Floor Statements

What is the pending business?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for about 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to expand upon some of my earlier comments, and those of other Members of the Senate, in relation to NASA and the future of human space flight.

I am concerned with aspects of the Augustine Commission's report that add credibility to far-reaching options for furthering our manned space flight program. If Congress and the public are to be asked to spend more for change, then it should be change that will give us the best chance to succeed and to continue to lead the world in human space exploration.

The Chairman of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee, Norm Augustine, announced that safety would be paramount. Yet, from reviewing the preliminary information, there is only one area where mission safety was examined in the report. The Augustine report contained no safety comparison for the various vehicles considered by the panel and no risk assessment based on each option. The only safety issue identified was an assessment of how ``hard'' the panel thought each overall mission would be to achieve--not the safest means to complete the mission successfully. Since safety is the most important issue, these omissions are starling to some of us.

When making comparisons on the safety and performance of the various options, fundamental design differences cannot be lumped together and considered to be equal. Without an honest and thorough examination of the safety and reliability aspects of the various designs and options, the findings of this report are worthless. I would like to know why this blue ribbon panel did not examine these safety aspects.

Constellation's vehicles have been planned and scrutinized by multiple stakeholders, all with a single goal in mind: to provide a safe and reliable human space flight system for our Nation.

Flashy PowerPoint presentations and boisterous claims by potential commercial providers about their easy and simple science solutions to human travel into space sound like the answer to all of our problems. What sounds too good to be true usually is. Are these proposals subject to the same safety standards and testing that have resulted from the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, I would ask? Is there any evidence that the cargo rockets, promised to execute their first servicing mission sometime in 2010, are better than the manned rockets that have been under development for over 4 years? What do the experts say?

NASA's own Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel issued a report in April of this year that stated that ``Commercial Orbital Transportation Services vehicles are not proven to be appropriate to transport NASA personnel.'' Will the current Administrator, Mr. Bolden, who helped write these words, now contradict his statement 6 months after putting his name to them?

Further, I would ask, what happened to the April report findings in the Augustine Commission recommendations? Have there been findings since April that were available to the Augustine Commission that the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel was not privy to? If so, I would certainly look forward to reviewing this new data.

The Augustine Commission states in its own report that while human safety can never be absolutely assured, it is ``not discussed in extensive detail because any concepts falling short in human safety have simply been eliminated from consideration.'' Yet we see the vehicles currently deemed unsafe for our astronauts being used in the Augustine Commission's report as a viable option to go to low Earth orbit.

When asked on September 15, 2009, about the readiness of emerging space contractors to provide manned space flights, former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin said:

To confuse the expectation that one day a commercial

transport of crew will be there, to confuse that expectation

with the assumption of its existence today or in the near

term I think is--is risky in the extreme.

Current and former NASA Administrators are on record registering their doubts regarding the safety of these new commercial contractors.

Companies that are new contractors within the aerospace community have been provided a pathway that could potentially lead to billions in government funding to pursue opportunities to support International Space Station operations, starting with cargo. I believe the contractors wishing to pursue human launches to low Earth orbit should prove they can establish a reliable record of meeting the cargo and trash hauling responsibilities to support the station before we turn over the Nation's human space flight future to them.

Pretty slides and unproven promises will not show us you have the right stuff to be entrusted with the lives of our astronauts. If these companies can be successful--and there is no reason to doubt that eventually, someday, somehow they will be--then NASA, the Congress, and the public might be willing to hand over launches to low Earth orbit. That day is not today and it will not be for years to come.

But until that day arrives, I believe we should follow the path that has the safest manned vehicle, the vehicle furthest along in development, and, as mentioned several times by the Augustine Commission itself, the program that, given appropriate funding, will successfully provide a system that can not only go to the space station but to the Moon and beyond.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the recently restarted Air Force KC-X tanker competition.

On February 29, 2008, after a lengthy competition, the U.S. Air Force announced that the team of Northrop Grumman and EADS was selected to deliver the best, most capable tanker to our warfighters, at a price of $3 billion less than their rival Boeing's offer.

It was only after the GAO sustained a mere 8 out of 111 complaints submitted by the losing team--Boeing--that the award was overturned and the competition was placed in limbo.

Even after GAO's recommendation, there is still nothing to suggest that the KC-45 was not the best tanker solution. This is a very important point to remember. The Air Force's contracting system may have been flawed, but nowhere did GAO state that the KC-45 is not the best tanker for our airmen.

A year later, Defense Secretary Robert Gates terminated the award and canceled the entire tanker acquisition program.

Secretary of Defense Gates' decision to cancel the Air Force's No. 1 acquisition priority outright clearly placed politics and business interests over the interests of the warfighter.

While Secretary Gates may have characterized this decision as a ``cooling off'' period, it sent a clear message that only a Boeing tanker will be acceptable. The defense acquisition policy was unmistakable: No Boeing, no tanker. That is a fundamentally flawed policy that may please some Members of Congress from the States in which Boeing would build the tankers, but it fails to satisfy the critical need for the best new tankers for our warfighters. In that case, politics obviously trumped military necessity and troop welfare.

After review of the September 24 draft RFP that begins the new tanker competition, I again have serious concerns that fairness and capability are being completely ignored.

For a moment, let me elaborate. As a result of the last protest, Northrop Grumman was compelled to submit its proprietary, competitive- sensitive pricing data to the GAO, which, in turn, provided that critical information to Boeing. Let me say it again. Boeing now has all of Northrop Grumman's competitive pricing information. Yet they are going to be competing again.

Boeing knows exactly how the Northrop Grumman team was able to offer the best deal to the Department of Defense during the last competition. Boeing knows all of Northrup Grumman's bidding strategies.

In a competition for a defense contract, nothing is more carefully protected than a company's pricing and bidding strategy.

Let me remind my colleagues here that Northrup Grumman/EADS offered a clearly better plane, at a price that was $3 billion less than Boeing. And now, today, Boeing knows how they did it.

Northrop Grumman has repeatedly asked the Department of Defense to level the playing field by providing them--Northrop Grumman--with Boeing's pricing information from the previous competition. To date, the Pentagon has continually denied Northrop Grumman's requests. The Department of Defense has stated that Northrop Grumman's pricing and bidding strategies are not relevant issues in the current competition, and that the data is outdated.

Not relevant? I could not disagree more. It is intuitively obvious to anyone who is even vaguely familiar with the concept of competitive government bidding that the Department of Defense, from the outset, is tilting the competition toward Boeing. Northrop Grumman is being severely penalized before the game even begins. This situation is inconceivable and must be changed.

Further, after review of the draft RFP, it is becoming increasingly clear that this competition is not structured around what we call a ``best value'' competition that would ensure that our warfighter receives the best plane. Rather, it is structured around the lowest price technically acceptable competition that does one thing and one thing only--it reduces the chances that our warfighters will receive the most superior plane on the market.

One would think that our Air Force's top priority would be to ensure that our men and women in uniform have the best, most capable equipment. It seems to me that is not the case.

A lowest price technically acceptable procurement process focuses heavily on cost and does not take into account additional or advanced capabilities that may be available on the aircraft that will help us in the years to come. This means that price is more important than quality; that performance is not a critical factor; that added capabilities, technology that could help save the lives of our men and women in uniform and have an edge on the opposition, is not a key factor in the draft RFP.

The fact that the draft RFP is structured so that cost is almost the only component considered in the competition makes the aforementioned pricing data issue even more relevant.

When combined with Boeing's knowledge of Northrop Grumman's pricing data and not vice versa, it has become abundantly clear that the Department of Defense and the Air Force have their thumbs on the scale in favor of Boeing.

As was clearly shown in the previous competition, Boeing has a less capable airframe, but Boeing now has all of Northrop Grumman's pricing data and a full understanding of Northrop Grumman's bidding strategies. This information is the holy grail for Boeing that provides them with everything necessary to surely submit a lower cost bid for their less capable aircraft.

If this matter should not be a concern, then there should be no issue whatsoever with the Department of Defense providing Boeing's prior data to Northrop Grumman because Boeing, again, has Northrop Grumman's data, as they recompete.

In order for this competition to be untainted, to be fair, to be at the level of openness and transparency that my colleagues and I were repeatedly assured would be the case, I believe it is imperative that Northrop Grumman be allowed to obtain Boeing's pricing data from the last tanker competition and that the competition shift away from

purely a cost basis to what is best for the warfighter.

It makes no sense for a procurement process that has been continually hampered by scandal, delays, and jail time for certain officials to begin the latest version of this competition with such an absurdly uneven playing field.

As we go forward, it is my sincere hope that the safety of our warfighters and the security of our Nation will become the priority, as it has been in the past, this time and decisions will not be based on political pressures that unfairly tilt competition.

Unless the Department of Defense and the Air Force live up to their commitment of impartiality and transparency, I am fearful that our warfighters will have to settle for second best. Apparently, that is just fine with some, as long as Boeing wins.

I yield the floor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.

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

Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 2625.

Mr. President, I, along with Senator Feinstein, have offered this amendment that would make the U.S. Marshals and the ATF agents, who put their lives on the line in dangerous foreign countries to protect our Nation and our citizens, eligible for danger pay.

The U.S. Marshals and ATF agents are actively assisting Mexican law enforcement and the Mexican military in one of the bloodiest wars in the world today--the Mexican drug war. There have been nearly 10,000 drug war murders and deaths in Mexico since January of 2007. President Calderon has deployed 45,000 troops and 5,000 Federal police to 18 Mexican States to help combat these cartels.

Every week, we read about the gruesome murders of Mexican law enforcement officers, many of whom have our own Federal agents serving at their side. Currently, FBI and DEA agents receive danger pay in Mexico, while U.S. Marshals and ATF agents do not. I believe it is outrageous that these agents--our agents--serving their country and risking their lives on a daily basis, do not receive this compensation like their Department of Justice counterparts.

This amendment I offer on behalf of myself and Senator Feinstein simply brings danger pay parity to the Department of Justice Federal law enforcement officers working in dangerous foreign countries. This amendment, I believe, has a lot of merit, and although Senator Mikulski is not here right now, I believe she would join with me in support of this amendment.

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

Mr. President, I wish to honor the International Fertilizer Development Center, IFDC, as it celebrates the 35th anniversary of its founding today, October 8.

In the wake of the worldwide food and energy shortages of the 1970s, the IFDC was established in Muscle Shoals, AL, to be a national center of excellence with expertise in fertilizers to service the needs of developing countries. Since its inception, the IFDC has worked to address issues such as international food security, the alleviation of global hunger and poverty, environmental protection, and the promotion of economic development and self-sufficiency.

Today, with staff members working in 30 nations throughout Africa, the Near and Far East, and Latin America, the IFDC is critical to ensuring underdeveloped countries have more efficient fertilizer and, therefore, food for their people. The IFDC has helped increase sustainable food production in more than 130 nations and has also contributed to the development of institutional capacity-building through training.

I sincerely congratulate the IFDC on its anniversary and wish it continued success in Muscle Shoals and abroad.

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

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I am pleased to present, with Chairwoman Mikulski, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriation bill for fiscal year 2010.

First, I thank Senator Mikulski and her staff for their continued friendship and the hard work they have put into this bill.

This is truly the most diverse appropriations bill we have, literally affecting all the expanses of our planet and into the outer recesses of the universe.

It covers State and local law enforcement and counterterrorism efforts, oceanic and weather research, trade, standards research, and it keeps our Nation competitive through investment in science and space exploration.

This bill funds the Department of Justice and Commerce, as well as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration or NASA, the National Science Foundation or NSF; and a number of independent agencies, including the U.S. Trade Representative, the Legal Services Corporation, and International Trade Commission, to name a few.

Nothing is more important than the safety of the American people. The committee's recommendation this evening for the Department of Justice is $27.4 billion, which is $311 million over the request.

Senator Mikulski and I have worked to ensure that Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies receive the funding needed to protect our citizens and our communities.

The Department of Commerce is funded in this bill at $14 billion, $254 million over the requested level. This department contains some of our Nation's most important business development, economic, science and research agencies, including the Economic Development Administration, which we know as the EDA, the National Institutes of Science and Technology or NIST, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which we call NOAA.

Senator Mikulski and I have attempted to expand the foundation for our Nation's economic future, as well as providing researchers with the tools to assess our weather, oceans, and environment.

Of the amount provided to the Department of Commerce in the bill before us, $7.3 billion is for the 2010 census and $4.8 billion for NOAA, an increase of $299 million over the request. These additional funds are directed toward research, observation, education, and conservation programs.

For NASA, this bill provides $18.7 billion to move forward with the Agency's current exploration vision, while fully funding the ongoing activities of the space shuttle and the International Space Station.

We are at a challenging point in time for the funding of NASA, particularly human spaceflight. As you well know, Mr. President, the space shuttle is successfully finishing the required deliveries to the space station in its few remaining flights. The International Space Station has a permanent crew of six, which will allow our astronauts to conduct science instead of just station upkeep.

We are also on the verge of having a test flight of the rockets being developed by NASA to once again take humans beyond low Earth orbit. As NASA moves toward retiring the shuttle and leaving the Nation without our own human launch vehicle, I believe we must continue to develop our own capabilities, not only for missions to the space station but for future expeditions as well.

While I commend the Augustine Commission for their hard work, I find many of the aspects proposed in their summary report to be unsatisfactory and perhaps disappointing.

I am baffled by NASA's path forward on the Constellation Program. This program is built on a foundation of proven technologies using existing capabilities and infrastructure. The Ares I team will soon launch the first test flight, and the groundwork for the Ares V heavy lift vehicle is well underway. And yet, instead of simply providing Constellation with funds to move forward, it is delaying the current mission while seeking to have a do-over on plans that have been authorized by both a Republican and Democratic Congress.

NASA and this administration should never forget that the support of Congress will still be necessary to authorize and provide funds as we move forward.

Given the challenges and high cost of access to space, I agree that it is beneficial for NASA to look at all viable options that could be provided by U.S. industries to support operations on the International Space Station and future exploration. However, we must do so, I believe, in a realistic way. NASA must support the program that has the greatest likelihood of success.

The benefits that our society has gained from the human spaceflight program are immeasurable. Almost every facet of our lives that we know today has been touched by discoveries with human spaceflight.

Beyond the direct tangible benefits, there is also the intangible benefit that comes with knowing that America is

leading the world in discovering and exploring new frontiers.

I will not support any future NASA budget request that does not have a robust human exploration program. It must be a program that inspires, yet is also a program grounded in what is possible and not wishful thinking.

If we no longer prioritize space exploration, we can be certain that others on this planet will. A number of the findings by the Augustine Commission would guarantee that other nations, such as Russia, China, and India, will be waving to us as they fly by the space station on their way to the Moon and other planets if we are not careful. We cannot cede our leadership in space, and we must have a viable human space exploration program.

As we are losing global market shares in most industries, we are still the world leader in human spaceflight. I will not support a NASA that squanders that lead, and I hope the Senate will not. Simply put, if that were to happen, I would not support a visionless NASA, and I do not believe the Congress would.

In conclusion, I thank again Senator Mikulski, the chairwoman of this committee, for her leadership on this bill. We have worked together on many issues throughout our years, both serving together in the House and the Senate, and this bill reflects our strong relationship. I ask my colleagues--as she will--to support this bill and to urge its swift passage this week.

Madam President, what is the pending business?

I ask unanimous consent that the current amendment be set aside.

I call up my amendment No. 2594 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Iran and North Korea continue to pose a threat to our Nation and our allies because of their intense efforts at ballistic and nuclear development. My amendment before the Senate now supplements the committee's additional $50 million for ground-based midcourse defense.

The amendment before the Senate is simple. It requires the Missile Defense Agency to conduct two reports related to the ground-based midcourse defense. We need to know the agency's plan for the ground- based interceptor funds in this bill before us. This report would provide further details into exactly what that plan is. I believe this is imperative. Congress and our Nation must fully understand how the Missile Defense Agency will utilize this critical capability for our Nation. The second report asks the Missile Defense Agency to outline the acquisition strategy for the ground-based midcourse defense system over the next 6 years from fiscal year 2011 to 2017.

North Korea and Iran will continue their ballistic efforts, and I believe we must be able to counter those threats.

In its budget request for the year 2010, the administration proposed several funding cuts and eliminations impacting our national missile defense, including a $700 million reduction to GMD. I appreciate Chairman Inouye and Ranking Member Cochran including an additional $50 million in the bill before the Senate for GMD, which will hopefully keep our GBI production line from going cold.

Yet the threat is not diminishing. We must have a plan for countering nations that threaten our security. We need to know the Missile Defense Agency's plan for this fiscal year as well as the next years. Our enemies are still our enemies, and now so more than ever we should be cognizant of the fact that Iran and North Korea are working hard at technological advancement designed to destroy us and our allies.

Despite nearly unanimous opposition in the international community, Iran has pressed on with nuclear ambitions and has shown no intention that I have known of abandoning this reckless path. Every day, Iran continues to add to the thousands of centrifuges it already has to enrich its uranium. It continues to test its ballistic missiles. In fact, the International Atomic Energy Association recently released a report stating that Iran is now working to conjoin ballistic and nuclear capabilities. I believe we need an integrated, layered national missile defense to deter this threat, and we need it now.

Moving forward, I hope that the Missile Defense Agency will ensure our Nation's production line for ground-based interceptors and that their subsystems and components will not die on the vine if we ever have to meet this threat.

The ground-based midcourse defense system and the interceptors in particular are valuable national assets. And I will continue to work with Chairman Inouye, Senator Cochran, and others on the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee to ensure that we have here in the United States a robust national missile defense system.

It is my understanding in talking to the chairman that this amendment has been agreed to by Senator Inouye and Senator Cochran. I hope they will adopt it.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, 1 week after commencing the $1 billion Cash for Clunkers Program, it is so popular that it has used up all its funds.

Could it be that through this program, which entices car buyers with up to $4,500 to trade in their old cars, the government has finally devised a smart way to stimulate the economy?

In a word, no.

Instead, the Federal Government has sent another $1 billion of taxpayer funds into the economic abyss with $2 billion of taxpayers' funds to follow.

It has robbed Peter to pay Paul, to give a kickback to the automotive industry.

Advocates of the Cash for Clunkers Program state the additional $2 billion in funding is necessary because the program is such a great success.

Of course it is. Who does not want free money?

The Cash for Clunkers Program is simply another bailout to prop up a struggling industry wrapped in the political guise of an environmentally friendly program.

While I agree that there are benefits to getting older, less fuel- efficient vehicles off the road, do not be fooled. That is not even what this program accomplishes.

Let me explain.

Under the Cash for Clunkers Program, it does not matter how big a difference in gas mileage there is between the car you are trading in and the car you are buying.

The trade-in must only meet the 18 miles per gallon requirement to be considered a clunker.

After that, environmental concerns end.

As a result, under the Cash for Clunkers Program, replacing an 18 miles per gallon vehicle with one that offers 22 miles per gallon gets a subsidy.

But you do not receive any Federal funds if you replace a 19 miles per gallon vehicle with one that gets 40 miles per gallon.

If improving gas mileage is the goal, then a sliding scale that adjusted the subsidy with the difference in gas mileage between old and new cars would seem reasonable.

Or if reducing emissions from older cars is the objective, the subsidy could be larger for trading in older vehicles.

The Cash for Clunkers Program does not do either.

So, if there are no significant environmental benefits, then the goal must be to help stimulate the economy.

Yet the program has done little to actually stimulate the economy.

Many of the individuals taking advantage of the program's subsidies are not new car buyers spurred by this incentive package, but instead those who put their purchase on hold waiting for the program to launch.

Simply put, these buyers would have bought the car anyway.

Edumunds.com, a noted online site for car sales, stated this number could be over 100,000 car buyers.

Further, Edmunds also published an analysis showing that in any given month, 60,000 to 70,000 ``clunker-like'' deals happen with no government program in place.

Therefore, the 200,000 deals the government was originally prepared to fund through the Cash for Clunkers Program were likely the natural ``clunker'' trade-in rate.

This program squeezed months of normal activity into just a few days.

When the backlog is met, interest in the program will fade, and the facade of economic benefit will disappear.

The Cash for Clunkers Program is a shell game of transferring wealth from the pockets of one taxpayer to another.

We should call it what it really is, another billion dollar auto bailout.

This program is little more than a clunker itself.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to my good friend Joel Pierce Smith, Sr. He was a personal friend who passed away on July 30, 2009, and, along with his family, I mourn his passing.

Joel was born on February 13, 1929, in Samson, AL. After graduating from Florida State University, he went to work at the Birmingham News- Post Herald in 1953. This would mark the start of a newspaper career that would span five decades. Following his work in Birmingham, Joel served as the editor of the the Geneva Reaper for 3 years.

In 1958, Joel moved to Eufaula, AL, and was named editor of the Eufaula Tribune. A year later, he was named publisher. An avid journalist, Joel also edited and published the Cuthbert Times and News Record of Cuthbert, GA. In 1999, Joel handed over the editorial reins of the Eufaula Tribune to his son Jack, though he continued to write his weekly personal column, Candid Comments, until 2006. All told, Joel wrote Candid Comments for 51 years, never missing a week. He truly was an extraordinary newspaperman and, as such, garnered numerous state and national awards. These awards recognized both the quality of his work and his leadership in his community and amongst his peers. Among his honors were the Alabama Press Association's Community Service Award, General Excellence Award, and the Lifetime Achievement Award.

Joel was active in both the Alabama Press Association and the National Newspaper Association throughout his career. He served as president for both the Alabama Press Association and the Alabama Journalism Foundation and he held a seat on the board of directors for the Alabama Press Association and the Georgia Press Association. Additionally, Joel served as the Alabama State Chairman of the National Newspaper Association for many years, chairing the latter's 1992 Governmental Affairs Conference in Washington, DC.

Throughout his distinguished career, Joel remained an active voice for progressive change in Eufaula. Among other things, he encouraged the reorganization of the Chamber of Commerce, promoted tourism in the area, and crusaded for the preservation of Eufaula's architectural heritage. He served on the board of trustees at Birmingham-Southern College for more than 25 years, where he became life trustee, and at Andrew College in Cuthbert, GA. Joel served on the Board of Education of the city of Eufaula and as a trustee at the Lakeside School. His good work was not overlooked in the community and he was honored as the Eufaula Kiwanis Club's Citizen of the Year in 2002 and received the Alabama Historical Commission's Distinguished Service Award.

Joel is loved and will be missed by his wife Ann Sutton Smith and his three sons, Joel Pierce Smith, Jr., Abb Jackson Smith II, and William Sutton Smith. Joel was an inspiration to many and will be remembered as an outstanding husband, father, editor, publisher, friend, and community leader.

I ask the entire Senate to join me in recognizing and honoring the life of my friend, Joel Pierce Smith.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to William Utsey, who passed away on July 18, 2009. A highly successful attorney, William Utsey was a personal friend and along, with his friends and family, I mourn his passing.

William was born on October 28, 1939, in Gilbertown, AL. He graduated from the University of Southern Mississippi in 1962 and received his J.D. from the University of Alabama School of Law. In 1965, William was admitted to the Alabama State Bar. He began his legal career serving as a clerk and later as an attorney with the firm of Clement, Rosen, Hubbard, and Waldrop in Tuscaloosa.

After practicing law for 5 years in Huntsville, William returned to his home in Choctaw County to embark as a solo practitioner. At the time of his death, William was the senior partner of Utsey and Utsey where he practiced with his son. William's fondness of the legal profession extended well past his private practice. He served as president of the Choctaw County Bar Association and the Alabama Association for Justice. In addition, William held memberships to the Alabama State Bar Association, the First Judicial Circuit Bar Association, and the Alabama Trial Lawyers Association.

Most people in west Alabama know William for his many contributions to the Democratic Party in west Alabama. For 20 years, William served as chairman of the Choctaw County Democratic Executive Committee. I knew William to be honest, hard-working, and committed to his family and to the people of Choctaw County.

William is loved and will be missed by his wife Treobye Britton Utsey; his sons William Jacob Utsey and John Jefferson Utsey; his daughter Elizabeth Utsey Sadler; and nine grandchildren. I ask the entire Senate to join me in recognizing and honoring the life of William Utsey.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to my good friend Colonel Lewis Minor Stewart, U.S. Army, Retired. Lewis passed away on July 18, 2009. He was a personal friend and, along with his family, I mourn his passing.

Lewis was born on June 13, 1918, and raised in Marion, AL. He graduated from the Marion Military Institute and attended the University of Alabama School of Law. In 1941, Lewis joined the Army. He was a proud solider whose tours during World War II included fighting with the 261st Infantry, 65th Division, landing in LeHarve, France, and ending the war in Austria. Lewis went on to serve as regimental staff officer and then the commander of 24th Squadron, 4th Constabulary Regiment in Lenz, Austria, during the tensions of the Berlin airlift. He also served 16 months in Korea during the early occupation.

He was awarded several prestigious honors including the Legion of Merit, Bronze Star with Oak Leaf Cluster, Combat Infantry Badge, Expert Infantry Badge, Army Commendation Medal, Army of Occupation Medal, World War II Medal, American Campaign Ribbon, National Defense Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, Korean Service Medal, Korean Conflict Ribbon, and the

Middle Eastern Campaign Ribbon. Lewis was also selected for the Infantry OCS Hall of Fame for obtaining field grade rank starting from the rank of private.

After a distinguished military career, in 1972 Lewis retired at the rank of colonel from the Army. Following his retirement, Lewis returned to Marion and remained very active in the community. He served as administrator for the local Public Housing Authority, formed Stewart Real Estate, rehabilitated two historic homes and a Marion commercial building, served as director of special services for the district attorney, 4th Judicial Circuit, AL. He was also deeply involved in the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Perry County Historical Society, and the Lions Club. As an active member of St. Wilfred's Episcopal Church, Lewis served as senior warden of the Vestry and led the revival of the church's historic cemetery.

Lewis is loved and will be missed by his two sons Lewis Minor Stewart, Jr. and SG Matthew Rebel Stewart, U.S. Army, Retired, as well as his four grandchildren, three great-grandchildren, and two sisters. Lewis was an inspiration to many and will be remembered as an outstanding husband, father, soldier, churchman, community contributor, friend, and leader.

I ask the entire Senate to join me in recognizing and honoring the life of my great friend, Lewis Minor Stewart.

Madam President, I rise with concern regarding the nomination of Mr. Robert Groves to serve as Director of the Census. I have some of the same concerns my colleague from Louisiana has.

Conducting the census is a vital constitutional obligation. Under the U.S. Constitution, the country conducts a census every 10 years to determine apportionment to Congress. Article I, section 2 of the Constitution mandates ``enumeration'' to determine the allocation of seats for each State in the U.S. House of Representatives, as the Chair well knows. By extension, the census also determines the composition of the electoral college which chooses the President of the United States. The information collected from the census has a significant impact on the distribution of political power in this country.

The results of this process are a major factor in deciding where congressional district lines are drawn within each State. Through redistricting, political parties can maximize their own party's clout, while minimizing the opposition. If the census were politicized, the party in control could arguably perpetuate its hold on political power.

The results of the census are also enormously important in another way--the allocation of Federal funds. Theoretically, if the census were to become politicized, the political party controlling the census process could disproportionately steer Federal funding to areas dominated by its own Members through a skewing of census numbers. This could shift billions of Federal dollars for roads, schools, and hospitals over the next 10 years from some parts of the country to others because of the population-driven financing formula.

The census is vastly important and must proceed in as reliable and accurate a manner as possible.

On March 20 of this year, I wrote to President Obama regarding reports that the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now known as ACORN--that is what they go by--has signed as a national partner with the U.S. Census Bureau to assist with recruiting temporary census workers. I wish to say this again because it was disturbing to me: On March 20, I wrote to President Obama regarding reports that the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now--ACORN--had signed as a national partner with the U.S. Census Bureau to assist the census with recruiting temporary Census workers. That letter remains unanswered.

I cannot support the nomination of Mr. Groves when the administration he works for would partner with such a questionable organization as

Would the Senator from Connecticut yield to me for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy?

A the Senator knows, credit card issuers often offer so- called ``deferred interest'' programs for the benefit of cardholders. To my knowledge, the legislation would not affect the ability to offer these types of programs, is that the Senator's understanding?

I appreciate that. For purposes of clarifying the intent of this legislation, I would like to ask an additional question. The legislation includes provisions to prohibit a balance calculation method known as ``two-cycle'' billing. This provision would have the effect of prohibiting the card issuer from assessing interest on balances from the immediately preceding billing cycle as a result of a loss of a grace period. Is it the Senator's understanding that this provision would not affect a credit card issuer's ability to offer deferred interest programs?

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I rise today to support and thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the Senator from Hawaii, for his amendment to strike the Guantanamo Bay funding in the supplemental bill before us.

Last week in the Appropriations Committee which he chairs, I raised this issue at the markup with the intent to strike the funding for the Department of Justice. At the behest of the chairman and ranking member, I did not offer the amendment which I intended to offer today.

This supplemental, as reported out of the Appropriations Committee, fulfilled the Department of Justice request originally for $30 million to fund the President's reckless campaign promise to shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and determine the fate of the 241 terrorists being held there.

I also believe that funding for the Department of Justice to carry out the President's Executive order is just the beginning of efforts to begin the investigations of U.S. officials who interrogated terrorists who killed or attempted to kill American citizens.

In a Department of Justice hearing before the Appropriations Subcommittee on May 7, I asked the Attorney General if he knew about or sanctioned any of the renditions that occurred when he served as the Deputy Attorney General during the Clinton administration. He said he did, but could not provide specifics and would get back to the committee with a response. We are still waiting for that response. Yesterday, in following up with that, I sent a letter to the Attorney General following up on many of the unanswered questions left after the hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed at this point in the Record.

Mr. President, renditions and interrogations were carried out on Attorney General Holder's watch, when he was the Deputy Attorney General. I have serious concerns that the Attorney General could eventually be leading investigations and prosecutions against U.S. officials who carried out the very same actions he approved during his time as Deputy Attorney General.

Yet the Executive orders failed to include any investigation of his role in approving renditions of detainees and terrorists that occurred during his previous tenure at the Justice Department.

To go back in time, the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center occurred on February 26, 1993. We later saw the bombings of the USS Cole, the embassies in Africa, and Khobar Towers take place before the second attack on the World Trade Center.

Many of the terrorists who committed these acts were trained in the very same camps as the terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay. When I asked the Attorney General if the Government had the legal authority to admit someone who had received terrorist training into the United States, he would not answer the question directly. He indicated he would not release anyone who he thought was a terrorist in the United States--who he thought.

All of the detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, I believe, are terrorists. Does anyone but the administration and the Attorney General believe anything to the contrary? I think it is misguided to close a facility housing terrorists when there is no plan. All of the prisoners housed at Guantanamo Bay are terrorists. Terrorists attacked our Nation and killed our citizens and pose a threat still today to our national security.

We should not, I believe, let this Attorney General or anyone else brand these terrorists as victims worthy of living in the United States of America, nor should we follow the plans of the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, who suggested that terrorists be provided with a taxpayer-funded subsidy to establish a new life here in America.

Until we are clear about Attorney General Holder's role in renditions and interrogations prior to 9/11, and what this administration is proposing to do with these terrorists once Guantanamo is closed, I believe it is premature to provide this funding.

I again commend the chairman for his actions today and I believe the Senate is on the right track. I hope we stay there.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to join in and associate myself with some of the remarks my colleague, the chairman of the committee, Senator Dodd, has made. One, we have what we think, with the Dodd- Shelby substitute, is a step in the right direction. It is a step in the right direction for consumers. It is also a step in the right direction to bring balance to the credit card industry. Is it everything I would want from the Republican side? No, but it is not everything that Senator Dodd and some of the Democrats would want. We have worked together to forge an outcome. We have put a lot of thought and a lot of work into this, as have our staffs, who have worked days and nights. We are close. We could pass this bill today if we could bring a few more people together. I think this is a milestone as far as protecting consumers, informing consumers, as well as to give some balance.

You cannot take risk out of the marketplace. You have to consider risk when you make loans. We have some of that in here. But we have great reforms in here that I think we can live with. Some people don't want a bill on both sides, or the others want something that is probably not achievable, not good for the economy, and not good for the American people. We have to remember that the credit card business does extend credit, to some extent, to people where that is their only credit. This bill will at least let them know a lot of the terms upfront. It will let

them know what they are paying, and so forth. It is a step in the right direction. I hope we can pass that bill. I would like to do it today.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent the Collins amendment, No. 1107, be modified with the changes at the desk.