Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. But the faster we get the more fuel-efficient cars, the better environmental impact we are going to have, even though there is that time period, obviously, when there is a carbon footprint that results from the production of the new car. But you get to that 2\1/2\ years faster then if you buy that new car now than if you buy it a year from now or 2 years from now.

Mr. LEVIN. It may. We do not know that.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

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

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the Isakson amendment is an example of an amendment which is not only well intended but an amendment that I happen to favor and have favored on a number of occasions on this floor. One of the problems, though, is it is very clear we have a choice before us. We are either going to have an extension of the Cash for Clunkers Program, with passage of the House bill without any changes in it, or it is going to die. Passage of the Isakson amendment is not only well intended, but as good an amendment as it is, it will defeat both. We cannot get the Isakson amendment passed into law by adopting it here. It would be added to a bill which is going to go nowhere except to a House which has been adjourned. And we cannot keep this Cash for Clunkers Program going unless we adopt the House bill today. If we leave without adopting the House bill or amending the House bill, it is the end of the most successful program we have seen in the stimulus package. That is the choice. So adopting the Isakson amendment does not get us where Senator Isakson wants us to get, and it destroys the Cash for Clunkers Program extension. It has been a highly successful program, probably the most successful of any of the stimulus packages, at least to date. We are put in a position--a number of us--of voting against these amendments, amendments, for instance, as well intended as is the Harkin amendment. Voting against an amendment such as that is difficult, we know that, but we did it a week ago. We had to do it when the highway trust fund came up. We had to vote against an amendment which most of us, I believe, favored, which would have produced money for our States, in order to have a bill passed without any amendment so that we could get it done because the House was about to adjourn. So we were put in that position. It is not unusual around here that we are put in this position. It is a fact of life around here. It is not hard to explain back home why we had to do this. So if we favor the cash for clunkers extension, we have to vote against every amendment. There cannot be a change. There cannot be a period, a comma, a word, a paragraph changed in the House bill. If there is, it is the death knell for this very successful program. So I hope we will vote against all amendments. Some of them are very difficult to vote against. Some of the amendments we may have voted for before, including the Isakson amendment. Some like the amendment of Senator Harkin, which is such a well-intended amendment. It has other complications to it, by the way, which would require it being modified, I believe, if it were going to have the effect that is intended, which would require regulations to be adopted, and that would take so long in any event that holding up the cash for clunkers bill for that to happen would also be the death knell for this bill that is so valuable. So I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, and I will object for reasons I have discussed with Senator Harkin, any amendment to this bill will end the bill. It is a death knell for the bill. The modification also would have another delay even if it didn't kill the bill, even if it were passed and the House were able to adopt it. It requires regulations to be adopted which would take time. It would be a stopping and starting of the program. It would create a great deal of confusion. This is an extremely well-intended amendment. I give Senator Harkin a lot of credit for what he is aiming to do, but it cannot achieve its purpose the way it is drafted. The way it would be modified would take a significant period of time to be modified. It would result in a stop- and-start situation of the Cash for Clunkers Program. So, reluctantly, I object.

Mr. LEVIN. Is there any time remaining in opposition?

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, this amendment would have an across-the- board cut to the appropriations bill of $2 billion, including appropriations bills that have already passed. It is a recipe for chaos in the appropriations process. The pay-for is in the bill for this $2 billion package. In addition to all of that, any amendment to this bill will kill the program. So if you want to kill the program as well as create havoc in the appropriations process, then you will vote for the Gregg amendment; otherwise, you will vote no.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this is another well-intended amendment. It is an amendment, indeed, that many of us have voted for in a slightly different form in a different place. However, it would represent the death knell for this program. So if you believe the Cash for Clunkers Program is a successful program and should be extended, this amendment needs to be defeated and raised at a different point. We will not get the Isakson amendment into law by adopting it. All we will do is stop the Cash for Clunkers Program from continuing. That seems to me to be the choice, which is a fundamental one. I hope we defeat the Isakson amendment. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I pay tribute to Trout Unlimited, a national conservation organization established in my home State of Michigan. This exceptional organization was founded in 1959 on the banks of the Au Sable River, near Grayling, MI, by 16 concerned Michigan anglers. These anglers, who met in the home of George Griffith, sought to ensure the continued and long term health of trout, their habitat, and the sport of angling. Today, Trout Unlimited boasts more than 150,000 members in approximately 400 chapters throughout the United States, including 23 chapters in Michigan. The founders of Trout Unlimited, or TU, were united by their love of trout fishing and by their growing discontent with the State of Michigan's practice of stocking its waters with hatchery-raised fish. Driven by the belief that Michigan's trout streams could produce fish far superior in both size and fight to these ``cookie cutter trout,'' in 1962-63, TU prepared its first policy statement on wild trout, which persuaded the Michigan Department of Natural Resources to curtail ``put-and-take'' trout stocking and to start managing for wild trout and healthy habitat. Buoyed by this success, anglers subsequently founded TU chapters in Illinois, Wisconsin, New York, and Pennsylvania with the mission of conserving, protecting and restoring North America's coldwater fisheries and their watersheds. Indispensible to the success and strength of Trout Unlimited are the thousands of dedicated members and volunteers. TU members have spent countless hours restoring trout and salmon habitat, and some of the most visible effects have been on hundreds of watersheds nationwide. In addition, these members have provided the knowledge and leadership necessary to improve environmental policy on the local, state and national level and to carry out TU's ambitious conservation agenda. Many have contributed significantly to the success of Trout Unlimited over the past fifty years. Trout Unlimited has been an important, vigilant and effective advocate for coldwater resources in Michigan and across the country. I know my colleagues join me in offering gratitude and appreciation to Trout Unlimited for a job well done. Protecting our natural resources and waterways for future generations is a noble endeavor, and I look forward to another 50 years of responsible environmental stewardship.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to bring to the attention of my colleagues the burgeoning threat of a potential safe haven for extremists in Yemen. As I am sure is true of many of my colleagues, I continue to monitor the press reports surrounding the future of the Yemeni detainees currently being held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. However, what I believe too few people are following is the growing threat of Yemen becoming a failed state and potential safe haven for members of al-Qaida. A recent New York Times article, ``Some in [al] Qaeda Leave Pakistan for Somalia and Yemen,'' highlighted the growing concern within the U.S. Government about relocations of some al-Qaida operatives to Yemen. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy also highlighted the growing threat in Yemen in a recent paper, ``Waning Vigilance: al Qaeda's Resurgence in Yemen,'' that discusses how the threat in Yemen has simmered in recent years and urgently needs the attention of policymakers. Mr. President, I will ask that the New York Times and Washington Institute for Near East Policy articles be printed in the Record following my comments. To appreciate fully the concerns about Yemen's stability, it is important to recall the association of terrorist activities with Yemen. It is perhaps best known as the site of the U.S.S. Cole attack in October 2000. But Yemen is also one of the top sources of foreign fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan, the source of weapons trafficked into Gaza, and the country of origin of almost 100 of the remaining detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. It was also where many mujahedeen returned to after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan and, often forgotten, it is the ancestral home of Osama bin Laden. Further, in 2008, the U.S. Embassy in the Yemeni capital of Sana'a was attacked twice--first by a mortar attack and the second time by highly trained terrorists using vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices, small arms, and suicide vests. Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair also highlighted the significance of the situation in Yemen earlier this year in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Director Blair testified that losses within al-Qaida's command structure since 2008 have been significant and that sustained pressure against al-Qaida in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, FATA, of Pakistan may eventually force it to vacate the FATA. He stated that it is conceivable that al- Qaida could relocate to the gulf where it could exploit a weak central government and close proximity to established recruitment, fundraising, and facilitation networks. Yemen is the type of country the Director is concerned about, and, for good reason. I would direct my colleagues to the most recent issue of Foreign Policy magazine, which ranks Yemen 18th on its failed states index, an annual index based on 12 indicators ranging from availability of public services to demographic pressures to refugee and internally displaced populations. The failed state index additionally says of Yemen: ``a perfect storm of state failure is now brewing there: disappearing oil and water reserves; a mob of migrants, some allegedly with al Qaeda ties, flooding in from Somalia . . . ; and a weak government increasingly unable to keep things running.'' The article goes on to suggest what many Yemen observers have been saying for years: ``Yemen is the next Afghanistan: a global problem wrapped in a failed state.'' Report after report reaches the same conclusion about--Yemen--it is a failing state with all the makings of an extremist safe haven. I believe it is critical that we monitor this situation closely; fund developmental and counterterrorism assistance for the Government of Yemen at robust levels; and urge the Obama administration to engage actively with the Yemeni Government. The consequences of inaction can be seen right across the Gulf of Aden in Somalia. For its part, the administration has increased its focus on this threat. Earlier this year, Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, Deputy Director Stephen Kappes reportedly met with Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh in Sana'a to discuss security and counterterrorism cooperation. This visit is one of many that the CIA and National Security Council officials have made in recent months, and in addition to a visit by General Petraeus shortly after taking command at U.S. Central Command. All of these visits confirmed that the political landscape in Yemen remains fragile. Throughout his decades of rule, President Saleh has successfully balanced the various political forces in Yemen--tribes, political parties, military officials, political elites, and radical Islamists--to create a stable ruling coalition that has kept his regime intact. While in many cases this stability has been purchased via corruption and payoffs, in cases where groups and/or individuals have not been willing to join President Saleh, he has used law enforcement, military, and intelligence services to manage threats to stability. In recent years, al-Qaida has entered into the political landscape and complicated this delicate 30-year balance. President Saleh has addressed this situation by reportedly reaching understandings with al- Qaida that it would be left alone to recruit fighters if it did not attack the Yemeni Government. In the Washington Institute for Near East Policy article I mentioned earlier, the author makes a number of points that underscore this delicate balancing act and the role of al-Qaida in the political landscape of Yemen. The author argues that the Yemeni Government is preoccupied, and its security services overtaxed by increasingly violent calls for secession from the south, threats of renewed fighting in the north, and a faltering economy that is dependent on revenue from rapidly dwindling petroleum reserves. Between 2002 and 2004, the Yemeni Government, largely with U.S. assistance, was able to disrupt al-Qaida-inspired terrorist activity in Yemen. However, in recent years, a new generation of militants, with either experience in Iraq and Afghanistan or time spent in the Yemeni prison system, has emerged. This new generation of militants is inclined to target the Yemeni Government itself, in addition to foreign interests in Yemen. The start of this resurgence was a 2006 jailbreak, in which 23 convicted terrorists escaped from a prison in the capital of Sana'a. Escapees from this jailbreak formed the core of a new group, al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, AQAP, which is led by a 2006 escapee whose deputy is a former Guantanamo detainee. While many Yemen observers believe that AQAP is not yet strong enough to topple President Saleh's regime, it is capable of striking high value targets; contributing to instability across Yemen; and recruiting individuals to strengthen its ranks. The ideological demands of AQAP are familiar: release militants from prison; end cooperation with the United States; renounce democracy; and implement a strict form of sharia law. If al-Qaida operatives and their leadership in Pakistan look for a new home, Yemen will seem attractive. As in Afghanistan and Pakistan, it has large areas of naturally defensible land where President Saleh's regime has little authority; a robust tribal structure that could host relocating operatives; and a security infrastructure which lacks the capacity to defend Yemen's sovereign territory. It is also worth mentioning that these same tribes, in some cases, share the hard-line views of these relocating al-Qaida operatives and are inclined to help enlist their own family into AQAP's efforts. This reality only complicates further the work of President Saleh in balancing counterterrorism efforts and the survival of his regime. In June 2007, al-Qaida officially announced its rebirth in Yemen with a suicide attack on a convoy of Spanish tourists. Since then, the organization has grown stronger and its attacks more frequent. In January 2008, it launched a series of attacks, culminating in the assault on the U.S. Embassy in September 2008. Earlier this year, a pair of suicide bombers targeted South Koreans, attacking first a group of tourists in the countryside and then the officials sent to investigate. Just last month, AQAP demonstrated that it is also adopting the kidnapping for ransom tactic, which has proven profitable for other terrorist groups. And, just last month, the Associated Press reported that security was upgraded in Yemen's capital after intelligence reports warned of attacks planned against the U.S. Embassy and other potential targets. In response, the Yemeni chief of intelligence has reportedly directed an increase in security around diplomatic missions in the capital and elsewhere in the country. The culmination of these developments gives the AQAP the ability to attract relocating foreign fighters and broaden its operational reach. The United States is by no means the only player in the country. Saudi Arabia provides the most assistance to Yemen, some of it via official channels to the government and some portions of it unofficially. A myriad of countries are involved in the Yemeni energy sector, and Russia and China are the Yemeni Government's major arms suppliers. To complicate matters further, Yemen's tribal leaders, powerful within the Yemeni political landscape, are suspicious of U.S. policy in the region. These tribal leaders are often the proxies used by President Saleh, Saudi Arabia, and others interested in influencing the government and other elites. Over the past several fiscal years, Yemen has received on average between $20 and $25 million annually in total U.S. foreign aid. For fiscal year 2009, the U.S. provided over $40 million in assistance for Yemen, an increase from its $18 million aid package in fiscal year 2008. Between fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007, Yemen also received approximately $31.5 million from the U.S. Department of Defense's section 1206 account to train and equip Yemeni counterterrorism units. The Obama administration also recently sent to Congress a new package of 1206 funded projects, which includes $65 million in counterterrorism assistance for various Yemeni military units. The recently passed fiscal year 2009 supplemental included $10 million for the U.S. Agency for International Development to support U.S.-sponsored rural engagement measures, focused on civil affairs activities and civilian capacity building in the ungoverned regions of Yemen. While these programs are important and need to be funded, Yemen observers have expressed frustration with how little ``bang for the buck'' the U.S. gets for its financial assistance to Yemen on counterterrorism operations. This is one area where I hope the administration will continue to press the Yemeni Government. In the past, the Yemeni Government has complained that the United States has provided them with insufficient assistance. However, based on the most recent administration efforts, the situation has clearly changed, and it is time for President Saleh's government to be more responsive. And, just as in Pakistan, it is critical that our government make two things very clear: first, we stand ready to assist in training and equipping counterterrorism forces; and second, the threats confronting Yemen are ultimately a threat to its own existence. American security assistance will ultimately only be as effective as the Yemeni Government's will to execute an aggressive counterterrorism and counter-recruitment mission. To date, the administration has not officially characterized Yemen as an al-Qaida safe haven, but should President Saleh prove unwilling to confront adequately the threat posed by relocating foreign fighters; the growing threat of AQAP; and the sympathy of some tribal leaders in his country to support extremist elements, the administration should consider more vigorous action. While the U.S. Embassy in Sana'a is working hard to find an amenable resolution for the transfer of the Yemeni detainees at Guantanamo, it is also working on these very complex counterterrorism efforts. I would urge my colleagues to look at the threats emanating from Yemen and to support efforts by the administration to cooperate with the Yemeni Government and other regional actors, particularly Saudi Arabia, to address the burgeoning threat in the country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the New York Times and Washington Institute for Near East Policy articles to which I referred.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I support repealing the rescission contained in the SAFETEA-LU bill that requires that on September 30, 2009, $8.7 billion of apportioned contract authority provided to States for investment in infrastructure be rescinded. This is important to Michigan and all the other States across the Nation that cannot afford to have Federal infrastructure funding cut at a time of severe funding constraints. I will work to repeal this rescission so Michigan and other States do not lose these needed Federal transportation funds. Based on the assurances of the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that this will be corrected before September 30 and the extremely time sensitive nature of the underlying bill, I will oppose the motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to the Bond amendment to this bill. H.R. 3357 restores funding to the highway trust fund to keep it solvent through September. With the House of Representatives scheduled to adjourn tomorrow any Senate amendment to H.R. 3357 would require that it be sent back to the House, likely killing this important bill. We cannot risk letting the highway trust fund run out of funds. I will work with the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to repeal the SAFETEA-LU rescission as part of the bill to extend SAFETEA-LU programs for 18 months.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I strongly oppose Senator Alexander's amendment, No. 1862. This amendment would undermine the hard work and painful sacrifices that have been made over the last several months by GM, Chrysler, hundreds of auto parts suppliers, thousands of dealerships, and millions of families. It would destroy the viability of the domestic automotive manufacturers, and would cost America thousands of jobs at precisely a time when unemployment is sky-high, and likely to go higher. This amendment would force the government to divest its interests within an arbitrary timeframe, even if doing so would be detrimental to the taxpayers, the automobile companies, and the country as a whole. If the government has not divested its interest within that timeframe, it would be faced with a choice: it could divest the government's ownership quickly--before the reorganization efforts are complete and benefits realized--or be forced to direct the companies to issue millions of fractional ownership interests to taxpayers. Approximately 138 million Americans file tax returns, and under this amendment, they would all become shareholders. The automakers will be faced with enormous administrative difficulties and unknown tax consequences. For example, how much would it cost to distribute proxy materials to 140 million ``owners''? How about keeping track of ownership interests and tax filings? Berkshire Hathaway famously hosts its annual meetings in a massive sports and entertainment complex. There is not a venue on the planet that could host a shareholder meeting with nearly 140 million owners. Further, an extremely diffuse ownership base could lead to significant corporate governance concerns, with a management structure that may be less accountable to shareholders, not more. Because there would be so many shareholders, each would have extremely limited ability to affect change. That is exactly the wrong direction. The taxpayers deserve to have a strong voice in return for their significant investments. These penalties would be disastrous for the taxpayers and could be fatal to the companies. This amendment would impose fiduciary duties onto administration officials, with their goals to be ``maximization of the return.'' The amendment would then also subject these officials to potential civil suits. This obvious attempt to co-opt traditional corporate law fiduciary duties is simply inappropriate here. The Secretary and his designees have duties to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States; they are not simply members of boards of directors. They are officials of the government. And they cannot be forced to take actions that may be contrary to their governmental duties. Of course, imposing this liability would also come with some great costs. The legal costs on the companies would likely be enormous, as would the time demands upon the administration officials, which would keep them from their critical governmental duties. The amendment would also prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from spending or obligating any more funds under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to any automobile manufacturer. Restructuring an entire industry takes patience, sacrifices, and capital. And while we all hope that the capital requirements are behind us, the administration's ability to ensure the success of the restructurings should not be unnecessarily and arbitrarily restricted. This amendment is a recipe for disaster that could undo the efforts that have gone into preserving the domestic auto industry these past several months, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against it.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN

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

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

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, this afternoon, I had the pleasure of joining President Obama on the South Portico of the White House for a ceremony to honor the Detroit Shock on winning the 2008 WNBA championship. This is the third WNBA Championship in 6 years for the Shock, an outstanding accomplishment for the WNBA's first expansion franchise and one in which many across the State of Michigan take great pride. As one of only two teams to win three or more championships in the league history, the Detroit Shock is clearly a part of an elite group in the WNBA. The Shock completed a hard fought title run with a three game sweep of the San Antonio Silver Stars, capped by a 76-60 victory in the final game before an elated home crowd. Those in attendance, as well as those in Detroit and across Michigan, were pleased with the poised performance of this veteran team. Through persistence, perseverance and hard work, this team defeated two quality opponents, the Indiana Fever and the New York Liberty, en route to earning a spot in the WNBA finals. Led by the determined play of Katie Smith, the Shock maintained their focus throughout a grueling regular season and their ensuing march toward the 2008 WNBA title. Katie Smith averaged 21.7 points per game in the finals and won the 2008 WNBA Finals Most Valuable Player award. This championship win was yet another milestone in the storied career of head coach Bill Laimbeer, who was at the helm of each of the Shock's championship runs. He has amassed a total of five professional basketball titles, which includes two as a player for the Detroit Pistons. This was also the sixth championship for Detroit Shock owner Bill Davidson's Detroit sports teams. Fortunately, he was able to enjoy this championship before his recent death in March. Each member of the Detroit Shock organization made valuable contributions through the season and during this memorable championship run, including Kara Braxton, Cheryl Ford, Alexis Hornbuckle, Taj Mcwilliams-Franklin, Deanna Nolan, Plenette Pierson, Elaine Powell, Sheri Sam, Olayinka Sanni, Kelly Schumacher, Ashley Shields, and Katie Smith, as well as head coach, Bill Laimbeer, and assistant coaches Rick Mahorn, Cheryl Reeve, and Laura Ramus. I know my colleagues join me in congratulating the Detroit Shock on their third championship in franchise history. The people of Michigan look forward to witnessing the Shock continue to build on this success in the years ahead.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, we are now back on the bill, as the clerk has indicated, and as the Acting President pro tempore has indicated. It was agreed to last night in our unanimous consent request that I offered and was accepted that the next order of business would be to take up the Kyl amendment, and there would be protected either a second-degree or a side-by-side amendment to that amendment; and then we would move, after that, to an amendment by the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, and a side-by-side or second-degree amendment could then be offered by the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Bayh. Madam President, I see my friend from Arizona is here. In a moment, I am going to suggest we reverse the order of that because of Senator Kerry's requirements this morning. I have no objection at some point to entering into a time agreement on Kyl, by the way, at all. That is not the purpose, to delay that to a cloture moment. But I think the minority would want to see the language of any side-by-side before there was an agreement to a time agreement. If not, I am happy to enter into a time agreement on Senator Kyl's and any second degree or side- by-side at any time my good friend from Arizona wants to do that. But in order for the convenience of the parties, if Senator Lieberman and Senator Bayh could come down now--if they can do that--I would like to inquire about that and dispose of their amendments first and then take up the Kyl amendment with a time agreement--just to reverse the order of those two because of the Finance Committee's meetings this morning, which Senator Kerry needs to attend. I have not had a chance to talk to my friend from Arizona about this just because of the way the morning goes. That is what I would like to suggest. If that can be done, it would simplify things. There are also a number of other things we need to do. We have--and I think the Senator from Arizona is familiar with this--an amendment on voting rights for the troops which I think has been cleared. It is a bipartisan amendment which is going to need about 15 minutes of debate, I understand. That could be done as well, hopefully. But my goal, if it is agreeable to the Republican manager, would be to basically flip the two, with time agreements for both, going first to the Lieberman and Bayh amendments, if they are able to do it.

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