Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to recognize and say farewell to an outstanding Naval Officer, Captain Benny Green, upon his change of command from Special Boat Unit Twenty-Two. Throughout his career, Captain Green has served with distinction. It is my privilege to recognize his many accomplishments and to commend him for the superb service he has provided the Navy, the great State of Mississippi, and our Nation. Captain Green enlisted in the Navy in September 1972. After an initial tour at the Aircraft Intermediate Maintenance Department at Barbers Point, Hawaii, he attended Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL Training in Coronado, California, and graduated with class 83, for further assignment to SEAL Team One. Captain Green received a Bachelor of Science Degree from the University of Louisville in 1980, and was commissioned an Ensign in 1981. He attended flight school at Pensacola Naval Air Station and upon graduation was assigned to Fighter Squadron Eleven at Naval Air Station, Oceana, VA as a Radar Intercept Officer. He flew numerous combat missions over Lebanon in response to the 1983 terrorist bombing attack of the Marine Barracks in Beruit. In February 1985, Captain Green returned to the Special Forces and was assigned to SEAL Team Four, in Little Creek, VA, as the Platoon Commander of the newly formed Sixth Platoon. In his next assignment, Captain Green was a plank owner of SEAL Delivery Vehicle Team One Detachment Hawaii, on Ford Island, Oahu, HI, where he served as Dry Deck Shelter Platoon Commander. Other operational tours in Naval Special Warfare include: Dry Deck Shelter Department Head, SEAL Delivery Vehicle Team Two; Operations Officer, SEAL Delivery Vehicle Team Two; Maritime Special Purpose Force Commander for Central Command Amphibious Ready Group 3- 91; Executive Officer, SEAL Delivery Vehicle Team Two; Naval Special Warfare Task Unit Commander for the Theodore Roosevelt Battle group 1- 96; Operations Officer, Naval Special Warfare Group Two; Chief Staff Officer, Naval Special Warfare Group Two; and Requirements Officer for Naval Special Warfare Development Group. Captain Green also completed a joint tour as the Counter-narcotics and Maritime Officer, Special Operations Command, Pacific. As Commanding Officer, SBU-22, Captain Green's leadership firmly established his unit as the premier facility to train special operations forces in the riverine environment. His determination and oversight hastened the construction of new state-of-the-art facilities that provide for the training in the maintenance and repair of combatant craft, an armory, a supply building, a swim training tank, and a detachment building/administrative headquarters, with plans under development for a land-water range, a 30-unit housing facility, and a mini Navy Exchange/gas station. His rapport with senior military leadership was essential to theater commander exposure to SBU-22 capabilities in support of Special Operations Forces, SOF, throughout the world. During his tenure, SBU-22 hosted two major Joint Combined Exchange for Training, JCET, exercises, executed 13 counter-drug missions in South America, and trained over 450 foreign military personnel in all facets of riverine operations. His realignment of the Combatant Craft Training Curriculum fully addresses the requirements of the Naval Special Warfare Force-21 initiative and is typical of the exceptional foresight Captain Green demonstrated throughout his tour as Commanding Officer of SBU-22. His vast Special Operations experience proved to be a major resource in the identification, testing and implementation of the new Special Operations Craft-Riverine, SOC-R, that promises to revolutionize riverine tactics and capabilities. Throughout his distinguished career, Captain Green has served the United States Navy and the Nation with pride and excellence. He has been an integral member of, and contributed greatly to, the best- trained, best-equipped, and best-prepared naval and special operations forces in the history of the world. Captain Green's superb leadership, integrity, and limitless energy have had a profound impact on SBU-22 and will continue to positively impact the United States Navy, our Special Operations Forces, and our Nation. Captain Green relinquishes his command on July 12, 2002 and reports as Director, Concept Development Directorate at Special Operations Command Joint Forces Command, in Norfolk, VA where he will continue his successful career. On behalf of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I wish Captain Green ``Fair Winds and Following Seas.''

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object, Madam President.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, again reserving the right to object.

Mr. LOTT. This is legislation we need to consider. It needs to be considered in the full light of day with amendments in order. We did have a full consideration of the bill in the Commerce Committee with amendments offered. Some were adopted and some were rejected. I voted for the legislation. We need to move forward on the reform of Amtrak. We are in the process of putting additional money in Amtrak right now, and I support both the loan the administration is working out and perhaps additional money in the supplemental. Having said that, I do note also that we have to make tough choices. Do we want a national rail passenger system or not? If we do, we have to figure out what kind of reforms we can put in place that will save money or provide additional money; what lines are we going to keep open and keep running or not; if and how much we are going to have to pay for it. If the American people, through their Representatives and Senators, do not want to vote for additional funds, then that is one choice. I spoke passionately on the floor in 1997 when we passed Amtrak reform legislation. I made a commitment on this floor and to the American people that I supported this because I thought it could become self- supporting. I was wrong. I have to admit that. Now the question is, Do we want to continue to have Amtrak or not? I think we should. I still think it is an important mode of transportation we should not sacrifice. But the Congress is going to have to come to terms with reform. There are some Senators who object to moving to it at this time. I believe specifically Senator McCain has indicated he has an objection to it. So while I do not agree with the objection, I do agree that the timing is such that we would not be able to give it full and appropriate consideration, in view of other issues to which we have already agreed to go. Therefore, I object.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we have had a number of discussions with respect to how many conferees the Senate would want to have involved in this very important conference that will deal with trade issues on which we spent a great deal of time in the Senate, including the Andean trade authority, as well as the overall large trade assistance bill and the Trade Promotion Act--three very important pieces included in this one bill. As we look at this, I think this is going to be one of the most important conferences we are going to deal with this year. The House has a small number of conferees to the underlying bill, but they have a number of conferees to different sections to the bill. I suspect there is a total number of House conferees involved that would probably run in the 18 range. We have members of the Finance Committee who worked very hard on this important legislation, and I had hoped that we could get an 8-to-7 or 7-to-6 ratio, or at minimum 6 to 5 to accommodate members of the Finance Committee who are on the subcommittee of jurisdiction and who have put a lot of work into this. I have even tried to say: OK, maybe we can make it work at 5 to 4, but we have not been able to get that worked out. I think for the Senate to be limited to only five conferees on a bill of this magnitude and as complicated as this is, and as many people who worked so hard on it, that it would not be an acceptable arrangement at this time. So I have to object.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have to say, I have no objection to this legislation. In fact, I am a cosponsor of this legislation. It has been discussed and considered for quite some time now, and with the overwhelming support it has, it should move forward. However, on behalf of a Senator on my side of the aisle who is now in the Judiciary Committee in a meeting and could not be here at this particular time, I am going to have to object on his behalf, but I do want to say this: I do not agree. I believe this is legislation we should pass, and this is the last time I am going to have anybody on this side of the aisle object on this issue. Any Senator who has further objection is going to have to do it himself. As a courtesy to a Senator who is currently tied up, I do object.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to executive session for consideration of the following nominations on the calendar: Nos. 810, 825 through 828, 840, 862 through 867, 887 through 889; I further ask that the nominations be confirmed, en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate then resume legislative session. Before the Chair rules, I wish to indicate this request is with respect to 15 judicial nominations, some of which have been on the calendar since May 2. These are nominations that are pending in the Senate, not in the Judiciary Committee. They are ready for consideration by the entire Senate with only one exception; I know of no objections. I will be giving a statement with regard to this matter later, but in consideration of Senator Reid's and others' time, I thought I would make this unanimous consent request first and make my statement on this matter later.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I understand there may be another unanimous consent request in a moment, but it could lead to some discussion back and forth, so at this time I yield myself leader time so I can address the issue that was just objected to.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Senate, the American people, and the House of Representatives have all expressed their outrage at the decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday which ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because it contains the phrase ``under God.'' People are understandably stunned and find it not only unbelievable, but indefensible. Senators and the American people are shocked that two Federal circuit judges were capable of making such an absurd decision. The fact that they did points up, once again, how vitally important these Federal judicial appointments are in guiding not only the country's present, but its future as well. Judges are important at every level, but particularly at the appellate court, the circuit court level. This preposterous decision about the Pledge of Allegiance, which Senators have been outraged about, was handed down by three circuit court judges who voted 2-1 that reciting the Pledge violated the Constitution's Establishment Clause protections. I should note that the vigorous dissent in the case was filed by Judge Ferdinand Fernandez, who was appointed by the first President Bush, and who went into great detail since echoed by many members of this chamber--as to why the other two judges views and reading of the law are both unfounded and inappropriate. An interesting fact about these three judges is that two of the three are actually on senior status which means they are not considered active judges and are semi-retired. The fact that semi-retired judges were deciding is an indication in and of itself that there are problems in this circuit court and there are clearly major problems in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. President, we have been arguing for years about how the Ninth Circuit should be changed. It is a huge circuit which includes not only Hawaii and California, but Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Montana as well. It is not surprising that the states in the circuit also have very different cultural views of the world. Therefore, geographically and ideologically, many Senators encompassed by the Ninth Circuit want it split into at least two, if not three, circuits. The Ninth Circuit is also by far the court that has been reversed the most by the United States Supreme Court. Indeed, the 9th Circuit decisions that have been reviewed by the Supreme Court have been reversed over 80% of the time over the last 6 years. And these have not been close cases in the Supreme Court either. On average, the Ninth Circuit's decisions have received just two votes from the Supreme Court's nine justices. Mr. President, I should also point that one of the judges who did decide to hold that the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag is unconstitutional was Stephen Reinhardt. This active judge, who was appointed in the last year of Jimmy Carter's Presidency, holds the record for the most unanimous reversals by the Supreme Court in a single court term--five. He has been reversed a total of 11 times since the court's 1996-1997 term. He has been involved in such infamous, ridiculous decisions as striking down California's ``three strikes and you're out'' criminal law this spring. He has a long record of other extremely unpopular and, in my opinion, inaccurate and unfounded interpretations of the law and/or the Constitution. So, this judge has engaged in a pattern of using his position on the court to become an activist for social change instead of interpreting the law as passed and voted on by Congress or as written by the Nation's Framers. Twenty-eight active judges are authorized for the Ninth Circuit and five of those seats are vacant. Due to the heavy caseload in the Circuit, all five of those vacancies have been declared judicial emergencies by the Administrative Office of the Courts. President Bush has nominated individuals to fill three of those five vacancies, one from Hawaii who is supported by both of the Democrat Senators from his state has pending on the Executive Calendar since May 16, another from California has been held up in the Committee since June 22nd of last year without even a hearing, and the third from Nevada has been in the Committee for two months. As we can see from this case that has everyone up in arms, these circuit judges do make a difference, and that is why President Bush's Circuit Court nominees are being held up. He and I agree that we should not be putting judges on the appellate courts who will render decisions such as this. The judgment of such judges really has to be questioned by the vast majority of Americans. Despite the vacancies and the judicial emergencies on the Ninth Circuit and all the federal circuits, the Senate continues to have a problem confirming judges without undue and unjustifiable delay. There are some 45 judicial nominees pending before the Senate at one level or another. Yet, we have not confirmed one judge since before the Memorial Day Recess. As I have already noted, as of this morning, there were 15 judges on the Executive Calendar who are ready to go if a few Senators would only let them. Three of the 15 are Circuit Court judges. And there are several circuits around the country that are having real problems handling their caseloads because they do not have enough judges to fill all of their seats--indeed one circuit, the Sixth, has half of its 16 judgeships vacant. Around the country there are 89 judicial vacancies. Thirty-one are Circuit Court vacancies, 17 of which have been declared judicial emergencies by the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Judiciary Committee is holding 11 nominees President Bush has named to fill those 17 emergencies. There are currently 57 vacancies at the District Court level, 18 of which have been declared judicial emergencies. I expect we are going to hear arguments back and forth about the numbers, well, it is because you guys did not confirm enough judges during the President Clinton's last 2 years. But whatever the history may have been, we have a problem now with our circuits that must and can be fixed. Mr. President, another example of how important these judicial appointments can be and what the effect on the nation can be is the decision handed down by the Supreme Court today by a 5-4 vote upholding Cleveland's school voucher program. Frankly, I was amazed it was that close. Again, it points up the importance of even a single judge on the Supreme Court or on a circuit court. I think that says a lot about the real reasons behind what is going on in the Committee with the President's judicial nominees. There are a number of people in the Senate who say that if the President tries to put a conservative, strict constructionist judge on the Supreme Court who will follow the law and not write it from the bench as the judges did in the Pledge of Allegiance case they are going to oppose him no matter how temperamentally, professionally, intellectually, or ethically qualified he or she is. However, as I have said before, many of us on this side of the aisle, voted for Justice Ginsburg when she went through the Senate when President Clinton was in office. We knew we would not agree with most if not all of her future decisions but we felt we had to admit that she was competent, ethical, and qualified for the job despite our philosophically differences with her. There are several other Clinton judges, particularly one or two out in the California circuit, that I voted whose future decisions I will probably live to regret for as long as I live. But there is something worse than bad judges, I guess, and that is no judges, which then expands the power of the bad judges like Judge Goodwin and Judge Reinhardt that are on the Circuit Courts of Appeal now. I will take a moment to note that the Supreme Courts 5-to-4 decision on school vouchers will prove immensely important to thousands of low- income parents whose children are trapped in failing schools. Low- income children need an education even more than other children since it is often their only means of escaping poverty for the rest of their lives. So, when public schools are not succeeding, they and their parents shouldn't be sentenced to failure year after year. They deserve a system and a process that offers them a hand up, and if need be a hand out of a failing school, to find another avenue to succeed. The Supreme Court upheld a process where the money that is being expended on their child in a failing school, or in a school that is drug infested or riddled with crime, can be used instead to lift the child out of the failure and into a setting where they can get an real academically sound education. Is that such an awful result for the thousands of low-income children trapped in dysfunctional and failing schools? In Philadelphia, PA, I understand the State has taken over the running of the public schools. What a tragedy. When Cleveland's system was failing, the city seized the initiative to try and improve things, and so have other areas. In this Cleveland's case, they put in place a voucher program that is working. It is helping children get an education that will last the rest of their lives. Mr. President, getting back to the absurd decision in San Francisco, it is easy for us all to say the Pledge of Allegiance with gusto and mean it, but we need to look behind this decision--how in the world it happened. It is that America's voters understand that these Federal judgeships, and who fills them, do make a difference in the kind of society that not only will we live in, but our children's children will live in. That is why I have tried to find a way to get an agreement to move the President's eminently qualified nominees. Senator Daschle and I have been talking about it for about 3 weeks. I thought we had it all worked out. I think, frankly, we did have it worked out, but now our friend Senator McCain says he is going to object to any and all nominations until he gets some sort of guarantee with regard to a nominee for the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Her nomination was not agreed to for 5 months, and now that the President has started the routine vetting process in order to formally send her nomination to the Senate, Senator McCain is saying that if the nomination is not moved on immediately, he is going to hold up every single nomination pending in the Senate. The investigation and FBI clearance process, for all nominees--and this is a Democrat nominee--usually takes about 2 months now and she will have to go through that process the same as everyone else. So, the President could not appoint her right now if he wanted to. She has not had the clearance check. So, evidently every nominee is going to be held up today, this week, and all of July over a single nominee to the FEC. That means that lifetime appointments of Federal judges on the circuit and district courts, both Democrat and Republican, some who have been waiting for a year or more, will have to wait for months on this single nominee who could not be confirmed today even if everyone was in agreement about her. I do not get it, Mr. President. I think this is a real sad commentary and not becoming, quite frankly, of the Senate, if she should allow this unjustifiable obstruction of all nominees to occur. I have made an effort, as has Senator Daschle. I thought we had made real progress and were ready to go forward with an agreement that would move nonjudicial nominations, judicial nominees, marshals, U.S. attorneys, and a lot of folks who have been waiting a long time. Then we hit a stone wall yet again. I had hoped that one way to do overcome this obstacle would be to move these nominees en bloc. As everyone knows, I do not usually move to Executive Calendar nominations on my own because that is normally the majority leader's prerogative, but if all else fails, you have to take advantage of whatever avenue is available to you. I hope the American people, and the Senate, will take another look at these judicial nominations--and how we can move them and get them confirmed. If it is a continuation of tit for tat when will it ever end? Maybe it will fall to my lot--no pun intended--to some day say that we are going to end this, and we are going to move these nominations unless there is a big ethical problem or they are obviously not qualified. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this bill has not been filed and the amendment mentioned is a brandnew amendment which was received at 3:10 p.m. today. I really do not have any idea what is contained in this complete substitute, but I do know we would be unable to clear it for consent at this time. We are working right now to get in touch with Senator Grassley and others to make sure they are familiar with this and have had a chance to look over the substitute amendment to make sure there is no problem with it. I had hoped we had been able to clear this earlier today, and I hope that if we are not going out of session right away, we might even have a chance to come back, if I can get this cleared, later this afternoon. But until I can do a hotline on it and check with the senior member on the Finance Committee about the substitute amendment, I have to object at this time. I emphasize, I think maybe we can clear it before the afternoon is done. I hope we can come back to it.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object only for parliamentary inquiry, is it the majority leader's intent to put the vote immediately? If I could, under my reservation, then just make a couple of points.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I certainly support this effort. I have no intent at all of objecting. I am very pleased the Senate is going to act so quickly on this matter. Senator Daschle and I have been talking about it the last few minutes. We have developed what I think is very good language to address this outrageous decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Just as the Supreme Court has recognized that elected officials may invoke God's blessing on their work as we do here every day, and as in the House Chamber they have over the Speaker's chair, ``In God We Trust,'' for our children to be allowed to invoke God's blessing on our country in the Pledge of Allegiance is certainly something we want to do. If there is ever a time when we need this additional blessing, perhaps it is now more than ever in our lifetimes. I have seen that and felt that as I have gone around, not only my own State but this country. So I think it is essential the Senate speak immediately in clarification. I hope the Ninth Circuit will have an en banc panel that will reverse this decision; failing that, that the Supreme Court will act on it expeditiously. In our resolved clause, we state that we disapprove of the decision by the Ninth Circuit and that we authorize and instruct the Senate legal counsel to seek to intervene in the case to defend the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. Beyond that, to further make it clear, the Senate should consider a recodification of the language that was passed in 1954. There was no uncertainty or ambiguity about what was done in 1954. The Congress, in fact the American people, spoke through their Congress. We should make it clear once again. I commend you, Senator Daschle, for moving this matter forward aggressively. For the Senate to have this vote is absolutely the right thing to do. I know the American people agree with that decision. I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. LOTT

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

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I know we have a lot of work to do on the Defense authorization bill. I believe we are making good progress. I know Senator Daschle is going to have to make a call sometime today about whether or not we are going to be able to get a lockdown list or whether he files cloture. I am interested in discussing that with him before he makes a final decision because we want to be helpful in getting the work done. I had indicated earlier also that we hoped we could get a time agreement and understanding and all Senators would be on notice as to when we would proceed on the issue involving the Yucca Mountain disposal site. I ask, notwithstanding legislative or executive business or the provisions of rule XXII, immediately following completion of the Defense authorization bill but no later than July 9, the majority leader or the chairman of the Energy Committee be recognized in order to proceed to Calendar No. 412, S.J. Res. 34, and in accordance with the provisions of section 115 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the Senate then vote on the motion, with no further intervening action or debate. I further ask that the motions be agreed to, the Senate consider the joint resolution under the statutory procedure set forth in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act; further, that once pending, the resolution remain before the Senate to the exclusion of any other legislative or executive business; and finally, upon conclusion of floor debate and a quorum call, if requested, as provided by the statute, the Senate vote on H.J. Res. 87 without further intervening motion, point of order, or appeal.

Mr. LOTT. If I could use leader time to comment further, I understand why the Senator would object at this time. However, I make it clear to all the Senators on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the issue, we will make every effort to make Senators aware of when this issue might come up, give them maximum opportunity for the majority leader or the chairman of the Energy Committee to call up this issue, and also so that Members know when we are actually going to get to the issue itself. The way this is set up under expedited procedures, once we go to it, once the motion to proceed is agreed to, there will be 10 hours of debate and we will go to the final vote. I think that is the right scenario. However, I caution Senators, there is a deadline. Under the law there was a certain amount of time this legislation could be pending in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and there was a certain specified period of time during which it could be available for the Senate to act. If we do not act by July 27, the veto of this issue by the Governor of the State involved will hold. The worst of all worlds would be not to act in a responsible way with a clear vote in the prescribed amount of time we have available. By going to this issue the first week we are back, everybody will know when to expect it to come up, and it will be assured that we get it done before the expiration date of July 27. We will continue to speak about the importance of this issue. We have been working on it many years, and we have spent an awful lot of taxpayers' money. It is time we make a decision and move forward with this repository. I am happy to yield to Senator Murkowski.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it will be better if I yield the floor and allow the Senator to get time on his own so he will not have to think he is being inconsiderate of me by the time he takes. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

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

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield myself time under leader time to respond to the action just taken by Senator Daschle. Having been in his position, I certainly understand why he is doing that. I think it is the right thing to do in this case. We clearly need to move this Defense authorization bill forward, as we did the supplemental. We need to get an agreement on that and provide additional funds for defense and homeland security. We also need to get completion of the Defense authorization bill before we leave for the Fourth of July recess. How could we celebrate the freedom of the country without having done our work on the Defense bill in view of all that we are dealing with at home and abroad? So I think the majority leader was in his rights, and I would plan to support his cloture motion unless we can come up with some agreement that would allow us to save time by vitiating that. But I pledge my continued support to try to get this bill done in an orderly fashion at a reasonable hour, hopefully Thursday afternoon or early or late Thursday evening. I just want to be on record that I understand why he is doing it, and I think it is the right thing, all things considered, at this time. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank Senator Daschle for his comments and yielding so I can engage in a colloquy with him. First, regarding the schedule and the majority leader's intent to move forward, I certainly support what he is trying to do. I think good progress has been made this week on the Defense authorization bill. I think we have disposed of two or three issues that could have been very contentious. It took a little time, but we got them done without much difficulty. I assume that next week we will have not more than 4\1/2\ days to finish this bill and maybe some other actions in addition to that. I join the majority leader in urging Members, if they have a serious amendment, to identify it to the managers. This is aimed at both sides. Let's not make up this fictitious list of grand designs where Senators say ``I have 10 amendments'' when everybody knows he or she has one or none. Also, it seems to me, as I recall from studying the list, that there are about four other amendments that could take some time and could be somewhat controversial and require some votes. But there should not be a long list. I hope our managers will not have to sit here all day Monday begging Senators to offer amendments and nobody showing up, and then whine on Thursday if the majority leader has to file a cloture and say: I got cut out. These managers are excellent and experienced and they are going to try to move forward. There has been good cooperation and we need to continue that. Hopefully, we can do effective work on Monday and get a list that we are really going to have to do, and avoid forcing the majority leader to have to file cloture, as he clearly will have to do Tuesday afternoon if we don't have some idea of how we are going to proceed. I used to get into that position, too. It is not always the majority leader's choice. I want to press the point that this is serious legislation. The country needs it, our military men and women need it. The majority leader did the right thing in moving to it. He has a right to expect us to work in good faith in bringing up amendments that are serious and need to be debated.