Floor Statements

Mr. President, Senator Warner and I and our staffs and a number of other Senators have been trying to work out a unanimous consent agreement that would control the continuation of the deliberation and debate on this bill. We have completed a draft of a complicated unanimous consent agreement. It runs a little over two pages. I have been able to give it to Senator Warner now. As always, he is very helpful and responsive and has assured me they can look at this overnight and, in the morning, give us a response, hopefully early, as to whether this, or some variation of it, will be acceptable on that side of the aisle. I thank my friend from Virginia and assure folks that even though we weren't able to get specific votes today, because of a previous agreement that there would be no votes today, we hope that in the morning we will be able to have a roadmap for the balance of this bill.

That is correct.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate move to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 5 minutes.

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it

stand adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, September 16; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate proceed to a period of morning business for up to 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the second half; that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of S. 3001, the National Defense Authorization Act, with no motions to proceed in order prior to the cloture vote; that the cloture vote on the bill occur at 3 p.m., with 30 minutes prior to the vote equally divided and controlled between the two leaders, with the majority leader controlling the final 15 minutes and the filing deadline for second-degree amendments be at noon.

I further ask that the Senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 to allow for the weekly caucus luncheons to meet.

Mr. President, the managers of the bill continue to work, as I and Senator Warner have mentioned, through our filed amendments. We are trying to reach agreement. Rollcall votes on amendments are possible prior to the cloture vote, if we reach an agreement tomorrow morning.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, as previously announced, there are no rollcall votes today or Monday. Senators should expect the next vote to occur on Tuesday. However, Senator Warner and I will be here today, we will be here Monday, and we will, of course, be here Tuesday morning to discuss amendments with Senators to try to get these amendments considered or at least in line to be considered. We are clearing amendments. We have a managers' package already that is ready to go with--I am not sure how many amendments we have already put in there-- perhaps 15 or 16 amendments that have already been cleared. We can't get them passed yet because of an objection, but we would expect that objection would be removed by Tuesday. We will continue in the next few days, over the weekend, to try to agree upon many of the 200-plus amendments that have been filed so that we would be hopeful that we would have a large

number of amendments in a managers' package ready to go on Tuesday if we can get the objection removed.

We also hope that we could, today and Monday, debate amendments which will be requiring rollcall votes on Tuesday. Our goal is to try to complete consideration of this bill by Tuesday night. The majority leader has indicated he will be filing cloture today, which means there would be a cloture vote on Tuesday, and hopefully we would get to the point on Tuesday where the amendments which need rollcall votes could be voted on Tuesday and that we would have a large managers' package and that we would not have to go to a cloture vote on Tuesday and instead try to get to final passage without it. That is the lineup. My dear friend from Virginia and I are here to work with Senators to try to see if we can't get amendments lined up for votes and other amendments agreed upon so that they will be part of the managers' package.

Mr. President, if I could add one further thought, with the help of our staffs, we have actually been making some progress in terms of some significant discussions that have not been on the Senate floor but nonetheless are taking place, so that we are making some progress on some sticking points, to try to resolve some sticking points to at least get them to a position where they can be voted upon even if they can't be agreed to. So I am optimistic, if everybody cooperates----

And others, yes. The leaders are involved through their staffs and perhaps personally in these discussions. But it is our effort, our intent, our goal, and our hope that we can get this bill ready for passage, either without a cloture vote or with one, by the end of Tuesday night. That is our goal. The leadership has been very helpful in trying to help us reach that goal, and that is our intent.

I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, first, let me thank the leader for his great support of this bill. I think the leadership on both sides really wants this bill to be adopted. We are going to have to move early next week to get it adopted if we are going to make it. We not only have other business to do in the Senate which is critical, but we have to get it to conference and get it back from conference and get a conference report voted on before we recess or adjourn. So we have a lot of work ahead of us.

But we are here. Senator Warner and I and our staffs are here. We have met with a lot of Senators relative to their amendments. Our goal is the following: that on Monday, we enter into a unanimous consent agreement setting out what votes on what amendments would be held on Tuesday, both morning and afternoon. That is our goal.

We have spoken with many Senators about their amendments. As Senator Warner just indicated, we hope to be able to clear perhaps 50 or 60 amendments, 15 or 20 of which are already cleared. That is our goal, to get our cleared amendments passed and to set up, in a unanimous consent proposal for Monday, the way in which we would vote on various amendments, with time agreements and whether there are 50 votes or 60 votes, and so forth, on Tuesday. That is our goal.

I would hope, for the reasons the majority leader just gave, that because this bill is so critically important to the men and women in the Army and to the security of this Nation--not just the Army but the men and women of our Armed Forces and to the security of this Nation-- that we will get this bill passed. The only way we can get it passed is if sometime early next week we are able to pass it; otherwise, we cannot get the work done in conference and back here to the Senate and to the White House.

So I thank my good friend from Virginia. I think the comments of the majority leader are comments which should be shared by every single Member of this body relative to the capability and the leadership and the patriotism of Senator Warner. It is always a pleasure to work with him. This may be one of our greatest challenges, but we have a long history of being able to work together on a bipartisan basis to address these kinds of challenges. He has led this committee. We have had many great members of the committee.

Staff is working very hard, and I am optimistic going into the weekend that we will be able to get that unanimous consent agreement worked out on Monday.

The Senator is correct.

The Senator is correct.

We have. There is no more fundamental question to this institution than the role of our committees and this institution vis-a- vis the executive branch and whether we are going to have a robust power of the purse or whether that is going to be diminished in any way. I think we are making great progress in showing to our colleagues the implications of some of the proposals, and we are going to continue to make progress in that regard.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we move to morning business and that the first person recognized be Senator Sanders, who is always very patient.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum cal1 be rescinded.

Mr. President, I think Senator Warner is just about to enter the Chamber. I would ask the indulgence of my friend from Vermont for one more moment.

Even though there is not too much evidence, the fact is, we have made some significant progress today in some significant areas on the Defense authorization bill. Now that Senator Warner is here, I always welcome his good wisdom. This is where we are now, as I was saying. We made some significant progress on the bill, even though it has not been that obvious and apparent.

Today we have been able to make some important progress. We will be here tomorrow. Senator Warner and I will be here tomorrow. We urge Senators to come over to see if we can debate their amendments, to discuss their amendments. We are going to work with them to get these amendments offered tomorrow so they would be in line when voting time comes.

We will be here, that is true, even though there are no votes tomorrow, we understand. We will be here tomorrow. The Senate is in session. Senator Warner and I will be here. It is very important that Senators who have amendments they intend to offer come here, work with us to try to get them in line for a vote, to see if we can get them offered tomorrow. That will take unanimous consent, but we will make an effort.

But we need Senators to come Monday afternoon. We will be here Monday afternoon. We will be here Tuesday. There are no votes Monday, but we will be here for the purpose of debating and discussing amendments, trying to again have them offered.

So it is also, I am authorized to say, that there will be no further votes today. Cloture will be filed tomorrow. I thank Senators who are working with us. We have lots of amendments we can clear if we can get unanimous consent to clear a managers' package. The managers' package, we are ready to go with that at any time. We are going to continue to add amendments to that package. We will be working with Senators during these next few days so we can, hopefully, get this bill passed and voted on on Tuesday.

That is the situation we are currently in.

Mr. President, I will object. We are more than willing to discuss this amendment tomorrow. We realize this is one of the amendments that will have to be addressed if we are going to get to this bill. So it is not as though we are expecting to complete action on this bill without addressing the amendment of the Senator. However, this is not something I can agree to at this time but would be happy to tomorrow or Monday.

I am happy to.

The reason I am reluctant to agree to that is because the Senator from Vermont was dissuaded from addressing the Senate until we had a few minutes to talk about plans for the future. I held up the Senator from Vermont for, now, 10 minutes when he was here and had a right to debate.

Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from South Carolina will be here tomorrow or on Monday? We may be able to discuss his amendment. It may be three words, but they are mighty important words and have a huge impact, way beyond any description of a three-word amendment. Nonetheless, in order to let the Senator from Vermont proceed, I am wondering whether it would be possible for the Senator to be here tomorrow or Monday so we could discuss his amendment? I would be happy to discuss it.

Mr. President, let me just quickly say again, if the Senator from Virginia is also willing, could we let the Senator from Vermont proceed? We could come back. I am happy to debate this amendment tonight, if is the only time we can debate it. It has ramifications way beyond what the Senator from South Carolina says. We made a commitment to the Senator from Vermont that he would be recognized next to speak. I was waiting for Senator Warner to come over. The Senator from Vermont was generous enough to hold off. I thought this would only be a few minutes laying out the path ahead. It is much more than that. I could come back and will be here tonight, if the Senator from South Carolina will stay here. I would be happy to give the position which is so terrifically different, very different.

That can be done by amendment, like any other amendment. But what this amendment does is to say that not just the earmark, the entire budget, including the President's budget, which is currently in that committee report, which is incorporated by reference, that that no longer carries the force of law. So the DeMint amendment goes exactly in the opposite direction of what Senator McCain and others were trying to do, which was to incorporate into law all of the earmarks and the President's budget. We want them in law. We want them to be in law. We got a letter, however, from Senate legal counsel saying it cannot be done technologically.

I am not able to argue with him. I would be perfectly happy, and I hope they can be made part of law. But the DeMint amendment goes in the opposite direction. Instead of making them part of law, it wipes out their legal status by saying they will only be part of a committee report which is not incorporated by reference, and, because of the Executive order, the agencies of the Government are directed to ignore the committee report. Previously, the executive departments would comply with committee reports. That is no longer true under the Executive order.

So what this amounts to, the DeMint amendment, is an abdication of the power of the purse totally, not just over earmarks but over the President's own budget which has been adopted by the Congress. This is the opposite of what Senator McCain and others have urged, which is that earmarks and other appropriations be incorporated into law. This goes the other direction and says they have no force of law whatsoever.

We have to debate the DeMint amendment. I am more than willing to debate the DeMint amendment. I would come back tonight to do it. But I don't think, in fairness to the Senator from

Vermont, that we should not allow him to proceed for his 10 or 15 minutes, whatever he wanted. I would be happy to come back.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that also as a part of this colloquy be printed in the Record the letter from the U.S. Senate Office of the Legislative Counsel explaining why it is technologically impossible for him to incorporate at this time, with current software, all the items into the law. That is the problem; otherwise, I would be totally agreeable to having every single one of these items--the President's items and the add-ons by Congress--made part of the law. That is not a problem for me. However, technologically it cannot be done at this time. We ought to try to make sure it can be done promptly. I ask unanimous consent that the June 4, 2008, letter be printed in the Record.

Now, Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Vermont the following question: whether the Senator would be willing to proceed in morning business.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein.

Mr. President, I would like to extend my congratulations to Our Lady of Sorrows Catholic Church in Grand Rapids, MI, as they celebrate their 100th anniversary. Since its inaugural mass on September 20, 1908, Our Lady of Sorrows Catholic Church has been devoted to serving the many diverse needs within the Grand Rapids community, and I am pleased to join in celebrating this important milestone.

In the late 1800s, as the Italian-American population in Grand Rapids continued to grow, there began an earnest search within this immigrant community for a place to worship that would respond to their specific needs. Led by Father Salvatore Cianci and without a formal structure in which to conduct mass, the congregation was established and gathered in the basement of St. Andrew's Cathedral in Grand Rapids in 1908 to celebrate its first mass. With this mass, the congregation of Our Lady of Sorrows began their spiritual journey by seeking to minister to the roughly 75 families that lived in the area at the time.

During the early part of the 20th century, Our Lady of Sorrows Catholic Church continued to grow and to establish a presence in the community. Throughout both the Great Depression and World War II, they worked diligently to create a permanent residence for their church community. The church initiated fundraising efforts to help support the purchase of a permanent location, as well as to support their many community outreach efforts. After nearly 40 years in temporary locations, their determination and persistence was rewarded with the dedication of the new church structure on April 14, 1957.

Through the many challenges and changes the church and the larger community endured, Our Lady of Sorrows has remained committed to its church family. The Grand Rapids parish is presently home to more than 250 families of diverse backgrounds, including a growing Hispanic population. During their distinguished 100-year history, they established an elementary school; constructed a new convent, rectory, and church; and established a local scholarship for anyone living within the boundaries of the parish. Today, the church serves as an example of an inclusive community and has reached out to people of diverse backgrounds, facilitating an appreciation for different cultures.

Our Lady of Sorrows Catholic Church is truly an important part of the rich history of Grand Rapids. Their influence and service to the community is apparent to the many that have benefitted from the church's spiritual and

outreach efforts. I know my colleagues join me in congratulating Our Lady of Sorrows Catholic Church on 100 years of dedicated service to the Grand Rapids community, and I wish them much success as they embark on another 100-year journey.

Mr. President, this is an important amendment that appropriately recognizes the United States is now engaged in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan without a formal declaration of war. The amendment takes the appropriate step of modifying the statute of limitations to cases in which the use of force has been authorized without a formal declaration of war.

I very much welcome--and I am sure Senator Leahy does as well--the support of the Senator from Alabama. I do not know of anybody else who wants to speak on this amendment. Unless the Senator from Alabama does, I will suggest then that we move on to the next amendment.

I understand there is going to be a unanimous consent request that may interrupt that flow, but before we get to that, if the Senator from Alabama knows of no other--first of all, let me ask the Senator whether he does know of any other speaker on the amendment.

Is the Senator willing to have this amendment voice voted at this time?

All right. If we could get the yeas and nays on this amendment so we could move on.

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

Mr. President, I understand, under the current order, we would now be moving to consideration of the Vitter amendment regarding missile defense for 2 hours of debate. Those who are interested in that amendment are urged to come to the floor so we could begin that debate. But at this time I will yield the floor.

Mr. President, is my understanding correct that we will then return to the Vitter amendment? I ask unanimous consent that we then return to the Vitter amendment.

Mr. President, I oppose the Vitter amendment for a number of reasons. Let me begin by saying we have already placed into our bill more money for the areas that the Vitter amendment would add additional money for than was requested by the administration. In other words, in these areas--terminal high-altitude area defense, the THAAD Program; the Aegis ballistic missile defense, DMD, and its Standard Missile-3 interceptor--we have added money in our committee to the budget request. So this is not restoring cuts in these programs. If the Vitter amendment were passed, it would add additional funds to programs that we on the committee unanimously already have added additional funds to above the administration's request.

I would like to go through these one by one.

For the THAAD system, the administration's budget requested $865 million. The committee bill, approved by all committee members, added $115 million.

The Targets Program, which provides targets for flight tests, the budget request was $665 million. The Armed Services Committee fully funded the administration request. The Vitter amendment adds money the administration is not requesting. The administration is not requesting the money that the Vitter amendment adds to the committee bill.

Next, the Aegis BMD Program, the budget request was nearly $1.2 billion. The committee bill would authorize an additional $100 million for systems improvement and additional procurement. The Vitter amendment adds to what the committee already added to the administration request--$74 million on top of the committee increase, $54 million to convert two additional ships and $30 million for technology improvements.

So point No. 1, in the areas to which Vitter amendment would add funds, the committee has either fully funded the administration request or we have added to the administration request. The administration is not requesting additional funds in the areas to which the Vitter amendment adds funds. That is point No. 1.

Point No. 2, how does the Vitter amendment pay for these add-ons? What it does is it allows the Secretary of Defense to cut $271 million from any part of the Defense Department budget except for the specified accounts which we are not authorizing the Secretary of Defense to cut. But except for those very precise, specific, enumerated exceptions, the Secretary of Defense is given carte blanche to cut any program which the Secretary of Defense wants to cut. That is an abdication of congressional authority. It is a serious abdication. We have not done this. Where we have put weapons systems money in, frequently at the request of Members of this body, going over this at great length in committee, we have not given the Secretary of Defense a blank check to cut whatever procurement programs he might want to cut in order to pay for other add-ons that are offered on the floor of the Senate.

Now, when the Senator from Florida gave examples where these cuts could come from, the Senator from Louisiana denied those cuts could come from these examples. But the Senator from Florida is right. So I am going to repeat the examples, and then we can debate later on whether the Senator from Louisiana is correct or the Senator from Florida is correct in terms of the amendment which has been offered.

These are some of the examples the Senator from Florida used where if the Secretary of Defense wanted to make

cuts in programs, in his discretion, he would be given the authority to do it. He could cut funds for the Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine. He could wipe out money for operations of the B-52. He could cut money for advance procurement funds for the F-22. He could reduce the Patriot missile request. These are areas where the committee has added funds and where if the Vitter amendment is adopted, the Defense Secretary could, at his discretion, make cuts in these program or any other program in his discretion.

It is a serious abdication of congressional budget authority to say the Secretary of Defense may make cuts in programs wherever he wants, with the specific two exceptions that are enumerated in the Vitter amendment.

So we ought to defeat the Vitter amendment, No. 1, because it adds funds not requested, No. 2, it adds funds to accounts we have already added funds to, and, No. 3, because of the broad authority that would give the Secretary of Defense to pay for these add-ons by cutting other programs in the discretion of the Secretary of Defense--a very serious abdication of our budget power and something we should not do.

So I will oppose the Vitter amendment and support the position, the argument of the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, who is the chairman of our subcommittee, who earlier today made the presentation in chief, as we would say in a court, against the Vitter amendment.

I yield the floor now. I would ask unanimous consent--if my friend from Alabama might hear this--that if we go into a quorum call now the time be charged equally against both sides on the Vitter amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum with the unanimous consent request that any time during this quorum call be charged equally to both sides.

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

Mr. President, how much time remains on the Vitter amendment?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Vitter amendment be set aside, and that when we return to the Vitter amendment, the Senator from Louisiana have 10 minutes on his side, and that the full 19 minutes remain on our side, the opponents, and with that understanding we move to the regular order, which I believe would be the Senator from Florida offering his amendment.

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

Mr. President, before I ask for a quorum call, if the quorum call is put in motion here, is the time charged against both sides on the Vitter amendment?

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

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Could we have a time set for the Senator's presentation? Can he give us an idea about how long he would be?

That is helpful. I wonder if Senator Dorgan could be recognized for 15 minutes. I will ask unanimous consent to extend it, if necessary, but it will give us an idea how we can proceed, and then I ask unanimous consent that following Senator Dorgan, the Chair recognize the managers.

Mr. President, I commend the Senator from North Dakota. This subject, which he has described, is a subject which every American--at least those I have spoken to--understands. Regardless of their position on the Iraq war, regardless of whether they believe we did the right thing going in, regardless of whether they are critics of the Bush administration's policies, this cuts across every single line. I have not talked to anybody, at least in my State of Michigan, who believes that when Iraq has $80 billion in surplus funds sitting in banks, some of which are our banks drawing interest from our taxpayers--we have paid billions of dollars in interest on Iraqi surplus accounts coming from sales of oil, much of which comes to America, much of which ends up in our tanks at $4 a gallon, enriching themselves at the expense of the American taxpayers. Why in heaven's name they are not paying for the kinds of items which Senator Dorgan has described beats me and I think it absolutely stuns at least every American I have spoken to when they hear about it. This cuts across all the positions on the war and the success of the surge or the lack of success because it hasn't accomplished its purposes.

This issue is a critically important issue. It is shocking. It is unsustainable, it is untenable, it is unconscionable that Iraq is not paying for the kinds of reconstruction efforts the Senator has described.

Senator Warner and I wrote a letter some months ago, and we received a response on this subject which provides a lot of the information to which Senator Dorgan has referred. I commend Senator Warner because he has been active in trying to probe this area: How many surplus funds are there and how much is being added every day and what are they being spent for? So we have been able to accumulate a lot of information which I believe will be very supportive of an amendment which Senator Dorgan may offer and hopefully will put in a form which can command bipartisan support of the Senate.

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

Madam President, I thank Senator Kyl for not just the amendment but his willingness to work to craft the language in a way that I think has improved it, narrowed it in a number of ways, but also meets the needs of the Defense Department and our allies.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, I ask that Senator Leahy's amendment No. 5323 be considered.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated on the amendment.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, is the pending amendment now the Leahy amendment No. 5323?

I don't know of any further debate.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume consideration of the Vitter amendment No. 5280 and that all debate time be yielded back, except for 2 minutes equally divided; and that at 6 p.m., the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Vitter amendment; that upon disposition of the Vitter amendment, the Senate resume consideration of the Nelson amendment and proceed to vote with respect to that amendment, provided that the 2 minutes of debate be made available prior to the vote; and that the other provisions of the previous order governing prohibition on intervening amendments prior to a vote and any other appropriate restrictions remain in effect.

I believe when we say the Senate proceed to vote at 6 o'clock--the unanimous consent request does intend to provide for rollcall votes on both amendments described. I thank my friend from Virginia for that clarification.

I also ask unanimous consent that it be in order to request the yeas and nays at this time.

With respect to both amendments.

I ask for the yeas and nays on both amendments.

Madam President, we had a very brief discussion whether the second vote will be a 10-minute vote. It is part of the order.

I thank all our colleagues. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his patience.

If the Senator would yield, the Rules Committee has jurisdiction over the amendment, over the subject matter of the amendment. That is why we are asking the Rules Committee to give us their reaction. Before I can give unanimous consent to make it a pending amendment, I want to hear from the Rules Committee, which is part of the regular process of the Senate, since it is within their jurisdiction.

So if the Senator will bear with me, I do not know what I will do if the Senator asks unanimous consent until the Rules Committee replies. If I do not hear from them by the moment the Senator asks unanimous consent, if the Senator decides to do so, I will have to make up my mind without the benefit of their advice.

Reserving the right to object, I am constrained and will object at this time because of the reasons

I gave before. So I do object. I hope this objection can be dealt with overnight. I hope I can hear from the Rules Committee and understand what their position is. But at least at this time I will object.

Reserving the right to object, Madam President, it is my understanding that under the current unanimous consent agreement, we will begin voting on two amendments on the Defense authorization bill at 6 o'clock; is that correct?

Would the unanimous consent request of the Senator from California modify the existing unanimous consent?

It is my understanding that this agreement does not specify differently, and on that basis I do not object.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, what is the order now?

And is there a time agreement on debate?

Does the Senator from Louisiana wish to go first or second?

Madam President, I will take 30 seconds and yield 30 seconds to my friend from Florida.

On the four items that the Vitter amendment adds money to, the committee either already added more than the administration requested or fully funded. On THAAD, we added $115 billion; on targets, we fully funded; and on the Aegis and the SM-3 missile, we added $100 million. So on the items he adds money to, we either added money or fully funded. We did not cut those items.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, for the information of colleagues, what I am about to do is send a series of 14 amendments to the desk which I hope we will be able to adopt at this point by unanimous consent. The amendments include one on behalf of myself and Senator McCain, which is a technical correction to the underlying bill; an amendment on behalf of Senators Akaka and Voinovich requiring a report on the security clearance review process; an amendment on behalf of Senators Bingaman and Domenici requiring a report on the test and evaluation activities of the Department of Defense; an amendment on behalf of Senators Collins, Lieberman, and others to ensure oversight and accountability in Federal contracting; an amendment on behalf of Senators Collins and Lieberman to establish a governmentwide contingency contracting corps; an amendment on behalf of Senators Lugar, Biden, and others to build operational readiness and civilian agencies; an amendment on behalf of myself, Senators McCain and Akaka, to establish the position of Director of Independent Cost Assessment; an amendment on behalf of Senators McCaskill and McCain relating to a database for contracting officials; an amendment on behalf of Senators Smith, Bayh, and Nelson of Florida relating to travel of family members of the Armed Forces with serious mental disorders; an amendment on behalf of Senators Lieberman and Collins relating to ethics safeguards for employees; an amendment on behalf of Senators Lieberman, Collins, and McCaskill regarding whistleblower rights; an amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Warner codifying recurring authority on contributions to NATO; an amendment on behalf of Senator McConnell on traumatic brain injuries; and on behalf of Senator Menendez, an amendment regarding the Environmental Protection Agency. Those are the amendments I am hoping we can adopt at this time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa wishes to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes. I have no objection, providing he would agree that at any time during that 10 minutes we could interrupt him, if we get unanimous consent agreement on the series of amendments I outlined. I hate to interrupt his remarks, but the timing is critical.

Mr. President, would Senator Sanders be willing, as a number of other colleagues are, that his remarks, although they relate to the bill, be in morning business?