Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. KYL

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, yesterday I spoke to the events of January 8 in Tucson, AZ, specifically referencing the people we are honoring by the resolution that is before us today. At 2:30 this afternoon, we will have an opportunity to act as a body, Democrats and Republicans from all parts of our country, to recognize the people who were injured, the families of those who were killed, and, of course, the heroes of the tragic Tucson shooting. On that morning of January 8, Representative Gabrielle Giffords arrived at a Tucson Safeway store for her ``Congress on Your Corner'' event. She was there to meet with constituents, which is something she enjoyed doing very much. This was the first such event of the year. She had hosted others previously. She was joined by members of her staff. Among them were Pam Simon, Ron Barber, Gabriel Zimmerman, and Daniel Hernandez, an intern. They stood alongside as Congresswoman Giffords greeted her constituents who had lined up to speak with her. One of those individuals was Judge John Roll, chief judge of the U.S. District Court of Arizona, a personal friend of mine. Like most mornings, he had attended mass. Then he decided to stop by the Safeway to thank the Congresswoman for her assistance in dealing with the court's overwhelming caseload. Also attending the event was 9-year-old Christina-Taylor Green, who, like Congresswoman Giffords, had recently won elected office. This third grader had recently been elected to the student council by Mesa Verde Elementary School. Dorothy Morris and her husband George, a retired marine, were attending the event together. And Phyllis Schneck, a great grandmother who spent the winters in Tucson but was actually from New Jersey, was there as well, as were Dorwan and Mavy Stoddard. As all of these people were waiting to speak to Congresswoman Giffords, a gunman approached and shot the Congresswoman in the head, then turning his gun on the others in line. Gabriel Zimmerman, Judge Roll, Christina-Taylor Green, Dorothy Morris, Phyllis Schneck, and Dorwan Stoddard were all killed. George Morris, Mavy Stoddard, Pamela Simon, Ron Barber, and the Congresswoman were injured, along with eight others. Those who were killed had much more to offer in their lives. Gabe, the Congresswoman's director of community outreach, was only 30 years old. He was engaged to be married. According to news reports, he was killed while rushing to assist others. He worked closely with my Tucson staff. Judge Roll was not only a very distinguished and respected jurist but was known most of all in the Tucson community for his kindness and courtesy. He was killed as he tried to protect Ron Barber, who had been shot just moments before. Christina-Taylor Green, as I mentioned, was only 9 years old, a third grader. Dorothy Morris was married for 50 years to George, and he was injured trying to protect his wife. The couple has two daughters. I met one of them when I visited with George in the facility in which he is recuperating, where I was last Friday. Phyllis, like others in this group, was a volunteer at her church. She was also known for her cooking. Dorwan Stoddard I mentioned was also a church volunteer, and he, too, was shot as he dove to the ground to cover his wife, who escaped with wounds to her legs. I had an opportunity to visit with her again Friday as well. As we know, the gunman was prepared to take more lives. His plans for more bloodshed were thwarted by brave and selfless citizens. Their stories have been documented in the media in the past few weeks, but a few of their heroic acts are worth recounting here. After a bullet grazed his head and took him to the ground, Bill Badger, a 74-year-old retired Army colonel--and in good shape, I might add--got up and he helped hold the gunman down until the police arrived. Anna Ballis was shopping that morning at Safeway. She was leaving the store when the shooting began. According to reports, she rushed to the aid of Barber after a bullet hit an artery in his leg. Anna is the mother of two U.S. marines who have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan multiple times. I mentioned yesterday visiting Ron Barber in the hospital, holding Anna's hand, repeating over and over again how she had saved his life. Such multiple acts of bravery and kindness. Daniel Hernandez was in the gallery at the State of the Union speech last night. He is a 21-year-old intern for Congresswoman Giffords. He rushed to her aid right after the incident. He had some training in first aid and applied pressure to her wounds, which prevented her from bleeding more than she did. He stayed with her even after emergency service personnel arrived. Sixty-one-year-old Patricia Maisch grabbed the magazine of additional ammunition the gunman was hoping to reload in his weapon and then administered first aid to a shooting victim. Steve Rayle, a doctor and former emergency room physician, helped subdue the gunman until law enforcement arrived, and then he, too, helped to care for the injured. As the gunman was trying to reload his weapon, Roger Salzgeber wrestled him down from behind. Joseph Zamudio ran toward the scene from a nearby store when he heard the shots being fired and helped subdue the gunman again until law enforcement officers arrived. We are obviously grateful for these acts of bravery. We are proud of the people I have mentioned but also all of the emergency workers who quickly arrived on the scene and provided lifesaving aid and comfort to the injured in the very crucial moments following the attack. I must mention also the incredible team of professionals, the surgeons and other highly skilled personnel at University Medical Center. We are proud of that facility in southern Arizona, and they certainly showed their competence in dealing with all of the wounded and some who died. It has now been more than 2 weeks since the tragedy, and the families who lost loved ones are obviously still grieving. We all pray that they find comfort in the days ahead, and we hope and pray that the wounded will soon make full recoveries. In recent days, we have received some good news in that regard as those who were wounded are beginning to recover and leave the hospital. Our friend and colleague Gabby Giffords, although she remains in serious condition, we are heartened to hear positive reports from her doctors, and we wish her the very best as she begins a new phase of her recovery in Houston. The tragedy in Tucson was a shock to us all. It is difficult to comprehend that such horror could be visited upon such fine individuals and their families. In some respects, however, we see once again how it has brought out the best in good people. In honor of the victims and the heroes of this tragic event, Senator McCain and I ask our colleagues in the Senate to pass S. Res. 14. We can do little to bring solace to those who lost loved ones, but we can affirm that this body is united in its grief for the fallen, its admiration for the heroes, and prayers for the injured. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, my State has lost an outstanding jurist, a true and able public servant, and a great Arizonan in Judge John M. Roll. In his honor, my Arizona colleague, Senator McCain, and I propose naming the soon-to-be constructed Yuma Federal courthouse the ``Judge John M. Roll United States Courthouse.'' Judge John Roll was the top proponent for the addition of a new courthouse in Yuma, which is intended to help deal with the vast number of Federal cases in the underserved Yuma sector. He was involved in nearly every aspect of its approval, working tirelessly to overcome the many obstacles that arose during the process and spending countless hours poring over designs and meeting with architects and contractors. Without Judge Roll's energy and enthusiasm the project may not have been accomplished. We name special places after special people not just to thank them, although we do, but to honor the qualities that make them exceptional and distinct. I had the privilege and honor of working with Judge John Roll for many years. He was known for his fairness to all who appeared in his courtroom, both plaintiffs and defendants. As chief judge, he was a vigorous advocate, working to guarantee the Federal courts in Arizona were capable of handing their extraordinary caseload. In fact, he died protecting the life of a member of Representative Gifford's staff with whom he had just been discussing the need to designate the need for more judges as a judicial emergency. We are eternally grateful for his many years of public service. I believe naming the courthouse in his honor befits the rich legacy he leaves behind. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation in honor of my friend Judge John Roll.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, my State has lost an outstanding jurist, a true and able public servant, and a great Arizonan in Judge John M. Roll. In his honor, my Arizona colleague, Senator McCain, and I propose naming the soon-to-be constructed Yuma Federal courthouse the ``Judge John M. Roll United States Courthouse.'' Judge John Roll was the top proponent for the addition of a new courthouse in Yuma, which is intended to help deal with the vast number of Federal cases in the underserved Yuma sector. He was involved in nearly every aspect of its approval, working tirelessly to overcome the many obstacles that arose during the process and spending countless hours poring over designs and meeting with architects and contractors. Without Judge Roll's energy and enthusiasm the project may not have been accomplished. We name special places after special people not just to thank them, although we do, but to honor the qualities that make them exceptional and distinct. I had the privilege and honor of working with Judge John Roll for many years. He was known for his fairness to all who appeared in his courtroom, both plaintiffs and defendants. As chief judge, he was a vigorous advocate, working to guarantee the Federal courts in Arizona were capable of handing their extraordinary caseload. In fact, he died protecting the life of a member of Representative Gifford's staff with whom he had just been discussing the need to designate the need for more judges as a judicial emergency. We are eternally grateful for his many years of public service. I believe naming the courthouse in his honor befits the rich legacy he leaves behind. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation in honor of my friend Judge John Roll.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I would like to call timeout from this partisan discussion to speak for a moment about the events in Tucson of January 8. It is the first opportunity I have had to address my colleagues about the tragedy of that day. The theme I would like to discuss is the goodness of people because if I have gotten any lesson from this, after meeting and talking with all of the people whom I could who were involved in this tragedy, the overwhelming notion of the goodness of people is what I am most left with. Tomorrow, Senator McCain and I will offer a resolution in support of the victims of the shooting, offering condolences to those who were lost and their loved ones and our prayers for the recovery of those who were injured and expressing appreciation to those who engaged in real acts of heroism. We will have time more formally to talk about it when we do that tomorrow, but I wanted to share some thoughts from my heart based on my interaction with the people over the last 2 weeks after this event occurred. It begins with the proposition that Tucson likes to call itself a town, not a city. It is over half a million people. But you are all familiar with communities which, though large in numbers, seem small because people work together, they play together, and they have a sense of community and of helping and working with each other. That is Tucson, where my wife and I both attended the University of Arizona. The Safeway where this event occurred is only two blocks from my Tucson office, and the head of my Tucson office and his staff were at the Safeway that Saturday morning shopping, and they left about 7 or 8 minutes before this occurred. Judge John Roll, who was a very close friend and attended Mass virtually every morning, had just come from Mass and had decided to come to the Safeway to express his appreciation to Representative Gabrielle Giffords. They were friends. Among other things, he wanted to tell her he appreciated her signing a letter, along with Representative Grijalva, that supported the Arizona Federal District Court in its desire to be named an emergency district by the commission that does that for the Federal courts because of the overwhelming caseload in that court. Judge Roll, though he had significant administrative responsibilities, kept a full caseload himself because to do otherwise would have been to put part of the burden onto his colleagues. So he was really carrying two separate loads, administering a very busy court, and at the same time acting as a judge on all of his cases. One of the things he and I had been working on--in fact, Senator Barrasso, Senator LeMieux, and I had lunch with Judge Roll the Friday after the election to talk about how we could strengthen the courts, especially because of the crushing caseload from drug and immigration cases because that is the district that is right down on the border. Part of his work, which I was working with him on, was to try to find ways to ameliorate the load of this court and potentially get some additional magistrates, if not judges, to help handle the caseload. When Representative Giffords decided to hold this ``Congress on Your Corner'' event, many of the people on her Tucson staff went with her to the event. They are very devoted to her. I do not know anyone who enjoys meeting with constituents more than Representative Giffords. So she had several staff people there too. When the gunman came, he immediately headed for her. His intention was obviously to do her harm, but right after shooting Representative Giffords, he began to shoot the people on her staff and the others waiting in line to talk to her. This is where some of the goodness of the people comes out. I mean, I talked about the goodness of the people. Judge Roll did not have to say ``thank you'' to Representative Giffords, but he went out of his way to try to do that. When Ron Barber, the head of Representative Giffords' Tucson staff, was shot, Judge Roll, the cameras show, pushed him down under a table and put his body over Ron Barber's body and thus took the bullet that killed John Roll. Talk about the goodness of people. At his funeral, everyone in Tucson and in Arizona who knew Judge Roll spoke not just of his abilities as a jurist and his public service but his goodness, his love for his wife Maureen, their three sons, their grandchildren. Incidentally, three of his grandchildren spoke. It was so moving when they talked about the love they had for their grandfather, who took a lot of time with each of them to teach them how to swim, to play basketball, and so on. The goodness of people. Representative Giffords' staff was there. They liked her and were very willing to be with her on a Saturday morning when they could have been doing something else with their families. Gabe Zimmerman, just 30 years old, was one of those staff people, and he, too, lost his life. My staff in Tucson really enjoyed working with Gabe. Now, I am a Republican, they are Republicans, and Gabe is a Democrat working for a Democratic Representative. That did not matter to them. They really enjoyed working together for the same constituents. And I will tell you, my Tucson staff has taken his loss very hard. There were others from his staff who were there, one of whom is an intern we are going to see this evening. He is going to be sitting in the President's box. His name is Daniel Hernandez. We saw him at the ceremony in Tucson at the University of Arizona on Wednesday after the shooting. He was one of the people who immediately went to Representative Giffords' aid and continued to staunch her bleeding. The goodness of people--his unselfish act to help her. Pam Simon was another one of her staffers who were shot. I had a chance to visit with Pam in the hospital and then after. There she is with wounds. A bullet went in and out of her arm and another in her leg. She could not wait to get back to work, and she has done so now. The other people who were shot there--Christina Taylor Green was the 9-year-old. The things that were said about her remind me so much of my granddaughter, my youngest granddaughter. The hugest heart you can ever imagine, athletic and yet studious, interested in government--all the things you would want in a young woman. President Obama spoke eloquently about her in his remarks on that Wednesday. She was taken to the event with a friend who just wanted to expose her to Representative Giffords and a little bit about our government. Dorothy Morris. Now, I did not know Dorothy, but I knew her husband George. They had communicated with me, and I visited with George a couple of times after this event. He is a retired marine. I will tell you, he is having a hard time with this because he said that Dot, his wife, would follow him--in his words, ``She would follow me to hell.'' Well, she is obviously in a different place, and he is going to be as well. But the fact is, she did not particularly want to go that morning, but he is a Republican, he wanted to go talk to Representative Giffords because he thought he could talk to her just in the way that we do about issues and have a good conversation with somebody he did not totally agree with. Dorwan and Mavy Stoddard. Dorwan was killed. His whole recent life was devoted to service at his church. I visited with Mavy at her home. Her two daughters were there and a very good friend of ours, Ed Biggers, from Tucson, who also attends their church. The kindness of all of those people and the way they talked about the others involved, as well as, as you can see, the members of family and friends helping each other, was, as I said, an impression that will stick with me forever. Phyllis Schneck, who everyone agreed was a wonderful grandmother, spent her winters in Tucson--she lived in New Jersey. All of these folks were human beings with friends, with family, with futures, and to have all of them taken from us is a real tragedy. What can we take from that? At this time, I think I have gone almost 10 minutes. Tomorrow, I will mention some of the other heroes. I will take a second with some of them, though. Bill Badger, a retired Army colonel, did not want to talk about his heroism, but he helped to subdue the assailant. Anna Ballis, who has two sons, both of whom are U.S. marines who have done repeated tours in Afghanistan and Iraq, was in the Safeway, came out, and immediately began administering to Ron Barber. I went to visit Ron in the hospital at the same time Anna had gotten there, a few minutes before, and Ron was holding her hand the entire time, saying: This is the lady who saved my life. Just a tremendous act of selfless courage on her part and showing again the wonderful humanity of all of the people there. Steve Rayle, a doctor, a former emergency room doc, was there and helped to subdue the assailant and so on. There are many others. We will talk about some of the others tomorrow when we express more formally our views on this resolution. I know all of our colleagues will want to join us in supporting this resolution to let the folks of Tucson know we appreciate what they have endured here, we appreciate the heroism. Our prayers are with the victims, and our hearts go out to all of those who were injured in some way or other. From this, among the lessons we learned is that people have innate goodness. We all have a side of us that we wish we did not have sometimes too frequently expressed on the floor of this body. But maybe for a little while, we can acknowledge the fact that there is goodness in everyone, and I saw so much of that in all of these people drawn from all over the community, different walks of life, different political parties, different ages. Yet when they came together, what was most obvious? It was their sacrifice and their goodness. I think that is something that should be a lesson to all of us. Tomorrow, I will speak more formally, as I said, about this resolution. But I am deeply grateful for the expressions of condolence and support all of my colleagues have presented to me and to Senator McCain.

Mr. KYL

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

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, this amendment has to do with the modernization of our nuclear weapons enterprise. It is a subject with which we began this debate. As we get toward the end of the debate, it remains a piece of unfinished business with which I think we need to deal. Remember, the nuclear enterprise we are talking about consists primarily of the facilities that are used to work on our nuclear weapons, as well as the weapons and importantly the scientists who work in those facilities. They represent our National Laboratories, as well as other production facilities and related facilities. The point I think is important for people to remember is that unlike all of the other nuclear powers in the world today, the United States does not have an active modernization program for our nuclear deterrent, a program which enables us, for example, to remanufacture a component of a weapon and replace an existing weapon with that. The need for this has been made very clear by all of the people in the administration who have considered this, including Secretary of Defense Gates. The Secretary, remember, is, in effect, the customer for the Department of Energy, which is the Department responsible for producing these weapons. The budget we talk about is a Department of Energy budget, but it is really to produce weapons for use by the Secretary of Defense. Here is what he said about the need to modernize the production complex, which is what we call that group of facilities, as well as the stockpile: To be blunt, there is absolutely no way we can maintain a credible deterrent and reduce the number of weapons in our stockpile without either resorting to testing our stockpile or pursuing a modernization program. Each year, our Laboratory Directors and the Secretary of Energy are required to provide a certification to the President that certifies the status of the weapons in the stockpile and makes determinations as to whether those weapons are safe, secure, and reliable without the need for testing. Each year, as we discussed in our closed session, there are reports about the status of these weapons. I will talk in a moment about the material we discussed in the closed session. But suffice it to say here that there is a great need for us to move with alacrity to bring up to date the weapons that are in our stockpile and that requires modernization of the facilities and related equipment to accomplish that task. This will require a substantial investment over the next decade. Unfortunately, over the years, these facilities have been allowed to deteriorate, our capacity to atrophy, and our scientists to retire without doing what is necessary to bring these weapons up to date. The current budget projection, as expressed in the 1251 report update, which was dated November 17, 2010, initiates that modernization but clearly cannot accurately predict future requirements. This is the problem we have dealt with here. The report acknowledges that we have a problem and can estimate today what we think we can spend over the next few years--say, 5 years--but it is hard to estimate beyond that as to what the exact cost of this is going to be. I try to deal with that in this particular amendment. The Laboratory Directors responsible for certifying our nuclear weapons recently wrote in a letter: As we emphasized in our testimonies, implementation of the future vision of the nuclear deterrent . . . will require sustained attention and continued refinement. In other words, each year they can get their estimates more accurate, as one might expect, and define more specifically what the exact requirements are. In this case, that generally means an increase in costs in one area or another. In fact, Vice President Biden, speaking to this precise problem, said: [W]e expect that funding requirements will increase in future budget years. We know that is going to happen. The question is, can we be any more particular in the funding that we require. My amendment seeks to be a little bit more precise or a little bit more specific than the current language. At the crux of this modernization program is a need for a firm commitment for the construction of two critical manufacturing facilities. They are called the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement, or CMRR, plutonium facility--that is at Los Alamos Laboratory--and the Uranium Processing Facility, or UPF at the so- called Y-12 facility at Oak Ridge, TN. Without these, the capacity to perform stockpile maintenance will be lost by 2020 and there will be no capability to modernize our aging stockpile. For Members to recall briefly, these are, in many cases, facilities that go all the way back to the Manhattan Project, the project that created the atomic weapons that enabled us to conclude World War II. Some of these buildings were built as early as 1942, and they are not in good shape. In fact, when I was with one of my colleagues from Tennessee visiting the Y-12 facility, I asked one of the people responsible for a particular part of the facility what his biggest concern was. He said: My biggest concern is keeping this thing going for another 10 or 12 years. When you see the facility, you can see that. And that is no way to deal with the most sophisticated weapons that mankind has ever invented. As I said, the current plan is a big improvement over what we had just a year or so ago. We got together with the administration and asked them to relook at the plan they had submitted and identify areas where there were deficiencies in funding or planning. They came back with an updated report that revealed funding requirements that had previously not been dealt with. There was a little over $4 billion in funding added to the first 5 years of the 10-year program we are looking at as a result. But even there, there was an argument that there were uncertainties, they were only at a certain point in the planning of these two large facilities, and that those funds would be inadequate. To note something for our colleagues and of which the Presiding Officer is very well aware, being one of the two Senators responsible for the Los Alamos facilities, he will recall both he and his colleague and others of us, in visiting Los Alamos, were told about the problems of building a facility there where there theoretically could be an earthquake in the near vicinity and the costs of construction have increased dramatically because of the physical needs to protect that facility against any conceivable kind of physical problem. That has increased the cost of the facilities, and they are trying to get a handle on how much they will actually be. They are pretty clear about a ball-park estimate, but a ball-park estimate is not quite good enough for these purposes, as we know. I will conclude by saying I am a little distressed by the news stories. We cannot expect the news media to have gotten into the detail required to actually make policy. They put it in a political context that the administration put another $4 billion into the pot and why shouldn't that satisfy people like me. Of course, that is totally beside the point. We are simply trying to get a better handle on how much money will be needed and to be able to plan for that funding in a way that gets it to the facilities in the most expeditious way possible so that, A, we can complete the work that has to be done in time and, B, that will save a lot of money, about $200 million a year. There is every reason to want to understand how much it will cost and get it done quickly. It is not about adding $4 billion. That does not begin to cover the cost of these items. It is not a matter of some kind of negotiation that additional money was thrown in the pot and is that not good enough. It is a matter of continuing to focus as the cost of these facilities evolves and as the requirements evolve, so that Congress, with the administration's request in its budgets, can provide the funding that is necessary when it is necessary to get these facilities completed as quickly as possible in order to achieve our modernization goals. There is no dispute about the fact that there will be additional money required. It is just a question of what to do about it. The updated budget, while committing additional funds to repairing these facilities, will not be able to eliminate even over 10 years, for example, the more than $2 billion of documented maintenance issues. There are some things that are simply outside the budget and need to be dealt with. My biggest concern in the updated modernization plan is actually that it added to the delays. What we should be doing is trying to telescope these projects as much as possible so we can meet the deadlines for the refurbishing of our weapons--or maintenance of our weapons, I should say--rather--than extending the time for the completion of the facilities. But unfortunately, that is what the latest report did. Instead of accelerating construction of these two most critical facilities, the CMRR and the UPF, the updated plan now delays completion to 2023 and 2024, respectively, rather than 2020. As we recall from the executive session we had a couple of days ago, there was information presented as to why these facilities absolutely needed to be completed by 2020 in order to accomplish the life extension projects for some of our weapons. Delay in these facilities will hamper efforts to perform these critical life extensions of our warheads and not inconsequentially add significant costs, again, primarily to keep these aging facilities operational. As an example, we have to put a brandnew roof on the facility at Los Alamos even though the facility in 10 or 12 years is no longer going to be used because it will be replaced. But the roof is so bad that the work we have to do in there is affected by the weather, and so we have to build a roof. That is an expenditure one hates to make because in 10 or 12 years that building is not going to be used anymore. But that is the state of repair we are in. Each year of delay adds to those kinds of maintenance costs. Senator Corker and I and Senator Alexander were told at the Y-12 facility that it is about a $200-million-a-year cost to keep these aging facilities going that we can eliminate if we can complete the construction of these two large facilities. One-fourth of the newest increase of this $4.1 billion, of which I spoke, for the next 4 years does not even go to the buildings or the facility. It simply meets an obligation for unfunded pensions that have been allowed to accumulate over the years. The only good news about that is, I guess, they would probably have stolen the money from one of the accounts that directly deals with the modernization of our weapons in order to meet those unfunded pension obligations. So I am glad we were able to put the billion dollars in there. But when they talk about $4 billion more for science work on these weapons, that is not true. Fully one-fourth of it goes to meet these unfunded pension obligations. There is a need for things outside the science, but clearly the science requirements are the key ones we are trying to get money to as much as we can. The key point also is that the modernization is independent of the ratification of the treaty. It is true that as we reduce the number of warheads, there is even more of a requirement that we know the warheads we have will do their job because we do not have a backup warhead sitting in a storeroom, basically in the event something does not work if that is deployed right now. It is true that as we reduce the number, we have to pay even more attention to whether they are all safe, secure, and reliable. But it is also a fact that the modernization is independent of the ratification of the treaty. During the hearings that were conducted on this treaty, all 16 experts who provided testimony spoke of the requirement for modernization. Many indicated it is a requirement irrespective of START. That is a point that has been made by others as well. For example, former Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham in an op-ed recently said: The Obama administration's decision to support increased investment in the maintenance of our nuclear weapons lab and stockpile is correct and long overdue . . . But the fact that the administration has revised its policy for the better is in itself no reason for any Senator to endorse START . . . The START treaty and beefed up funding for our nuclear enterprise are two separate issues that should remain distinct. The point was also made by the person responsible for this modernization program--Deputy NNSA Administrator Tom D'Agostino. He said: ``Our plans for investment in and modernization of the modern security enterprise are essential, irrespective of whether or not the START treaty is ratified.'' So this has to be done whether the treaty is ratified or not, and I think everybody acknowledges that fact. So we believe the resolution of ratification needs to address these issues by providing a couple conditions, and we have modified the original language in order to try to get an agreement. If we can't, we will vote on it and see what happens, but I am hoping my colleagues will agree. The first is something I know has been agreed to; that is, a condition the President will provide an annual update of the section 1251 report. The administration is agreeable to this, and it is the way for Congress to be annually advised of the status of this construction, the status of the facilities, and what more may need to be done on that. Presumably, that will be provided at or about the time the budget is sent to Congress from the administration. Secondly, a condition the President will certify, prior to entry into force of the treaty, that the President intends--so this is not a requirement that he has achieved a particular result, but he intends to accelerate the design and engineering phase, to the extent possible, of the CMRR and UPF. In other words, we are not asking the impossible be done, just that to the extent we can possibly do it, we accelerate the design and engineering of these two facilities so they can get done on time, rather than with the delays. Third, that the administration--or the President--request advance funding, including on a multiyear basis, for these two facilities--the CMRR and the UPF--upon completion of the design and engineering phase of the planning. What that means is, we are not asking them to provide advance funding for the entire projects, as is done, for example, when we construct an aircraft carrier. We are not asking it be done now, when there are still some uncertainties about exactly what these facilities need and how much they will cost. Los Alamos is still being tweaked, among other things, as I said, because of the need to make it earthquake-proof. What we are saying is, upon completion of the design and engineering phase of planning, then the administration requests advance funding and on a multiyear basis. What that means is--and this is frequently done with large Defense Department contracts, in order to get them done as quickly as possible and as inexpensively as possible--there are multiyear advances of funding so the money can be spent, let us just say hypothetically, within a 5-year period by the Defense Department for an aircraft carrier, for example. Instead of having the Appropriations committees each year appropriate a particular amount of money, and the work that is done can only be done within the constraints of that particular amount of money appropriated in that particular year, what they say is--and I am just speaking hypothetically--the cost is, let's say, $4 billion, and we know it is going to take about 4 years to do this. Instead of saying: Well, we are going to do $1 billion of appropriations each year, what they say is: All right. You have $4 billion, and if you can get it done more quickly by spending this money more quickly, fine. That will save us money and it will get the project done quicker. If you can't, then you can't. But that money is set aside in an account for that purpose. That is all we are asking be done here too. These two facilities are both, in terms of order of magnitude, about $5 billion facilities. They might be a little less. They are likely to be a little more-- potentially, in the neighborhood of $6 billion or so. Originally, when the administration presented its first 1251 report, the entire 10-year program was set at $10 billion. We knew that wasn't adequate. We went to the administration, they recalculated everything, brought their estimates up to date, and said: That is right, $10 billion is not going to be enough. We will add another $4 billion to $6 billion over the first 4 to 6 years. Undoubtedly, the cost will increase above that, as has been testified to. My guess is, just in terms of order of magnitude, you are looking at roughly $20 billion over 10 to 12 years. We will know more each year this goes forward. But to construct these two facilities, if we could advance fund at least some money--let's say, 3 years' worth of the money--then it will be possible for the people who are responsible for the construction of those facilities, if they can get 15 months of work out of the first 12 months and spend more than 12 months' worth of money to get that done, that is great. They will have been able to accomplish their job more quickly. Each month that goes by adds costs to the program. So if we can provide them advance funding of some amount--we are not specifying it in here--they can probably get the project done more quickly and less expensively, and that should be a good thing. I think everybody agrees this would be the way to do it. There have been two objections posited, to my knowledge. First, the Department of Energy has never done it this way. That, of course, is not the way for us to set policy. I saw my colleague on television this morning saying what we need is a plan. We are too focused always on what is right in front of our face. A lot of times, if we have a basic plan everybody knows we are trying to work toward, it is amazing how much you can accomplish in terms of the details. Well, this is the basic plan. The Department of Defense does this every year because they have large-cost construction projects. The Department of Energy has never done it that way--except I am not sure that is true. Before there was a Department of Energy, the Manhattan Project was being built, and GEN Leslie Groves, who is sort of the father of the Manhattan Project, didn't have any problem at all about advance funding. He went to the President and the Congress and said: I need this money. They said: What do you need it for? He said: Don't ask questions, it is secret, and he got the money. That is an oversimplification, but he got that project done in less time than anybody could have possibly imagined because he had the resources provided to him to get it done. So when they say it has never been done before, well, actually, it has been done before on this exact--on this exact--national defense item; namely, our nuclear enterprise. It is just that it was back in the early 1940s when people were not so, I guess, concerned about each year's budget and the appropriations that would accompany those budgets. Secondly, the argument is made that--and this one may surprise folks--well, if we have, let's say, 3 years' worth of funding out there and that money is provided to the Department of Energy, the Members of Congress who are on the Appropriations Committee will grab that money-- or parts of it that are unspent--and apply it to other things. Think about that for a minute. The very people responsible for funding these projects in the Congress, who know they have to be done and who have agreed to the advanced funding in the first place, I think are highly unlikely, after that money has been provided, to say: Well, we need money for some water projects or something so we will go grab some of that money that isn't spent. The whole reason it isn't spent is because you have provided multiyear funding for the project for efficiency purposes. So I don't think that is a reason for us to not advance funds. I would like to call to my colleagues' attention--and I will let my colleague, Senator Corker, put this in the Record because I think either he or Senator Alexander might talk about it--a letter signed by Senators Inouye, Feinstein, Cochran, and Alexander, who presumably, in the next Congress, will be the chairmen and ranking members of the full committee and subcommittees responsible for this funding. This letter makes it clear they are committed to the full funding of the modernization of our nuclear weapons arsenal and that they are asking the President to submit budgets which will provide for the necessary funding for this and they commit themselves to support that funding. That is important, and I don't think we can attribute a motive to Senators like this, who we all know are entirely trustworthy, that somehow after this money is advance funded, that Congress or appropriators are going to reach back and grab money they have already provided because they think there is another purpose they want to spend it for right now. So those are the reasons why I don't think that is a principled argument for why we shouldn't do this. Having this advance funding could complete these facilities on time, rather than with a 2- or 3-year delay, and we could save literally hundreds of millions of dollars. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record some additional quotations on the need for modernization from former laboratory Directors, an Under Secretary of Defense, the current Secretary of Defense, the former Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, and there are many more we could produce.

Mr. KYL. I call up amendment No. 4892, as modified. The modification is at the desk.

Mr. KYL. I am not asking at this time there be an agreement. I am simply saying that the amendment I want to bring up is the amendment I filed.

Mr. KYL. I will describe the modifications. They were made in an effort to get agreement. If we cannot, that is fine, but I do think it makes it more palatable to Members. May we have the amendment read.

Mr. KYL. I thank the Chair, and I will have more to say, but I will let other Senators speak.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to thank both my colleagues from Tennessee for their very kind remarks. Actually, the place we have gotten, what we have achieved, is due to the efforts of a lot of people. It starts with Secretary Gates in the Department of Defense; Secretary Chu; Tom D'Agostino; his Deputy Director of NNSA, Don Cook; the Lab Directors who are incredible public servants. We visited with them. These are some of the brightest people in the country and the folks who work with them, many of whom, almost all of whom are about ready to retire, those people who actually designed and developed the weapons we now have. There are a lot of people who devoted their lives to what very few people know or understand. They are now being asked to do a very difficult and complicated job in very difficult surroundings. Part of what we are asking for--it is not just a matter of convenience, as Senator Alexander said, it is a matter of absolute necessity that these facilities be capable of dealing with these complex weapons. That is why they are expensive, but they are absolutely needed. I thank both my colleagues for having devoted a lot of their own time and attention to this issue and in supporting the efforts of modernization so we can get this job done properly. I appreciate their remarks. I also would like to proffer a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent to yield 1 hour of the time allocated to the Republican leader postcloture to Senator Kyl.

Mr. KYL. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will comment more when I make my concluding comments, but what we have just done is to agree to provide a mechanism for the President to certify a way forward to fund the two large facilities that are part of the nuclear weapons complex in a way that we hope will provide for the most efficient way to build these facilities and to get them constructed as rapidly as possible. The result of this is that, potentially, we could save hundreds of millions of dollars and construct the facilities at an earlier date than was originally intended. But to be clear, nothing in this amendment reduces the President's decisionmaking or flexibility. It remains his decision as to how the funding is requested and when it is requested.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I support the nomination of Judge Mary Murguia to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Murguia has served on the Federal district court in Arizona for a decade and has a distinguished record that has earned the respect of the legal community in Arizona. Perhaps most telling is the high regard in which Judge Murguia is held by her colleagues on the district court; they come from different backgrounds and were appointed by presidents of both parties, but they all speak very highly of her. Judge Murguia was approved by the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 19 to 0. That unanimous vote is an indication of the strength of her record. Finally, as I mentioned at Judge Murguia's hearing, Judge Murguia's brother Carlos is the first Latino to serve as Federal district court judge in Kansas. Judge Murguia was the first Latina to be appointed to the Federal district court in Arizona and she and Carlos are the only brother and sister sitting as Federal judges in the United States. I am confident that Judge Murguia is a person of integrity who will do her best to be a fair and objective judge. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Madam President, let me thank my colleagues for working hard to get this treaty passed and for being able to achieve that as well, people within the administration. I appreciate the cooperation some of us have had with the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, the ranking member and others who have worked hard to try to complete, in a very short period of time, what probably should have taken a lot longer period of time. But I appreciate their efforts to work with us in that regard. I would like to, briefly, speak to three things: the process, the problems, and some positive results of the consideration of this treaty. For those who are watching, I can tell you right now there is only one thing on the mind of everybody in this Chamber: How quickly are we going to get out of here. One colleague said: I have a plane to catch. How long are you going to talk? Will I be able to catch it? That is understandable because every one of us wants to get home to our families. I know there were some snide comments expressed about my concern a week or so ago about the fact we were going to be into Christmas week. But now the reality is everybody wants to get out of here immediately so cut short your comments, put them in the Record, and so on. When I predicted a couple weeks ago that I didn't think we had time to do everything the majority leader wanted to do and do it well, I had no idea how many things would be added to the agenda and how difficult that would be. Unfortunately, I think my prediction turned out to be correct. I remember just 1 year ago when we were on the Senate floor doing the health care bill, one of the primary criticisms of it was the way it was done. I must tell you, with regard to the process of this bill, I am concerned about the precedent we are setting in the Senate, taking a lameduck session to jam so many things through, frequently without an opportunity to provide amendments or, when there are amendments, to simply have them all shot down without, I believe, adequate consideration. We have done the tax legislation, the continuing resolution to fund the Government, the DOD authorization bill, the DREAM Act, don't ask, don't tell, the 9/11 bill is on the way, some judges, we passed a food safety bill almost in the middle of the night by unanimous consent without Members being adequately notified, and now the START treaty. In many of those situations, there was not adequate time--as I said, no amendments even allowed. When cloture was filed, I expressed concern we had only dealt with, I believe at that time, four amendments to the treaty itself. But we were told: Don't worry. We will still give you consent to do resolution-of- ratification amendments. Unfortunately, not all of them were permitted by the majority and, in order to get as many as possible together, we had to consolidate 70 or so amendments down to a very few. The other side announced at the beginning of the debate there would be no amendments on the treaty itself or the preamble. It turned out the amendments that were offered were all defeated, but we did have some amendments on the resolution of ratification. They, too, would have all been defeated or were defeated, except for the fact that we were willing to water them down and, therefore, had them accepted by the majority. Now we have very little time to make closing statements because we are going to adjourn sine die, meaning this is the end of the Congress. We will not have time to actually prepare written statements for the Record. This is a very brief statement to discuss primarily some positive things because there is not time to lay out all the problems that I think those of us who oppose the treaty still believe are present in the treaty. I agree with the comments the newest Member of the Senate, Mark Kirk, made just a moment ago. He is very well schooled in these issues, though a new Member of the Senate. I associate myself with a lot of the remarks he made. I think later, when we come back next year, we can chronicle the things that were said in the debates and have a pretty good record of how it all ended. But I fear more for the process because of the precedent set that serious matters, such as the ones we have debated and dealt with, including the treaty, were done in, to some extent, a slipshod way, to some extent in which there was not adequate time to do what the Senate should have done. I also fear for the precedent set with respect to treaty ratification. Essentially, on many of the issues that were raised--and I appreciate, I must say, colleagues have been kind to me in their compliments. I appreciate that very much. They were complimentary to me and my colleagues in saying we were raising important issues that needed to be vetted, but in each case this was not the time to do it, this was not the place to do it because if we dare change one comma in this treaty, it would require that it be renegotiated. There were some unspecified horrible results of the fact that we would have to renegotiate the treaty because the Russians wouldn't like what we did. The precedent we are establishing is that the Senate is a rubberstamp. Whatever a President negotiates with the Russians or somebody else, we dare not change because otherwise it will have to be renegotiated, to some great detriment to humanity, and I don't think that is appropriate. I think our Founders, when they wrote into the Constitution an equal role for the Senate and the President, they meant it. That role is advice and consent. We gave some advice in the last Defense authorization bill. We said, for example, don't negotiate conventional Prompt Global Strike limitations and don't allow limitations on missile defense. Both those things were done against our advice. But we are being asked to consent notwithstanding. It seems to me, if the Senate is to have a role in the future on these kinds of treaties, we better come to an understanding if we are going to be able to make some changes. I don't think anybody ever said the administration ever got anything 100 percent right. We ought to be able to make some changes or else we might as well avoid the process altogether because it is just a big waste of time. Eleven years ago when we considered the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and rejected that treaty, a lot of commentators said the Senate had finally put its mark on the process by conclusively demonstrating it would not be a rubberstamp and that would be a new era for the administration in the future, having to pay some attention to what the Senate said. I hope this new START treaty is an aberration, rather than the beginning of a new precedent. I will just tell you this. If the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is brought forward again, there will be a different process. Rather than the situation which obtained here, in which I did not urge a single colleague to oppose this treaty until the time that cloture was filed on it, I will urge every one of my colleagues to oppose reconsideration of the CTB. So the process is not good. I have to hope that the result of the way we handled it this year will not establish a new precedent. The problems of the treaty I wish to discuss in detail, but because my colleagues want to catch airplanes, I will not. Let me focus then on the third and last element here, which is, some new things we learned from this treaty, and, frankly, some achievements that were obtained as a result of a lot of attention to it--being paid to it by our colleagues, a lot of great debate, particularly with respect to missile defense, modernization, and future arms control agenda. One of the things I think we have made some progress on is that this may be the last arms control agreement for a while. Maybe we can get back to focusing on the real issues, issues of proliferation, of terrorism dealing with threats from countries such as North Korea and Iran. It is fine to have yet another Cold War era type agreement with Russia. But the real issue is not between Russia and the United States, it is dealing with these other threats. So I suggest we move away from the distraction of agreements such as this, and on to what is a more contemporary challenge. I think as a result of the debate, that will be possible to do. I would quote one of our colleagues, Condoleezza Rice, who served with great distinction as Secretary of State, and before that as National Security Adviser, wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal and she said: After this treaty, our focus must be on stopping dangerous proliferators, not on further reductions of the U.S. and Russian strategic arsenals, which are really no threats to each other or to international stability. Presidential Adviser Gary Samore agreed, saying: If Iran succeeds in developing a nuclear capability, that would do more damage to the effort of the President to achieve a nuclear free world than anything. That is the real test of where we are headed. So I would hope the focus in the future will be on the illicit programs of Iran, of Korea, countries such as Syria, and potentially focusing on some of the supporters of these countries such as the country of China. These are the real challenges. I believe there would be bipartisan support in this body to address those challenges next. But, secondly, I think as a result of focusing on our nuclear arsenal, which we had to do by looking at this treaty, we have also learned that we have a very big challenge in this country. And, fortunately and parallel with the treaty, we worked on this challenge, the issue of how we can modernize our nuclear facilities and nuclear force and the delivery vehicles of the triad that would deliver those vehicles. I think we have all agreed we made significant improvement in that regard. The administration, I believe, has made a significant commitment to the modernization of our nuclear facilities. And the Senate, in various ways in dealing with this treaty, has done likewise, as well as through an exchange of letters that have been entered into by members of the Appropriations Committee, and we hope to work with our colleagues in the House of Representatives with whom we have not had enough contact on this issue. But hopefully, as a result of everything we have done, we will have an opportunity to fund the modernization, as it becomes clear more precisely what has to be done, to ensure that all of that is accomplished within the appropriate timeframe. When we started out, we had a pretty woeful amount of money dedicated to the modernization of our nuclear facilities. Now we have a request from the administration of a total of about $85 billion over a decade to operate our facilities. That includes about $15 billion in new modernization spending. With the 1251 report coming from the administration each year, we anticipate there will be further updates which will demonstrate additional progress we can make in the modernization. In addition, I mentioned the letter from the four key members of the Appropriations Committee in this body. We hope to work with Members in the House of Representatives likewise. Finally on this matter, one of the last amendments that was adopted is a certification requirement, which is a change to the resolution of ratification that, to the extent possible, the administration will accelerate the planning and design of the two major facilities here and, where appropriate, request multiyear funding, of which my two colleagues from Tennessee who are, as usual, seated right here together, made a very strong point--that we could not only save a lot of money every year but also accelerate the construction of these facilities so we could complete the life extension programs for our nuclear weapons that are so critical. A third thing I think we did, which is a very positive result, is to focus a little bit also on the other aspect of modernization; that is to say, the triad, our nuclear triad of bombers, submarines, and ICBMs. The Secretary of Defense had made a decision at the outset of the Obama administration that we would cancel the decision on the next generation of bomber. It was very unclear whether it was the intention of our government to have a nuclear-capable bomber part of the nuclear triad. Quoting General Chilton, who is the general responsible at Strategic Command on this, ``We need service programs that sustain the long-term viability of our land-based, airborne, and sea-based delivery platforms.'' One of the amendments that was adopted, amendment No. 4864, does require the President to certify that he intends to modernize or replace the triad, a heavy bomber and air-launched cruise missile, nuclear capable, an ICBM, and an SSBN and SLBM--in other words, the submarine leg, which I believe the administration has already begun to move forward on. Also it would maintain the rocket motor industrial base necessary to support continued production of ballistic missiles. This is very important, because even if you modernize the warheads, if you do not have modern delivery vehicles to deliver them, obviously you do not have a capable deterrent. And, of course, the Russians, who have the most capable system other than ours, are modernizing their delivery vehicles, especially their ICBMs and, as a result, I think we need to do that as well. I am very pleased we have been able to resolve this question about a nuclear-capable triad. I look forward to clear and unambiguous statements from the administration in the future about this, and eventually getting a replacement for all three legs of the triad that need to be modernized. Fourth, there was a lot of discussion here about missile defense. I think without the treaty having come up, we probably would not have spent the time and raised the issues with regard to missile defense that were raised. We had a disagreement here about whether--or the extent to which the preamble to the treaty and article V of the treaty and the signing statements created a problem with respect to further development of our missile defenses. But through this debate, I believe, through commitments of the President in a letter that he wrote, through an amendment to the resolution of ratification and a lot of statements for the record during this debate, we are much further down the road in predicting that we will be able to deploy the kind of missile defense that is necessary to protect not just our allies in Europe, for example, but also the continental United States and the American people. To conclude this point, any attempt by the Russian Federation now to reestablish a link between missile defense and strategic arms control will not succeed; that any argument that there is a legal right to withdraw from the treaty if we proceed with our deployment plans, as they will be communicated to the Russians, will not stand. So our friends in Russia do need to understand what we have done here. And we are making clear, as President Reagan once did, that U.S. missile defenses are simply not open to a discussion. They will not be part of future negotiations as well. Finally, with regard to the Conventional Prompt Global Strike, I think we made some progress there. Very few people had ever heard the phrase, knew what it was. The Senate did give its advice in last year's Defense bill not to limit it. But, nevertheless, it was limited in the treaty. I think our debate about it here has helped to educate Members as to the need for this, something both the administration and many of us here in the Senate support. It is simply the capability to deliver not a nuclear warhead but a conventional warhead by an ICBM at a very long distance in a very relatively short period of time, to meet some of the new threats we are going to be facing in the future. Unfortunately, Prompt Global Strike is limited in the treaty. Notwithstanding that unfortunate linkage, as I said, I think we have had an opportunity to obtain a more secure commitment from the administration on the deployment of the Global Strike capability, because the resolution of ratification now calls for a detailed report on our CPGS objectives prior to entry into the force of the treaty. It will require the administration to consider treaty limitations, methods of distinguishing nuclear, nonnuclear systems, which are possible and should relieve any concern that the Russians have about the potential for a Prompt Global Strike weapon being confused with a nuclear weapon. Apart from all of the things I just talked about there are other things in the resolution of ratification that will add some strength to the position that those of us who oppose the treaty have taken, including working through the Bilateral Consultative Commission, not being undercut by that commission, requiring an annual report certifying Russian compliance with the terms of the New START treaty, things of that sort. I conclude that one of the things we will have to do proactively from here on out, in order to achieve some of the objectives that we have talked about here, is to work with our House colleagues who have not been a part of this process, to share with them the reasons we have concluded these things are important, to work together, the administration, my colleagues on the Democratic side and our side, to convince them each year of the necessary appropriations that will be required, among other things, for modernization of both the triad and-- I know my colleagues are anxious to leave. As a result, I will cut my comments short to make this point. I again close, as I opened, by thanking colleagues for working under what are, frankly, very difficult circumstances, to try to compress everything into a very short period of time, to be on a START treaty at the same time we are parachuting in all manner of other issues and trying to get those resolved. This has not been easy. For those colleagues who were patient and expressed desire to do things on the floor that we did not have time for, I appreciate their indulgences and appreciate the courtesies that everyone has extended. This has been very contentious, and yet the disagreements between us have never risen to any level beyond that which is totally appropriate for a serious debate in the Senate, proving again that while we can disagree or will disagree, we can certainly do so agreeably. I thank my colleagues for their willingness to do that.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), and the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond).

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), and the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg).