Floor Statements

Mr. President, the National Drug Facts Chat Day was designed by the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institute of Health, NIDA, to provide the opportunity for school-aged youth and teachers in classrooms across the U.S. to ask questions of the Nation's leading experts in the field of drug abuse and addiction.

One of the many activities on this occasion involves students and teachers interacting with professionals, including exchanging questions with them on the issues of illicit drug use, tobacco use, and prescription drug abuse, the latter of which has become a significant problem among our Nation's teens. NIDA hopes that ``the anonymous nature of the Internet will encourage youths to ask what is truly on their minds.

Now in its third year, there are expected to be thousands of questions from every region of the country received and answered, yielding an enlightening glimpse into students' misconceptions about drug use. Students and teachers hunger for straightforward, scientific information on drug abuse and addiction. Drug Facts Chat Day, recognized on November 10, 2009, will provide them with timely, straightforward facts.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in supporting recognition of this innovative and worthwhile program by adopting this resolution. I am very pleased that Representative Patrick Kennedy is simultaneously introducing a companion resolution in the House. As we are all aware, Representative Kennedy has been a passionate leader in increasing the understanding of the science of drug abuse and addiction among school-aged youth.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a companion bill to Representative Stupak's bill, which is also being introduced today, that would modify a patent issued to the Great Lakes Shipwreck Historical Society for the conveyance of a parcel of land at Whitefish Point, Michigan at the U.S. Coast Guard Whitefish Point Light Station. The land patent was originally issued ten years ago for the interpretation and preservation of maritime history. In accordance with the land patent, the Great Lakes Shipwreck Historical Society established and has operated a museum that brings to life the strength and fury of the Great Lakes and the bravery of the U.S. Life Saving Service who rescued thousands of people from Great Lakes shipwrecks.

This legislation modifies the land patent such that development of new facilities and expansion of existing facilities or infrastructure would be implemented in accordance with the 2002 Human Use/Natural Resource Plan instead of the 1992 Whitefish Point Comprehensive Plan. The 2002 plan was developed pursuant to a court-ordered settlement agreement regarding the 1992 plan.

The modification of the land patent is intended to further the purposes of the original patent, which is for preservation and interpretation of maritime history, while maintaining the conservation of natural habitat and wildlife areas, since Whitefish Point is an important birding area as well. This bill would ensure that the vibrant stories of the Great Lakes can be preserved and interpreted for future generations.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a companion bill to Representative Stupak's bill, which is also being introduced today, that would modify a patent issued to the Great Lakes Shipwreck Historical Society for the conveyance of a parcel of land at Whitefish Point, Michigan at the U.S. Coast Guard Whitefish Point Light Station. The land patent was originally issued ten years ago for the interpretation and preservation of maritime history. In accordance with the land patent, the Great Lakes Shipwreck Historical Society established and has operated a museum that brings to life the strength and fury of the Great Lakes and the bravery of the U.S. Life Saving Service who rescued thousands of people from Great Lakes shipwrecks.

This legislation modifies the land patent such that development of new facilities and expansion of existing facilities or infrastructure would be implemented in accordance with the 2002 Human Use/Natural Resource Plan instead of the 1992 Whitefish Point Comprehensive Plan. The 2002 plan was developed pursuant to a court-ordered settlement agreement regarding the 1992 plan.

The modification of the land patent is intended to further the purposes of the original patent, which is for preservation and interpretation of maritime history, while maintaining the conservation of natural habitat and wildlife areas, since Whitefish Point is an important birding area as well. This bill would ensure that the vibrant stories of the Great Lakes can be preserved and interpreted for future generations.

Madam President, once again, the Senate is being called upon to do its constitutional duty to consider a nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Positions on the Supreme Court are hugely significant given their lifetime tenures and the impact of the Court's decisions on the lives of Americans. Our votes on Supreme Court nominees are among the most significant that we cast.

I commend Chairman Leahy for the extraordinarily thorough and fair hearings the Judiciary Committee held on this nomination. It has given us a very extensive record upon which we can base our judgment. I have reviewed the nominee's qualifications, temperament, and background to determine if she is likely to bring to the Court an ideology that distorts her legal judgment or brings into question her openmindedness. I believe it is clear that Judge Sotomayor satisfies the essential requirements of openmindedness and judicial temperament, and her decisions as a judge fall well within the mainstream of our jurisprudence.

Judge Sotomayor's judicial career has received bipartisan support. She was nominated first to the district court in the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush. The Senate confirmed her nomination. President Clinton nominated Judge Sotomayor to be a circuit court judge, and the Senate overwhelmingly confirmed her nomination to that position.

The American Bar Association Standing Committee evaluated Judge Sotomayor and interviewed more than 500 judges, lawyers, law professors, and community representatives from across the United States. They analyzed Judge Sotomayor's opinions, speeches, and other writings. They read reports of Reading Groups comprised of recognized experts in the substantive areas of the law that they reviewed, and they conducted an in-depth personal interview of the nominee. In the words of the committee:

The Standing Committee's investigation of a nominee for the

United States Supreme Court is based upon the premise that

the nominee must possess exceptional professional

qualifications. The significance, range, and complexity and

nation-wide impact of issues that such a nominee will

confront on the Court demands no less.

After that extensive investigation, the American Bar Association gave Judge Sotomayor their highest rating unanimously, rating her ``well qualified.''

Some colleagues have expressed concern over the differences in language and ideas they thought they observed in Judge Sotomayor while sitting as a judge in the courtroom and as a citizen outside the courtroom. For example, one colleague put it this way during Judge Sotomayor's confirmation hearing:

I want to ask your assistance this morning to try to help

us reconcile two pictures that I think have emerged during

the course of this hearing. One is, of course, as Senator

Schumer and others have talked about, your lengthy tenure on

the Federal bench as a trial judge and court of appeals

judge. And then there's the other picture that has emerged

that--from your speeches and your other writings.

Our colleague went on to say the following:

I actually agree that your judicial record strikes me as

pretty much in the mainstream of judicial decision-making by

district court judges and by court of appeals judges on the

Federal bench.

And he said in conclusion then:

I guess part of what we need to do is to reconcile those--

Referring to the two different pictures he had.

Let's assume for a moment there is a difference between Judge Sotomayor's rulings in the courtroom and those personal views she expressed outside of the courtroom. If so, aren't we looking for people who can apply the law on the bench, even if he or she has a different personal opinion? At the end of the day, we want our judges to leave their personal views outside of the courtroom. That is the essence of an impartial judiciary. In other words, Judge Sotomayor has demonstrated the very trait that she is accused by some of lacking: the ability to leave her personal opinions at the courthouse door.

The Congressional Research Service has analyzed Judge Sotomayor's record and has concluded the following:

Perhaps the most consistent characteristic of Judge

Sotomayor's approach as an appellate judge has been an

adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis (i.e, the

upholding of past judicial precedents). Other characteristics

appear to include what many would describe as a careful

application of particular facts at issue in a case and a

dislike for situations in which the court might be seen as

overstepping its judicial role.

Well, that is the opposite of an activist judge imposing her views despite the law.

We all have personal views and sympathies. Some judges, regrettably, can't lay those aside when making their judicial calls. Judge Sotomayor has proven in her judicial career that she can, while faithfully applying the principles of the U.S. Constitution.

So today, once again, the U.S. Senate is being called upon to do its constitutional duty and consider a nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Positions on the Supreme Court are hugely significant given their lifetime tenures and the impact of the Court's decisions on the lives of Americans. Our votes on Supreme Court nominees are among the most significant that we cast.

Article II, section 2 of the Constitution simply provides that: ``[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate shall appoint . . . Judges of the Supreme Court . . . Without specific constitutional guidance, each senator must determine what qualities he or she thinks a Supreme Court Justice should have, and what scope of inquiry is necessary to determine if the prospective nominee has these qualities.

This will be the twelfth Supreme Court nomination on which I will have voted. Each time, I have reviewed the nominee's qualifications, temperament and background to determine if the nominee is likely to bring to the court an ideology that distorts his or her legal judgment or brings into question his or her open-mindedness. I believe that Judge Sotomayor satisfies the essential requirements of open-mindedness and judicial temperament and her decisions as a judge fell well within the mainstream of our jurisprudence.

Judge Sotomayor graduated as valedictorian of her class at Blessed Sacrament and at Cardinal Spellman High School in New York. She continued to excel at Princeton University, graduating summa cum laude, and Phi Beta

Kappa. She was a corecipient of the M. Taylor Pyne Prize, the highest honor Princeton awards to an undergraduate. At Yale Law School, Judge Sotomayor served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal.

In her 30-year legal career, Judge Sotomayor has been a Federal circuit and trial court judge, a civil commercial litigator in private practice, and a State prosecutor. She served as an assistant district attorney in the New York County District Attorney's Office and later worked in private practice.

Judge Sotomayor's judicial career has received bipartisan support. During the 102nd Congress, President George H.W. Bush nominated Judge Sotomayor to be a district judge on the Southern District of New York. On August 11, 1992, the Senate confirmed her nomination.

During the 105th Congress, President Bill Clinton nominated Judge Sotomayor to be a circuit judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On October 2, 1998, the Senate confirmed her nomination by a vote of 67-29.

On May 26, 2009, President Obama nominated Judge Sotomayor to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court to fill the seat left vacant by the departure of Justice David Souter. Recently, the American Bar Association Standing Committee evaluated Judge Sotomayor and interviewed more than 500 judges, lawyers, law professors and community representatives from across the United States; they analyzed Judge Sotomayor's opinions, speeches and other writings; read reports of reading groups comprised of recognized experts in the substantive areas of the law that they reviewed; and conducted an in-depth personal interview of the nominee. In the words of the committee:

The Standing Committee's investigation of a nominee for the

United States Supreme Court is based upon the premise that

the nominee must possess exceptional professional

qualifications. The significance, range, complexity and

nation-wide impact of issues that such a nominee will

confront on the Court demands no less.

After that extensive investigation, the American Bar Association gave Judge Sotomayor their highest rating, unanimously rating her ``well qualified.''

Some colleagues have expressed concern over the differences in language and ideas they observed in Judge Sotomayor while sitting as a judge in the courtroom, and as a citizen outside of the courtroom. For example, one colleague put it this way during Judge Sotomayor's confirmation hearing,

I want to ask your assistance this morning to try to help

us reconcile two pictures that I think have emerged during

the course of this hearing. One is, of course, as Senator

Schumer and others have talked about, your lengthy tenure on

the federal bench as a trial judge and court of appeals

judge.

And then there's the other picture that has emerged that--

from your speeches and your other writings.

He further stated,

You know, I actually agree that your judicial record

strikes me as pretty much in the mainstream of--of judicial

decision making by district court judges and by court of

appeals judges on the federal bench. And while I think what

is creating this cognitive dissonance for many of us and for

many of my constituents who I've been hearing from is that

you appear to be a different person almost in your speeches

and in some of the comments that you've made. So I guess part

of what we need to do is to try to reconcile those.

Assume there is a difference between Judge Sotomayor's rulings in the courtroom, and those personal views she expressed outside of the courtroom. If so, aren't we looking for people who can apply the law on the bench, even if he or she has a different personal opinion? At the end of the day, we want our judges to leave their personal views outside of the courtroom. That is the essence of an impartial judiciary.

Senator Graham pointed that out when he said,

Her speeches, [while troubling], have to be looked at in

terms of her record. When we look at this 17-year record we

will find someone who has not carried out that speech.

In other words, Judge Sotomayor has demonstrated the trait she is accused by some of lacking: the ability to leave her personal opinions at the courthouse door. She has an extensive judicial record and we have had the opportunity to review that record. The Congressional Research Service analyzed Judge Sotomayor's record and concluded:

Perhaps the most consistent characteristic of Judge

Sotomayor's approach as an appellate judge has been an

adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis (i.e., the

upholding of past judicial precedents). Other characteristics

appear to include what many would describe as a careful

application of particular facts at issue in a case and a

dislike for situations in which the court might be seen as

overstepping its judicial role.

That is the opposite of an activist jurist imposing her views despite the law. During her confirmation hearing, Judge Sotomayor was asked about the role of the courts numerous times. Her response makes clear that she adheres to the responsibilities of a judge:

. . . look at my decisions for 17 years and note that, in

every one of them, I have done what I say that I so firmly

believe in. I prove my fidelity to the law, the fact that I

do not permit personal views, sympathies or prejudices to

influence the outcome of cases, rejecting the challenges of

numerous plaintiffs with undisputably sympathetic claims, but

ruling the way I have on the basis of law rejecting those

claims. . . .

We all have personal views and sympathies. Some judges regrettably can't lay those aside. Judge Sotomayor has proven in her judicial career that she can, while faithfully applying the principles of the U.S. Constitution.

For these reasons, I will vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that letters received by the Judiciary Committee from the AFL-CIO and from AFSCME be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am not sure who is controlling time, but I wish to speak on the bill and on the amendment at the same time.

Is there a time limit on the bill?

I am asking a parliamentary inquiry: Is there a time limit on the bill?

I thank the Presiding Officer. I wish to speak on the bill. I would ask, who is controlling time in opposition to the amendment? I wish to speak on the bill.

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

Madam President, how much time is remaining in opposition to the Kyl amendment?

I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to use that time.

Madam President, we will soon vote on whether to extend the Cash for Clunkers Program. Rarely has this body passed legislation that has so clearly and quickly met our goals than when it approved the first installment of money for this program earlier this summer. The program offers rebates of $3,500 to $4,500 to consumers who trade in old inefficient vehicles for new cars and trucks with higher mileage. Thousands of consumers who hope to take advantage now wonder whether they will have the opportunity.

It is important to understand the context in which we originally approved this program. Amid the most severe downturn since the Great Depression, auto sales everywhere plummeted--in the United States and around the globe, foreign manufacturers and U.S.-based companies alike. In the U.S. market, month after month automakers have reported sales that have fallen 40 percent or more from a year ago. This unprecedented decline has harmed not only the hard-working autoworkers in my home State and other States, but auto suppliers, auto dealers, and small businesses in every community in this Nation. Because the auto industry represents such a large share of this Nation's overall economic activity, as long as this sales decline continues, it will weigh down our economy, frustrating attempts to lift us out of recession.

In establishing this program, we did not establish a course. We followed a

path that had already been laid out by other nations. In Germany, France, Japan, and other nations, governments recognized the danger to their own auto industries in this time of economic crisis and they acted. Germany's Government established its own version of cash for clunkers, and in June car sales were up 40 percent over the same period a year ago. Other nations saw similar impressive increases.

After just a few days, our efforts have borne impressive results. This week Ford reported its sales increased in July from a year ago, the first year-over-year increase reported this year by any automaker. Other carmakers, foreign and domestic, saw smaller declines than in previous months. The impact has been so striking that one private economist has raised his estimate for economic growth in the third quarter of this year by more than 50 percent based solely on the success of cash for clunkers.

This program accomplished what it was intended to accomplish. In just a few days, a quarter of a million Americans traded in their old car for a new model using the credits available from this program. That is a quarter of a million American families who have more fuel-efficient transportation, a quarter of a million transactions that will pump new money into local economies, and an incalculable boost to this Nation's struggling auto industry.

The program has made significant improvements in the fuel efficiency of our Nation's vehicle fleet. According to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, consumers using this program are buying new vehicles with an average 63 percent improvement in fuel economy over their trade-ins. More than four out of every five vehicles traded in are trucks; nearly three out of five new vehicles are cars. The average mileage improvement of 9.6 miles per gallon is more than double the program's minimum and far greater than expected.

In short, cash for clunkers has exceeded earlier projections in its ability to get older cars off the road and their damaging emissions out of our skies. Seldom have we had an opportunity to do more for our environment than we do today. Reinforcing and extending this program will get replaced hundreds of thousands more of these environmental clunkers with highly efficient new vehicles.

Some Members have proposed changes to the program by amendments. Some amendments are pending, or will be introduced, that are not related to this program. These may be well intended amendments, but it is vitally important to keep in mind the need for immediate action. The House of Representatives has sent us a bill that will keep the program running. Any amendments--any amendments--that the Senate approves will send the legislation back to the House of Representatives where action will be delayed until the House reconvenes in September. So any amendment that is adopted here is the death knell for this program. It would have to end immediately if an amendment is adopted because of the uncertainty over whether funds remain and to what extent. This program is designed to be a one-time stimulus, not a stop-and-start deal, which would make it more complex and confusing.

This situation is not new. We had a similar situation just a week or so ago. When the Senate passed a bill to restore funding to the highway trust fund, an amendment pending to that bill would have prevented the Federal Government from cutting $8.7 billion in transportation funding from several States, including my home State of Michigan. Normally, it would have been a simple decision to vote for that amendment to avoid those cuts. Michigan is in desperate need, and that amendment would seemingly protect hundreds of millions of dollars for my State. Yet I voted against the amendment. I did so because of the time-sensitive nature of the underlying bill. And many others in this body voted against an amendment for that same reason.

The highway trust fund was on the verge of running out of money, and the bill that we were voting on restored funding to keep it solvent through September. With the House of Representatives about to adjourn a week or so ago, any Senate amendment to that bill would have required that it be sent back to the House of Representatives, likely killing the bill. I, and many others here, decided not to risk letting the highway trust fund run out of funds. So what did we do? We voted for the bill, but we voted against an amendment, even though that amendment would have helped our States. What we did instead is we pledged to seek passage of that amendment at a later date to a different legislative vehicle. I opposed every amendment to that bill, as did a majority of our colleagues.

That is the situation we are in now. If we want this program to continue, we have but one choice. We have to vote for it, but we also must vote against all of the amendments that are pending to it, even though those amendments may be attractive standing on their own and in ordinary circumstances. It is going to be difficult for some to vote against these amendments. I understand that. But the issue is going to be, do you want the Cash for Clunkers Program to continue? If any amendment passes, it is the end of that program.

I yield the floor.

First, let my thank my friend from Oklahoma for raising some of these questions which are entitled to be debated. We are not alone in having a Cash for Clunkers Program. Other countries, including Germany, have had these programs. So we are not designing something from scratch. All auto-producing countries that I know of in the world are fighting to have an

auto industry come out at the end of this recession.

Unless we take action in a number of ways, that is not going to happen. So the Cash for Clunkers Program is based on a similar type of program in other countries, including Germany, where it has been very successful.

It is not my intent--to answer the other part of his question--it is surely not my intent that this program continue beyond this extension. No one can give an assurance as to what is going to happen in the future with this body or other Members of this body or, indeed, with myself. But it is not my intent that this be a continued program beyond this extension. The reason it was so essential that we have this extension is it was such a successful program. It sold out so quickly, we think our success actually overwhelmed us.

I don't believe, as the Senator from Oklahoma does, that people were buying forward. I think maybe the opposite happened. By the way, I think people may have been waiting until there was this kind of incentive because people are in desperate economic shape. Perhaps some of the people who knew there was going to be such a program may have held back in buying a vehicle.

But also the other prong of this program, besides the economic boost it gives to the economy overall, is the environmental part. That is the part which the Senator's amendment does not address. It is intended to get clunkers off the road, not just to get an economic stimulus into the auto area for sales of vehicles that benefit not just producers but car dealers and suppliers, but there is also a huge environmental benefit which has not only proven itself, but done much better than anybody could have expected.

That is ignored by the Senator's amendment, because keeping those cars on the road, as the Senator would do, denies the environmental benefit of the Cash for Clunkers Program. That is another reason I would oppose the Senator's amendment.

I do not know the number.

In response to the Senator, I think that same point is true with the purchase of any new car.

But the faster we get the more fuel-efficient cars, the better environmental impact we are going to have, even though there is that time period, obviously, when there is a carbon footprint that results from the production of the new car.

But you get to that 2\1/2\ years faster then if you buy that new car now than if you buy it a year from now or 2 years from now.

It may. We do not know that.

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

Madam President, how much time is left in opposition to the Isakson amendment?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent--I am not sure who controls the time in opposition--that I be allowed to use 3 minutes of that time.

Madam President, the Isakson amendment is an example of an amendment which is not only well intended but an amendment that I happen to favor and have favored on a number of occasions on this floor.

One of the problems, though, is it is very clear we have a choice before us. We are either going to have an extension of the Cash for Clunkers Program, with passage of the House bill without any changes in it, or it is going to die. Passage of the Isakson amendment is not only well intended, but as good an amendment as it is, it will defeat both. We cannot get the Isakson amendment passed into law by adopting it here. It would be added to a bill which is going to go nowhere except to a House which has been adjourned. And we cannot keep this Cash for Clunkers Program going unless we adopt the House bill today.

If we leave without adopting the House bill or amending the House bill, it is the end of the most successful program we have seen in the stimulus package. That is the choice. So adopting the Isakson amendment does not get us where Senator Isakson wants us to get, and it destroys the Cash for Clunkers Program extension.

It has been a highly successful program, probably the most successful of any of the stimulus packages, at least to date. We are put in a position--a number of us--of voting against these amendments, amendments, for instance, as well intended as is the Harkin amendment. Voting against an amendment such as that is difficult, we know that, but we did it a week ago. We had to do it when the highway trust fund came up. We had to vote against an amendment which most of us, I believe, favored, which would have produced money for our States, in order to have a bill passed without any amendment so that we could get it done because the House was about to adjourn. So we were put in that position. It is not unusual around here that we are put in this position. It is a fact of life around here. It is not hard to explain back home why we had to do this.

So if we favor the cash for clunkers extension, we have to vote against every amendment. There cannot be a change. There cannot be a period, a comma, a word, a paragraph changed in the House bill. If there is, it is the death knell for this very successful program.

So I hope we will vote against all amendments. Some of them are very difficult to vote against. Some of the amendments we may have voted for before, including the Isakson amendment. Some like the amendment of Senator Harkin, which is such a well-intended amendment. It has other complications to it, by the way, which would require it being modified, I believe, if it were going to have the effect that is intended, which would require regulations to be adopted, and that would take so long in any event that holding up the cash for clunkers bill for that to happen would also be the death knell for this bill that is so valuable.

So I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, and I will object for reasons I have discussed with Senator Harkin, any amendment to this bill will end the bill. It is a death knell for the bill. The modification also would have another delay even if it didn't kill the bill, even if it were passed and the House were able to adopt it. It requires regulations to be adopted which would take time. It would be a stopping and starting of the program. It would create a great deal of confusion.

This is an extremely well-intended amendment. I give Senator Harkin a lot of credit for what he is aiming to do, but it cannot achieve its purpose the way it is drafted. The way it would be modified would take a significant period of time to be modified. It would result in a stop- and-start situation of the Cash for Clunkers Program. So, reluctantly, I object.

Is there any time remaining in opposition?

Madam President, this amendment would have an across-the- board cut to the appropriations bill of $2 billion, including appropriations bills that have already passed. It is a recipe for chaos in the appropriations process. The pay-for is in the bill for this $2 billion package.

In addition to all of that, any amendment to this bill will kill the program. So if you want to kill the program as well as create havoc in the appropriations process, then you will vote for the Gregg amendment; otherwise, you will vote no.

Mr. President, this is another well-intended amendment. It is an amendment, indeed, that many of us have voted for in a slightly different form in a different place. However, it would represent the death knell for this program. So if you believe the Cash for Clunkers Program is a successful program and should be extended, this amendment needs to be defeated and raised at a different point.

We will not get the Isakson amendment into law by adopting it. All we will do is stop the Cash for Clunkers Program from continuing. That seems to me to be the choice, which is a fundamental one. I hope we defeat the Isakson amendment.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.

Mr. President, I thank everyone for keeping this successful program going. Have a great August.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, it is with great pride that I pay tribute to Trout Unlimited, a national conservation organization established in my home State of Michigan. This exceptional organization was founded in 1959 on the banks of the Au Sable River, near Grayling, MI, by 16 concerned Michigan anglers. These anglers, who met in the home of George Griffith, sought to ensure the continued and long term health of trout, their habitat, and the sport of angling. Today, Trout Unlimited boasts more than 150,000 members

in approximately 400 chapters throughout the United States, including 23 chapters in Michigan.

The founders of Trout Unlimited, or TU, were united by their love of trout fishing and by their growing discontent with the State of Michigan's practice of stocking its waters with hatchery-raised fish. Driven by the belief that Michigan's trout streams could produce fish far superior in both size and fight to these ``cookie cutter trout,'' in 1962-63, TU prepared its first policy statement on wild trout, which persuaded the Michigan Department of Natural Resources to curtail ``put-and-take'' trout stocking and to start managing for wild trout and healthy habitat. Buoyed by this success, anglers subsequently founded TU chapters in Illinois, Wisconsin, New York, and Pennsylvania with the mission of conserving, protecting and restoring North America's coldwater fisheries and their watersheds.

Indispensible to the success and strength of Trout Unlimited are the thousands of dedicated members and volunteers. TU members have spent countless hours restoring trout and salmon habitat, and some of the most visible effects have been on hundreds of watersheds nationwide. In addition, these members have provided the knowledge and leadership necessary to improve environmental policy on the local, state and national level and to carry out TU's ambitious conservation agenda.

Many have contributed significantly to the success of Trout Unlimited over the past fifty years. Trout Unlimited has been an important, vigilant and effective advocate for coldwater resources in Michigan and across the country. I know my colleagues join me in offering gratitude and appreciation to Trout Unlimited for a job well done. Protecting our natural resources and waterways for future generations is a noble endeavor, and I look forward to another 50 years of responsible environmental stewardship.

Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to bring to the attention of my colleagues the burgeoning threat of a potential safe haven for extremists in Yemen. As I am sure is true of many of my colleagues, I continue to monitor the press reports surrounding the future of the Yemeni detainees currently being held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. However, what I believe too few people are following is the growing threat of Yemen becoming a failed state and potential safe haven for members of al-Qaida.

A recent New York Times article, ``Some in [al] Qaeda Leave Pakistan for Somalia and Yemen,'' highlighted the growing concern within the U.S. Government about relocations of some al-Qaida operatives to Yemen. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy also highlighted the growing threat in Yemen in a recent paper, ``Waning Vigilance: al Qaeda's Resurgence in Yemen,'' that discusses how the threat in Yemen has simmered in recent years and urgently needs the attention of policymakers. Mr. President, I will ask that the New York Times and Washington Institute for Near East Policy articles be printed in the Record following my comments.

To appreciate fully the concerns about Yemen's stability, it is important to recall the association of terrorist activities with Yemen. It is perhaps best known as the site of the U.S.S. Cole attack in October 2000. But Yemen is also one of the top sources of foreign fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan, the source of weapons trafficked into Gaza, and the country of origin of almost 100 of the remaining detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. It was also where many mujahedeen returned to after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan and, often forgotten, it is the ancestral home of Osama bin Laden. Further, in 2008, the U.S. Embassy in the Yemeni capital of Sana'a was attacked twice--first by a mortar attack and the second time by highly trained terrorists using vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices, small arms, and suicide vests.

Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair also highlighted the significance of the situation in Yemen earlier this year in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Director Blair testified that losses within al-Qaida's command structure since 2008 have been significant and that sustained pressure against al-Qaida in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, FATA, of Pakistan may eventually force it to vacate the FATA. He stated that it is conceivable that al- Qaida could relocate to the gulf where it could exploit a weak central government and close proximity to established recruitment, fundraising, and facilitation networks.

Yemen is the type of country the Director is concerned about, and, for good reason. I would direct my colleagues to the most recent issue of Foreign Policy magazine, which ranks Yemen 18th on its failed states index, an annual index based on 12 indicators ranging from availability of public services to demographic pressures to refugee and internally displaced populations. The failed state index additionally says of Yemen: ``a perfect storm of state failure is now brewing there: disappearing oil and water reserves; a mob of migrants, some allegedly with al Qaeda ties, flooding in from Somalia . . . ; and a weak government increasingly unable to keep things running.''

The article goes on to suggest what many Yemen observers have been saying for years: ``Yemen is the next Afghanistan: a global problem wrapped in a failed state.'' Report after report reaches the same conclusion about--Yemen--it is a failing state with all the makings of an extremist safe haven. I believe it is critical that we monitor this situation closely; fund developmental and counterterrorism assistance for the Government of Yemen at robust levels; and urge the Obama administration to engage actively with the Yemeni Government. The consequences of inaction can be seen right across the Gulf of Aden in Somalia.

For its part, the administration has increased its focus on this threat. Earlier this year, Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, Deputy Director Stephen Kappes reportedly met with Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh in Sana'a to discuss security and counterterrorism cooperation. This visit is one of many that the CIA and National Security Council officials have made in recent months, and in addition to a visit by General Petraeus shortly after taking command at U.S. Central Command.

All of these visits confirmed that the political landscape in Yemen remains fragile. Throughout his decades of rule, President Saleh has successfully balanced the various political forces in Yemen--tribes, political parties, military officials, political elites, and radical Islamists--to create a stable ruling coalition that has kept his regime intact. While in many cases this stability has been purchased via corruption and payoffs, in cases where groups and/or individuals have not been willing to join President Saleh, he has used law enforcement, military, and intelligence services to manage threats to stability. In recent years, al-Qaida has entered into the political landscape and complicated this delicate 30-year balance. President Saleh has addressed this situation by reportedly reaching understandings with al- Qaida that it would be left alone to recruit fighters if it did not attack the Yemeni Government.

In the Washington Institute for Near East Policy article I mentioned earlier, the author makes a number of points that underscore this delicate balancing act and the role of al-Qaida in the political landscape of Yemen. The author argues that the Yemeni Government is preoccupied, and its security services overtaxed by increasingly violent calls for secession from the south, threats of renewed fighting in the north, and a faltering economy that is dependent on revenue from rapidly dwindling petroleum reserves.

Between 2002 and 2004, the Yemeni Government, largely with U.S. assistance, was able to disrupt al-Qaida-inspired terrorist activity in Yemen. However, in recent years, a new generation of militants, with either experience in Iraq and Afghanistan or time spent in the Yemeni prison system, has emerged. This new generation of militants is inclined to target the Yemeni Government itself, in addition to foreign interests in Yemen.

The start of this resurgence was a 2006 jailbreak, in which 23 convicted terrorists escaped from a prison in the capital of Sana'a. Escapees from this jailbreak formed the core of a new group, al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, AQAP, which is led by a 2006 escapee whose deputy is a former Guantanamo detainee. While many Yemen observers believe that AQAP is not yet strong enough to topple President Saleh's regime, it is capable of striking high value targets; contributing to instability across Yemen; and recruiting individuals to strengthen its ranks. The ideological demands of AQAP are

familiar: release militants from prison; end cooperation with the United States; renounce democracy; and implement a strict form of sharia law.

If al-Qaida operatives and their leadership in Pakistan look for a new home, Yemen will seem attractive. As in Afghanistan and Pakistan, it has large areas of naturally defensible land where President Saleh's regime has little authority; a robust tribal structure that could host relocating operatives; and a security infrastructure which lacks the capacity to defend Yemen's sovereign territory. It is also worth mentioning that these same tribes, in some cases, share the hard-line views of these relocating al-Qaida operatives and are inclined to help enlist their own family into AQAP's efforts. This reality only complicates further the work of President Saleh in balancing counterterrorism efforts and the survival of his regime.

In June 2007, al-Qaida officially announced its rebirth in Yemen with a suicide attack on a convoy of Spanish tourists. Since then, the organization has grown stronger and its attacks more frequent. In January 2008, it launched a series of attacks, culminating in the assault on the U.S. Embassy in September 2008. Earlier this year, a pair of suicide bombers targeted South Koreans, attacking first a group of tourists in the countryside and then the officials sent to investigate. Just last month, AQAP demonstrated that it is also adopting the kidnapping for ransom tactic, which has proven profitable for other terrorist groups. And, just last month, the Associated Press reported that security was upgraded in Yemen's capital after intelligence reports warned of attacks planned against the U.S. Embassy and other potential targets. In response, the Yemeni chief of intelligence has reportedly directed an increase in security around diplomatic missions in the capital and elsewhere in the country. The culmination of these developments gives the AQAP the ability to attract relocating foreign fighters and broaden its operational reach.

The United States is by no means the only player in the country. Saudi Arabia provides the most assistance to Yemen, some of it via official channels to the government and some portions of it unofficially. A myriad of countries are involved in the Yemeni energy sector, and Russia and China are the Yemeni Government's major arms suppliers. To complicate matters further, Yemen's tribal leaders, powerful within the Yemeni political landscape, are suspicious of U.S. policy in the region. These tribal leaders are often the proxies used by President Saleh, Saudi Arabia, and others interested in influencing the government and other elites.

Over the past several fiscal years, Yemen has received on average between $20 and $25 million annually in total U.S. foreign aid. For fiscal year 2009, the U.S. provided over $40 million in assistance for Yemen, an increase from its $18 million aid package in fiscal year 2008. Between fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007, Yemen also received approximately $31.5 million from the U.S. Department of Defense's section 1206 account to train and equip Yemeni counterterrorism units. The Obama administration also recently sent to Congress a new package of 1206 funded projects, which includes $65 million in counterterrorism assistance for various Yemeni military units. The recently passed fiscal year 2009 supplemental included $10 million for the U.S. Agency for International Development to support U.S.-sponsored rural engagement measures, focused on civil affairs activities and civilian capacity building in the ungoverned regions of Yemen.

While these programs are important and need to be funded, Yemen observers have expressed frustration with how little ``bang for the buck'' the U.S. gets for its financial assistance to Yemen on counterterrorism operations. This is one area where I hope the administration will continue to press the Yemeni Government. In the past, the Yemeni Government has complained that the United States has provided them with insufficient assistance. However, based on the most recent administration efforts, the situation has clearly changed, and it is time for President Saleh's government to be more responsive. And, just as in Pakistan, it is critical that our government make two things very clear: first, we stand ready to assist in training and equipping counterterrorism forces; and second, the threats confronting Yemen are ultimately a threat to its own existence. American security assistance will ultimately only be as effective as the Yemeni Government's will to execute an aggressive counterterrorism and counter-recruitment mission.

To date, the administration has not officially characterized Yemen as an al-Qaida safe haven, but should President Saleh prove unwilling to confront adequately the threat posed by relocating foreign fighters; the growing threat of AQAP; and the sympathy of some tribal leaders in his country to support extremist elements, the administration should consider more vigorous action. While the U.S. Embassy in Sana'a is working hard to find an amenable resolution for the transfer of the Yemeni detainees at Guantanamo, it is also working on these very complex counterterrorism efforts. I would urge my colleagues to look at the threats emanating from Yemen and to support efforts by the administration to cooperate with the Yemeni Government and other regional actors, particularly Saudi Arabia, to address the burgeoning threat in the country.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the New York Times and Washington Institute for Near East Policy articles to which I referred.

Madam President, I support repealing the rescission contained in the SAFETEA-LU bill that requires that on September 30, 2009, $8.7 billion of apportioned contract authority provided to States for investment in infrastructure be rescinded. This is important to Michigan and all the other States across the Nation that cannot afford to have Federal infrastructure funding cut at a time of severe funding constraints. I will work to repeal this rescission so Michigan and other States do not lose these needed Federal transportation funds.

Based on the assurances of the chairman of the Senate Environment and

Public Works Committee that this will be corrected before September 30 and the extremely time sensitive nature of the underlying bill, I will oppose the motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to the Bond amendment to this bill. H.R. 3357 restores funding to the highway trust fund to keep it solvent through September. With the House of Representatives scheduled to adjourn tomorrow any Senate amendment to H.R. 3357 would require that it be sent back to the House, likely killing this important bill. We cannot risk letting the highway trust fund run out of funds.

I will work with the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to repeal the SAFETEA-LU rescission as part of the bill to extend SAFETEA-LU programs for 18 months.

Mr. President, I strongly oppose Senator Alexander's amendment, No. 1862. This amendment would undermine the hard work and painful sacrifices that have been made over the last several months by GM, Chrysler, hundreds of auto parts suppliers, thousands of dealerships, and millions of families. It would destroy the viability of the domestic automotive manufacturers, and would cost America thousands of jobs at precisely a time when unemployment is sky-high, and likely to go higher.

This amendment would force the government to divest its interests within an arbitrary timeframe, even if doing so would be detrimental to the taxpayers, the automobile companies, and the country as a whole. If the government has not divested its interest within that timeframe, it would be faced with a choice: it could divest the government's ownership quickly--before the reorganization efforts are complete and benefits realized--or be forced to direct the companies to issue millions of fractional ownership interests to taxpayers.

Approximately 138 million Americans file tax returns, and under this amendment, they would all become shareholders. The automakers will be faced with enormous administrative difficulties and unknown tax consequences. For example, how much would it cost to distribute proxy materials to 140 million ``owners''? How about keeping track of ownership interests and tax filings? Berkshire Hathaway famously hosts its annual meetings in a massive sports and entertainment complex. There is not a venue on the planet that could host a shareholder meeting with nearly 140 million owners.

Further, an extremely diffuse ownership base could lead to significant corporate governance concerns, with a management structure that may be less accountable to shareholders, not more. Because there would be so many shareholders, each would have extremely limited ability to affect change. That is exactly the wrong direction. The taxpayers deserve to have a strong voice in return for their significant investments. These penalties would be disastrous for the taxpayers and could be fatal to the companies.

This amendment would impose fiduciary duties onto administration officials, with their goals to be ``maximization of the return.'' The amendment would then also subject these officials to potential civil suits. This obvious attempt to co-opt traditional corporate law fiduciary duties is simply inappropriate here. The Secretary and his designees have duties to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States; they are not simply members of boards of directors. They are officials of the government. And they cannot be forced to take actions that may be contrary to their governmental duties.

Of course, imposing this liability would also come with some great costs. The legal costs on the companies would likely be enormous, as would the time demands upon the administration officials, which would keep them from their critical governmental duties.

The amendment would also prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from spending or obligating any more funds under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to any automobile manufacturer. Restructuring an entire industry takes patience, sacrifices, and capital. And while we all hope that the capital requirements are behind us, the administration's ability to ensure the success of the restructurings should not be unnecessarily and arbitrarily restricted.

This amendment is a recipe for disaster that could undo the efforts that have gone into preserving the domestic auto industry these past several months, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against it.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

GMD is an important element of the overall Ballistic Missile Defense System. It is important that the GMD element be an operationally effective, cost-effective, affordable, reliable, suitable, and survivable system capable of defending the United States from the threat of long-range missile attacks from nations such as North Korea and Iran, and that adequate resources be available to achieve such capabilities.

I agree with my colleague from Alaska that Fort Greely plays an integral role in supporting the GMD element of Ballistic Missile Defense System, and will continue to do so in the future. Constructing Missile Field 2 in a seven-silo configuration to replace the older silos at Missile Field 1 will provide updated and more reliable infrastructure in support of GMD. If the Department of Defense believes there is a benefit to completing the seven silos in fiscal year 2010 and the Secretary submits a reprogramming request to do so, I believe the committee would look favorably upon such a request, although subject to evaluation of course. If the Department does not submit such a reprogramming request, I believe the Department will request the funds to complete construction of the seven-silos in fiscal year 2011.

During consideration of S. 1390, the Senate adopted an amendment, offered by the Senator from Alaska, that would require the Secretary of Defense to ensure that Missile Field 1 does not complete decommissioning until seven-silos have been emplaced at Missile Field 2. It would also require the Secretary to ensure that no irreversible decision is made with respect to the disposition of operational silos at Missile Field 2 until 60 days after the reports required by section 243 are submitted to Congress.

Madam President, this afternoon, I had the pleasure of joining President Obama on the South Portico of the White House for a ceremony to honor the Detroit Shock on winning the 2008 WNBA championship. This is the third WNBA Championship in 6 years for the Shock, an outstanding accomplishment for the WNBA's first expansion franchise and one in which many across the State of Michigan take great pride. As one of only two teams to win three or more championships in the league history, the Detroit Shock is clearly a part of an elite group in the WNBA.

The Shock completed a hard fought title run with a three game sweep of the San Antonio Silver Stars, capped by a 76-60 victory in the final game before an elated home crowd. Those in attendance, as well as those in Detroit and across Michigan, were pleased with the poised performance of this veteran team. Through persistence, perseverance and hard work, this team defeated two quality opponents, the Indiana Fever and the New York Liberty, en route to earning a spot in the WNBA finals.

Led by the determined play of Katie Smith, the Shock maintained their focus throughout a grueling regular season and their ensuing march toward the 2008 WNBA title. Katie Smith averaged 21.7 points per game in the finals and won the 2008 WNBA Finals Most Valuable Player award.

This championship win was yet another milestone in the storied career of head coach Bill Laimbeer, who was at the helm of each of the Shock's championship runs. He has amassed a total of five professional basketball titles, which includes two as a player for the Detroit Pistons. This was also the sixth championship for Detroit Shock owner Bill Davidson's Detroit sports teams. Fortunately, he was able to enjoy this championship before his recent death in March.

Each member of the Detroit Shock organization made valuable contributions through the season and during this memorable championship run, including Kara Braxton, Cheryl Ford, Alexis Hornbuckle, Taj Mcwilliams-Franklin, Deanna Nolan, Plenette Pierson, Elaine Powell, Sheri Sam, Olayinka Sanni, Kelly Schumacher,

Ashley Shields, and Katie Smith, as well as head coach, Bill Laimbeer, and assistant coaches Rick Mahorn, Cheryl Reeve, and Laura Ramus. I know my colleagues join me in congratulating the Detroit Shock on their third championship in franchise history. The people of Michigan look forward to witnessing the Shock continue to build on this success in the years ahead.

Madam President, we are now back on the bill, as the clerk has indicated, and as the Acting President pro tempore has indicated. It was agreed to last night in our unanimous consent request that I offered and was accepted that the next order of business would be to take up the Kyl amendment, and there would be protected either a second-degree or a side-by-side amendment to that amendment; and then we would move, after that, to an amendment by the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, and a side-by-side or second-degree amendment could then be offered by the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Bayh.

Madam President, I see my friend from Arizona is here. In a moment, I am going to suggest we reverse the order of that because of Senator Kerry's requirements this morning. I have no objection at some point to entering into a time agreement on Kyl, by the way, at all. That is not the purpose, to delay that to a cloture moment. But I think the minority would want to see the language of any side-by-side before there was an agreement to a time agreement. If not, I am happy to enter into a time agreement on Senator Kyl's and any second degree or side- by-side at any time my good friend from Arizona wants to do that.

But in order for the convenience of the parties, if Senator Lieberman and Senator Bayh could come down now--if they can do that--I would like to inquire about that and dispose of their amendments first and then take up the Kyl amendment with a time agreement--just to reverse the order of those two because of the Finance Committee's meetings this morning, which Senator Kerry needs to attend.

I have not had a chance to talk to my friend from Arizona about this just because of the way the morning goes. That is what I would like to suggest. If that can be done, it would simplify things.

There are also a number of other things we need to do. We have--and I think the Senator from Arizona is familiar with this--an amendment on voting rights for the troops which I think has been cleared. It is a bipartisan amendment which is going to need about 15 minutes of debate, I understand. That could be done as well, hopefully.

But my goal, if it is agreeable to the Republican manager, would be to basically flip the two, with time agreements for both, going first to the Lieberman and Bayh amendments, if they are able to do it.

Madam President, if the Senator would withhold that request for a moment so I may comment.

Madam President, I was not suggesting that we not proceed this morning; I was suggesting that we reverse the order to accommodate a Senator who is going to be offering a second-degree amendment. If that is not acceptable, we do not need to do that. I was simply trying to accommodate the Senator so that the second-degree or side-by-side amendment that was in the unanimous consent proposal last night could be offered by him. If that is not agreeable to the Republican side, then I obviously am not going to make the suggestion. But it would not delay anything; all it would do would be to change the order of events to accommodate us. If that is not acceptable to the minority, then I will obviously not make that unanimous consent proposal.

Madam President, of course, that is exactly what I was proposing. I appreciate the willingness of the Senator from Arizona to try to work that out.

There is no problem with the time agreement on the Lieberman-Bayh matters because the reason we couldn't do that is that the Bayh language was not available in time for the minority side to consider a time agreement. We would be happy to have a time agreement of 1 hour on the Lieberman amendment, 1 hour on the Bayh amendment; 2 hours together, in other words. We are happy to have a time agreement on Senator Kyl's amendment, but we were only suggesting that we reverse the order to accommodate things here. It would not result in any additional use of time; it would not delay anything; it would simply reverse the order for the accommodation of the Senator who needs to be here to offer a second-degree amendment, if we are going to do it, or a side-by-side to Senator Kyl's first-degree amendment.

Madam President, what we need to do along that line is to see if we can get an agreement from Senator Lieberman and from Senator Bayh on a time agreement on those two amendments. I would suggest, as the Senator from Arizona did, that there be an hour equally divided on each, which will be a total of 2 hours, and then if the majority leader is agreeable to this----

I suggest the absence----

Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.

Madam President, I suggest that we seek an agreement that there be 2 hours on the two amendments together, one equally divided between the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Indiana.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for consideration of amendments this morning be switched and that the Senate now consider the Lieberman amendment No. 1627 and the Bayh amendment No. 1767; that the amendments be debated concurrently for a total of 150 minutes, with 90 minutes under the control of Senator Lieberman and 60 minutes under the control of Senator Bayh; that no amendments be in order to either amendment; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the vote in relation to the amendments occur at a time to be determined, with the first vote in relation to the Bayh amendment, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Lieberman amendment, with 2 minutes of debate prior to the second vote.

I thank the Presiding Officer and I thank my colleagues for working this out to try to accommodate all of us the best we can.

I yield the floor.

I yield myself 10 minutes of the time of Senator Bayh.

Madam President, I oppose the Lieberman amendment that would eliminate funding for the Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine. The committee voted 12 to 10 to keep this competition going. I emphasize, this is not a new engine that is being introduced. This effort is to have a competitive engine. This effort has been supported by Congress for many years. Indeed, our Armed Services Committee had a vote on this 2 years ago where we determined to maintain the competition. This year's vote was 12 to 10.

A fundamental tenet for reforming the Defense Department's acquisition system is ensuring competition throughout the development and production cycle of major acquisition systems, whenever and wherever that makes sense. In the case of the Joint Strike Fighter Program, Congress has concluded repeatedly that competition makes sense because of the size of this buy.

The JSF program is planned to be one of the largest acquisition programs ever undertaken by the Defense Department. The Defense Department intends to buy more than 2,400 JSF aircraft, with our foreign partners slated to buy at least another 600. That means we are talking about a program of more than 3,000 aircraft. That means more than 3,000 engines. The cost of the engines alone will exceed $50 billion over the life of the program. This is not an issue such as whether we add F-22s. This is a matter of whether we are going to have competition in a program everybody supports and where we intend to purchase about 3,000 planes.

A number of studies have been done trying to estimate the economic costs and benefits of developing a second engine. The analysis of our Government Accountability Office, which Congress directed to review this, came out a few years ago. Michael Sullivan, GAO Director of Acquisition and Sourcing Management, testified as follows in March 2006 before the House Armed Services Committee:

The current estimated remaining life cycle cost for the JSF

engine under the sole-source scenario is $53.4 billion. To

ensure competition by continuing the JSF alternate engine

program, an additional investment of $3.6 billion to $4.5

billion may be required.

This was back in 2007. It is a lot less than that now to complete this program.

Continuing from the testimony:

However, the associated competitive pressures from this

strategy could result in savings equal to or exceeding that

amount across the life cycle of the engine. The cost analysis

that we performed suggests that a savings of 10.3 to 12.3

percent would recoup that investment, and actual experience

from past engine competitions suggests that it is reasonable

to assume that competition on the JSF engine program could

yield savings of at least that much. These results are

dependent on how the government decides to run the

competition, the number of aircraft that are ultimately

purchased, and the exact ratio of engines awarded to each

contract. In addition, DOD-commissioned reports and other

officials have said that non financial benefits in terms of

better engine performance and reliability, improved

industrial base stability, and more responsive contractors

are more likely outcomes under a competitive environment than

under a sole-source strategy. [Department of Defense]

experience with other aircraft engine programs, including

that for the F-16 fighter, has shown competitive pressures

can generate financial benefits of up to 20 percent during

the life cycle of an engine program and/or the other benefits

mentioned. The potential for cost savings and performance

improvements, along with the impact the engine program could

have on the industrial base, underscores the importance and

long-term implications of [Department of Defense] decision

making with regard to the final acquisition strategy.

A few months ago, before the Armed Services Committee, in May of 2009, that same Mr. Sullivan of the GAO said that his study of 2007 is still relevant and the same conclusions can be drawn.

This is not a new engine which is being introduced. This is an engine development program to provide competition which has been long underway. The Department of Defense and Congress have approved, authorized, and appropriated spending so far of $2.5 billion for this alternate engine. The most important point I think I can make is this is not $4 billion or $5 billion or $6 billion additional funds we are talking about. In order to complete the development of this competitive engine, it will require $1.8 billion. So that $2.5 billion is already sunk into this engine development program. That is probably two-thirds of its cost already sunk into it. The question is, do we complete the development of this alternative engine at a cost of about $1.8 billion? That would conclude the cost for the engine contractor and other government costs for that program, for testing activities and for oversight. So again, the issue is not whether to introduce a new engine. The question is, do we complete the development of a second engine which is already two-thirds paid for?

We received a letter this morning--I received a letter this morning-- from the Secretary of Defense, and the letter concludes that if the final bill presented to the President contains provisions that would seriously disrupt the F-35 program, the President's senior advisers will recommend that the President veto the bill.

If the final bill presented to the President contained provisions that would seriously disrupt the F-35 program, I would recommend to the President that he veto the bill. There is no serious disruption to the F-35 program that would occur whether or not the Bayh amendment is adopted. The Bayh amendment makes triply sure there will be no disruption at all, even a minute disruption, in the F-35 program. It is not going to be disrupted at all.

The funding for this alternate engine in the bill which the committee approved came from a Marine helicopter program, a part of which could not be produced this year. So the committee determined that it could safely take funds that were requested for that program, which could not be spent this year. A question has been raised about that. There is no one on this committee, there is no one in this Senate, who wants to slow down a Marine helicopter program. None of us will permit that to happen. That program is a vital program. We have spent a lot of money on it. It is critically necessary.

The decision, which was made by the Armed Services Committee, was to simply take funds which could not be spent for that program, because of development delays, and to spend that, instead, for the second engine. However, what the Bayh amendment does is to make triply sure, to reassure everybody there cannot possibly be any impact on a Marine helicopter program, by finding a separate, a different, a distinct source, an alternate source, for this second engine.

So the Bayh amendment removes any question about Marine helicopters. If adopted, that will be off the table. It was off the table in any event. But everybody wants to assure the Marines, assure our people that there is not going to be any impact on a Marine helicopter program for any reason, much less a second engine.

There is another question which some have raised about whether two engines--

I thank the Acting President pro tempore.

Madam President, how much time is left for Senator Bayh?

I would, in that case, conclude my statement. If there is additional time for Senator Bayh, I will then ask at a later point for some of that time. But for those reasons, and more, which I have not yet been able to reach, I very much support the Bayh amendment.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, if I could ask the Senator from Georgia, about how much time does he believe he would be using?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that after that 10-minute time is used Senator Kerry be recognized for a period of up to 10 minutes on Senator Bayh's time.

Madam President, will the Senator from Indiana yield me 3 minutes?

Madam President, let me confirm what the Senator from Indiana said. This issue does not involve 130s. Congress has put all the money in for 130s that the President requested. The reason this money for 130s was in our committee report is because we did not know at the time that the supplemental appropriations bill would put money in for the 130s. So we do not need this money for the 130s to fully finance the request of the President of the United States for 130s.

I wish to reiterate one point I made earlier. This is not an issue of whether we insert a new engine, whether we start down the road with a second engine. That issue was resolved years ago by Congress when we started to fund a second engine for the purpose of competition. We have already put $2.5 billion into this second engine. Roughly $1.8 billion more is needed. So our sunk costs are approximately two-thirds of the cost of this second engine.

We have consistently supported it in the Armed Services Committee. This is not new. We feel the value of competition will more than make up for all of the costs and surely far more than make up for the final costs which we need in order to complete the development of this second engine.

I do support the Bayh amendment. I think it makes sense in terms of the fundamental point of competition, it makes sense fiscally, and it makes good sense in terms of the quantity we are buying. There is a huge buy, 2,500 planes, engines, and perhaps 500 more in terms of the export market. It is a huge buy. With this size buy and given the precedent of other planes--at least three that have had two engines available for them--with that precedent and with these savings, I hope the Bayh amendment is accepted.

Madam President, has all the time been yielded back?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12:35 p.m., all time remaining for debate with respect to these amendments, Nos. 1627 and 1767, having been yielded back, the Senate then proceed to vote in relation to the amendments in the order previously entered, with the second vote 10 minutes in duration and all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.

Madam President, I modify that unanimous consent request and ask that the vote begin immediately at 12:34 and a half p.m.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1627

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent, with the concurrence of the proponents and the opponents, that the 2 minutes be yielded back and that this be voice voted.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, let me thank my friend from Arizona. First of all, we are trying to work out an approach which would be satisfactory to the issue and will save a lot of time if we can work it out. If we cannot, we can go to a vote on his amendment. The regular order would be to go back to the Kyl amendment as I understand it at this point. We are going to ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New York be recognized to introduce an amendment, that it be in order for him to do so, and that after 15 minutes we vote.

I ask unanimous consent that after 15 minutes of debate, with no amendments being in order to the amendment, we then proceed to a vote, understanding it would be a voice, and then the regular order would be restored, which is the Kyl amendment.

I would modify my unanimous consent request that after the disposition of the Schumer amendment, then Senator Tester be recognized for 10 minutes to talk about his amendment, without the consent to offer it.

Fifteen minutes is what I reserved.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Our goal is precisely that. We are trying to work out an agreement with Senator Kyl. Staffs are trying to work out a time agreement. The order, though, hopefully will be Senator Burr and then Senator Akaka. But we have to make sure the proper committees are notified that are involved in those amendments, and then we could, I think, have a unanimous consent agreement. That is our goal.

I am very pleased to hear the optimistic assessment. I can't honestly say I share that optimism, but I will be delighted to be surprised.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Burr be recognized next to offer an amendment. I understand there is not going to be opposition on this side and that he will accept a voice vote on it. Then I ask unanimous consent that Senator Akaka be recognized to offer his amendment, which he talked about last night.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I understand under the previous order, the Senator from Hawaii is now to be recognized to call up his amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Reserving the right to object--and I will need to object-- we are working through unanimous consent agreements and amendments are lined up on both sides. We have not reached that point yet. There are other amendments that have to come first from the Senator's side, and that would be up to Senator McCain. I have to object at this time. Obviously, we will try to accommodate the Senator getting his amendment up, but Senator McCain would need to consider the Senator's proposal. I have to object.

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

Mr. President, if I could just have Senator McCain's attention for a minute, I think we have a unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. President, has the Akaka amendment been disposed of?

I ask unanimous consent that the Akaka amendment be temporarily set aside, that we then move to an amendment on European missile defense, which is a Lieberman amendment with many cosponsors, which we have worked very hard on and which is ready to be propounded.

There is at least one additional speaker on it. Senator Sessions wants to speak on it as well. But I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lieberman be recognized now to introduce that amendment; that after he speaks, Senator Sessions be recognized; that I will then be recognized, and then Senator McCain, if he wishes to be recognized.

I believe the intention here is that we may be able to adopt this by a voice vote; is that correct? That is the hope, anyway. Well, I will leave that part alone.

Mr. President, may I ask Senator Lieberman to yield for a moment?

First of all, I ask unanimous consent that no second-degree amendments be in order to this amendment.

Mr. President, I very much support the pending amendment. It is the product of a lot of work by a lot of people. Senator Lieberman, in particular, was considering offering an amendment during our markup in the committee. He agreed that he would hold off until we got to the floor to try to get broad bipartisan agreement on a very important subject. He did that. We are grateful to him for doing so.

This amendment is consistent with the administration's policies for missile defense in Europe, including its consideration of a variety of options and architectures for defending Europe, including the so-called third site in Poland and the Czech Republic. The main purpose of these efforts in Europe is to act against an Iranian missile threat should it materialize. It is very important that we do so.

Earlier this month, General Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, testified before the Armed Services Committee that the Department of Defense is considering a number of missile defense options in Europe.

This amendment is also consistent with the administration's efforts to pursue missile defense cooperation with Russia as part of our efforts to address the Iranian missile threat. Those missiles, of course, potentially could be armed with nuclear warheads. This potential Iranian missile threat is a threat that confronts not just Europe as NATO but also Russia as well, obviously, and a number of other countries. It is a real threat. Everything we can do to deter that, everything we can do to defend, should it ever materialize, is something we must do. It is a major threat.

In one of its findings, NATO recognizes this Iranian threat. This is the way NATO recognized this Iranian threat and the importance of trying to work together to deter, to try to prevent it from happening, and then, should it happen, to defend against it, to make it useless. Here is what NATO said in April:

We support increased missile defense cooperation between

Russia and NATO, including maximum transparency and

reciprocal confidence-building measures to allay any

concerns. We reaffirm our readiness to explore the potential

for linking United States, NATO and Russian missile defense

systems at an appropriate time and we encourage the Russian

Federation to take advantage of [U.S.] missile defense

cooperation proposals.

Back in April, I led a delegation, with Senators Collins and Bill Nelson, to visit Russia, Poland, and the Czech Republic to discuss missile defense and the potential for a cooperative approach. What we found is that there appears to be real potential for a cooperative approach and for having missile defense be a uniting issue against a common threat instead of a dividing issue. If we can find a way to cooperate with Russia on missile defense, it would send an extraordinarily powerful message to Iran that we are united against their continued development of nuclear technology and long-range ballistic missiles.

That is the point of missile defense in Europe, to address the Iranian missile and nuclear program in order to enhance their security and our security. This amendment will authorize prior year's funds for a variety of cost-effective and operationally effective missile defense options that could protect Europe and the United States from Iranian missiles of all ranges, current and future. The amendment is designed to command and hopefully attract strong bipartisan support. I hope it does just that.

I believe a voice vote may be possible after Senator McCain speaks. I hope that is the case, given the schedule.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that Senator Dorgan be recognized for up to 15 minutes and then we return to regular order.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I will not object--of course--this would be the next amendment which would be in a line of amendments that Senator McCain and I are trying to work out alternating between the two sides.

Madam President, I also reluctantly oppose this amendment. Senator Burr and Senator Hagan have both been very eloquent in their positions, and it is understandable how they and their States feel in this matter. The Navy has not done a particularly good job.

Senator Webb, in committee, suggested some important language that will, hopefully, be helpful. Senator Webb was equally eloquent in his position. We adopted that report language. I think we should stand with it. It is simply not good public policy for Congress to prematurely limit training locations--particularly when those sites have not been fully considered by the military.

So it is, hopefully, going to prod the Navy to do a lot better in terms of its consultation and communications with our communities in North Carolina, Virginia, and around the country. I also must oppose this amendment.

Madam President, I move to reconsider that vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, I see the Senator from Oklahoma here.

I object.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside temporarily and that it be in order for me to offer an amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Graham, and Senator McCain.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, the amendment I now offer, along with Senators Graham and McCain, would modify the procedures for the handling of classified evidence by military commissions. This is language that was requested by the administration witnesses at our hearing on military commissions procedures a few weeks ago.

We have worked closely together, and we have worked closely with the administration on the language. It is our

understanding that this amendment will fully address the administration's concerns. It has the support of the Justice Department and the Department of Defense.

Section 1031 of the bill, which addresses military commissions, is based on the standard established by the Supreme Court in the Hamdan case that military commissions should be conducted in a manner consistent with the procedures applicable in trials by courts-martial, and that any deviation from those procedures be justified by ``evident practical need.'' For this reason, the procedures now in the bill for the handling of classified information are based on the procedures established in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

However, the witnesses at our July 7 hearing on military commissions made a persuasive case that the procedures for the handling of classified information in Federal court--the Classified Information Procedures Act, or CIPA--would provide a better model for handling classified information. The reason is, the Federal courts have far more experience handling classified information and far more precedent applicable to the difficult issues raised by classified information in detainee cases. DOD general counsel Jeh Johnson explained the issue as follows:

[W]e note that the legislation incorporates certain of the

classified evidence procedures currently applicable in

courts-martial, where there is relatively little precedent

and practice regarding classified information.

Mr. Johnson continues:

We in the administration believe that further work could be

done to codify the protections of classified evidence, in a

manner consistent with the protections that now exist in

Federal civilian courts. We believe that those protections--

--

Referring to the Federal civilian court protections----

would work better to protect classified information, while

continuing to ensure fairness and providing a stable body of

precedent and practice for doing so.

VADM Bruce McDonald, the Judge Advocate General of the Navy, testified in a very similar way. He said:

Section 949d provides for the use of rules of evidence in

trials by general courts-martial in the handling of

classified evidence. This is consistent with our overall

desire to use those procedures found within the UCMJ . . .

whenever possible. However, experience has shown that

practitioners struggle with a very complex and unclear rule

within the Military Rules of Evidence. The military rules do

not have a robust source of informative or persuasive case

law. Frankly, prosecutions using Military Rule of Evidence

505 are rare. In developing the rules for the handling of

classified material during a military commission, it would be

more prudent to rely upon the Classified Information

Procedures Act (CIPA) used in Article III courts as a

starting point.

Since the time of the hearing, we have been working on a bipartisan basis with the administration to produce new language on the handling of classified information, consistent with the recommendations of our witnesses. In accordance with those recommendations, and our own thinking and discussion, the language in the amendment we are considering today tracks very closely with CIPA. In a few areas, we have chosen to codify standards that are applicable case law under CIPA to provide additional clarity.

The amendment is consistent with the intention of the bill to apply established procedures to military commissions and to deviate from those established procedures, where justified, by evident practical need. There is an evident practical need here. We have a good experience under CIPA, and we decided that is the better model to follow.

We also believe the procedures in this amendment will facilitate the handling of classified information in trials by military commissions in a way that is fair to both sides.

I have a letter from the Department of Justice on this matter which I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.

Again, I thank Senator Graham and Senator McCain. Senator Graham is an expert we all look to in matters such as this. He has not only personal experience but he has a vast amount of personal knowledge from study, as well as his own experience in this area, and it is invaluable to us. It does help make possible the conclusion we offer the body.

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

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

Mr. President, there is now pending an amendment that I have offered on behalf of myself, Senator Graham, and Senator McCain relative to the protection of classified information; is that correct?

Mr. President, I think we are now ready to vote on this amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

The pending matter now would be to return to the Akaka amendment; is that correct?

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me add my thanks to the Senator from Hawaii. He is doing this for the good of the order to permit us to get on with the bill. He knows how important this is. I appreciate his willingness to withdraw the amendment at this time. It is very much appreciated by all of us. I hope something good could come out of conference.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hagan be recognized to speak on a previous amendment for up to 5 minutes.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Kyl amendment be temporarily set aside and that the following four amendments then be in order: the Sessions amendment, No. 1657, which is going to be modified and which I understand will not require a rollcall vote; the Isakson amendment, No. 1525, which would then be called up and I understand would require some debate; the Lieberman amendment, No. 1650, which I also understand may be modified; and then the next amendment after that, which I thought I could enumerate, but I cannot now, would be a Democratic amendment and would then be in place; that no amendments would be in order to any of the above amendments.

I thank the Chair.

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

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

Mr. President, let me modify my previous unanimous consent agreement: that prior to those three amendments being called up, we take up the Lincoln amendment, No. 1487, which I understand has been cleared. Again, as to the other three amendments we identified for debate, no amendments will be in order to any of those amendments.

Mr. President, it is now my understanding that under that UC, we would take up Lincoln amendment No. 1487.

I am wondering whether the Senator from Arkansas would like to have one quick minute to explain her amendment.

Mr. President, first let me thank Senator Lincoln for this amendment. The linkage of the National Guard and States and our kids is a very powerful link indeed. I have seen this up close and personal because I am sort of the godfather of the STARBASE Program, which started in Michigan at Selfridge Air National Guard Base, and it has spread. While this program which Senator Lincoln is so deeply involved with, and her cosponsors, is not an outgrowth of that program, it is very similar in terms of its purpose to link our National Guard and the inspiration they can provide and the technical skills they can provide our children with. So I thank her for her amendment and hope it will be promptly adopted.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I believe the next amendment is the Sessions amendment.

Mr. President, after a very brief comment, I am going to suggest a quorum be called. This amendment has been significantly modified from its original form. It has been modified in a way which I believe is now satisfactory. It addresses interrogations by the military, by defense agencies. It does not involve interrogations by the Department of Justice, as I understand it.

The Department of Justice is not involved in the warnings that are involved here. It especially provides it must be applied in a manner consistent with the constitutional requirements. With these changes, I am satisfied, but I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the pending Sessions amendment, as modified, be temporarily laid aside and we now proceed to the next item under the unanimous consent agreement, which would be the amendment of Senator Isakson.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume debate on the Kyl amendment No. 1760; that it be in order for Senator Kyl to offer a second-degree amendment to his amendment; that once the second degree is reported, it be agreed to, amendment No. 1760, as amended, be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, let me thank Senator Kyl and all of those who have been involved in working the Kyl amendment to a point where we are comfortable with it. I think all of us had concerns, and those concerns have been fairly met. I thank the Senator from Arizona for his effort, as well as, of course, my ranking member on the committee and all of the others who have been helpful.

We are not ready yet.

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

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that Senators Lieberman and Graham call up amendment No. 1650, as modified.

Mr. President, I hope we can quickly get to a voice vote. I would briefly say that the executive branch created a presumption that the cases would be tried before criminal courts--article III courts. I thought it was a mistake. We should not have a presumption one way or the other. The amendment before us redresses the balance to the extent we can do it tonight.

Also, we were able to get the agreement on the part of the sponsors to strike a part of the original amendment which would have created some very difficult bureaucratic problems in terms of reporting case by case as to why decisions were made one way or another.

So I do hope we can promptly agree to the amendment. I thank Senators Lieberman and Graham.

Again, my own preference is there not be either a presumption or a preference one way or the other, but I think this does even the balance. Again, it is a sense of the Senate, so it will be left to the Department of Justice.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I send a series of 46 amendments to the desk, which have been cleared by myself and Senator McCain, the ranking member, and I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider these amendments en bloc, the amendments be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

amendment no. 1759

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

Objection.

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

First, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify a previously agreed to amendment, No. 1799.

Mr. President, I appreciate the efforts of my friend from Ohio on this issue. I know that the committee will continue to consider the views of all stakeholders about this program. I encourage the Department of Defense to include a request for formal authority in its annual legislative proposal to the committee should they find permanent authority necessary.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no further amendments be in order other than the pending amendments; that upon disposition of the pending amendments and managers' amendments as noted below, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate then proceed to vote on passage of S. 1390, as amended; further, that upon passage of S. 1390, it be in order, en bloc, for the Senate to consider the following Calendar items: 90, 91, and 92; that all after the enacting clause of each bill be stricken and the following divisions of S. 1390, as passed by the Senate, be inserted as follows: Division A, S. 1391; Division B, S. 1392; Division C, S. 1393; that these bill be read a third time, passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc; further, that the consideration of these items appear separately in the Record; further, that the Senate then proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 96, H.R. 2647, the House companion; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 1390, as amended, and passed by the Senate be inserted in lieu thereof, the bill be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that upon passage of H.R. 2647, as amended, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, with the Armed Services Committee appointed as conferees; that notwithstanding passage of S. 1390, it still be in order for managers' amendments to be considered and agreed to if they have been agreed upon by the managers and the leaders; and that no points of order be considered waived by virtue of this agreement.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 1657, Senator Sessions amendment, be further modified and that we agree to it by voice vote.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider that vote.

I wonder now if the Senator from New York might be recognized for a brief colloquy with me which will last no more than 5 minutes.

Mr. President, let me commend the Senator from New York for identifying a very significant problem. She has always shown great sensitivity to the men and women in the Armed Forces.

There is a provision in the House bill--we are not sure exactly what it is--that relates to this issue and the need to provide for autistic kids. We will take a look at that in conference and see if there is anything we can do to move in the direction which the Senator from New York has so properly identified.

Thanking Staff

The proud tradition that our committee has maintained every year since 1961 continues with the Senate's passage of this 48th consecutive national defense authorization bill. We are motivated to pass this bill, as we are every year. In fact, we are inspired to pass this bill for the men and women of our Armed Forces and their families. They give it everything they have 24/7. They never give up and they never give in. We always have to work long and hard to pass this bill, but it is worth every bit of effort we put into it. I

thank our leadership on both sides of the aisle and all Senators for their role in keeping the tradition going.

Our committee's bipartisanship also makes this moment possible. I am proud to serve with Senator McCain. I am grateful for his partnership and his friendship. To all of the committee members--we have one of our committee members presiding at the moment--your work on a bipartisan basis the entire year is most appreciated.

I want to thank not only our subcommittee chairs and ranking members but give special thanks to the six new members who joined our committee this year. We work together in committee. We did not allow our differences on this bill to divide us; we reported the bill unanimously. And to Charlie Armstrong in the Office of Senate Legislative Counsel, after drafting hundreds of amendments to this bill again this year, many, many special thanks to you.

Our committee staff members, if they are still here--many of them are--many of them are still in Russell working tonight--you deserve much more than heartfelt thanks, but that is all we can offer to you right now. They were led by Rick DeBobes, our committee staff director, and Joe Bowab, our Republican staff director. Our staff unselfishly sacrifices and works incredibly hard on this bill.

So please go home now, staff, enjoy a couple of hours--no more than 3, please--of sleep and enjoy a nonmicrowave meal for a change. We know you will be back at 6 o'clock in the morning fully rested and ready to tackle the conference with your talents, ability, and teamwork. We could not be where we are now without you.

They deserve our recognition as a tribute to their professionalism. And as a further expression of our gratitude, I ask that all of their names appear in the Record at this point.

I again offer my special thanks to my very dear friend, the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, who has amazing energy and passion for this subject. He is an inspiration to all of us that he serves as he does on this Armed Services Committee.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Arizona for thanking our floor staff. I overlooked that. Even though we look at them hour after hour after hour, somehow or other we manage to overlook that, their great service when it comes to thanking everybody who is involved. We do thank the floor staffs for their phenomenal work.

Particularly Lula.

Amendments Nos. 1572; 1802; 1801; 1606, as Modified; 1808; 1705; 1797,

as Modified; 1732; 1753; 1758; 1751; 1661; 1653; 1811; 1516, as

Modified; 1812; 1658; 1796, as Modified; 1533, as Modified, En Bloc

Mr. President, we have 18 amendments at the desk, and I understand these have been approved now by both Senator McCain and I and the two leaders. They have all approved these 18 amendments. Under the previous unanimous consent agreement, these amendments now are part of the managers' package and, with the approval of the four I have identified, I understand that these are now part of the bill. Is my understanding correct?