for potential booster shots, community. Confirm the purchase. And can you say whether they're thinking about the need for booster shots has crystallized with the maintenance? Think PSAKI>> uh, First, HHS has all the specifics, but yes, we have made that purchase. Here's the bottom line. We've always prepared for every scenario. The federal government is exercising an option in its contract advisor to purchase these 200 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine to be delivered between the fall of 2021 in the spring of 2022 to prepare for future vaccination needs, including as you referenced Jeff. Vaccines for Children under 12 and possible booster shots. If studies show they are necessary, I will note I have said from the podium many times that we were like Boy Scouts and Girl scouts and we were going to prepare for every contingency. That's the job of the federal government right to ensure we have maximum flexibility. We don't know if we'll need a booster shot. That's going to be up to the research that's ongoing with the fda. That's [13:46:48] not. Recommendation that's currently made. We also don't know. We also can't predict what the outcome will be of research on kids under 12 or certainly hopeful, and we don't know which vaccine will be most effective, but we want to have maximum flexibility. So this is an effort to provide us with that, Q>> All right. They just want an infrastructure. We understand that Senate. Negotiators are looking at repurposing covid relief funds for hospitals and nursing homes pays for parts of the bill. Is that something the White House would support. PSAKI>> There's a range of final nitty gritty discussions between both sides, but I'm not going to give feedback on each of the discussions from here. Okay as my God, Karen. Oh Karen. Sorry. Go ahead. Karen. 134731 KAREN TRAVERS Q>> Thank you. Sort of keying off of what Jeff -- PSAKI>> Yeah. KAREN TRAVERS Q>> was asking, the NFL is telling teams that they could potentially forfeit games for a COVID outbreak among unvaccinated players, and the players could lose their pay for any missed games. Does the administration support a policy where players or, more broadly, employees could lose pay if they are unvaccinated and cause a COVID outbreak at their place of work? 134751 PSAKI>> Well, first, I'm not gonna make a sweeping private sector conclusion here. What I will say is the NFL policy is making clear how they're going to proceed with their season. That's their role to do, right? We certainly believe the biggest takeaway is that getting vaccinated is our ticket back to normal and that vaccines are effective and allow all of us a high degree of protection, importantly, avoid hospitalization or death. So, this provides --this is guidance they determined, the NFL, about how they're going to proceed with their season. That is their role to do. 134828 KAREN TAVERS Q>> And there is a new model out from an organization that consults with the CDC, and it's predicting that the current surge in cases right now could continue until a peak in mid October, the daily deaths potentially more than tripling where they are right now. What can the President do right now to prepare Americans for that possibility? You talk so much about the long winter last year. What about a potentially long fall? 134851 PSAKI>> Well, I think the President's role right now is to continue to encourage people to get vaccinated, because it is incredibly effective, and protect -- protecting them from serious illness, from death, from hospitalization from the virus. That's the most powerful role he can play at this point in time. George, go ahead. 134908 Q>> This morning, the Cleveland Indians announced they're changing their name to Guardians, and that's already become an issue in the Ohio Senate race. And the former president just minutes ago attacked it. Any reaction by the President or the White House? 134924 PSAKI>> We certainly support their change of name. We may be on the other side of the president, former president, on that front, I would guess. I haven't seen his tweet, or however he's communicating these days. Go ahead. 134935 Q>> Jen, two questions on the vaccine. [13:49:36] I'm first you have mentioned yesterday that every individual at at ts White House has been offered a vaccine. So can you clarify the administration? Not mandating vaccines for White House step. No we have not met. Okay And do you have a total? Can you offer any confirmation to us on the percentage of employees who are vaccinated? PSAKI>> I'm not going to provide that. I will see if there's more information to provide Q>> you offer any guidance stint on how you're confirming vaccination status of important PSAKI>> they're vaccinated here in the White House Medical unit for the most part. Go ahead. I'll call Kelly. I'm sorry. I'll come to you next one. Q>> This administration has long claimed that you're trying to most transparent history. If that's the case, why won't you just release the number of breaking. Pieces that you've had fascinated staffers. PSAKI>> Well I think first we're in a very different place than we were 6 to 7 months ago as it relates to the virus, and as many medical experts have said, inside and outside of the government. Those who are vaccinated are protected from serious illness. Most asymptomatic if they are individuals were vaccinated to get the virus and you know we are in a different place in terms of the impact of individuals who may have, as you said breakthrough cases, [13:50:52] Q>> Why not just provide the number. Are you trying to hide something? PSAKI>> But what is the Why do you need to have that information Q>> case of transparency interest the public going understood, having a better understanding of how breakfast cases work here in the White House. PSAKI>> Well, first there are the CDC tracks and let me give you this information to The CDC tracks across the country, of course, hospitalizations and deaths as we have seen, they also do a great deal of tracking in cohorts and ensure that so let me give you a little more information on this, which I think. I don't know if it hopefully, it's of interest. Um so the way that because people have asked us before, so the way the CDC is actively tracking big through cases, there are tens of thousands of people across the country, of course. Who are in what were what they call cohort Studies, which the CDCs actively monitoring. For example, the CDC has a long term care facility study where it is getting data from more than 14,000 long term care facilities. CDC has a health care worker study where they monitor vaccinated healthcare workers who got tested who get [13:51:53] tested with pcr tests every single week. And CDC also collects what they call passive surveillance, which is where hospitals provide CDC with data when they identify someone who was hospitalized but has been vaccinated, so there's a range of means our public health officials are tracking across the country across D C across any individuals here about who is vaccinated, who is. Getting the virus getting hospitalized, hopefully not remains a small percentage 135215 Q>> And following up on the question about Hunter Biden and his art shows, are there any specific procedures you can tell us that are being put in place to ensure these conversations remain, as you say, not about the sales? Will he get ethics training, will he have to report afterwards about the conversations? Anything specific you can tell us about how you are monitoring this? 135233 PSAKI>> Well again, I think it is certainly a commitment that has been made by all parties involved. He is not involved in the sale or discussions about the sale of his art, and he will not be informed of the -- of the sale of his art and who is purchasing that art. That is a commitment that's been made, and we expect that all parties would abide by it. Go ahead, Kelly. [13:52:54] Q>> I wanted to ask about the CDC shirking because and you gave us some information now, But as of May 1st they stopped tracking breakthrough cases that did not result. Hospitalization or death, with the exception of those kinds of tests that you just described. Should there be a more broader net on breakthrough cases with the president's support that to get a better picture of breakthrough, and those White House employees staff? GOP on the campus in any capacity, who are not vaccinated. Are they working here? Or are they working from home? PSAKI>> Uh will any individual who has chosen not to be vaccinated? Same as in the press corps? The public health guidance is to wear a mask that is the public health guidance that's provided to employees as well. In terms of the it is much more expensive than hospitalizations. That what that was what I was trying to convey. What the CDC does is they have these they actively [13:53:54] track breakthrough cases through these cohorts of individuals who are. Vulnerable populations who are had high risks of exposure, and they, of course, include it as I noted, long term care facilities, health care workers and others who would be in those cohorts and categories. I would also note that because the vast majority of individuals who are vaccinated who who get test positive for Covid may be asymptomatic or have moderate or minimal cases. Those are cases. We may not know we may not know about right. Q>> Um the CDC says as they first they stopped tracking right through cases that don't result in hospital is, um, PSAKI>> they do track through these cohorts, which is a large swath of people who would be vulnerable or on the front lines of exposure. Q>> My periodic question, She asked six months. When can we expect to know about a physical exam for the president? And what are the plans for that? PSAKI>> There is absolutely he will have a physical exam. Absolutely You will know about the physical exam. I don't have a date for you at this point in time, and [13:54:54] I expect it will continue to ask as you should. Go ahead. Q>> Thank you. This is some sort of rhetorical. Question vaccination. It is a shame that people have to get very sick and some people have to DI In order to increase the vaccination rate in many parts of this country. Isn't that I guess a logical order of how this would play out or is there a political component to teach them? PSAKI>> I'm not sure I'm following your question. Try again. Q>> Tell me more about what? You're looking for Standard practice that people more people are getting sick in a certain area. That. Those people in that area who are unvaccinated was a G. I really need to go get vaccinated. Isn't that a logical order? For this or is there a political component? Do you think that has kept people away from being vaccine? PSAKI>> I think there are a range of reasons we've seen across the country where individuals have not yet been vaccinated. Some of it is [13:55:55] misinformation, a large amount. In our view. Some of it is fear. Some of it is they may feel time. Some of it is they're young, and they feel they're Superman or superwoman, and they're not going to get sick. That shouldn't be. We don't want that to be the order of events. It shouldn't be that someone should have to know. A neighbor who gets sick and hospitalized to motivate them to go to a hospital to go to get vaccinated. We don't want that to be the case. Um we have seen anecdotally and through some of your all of your reporting that that has been the case in some. Communities But certainly our objective is to communicate to people. This is not a political issue. It is not a partisan issue. This is about protecting lives. The virus does not discriminate between political party affiliation go ahead of Q>> the White House noted yesterday that. 40% of cases are coming from three states before vaccination rights. Florida Texas Them deserved all three of those states of governors, who in recent weeks of criticized the White House's strategy. One of them is even fundraising off of it as you. Probably aware what's being done to engage those governors [13:56:55] come up with a common message. Common strategy to try. Be one team with those governors in terms of fighting stars. PSAKI>> Well I would say first our public health experts work with governors from across the country and work with local health officials from across the country and all of these states, especially the ones at this point in time where there are lower vaccination rates, and we're seeing the delta variant spread, and this is one of the reasons we rely so much on. That Miss knees. Okay hold on. Okay Maybe we'll come back was his wife. Sorry So we're really didn. This is why we rely on local messengers. And with my real, we rely on trusted voices because whether it's the president of the United States. Or the governor. Sometimes those aren't the people you trust. Sometimes that is too political or partisan for people. We understand that. That's why we rely on and we're funding and empowering local trusted voices who aren't seen through a political prism Q>> and little bits of coast right now we're seeing wildfires in Oregon. In northern California. What steps is the administration taking to combat the Kirk fires and also additional fires this summer? PSAKI>> Um well, I [13:57:58] appreciate you asking about this because this has gotten a lot of attention across the country and we haven't talked about it. A lot of so much going on. One. The president receives regular reports on the wildfire situation. He's quite focused on it as I think you're probably aware, but others may not be the national Wild wild Land Fire preparedness level is at five, which is the highest level due to significant fire activity. And as of today 2.5 million acres have burned across the United States In the past two weeks alone, the number of large uncontained fires across the United States has increased by nearly 90% So right now what we're doing one. The President's very focused on this and wants regular updates. He's regularly met with Western governors and I expect we'll do that again. Soon. The FEMA administrator is visiting. Idaho, Oregon and California this week to meet with state, federal and tribal partners, an emergency groups about the worsening wildfire situation to coordinate response efforts and discuss how the regions are addressing. Climate change and ongoing resilience work. We are also closely coordinating with officials on the front lines to [13:58:58] provide federal assistance as needed, including by recently approving fire management assistance grants for fire departments in Oregon, California. And Washington, which are where there's the collective threat to homes and major communities, and we are also continue to monitor monitor these fires from here again. The president receives regular updates, and he's quite focused on this. Go ahead. Q>> Cuba Yeah, function with Salazar says that the administration could turn the Internet back on for Cubans within minutes. I guess it's just technology to allow high textile is float. Over Cuba to act as towers. What's being done, Or can you provide an update on interstate? I'm restoring Internet service to Cuba and PSAKI>> I wish it was that easy. We are exploring aange of options. We are quite focused and interested in restoring Internet access to the people of Cuba. Which we actually which we absolutely believe and agree, I would say [13:59:58] would provide, um, information would allow individuals to communicate and we feel if we can get it done. That would be a great step forward and beneficial to the people of Cuba. Go ahead here and, um. Q>> You mentioned at the top of that Republicans had also increased the debt sailing and certainly pending bipartisan for many years. I'm wondering what the president's long term you. Country's balance sheets are given that under current long term, cbo estimates, debt is never again expected dip below 100% of gross domestic product and then within 30 years as projected to hit 202% of gross domestic product. PSAKI>> Well, first, I would say the president's proposed a way to pay for his proposals, which is something that is a fiscally responsible step some of his predecessors, the most recent one did not do when worked in advocated to support the passing of $2 trillion in tax cuts that did not. Bear out the financial benefit, he promised, and also certainly added to the [14:00:59] deficit. The president takes these issues seriously. He is focused on being a president who cares about the future of our. The next generations, and I think his actions have borne that out. Q>> And then I quit felt There was a lot of discussion about masking the other day. This administration has always followed CDC guy. Yeah if the CDC was to say. We need to return to masking with this administration policy. PSAKI>> We're always going to follow the guidance of our health and medical experts go ahead Q>> on the vaccine immunity and given advisers now seem waiting. Immunity and suffered from who is vaccinated and who is not the White House looking at models and projections that say in the next year as everyone who has been vaccinated could start to lose that immunity. What does that look like for hospitalizations and deaths? PSAKI>> Well, first, I would certainly point to our health and medical experts to answer questions about future projections about the impact of waning immunity. I will say that as they look at this data and assess from are from the CDC and other public health entities in the government, they certainly [14:02:02] talked to private sector companies like Pfizer, but that's only one source of data and engagement. They look at a range of data across the board as they make projections, so we really rely on there. Broad data and projections as we assess what the future looks like Q>> honest, honest while you mentioned continuing us support does that include continuing military support when we've seen a number of airstrikes at the U. S has launched on Taliban targets over the last 30 days? Could that continue? At the end of the military mission at the end of August. PSAKI>> I don't have anything on that for you. I'd certainly point to the department of Defense, but what I'm what I was communicating about was, uh, over the coming weeks. We maintain our authorities as you know, and we provide. We provided a range of training and security assistance equipment to the Afghans and the leaders. Of Afghanistan as we transition to bringing our men and women home. Thanks so much. Everyone have a great weekend. [end]

FS24 WH BRFG CUTS POOL 4 1230 CBS POOL WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING WITH JEN PSAKI [13:14:13] PSAKI>> Hi, everyone. Happy Friday. Okay. A couple of notes for you at the top. Today, the Biden/Harris administration took additional steps to provide stability and relief to homeowners who are still feeling the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. HUD, USDA, and VA announced details to help people with government backed mortgages stay in their homes through monthly payment reductions and potential loan modifications. Homeowners could see reductions in their monthly payments of roughly 20-25%, allowing them to remain in their homes and build long term equity. We're working hard to get the word out to Americans who may benefit from these new programs. And thanks to the work of the consumer financial protection borough and today's actions, most servicers of mortgages are required to provide borrowers' information about these options.Homeowners can visit consumerfinance.gov/housing for update information and more details. 131515 I also would note on our delegation in Haiti, the presidential delegation is safe and accounted for in light of the reported shootings outside of the funeral. They're on their way back to the United States. We are deeply concerned about unrest in Haiti. In this critical moment, Haiti's leaders must come together to chart a united path that reflects the will of the Haitian people. We remain committed to supporting the people of Haiti in this challenging time. [13:15:39] Also a vaccine sharing update for you, we shipped a record number of doses to a record number of countries this week. 22 million doses went out to 23 countries, including Guatemala, Senegal, Zambia. The jet, Gambia, El Salvador, Honduras, the Central African Republic, Cameroon, Lesotho, Panama, Vietnam, Georgia, Pakistan, Tanzania, Mozambique. Been in Morocco, Tajikistan, Colombia, Madagascar, Liberia and the scrutiny. Our teams across the government are working to get more and more doses out every day, but this was a record week for efforts to provide supply to the global community. Finally, a week ahead. 131619 On Monday, the President will host an event in the Rose Garden to celebrate the 31st anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which the President proudly co-sponsored as a senator. While we have much work to do to realize the full aspiration of the ADA, our country has made progress toward its goals of equality of opportunity, full participation, self sufficiency, and respect for the 61 million Americans with disabilities. 131643 Also Monday, the President will welcome the prime minister-- the prime minister of Iraq to theThe White House. The prime minister's visit will highlight the strategic partnership between the United States and Iraq and advance bilateral cooperation under a strategic -- the strategic framework agreement. The visit will also focus on key areas of shared interests, including through education, health, cultural, economic, energy, and climate initiatives. 131707 President Biden looks forward to strengthening bilateral cooperation with Iraq on political, economic, and security issues, including joint efforts to ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS. On Wednesday, the president will travel to Pennsylvania and Lehigh Valley -- in the Lehigh Valley area, where he will emphasize the importance of American manufacturing, buying products made in America, and supporting good paying jobs for American workers. We'll have more details for you over the weekend as things get finalized. Josh, why don't you kick us off? [13:17:35] Q>> Thanks Jed. Choose subject areas First. Hey, that's conservative. 45% of the unvaccinated and say they would definitely not get fascinated. Another 35% say they probably won't get vaccinated. What is this opposition still exist after all the public outreach and shouldn't more governments and employers mandate vaccinations? 131758 PSAKI>> Well, Josh, I think let's take a step back first. In December, before the President took office, the percentage of Americans willing to get a shot was in the thirties. Today, over 68% of adult Americans have taken a shot. So, what that shows you is that in a relatively short period of time, we've been able to influence a whole lot of people to change their minds, take an action -- take action, get a shot, save their lives and the lives of people around them. I'd also note that we've seen some encouraging data over the last couple of weeks. 131830 The five states with the highest case rates, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri and Nevada, had a higher rate of people getting newly vaccinated compared to the national average. That is a good sign. This is the second week in a row, I noted this last week. And, finally in the past 10 days, more than 5.2 million Americans have gotten a shot. Now, there will be institutions, there will be private sector companies and others who make decisions about how to keep their communities safe. That's -- certainly appropriate, but I would just note that we're going to continue our efforts to go community by community, case by case, to convey the accurate information about the efficacy of vaccines. 131911 Q>> Gotcha. Secondly, the Taliban has said that as a condition for peace in Afghanistan, Ashraf Ghani has to be removed as president in a new negotiated government forum. [13:19:23] Does the administration believe that that's in the best interests of the Afghan people and us National security? PSAKI>> Well first, the president and the administration supports the leadership of the Afghan people, including Ashraf Ghani, the president was scheduled to speak with him today. I believe, and I don't believe there's a readout that's come out about that call quite yet. It may while we're speaking here. I would note that there are ongoing political negotiations and discussions that we certainly support between Afghan leaders, members of the Afghan government and the Taliban, 131955 And we believe a political solution is the only outcome to lasting peace in Afghanistan. But, we will continue to provide support to the government in the form of humanitarian support, security support, training. And we will also continue to encourage them to take a leading role in defending and protecting their own people. Go ahead. Q>> Thanks, Jen. Alabama's Republican governor says it is time to start blaming the unvaccinated folk who are letting us down. What do you think about that take? Should the administration be taking a sharper tone against unvaccinated people for putting vaccinated people at risk? 132031 PSAKI>> Well, I don't think our role is to place blame, but what we can do is provide accurate information to people who are not yet vaccinated about the risk they are incurring, not only on themselves but also the people around them. [13:20:44] And well, if you are a young person, you may think you are Superman or Superwoman and immune from the from getting the virus. That is not true. That is not accurate. You can get very sick. You can die from the virus. You can also make your grandparents sick and your parents sick. That is factual information. We're not, 132102 But we're not here to place blame or threats. We're here to provide accurate information. Q>> She says that she doesn't know what else she can do at this point, that she's hit a brick wall with trying to convince people to get vaccinated. Is that a sign that perhaps the federal government should step in and issue mandates? And if not, are you putting the needs of unvaccinated people ahead of the needs of vaccinated people? 132125 PSAKI>> Well, I think the question here -- One, that's not the role of the federal government. That is the role that institutions, private sector entities, and others may take. That certainly is appropriate. Also, local communities are going to take steps they need to take in order to protect people in their communities. 132142 I will say, we understand her frustration, and we understand the frustration of leaders out there and public voices who are trying to say the right thing, advocate for the efficacy of the virus, save people in their communities. What our role is and what we are going to continue to do is make the vaccine available. [13:21:58] We're going to continue to work in partnership to fight misinformation, and we're going to continue to advocate and work in partnership with local officials and entrusted voices to get the word out. Q>> Is there something to be learned from our neighbors to the North Canada? They got a much slower start. They didn't have nearly as many vaccines as we did early on, And yet now they a shot past us and 70% of the population is at least [13:22:27] partially vaccinated. What's the difference between the two countries? What can we learn from their experience? PSAKI>> Well first, I would say 162 Million Americans are now vaccinated. That certainly is a positive step. Were the first to say, and we have long said that that's not enough. We need to ensure more people and more communities are vaccinated and it is now we reached a point where there are some communities, even states where there's 70% 80% or higher vaccination rates. Other communities where there's 40% 50% or otherwise, That's not just a health issue. It's a huge health issue. It's an economic issue. We have seen how that can impact local communities that as it may lead to shut downs of different businesses that can bids an economic issue as well. So of course we work in close partnership with our neighbors, But we have 100 and 62 Million Americans vaccinated, where the world's largest provider of vaccines to the global community. That's progress. In our view, even as we've said From the beginning, there's more work to be done. Q>> Thank you [13:23:27] about the economics of folk that you just mentioned now that daily doses administered the vaccine or down below 300,000. For the first time since December. We've heard. Talk about updating the mask. Guys, do you know if there's been any talk here about updating guidance to start shutting businesses down in places that have very low vaccination rates? PSAKI>> No there has not been no. Q>> Okay, and then on, uh. Crime Generally PSAKI>> can I note though two things just for your public information purposes? One is that, um well, we have seen well, well, we don't look at one week of data as an indication of as you know, we talk about weekly averages. We did see larger numbers of unemployment claims in areas where there are lower vaccination rates we do. It's not enough data to draw conclusions. I'm just noting it for all of you. I would also note that. On the American rescue plan. The way we design that is for the impact and the assistance that we're providing to communities across the country to be long lasting not [13:24:28] to stop all in July are all in September. It extends far beyond it was that is a lesson learned from the past. And so there are different components of that package that's providing assistance to Businesses to organizations to communities that is going to be lasting for months to come. Q>> Okay. And then I'm crying with the intersection in D. C that was shot up last night, only about a mile and a half from here. President Biden have lunch in that neighborhood this summer. What is your message to innocent people to live in cities like this one who might start to get worried about being caught in the crossfire? PSAKI>> Well, either messages that, um, the cornerstone of the president's comprehensive plan to reduce gun violence is providing communities with the tools and resources they need to reduce gun crime, including in Washington, D. C And there are a couple of steps specific to Washington, D. C I mean, a lot of us live there or live in the neighboring communities or know people who are on 14th Street or in the neighbouring. Areas and for people who are not who are watching or hearing this. We're not from those neighborhoods. There's a lot of restaurants there a lot of foot traffic. This is a pretty popular part of the city. Many [13:25:28] of us live in. It's one of D C is one of the five areas Nation wide, where dj launched gun trafficking Strike forces just yesterday, which are going to focus law enforcement resources across jurisdictions to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. D. C is also a part of our 16 city community Violence Intervention Collaborative, which is helping cities implement evidence based strategies. Which have been shown to reduce violence by as much as 60% and in Washington, D. C is also taking advantage of the historic funding that they've gotten through the rescue plan to bolster public safety Mayor Bowser's budget. Proposal would invest $59 million from the rescue plan to reduce violent crime. It would add 100 new slots to the cadet program and add $14 million for youth safety initiatives. So we're certainly seeing this and feeling this even in our. Community here, and it is one of the cities that doj is focused on. Q>> And you just mentioned the White House is working with the sea as part of this collaborative, But just in the last week and a half or so since the mayor of D. C was here. A six year old girl was [13:26:32] shot and killed. Nationals game had to be evacuated. And then there's this incident last night, where diners served time for cover. So at what point would the president maybe reconsider his strategy? PSAKI>> Well, I would say we're just implementing our strategy, which is a multi pronged effort to work in partnership with local leaders, including Mayor Bowser, who has been a great partner to us in this effort to address gun violence that's rising in cities across the country, including Washington and the events of the last week are just examples of that. Go ahead. Q>> It's secretary yelling, just said free came to the podium Bet. The Treasure Department take extraordinary measures. Element isn't raised by August, and she indicated to run out shortly after lawmakers return, possibly as soon as October. So does the White House. Is you guys setting a deadline before recess? Do you want to see that element raised And what is the White House doing to urge lawmakers to Address the debt limit. PSAKI>> This is like the Olympics for Bloomberg these days. Um so I would say, um, friend, Reuters Sorry, and [13:27:34] other financial outlets in the room. Um let me let me give you just a little bit of context. For those of you who have not seen the letter that just went from Secretary Yellen, too. The hill. 132738 So, this is a letter that's standard practice for treasury secretaries when a debt limit is going to be reimposed, which there's a timeline coming up at the end of this month. That is different -- I'm not saying you're suggesting this -- that is different from defaulting, which has never happened in the history of the United States, and would clearly be a catastrophic event. But it is a timeline for the debt limit to be -- to be raised or extended. So, during the previous two administrations, the treasury secretary sent nearly 50 letters to the Hill on the debt limit, some of which were very similar in wording and asked -- and updates to this letter. 132814 And raising or suspending the debt limit does not authorize new spending commitments; it simply enables the government to pay for obligations that congresses and presidents of both parties have already approved. [13:28:24] And Congress find the last piece of history has raised or suspended the debt limit approximately 80 times, which has happened Uh huh under both Republican and democratic presidents, I will say, just for historical fact more often under Republican presidents, but. But it has happened under both, and it has been supported a bipartisan away, so we expect Congress to act promptly to raise or suspend the debt limit and protect the full faith and credit of the United States. Now it is not. I give you all that context because it is not. Out of the ordinary, even though they're called extraordinary measures for Treasury secretaries to present to capital health steps that they are going to take, even as this is being litigated on Capitol Hill. That was that this is what that was what this update was to provide. In that letter. She also noted that. The period of time. That extraordinary measures may last is subject to considerable uncertainty due to a variety of factors, which are exacerbated this year by uncertainty related to the pandemic and calculations about inflows and outflows to the October timeline that she rose referenced in there or the October 1st date. I should say it was referenced was because there's a very large. Reduction [13:29:36] in the cast balance on October 1st. Or we're projecting that due to outflows on that day to meet our obligations to the Department of Defense, so she was giving a sense of what the timeline looks like, Well, not well, also conveying that we can't give a sense at this point on the length of time for extraordinary measures. 132947 We certainly expect Congress to act in a bipartisan manner, as they did three times under the prior administration to raise the debt limit. [13:29:54] Q>> Given that uncertainty is the White House communicating to congressional leaders that you'd like to see this debt limit extended before the recess for August. PSAKI>> I'm not here to set a new deadline. I'm conveying to the history and conveying to you that we think it's clear Congress should act. In a bipartisan manner to raise the debt limit as they have in the past, Q>> and then just one more on the bipartisan infrastructure framework. 133014 Is the White House getting involved in this dispute between Democrats and Republicans over transit funding? And are you recommending any solutions as to how that should be resolved? Are you backing Democrats who say it should remain with the 80-20 highway transit split? 133027 PSAKI>> Well, transit funding is obviously extremely important to the President, the Amtrak President, as we may call him. And -- But we believe that members can get this work done and can work through these issues quite quickly. And, as you know, the issue is about the balance of funding and how it would be allocated between different forms of infrastructure. 133048 But we're encouraged by their progress. They're having conversations, and we believe they can work through any disagreement. I'm just going to go to the back, because I'm not always good at that. Mike Memoli, do have a question today? [13:31:01] Q>> Uh distant. Thank you. Okay. PSAKI>> You didn't raise your hand but usually have a question. Um I'll go to the back back to you know, Q>> everyone's into it. Um, We've talked a lot about this. This week. The protocols are in place at the White House to ensure the president's safety. Interest with Covid 19. But we've seen over the last few weeks the president has been traveling the country quite a bit. He's been engaging in. More controlled environments [13:31:38] went to an ice cream. Stop on a rope line for almost an hour in Philly last week, he's doing a campaign PSAKI>> best hour he spent probably in a while. Q>> Well how Covid changed the way he would campaign last year. What What extends the rise in cases that we're seeing in this country leading to any discussions behind the scenes about whether the president would continue to engage. This kind of activity in public settings where you can't control for people's vaccinations. PSAKI>> Sure. Well, first, we're always going to abide by public health guidelines. And right now the public health guidelines continue to be that if you're vaccinated, and we expect them to continue to be if you're vaccinated, you are very much protected from severe illness from the virus and the president will continue to be a model and following those guidelines and also engaging. Uh with the public in a manner that one is his role as president of the United States, and it's certainly aligned with an appropriate according to those guidelines, as you all know, he has an event later this evening with. Governor Future governor, maybe former [13:32:39] Governor Terry Mcauliffe in Virginia, where he will be, um, certainly engaging with people and with people of Virginia who are making decisions about their future leadership, But I expect he'll be engaging as he did at events last week, so nothing has changed about. Our approach or protocols over the past week or how you've seen him engaged at the ice cream shop or larger crowd events we've had 133256 Q>> And then a question about infrastructure. With some key votes coming up, obviously, next week again, we've seen the President not necessarily engaging in the kind of meetings at the White House with lawmakers on this specific set of proposals in the way we have earlier on in the process. He's been meeting more with outside stakeholders. It seems like there's an outside pressure campaign. But can you give us an update on what his specific conversations might be with lawmakers involved in this process? We haven't really heard much about that. 133323 PSAKI>> He has had a range of conversations with lawmakers over the phone. And he's always conveyed to his team that if it would be helpful to bring members down here, as he has continued to do, he's always happy to do that. The door to the Oval Office is always open, and he is available and will be through the course of the weekend, but also through the coming pivotal weeks as we work to get the infrastructure package across the finish line in the Senate and also the reconciliation bill moved forward. [13:33:50] Okay We're gonna go all the way to the very back. Todd Gillman. I see you somewhere there. Q>> Thank you. Um so the Texas Democrats who require me from the Legislature. Um but they're about halfway through their one month farm break. They've been trying really hard to get in to a meeting, even if it's a zoom meeting with the president. Is he going to meet with them? Is he specifically not meeting with them because of fears that they are spreading covid. PSAKI>> No. He's the vice president who is leading our voting rights effort and our voting rights movement. We're building across the country met with these lawmakers last week, as you well know, uh and the president is very proud of their activism. Their vocal support and [13:34:40] advocacy for voting rights, But I don't have any meeting scheduled for him. Q>> Kind of similar vein regarding coated. Well, the first lady be quarantined away from the president. When she gets back from Japan. PSAKI>> The first lady will follow all public health guidelines. I don't believe that's part of the protocols. Alright let's go. Let's see to the middle here. I'm just jumping around today because, you know, try and better go ahead. Q>> Um, since the White House have a reaction to Mississippi's descend past the Supreme Court to overturn Roe V. Wade. PSAKI>> Well, certainly we are prominent support. We are supporters, the president supporter of preserving Roe V. Wade that is our position in terms of a legislator, a legal reaction I would point to the Department of Justice. Um, let's go to you, Patsy. Go ahead. Q>> Jim I have a question on China trying to just announced sanctions. Yep Again. Six individuals and an entity in the us and retaliations of sanctions imposed by the bike by the administration. On Chinese officials over Hong [13:35:40] Kong. Do you think that this announcement will complicate or impact any plans for a deputy secretary of State Wendy Sherman's visit Changin and is the administration concern. On the escalating sanctions potential escalating sanctions war. PSAKI>> Well, first, I'm not aware of any changes to her planned trip, and certainly we discussed not only areas where we agree, but areas where we disagree, Uh, when we have engagements and diplomatic meetings. In terms of the sanctions. We are aware, of course of the reports that the prc has imposed sanctions on several individuals and ngos, including at least one official from the previous administration, were undeterred by these actions when we remain fully committed. Implementing all relevant U. S sanctions authorities. These actions are the latest examples of how Beijing punishes private citizens companies and civil society organizations as a way to send political signals and further illustrate the prc's deteriorating it deteriorating investment climate and rising political risk. These actions would follow the baseless sanctioning in March of two [13:36:41] commissioners from the U. S Commission on International Religious Freedom. The prc's January sanctions on 21 28. U. S officials and their July 2020 sanctions on us officials and organizations promoting democracy and human rights around the world. Americans of both parties opposed these outrageous moves to target those who defend universal human rights and fundamental freedoms and Beijing's attempt to intimidate and bully internationally respected ngos only demonstrate its further isolation from the world. Let's keep going. I'm just going to keep going around because. Go ahead. Go ahead in the back. I'm just gonna keep going around saying get smart people Q>> on vaccines. Yeah you've been asked about the travel restrictions for international Yeah, before but reflect something different with the president drop those restrictions and airlines adopted vaccine passports or vaccine mandates. I know you've. Sort of encouraged businesses to take steps to get everyone vaccinated that they prosecute. PSAKI>> I would say first that their ongoing working groups that are having discussions about how to [13:37:41] hopefully move forward to a point where there is international travel and is returning something we would all like to see not just for tourism, but for families to be reunited. There are a range of topics and those discussions that are ongoing. The president receives regular briefings on them, but we rely on public health. And medical advice on when we're going to determine changes to be made, Q>> as the president continued engaging with Chancellor Merkel on the subject. I know they talked about that. In the bilateral press conference here with me PSAKI>> that was raised. He has not had another follow up conversation with her since that point in time, why don't I go to the young man next to you? Hmm. Q>> A lot of parents are concerned about the coming school year. What's the White House doing so? Make sure that we're not. We're not doing remote learning again. Nationwide PSAKI>> Well, our plan and our objective and our desire and commitment is to, uh to push for and ensure 100% of schools are open across the country. That's also of course, up to school districts to implement but from the federal government, the role we have played is by, uh. We're [13:38:43] advocating for funding in the American rescue plan that can help provide funding for mitigation member measures for schools so that they can invest in social distancing opportunities or repairing events that need to improve ventilation. We're also we've also put out public health guidance from the CDC that includes specific mitigation measures that schools can take and our secretary of education has been focused on. This issue from the first day he was sworn into office working across school districts to share best practices and ensure we can work towards returning kids to in school. Learning Q>> Delta doesn't change that right? PSAKI>> Delta has not changed our public health guidelines. No. Okay, let's go back to the front Go ahead 133920 RACHEL SCOTT Q>> Just a quick follow up on infrastructure. On the transit spending, we know that's important to the President. Is that a red line for him if that is dropped from this package? Would he still support it? 133927 PSAKI>> I'm not setting red lines here, but we are confident that they can work through the funding issues and the breakdown of funding issues between Democrats and Republicans over the coming days. 133937 RACHEL SCOTT Q>> And then just one other question just on Alabama, and then I have one on Hunter Biden. On Alabama, the big concern here and the reason why these comments from the governor are so alarming is because of the low vaccination rates, right? So, is there some concern from the White House and does the administration fear that some elected leaders may just get so frustrated and accept this fact that there are just some people in this country that just may not want to get vaccinated? 133959 PSAKI>> Well, I don't -- I didn't hear those comments as accepting the fact. I heard those comments as being frustrated that, you know, it's an effort to protect the citizens in your state and trying to figure out what steps you can take to encourage people to get vaccinated and save their lives and the lives of their loved ones. We always knew it would be harder as more people got vaccinated. That's the stage we're in now. But we also believe that there is still opportunity through a range of approaches and tactics and partnerships with governors and leaders and civic leaders to get more people vaccinated. There are a range of factors, you all -- many of you have reported on, that are leading individuals in these five states with lower vaccination rates to get vaccinated. 134041 Some are -- is the Delta variant, and reporting, frankly, and fears of the transmissibility of the Delta variant. Some is, unfortunately, individuals are experiencing people in their communities, family members, who are getting sick and getting hospitalized because of the transmissibility of the Delta variant. 134059 I don't think we have complex data quite yet to determine what is leading to the increase in vaccination rates in some of these states, but we think that's an encouraging sign. We know it's frustrating, we get it. But we have to stay at it to save people's lives. 134111 RACHEL SCOTT Q>> And last one on Hunter Biden. You confirmed yesterday that he will be meeting with prospective buyers, but you also said that he's not going to have any conversation -- PSAKI>> Not that he's meeting with prospective buyers. That he is attending gallery events that had been prior -- prior planned and announced. RACHEL SCOTT Q>> There could be prospective buyers there. PSAKI>> He's not -- Those discussions will be happening with the gallerist, but that is different than meeting with prospective buyers. 134134 RACHEL SCOTT Q>> If there are prospective buyers there, you said yesterday that he is not going to have any conversations related to the selling of art. How can the administration guarantee that? 134145 PSAKI>> The selling of his art will all happen through gal -- the gallerist, and the names and individuals will be kept confidential. We will not be aware, neither will he be aware. RACHEL SCOTT Q>> Is there anything stopping anyone from directly telling, though, Hunter Biden, that they're going to purchase his art? And if they do, the American people won't know who they are. 134203 PSAKI>> He will not know. We will not know who purchases his art. Go ahead, Jeff. [13:42:07] Q>> The president said yesterday that 25% Covid group is quote investigating every aspect of any change. What specifically, are they doing? Or is you looking for them to do in regards to the adult? A. Very and what information is he looking for them to bring back to him? PSAKI>> You mean the CDC or discussions with our public health experts? I think what he was conveying Jeff is that he gets regular weekly, if not more frequent. Updates from his Koba team about. What is happening with the virus. The rise of certain variants, including the delta variant, [13:42:46] and certainly steps that they suggest we take as a result, that's an ongoing process. That's not new, So I think he's of course, um. Looking for their updates and guidance on what the spread is where we're seeing the spread. What impacts we're having, and any mitigation measures they recommend we take from a public health and data driven perspective Q>> on testing specifically, does the president believe that more testing should be done? It's fallen some 75% or so since November, specifically, do you think should be done to see. Industry done untested. PSAKI>> He relies on the guidance of his health and medical experts if they are advising that that is a factor than certainly his role would be to advocate for expanding it. If in his role as president, bu that they obviously provide recommendations publicly as well. Q>> Final thing here, you said, it's not your role to place planned, but the president has a remarkable ability to use the bully pulpit. Pick up the telephone. It happens all the time with. With the corporations and things. What is he doing specifically [13:43:46] with celebrities, perhaps, or with a business leaders like we saw the NFL this week to use his power of the office to try and get some companies or groups to Do mandates will make changes. Is he doing anything himself? Uh reaching out. PSAKI>> We mean aside from getting aside from getting enough vaccine to make sure every American is vaccinated and donating more to the world than any other country and ensuring we're expanding accessibility to pharmacies, too. Community groups and giving $3 billion to empower local voices to get into local communities to get people vaccinated. That's a that's a fair amount that he's done. Q>> You said several times. It's not the role of the government to, uh. Essentially talked to private corporations. But president talks to corporations leaders all the time. Certainly during the rest of you don't know his vice president happened all the time talking to private corporations. If a corner is to be turned here on the hesitancy. Is there anything that he believes that he personally can [13:44:47] do among some different leaders, Not giving a public speech meant that he can do? PSAKI>> Well first. I think I reference the $3 billion because the most powerful and impactful role we've seen across the country from community to community is engaging. Educating and empowering those trusted local voices. We know the president, the vice president, Olivia Rodrigo, who are very grateful to and others have been out there advocating for the efficacy of the vaccine, and we're hopeful that's effective and it can be and he'll continue to do that, and we'll continue to look to partner with. More voices and more creative, you know, well known individuals to elevate the issue of vaccine of the effectiveness of the vaccine. But we've seen that that's that. Actually local voices people, you may not know who may not have a Twitter Following are actually the most powerful people in this fight and will continue to empower and fund those efforts. Oh, Jeff, Go ahead, and I'll go to Karen. Go ahead. Q>> Thank you. Pfizer says the U. S government is [13:45:47] purchasing a dollar 200 million doses of its taxi for Children and for potential booster shots, community. Confirm the purchase. And can you say whether they're thinking about the need for booster shots has crystallized with the maintenance? Think PSAKI>> uh, First, HHS has all the specifics, but yes, we have made that purchase. Here's the bottom line. We've always prepared for every scenario. The federal government is exercising an option in its contract advisor to purchase these 200 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine to be delivered between the fall of 2021 in the spring of 2022 to prepare for future vaccination needs, including as you referenced Jeff. Vaccines for Children under 12 and possible booster shots. If studies show they are necessary, I will note I have said from the podium many times that we were like Boy Scouts and Girl scouts and we were going to prepare for every contingency. That's the job of the federal government right to ensure we have maximum flexibility. We don't know if we'll need a booster shot. That's going to be up to the research that's ongoing with the fda. That's [13:46:48] not. Recommendation that's currently made. We also don't know. We also can't predict what the outcome will be of research on kids under 12 or certainly hopeful, and we don't know which vaccine will be most effective, but we want to have maximum flexibility. So this is an effort to provide us with that, Q>> All right. They just want an infrastructure. We understand that Senate. Negotiators are looking at repurposing covid relief funds for hospitals and nursing homes pays for parts of the bill. Is that something the White House would support. PSAKI>> There's a range of final nitty gritty discussions between both sides, but I'm not going to give feedback on each of the discussions from here. Okay as my God, Karen. Oh Karen. Sorry. Go ahead. Karen. 134731 KAREN TRAVERS Q>> Thank you. Sort of keying off of what Jeff -- PSAKI>> Yeah. KAREN TRAVERS Q>> was asking, the NFL is telling teams that they could potentially forfeit games for a COVID outbreak among unvaccinated players, and the players could lose their pay for any missed games. Does the administration support a policy where players or, more broadly, employees could lose pay if they are unvaccinated and cause a COVID outbreak at their place of work? 134751 PSAKI>> Well, first, I'm not gonna make a sweeping private sector conclusion here. What I will say is the NFL policy is making clear how they're going to proceed with their season. That's their role to do, right? We certainly believe the biggest takeaway is that getting vaccinated is our ticket back to normal and that vaccines are effective and allow all of us a high degree of protection, importantly, avoid hospitalization or death. So, this provides --this is guidance they determined, the NFL, about how they're going to proceed with their season. That is their role to do. 134828 KAREN TAVERS Q>> And there is a new model out from an organization that consults with the CDC, and it's predicting that the current surge in cases right now could continue until a peak in mid October, the daily deaths potentially more than tripling where they are right now. What can the President do right now to prepare Americans for that possibility? You talk so much about the long winter last year. What about a potentially long fall? 134851 PSAKI>> Well, I think the President's role right now is to continue to encourage people to get vaccinated, because it is incredibly effective, and protect -- protecting them from serious illness, from death, from hospitalization from the virus. That's the most powerful role he can play at this point in time. George, go ahead. 134908 Q>> This morning, the Cleveland Indians announced they're changing their name to Guardians, and that's already become an issue in the Ohio Senate race. And the former president just minutes ago attacked it. Any reaction by the President or the White House? 134924 PSAKI>> We certainly support their change of name. We may be on the other side of the president, former president, on that front, I would guess. I haven't seen his tweet, or however he's communicating these days. Go ahead. 134935 Q>> Jen, two questions on the vaccine. [13:49:36] I'm first you have mentioned yesterday that every individual at at ts White House has been offered a vaccine. So can you clarify the administration? Not mandating vaccines for White House step. No we have not met. Okay And do you have a total? Can you offer any confirmation to us on the percentage of employees who are vaccinated? PSAKI>> I'm not going to provide that. I will see if there's more information to provide Q>> you offer any guidance stint on how you're confirming vaccination status of important PSAKI>> they're vaccinated here in the White House Medical unit for the most part. Go ahead. I'll call Kelly. I'm sorry. I'll come to you next one. Q>> This administration has long claimed that you're trying to most transparent history. If that's the case, why won't you just release the number of breaking. Pieces that you've had fascinated staffers. PSAKI>> Well I think first we're in a very different place than we were 6 to 7 months ago as it relates to the virus, and as many medical experts have said, inside and outside of the government. Those who are vaccinated are protected from serious illness. Most asymptomatic if they are individuals were vaccinated to get the virus and you know we are in a different place in terms of the impact of individuals who may have, as you said breakthrough cases, [13:50:52] Q>> Why not just provide the number. Are you trying to hide something? PSAKI>> But what is the Why do you need to have that information Q>> case of transparency interest the public going understood, having a better understanding of how breakfast cases work here in the White House. PSAKI>> Well, first there are the CDC tracks and let me give you this information to The CDC tracks across the country, of course, hospitalizations and deaths as we have seen, they also do a great deal of tracking in cohorts and ensure that so let me give you a little more information on this, which I think. I don't know if it hopefully, it's of interest. Um so the way that because people have asked us before, so the way the CDC is actively tracking big through cases, there are tens of thousands of people across the country, of course. Who are in what were what they call cohort Studies, which the CDCs actively monitoring. For example, the CDC has a long term care facility study where it is getting data from more than 14,000 long term care facilities. CDC has a health care worker study where they monitor vaccinated healthcare workers who got tested who get [13:51:53] tested with pcr tests every single week. And CDC also collects what they call passive surveillance, which is where hospitals provide CDC with data when they identify someone who was hospitalized but has been vaccinated, so there's a range of means our public health officials are tracking across the country across D C across any individuals here about who is vaccinated, who is. Getting the virus getting hospitalized, hopefully not remains a small percentage 135215 Q>> And following up on the question about Hunter Biden and his art shows, are there any specific procedures you can tell us that are being put in place to ensure these conversations remain, as you say, not about the sales? Will he get ethics training, will he have to report afterwards about the conversations? Anything specific you can tell us about how you are monitoring this? 135233 PSAKI>> Well again, I think it is certainly a commitment that has been made by all parties involved. He is not involved in the sale or discussions about the sale of his art, and he will not be informed of the -- of the sale of his art and who is purchasing that art. That is a commitment that's been made, and we expect that all parties would abide by it. Go ahead, Kelly. [13:52:54] Q>> I wanted to ask about the CDC shirking because and you gave us some information now, But as of May 1st they stopped tracking breakthrough cases that did not result. Hospitalization or death, with the exception of those kinds of tests that you just described. Should there be a more broader net on breakthrough cases with the president's support that to get a better picture of breakthrough, and those White House employees staff? GOP on the campus in any capacity, who are not vaccinated. Are they working here? Or are they working from home? PSAKI>> Uh will any individual who has chosen not to be vaccinated? Same as in the press corps? The public health guidance is to wear a mask that is the public health guidance that's provided to employees as well. In terms of the it is much more expensive than hospitalizations. That what that was what I was trying to convey. What the CDC does is they have these they actively [13:53:54] track breakthrough cases through these cohorts of individuals who are. Vulnerable populations who are had high risks of exposure, and they, of course, include it as I noted, long term care facilities, health care workers and others who would be in those cohorts and categories. I would also note that because the vast majority of individuals who are vaccinated who who get test positive for Covid may be asymptomatic or have moderate or minimal cases. Those are cases. We may not know we may not know about right. Q>> Um the CDC says as they first they stopped tracking right through cases that don't result in hospital is, um, PSAKI>> they do track through these cohorts, which is a large swath of people who would be vulnerable or on the front lines of exposure. Q>> My periodic question, She asked six months. When can we expect to know about a physical exam for the president? And what are the plans for that? PSAKI>> There is absolutely he will have a physical exam. Absolutely You will know about the physical exam. I don't have a date for you at this point in time, and [13:54:54] I expect it will continue to ask as you should. Go ahead. Q>> Thank you. This is some sort of rhetorical. Question vaccination. It is a shame that people have to get very sick and some people have to DI In order to increase the vaccination rate in many parts of this country. Isn't that I guess a logical order of how this would play out or is there a political component to teach them? PSAKI>> I'm not sure I'm following your question. Try again. Q>> Tell me more about what? You're looking for Standard practice that people more people are getting sick in a certain area. That. Those people in that area who are unvaccinated was a G. I really need to go get vaccinated. Isn't that a logical order? For this or is there a political component? Do you think that has kept people away from being vaccine? PSAKI>> I think there are a range of reasons we've seen across the country where individuals have not yet been vaccinated. Some of it is [13:55:55] misinformation, a large amount. In our view. Some of it is fear. Some of it is they may feel time. Some of it is they're young, and they feel they're Superman or superwoman, and they're not going to get sick. That shouldn't be. We don't want that to be the order of events. It shouldn't be that someone should have to know. A neighbor who gets sick and hospitalized to motivate them to go to a hospital to go to get vaccinated. We don't want that to be the case. Um we have seen anecdotally and through some of your all of your reporting that that has been the case in some. Communities But certainly our objective is to communicate to people. This is not a political issue. It is not a partisan issue. This is about protecting lives. The virus does not discriminate between political party affiliation go ahead of Q>> the White House noted yesterday that. 40% of cases are coming from three states before vaccination rights. Florida Texas Them deserved all three of those states of governors, who in recent weeks of criticized the White House's strategy. One of them is even fundraising off of it as you. Probably aware what's being done to engage those governors [13:56:55] come up with a common message. Common strategy to try. Be one team with those governors in terms of fighting stars. PSAKI>> Well I would say first our public health experts work with governors from across the country and work with local health officials from across the country and all of these states, especially the ones at this point in time where there are lower vaccination rates, and we're seeing the delta variant spread, and this is one of the reasons we rely so much on. That Miss knees. Okay hold on. Okay Maybe we'll come back was his wife. Sorry So we're really didn. This is why we rely on local messengers. And with my real, we rely on trusted voices because whether it's the president of the United States. Or the governor. Sometimes those aren't the people you trust. Sometimes that is too political or partisan for people. We understand that. That's why we rely on and we're funding and empowering local trusted voices who aren't seen through a political prism Q>> and little bits of coast right now we're seeing wildfires in Oregon. In northern California. What steps is the administration taking to combat the Kirk fires and also additional fires this summer? PSAKI>> Um well, I [13:57:58] appreciate you asking about this because this has gotten a lot of attention across the country and we haven't talked about it. A lot of so much going on. One. The president receives regular reports on the wildfire situation. He's quite focused on it as I think you're probably aware, but others may not be the national Wild wild Land Fire preparedness level is at five, which is the highest level due to significant fire activity. And as of today 2.5 million acres have burned across the United States In the past two weeks alone, the number of large uncontained fires across the United States has increased by nearly 90% So right now what we're doing one. The President's very focused on this and wants regular updates. He's regularly met with Western governors and I expect we'll do that again. Soon. The FEMA administrator is visiting. Idaho, Oregon and California this week to meet with state, federal and tribal partners, an emergency groups about the worsening wildfire situation to coordinate response efforts and discuss how the regions are addressing. Climate change and ongoing resilience work. We are also closely coordinating with officials on the front lines to [13:58:58] provide federal assistance as needed, including by recently approving fire management assistance grants for fire departments in Oregon, California. And Washington, which are where there's the collective threat to homes and major communities, and we are also continue to monitor monitor these fires from here again. The president receives regular updates, and he's quite focused on this. Go ahead. Q>> Cuba Yeah, function with Salazar says that the administration could turn the Internet back on for Cubans within minutes. I guess it's just technology to allow high textile is float. Over Cuba to act as towers. What's being done, Or can you provide an update on interstate? I'm restoring Internet service to Cuba and PSAKI>> I wish it was that easy. We are exploring aange of options. We are quite focused and interested in restoring Internet access to the people of Cuba. Which we actually which we absolutely believe and agree, I would say [13:59:58] would provide, um, information would allow individuals to communicate and we feel if we can get it done. That would be a great step forward and beneficial to the people of Cuba. Go ahead here and, um. Q>> You mentioned at the top of that Republicans had also increased the debt sailing and certainly pending bipartisan for many years. I'm wondering what the president's long term you. Country's balance sheets are given that under current long term, cbo estimates, debt is never again expected dip below 100% of gross domestic product and then within 30 years as projected to hit 202% of gross domestic product. PSAKI>> Well, first, I would say the president's proposed a way to pay for his proposals, which is something that is a fiscally responsible step some of his predecessors, the most recent one did not do when worked in advocated to support the passing of $2 trillion in tax cuts that did not. Bear out the financial benefit, he promised, and also certainly added to the [14:00:59] deficit. The president takes these issues seriously. He is focused on being a president who cares about the future of our. The next generations, and I think his actions have borne that out. Q>> And then I quit felt There was a lot of discussion about masking the other day. This administration has always followed CDC guy. Yeah if the CDC was to say. We need to return to masking with this administration policy. PSAKI>> We're always going to follow the guidance of our health and medical experts go ahead Q>> on the vaccine immunity and given advisers now seem waiting. Immunity and suffered from who is vaccinated and who is not the White House looking at models and projections that say in the next year as everyone who has been vaccinated could start to lose that immunity. What does that look like for hospitalizations and deaths? PSAKI>> Well, first, I would certainly point to our health and medical experts to answer questions about future projections about the impact of waning immunity. I will say that as they look at this data and assess from are from the CDC and other public health entities in the government, they certainly [14:02:02] talked to private sector companies like Pfizer, but that's only one source of data and engagement. They look at a range of data across the board as they make projections, so we really rely on there. Broad data and projections as we assess what the future looks like Q>> honest, honest while you mentioned continuing us support does that include continuing military support when we've seen a number of airstrikes at the U. S has launched on Taliban targets over the last 30 days? Could that continue? At the end of the military mission at the end of August. PSAKI>> I don't have anything on that for you. I'd certainly point to the department of Defense, but what I'm what I was communicating about was, uh, over the coming weeks. We maintain our authorities as you know, and we provide. We provided a range of training and security assistance equipment to the Afghans and the leaders. Of Afghanistan as we transition to bringing our men and women home. Thanks so much. Everyone have a great weekend. [end]

LARRY KING LIVE ON CNN FOR CONTINUING STORY ON THE SNIPER SHOOTINGS / FULL SHOW INTV W/ JASON MEYERS, NEPHEW OF SHOOTING VICTIM DEAN HAROLD MEYERS / INTV W/ MARION LEWIS, FATHER OF SHOOTING VICTIM LORI ANN LEWIS RIVERA / INTV W/ CRIMINOLOGIST CASEY JORDAN / INTV W/ CRIMINOLOGIST DR. JACK LEVIN OF NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY / INTV W/ ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA / CA SHERIFF MIKE CARONA / INTV W/ DEFENSE ATTORNEY MARK GERAGOS / FTG OF PANEL DISCUSSION OF SERIAL SNIPER. NANCY GRACE, GUEST HOST: Tonight: a massive manhunt for the unknown sniper who has now claimed at least seven lives in the D.C. area over the past 10 days. The victims have one thing in common: They were all ordinary, innocent people going about their everyday innocent lives. Dean Harold Meyers was fatally gunned down as he was getting gas Wednesday night at a filling station in Virginia. His nephew Jason Meyers is with us tonight in D.C. A 25-year-old woman, Lori Ann Lewis Rivera, she was vacuuming her minivan at a Maryland service station when she was gunned down. Her father Marion Lewis is with us from Nampa, Idaho. Then, expert perspective on the all-out search for the shooter who's left the metro Washington area shaken and on edge. Criminologist Casey Jordan, who specializes in violent offender and pattern typology is with us from New York. In Boston, criminologist Jack Levin, director of the Brudnick Center on conflict and violence at Northeastern University. In L.A., Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona, a lawman who knows a lot about working high-profile crimes under intense media pressure. With the sheriff in L.A., you know him well, defense attorney Mark Geragos. Plus, the latest on the sniper story from Mitchell Miller of WTOP radio. All that and your calls tonight on LARRY KING LIVE. Welcome to LARRY KING LIVE. I'm Nancy Grace from Court TV in for Larry King tonight. Thank you for being with us. What do we know? What don't we know? What can we deduce? Tonight, aside from all the speculation and police report, we are hearing from the victims' families. Let me first go to Jason Meyers. Jason, thank you for being with us. JASON MEYERS, UNCLE KILLED BY SNIPER: Thank you. GRACE: Jason, I want to talk to you about your uncle, about the shooting that has taken your entire family by surprise. What happened that day? MEYERS: Well, I found out about it, it was a tough time. It was actually at 3:00 in the morning and a couple of Pennsylvania state troopers knocked on our front door. GRACE: 3:00 a.m. MEYERS: At 3:00 a.m. We went downstairs and they came in. They actually brought our next-door neighbor with us because she knew us and they didn't know what to expect, you know, how we might react. And they came in. They didn't have a whole lot of details. They just came in. They were very nice, very sympathetic. GRACE: What did they tell you? MEYERS: They told me that my uncle had been shot and killed the prior night. GRACE: And your immediate reaction? MEYERS: My immediate reaction was a little bit of shock. I really couldn't believe that that's what had happened. But, you know, the first thing that came into my mind was, because I knew he was down in the Manassas area, was I asked them, I said, was it the sniper in Washington? And they said, We really don't have any details. We just received the call, and they gave me the name of the detectives that were working on the case and their numbers. GRACE: As the story unfolded, your thoughts on your uncle being part of this crime spree, part of a serial killer's victims? MEYERS: It was just -- I mean, obviously it was a horrifying experience. No one wants to go through that. But I think what really struck me the most was, you know, the likelihood. I mean, you know, every victim... GRACE: He was at a gas station, right? MEYERS: Yes, he was just on his way home from work. GRACE: He had been working late that night. MEYERS: He was working late on a project for the civil engineering firm. GRACE: You know, what a lot of people don't know about your uncle, Dean Harold Meyers, he had actually been awarded the Purple Heart in Vietnam. This is a hero. A hero that had worked late that night, coming home, tanking up and out of the blue this happened. How is your family? MEYERS: Well, everyone was quite shaken. I had the unfortunate task of being the one that was notified, so I had to begin letting everyone know. And I guess it was about 4:30 my wife and I drove over to my parents' house and knocked on their door and let them know. And my uncle had three brothers, so from there my father went to one of their homes and I went to the other, and we all got together. GRACE: Does it even seem real to you, what's happening? MEYERS: It does when I sit and think about it. You know, when you're busy going about taking care of things, it doesn't strike you so much. You still think you're going see him again, but... GRACE: Yes. I want to go now to Nampa, Idaho and speak with Marion Lewis. Mr. Lewis, thank you for being with us. Are you with me, Mr. Lewis? MARION LEWIS, DAUGHTER KILLED BY SNIPER: Yes. GRACE: Mr. Lewis? Hi. What can you tell us about your daughter? LEWIS: What do you want to know? GRACE: Well, I've read a lot about her... LEWIS: She was a mother... GRACE: Yes. LEWIS: She was a mother and a wife. She was devoted to her family. She was cherished by her employers. I don't know of anybody that didn't like Lori. I don't know of anybody that had anything against Lori. I think she was the kind of person that didn't have anything bad to say about anybody. GRACE: Lori leaves behind, I believe, a 3-year-old daughter? LEWIS: Yes, Sarah Josaleen (ph). GRACE: When you first heard about what had happened -- I mean, as I'm looking at you and talking to you, I'm thinking about my own dad and him getting word that one of his children had been shot. Does it even feel real to you at this point? LEWIS: Unfortunately it does. It didn't when I heard it the first time, but... GRACE: When you had originally heard, Mr. Lewis, about the sniper here in the D.C. area, were you worried about Lori? LEWIS: I was working up in the hills, and we were putting in 12- hour days. I hadn't been watching the news lately and so I didn't have a clue until my wife called me. GRACE: So you were at work when you got the word? LEWIS: I was back at the hotel we were staying at just after work. GRACE: What is going to become of her little girl? LEWIS: Well, hopefully she'll remember the love that she grew up with and she'll grow into as fine a woman as her mother was. If you were asking about immediate plans, Nelson (ph) is a little bit up in the air about that. We're hoping that he decides to move here to Idaho, but that's his decision. And for the moment I don't think that the future is what he's dwelling on. He is in shock, I believe, somewhat. GRACE: Does the little girl, her daughter, have any idea what's going on? LEWIS: She saw her mother in the casket at the funeral and her father explained as best as he could what was going on. When you're 3 1/2 years old, you've got so much life in you that -- and you've got no frame of reference about death. At this point I think that's kind of fortunate. GRACE: Mr. Lewis, please stay with us. We are taking a quick break. Everyone, we are talking to Mr. Marion Lewis there in Idaho. His 25-year-old daughter was gunned down by a sniper, leaving behind a 3- year-old little girl and her husband as well. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) GRACE: Welcome back to LARRY KING LIVE. I'm Nancy Grace from Court TV filling in for Larry King tonight. Thank you for being with us. A dark day in the D.C. area. A sniper still at large as of tonight. The most recent shooting this morning, a 53-year-old man gunned down at yet another gas station. This time an Exxon near a major interstate. Let me go again to Mr. Marion Lewis. He's joining us from Nampa, Idaho. His daughter, Laurie, just 25-years-old, was gunned down by the sniper, leaving behind a beautiful 3-year-old little girl to grow up without her mom and a husband, who, from what I understand, Mr. Lewis, is still basically numbed from the whole thing. You know, you go through life and you think maybe a car accident, maybe an illness, but to perish at the hands of an anonymous sniper is something you never really figure into the equation. LEWIS: Most of us are pretty far removed from those kind of things. It's -- it kind of brings home the stories that you see in the news. Really brings home the stories that you see in the news about these kind of things happening to other people. GRACE: I know. Mr. Lewis, they always seem so -- so far away and so removed from everybody's daily life until now. Your daughter, Laurie Lewis-Rivera, it's my understanding was cleaning out her car at a gas station or a car wash? LEWIS: At a service station, that's what I understand also. GRACE: How did she come to be here in the D.C. area, Mr. Lewis? LEWIS: In junior high, she decided she was going to be a nanny. After she graduated high school, she went to Northwest Nanny Institute in Portland, Oregon, and graduated that course, which is saying something in itself. That course is a condensed course for what they were to learn -- my understanding is that what they have in their curricular is like three years of learning crammed into one. And after she graduated, she looked through postings for a nanny placement service that was available and found one that sounded like a family she wanted to work for. And she had an interview with them. She sounded good to them and they sounded good to her so she moved to Washington to be a nanny. GRACE: She sounds very brave, taking off from Idaho, taking her classes and marching off to D.C. to start a new life. You have another daughter, Charity. and you have your wife. How are they? LEWIS: They're holding up. GRACE: Is she coming home? Is she coming home for the funeral? Laurie? Will she be in Idaho? Is she going to be buried in Idaho? LEWIS: Yes. We had the funeral Wednesday. She's -- we brought her home to Mountain Home. GRACE: Also with us here in the studio is Mitchell Miller, who has been covering this story from the very beginning. Mitchell, when I speak to the families involved in the sniper shootings, it's almost as if they can't believe it, but it is very real as of this morning. What is the latest? MITCHELL MILLER, WTOP REPORTER: It's absolutely senseless. It's incredible what has really transpired over the last week. Right now, what is happening is an extraordinary effort by state, local, federal officials, all fanned out across the Washington area. They're looking for this white minivan that many people have heard about today. It's still unclear what the van's role, if any, was in the shooting. But in this case, we have some witnesses who have seen people inside that van and unlike a lot of the other shootings, there seem to be a little bit more for authorities to go on here. You have a person who said he actually heard the gunshot, who saw the van as it went away and suddenly, you know, then everybody saw this incredible event on I-95, one of the busiest corridors -- highways on the Eastern corridor, where you have just this incredible scene of troopers up on ramps and cars being stopped left and right and traffic completely at a dead stand still on I-95, which is just amazing. And then, now, tonight, you still have people looking for that white minivan, so as authorities have said, if you're driving a white minivan, there is a good chance that you could be stopped. GRACE: Well, you know, I've always said, after having prosecuted spree killings and serial killings myself, there is no coincidence in criminal law. And the fact that a white minivan type vehicle has come up in more than one of these shootings in my mind is no coincidence. Thoughts? MILLER: Right, you've got a shooting from last week where initially there was talk about a white box-like truck. This white van or white vehicle has come up repeatedly. Now, whether or not it's intricately involved in this is still unclear. I think one thing that will be clear as to whether or not this latest shooting was actually linked to the other sniper shootings, of course, will be the ballistics test. And those are likely to come in probably tomorrow, and then for sure we will really know. GRACE: Mitchell, is there really a question as to whether it's linked? I mean, there's the outside chance that there is a copy killer, around in a white van similar to the other white van shooting at a long range distance at a gas station, this time an Exxon, a lone victim, one gunshot. You know, obviously, it's very likely to be the same perpetrator. MILLER: Yes, I mean, common sense tells you, obviously, that every single parallel is here. You've got an event where it occurred near a major interstate, as we mentioned. There were others at major interstates. You had one in Bowie, Maryland, that was right near the Beltway in Washington. You had another one, the other night, off of I-66 in Manassas, Virginia. All of these are very closely paralleled. And, of course, authorities, while they don't say it specifically because they have to wait for those ballistics tests, by the fact that they bring in this region- wide task force, immediately sends a clear signal what they're thinking. GRACE: Well, sure, of course we'll wait for the firearms expert and the ballistics results to come back, but, you know, I don't need a two-inch stack of data to tell me this is more likely than not the same perpetrator. Before we go to break, I just wanted to come back to you about your uncle. You guys, you and your brothers and sisters, the closest thing he had to family, he treated you like his own kids. You grew up with him. Very little has been made of his life, the fact that he was brave, that he been awarded the Purple Heart, had actually been under fire and wounded in Vietnam, did so much in his neighborhood. It's -- that's the part of the news story that's been lost. And somewhere out there tonight -- and don't think the sniper isn't watching -- I get the feeling, and I'm wondering how you feel, that he doesn't connect these victims to reality. This is some sick game that he's playing. MEYERS: I really can't speculate on what he's thinking or what his motives are. GRACE: What are you thinking? MEYERS: You know, I'm thinking it's just -- it was a terrible loss that we suffered that, you know, everyone whose life my uncle Dean touched has suffered as a result of this. I mean, I can't even begin to do justice to the goodness, kindness and generosity that was my uncle Dean. He's going to be terribly missed by everyone whose life he touched. And when I think of my uncle Dean, three facets of his life really come into mind. One was his love of, and trust in God. Second was his living the life to the fullest. He had many interests that he was passionate about. He was into outdoors, camping, hiking, fishing, photography. He was a history buff. He was a car buff. He used to take us for rides in his classic Corvette when we were kids. And what was really special about uncle Dean was the way he combined all these facets of his life and shared those with the people that were closest to him. You know, being his family, his nephews, his nieces, now his grand-nieces. GRACE: Thanks. Thanks. Quick break, everyone. We are taking a very long, hard look at the sniper killings here in the D.C. area. Stay with us. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CHIEF CHARLES MOOSE, MONTGOMERY COUNTY POLICE: The lookout stands for a white van with a ladder on top. This is a white Astro van. And certainly numerous white Astro vans have been stopped throughout the Washington metropolitan area. I don't have an exact count on that number, but I do want to stress that that white Astro van with the ladder on top remains a proper and appropriate lookout. (END VIDEO CLIP) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) GRACE: The death toll in the D.C. area has now risen to eight as a result of the sniper still at large as of tonight. We have just learned the identity of the latest victim, Kenneth Bridges, 53 years old, father of six, gunned down today at a local Exxon station. Of course, Mitchell, we're still waiting for the ballistics to come back for a firearms -- a definitive firearms link. But the similarities are overwhelming. MILLER: They really are. I mean, as we were mentioning, you have several locations that were similar. You have the single gunshot, of course. You have the fact that several of these shootings have taken place at gas stations. And that's really what struck a lot of people, of course, because everybody goes to the gas station every week to fill up. I mean, on my radio station this morning we had a reporter talking about actually taking safety precautions when you go to the gas station. Who would have ever thought you would do that -- walking in a zigzag pattern when you're going to fill up your tank? GRACE: I've got a funny feeling with this sniper, how you walk in a zigzag pattern is not going to make a difference to this guy. Let me go to you, Sheriff Mike Carona. We watched you as you saw the Samantha Runnion case, apprehending Alejandro Avila, who is going to trial. What do you do next in a manhunt this massive? Where do you go from here? SHERIFF MIKE CARONA, ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Well, I think what Chief Moose is already doing -- and that is bringing in a number of different resources; you have the FBI, you have ATF, you have the state troopers back there, you have the sheriff's department. Everybody's coming together. Basically you want to pull all the information that you possibly can, analyze that information as quickly as possible and start making some tactical decisions on going after this individual. Most importantly, Nancy, is what you and the media have been doing, it's getting the information out to the public. Because the public, the eyes and the ears out there of the public are what's going to help solve this case, like it did in the Samantha Runnion case. GRACE: You know, you are so right. In the Runnion case, police there in less than four minutes on the scene because of the public, because of people involved in the crime at the get-go. I guess you heard on the airwaves, Sheriff Carona, the last victim is being confirmed: Kenneth Bridges, father of six, 53 years old. And let me go to you, Professor Jack Levin. In this case, the serial murders, the spree killings that I, personally, have prosecuted were much more -- the victim much more close to the perpetrator. Here it's almost like a game. He shoots at long distance a single bullet, obviously through a scope, probably a silencer, doesn't know his victims, victims not connected. What's it all about? JACK LEVIN, CRIMINOLOGIST: Well, you know, you're absolutely right, Nancy. Most serial killers are up close and personal with their victims. They enjoy the thrill, they want desperately to see their victims suffer and be in pain. And they want, with their own hands, to take the last gasp of breath from their dying victim's body. It makes them feel powerful and in control and dominant. This killer, however, has distanced himself from his victim. I think part of the reason might be that one of the only things he's good at is shooting. I mean, he's obviously a loser otherwise. And when he has a high-powered rife in his hand, he actually is an expert marksman. This is probably the only thing that he does well, and he wants us all to know about it. So I think it's not just the killing here that's so important to the sniper, it's also what happens after the killing, the celebrity status, the cat-and-mouse game with the police, terrifying the entire community. All of these things make this killer feel good about himself. It makes him feel important. He's a big shot for the first time in his life. GRACE: And I would put money on the fact that he is watching right now. Casey Jordan, I think -- I agree with Jack Levin on this. But what is unusual is the lack of involvement with the victims. And here you can't type the victims. Very often you can see, for instance, Gacy had a specific type of victim. You see serial killers attacking hookers or children, specifically, or a particular minority or a particular group. Not so in this case. CASEY JORDAN, CRIMINOLOGIST: No. And, in fact, I would argue that this case is one for the textbooks because Jack Levin, who's created many typologies for mass and serial killers, argues that he's power control. I certainly don't disagree that. But what bothers me about this guy is that he seems to have a lot of psyche of a mass murderer even though he's carrying out his attacks one at a time. There's a type of mass murderer called the pseudo-commando. And I think that's how he started out but now I think he's moving into more of a power control psyche, which is more similar to a serial killer. So, his next move is very difficult to predict. GRACE: Mark Geragos, you have handled many, many felony cases. My question to you is: I was taking a look at the facts and it seems to me he's getting a high off taunting police. For instance, one of the most recent shooting was across the street from a police station. He left the Tarot card to Mr. Policeman -- I am god. And then police earlier went on the air and said schools are safe -- next day, the shooting of a 13-year-old boy at a middle school. MARK GERAGOS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Which leads me to believe -- the sheriff and I were talking here at the break -- I would not be surprised in the least that you're talking about somebody who is ex- law enforcement. It makes all the sense in the world that you've got somebody who is highly trained, that you've got somebody -- as you said who has been basically taunting the police, this little Tarot card if in fact that is linked, would appear to be somebody who has some kind of affinity for or a fascination with law enforcement. GRACE: How about a police wannabe? How about a police wannabe? GERAGOS: I'm not so -- I know that people have been saying that it's either police wannabe or a military wannabe. I think this is somebody who is either military trained or police trained. This is an incredibly sophisticated and skilled person -- obviously deranged. But this idea that it is a -- comparing him to a traditional serial killer, somebody who gets a thrill out of the killing -- I think here what it is is somebody who wants to paralyze -- at least first and foremost -- a geographic region and by derivation the nation. And I think you've got something else at work here that is not your -- not what we're talking about -- not something we saw 20 or 30 years ago or somebody needs to climb a bell tower on a university and start sniping at six or seven people in a row. This is somebody who actually is trying to taunt, if not the community, the nation and that leads me to believe that you've got somebody who has got some real training and skill. GRACE: Well, of course, therein lies the rub between a serial killer and spree killer. Quick break, everyone. But the latest news, as of tonight, possibly the most recent victim, a father of six, 53-year-old Kenneth Bridges. And as we go to air tonight, a 13-year-old boy is still in critical condition. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) GRACE: Welcome back to LARRY KING LIVE. I'm Nancy Grace from Court TV in for Larry King tonight. As of today, another possible victim of the sniper that is terrorizing the D.C. area. Kenneth Bridges, the father of six, 53-years-old, has been confirmed as the latest victim at an Exxon station. Still waiting on ballistics results to confirm the same type weapon and bullet to connect Mr. Bridges. Back to you, Mitchell Miller. You've been covering this from the very beginning. We keep hearing about geographical typing. What is your take on that? MILLER: Well, I'm no expert, but one possibility is there is a lot of military installations along the Northern Virginia corridor along that I-95 route. If you look at the pattern of the shootings right now, none have taken place right in the area where the installations are, but they've taken place a short distance away. So there's been some speculation maybe, as was referred to earlier, that we may have somebody ex-military -- perhaps a military wannabe, perhaps someone who couldn't make it into the military, but somebody obviously who can shoot. GRACE: Sheriff Carona, a question to you. He's been referred to as a sniper, a sharpshooter -- although I hate to give him that much credit. But if you're looking through a scope that magnifies, how difficult is it to take this kind of shot? CARONA: Oh, it's very difficult to take that kind of shot. GRACE: So he is a sharp shooter? CARONA: Well, it's somebody that has significant training with a long rifle. That's not an easy shot to make as a civilian. And so I think Mark's concept of potentially ex-law enforcement, ex-military or a wannabe in either on of those classifications is something that I'm sure the law enforcement consortium is looking at. GRACE: Jack Levin, there are two way -- two things law enforcement has to go on right now. The bullets, the weapon -- you know, ballistics results -- and the location of the crimes. What, if anything, do those two really tell us? LEVIN: Well, you know, unfortunately they really don't tell us a lot. I mean we can link the killings together and we know -- you know, it was the same firearm and perhaps the killer had lived or worked in the Maryland area. He may not live or work there now, but he's certainly familiar with it. He knows how to get on and off the highways. He chooses his locations very carefully. But, you know, I wanted to go back to what Casey said before about mass murders and serial killings and you've mentioned spree killings. We got to throw those labels away. You know, this is kind of like the adult version of Columbine. I know it is not a massacre. This sniper did not go into a parking lot at a shopping mall and spray bullets indiscriminately. He decided to do it one at a time so we're calling him a serial sniper. But you know what? You want a profile. Here is a guy who's going to turn out, I believe, to be a white middle aged male, who externalizes responsibility, has very recently suffered some kind of catastrophic loss -- the loss of a job in a bad economy, maybe a lot of money in the stock market -- he's gone through a nasty separation or divorce, maybe even has a terminal illness and he's an expert in firearms. He's had training in firearms. Maybe the military. Maybe a police officer. But I would bet you that he goes hunting and target shooting quite a bit. GRACE: But, Casey Jordan, why these particular victims? After looking at the criminal justice system for many, many years that is what is confounding me tonight. There is no connection between them. They range from age 13 to up in the 70s -- 72 -- they're different genders, they're different races, different walks of life. I'm finding it very difficult to connect the dots. JORDAN: And that's because he doesn't want you to. This is the -- the success pattern of this particular shooter is that you can't connect the dots. You don't know who is going to be next. He has a very representative cross section of our society. People from different socioeconomic statuses, different age, different gender, whites, minorities -- it really doesn't matter. The message is getting out there that no one is safe and that makes him very famous and makes him very proud. I absolutely agree with Jack's rundown of what sort of background you might discover when we catch this guy and I do believe we will. But, again, you're right. Labels don't really matter. This man is going to kill because he is getting something that speaks to his intrinsic locus, his psyche. It's meeting his needs. He doesn't really care what you think about him. GRACE: I just hope that in his disjointed manner of killing these victims -- at long range, long distance no connection with them at all -- by seeing their families tonight -- and you know he's watching -- makes him realize the pain that he is causing. And, Sheriff Mike Carona, on the radio tonight I heard police making a plea for him to turn himself in. Fat chance. Do you really think a guy is going to turn himself in? The prosecutor, one of the local prosecutors already mentioned the death penalty. That didn't help anything. CARONA: No, I don't think he turns himself in. GRACE: No way. CARONA: No. I think that's -- that is a pipe dream. But it's also something that you have to put out there. You try to encourage that. It's not going to happen. But I will tell you, one of the things that's important in this particular case, is in all the chaos that you see -- the lack of consistency, the randomness of this event -- is really helpful from a law enforcement perspective. We try not to jump to conclusions. What you've heard tonight about some profiles, all that is helpful. And I can tell you the FBI with their Rapid Start Program is magnificent about taking pieces of data and putting that into the computer and prioritizing those people that we would want to look at. But because they are such random events are really going to help -- is really going to help law enforcement burrow down with -- when they pick up forensic evidence to an individual who committed this crime, or individuals who are committing this crime. GRACE: Jack Levin, Casey Jordan, when we come back, I want to find out your take as experts, he can quit voluntarily and what did the Tarot card mean? Stay with us. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MAJOR HAROLD SMITH, SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT.: We are look for a white van that may have had a ladder rack on top of it. We do not -- and I stress -- we do not know if it was involved in the shooting or not. It was seen in the area by several people and we do want to talk to those people in the van. (END VIDEO CLIP) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) GRACE: Welcome back to LARRY KING LIVE. I'm Nancy Grace from Court TV in for Larry King tonight. Thank you for being with us. Let me go straight out to you, Jack Levin. The Tarot card if definitely connected -- and I cannot imagine any other reason the Death card written to police saying, "I am God" on it would be found at the location of one of the shootings if it weren't connected. What does it mean? LEVIN: Well, it means two things. First of all, I think it indicates that this sniper is paying close attention to the media. There are a lot of commentators over the last few days who have suggested that the sniper is playing God. Well, he's saying in response, I'm not playing, I am God. The second thing is that the card was left as a challenge to the police. This guy is getting bored. He's gotten away with murder at least... GRACE: Please don't say that, Jack. Don't tell me he's getting bored because what is he going to do to top himself? LEVIN: No, the thing is, that like so many other serial killers, he's beginning to feel invincible. He's superior to the police, he believes. He looks over his shoulder, he sees no cops. This shoulder he sees no FBI agents. He thinks he's going to get away with it definitely, so why not up the ante? Let's make this more challenging. Let's leave a few cryptic clues around. And then today what does doe? He kills a victim right in front of a state trooper. This guy is going to get caught because he is getting too cocky. He thinks he's pretty good at this and we'll get him because he's going make that fatal mistake. GRACE: Well if you look back, Casey, for instance, Son of Sam Berkowitz communicated, had a dialogue, not only with police, but to a "New York Daily News" reporter on and on which was his undoing -- which was also Kaczynski's undoing, the Unabomber and his thousand and thousands of words dissertation he forced the media to print. That was their undoing. Is this opening up to a dialogue? JORDAN: I believe so. I think the biggest thing about communicating with the police or the newspapers is it does heighten the stakes in terms of power and control. It shows everybody how much power they have and how little you have. However, I don't think that this particular shooter got into the game initially to have a cat and mouse game. I think that actually happened as an afterthought almost. I think he initially did it for the thrill or to satisfy some inner need of his own, but then there was so much media attention, that he was actually seduced into the cat and mouse game. I don't I think that was his original objective but I think it will continue. LEVIN: Nancy, I want to point out that Son of Sam was caught not because of his relationship with Jimmy Breslin from the "New York Daily News," but he had a parking ticket at 3:00 a.m. while he was killing a victim and the police traced the parking ticket back to his apartment. And keep in mind that the Zodiac killed dozens of people in San Francisco, communicated with the police and with "60 Minutes" and all of the other reporters and he's never been caught. GRACE: Let me go to you. Well, you're absolutely right, Jack. Mitchell Miller, regarding that Tarot card -- it caused quite a repercussion and reaction from police. MILLER: The Montgomery County police chief, Charles Moose, was furious with the media when that came out. It was leaked through law enforcement sources and he came out the morning that that report came out and he was absolutely lived. And I'm wondering if some of your criminal experts here think that that information actually has damaged the investigation -- could hinder it in any way. And if, in fact, the fact that the police chief showed a lot of emotion at that news conference, if that in any way weakened him in the eyes of the sniper. GERAGOS: I don't know about -- Nancy, I was going to say I think the reason he was so upset is because I think the profile they've constructed, at least preliminarily, where they felt the release of that information feeds this guy and what he's doing. And that by releasing that that probably hastens other killings. I think that's why he was so upset. GRACE: Let me ask you this, Sheriff Carona, how do you deal with leaks? This could -- in retrospect -- be a devastating leak. And of course, the sheriff lashed out at the media, but it was a leak within law enforcement. CARONA: Well, again, I wouldn't dare to second guess Chief Moose. He knows what is going on within his command structure. I will tell you that there is always a problem with leaks when you have a high profile case and that can impact the outcome. One of the things we did early on with the media is engage them. We told them that we would brief them on an ongoing basis. We sat in the command post an hour before each media event and we made sure that we knew what we were communicating to the public, those things that we could that wouldn't impinge the investigation. And more importantly, as you know, Nancy -- wouldn't impinge the latter prosecution once we caught the individual. Chief Moose's comments are well taken, how he deals with the leak on an internal basis is a leadership issue. GRACE: Right. Everybody quick break. But I want to throw out this tipline number if you know anything, if you think you know anything. 888-324-9800. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) GRACE: Welcome back everyone. Let's go straight to our caller from Washington. Are you with me? CALLER: Yes. GRACE: Hi. What's your question? CALLER: I'm just curious to know if anybody thinks that this is terrorist related. GRACE: Very interesting. Let me go you to on that, Jack Levin. You know, following 9/11, the city's healing from that, could it be terror-related? LEVIN: Well, you know, Nancy, anything is possible. Most guys who would spray bullets at a crowd of strangers, say, are psychotic. They talk to dogs, they hallucinate, they hear voices in an empty room, and they're caught almost immediately. They're no challenge to law enforcement at all. They commit suicide right on the spot. This guy is no psychotic. And you have to wonder, well, why -- how in the world does he have the wherewithal to get away with these kinds of crimes over such a long period? One idea is that he's a terrorist; he's a Middle Eastern terrorist. However, I have to say that this has all the markings of an all- American crime spree. Even though it's unique in some respects, it's also like a lot of other crimes that we've seen over many, many decades. GERAGOS: You know, but it doesn't have to be Middle Eastern. This is a terrorist. I mean, any way you cut it, this is somebody who's terrorizing a community. I don't care what their ethnic background is... (CROSSTALK) GERAGOS: Right. LEVIN: Unless you're going to argue that is has political ends,then the FBI is not going to see this as an act of terrorism. I agree with you, it does incite terror. (CROSSTALK) GERAGOS: He incites terror. And I don't know why this isn't something that the homeland security isn't dealing with. This is somebody who has decided to target a geographical region. It's no different -- in fact, he's already exceeded the number of deaths from anthrax. This is somebody who is out there terrorizing a community; it should be an issue of homeland security. GRACE: Sheriff Carona, question to you: What should citizens be looking for on the radio, on the news we hear, all the police telling the citizens to be alert, look for something -- look for what? CARONA: Well, I think Chief Moose today laid out a pretty good description, first of all. They have a profile of the white van. They have some information that has led them to believe that it may be one or two shooters. And they've asked the public to be watching for a number of things. Now, again, I couldn't recite that. Chief Moose did a pretty good job and... GRACE: Well what would you be looking for sheriff? What type of unusual behavior? CARONA: I'd be looking for -- and I think Chief Moose brought this up -- I'd be looking for an individual who has a high degree of interest in this case, who seems to be talking about it quite a bit, maybe a high degree of anxiety at work or with his family. An individual who is doing things differently than his normal pattern. And those are the types of tips that we're looking for in law enforcement, and I think Chief Moose is looking for. GRACE: You made me think of something, sheriff. Let me go to you on this, Mitchell. Has he struck on a weekend, or does he take the weekends off? MILLER: He generally has struck during the week, and oftentimes has struck during the morning rush hour. Today it was a little bit late in the morning rush hour. But often at very, very busy times. And... GRACE: Right. And, you know, the other times, I've got 5:20, 6:04, also during rush hour, but not on weekends. Casey, I've only got a few moments left, literally a minute -- can he stop on his own Casey? JORDAN: I don't believe he will. Anything is possible. If the shooting stops, it could be for an entirely different reason. I mean, he could fall ill, he could go to prison for an entirely different crime. So I wouldn't guess that this is going to stop. We tend not to see these things stop until the person is captured. And I would not be at all surprised if he does choose to go out in a so-called blaze of glory. Infamy, living in fame, having his name in the textbooks is what he is about. And if he has to die to do it, I think he will. GRACE: Casey Jordan, thank you so much. Jack Levin, Sheriff Mike Carona, Mark Geragos and reporter Mitchell Miller, all with us tonight. I'm signing off. But I want to remind you, tomorrow night on LARRY KING LIVE, John McCain. Following us: "NEWSNIGHT" with Aaron Brown. Good night everyone.

HOUSE FLOOR DEBATE: The House meets for legislative business. Reading of the Constitution of the United States by Members of the House of Representatives / (Rep. Goodlatte) // Suspension (1 Bill): H.Res.22 - A resolution to Cut Congress's Budget (Rep. Walden - House Administration) 16:00:20Pallone (D-NJ):let me thank my colleague from california and each of the other speakers here for the contribution they have made tonight and particularly when they listen to my colleague from tennessee talk about those 16:00:33particular cases of individuals that were impacted because that's what this is all about. it is amazing to me the first act of this new republican majority is to try to repeal a bill, health care reform, that 16:00:49really is making a difference for people on a personal level, particularly with the patient protections and i thought to myself when i was coming down here, who benefits from repeal? who could possibly benefit from repeal? 16:01:05as many of you talked about the people who are going to be harmed by it, would who would benefit? and the only group that would benefit are the big insurance companies. because when you think about it, what do they want to do? they want to keep increasing 16:01:23premiums. in your state, you may have already mentioned it, blue cross/blue shield, 50-something percent increase. and we, of course, as this 16:01:38health care reform kicks in, it's going to be more and more difficult for the types of increases that we have seen in premiums that these big health insurance companies have put forward. and the reason they want to get -- the insurance companies want 16:01:53to get rid of the patients' bill of rights and re-institute these discriminatory practices whether denying care because of pre-existing conditions or re-instituting lifetime caps or the different protections that we have seen kick in, the reason 16:02:09they want to do that is money oriented. they have to pay out money. you talked about the cancer person. i was up in rules earlier and mrs. slaughter was talking about someone who had cancer and was treated and ran into the 16:02:26lifetime cap and the cancer re-occurred and didn't have any more coverage because she hit the lifetime caps. they want to have lifetime caps, don't want pre-existing conditions, don't want kids on 16:02:42your policy because it saves them money. that's the way they make profit and pay dividends by raising premiums and having discriminatory practices that eliminate people because they need health care. it's that simple. 16:02:57and just in the last few weeks, provisions have kicked in that go against that. we had the president announce or the white house announce around christmas time new regulations that say any premium increase that's over 10% will be 16:03:16scrutinized and they will try to -- under the provisions of this provisions, not allow the increase to go above 10%. january 1, the provisions kicked in that said 80% of your premium costs had to be used for 16:03:34benefits, couldn't be used for insurance company profits, couldn't be used to pay back dividends to the shareholders. all of these initiatives that are already kicking in, they basically make it more difficult 16:03:47for the insurance companies to make a big profit and the consquens -- consequence of that 16:03:57is health insurance becomes more affordable. i was up at the rules committee earlier and it was interesting because i think you mentioned my colleague from california that -- run of you mentioned that under the health care reform 16:04:12that's in place now that they want to repeal, we get the same insurance as congressmen as any other american. and you know, i still have people write to me and say, well, you have your own policy, but you want to give me this 16:04:28lousy coverage that i'm going to give me under the health care reform. i say that's not true. you may hear that on a tv station, but that's not true. we have to go into the exchanges just like everybody else. we will be different from 16:04:46federal employees because we go into the exchanges. at the rules committee today, one of the republican members who is very supportive of repeal said that he specifically wasn't going to take, you know, health insurance as a congressman and 16:05:02he wanted me to know that because he was voting for repeal. i said that's very nice and commendable for you but i think every member of congress who votes for repeal should say i don't want health insurance through the federal government, because if you are going to deny it to everyone else, you should 16:05:20deny it to yourself the same way we are going to get the same coverage as everyone else. if you don't want anyone else to have the coverage, you shouldn't get it yourself. there was one member from 16:05:35maryland who came to the ownertation who was a big advocate for repeal and he was inquiring because his federal health insurance didn't take effect until february 1. we were sworn in yesterday, but i guess it takes 30 days before 16:05:50the insurance actually kicks in and he was complaining about the fact that he had to wait until february 1 to get his health insurance as a congressman. well, again, if you are going to vote for repeal next week, you shouldn't be worried about when 16:06:05it's going to kick in. you shouldn't be taking it at all, in my opinion. there's a lot of -- i don't know what the word -- smoking mirrors or whatever is going on around other side of the aisle and my 16:06:24point is, there is a lot of protection here for people. don't deny them that unless you are going to deny it to yourself. who is helped by this repeal? only the big insurance 16:06:35companies. they are the ones who are going to benefit. i know you were the insurance commissioner so i know you know what i'm talking about. Garamendi (D-CA):i do have some experience on that. it's called the medical loss ratio and the insurance 16:06:53companies have cut a fat check for themselves over the years by taking a big premium and then paying a small amount of it out for the medical conference. and the patients' bill of rights and affordable health care act, 16:07:10they can't do that. they have to pay for the individual policies, 80% and for the group policies, 85% for medical services. so what was the very first thing they did after this bill was signed into law? we passed it last year and the 16:07:25president signed it. the very first thing they did was to run down to the health and human services department and say, oh, but our advertising ought to be included as a medical expense. and oh, these expenses for these kinds of employees, mostly 16:07:50statisticians, we think that is a medical expense. we are trying to make sure that when we pay a dollar at least we get 80 cents back in medical 16:08:01services. our friends on the other side would repeal that and allow the insurance companies to take that money or a larger portion of that money, put it in their pockets, give it to their c.e.o.'s, whatever, but not use it for medical services. medical loss ratio is important. 16:08:18and the other thing that needs to be understood is the ability of the government to review, not to say no, but to shine that big bright spotlight onto the insurance company premium 16:08:35increases. is it justified, yes, no, what are your costs, what ratios are you using for medical losses and the like. so that spotlight of information is required under the law. many, many things in the law. mr. cohen, i see you stood up, 16:08:52anxious to make a comment here and i notice behind you our colleague from maryland has joined us and i want to start talking about seniors. so, please, mr. cohen, i want you to go for it. Cohen (D-TN):i want to ask a 16:09:05question, the first thing that the republicans want to do is repeal the affordable health care bill. but the first thing they did was today and we joined with them and bipartisan was to cut 5% from our members' representational allowances, a 16:09:20small amount of money in the big picture. but the deficit was the issue they were highlighting. what would the repeal of the affordable health care act do to the deficit, that's the issue, because that's one of our big issues? 16:09:36Garamendi (D-CA):well, it just happens we prepared this little blue chart here and it ought to be in the red. the repeal of the affordable health care act, obviously deals with the patients' bill of rights but also deals with the 16:09:52deficit. this week, the congressional budget office, not republican, not democrat, they answer to neither party but to the general public. they said the repeal of the affordable health care act will increase the deficit by $230 16:10:11billion, $230 billion in the next nine years and in the out years, the next 10 years, well over $1,200,000,000. Cohen (D-TN):that's money we owe 16:10:31china and pay the interest to the chinese and our children and grandchildren will be paying this if they don't have pre-existing conditions where they can get insurance. Garamendi (D-CA):our children and 16:10:45grandchildren and those of us living for another 10, 15, 20 years, we are going to pay twice. we are going to pay the insurance costs, the health care costs that is not covered by the health insurance programs, the example you gave of the individual with two boughts of 16:11:02cancer and going to pay for the full costs of that because the limitation goes back into place. so you get to pay for your health care and you are going to have to pay off the deficit also. makes no sense whatsoever, but, hey, that's what they want to 16:11:18do, without one hearing by any of the relevant committees. Cohen (D-TN):consistency is the hob goblin. thank you sir. Garamendi (D-CA):i noticed that our colleague from maryland has 16:11:34joined us. ms. edwards. you were talking about it earlier today on the floor and in committee. Edwards, D. (D-MD):i feel very personally about health care, a person who went a long time 16:11:51without health care coverage and worried like most americans and they did prior to our investing in reform for the american people. so i know that anxiety. and i was thinking about some of our swepts, in maryland's 4th 16:12:10congressional district who today, because of what we did in the democratic-led congress in passing landmark health care reform legislation are better off today and we haven't fully 16:12:23implemented the benefits for the american people. i think about a letter that i got from a gentleman who lives in my district in olney, maryland. and he writes to me that his son mike was 25, going on 26 and he 16:12:40could receive health care insurance coverage when he wasn't able to get it and needed it and couldn't get it. he got a letter from blue cross/blue shield saying that 16:12:55his son could be covered until his 26th birthday. and what he did was he did what a lot of americans do, wiping the sweat from their brow because they know they can keep their young people on their health care plan until they are 16:13:1126. i have a 22-year-old and i was feeling the same way. i got another letter from a woman who actually does health care policies and lives in my district and what she said to me was that her daughter had a pre-existing condition and she 16:13:26was very concerned, but she was an older young person, 20 years old with a pre-existing condition, really worried that she wouldn't be able to provide health care and got the notice for cobra coverage and we said the backup is cobra. 16:13:42that was going to be an extra $400 to $500 a month to make 16:13:51sure she didn't lose her health care when she actually lost her job. now this parent, actually for the cost of about $70 or $80, as opposed to $400 or $500 can keep their child on their health care 16:14:06coverage. i think this is a great benefit for america's families, for families who work every day and actually have health care coverage. i heard discussion about premium increase hikes. and i want to tell you something. when we working on health care 16:14:22reform and many of us were concerned about people who don't have insurance and need coverage. but most americans all across the country do have some form of health care coverage and you know what they are worried about? 16:14:35they are worried about the premiums going up at astronomical rates. i have heard from my constituents, 20%, 30% premium hikes. because of what we did in this health care package, snirns commissioner, insurance 16:14:54commissioners across the country have the power invested in them and say we are going to put a check on these companies. a big state like california, connecticut, maine, colorado and maryland, and all across the 16:15:10country, that's what the commissioners are doing. it's the states. we heard this morning as we read the constitution a reminder that states are in a great position to look at what insurance companies are doing in their 16:15:26states to regulate what's happening in their states and to say to them, you have to stop taking money away from scummers and patients by raising your preliminary -- from consumers and patients by raising your 16:15:44premiums. this is important and i'm glad to be talking about these benefits with the american people. . Garamendi (D-CA):i thank you so 16:15:57very much. you reminded me of two very quick stories. on monday i was at the inaugural for the governor of california, jerry brown is back again, and a lobbyist that i knew when i was an insurance commissioner representing health insurance companies came up to me and he 16:16:13came up to me and put his finger in my chest and said, don't let them repeal the law. i'm not going to give his name, he'd lose his job immediately. and i said, i'll do everything i can, but why? you represent them, why? and he said, i have two children. 16:16:30both are type one diabetics. they're approaching 23 years of age. they will be out of luck. they will never be able to get an insurance policy if this bill is repealed. patient's bill of rights gives 16:16:48that lobbyist for the health insurance industry an opportunity to see his children get health insurance. i have six children of my own. patty and i do. all six of them have gone through that age of 23. it is the scariest time for a 16:17:06parent. you graduate, you get a diploma and you also get an exit from the insurance. that you've had perhaps for your entire life. this law provides another three years after you graduate, that 16:17:23period of time that's almost impossible nowaddais to find a job with a -- now a days to find a job with insurance. Scott, R. (D-VA):thank you very much. i appreciate your hard work and leadership on. 16:17:36this you've talked about the problems in health care with government. it's just not a government problem. you ask any human resources executive about what the -- one of the major problems they have and benefit package, it's the ability to afford health care. 16:17:52health care costs have been going out of control. if you have an employee with a pre-existing condition and he's in the group and they do the study, you start getting bills you can't pay. 16:18:07you ask any human resources what's happened to their insurance costs over the years, it's going through the sky. if you look at the employees -- employee portion of health care, it will go from zero participation to a little bit, more co-pays, more deductibles, more costs for the family, on 16:18:25and on and on. everyone has a great deal of insecurity about their ability to do health care. then you look at the idea of what happens if you lose a job, if you have a pre-existing condition you will not be able 16:18:42to get health care until this bill passed. with all this insecurity, your 16:18:49ability to get health care, your ability to be able to afford it in the future, all of these problem, all of these problems in the future, what is the response from the other side? about what to do about that kind of insecurity, they say, well, 16:19:02just be strong and go without insurance like me. well, that is not a particularly attractive solution for those that don't have an alternative, don't have a spouse who you can say, i'm not going to take 16:19:19government policy, i'm going to use another, or if they're so wealthy they don't need the insurance. most americans aren't in that situation. they need health insurance and this is what is provided, you have access to it and it's 16:19:35affordable. everyone in america will be able to afford health insurance in 2014 because those that can't afford it will have subsidies to make sure that they can. so everybody will be able -- again, if you make less than $88,000 you can get health care 16:19:50for less than 10% of your salary. that is not the case now. if you're in the $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 a year bracket, if you can get insurance it's going to be a lot more than that. so with this bill people have the security of health insurance 16:20:06that they don't have now and the bizarre suggestion, just go without insurance, is not particularly nice when you have children that may need -- have a little ear infection, rather than have them lose their 16:20:22hearing you can deal with it when it's a little infection. these problems don't go out of control. we need that security, this bill provides it. and in terms of seniors, seniors are particularly helped under this legislation. 16:20:38they can get -- those who can't afford the co-pays and deductibles can get their annual checkups without any co-pays and deductibles. we'll help fill in the doughnut hole. take a little time but eventually there will be no doughnut hole where they fall in 16:20:54and have to pay all of their drug costs. it would provide more community health centers so they'll have better access. we'll train more doctors and nurses so they'll have more professional -- you have a chart that extends medicare, medicare 16:21:12is extended. we know that medicare will go broke if we don't do anything. it extends the policy of medicare. so all of these, lower prescription drug costs, all of 16:21:26these things that seniors have a particular interest in, all of that will be lost if this bill is repealed. Garamendi (D-CA):if i might interrupt you for just a moment, mr. scott, you're into an issue, an area, that is profoundly important to the 16:21:41seniors of america. the discussion last year as this bill was passing was that somehow this piece of legislation would harm seniors by taking away medicare benefits. it was not true last year, it is 16:21:58not true this year. however if our republican colleagues are successful in repealing it, they, the seniors, will be seriously harmed. i want to make this point very, very clear and ask my colleagues to join us perhaps on their own personal experience in their 16:22:15districts, but you started going through this list here, this legislation actually extends the solvency of medicare. by reining in the cost and by giving seniors specific 16:22:36preillness care so they will be able to get preventative care free. free annual checkups. they can't get it today but under this legislation seniors can get preannual checkups which 16:22:50reduces the cost -- free annual checkups which reduces the cost because you get to the illness quicker. mr. scott. Scott, R. (D-VA):you said people were scared about what might happen. i also said things about small business, this would bankrupt 16:23:02small businesses. small businesses are exempt from the requires -- requirements under the bill. so it can't possibly hurt them. but those small businesses that want to provide health care for their employees are given tax credits to encourage them to do so. so they can't possibly be hurting small business. 16:23:17but for the senior citizens, they have all of the benefits that you've listed on the chart that will be lost if this bill is repealed. Garamendi (D-CA):you mentioned the doughnut hole. every senior that's in the prescription doughnut hole last year, 2010, received a $250 16:23:36check to help them pay for their drugs. in going forward the doughnut hole will be lessened and lessened and eventually nine years from now will disappear. there will be no doughnut hole. 16:23:48you look at the quality of care, extremely important quality of care, thank you for bringing that up. more primary doctors, more geriatric care of nurses and doctors, extraordinary important part of the legislation, not just only for seniors, you also 16:24:03mentioned the community-based and of course the preventative care. all of these things are there and all of them will disappear if the republicans are successful with their legislation, next wednesday that will be brought to this floor without one hearing to discuss 16:24:19any of these issues in a relevant policy committee. mr. cohen, please join us. Cohen (D-TN):let me ask a question. i was just thinking here, as i'm honored to be in the house of representatives, and with the constitution that's so beautiful that it says we're to promote 16:24:35the general welfare, we are among other industrialized nations on this earth. what are the other industrialized nations on the earth do about health care for their citizens? Garamendi (D-CA):i'm not sure i heard your question. so please say it again. Cohen (D-TN):what do other industrialized nations in the 16:24:49world do for health care? do they have program policies like ours with -- where 32 million people don't have health insurance and they're not mandated to get insurance? what do they do? Garamendi (D-CA):i think you're asking me a rhetorical question because you know the answer and i think most americans know the answer. 16:25:06all the industrialized nations, we're not talking about china here, but we're talking about korea, japan, the european countries, the european union, all of those countries provide universal health insurance conference. 16:25:23universal. everyone, including -- conversation. universal. everyone, including tourists who happen to show up and this i know from one of my daughters who fell off a stair at the leaning tower of piza. she fell, went into an michael jackson room, -- emergency room, 16:25:38they took an m.r.i., she said, i haven't paid. she said, you're covered much that was in italy. Cohen (D-TN):does the united states not have one of the greatest desscrepsies in wealth between the richest and poorest in the industrialized world as well? are we saying to our wealthy 16:25:54people, you can afford health insurance so you can get it but for those people that are poor, too bad. Garamendi (D-CA):the other countries of the world don't look at it that way. they look at it as a right for their citizens to have access to health care and they provide the health insurance. different ways of doing it. 16:26:09germany, france, britain, canada all do it differently. but they all do it and incidentally the health statistics in all of those countries are considerably better than america and america is placed at the bottom of the industrialized countries in 16:26:24terms of our health care, how healthy we are, how long we live, how sick we get. we're at the bottom. in fact, we are often with developing countries in the statistics, we spend almost twice as much as any of those countries. 16:26:41so the affordable health care act goes after many, many things beyond the patients' bill of rights and the senior issues. thank you so very much for raising that issue. we have about maybe 10 more minutes? 10. 16:26:58mr. pallone. Pallone (D-NJ):i just wanted to talk a little bit about prevention and particularly in terms of seniors, which you mentioned. and what it means in terms of the people's health and allegation the cost to the government. because -- and also the cost to 16:27:12the government. some of the things we've mentioned with regard to seniors have already taken place. this summer under the bill seniors who fell into the doughnut hole got ads 250 rebate. beginning january 1 they get a 50% discount on brand name drugs . 16:27:31you mentioned the co-pays for preventative care, whether it's your annual wellness treatment or other kinds of tests like mammograms or colonoscopies, for example. the reason we're eliminating the 16:27:4720% co-pay for these things, the reason we're trying to fill up the doughnut hole, it goes to prevention. if people don't get their drugs and they get sick and go to the hospital, they have the annual wellness checks, they stay healthy, they don't go to the 16:28:02hospital. and when they go to the hospital if they're on medicare it just costs the government more money. so this is the way we save money. we save money, what does that mean? it means that the debt is decreased, it means that the solvency of medicare you have on 16:28:19the chart is extended. i don't know if we talked much about that. one of my amendments in the rules committee today is, you know, a lot of seniors tell me, they come up to me and say they're worried about the fact that, you know, medicare may become insolvent and there wouldn't be enough money in the trust fund to pay for it. 16:28:35the bottom line is that the health care reform bill extends the judgment day, if you will, when the solvency problem becomes an issue much further and if you have the repeal, the 16:28:48solvency problem hits us six years from now, in 2017, from what i understand. so another problem with repeal is not only does it increase the deficit, but it also, you know, is only six years from now that 16:29:01we would have to deal with this medicare solvency problem. what is that going to mean? that's going to mean probably that cutbacks in benefits for senior citizens because if you don't have the money you're going to have to cut back on the benefits. it is amazing to me how they can 16:29:16continue to talk about this repeal. the other thing they keep saying on the other side of the aisle, the republicans say, well, the reason we want the repeal is because this health care reform is killing jobs. nothing can be further from the truth. 16:29:32i mean, the fact of the matter is that under this health care reform, because the costs of health care premiums for employers will be significantly reduced, they'll be able to hire more people. part of the problem that we have with competition of other 16:29:46countries, mentioned all these other countries, these other industrial countries that have free health care, universal health care, that meengs that -- means that the employers don't carry the burden of that. when they hire someone, if the government is paying for it, they don't have to worry about that for their employees necessarily. 16:30:04well, it's the cost of premiums go down, then people -- the cost of hiring somebody goes down in the united states. in addition to that there are all kinds of jobs created in the health care profession because as everyone gets covered and everybody needs a primary care 16:30:20doctor, well, you're going to need more doctors, more nurses, more health aides because people will get that kind of preventative care. so there are jobs created with the preventative care in handling people to make sure they stay healthy or they stay well. 16:30:40what the republicans should be doing is spending the first days of this session talking about how to improve the economy and create jobs not repealing health care. i think the american people have moved on. 16:30:52they don't want to hear this. they want to know what this congress is going to do to create jobs. we have dealt with the health care issue and they want us to move on. i yield back. Garamendi (D-CA):we have three minutes, four minutes and i'm going to turn to mr. cohen and 16:31:09ms. edwards. would you like to close? Cohen (D-TN):mr. pallone brought up an issue and he said it's not true it's costing jobs. there is some respected group. i think it is political fact check and they were on national 16:31:26news giving the biggest lies told in politics in the last year. and the number one biggest lie, this independent group was the republican mantra of government-mandated health care 16:31:41and it's just a fact, that's the biggest lie told the american public and it came from the leaders on the other side. it came from these halls where they are immune from defamation suits because it's not government-run health care and 16:31:57it's unheard that the other side would use the fact that they are immune from prosecution in the other jurisdiction or court for words that aren't true to do that and politics to say it was government-run health care, the biggest lie of 2010 and comes to 16:32:12the floor next week. Garamendi (D-CA):we will wrap this one up and mr. yarmuth will carry on with health insurance, but we really today focused on a broad range of issues, patients' bill of rights, the way in which 16:32:29the repeal would harm individuals. we also discussed a little bit about how this affects business and we went into some detail about senior citizens. 16:32:45all of these are critically important issues and will be discussing these in the days ahead and i hope the american public will really pay attention and this next week particularly wednesday, it's going to be absolutely critical to the american people. 16:33:00it's a question about will all of us in america be able to get health care coverage that is affordable and provide us with the opportunity to have the health care that we need. so with that, i will wrap this up and turn it over to whom ever is next. 16:33:17thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back my time. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:members are reminded that their remarks are properly addressed to the chair rather than any perceived television viewing audience. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the 16:33:36chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for 30 minutes. King, S. (R-IA):thank you, mr. speaker. i can tell you that i am pleased to address you, mr. speaker, 16:33:47here on the floor of the united states house of representatives and welcome you to the great deliberative body which becomes instantly far more deliberative than it has been in the last four years. and this is part of it. as i deliberate and i listen to the gentleman from tennessee, i 16:34:02have to make a point that when you challenge the mendacity of the leader there is an opportunity to make a motion to take the gentleman's words down, however many of the members are off on other endeavors and the 16:34:20leader and the speaker have established their integrity in their mendacity for years in this congress and i don't think it can be challenged and those who do so are making aspersions by making wild accusations. 16:34:38i came to talk about the weather and as i listend to the speeches that have gone on before in the previous hour, it actually changed the subject for me. i think there are many things that need to be brought out and clarified, given this that we 16:34:55have debated this health care bill -- we debated this health care bill for oh, close to a year. and announced in rules committee earlier today -- i believe there were 100 hours of markup in committee. 16:35:09wasn't the bill they passed, 100 hours of debate and markup on a different bill and switched bills in the end. that's a matter of public record and fact. but the american public understands what happened. they understand that the speaker of the house said we have to pass the bill, meaning 16:35:27obamacare, mr. speaker, in order to find out what's in it. and when that bill was passed to set the record also straight, i don't think there is another time in the history of this congress that there was a bill of this magnitude that passed 16:35:43the house of representatives without the majority support of the house of representatives for the bill that was before us. it is a fact of record, it's a fact of judgment, a fact of history that there had to be conditions that were attached in 16:35:57order to achieve the votes necessary to squeak that bill by and pass o'bauma care here on the floor of the house last march. and if people forget, remember there was a switch on the bill. 16:36:13the bill that was marked up in committee was not the bill that came to the floor or had hearings on it, but there were also conditions. there were the stupak dozen who said we insist that there be an amendment brought forward that 16:36:31will protect so that the language that's in the bill doesn't fund abortion through a federal mandate. and they held out on that to get that vote. little did i know up until that saturday afternoon that the gentleman who was doing the 16:36:47negotiating already committed to vote for the bill. and the stupak people were anonymous people. and they negotiated with the president of the united states who made a commitment and followed through on it to sign an executive order that would pacify or nullify the anonymous 16:37:04stupak dozen under the presumption unconstitutionally and completely outside the bounds of the separation of powers that the president of the united states could effectively amend legislation by executive order and promise he is going to do so before the bill is brought 16:37:19to the floor for a vote. that happened in this congress. and another condition of that was, this is a condition that came after the then chair of the rules committee, ms. slaughter, had offered the idea that they should deem the bill passed so they didn't have to go on record 16:37:35for voting for this bill because they knew how bad it was. they knew how politically vulnerable they were. they knew speaker pelosi was making them walk the plank. a lot of them are not here because of that action. but as i talked about why this 16:37:51bill didn't have the support of the congress and in the form that was before us, why the majority did not support it. the majority vote that day in its form, because there had to be another deal on top of this. this was the deal that the senate had to pass a 16:38:07reconciliation package which was designed to amend the bill that had not yet been brought to the floor of the house for a vote. and i don't know if that is the first time something like that had been played but first time to my knowledge that there was a 16:38:22bill that came before this congress ta was not the bill that came through committee, that was pledged to be amended by a presidential executive order and further amended by a reconciliation bill that would later pass the united states senate. 16:38:36that's what we have before us with obamacare and it became the law of the land on that date of march 30, 2010, passed over here 16:38:46in the house if i remember correctly on the late evening of march 21 or early sunday morning. i remember telling myself i'm going to sleep and then wake up and figure out what to do. 16:39:01i didn't sleep very long and i couldn't sleep with that policy imposed upon the american people with the realization that it would become the law of the land. and about two and-a-half hours later, i got up and wept to my word processor and typed a 16:39:16request for a bill to repeal obamacare. and i filed that request at the opening of business that day, the first opportunity and the first minutes of that day. i want to thank and congratulate michelle balk man. 16:39:32i didn't know it, she was awake in the middle of the night and her bill came down within three minutes of mine and that draft was turned into a discharge petition with a huge pelosi majority in the 111th congress 16:39:50and discharge petition gathered 173 signatures bipartisan at least by the pelosi definition and part of the foundation that i think actually did shake this country. there was a statement made in 16:40:04the rules committee and they were deliberating on the rule for h.r. 2 that we had said that the sky would fall if obamacare became the law of the land and they said the sky didn't fall. chairman up ton and now chairman of the energy and commerce 16:40:22committee said yes, it did. yes, the sky did fall and when you look at the 87 freshman republicans that are seated over on this side, nine freshman democrats on this side rkts i think any --, i think any political pundit would say there 16:40:41was an earthquake in america that was brought about by the imposition of this liberty-stealing, unconstitutional obamacare bill that's before this congress now. this congress was elected to come here and repeal obamacare, get a handle on the debt and 16:40:59deficit and lay the foundation so that private enterprise can start to have faith in the future of this country again and they can create the jobs under the framework that we're hopeful we will be able to bring through. 16:41:13we aren't in a position where the house of representatives can play all of the economic foundation that's necessary for free enterprise to have enough faith and confidence to invest their capital in a robust fashion. what we are in a position to do now with a new congress and a 16:41:30new speaker is to be able to play an effective defense against the existing majority in the united states senate and the president of the united states who has been digging holes through his economic steroid 16:41:47theory and dug such a deep hole and we watched nancy pelosi preside over the debt and we watched the obama administration run that up under their term to about $3 trillion and got to 16:42:03stop. the american were looking at president gulliver obama and they came to the polls on november 2 and tied him up with their electoral ropes and said 16:42:20join the incumbents there. tomorrow and on wednesday, to repeal obamacare and take the shovel out of the hands of the president and take the gavel out of the hands of nancy pelosi. 16:42:34that's what happened. i take you back through this history because it's being rewritten again. how can they stand here, go before the rules of committee, before the american people, mr. speaker, and take the position that somehow if they just explain it one more time and one 16:42:50more way that the american people will now have some left-wing light bulb come on in their head. that's not going to happen. the american people have seen clearly. they washed the lenses off and looked down through the 16:43:05constitution and fiscal responsibility and common sense and they were appalled at that liberty-stealing bill of obamacare and they said repeal that monstrosity because the destiny of america will be 16:43:20diminished unless we do. this is a charge that this new congress has. it's the voice of the american people and it's the respect that we must have. and my gratitude for god's gift to america, the freshman class that was elected in 2010 and sworn in here right here on this 16:43:36floor yesterday afternoon. and they will affect the agenda of this country for many 16:43:44congresses to come and it will be a responsible agenda that brings us to a balanced budget and begins to reduce the deficit that this country has, not just the deficit spending, but reduce the national debt. we must get to the point where we can begin to pay down the 16:43:59national debt and we start with this congress. we start by rolling back the spending to 2008 levels and we started it today with a vote that cut our own budgets by 5%. it's not a lot of money and yes it's symbolic but the symbolism that compels us to follow 16:44:15through if it's good enough now for those of us in this congress that voted on that, it's also good enough to bring that policy through back to the united states of america. well, so what i have heard is, the members on the other side of the aisle that still stand here 16:44:31and defend obamacare, the ones that are left, they have four talking points about the bill that they think are compelling and they must believe that it offsets all of the horrible things about obamacare. first they say -- well, 16:44:47remember, the president had all of these promises about what he was going to do with obamacare and he attached obamacare to it at the blair house during the health care summit, february 25, 2010 when the president of the united states referred to his 16:45:03own bill as obamacare. that is the shorthand version for all this long thing. they don't want to say obamacare. that's how everybody knows it and understands it. . so under obamacare they give you 16:45:21the four, four redeeming components to obamacare that apparently offset all the horrible things about it. and these four redeeming conditions are this. that it requires insurance companies all across america with a federal mandate to 16:45:39provide for policies that must keep your children on there up until age 26. and they think that that's something that america has fallen in love with as a really good, brainy solution. i know there are republicans that support the idea of 16:45:52insurance policies being extended to age 26. but, mr. speaker, what a lot of people don't know in this country is that there are at least two members in this congress that were elected before age 26 and had obamacare been implemented before they were elected to office, they 16:46:08would have, could have been on their parents' health insurance plan. now isn't that a nice thing, when you wean them off of the parents' health insurance plan and you transition them over and say, now run the country, they haven't had a single minute of 16:46:24their own health insurance policy until they get here. they have a responsibility for it here. we pay our chunk of the premiums like any other federal employee, but i just think it's ironic that there would be such a strong argument that people elected to congress could come here, walk in that door, come 16:46:40down here before the speaker's ross trum, raise their hand and take the oath of office and at that moment still be on their mommy and daddy's health insurance policy. i wanted my kids to grow up. when they turned 18 i told them, 16:46:57my responsibilities are now done. i'm going to nurture you and give you advice and council you and i'll help you where i can. but i'm not obligated, guys. we did our best for the first 18 years, while do our best for every year, we'll love you all our lives but you got to start 16:47:11pulling your own load and now i look at three grown sons in their 30's, all married, five grandkids, each an entrepreneur in their own right, pulling their own load and i'm glad that they didn't have to stay unweaned until age 26. 16:47:27but if the insurance companies want to do that you should be able to buy the policy. if states want to mandate, i think it's not a good policy, but they can do so constitutionally and then if a person's tired of paying those kind of premiums you can move to 16:47:42another state and vote with your feet. there's some states in the union here that i would move out of because they can't afford the health insurance in them. there are other states one could think about moving to because of the opposite. here's a second point. pre-existing conditions. they always tie this 16:47:58pre-existing conditions in with the word discrimination. because it's like a civil rights code word so if an insurance company says, i don't want to buy, i don't want to provide insurance policies to people who have pre-existing conditions, who wait until they get sick 16:48:14before they buy a policy, the health insurance purchasing equivalent of waiting for your house to be on fire before you go buy property and casualty insurance, how many rational people, mr. speaker, in this country would make the case that we ought to have a guaranteed issue for our fire insurance on 16:48:31our house? couldn't we then just, you know, set up our little blackberry with an automatic send and wait for the fire alarm to go off and on the way down the steps to bail out of the burning house 16:48:43you could just click send, automatically they'd have to give you a policy so that your house could be rebuilt and -- if it's oth on fire. we wouldn't do that -- if it's on fire. we wouldn't do that. it's ridiculous because it defeats the logic of insurance. 16:48:59you want to be insured against a catastrophe and you want to share that riss wisconsin other people who want to be insured against catastrophe. it's true for fire insurance. it was true for flood insurance until the federal government took it over and it needs to be true of health insurance. but we will address pre-existing 16:49:15conditions and we'll have a legitimate debate on pre-existing conditions here in this congress, in committee hearings, hearings before committees, amendments offered, amendments allowed and amendments offered and debated and voted up and down. my position is that if the states want to prohibit the 16:49:31consideration of pre-existing conditions, they may do so. our state has a high-risk pool and we fund part of those proom premiums with the high-risk pool out of the state treasury. i think that's a good idea. i have worked to develop that 16:49:48and expand that in my time in the state legislature. i think it's worthy of consideration that the federal government can take a look at those state high-risk pools and find ways to help those states provide those kind of backstops. because there will always be 16:50:03people who are unfortunate. it won't always be those who are irresponsible, it will also be those who are unfortunate. so we need to take that into consideration. but to have the whole debate about just those that are unfortunate and not take into consideration those that are 16:50:20responsible, those that are taxpayers, those that are funding, those that are the engine of our economy that are being discouraged by these kind of big government socialized medicine, unconstitutional policies like obamacare. here's a third one, 26-year-old insurance, pre-existing 16:50:38conditions. oh, yes, the discriminatory pre-existing conditions policy. it's not discriminatory. it's logical and rational. would you say that it's discriminatory policy to not allow people to buy property and 16:50:55casualty insurance if their house is on fire? not discrimination, it defies common sense. so i'm not going to let them get by with that word. here's the third thing. doughnut hole. they say they've fixed the doughnut hole and we would unfix the doughnut hole. the truth is that low income 16:51:12people have that fix, there is a backstop for that doughnut hole. it's not the hole that they say it is. furthermore they raise fees elsewhere to fill the doughnut hole so it's not fixed, it's just another transfer so that some people are beneficiaries 16:51:25and others that pay the extra money. i'm not particularly animated about that although i thought we should not have had that doughnut hole created here in 2003. in any case, the next argument is against lifetime caps. if states want to provide lifetime capps let them do that. 16:51:42but if individuals want to buy policies that have lifetime caps because the premiums are lower, let them make that decision as well, mr. speaker. i envision a day that we have free markets that are engaged in this. we want to preserve the doctor-patient relationship. 16:51:58we want to preserve the free market effectiveness so when people make decisions about their health and their lives that they have some tools to work with. i want to be able to in this congress, this 112th congress, advance the idea and seek to pass legislation that is consistent with chairman 16:52:17dreier's -- i would expand it a little more. he advanced the medical savings accounts. i would add we need to advance health savings accounts, h.s.a.'s. in 2003 with the expansion of 16:52:31part d we put language in that established h.s.a.'s. health savings accounts. it allowed -- excuse me, in the first year for a couple to establish a health savings account with a maximum amount in it of $5,150. that's the calculus, from $5,150 16:52:51on up. well that's a good deal. obamacare slashed that in less than half and capped the h.s.a. maximum amount to $,500. why? because they don't want people to be independent and they don't want them to be able to make their own decisions. 16:53:05if they do that they might undermine this effort of expanding the dependency class in america, which is what obamacare is designed to do. because expanding the dependency class expands the democrat party and that increases the political base and it seems illogical to the american people, well, 16:53:22there's the logic i've just applied to it and now, mr. speaker, they do understand that this is about politics. it's about expanding the dependency class, and it's about diminishing the independence and the spirit of americans. and so the lifetime caps piece 16:53:40is a fourth one. 16:53:45fifth one that's it. do they redeem those 2,500 pages of disaster? do they then overrule and trump the constitution of the united states of america? i say no, mr. speaker. 16:53:57they cannot, they must not, they should not. and i hear this debate also about an increase in our deficit of the number i think was $332 billion, not if but when we repeal obamacare. 16:54:13well that deficit, and they want to know, well, you offset that deficit with spending cuts. yes, sir. we will be happy to offset a deficit with spending cuts but i would make this argument instead. 16:54:29when you have an unconstitutional bill in front of you and if you're debating whether or not that's a reason to repeal an unconstitutional bill, you can set no price on the constitution of the united states of america. if it's a trillion dollars you 16:54:47repeal the bill anyway because it's unconstitutional and you don't sit back and twiddle your thumbs and wait for the court to resolve this for you. 16:55:02i'm glad that there's litigation going on in the judicial branch. i'm glad that judge hudson found with virginia on the constitutional component of the interstate commerce clause. i'm glad there are efforts out there in the states to deny the implementation of obamacare. all of these things going on. but we took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united 16:55:18states here yesterday. we took it all in good faith. we said so. and when we have an unconstitutional bill before us, mr. speaker, it is our obligation to repeal that bill. our judgement of the constitution is not a judgment that defers across and down the 16:55:36line of independence avenue. we don't go to the supreme court and genuflect and say, if you change the meaning of the constitution my oath applies, our oath applies to our understanding and conviction of the text and the original 16:55:50understanding of the constitution and the various amendments as they were adopted. that's what the constitution has to mean or it is no guarantee whatsoever to the people in this country. they rose up and they changed this majority in this house and they did so because there are a whole group of millions of 16:56:10constitutional conservatives, including the tea party groups and they said, enough unconstitutional activity, enough of this theft of our liberty, we are not going to pass the debt and deficit on to this succeeding generations. so i notice, and it was $230 16:56:25billion was the point, not $232, to make it accurate but i noticed today in the republican study committee that chairman jim jordan read from an article written by tony blankly in the "washington times," december 20, 2010, and it caught my ear and 16:56:42so i looked it up and i'd like to just close with this concept that was delivered by tony blankly shortly before christmas this year. and he wrote about smeerns in china and how they're worried that if they don't keep the growth going in china that they 16:56:58will create expectations and then the peasants in china will be unruleble if you give them expectations, then you have to meet those expectations. well we in america, we trust in our expectations and so he writes this, what happened in 16:57:14november 2 was this, that the american people went to the polls and said, i want more liberty and less government. i want more liberty and less security about my future and he puts in these words and i think they're excellent words. quote, no other people in the 16:57:30world would have responded to economic danger by seeking more liberty and less government protection. no other people would have fought to -- thought to themselves, if i have to suffer economically in order to not steal from my grandchildren, so 16:57:48be it. i pray we would have come to that decision a generation ago instead of a couple of months ago, mr. speaker. but this congress has come to that decision at the direction 16:58:02and the effectiveness of the american people and we will follow through on that pledge. we'll ask them, keep sending us more people like this freshman class, to help get this job done so, that in our time we can hand the keys of this chamber and 16:58:19this government over to the next generation in sound fiscal fashion, sound constitutional fashion, not with diminished liberty, but with the expanded liberty and with the pillars of american exceptionalism 16:58:34refurbished by our generation thanks to the will of the american people. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my 16:58:41time. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky, mr. yarmuth, for 30 minutes. Yarmuth (D-KY):thank you, mr. speaker. and congratulations on your election. 16:58:58it's a great pleasure to be here today and i could spend the next half hour responding to my colleague from iowa. i think it's fascinating that just one comment that he talks about reading the constitution and then talks about how this is 16:59:15an unconstitutional bill. well obviously he apparently stopped at article 2 and didn't get to article 3 which stipulates that the judiciary and the supreme court ultimately decides what is constitutional in this country, not members of congress. and the constitution was read 16:59:32today, i'm glad it was, it's always good to remind ourselves of this great foundational document that we all respect, that all of us, all 435 members of the house, swore to protect and defend yesterday. and in the constitution, in 16:59:48article 1, section 5 it says, each house may determine the rules of its precedings. and yesterday the republican majority in the house put forth a group of rules changes that will determine how this congress 17:00:05will operate over the next two years. and it was fascinating in light of our discussion of health care, in light of our discussion about the cost of health care that one of the things it did, these rules changes that republicans 17:00:21passed, basically divest extraordinary power in one member of the house of representatives to determine essentially what the cost, what the deficit or the debt -- the budget implications of a 17:00:38particular piece of legislation might be. and to the debate we are in now about republicans' proposal to take away all of the privileges and rights and benefits granted by the affordable care act that we passed in the 111th congress and i was proud to support is 17:00:55that one of the things it said was that if there's a vote to repeal the health care bill, the affordable health care act that we passed last year, that we basically decide that we don't have to abide by pay-go 17:01:14rules. in other words, saying that just because the congressional budget office determined that the affordable health care act will save the taxpayers $230 billion over the next seven or 17:01:29eight years and then another $1 trillion in the following 10 years that we don't have to make the same kind of adjustments that we do for other kinds of additional expenditures because the republican philosophy is if you 17:01:49reduce revenues in any way to the federal government that's fine and it doesn't affect the deficit. now, a lot of debate -- a lot of the debate we had last congress over the health care act i heard time after time 17:02:03after time, tax cuts and many other things that, oh, a business can't operate like this, a family can't operate like this. well, in fact, in this particular case that analogy are really relevant because if i have a family, two-income 17:02:20family and all of a sudden one of us loses our job and loses our income, it's really interesting that we could take the position that, oh, it didn't affect our budget. 17:02:33it didn't affect the family deficit. just that loss of revenue didn't matter. all we're concerned about is how much we spent. all we're concerned about is the expense. what the republicans have basically done is to say under this new regime, this new set 17:02:50of rules they passed yesterday that there are two separate ledgers. one dealing with exexpenditures, one dealing with revenue and they don't affect each other. it's an astounding philosophy of operation that we're about 17:03:06to embark on. under this new rule when the bush tax cuts for the very wealthy expire in two years, we would not have to account for that loss in revenue to the philadelphia deficit even 17:03:22though when -- to the federal deficit even though when we start borrowing money to pay for the deficit we're going to have to come up with that money. they say, no, it doesn't affect the deficit. if we repeal the affordable health care act, which the 17:03:37c.b.o. says will save $1.3 17:03:42trillion over the next two decades, that's money that we aren't going to have to borrow from somebody else. they say, oh, that's not part of the budget. we don't have to compensate for that. 17:03:55so it's fascinating that they basically set up these two sets of books and then they give the power to the chairman of the budget committee, who in this case is mr. ryan of wisconsin, a very thoughtful, very thoughtful, honest man. 17:04:10you give him the power, however, to make a decision that whatever the c.b.o. says doesn't matter, he can deem or decide exactly what the impact of any provision or any act of congress is on the budget. one person. 17:04:28now, i come from kentucky. we're a big basketball state. last weekend we had a game, big game rivalry, kentucky and louisville played. didn't come out the way i liked to, but i have to think when we set up these rules that that would be like louisville and 17:04:44kentucky playing and saying to coach pitino or louisville or coach cal periiperri, you get to make the calls in this game. coach pitino, we're taking the 17:04:59refs off the field. you are the one that will call fouls. you'll make all the decisions. that's basically what the republicans have done. and what they also said in this process is that they basically decided that the health care 17:05:16reform bill has changing it, repealing it will have no impact on the deficit, no impact on the budget. now, that's fascinating because for the last year and a half when we debated the affordable health care act they kept talking about how this was 17:05:30going to balloon the deficit, how it was going to explode the deficit, trillions of dollars it's going to cost the american taxpayer. well, now they say, no, has no impact at all on the deficit. because you have to understand 17:05:47if it costs nothing to repeal it, then there was no cost to passing it. so one has to question, who's been honest in this debate? who's been honest in this debate? 17:06:03i understand finding referees as to who's right and who's wrong and which facts are accurate has been a difficult process. and my colleague, mr. king, said that all of a sudden we keep talking about this expecting liberal light to go 17:06:20on in people's heads, well, we need some light on this subject because there's been so much attempt, billions and billions of dollars spent to create darkness about the impact of this bill and that process 17:06:34proceeds today. so i think as we debate this proposal the republicans to do away with many of the benefits which we are so proud of and which many americans, millions of americans are beginning to 17:06:49feel now, that we have the kind of discussion that is honest, that is open, that sheds light on the subject. and no one can do that better than my colleague from the great state of maryland, donna edwards. 17:07:05Edwards, D. (D-MD):thank you for yielding, mr. yarmuth. as i listen to this discussion i thought, i wonder what taxpayers are thinking about this discussion. i wonder about the taxpayers that go to work every day but through no fault of their own 17:07:20they can't afford to buy health insurance even though they work every day and they pay taxes every day. and i thought, well, under the affordable care act indeed those people -- we get to, you know, put a little bottom up under them so they can be 17:07:36covered, so that they can, you know, go to work, take care of their families but also have the security and knowing that their families are going to be covered with health care. i thought about the discussion earlier on this floor where our colleagues on the other side of 17:07:51the aisle talked, you know, somewhat disparagingly as a young person who maybe finishes college or trade school and goes to get a job but there's a gap in health care coverage because they've turned 22, 23 years old. 17:08:09they are working for a living, doing what they need to do, they've gone to school, they've gotten a trade maybe and they can't afford health care coverage. so their parents get to say, you know what, for all of our piece of mind and for your security, we're going to, you know, pay for that health care 17:08:28coverage under our plan. and so, you know, mr. speaker, as i stand here today i think about my son who's just gotten a job and there was this 17:08:39period, i remember when i received that notice from our health insurance company and that notice, you know, it was a shocker to me because it basically said, you're done. and had we not had this provision in our -- the affordable care act that 17:08:52enables parents like me and other parents around the country to have the piece of mind of being able to keep our children, our young people, our young working people on our health care plan, i don't know what working families would do out there. 17:09:09mr. speaker, i thought, also, about a conversation that i'm going to share with you with some seniors that i had with friends as i was spending new year's eve. and one of the seniors said to me, we were talking about health care and they said, you know, i have a medical 17:09:25condition and i'm spending thousands of dollars and i've fallen into the doughnut hole and it's really taking a chunk out of our pocket. and i had the privilege on december 31 of saying to this family, do you know that as of january 1, as of the next day 17:09:44in 2011, your prescription drug that's fallen into that doughnut hole will actually receive a 50% discount for that prescription drug? they had no idea. i was glad to be able to share 17:09:57it with them. they're not my constituents. they live in somebody else's state, but it was great to be able to share that with them, and that's the experience that many of our seniors all across the country are having right now as they realize that they won't have to bear the burden of out-of-pocket costs for 17:10:13prescription drugs that fall through a doughnut hole because they can't afford it any more. they're young people -- their young people. if you undergo domestic violence, guess what, that's a 17:10:31pre-existing condition. the insurance companies, as we move into the implementation of our health care bill, will no longer call that a pre-existing condition. i'll close and allow you some additional opportunity in your time, but i do want to say that it was really compelling to 17:10:47read the constitution here on the floor of the house of representatives today and, again, a very important reminder of our obligation as elected officials to look out for the general welfare of the people. and i can think of no better 17:11:02way to do that than making sure that we protect the health insurance, the health care that americans have been guaranteed because of what we were able to accomplish with the affordable care act. Yarmuth (D-KY):i thank the distinguished congresswoman 17:11:17from maryland for her comments. i'm actually kind of glad that congressman king brought up these major benefits which are now helping families across this country. ms. edwards talked about the 17:11:34benefit of adding your son or daughter under 26 to your policy, and mr. king basically pooh-poohed that. i don't know if that's exactly a good legislative term, but kind of ridiculed that. and then he talked about 17:11:49lifetime limits and how lifetime limits were not necessarily something that we should worry about in spite of the fact that almost a million americans a year historically over the last few years have gone bankrupt because they either had no insurance or 17:12:05their insurance was inadequate and they lost everything they had because of health care cost, because of a cancer diagnosis or a serious accident. these are real-life stories. these are not abstractions. and i understand that we have 17:12:21many colleagues on the other side of the aisle who believe in with almost a religious zeal in certain things like the perfection of the marketplace in spite of the fact that we've seen time after time after time in this country not the -- not 17:12:40too long ago with the financial system how our markets often fail, how we have created or allowed to be created enormous sources of power and concentrations of economic 17:12:53power in this country that have basically distorted the marketplaces. and that is true -- very, very true in the area of health insurance. we have many, many states in which one company, one company, 17:13:11one insurer will dominate the insurance market. 85%, 90% of the insurance in that state solid -- sold through one insurance company. that's not something that the drafters of the constitution 17:13:25envisioned. so it's nice to believe in free market principles, and i think democrats believe in free market principles as well as republicans do. but the fact is in real life, 17:13:39not in a history philosophy book, in real life markets fail, markets get distorted and that is when the government is responsible for protecting the general welfare of the population, as the constitution 17:13:53says. i want to return, because i've been joined by -- we've been joined by another colleague, i want to return to this issue of rules because, again, the budgetary rules that the republicans have set up to govern this next congress are creating some incredibly 17:14:11difficult situations for our states, our localities and our people. and one of those areas in which this has been particularly true -- i know i've been contacted by transportation officials in kentucky about how desperate they think -- how dangerous 17:14:27they think these new rules may be. and joe courtney from connecticut has joined us to talk about that implication of the new rules that we are going to be operating under, so i yield to the gentleman from connecticut. Courtney (D-CT):thank you, mr. yarmuth. i appreciate the fact that 17:14:42you're putting the spotlight on this issue which is really extraordinary in terms of what's just happened in the last 24 hours. as you know and as congresswoman edwards knows, the real workhorse, infrastructure, transportation funding in this country is the 17:14:59highway trust fund. that is a mechanism which is set up by the congress. it has a dedicated revenue source, gas taxes, and since 1998 there has been a rule which the congress has operated under which says that the five-year transportation plan 17:15:16authorized by the congress cannot be tampered with by a bill that's brought to the floor of the house. if it is, then that bill is ruled out of order. and the purpose of that is to make sure that the transportation plan, which is done in a five-year increment, 17:15:32has sanctity, has consistent is i, so that states like yours or maryland or connecticut can actually move forward on multiyear projects, which most roads construction, bridge 17:15:48construction falls within that timeline. this has been the operating rules of the house since 1998. yesterday, the republican rule, which was adopted, astonishingly, rescinded that protection for the transportation trust fund, the 17:16:04-- again, the mechanism which ensures that states get appropriate funding for highways, so a coalition grew up over the last three days, including labors international union, ironworkers, the u.s. chamber of commerce, the 17:16:19american trucking association, the motorcycle riders of america, people who actually care about making sure that our roads and bridges have the adequate support to make sure that, again, as a growing country we are going to be able to move people and goods from 17:16:35one place to the other in an appropriate fashion. by the way, our competitors around the world are moving past us at mock speed in terms of their transportation infrastructure investment. nonetheless, this coalition 17:16:49warned the new majority that this new rule was going to upset, again, the consistency which transportation funding requires the new majority went ahead with that rule, adopted it, claims that they in fact were not doing that to the transportation trust fund but 17:17:06interestingly the markets say otherwise. is payne webber issued a downgrade to construction companies on the wall street stock markets and stocks exchanges and their stocks 17:17:21declined yesterday in the wake of the adoption of this rule. again, i earlier today submitted press accounts that describe, in fact, the sequence of what actually happened. we are talking here about a sector of the u.s. economy that's not in a recession, it's 17:17:39in a depression. the construction trades right now are looking at unemployment rates of 25% rather than shrinking and inhibiting the transportation infrastructure of this country, we should be investing in it. let's be clear here. 17:17:54there's not going to be any public -- excuse me, private investment that's going to fill the gap that's being created by undercutting the sanctity of the highway trust fund. the fact of the matter is, this is done through public dollars and every generation, going 17:18:10back to really jefferson, has understood that this is essential to have an economy that can thrive and grow. as i said, we have now left the highway funding of this country, subject to the whims 17:18:25of the annual appropriations process that is not the top of horizon which planning can actually take place at state d.o.t.'s. 17:18:36it doesn't surprise me that the folks in kentuckys have contacted the people at d.o.t. in connecticut have done the same thing. again, management, labor, public sector groups that care about, they are just incredulous, particularly at 17:18:51this time work the weakness of this economy, that this house has adopted that type of rule. i thank the gentleman, reclaiming my time. the only ji i used earlier with 17:19:07was families. Yarmuth (D-KY):we know we're running huge deficits right now. we know that the money that we are spending, a large portion of it, we are borrowing because tax revenues can't support it. this republican majority now 17:19:22has basically take then position that they are going to strangle this government and put a cap on expenditures and that certainly is, i understand that's part of their honestly held philosophy. but if you're a family and you've got two kids, high 17:19:41school age, and one of -- you have two income earners, one of them loses their job, are you going to then say, under in circumstances am i going to borrow money to help pay for the college education of my two teenagers so they can have a 17:19:57better life and be prepared to meet the demands of the future? i'm just going to keep cutting expenses. that analogy seems to be working here particularly with regard to transportation as well and the investment we have 17:20:11to make. Courtney (D-CT):families make that decision to make capital investment along exactly the same lines whether to fix a roof, put a new driveway in, buy a house, again that's done few financing, debt financing, and again the way that 17:20:30particularly the middle class kind of deals with those challenges, there's no question that in terms of our own country's history, going back in time, even to the beginsing of our government, even during the civil war when the finances of this country were completely going from almost day-to-day, 17:20:48abraham lincoln did not pull back in terms of the need for us to invest in rail, land grant colleges, again, this is the middle of the worst conflict in the history of this country but he still saw the need for us as a nation to 17:21:02continue to invest in the future and with borrowed must understand. those type of investments, investing in people through education, comes back to benefit the economy long-term and the multiplier effect is much higher than the actual price tag of those initial 17:21:19investments. Yarmuth (D-KY):i thank the gentleman. again, i go back to these rules that have been adopted now in the house and they basically give extraordinary, unprecedented power to one person to set these budget limits, to decide the budgetary 17:21:36impact of an investment in infrastructure ohealth care law, the repeal of the health care law, or for instance the repeal of many advances we made in terms of education funding 17:21:49in the 111th congress. it seems to me that, as i read through the constitution, the founding fathers probably didn't anticipate that we would basically disenfranchise 434 members of congress in making 17:22:06these incredibly important decisions about how we raise revenue which is specifically power that has been given for initiation to the house of representatives, or to spend tax revenue, that that kind of power would vest in one person 17:22:25and you would set up a set of rules to set up two sets of books and say if you drop revenue you cut taxes, if you have a loss of revenue that has no budget implications but anything you spend has to be offset somewhere along the 17:22:39line. i think in terms of not just investment in infrastructure, but research, medical research which is the answer to our long-term financing of health care if we can control or cure diabetes, make an impact on heart disease, these will make 17:22:57a difference in the future, but to set up these kind of rules that will disenfranchise 434 members of congress and virtually every american citizen from deciding what money should be spent and invested in some very, very important aspects of the 17:23:12general welfare. i'd like to yield again to donna edwards of maryland. Edwards, D. (D-MD):it occurred to me as we heard this discussion, and thank you to mr. courtney for raising these issues with us, mr. speaker, because it occurred to me that while we 17:23:28should be spending our time focused on job creation and we know that a core for job 17:23:37creation for the 21st century for this country is in our investment and transportation infrastrurture -- infrastructure, putting people back to work and instead we are relitigating what the american 17:23:48people thought we had finished with health care. here we are with a rule that then says to us, even as the bipartisan commission on debt commission has said we need to invest in the nation's infrastructure, those are investments that create jobs, jobs with taxpayers are paying 17:24:05into the system so we have revenue so that we can invest in our infrastructure that we are going to be constrained from doing it and i'm reminded that in the last congress, in the 111th congress, every member, i believe, of our 17:24:21transportation and train structure committee, wrote to the president of the united states saying, we need to do a long-term transportation infrastructure bill so that our state can begin to really put people back to work and here we are in the 112th congress led 17:24:38by the republicans who have put forth a rules package that will constrain our ability to create jobs in this country. with that, thank you, mr. yarmuth, i yield. Yarmuth (D-KY):i thank you for 17:24:52that contribution. we have been joined by congressman cohen of tennessee, i'd like to yield time to him. Cohen (D-TN):thank you, mr. yarmuth. indeed, the issues mr. courtney brought forward in his one-minute today were alarming to me because my home to town of memphis depends on 17:25:07transportation, that's what makes it america's distribution cent, the roads, rivers, runways and rails, and if we don't have money to go into helping our airports, where federal express is located in my district, and in your district, u.p.s., that's how we move products all over the 17:25:23world from those hubs and move congress. that's why it's so important we have an f.a.a. re-authorization act passed, a lot of which will be expenses to modernize the structure and the transportation bills that mr. oberstar, who was one of the great members of this house, no longer a member, tried to get 17:25:40passed last year to both stimulate the economy in the short run and in the long run, as mr. courtney said work that multiplier effect, in the long run. i was hoping and co-hope we'll 17:25:54have bipartisan efforts to have transportation, f.a.a. re-authorization bills passed that will move this economy forward. the economy is still in a difficult spot. we can't really see that the economy improving if we 17:26:11continue to cut spending, particularly in places such as transportation infrastructure, and the airport infrastructures. that's so important. so it was distressing news to see this happen. it is difficult to see where we 17:26:26can get us out of this near-depression that was caused by the bush administration with cutting spending. i know paul krugman has people that don't think he's correct all the time. i happen to think he's correct 17:26:41most of the time, and the nobel prize people aren't always correct, but when they gave him the nobel prize for economics, some of the brighter people in the world thought he was pretty good on economics. it's his belief that we need to do more spending and i concur with him and i'd hate to see us 17:26:58leave this economy, that's about to get out of the ditch to put it back in the ditch by cutting spending on infrastructure that's so important. pll yarmuth i thank you for that.

White House Briefing WITH National Governors Association Chairman Governor Gary Herbert (R-UT), Vice Chairman Governor Terry McAuliffe (D-VA) & Press Secretary Josh Earnest DC Slugs: 1255 WH BRIEF STIX FS37 73 & 1255 WH BRIEF CUTS FS38 74 AR: 16x9 Disc #058/56 & 059/057 NYFS: WASH3 (4523) / WASH4 (4524) 13:07:52 EARNEST: Good afternoon, everybody. It is nice to see you all. Hope you had a good weekend. As you can see, I'm delighted to be joined today by the chair and vice chair of the National Governor's Association. To my left, is Governor Herbert from the great state of Utah. To my right is Governor Terry McAuliffe from the Common Wealth of Virginia. Actually, one of my first jobs in Washington D.C. was actually as a spokesperson for Governor McAuliffe. MCAULIFFE: We kept him busy. EARNEST: We had the opportunity to travel across the country a lot. I think when we went to a lot of our events there weren't too many that thought they were hearing from the future Governor of Virginia. But to be fair, I think even fewer of them thought that you had brought the future White House Press Secretary with you. MCAULIFFE: Fair point. EARNEST: But anyway, it's nice to see you today, glad you're here. So I'm going to turn it over to Governor Herbert first, then we'll go to Governor McAuliffe, then we'll open up for your questions. Governor Herbert? 13:08:44 HERBERT: Well, thank you Josh. We're honored to be here with you all today. As the chair of the National Governor's Association we have just completed our winter conference as we call it here in Washington D.C. And we had great participation from the governors and we think -- you'll hear from the vice-chair, Terry McAuliffe, that we've had a successful meeting now just completed with the president and the vice president and cabinet members. And had an opportunity to have dialogue that's important I think for us to be able to as states and as governors -- to move our respective states forward and help contribute to the discussion here of policy here in Washington D.C. and to help America move forward. 13:09:22 We've had an opportunity through the National Governor's Association, as you know, as a bipartisan organization of states and of governors -- Republican, Democrat, and we have one independent, maybe two independent, I think we found out today. And, again, the opportunity to discuss significant issues where as -- health care, whether it's homeland security, economic development, education. The federal state partnership in relations is that we hope to foster and even improve has been a hot topic of discussion at this gathering.HERBERT: We believe as states that we really are the laboratories of democracy. That we, in fact, are, in fact having innovation and creativity that's taking place and solving people's problems, and thereby improving people's lives. And so we want to make sure that we foster, as a bipartisan organization, the opportunity to work in a concert -- in a complementary fashion with our Congress, and certainly with the White House, and that's been our efforts. And I just would like to highlight that, as we are looking at states to see the successes that they are having -- if you look at Mississippi, for example, is leading the way on criminal justice reform, doing some things to help with nonviolent offenders, to address the underlying problems of their criminal behavior, which may be substance abuse, mental health problems -- addressing those to help eliminate some of the criminal behavior and -- and help them transform and transition back into society. 13:10:55 Alabama's recently had remarkable progress on health care reform, where they're rewarding providers for quality health outcomes instead of just the traditional fee for service. So we pay the doctors, but we want you to produce a better outcome for the same amount of money, rather than constantly fee-for-service, where it's repetitive and becomes more expensive. New York has partnered with industry to provide college courses and immediate career opportunities. They've partnered with IBM, for example, through P-TECH School in Manhattan, where people go to school there for five or six years, graduate not only with a high school diploma, but with an associate degree, and then are given a job in the private sector. Again, their success ratio is great, and again, a new, innovative way to educate particularly at-risk youth. 13:11:43 Governor McAuliffe of the Commonwealth of Virginia, again, is doing some wonderfully good things on cyber-security -- kind of the new frontier that we as states are facing, as is the folks here in Washington, D.C. But as any good governor would, he's doing things that are important to his state, and he has more cybersecurity entrepreneurs and entities in Virginia than any place West -- or East, excuse me -- of the Rocky Mountains. And again, that legislation is helping to protect individual security and identity, as well as protecting the security. So, again, a great example of innovation taking place. And let me just mention, at last, my own home state of Utah. Again, we are leading out in many areas. Our economy is healthy, and nine out of the last 12 months, our economy has led the nation based on the Department of Labor statistics of private growth creation in America today. It's not lost on me that -- why people call. That's the benefit of this organization, is we share best practices. We learn from each other. One of the calls I've get -- I have received, rather, from many governors, is how were you able to thread the needle when it came to LGBT rights and religious freedom rights in a very red, conservative state -- a very religious state -- and still be able to find resolution to that difficult issue? It was not easy, but we brought people together, and we were able to, in fact, have success in protecting LGBT rights, but also religious rights, in the state of Utah. Which -- I'll just finish with that, saying if we can do that in Utah, we can do it across America. We can do it in the respective states, and we can hopefully have the states held up as examples of bipartisan collaboration effort, where we find common sense, really, is the -- as the key issue, and get some things done. And our initiative this year, with Governor McAuliffe and I, is to highlight the successes of the states. We'll have a compilation at our summer meetings in Iowa, where we'll, in fact, highlight two or three of the great successes of all the states and our five territories, and show to the American public and that the states really are the laboratories of -- of democracy. We're finding solutions to people's problems and improving people's lives. So we're honored to be with you today, and thank you very much for attending. Turn the time over to my vice chair, Terry McAuliffe. 13:14:13 MCAULIFFE: Governor Herbert, thank you. It's an honor to be with you today. As you know, we just spent the last hour, hour and a half, with the president of the United States, talking about the issues that are important to the governors. We all come from different backgrounds. We come from different political parties. But what unites us is we talked to the president about our issues of national security, how do we keep our respective states -- make sure they're safe, keeping our communities safe, in addition -- growing our economies. And that's something -- the president has been involved since day one, since he became president of the United States. In Virginia, our economy -- very strong today. I just announced 3,856,100 workers -- more than at the largest budget surplus in Virginia history. MCAULIFFE: We're strong; we're working together. I do want to thank the administration. We had four great meetings here. We met with the team about six weeks ago to plan this meeting; I've got to say on behalf of all of the governors, thank the administration. They gave -- at the FBI the other day, a secure briefing, something we had not had before on the issues of cyber security yesterday. We talked a lot with different administration officials about refugee settlement and other issues and spent a tremendous amount of time on trade and those other issues. So, it has been a very, very productive meeting, and I do want to thank the administration. All of us governors are working together -- we have one common goal, how do we grow our economies, how do we keep our communities safe. That is not a partisan, political issue, it's what we were elected to do as governors. We came to our respective jobs to get things done. That's what we're doing. We don't have a luxury of taking a can down the road. We don't have filibusters and other things that may go on in Washington; we have to make decisions every single day. Governor Herbert and I have also met with the leadership of the House and the Senate to continually convey to them that inaction in Congress causes us tremendous problems. I do want to commend the Congress for pushing sequestration off for two years; I want to commend the Congress now for getting a bipartisan transportation, so that we can now make decisions in our respective states going forward. But we have to work together, we are on a global economy, as I mentioned to the president today, and we need to continue to work on these trade projects to grow and increase our economic activity in our respective states. Thank you. EARNEST: Thank you, Governor. Moving around, here. Gregory, you want to kick us off? QUESTION: Thanks, Governor. Yeah, Governor McAuliffe, you just mentioned the refugee issue. That was a big issue for a lot of governors a few months ago. Has the communication improved, or are you satisfied with the vetting process? Are you satisfied with the information you're getting from DHS and from the White House? MCAULIFFE: Well, they sent three administration officials over to meet with us the other day in a closed, governors-only session. A lot of issues were raised; we're continuing to have the dialogue, and they promised they would get back to us with additional information as we go forward. Different states -- and as Gary and I talked about, we at the NGA have to take a better responsibility as well. In Virginia, as you know, we're very happy with how we are dealing with this issue. Once a refugee arrives in the common wealth Virginia, working through our state employee, with the federal funds, we know who is in our state. But I think other states are confused about the process to go through. So, I think NGA, working with the administration, we can get everybody in a place that satisfies everyone. HERBERT: And let me just echo that, if I could. Because part of the challenge we face is making sure we have the appropriate information and have the appropriate policy in place. We understand, as governors, one of our first responsibilities is the public safety of the people within the states that we represent. So, I appreciate the fact the administration has provided opportunities for us to access better information, to help answer some questions and maybe find solutions to some misunderstandings and apprehensions that are out there. We still have work to do. And so, we have an opportunity, I think, to build upon what we learned this past weekend, and it resolves some of the questions and concerns that we have when it comes to the public safety aspect. EARNEST: Michelle. QUESTION: On that same subject, the president mentioned gun control today in his remarks, and -- I mean, we're a day after another shooting rampage, something that has affected so many states. So, how big a topic of that is -- is that in the discussions? And do you think there is some appetite growing for change, and can we expect to see more among states in the next year? MCAULIFFE: Well, I can just speak to Virginia. As you probably have read, we, for the first time now in 23 years, just passed significant gun safety legislation. It was done in a bipartisan way. The two bills that were passed were two bills that I ran for governor on, making sure, number one, that we now have state police at every gun show in Virginia. Those that don't have a federal license, as you know, beforehand, were not allowed to do background checks. Now, everybody will have access to a background check who wants to get one at a gun show. We have many gun shows in Virginia. In addition, we have protective orders in Virginia. Under current law, if you are under a protective order, you cannot purchase a gun or transport a gun. We have changed the law there, because it doesn't make sense. You could go out and possess a gun; but if you can't buy one, you can't transport, well, why should you possibly be able to possess one? We are changing that. It is now, will be -- as soon as I sign the bill, it is now passed -- it will be a class six felony for you, within 24 hours, not to hand that weapon over. So, we have made progress. This is bipartisan. Every state is different. It's unique. In Virginia, as you know, we are the home of the NRA. But this was worked out in a bipartisan way. And when I made this announcement, I stood with Democrats and Republicans. And at the end of the day, I made the decision on this particular action. It keeps our communities safer, and I stood with the head of the state police, the head of our sheriffs and chiefs of police association, who stood with me to say, the actions, Governor, that you are taking, with legislature, is going to make Virginia safer. It is a key, top issue for every governor in America. EARNEST: April? QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) On the issue of criminal justice, you said in a briefing that Mississippi was a great example. What is the common thread among the states when it comes to criminal justice? And listening to what the president just said, it's a heart issue in a lot of ways not just legislative. So how will states in the next year merge this before this president leaves office? And this is I guess is one of -- is a legacy piece for him. 13:20:33 HERBERT: Well, from my perspective states ought to be leading out. We not to be waiting for Washing, D.C. and Congress or the president to do things. We have our own unique situations as states. In Utah and I think other states too -- we mentioned Mississippi -- we are leading out on criminal justice reform with the intent of understanding what is the underlying cause of the problem. What is causing the criminal element to occur and the crime to be a result? And we find that there's a lot of things that are underlying that and some of its been substance abuse, alcohol abuse, mental health problems and so we are trying to address that by creating as we've done in Utah mental health courts and drug courts. We have a significant campaign for eliminating underage drinking. We find that if people don't start drinking until they're adults chances are they will not be abusing alcohol when they're adults. We also have not only education but opportunities for them to in fact have a learning, an awareness of the health conditions. And so part of our curriculum in schools is part of this awareness for our young people so that they grow up with those good principles and values which will help lead to a productive life and get a good job. And so again I think all states are addressing in their own unique way. I think it's top of mind for most of the states and we see the Congress now following. So I think in a collaborative effort we can in fact do better when it comes to in fact criminal justice reform and making lives better to eliminate the ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure approach that the states are taking. 13:22:20 MCAULIFFE: And April, it's a good question and I also want to address juvenile justice reform -- something we're doing. I just put in my budget in Virginia. In Virginia today we have two gigantic concrete structures that should house mass murderers. Instead, they're housing 14, 15 and 16 years old (sic). I've toured both facilities. Proud to be the first Governor to visit both facilities. We spend $186,000 on a juvenile who goes through the system. Eighty percent of these juveniles are re-arrested in three years. Eighty. You cannot tell me that this system is working. So I propose to shut those facilities down, to have smaller centers closer to the communities where we actually have work force training inside. So that when someone gets out -- a juvenile -- there's a skill there so they can move into the work force. Get them closer to their families because clearly as a governor to spend that money and have 80 percent re-arrested in three years -- the system does not work. And I've spoken to the attorney general and I do want to thank the president who had the attorney general address us before the president came in today of how we could better collaborate. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) Governors, the president in his opening remarks, he mentioned (inaudible) and fighting disease. Are you concerned the funding issue there? Did he talk at all about the plans to get that funding through and are you working at all as governors to press Congress to pass it? 13:23:37 HERBERT: Well again, states ought not to be waiting for Congress to act. Sometimes that's a long wait and we understand the budgetary concerns and where's the money coming from? But at least you talked with our Department of Health. We understand the importance of the health, safety and welfare of our population. So our Department of Health is already addressing the Zika issue and concern. What we'll be doing is probably appropriating money out of our own legislative session. If we can do that in complement with what comes out of Congress -- the Department of Health. But our own health department headed up by Dr. Joe Minor will be out there making sure that we have awareness. And we are there to provide help as we've done with other of these kinds of issues that come from time to time. So as a state and I think most states are saying, "what can we do to get ready?" We'll work with the Congress but we cannot wait. And hope that something happens there. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) Are you frustrated about that? 13:24:30 HERBERT: No. I think that again what we've heard today again from Sylvia Burwell and health and human services -- that they are acutely aware of the problem and are trying to push information out to the states which will help us in our own responsibilities. There's always the matter of resources money and so that will be worked out. But I expect that we're going to be ready. Again, the concern is the summer. People are outdoors and this a certain type of mosquito. It seems to be centered in most of the southern part of our country but again states can't wait. That's -- we are a little more nimble and we have a responsibility to be out there and protect the public safety and health. QUESTION: Governor Herbert, I wanted to ask you. The President made a joke -- I think it was a joke at the opening remarks. Because the thing that the Governors might be quite sympathetic to his predicament on the Supreme Court nomination that you, too are responsible for nominating judges and even in an election year. I was just wondering if you -- what you think of that issue and as expected? 13:25:32 HERBERT: Well I can tell you as an executive who's now appointed more than half of the judges in the state of Utah in the state bench. I understand how significantly important that responsibility is. At the state levels it's probably talked about as much as it is on the Federal level. But I've appointed of our five members of the Supreme Court, three of them. And so the vetting process, getting good people to apply and vetted appropriately. And put good people, men and women on the bench is a significantly important issue for Governor. So we can relate to that. I think that's was what he said. We can relate to the President on a lot of things. You know Executive Branch of the States are very similar to Executive Branch of the Nation. We have frustration with our own Legislative Branch. He has frustration with his Legislative Branch. The challenge of getting things done and how do you balance the budget and prioritize correctly, those are concerns and situations that we can in fact relate to, Democrats and Republicans alike. There is a process in place for the Supreme Court Appointment and I expect that process will go forward. QUESTION: Governor McAuliffe, you've been supportive of the President's Trade Agenda, you mentioned it here. A year ago you singled out the tobacco carve-out as the problem in the trade package partnership. What's changed in your thinking in the past year on that? And how do you expect the Governors to work with the administration the rest of this year to get that passed? 13:26:56 MCAULIFFE: Well, I've always been supportive of the trade package as -- when it was invalid I went on a conference call with Ambassador Froman and Secretary Pritzker. But within any proposed legislation there's going to be issues that we may have. We did have an issue with a Virginia specific related company. We were not successful negotiating what we wanted but I have to look at the total package. I don't always get everything I want but I've been very supportive on the trade package. I'm a Governor, I have the deepest port on the entire East Coast. Right now when the Post-Panamax ships come through of the Panama canal in June, there's only one port they can come to. They can come to the port that we have in Norfolk. So trade is very important. I was probably the most traveled Governor last year internationally. I go where the customers are. 95 percent of the world's customers live outside the United States of America. 81 percent of the economic growth over the next five years is projected to be outside the United States of America. We can't grow our economy unless we're doing trade and growing our International Trade. And that's why I've been supportive of this. I've been -- just been to China twice, Japan, Korea, seven European nations. I just went to the Middle East and January 2nd I went to Cuba. Had some significant projects that we were able to announce in Cuba. That's how you grow your economy. And where I may have some specific issues on parts of the legislation but I got to look at it in totality and I support it. And I've been very supportive of it. HERBERT: Let me -- can I just add to it. You know states really are at the forefront when it comes to Economic development. And clearly as we are not finding ourselves in a global market place, International trade is of significant importance to the states. And I'm in a state that has taken advantage of that opportunity. We've had International trade grow fast for probably Utah than any state in America over the last five or six years. We are a uniquely suited for that. We speak 130 languages in Utah. So we're very bilingual and speak the worlds languages. And again we recognize as Terry's mentioned that 95 percent of customers are outside the borders. Our own Senator Orrin Hatch has helped to lead the charge on this trade agreement. The devils in the details, I expect that they'll work out some of those and resolves some of the differences and have compromise. But clearly we need to have International Trade opportunities for us to have a healthily economy here at home. QUESTION: Governor Herbert, I wanted to hear your question on the gun question and do you -- did you agree with the President's call this morning for more legislation and do you think there's consensus among Republican Governors on that issue? 13:29:28 HERBERT: What I agree with is what Governor McAuliffe said and that is, that it's a state issue. And states have different perspectives, we have different cultures and different politics. We see in the west, you know a little bit different that some see it maybe in the East. But that being said, you know I certainly believe in background checks. We need to make sure that those people who probably are not fit to be carrying a gun or a weapon ought to be restricted, where that's because of mental health concerns, background checks. We have a very significant concealed weapon permit process in the state of Utah were those background checks can be received and done. We have reciprocity with about 31 other states with our concealed weapon permit that we have. So, again, we want to make sure that the bad guys don't have access to guns, but the good guys do. And so, it's -- it'll be different. It's something we've not addressed as an issue with the NGA. And something maybe we should address. But I think you'll find there's significant differences in the different states. We're a very strong Second Amendment supporter in Utah. EARNEST: Kevin. QUESTION: Thanks, Josh. My question for both of the governors. On infrastructure, we read the economic reports today, and the advisers talked about the necessity for expanding infrastructure to put people to work in broad terms, but in particular, men. The workforce participation for men has been on the decline for several decades. I'm curious if you feel like you're getting the support you need from the administration in terms of infrastructure expansion? And are you doing all you can do to enhance and expand your own infrastructure to put more people both in Utah and Virginia to work? MCAULIFFE: Well, I -- in Virginia, I can tell you, we're in a much better place today, because we finally have a transportation bill that will take us forward for the next five years. I was very vocal, very critical of the Congress' inability to be able to pass that particular piece of legislation, because it was crippling to us at the state level -- you can't build roads, you can't plan for the future if you don't know funding is going to be there for successive years. Now we have that. Just in Virginia, for those that you -- who live in Northern Virginia, we have just had another historic agreement for the first time in 30 years. We are widening lanes both inside and outside the beltway. This has been a very tough issue for over 30 years. I negotiated it out in a bipartisan way. We just announced -- we're adding eight lanes on 395, all the way up to the district line. Two miles south, we're going to go on 95 to get around that problem we had at the Garrisonville exit. We're adding lanes on 64, from 295 in Richmond all the way to Hampton Roads. So, we are turbo-charging our infrastructure. But it's a very good question. We are just nipping at, really, what needs to be a much bigger, broader -- and we, as a nation, need to do so much more on infrastructure, our roads, our rail, our electric utility, our electric grid in this country are in desperate shape, and we have bridges -- thousands and thousands of bridges that are structurally deficient. So, we're making progress with the money we have today, but we need to do a lot more in this nation. And Congress needs to more swifter on this to give us the tools to rebuild the aging infrastructure in this country if you want us to compete on a global economy and reports. 13:32:48 HERBERT: Let me just echo a little bit of what Terry has said. You know, a good Republican, President Eisenhower in the '50s had the wisdom of putting together an interstate program, which has allowed us to connect the states and increase commerce opportunities, and hence, have a better economy because of that vision. The states are doing the same thing, or should be doing the same thing at their own local levels. And it's -- whether the chicken comes before the egg, I guess on this thing, we have tried to reflect the demands of the market place. We don't build roads just because we think that's some kind of economic stimulus. We built roads because that's what's needed in the demands of the market place for commerce. And that's a wise investment of the taxpayers' dollars, because now you're getting a return that the market place wants. So, we don't want to artificially stimulate by putting money there just to build a road -- for build a road's sake, it's a matter of what does the market demand need? We've met with our business community -- I meet with our CEOS every quarter, in different sectors of our economy. And one of the things that has become loud and clear in a very fast growing state like Utah, which is about the fifth fastest growing state in America, our infrastructure needs are becoming acute. So, not only building capacity, but also maintaining what we already have in our roads and our bridges. And for Utah, another uniqueness is that we live in an arid state, so water is a big infrastructure need for us, too, to accommodate the demands of the market place. So, states are all unique in what we do. And we need to find the infrastructure needs we have and be proactive in doing that. I'm a little reluctant to send all the money to Washington, then have it sent back to me; sometimes, we get too many strings attached to it when it comes back that way, as opposed to just keeping the money at home and doing what we need to do with our infrastructure needs on a local level. MCAULIFFE: Let me just mention sequestration, for a second or two, because this has caused Virginia a lot of problems. And I do want to thank Congress. This was a piece of legislation that was so onerous that it would never pass. Well, guess what? It passed. And it has created such problems at the state level. I can tell you in Virginia, we are the number one recipient of Department of Defense towers, of all 50 states, 27 military installations, the largest Naval base in the world, the Pentagon, CAA, Quantico, Langley Air Force Base, Oceana -- all in Virginia. And the indecision that went around that, and Congress' inability for several years to figure out what they are going to do has been crippling to the Northern Virginia economy. MCAULIFFE: I commend the Congress. They pushed it off for two years. But you know as well as I do the percent of the debt-to-GDP in two years, we are going to be right back in this situation. We have to begin to think long-term. We need leadership decisions to grow our country so the economy can grow and everybody can benefit. QUESTION: Hopefully, Governor, you will find this a timely question. You have been the Democratic National Committee campaign chair, you were the chairman at the Democratic National Committee. You maintained a close relationship -- I think you know where I'm going. MCAULIFFE: Not sure, but we'll see. QUESTION: You maintained a close relationship with the Clintons, you ran Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2008. If -- if Secretary Clinton becomes the nominee of her party in Philadelphia, would you consider if she asked, taking -- see, now you know where it's coming -- would consider if asked the spot of vice president? 13:36:06 MCAULIFFE: Listen, I've been friends with the Clintons a long time. I love them dearly. I honestly, I have the greatest job in the United States where I am the governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia. So when you go all (sic) home tonight, you think about this -- Patrick Henry, our fist governor, give me liberty give me death. Our second governor, Thomas Jefferson. And now Terry McAuliffe. How -- how could you honestly ever -- and I have, as you know, two years to go. I'm just warming up. We've got our economy back and let me say this, we have two very qualified United States Senators who I think would be spectacular on the ticket. As you know, I've never worked for anyone in my life. I've been an entrepreneur my whole life. I love being governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, I can help people. HERBERT: Let me just add to that if I could because... (CROSSTALK) MCAULIFFE: Careful now. 13:36:54 HERBERT: You don't need my endorsement, I'm sure. It won't help you. But he is the governor of Virginia which is a great position to be in, but he's going to be the chairman of the National Governor's Association, why would you want to take a step backwards? MCAULIFFE: That's right. That's a good point. Very good, thank you for that. QUESTION (OFF-MIKE) EARNEST: Mark, I'll give you the last one. (CROSSTALK) QUESTION: On a related question, has -- have you and your colleagues taken notice of how poorly governors have done in the campaign so far this year? There's only one governor left in the race and governors and former governors have had to drop out. So, what do you make of that? HERBERT: Governor McAuliffe and I were not running, so that... MCAULIFFE: Yeah, they would have changed it... HERBERT: You know, Mark, listen, every presidential season is different. I think this is rather unique when -- at least on the Republican side, that we have seen. You have very qualified people. I always, you know, I think being a governor is a great training ground to be president. You have to make executive decisions every single day. You cannot pass the buck. Every single day, Gary and I and the other governors -- there's items on our desk. We gotta make decisions that particular day. I think that is a great, great training ground. But you know, every election season has its own individual quirks and what comes up in it, and this one is a unique one. HERBERT: Let me just say, too, again the Republican side, it was going to be the year of the governors. We have so many that we're running. And so it is a little bit of a surprise. Again, they almost all are all gone. Governor Kasich is still hanging in there. We will see what happens. Again, I think governor McAuliffe has said it right. Every election cycle has its own kind of flavor and uniqueness, and this has been unique. Certainly on the Republican side, what has taken place there. But I do, I mean, I support governors. I think governors really do have the right training, and that's the -- the American people, historically, have supported governors more often than anybody else either. And, again, a training ground that you get as a state executive helps you transition to the oval office. So, who knows what's going to happen this -- my crystal ball is as foggy as anybody else's. EARNEST: Thank you very much, gentlemen. Appreciate it. QUESTION: Governor, do you have any comment on (OFF-MIKE). 13:39:14 EARNEST: All right. There's a little excitement to kick off the briefing today. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) EARNEST: I'm sorry? EARNEST: He answered the questions pretty directly. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) EARNEST: Well, you have your chance. You asked about criminal justice reform. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) EARNEST: I'm sure it will. Other than that, I don't think I have anything at the top, so we can go to the questions. Kathleen, do you want to fire away first? QUESTION: I wanted to start with the ceasefire and Syria. I'm wondering if the president has (inaudible). 13:39:48 EARNEST: Yes, President Obama did have the opportunity to telephone President Putin today. That call was placed at President Putin's request, and it was a call to discuss the ongoing conversations about arriving at an understanding around a cessation of hostilities in Syria. As announced in Munich a little over a week ago, this -- this cessation of hostilities will apply to all parties in Syria, except for ISIL, except for Al-Nusra and other terrorist groups that have been so designated by the U.N. Security Council. In the coming days, the United States and our ISSG partners on the ceasefire task force will undertake a series of steps to implement the cessation of hostilities by February 27th. And we recognize -- I'm sure all of you do as well -- that this is gonna be difficult to implement. We know that there are a lot of obstacles, and there are sure to be some setbacks. After all, for years, we have been trying to reach a diplomatic resolution to the many problems that plague that nation that has broken apart. But this is a moment of opportunity. And it is the result of tenacious diplomacy on the part of Secretary Kerry, and we are going to continue to try to capitalize on this moment of opportunity, and we are hopeful that all of the other signatories to the document will do the same thing. And we'll proceed from there. You know, obviously Secretary Kerry has put out a statement on this. I would anticipate we'll have a little bit more of a formal readout of the president's telephone call with President Putin later today. But that's the -- that's the essence of the situation as it stands now. QUESTION: Given how long you've been working on this, as you mentioned, the fact that the president's not coming out to formally announce (inaudible) major step, as you said -- should we read that as skepticism, or... 13:42:01 EARNEST: Well, I think -- let me make a couple of observations. The first is that this is a moment of opportunity, and it will require all of the parties who sign on to this document to follow through on the commitments that they have made. The whole world can see in writing what everyone has committed to, and it's time for the signatories to step up, and for the bloodshed to come to an end. I would be quite surprised if this is a -- if there aren't some bumps along the road as we try to implement this agreement. There are gonna be some obstacles that we're gonna have to work through. There will likely be setbacks. But this is a moment of opportunity, and we're hopeful that all of the parties will capitalize on it. After all, the stakes here are high. There are millions of innocent lives in Syria that have been negatively affected by the ongoing chaos inside of Syria. And this cessation of hostilities could provide an opportunity for a couple of things. The first is increasing the flow of badly- needed humanitarian assistance in Syria. The cessation of -- of hostilities is also envisioned as the first step in trying to -- or, I guess, the next step in trying to advance the political track of the ongoing diplomatic discussions about bringing the kind of political change that's long overdue inside of Syria. So -- you know, this is the -- this is the next step in what has been a long-running process. It is a moment of opportunity. And it is a situation that the world will be watching -- most directly, to evaluate whether or not those who have signed the agreement live up to the -- or, those who have signed the understanding live up to the commitments that they've made. QUESTION: OK. If I could just change subject briefly, the president (inaudible) on Friday was carrying a big binder of names, apparently. I'm wondering if you have any update on (OFF-MIKE) nomination (OFF-MIKE) reached out to any potential cabinet candidates (OFF-MIKE)? 13:44:20 EARNEST: I am not aware of any presidential conversations with potential candidates. The president did complete some additional telephone calls with members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, in the United States Senate, including some who serve on the judiciary committee. So that is, again, continued evidence that the president takes quite seriously the responsibility that he has to consult with Congress in this matter. The president also did spend some time -- quite a bit of time -- this weekend reviewing the materials that were compiled by his legal team. I don't have an update for you in terms of the president's initial impressions here, but that -- it is an indication that this process has begun. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) EARNEST: I don't have details about individual telephone calls, but I could describe them to you as both Democrats and Republicans of the United States Senate, including some who serve on the Judiciary Committee. OK? All right. Jeff. QUESTION: Josh, China says that what it is doing in the South China Sea is just like what the United States has done with its military in Hawaii. What's the White House's response to that? 13:45:26 EARNEST: Our response to this is actually quite direct. The -- there's no other country that has a claim on Hawaii. But yet, when you consider the land features in the South China Sea, there are a variety of overlapping territorial claims that a variety of countries have made on those features. And I recognize that the Chinese government may have a disagreement about the claims that are made by other countries. That's all the more reason that we believe that all of the parties should resolve their differences of opinion about this matter in a way that doesn't provoke a military confrontation. That is why we have urged all parties who are claimants to these features -- the United States is not among them -- but we have encouraged all of the countries that do have claims to resolve them in a peaceful, legal manner, and to avoid confrontation, and to seek to avoid escalating the tensions in that area of the world. The stakes for the United States are not insignificant. Again, we don't make claims on the features, but we certainly do want to ensure that the freedom of navigation and the free flow of commerce in the South China Sea is protected. There's a lot of commerce that flows through that part of the world, and it has a significant impact on the United States if that commerce is somehow disrupted. So that's why we're seeking to reduce tensions and encouraging all sides to come together to resolve their differences in a way that does not provoke a military confrontation. QUESTION: All right. And just to follow up on the Supreme Court, as well, can you give us a flavor of what that president will be doing this week, going forward, about -- or on the nominating process? 13:47:08 EARNEST: Yeah. I would expect that the president will continue to review material that's provided by his legal team. You guys had an opportunity to see how thick the binder was. So I'm not sure that he was able to go through all of the material that was provided by his team, but he was able to get through a good portion of it, and I would expect that he'll continue to receive material over the course of this week. I do anticipate that the president will place additional phone calls that will be consistent with his commitment to consult with members of the United States Congress about this nomination. Over the course of the week, hopefully, we'll be able to -- we'll be in a position to provide some greater clarity about who exactly the president has consulted with, but we'll keep you posted on that moving forward. OK. Sarah? QUESTION: Thanks, Josh. A Pentagon spokesman said that the Guantanamo closure plan will be coming out tomorrow. I just wanted to hear if there's anything more you can tell us about that, if -- if you're confident in the political palatability of it in Congress. 13:48:09 EARNEST: Well, I'm not confident in that. In fact, we've seen many members of Congress express their opposition to considering the kind of necessary steps to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. That political opposition stands in stark contrast to the best advice that the commander in chief receives from our military. It stands in stark contrast to the view of both Democratic and Republican national security experts, including officials who -- officials who served in senior positions in the Bush administration. So I don't have a specific promise about the timeframe for the -- for the plan, but the plan that is put forward is one you'll have an opportunity to review, and it will make a compelling case that closing the -- the prison is clearly in our national security interest, but also will reflect the need for the United States government to be a good steward of taxpayer dollars. There's far too much money that is spent to operate that prison when there are more cost-effective alternatives available. And we certainly would like to work with the Congress to make those alternatives a reality, because we know that those alternatives don't weaken our national security. In fact, they strengthen it. They enhance it, and it would take away -- by closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay -- a chief recruiting tool that we know is used by terrorist organizations around the world. QUESTION: Considering your pessimism about working -- that you just mentioned about working with Congress, would you say it's more likely that the president will indeed take executive action to close it? And is the -- the legal team -- the White House Counsel's Office looking for ways to do that (inaudible)? 13:50:01 EARNEST: My -- my -- my pessimism is rooted in the way that Congress has handled this issue over the last seven years. If there's an opportunity for members of Congress to take a look at the plan with an open mind, I think there's a compelling case to be made. I think it's an open question about whether or not members of Congress are actually willing and able to do that. The president has said, on a number of occasions that working with Congress to succeed in closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay is the preferable outcome here. It's something that we've been hard at work on for seven years, and we certainly are committed, over the course of this year, to continuing to do that work. QUESTION: And will -- will the president walk out the door in 2017 with Guantanamo closed? EARNEST: That doesn't have to be the case. There is an opportunity for Congress to step up and -- and to work with the administration to do the right thing for our national security, to do the right thing for U.S. taxpayers, and close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Kevin. QUESTION: Thanks, Josh. Is there a distinction between closing it and emptying it of detainees, from the administration's perspective? 13:51:09 EARNEST: Well, if there are no longer detainees that are housed in the prison, then we certainly would close the prison. And the president does not believe it's in our national security interest to transfer any new individuals to the prison. There have not been any individuals that have been transferred to the prison since President Obama was elected. In fact, we have found more effective ways to bring a significant number of terrorists to justice, and in many cases, we have actually used Article III courts in the United States to bring individuals to justice, and are convicted terrorists sitting in U.S. prisons right now, even as we speak. That does not pose -- pose an undue threat to our national security. In fact, it enhances our security, because it demonstrates that the United States of America is serious about abiding by our values, but also taking the necessary steps to bring people to justice. That's what we've done on any number of occasions under President Obama's leadership, and it's that spirit that is guiding his effort to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. QUESTION: And you're also making the argument it's an economic argument to close it? EARNEST: Well, a financial one, and -- which is that there is a -- I don't remember the -- off the top of my head, the number -- I think it's like $4 million a year per Gitmo detainee that is spent to keep those individuals at the prison at Guantanamo Bay. We could house those detainees in other facilities, including in the United States, that would be much more cost effective. And -- you know, there are a variety of consequences for continuing to keep this policy in place that also drive up the cost, and this will certainly be part of the case that we'll be making to the Congress about -- about keeping the American people safe, but also more effectively using taxpayer dollars. QUESTION: What's the latest number of detainees, and do you plan to announce, this week, another reduction? EARNEST: The current detainee population at Gitmo is 91. I'll remind you that, at the beginning of the administration, there were 242 detainees at the -- at Guantanamo Bay. So we've made a lot of progress in -- in reducing the prison population, but there's obviously some more work to be done here. I don't have any announcements to make about any upcoming transfers. QUESTION: OK. Just a couple more. On the high court, is it possible that the president is in consultation with leaders on Capitol Hill because he's looking for a palatable potential nominee -- someone that would be acceptable to them and acceptable to him? Is that the process that's ongoing? EARNEST: Well, right now, we've heard from a number of Republicans that they're not willing to consider anybody that the president puts forward. As I mentioned earlier, that makes it a little difficult to have a particularly detailed conversation about somebody that they are willing to accept, when they basically have said that they won't accept anybody. I think that underscores the unreasonable position that at least some Republicans in the Senate have taken. It's inconsistent with their constitutional responsibility, and it certainly is inconsistent with the American people's conception about what it means to do your job. And so I would say that there has not been a lot of detailed discussion, at least with those members of Congress who have ruled out a consideration of any nominee that the president puts forward. But -- look, we're interested in keeping the lines of communication open. And the -- the president, in those conversations, has been pretty direct about the fact that he does intend to fulfill his constitutional duty, that he does intend to put someone forward, and he's urging members of Congress to fulfill their Constitutional duty to give that person a fair hearing and a timely yes or no vote. EARNEST: The president reiterated in those conversations his commitment to nominating somebody who has indisputable credentials and qualifications, and he's confident that the individual that he puts forward is somebody that can serve the United States of America with honor and distinction in a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. But look, the kinds of conversations that the president has had over the last 72 hours or so are just the first conversations, and I certainly wouldn't rule out additional conversations, and those conversations would probably be more fruitful if there are members of Congress who are willing to move off their position of suggesting that they won't consider anyone. QUESTION: Last month the economic report was glowing, I think. At least broadly speaking they seemed rather pleased with how the economy is going, and yet there seems to be a disconnect from a lot of voters who feel like the economy isn't working for them. Can you explain that disconnect, and do you accept the criticism that while there are a number of metrics that do point to an improving economy, it's not exactly improving for everyone. EARNEST: Well, Kevin, it's just not the economic report of the president that indicates the strength and robust nature of the economy. I think you just heard from the governor of Virginia and the governor of Utah that they are pretty enthusiastic about the strength of the economy in their states too. So it's not just a matter of taking the White House's word for it. There's a story to tell all across the country about the strength of our economy. I think one of the reasons that there still is some work to be done is in the area of trying to put upward pressure on wages. Wages have not been growing as quickly as our economists would have expected. They certainly haven't grown as quickly as the president would have hoped. We have seen, however, over the last six months a noticeable increase in the pace of wage growth, that the wage growth over the course of the last six months is faster than at any time in the last seven or eight years. That's a positive sign that wage growth may be increasing, and I think that certainly would address many of the concerns that are out there. The other threat, and this is detailed in the economic report to the president, is that some of the economic weakness that we see with our trading partners overseas could have the longer-term impact on the U.S. economy, and we're concerned about that. These are companies -- these are countries overseas with whom we do a lot of business, and if they are not buying as much from the United States, it's going to have an impact on our economy back here at home. That's why the president has eagerly advocated for a couple of things. One is a focus on those elements of our economy that we can control, doing things like investing in education and job training to make sure that our workers have the skills they need to compete and win in a 21st century global economy. We also need to be looking for opportunities to deepen our economic relationships with those countries that are demonstrating some economic dynamism, and that's one of the benefits associated with TransPacific Partnership agreement, that many of the countries that are signatories to that agreement have some of the most dynamic economies in the world. So if we can deepen our relationship and improve our ability to do business in those countries, we can compensate for some weakness in some other countries. But obviously this is something that we'll be watching closely in the months ahead. Jessica. QUESTION: Thanks, Josh. Question on Brexit. Does the United States have a position on what's going on with the vote currently, and secondly, if the U.K. does leave Europe, is there concern about the impact on American business? EARNEST: Well, Jessica, we're obviously aware that Prime Minister Cameron has indicated that June 23rd will be the day that the British people have an opportunity to weigh in on their continued membership in the E.U. As you've heard me say before, and as the president himself has said, the United States benefits from having a strong U.K. in the European Union. The European Union continues to be a critical global partner of the United States on a variety of issues, both economic but also some national security issues too. You'll recall that the E.U. foreign minister played a critically important role in completing the international agreement to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That kind of cooperation is valuable and it's even more valuable to us when we have an outward-looking E.U. that has the U.K. as a member. We've been pretty clear about what the United States equities are, but you know, obviously the British people have an opportunity to weigh in here. EARNEST: Dave. QUESTION: Josh, the governors made reference earlier to a meeting they had a couple of days ago where they were going over the Syrian refugee plan, and there were still obviously lingering concerns among some of the governors about the plan. Can you describe in any more detail what the administration's efforts are to reassure them? 14:00:25 EARNEST: Well, Dave, we'll try and get you some more specific information. I didn't attend it. What I can tell you that the administration is committed to doing is to working closely with governors and the non-governmental organizations in their states who are chiefly responsible for resettling refugees that are fleeing violence in other countries. Obviously refugees who enter the United States and enter any of our 50 states undergo the most rigorous screening of any individual that attempts to enter the United States that's not a citizen. And this is -- in many cases this involves two years of work to take a look at somebody's background, to conduct in-person interviews, to conduct biometric information, to make sure that these individuals are vetted before they enter into the United States. And then what often happens is they are paired up with faith- based organizations that have played a really important role in helping these new arrivals to the United States get their feet on the ground and get established in their community. In some ways this -- the president made a reference to this actually in his remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, where he talked about how this is some of the really important work that faith- based organizations across the country do every day. And it doesn't often get noticed, but it certainly contributes to the strength of our country. It certainly is a way that the United States lives up to the kinds of values that we advocate for around the world, and it's the reason the United States can be in a position to say that we actually take in more refugees to the United States through the established U.N. process than all the other countries in the world combined. That's just another way that the United States demonstrates our exceptionalism and the kind of values that make our country great. Michelle. QUESTION: Looking at the president's big binder before the weekend, it seemed like it might've been divided into nine sections... EARNEST: Wow. That is... (LAUGHTER) QUESTION: Well, these lens... EARNEST: That is quite a lens on the camera. QUESTION: No, actually it was kind of obvious. So would you say that that is an accurate representation of how many names might've been in there? 14:02:40 EARNEST: That's good detective work. What I would say is -- I would caution you against leaping to that conclusion, though, simply because I'm not prepared to tell you that right now the president has a final list, so it certainly is possible that there are additional names that could be added to the list. I can't confirm for you that the list is at nine right now. I would just say that the president and his team are still evaluating potential candidates and that that work will continue. QUESTION: And is there a sort of timeframe at which you would like to have a list that would then be narrowed down? I mean, if you are looking at a nominee potentially in a month from when this started, could we expect that you would have a list narrowed by this week or next week? Could you ballpark it? 14:03:27 EARNEST: Well, I wouldn't set a timeframe for it. As the president observed, there's ample time for us to get this done. There's still 11 months left in the president's term here, which provides ample time for the president to fulfill his constitutional responsibility and ample time for the Congress to fulfill their constitutional responsibility. And it prevents something that is unprecedented in modern times, which is for a Supreme Court vacancy to linger and have an impact on two different Supreme Court terms. So we are -- while there is plenty of time to do this work, the president and his team are moving expeditiously to nominate someone and put someone forward so that Congress can fulfill their responsibility. I think the reason that we have said that there is ample time is it means that this is not a process that has to be rushed, but I think everybody understands that there is a sense of urgency in putting forward a nominee. QUESTION: It seems like Republicans in the Senate are pretty hard line on not wanting to take this on right now. So do you expect the outreach to have an effect? I mean, what kind of a next step in that outreach? Are you going to have face-to-face meetings? Are people going to go the Hill from the White House? And really, what's your expectation from those meetings, given the climate right now? EARNEST: Yes. Well, look, I think the climate, at least if you are evaluating the public comments of Republican senators, I think the climate is pretty murky. I think it depends not on the day you ask but on the hour you ask in terms of their openness to considering the president's nominee. There certainly have been some very conservative, self-described conservative Republicans who have indicated that they believe that the Congress should do its job. So the goal of the consultation, again, is part of the president fulfilling his constitutional responsibility. The president is committed to engaging with Congress, and he recognizes that it will be incumbent upon him to put forward a nominee that can be approved by a Republican Senate. Republicans are in the majority. We are pretty -- we are aware that, believe me. The good news is that the two previous Supreme Court nominees that the president has put forward, even when Democrats were in the majority, they got Republican votes. Both Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan got Republican support. So it would be rather unusual, in fact, for the president to put forward somebody that he didn't expect Republicans could support. Now I'll just say the thing that I said before. The Senate -- or the Constitution doesn't suggest that senators should only support someone that they themselves have nominated. That's not the process. The president of the United States nominates someone to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. And the Senate's role is offer their advice and consent about whether or not that individual can serve honorably in a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Again, certainly Justices Sotomayor and Kagan are off to a good start in doing that, and we are confident that the nominee the president puts forward is somebody that can also fit that description. David. QUESTION: I just have a couple of questions about Asia. I want to follow up on Jeff's question on the South China Sea. The CSIS think tank has new images that seem to show a powerful radar being installed on one of the disputed islands in the South China Sea, and this comes a few days after evidence that China was installing missiles on another set of islands in the same area. The administration has done quite a bit, including last week with Southeast Asia, to send a signal to China to stop this. And new partnerships with the Philippines. (inaudible). Has the administration concluded that China is just not listening to these warnings from the U.S., and if so, would that mean that you will have to take, you know, more dramatic steps than you already have, which has included even a sail-by by U.S. naval vessels in the past? Is it something you're going to have to do something much stronger to get their attention? 14:07:52 EARNEST: Well, we're going to continue to evaluate the situation in the South China Sea, and our hope is that tensions actually in that part of the world can be reduced, and they can be reduced if all of the claimants to the land features in the South China Sea make the same kind of commitment that we saw from leaders of ASEAN in California just last week. In the context of the summit, the leaders of ASEAN committed to not building up a military presence on those features that are the subject of competing claims. That is a responsible way to resolve differences of opinion over those features. And we certainly would urge the Chinese and every other country that has a competing claim here to abide by that standard. QUESTION: You had the Chinese president here last fall. He stood in the Rose Garden and said they weren't going to militarize the islands. Do you feel that -- do you see any evidence of that, you know, pledge being abided by? Or do you see the opposite? 14:08:55 EARNEST: Well, I think it's hard to tell. It's hard to evaluate these things sort of on a day by day or week by week basis. But certainly those kinds of comments that you heard from the Chinese leader are an indication that they are certainly giving this some thought. They are also well aware of the view that is expressed not just by the United States but by other countries is Southeast Asia, by their neighbors ostensibly. So the United States is interested in continuing to try to facilitate the kind of de-escalation and diplomatic resolution of these differences. That is clearly within the interest of everybody involved, but also clearly within the interest of the United States, both from a national security perspective that you mentioned, but also in terms of the economic perspective that I discussed earlier. South China Sea continues to be an area where a lot of commerce is shipped, and it would have an impact upon the U.S. economy if that flow of commerce is disrupted by ongoing tensions in that part of the world. QUESTION: On another topic in Asia. The Wall Street Journal reported last night -- today that the United States had some sort of level of discussion with North Korea through the U.N. about potentially reopening peace discussions. In that story it talked about one of the conditions would be that they would have to talk -- North Korea would have to sort of talk about the nuclear program as one of the conditions. But that would not be mandated ahead of time that they would agree to dismantle program. Would you comment on that -- how serious were these discussions? And was that a shift in the administration's sort of thinking on North Korea? Did you feel that there was an opportunity there? Or was this sort of overblown? 14:10:33 EARNEST: I would say that the -- well, let me just acknowledge, I'm probably going talk about this a little bit more than I otherwise would have. You would not expect that secret diplomatic discussions would be discussed publicly, but I will do so to help you understand that those discussions were entirely consistent with the long-standing policy that the Obama's administration has put forward. There was interest expressed by the North Koreans in discussing a peace treaty. We considered their proposal, but also made clear that denuclearization had to be part of any discussion. And the truth is the North Koreans rejected that response. So, as long as there is an insistence on the part of the North Koreans to a nuclear stockpile, it's going to be very difficult for us to resolve our differences. And the reason for that is not just because of the preferences of the United States. The reason for that is because of the view expressed by our allies, with South Korea and Japan, but also because of the comments of people like the leader of China. President Xi made clear that the Chinese government would not tolerate a nuclearized Korean peninsula. And that denuclearization is a goal shared not just by United States and our allies, but by the players throughout the region. And that is --but North Korea's insistence on preserving their nuclear stockpile and attempting to develop it further is what has led to their extreme isolation. Their continued provocative actions, including additional nuclear test or additional launches to test missile technology will only lead to further steps that isolate them further. And that will include unilateral steps by the United States. You saw that the United States' Congress has passed legislation to impose additional sanctions against North Korea, and there are ongoing discussions at the U.N. among the United States and China and other players in the region about imposing additional costs on the North Koreans for their continued provocative acts. QUESTION: Can you tell me more -- this initiated discussion by North Korea through the U.N. is something that happened before in any way under this current leader, Kim Jung-un and, you know, in a similar fashion in any way over the last two or three years? Or was this something that came out of the blue? What precipitated it? 14:13:14 EARNEST: I'll see if we can get you some additional information about what led to these talks, if anything. But that may be a little harder to describe to you. But let me take a look and see if there is additional information can provide. OK? John. 14:13:39 JOHN PARKINSON QUESTION: So the president has said a couple times that he strongly doubts that Donald Trump will be president this time next year. After South Carolina over the weekend, did the president have any further reaction to Trump's candidacy? EARNEST: Well, I think the president has pointedly avoided handicapping the Republican race. I don't think he's willing to make any predictions about who the Republican nominee may be. But he certainly stands by his conviction about Mr. Trump's chances in the general election. JOHN PARKINSON QUESTION: Did he have any reaction to Jeb Bush dropping out of the race? EARNEST: Not that I'm aware of. JOHN PARKINSON QUESTION: And also, just going back to the Supreme Court nominees, just flipping through the binder -- I know you can't really talk about the number 9 to 10 or however close we are. But can you characterize (inaudible) the slate of potential candidates, what sort of positions they hold, whether they're senators, any lawmakers, elected officials, judges, vice president, anything like that? EARNEST: Well, that's a good question. It is a risky proposition for me to begin to describe even generally the kinds of qualifications of individuals that the president may be considering just because we want to try to protect the president's ability to make this process without -- at least without undue public influence. EARNEST: But certainly the president will be mindful of the promise that he has made to appoint somebody with indisputable qualifications, and somebody who he continues to be confident can serve the American people at the Supreme Court with distinction. I think the one thing I would say is this, is that there are a variety of ways that you can demonstrate that capacity, and it doesn't necessarily mean being a judge. And again, that was true with Justice Kagan, somebody who had represented the American people before the Supreme Court as solicitor general. She had also worked in academia and also worked in the Clinton administration. So she demonstrated a variety of skills that made clear she is somebody who has and will continue to serve with distinction on the Supreme Court. And she did that without having a track record as a judge. Now Justice Sotomayor obviously had a different set of qualifications, and in some ways it's because of her distinguished service on the bench that she was able to demonstrate that she would be a good Supreme Court justice. So that's why it's hard for me to describe to you exactly what kind of experience the president is looking for because the president believes that there are a variety of experiences that you can bring to this job that would demonstrate your capacity to serve the American people with distinction on the Supreme Court. JOHN PARKINSON QUESTION: Is it fair then, though, to say that at least this potential slate does include people that are not a part of the judicial branch? 14:16:26 EARNEST: I wouldn't characterize any further the people who may be under consideration. Julie. QUESTION: Thank you. Just following up on that, has the threat from Republicans that they might not even consider the president's nominee shaped his deliberations so far, or his team, in terms of who they are thinking about would be an appropriate nominee to put forward? That is to say, is it possible that the person won't even be considered, let alone confirmed, does that then affect his thinking about who he should nominate? 14:17:02 EARNEST: I'll tell you that it hasn't thus far, and I don't expect that it will. I think the president believes that he has a responsibility, a constitutional duty to appoint the best person in the United States for the job. That's why he will -- he will cast a wide net, he will consider individuals with a range of experiences, but ultimately he is focused on setting aside politics, focusing on his responsibility and appointed the best person for the job. We are hopeful that in this way the president can lead by example and that Congress will do the same, that they will find the courage to set aside politics, to focus on their constitutional responsibility and give this individual a fair hearing and a timely yes or no vote. QUESTION: (inaudible) someone who might sort of languish out there for at least a month, or maybe until next year. EARNEST: Well, again, ultimately that will be up to the United States Senate. The president's responsibility is to nominate the best person for the job, and I'm confident that that's what he'll do. QUESTION: Just one more on Syria. Last week the outgoing foreign minister of France criticized (inaudible) harshly for making the redline comment, and then not going through an airstrike for 2013. He has obviously faced a lot of criticism both here and abroad about, you know, his approach to Syria, ambiguity there. I guess the accusation is that, you know, it gives harm to American credibility, and now we are in a position in Syria where there are no good options and we don't have any credibility left. I'm just wondering how you respond to that, how you think the president sees that, and whether that is having -- playing a role here in the situation we find ourselves in now, where, as you said before, sort of crossing your fingers that the cessation of hostilities, understanding is that it go forward but you understand that there's a big risk that it won't be able to be implemented. 14:18:54 EARNEST: Well, listen, anybody who has suggested that there were good options in 2013, or even 2011 for that matter, when it came to resolving the situation inside of Syria I think may not be well acquainted with history. The fact is that the situation in Syria has been very difficult from the get-go, and what the president has done is to assert American leadership in a way that has enhanced our national security. After all, it's the president who built and is now leading a 66-member coalition to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL. That includes taking military action against leading ISIL targets in Syria. When it comes to the diplomatic track and arriving at the kind of political solution that everyone says will be necessary to resolve the situation inside of Syria, it's the perseverance and tenacity of the American secretary of state, who continues to push for the kind of opportunity that has now materialized. So I think at every step of the way you see the United States leading the effort to try to solve what everybody acknowledges is an unwieldy problem, with tragic global consequences. That's the expectation that people in the United States and around the world have for the president of the United States, and those are expectations that this president hasn't just met. He's exceeded them. April. QUESTION: Josh, two different issues. One, I was in South Carolina over the weekend and I heard -- EARNEST: Just for vacation? QUESTION: (inaudible). It' something called a presidential contest down there. So many of the people that I happen to encounter __ are still saying __ fired up and ready to go, something President Obama used but he did not want to (inaudible) at the time. What is his hope for South Carolina and other states that really showed up for him when it comes to the black vote? That's going to be the first state that really has a pressing black vote in this election cycle. EARNEST: Well, the fired up to go -- fired up, ready to go phrase is one that the president heard for the first time in South Carolina when he was campaigning there in 2007. And it became a rallying cry for his supporters throughout the campaign, and even during his reelection campaign. I think that is a testament to the impact that the people of South Carolina had on this president's campaign back in 2008. Those of us who were there the night of the 2008 primary, it was in late January during that cycle, that was a historic night, and it felt like a big night, that you saw significant turnout from African- American voters and you saw an African-American candidate get unexpected support from white voters in South Carolina. Even though he was running against then-Senator Clinton, who obviously had a deep history in that state. And people often forget that the other candidate in that race at the time, who loomed large, was actually born in the state of South Carolina. John Edwards talked a lot about how his ties to that state dated back to his birth. And even in that environment and even in that crowded field, the fact that President Obama could perform so well there made the primary victory in South Carolina in January of 2008 a memorable night. One of the reasons that the Democratic National Committee continues to support having the South Carolina primary early in the process is it is an opportunity for the diversity of the Democratic electorate to be on display. Certainly the first two states, in Iowa and New Hampshire, are, even on the Democratic side, are overwhelmingly populated by white voters, but including Nevada, you get a significant segment of Hispanic voters, and obviously in South Carolina you have a large group of African-American voters. It's a way that the DNC can demonstrate a commitment to giving the wide variety of voices in the Democratic Party an early opportunity to weigh in on who the Democratic nominee should be. So this is an important part of the process, and obviously Saturday I think will be a similarly important night for the two Democratic candidates. QUESTION: How is he getting the results? I mean, the race is tied, and I'm sure I'm sure he's about as interested in this one as he was in his own. But how is he getting results... EARNEST: Yes. QUESTION: How is he getting the results in this, how is he following it? EARNEST: Well, the president is -- the president is following the coverage just like all of you are. Obviously he gets -- obviously there's plenty of covers to see. All of you are dedicating significant resources to cover that race, and the president has benefited from that in the way the rest of us have. But it's also not unusual for the president to have other conversations, whether it is with David Siemis, his political director or, you know -- I certainly wouldn't rule out that even the president might have had a couple of political discussions last night when he was dining with the governors here at the White House. This is a race that has a lot of interest among people who are interested in politics, and the president has a variety of opportunities to have those kinds of discussions. QUESTION: And lastly, since our colleague is so great at using the microscopic lens to find those tabs, is there a diversity amongst those tabs? EARNEST: Well, again, I'm not going to characterize the group of individuals that the president is considering, but he did direct his team to cast a wide net. He wants to make sure that we are choosing the very best person in America to fill this job. QUESTION: Is there a woman on the list? EARNEST: Again, I'm not going to characterize the list, but if you are casting that wide of a net, it seems hard to imagine that there wouldn't be a woman included. QUESTION: You've (inaudible) a minority in there since the net is broad? EARNEST: Yes. Well, I'm going to stop there. But again, it's a -- it's a wide net. Alright? Angela? QUESTION: Thanks, Josh. I wanted to kind of clarify your answer to Sarah's question on the Gitmo plan. EARNEST: OK. QUESTION: Is that coming tomorrow? EARNEST: I know the Department of Defense has said that, but I don't have any update for you in terms of -- I don't have any guidance to share with you in terms of timing. But obviously, the Department of Defense has been working on this plan. They are trying to beat a congressional deadline that's in place for tomorrow. So they can give you the best assessment of when to expect that plan. The thing that I will tell you is that when that plan is presented to Congress, we'll make sure that all of you have an opportunity to see it as well. QUESTION: Will we hear the president talk about it at all (inaudible)? EARNEST: At this point, it's -- it's too early to say exactly what -- what kinds of comments the president will have when the plan is presented, but we'll certainly keep you posted. QUESTION: A new topic for today. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a speech earlier today that he is sympathetic, I think those were his words, with Apple's position on whether to allow access to the San Bernardino terrorists' phone. The president obviously has spent a lot of time (inaudible) and trying to get them to work with the administration on security issues. Now, to have a second company lining up on the other side of the FBI (inaudible), is that a concern that the president tried to do -- want to try to do more on that front? EARNEST: Well, I think -- look. We've been pretty clear about what our -- I think we've actually been quite clear about what our position is here. The administration believes, and the president has said this personally, the administration believes that the American people benefit from robust encryption that protects their privacy and civil liberties. That, as a policy question, that is a protection that's worth supporting. At the same time, our law enforcement and national security professionals have an obligation to keep us safe and to do what they can to keep us safe. And in this situation, as it relates to the phone that was used by the terrorists in San Bernardino, we're talking a phone -- we're talking about a phone that was owned not by the terrorist, but by the local government. The terrorist is no longer living and the need to extract as much information as possible to learn as much as we can about that incident is something that our law enforcement officials have concluded is a priority. So as they carry out this ongoing, independent investigation into this terrorists act, they're going to do everything they can to keep the American people safe and learn as much as they can about this incident and this individual to keep us safe. However, they're also going to follow standard procedure and they're going to follow the law. That's how this ended up in the courts in the first place and it is a judge who evaluated the arguments that were made by Apple and evaluated the arguments that were made by the FBI and came down in favor of our law enforcement. And look, Director Comey, I think, said this pretty eloquently in a blog that he posted overnight, that the case that we're making is not that the FBI should determine what access they should have to that information, but it also shouldn't be private sector company that's trying to sell stuff that decides that question. That's the reason that we have courts and that's the reason that we have a process and that's why -- that's the reason that we have an opportunity for both sides to weigh in in front of a judge, but to advocate for one side or another. The last thing I'll say about this is that the request that the FBI has put forward is one that is quite limited in scope. It doesn't require Apple to redesign a product or to create some sort of new back door. And I think that's why it is an effective way for the FBI to follow their regular procedure as they conduct this independent investigation, but also stay true to the kind of -- kinds of principles that the president has discussed publicly about the need for robust encryption methods. QUESTION: Given that he just sent a whole bunch of top administration officials to Silicon Valley to meet with these companies and ask for their help, in general, not in this specific case, is the president (inaudible) that's not turning out the way he (inaudible) at this moment? 14:29:48 EARNEST: No, because I don't think this -- this difference of opinion is particularly surprising to anybody who's been covering this issue. I think what we're going to continue to try to do -- and the goal of the meeting, by the way, was one that was focused on trying to ensure more effective cooperation and coordination between social media companies and law enforcement. It did not necessarily focus on encryption. There are plenty of other things social that media companies and technology companies can do that don't undermine in anyway, even based on their definition, anybody's privacy. These are things like being aware of a particular social media platforms that are used to try to recruit potential terrorists. Those technology companies have no interest in their tools being used to recruit terrorists that harm or kill innocent people. That's an area where we certainly can find common ground with technology companies and we're going to continue to work with them to do that. That's just one example. This is a template that was followed by law enforcement technology companies when trying to fight child pornography. So there's an opportunity for us to try to find some common ground and work together in a way that enhances the safety and security not just of customers of technology companies, but of the American citizen that rightfully expect that their law enforcement professionals are protecting them. QUESTION: (inaudible) suggested that it would be a good idea to have congressional group committee, whatever, take a look at privacy issues when it comes to access to (inaudible). Is this the White House (inaudible) to Congress to evaluate would be a good idea? EARNEST: Well, I haven't seen a clear description of what exactly they have in mind. Again, I'll just remake the observation that I have made in a variety of other settings, that sending complicated things to Congress is often not the surest way to get a quick answer. In fact, even asking some of the most basic questions of Congress sometimes does not ensure a quick answer. But look, there is also a responsibility that Congress has here to weigh in and to help the American people protect themselves from cyber-threats. The president included in his budget a substantial investment in upgrading cyber-security, not just of the government, but also for private sector and for individual citizens. And again, we saw the Republicans in Congress refuse to even discuss that budget proposal with the president's budget director. So, you know, I do not know if Apple would receive the same kind of reception on Capitol Hill, but I think it's a pretty clear indication that Congress is not particularly interested in discussing that issue. Phylicia, I'll give you the last one. QUESTION: Thank you. Recently released e-mails show Hillary Clinton appear to be directly involved in the State Department -- in selecting, or trying to select State Department inspector general. Why didn't the White House put forward the candidate that she and her staff (inaudible). EARNEST: I didn't see those specific e-mails. What I can tell you is that the appointment of independent inspectors general is something that this administration has taken quite seriously, and I think we have seen at the State Department that they have an office of the inspector general that's been pretty robust and been pretty prolific in terms of making sure that they're looking out for the interests of the American people and the American taxpayers, and that they're providing independent assessment of that. And -- but I don't have information about that personnel search. QUESTION: (inaudible) does the White House think it's appropriate that a department head would weigh in on the selection of inspector general? Is that a common practice? EARNEST: I guess I can't really speak to how that process usually works. I think the first thing I'd point out is it sounds like, based on just what you've told me, that the individual that she weighed in in support is not the person that was elected. Even if it had been, the person would only have been selected by the administration and appointed by the president. If there was strong confidence that that individual could effectively do their work independent of the agency, and certainly independent of any sort of outside influence, that's a requirement for the job and that certainly has been a requirement for the job as the president has worked to appoint people to fill those kinds of positions. OK? All right. Go ahead, Mark. QUESTION: The Putin phone call was this morning? EARNEST: Yes. It occurred this morning, and again it was a call that was placed at President Putin's request and it was to discuss this arrangement that's been finalized for a cessation of hostilities. QUESTION: Do you know how long it lasted? EARNEST: I don't know how long it lasted, but we will see if we can get you that information. QUESTION: OK. Any chance of another binder photo op today? EARNEST: Not that I'm aware of but we'll keep you posted. Keep you on standby. 14:35:20 All right, everybody. We'll see you tomorrow.

1230 WH OHIO REMARKS FS23 73 1430 WH OHIO REMARKS FS23 77 CNN POOL HEADON PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP SPEECH IN RICHFIELD, OHIO ON INFRASTRUCTURE. STIX. 14:05:31 IVANKA TRUMP STANDING WITH GROUP OF MEN INCLUDING REINCE PRIEBUS, ELAINE CHAO AND TIFFANY TRUMP. 14:07:26 DONALD TRUMP WALKS OUT ON STAGE. TRUMP: What a group. Remember, you can't win unless you win the state of Ohio, right? You can't. (APPLAUSE) I'm thrilled to be back in Ohio, and I'm proud to be here with the incredible carpenters, laborers, all of the members of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 18, I appreciate all of you. Your support has been amazing. Your support has been so great... (APPLAUSE) 14:08:27... right from the beginning. And each of you is living proof that American workers are truly the best in the world, right? The best. (APPLAUSE) Rick Dalton and Mike Totman, thank you very much for hosting this. Where are you guys? Where are they? Where are you? Thank you, fellas. Nice looking guys. Nice looking guys. (APPLAUSE) We're also pleased to be joined by two members of my Cabinet, Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao and Secretary of Labor Alex Acosta. (APPLAUSE) They've done a fantastic job. 14:09:11 We're especially happy to have some of our great Ohio leaders with us today: Lieutenant Governor Mary Taylor. Mary? (APPLAUSE) State Auditor Dave Yost. (APPLAUSE) Thank you. Congressmen Bob Gibbs, Bill Johnson and Jim Renacci. Good, great people. (APPLAUSE) Thank you. Good, great people. They're tough congressmen, I will tell you that, but they're -- they're for the workers, right? They're for the workers. They're for the country, I'll tell you that. They are for the country. 14:09:59 Joined by our friends here in Ohio, my administration is fighting every day to protect and defend and grow American jobs. And you see what's happening all over the country -- it's in Ohio, but it's all over the country -- pouring back, plants and factories, pouring back into our country. They can't come back fast enough. Even if you look, Apple could invest $350 billion. When I heard $350 billion, I said, "You must mean $350 million." That's still a big plant. But they're going to be investing $350 billion. So many others coming back with massive amounts of money. They all want to be back in the USA. A lot of them left. They're coming back. We've eliminated a record number of job-killing regulations. That's one of the reasons they're coming back. (APPLAUSE) 14:10:55 And we're not finished yet. In some cases, you have statutory limitations, where you have to go 30 days and wait, and then you have to go 90 days and wait, and then you have to go 15 days and wait, and then you go 90 days again, and then, you know what happens? We killed the regulation. And it's a thing of beauty. And we have filled out every form, every legal application, and we still actually have a long way to go on regulation. TRUMP: And we're going to have regulations. You need regulations for safety and for the environment, but not where you couldn't do anything, you couldn't move. So I think that's been a big, big success and a reason for our success. And we've made history by massively reducing job-killing taxes. (APPLAUSE) And we didn't have one Democrat who voted for that. They want to raise your taxes. And they want people to come in from the border. And they want, I guess want -- I can't imagine they want -- but certainly drugs are flowing across borders. We need walls. We started building our wall, I'm so proud of it. We started -- we started... (APPLAUSE) We have $1.6 billion. 14:12:17 And we've already started -- you saw the pictures yesterday, I said what a thing of beauty. And on September 28th, we go further and we're getting that sucker built. And you think that's easy? People said has, "Oh, has he given up on the" -- no, I never give up. We have $1.6 billion toward the wall. And we've done the planning, and you saw those beautiful pictures. And the wall looks good. It's properly designed. That's what I do, is I build. 14:12:45 I was always very good at building. It was always my best thing. I think better than being president, I was maybe good at building, like you people. You're good at building. (APPLAUSE) I think maybe we'll be better at president, David (ph), that would be -- that would be good. But we are building a -- a really state-of-the-art, very, very efficient -- have to be able to see through; makes a lot of sense. You have to be able to see who's on the other side. No -- nobody would even think of it. We've done prototypes all over and we have something special happening. We've reversed the dangerous defense cuts, and we're giving our warfighters the tools, funding and equipment they need to fight and to win. (APPLAUSE) We have -- we have really -- we're building up our military to the highest level it's ever been, and it was not in good shape. But it's now going to be very soon the highest level it's ever been. And by the way, that means jobs, too. That's -- defense, always number one. Defense is number one. (APPLAUSE) Even you job folks would say defense is number one. 14:14:04 But it's a lot of jobs, millions of jobs. We've unleashed American energy independence. Energy exports are at a record high, and foreign imports are at their lowest level in much more than a decade. 14:14:22 We've stood up for the American workers by finally cracking down on unfair trade that steals our jobs and plunders our wealth. They've stolen our wealth. They've stolen our jobs. They've stolen our plants and factories. No more. We're not letting other countries take advantage of us. Even our friends took advantage -- our friends are friends, they're wonderful people. But we said, "You can't do that anymore. Those days are over." 14:14:50 Frankly, our friends did more damage to us than our enemies. Because we didn't deal with our enemies, we dealt with our friends, and we dealt incompetently. Because we're now finally putting America first. America first. (APPLAUSE) TRUMP: Right? Just this week, we secured a wonderful deal with South Korea. We were in a deal that was a horror show. It was going to produce 200,000 jobs. And it did -- for them. (LAUGHTER) That was a Hillary Clinton special, I hate to say. "This will produce 200,000 jobs." She was right. But it was for them, it wasn't for us. So we've redone it, and that's going to level the playing field on steel and cars and trucks coming into this country. (APPLAUSE) 14:15:53 And I may hold it up 'til after a deal is made with North Korea. Does everybody understand that? You know why, right? You know why? Because it's a very strong card. And I want to make sure everyone is treated fairly. And we're moving along very nicely with North Korea. We'll see what happens. Certainly, the rhetoric has calmed down just a little bit, wouldn't you say? (APPLAUSE) Wouldn't you say? (APPLAUSE) And we'll see how it all turns out. Maybe it'll be good and maybe it won't. And if it's no good, we're walking. And if it's good, we will embrace it. But it's going to be very interesting over the next period of time. And South Korea has been wonderful. But we'll probably hold that deal up for a little while, see how it all plays out. We're keeping our promises and the results are in: 14:16:52 3 million new jobs since Election Day. (APPLAUSE) Three million. (APPLAUSE) And if I would have said that to you during the campaign, where we had tremendous support in this great state -- the state of Ohio -- if I would have said, "Three million jobs," they would have said -- the fake news -- "He's exaggerating." (LAUGHTER) Oh, they're fake. Unemployment claims are at their lowest level in 45 years. Lowest level. Forty-five years. (APPLAUSE) African-American unemployment has reached the lowest levels ever recorded. Remember? (APPLAUSE) Remember? I said, "What do you have to lose? What do you have to lose?" And I'm so happy about that. Hispanic-American unemployment rate has also reached the lowest levels ever recorded. (APPLAUSE) And wages are rising at the fastest level in more than a decade. You're -- finally. Nineteen years, 21 years. People were making -- last year, were making less money than they made 20 years ago. Now wages are rising because more jobs are happening. And very important, just like we're going to have choice at the V.A., we're going to have choice for these great people, you could also have choice with jobs. You're going to have choice with jobs. (APPLAUSE) Our veterans are going to have choice. And you're going to have choice with jobs. (APPLAUSE) 14:18:51 And now, with our friends in Ohio, we're launching the next phase of America's economic comeback. We're going to rebuild America's crumbling infrastructure. Now, we're going to probably... (APPLAUSE) 14:19:11 TRUMP: We have a very important election coming up, and they don't like the wins we've been getting. They don't like that the economy -- the Democrats -- they don't like that the economy is so strong. They don't like that they don't have one vote on the tax cuts. Not one vote. And they're all now saying, "You know, those tax cuts are tough." What they're saying to each other is not pretty, if you're a Democrat. And we should do well. History says that when you win the presidency, that party doesn't do so well in the midterms because people get complacent. They get complacent. We cannot be complacent. We've got the greatest economy maybe ever, maybe in history. We have the greatest economy we've ever had. You know the expression, from -- I guess, it was Bill Clinton -- it's the economy, stupid. Well, it is the economy. If we have produced in a short period of time -- because, believe me, if our party -- if we, all together -- it's "we" -- if we didn't win, this economy would be a wreck. They would have added more regulations. You wouldn't have 3 million jobs, you'd probably go negative. 14:20:21 Your 3.2 GDPs and 3, and 2.9 would have down -- would have been below -- in my opinion, would have been below 1. This country was headed in the wrong direction. We can't lose that by getting hurt in the midterms. So we can't be complacent. There's never been an economy like this. Everyone says it's the most important thing. And I don't know that it is or that it isn't, but politically they always say it's the most important thing. We cannot let anything happen to stop what we're doing and where we're going. And all of the workers and all of the jobs, we want to keep them. And we want to protect our Second Amendment. You saw the other day, where a very important... (APPLAUSE) 14:21:15 ... Where a very important and respected, in some circles, Democrat said we want to get rid -- we should get rid of our Second Amendment. In other words, get rid of it. That's really -- it's... AUDIENCE: Tyranny! TRUMP: It's tyranny (ph) -- could be right about that. So, we're going to protect our Second Amendment. That's not going to happen. We have the best judges. We put on a tremendous amount of great federal district court judges. We'll be setting records -- we are setting records, appeals court judges. A supreme court judge -- fantastic -- Justice Gorsuch. (LAUGHTER) But your Second Amendment will always be your Second Amendment. We're not doing anything to that. (APPLAUSE) Not doing anything. We will breathe new life into your very run-down highways, railways and waterways. We'll transform our roads and bridges from a source of endless frustration into a source of absolutely incredible pride. And we're going to do it all under budget and ahead of schedule. You ever hear those words in the public world? (APPLAUSE) Under budget and ahead of schedule. And, you know, one of the things -- and I just want to go on a little detour for a second. One of the things that wasn't mentioned by the folks in the back that we got recently in the bill was school safety. And we've got -- we -- the STOP School Violence Act was passed. That's the Sandy Hook people, the great people of Sandy Hook. They wanted it so badly. That was done. We fixed, very strongly, the background checks. TRUMP: We got rid of the bump stocks. The bump stocks, now, are under very strict control, which -- I think everybody agrees it's fine. And we really did a job -- nobody reported it -- doesn't get reported. If somebody else does it, it's like a big story. But it didn't. And, you know, fixing the background checks was so important, and it's a very, very strong fix of background checks. So I wanted to add that, while we talk about infrastructure, while we talk about school safety -- so important. But, while we talk about all these other things, that was part of what we got approved. And another part, so important for Ohio, because I know you have a -- a bigger problem than most, is opioids and drugs. We got $6 billion that nobody talked about, $6 billion -- $6 billion to fight the opioid problem and the drug problem, so it's another thing. (APPLAUSE) 14:24:14 And we got the down payment -- $1.6 billion on the wall, and we got a lot of other things. Frankly, if we had more Republican votes, we wouldn't have had to give away what we gave away, which many of the people in this room, including me, don't like, because it was a waste in many cases. But the Democrats want things. They don't want to focus on crime and borders, people pouring into our country, many of whom are not the people we want to come in. We want a merit-based immigration system. We want people to come in on merit, not based on a lottery, you pick a ticket. (APPLAUSE) 14:24:57 So there's no better place to begin the campaign of infrastructure than right here in Ohio, at the state-of-the-art training site -- they've done a fantastic job right in this building -- where the awesome skills of the American worker... (APPLAUSE) ... are forged and refined. It's true. I've been in construction and building all my life. I love it. I love the smell of a construction site, right? There's just something about it. 14:25:29 And, you know, we didn't always get -- although, in this case, we did nicely -- but we didn't always get the union leadership of the big unions. But we got the workers. We got the workers. And some of those leaders had big problems because the workers were with Trump. Because they know I hired the Teamsters, thousands of Teamsters. And I hired all of the carpenters and electricians and all of the people that built a lot of buildings in Manhattan and all over the place. And they got it. The workers got it. And now I think the leadership is actually getting it. I really believe that. I think the leadership is getting it. (APPLAUSE) Because you're going to have a great friend, and now I've proven. You know, before, I used to say, "You're going to have a friend," 14:26:09 but now I've proven you've got a friend in the White House. That's why we're building all of these projects. (APPLAUSE) So many of these projects, which were just dead, dead projects, like the Keystone Pipeline -- it was dead. It wasn't going anywhere. Hillary wasn't going to approve it. Nobody was -- it was a dead project. I got in almost, like -- right at the beginning, I approved that Keystone XL Pipeline. And I approved the Dakota Access Pipeline -- both of them: 48,000 jobs, environmentally great -- this is like -- it was nothing. It was quick. It was easy. And it was done, and it was done properly. And they'll be flowing in, and that's better than trucking over the roads. That's better than any other way. And it wasn't going to get approved. There was so many jobs like that. You know those two because they were getting a lot of attention. You know the amazing thing? I approved them. I thought -- would have, like, some commotion, right? 14:27:14 TRUMP: Some commotion, like some protest -- nobody. I approved it. The pickets -- they picked up their stuff, and they left, and it was the end of it. They left a mess, I have to tell you. You know about the mess. (APPLAUSE) Became an environmental wasteland, what they left. You know about that. But I approved it, and they left. We did that on a lot of things, whether it's Jerusalem, where we approved Jerusalem -- that was a big thing. (APPLAUSE) Every politician was in support, and then they became president, and guess what? All of a sudden, it was, "Jerusalem? I don't know anything about Jerusalem." They didn't want to know about it. Well, I fulfilled my campaign promises. And I have to tell you, I believe -- and a couple of people have said it, and it's very early yet. You know, we're only into about 15 months, but I think I've approved much more than I've promised, and no politician -- I -- really, I have gotten done much more than I promised. I promised certain things. We've done a lot of things that I didn't even promise, because I figured it couldn't happen. 14:28:25 And now, with so many of our great secretaries and leaders, we're doing incredible things on health care, because Obamacare is a disaster. We got rid of the -- as you know, the individual mandate, which forced you to spend money for the privilege of not having to pay for health insurance, OK? You figure that one out. It's gone, folks. It's gone. (APPLAUSE) 14:28:56 Gone. And Alex Acosta, secretary of labor, is doing an incredible -- credible plan for co-ops and for various different elements where you go in and you get together as a group and you're going to get incredible health care, highly bid -- highly bid. You're going to get so many different bids from -- and you're going to have great health care at a very, very low price. It's going to be a lot of people signing up, and that's going to be out over the next couple of months, Alex, right? You've been working on it, and it's going to come out. Nobody even thought of it. Co-ops and all sorts of people -- they're going to get together and they're going to buy their health care together and it's going to be so inexpensive. It's a thing of beauty. That's going to be a big percentage of Obamacare -- a big percentage. (APPLAUSE) And we have other things. We have other things. 14:29:49 Nearly 40 percent of our bridges were built before -- think of this -- before the first moon landing. You know, you go to some countries, they're building bridges all over the place. All over, you have bridges going up. One particular country -- I won't use it, because they're very friendly to me. They weren't friendly to us as a nation, but now they're friendly to me -- they're building 29 bridges. We don't build bridges, like, very much anymore. A little bit, every once in a while. But our roads are clogged. We have -- average drivers spend 42 hours every year stuck in traffic, costing us at least $160 billion annually. Our mass transit systems are a mess. They're dilapidated and they're decayed. Nationwide, we average 300 power outages per year, compared to just five per year in the 1980s -- a total mess. 14:30:47 And a lot of it is because some of these power companies -- they have the money. They have the wherewithal. They couldn't get their approvals. They couldn't get their permits. For years, and years, and years, they're trying to get permits. Now, they get them really fast. Now, they're getting them so fast. One man told me, "What the hell happened? We've been fighting for years. All of a sudden, I got a call. We just were approved. We didn't even try." TRUMP: And some consultants are going to be making a lot of money. They're going to say, "Sir, we need $2 million for the great job we did on getting you approved." They didn't do a damn thing... (LAUGHTER) ... except Trump got elected. That's about all. (APPLAUSE) That's about all. 14:31:33 How about I tell this, because, you know, being a builder, we can all talk as friends. We're all builders in this room. Look at these people back there. You better believe they're builders. (APPLAUSE) They're builders -- no game. When I tell the story about Keystone, where, years and years -- you've (ph) watched it -- years and years, they spent hundreds of millions of dollars. They were even ordering their pipe. Everything's going great, they're going to build. It's years, but they're happy. They don't get approved. They spend billions on pipe. They ordered the pipe and they're not getting approved. So, anyway -- so that was dead for a couple of years, and no chance. I get elected, I approve it almost, like, in the first day, right at the very beginning. And I just say to myself, 14:32:24 can you imagine the boss of whatever the hell company it is, who never actually called me to say thank you, but that's OK... (LAUGHTER) ... we'll remember. So, this guy sitting behind -- this beautiful chair in a certain place -- I know exactly where -- nice place, big company -- and the consultants march into his office to tell him what a great job they did. They were dead. They had no chance, they failed. I got it approved. And I did it because it's 48,000 jobs between the two of them. And I did it because it's also better. It's better. (APPLAUSE) 14:33:03 "Sir, I believe we're entitled to a $10 million fee for that." Those people -- and they're probably Democrats. Can you believe it? (LAUGHTER) Probably not for long, however. In recent years, Americans have watched as Washington spent trillions and trillions of dollars building up foreign countries while allowing our country's infrastructure to fall into a state of total disrepair. 14:33:33 Look at Korea. We have a border in Korea. We have a wall of soldiers. We don't get paid very much for this, do we? We have -- you look at that -- nobody comes through. But our own border -- we don't take care of it. Think of it. 14:34:06 We spend billions of dollars in other countries, maintaining their borders, and we can't maintain our borders in our own country. Is there something a little bit wrong with that? Think of it. We spend billions and billions of dollars. Look, North and South Korea, 32,000 soldiers, the finest equipment, barbed wire all over the place. We protect that whole thing. Nobody comes through. But our country -- we don't do it. Things are changing, folks. But now is the time to rebuild our country, to take care of our people and to fight for our great American workers for a change. (APPLAUSE) We spent -- and I was against it from the beginning. They try and say "Well, maybe not." I was against it from the beginning -- 14:34:46 AND, BY THE WAY, WE'RE KNOCKING THE HELL OUT OF ISIS. WE'LL BE COMING OUT OF SYRIA, LIKE, VERY SOON. LET THE OTHER PEOPLE TAKE OF IT NOW. (APPLAUSE) 14:35:02 VERY SOON -- VERY SOON WE'RE COMING OUT. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE 100 PERCENT OF THE CALIPHATE, AS THEY CALL IT -- SOMETIMES REFERRED TO AS "LAND" -- TAKING IT ALL BACK QUICKLY, QUICKLY. TRUMP: BUT WE'RE GOING TO BE COMING OUT OF THERE REAL SOON. GOING TO GET BACK TO OUR COUNTRY, WHERE WE BELONG, WHERE WE WANT TO BE. But just think of it, we spent, as of three months ago, $7 trillion -- not billion, not million -- $7 trillion with a "t" -- nobody ever heard of the word "trillion" until 10 years ago -- we spent $7 trillion in the Middle East. We'd build a school, they'd blow it up. We'd build it again, they'd blow it up. We'd build it again -- hasn't been blown up yet, but it will be. 14:36:04 But, if we want a school in Ohio to fix the windows, you can't get the money. If you want a school in Pennsylvania or Iowa to get federal money, you can't get the money. We spent $7 trillion in the Middle East. And you know what we have for it? Nothing. Remember I used to say, "Keep the oil," as a civilian. I used to say -- did anybody hear me say that? That's before I decided to go on this journey with all of you. I got tired of watching. I used to say, "Keep the oil." We never kept the oil. If we kept the oil, we would have been OK. If we kept the oil, we wouldn't have ISIS. 14:36:35 Because you know who kept a lot of the oil? ISIS. That's how they funded themselves. They kept the oil. We didn't keep the oil. Stupid, stupid. 14:36:49 But we spent $7 trillion, but we barely have money for the infrastructure. We have to fight for our military. But we're becoming so strong again. And you watch -- not going to take very long. I've asked Republicans and Democrats in Congress to come together and deliver the biggest and boldest infrastructure plan in the last half century. I don't think you're going to get Democrat support very much. And you'll probably have to wait until after the election, which isn't so long down the road. But we're going to get this infrastructure going. The plan generates an unprecedented $1.5 trillion investment in American infrastructure. We probably have to wait until after the election. (APPLAUSE) Because the Democrats say, "Don't give him any more wins. Don't give him any more wins." Regulations, cut taxes, Supreme Court, judges all over the place. 14:37:50 You know, when I got in, we had over 100 federal judges that weren't appointed. I don't know why Obama left that. It was like a big, beautiful present to all of us. Why the hell did he leave that? (APPLAUSE) Maybe he got complacent. But now we have about 145 federal district judges. We have 17 court of appeals judges. And, as I said, we have the one Supreme Court judge. But think of 145 district judges. That's world-changing, country-changing, USA-changing. And we're going all out. We have unbelievably talented, smart, great people being put in those slots. But we were left a present. I never said this before. It was like the gift from heaven. We were left judges. They're the ones that judge on (ph) your disputes. They judge on what's fair on the environment and what's not fair, where they're going to take your farms and factories away and where they're not. Amazing. It was the gift. Thank you very much, President Obama. We all appreciate it. Thank you. (APPLAUSE) What happened? How did he do that? How did he do that? 14:39:11 TRUMP: We're going to be repairing roads, delivering clean water. And we're going to have crystal-clean water. We're going to have clean, beautiful air. But we're not going to pay a trillion dollars to be in the Paris Accord, where it puts us way back -- way back where we are put at such a tremendous disadvantage. That was a disaster for this country. We couldn't use the kind of assets that we have. We would have had to close up factories and companies in order to qualify. We would've had to pay large amounts of money to other countries because they were developing. As far as I'm concerned, we're developing. Pay us some money, right? Pay us. We're developing. (APPLAUSE) 14:40:06 Maybe we'll call it we're re-developing, cause we're re-developing. But it was unfair. We're going to be investing in our workers and improving our health care facilities for our incredible veterans. We're making some changes that are good. And we've made a lot of progress with the veterans, but I want to get them choice. And they didn't give us choice. The Democrats didn't want the vets to have choice. When the vets are on line, because there's a 25-day wait, there's a six-month wait -- guys are on line, and women -- they're vets. They're great. They're our greatest people. And they'll be -- they got a problem. And it could be fixed. By the time they see the doctor, it's over. It's over. Not going to happen. 14:40:55 We're going to have real choice. That's why I made some changes, because I wasn't happy with the speed with which our veterans were taken care of. I wasn't happy with it. And we made a lot of progress. The Accountability Act -- for years, they've been trying to get it, for decades, they've been trying to get V.A. accountability. When somebody does a bad job in the Veterans Administration, they couldn't do anything about it. They were protected. You could do anything. They had sadists that treated our vets horribly, horribly -- worse than a movie. They had people that wouldn't work, you couldn't do anything. 14:41:37 I had passed the V.A. Accountability -- they're accountable -- the Accountability Act. And now, when they're bad to our vets or when they're not working for our vets, we say, "Hey, Jim (ph), you're fired. Get out of here, Jim (ph), get out. Get out." That was a big deal. (APPLAUSE) That was a big deal. No accountability -- we got that passed. Nobody talks about it. They don't talk about it. They don't want to talk about it. But I'm doing that for the vets. And we made changes because we want them taken care of. We want them to have choice so that they can run to a private doctor and take care of it. And it's going to get done. Thank you, honey. It's going to get done. 14:42:27 We'll always protect the people that have protected us. We have to. And that goes for law enforcement. We're going to protect our law enforcement, our military, our vets. (APPLAUSE) Right? The plan I've outlined in Congress is built on four key principles. 14:42:49 It can be passed in one bill or in a series of measures. What matters is that we get the job done. First, we'll invest in the American worker. My Council of Economic Advisors estimates that our plan will create up to 400,000 new infrastructure jobs almost immediately. (APPLAUSE) 14:43:15 TRUMP: For workers without a college degree, these job offer wages that are 32 percent higher than other occupations. These are great people, great workers, and they're great-paying jobs. I also want more Americans to learn from the best, just like you have really learned -- the people in this room, so many of them -- you've learned from the best. Local 18's groundbreaking apprenticeship program... (APPLAUSE) ... true, true -- has become one of the largest anywhere in America. And we want to replicate your success all across the country. And we're studying exactly what you've done here. 14:44:04 That's why I'm asking Congress to improve federal student aid to include high-quality short-term training programs that equip Americans to succeed in construction and the skilled trades... (APPLAUSE) 14:44:27... a word that you don't hear much, but, when I was growing up, we had what was called vocational schools. They weren't called community colleges, because I don't know what that means, a community college. To me, it means a two-year college. I don't know what it means. But I know what vocational -- and I tell people, "Call it vocational from now on." It's a great word. It's a great word. Call it vocational and technical, perhaps, but use "vocational," because that's what it's all about. People know what that means. We don't know what a community college means. We want every American to know the dignity of work, the pride of a paycheck and the satisfaction of a job well done. (APPLAUSE) And, speaking of a job well done, we have two of my daughters here today. (APPLAUSE) 14:45:23 Ivanka, who is working hard on infrastructure -- Ivanka -- and Tiffany. America's greatest treasure is our people, and I saw that during the campaign. They came from everywhere. Remember, they said, "There's no way that Donald Trump can get the people." They had people that they didn't know existed. Now, the Democrats are trying to figure out who the hell you are. (LAUGHTER) You know who you are? You're hard-working people. You work your asses off, and you got sick and tired of the people that you were supposed to be voting for, and you stopped. But you came out for us, and you know what? Now, you're very happy, because this was a movement like they've never seen before. (APPLAUSE) They've never seen any movement like this. And I appreciate it. And you're going to appreciate it. You already do. Thank you. 14:46:26 We will completely transform the horrible and costly and broken permitting process. The current permitting system is a disaster -- takes forever. It adds tremendous cost and years and years of endless delay to infrastructure projects all across the country. As just one example of how broken the system is, Secretary Chao recently gave a final approval to an environmental review in Alaska that started all the way back in 1975. It's been going on for more than 40 years, and we just got it, right -- just got it. Elaine just got it. (APPLAUSE) TRUMP: In fact, the people of Alaska -- they couldn't believe it. They said, "we don't believe it." I said, "You got it." We'll get rid of the bureaucracy that wastes time and kills jobs. We had a highway in a certain wonderful state that was going to be a quick, easy road to build. That was 17 years ago. It was going to cost a very small amount of money -- couple of million dollars. It ends up costing close to $300 million. Got their approvals recently -- the road is no longer a straight shot. It's now -- not good if you're not feeling so good behind the wheel. Got to make another turn. They had to take care of all the nesting. It's cost a lot of money and took many years. It's out of control and we're going to stop that nonsense. We're going to stop it. (APPLAUSE) Under our plan, every project will have one point of contact that will deliver one decision, yes or no, for the entire federal government -- yes or no. You have to go through different agencies. You go through labor, you go through transportation, you go through another one, another one -- EPA, where we've really streamlined the system, where we have really made it possible for people to get things done. So many projects are under construction right now that would never, ever in a million years, have gotten built. And guess what? We also turn down projects if they're wrong. We know if they're wrong. They know if they're wrong. We turn down projects. But, if you get turned down, you get turned down quickly. You don't go along for 15 or 18 or 22 years. I mean, some people have spent an entire lifetime trying to get a project approved, and they don't get it approved, and their working career is, like, mostly over. That can't be a good feeling, right? How about that? Can't be a good feeling. 14:49:22 But, if you get turned down, we're going to say it. America built the Empire State Building in one year. Think of it -- one year. It was actually like nine months. Can you believe that? The tallest building in the world at the time -- now, it can take 10 years just to get permits to build a roadway, a tunnel, even, in some cases, a building. And that's an insult to America's great building heritage. And we will not accept it. And we're changing it rapidly. It's already been changed. We're going to do even better. I hope to get it down to a one-year period. We have a lot of them down to two years now. But it's from -- two years, from 20 and 18 and 15 and 12. But we're going to try getting it down even quicker. We're going to protect the environment and cut the permit approval time and we're going to get things done. We're going to get them built, or we're going to tell you, "No good for the environment. Sorry, don't bother." But, for the most part, it's going to happen. We're going to provide a $50 billion commitment to build infrastructure in rural communities, which are too often left behind. They've been forgotten. They've been forgotten. 14:50:37 We're going to spend a lot of money in the rural communities that have not been taken care of. And these are incredible people. These are hard-working people, and they haven't been taken care of by the Democrats. These funds will help ensure that every community is connected and has access to modern infrastructure, including broadband internet, which has been left out. (APPLAUSE) TRUMP: Very unfair. Fourth and finally, we'll expand the reach of federal dollars through smart state and local partnerships. We're going to have some really smart partnerships. Our plan calls for a new incentive program that provides billions of dollars in federal funding to projects in which states and local governments and the private sector are willing to invest their own resources, as well as the federal government. So there'll be an incentive to get things done and get things done properly and in the right location, and the right bridge or road or tunnel or whatever you are going to build. By combining federal tax dollars with the resources of state and local governments, and partnering with the private sector, this incentive program will kick-start funding needed to build new projects and repair existing ones. The first elements of this plan have already been put in place. We have made so much progress. It's not progress that you read about or hear about. Of course if it were, they wouldn't print it anyway. But that's OK. (LAUGHTER) They don't do that. I've signed an executive order to speed up permitting and to expand the rural broadband. We're cutting through mountains of red tape. We've secured more funding for highways, airports, railroads and our nation's water infrastructure. In addition to the $1.6 billion for the wall, we've got $21 billion approved for infrastructure in the current bill, that a lot of people don't hear about. We've obtained from Congress an additional $2 billion to improve veterans' medical facilities. That's everything they wanted. (APPLAUSE) $2 billion for the veterans. (APPLAUSE) 14:53:10 Congress now has the opportunity to build on this momentum, and to act on a common-sense plan that will make our economy stronger, our roads faster and our families safer. We want a safe country. We want safety. (APPLAUSE) 14:53:32 It's a plan for building a stronger America. For most of our history, American infrastructure was the envy of the world. True. Go back 30, 40, 50 years, they would look at us like -- now, we are like, in many cases, a Third World country. It's an embarrassment. And we're the ones that had the imagination and the drive to get it done. But we've got that again. Other nations marveled as we connected our shores with transcontinental railroads, and brought power to our cities that lit up the sky like no other place on Earth, and built mile after mile of internet capabilities and interstate highways, to carry American products all across the country and around the globe. Nobody did it like us. We dug out the Panama Canal. Think of that. Thousands of lives were lost to the mosquito, to the mosquito. Malaria. We dug out the Panama Canal. We transformed our skylines with towering works of concrete and steel, and laid the foundation for the modern economy. 14:54:53 To rebuild this nation, we must reclaim that proud heritage. Have to reclaim it. And we're on our way. (APPLAUSE) TRUMP: We must recapture the excitement of creation, the spirit of innovation and the spark of invention. We're starting. You saw the rocket the other day, you see what's going on with cars, you see what's going on with so much. NASA, space agency, all of a sudden it's back, you notice? It was dormant for many, many years. Now it's back. And we're trying to have the private sector invest the money; why the hell should we do it, right? Let them invest. If they want to send rocket ships up, they're rich, let them do it. When I looked at the rocket that went up three weeks ago, where the tanks came back -- nobody's ever seen. It looks like -- like "Star Wars." But I looked at it and I heard the cost, I think they said $85 million. If the government did that, you're talking about billions of dollars and maybe it wouldn't work so well. But I thought it was a fantastic thing. 14:56:08 But we're working with the private sector and NASA, and we're -- we're doing a great job. We've made so much progress in the last year. Don't forget, just been a little bit more than a year. But we've made so much progress. And other people are putting up a lot of money. They're using our facilities. I feel like a landlord again. (LAUGHTER) We're leasing them facilities. Not so bad, not a bad idea. And they're doing a great job. 14:56:35 America is a nation like you, of builders. It's a nation of pioneers, a nation that accepts no limits, no hardship and never, ever gives up. We don't give up. We don't give up. (APPLAUSE) We will tear down every obstacle, break down every barrier and stare down every challenge, because our hearts, they bleed red, white and blue, and we love our great American flag, don't we? (APPLAUSE) Right? Anything we can dream, you can build. 14:57:23 You will create the new highways, the new dams and skyscrapers that will become lasting monuments to American strength and continued greatness. You will forge new American steel into the spine of our country. You will cement the foundation of a glorious American future. And you will do it all with those beautiful American hands, powerful hands, powerful heart, and powerful American pride. (APPLAUSE) Right? Powerful American pride. 14:58:03 You are the ones who share our shaping and our destiny. You are the ones who are restoring our prosperity and our pride. You're restoring pride in this country again. Our country had very little pride. Look back, see what was happening. Our country had very little pride. 14:58:26 You look at what's going on in California, Orange County, they've had it. There's a revolution going on out there. Sanctuary cities, where they protect criminals, they protect murderers, they protect people that you don't want on the streets. Other places in California said we don't want that. First time they're speaking up. Even look at Roseanne. I called her yesterday. Look at her ratings, look at her ratings. (APPLAUSE) 14:58:58 I got a call from Mark Burnett, he did "The Apprentice." He's a great guy. But he said, "Donald, I called just to say hello and to tell you, did you see Roseanne's ratings?" I said, "Mark, how big were they?" "They were unbelievable. Over 18 million people." And it was about us. They haven't figured it out, the fake news hasn't quite figured it out yet. (APPLAUSE) TRUMP: They have not figured it out. So that was great. And they haven't figured it out, but they will. And when they do, they'll become much less fake. (LAUGHTER) May take a while. But it's happening. 14:59:42 But you're the ones who are truly making America great again. We're going to work together, we're going to work with the state of Ohio, we're going to work with everybody, and we're going to bring our country to a level of success and prominence and pride like it has never ever seen before. Thank you. And God bless America. Thank you. Thank you very much.

SENATE FLOOR DEBATE: The Senate will convene and begin a period of morning business. At 3:00 p.m. the Senate will Resume consideration of S.4, the 9/11 Commission Recommendations bill. 18:08:09.3 vote: the 18:10:42.4 the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, on this vote the ayes are 87; the nays are 1. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order the 18:11:03.1 president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. the senate will return to legislative session. mr. lieberman: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i ask for. the presiding officer: the 18:11:16.6 senator will be in order. the senate will be in order. mr. lieberman: i ask unanimous consent amendment numbered 328 be modified with the changes at the desk. the presiding officer: is there 18:11:32.2 order? the amendment is so modified. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the 18:11:48.0 senator from oklahoma is recognized. mr. coburn: mr. president. 18:12:08.9 i ask that the pending amendment be set aside and i call amendment numbered 325. the presiding officer: without objection, it is so ordered. the clerk will report. 18:12:24.4 mr. coburn: the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. 18:12:49.2 the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: senator coburn proposes an amendment numbered 325. 18:13:00.8 on page 106, insert the following. 18:13:07.1 mr. coburn: i ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered as read. the presiding officer: without objection, it is so ordered. mr. coburn: mr. president, this bill has not been scored but by our estimates -- mr. president, i ask that the senate be in 18:13:23.2 order. the presiding officer: could 18:13:39.3 senators take their conversations to the cloakroom so we may have order. the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: thank you, mr. president. i appreciate that. by our estimate, this bill is about $17 billion plus. 18:13:54.4 it has not been scored. the house bill that will be merged in conference is over $20 billion. that is a large chunk of change for the american taxpayer. what we know is that a lot of the grants which make up about 18:14:13.6 three-plus billion a year over the next five years, the vast majority of this bill, will be homeland security grants of one type or another. what we know is the department of homeland security has not followed the law when it comes 18:14:29.2 to improper payments. what the improper payments act of 2002 required of every agency -- every agency of the federal government -- was that they perform a risk assessment of every program that they is, 18:14:44.3 that they develop a specific -- statistically valid estimate of improper payments; they develop a corrective action plan; they report the results of those activities to us. this isn't an optional plan for 18:15:00.7 the agencies. yet, this plan has been ignored since its inception and since the creation of the department of homeland security. so, we are getting ready to send another $17 billion 18:15:17.4 to $18 billion plus out the door for homeland security grants -- that's the majority of this -- and we know that the department of homeland security is not in compliance with the federal law. the law exists to make sure that we get good value for the 18:15:37.2 taxpayers' money. 2004 was the first year that the agencies were required to respond to this act. it is worth noting again that there is not an agency of the federal government, not one 18:15:50.9 agency, that is exempt from this law. this isn't a request. this is a statutory requirement of every agency. the department of homeland security has not even complied with the first step of this law. 18:16:09.6 they have not performed risk assessments for the programs to be at significant risk of making improper payments. they are an at risk program according to the analysis and yet they have not even looked to 18:16:23.4 do a risk assessment. the government accountability office has found six major programs at this department are out of compliance with improper payments act. the department of homeland security's independent auditor 18:16:39.6 has repeatedly cited noncompliance and the department of homeland security continues to face significant challenges with tee ma and with the individual and households program. based upon the department's performance and accountability report and their independent 18:16:56.0 auditor assessment, the following programs are out of compliance with improper payments act: customs and bother protection; office of grants and training; federal air marshals; the coast guard was supposed to have done a risk 18:17:12.1 assessment and has not been done; the federal emergency management agency; the trappinge transportation security administration and immigration 18:17:26.9 and customs enforcement. in case you think that is not a lot of money, we have already spent over $25 billion in grants through the years for these programs of which we have thought looked at the problem accounts. 18:17:44.2 the press is replete with problems in terms of these grants. $9 billion on state and local preparedness grants is what we get great d.h.s. and secretary chertoff at the most recent hearings said $5 billion of the 18:18:01.5 money, another $5 billion, part of which has been obligated has not gone out the door yet. 18:18:07.4 i think we owe it to the american people that if there's a law on the books, before we send more money out the door, the agency ought to comply with the law. 18:18:20.9 they ought to at least do a risk assessment. if there is no risk, that's fine, they will have complied with the law. but if there is risk we ought to be identifying the risk. every dollar we spent wastefully is a dollar we don't use to protect ourselves in terms of 18:18:38.9 security. kpmg was the independent auditor for 2004, 2005 and 2006 for the department of homeland security. each of the years they were out of compliance with this act. specifically, the department is cited for not instituting a systematic method of reviewing 18:18:54.0 all practices and identifying those that are believed to be susceptible to erroneous improper payments. the most important part of the improper payments act is to create the process of good, strong, oversight within the 18:19:09.4 department to make assessments about whether or not they are making improper peaments. what this assessment does is it identifying where the improper payments could have been made. that's essential to find out where the problems exist. this amendment doesn't debate 18:19:26.3 any of the merits of the department's programs. it simply demands compliance with the transparency and accountability measurements for that already -- that already exist under current law. if we want the american people and the executive branch to take 18:19:43.1 us seriously, congress must demand compliance for the laws that are laws. and we can't back off. this amendment isn't a surprise to the department of homeland security. they know they are failing. they need to respond to it. 18:19:58.9 this amendment in no way jeopardizes state funding. let me tell you why. because there's a pipeline of nine to twelve months in the works already on guarantees that are going there. so, for this to have any impact 18:20:13.9 would mean they would have to not respond for another year before those grants would be in jeopardy. now, some of my colleagues say, well, you can't do this. you can't put these grants at the risk of noncompliance of an agency in terms of meeting the 18:20:31.2 law. and the question ought to be, why not? why shouldn't we put the agency at risk with their grants for being noncompliant? the other point i would make is most of these grants go to state and localities. 18:20:44.9 and the problems with the grants, there is some cuppibility -- culpability on the parts of the agencies and the guarantees. states are not totally innocent. there is $2.5 billion that has not even been awarded yet that 18:21:02.5 still can be awarded before this takes effect. so, there is still another $5 billion which is greater than the amount we spend in any one year on these grants. what this amendment says is, they can't go past that unless they have complied with the law. 18:21:20.1 if we are not going to pass this amendment, we need to trash the improper payments act. if we're not going to say the department of homeland security has an obligation to follow the law we ought to take the law off the books. 18:21:32.9 we know, for sure, in the other areas of the federal government, we have somewhere between $40 billion and $80 billion worth of improper payments the we know we have $40 billion of improper payments, overpayments in medicare. 18:21:47.5 somewhere close to $30 billion in medicaid. we have a third of the earned-income tax credit that we know are improper payments. and we've only looked at 40% of the government. 60% of the government still is not complying with this. we ought to say, right now, if 18:22:04.4 we're going to put more money through the doofer, the american taxpayer ought to have -- through the door, the american taxpayer ought to have value through the money they send through the door. 18:22:20.1 we are asking them to be accountable. and to be accountable as a government -- as an agency of the federal government, there ought to be transparency. we ought to be able to see where they're making mistakes and 18:22:37.1 where they're not. the question of not even asking the question, that is what we are debating with this amendment. they are in absolute non-come ployance of a material law that requires them to be transparent about whether or not their grants are improperly paid or 18:22:52.9 funding things other than what they expected them to fund. investigations shows fema spent millions on puppet shows, bingo and yoga in south florida. 18:23:06.7 there is an article in the national review on homeland port, "baltimore sun", 5-2 9 "chasing security with dollars." the only transparency that we have here is that there's a total lack of transparency in the department of homeland 18:23:21.7 security. now, needless to say, this is a bill that goes far outside september 11th recommendations. 9/11 commission recommendations said all money should be based, risk-based and what we've turned 18:23:39.1 around with the 9/11 bill -- this one and what passed in previous congresses -- is a way to dole out money to states and not hold them accountable. what this amendment says is, you are going to have to start being accountable. 18:23:53.7 if we are going to send another almost $20 billion in terms of grants, homeland security ought to have to follow the law in terms of improper payments. remember, these grants aren't competitively awarded which is very different than the grants 18:24:12.7 that we have in almost every other federal program. the fact that they're not competitive is another reason, a much greater reason, for us to demand accountability and transparency at the department of homeland security. these grants are also not on the 18:24:28.9 basis of risk. some are. in some of these it will be down to .4% and a few at 0.25%. most of them have in local 18:24:44.3 match. so there's no risk on the side of the states or the municipalities that get these grants. just a note, the best way for congress to practice spending discipline is to demand that the 18:25:01.2 agencies comebly with the laws assuring appropriated dollars are spent adequately, appropriately, and lawfully. we have yet it do that with many agencies. d.h.s. is a good place to start. fema awarded $22.6 million for 18:25:18.1 crisis counceling for victims of hurricane katrina and rita. katrina did not even hit florida and yet a large portion of that was spent in florida. there's no accountability. there is no risk assessment, was 18:25:36.2 there a risk? they have not done the work we demand by the law. and what is being demanded of other agencies. there's an article in the 18:25:48.7 florida sun and i cannot vouch for its accuracy, where there's a little smoke there's some fire, the $1.2 billion in aid that fema granted to individuals -- not to municipalities, but to 18:26:04.0 individuals affected by the weather disasters between 1999 and 2004 -- the florida sun found that at least of $1.02 3w-8, at least $330 million of that went to people who did not personally suffer any damage or disruption from the storms. 18:26:21.5 now that's a fourth of the money out of that $1.2 billions. no wonder we have a deficit. no wonder -- because we're not willing to take the time to force an agency to do what they should be doing under the law. 18:26:41.7 i want to talk for a minute about this bill. the 9/11 commission was very 18:26:54.9 succinct and direct, noting that we have tremendous vulnerabilities and risks and exposures throughout this country. 18:27:07.5 and they were very clear to state that money that comes out of congress to address those ought to be absolutely risk-based. 18:27:21.9 the house bill at least has, down to 0.25% for every state. well, what that gives us is about 15% of the money that is going to go to the states, 18:27:39.0 regardless of their risk. so that's about $3. 5 billion or $4 billion. no risk, you are going to get homeland security grants even though you have no risk. think about what we are going to ask ourselves if we have another 18:27:56.2 terrorist attack and it's in one of the high-risk areas and before he sent, year after year after year after year after year after year, $4 billion to areas 18:28:07.4 that don't have a high risk? and that money could have prevented that action. with good fiscal discipline we will best protect the people of 18:28:24.4 this country. i know the tendency of this body is to make sure you get enough for you. and to make sure you can go home and say, we got this for you. and you can pat your sell on the back. but i wonder how many of us will 18:28:38.9 be patting ourselves on the back when we buy things that are not absolutely necessary with the grands that are going to state asks we ignore the very high risk, east coast, west coast and gulf coast and the large metropolitan areas in this country that need more money 18:28:53.7 while we are playing politics with with 15 to 20% of the money every year. we will be judged on that. and that judgment will not be a pretty picture. this amendment just simply says, no funds can go for any of these grants until fema and the 18:29:12.2 department of homeland security start complying with the federal statute which is called the improper payments act of 2002. it's very straight failure. and what we will have raised is the fear that my state may not get some money. well, they is a year to comply. 18:29:29.9 they is plenty of time to do what they have been asked to do. senator obama and i, this last year, over eight months ago, sent a letter to the department of homeland security asking why, and i would like to introduce 18:29:46.0 that letter into the record. this letter was sent to secretary chertoff. the federal financial management subcommittee of the department of -- of the committee on homeland security and government affairs had four hearings on 18:30:02.2 improper payments. we know what is required. we know they can do it. what congress has to do is make then do it if they want to spend the money. it is only right for our children and grandchildren to get fair value for the 18:30:19.0 tax-paying public as we send this money out.n so i'm a skeptic when it comes to this body when it gets away of the political poring that's going on -- poring that's going 18:30:32.5 o. i'm not sure this amendment is going to pass. there's there's no reason to have a law out there that we're not going to enforce. and if we're not going to enforce it, why have it on the books? 18:30:47.2 it's another enforcing the board. the law is there but we don't do t. we have to be accountable to 9 american public to make sure -- to the american public to make sure that the agencies follow the law. this is a simple amendment that requires homeland security to follow that. by the way, we've not had an answer to this letter. 18:31:04.1 this letter was dated november 16. i spoke in error. i'm just about finished, mr. president. i want to correct something i said last week on the united nations. my numbers were wrong. we, in fact, do pay for 20% -- about 22% of the unified budget 18:31:22.2 at the united nations and our total contribution is in excess of $5 billion. hi the ratios right; i had the numbers wrong and i wanted to correct that for the record today. and with that, i yield back the floor. 18:31:42.2 mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, i would call up sessions amendment number 305. 18:32:01.1 i believe it -- the presiding officer: one moment. that amendment is the pending amendment. mr. sessions: mr. president, i believe the amendment is already pending. 18:32:11.7 i believe it was called up by senator mcconnell. mr. president, i would note and ask that senators craig, inhofe, isakson, and coburn be made cosponsors of this amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, 18:32:27.9 it's certainly important, critically important that we clarify the role of state and local law enforcement officers in the enforcement and apprehension of those who violate our immigration laws and that we expand the national crime information center 18:32:47.8 entries. it is critical that we have them participate because with expanded ncic capability, which i'm surprised is not already 18:33:01.8 being done, they can be partners 18:33:04.9 in our federal law enforcement efforts. it would be in compliance with what the 9/11 commission and other reports have asked us to do. and it's a loophole in our system today that needs to be fixed. 18:33:18.6 the amendment i am offering is a slimmed-down version of the bill i offered in the last congress, the homeland security enforcement enhancement act. that was cosponsored by senators craig, inhofe, and isakson. the ideas contained in this amendment have also been 18:33:35.6 supported by senators kyl and cornyn. they included it in their immigration bill last congress. and senator ben nelson and tom coburn, they included -- those provisions were included in the nelson-sessions immigration 18:33:49.4 enforcement bill in last congress. additional, i'd like to tell my colleagues that my amendment is almost word-for-word the provision that the senate judiciary committee included when it marked up the senate immigration bill last year and the provision that the full 18:34:06.1 senate voted for when it passed s. 2611. the first section of the amendment reaffirms the existing -- what i believe to be the existing inherent authority of state and local law enforcement 18:34:23.0 to assist the federal government in enforcing the immigration laws of the united states during the normal course of their carrying out their law enforcement duties. the amendment specifically states that the participation of state and local law enforcement 18:34:39.2 personnel is required, not mandated by this legislation. it is 100% voluntary. section 2 of the amendment deals with the listing of immigration violators in the national crime 18:34:54.8 information center database. state and local officers need easily accessible roadside access to critical immigration information, just as they would do for citizens of the united states who violate our laws. officers routinely, when they 18:35:13.7 stop people on the road, run national crime information center database checks when they pull over suspects. speeders or people they're investigating for other crimes. the ncic is their bread-and-butter database. 18:35:29.5 today, the immigration violators file, the national crime information database, contains information on deported felons, alien absconders and wanted 18:35:46.2 persons, aliens with outstanding criminal warrants. so that is in the national crime information center database. but my amendment would direct that the department of homeland security work with the f.b.i. to place additional information on 18:36:02.6 certain immigration violators into the already existing immigration violators file. the four categories of immigration violators whose information would be entered are: one, aliens who have final orders of removal. 18:36:20.8 that's someone who has been apprehended, gone through a hearing and a judge has ordered finally that they be removed from the country for whatever violation. two, it would cover aliens under voluntary departure agreements, who for one reason or another 18:36:35.8 have signed an order that they would voluntarily deport themselves or leave country. number three, it would cover aliens who are known to have overstayed their authorized period of stay. the visa overstays. and number four, aliens whose 18:36:53.9 visas have been revoked. well, sometime people misbehave seriously. 27% of our federal penitentiary bed spaces today are filled by noncitizens. 18:37:07.7 for some reason, in recent years we're seeing a substantial number of criminal aliens coming into our country. and i would say now, these are not bed spaces for immigration law violations, not people waiting to be deported. these are people who've been arrested, tried or convicted of 18:37:26.0 federal criminal laws, such as drug dealing and -- and assaults or smuggling and things of that nature. so when state and local police officers encounter individuals 18:37:40.5 during their regular law enforcement duties, it's important that they know if the individual in front of them falls into one of these violator categories. importantly, my amendment includes a new procedure for removal of erroneous information in the -- from ncic. 18:37:58.2 if there's something entered incorrectly under the new 18:38:03.2 procedures, an alien may petition the secretary of department of homeland security or the head of ncic to remove any erroneous information that may have been placed that file to protect them from any unfair treatment. 18:38:18.7 now, these are recommendations that really should already be law. but they're recommendations made in the 9/11 official report. and we're all familiar with that 18:38:34.6 9/11 recommendations. and they've been included in the hart-rudman report. on page 34 of the 9/11 commission report -- excuse me. on page 384 of the 9/11 report, 18:38:50.9 the commission says -- quote -- "our investigation showed that two systemic weaknesses came together in our border system's inability to contribute to an effective defense against the 9/11 attacks. 18:39:05.2 a lack of well-developed counterterrorism measures as a part of border security and an immigration system not able to deliver on its basic commitments, much less support counterterrorism. these weaknesses have been 18:39:20.8 reduced but are far from being overcome." on page 390, the report says -- quote -- "there is a growing role for state and local law enforcement agencies. they need more training and work with federal agencies so that 18:39:36.1 they can cooperate more effectively with those federal authorities in identifying terrorist suspects." in the fall of 2002, a year after the 9/11 attacks, the council on foreign relations published the hart-rudman report 18:39:54.9 entitled 'america, still unprepared; america, still in danger." that report found that one problem america still confronts is that 700,000 local and state police officials continue to 18:40:11.8 operate in a virtual intelligence vacuum. the first recommendation of the hart-rudman report was to tap the eyes and ears of local and state law enforcement officers 18:40:27.9 in preventing attacks, closed quote. that's their first recommendation to -- quote -- "tap the eyes and ears of local and state law enforcement officers in preventing attacks." on page 19, the report 18:40:43.4 specifically cited the burden of finding hundreds of thousands of illegal fugitive aliens living among the population of more than 8.5 million illegal aliens and suggested that the burden could and should be shared with the 700,000 local, county, and 18:41:00.3 state law enforcement officers if they could be brought out of the information void. so this amendment that i am offering tightly targets 9/11 commission and hart-rudman report recommendations that we 18:41:17.0 look at the growing role for state and local law enforcement. that we move toward an immigration system that can -- quote -- "deliver on its basic commitments" as a way to fight terrorism. 18:41:33.6 and that we -- quote -- "tap the eyes and ears of local and state law enforcement officers" in an effort to find the hundreds of thousands of fugitive aliens in the united states. most americans would probably be 18:41:53.1 amazed that that's not occurring today. in fact, a poll -- a recent poll gives us several -- about three years ago, a poll was done on this very subject and it found 18:42:10.3 that a large majority of americans feel that state and local governments should be aiding the federal government in finding alien fugitives. that's pretty common sensical. in fact, a roper poll found that 5% of americans agree and 65% -- 18:42:30.5 that 85% of americans agree and 65% strongly agree -- and i've got to tell you, those are powerful numbers when you hear numbers that high -- they agree that congress should pass a law requiring state and local governments and law enforcement 18:42:44.3 agencies to apprehend and turn over to i.n.s. -- now "ice" -- i illegal immigrants with whom they come in contact. that's pretty strong date a. it's important to note that those response -- that's pretty strong data. it's important to note that 18:42:59.2 those responses collected 18:43:01.3 earlier were in response to those requiring local immigration enforcement action. so it's very likely that a poll on this subject, one about voluntary state and local assistance, would be even stronger. let me tell you about the problems that started my interest in this area and 18:43:16.2 prompted me to offer this amendment as well as three years ago to push for a hearing which was held on april 22 of 2004 in 18:43:33.1 the senate judiciary committee entitled -- quote -- "state and local law" -- "state and local authority to enforce immigration law, evaluating a unified approach for stopping 18:43:50.3 terrorists." and to me -- for notice author a law review article -- for me to author a law review article in april 2005, along with my chief council on judiciary, cindy hayden, who was just here, that was published in "the stanford law and policy review," entitled 18:44:05.1 "the growing role for state and local law enforcement in the realm of immigration law." so this is the reality, to my colleagues and friends in the senate. this is the problem we're 18:44:18.8 dealing with. police chiefs and sheriffs in alabama began to tell me as i travel the state and met with them frequently, as i continue to do, that they had been shut out of immigration enforcement and that they felt powerless to 18:44:35.0 do anything about alabama's growing illegal immigrant population. i heard the same story wherever i went -- quote -- "when we come across illegal aliens in our normal course of duty, we have given up calling the i.n.s. 18:44:50.4 because they tell us we have to have 15 or more illegals in custody or they will not even bother to come and pick them up. even worse, alabama police were routinely told that aliens could not be detained until i.n.s. 18:45:05.9 could manage to send someone. they were told they just had to let them go." and this is basically the policy all over america today. i kid you not. 18:45:21.3 if a local officer in virtually any state in america stops someone for speeding or d.u.i. and finds out that they are here illegally, they basically take no steps to even contact i.n.s. because they only have 2,000 18:45:37.4 agents in the entire united states and they're not going to come out there and get them. and, in fact, for other legal reasons, they may have some doubt -- although, frankly, not much -- but there's some doubt about what their authority might be.n now, i -- we've done some 18:45:56.4 research into this and believe that the legal authority of state and local officers to voluntary act on violations of immigration law was pretty clear. and there's any doubt that state and local law officers have this 18:46:12.2 authority and if there is any, and there certainly is some today, congress needs to remove that doubt, which is what this amendment will do. basically, there's a split in the circuits, but -- and i'll take just a moment to explain 18:46:34.8 it. the ninth circuit and the 10th circuit have explicitly -- and the 10th circuit on more than one occasion -- concluded squarely that quote, "a state trooper has general investigatory authority to 18:46:49.4 inquire into possible immigration violations," closed quote. as the 10th circuit went on to say quote, "there is a pre-existing general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of 18:47:07.7 federal law, including immigration laws." they went on to say, the 10th circuit did, in 2001 quote, "state and local police officers have implicit authority within their respective jurisdictions to investigate and make arrests 18:47:25.2 for violations of federal law, including immigration laws." now, these 10th circuit cases made no distinction between visa overstays, which is nor criminal 18:47:40.3 in nature, but civil, but the 9th circuit did, they concluded the civil violations of a visa overstay did not amount to an offense of law that the local law enforcement officer could arrest and detain for. 18:48:04.9 it was not part of the central holding on that case, but that one piece of dicta impacted lawyers and police departments 18:48:17.8 and sheriff's departments all over america. and they're telling their officers, well, the person that you stop is here illegally, it might be that they're a visa overstay and not someone who came across the border illegally. 18:48:32.2 and if you arrest them and detain them, they might sue us, they might sue the city, they might sue the police department. so they've established policies based on this ambiguity that effectively reduced the participation of local law enforcement officers to a dramatic degree in the 18:48:50.8 enforcement of immigration laws. and that's not appropriate. we can fix that. this amendment would fix that. a second problem that the amendment deals with is the inadequate way we share information on immigration 18:49:05.6 matters with state and local police. we have databases full of information on criminal aliens and aliens with final deportation orders, but that information is not directly available to the state and local police through their base system, the ncic. 18:49:23.2 instead, officers are required to make a special second inquiry into the law enforcement support center, which is headquartered in vermont, to see if the person they pulled over is an illegal alien wanted by d.h.s. now, i got to tell you, they're 18:49:41.8 just not carrying around in their pockets those phone numbers anyway. they don't know how to do it, they're not comfortable with it, it's not what they do every day, and they're not doing it. and besides if they do and found out the person is illegal, there's nothing much they can do but let them go anyway. 18:50:03.8 so the ability of the bread and burr nci -- bread and butter ncic database is to convey to 18:50:13.9 local police who stop someone out on a highway information that this may be a wanted person, may be even a terrorist, has been severely impacted or 18:50:28.4 real not effective in many, many different areas. now, i've complained about this for some time and some progress has been made, but not enough. to date, the immigration violators file of the ncic 18:50:46.3 contains about 200,000 entries and only about 107,000 of the approximate 600,000 alien absconders are in the ncic. i want you to hear that. 18:51:02.0 only about 100,000 of the 600,000 alien absconders have been entered into the ncic. so what does that mean? that means if a local police officer somewhere stops a person that's been previously arrested 18:51:19.5 for an immigration violation, that person has been released on bail, as is often the case, or ordered to return to court or are frequently deported and they don't do so, they abscond, and 18:51:35.8 there are 600,000 of those absconders out there, but only 107,000 of those records are in ncic, so if a local police officer is not likely to find a hit if the person before him, there would be one in five 18:51:51.8 chances that they would get that hit. that really needs to be fixed, and for the life of me i can't see why more progress has not been made. we've been talking about this for four or five years in the senate judiciary committee with the department of justice officials and i.c.e. officials and f.b.i. people who run the 18:52:09.6 ncic. now, at the very least, the ncic should contain four types of immigration information: aliens with final orders of removal. if someone has been ordered removed, they should not be in this country. 18:52:24.7 they sometimes leave the country and come back into the country and you get a hit on that person. in other words, they've been ordered removed. why are they back in the country? second group should be in there, aliens under voluntary departure 18:52:42.2 agreement. some agree voluntarily to leave and sign an agreement to that effect. they ought to be in there because they should not have stayed in the country, or if they left, they should not have returned. aliens who are known to have overstayed their authorized period of stay should be entered 18:52:56.0 and aliens whose visas have been 18:52:59.7 revoked, for heaven sakes, ought to be in there. somebody's here improperly, maybe associated with some criminal enterprise, the i.c.e. people have revoked their visa for some reason, it would have 18:53:15.3 to be significant, usually, for that to occur, they ought to go in there. because if they've been -- because if they're stopped somewhere, they should be detained and turned over to i.c.e.; otherwise, the system is not working. 18:53:29.1 and let me just tell my colleagues i know how this system works. if someone had their visa revoked and had been ordered to be removed, trust me, the i.c.e. 18:53:48.5 agents don't go out and walk the streets of philadelphia or atlanta or birmingham and look for them so they can deport them. they don't do it. they are not even close to 18:54:00.7 having the possibility of doing that. only the people that they have evidence on and are extremely dangerous is that done on. and that's very, very few. the way most people are caught is just like everybody else in america who is caught who have 18:54:18.3 absconded or run off on bail. they get caught by getting picked up by police on a traffic stop somewhere. the police officer runs their name and i.d. in ncic and it comes back a hit. there's a warrant for their arrest in montgomery, alabama, for armed robbery, and he locked 18:54:36.3 them up. now, if you are an american citizen and you get a reckless driving ticket and you're ordered to appear in court at a given time and place and you don't appear in court, they issue a warrant for your arrest. 18:54:52.8 and normally the police officers don't go out and chase you down all over, finding to arrest you. normally they put it in the ncic immediately on the assumption that you'll soon be stopped 18:55:05.1 somewhere else on the way and they'll get a hit on you and they'll put you in jail because you have a warrant for flight out there or for jumping bail. but we don't do that for noncitizens. a citizen that will happen to, a united states senator that will 18:55:20.6 happen to, but not somebody that's coming into the country illegally, we don't do the same thing when they jump bail on their charges. so, mr. president, there are a 18:55:42.7 lot of stories that we can tell, and i would just summarize a number of them that really caught the attention of the 9/11 commission. for example, mohammed atta, who is believed to have piloted american airlines flight 11, 18:55:59.3 which flew into the world trade center's north tower and to have played a leading role in more than 3,000 deaths that occurred that day, in july, just two months before the attacks, atta was stopped by police in 18:56:17.6 tamarack, florida, and ticketed for an invalid license. he ignored the ticket and bench warranted for an arrest. when he was stopped for speeding weeks later in a nearby town, the officer did not check, did not disufer this warrant -- 18:56:31.8 discover this warrant had been issued and let him go with only a warning. now, ok, atta had not yet become illegal. i believe at that time he still was on a legal status, however he was about to expire, and i 18:56:46.8 doubt he would have returned to the immigration officer to get it extended. he would soon have been here illegally as a visa overstay. he could well have been apprehended and identified before 9/11 had he done so. 18:57:06.4 and that's the example i'm trying to make here. it could very well have been decisive. also, hamid hanjour was just one month before 9/11 stopped by 18:57:24.7 police in arlington, virginia, for driving 50 miles an hour in a 35-mile-per-hour zone. he was in a chevy van with new jersey plates, he produced a florida driver's license, but he was the pilot of the american airlines flight 77, which 18:57:39.5 crashed into the pentagon, the third hijacker was stopped by state police just two days before september 11, also for speeding. maryland state police stopped ziad jara on interstate 95 for 18:57:57.1 driving 90 miles an hour in a 60-mile zone. well, i say that, mr. president, to say we're not talking about academic matters here. we're talking about the fact that the alien database needs to 18:58:17.0 be accessible to local police. it might as well, for all practical purposes, be locked up in some valuate somewhere in secrecy the way it's being done today. 18:58:29.5 it's not available to the people out there who need it. and the hart-ruddman commission raised that point, as did the 9/11 commission. we absolutely can -- i've been told at hearings by the appropriate officials, the ncic 18:58:48.5 system can handle the additional data. it will not overburden the system. it will make this information readily and immediately available to a police officer. and we may well -- he may well have or she may have stumbled on 18:59:04.9 a person like mohammed atta on his way to commit a horrible and unspeakable act of terrorism against the people of the united states. and that opportunity to make that arrest and to identify that criminal is most important. 18:59:20.3 so, mr. president, that's the purpose of the amendment. i believe if people think about it that we will see the need of it. i've tried to get this done in any number of different ways, but we haven't quite gotten there yet. 18:59:36.1 i think there's a majority in the senate probably on both sides of the aisle that would support this when it's clearly raised, but it tends, as it so often tends to happen, matters that actually work to a 18:59:52.8 significant degree and will actually substantially increase the ability of our law enforcement system to be effective are the things that don't become law. it's almost like if it works, it won't pass.

SENATE FLOOR DEBATE: The Senate will convene and begin a period of morning business. At 3:00 p.m. the Senate will Resume consideration of S.4, the 9/11 Commission Recommendations bill. 18:08:09.3 vote: the 18:10:42.4 the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, on this vote the ayes are 87; the nays are 1. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order the 18:11:03.1 president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. the senate will return to legislative session. mr. lieberman: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i ask for. the presiding officer: the 18:11:16.6 senator will be in order. the senate will be in order. mr. lieberman: i ask unanimous consent amendment numbered 328 be modified with the changes at the desk. the presiding officer: is there 18:11:32.2 order? the amendment is so modified. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the 18:11:48.0 senator from oklahoma is recognized. mr. coburn: mr. president. 18:12:08.9 i ask that the pending amendment be set aside and i call amendment numbered 325. the presiding officer: without objection, it is so ordered. the clerk will report. 18:12:24.4 mr. coburn: the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. 18:12:49.2 the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: senator coburn proposes an amendment numbered 325. 18:13:00.8 on page 106, insert the following. 18:13:07.1 mr. coburn: i ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered as read. the presiding officer: without objection, it is so ordered. mr. coburn: mr. president, this bill has not been scored but by our estimates -- mr. president, i ask that the senate be in 18:13:23.2 order. the presiding officer: could 18:13:39.3 senators take their conversations to the cloakroom so we may have order. the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: thank you, mr. president. i appreciate that. by our estimate, this bill is about $17 billion plus. 18:13:54.4 it has not been scored. the house bill that will be merged in conference is over $20 billion. that is a large chunk of change for the american taxpayer. what we know is that a lot of the grants which make up about 18:14:13.6 three-plus billion a year over the next five years, the vast majority of this bill, will be homeland security grants of one type or another. what we know is the department of homeland security has not followed the law when it comes 18:14:29.2 to improper payments. what the improper payments act of 2002 required of every agency -- every agency of the federal government -- was that they perform a risk assessment of every program that they is, 18:14:44.3 that they develop a specific -- statistically valid estimate of improper payments; they develop a corrective action plan; they report the results of those activities to us. this isn't an optional plan for 18:15:00.7 the agencies. yet, this plan has been ignored since its inception and since the creation of the department of homeland security. so, we are getting ready to send another $17 billion 18:15:17.4 to $18 billion plus out the door for homeland security grants -- that's the majority of this -- and we know that the department of homeland security is not in compliance with the federal law. the law exists to make sure that we get good value for the 18:15:37.2 taxpayers' money. 2004 was the first year that the agencies were required to respond to this act. it is worth noting again that there is not an agency of the federal government, not one 18:15:50.9 agency, that is exempt from this law. this isn't a request. this is a statutory requirement of every agency. the department of homeland security has not even complied with the first step of this law. 18:16:09.6 they have not performed risk assessments for the programs to be at significant risk of making improper payments. they are an at risk program according to the analysis and yet they have not even looked to 18:16:23.4 do a risk assessment. the government accountability office has found six major programs at this department are out of compliance with improper payments act. the department of homeland security's independent auditor 18:16:39.6 has repeatedly cited noncompliance and the department of homeland security continues to face significant challenges with tee ma and with the individual and households program. based upon the department's performance and accountability report and their independent 18:16:56.0 auditor assessment, the following programs are out of compliance with improper payments act: customs and bother protection; office of grants and training; federal air marshals; the coast guard was supposed to have done a risk 18:17:12.1 assessment and has not been done; the federal emergency management agency; the trappinge transportation security administration and immigration 18:17:26.9 and customs enforcement. in case you think that is not a lot of money, we have already spent over $25 billion in grants through the years for these programs of which we have thought looked at the problem accounts. 18:17:44.2 the press is replete with problems in terms of these grants. $9 billion on state and local preparedness grants is what we get great d.h.s. and secretary chertoff at the most recent hearings said $5 billion of the 18:18:01.5 money, another $5 billion, part of which has been obligated has not gone out the door yet. 18:18:07.4 i think we owe it to the american people that if there's a law on the books, before we send more money out the door, the agency ought to comply with the law. 18:18:20.9 they ought to at least do a risk assessment. if there is no risk, that's fine, they will have complied with the law. but if there is risk we ought to be identifying the risk. every dollar we spent wastefully is a dollar we don't use to protect ourselves in terms of 18:18:38.9 security. kpmg was the independent auditor for 2004, 2005 and 2006 for the department of homeland security. each of the years they were out of compliance with this act. specifically, the department is cited for not instituting a systematic method of reviewing 18:18:54.0 all practices and identifying those that are believed to be susceptible to erroneous improper payments. the most important part of the improper payments act is to create the process of good, strong, oversight within the 18:19:09.4 department to make assessments about whether or not they are making improper peaments. what this assessment does is it identifying where the improper payments could have been made. that's essential to find out where the problems exist. this amendment doesn't debate 18:19:26.3 any of the merits of the department's programs. it simply demands compliance with the transparency and accountability measurements for that already -- that already exist under current law. if we want the american people and the executive branch to take 18:19:43.1 us seriously, congress must demand compliance for the laws that are laws. and we can't back off. this amendment isn't a surprise to the department of homeland security. they know they are failing. they need to respond to it. 18:19:58.9 this amendment in no way jeopardizes state funding. let me tell you why. because there's a pipeline of nine to twelve months in the works already on guarantees that are going there. so, for this to have any impact 18:20:13.9 would mean they would have to not respond for another year before those grants would be in jeopardy. now, some of my colleagues say, well, you can't do this. you can't put these grants at the risk of noncompliance of an agency in terms of meeting the 18:20:31.2 law. and the question ought to be, why not? why shouldn't we put the agency at risk with their grants for being noncompliant? the other point i would make is most of these grants go to state and localities. 18:20:44.9 and the problems with the grants, there is some cuppibility -- culpability on the parts of the agencies and the guarantees. states are not totally innocent. there is $2.5 billion that has not even been awarded yet that 18:21:02.5 still can be awarded before this takes effect. so, there is still another $5 billion which is greater than the amount we spend in any one year on these grants. what this amendment says is, they can't go past that unless they have complied with the law. 18:21:20.1 if we are not going to pass this amendment, we need to trash the improper payments act. if we're not going to say the department of homeland security has an obligation to follow the law we ought to take the law off the books. 18:21:32.9 we know, for sure, in the other areas of the federal government, we have somewhere between $40 billion and $80 billion worth of improper payments the we know we have $40 billion of improper payments, overpayments in medicare. 18:21:47.5 somewhere close to $30 billion in medicaid. we have a third of the earned-income tax credit that we know are improper payments. and we've only looked at 40% of the government. 60% of the government still is not complying with this. we ought to say, right now, if 18:22:04.4 we're going to put more money through the doofer, the american taxpayer ought to have -- through the door, the american taxpayer ought to have value through the money they send through the door. 18:22:20.1 we are asking them to be accountable. and to be accountable as a government -- as an agency of the federal government, there ought to be transparency. we ought to be able to see where they're making mistakes and 18:22:37.1 where they're not. the question of not even asking the question, that is what we are debating with this amendment. they are in absolute non-come ployance of a material law that requires them to be transparent about whether or not their grants are improperly paid or 18:22:52.9 funding things other than what they expected them to fund. investigations shows fema spent millions on puppet shows, bingo and yoga in south florida. 18:23:06.7 there is an article in the national review on homeland port, "baltimore sun", 5-2 9 "chasing security with dollars." the only transparency that we have here is that there's a total lack of transparency in the department of homeland 18:23:21.7 security. now, needless to say, this is a bill that goes far outside september 11th recommendations. 9/11 commission recommendations said all money should be based, risk-based and what we've turned 18:23:39.1 around with the 9/11 bill -- this one and what passed in previous congresses -- is a way to dole out money to states and not hold them accountable. what this amendment says is, you are going to have to start being accountable. 18:23:53.7 if we are going to send another almost $20 billion in terms of grants, homeland security ought to have to follow the law in terms of improper payments. remember, these grants aren't competitively awarded which is very different than the grants 18:24:12.7 that we have in almost every other federal program. the fact that they're not competitive is another reason, a much greater reason, for us to demand accountability and transparency at the department of homeland security. these grants are also not on the 18:24:28.9 basis of risk. some are. in some of these it will be down to .4% and a few at 0.25%. most of them have in local 18:24:44.3 match. so there's no risk on the side of the states or the municipalities that get these grants. just a note, the best way for congress to practice spending discipline is to demand that the 18:25:01.2 agencies comebly with the laws assuring appropriated dollars are spent adequately, appropriately, and lawfully. we have yet it do that with many agencies. d.h.s. is a good place to start. fema awarded $22.6 million for 18:25:18.1 crisis counceling for victims of hurricane katrina and rita. katrina did not even hit florida and yet a large portion of that was spent in florida. there's no accountability. there is no risk assessment, was 18:25:36.2 there a risk? they have not done the work we demand by the law. and what is being demanded of other agencies. there's an article in the 18:25:48.7 florida sun and i cannot vouch for its accuracy, where there's a little smoke there's some fire, the $1.2 billion in aid that fema granted to individuals -- not to municipalities, but to 18:26:04.0 individuals affected by the weather disasters between 1999 and 2004 -- the florida sun found that at least of $1.02 3w-8, at least $330 million of that went to people who did not personally suffer any damage or disruption from the storms. 18:26:21.5 now that's a fourth of the money out of that $1.2 billions. no wonder we have a deficit. no wonder -- because we're not willing to take the time to force an agency to do what they should be doing under the law. 18:26:41.7 i want to talk for a minute about this bill. the 9/11 commission was very 18:26:54.9 succinct and direct, noting that we have tremendous vulnerabilities and risks and exposures throughout this country. 18:27:07.5 and they were very clear to state that money that comes out of congress to address those ought to be absolutely risk-based. 18:27:21.9 the house bill at least has, down to 0.25% for every state. well, what that gives us is about 15% of the money that is going to go to the states, 18:27:39.0 regardless of their risk. so that's about $3. 5 billion or $4 billion. no risk, you are going to get homeland security grants even though you have no risk. think about what we are going to ask ourselves if we have another 18:27:56.2 terrorist attack and it's in one of the high-risk areas and before he sent, year after year after year after year after year after year, $4 billion to areas 18:28:07.4 that don't have a high risk? and that money could have prevented that action. with good fiscal discipline we will best protect the people of 18:28:24.4 this country. i know the tendency of this body is to make sure you get enough for you. and to make sure you can go home and say, we got this for you. and you can pat your sell on the back. but i wonder how many of us will 18:28:38.9 be patting ourselves on the back when we buy things that are not absolutely necessary with the grands that are going to state asks we ignore the very high risk, east coast, west coast and gulf coast and the large metropolitan areas in this country that need more money 18:28:53.7 while we are playing politics with with 15 to 20% of the money every year. we will be judged on that. and that judgment will not be a pretty picture. this amendment just simply says, no funds can go for any of these grants until fema and the 18:29:12.2 department of homeland security start complying with the federal statute which is called the improper payments act of 2002. it's very straight failure. and what we will have raised is the fear that my state may not get some money. well, they is a year to comply. 18:29:29.9 they is plenty of time to do what they have been asked to do. senator obama and i, this last year, over eight months ago, sent a letter to the department of homeland security asking why, and i would like to introduce 18:29:46.0 that letter into the record. this letter was sent to secretary chertoff. the federal financial management subcommittee of the department of -- of the committee on homeland security and government affairs had four hearings on 18:30:02.2 improper payments. we know what is required. we know they can do it. what congress has to do is make then do it if they want to spend the money. it is only right for our children and grandchildren to get fair value for the 18:30:19.0 tax-paying public as we send this money out.n so i'm a skeptic when it comes to this body when it gets away of the political poring that's going on -- poring that's going 18:30:32.5 o. i'm not sure this amendment is going to pass. there's there's no reason to have a law out there that we're not going to enforce. and if we're not going to enforce it, why have it on the books? 18:30:47.2 it's another enforcing the board. the law is there but we don't do t. we have to be accountable to 9 american public to make sure -- to the american public to make sure that the agencies follow the law. this is a simple amendment that requires homeland security to follow that. by the way, we've not had an answer to this letter. 18:31:04.1 this letter was dated november 16. i spoke in error. i'm just about finished, mr. president. i want to correct something i said last week on the united nations. my numbers were wrong. we, in fact, do pay for 20% -- about 22% of the unified budget 18:31:22.2 at the united nations and our total contribution is in excess of $5 billion. hi the ratios right; i had the numbers wrong and i wanted to correct that for the record today. and with that, i yield back the floor. 18:31:42.2 mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, i would call up sessions amendment number 305. 18:32:01.1 i believe it -- the presiding officer: one moment. that amendment is the pending amendment. mr. sessions: mr. president, i believe the amendment is already pending. 18:32:11.7 i believe it was called up by senator mcconnell. mr. president, i would note and ask that senators craig, inhofe, isakson, and coburn be made cosponsors of this amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, 18:32:27.9 it's certainly important, critically important that we clarify the role of state and local law enforcement officers in the enforcement and apprehension of those who violate our immigration laws and that we expand the national crime information center 18:32:47.8 entries. it is critical that we have them participate because with expanded ncic capability, which i'm surprised is not already 18:33:01.8 being done, they can be partners 18:33:04.9 in our federal law enforcement efforts. it would be in compliance with what the 9/11 commission and other reports have asked us to do. and it's a loophole in our system today that needs to be fixed. 18:33:18.6 the amendment i am offering is a slimmed-down version of the bill i offered in the last congress, the homeland security enforcement enhancement act. that was cosponsored by senators craig, inhofe, and isakson. the ideas contained in this amendment have also been 18:33:35.6 supported by senators kyl and cornyn. they included it in their immigration bill last congress. and senator ben nelson and tom coburn, they included -- those provisions were included in the nelson-sessions immigration 18:33:49.4 enforcement bill in last congress. additional, i'd like to tell my colleagues that my amendment is almost word-for-word the provision that the senate judiciary committee included when it marked up the senate immigration bill last year and the provision that the full 18:34:06.1 senate voted for when it passed s. 2611. the first section of the amendment reaffirms the existing -- what i believe to be the existing inherent authority of state and local law enforcement 18:34:23.0 to assist the federal government in enforcing the immigration laws of the united states during the normal course of their carrying out their law enforcement duties. the amendment specifically states that the participation of state and local law enforcement 18:34:39.2 personnel is required, not mandated by this legislation. it is 100% voluntary. section 2 of the amendment deals with the listing of immigration violators in the national crime 18:34:54.8 information center database. state and local officers need easily accessible roadside access to critical immigration information, just as they would do for citizens of the united states who violate our laws. officers routinely, when they 18:35:13.7 stop people on the road, run national crime information center database checks when they pull over suspects. speeders or people they're investigating for other crimes. the ncic is their bread-and-butter database. 18:35:29.5 today, the immigration violators file, the national crime information database, contains information on deported felons, alien absconders and wanted 18:35:46.2 persons, aliens with outstanding criminal warrants. so that is in the national crime information center database. but my amendment would direct that the department of homeland security work with the f.b.i. to place additional information on 18:36:02.6 certain immigration violators into the already existing immigration violators file. the four categories of immigration violators whose information would be entered are: one, aliens who have final orders of removal. 18:36:20.8 that's someone who has been apprehended, gone through a hearing and a judge has ordered finally that they be removed from the country for whatever violation. two, it would cover aliens under voluntary departure agreements, who for one reason or another 18:36:35.8 have signed an order that they would voluntarily deport themselves or leave country. number three, it would cover aliens who are known to have overstayed their authorized period of stay. the visa overstays. and number four, aliens whose 18:36:53.9 visas have been revoked. well, sometime people misbehave seriously. 27% of our federal penitentiary bed spaces today are filled by noncitizens. 18:37:07.7 for some reason, in recent years we're seeing a substantial number of criminal aliens coming into our country. and i would say now, these are not bed spaces for immigration law violations, not people waiting to be deported. these are people who've been arrested, tried or convicted of 18:37:26.0 federal criminal laws, such as drug dealing and -- and assaults or smuggling and things of that nature. so when state and local police officers encounter individuals 18:37:40.5 during their regular law enforcement duties, it's important that they know if the individual in front of them falls into one of these violator categories. importantly, my amendment includes a new procedure for removal of erroneous information in the -- from ncic. 18:37:58.2 if there's something entered incorrectly under the new 18:38:03.2 procedures, an alien may petition the secretary of department of homeland security or the head of ncic to remove any erroneous information that may have been placed that file to protect them from any unfair treatment. 18:38:18.7 now, these are recommendations that really should already be law. but they're recommendations made in the 9/11 official report. and we're all familiar with that 18:38:34.6 9/11 recommendations. and they've been included in the hart-rudman report. on page 34 of the 9/11 commission report -- excuse me. on page 384 of the 9/11 report, 18:38:50.9 the commission says -- quote -- "our investigation showed that two systemic weaknesses came together in our border system's inability to contribute to an effective defense against the 9/11 attacks. 18:39:05.2 a lack of well-developed counterterrorism measures as a part of border security and an immigration system not able to deliver on its basic commitments, much less support counterterrorism. these weaknesses have been 18:39:20.8 reduced but are far from being overcome." on page 390, the report says -- quote -- "there is a growing role for state and local law enforcement agencies. they need more training and work with federal agencies so that 18:39:36.1 they can cooperate more effectively with those federal authorities in identifying terrorist suspects." in the fall of 2002, a year after the 9/11 attacks, the council on foreign relations published the hart-rudman report 18:39:54.9 entitled 'america, still unprepared; america, still in danger." that report found that one problem america still confronts is that 700,000 local and state police officials continue to 18:40:11.8 operate in a virtual intelligence vacuum. the first recommendation of the hart-rudman report was to tap the eyes and ears of local and state law enforcement officers 18:40:27.9 in preventing attacks, closed quote. that's their first recommendation to -- quote -- "tap the eyes and ears of local and state law enforcement officers in preventing attacks." on page 19, the report 18:40:43.4 specifically cited the burden of finding hundreds of thousands of illegal fugitive aliens living among the population of more than 8.5 million illegal aliens and suggested that the burden could and should be shared with the 700,000 local, county, and 18:41:00.3 state law enforcement officers if they could be brought out of the information void. so this amendment that i am offering tightly targets 9/11 commission and hart-rudman report recommendations that we 18:41:17.0 look at the growing role for state and local law enforcement. that we move toward an immigration system that can -- quote -- "deliver on its basic commitments" as a way to fight terrorism. 18:41:33.6 and that we -- quote -- "tap the eyes and ears of local and state law enforcement officers" in an effort to find the hundreds of thousands of fugitive aliens in the united states. most americans would probably be 18:41:53.1 amazed that that's not occurring today. in fact, a poll -- a recent poll gives us several -- about three years ago, a poll was done on this very subject and it found 18:42:10.3 that a large majority of americans feel that state and local governments should be aiding the federal government in finding alien fugitives. that's pretty common sensical. in fact, a roper poll found that 5% of americans agree and 65% -- 18:42:30.5 that 85% of americans agree and 65% strongly agree -- and i've got to tell you, those are powerful numbers when you hear numbers that high -- they agree that congress should pass a law requiring state and local governments and law enforcement 18:42:44.3 agencies to apprehend and turn over to i.n.s. -- now "ice" -- i illegal immigrants with whom they come in contact. that's pretty strong date a. it's important to note that those response -- that's pretty strong data. it's important to note that 18:42:59.2 those responses collected 18:43:01.3 earlier were in response to those requiring local immigration enforcement action. so it's very likely that a poll on this subject, one about voluntary state and local assistance, would be even stronger. let me tell you about the problems that started my interest in this area and 18:43:16.2 prompted me to offer this amendment as well as three years ago to push for a hearing which was held on april 22 of 2004 in 18:43:33.1 the senate judiciary committee entitled -- quote -- "state and local law" -- "state and local authority to enforce immigration law, evaluating a unified approach for stopping 18:43:50.3 terrorists." and to me -- for notice author a law review article -- for me to author a law review article in april 2005, along with my chief council on judiciary, cindy hayden, who was just here, that was published in "the stanford law and policy review," entitled 18:44:05.1 "the growing role for state and local law enforcement in the realm of immigration law." so this is the reality, to my colleagues and friends in the senate. this is the problem we're 18:44:18.8 dealing with. police chiefs and sheriffs in alabama began to tell me as i travel the state and met with them frequently, as i continue to do, that they had been shut out of immigration enforcement and that they felt powerless to 18:44:35.0 do anything about alabama's growing illegal immigrant population. i heard the same story wherever i went -- quote -- "when we come across illegal aliens in our normal course of duty, we have given up calling the i.n.s. 18:44:50.4 because they tell us we have to have 15 or more illegals in custody or they will not even bother to come and pick them up. even worse, alabama police were routinely told that aliens could not be detained until i.n.s. 18:45:05.9 could manage to send someone. they were told they just had to let them go." and this is basically the policy all over america today. i kid you not. 18:45:21.3 if a local officer in virtually any state in america stops someone for speeding or d.u.i. and finds out that they are here illegally, they basically take no steps to even contact i.n.s. because they only have 2,000 18:45:37.4 agents in the entire united states and they're not going to come out there and get them. and, in fact, for other legal reasons, they may have some doubt -- although, frankly, not much -- but there's some doubt about what their authority might be.n now, i -- we've done some 18:45:56.4 research into this and believe that the legal authority of state and local officers to voluntary act on violations of immigration law was pretty clear. and there's any doubt that state and local law officers have this 18:46:12.2 authority and if there is any, and there certainly is some today, congress needs to remove that doubt, which is what this amendment will do. basically, there's a split in the circuits, but -- and i'll take just a moment to explain 18:46:34.8 it. the ninth circuit and the 10th circuit have explicitly -- and the 10th circuit on more than one occasion -- concluded squarely that quote, "a state trooper has general investigatory authority to 18:46:49.4 inquire into possible immigration violations," closed quote. as the 10th circuit went on to say quote, "there is a pre-existing general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of 18:47:07.7 federal law, including immigration laws." they went on to say, the 10th circuit did, in 2001 quote, "state and local police officers have implicit authority within their respective jurisdictions to investigate and make arrests 18:47:25.2 for violations of federal law, including immigration laws." now, these 10th circuit cases made no distinction between visa overstays, which is nor criminal 18:47:40.3 in nature, but civil, but the 9th circuit did, they concluded the civil violations of a visa overstay did not amount to an offense of law that the local law enforcement officer could arrest and detain for. 18:48:04.9 it was not part of the central holding on that case, but that one piece of dicta impacted lawyers and police departments 18:48:17.8 and sheriff's departments all over america. and they're telling their officers, well, the person that you stop is here illegally, it might be that they're a visa overstay and not someone who came across the border illegally. 18:48:32.2 and if you arrest them and detain them, they might sue us, they might sue the city, they might sue the police department. so they've established policies based on this ambiguity that effectively reduced the participation of local law enforcement officers to a dramatic degree in the 18:48:50.8 enforcement of immigration laws. and that's not appropriate. we can fix that. this amendment would fix that. a second problem that the amendment deals with is the inadequate way we share information on immigration 18:49:05.6 matters with state and local police. we have databases full of information on criminal aliens and aliens with final deportation orders, but that information is not directly available to the state and local police through their base system, the ncic. 18:49:23.2 instead, officers are required to make a special second inquiry into the law enforcement support center, which is headquartered in vermont, to see if the person they pulled over is an illegal alien wanted by d.h.s. now, i got to tell you, they're 18:49:41.8 just not carrying around in their pockets those phone numbers anyway. they don't know how to do it, they're not comfortable with it, it's not what they do every day, and they're not doing it. and besides if they do and found out the person is illegal, there's nothing much they can do but let them go anyway. 18:50:03.8 so the ability of the bread and burr nci -- bread and butter ncic database is to convey to 18:50:13.9 local police who stop someone out on a highway information that this may be a wanted person, may be even a terrorist, has been severely impacted or 18:50:28.4 real not effective in many, many different areas. now, i've complained about this for some time and some progress has been made, but not enough. to date, the immigration violators file of the ncic 18:50:46.3 contains about 200,000 entries and only about 107,000 of the approximate 600,000 alien absconders are in the ncic. i want you to hear that. 18:51:02.0 only about 100,000 of the 600,000 alien absconders have been entered into the ncic. so what does that mean? that means if a local police officer somewhere stops a person that's been previously arrested 18:51:19.5 for an immigration violation, that person has been released on bail, as is often the case, or ordered to return to court or are frequently deported and they don't do so, they abscond, and 18:51:35.8 there are 600,000 of those absconders out there, but only 107,000 of those records are in ncic, so if a local police officer is not likely to find a hit if the person before him, there would be one in five 18:51:51.8 chances that they would get that hit. that really needs to be fixed, and for the life of me i can't see why more progress has not been made. we've been talking about this for four or five years in the senate judiciary committee with the department of justice officials and i.c.e. officials and f.b.i. people who run the 18:52:09.6 ncic. now, at the very least, the ncic should contain four types of immigration information: aliens with final orders of removal. if someone has been ordered removed, they should not be in this country. 18:52:24.7 they sometimes leave the country and come back into the country and you get a hit on that person. in other words, they've been ordered removed. why are they back in the country? second group should be in there, aliens under voluntary departure 18:52:42.2 agreement. some agree voluntarily to leave and sign an agreement to that effect. they ought to be in there because they should not have stayed in the country, or if they left, they should not have returned. aliens who are known to have overstayed their authorized period of stay should be entered 18:52:56.0 and aliens whose visas have been 18:52:59.7 revoked, for heaven sakes, ought to be in there. somebody's here improperly, maybe associated with some criminal enterprise, the i.c.e. people have revoked their visa for some reason, it would have 18:53:15.3 to be significant, usually, for that to occur, they ought to go in there. because if they've been -- because if they're stopped somewhere, they should be detained and turned over to i.c.e.; otherwise, the system is not working. 18:53:29.1 and let me just tell my colleagues i know how this system works. if someone had their visa revoked and had been ordered to be removed, trust me, the i.c.e. 18:53:48.5 agents don't go out and walk the streets of philadelphia or atlanta or birmingham and look for them so they can deport them. they don't do it. they are not even close to 18:54:00.7 having the possibility of doing that. only the people that they have evidence on and are extremely dangerous is that done on. and that's very, very few. the way most people are caught is just like everybody else in america who is caught who have 18:54:18.3 absconded or run off on bail. they get caught by getting picked up by police on a traffic stop somewhere. the police officer runs their name and i.d. in ncic and it comes back a hit. there's a warrant for their arrest in montgomery, alabama, for armed robbery, and he locked 18:54:36.3 them up. now, if you are an american citizen and you get a reckless driving ticket and you're ordered to appear in court at a given time and place and you don't appear in court, they issue a warrant for your arrest. 18:54:52.8 and normally the police officers don't go out and chase you down all over, finding to arrest you. normally they put it in the ncic immediately on the assumption that you'll soon be stopped 18:55:05.1 somewhere else on the way and they'll get a hit on you and they'll put you in jail because you have a warrant for flight out there or for jumping bail. but we don't do that for noncitizens. a citizen that will happen to, a united states senator that will 18:55:20.6 happen to, but not somebody that's coming into the country illegally, we don't do the same thing when they jump bail on their charges. so, mr. president, there are a 18:55:42.7 lot of stories that we can tell, and i would just summarize a number of them that really caught the attention of the 9/11 commission. for example, mohammed atta, who is believed to have piloted american airlines flight 11, 18:55:59.3 which flew into the world trade center's north tower and to have played a leading role in more than 3,000 deaths that occurred that day, in july, just two months before the attacks, atta was stopped by police in 18:56:17.6 tamarack, florida, and ticketed for an invalid license. he ignored the ticket and bench warranted for an arrest. when he was stopped for speeding weeks later in a nearby town, the officer did not check, did not disufer this warrant -- 18:56:31.8 discover this warrant had been issued and let him go with only a warning. now, ok, atta had not yet become illegal. i believe at that time he still was on a legal status, however he was about to expire, and i 18:56:46.8 doubt he would have returned to the immigration officer to get it extended. he would soon have been here illegally as a visa overstay. he could well have been apprehended and identified before 9/11 had he done so. 18:57:06.4 and that's the example i'm trying to make here. it could very well have been decisive. also, hamid hanjour was just one month before 9/11 stopped by 18:57:24.7 police in arlington, virginia, for driving 50 miles an hour in a 35-mile-per-hour zone. he was in a chevy van with new jersey plates, he produced a florida driver's license, but he was the pilot of the american airlines flight 77, which 18:57:39.5 crashed into the pentagon, the third hijacker was stopped by state police just two days before september 11, also for speeding. maryland state police stopped ziad jara on interstate 95 for 18:57:57.1 driving 90 miles an hour in a 60-mile zone. well, i say that, mr. president, to say we're not talking about academic matters here. we're talking about the fact that the alien database needs to 18:58:17.0 be accessible to local police. it might as well, for all practical purposes, be locked up in some valuate somewhere in secrecy the way it's being done today. 18:58:29.5 it's not available to the people out there who need it. and the hart-ruddman commission raised that point, as did the 9/11 commission. we absolutely can -- i've been told at hearings by the appropriate officials, the ncic 18:58:48.5 system can handle the additional data. it will not overburden the system. it will make this information readily and immediately available to a police officer. and we may well -- he may well have or she may have stumbled on 18:59:04.9 a person like mohammed atta on his way to commit a horrible and unspeakable act of terrorism against the people of the united states. and that opportunity to make that arrest and to identify that criminal is most important. 18:59:20.3 so, mr. president, that's the purpose of the amendment. i believe if people think about it that we will see the need of it. i've tried to get this done in any number of different ways, but we haven't quite gotten there yet. 18:59:36.1 i think there's a majority in the senate probably on both sides of the aisle that would support this when it's clearly raised, but it tends, as it so often tends to happen, matters that actually work to a 18:59:52.8 significant degree and will actually substantially increase the ability of our law enforcement system to be effective are the things that don't become law. it's almost like if it works, it won't pass.

SENATE FLOOR DEBATE: The Senate will convene and begin a period of morning business. At 3:00 p.m. the Senate will Resume consideration of S.4, the 9/11 Commission Recommendations bill. 18:08:09.3 vote: the 18:10:42.4 the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, on this vote the ayes are 87; the nays are 1. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order the 18:11:03.1 president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. the senate will return to legislative session. mr. lieberman: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i ask for. the presiding officer: the 18:11:16.6 senator will be in order. the senate will be in order. mr. lieberman: i ask unanimous consent amendment numbered 328 be modified with the changes at the desk. the presiding officer: is there 18:11:32.2 order? the amendment is so modified. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the 18:11:48.0 senator from oklahoma is recognized. mr. coburn: mr. president. 18:12:08.9 i ask that the pending amendment be set aside and i call amendment numbered 325. the presiding officer: without objection, it is so ordered. the clerk will report. 18:12:24.4 mr. coburn: the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. 18:12:49.2 the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: senator coburn proposes an amendment numbered 325. 18:13:00.8 on page 106, insert the following. 18:13:07.1 mr. coburn: i ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered as read. the presiding officer: without objection, it is so ordered. mr. coburn: mr. president, this bill has not been scored but by our estimates -- mr. president, i ask that the senate be in 18:13:23.2 order. the presiding officer: could 18:13:39.3 senators take their conversations to the cloakroom so we may have order. the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: thank you, mr. president. i appreciate that. by our estimate, this bill is about $17 billion plus. 18:13:54.4 it has not been scored. the house bill that will be merged in conference is over $20 billion. that is a large chunk of change for the american taxpayer. what we know is that a lot of the grants which make up about 18:14:13.6 three-plus billion a year over the next five years, the vast majority of this bill, will be homeland security grants of one type or another. what we know is the department of homeland security has not followed the law when it comes 18:14:29.2 to improper payments. what the improper payments act of 2002 required of every agency -- every agency of the federal government -- was that they perform a risk assessment of every program that they is, 18:14:44.3 that they develop a specific -- statistically valid estimate of improper payments; they develop a corrective action plan; they report the results of those activities to us. this isn't an optional plan for 18:15:00.7 the agencies. yet, this plan has been ignored since its inception and since the creation of the department of homeland security. so, we are getting ready to send another $17 billion 18:15:17.4 to $18 billion plus out the door for homeland security grants -- that's the majority of this -- and we know that the department of homeland security is not in compliance with the federal law. the law exists to make sure that we get good value for the 18:15:37.2 taxpayers' money. 2004 was the first year that the agencies were required to respond to this act. it is worth noting again that there is not an agency of the federal government, not one 18:15:50.9 agency, that is exempt from this law. this isn't a request. this is a statutory requirement of every agency. the department of homeland security has not even complied with the first step of this law. 18:16:09.6 they have not performed risk assessments for the programs to be at significant risk of making improper payments. they are an at risk program according to the analysis and yet they have not even looked to 18:16:23.4 do a risk assessment. the government accountability office has found six major programs at this department are out of compliance with improper payments act. the department of homeland security's independent auditor 18:16:39.6 has repeatedly cited noncompliance and the department of homeland security continues to face significant challenges with tee ma and with the individual and households program. based upon the department's performance and accountability report and their independent 18:16:56.0 auditor assessment, the following programs are out of compliance with improper payments act: customs and bother protection; office of grants and training; federal air marshals; the coast guard was supposed to have done a risk 18:17:12.1 assessment and has not been done; the federal emergency management agency; the trappinge transportation security administration and immigration 18:17:26.9 and customs enforcement. in case you think that is not a lot of money, we have already spent over $25 billion in grants through the years for these programs of which we have thought looked at the problem accounts. 18:17:44.2 the press is replete with problems in terms of these grants. $9 billion on state and local preparedness grants is what we get great d.h.s. and secretary chertoff at the most recent hearings said $5 billion of the 18:18:01.5 money, another $5 billion, part of which has been obligated has not gone out the door yet. 18:18:07.4 i think we owe it to the american people that if there's a law on the books, before we send more money out the door, the agency ought to comply with the law. 18:18:20.9 they ought to at least do a risk assessment. if there is no risk, that's fine, they will have complied with the law. but if there is risk we ought to be identifying the risk. every dollar we spent wastefully is a dollar we don't use to protect ourselves in terms of 18:18:38.9 security. kpmg was the independent auditor for 2004, 2005 and 2006 for the department of homeland security. each of the years they were out of compliance with this act. specifically, the department is cited for not instituting a systematic method of reviewing 18:18:54.0 all practices and identifying those that are believed to be susceptible to erroneous improper payments. the most important part of the improper payments act is to create the process of good, strong, oversight within the 18:19:09.4 department to make assessments about whether or not they are making improper peaments. what this assessment does is it identifying where the improper payments could have been made. that's essential to find out where the problems exist. this amendment doesn't debate 18:19:26.3 any of the merits of the department's programs. it simply demands compliance with the transparency and accountability measurements for that already -- that already exist under current law. if we want the american people and the executive branch to take 18:19:43.1 us seriously, congress must demand compliance for the laws that are laws. and we can't back off. this amendment isn't a surprise to the department of homeland security. they know they are failing. they need to respond to it. 18:19:58.9 this amendment in no way jeopardizes state funding. let me tell you why. because there's a pipeline of nine to twelve months in the works already on guarantees that are going there. so, for this to have any impact 18:20:13.9 would mean they would have to not respond for another year before those grants would be in jeopardy. now, some of my colleagues say, well, you can't do this. you can't put these grants at the risk of noncompliance of an agency in terms of meeting the 18:20:31.2 law. and the question ought to be, why not? why shouldn't we put the agency at risk with their grants for being noncompliant? the other point i would make is most of these grants go to state and localities. 18:20:44.9 and the problems with the grants, there is some cuppibility -- culpability on the parts of the agencies and the guarantees. states are not totally innocent. there is $2.5 billion that has not even been awarded yet that 18:21:02.5 still can be awarded before this takes effect. so, there is still another $5 billion which is greater than the amount we spend in any one year on these grants. what this amendment says is, they can't go past that unless they have complied with the law. 18:21:20.1 if we are not going to pass this amendment, we need to trash the improper payments act. if we're not going to say the department of homeland security has an obligation to follow the law we ought to take the law off the books. 18:21:32.9 we know, for sure, in the other areas of the federal government, we have somewhere between $40 billion and $80 billion worth of improper payments the we know we have $40 billion of improper payments, overpayments in medicare. 18:21:47.5 somewhere close to $30 billion in medicaid. we have a third of the earned-income tax credit that we know are improper payments. and we've only looked at 40% of the government. 60% of the government still is not complying with this. we ought to say, right now, if 18:22:04.4 we're going to put more money through the doofer, the american taxpayer ought to have -- through the door, the american taxpayer ought to have value through the money they send through the door. 18:22:20.1 we are asking them to be accountable. and to be accountable as a government -- as an agency of the federal government, there ought to be transparency. we ought to be able to see where they're making mistakes and 18:22:37.1 where they're not. the question of not even asking the question, that is what we are debating with this amendment. they are in absolute non-come ployance of a material law that requires them to be transparent about whether or not their grants are improperly paid or 18:22:52.9 funding things other than what they expected them to fund. investigations shows fema spent millions on puppet shows, bingo and yoga in south florida. 18:23:06.7 there is an article in the national review on homeland port, "baltimore sun", 5-2 9 "chasing security with dollars." the only transparency that we have here is that there's a total lack of transparency in the department of homeland 18:23:21.7 security. now, needless to say, this is a bill that goes far outside september 11th recommendations. 9/11 commission recommendations said all money should be based, risk-based and what we've turned 18:23:39.1 around with the 9/11 bill -- this one and what passed in previous congresses -- is a way to dole out money to states and not hold them accountable. what this amendment says is, you are going to have to start being accountable. 18:23:53.7 if we are going to send another almost $20 billion in terms of grants, homeland security ought to have to follow the law in terms of improper payments. remember, these grants aren't competitively awarded which is very different than the grants 18:24:12.7 that we have in almost every other federal program. the fact that they're not competitive is another reason, a much greater reason, for us to demand accountability and transparency at the department of homeland security. these grants are also not on the 18:24:28.9 basis of risk. some are. in some of these it will be down to .4% and a few at 0.25%. most of them have in local 18:24:44.3 match. so there's no risk on the side of the states or the municipalities that get these grants. just a note, the best way for congress to practice spending discipline is to demand that the 18:25:01.2 agencies comebly with the laws assuring appropriated dollars are spent adequately, appropriately, and lawfully. we have yet it do that with many agencies. d.h.s. is a good place to start. fema awarded $22.6 million for 18:25:18.1 crisis counceling for victims of hurricane katrina and rita. katrina did not even hit florida and yet a large portion of that was spent in florida. there's no accountability. there is no risk assessment, was 18:25:36.2 there a risk? they have not done the work we demand by the law. and what is being demanded of other agencies. there's an article in the 18:25:48.7 florida sun and i cannot vouch for its accuracy, where there's a little smoke there's some fire, the $1.2 billion in aid that fema granted to individuals -- not to municipalities, but to 18:26:04.0 individuals affected by the weather disasters between 1999 and 2004 -- the florida sun found that at least of $1.02 3w-8, at least $330 million of that went to people who did not personally suffer any damage or disruption from the storms. 18:26:21.5 now that's a fourth of the money out of that $1.2 billions. no wonder we have a deficit. no wonder -- because we're not willing to take the time to force an agency to do what they should be doing under the law. 18:26:41.7 i want to talk for a minute about this bill. the 9/11 commission was very 18:26:54.9 succinct and direct, noting that we have tremendous vulnerabilities and risks and exposures throughout this country. 18:27:07.5 and they were very clear to state that money that comes out of congress to address those ought to be absolutely risk-based. 18:27:21.9 the house bill at least has, down to 0.25% for every state. well, what that gives us is about 15% of the money that is going to go to the states, 18:27:39.0 regardless of their risk. so that's about $3. 5 billion or $4 billion. no risk, you are going to get homeland security grants even though you have no risk. think about what we are going to ask ourselves if we have another 18:27:56.2 terrorist attack and it's in one of the high-risk areas and before he sent, year after year after year after year after year after year, $4 billion to areas 18:28:07.4 that don't have a high risk? and that money could have prevented that action. with good fiscal discipline we will best protect the people of 18:28:24.4 this country. i know the tendency of this body is to make sure you get enough for you. and to make sure you can go home and say, we got this for you. and you can pat your sell on the back. but i wonder how many of us will 18:28:38.9 be patting ourselves on the back when we buy things that are not absolutely necessary with the grands that are going to state asks we ignore the very high risk, east coast, west coast and gulf coast and the large metropolitan areas in this country that need more money 18:28:53.7 while we are playing politics with with 15 to 20% of the money every year. we will be judged on that. and that judgment will not be a pretty picture. this amendment just simply says, no funds can go for any of these grants until fema and the 18:29:12.2 department of homeland security start complying with the federal statute which is called the improper payments act of 2002. it's very straight failure. and what we will have raised is the fear that my state may not get some money. well, they is a year to comply. 18:29:29.9 they is plenty of time to do what they have been asked to do. senator obama and i, this last year, over eight months ago, sent a letter to the department of homeland security asking why, and i would like to introduce 18:29:46.0 that letter into the record. this letter was sent to secretary chertoff. the federal financial management subcommittee of the department of -- of the committee on homeland security and government affairs had four hearings on 18:30:02.2 improper payments. we know what is required. we know they can do it. what congress has to do is make then do it if they want to spend the money. it is only right for our children and grandchildren to get fair value for the 18:30:19.0 tax-paying public as we send this money out.n so i'm a skeptic when it comes to this body when it gets away of the political poring that's going on -- poring that's going 18:30:32.5 o. i'm not sure this amendment is going to pass. there's there's no reason to have a law out there that we're not going to enforce. and if we're not going to enforce it, why have it on the books? 18:30:47.2 it's another enforcing the board. the law is there but we don't do t. we have to be accountable to 9 american public to make sure -- to the american public to make sure that the agencies follow the law. this is a simple amendment that requires homeland security to follow that. by the way, we've not had an answer to this letter. 18:31:04.1 this letter was dated november 16. i spoke in error. i'm just about finished, mr. president. i want to correct something i said last week on the united nations. my numbers were wrong. we, in fact, do pay for 20% -- about 22% of the unified budget 18:31:22.2 at the united nations and our total contribution is in excess of $5 billion. hi the ratios right; i had the numbers wrong and i wanted to correct that for the record today. and with that, i yield back the floor. 18:31:42.2 mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, i would call up sessions amendment number 305. 18:32:01.1 i believe it -- the presiding officer: one moment. that amendment is the pending amendment. mr. sessions: mr. president, i believe the amendment is already pending. 18:32:11.7 i believe it was called up by senator mcconnell. mr. president, i would note and ask that senators craig, inhofe, isakson, and coburn be made cosponsors of this amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, 18:32:27.9 it's certainly important, critically important that we clarify the role of state and local law enforcement officers in the enforcement and apprehension of those who violate our immigration laws and that we expand the national crime information center 18:32:47.8 entries. it is critical that we have them participate because with expanded ncic capability, which i'm surprised is not already 18:33:01.8 being done, they can be partners 18:33:04.9 in our federal law enforcement efforts. it would be in compliance with what the 9/11 commission and other reports have asked us to do. and it's a loophole in our system today that needs to be fixed. 18:33:18.6 the amendment i am offering is a slimmed-down version of the bill i offered in the last congress, the homeland security enforcement enhancement act. that was cosponsored by senators craig, inhofe, and isakson. the ideas contained in this amendment have also been 18:33:35.6 supported by senators kyl and cornyn. they included it in their immigration bill last congress. and senator ben nelson and tom coburn, they included -- those provisions were included in the nelson-sessions immigration 18:33:49.4 enforcement bill in last congress. additional, i'd like to tell my colleagues that my amendment is almost word-for-word the provision that the senate judiciary committee included when it marked up the senate immigration bill last year and the provision that the full 18:34:06.1 senate voted for when it passed s. 2611. the first section of the amendment reaffirms the existing -- what i believe to be the existing inherent authority of state and local law enforcement 18:34:23.0 to assist the federal government in enforcing the immigration laws of the united states during the normal course of their carrying out their law enforcement duties. the amendment specifically states that the participation of state and local law enforcement 18:34:39.2 personnel is required, not mandated by this legislation. it is 100% voluntary. section 2 of the amendment deals with the listing of immigration violators in the national crime 18:34:54.8 information center database. state and local officers need easily accessible roadside access to critical immigration information, just as they would do for citizens of the united states who violate our laws. officers routinely, when they 18:35:13.7 stop people on the road, run national crime information center database checks when they pull over suspects. speeders or people they're investigating for other crimes. the ncic is their bread-and-butter database. 18:35:29.5 today, the immigration violators file, the national crime information database, contains information on deported felons, alien absconders and wanted 18:35:46.2 persons, aliens with outstanding criminal warrants. so that is in the national crime information center database. but my amendment would direct that the department of homeland security work with the f.b.i. to place additional information on 18:36:02.6 certain immigration violators into the already existing immigration violators file. the four categories of immigration violators whose information would be entered are: one, aliens who have final orders of removal. 18:36:20.8 that's someone who has been apprehended, gone through a hearing and a judge has ordered finally that they be removed from the country for whatever violation. two, it would cover aliens under voluntary departure agreements, who for one reason or another 18:36:35.8 have signed an order that they would voluntarily deport themselves or leave country. number three, it would cover aliens who are known to have overstayed their authorized period of stay. the visa overstays. and number four, aliens whose 18:36:53.9 visas have been revoked. well, sometime people misbehave seriously. 27% of our federal penitentiary bed spaces today are filled by noncitizens. 18:37:07.7 for some reason, in recent years we're seeing a substantial number of criminal aliens coming into our country. and i would say now, these are not bed spaces for immigration law violations, not people waiting to be deported. these are people who've been arrested, tried or convicted of 18:37:26.0 federal criminal laws, such as drug dealing and -- and assaults or smuggling and things of that nature. so when state and local police officers encounter individuals 18:37:40.5 during their regular law enforcement duties, it's important that they know if the individual in front of them falls into one of these violator categories. importantly, my amendment includes a new procedure for removal of erroneous information in the -- from ncic. 18:37:58.2 if there's something entered incorrectly under the new 18:38:03.2 procedures, an alien may petition the secretary of department of homeland security or the head of ncic to remove any erroneous information that may have been placed that file to protect them from any unfair treatment. 18:38:18.7 now, these are recommendations that really should already be law. but they're recommendations made in the 9/11 official report. and we're all familiar with that 18:38:34.6 9/11 recommendations. and they've been included in the hart-rudman report. on page 34 of the 9/11 commission report -- excuse me. on page 384 of the 9/11 report, 18:38:50.9 the commission says -- quote -- "our investigation showed that two systemic weaknesses came together in our border system's inability to contribute to an effective defense against the 9/11 attacks. 18:39:05.2 a lack of well-developed counterterrorism measures as a part of border security and an immigration system not able to deliver on its basic commitments, much less support counterterrorism. these weaknesses have been 18:39:20.8 reduced but are far from being overcome." on page 390, the report says -- quote -- "there is a growing role for state and local law enforcement agencies. they need more training and work with federal agencies so that 18:39:36.1 they can cooperate more effectively with those federal authorities in identifying terrorist suspects." in the fall of 2002, a year after the 9/11 attacks, the council on foreign relations published the hart-rudman report 18:39:54.9 entitled 'america, still unprepared; america, still in danger." that report found that one problem america still confronts is that 700,000 local and state police officials continue to 18:40:11.8 operate in a virtual intelligence vacuum. the first recommendation of the hart-rudman report was to tap the eyes and ears of local and state law enforcement officers 18:40:27.9 in preventing attacks, closed quote. that's their first recommendation to -- quote -- "tap the eyes and ears of local and state law enforcement officers in preventing attacks." on page 19, the report 18:40:43.4 specifically cited the burden of finding hundreds of thousands of illegal fugitive aliens living among the population of more than 8.5 million illegal aliens and suggested that the burden could and should be shared with the 700,000 local, county, and 18:41:00.3 state law enforcement officers if they could be brought out of the information void. so this amendment that i am offering tightly targets 9/11 commission and hart-rudman report recommendations that we 18:41:17.0 look at the growing role for state and local law enforcement. that we move toward an immigration system that can -- quote -- "deliver on its basic commitments" as a way to fight terrorism. 18:41:33.6 and that we -- quote -- "tap the eyes and ears of local and state law enforcement officers" in an effort to find the hundreds of thousands of fugitive aliens in the united states. most americans would probably be 18:41:53.1 amazed that that's not occurring today. in fact, a poll -- a recent poll gives us several -- about three years ago, a poll was done on this very subject and it found 18:42:10.3 that a large majority of americans feel that state and local governments should be aiding the federal government in finding alien fugitives. that's pretty common sensical. in fact, a roper poll found that 5% of americans agree and 65% -- 18:42:30.5 that 85% of americans agree and 65% strongly agree -- and i've got to tell you, those are powerful numbers when you hear numbers that high -- they agree that congress should pass a law requiring state and local governments and law enforcement 18:42:44.3 agencies to apprehend and turn over to i.n.s. -- now "ice" -- i illegal immigrants with whom they come in contact. that's pretty strong date a. it's important to note that those response -- that's pretty strong data. it's important to note that 18:42:59.2 those responses collected 18:43:01.3 earlier were in response to those requiring local immigration enforcement action. so it's very likely that a poll on this subject, one about voluntary state and local assistance, would be even stronger. let me tell you about the problems that started my interest in this area and 18:43:16.2 prompted me to offer this amendment as well as three years ago to push for a hearing which was held on april 22 of 2004 in 18:43:33.1 the senate judiciary committee entitled -- quote -- "state and local law" -- "state and local authority to enforce immigration law, evaluating a unified approach for stopping 18:43:50.3 terrorists." and to me -- for notice author a law review article -- for me to author a law review article in april 2005, along with my chief council on judiciary, cindy hayden, who was just here, that was published in "the stanford law and policy review," entitled 18:44:05.1 "the growing role for state and local law enforcement in the realm of immigration law." so this is the reality, to my colleagues and friends in the senate. this is the problem we're 18:44:18.8 dealing with. police chiefs and sheriffs in alabama began to tell me as i travel the state and met with them frequently, as i continue to do, that they had been shut out of immigration enforcement and that they felt powerless to 18:44:35.0 do anything about alabama's growing illegal immigrant population. i heard the same story wherever i went -- quote -- "when we come across illegal aliens in our normal course of duty, we have given up calling the i.n.s. 18:44:50.4 because they tell us we have to have 15 or more illegals in custody or they will not even bother to come and pick them up. even worse, alabama police were routinely told that aliens could not be detained until i.n.s. 18:45:05.9 could manage to send someone. they were told they just had to let them go." and this is basically the policy all over america today. i kid you not. 18:45:21.3 if a local officer in virtually any state in america stops someone for speeding or d.u.i. and finds out that they are here illegally, they basically take no steps to even contact i.n.s. because they only have 2,000 18:45:37.4 agents in the entire united states and they're not going to come out there and get them. and, in fact, for other legal reasons, they may have some doubt -- although, frankly, not much -- but there's some doubt about what their authority might be.n now, i -- we've done some 18:45:56.4 research into this and believe that the legal authority of state and local officers to voluntary act on violations of immigration law was pretty clear. and there's any doubt that state and local law officers have this 18:46:12.2 authority and if there is any, and there certainly is some today, congress needs to remove that doubt, which is what this amendment will do. basically, there's a split in the circuits, but -- and i'll take just a moment to explain 18:46:34.8 it. the ninth circuit and the 10th circuit have explicitly -- and the 10th circuit on more than one occasion -- concluded squarely that quote, "a state trooper has general investigatory authority to 18:46:49.4 inquire into possible immigration violations," closed quote. as the 10th circuit went on to say quote, "there is a pre-existing general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of 18:47:07.7 federal law, including immigration laws." they went on to say, the 10th circuit did, in 2001 quote, "state and local police officers have implicit authority within their respective jurisdictions to investigate and make arrests 18:47:25.2 for violations of federal law, including immigration laws." now, these 10th circuit cases made no distinction between visa overstays, which is nor criminal 18:47:40.3 in nature, but civil, but the 9th circuit did, they concluded the civil violations of a visa overstay did not amount to an offense of law that the local law enforcement officer could arrest and detain for. 18:48:04.9 it was not part of the central holding on that case, but that one piece of dicta impacted lawyers and police departments 18:48:17.8 and sheriff's departments all over america. and they're telling their officers, well, the person that you stop is here illegally, it might be that they're a visa overstay and not someone who came across the border illegally. 18:48:32.2 and if you arrest them and detain them, they might sue us, they might sue the city, they might sue the police department. so they've established policies based on this ambiguity that effectively reduced the participation of local law enforcement officers to a dramatic degree in the 18:48:50.8 enforcement of immigration laws. and that's not appropriate. we can fix that. this amendment would fix that. a second problem that the amendment deals with is the inadequate way we share information on immigration 18:49:05.6 matters with state and local police. we have databases full of information on criminal aliens and aliens with final deportation orders, but that information is not directly available to the state and local police through their base system, the ncic. 18:49:23.2 instead, officers are required to make a special second inquiry into the law enforcement support center, which is headquartered in vermont, to see if the person they pulled over is an illegal alien wanted by d.h.s. now, i got to tell you, they're 18:49:41.8 just not carrying around in their pockets those phone numbers anyway. they don't know how to do it, they're not comfortable with it, it's not what they do every day, and they're not doing it. and besides if they do and found out the person is illegal, there's nothing much they can do but let them go anyway. 18:50:03.8 so the ability of the bread and burr nci -- bread and butter ncic database is to convey to 18:50:13.9 local police who stop someone out on a highway information that this may be a wanted person, may be even a terrorist, has been severely impacted or 18:50:28.4 real not effective in many, many different areas. now, i've complained about this for some time and some progress has been made, but not enough. to date, the immigration violators file of the ncic 18:50:46.3 contains about 200,000 entries and only about 107,000 of the approximate 600,000 alien absconders are in the ncic. i want you to hear that. 18:51:02.0 only about 100,000 of the 600,000 alien absconders have been entered into the ncic. so what does that mean? that means if a local police officer somewhere stops a person that's been previously arrested 18:51:19.5 for an immigration violation, that person has been released on bail, as is often the case, or ordered to return to court or are frequently deported and they don't do so, they abscond, and 18:51:35.8 there are 600,000 of those absconders out there, but only 107,000 of those records are in ncic, so if a local police officer is not likely to find a hit if the person before him, there would be one in five 18:51:51.8 chances that they would get that hit. that really needs to be fixed, and for the life of me i can't see why more progress has not been made. we've been talking about this for four or five years in the senate judiciary committee with the department of justice officials and i.c.e. officials and f.b.i. people who run the 18:52:09.6 ncic. now, at the very least, the ncic should contain four types of immigration information: aliens with final orders of removal. if someone has been ordered removed, they should not be in this country. 18:52:24.7 they sometimes leave the country and come back into the country and you get a hit on that person. in other words, they've been ordered removed. why are they back in the country? second group should be in there, aliens under voluntary departure 18:52:42.2 agreement. some agree voluntarily to leave and sign an agreement to that effect. they ought to be in there because they should not have stayed in the country, or if they left, they should not have returned. aliens who are known to have overstayed their authorized period of stay should be entered 18:52:56.0 and aliens whose visas have been 18:52:59.7 revoked, for heaven sakes, ought to be in there. somebody's here improperly, maybe associated with some criminal enterprise, the i.c.e. people have revoked their visa for some reason, it would have 18:53:15.3 to be significant, usually, for that to occur, they ought to go in there. because if they've been -- because if they're stopped somewhere, they should be detained and turned over to i.c.e.; otherwise, the system is not working. 18:53:29.1 and let me just tell my colleagues i know how this system works. if someone had their visa revoked and had been ordered to be removed, trust me, the i.c.e. 18:53:48.5 agents don't go out and walk the streets of philadelphia or atlanta or birmingham and look for them so they can deport them. they don't do it. they are not even close to 18:54:00.7 having the possibility of doing that. only the people that they have evidence on and are extremely dangerous is that done on. and that's very, very few. the way most people are caught is just like everybody else in america who is caught who have 18:54:18.3 absconded or run off on bail. they get caught by getting picked up by police on a traffic stop somewhere. the police officer runs their name and i.d. in ncic and it comes back a hit. there's a warrant for their arrest in montgomery, alabama, for armed robbery, and he locked 18:54:36.3 them up. now, if you are an american citizen and you get a reckless driving ticket and you're ordered to appear in court at a given time and place and you don't appear in court, they issue a warrant for your arrest. 18:54:52.8 and normally the police officers don't go out and chase you down all over, finding to arrest you. normally they put it in the ncic immediately on the assumption that you'll soon be stopped 18:55:05.1 somewhere else on the way and they'll get a hit on you and they'll put you in jail because you have a warrant for flight out there or for jumping bail. but we don't do that for noncitizens. a citizen that will happen to, a united states senator that will 18:55:20.6 happen to, but not somebody that's coming into the country illegally, we don't do the same thing when they jump bail on their charges. so, mr. president, there are a 18:55:42.7 lot of stories that we can tell, and i would just summarize a number of them that really caught the attention of the 9/11 commission. for example, mohammed atta, who is believed to have piloted american airlines flight 11, 18:55:59.3 which flew into the world trade center's north tower and to have played a leading role in more than 3,000 deaths that occurred that day, in july, just two months before the attacks, atta was stopped by police in 18:56:17.6 tamarack, florida, and ticketed for an invalid license. he ignored the ticket and bench warranted for an arrest. when he was stopped for speeding weeks later in a nearby town, the officer did not check, did not disufer this warrant -- 18:56:31.8 discover this warrant had been issued and let him go with only a warning. now, ok, atta had not yet become illegal. i believe at that time he still was on a legal status, however he was about to expire, and i 18:56:46.8 doubt he would have returned to the immigration officer to get it extended. he would soon have been here illegally as a visa overstay. he could well have been apprehended and identified before 9/11 had he done so. 18:57:06.4 and that's the example i'm trying to make here. it could very well have been decisive. also, hamid hanjour was just one month before 9/11 stopped by 18:57:24.7 police in arlington, virginia, for driving 50 miles an hour in a 35-mile-per-hour zone. he was in a chevy van with new jersey plates, he produced a florida driver's license, but he was the pilot of the american airlines flight 77, which 18:57:39.5 crashed into the pentagon, the third hijacker was stopped by state police just two days before september 11, also for speeding. maryland state police stopped ziad jara on interstate 95 for 18:57:57.1 driving 90 miles an hour in a 60-mile zone. well, i say that, mr. president, to say we're not talking about academic matters here. we're talking about the fact that the alien database needs to 18:58:17.0 be accessible to local police. it might as well, for all practical purposes, be locked up in some valuate somewhere in secrecy the way it's being done today. 18:58:29.5 it's not available to the people out there who need it. and the hart-ruddman commission raised that point, as did the 9/11 commission. we absolutely can -- i've been told at hearings by the appropriate officials, the ncic 18:58:48.5 system can handle the additional data. it will not overburden the system. it will make this information readily and immediately available to a police officer. and we may well -- he may well have or she may have stumbled on 18:59:04.9 a person like mohammed atta on his way to commit a horrible and unspeakable act of terrorism against the people of the united states. and that opportunity to make that arrest and to identify that criminal is most important. 18:59:20.3 so, mr. president, that's the purpose of the amendment. i believe if people think about it that we will see the need of it. i've tried to get this done in any number of different ways, but we haven't quite gotten there yet. 18:59:36.1 i think there's a majority in the senate probably on both sides of the aisle that would support this when it's clearly raised, but it tends, as it so often tends to happen, matters that actually work to a 18:59:52.8 significant degree and will actually substantially increase the ability of our law enforcement system to be effective are the things that don't become law. it's almost like if it works, it won't pass.

SENATE FLOOR DEBATE: The Senate will convene and begin a period of morning business. At 3:00 p.m. the Senate will Resume consideration of S.4, the 9/11 Commission Recommendations bill. 18:08:09.3 vote: the 18:10:42.4 the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, on this vote the ayes are 87; the nays are 1. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order the 18:11:03.1 president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. the senate will return to legislative session. mr. lieberman: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i ask for. the presiding officer: the 18:11:16.6 senator will be in order. the senate will be in order. mr. lieberman: i ask unanimous consent amendment numbered 328 be modified with the changes at the desk. the presiding officer: is there 18:11:32.2 order? the amendment is so modified. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the 18:11:48.0 senator from oklahoma is recognized. mr. coburn: mr. president. 18:12:08.9 i ask that the pending amendment be set aside and i call amendment numbered 325. the presiding officer: without objection, it is so ordered. the clerk will report. 18:12:24.4 mr. coburn: the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. 18:12:49.2 the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: senator coburn proposes an amendment numbered 325. 18:13:00.8 on page 106, insert the following. 18:13:07.1 mr. coburn: i ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered as read. the presiding officer: without objection, it is so ordered. mr. coburn: mr. president, this bill has not been scored but by our estimates -- mr. president, i ask that the senate be in 18:13:23.2 order. the presiding officer: could 18:13:39.3 senators take their conversations to the cloakroom so we may have order. the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: thank you, mr. president. i appreciate that. by our estimate, this bill is about $17 billion plus. 18:13:54.4 it has not been scored. the house bill that will be merged in conference is over $20 billion. that is a large chunk of change for the american taxpayer. what we know is that a lot of the grants which make up about 18:14:13.6 three-plus billion a year over the next five years, the vast majority of this bill, will be homeland security grants of one type or another. what we know is the department of homeland security has not followed the law when it comes 18:14:29.2 to improper payments. what the improper payments act of 2002 required of every agency -- every agency of the federal government -- was that they perform a risk assessment of every program that they is, 18:14:44.3 that they develop a specific -- statistically valid estimate of improper payments; they develop a corrective action plan; they report the results of those activities to us. this isn't an optional plan for 18:15:00.7 the agencies. yet, this plan has been ignored since its inception and since the creation of the department of homeland security. so, we are getting ready to send another $17 billion 18:15:17.4 to $18 billion plus out the door for homeland security grants -- that's the majority of this -- and we know that the department of homeland security is not in compliance with the federal law. the law exists to make sure that we get good value for the 18:15:37.2 taxpayers' money. 2004 was the first year that the agencies were required to respond to this act. it is worth noting again that there is not an agency of the federal government, not one 18:15:50.9 agency, that is exempt from this law. this isn't a request. this is a statutory requirement of every agency. the department of homeland security has not even complied with the first step of this law. 18:16:09.6 they have not performed risk assessments for the programs to be at significant risk of making improper payments. they are an at risk program according to the analysis and yet they have not even looked to 18:16:23.4 do a risk assessment. the government accountability office has found six major programs at this department are out of compliance with improper payments act. the department of homeland security's independent auditor 18:16:39.6 has repeatedly cited noncompliance and the department of homeland security continues to face significant challenges with tee ma and with the individual and households program. based upon the department's performance and accountability report and their independent 18:16:56.0 auditor assessment, the following programs are out of compliance with improper payments act: customs and bother protection; office of grants and training; federal air marshals; the coast guard was supposed to have done a risk 18:17:12.1 assessment and has not been done; the federal emergency management agency; the trappinge transportation security administration and immigration 18:17:26.9 and customs enforcement. in case you think that is not a lot of money, we have already spent over $25 billion in grants through the years for these programs of which we have thought looked at the problem accounts. 18:17:44.2 the press is replete with problems in terms of these grants. $9 billion on state and local preparedness grants is what we get great d.h.s. and secretary chertoff at the most recent hearings said $5 billion of the 18:18:01.5 money, another $5 billion, part of which has been obligated has not gone out the door yet. 18:18:07.4 i think we owe it to the american people that if there's a law on the books, before we send more money out the door, the agency ought to comply with the law. 18:18:20.9 they ought to at least do a risk assessment. if there is no risk, that's fine, they will have complied with the law. but if there is risk we ought to be identifying the risk. every dollar we spent wastefully is a dollar we don't use to protect ourselves in terms of 18:18:38.9 security. kpmg was the independent auditor for 2004, 2005 and 2006 for the department of homeland security. each of the years they were out of compliance with this act. specifically, the department is cited for not instituting a systematic method of reviewing 18:18:54.0 all practices and identifying those that are believed to be susceptible to erroneous improper payments. the most important part of the improper payments act is to create the process of good, strong, oversight within the 18:19:09.4 department to make assessments about whether or not they are making improper peaments. what this assessment does is it identifying where the improper payments could have been made. that's essential to find out where the problems exist. this amendment doesn't debate 18:19:26.3 any of the merits of the department's programs. it simply demands compliance with the transparency and accountability measurements for that already -- that already exist under current law. if we want the american people and the executive branch to take 18:19:43.1 us seriously, congress must demand compliance for the laws that are laws. and we can't back off. this amendment isn't a surprise to the department of homeland security. they know they are failing. they need to respond to it. 18:19:58.9 this amendment in no way jeopardizes state funding. let me tell you why. because there's a pipeline of nine to twelve months in the works already on guarantees that are going there. so, for this to have any impact 18:20:13.9 would mean they would have to not respond for another year before those grants would be in jeopardy. now, some of my colleagues say, well, you can't do this. you can't put these grants at the risk of noncompliance of an agency in terms of meeting the 18:20:31.2 law. and the question ought to be, why not? why shouldn't we put the agency at risk with their grants for being noncompliant? the other point i would make is most of these grants go to state and localities. 18:20:44.9 and the problems with the grants, there is some cuppibility -- culpability on the parts of the agencies and the guarantees. states are not totally innocent. there is $2.5 billion that has not even been awarded yet that 18:21:02.5 still can be awarded before this takes effect. so, there is still another $5 billion which is greater than the amount we spend in any one year on these grants. what this amendment says is, they can't go past that unless they have complied with the law. 18:21:20.1 if we are not going to pass this amendment, we need to trash the improper payments act. if we're not going to say the department of homeland security has an obligation to follow the law we ought to take the law off the books. 18:21:32.9 we know, for sure, in the other areas of the federal government, we have somewhere between $40 billion and $80 billion worth of improper payments the we know we have $40 billion of improper payments, overpayments in medicare. 18:21:47.5 somewhere close to $30 billion in medicaid. we have a third of the earned-income tax credit that we know are improper payments. and we've only looked at 40% of the government. 60% of the government still is not complying with this. we ought to say, right now, if 18:22:04.4 we're going to put more money through the doofer, the american taxpayer ought to have -- through the door, the american taxpayer ought to have value through the money they send through the door. 18:22:20.1 we are asking them to be accountable. and to be accountable as a government -- as an agency of the federal government, there ought to be transparency. we ought to be able to see where they're making mistakes and 18:22:37.1 where they're not. the question of not even asking the question, that is what we are debating with this amendment. they are in absolute non-come ployance of a material law that requires them to be transparent about whether or not their grants are improperly paid or 18:22:52.9 funding things other than what they expected them to fund. investigations shows fema spent millions on puppet shows, bingo and yoga in south florida. 18:23:06.7 there is an article in the national review on homeland port, "baltimore sun", 5-2 9 "chasing security with dollars." the only transparency that we have here is that there's a total lack of transparency in the department of homeland 18:23:21.7 security. now, needless to say, this is a bill that goes far outside september 11th recommendations. 9/11 commission recommendations said all money should be based, risk-based and what we've turned 18:23:39.1 around with the 9/11 bill -- this one and what passed in previous congresses -- is a way to dole out money to states and not hold them accountable. what this amendment says is, you are going to have to start being accountable. 18:23:53.7 if we are going to send another almost $20 billion in terms of grants, homeland security ought to have to follow the law in terms of improper payments. remember, these grants aren't competitively awarded which is very different than the grants 18:24:12.7 that we have in almost every other federal program. the fact that they're not competitive is another reason, a much greater reason, for us to demand accountability and transparency at the department of homeland security. these grants are also not on the 18:24:28.9 basis of risk. some are. in some of these it will be down to .4% and a few at 0.25%. most of them have in local 18:24:44.3 match. so there's no risk on the side of the states or the municipalities that get these grants. just a note, the best way for congress to practice spending discipline is to demand that the 18:25:01.2 agencies comebly with the laws assuring appropriated dollars are spent adequately, appropriately, and lawfully. we have yet it do that with many agencies. d.h.s. is a good place to start. fema awarded $22.6 million for 18:25:18.1 crisis counceling for victims of hurricane katrina and rita. katrina did not even hit florida and yet a large portion of that was spent in florida. there's no accountability. there is no risk assessment, was 18:25:36.2 there a risk? they have not done the work we demand by the law. and what is being demanded of other agencies. there's an article in the 18:25:48.7 florida sun and i cannot vouch for its accuracy, where there's a little smoke there's some fire, the $1.2 billion in aid that fema granted to individuals -- not to municipalities, but to 18:26:04.0 individuals affected by the weather disasters between 1999 and 2004 -- the florida sun found that at least of $1.02 3w-8, at least $330 million of that went to people who did not personally suffer any damage or disruption from the storms. 18:26:21.5 now that's a fourth of the money out of that $1.2 billions. no wonder we have a deficit. no wonder -- because we're not willing to take the time to force an agency to do what they should be doing under the law. 18:26:41.7 i want to talk for a minute about this bill. the 9/11 commission was very 18:26:54.9 succinct and direct, noting that we have tremendous vulnerabilities and risks and exposures throughout this country. 18:27:07.5 and they were very clear to state that money that comes out of congress to address those ought to be absolutely risk-based. 18:27:21.9 the house bill at least has, down to 0.25% for every state. well, what that gives us is about 15% of the money that is going to go to the states, 18:27:39.0 regardless of their risk. so that's about $3. 5 billion or $4 billion. no risk, you are going to get homeland security grants even though you have no risk. think about what we are going to ask ourselves if we have another 18:27:56.2 terrorist attack and it's in one of the high-risk areas and before he sent, year after year after year after year after year after year, $4 billion to areas 18:28:07.4 that don't have a high risk? and that money could have prevented that action. with good fiscal discipline we will best protect the people of 18:28:24.4 this country. i know the tendency of this body is to make sure you get enough for you. and to make sure you can go home and say, we got this for you. and you can pat your sell on the back. but i wonder how many of us will 18:28:38.9 be patting ourselves on the back when we buy things that are not absolutely necessary with the grands that are going to state asks we ignore the very high risk, east coast, west coast and gulf coast and the large metropolitan areas in this country that need more money 18:28:53.7 while we are playing politics with with 15 to 20% of the money every year. we will be judged on that. and that judgment will not be a pretty picture. this amendment just simply says, no funds can go for any of these grants until fema and the 18:29:12.2 department of homeland security start complying with the federal statute which is called the improper payments act of 2002. it's very straight failure. and what we will have raised is the fear that my state may not get some money. well, they is a year to comply. 18:29:29.9 they is plenty of time to do what they have been asked to do. senator obama and i, this last year, over eight months ago, sent a letter to the department of homeland security asking why, and i would like to introduce 18:29:46.0 that letter into the record. this letter was sent to secretary chertoff. the federal financial management subcommittee of the department of -- of the committee on homeland security and government affairs had four hearings on 18:30:02.2 improper payments. we know what is required. we know they can do it. what congress has to do is make then do it if they want to spend the money. it is only right for our children and grandchildren to get fair value for the 18:30:19.0 tax-paying public as we send this money out.n so i'm a skeptic when it comes to this body when it gets away of the political poring that's going on -- poring that's going 18:30:32.5 o. i'm not sure this amendment is going to pass. there's there's no reason to have a law out there that we're not going to enforce. and if we're not going to enforce it, why have it on the books? 18:30:47.2 it's another enforcing the board. the law is there but we don't do t. we have to be accountable to 9 american public to make sure -- to the american public to make sure that the agencies follow the law. this is a simple amendment that requires homeland security to follow that. by the way, we've not had an answer to this letter. 18:31:04.1 this letter was dated november 16. i spoke in error. i'm just about finished, mr. president. i want to correct something i said last week on the united nations. my numbers were wrong. we, in fact, do pay for 20% -- about 22% of the unified budget 18:31:22.2 at the united nations and our total contribution is in excess of $5 billion. hi the ratios right; i had the numbers wrong and i wanted to correct that for the record today. and with that, i yield back the floor. 18:31:42.2 mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, i would call up sessions amendment number 305. 18:32:01.1 i believe it -- the presiding officer: one moment. that amendment is the pending amendment. mr. sessions: mr. president, i believe the amendment is already pending. 18:32:11.7 i believe it was called up by senator mcconnell. mr. president, i would note and ask that senators craig, inhofe, isakson, and coburn be made cosponsors of this amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, 18:32:27.9 it's certainly important, critically important that we clarify the role of state and local law enforcement officers in the enforcement and apprehension of those who violate our immigration laws and that we expand the national crime information center 18:32:47.8 entries. it is critical that we have them participate because with expanded ncic capability, which i'm surprised is not already 18:33:01.8 being done, they can be partners 18:33:04.9 in our federal law enforcement efforts. it would be in compliance with what the 9/11 commission and other reports have asked us to do. and it's a loophole in our system today that needs to be fixed. 18:33:18.6 the amendment i am offering is a slimmed-down version of the bill i offered in the last congress, the homeland security enforcement enhancement act. that was cosponsored by senators craig, inhofe, and isakson. the ideas contained in this amendment have also been 18:33:35.6 supported by senators kyl and cornyn. they included it in their immigration bill last congress. and senator ben nelson and tom coburn, they included -- those provisions were included in the nelson-sessions immigration 18:33:49.4 enforcement bill in last congress. additional, i'd like to tell my colleagues that my amendment is almost word-for-word the provision that the senate judiciary committee included when it marked up the senate immigration bill last year and the provision that the full 18:34:06.1 senate voted for when it passed s. 2611. the first section of the amendment reaffirms the existing -- what i believe to be the existing inherent authority of state and local law enforcement 18:34:23.0 to assist the federal government in enforcing the immigration laws of the united states during the normal course of their carrying out their law enforcement duties. the amendment specifically states that the participation of state and local law enforcement 18:34:39.2 personnel is required, not mandated by this legislation. it is 100% voluntary. section 2 of the amendment deals with the listing of immigration violators in the national crime 18:34:54.8 information center database. state and local officers need easily accessible roadside access to critical immigration information, just as they would do for citizens of the united states who violate our laws. officers routinely, when they 18:35:13.7 stop people on the road, run national crime information center database checks when they pull over suspects. speeders or people they're investigating for other crimes. the ncic is their bread-and-butter database. 18:35:29.5 today, the immigration violators file, the national crime information database, contains information on deported felons, alien absconders and wanted 18:35:46.2 persons, aliens with outstanding criminal warrants. so that is in the national crime information center database. but my amendment would direct that the department of homeland security work with the f.b.i. to place additional information on 18:36:02.6 certain immigration violators into the already existing immigration violators file. the four categories of immigration violators whose information would be entered are: one, aliens who have final orders of removal. 18:36:20.8 that's someone who has been apprehended, gone through a hearing and a judge has ordered finally that they be removed from the country for whatever violation. two, it would cover aliens under voluntary departure agreements, who for one reason or another 18:36:35.8 have signed an order that they would voluntarily deport themselves or leave country. number three, it would cover aliens who are known to have overstayed their authorized period of stay. the visa overstays. and number four, aliens whose 18:36:53.9 visas have been revoked. well, sometime people misbehave seriously. 27% of our federal penitentiary bed spaces today are filled by noncitizens. 18:37:07.7 for some reason, in recent years we're seeing a substantial number of criminal aliens coming into our country. and i would say now, these are not bed spaces for immigration law violations, not people waiting to be deported. these are people who've been arrested, tried or convicted of 18:37:26.0 federal criminal laws, such as drug dealing and -- and assaults or smuggling and things of that nature. so when state and local police officers encounter individuals 18:37:40.5 during their regular law enforcement duties, it's important that they know if the individual in front of them falls into one of these violator categories. importantly, my amendment includes a new procedure for removal of erroneous information in the -- from ncic. 18:37:58.2 if there's something entered incorrectly under the new 18:38:03.2 procedures, an alien may petition the secretary of department of homeland security or the head of ncic to remove any erroneous information that may have been placed that file to protect them from any unfair treatment. 18:38:18.7 now, these are recommendations that really should already be law. but they're recommendations made in the 9/11 official report. and we're all familiar with that 18:38:34.6 9/11 recommendations. and they've been included in the hart-rudman report. on page 34 of the 9/11 commission report -- excuse me. on page 384 of the 9/11 report, 18:38:50.9 the commission says -- quote -- "our investigation showed that two systemic weaknesses came together in our border system's inability to contribute to an effective defense against the 9/11 attacks. 18:39:05.2 a lack of well-developed counterterrorism measures as a part of border security and an immigration system not able to deliver on its basic commitments, much less support counterterrorism. these weaknesses have been 18:39:20.8 reduced but are far from being overcome." on page 390, the report says -- quote -- "there is a growing role for state and local law enforcement agencies. they need more training and work with federal agencies so that 18:39:36.1 they can cooperate more effectively with those federal authorities in identifying terrorist suspects." in the fall of 2002, a year after the 9/11 attacks, the council on foreign relations published the hart-rudman report 18:39:54.9 entitled 'america, still unprepared; america, still in danger." that report found that one problem america still confronts is that 700,000 local and state police officials continue to 18:40:11.8 operate in a virtual intelligence vacuum. the first recommendation of the hart-rudman report was to tap the eyes and ears of local and state law enforcement officers 18:40:27.9 in preventing attacks, closed quote. that's their first recommendation to -- quote -- "tap the eyes and ears of local and state law enforcement officers in preventing attacks." on page 19, the report 18:40:43.4 specifically cited the burden of finding hundreds of thousands of illegal fugitive aliens living among the population of more than 8.5 million illegal aliens and suggested that the burden could and should be shared with the 700,000 local, county, and 18:41:00.3 state law enforcement officers if they could be brought out of the information void. so this amendment that i am offering tightly targets 9/11 commission and hart-rudman report recommendations that we 18:41:17.0 look at the growing role for state and local law enforcement. that we move toward an immigration system that can -- quote -- "deliver on its basic commitments" as a way to fight terrorism. 18:41:33.6 and that we -- quote -- "tap the eyes and ears of local and state law enforcement officers" in an effort to find the hundreds of thousands of fugitive aliens in the united states. most americans would probably be 18:41:53.1 amazed that that's not occurring today. in fact, a poll -- a recent poll gives us several -- about three years ago, a poll was done on this very subject and it found 18:42:10.3 that a large majority of americans feel that state and local governments should be aiding the federal government in finding alien fugitives. that's pretty common sensical. in fact, a roper poll found that 5% of americans agree and 65% -- 18:42:30.5 that 85% of americans agree and 65% strongly agree -- and i've got to tell you, those are powerful numbers when you hear numbers that high -- they agree that congress should pass a law requiring state and local governments and law enforcement 18:42:44.3 agencies to apprehend and turn over to i.n.s. -- now "ice" -- i illegal immigrants with whom they come in contact. that's pretty strong date a. it's important to note that those response -- that's pretty strong data. it's important to note that 18:42:59.2 those responses collected 18:43:01.3 earlier were in response to those requiring local immigration enforcement action. so it's very likely that a poll on this subject, one about voluntary state and local assistance, would be even stronger. let me tell you about the problems that started my interest in this area and 18:43:16.2 prompted me to offer this amendment as well as three years ago to push for a hearing which was held on april 22 of 2004 in 18:43:33.1 the senate judiciary committee entitled -- quote -- "state and local law" -- "state and local authority to enforce immigration law, evaluating a unified approach for stopping 18:43:50.3 terrorists." and to me -- for notice author a law review article -- for me to author a law review article in april 2005, along with my chief council on judiciary, cindy hayden, who was just here, that was published in "the stanford law and policy review," entitled 18:44:05.1 "the growing role for state and local law enforcement in the realm of immigration law." so this is the reality, to my colleagues and friends in the senate. this is the problem we're 18:44:18.8 dealing with. police chiefs and sheriffs in alabama began to tell me as i travel the state and met with them frequently, as i continue to do, that they had been shut out of immigration enforcement and that they felt powerless to 18:44:35.0 do anything about alabama's growing illegal immigrant population. i heard the same story wherever i went -- quote -- "when we come across illegal aliens in our normal course of duty, we have given up calling the i.n.s. 18:44:50.4 because they tell us we have to have 15 or more illegals in custody or they will not even bother to come and pick them up. even worse, alabama police were routinely told that aliens could not be detained until i.n.s. 18:45:05.9 could manage to send someone. they were told they just had to let them go." and this is basically the policy all over america today. i kid you not. 18:45:21.3 if a local officer in virtually any state in america stops someone for speeding or d.u.i. and finds out that they are here illegally, they basically take no steps to even contact i.n.s. because they only have 2,000 18:45:37.4 agents in the entire united states and they're not going to come out there and get them. and, in fact, for other legal reasons, they may have some doubt -- although, frankly, not much -- but there's some doubt about what their authority might be.n now, i -- we've done some 18:45:56.4 research into this and believe that the legal authority of state and local officers to voluntary act on violations of immigration law was pretty clear. and there's any doubt that state and local law officers have this 18:46:12.2 authority and if there is any, and there certainly is some today, congress needs to remove that doubt, which is what this amendment will do. basically, there's a split in the circuits, but -- and i'll take just a moment to explain 18:46:34.8 it. the ninth circuit and the 10th circuit have explicitly -- and the 10th circuit on more than one occasion -- concluded squarely that quote, "a state trooper has general investigatory authority to 18:46:49.4 inquire into possible immigration violations," closed quote. as the 10th circuit went on to say quote, "there is a pre-existing general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of 18:47:07.7 federal law, including immigration laws." they went on to say, the 10th circuit did, in 2001 quote, "state and local police officers have implicit authority within their respective jurisdictions to investigate and make arrests 18:47:25.2 for violations of federal law, including immigration laws." now, these 10th circuit cases made no distinction between visa overstays, which is nor criminal 18:47:40.3 in nature, but civil, but the 9th circuit did, they concluded the civil violations of a visa overstay did not amount to an offense of law that the local law enforcement officer could arrest and detain for. 18:48:04.9 it was not part of the central holding on that case, but that one piece of dicta impacted lawyers and police departments 18:48:17.8 and sheriff's departments all over america. and they're telling their officers, well, the person that you stop is here illegally, it might be that they're a visa overstay and not someone who came across the border illegally. 18:48:32.2 and if you arrest them and detain them, they might sue us, they might sue the city, they might sue the police department. so they've established policies based on this ambiguity that effectively reduced the participation of local law enforcement officers to a dramatic degree in the 18:48:50.8 enforcement of immigration laws. and that's not appropriate. we can fix that. this amendment would fix that. a second problem that the amendment deals with is the inadequate way we share information on immigration 18:49:05.6 matters with state and local police. we have databases full of information on criminal aliens and aliens with final deportation orders, but that information is not directly available to the state and local police through their base system, the ncic. 18:49:23.2 instead, officers are required to make a special second inquiry into the law enforcement support center, which is headquartered in vermont, to see if the person they pulled over is an illegal alien wanted by d.h.s. now, i got to tell you, they're 18:49:41.8 just not carrying around in their pockets those phone numbers anyway. they don't know how to do it, they're not comfortable with it, it's not what they do every day, and they're not doing it. and besides if they do and found out the person is illegal, there's nothing much they can do but let them go anyway. 18:50:03.8 so the ability of the bread and burr nci -- bread and butter ncic database is to convey to 18:50:13.9 local police who stop someone out on a highway information that this may be a wanted person, may be even a terrorist, has been severely impacted or 18:50:28.4 real not effective in many, many different areas. now, i've complained about this for some time and some progress has been made, but not enough. to date, the immigration violators file of the ncic 18:50:46.3 contains about 200,000 entries and only about 107,000 of the approximate 600,000 alien absconders are in the ncic. i want you to hear that. 18:51:02.0 only about 100,000 of the 600,000 alien absconders have been entered into the ncic. so what does that mean? that means if a local police officer somewhere stops a person that's been previously arrested 18:51:19.5 for an immigration violation, that person has been released on bail, as is often the case, or ordered to return to court or are frequently deported and they don't do so, they abscond, and 18:51:35.8 there are 600,000 of those absconders out there, but only 107,000 of those records are in ncic, so if a local police officer is not likely to find a hit if the person before him, there would be one in five 18:51:51.8 chances that they would get that hit. that really needs to be fixed, and for the life of me i can't see why more progress has not been made. we've been talking about this for four or five years in the senate judiciary committee with the department of justice officials and i.c.e. officials and f.b.i. people who run the 18:52:09.6 ncic. now, at the very least, the ncic should contain four types of immigration information: aliens with final orders of removal. if someone has been ordered removed, they should not be in this country. 18:52:24.7 they sometimes leave the country and come back into the country and you get a hit on that person. in other words, they've been ordered removed. why are they back in the country? second group should be in there, aliens under voluntary departure 18:52:42.2 agreement. some agree voluntarily to leave and sign an agreement to that effect. they ought to be in there because they should not have stayed in the country, or if they left, they should not have returned. aliens who are known to have overstayed their authorized period of stay should be entered 18:52:56.0 and aliens whose visas have been 18:52:59.7 revoked, for heaven sakes, ought to be in there. somebody's here improperly, maybe associated with some criminal enterprise, the i.c.e. people have revoked their visa for some reason, it would have 18:53:15.3 to be significant, usually, for that to occur, they ought to go in there. because if they've been -- because if they're stopped somewhere, they should be detained and turned over to i.c.e.; otherwise, the system is not working. 18:53:29.1 and let me just tell my colleagues i know how this system works. if someone had their visa revoked and had been ordered to be removed, trust me, the i.c.e. 18:53:48.5 agents don't go out and walk the streets of philadelphia or atlanta or birmingham and look for them so they can deport them. they don't do it. they are not even close to 18:54:00.7 having the possibility of doing that. only the people that they have evidence on and are extremely dangerous is that done on. and that's very, very few. the way most people are caught is just like everybody else in america who is caught who have 18:54:18.3 absconded or run off on bail. they get caught by getting picked up by police on a traffic stop somewhere. the police officer runs their name and i.d. in ncic and it comes back a hit. there's a warrant for their arrest in montgomery, alabama, for armed robbery, and he locked 18:54:36.3 them up. now, if you are an american citizen and you get a reckless driving ticket and you're ordered to appear in court at a given time and place and you don't appear in court, they issue a warrant for your arrest. 18:54:52.8 and normally the police officers don't go out and chase you down all over, finding to arrest you. normally they put it in the ncic immediately on the assumption that you'll soon be stopped 18:55:05.1 somewhere else on the way and they'll get a hit on you and they'll put you in jail because you have a warrant for flight out there or for jumping bail. but we don't do that for noncitizens. a citizen that will happen to, a united states senator that will 18:55:20.6 happen to, but not somebody that's coming into the country illegally, we don't do the same thing when they jump bail on their charges. so, mr. president, there are a 18:55:42.7 lot of stories that we can tell, and i would just summarize a number of them that really caught the attention of the 9/11 commission. for example, mohammed atta, who is believed to have piloted american airlines flight 11, 18:55:59.3 which flew into the world trade center's north tower and to have played a leading role in more than 3,000 deaths that occurred that day, in july, just two months before the attacks, atta was stopped by police in 18:56:17.6 tamarack, florida, and ticketed for an invalid license. he ignored the ticket and bench warranted for an arrest. when he was stopped for speeding weeks later in a nearby town, the officer did not check, did not disufer this warrant -- 18:56:31.8 discover this warrant had been issued and let him go with only a warning. now, ok, atta had not yet become illegal. i believe at that time he still was on a legal status, however he was about to expire, and i 18:56:46.8 doubt he would have returned to the immigration officer to get it extended. he would soon have been here illegally as a visa overstay. he could well have been apprehended and identified before 9/11 had he done so. 18:57:06.4 and that's the example i'm trying to make here. it could very well have been decisive. also, hamid hanjour was just one month before 9/11 stopped by 18:57:24.7 police in arlington, virginia, for driving 50 miles an hour in a 35-mile-per-hour zone. he was in a chevy van with new jersey plates, he produced a florida driver's license, but he was the pilot of the american airlines flight 77, which 18:57:39.5 crashed into the pentagon, the third hijacker was stopped by state police just two days before september 11, also for speeding. maryland state police stopped ziad jara on interstate 95 for 18:57:57.1 driving 90 miles an hour in a 60-mile zone. well, i say that, mr. president, to say we're not talking about academic matters here. we're talking about the fact that the alien database needs to 18:58:17.0 be accessible to local police. it might as well, for all practical purposes, be locked up in some valuate somewhere in secrecy the way it's being done today. 18:58:29.5 it's not available to the people out there who need it. and the hart-ruddman commission raised that point, as did the 9/11 commission. we absolutely can -- i've been told at hearings by the appropriate officials, the ncic 18:58:48.5 system can handle the additional data. it will not overburden the system. it will make this information readily and immediately available to a police officer. and we may well -- he may well have or she may have stumbled on 18:59:04.9 a person like mohammed atta on his way to commit a horrible and unspeakable act of terrorism against the people of the united states. and that opportunity to make that arrest and to identify that criminal is most important. 18:59:20.3 so, mr. president, that's the purpose of the amendment. i believe if people think about it that we will see the need of it. i've tried to get this done in any number of different ways, but we haven't quite gotten there yet. 18:59:36.1 i think there's a majority in the senate probably on both sides of the aisle that would support this when it's clearly raised, but it tends, as it so often tends to happen, matters that actually work to a 18:59:52.8 significant degree and will actually substantially increase the ability of our law enforcement system to be effective are the things that don't become law. it's almost like if it works, it won't pass.

SENATE FLOOR DEBATE: The Senate will convene and begin a period of morning business. At 3:00 p.m. the Senate will Resume consideration of S.4, the 9/11 Commission Recommendations bill. 18:08:09.3 vote: the 18:10:42.4 the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, on this vote the ayes are 87; the nays are 1. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order the 18:11:03.1 president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. the senate will return to legislative session. mr. lieberman: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i ask for. the presiding officer: the 18:11:16.6 senator will be in order. the senate will be in order. mr. lieberman: i ask unanimous consent amendment numbered 328 be modified with the changes at the desk. the presiding officer: is there 18:11:32.2 order? the amendment is so modified. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the 18:11:48.0 senator from oklahoma is recognized. mr. coburn: mr. president. 18:12:08.9 i ask that the pending amendment be set aside and i call amendment numbered 325. the presiding officer: without objection, it is so ordered. the clerk will report. 18:12:24.4 mr. coburn: the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. 18:12:49.2 the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: senator coburn proposes an amendment numbered 325. 18:13:00.8 on page 106, insert the following. 18:13:07.1 mr. coburn: i ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered as read. the presiding officer: without objection, it is so ordered. mr. coburn: mr. president, this bill has not been scored but by our estimates -- mr. president, i ask that the senate be in 18:13:23.2 order. the presiding officer: could 18:13:39.3 senators take their conversations to the cloakroom so we may have order. the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: thank you, mr. president. i appreciate that. by our estimate, this bill is about $17 billion plus. 18:13:54.4 it has not been scored. the house bill that will be merged in conference is over $20 billion. that is a large chunk of change for the american taxpayer. what we know is that a lot of the grants which make up about 18:14:13.6 three-plus billion a year over the next five years, the vast majority of this bill, will be homeland security grants of one type or another. what we know is the department of homeland security has not followed the law when it comes 18:14:29.2 to improper payments. what the improper payments act of 2002 required of every agency -- every agency of the federal government -- was that they perform a risk assessment of every program that they is, 18:14:44.3 that they develop a specific -- statistically valid estimate of improper payments; they develop a corrective action plan; they report the results of those activities to us. this isn't an optional plan for 18:15:00.7 the agencies. yet, this plan has been ignored since its inception and since the creation of the department of homeland security. so, we are getting ready to send another $17 billion 18:15:17.4 to $18 billion plus out the door for homeland security grants -- that's the majority of this -- and we know that the department of homeland security is not in compliance with the federal law. the law exists to make sure that we get good value for the 18:15:37.2 taxpayers' money. 2004 was the first year that the agencies were required to respond to this act. it is worth noting again that there is not an agency of the federal government, not one 18:15:50.9 agency, that is exempt from this law. this isn't a request. this is a statutory requirement of every agency. the department of homeland security has not even complied with the first step of this law. 18:16:09.6 they have not performed risk assessments for the programs to be at significant risk of making improper payments. they are an at risk program according to the analysis and yet they have not even looked to 18:16:23.4 do a risk assessment. the government accountability office has found six major programs at this department are out of compliance with improper payments act. the department of homeland security's independent auditor 18:16:39.6 has repeatedly cited noncompliance and the department of homeland security continues to face significant challenges with tee ma and with the individual and households program. based upon the department's performance and accountability report and their independent 18:16:56.0 auditor assessment, the following programs are out of compliance with improper payments act: customs and bother protection; office of grants and training; federal air marshals; the coast guard was supposed to have done a risk 18:17:12.1 assessment and has not been done; the federal emergency management agency; the trappinge transportation security administration and immigration 18:17:26.9 and customs enforcement. in case you think that is not a lot of money, we have already spent over $25 billion in grants through the years for these programs of which we have thought looked at the problem accounts. 18:17:44.2 the press is replete with problems in terms of these grants. $9 billion on state and local preparedness grants is what we get great d.h.s. and secretary chertoff at the most recent hearings said $5 billion of the 18:18:01.5 money, another $5 billion, part of which has been obligated has not gone out the door yet. 18:18:07.4 i think we owe it to the american people that if there's a law on the books, before we send more money out the door, the agency ought to comply with the law. 18:18:20.9 they ought to at least do a risk assessment. if there is no risk, that's fine, they will have complied with the law. but if there is risk we ought to be identifying the risk. every dollar we spent wastefully is a dollar we don't use to protect ourselves in terms of 18:18:38.9 security. kpmg was the independent auditor for 2004, 2005 and 2006 for the department of homeland security. each of the years they were out of compliance with this act. specifically, the department is cited for not instituting a systematic method of reviewing 18:18:54.0 all practices and identifying those that are believed to be susceptible to erroneous improper payments. the most important part of the improper payments act is to create the process of good, strong, oversight within the 18:19:09.4 department to make assessments about whether or not they are making improper peaments. what this assessment does is it identifying where the improper payments could have been made. that's essential to find out where the problems exist. this amendment doesn't debate 18:19:26.3 any of the merits of the department's programs. it simply demands compliance with the transparency and accountability measurements for that already -- that already exist under current law. if we want the american people and the executive branch to take 18:19:43.1 us seriously, congress must demand compliance for the laws that are laws. and we can't back off. this amendment isn't a surprise to the department of homeland security. they know they are failing. they need to respond to it. 18:19:58.9 this amendment in no way jeopardizes state funding. let me tell you why. because there's a pipeline of nine to twelve months in the works already on guarantees that are going there. so, for this to have any impact 18:20:13.9 would mean they would have to not respond for another year before those grants would be in jeopardy. now, some of my colleagues say, well, you can't do this. you can't put these grants at the risk of noncompliance of an agency in terms of meeting the 18:20:31.2 law. and the question ought to be, why not? why shouldn't we put the agency at risk with their grants for being noncompliant? the other point i would make is most of these grants go to state and localities. 18:20:44.9 and the problems with the grants, there is some cuppibility -- culpability on the parts of the agencies and the guarantees. states are not totally innocent. there is $2.5 billion that has not even been awarded yet that 18:21:02.5 still can be awarded before this takes effect. so, there is still another $5 billion which is greater than the amount we spend in any one year on these grants. what this amendment says is, they can't go past that unless they have complied with the law. 18:21:20.1 if we are not going to pass this amendment, we need to trash the improper payments act. if we're not going to say the department of homeland security has an obligation to follow the law we ought to take the law off the books. 18:21:32.9 we know, for sure, in the other areas of the federal government, we have somewhere between $40 billion and $80 billion worth of improper payments the we know we have $40 billion of improper payments, overpayments in medicare. 18:21:47.5 somewhere close to $30 billion in medicaid. we have a third of the earned-income tax credit that we know are improper payments. and we've only looked at 40% of the government. 60% of the government still is not complying with this. we ought to say, right now, if 18:22:04.4 we're going to put more money through the doofer, the american taxpayer ought to have -- through the door, the american taxpayer ought to have value through the money they send through the door. 18:22:20.1 we are asking them to be accountable. and to be accountable as a government -- as an agency of the federal government, there ought to be transparency. we ought to be able to see where they're making mistakes and 18:22:37.1 where they're not. the question of not even asking the question, that is what we are debating with this amendment. they are in absolute non-come ployance of a material law that requires them to be transparent about whether or not their grants are improperly paid or 18:22:52.9 funding things other than what they expected them to fund. investigations shows fema spent millions on puppet shows, bingo and yoga in south florida. 18:23:06.7 there is an article in the national review on homeland port, "baltimore sun", 5-2 9 "chasing security with dollars." the only transparency that we have here is that there's a total lack of transparency in the department of homeland 18:23:21.7 security. now, needless to say, this is a bill that goes far outside september 11th recommendations. 9/11 commission recommendations said all money should be based, risk-based and what we've turned 18:23:39.1 around with the 9/11 bill -- this one and what passed in previous congresses -- is a way to dole out money to states and not hold them accountable. what this amendment says is, you are going to have to start being accountable. 18:23:53.7 if we are going to send another almost $20 billion in terms of grants, homeland security ought to have to follow the law in terms of improper payments. remember, these grants aren't competitively awarded which is very different than the grants 18:24:12.7 that we have in almost every other federal program. the fact that they're not competitive is another reason, a much greater reason, for us to demand accountability and transparency at the department of homeland security. these grants are also not on the 18:24:28.9 basis of risk. some are. in some of these it will be down to .4% and a few at 0.25%. most of them have in local 18:24:44.3 match. so there's no risk on the side of the states or the municipalities that get these grants. just a note, the best way for congress to practice spending discipline is to demand that the 18:25:01.2 agencies comebly with the laws assuring appropriated dollars are spent adequately, appropriately, and lawfully. we have yet it do that with many agencies. d.h.s. is a good place to start. fema awarded $22.6 million for 18:25:18.1 crisis counceling for victims of hurricane katrina and rita. katrina did not even hit florida and yet a large portion of that was spent in florida. there's no accountability. there is no risk assessment, was 18:25:36.2 there a risk? they have not done the work we demand by the law. and what is being demanded of other agencies. there's an article in the 18:25:48.7 florida sun and i cannot vouch for its accuracy, where there's a little smoke there's some fire, the $1.2 billion in aid that fema granted to individuals -- not to municipalities, but to 18:26:04.0 individuals affected by the weather disasters between 1999 and 2004 -- the florida sun found that at least of $1.02 3w-8, at least $330 million of that went to people who did not personally suffer any damage or disruption from the storms. 18:26:21.5 now that's a fourth of the money out of that $1.2 billions. no wonder we have a deficit. no wonder -- because we're not willing to take the time to force an agency to do what they should be doing under the law. 18:26:41.7 i want to talk for a minute about this bill. the 9/11 commission was very 18:26:54.9 succinct and direct, noting that we have tremendous vulnerabilities and risks and exposures throughout this country. 18:27:07.5 and they were very clear to state that money that comes out of congress to address those ought to be absolutely risk-based. 18:27:21.9 the house bill at least has, down to 0.25% for every state. well, what that gives us is about 15% of the money that is going to go to the states, 18:27:39.0 regardless of their risk. so that's about $3. 5 billion or $4 billion. no risk, you are going to get homeland security grants even though you have no risk. think about what we are going to ask ourselves if we have another 18:27:56.2 terrorist attack and it's in one of the high-risk areas and before he sent, year after year after year after year after year after year, $4 billion to areas 18:28:07.4 that don't have a high risk? and that money could have prevented that action. with good fiscal discipline we will best protect the people of 18:28:24.4 this country. i know the tendency of this body is to make sure you get enough for you. and to make sure you can go home and say, we got this for you. and you can pat your sell on the back. but i wonder how many of us will 18:28:38.9 be patting ourselves on the back when we buy things that are not absolutely necessary with the grands that are going to state asks we ignore the very high risk, east coast, west coast and gulf coast and the large metropolitan areas in this country that need more money 18:28:53.7 while we are playing politics with with 15 to 20% of the money every year. we will be judged on that. and that judgment will not be a pretty picture. this amendment just simply says, no funds can go for any of these grants until fema and the 18:29:12.2 department of homeland security start complying with the federal statute which is called the improper payments act of 2002. it's very straight failure. and what we will have raised is the fear that my state may not get some money. well, they is a year to comply. 18:29:29.9 they is plenty of time to do what they have been asked to do. senator obama and i, this last year, over eight months ago, sent a letter to the department of homeland security asking why, and i would like to introduce 18:29:46.0 that letter into the record. this letter was sent to secretary chertoff. the federal financial management subcommittee of the department of -- of the committee on homeland security and government affairs had four hearings on 18:30:02.2 improper payments. we know what is required. we know they can do it. what congress has to do is make then do it if they want to spend the money. it is only right for our children and grandchildren to get fair value for the 18:30:19.0 tax-paying public as we send this money out.n so i'm a skeptic when it comes to this body when it gets away of the political poring that's going on -- poring that's going 18:30:32.5 o. i'm not sure this amendment is going to pass. there's there's no reason to have a law out there that we're not going to enforce. and if we're not going to enforce it, why have it on the books? 18:30:47.2 it's another enforcing the board. the law is there but we don't do t. we have to be accountable to 9 american public to make sure -- to the american public to make sure that the agencies follow the law. this is a simple amendment that requires homeland security to follow that. by the way, we've not had an answer to this letter. 18:31:04.1 this letter was dated november 16. i spoke in error. i'm just about finished, mr. president. i want to correct something i said last week on the united nations. my numbers were wrong. we, in fact, do pay for 20% -- about 22% of the unified budget 18:31:22.2 at the united nations and our total contribution is in excess of $5 billion. hi the ratios right; i had the numbers wrong and i wanted to correct that for the record today. and with that, i yield back the floor. 18:31:42.2 mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, i would call up sessions amendment number 305. 18:32:01.1 i believe it -- the presiding officer: one moment. that amendment is the pending amendment. mr. sessions: mr. president, i believe the amendment is already pending. 18:32:11.7 i believe it was called up by senator mcconnell. mr. president, i would note and ask that senators craig, inhofe, isakson, and coburn be made cosponsors of this amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, 18:32:27.9 it's certainly important, critically important that we clarify the role of state and local law enforcement officers in the enforcement and apprehension of those who violate our immigration laws and that we expand the national crime information center 18:32:47.8 entries. it is critical that we have them participate because with expanded ncic capability, which i'm surprised is not already 18:33:01.8 being done, they can be partners 18:33:04.9 in our federal law enforcement efforts. it would be in compliance with what the 9/11 commission and other reports have asked us to do. and it's a loophole in our system today that needs to be fixed. 18:33:18.6 the amendment i am offering is a slimmed-down version of the bill i offered in the last congress, the homeland security enforcement enhancement act. that was cosponsored by senators craig, inhofe, and isakson. the ideas contained in this amendment have also been 18:33:35.6 supported by senators kyl and cornyn. they included it in their immigration bill last congress. and senator ben nelson and tom coburn, they included -- those provisions were included in the nelson-sessions immigration 18:33:49.4 enforcement bill in last congress. additional, i'd like to tell my colleagues that my amendment is almost word-for-word the provision that the senate judiciary committee included when it marked up the senate immigration bill last year and the provision that the full 18:34:06.1 senate voted for when it passed s. 2611. the first section of the amendment reaffirms the existing -- what i believe to be the existing inherent authority of state and local law enforcement 18:34:23.0 to assist the federal government in enforcing the immigration laws of the united states during the normal course of their carrying out their law enforcement duties. the amendment specifically states that the participation of state and local law enforcement 18:34:39.2 personnel is required, not mandated by this legislation. it is 100% voluntary. section 2 of the amendment deals with the listing of immigration violators in the national crime 18:34:54.8 information center database. state and local officers need easily accessible roadside access to critical immigration information, just as they would do for citizens of the united states who violate our laws. officers routinely, when they 18:35:13.7 stop people on the road, run national crime information center database checks when they pull over suspects. speeders or people they're investigating for other crimes. the ncic is their bread-and-butter database. 18:35:29.5 today, the immigration violators file, the national crime information database, contains information on deported felons, alien absconders and wanted 18:35:46.2 persons, aliens with outstanding criminal warrants. so that is in the national crime information center database. but my amendment would direct that the department of homeland security work with the f.b.i. to place additional information on 18:36:02.6 certain immigration violators into the already existing immigration violators file. the four categories of immigration violators whose information would be entered are: one, aliens who have final orders of removal. 18:36:20.8 that's someone who has been apprehended, gone through a hearing and a judge has ordered finally that they be removed from the country for whatever violation. two, it would cover aliens under voluntary departure agreements, who for one reason or another 18:36:35.8 have signed an order that they would voluntarily deport themselves or leave country. number three, it would cover aliens who are known to have overstayed their authorized period of stay. the visa overstays. and number four, aliens whose 18:36:53.9 visas have been revoked. well, sometime people misbehave seriously. 27% of our federal penitentiary bed spaces today are filled by noncitizens. 18:37:07.7 for some reason, in recent years we're seeing a substantial number of criminal aliens coming into our country. and i would say now, these are not bed spaces for immigration law violations, not people waiting to be deported. these are people who've been arrested, tried or convicted of 18:37:26.0 federal criminal laws, such as drug dealing and -- and assaults or smuggling and things of that nature. so when state and local police officers encounter individuals 18:37:40.5 during their regular law enforcement duties, it's important that they know if the individual in front of them falls into one of these violator categories. importantly, my amendment includes a new procedure for removal of erroneous information in the -- from ncic. 18:37:58.2 if there's something entered incorrectly under the new 18:38:03.2 procedures, an alien may petition the secretary of department of homeland security or the head of ncic to remove any erroneous information that may have been placed that file to protect them from any unfair treatment. 18:38:18.7 now, these are recommendations that really should already be law. but they're recommendations made in the 9/11 official report. and we're all familiar with that 18:38:34.6 9/11 recommendations. and they've been included in the hart-rudman report. on page 34 of the 9/11 commission report -- excuse me. on page 384 of the 9/11 report, 18:38:50.9 the commission says -- quote -- "our investigation showed that two systemic weaknesses came together in our border system's inability to contribute to an effective defense against the 9/11 attacks. 18:39:05.2 a lack of well-developed counterterrorism measures as a part of border security and an immigration system not able to deliver on its basic commitments, much less support counterterrorism. these weaknesses have been 18:39:20.8 reduced but are far from being overcome." on page 390, the report says -- quote -- "there is a growing role for state and local law enforcement agencies. they need more training and work with federal agencies so that 18:39:36.1 they can cooperate more effectively with those federal authorities in identifying terrorist suspects." in the fall of 2002, a year after the 9/11 attacks, the council on foreign relations published the hart-rudman report 18:39:54.9 entitled 'america, still unprepared; america, still in danger." that report found that one problem america still confronts is that 700,000 local and state police officials continue to 18:40:11.8 operate in a virtual intelligence vacuum. the first recommendation of the hart-rudman report was to tap the eyes and ears of local and state law enforcement officers 18:40:27.9 in preventing attacks, closed quote. that's their first recommendation to -- quote -- "tap the eyes and ears of local and state law enforcement officers in preventing attacks." on page 19, the report 18:40:43.4 specifically cited the burden of finding hundreds of thousands of illegal fugitive aliens living among the population of more than 8.5 million illegal aliens and suggested that the burden could and should be shared with the 700,000 local, county, and 18:41:00.3 state law enforcement officers if they could be brought out of the information void. so this amendment that i am offering tightly targets 9/11 commission and hart-rudman report recommendations that we 18:41:17.0 look at the growing role for state and local law enforcement. that we move toward an immigration system that can -- quote -- "deliver on its basic commitments" as a way to fight terrorism. 18:41:33.6 and that we -- quote -- "tap the eyes and ears of local and state law enforcement officers" in an effort to find the hundreds of thousands of fugitive aliens in the united states. most americans would probably be 18:41:53.1 amazed that that's not occurring today. in fact, a poll -- a recent poll gives us several -- about three years ago, a poll was done on this very subject and it found 18:42:10.3 that a large majority of americans feel that state and local governments should be aiding the federal government in finding alien fugitives. that's pretty common sensical. in fact, a roper poll found that 5% of americans agree and 65% -- 18:42:30.5 that 85% of americans agree and 65% strongly agree -- and i've got to tell you, those are powerful numbers when you hear numbers that high -- they agree that congress should pass a law requiring state and local governments and law enforcement 18:42:44.3 agencies to apprehend and turn over to i.n.s. -- now "ice" -- i illegal immigrants with whom they come in contact. that's pretty strong date a. it's important to note that those response -- that's pretty strong data. it's important to note that 18:42:59.2 those responses collected 18:43:01.3 earlier were in response to those requiring local immigration enforcement action. so it's very likely that a poll on this subject, one about voluntary state and local assistance, would be even stronger. let me tell you about the problems that started my interest in this area and 18:43:16.2 prompted me to offer this amendment as well as three years ago to push for a hearing which was held on april 22 of 2004 in 18:43:33.1 the senate judiciary committee entitled -- quote -- "state and local law" -- "state and local authority to enforce immigration law, evaluating a unified approach for stopping 18:43:50.3 terrorists." and to me -- for notice author a law review article -- for me to author a law review article in april 2005, along with my chief council on judiciary, cindy hayden, who was just here, that was published in "the stanford law and policy review," entitled 18:44:05.1 "the growing role for state and local law enforcement in the realm of immigration law." so this is the reality, to my colleagues and friends in the senate. this is the problem we're 18:44:18.8 dealing with. police chiefs and sheriffs in alabama began to tell me as i travel the state and met with them frequently, as i continue to do, that they had been shut out of immigration enforcement and that they felt powerless to 18:44:35.0 do anything about alabama's growing illegal immigrant population. i heard the same story wherever i went -- quote -- "when we come across illegal aliens in our normal course of duty, we have given up calling the i.n.s. 18:44:50.4 because they tell us we have to have 15 or more illegals in custody or they will not even bother to come and pick them up. even worse, alabama police were routinely told that aliens could not be detained until i.n.s. 18:45:05.9 could manage to send someone. they were told they just had to let them go." and this is basically the policy all over america today. i kid you not. 18:45:21.3 if a local officer in virtually any state in america stops someone for speeding or d.u.i. and finds out that they are here illegally, they basically take no steps to even contact i.n.s. because they only have 2,000 18:45:37.4 agents in the entire united states and they're not going to come out there and get them. and, in fact, for other legal reasons, they may have some doubt -- although, frankly, not much -- but there's some doubt about what their authority might be.n now, i -- we've done some 18:45:56.4 research into this and believe that the legal authority of state and local officers to voluntary act on violations of immigration law was pretty clear. and there's any doubt that state and local law officers have this 18:46:12.2 authority and if there is any, and there certainly is some today, congress needs to remove that doubt, which is what this amendment will do. basically, there's a split in the circuits, but -- and i'll take just a moment to explain 18:46:34.8 it. the ninth circuit and the 10th circuit have explicitly -- and the 10th circuit on more than one occasion -- concluded squarely that quote, "a state trooper has general investigatory authority to 18:46:49.4 inquire into possible immigration violations," closed quote. as the 10th circuit went on to say quote, "there is a pre-existing general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of 18:47:07.7 federal law, including immigration laws." they went on to say, the 10th circuit did, in 2001 quote, "state and local police officers have implicit authority within their respective jurisdictions to investigate and make arrests 18:47:25.2 for violations of federal law, including immigration laws." now, these 10th circuit cases made no distinction between visa overstays, which is nor criminal 18:47:40.3 in nature, but civil, but the 9th circuit did, they concluded the civil violations of a visa overstay did not amount to an offense of law that the local law enforcement officer could arrest and detain for. 18:48:04.9 it was not part of the central holding on that case, but that one piece of dicta impacted lawyers and police departments 18:48:17.8 and sheriff's departments all over america. and they're telling their officers, well, the person that you stop is here illegally, it might be that they're a visa overstay and not someone who came across the border illegally. 18:48:32.2 and if you arrest them and detain them, they might sue us, they might sue the city, they might sue the police department. so they've established policies based on this ambiguity that effectively reduced the participation of local law enforcement officers to a dramatic degree in the 18:48:50.8 enforcement of immigration laws. and that's not appropriate. we can fix that. this amendment would fix that. a second problem that the amendment deals with is the inadequate way we share information on immigration 18:49:05.6 matters with state and local police. we have databases full of information on criminal aliens and aliens with final deportation orders, but that information is not directly available to the state and local police through their base system, the ncic. 18:49:23.2 instead, officers are required to make a special second inquiry into the law enforcement support center, which is headquartered in vermont, to see if the person they pulled over is an illegal alien wanted by d.h.s. now, i got to tell you, they're 18:49:41.8 just not carrying around in their pockets those phone numbers anyway. they don't know how to do it, they're not comfortable with it, it's not what they do every day, and they're not doing it. and besides if they do and found out the person is illegal, there's nothing much they can do but let them go anyway. 18:50:03.8 so the ability of the bread and burr nci -- bread and butter ncic database is to convey to 18:50:13.9 local police who stop someone out on a highway information that this may be a wanted person, may be even a terrorist, has been severely impacted or 18:50:28.4 real not effective in many, many different areas. now, i've complained about this for some time and some progress has been made, but not enough. to date, the immigration violators file of the ncic 18:50:46.3 contains about 200,000 entries and only about 107,000 of the approximate 600,000 alien absconders are in the ncic. i want you to hear that. 18:51:02.0 only about 100,000 of the 600,000 alien absconders have been entered into the ncic. so what does that mean? that means if a local police officer somewhere stops a person that's been previously arrested 18:51:19.5 for an immigration violation, that person has been released on bail, as is often the case, or ordered to return to court or are frequently deported and they don't do so, they abscond, and 18:51:35.8 there are 600,000 of those absconders out there, but only 107,000 of those records are in ncic, so if a local police officer is not likely to find a hit if the person before him, there would be one in five 18:51:51.8 chances that they would get that hit. that really needs to be fixed, and for the life of me i can't see why more progress has not been made. we've been talking about this for four or five years in the senate judiciary committee with the department of justice officials and i.c.e. officials and f.b.i. people who run the 18:52:09.6 ncic. now, at the very least, the ncic should contain four types of immigration information: aliens with final orders of removal. if someone has been ordered removed, they should not be in this country. 18:52:24.7 they sometimes leave the country and come back into the country and you get a hit on that person. in other words, they've been ordered removed. why are they back in the country? second group should be in there, aliens under voluntary departure 18:52:42.2 agreement. some agree voluntarily to leave and sign an agreement to that effect. they ought to be in there because they should not have stayed in the country, or if they left, they should not have returned. aliens who are known to have overstayed their authorized period of stay should be entered 18:52:56.0 and aliens whose visas have been 18:52:59.7 revoked, for heaven sakes, ought to be in there. somebody's here improperly, maybe associated with some criminal enterprise, the i.c.e. people have revoked their visa for some reason, it would have 18:53:15.3 to be significant, usually, for that to occur, they ought to go in there. because if they've been -- because if they're stopped somewhere, they should be detained and turned over to i.c.e.; otherwise, the system is not working. 18:53:29.1 and let me just tell my colleagues i know how this system works. if someone had their visa revoked and had been ordered to be removed, trust me, the i.c.e. 18:53:48.5 agents don't go out and walk the streets of philadelphia or atlanta or birmingham and look for them so they can deport them. they don't do it. they are not even close to 18:54:00.7 having the possibility of doing that. only the people that they have evidence on and are extremely dangerous is that done on. and that's very, very few. the way most people are caught is just like everybody else in america who is caught who have 18:54:18.3 absconded or run off on bail. they get caught by getting picked up by police on a traffic stop somewhere. the police officer runs their name and i.d. in ncic and it comes back a hit. there's a warrant for their arrest in montgomery, alabama, for armed robbery, and he locked 18:54:36.3 them up. now, if you are an american citizen and you get a reckless driving ticket and you're ordered to appear in court at a given time and place and you don't appear in court, they issue a warrant for your arrest. 18:54:52.8 and normally the police officers don't go out and chase you down all over, finding to arrest you. normally they put it in the ncic immediately on the assumption that you'll soon be stopped 18:55:05.1 somewhere else on the way and they'll get a hit on you and they'll put you in jail because you have a warrant for flight out there or for jumping bail. but we don't do that for noncitizens. a citizen that will happen to, a united states senator that will 18:55:20.6 happen to, but not somebody that's coming into the country illegally, we don't do the same thing when they jump bail on their charges. so, mr. president, there are a 18:55:42.7 lot of stories that we can tell, and i would just summarize a number of them that really caught the attention of the 9/11 commission. for example, mohammed atta, who is believed to have piloted american airlines flight 11, 18:55:59.3 which flew into the world trade center's north tower and to have played a leading role in more than 3,000 deaths that occurred that day, in july, just two months before the attacks, atta was stopped by police in 18:56:17.6 tamarack, florida, and ticketed for an invalid license. he ignored the ticket and bench warranted for an arrest. when he was stopped for speeding weeks later in a nearby town, the officer did not check, did not disufer this warrant -- 18:56:31.8 discover this warrant had been issued and let him go with only a warning. now, ok, atta had not yet become illegal. i believe at that time he still was on a legal status, however he was about to expire, and i 18:56:46.8 doubt he would have returned to the immigration officer to get it extended. he would soon have been here illegally as a visa overstay. he could well have been apprehended and identified before 9/11 had he done so. 18:57:06.4 and that's the example i'm trying to make here. it could very well have been decisive. also, hamid hanjour was just one month before 9/11 stopped by 18:57:24.7 police in arlington, virginia, for driving 50 miles an hour in a 35-mile-per-hour zone. he was in a chevy van with new jersey plates, he produced a florida driver's license, but he was the pilot of the american airlines flight 77, which 18:57:39.5 crashed into the pentagon, the third hijacker was stopped by state police just two days before september 11, also for speeding. maryland state police stopped ziad jara on interstate 95 for 18:57:57.1 driving 90 miles an hour in a 60-mile zone. well, i say that, mr. president, to say we're not talking about academic matters here. we're talking about the fact that the alien database needs to 18:58:17.0 be accessible to local police. it might as well, for all practical purposes, be locked up in some valuate somewhere in secrecy the way it's being done today. 18:58:29.5 it's not available to the people out there who need it. and the hart-ruddman commission raised that point, as did the 9/11 commission. we absolutely can -- i've been told at hearings by the appropriate officials, the ncic 18:58:48.5 system can handle the additional data. it will not overburden the system. it will make this information readily and immediately available to a police officer. and we may well -- he may well have or she may have stumbled on 18:59:04.9 a person like mohammed atta on his way to commit a horrible and unspeakable act of terrorism against the people of the united states. and that opportunity to make that arrest and to identify that criminal is most important. 18:59:20.3 so, mr. president, that's the purpose of the amendment. i believe if people think about it that we will see the need of it. i've tried to get this done in any number of different ways, but we haven't quite gotten there yet. 18:59:36.1 i think there's a majority in the senate probably on both sides of the aisle that would support this when it's clearly raised, but it tends, as it so often tends to happen, matters that actually work to a 18:59:52.8 significant degree and will actually substantially increase the ability of our law enforcement system to be effective are the things that don't become law. it's almost like if it works, it won't pass.

SENATE FLOOR DEBATE: The Senate will convene and begin a period of morning business. At 3:00 p.m. the Senate will Resume consideration of S.4, the 9/11 Commission Recommendations bill. 18:08:09.3 vote: the 18:10:42.4 the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, on this vote the ayes are 87; the nays are 1. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order the 18:11:03.1 president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. the senate will return to legislative session. mr. lieberman: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i ask for. the presiding officer: the 18:11:16.6 senator will be in order. the senate will be in order. mr. lieberman: i ask unanimous consent amendment numbered 328 be modified with the changes at the desk. the presiding officer: is there 18:11:32.2 order? the amendment is so modified. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the 18:11:48.0 senator from oklahoma is recognized. mr. coburn: mr. president. 18:12:08.9 i ask that the pending amendment be set aside and i call amendment numbered 325. the presiding officer: without objection, it is so ordered. the clerk will report. 18:12:24.4 mr. coburn: the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. 18:12:49.2 the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: senator coburn proposes an amendment numbered 325. 18:13:00.8 on page 106, insert the following. 18:13:07.1 mr. coburn: i ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered as read. the presiding officer: without objection, it is so ordered. mr. coburn: mr. president, this bill has not been scored but by our estimates -- mr. president, i ask that the senate be in 18:13:23.2 order. the presiding officer: could 18:13:39.3 senators take their conversations to the cloakroom so we may have order. the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: thank you, mr. president. i appreciate that. by our estimate, this bill is about $17 billion plus. 18:13:54.4 it has not been scored. the house bill that will be merged in conference is over $20 billion. that is a large chunk of change for the american taxpayer. what we know is that a lot of the grants which make up about 18:14:13.6 three-plus billion a year over the next five years, the vast majority of this bill, will be homeland security grants of one type or another. what we know is the department of homeland security has not followed the law when it comes 18:14:29.2 to improper payments. what the improper payments act of 2002 required of every agency -- every agency of the federal government -- was that they perform a risk assessment of every program that they is, 18:14:44.3 that they develop a specific -- statistically valid estimate of improper payments; they develop a corrective action plan; they report the results of those activities to us. this isn't an optional plan for 18:15:00.7 the agencies. yet, this plan has been ignored since its inception and since the creation of the department of homeland security. so, we are getting ready to send another $17 billion 18:15:17.4 to $18 billion plus out the door for homeland security grants -- that's the majority of this -- and we know that the department of homeland security is not in compliance with the federal law. the law exists to make sure that we get good value for the 18:15:37.2 taxpayers' money. 2004 was the first year that the agencies were required to respond to this act. it is worth noting again that there is not an agency of the federal government, not one 18:15:50.9 agency, that is exempt from this law. this isn't a request. this is a statutory requirement of every agency. the department of homeland security has not even complied with the first step of this law. 18:16:09.6 they have not performed risk assessments for the programs to be at significant risk of making improper payments. they are an at risk program according to the analysis and yet they have not even looked to 18:16:23.4 do a risk assessment. the government accountability office has found six major programs at this department are out of compliance with improper payments act. the department of homeland security's independent auditor 18:16:39.6 has repeatedly cited noncompliance and the department of homeland security continues to face significant challenges with tee ma and with the individual and households program. based upon the department's performance and accountability report and their independent 18:16:56.0 auditor assessment, the following programs are out of compliance with improper payments act: customs and bother protection; office of grants and training; federal air marshals; the coast guard was supposed to have done a risk 18:17:12.1 assessment and has not been done; the federal emergency management agency; the trappinge transportation security administration and immigration 18:17:26.9 and customs enforcement. in case you think that is not a lot of money, we have already spent over $25 billion in grants through the years for these programs of which we have thought looked at the problem accounts. 18:17:44.2 the press is replete with problems in terms of these grants. $9 billion on state and local preparedness grants is what we get great d.h.s. and secretary chertoff at the most recent hearings said $5 billion of the 18:18:01.5 money, another $5 billion, part of which has been obligated has not gone out the door yet. 18:18:07.4 i think we owe it to the american people that if there's a law on the books, before we send more money out the door, the agency ought to comply with the law. 18:18:20.9 they ought to at least do a risk assessment. if there is no risk, that's fine, they will have complied with the law. but if there is risk we ought to be identifying the risk. every dollar we spent wastefully is a dollar we don't use to protect ourselves in terms of 18:18:38.9 security. kpmg was the independent auditor for 2004, 2005 and 2006 for the department of homeland security. each of the years they were out of compliance with this act. specifically, the department is cited for not instituting a systematic method of reviewing 18:18:54.0 all practices and identifying those that are believed to be susceptible to erroneous improper payments. the most important part of the improper payments act is to create the process of good, strong, oversight within the 18:19:09.4 department to make assessments about whether or not they are making improper peaments. what this assessment does is it identifying where the improper payments could have been made. that's essential to find out where the problems exist. this amendment doesn't debate 18:19:26.3 any of the merits of the department's programs. it simply demands compliance with the transparency and accountability measurements for that already -- that already exist under current law. if we want the american people and the executive branch to take 18:19:43.1 us seriously, congress must demand compliance for the laws that are laws. and we can't back off. this amendment isn't a surprise to the department of homeland security. they know they are failing. they need to respond to it. 18:19:58.9 this amendment in no way jeopardizes state funding. let me tell you why. because there's a pipeline of nine to twelve months in the works already on guarantees that are going there. so, for this to have any impact 18:20:13.9 would mean they would have to not respond for another year before those grants would be in jeopardy. now, some of my colleagues say, well, you can't do this. you can't put these grants at the risk of noncompliance of an agency in terms of meeting the 18:20:31.2 law. and the question ought to be, why not? why shouldn't we put the agency at risk with their grants for being noncompliant? the other point i would make is most of these grants go to state and localities. 18:20:44.9 and the problems with the grants, there is some cuppibility -- culpability on the parts of the agencies and the guarantees. states are not totally innocent. there is $2.5 billion that has not even been awarded yet that 18:21:02.5 still can be awarded before this takes effect. so, there is still another $5 billion which is greater than the amount we spend in any one year on these grants. what this amendment says is, they can't go past that unless they have complied with the law. 18:21:20.1 if we are not going to pass this amendment, we need to trash the improper payments act. if we're not going to say the department of homeland security has an obligation to follow the law we ought to take the law off the books. 18:21:32.9 we know, for sure, in the other areas of the federal government, we have somewhere between $40 billion and $80 billion worth of improper payments the we know we have $40 billion of improper payments, overpayments in medicare. 18:21:47.5 somewhere close to $30 billion in medicaid. we have a third of the earned-income tax credit that we know are improper payments. and we've only looked at 40% of the government. 60% of the government still is not complying with this. we ought to say, right now, if 18:22:04.4 we're going to put more money through the doofer, the american taxpayer ought to have -- through the door, the american taxpayer ought to have value through the money they send through the door. 18:22:20.1 we are asking them to be accountable. and to be accountable as a government -- as an agency of the federal government, there ought to be transparency. we ought to be able to see where they're making mistakes and 18:22:37.1 where they're not. the question of not even asking the question, that is what we are debating with this amendment. they are in absolute non-come ployance of a material law that requires them to be transparent about whether or not their grants are improperly paid or 18:22:52.9 funding things other than what they expected them to fund. investigations shows fema spent millions on puppet shows, bingo and yoga in south florida. 18:23:06.7 there is an article in the national review on homeland port, "baltimore sun", 5-2 9 "chasing security with dollars." the only transparency that we have here is that there's a total lack of transparency in the department of homeland 18:23:21.7 security. now, needless to say, this is a bill that goes far outside september 11th recommendations. 9/11 commission recommendations said all money should be based, risk-based and what we've turned 18:23:39.1 around with the 9/11 bill -- this one and what passed in previous congresses -- is a way to dole out money to states and not hold them accountable. what this amendment says is, you are going to have to start being accountable. 18:23:53.7 if we are going to send another almost $20 billion in terms of grants, homeland security ought to have to follow the law in terms of improper payments. remember, these grants aren't competitively awarded which is very different than the grants 18:24:12.7 that we have in almost every other federal program. the fact that they're not competitive is another reason, a much greater reason, for us to demand accountability and transparency at the department of homeland security. these grants are also not on the 18:24:28.9 basis of risk. some are. in some of these it will be down to .4% and a few at 0.25%. most of them have in local 18:24:44.3 match. so there's no risk on the side of the states or the municipalities that get these grants. just a note, the best way for congress to practice spending discipline is to demand that the 18:25:01.2 agencies comebly with the laws assuring appropriated dollars are spent adequately, appropriately, and lawfully. we have yet it do that with many agencies. d.h.s. is a good place to start. fema awarded $22.6 million for 18:25:18.1 crisis counceling for victims of hurricane katrina and rita. katrina did not even hit florida and yet a large portion of that was spent in florida. there's no accountability. there is no risk assessment, was 18:25:36.2 there a risk? they have not done the work we demand by the law. and what is being demanded of other agencies. there's an article in the 18:25:48.7 florida sun and i cannot vouch for its accuracy, where there's a little smoke there's some fire, the $1.2 billion in aid that fema granted to individuals -- not to municipalities, but to 18:26:04.0 individuals affected by the weather disasters between 1999 and 2004 -- the florida sun found that at least of $1.02 3w-8, at least $330 million of that went to people who did not personally suffer any damage or disruption from the storms. 18:26:21.5 now that's a fourth of the money out of that $1.2 billions. no wonder we have a deficit. no wonder -- because we're not willing to take the time to force an agency to do what they should be doing under the law. 18:26:41.7 i want to talk for a minute about this bill. the 9/11 commission was very 18:26:54.9 succinct and direct, noting that we have tremendous vulnerabilities and risks and exposures throughout this country. 18:27:07.5 and they were very clear to state that money that comes out of congress to address those ought to be absolutely risk-based. 18:27:21.9 the house bill at least has, down to 0.25% for every state. well, what that gives us is about 15% of the money that is going to go to the states, 18:27:39.0 regardless of their risk. so that's about $3. 5 billion or $4 billion. no risk, you are going to get homeland security grants even though you have no risk. think about what we are going to ask ourselves if we have another 18:27:56.2 terrorist attack and it's in one of the high-risk areas and before he sent, year after year after year after year after year after year, $4 billion to areas 18:28:07.4 that don't have a high risk? and that money could have prevented that action. with good fiscal discipline we will best protect the people of 18:28:24.4 this country. i know the tendency of this body is to make sure you get enough for you. and to make sure you can go home and say, we got this for you. and you can pat your sell on the back. but i wonder how many of us will 18:28:38.9 be patting ourselves on the back when we buy things that are not absolutely necessary with the grands that are going to state asks we ignore the very high risk, east coast, west coast and gulf coast and the large metropolitan areas in this country that need more money 18:28:53.7 while we are playing politics with with 15 to 20% of the money every year. we will be judged on that. and that judgment will not be a pretty picture. this amendment just simply says, no funds can go for any of these grants until fema and the 18:29:12.2 department of homeland security start complying with the federal statute which is called the improper payments act of 2002. it's very straight failure. and what we will have raised is the fear that my state may not get some money. well, they is a year to comply. 18:29:29.9 they is plenty of time to do what they have been asked to do. senator obama and i, this last year, over eight months ago, sent a letter to the department of homeland security asking why, and i would like to introduce 18:29:46.0 that letter into the record. this letter was sent to secretary chertoff. the federal financial management subcommittee of the department of -- of the committee on homeland security and government affairs had four hearings on 18:30:02.2 improper payments. we know what is required. we know they can do it. what congress has to do is make then do it if they want to spend the money. it is only right for our children and grandchildren to get fair value for the 18:30:19.0 tax-paying public as we send this money out.n so i'm a skeptic when it comes to this body when it gets away of the political poring that's going on -- poring that's going 18:30:32.5 o. i'm not sure this amendment is going to pass. there's there's no reason to have a law out there that we're not going to enforce. and if we're not going to enforce it, why have it on the books? 18:30:47.2 it's another enforcing the board. the law is there but we don't do t. we have to be accountable to 9 american public to make sure -- to the american public to make sure that the agencies follow the law. this is a simple amendment that requires homeland security to follow that. by the way, we've not had an answer to this letter. 18:31:04.1 this letter was dated november 16. i spoke in error. i'm just about finished, mr. president. i want to correct something i said last week on the united nations. my numbers were wrong. we, in fact, do pay for 20% -- about 22% of the unified budget 18:31:22.2 at the united nations and our total contribution is in excess of $5 billion. hi the ratios right; i had the numbers wrong and i wanted to correct that for the record today. and with that, i yield back the floor. 18:31:42.2 mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, i would call up sessions amendment number 305. 18:32:01.1 i believe it -- the presiding officer: one moment. that amendment is the pending amendment. mr. sessions: mr. president, i believe the amendment is already pending. 18:32:11.7 i believe it was called up by senator mcconnell. mr. president, i would note and ask that senators craig, inhofe, isakson, and coburn be made cosponsors of this amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, 18:32:27.9 it's certainly important, critically important that we clarify the role of state and local law enforcement officers in the enforcement and apprehension of those who violate our immigration laws and that we expand the national crime information center 18:32:47.8 entries. it is critical that we have them participate because with expanded ncic capability, which i'm surprised is not already 18:33:01.8 being done, they can be partners 18:33:04.9 in our federal law enforcement efforts. it would be in compliance with what the 9/11 commission and other reports have asked us to do. and it's a loophole in our system today that needs to be fixed. 18:33:18.6 the amendment i am offering is a slimmed-down version of the bill i offered in the last congress, the homeland security enforcement enhancement act. that was cosponsored by senators craig, inhofe, and isakson. the ideas contained in this amendment have also been 18:33:35.6 supported by senators kyl and cornyn. they included it in their immigration bill last congress. and senator ben nelson and tom coburn, they included -- those provisions were included in the nelson-sessions immigration 18:33:49.4 enforcement bill in last congress. additional, i'd like to tell my colleagues that my amendment is almost word-for-word the provision that the senate judiciary committee included when it marked up the senate immigration bill last year and the provision that the full 18:34:06.1 senate voted for when it passed s. 2611. the first section of the amendment reaffirms the existing -- what i believe to be the existing inherent authority of state and local law enforcement 18:34:23.0 to assist the federal government in enforcing the immigration laws of the united states during the normal course of their carrying out their law enforcement duties. the amendment specifically states that the participation of state and local law enforcement 18:34:39.2 personnel is required, not mandated by this legislation. it is 100% voluntary. section 2 of the amendment deals with the listing of immigration violators in the national crime 18:34:54.8 information center database. state and local officers need easily accessible roadside access to critical immigration information, just as they would do for citizens of the united states who violate our laws. officers routinely, when they 18:35:13.7 stop people on the road, run national crime information center database checks when they pull over suspects. speeders or people they're investigating for other crimes. the ncic is their bread-and-butter database. 18:35:29.5 today, the immigration violators file, the national crime information database, contains information on deported felons, alien absconders and wanted 18:35:46.2 persons, aliens with outstanding criminal warrants. so that is in the national crime information center database. but my amendment would direct that the department of homeland security work with the f.b.i. to place additional information on 18:36:02.6 certain immigration violators into the already existing immigration violators file. the four categories of immigration violators whose information would be entered are: one, aliens who have final orders of removal. 18:36:20.8 that's someone who has been apprehended, gone through a hearing and a judge has ordered finally that they be removed from the country for whatever violation. two, it would cover aliens under voluntary departure agreements, who for one reason or another 18:36:35.8 have signed an order that they would voluntarily deport themselves or leave country. number three, it would cover aliens who are known to have overstayed their authorized period of stay. the visa overstays. and number four, aliens whose 18:36:53.9 visas have been revoked. well, sometime people misbehave seriously. 27% of our federal penitentiary bed spaces today are filled by noncitizens. 18:37:07.7 for some reason, in recent years we're seeing a substantial number of criminal aliens coming into our country. and i would say now, these are not bed spaces for immigration law violations, not people waiting to be deported. these are people who've been arrested, tried or convicted of 18:37:26.0 federal criminal laws, such as drug dealing and -- and assaults or smuggling and things of that nature. so when state and local police officers encounter individuals 18:37:40.5 during their regular law enforcement duties, it's important that they know if the individual in front of them falls into one of these violator categories. importantly, my amendment includes a new procedure for removal of erroneous information in the -- from ncic. 18:37:58.2 if there's something entered incorrectly under the new 18:38:03.2 procedures, an alien may petition the secretary of department of homeland security or the head of ncic to remove any erroneous information that may have been placed that file to protect them from any unfair treatment. 18:38:18.7 now, these are recommendations that really should already be law. but they're recommendations made in the 9/11 official report. and we're all familiar with that 18:38:34.6 9/11 recommendations. and they've been included in the hart-rudman report. on page 34 of the 9/11 commission report -- excuse me. on page 384 of the 9/11 report, 18:38:50.9 the commission says -- quote -- "our investigation showed that two systemic weaknesses came together in our border system's inability to contribute to an effective defense against the 9/11 attacks. 18:39:05.2 a lack of well-developed counterterrorism measures as a part of border security and an immigration system not able to deliver on its basic commitments, much less support counterterrorism. these weaknesses have been 18:39:20.8 reduced but are far from being overcome." on page 390, the report says -- quote -- "there is a growing role for state and local law enforcement agencies. they need more training and work with federal agencies so that 18:39:36.1 they can cooperate more effectively with those federal authorities in identifying terrorist suspects." in the fall of 2002, a year after the 9/11 attacks, the council on foreign relations published the hart-rudman report 18:39:54.9 entitled 'america, still unprepared; america, still in danger." that report found that one problem america still confronts is that 700,000 local and state police officials continue to 18:40:11.8 operate in a virtual intelligence vacuum. the first recommendation of the hart-rudman report was to tap the eyes and ears of local and state law enforcement officers 18:40:27.9 in preventing attacks, closed quote. that's their first recommendation to -- quote -- "tap the eyes and ears of local and state law enforcement officers in preventing attacks." on page 19, the report 18:40:43.4 specifically cited the burden of finding hundreds of thousands of illegal fugitive aliens living among the population of more than 8.5 million illegal aliens and suggested that the burden could and should be shared with the 700,000 local, county, and 18:41:00.3 state law enforcement officers if they could be brought out of the information void. so this amendment that i am offering tightly targets 9/11 commission and hart-rudman report recommendations that we 18:41:17.0 look at the growing role for state and local law enforcement. that we move toward an immigration system that can -- quote -- "deliver on its basic commitments" as a way to fight terrorism. 18:41:33.6 and that we -- quote -- "tap the eyes and ears of local and state law enforcement officers" in an effort to find the hundreds of thousands of fugitive aliens in the united states. most americans would probably be 18:41:53.1 amazed that that's not occurring today. in fact, a poll -- a recent poll gives us several -- about three years ago, a poll was done on this very subject and it found 18:42:10.3 that a large majority of americans feel that state and local governments should be aiding the federal government in finding alien fugitives. that's pretty common sensical. in fact, a roper poll found that 5% of americans agree and 65% -- 18:42:30.5 that 85% of americans agree and 65% strongly agree -- and i've got to tell you, those are powerful numbers when you hear numbers that high -- they agree that congress should pass a law requiring state and local governments and law enforcement 18:42:44.3 agencies to apprehend and turn over to i.n.s. -- now "ice" -- i illegal immigrants with whom they come in contact. that's pretty strong date a. it's important to note that those response -- that's pretty strong data. it's important to note that 18:42:59.2 those responses collected 18:43:01.3 earlier were in response to those requiring local immigration enforcement action. so it's very likely that a poll on this subject, one about voluntary state and local assistance, would be even stronger. let me tell you about the problems that started my interest in this area and 18:43:16.2 prompted me to offer this amendment as well as three years ago to push for a hearing which was held on april 22 of 2004 in 18:43:33.1 the senate judiciary committee entitled -- quote -- "state and local law" -- "state and local authority to enforce immigration law, evaluating a unified approach for stopping 18:43:50.3 terrorists." and to me -- for notice author a law review article -- for me to author a law review article in april 2005, along with my chief council on judiciary, cindy hayden, who was just here, that was published in "the stanford law and policy review," entitled 18:44:05.1 "the growing role for state and local law enforcement in the realm of immigration law." so this is the reality, to my colleagues and friends in the senate. this is the problem we're 18:44:18.8 dealing with. police chiefs and sheriffs in alabama began to tell me as i travel the state and met with them frequently, as i continue to do, that they had been shut out of immigration enforcement and that they felt powerless to 18:44:35.0 do anything about alabama's growing illegal immigrant population. i heard the same story wherever i went -- quote -- "when we come across illegal aliens in our normal course of duty, we have given up calling the i.n.s. 18:44:50.4 because they tell us we have to have 15 or more illegals in custody or they will not even bother to come and pick them up. even worse, alabama police were routinely told that aliens could not be detained until i.n.s. 18:45:05.9 could manage to send someone. they were told they just had to let them go." and this is basically the policy all over america today. i kid you not. 18:45:21.3 if a local officer in virtually any state in america stops someone for speeding or d.u.i. and finds out that they are here illegally, they basically take no steps to even contact i.n.s. because they only have 2,000 18:45:37.4 agents in the entire united states and they're not going to come out there and get them. and, in fact, for other legal reasons, they may have some doubt -- although, frankly, not much -- but there's some doubt about what their authority might be.n now, i -- we've done some 18:45:56.4 research into this and believe that the legal authority of state and local officers to voluntary act on violations of immigration law was pretty clear. and there's any doubt that state and local law officers have this 18:46:12.2 authority and if there is any, and there certainly is some today, congress needs to remove that doubt, which is what this amendment will do. basically, there's a split in the circuits, but -- and i'll take just a moment to explain 18:46:34.8 it. the ninth circuit and the 10th circuit have explicitly -- and the 10th circuit on more than one occasion -- concluded squarely that quote, "a state trooper has general investigatory authority to 18:46:49.4 inquire into possible immigration violations," closed quote. as the 10th circuit went on to say quote, "there is a pre-existing general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of 18:47:07.7 federal law, including immigration laws." they went on to say, the 10th circuit did, in 2001 quote, "state and local police officers have implicit authority within their respective jurisdictions to investigate and make arrests 18:47:25.2 for violations of federal law, including immigration laws." now, these 10th circuit cases made no distinction between visa overstays, which is nor criminal 18:47:40.3 in nature, but civil, but the 9th circuit did, they concluded the civil violations of a visa overstay did not amount to an offense of law that the local law enforcement officer could arrest and detain for. 18:48:04.9 it was not part of the central holding on that case, but that one piece of dicta impacted lawyers and police departments 18:48:17.8 and sheriff's departments all over america. and they're telling their officers, well, the person that you stop is here illegally, it might be that they're a visa overstay and not someone who came across the border illegally. 18:48:32.2 and if you arrest them and detain them, they might sue us, they might sue the city, they might sue the police department. so they've established policies based on this ambiguity that effectively reduced the participation of local law enforcement officers to a dramatic degree in the 18:48:50.8 enforcement of immigration laws. and that's not appropriate. we can fix that. this amendment would fix that. a second problem that the amendment deals with is the inadequate way we share information on immigration 18:49:05.6 matters with state and local police. we have databases full of information on criminal aliens and aliens with final deportation orders, but that information is not directly available to the state and local police through their base system, the ncic. 18:49:23.2 instead, officers are required to make a special second inquiry into the law enforcement support center, which is headquartered in vermont, to see if the person they pulled over is an illegal alien wanted by d.h.s. now, i got to tell you, they're 18:49:41.8 just not carrying around in their pockets those phone numbers anyway. they don't know how to do it, they're not comfortable with it, it's not what they do every day, and they're not doing it. and besides if they do and found out the person is illegal, there's nothing much they can do but let them go anyway. 18:50:03.8 so the ability of the bread and burr nci -- bread and butter ncic database is to convey to 18:50:13.9 local police who stop someone out on a highway information that this may be a wanted person, may be even a terrorist, has been severely impacted or 18:50:28.4 real not effective in many, many different areas. now, i've complained about this for some time and some progress has been made, but not enough. to date, the immigration violators file of the ncic 18:50:46.3 contains about 200,000 entries and only about 107,000 of the approximate 600,000 alien absconders are in the ncic. i want you to hear that. 18:51:02.0 only about 100,000 of the 600,000 alien absconders have been entered into the ncic. so what does that mean? that means if a local police officer somewhere stops a person that's been previously arrested 18:51:19.5 for an immigration violation, that person has been released on bail, as is often the case, or ordered to return to court or are frequently deported and they don't do so, they abscond, and 18:51:35.8 there are 600,000 of those absconders out there, but only 107,000 of those records are in ncic, so if a local police officer is not likely to find a hit if the person before him, there would be one in five 18:51:51.8 chances that they would get that hit. that really needs to be fixed, and for the life of me i can't see why more progress has not been made. we've been talking about this for four or five years in the senate judiciary committee with the department of justice officials and i.c.e. officials and f.b.i. people who run the 18:52:09.6 ncic. now, at the very least, the ncic should contain four types of immigration information: aliens with final orders of removal. if someone has been ordered removed, they should not be in this country. 18:52:24.7 they sometimes leave the country and come back into the country and you get a hit on that person. in other words, they've been ordered removed. why are they back in the country? second group should be in there, aliens under voluntary departure 18:52:42.2 agreement. some agree voluntarily to leave and sign an agreement to that effect. they ought to be in there because they should not have stayed in the country, or if they left, they should not have returned. aliens who are known to have overstayed their authorized period of stay should be entered 18:52:56.0 and aliens whose visas have been 18:52:59.7 revoked, for heaven sakes, ought to be in there. somebody's here improperly, maybe associated with some criminal enterprise, the i.c.e. people have revoked their visa for some reason, it would have 18:53:15.3 to be significant, usually, for that to occur, they ought to go in there. because if they've been -- because if they're stopped somewhere, they should be detained and turned over to i.c.e.; otherwise, the system is not working. 18:53:29.1 and let me just tell my colleagues i know how this system works. if someone had their visa revoked and had been ordered to be removed, trust me, the i.c.e. 18:53:48.5 agents don't go out and walk the streets of philadelphia or atlanta or birmingham and look for them so they can deport them. they don't do it. they are not even close to 18:54:00.7 having the possibility of doing that. only the people that they have evidence on and are extremely dangerous is that done on. and that's very, very few. the way most people are caught is just like everybody else in america who is caught who have 18:54:18.3 absconded or run off on bail. they get caught by getting picked up by police on a traffic stop somewhere. the police officer runs their name and i.d. in ncic and it comes back a hit. there's a warrant for their arrest in montgomery, alabama, for armed robbery, and he locked 18:54:36.3 them up. now, if you are an american citizen and you get a reckless driving ticket and you're ordered to appear in court at a given time and place and you don't appear in court, they issue a warrant for your arrest. 18:54:52.8 and normally the police officers don't go out and chase you down all over, finding to arrest you. normally they put it in the ncic immediately on the assumption that you'll soon be stopped 18:55:05.1 somewhere else on the way and they'll get a hit on you and they'll put you in jail because you have a warrant for flight out there or for jumping bail. but we don't do that for noncitizens. a citizen that will happen to, a united states senator that will 18:55:20.6 happen to, but not somebody that's coming into the country illegally, we don't do the same thing when they jump bail on their charges. so, mr. president, there are a 18:55:42.7 lot of stories that we can tell, and i would just summarize a number of them that really caught the attention of the 9/11 commission. for example, mohammed atta, who is believed to have piloted american airlines flight 11, 18:55:59.3 which flew into the world trade center's north tower and to have played a leading role in more than 3,000 deaths that occurred that day, in july, just two months before the attacks, atta was stopped by police in 18:56:17.6 tamarack, florida, and ticketed for an invalid license. he ignored the ticket and bench warranted for an arrest. when he was stopped for speeding weeks later in a nearby town, the officer did not check, did not disufer this warrant -- 18:56:31.8 discover this warrant had been issued and let him go with only a warning. now, ok, atta had not yet become illegal. i believe at that time he still was on a legal status, however he was about to expire, and i 18:56:46.8 doubt he would have returned to the immigration officer to get it extended. he would soon have been here illegally as a visa overstay. he could well have been apprehended and identified before 9/11 had he done so. 18:57:06.4 and that's the example i'm trying to make here. it could very well have been decisive. also, hamid hanjour was just one month before 9/11 stopped by 18:57:24.7 police in arlington, virginia, for driving 50 miles an hour in a 35-mile-per-hour zone. he was in a chevy van with new jersey plates, he produced a florida driver's license, but he was the pilot of the american airlines flight 77, which 18:57:39.5 crashed into the pentagon, the third hijacker was stopped by state police just two days before september 11, also for speeding. maryland state police stopped ziad jara on interstate 95 for 18:57:57.1 driving 90 miles an hour in a 60-mile zone. well, i say that, mr. president, to say we're not talking about academic matters here. we're talking about the fact that the alien database needs to 18:58:17.0 be accessible to local police. it might as well, for all practical purposes, be locked up in some valuate somewhere in secrecy the way it's being done today. 18:58:29.5 it's not available to the people out there who need it. and the hart-ruddman commission raised that point, as did the 9/11 commission. we absolutely can -- i've been told at hearings by the appropriate officials, the ncic 18:58:48.5 system can handle the additional data. it will not overburden the system. it will make this information readily and immediately available to a police officer. and we may well -- he may well have or she may have stumbled on 18:59:04.9 a person like mohammed atta on his way to commit a horrible and unspeakable act of terrorism against the people of the united states. and that opportunity to make that arrest and to identify that criminal is most important. 18:59:20.3 so, mr. president, that's the purpose of the amendment. i believe if people think about it that we will see the need of it. i've tried to get this done in any number of different ways, but we haven't quite gotten there yet. 18:59:36.1 i think there's a majority in the senate probably on both sides of the aisle that would support this when it's clearly raised, but it tends, as it so often tends to happen, matters that actually work to a 18:59:52.8 significant degree and will actually substantially increase the ability of our law enforcement system to be effective are the things that don't become law. it's almost like if it works, it won't pass.