Floor Statements

Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, I am pleased to both express my unqualified support for the nomination of Cass Sunstein to lead the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which is known in government circles as OIRA, and also to favorably report the nomination out from our Homeland Security Committee.

This nomination was considered and reported out by the committee on May 20. That was almost 3\1/2\ months ago. But unfortunately, Professor Sunstein's nomination has been the subject of unnecessary holds and delays. This is an important position that needs to be filled.

I thank Majority Leader Reid for bringing this important nomination to a vote. Obviously, there was a filibuster, and we will now need to invoke cloture so Professor Sunstein can get on with the important job that President Obama has nominated him to do for our country and each one of us.

OIRA is one of those governmental agencies that has a low public profile but exerts high influence over the workings of government and therefore the daily lives of most Americans.

In Congress, we pass laws that express our values, that draw lines between what is right and wrong, what is desirable and undesirable for our society. But because we cannot ever foresee every permutation of the law or its effect, we must leave many of the details to the executive branch and its regulatory actions or implementation of the laws we pass.

For over a quarter of a century now, Presidents of the United States have asked OIRA to help oversee and coordinate this critical regulatory process. Thus, OIRA has a huge impact on the widest range of problems, as wide as the purview of our government itself, including the health and safety of every American and the health and stability of the American economy.

In Professor Cass Sunstein, the President has found someone with exceptional qualifications and talent, capable of leading OIRA in a positive direction to fulfill Congress's intention in the adoption of laws.

When he began teaching at Harvard Law School in 2008, after a distinguished career teaching and residing in the city of Chicago, which is ably represented by the occupant of the chair, his new employers at Harvard announced that they had secured for their faculty ``the preeminent legal scholar of our time, the most wide-ranging, the most prolific, the most cited, and the most influential.'' As a graduate of Yale Law School, I was initially quite suspect of those superlatives. The truth is that those words of Elena Kagan, then dean of Harvard, now Solicitor General of the United States, are validated by the extraordinary record of Professor Cass Sunstein. He has taught and written about many subjects, including particularly regulation, the management of risk, and, in fact, OIRA itself.

Our committee conducted a thorough review of Professor Sunstein's writings and his background, and he has met individually with me, Senator Collins, our ranking member, and most other members of the committee. We held a confirmation hearing on this nomination on May 12 of this year, at which the members of our committee thoroughly questioned Professor Sunstein about his views on several important matters. And I believe he responded directly, sincerely, and addressed each of the members' concerns.

For example, I wanted to be sure his previous advocacy for a rigorous implementation of cost-benefit analysis to regulations did not mean that OIRA under his leadership would interfere with the agency's issuing of regulations necessary to protect public health and safety. Professor Sunstein convinced me in his answer that he would diligently support the purposes of laws to protect public health and safety as adopted by Congress and signed by the President.

Because Professor Sunstein is brilliant, creative, and prolific, he has written some things that are unconventional and, for some, controversial. I believe when asked about each of those matters he answered sincerely and fully and reassuringly.

For example, hunters were concerned about Professor Sunstein's views on gun rights. He made very clear he believes the second amendment creates an individual right to possess guns for hunting and self- defense. To farmers and others concerned with his previous writings and comments on cruelty to animals, Professor Sunstein has said he would take no steps to promote litigation on behalf of animals, which some concluded was his position based on a provocative article he wrote, and that he has no plans, certainly, to regulate animal husbandry.

So this is a bright, thoughtful, creative man who, as a professor, has written some provocative, unconventional ideas. I suppose if one wanted to take advantage of them for one's own purposes, to politicize, in some sense, or ideologize, in some sense, this nomination, one might seize on those. But at bottom, this is a person extraordinarily well qualified for this position.

I will say he has been endorsed by the American Farm Bureau Federation, insofar as concerns of the agricultural community are concerned. He met with them, and he answered there questions. They said:

. . . we hope the Senate can take up this nomination in the

near future and all Senators will vote to confirm him in this

post.

Professor Sunstein has also won the public endorsement of a variety of groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers which has concluded, based on his writings and their meetings with him, that he will be fair and not antibusiness, anti-economic growth in this important position.

As for myself, after meeting with this distinguished, thoughtful, and very gentlemanly individual, listening to him at our hearings, seeing how he has responded thoroughly and forthrightly to those who have approached him with their concerns, I am convinced Professor Sunstein has superior qualifications for this office and a strong commitment, if concerned, to guide OIRA in conformity with the law and the public interest above all. That is why I urge my colleagues to support cloture and to support this nomination.

Mr. President, I am pleased to see the senior Senator from Minnesota. I yield to her at this time.

Mr. President, first, I thank Senator Klobuchar for those very thoughtful and, I thought, compelling words in support of Professor Sunstein's nomination. They were both thoughtful and personal, and that matters a lot. I thank her for taking the time to come and speak on this important nomination.

I thought it might be helpful if I read from a few of the letters of endorsement of Professor Sunstein because this is one of those nominations that I think has become unnecessarily controversial. A rule I have always tried to apply--I think I have done it pretty well over the years, playing it uniformly--is when, as a Senator, we exercise our authority to advise and consent, the judgment for us to make is not whether we would have nominated that person to that office but whether on due consideration we conclude that nominee is within an acceptable range and capable of fulfilling that job. That is quite a different situation.

One might agree or disagree, let's put it that way, with Professor Sunstein on one or another thing he has written in a remarkably productive, prolific career, but one would have to decide if he is unqualified for this position, not just that he wouldn't be your first choice but seems to be he is unqualified or there is a level of risk in fulfilling it that even if he was qualified, one would vote against it.

I want to reassure my colleagues. I mentioned the American Farm Bureau Federation because there had been concern in the Agriculture Committee. I read a letter from Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation:

Like others in the agriculture community, we were concerned

about reports related to Mr. Sunstein's views on animal

rights and the impact that could occur should such views be

reflected in Federal regulations. We have, however, had the

opportunity to discuss this subject in person with Mr.

Sunstein. He has been candid, forthright and very open about

how he views his role in OIRA. He has shared his perspective

on the issues in question and stressed that he would not use

his position to undermine further law or further policies

inconsistent with congressional directives.

I quoted in my opening statement of the president of the American Farm Bureau Federation:

. . . we hope the Senate can take up this nomination in the

near future and that all Senators will vote to confirm him in

this post.

Second, a very different association and important one in our country is the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, and in a letter from R. Bruce Josten, the first paragraph says:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business

federation representing more than three million businesses

and organizations--

He says about the nominee--

Over the course of an impressive career as a legal

academic, Professor Sunstein has made important contributions

in such diverse areas as environmental law, behavioral

economics, and consumer safety. Through his work, he has

improved our understanding of the law and public policy in a

continuing effort to improve the ability of government to

beneficially impact the lives of its citizens.

As OIRA Administrator, Professor Sunstein is almost certain

to apply a thoughtful approach to regulatory oversight and

review. His extensive writings and teachings provide a useful

blueprint of his pragmatic approach to regulation, including

his continued defense of cost-benefit analysis as a tool for

developing rational regulation. His approach is not

influenced by an ideological predisposition.

I repeat, from Bruce Josten, executive VP of the Chamber of Commerce:

His approach is not influenced by an ideological

predisposition--to the contrary, his writings show a strong

commitment to a balanced review that is biased neither in

favor of nor against regulation.

By all accounts, Professor Sunstein is a man of personal

integrity and formidable intellectual prowess, and the

Chamber applauds his willingness to suspend an exceptional

academic career in order to serve his country.

Mr. Josten concludes by saying:

The Chamber urges you to expeditiously confirm Professor

Sunstein as Administrator of OIRA.

I need not tell my colleagues in the Senate that the Chamber of Commerce is a probusiness group, and if they believed Cass Sunstein as OIRA Administrator would harm business entrepreneurship, economic growth, and the free market in our country, they would say so, loudly and clearly. But they did not say so. They did not just remain silent. The Chamber of Commerce of the United States said Cass Sunstein is qualified by his writings, he is fair, and they urge us to confirm this nomination.

I have a similar letter from the National Association of Manufacturers, Rosario Palmieri, vice president of NAM, writing to Senator Collins and me:

. . . I am writing to offer our support for the

confirmation of Cass Sunstein to be Administrator of the

Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs in the Office of

Management & Budget. . . .

The NAM [National Association of Manufacturers] has

supported nominees to OIRA under both Republican and

Democratic presidents. The office plays a crucial role in

agency prioritization, paperwork reduction, and regulatory

review. Cass Sunstein, in particular, is deserving of

confirmation because of his keen intellect, expertise in

the fields--

I thank the Chair.

The bottom line is that Professor Sunstein is supported by many groups, including those who some might think would have opposed him. I hope my colleagues will support this nomination in the vote to come and on final passage.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to offer my sincere congratulations to Mr. Mark Davis of Granby, CT, for his 25 years of service in television news on WTNH Channel 8 in Connecticut. Mark has been ``on the air'' throughout our State in a variety of capacities over the years, and we honor him today for his generous spirit and his impeccable commitment to impartial and informative journalism.

With more than 35 years of broadcasting experience, Mark has taken an evenhanded approach to the news that he delivers with the kind of ``plain talk'' that engages a broad audience across our State. Mark made his first splash in Connecticut with his acclaimed radio show ``Dial Mark Davis'' and later as the host of Connecticut's first morning news show, ``Good Morning Connecticut.'' He has been awarded several Emmys throughout his career and each stands as a testament to his talent and hard work.

Mark has said one of his favorite quotes of all time comes from U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said that so much in life is more nuanced than it seems because it is ``determined by the majority and subject to change.'' This attitude captures, in many ways, what makes Mark's reporting fresh and relevant: though we live in a world where constant and often polarized judgments are made, in the end, nearly everyone and everything is subject to change. Mark's careful and nuanced presentation of the news reminds us of this important lesson.

Mark Davis is a fairminded and evenhanded journalist. That is one big reason why Connecticut citizens have named him the best television reporter in the State, according to Connecticut Magazine. Mark understands, as the best journalists do, that to be a journalist is to bear witness, and that is no easy task.

Mark has a special place in the hearts and minds of Connecticut citizens. He performs an essential service that is essential to our democratic and liberal society. I am proud to have worked with Mark over the years, to have shared many of the big moments of my career with him, and now to thank and honor him for his continued service to Connecticut.

Mr. President, it is a privilege to rise to speak on behalf of President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

This takes me back to a time, shortly after I was privileged to be elected to the Senate, when President George H.W. Bush nominated David Souter to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. David Souter had, by that time, been in law enforcement as an attorney general of New Hampshire. As a former attorney general, I felt an instant kinship with him. He had also been a trial judge in New Hampshire, a member of the New Hampshire Supreme Court and, ultimately, he sat on the Federal First Circuit Court of Appeals. He was proposed to President Bush 41 by our former colleague, Warren Rudman, a Senator from New Hampshire, a great Senator and a great friend.

I remember when Senator Rudman brought David Souter around and introduced him after President Bush nominated him. It has been my privilege to have had a friendship with David Souter in the company of former attorneys general, particularly those who gather periodically to speak of matters past, present, and future. I wanted to speak of Justice Souter because, of course, it is his announcement of retirement that opens the vacancy that President Obama has asked us to fill with Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

In the case of now-Justice Souter, I was privileged in one of my early votes here to join 89 of my Senate colleagues in voting to confirm Justice Souter. With his retirement this summer, after two decades on the Court, he has become the first Justice to retire of the six Supreme Court Justices on whose nominations I have had the privilege and responsibility of voting.

I wish to first thank and commend Justice Souter for his decades of public service, generally, and, specifically, for his thoughtful, distinguished service to the highest Court of our land. I know Justice Souter is a very honorable, straightforward man. He is--if I may say so as a New Englander--a quintessential New Englander. He carries with him all the great constitutional traditions of the part of our country from which I am proud to hail. He

brings with him some characteristics that are best associated with a New Englander. He is straightforward. He is not one for flowery rhetoric. He is one who is committed to integrity in his personal life, as well as his public life. He has a great New England sense of humor-- probably not often seen in his decisions, but I bear personal testimony here, though I am not under oath at the moment, to that great quality he has.

I know there are some who have become critics of Justice Souter, who have said he isn't what they thought he would be when he was nominated. But when he was nominated, what he presented himself as was a man of the law who believed in our Constitution, believed in the values that underlie it, and one who would always do what he thought was right. He has done that in his years on the U.S. Supreme Court. I haven't agreed with every opinion Justice Souter has ever written, but this I know: Every time he sat to write an opinion or to join an opinion, he did so after the most careful consideration. He is an extraordinarily hard- working, disciplined individual and, ultimately, he reached a judgment that he felt was right, according to the requirements of our Constitution. I salute this great American, this quiet American, but this profoundly patriotic American, and wish him well in the years he has ahead of him as he returns now, by his own choice, to his beloved New Hampshire.

The life tenure of Supreme Court Justices--a lifetime appointment for those who choose not to step down--defines, in many ways, the importance of the Senate's role in providing advice and consent to the President on Supreme Court nominees. I have always felt, from the time I first came in--and the first vote I cast was on a controversial nomination for Secretary of Defense. It was in 1989. I spent a lot of time looking back at the history of the advice and consent clause. To make a long story short, I felt it wasn't for me to vote for a nominee of the President, to advise and consent. I did not have to feel that nominee was the person I would have chosen but just that that nominee was within the range of being acceptable and was prepared and qualified for that job. There is a slightly higher standard for Supreme Court nominees because they do serve lifetime appointments.

It is with that in mind that I approach this nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. I have met with Judge Sotomayor and have reviewed her judicial record. I followed her confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee and, based on all that, I conclude, without question, that she possesses remarkable intellectual and legal credentials, has a distinguished record of experience in the public and private sector, and a deep commitment to our country and our Constitution. I will, therefore, vote affirmatively to consent to her nomination to the Supreme Court.

Judge Sotomayor's 17-year record as a Federal judge speaks volumes about her qualifications to serve on the Court, and that is why I feel she more than passes the threshold for this lifetime appointment. During 6 years as a trial judge on the U.S. district court and 11 years as a judge on the court of appeals, Sonia Sotomayor has shown she possesses a superior intellect, a commendable judicial temperament, and an admirable respect for the role of established precedent in our legal system.

It is usually and quite naturally true that those who know people best are those with whom they have worked most closely. Those who have worked most closely with Judge Sotomayor are consistent, even effusive, in their praise for her personal attributes, her professional qualifications, and her fairness. Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, said:

Sonia Sotomayor is a well-loved colleague on our court--

everybody from every point of view knows that she is fair and

decent in all her dealings.

Another colleague on the Second Circuit, Senior Judge Roger Miner, said:

I don't think I'd go so far as to classify her in one camp

or another. I think she just deserves the classification of

outstanding judge.

While the most significant facts about Judge Sotomayor are her personal qualifications and her judicial record, I also note that women are underrepresented on the Supreme Court of the United States. I say that not just as a matter of numbers but as a matter of qualification.

I thank the President for this historic nomination of the first American of Hispanic descent to the Supreme Court. This nomination was clearly made on the basis of merit, not ethnicity or gender. I think it is consistent with her merit. But acknowledging her ethnicity, her selection represents another barrier that has been broken in American life. When that happens in American life, the doors open wider for every other American.

I will be proud to vote yes to confirm Sonia Sotomayor, of New York, to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, it has now been nearly 8 years since our country was attacked on September 11, 2001, as 19 al-Qaida members hijacked four jet airplanes and crashed three of them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The passengers on the fourth plane, Flight 93, learned of the other attacks, fought back against the hijackers, and heroically gave their lives to prevent that plane from reaching its target in Washington, DC. That target was probably this very building--the U.S. Capitol.

In the last 8 years, our homeland has not been attacked again. The reasons for this are many. We created a Department of Homeland Security, and we adopted reforms in our intelligence community recommended by the 9/11 Commission. We are now consistently connecting the intelligence dots that were not connected before 9/11. We have denied safe haven to terrorist organizations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries around the world. And we have worked with our allies to prevent terrorist groups from gaining access to nuclear and radiological materials and to combat terrorist financing.

One of the most important reasons why we have not been attacked again in the last 8 years is the tireless work of the men and women who serve in our intelligence agencies. While the attacks of 9/11 have receded into the memory of many Americans, I assure my colleagues that is not the case for the intelligence community. They know that the threat of terrorism has not diminished and are working each day to detect and disrupt terrorist plots targeting America and our allies.

They know that the threats we face are ones that could imperil the lives of countless Americans. Just last year, the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction determined that it is ``more likely than not'' that a nuclear or biological weapon of mass destruction will be used against the United States in a terrorist attack within the next five years. Should a nuclear device detonate in an American city, it could instantly kill hundreds of thousands of people and render the city uninhabitable for years. This is a devastating possibility that America faces every day and agents are working to prevent every second of every day.

For all of these reasons, I believe we have a responsibility to give our intelligence agencies and agents the resources and tools they need, as well as the respect and appreciation they have earned.

What we should not do is go backwards by investigating intelligence officials who served us on the front lines of this ongoing war on terrorism and acted within legal guidance they were given.

Attorney General Holder is still considering an investigation into CIA interrogators and contract employees. I fear that such an investigation could very well foster a climate of political recriminations and sap the morale of the intelligence community. Those near certain results would no doubt leave our country less safe.

President Obama had it right when he said that with regard to past behavior by the intelligence community, he is ``more interested in looking forward . . . than looking backward.'' Given the threats that we face as a nation, it is imperative that we follow the President's lead.

With regard to the treatment of detainees now in U.S. custody, the President has been clear. The Executive order he signed on January 22 of this past year requires that all detainees in U.S. custody ``shall in all circumstances be treated humanely and shall not be subjected to violence to life and person'' and that all interrogations carried out by the U.S. Government, whether by the military, the CIA, the FBI or any other government entity, shall comply with the Army Field Manual. The President's Executive order is consistent with the Detainee Treatment Act as well as the Convention Against Torture and Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Given that such policy changes have already been made, I can see no benefit from new investigations of intelligence officials, especially those who were doing what they thought was appropriate and necessary to keep us safe.

The 9/11 Commission did a positive and constructive investigation of past events that needed to be understood so that we did not repeat the mistakes that made that horrific day possible. The commission investigated the activities of agencies such as the CIA and FBI in the years and months prior to the attacks of 9/11, and was unsparing in pointing out where those agencies had missed opportunities to disrupt the plot. As a result of the commission's recommendations, we established the Director of National Intelligence and the National Counterterrorism Center, improved sharing of intelligence information, and strengthened our watchlisting and visa issuance systems. All of these initiatives make the United States safer today against the threat of terrorism.

A new investigation of interrogation procedures used on al-Qaida detainees would have no such benefits given that these procedures have now been changed. But an investigation into past practices could cause great harm.

An investigation could ruin careers of men and women who have sacrificed so much on our behalf and would have a chilling effect on intelligence efforts moving forward. The overhanging threat of investigations will force those in the intelligence services to be risk averse, which in turn would make us all less secure. In the war against an enemy that does not wear a uniform, that ruthlessly kills innocent civilians, that then hides among those very same civilians, and that uses our own freedoms to undermine and attack us, tough decisions under great pressure--life and death decisions--must be made by those whose job it is to protect our security and our freedom.

As CIA Director Leon Panetta recently wrote in the Washington Post:

The time has come for both Democrats and Republicans to

take a deep breath and recognize the reality of what happened

after September 11, 2001. The question is not the sincerity

or the patriotism of those who were dealing with the

aftermath of September 11. The country was frightened, and

political leaders were trying to respond as best they could.

Judgments were made. Some of them were wrong. But that should

not taint those public servants who did their duty pursuant

to the legal guidance provided.

As I said at the beginning, we must not take for granted the important fact that we have not been attacked on our homeland since September 11, 2001. That fact is not an accident nor is it just a product of good luck. It is mostly the result of the ceaseless efforts to protect our country by the brave men and women in our military, by all who work for civilian agencies involved in homeland security and counterterrorism, and last but not least, by the intelligence community. Those men and women are, as CIA Director Panetta pointed out, ``truly America's first line of defense.''

I urge the Attorney General not to go forward with the investigations being debated now. The collateral damage to America's intelligence community could be severe and that is something no American should want.

Mr. President, I was unable to participate in the rollcall vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Kohl substitute amendment, No. 1908, to H.R. 2997, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010 and on the rollcall vote on amendment No. 1910 introduced by Senator McCain. Both rollcall votes took place yesterday.

Had I been present, I would have voted yea in support of the motion to invoke cloture and yea in support of Senator McCain's amendment. The McCain amendment would have cut $17.5 million set aside for the Rural Utilities Service, High Energy Cost Grant Program--a program that was eliminated in President Obama's fiscal year 2010 budget.

I commend the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Kohl, and the ranking member, Senator Brownback, for their bipartisan work on this important bill that will fund agriculture priorities, nutrition assistance programs, and food and drug safety measures that are critical for my State of

Connecticut and the rest of the country.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent now that the debate time remaining with respect to amendments offered be yielded back; that after Senator Thune offers his amendment, then debate time on that amendment extend until 3:45 p.m., divided as previously provided; that at 3:45 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendments and motion to waive in the order listed, with 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled, in order prior to each vote, with the vote time after the first vote limited to 10 minutes each as follows:

Vitter amendment No. 1907, as modified; Ensign amendment No. 1905, as modified; Bond amendment No. 1904; the Thune amendment I have referred to; and the Boxer motion to waive the applicable Budget Act point of order; that with reference to amendment No. 1904, if a Budget Act point of order is raised against the amendment, then a motion to waive the applicable point of order be considered made, further that all other provisions of the previous order remain in effect.

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

Mr. President, I rise along with my colleagues, Senators Collins, Feinstein, Voinovich, Byrd and Ensign to introduce the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act, SOAR, which seeks to reauthorize the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, OSP, also known as the DC voucher program. This important initiative offers scholarships to low-income students, especially those from failing schools, to attend better private schools. In doing so, the program gives parents of economically disadvantaged children a choice that's available to the more affluent, including many of us in Congress and in the White House. This program offers DC students a choice that has improved the quality of their education and lives; it is a program that works. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support the reauthorization of this important program.

Since 2003, Congress has supported a tri-sector approach to improving education in the District of Columbia. This has included funding the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, which provides low income students in the District with scholarships of up to $7,500 to attend private schools, as well as new funding for ongoing efforts to reform and improve public schools and public charter schools in the District.

Critics of this program argue that it takes away funds from public schools. This is simply not the case. I remind my colleagues that we intentionally designed the scholarship program to ensure that any funding for opportunity scholarships would not reduce funding for public schools. We provided additional new money for the DC Public Schools and for DC Public Charter Schools. We have not changed the three part-funding design of the initiative. The tri-partite funding is central to the compromise approach that originally brought Democrats and Republicans together in support of the Opportunity Scholarship Program. This bill preserves that important requirement. It is our intent that any funding for DC Opportunity Scholarships will result in continued additional new money in support of public charter and public schools.

This funding mechanism is an important point as it reflects the goal of the Opportunity Scholarship Program: to be supportive of the reforms that are helping to improve education in the District of Columbia. There is absolutely no intention to undermine the public schools--quite to the contrary. But as Ronald Holassie, one of the students receiving a scholarship, told us at a recent hearing on the program before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee: ``public schools in the District did not go bad over night and they won't get better over night.'' That's the point: despite having amongst the highest per pupil expenditure for public school districts in the country, the public school students in the District score at the bottom on national tests. Ronald and others cannot wait for reforms to take effect in the worst of DC's public schools. They deserve a good education today and the Opportunity Scholarships respond to that need.

Much progress has been made in improving DC schools over the years but even school Chancellor Michelle Rhee admits that much remains to be done. According to the Washington Post, Chancellor Rhee was asked recently to give herself a grade for her efforts. She said she would give herself a failing grade as long as any children were in schools that were not providing a quality education. That's a modest answer that obscures the progress she has made. DC test scores are up in the most recent study of academic performance. Undoubtedly, we will see additional improvements in the years to come. Chancellor Rhee will continue to have my full support and I am confident that Ms. Rhee will soon be able to claim the ``A'' grade that I believe she already deserves. In the new bill, we have made the connection between the scholarship program and the ongoing reform effort more explicit. Our bill acknowledges an intent to reexamine the program when DC public school students are testing at the national average in reading and math.

The bill also responds to early criticisms of the Opportunity Scholarships with some important changes. It requires all participating schools to have a valid certificate of occupancy and to ensure that teachers in core subjects have an appropriate college degree. It continues to target students from lower income families who are attending those DC schools most in need of improvement but it increases the tuition amounts slightly to levels consistent with the tuition charged at a typical participating school, and adds an inflation adjustment. The new amounts are still well below the per pupil cost of educating a child in the DC public schools. While we have kept the income ceiling for entry into the program unchanged, we have increased slightly the income ceiling for those already participating in the program to ensure that parents are not forced to choose between a modest raise in their income and the scholarship, or marriage and the scholarship.

It is very important to recognize that the Opportunity Scholarship schools are producing impressive results. Opportunity Scholarship students attending private schools showed a five month advantage in reading levels compared to students attending public schools who applied but did not receive the scholarship, in the most recent study of the program conducted by the Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences. The study showed significantly higher levels of parental satisfaction with regards to safety and the quality of the school for those in the program. The study has not yet even looked at the effect of the program on graduation rates and attrition though studies of other voucher programs indicate this impact could very well be significant. We will see those results in next year's study.

It is also imperative to put the results of the program in context. Rarely are there statistically significant results with any educational innovations, particularly those targeted at low income students. Of the eleven recent educational innovations studied under the auspices of the Department of Education using the same rigorous testing designs, only three showed any statistically significant achievement results. The Opportunity Scholarship was one of the three. Dr. Patrick Wolf, an education specialist and the lead researcher in the IES study, testified at a recent hearing on the scholarship program that in his professional opinion the results were exceptional and warranted continued study of the program. According to Dr. Wolf, ``by demonstrating statistically significant impacts overall in reading based on an experimental evaluation, the DC OSP has met a tough standard for efficacy in serving low-income inner-city students.''

Academic programs should be evaluated in terms of their impact on students' progress and achievement. In his speech before the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce earlier this year, President Obama laid down that marker as a guideline for considering which education programs should be funded. On that basis, it is clear that we should continue to fund the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program--a program that has been good for students, good for parents and even good for public and charter schools in the District. Let us do the right thing for kids in DC and reauthorize the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program.

Mr. President, I rise along with my colleagues, Senators Collins, Feinstein, Voinovich, Byrd and Ensign to introduce the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act, SOAR, which seeks to reauthorize the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, OSP, also known as the DC voucher program. This important initiative offers scholarships to low-income students, especially those from failing schools, to attend better private schools. In doing so, the program gives parents of economically disadvantaged children a choice that's available to the more affluent, including many of us in Congress and in the White House. This program offers DC students a choice that has improved the quality of their education and lives; it is a program that works. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support the reauthorization of this important program.

Since 2003, Congress has supported a tri-sector approach to improving education in the District of Columbia. This has included funding the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, which provides low income students in the District with scholarships of up to $7,500 to attend private schools, as well as new funding for ongoing efforts to reform and improve public schools and public charter schools in the District.

Critics of this program argue that it takes away funds from public schools. This is simply not the case. I remind my colleagues that we intentionally designed the scholarship program to ensure that any funding for opportunity scholarships would not reduce funding for public schools. We provided additional new money for the DC Public Schools and for DC Public Charter Schools. We have not changed the three part-funding design of the initiative. The tri-partite funding is central to the compromise approach that originally brought Democrats and Republicans together in support of the Opportunity Scholarship Program. This bill preserves that important requirement. It is our intent that any funding for DC Opportunity Scholarships will result in continued additional new money in support of public charter and public schools.

This funding mechanism is an important point as it reflects the goal of the Opportunity Scholarship Program: to be supportive of the reforms that are helping to improve education in the District of Columbia. There is absolutely no intention to undermine the public schools--quite to the contrary. But as Ronald Holassie, one of the students receiving a scholarship, told us at a recent hearing on the program before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee: ``public schools in the District did not go bad over night and they won't get better over night.'' That's the point: despite having amongst the highest per pupil expenditure for public school districts in the country, the public school students in the District score at the bottom on national tests. Ronald and others cannot wait for reforms to take effect in the worst of DC's public schools. They deserve a good education today and the Opportunity Scholarships respond to that need.

Much progress has been made in improving DC schools over the years but even school Chancellor Michelle Rhee admits that much remains to be done. According to the Washington Post, Chancellor Rhee was asked recently to give herself a grade for her efforts. She said she would give herself a failing grade as long as any children were in schools that were not providing a quality education. That's a modest answer that obscures the progress she has made. DC test scores are up in the most recent study of academic performance. Undoubtedly, we will see additional improvements in the years to come. Chancellor Rhee will continue to have my full support and I am confident that Ms. Rhee will soon be able to claim the ``A'' grade that I believe she already deserves. In the new bill, we have made the connection between the scholarship program and the ongoing reform effort more explicit. Our bill acknowledges an intent to reexamine the program when DC public school students are testing at the national average in reading and math.

The bill also responds to early criticisms of the Opportunity Scholarships with some important changes. It requires all participating schools to have a valid certificate of occupancy and to ensure that teachers in core subjects have an appropriate college degree. It continues to target students from lower income families who are attending those DC schools most in need of improvement but it increases the tuition amounts slightly to levels consistent with the tuition charged at a typical participating school, and adds an inflation adjustment. The new amounts are still well below the per pupil cost of educating a child in the DC public schools. While we have kept the income ceiling for entry into the program unchanged, we have increased slightly the income ceiling for those already participating in the program to ensure that parents are not forced to choose between a modest raise in their income and the scholarship, or marriage and the scholarship.

It is very important to recognize that the Opportunity Scholarship schools are producing impressive results. Opportunity Scholarship students attending private schools showed a five month advantage in reading levels compared to students attending public schools who applied but did not receive the scholarship, in the most recent study of the program conducted by the Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences. The study showed significantly higher levels of parental satisfaction with regards to safety and the quality of the school for those in the program. The study has not yet even looked at the effect of the program on graduation rates and attrition though studies of other voucher programs indicate this impact could very well be significant. We will see those results in next year's study.

It is also imperative to put the results of the program in context. Rarely are there statistically significant results with any educational innovations, particularly those targeted at low income students. Of the eleven recent educational innovations studied under the auspices of the Department of Education using the same rigorous testing designs, only three showed any statistically significant achievement results. The Opportunity Scholarship was one of the three. Dr. Patrick Wolf, an education specialist and the lead researcher in the IES study, testified at a recent hearing on the scholarship program that in his professional opinion the results were exceptional and warranted continued study of the program. According to Dr. Wolf, ``by demonstrating statistically significant impacts overall in reading based on an experimental evaluation, the DC OSP has met a tough standard for efficacy in serving low-income inner-city students.''

Academic programs should be evaluated in terms of their impact on students' progress and achievement. In his speech before the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce earlier this year, President Obama laid down that marker as a guideline for considering which education programs should be funded. On that basis, it is clear that we should continue to fund the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program--a program that has been good for students, good for parents and even good for public and charter schools in the District. Let us do the right thing for kids in DC and reauthorize the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program.

Mr. President, I was unable to participate in the rollcall vote on final passage of H.R. 3183, as amended, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Had I been present, I would have voted yea in support of the bill.

I would like to commend the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Dorgan, and the ranking member, Senator Bennett, for their bipartisan work on this important bill that will fund energy and conservation programs that are critical for my State of Connecticut and the rest of the country.

Madam President, I wanted to say that as the overnight proceeded, there are a number of people who want to come down and speak on our side, so I wish to ask that on our amendment we have at least an hour and a half, perhaps two. I hope not to use it, but I think this is going to be a significant debate.

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, I have consulted with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, and the ranking member, Senator McCain, and they have urged me to go forward and call up my amendment on the alternate engine and begin debating it to expedite matters while we are awaiting Senator Bayh to come over. I call it up at this time.

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

This amendment I am introducing with Senator McCain as my lead cosponsor, and with a strong bipartisan group of cosponsors, including Senator Reed of Rhode Island, and Senators Snowe, Schumer, Inhofe, Dodd, Hutchison, Collins, Kyl, and Cornyn. I am very grateful for that support.

To state it briefly, and then to go into some detail, this amendment would remove funding from this bill that was added by way of amendment in the Armed Services Committee for $439 million to build a second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter plane.

I will argue, on behalf of the amendment I have introduced with Senator McCain and others, that it is a waste of $439 million to build for a plane a second engine, which we don't need. In fact, estimates are that continuing acquisition of this second engine will cost over $6 billion of taxpayer money that we don't need to spend because there has been a competition for the engine to be used in the Joint Strike Fighter, which is now the heart and soul of America's hopes for the future when it

comes to tactical aviation--particularly after the Senate terminated the F-22 program the other day.

So there was a competition to build the engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. General Electric, in its proposal, lost that competition. Pratt & Whitney won that competition.

Now, by way of legislation, the proponents of the second engine for this plane are trying to achieve, by legislation, what they could not achieve by competition. It is not only that it is an unnecessary expenditure of $439 million in the coming year, and more than $6 billion, for a second engine that we don't need for that plane, but it has consequences. It is not just that we are spending taxpayer money, but I will go into this in some detail in a moment.

Regarding putting that money to use on that second engine, a general from the Air Force overseeing this Joint Strike Fighter program told our committee it would delay the Joint Strike Fighter, which our services are desperately waiting for. They need this tactical fighter. So it would delay the program and, in fact, this Air Force general testified to our committee that putting money into the bill for the second engine, and continuing to fund it, would result, over the next 5 years, in a reduced capacity to build Joint Strike Fighters by 53 planes.

So to spend the money to build a second engine for a plane, when we don't need a second engine--because the first one won the competition and is performing very well--we are going to reduce the buy of this tactical fighter that our military needs by 53 planes over the next 5 years.

How do my friends who support the second engine pay for it? Well, in the Armed Services Committee bill, which is before us, which Senator McCain, I, and others are trying to remove, they defund the acquisition of helicopters, which are desperately needed by our marines, particularly those fighting in Afghanistan.

There will be an alternative proposal made this morning in the amendment Senator Bayh will introduce, I presume, because there has been so much protest to defunding this acquisition of helicopters that the marines need in battle in Afghanistan, in order to pay for a second engine, which is unnecessary, for the Joint Strike Fighter. Instead, the amendment will defund the acquisition of C-130s, which are specially fitted for our special operations forces. Again, they are carrying out extremely dangerous and critical missions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places, where they are courageously taking on particularly the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.

That is the essence of the argument. This second engine is a program President Obama has described as ``an unnecessary defense program that does nothing to keep us safe, but rather prevents us from spending money on what does keep us safe.''

That warning from President Obama about the consequences of funding the second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter is realized already in the part of the bill Senator McCain and I and others are trying to withdraw and in the amendment my friend from Indiana will introduce because it takes money from the Marines and the Air Force special operations community in areas they and we desperately need.

I wish to add that, this morning, I was grateful and honored to receive a letter from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, in which the Secretary of Defense strongly and clearly expresses his opposition to the alternate engine, the second engine, an unnecessary engine--the $6 billion unnecessary engine for the Joint Strike Fighter--and his support for the amendment that Senator McCain and I and others have introduced.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Secretary Gates be printed in the Record.

I will read from the letter. It is three paragraphs:

The Department of Defense supports striking from

legislation any provision that would require the development

or procurement of an alternate propulsion system for the F-35

Joint Strike Fighter.

The current engine is performing well with more than 11,000

test hours. In addition, the risks associated with a single

engine provider are manageable as evidenced by the

performance of the F-22 and F/A-18/F, both Air Force and Navy

programs supplied by a single engine provider. The Air Force

currently has several fleets that operate on a single engine

source.

I draw back from the letter. What is unusual is to have a second engine. Logically, if we want to buy a car, it would be nice to have a second engine in the garage but would we pay the extra money for it if we had a perfectly good engine in the car? Back to the letter:

Thus, further expenditures on a second engine are

unnecessary and will likely impede the progress of the

overall F-35 program.

It is my belief that the JSF program presented in the

President's budget request is in the best interests of

national security. If a final bill is presented to the

President containing provisions that would seriously disrupt

the F-35 program, the President's senior advisors will

recommend that the President veto the bill.

I intend to show in my argument this morning that, in fact, this Armed Services Committee bill--if the amendment Senator McCain and I are proposing is not adopted--will seriously disrupt the F-35 program, the Joint Strike Fighter program and, therefore, will be occasion for the President's advisers to recommend he veto this entire and critically necessary bill.

I thank Secretary Gates for expressing support for the amendment Senator McCain and I and others--Senator Schumer, Senator Dodd, Senator Kyl--have offered to strip this unnecessary expenditure of money from the bill.

Our amendment, as I have said, would restore funding that was taken from the U.S. Marine Corps helicopter, the Huey, when the committee voted to fund the alternate engine. The vote to cut 10 Marine Corps helicopters comes at a time the Marines are conducting a major offensive in the mountains of Afghanistan where the high altitudes and hot weather require the best capabilities Congress can provide them, including these Hueys.

In fact, in recent statements from the Joint Staff and Marine Corps leadership, it is clear how urgently the Marines need the enhanced capabilities of the UH-1 Huey on the battlefield. Speaking before the Armed Services Committee of the Senate on Thursday, July 9, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Cartwright, said to the members of the committee:

Those helicopters are, in fact, critical.

He continued:

The helicopter for the Marines is one of their most lethal

weapons. They are the most effective in the battlefield,

particularly in the counterinsurgency arena.

They are effective in built-up urban areas and in compounds because they can be discreet, so the value of those helicopters is significant.

The day after General Cartwright appeared, I received a letter from the Commandant of the Marine Corps, GEN James Conway.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from General Conway.

Madam President, in his letter, General Conway writes:

Procurement of less than the optimum ramp up of 28 H-1s in

fiscal year 2010 will lead to continued reliance on aging

helicopters that should have been retired from the inventory

years ago. As we focus on operations in Afghanistan,

sustaining the introduction of the H-1 is vital for our

future success.

He continues:

Because of the severe operational limitations of the Corps'

legacy helicopters, the Marines are transitioning toward the

significantly improved capabilities of the UH-1Y.

General Conway points out that the Corps has already sent three UH-1Y to Afghanistan and will deploy its full squadron of them this November. This is a plane the Marines desperately need in combat today.

I also want to read from a letter I received from Major General Bockel, retired, Army Reserve, now acting director of the Reserve Officers Association. General Bockel says in his letter to me:

The Reserve Officers Association, representing 65,000

Reserve Component members, supports the Lieberman-McCain

Alternate Engine Amendment. This amendment restores critical

funding to procure helicopters that the United States Marine

Corps urgently needs in Afghanistan.

I suspect the Reserve Officers Association will no more support an effort to ask our special operations forces, as the second-degree or side-by-side amendment Senator Bayh will offer, to pay the bill for an unnecessary second engine than he was to see our Marines foot the bill.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Major General Bockel's letter.

Madam President, let me talk now about what this amendment would do. It would essentially remove the funding for the second engine, but it does it in a way that I think is thoughtful. It requires that there be no obligation of any funds on the development of a second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter unless and until the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that the development and procurement of such an engine will reduce the total life-cycle costs of the program, improve the operational readiness of the F-35 fleet, and avoid either disrupting the Joint Strike Fighter Program or resulting in procurement of fewer Joint Strike Fighter aircraft during the life cycle of the program.

Why do we propose these conditions? Because they are the benefits the proponents of the second engine claim it will deliver. So we ask that the second engine be judged on its alleged merits. And I hope my colleagues will agree that this is a fair way to go at this.

I have spoken already at the outset about the fact that there was a competition for the engine for the Joint Strike Fighter that took place in 1996. Ultimately, one engine won the competition while the other lost. Understandably, but not acceptably, the makers of the engine that lost have come back to achieve by legislation--or attempt to--what they could not achieve by competition.

The proponents of the second engine have also claimed that it would lower costs on the Joint Strike Fighter Program overall. I have cited numbers that come from the Pentagon and elsewhere arguing on the other hand that this program will cost over $6 billion of taxpayer money without any showing, really, that it will save money. Developing a second engine, quite logically and following common sense, would require the Department of Defense to maintain two logistics operations to support it--tails, as it is called in the military, two tails, two sets of training manuals, two sets of tooling component improvement parts. These additional and unnecessary expenses would raise operations and sustainment costs for the Joint Strike Fighter throughout the life cycle of the program.

I want to get to the impact funding a second engine--an unnecessary engine, a costly engine--would have on the Joint Strike Fighter Program.

On June 9, the Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Air and Land, which I have the honor of chairing, heard testimony from LTG Mark Shackelford, Military Deputy Officer to the Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition. He is in charge of acquisition. I asked General Shackelford whether development of a second engine would disrupt the Joint Strike Fighter Program. His explanation is detailed but important to hear. It has a very strong message:

The fiscal year 2010 production quantity for the joint

strike fighter is 30 aircraft, split between three variants.

That means with three different services.

If forced to pay for the alternate engine, we would have to

reduce that to two to four, depending on which of the

variants. That has a negative effect on the unit cost of the

remaining aircraft if you are buying fewer. It also ripples

into next year's quantities, and then as we take that 2010

increment of dollars and extend that out through the future

year defense program--

Which is the 5-year so-called fit up that the Pentagon does planning on--

there are equal decrements in terms of the numbers of

aircraft that we can buy with the remaining dollars.

After hearing that--decrements, decreases, reduction in the number of aircraft we can buy--I asked General Shackelford how many fewer Joint Strike Fighters would be purchased over that 5-year period if we went ahead with the second engine. He responded:

Over the 5-year period, it would be 53.

I cannot emphasize that enough--53 fewer aircraft that we otherwise would have purchased for the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps that are desperately in need of them over the next 5 years; 53 fewer planes because we are going to spend that money buying a second engine we do not need. That really would be a major disruption to the Joint Strike Fighter Program. But it is avoidable, and it is avoidable by adopting the amendment Senator McCain and I, Senator Schumer, Senator Dodd, Senator Kyl, Senator Hutchison, Senator Collins, and Senator Snowe--a very broad bipartisan group--have offered.

I close this opening statement in support of our amendment and in opposition to the amendment my friend from Indiana will offer with this quote from President Obama when he sent the defense budget to us on May 15. Here is the quote from the President:

We're going to save money by eliminating unnecessary

defense programs that do nothing to keep us safe but rather

prevent us from spending money on what does keep us safe. One

example is a $465 million program to build an alternate

engine for the joint strike fighter. The Defense Department

is already pleased with the engine it has. The engine it has

works. The Pentagon does not want and does not plan to use

the alternate version.

President Obama concludes:

That is why the Pentagon stopped requesting this funding 2

years ago.

That is why I respectfully ask my colleagues, in the interest of the taxpayers, in the interest of the Joint Strike Fighter Program, to protect funding for the Marines, for the Hueys, the special operations forces of the Air Force, for the C-130s, to protect the Navy, Air Force, and Marines, who are waiting for the Joint Strike Fighter. I ask you to vote against the amendment offered by my friend from Indiana and for the amendment I have the honor to offer.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

I wanted to speak very briefly because I note the presence on the floor of the Senator from Ohio. I want to speak simply to thank Senator McCain for his very strong and thoughtful statement. I am honored that he is the cosponsor of the amendment.

Senator McCain has enormous credibility in two areas that have come together in this amendment. The first is his support of the men and women of our military. The second is his opposition to wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars. And the two come together here.

Of course, as he has argued so compellingly, there are a lot of times when the wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars for military acquisitions is not only harmful in itself because it is wasteful, but it takes money away from things we need more.

That is the case here. The money that will be spent, $5, $6, $8 billion over the next 6 years by various estimates, will result in 50 to 80 fewer Joint Strike Fighters produced in that time. The Navy, Air Force, and Marines are waiting with anxiety for these tactical fighters.

In addition to that, the folks who want to fund this second engine have to find the money somewhere. They find it not only by delays in the Joint Strike Fighter Program, but by either, as the amendments today give the alternative--the first one was to take it from the Marine Corps for helicopters that are needed in Afghanistan.

The one that Senator Bayh has before us will take the money from the Air Force special operations community for C-130s that they need for Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout the world. It is not worth it.

I thank Senator McCain for his strong statement and for his cosponsorship.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I yield myself such time as I need from the time allotted.

Let me respond to a few points made in this debate.

First, as was clear, the original place that proponents of this second engine, which I believe is an unnecessary engine or unnecessary expenditure of taxpayer money, the place from which they would take the money originally for the Huey helicopters for the marines, I think there was a lot of upset about that. So the choice that Senator Bayh has put before us today would cut the HC-130 and MC-130 aircraft which would seriously impact both the Air Force's air combat command and the special operations command. This is a late-breaking development this morning, the change of source of the funding, but we asked for a response from the office of the Secretary of Defense and it was this, that this ``take'' from these two variants of the C-130s that the Air Force special operations command is using in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, wherever they are needed in the world, the Secretary of Defense says this would slow down the rate at which the aircraft would be delivered.

The argument Senator Bayh made is that in the supplemental we adopted earlier, three additional MC-130s and four HC-130s were included, seven planes. But the Air Force says to us this morning: Based on the JROC validation requirements--that is the joint operating committee that determines acquisition--the Air Force has validated requirements for 37 MC-130s and 78 HC-130s.

The Air Force, including the Air Force special operations command and air combat command, is grateful for the seven the supplemental gave them, but they need many more. They need 115 total, and so far we have given them 7. Removing the nine planes that were in the President's budget for the Air Force to fund the unnecessary second engine is not a costless move. It would do damage to the Air Force and its program.

I know Senator Reed is here and wants to speak on the amendment before us.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank my friend from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, for taking the time to come over to the Chamber. I know the schedule changed. We had to adjust things. His presence and the strength of his statement--he is a senior member of the Armed Services Committee--and his support mean a lot to this cause.

Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss, such time as he requires.

Madam President, I wish to respond to a few of the statements that have been made by the proponents of the second engine which I feel very strongly is a costly waste of taxpayer money and is unnecessary.

The argument has been made: why stop competition? I can't say it often enough that there has been competition. There was a competition in the 1990s between these two great engine manufacturers: Pratt & Whitney and General Electric. Pratt & Whitney won the competition fair and square. They did it, as Senator Chambliss said, with an engine that has now had an enormous amount of experience. The Air Force has had experience with it in the F-22, and it has worked extraordinarily well.

Secretary Gates, in his letter to us today, says the current engine is performing well with more than 11,000 test hours. So there has been a competition. General Electric, which manufactures the second engine which lost the competition, is trying, in my opinion--I love this company. I respect them. They are headquartered in Connecticut, but they are trying to achieve through legislation what they could not achieve through competition, and it is costly.

It is costly. It delays the Joint Strike Fighter Program. Earlier this week, we terminated the F-22 technical air fighter program. That means we are all in the Joint Strike Fighter Program. This is our single hope and the specific program to take us to the future for American tactical air war combat.

This second engine--the money for it--according to testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee will cost the Air Force between 50 and 83 fewer Joint Strike Fighters for the Air Force, Army, and Navy over the next 5 years. That is a lot to pay for.

There has been competition and it is over. This engine that has been selected is a good one, and it will continue to perform well and not delay the program.

I want to say a few other things about what has been said. There has been some citing of a GAO report issued in May of this year that suggested that, in the long term, a second engine might result in savings. I think it is important to say that the opinion of the GAO is not documented in their report on that matter, and it is not shared by other authorities who have done independent analyses.

The Institute for Defense Analyses says flat out that GAO underestimated the required government investment to develop an alternative engine by nearly $4 billion. One of the supporters of the second engine earlier said that we have already spent over $2 billion on it, and there is only a need to spend another $1.5 billion or $1.8 billion. Of course, any dollar we spend on an engine that I believe we don't need should go to other programs in the Department of Defense. It is a waste of dollars.

In the GAO report itself, which is cited by proponents of the second engine, it is quite clear that they say an additional investment of $3.5 billion to $4.5 billion in development and production costs may be required for this program.

That means an additional $3.5 billion to $4.5 billion, in the coming years totaling over $6 billion--some say even more--for a second engine, which would be nice to have, like it would be nice to have a lot of things, but we cannot afford it.

The fact that we cannot afford it is demonstrated by the amendments introduced by the proponents of the second engine. We will have to cannibalize, or take from the Marine Huey helicopters and from the Air Force C-130s being used by the special operations and Air Force combat command in battle today.

Let me go to this GAO argument. My friend from Massachusetts cited an Institute of Defense Analyses statement offered in testimony before the House in March of this year. There is another line in that that makes a very powerful point on the question of savings from the second engine. To break even financially, according to the Institute of Defense Analyses--I am quoting from that:

To offset fully the estimated $8.8 billion investment to

establish the alternative JSF engine would require a savings

rate, during the production phase, of 40 percent on a net

present value basis.

That is a little complicated. Here is the key from the independent Institute of Defense Analyses:

Savings of this magnitude are implausible, considering the

11 to 18 percent savings realized in other competition.

So it is way beyond what we have seen before. I want to quote from testimony received in our committee, a very interesting exchange between Senator Begich, a member of our subcommittee, and the representative of the Navy and the Air Force. Senator Begich, in reference to the GAO report cited, indicated that the F-136, the second engine, had better efficiency and opportunity, ``but you seem to disagree with that,'' the Senator says to the witnesses, and I believe that the current Joint Strike Fighter engine is the course you are taking. Vice Admiral Architzel of the Navy says:

While we generally support competition, the cost of

continuing to develop a second engine versus being able to

use that in procurement dollars for aircraft or in the cost

also to maintain the 2 engines, the Navy supports the

Department of Defense in just having this one F-35 engine.

Lieutenant General Shackleford, from the Office of Acquisition of the Air Force, says a very important quote regarding the GAO report that has been cited by proponents of the second engine:

In this particular case, the analysis that the Office of

the Secretary of Defense did to look at the costs associated

with a second engine yielded a different result from what the

GAO reported, which basically says the costs associated with

development of a second engine would be something that we

would consider unaffordable in the current timeframe, while

we would be doing the development. That benefit down the

road, in terms of comparative costs, would be more of a wash

than the more optimistic version of what the GAO report said.

So when we look at balancing the risk of having one engine versus the costs of paying for the second--be it costs within the program, which would be taken out of production aircraft with a negative effect in terms of unit

costs, or even having to source these dollars someplace else within the Air Force--we don't consider the purchase of a second engine to be an affordable solution.

Again, competition has occurred. It is over. We have to really go forward with the Joint Strike Fighter Program, not delay it, or waste money on it or take money from other programs to fund this one.

I will introduce this for the Record. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two letters, one from Military Families United, and another from the Vets for Freedom.

This is from Bryan Wise, executive director of Military Families United:

. . . I am writing today in support of funding to the

FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act to procure

additional UH-1s and HC-130s.

. . . Providing the necessary funds for the procurement and

recapitalization of both the UH-1 and the HC-130 will afford

our Armed Forces the ability to successfully execute our

military engagements overseas.

. . . Military Families United aggressively supports this

effort to restore funding for the procurement and

recapitalization of these vital weapons systems. We must

never forget the sacrifices the brave men and women of our

Armed Forces make every day in the service of our Nation and

for the cause of freedom.

The second letter, from the Vets of Freedom, is signed by Pete Hegseth, a distinguished and decorated veteran, who is chairman of Vets for Freedom. He says:

Vets for Freedom has always fought for the success of the

mission and fielding the needs of war-fighters serving our

country in harm's way. Recently, we've seen attempts made in

Congress to strip funding from the Marine Corps H-1Y Huey

helicopter program and from the Special Operations Command's

C-130 fleet.

Both pieces of equipment play a key role in making our

troops more effective and lethal on the battlefield: by both

transporting Marines into the fight and allowing our Special

Operations Forces to take the fight to the Taliban and al-

Qaida around the country. Both of [these programs] are

mission critical assets for the fight we are in today and

tomorrow--and the Secretary of Defense and Commandant of the

U.S. Marine Corps agree.

I appreciate these letters. They speak volumes, and I hope they will lead my colleagues to oppose the Bayh amendment and support the amendment we have introduced.

I yield the floor.

Might I ask my friend from Oklahoma how much time he needs?

I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma up to 5 minutes of my time.

Madam President, first, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Hampshire, Mrs. Shaheen, be added as a cosponsor to the amendment Senator McCain and I and others have offered.

Madam President, I thank my friend from New Hampshire for joining us on this amendment. We have a dispute about whether there was competition. I guess it depends on what you describe as competition.

There clearly was competition for the Joint Strike Fighter plane engine in the 1990s. In 1996, Pratt & Whitney and General Electric each submitted engine proposals to the three airframe manufacturers that were competing for the Joint Strike Fighter contract: Lockheed, Boeing, McDonnell Douglas. Two of the three selected the Pratt & Whitney engine, and it happened that those two airframe manufacturers were down-selected for the final competition. Ultimately, in 2001, Lockheed was selected to start the design and development with the Pratt & Whitney engine.

I believe there was a competition. General Electric lost. It has gone the other way on other occasions. And this is a legislative attempt to achieve by legislation what could not be achieved through competition.

Secondly, my dear friend Senator Levin, the chairman, and I may have an effectual disagreement on how much more going for the second engine will cost. He believes it will be $1.8 billion. I cited earlier in this debate statistics that show it will be between $4.5 and $5.5 billion. That is not the main point. Madam President, $1.8 billion is a lot more to spend on an engine I have submitted to my colleagues we do not need. Not only do we not need it, the Air Force testified before our committee that if we spend this money on a second engine, we are going to get, by General Shackelford's testimony to us, 53 fewer Joint Strike Fighters in the next 5 years. We will not be able to afford them. That is a serious consequence.

What about this engine that has been selected? The F-135 engine has flown over 11,000 test hours and delivered 12 flight test engines. The F-135 uses a core that has been delivered and is being used in the F- 22. It will have close to 1 million flight hours by the time this selected engine, the Pratt & Whitney F-135, enters operational service in 2012. That is quite a remarkable record and one that justifies what Secretary Gates said to us in a letter he sent to us this morning: ``The current engine is performing well with more than 11,000 test hours.'' I think the record is a clear one.

I, again, respectfully thank my friend from Indiana. Senator McCain said he has argued well. He is a dear friend. We would rather be on the same side on issues. We both feel strongly about this issue. Therefore, I respectfully urge my colleagues to vote against the Bayh amendment and for our amendment which would end funding for a second unnecessary engine.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

I ask my friend from Arizona if there is anything more he would like to say.

Madam President, I will say very briefly, to wind up, the Bayh amendment does remove the 130s from the Air Force. It is true they got money in the supplemental, but statements we got this morning from the Air Force and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the 130s they got in the supplemental, which are critically needed, leave open-- in other words, they are nowhere near their requirements for that plane which is critically important to the Air Force and particularly to our special operations forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, and throughout the world in the war on terrorism.

I would just close by reading a statement from President Obama, when he introduced his defense budget on May 15.

We are going to save money by eliminating unnecessary

Defense programs that do nothing to keep us safe but rather

prevent us from spending money on what does keep us safe. One

example is a $465 million program to build an alternate

engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. The Defense Department

is already pleased with the engine it has. The engine it has

works. The Pentagon does not want and does not plan to use

the alternate version. That is why the Pentagon stopped

requesting this program funding 2 years ago.

And then from Secretary Gates, just today:

It is my belief the Joint Strike Fighter program presented

in the President's budget request is in the best interest of

national security. If a final bill is presented to the

President containing provisions that would seriously disrupt

the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, the President's senior

advisers will recommend that the President veto the bill.

That is from Secretary Gates' letter.

So I submit to my colleagues, I believe we have shown today that the second engine funding will seriously disrupt the Joint Strike Fighter Program. Again, I respectfully ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment from our good friend from Indiana and support the amendment we have offered.

I thank the Chair, and if there is no one else who wants to speak, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 1744.

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

I thank the Chair, and I thank the chairman of the committee.

Mr. President, I rise to offer this amendment, along with the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, and a broad bipartisan group of cosponsors. This amendment concerns the deployment of missile defenses in Europe.

I am very pleased to say, as Chairman Levin suggested, that there has been a lot of work done on this issue by a lot of people, including Chairman Levin, Ranking Member McCain, their staff, and our staff. I think we have reached a very important agreement here which holds up some standards of what is most important to our national security regarding the deployment of missile defenses to Europe.

If I may, the administration, as we know, is now evaluating alternatives to the planned European deployment of a Ground-based Midcourse Defense, or GMD, system to Poland and the Czech Republic. In the context of that policy review, this amendment states that any alternative to the GMD deployment to Poland and the Czech Republic must be as effective and affordable as the current plan. We think this is a reasonable standard by which to judge any alternative and I am hopeful and grateful my colleagues seem to agree.

Let me now go forward to explain why Senator Sessions and I and others think it is so important to set a standard for the alternatives that are now under consideration, and why the growing Iranian threat requires us to deploy an effective missile defense in Europe.

Last year the United States reached a pair of groundbreaking agreements with two of our closest European allies on the deployment of elements of a Ground-based Midcourse Defense, GMD, system to protect Europe and the United States from Iran's growing ballistic missile threat.

When I say ``and the United States,'' they don't have the ability now, or the ballistic missile, to reach the United States, but they are clearly investing in a ballistic missile program whose range they hope will grow and grow to a point where they will be able to reach the United States.

Specifically, on July 8, 2008, the United States and the Czech Republic agreed on establishing an American ballistic missile defense radar site on Czech territory. Two months later, on August 20, the United States and the Government of Poland reached a similar agreement under which we would deploy 10 ground-based interceptors to Poland. Just less than a year after these agreements, at a June 16 hearing at our Senate Armed Services Committee, Deputy Secretary of Defense Bill Lynn told the members of the committee:

We think there are a number of ways to address [the

Iranian] threat and one of the options is to deploy the

missiles in Poland and the radar in the Czech Republic, and

we are certainly evaluating that option as well as other

possible options.

We heard other testimony before our committee, including from the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Cartwright, along the same lines, that though the agreements were entered into with Poland and the Czech Republic, the administration is evaluating other options.

To help place the other options that are under consideration into perspective, and to explain why Senator Sessions and I and the others who have joined us as cosponsors introduce this amendment today, I want to go to a Congressional Budget Office study that was released earlier this year, in February. It is titled ``Options for Deploying Missile Defenses in Europe.'' This study was requested by then-Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher, in her capacity as Chair of the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee. It examined the potential cost and defense capability of the European ground-based defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, as well as alternatives to it.

What are the alternatives? These include deployment of sea-based interceptors on Navy ships around Europe, or using mobile land-based interceptors in Europe. The study also considered the possible benefits of closer cooperation on missile defense with the Russian Federation.

The findings of this report clearly demonstrate that the Ground-based Midcourse Deployment in Poland and the Czech Republic is the most effective and affordable option that is before us today. I am particularly struck by the report's conclusion that the alternatives to the GMD system in Poland and the Czech Republic would significantly reduce America's ability to provide a layered defense for our American homeland against the eventual threat of intercontinental ballistic missiles launched by Iran or anyone else in that region against the United States of America.

I want to be clear about this and what it means. Whereas the GMD deployment to Poland and the Czech Republic would provide, according to the report, a so-called shoot-look-shoot capability for the defense of the entire continental United States, the alternatives that the Congressional Budget Office considered would leave most of our country without such a layered defense.

Let me explain. Shoot-look-shoot is an operational concept that is actually the cornerstone of our increasingly successful missile defense program. It is the idea that we should be able to shoot at an incoming missile, assess whether that shot was successful, and then shoot again. This shoot-look-shoot capability dramatically increases the effectiveness of our missile defense system.

You might say it is redundant. Most of our military systems are redundant because of what is on the line. I cannot think of a place where I would rather have redundancy than the situation we are dealing with, with an incoming ballistic missile, presumably containing a nuclear weapon, perhaps chemical or biological. I know people watching this debate may think this is far off and unrealistic, but these are the realities we do have to deal with in our world because we know a country such as Iran, whose leaders regularly lead tens of thousands of their citizens in shouting ``death to America'' is in fact investing in a growing intercontinental ballistic missile system.

What does shoot-look-shoot mean with regard to this amendment? If you have a GMD system in Europe and a missile that is fired from Iran, we have

a first opportunity to take a shot at that missile. We then obviously have a chance to look and see whether we hit it. If we did not, we have a second opportunity utilizing the ground-based missile defense system that we have now installed in California and Alaska. That is an important redundancy in the God-awful circumstance that a rogue nation, an anti-American nation, is actually firing missiles at the United States.

I want to draw the attention of my colleagues to a pair of maps that I think indicate the differences as CBO found them between the planned GMD system in Poland and the Czech Republic and the proposed land-based SM-3 block IIA system that I think is a favored alternative--a possible alternative--I don't mean it is selected, but one looked at with great interest by the Defense Department.

Incidentally, these maps were prepared by the Congressional Budget Office and included in the study I just mentioned, which I would commend to my colleagues to read in full.

On the first map here we can see the planned GMD system in Poland and the Czech Republic would provide a layered defense for the entire continental United States. In other words, this is the area that would be defended. Most of Europe, if a missile were fired from Iran, and all of the United States would be covered. That means the concept of shoot- look-and-shoot would be in effect a defense for our entire population.

The second map shows the capabilities of a prospective land-based SM- 3 IIA block system, which is quite different. You can see that this one, as the CBO estimated, only covers a portion of the United States. I note it does cover Connecticut, but there is a lot of the rest of the United States--even though there are those of us who love this small State--a lot of the rest of the United States we do not want to leave unprotected by this redundancy.

In fact, on a population basis, because there is a concentration of population, of course, on the east coast, almost 80 percent of the population would be left uncovered by this redundant defense. All States west of the Mississippi, for example, would not be defended by this system.

In terms of operational capability, it is also important to note that the components of the proposed GMD system for Europe are much farther along in their development and purchase closer to being proven to work than the proposed SM-3 Block IIA interceptor, which may not be available until close to 2020. So the consequences of pulling away from the Poland and Czech Republic system are serious in the near term.

As for the question of cost, the Congressional Budget Office in this study estimates that the two alternate systems would cost nearly the same to develop, deploy, and operate. In other words, if we opt for an alternative to ground missile defense, CBO will be telling us we will be paying the same amount of money but for a less capable defense and a dramatically less comprehensive coverage of the population and territory of the United States.

Another question under consideration, I know by the administration, is the possibility--and was with the last administration, too--the possibility of partnership between the United States and Russia through the joint use of two Russian radar stations, as well as the sharing of information and data. I support very much the exploration of this opportunity of cooperating with Russians on missile defense, but I believe we have to have a clear understanding of its potential benefits and limitations.

Let me begin with some of the benefits. Obviously, closer cooperation with Russia on missile defense could increase our early warning detection capability for missile launches from the Middle East, based on their radar. With this capability we could send a clear message to Iran that not just the United States but the world, including Russia, is opposed to its weapons of mass destruction and intercontinental or continental ballistic missile systems. So I support the objective of negotiating and discussing this with the Russians.

But I want to say there are also limitations that are in this proposal. The Russian radar stations that are most discussed as part of a joint United States-Russian ballistic missile system as a technical matter cannot be a substitute for a European-based GMD system. Although these radars would give us additional early warning capabilities, as I indicated, they would not provide any additional targeting capability which, of course, is a critical component to reducing threats. Radar helps to target, sends the message to the interceptors in Poland and to the other system, and that facilitates an accurate shoot-down.

As the CBO pointed out in its February report, the radars face south and any missiles facing south and any missiles targeted toward Europe and the United States would, according to the report, ``tend to fly through and out of the Russian radar's field of regard very early in their trajectories.'' Though this system would provide us with early warning, it is also very important, really critical, to have targeting capability.

The amendment Senator Sessions and I and the others have proposed would not in any way prohibit the possibility of cooperation, or even deter the possibility of cooperation with the Russian Federation-- certainly not with regard to sharing radar data, and I hope we can all agree we should not seek an agreement with Moscow that leaves the United States more vulnerable to the threat from Iran.

Very briefly, what about that threat? Some may ask, Why do we still need to be investing so much in missile defense? The answer, simply put, is because our most unpredictable and irresponsible adversaries, in particular rogue states such as Iran and North Korea, are investing very aggressively in ballistic missiles. That is why we need ballistic missile defense. The investments we make in missile defense will quite literally provide greater personal security to the coming generations of Americans, our children and their grandchildren and beyond. As LTG Mike Maples, then Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, testified before our Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this year:

The threat posed by ballistic missile delivery systems is

likely to increase over the next decade. Ballistic missile

defenses with advanced liquid or solid propellant propulsion

systems are becoming more mobile, survivable, reliable,

accurate, and possess greater range.

That is the end of the quote from the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

In the last few months we have seen graphic reminders of the progress our enemies are making toward fielding intercontinental ballistic missiles. In February, Iran launched its first satellite into orbit using the same technologies that Tehran can draw upon to develop the capacity to build an intercontinental ballistic missile that could strike the continental United States.

In May, Iran carried out its first successful test flight of a two- stage solid fuel ballistic missile, a development that the White House Coordinator for Arms Control and WMD Terrorism, Gary Seymour, warned was ``a significant step forward in terms of Iran's capability to develop weapons.''

Iran's growing ballistic capabilities are made, of course, even more threatening when coupled with its nuclear weapons development program. Of course, we all hope the United States and the rest of the international community can persuade Iran, through diplomacy and economic sanctions, to abandon both its nuclear and ballistic ambitions and programs.

Missile defense is an important component of that effort on the premise that we may be able to convince Iran it is not worth spending those countless millions of dollars on perfecting these weapons if its leaders come to realize that we in the West are determined to stay one step ahead of them in neutralizing their strategic impact with a missile defense system.

As the Department of Defense now undertakes its review of the planned GMD deployment to Europe and possible alternatives, this amendment would express the Senate's opinion of what we expect our missile defenses in Europe to deliver, generally.

It would state that the United States expects those missile defenses to be the most capable and affordable and give a defense in the short term, not just to our allies in Europe but to our fellow citizens throughout the United States of America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, very briefly, I want to thank Senator Levin and Senator McCain for their very thoughtful statements in support of this amendment. I thank their staffs for the work that has been done with all of my staff, Senator Sessions, and others to reach this agreement. It is an important statement of policy about our national security in the years ahead. I appreciate all that has been done by everyone here in the spirit of unity.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I call up our amendment No. 1650, as modified.

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

Mr. President, I thank Senator Graham for his overly generous words in my direction. It is always a pleasure to work with him on matters of this kind. Really more than anyone else in the Senate, he knows military law because he practices it in his capacity as a member of the JAG. I thank him for cosponsoring this amendment with me.

Also, I thank Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, and Senator Graham for the extraordinary work they have done in improving the military commission system that has been set up. It is the basis for the amendment that Senator Graham and I put in this evening.

The fact is that military commissions, by one name or another, have played a time-honored role in our country in bringing war criminals to justice. The use of military tribunals dates all the way back to the beginning of our country. Our first President, GEN George Washington, relied on them during the Revolutionary War for the trial of violations of the laws of war.

The United States has continued to utilize military commissions or tribunals for the trial of people accused of violations of the laws of war and related crimes throughout our history.

The fact is we are once more at war today against those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. There is an existing authorization for the use of military force. Military commissions, in my opinion, and Senator Graham's, are, therefore, the appropriate forum for the trial of war criminals captured during this conflict, as they have been throughout our history. And all the more comfortable should we be in saying that after the amendments to the Military Commissions Act have been adopted as part of this National Defense Authorization Act.

I remind our colleagues, because it was done without a lot of debate, that the package of amendments to the Military Commissions Act that has been adopted as part of this legislation, offered by Senators McCain, Levin, and Graham, would ensure lawful, fair, and effective trials by providing a series of protections to the accused for the military commissions, including a prohibition on the use of statements obtained through cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, access to exculpatory evidence, and meaningful appellate review of legal and factual findings.

As distinguished witnesses and authorities have testified at a hearing Chairman Levin led before the Armed Services Committee on this issue 2 weeks ago, according to these witnesses, including people who work as general counsel in the Defense Department, for instance, the military commission provisions in the bill before us not only meet but surpass by far the fundamental standards of fairness and due process required by our Supreme Court, the Geneva Conventions, and the rules of the International Criminal Court.

Given those robust procedural and substantive rights provided by the system of military commissions established in this bill, I must say that I have been surprised, troubled, and I would even go so far as to say astounded that officials of our administration have now made clear that they prefer prosecuting war criminals in Federal district courts here in the United States as opposed to before the military commissions we have established. That was testimony given before the Armed Services Committee in response to questions of the General Counsel of the Defense Department.

Just this week, an interim report was issued by a Department of Defense and Department of Justice task force on the legal questions associated with the detainees. In that report there is this sentence:

There is a presumption that, where feasible, referred cases

will be prosecuted in an Article III court, in keeping with

traditional principles of federal prosecution.

Article III courts, of course, are federal courts.

So it is the testimony of the General Counsel of the Defense Department, and now this interim report from the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice, that has led Senator Graham and me to offer this amendment, because we simply disagree, as we think most Americans and most Members of the Senate do, with the idea that there is a presumption in favor of trying prisoners of war before our Federal courts instead of before military commissions, as has been done throughout our history.

This realizes the worst fears of people that we would begin to criminalize the war on terrorism instead of treating it and its perpetrators as war and criminals of war. This change in direction departs from our history and, in some sense, diminishes the extraordinary work that has been done by Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, Senator Graham, and others to create and improve these military commissions. It may, in fact, cast unfounded doubt on the legitimacy of the convictions obtained by military commissions on the strength of the evidence used to secure convictions in those proceedings and the procedural protections accorded to defendants by the military commissions process.

Our amendment is very simple. It is a long sentence, and I read it, as follows:

It is the sense of Congress that the preferred forum for

the trial of alien unprivileged enemy belligerents subject to

this chapter for violations of the law of war and other

offenses made punishable by this chapter is trial by military

commission under this chapter.

So we adopt wording in the military commissions section of this legislation regarding violations of the law of war and other offenses made punishable by this chapter, and we say that it is our preference that people accused of such crimes of war be tried before the military commissions.

We have created a system of military commissions that I believe offers remarkable protections--perhaps the best ever offered to people in the status of alleged war criminals against our country or any country, against our citizens or the citizens of any country. And, I repeat, obviously we are at war, and therefore we should use these military commissions we have created and preference should be in their direction.

The fact is, where to bring charges against people accused of violating laws of war or, as we have said in the legislation, other offenses made punishable by this chapter is a decision made by the executive branch. It is not one we can control. But we can express an opinion. We can express an opinion to the executive branch, respectfully, that we think they have made a mistake in stating a presumption to try prisoners of war in Federal district courts. Such an approach would cast doubt, as I have said, on the use of military commissions but I think would also set an unfortunate, even dangerous, precedent for the trial of war criminals today or in future conflicts in Federal courts rather than our Nation's time-honored use of military commissions for the violation of the law of war.

I hope we can unite across party lines to adopt this expression of opinion on a most important question.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Chairman Levin for his statement. It is always a very thoughtful and mutually respectful process when you work with Senator Levin, even on matters of disagreement, and I appreciate the resolution.

I would just like to say in response to the comments of my friend from Rhode Island--and there is nothing here intended to in any way disparage the work of the Federal prosecutors, and I appreciate the record he cited of the prosecutions, but the point Senator Graham and I are trying to make, and I hope the whole Senate will, is that violations of the laws of war are inherently different. Regardless of the outcome--how many people are convicted or put in jail or not--those allegations of such crimes belong before military commissions, or tribunals as they have been called throughout our history, not in Federal criminal courts where other violations of our domestic criminal law are handled. Part of that is just an appropriate allocation of responsibility. Part of it is that I think it is important we not fall into a misunderstanding that we are not involved in war. It is a very different kind of war, but it is a war, and we know that from the casualties we suffered on 9/11 and people around the world have suffered before and since in a lot of other cities and countries. So we are making a point of an appropriate forum for the trial of cases, not based on outcome but based on where these allegations are best tried.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 23, 2009 at 9:30 a.m.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on finance

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 23, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on foreign relations

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 23, 2009, at 9:30 a.m.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Select Committee on Intelligence

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 23, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on July 23, 2009, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Worsening Foreclosure Crises: Is It Time to Reconsider Bankruptcy Reform?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 23, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``D.C. Public Schools: Taking Stock of Education Reform.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Power, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on Thursday, on July 23, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bingaman, I ask unanimous consent that Abdullah Feroze, Nora Lamm, and Van Snow, from Senator Bingaman's office be given privileges of the floor for the pendency of S. 1390, the Defense authorization bill, and all votes thereon.

On the alternate engine.

That is fine.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank my friend from Arizona, Senator Kyl, for his very strong statement. I rise to speak in support of this bipartisan amendment which I have cosponsored along with Senator Kyl, Senator Bayh, and Senator McCain.

As you know, President Obama has made a historic offer to Iran's leaders, inviting them to engage in direct diplomacy to resolve the outstanding differences between our two countries. As the President has repeatedly said, the door is open for the Iranians to come in out of the cold, if they choose to do so. It is by suspending their illicit nuclear activities and ending their support for terrorism that the Iranians have a clear path to ending their international isolation and taking their rightful place in the community of nations.

Unfortunately, as Senator Kyl said, it has now been more than 3\1/2\ months since the formal offer of engagement was made by President Obama, and there has been no reply from the Iranians. Meanwhile, Iran's illicit nuclear activities have continued to speed forward, in violation of multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions. Thousands of additional centrifuges are being installed, and more and more fissile material is being stockpiled.

At the same time, Iran's support for terrorist proxies in Iraq, in Lebanon, and in the Palestinian Authority areas has continued. And, of course, over the past month we and the rest of the world have watched with horror as the Iranian regime has engaged in a brutal crackdown against its own people, who have sought no more than basic human rights.

President Obama, together with our international allies, has been very clear that we will not wait indefinitely for the Iranians to respond to our offer of talks, nor will we enter into negotiations--if that is the willingness of the Iranians--that go on without end. Two weeks ago, at the annual G8 summit in Italy, the President joined with other world leaders to make clear to the Iranians that they have until the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, at the end of September, to return to the negotiating table or face the consequences.

The amendment Senators Kyl, Bayh, McCain, and I have put forward would place the full weight of the U.S. Senate behind the time frame that the President and the G8 have articulated. Our amendment expresses our strong hope that Iran seizes this historic opportunity for direct dialogue.

We also make clear that if the Iranians have failed to engage with us diplomatically by the time of that G20 summit 2 months from now, it is our preference that multilateral sanctions be imposed through the United Nations Security Council. However, the Iranian Government--the regime that controls the people of Iran--must also understand that the United States is itself prepared to put in place what Secretary of State Clinton a while ago referred to as crippling sanctions in the event that they in Tehran continue to flaunt the will of the international community.

Specifically, our amendment asks the President to impose sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran and other banks involved in proliferation and terrorist activities, in the event that the Iranians haven't entered into negotiations that are serious by the time of the Pittsburgh summit or if they haven't suspended enrichment and reprocessing activities within 60 days of that summit.

The Central Bank of Iran is the financial lifeline of that regime. It is an entity that our own Treasury Department says has engaged in deceptive financial practices and facilitated the efforts of other Iranian banks that are involved in bankrolling proliferation and terrorist activities to avoid international sanctions, and that have themselves been sanctioned by the U.N. and our Treasury Department as a result.

I will say this. The idea of imposing sanctions on the Iranian Central Bank is not new. It has already been endorsed by a bipartisan majority in this Chamber. Last year, the Senate Banking Committee, under Chairman Dodd, adopted bipartisan legislation by a vote of 19 to 2 to urge the President to immediately impose sanctions against the Central Bank. Also last year, the House of Representatives passed such legislation that urged immediate sanctions.

More recently, the legislation that Senators Bayh, Kyl, and I introduced this spring--the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, S. 908--in addition to the other steps it takes--also expresses the sense of the Senate that the President should impose sanctions against the Central Bank of Iran.

I am very grateful to report that S. 908, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, now has 67 Members of the Senate, a strong bipartisan group of 67, or two-thirds, as cosponsors of that legislation. These cosponsors range all across the ideological spectrum of Members of the Senate, and clearly make the point to Iran and to the rest of the world that whatever other differences we have, we stand together here as a strong majority and beyond the Senate in our concern about the nuclear proliferation and terror-sponsoring activities of the Iranian Government.

You might say, if you are one of the 67 cosponsors of S. 908--which does more than this amendment does but includes it--you have already spoken in favor of this amendment.

This amendment, I want to point out and make clear, in no way ties the President's hand in his diplomacy with Iran. That is not our intent. The amendment is about empowering the President, giving him additional leverage in his diplomacy, by endorsing the same timetable that came out of the G8 summit a short while ago. The effect is this, and I will repeat: The Iranians must appreciate that there will be consequences if they fail to respond to the international community's diplomatic initiatives; in other words, if they continue to speed their nuclear program forward.

I think this amendment will send an unmistakable message to the fanatical regime in Tehran, in support of the G8, in support of President Obama: Either you can engage with the United States and the world community and take steps to suspend your nuclear activities or you can continue on your current course, in which case you will face the crippling sanctions this sense-of-the-Senate resolution calls for.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

I thank my friend from Arizona. I am encouraged by that. And in talking to the other cosponsors, we would be happy to have a voice vote. It would send a message.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that amendment No. 1528 be called up.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased and proud to introduce this amendment with a bipartisan group of cosponsors. To state it briefly, it extends the authorized end strength of the U.S. Army by 30,000 over the next 3 years, effective with the commencement of fiscal year 2010. It doesn't mandate this increase, but it expands the authority of the Secretary of Defense, obviously, with the support and authorization of the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief, to extend the end strength of the U.S. Army. End strength means how many soldiers can the U.S. Army have. Of course, it does this to reduce the tremendous stress on the U.S. Army, which is carrying the burden of combat in two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan today, and over the next year or 18 months will be in this unique position.

Progress has been made, thank God, in Iraq, and the Iraq Security Forces are progressively taking over responsibility for keeping the security in their country. The drawdown of American soldiers is happening in a methodical and responsible way, and I again express my appreciation to President Obama that it is happening in that way. At the same time, we are increasing our troop presence in Afghanistan. Bottom line: The demand for members of the U.S. Army on the battlefield over the next year, 18 months, at the outside 2 years, is going up. If the supply remains constant, that means the stress on every soldier in the U.S. Army and his or her family will not be reduced. As a matter of fact, it will go up. The term for this--which I will get to in a minute--in the Army is ``dwell time.''

This is an amendment that began with members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and a comparable amendment in the House Armed Services Committee, recognizing, as we all do, the tremendous stress that our Army is under, the extraordinary job they are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is really the next great generation of the American military. But we see in it some tough statistics: the increase in mental health problems, the increase in divorces of members of the service, and, worse, of course, the increase in suicides.

There are many things we have supported in this Senate and the Congress--and the administration has--to respond to each one of those problems. But in a way, the most direct thing we can do is to increase the size of the U.S. Army so there is less pressure on every soldier in the Army, in this sense. Every time we add another soldier to the U.S. Army--and we are talking about authorization to add 30,000 more--it means that much more time every other member of the U.S. Army can spend back at base retraining, preparing and, most important of all, spending time with their families.

As I know the Presiding Officer knows--and I know the President of the United States knows it too--the good news is that the Secretary of Defense, Bob Gates, who has done and is doing an extraordinary job for our country with, of course, the support and authorization of President Obama, yesterday announced that he would be temporarily increasing the Active-Duty end strength of the U.S. Army by 22,000 soldiers over the course of the next 3 years.

I cannot sufficiently express my words of appreciation for Secretary Gates's decision. He acted by employing the emergency authority he has in an authorization of the use of force and a built-in statutory waiver he has up to 3 percent of existing end strength to expand the size of the Army. This amendment, which had been planned,

and was in the committee before this great action by Secretary Gates yesterday, is now before us, and I am honored to offer this amendment with a bipartisan group of cosponsors who are listed on this amendment as a way to do two things: The first is that it literally increases from 547,000 to 577,000-plus the authorized end strength of the U.S. Army, and to leave that authority there in case there is a need that Secretary Gates and the President see in the coming 3 years to raise the number.

I will be happy to yield.

Two reasons. The first is that it is a bit beyond what Secretary Gates did. He authorized using the extraordinary powers he possesses as Secretary in this time of conflict up to 22,000 for the next 3 years. The amendment authorizes--doesn't mandate, doesn't appropriate--30,000 for the next 3 years. So it gives some latitude, depending on how conditions go in Iraq and Afghanistan, to go a bit further--8,000 more, if necessary, over the next 3 years.

Second, I say to my friend from Arizona, when this amendment started, we didn't know Secretary Gates was going to do this. I am grateful he did, but this amendment now--frankly, as Secretary Gates himself said to me yesterday, and I appreciate it and I don't think he would mind if I repeated it on the Senate floor--gives the Senate and Congress the opportunity to essentially vindicate and support the step that the Secretary has made and, as he put it, send a message from the Senate to the members of the U.S. Army that help is on the way.

My friend from Arizona is absolutely right. There is no doubt, based on the demand, certainly temporarily, over the next 18 months, perhaps 2 years, as we are drawing down in Iraq, but not as rapidly as we are adding forces in Afghanistan, that there is at least a temporary need for more than the authorized 547,000 members of the U.S. Army.

Absolutely. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons Secretary Gates gave yesterday I will read:

The decision to eliminate the routine use of ``stop loss''

authority in the Army requires a larger personnel flow for

each deploying unit to compensate for those whose contract

expires during the period of deployment.

So, yes, this makes it possible to end the use of stop loss, which is essentially, in layman's terms, a way to require people to stay actively deployed longer than they originally were going to be deployed.

I thank my friend from Arizona. We have illuminated most of the reasons in our exchange why this amendment is important. I will simply add a few more things Secretary Gates said yesterday, which is:

The army has reached a point of diminishing returns in

their multiyear program to reduce the size of its training

and support ``tail.''

That is the training and support which supports the Active-Duty Army.

The cumulative effect of these factors is that the Army

faces a period where its ability to continue to deploy combat

units at acceptable fill rates is at serious risk.

Here is the point I just made in response to Senator McCain's question.

Based on current deployment estimates, this is a temporary

challenge--

A temporary point of stress. We hope and pray that is true. It certainly looks like it is--

which will peak in the coming year and abate over the course

of the next 3 years.

Mr. President, in addition to the Secretary of Defense, we heard from the Army's Chief of Staff, GEN George Casey, and Secretary of the Army Pete Geren, who have been advocates within the Pentagon for this increase in end strength, and I thank them for that. Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, told our Armed Services Committee earlier this year that the light at the end of the tunnel, as he put it, is still more than 2 years away, and that is only if everything goes according to plan, which in combat, obviously, often does not.

Again, I say this is an authorization; it is not a mandate. I will add that Secretary Gates announced yesterday that he will find a way to fund the additional troops in this year and fiscal year 2010--the one that begins October 1--by reprogramming other funds appropriated to the Pentagon for fiscal year 2011, which is the budget that will be presented to us next year, if it is probable that the Department of Defense will require funding as part of its normal operations, and more likely as part of the OCO fund--the overseas contingency operation fund--which supports our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I cannot say enough, I know all of us in the Senate believe we cannot say enough, in gratitude to the members of the U.S. Army who are leading the battle for us against the Islamic extremists and terrorists who attacked us on 9/11/01. We owe them a debt we can never fully repay.

One thing we can do, that Secretary Gates did yesterday and the Senate can do in this amendment, is to send a message to our troops in the field that help is on the way in the most consequential way, which is additional members of the Army.

I ask that when the vote be taken, it be taken by the yeas and nays.

Again I say to my colleagues I am doing that, although I expect there will be very strong support for this, because I believe it is the most visible way for this Senate to send the message to the U.S. Army of appreciation and gratitude, to them and their families, that help is on the way.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, briefly I thank Senator Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, not just for his strong statement of support now but for the support he has given during our committee's deliberations to the goal of achieving an increase in Army end strength.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is with the heaviest of hearts that I rise to remember a dear friend and committed public servant, Lorraine Perona Rooney, who passed away early this morning. I am deeply saddened by Lorraine's death and will keep her friends and family in my thoughts and prayers during this difficult time.

Lorraine, who served the U.S. Senate for over 27 years, was one of a small group of staff members I assembled to assist me when I first took office as a U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut on January 3, 1989. I was tremendously fortunate to have a person of Lorraine's extensive knowledge and years of Senate staff experience to set up my office. She did a wonderful job and kept my office running smoothly for more than 15 years--as office manager and financial director--and did so with style and grace. Many staff members and interns passed through my office during her tenure, and all benefitted from Lorraine's caring guidance, common sense, and expertise. Those who worked with her recall her willingness to go the extra mile to help her coworkers. One member of my staff remembers that Lorraine worked to secure her a parking space closer to the office so that she wouldn't have very far to walk to get to her car after dark.

After graduating from American University with a degree in international relations, Lorraine subsequently worked at Dartmouth College in charge of foreign study programs. Through a contact there, she learned of an opening in the office of Senator John Durkin, Democrat from New Hampshire, and thus began her Senate career in March 1977. Following her work in Senator Durkin's office, Lorraine built her career in the Senate setting up offices for newly elected Members, including Senator Carl Levin, Democrat from Michigan, in 1979, Senator Frank Lautenberg, Democrat from New Jersey, in 1982, and, of course, myself in 1989. Throughout her time with the Senate, Lorraine demonstrated an expertise in creating attractive, functional and comfortable work spaces, not an easy task given our limited space and resources then.

During Lorraine's last few years at my office, she was faced with many serious health problems. Despite her suffering and hardship, she continued to do her utmost in service to me and the citizens of Connecticut. The courage she demonstrated as she faced these personal challenges served as an inspiration for me and my staff.

Those of us who were lucky enough to know Lorraine could not help but be touched by her kindness and warmth. She formed many lasting friendships in the Senate community; she often spoke of the Senate as ``home.'' She was widely respected and beloved among her Senate colleagues for her character, judgment, and professionalism. It is no wonder that after her retirement she continued to stay in touch with so many with whom she had worked.

Lorraine was a dedicated public servant who enriched this institution. I extend my deepest condolences to Lorraine's husband Bernie Rooney and daughter Shannon for their irreplaceable loss.

Mr. President, we honor Lorraine Perona's memory and we cherish her decency and her friendship.