Jon Tester

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Could the Senator clarify how these dollars will be used? Can they be used on the northern border as far as personnel and technological equipment?

Mr. TESTER. Will the Senator from South Carolina yield for a question?

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute and thanks to Joe Papez, Technical Sergeant, U.S. Army retired. Joe is a veteran of World War II. In fact, he is believed to be the oldest living Purple Heart recipient in the United States, and he is one of the brave men who answered the call of their country and who helped the ``greatest generation'' earn that title. Joe was injured three times during his stint in the Army, where he served in both Africa and Italy, in the campaigns of 1943 and 1944. He earned three Purple Hearts fighting in Casablanca, on the island of Sicily, and in Italy. But it was his last wound by a German artillery shell during the fierce fighting at Anzio, Italy, that earned him a free ticket back home. The way Joe tells the story, after he was wounded in Anzio, he was put on a ship and sent home, but he doesn't remember the trip. He woke up in Virginia. After a while, he was shipped to Denver, where he recovered in a hospital. Then he was shipped to Oregon and finally to Santa Barbara. When he finally got back on his feet, he kept on serving his country by caring for German prisoners of war in Utah, where he remained until the war was over. Following the war, Joe returned to Red Lodge, MT. Disabled from his war wounds, he was unable to get a job. He made a drawing for a homestead in Powell, WY, but was told he was too sick to have it. However, with help from his brothers and a bank loan, he got into farming and ranching. On December 19, Joe Papez will turn 100 years old or, should I say, 100 years young. He will turn 100 in the same town in which he has lived for nearly his entire life. Although he was born in Franklin, KS, the State of Montana is proud to claim Joe as one of our own. Joe's family moved to Red Lodge when he was a year old. Residents of Red Lodge know he is a fixture in the town's Memorial Day parade, he is a regular in the Fourth of July parade, and even at his age, he marches in these parades to remember his brothers in arms with whom he served. And they will always remember him. Fittingly, the Billings chapter of the Military Order of the Purple Heart is named for Joe Papez. Joe is spry and healthy and said he would serve his country again if he could. Joe Papez has served his country and his community, and he has done it very well. So today we give thanks to him and Dorreen, and we pray for more folks just like Joe. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I am proud to join with my Democratic colleagues in the freshmen class who are offering amendment No. 2999 today. I wish to give my thanks in particular to Senator McCaskill, Senator Webb, as well as the other six freshmen Senators in the Democratic caucus in offering this amendment that deals with accountability as it applies to contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The nine of us were elected last fall in large measure because the people in this country were tired of the war in Iraq and tired of a lack of accountability for how our tax dollars have been spent in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The fact is, people in Montana and around the country work way too hard to have their tax dollars stolen from them by people who think they can take advantage of an environment where there is little or no oversight or accountability. This amendment will bring some much needed accountability in the way our tax dollars are spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we will do it in a way that takes this issue out of the political spotlight. This amendment will establish a bipartisan commission to review the contracts we have entered into in fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Commission will be outside of Congress and will be outside of the Bush administration. The amendment will also direct this new Commission to review the way new contracts are awarded and overseen. This will give us a chance to prevent future waste, fraud, and abuse. The Commission will work in consultation with the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, which currently oversees only reconstruction contracts in Iraq, to review and investigate logistics, security, and intelligence work that has been contracted out by the Defense Department. According to the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, we have squandered $10 billion in Iraq reconstruction funds due to contract overcharges and unsupported expenses. That means 1 out of every 6 reconstruction dollars spent in Iraq is not accounted for, and only now, after 5 years of war in Iraq, the Army is looking back at nearly $100 million in contracts to determine how these funds have been spent. I think it is important for folks to understand we are not coming at this with the idea that every contract is a bad one. There are many contractors who are doing a good job and who are being responsible with our tax dollars. But there are others who are not. At a time when we are struggling to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi and Afghani people, those who are deliberately overeating at the taxpayer trough, while our troops are fighting and dying in Iraq, are nothing short of treasonous. Many Americans have questioned how their tax dollars are being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have wondered why it is that there are more contractors than troops in Iraq. They have wondered why some companies are enjoying record profits even though so many projects remain incomplete. For too long, the answer from the Government has been a deafening silence. This amendment is a long-overdue response to the cries for accountability and transparency in our contracting process. It should not be and is not a partisan issue. It is about good government. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Webb amendment. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment. Much has been made about this amendment and the well-being of our troops and their families. Make no mistake, this amendment is about ensuring that we do not do permanent damage to the military's most valuable asset--its people. Congress must make the health and well-being of our men and women overseas a priority. We know multiple deployments with short periods of rest back home raise the incidence of PTSD. Studies have shown that the likelihood of a soldier being diagnosed with PTSD rises by 50 percent when he or she is on a second or third deployment. We know multiple deployments are causing a massive strain on our junior officer corps. Earlier this year, the Army's Deputy Chief of Staff told Congress these officers are getting out of the Army at nearly double the rate that the Army says is acceptable. That is why until this war, we have always given our active-duty soldiers a ratio of 2 days at home for every day in combat, and we have always given the National Guard and Reserve 5 days at home for every day in combat. That has been the standard until this war. That is why the National Military Families Association supports this amendment. That is why the Military Officers Association of America supports this amendment. The Military Officers Association says: If we are not better stewards of our troops and their families . . . we will be putting the all-volunteer force at unacceptable risk. I urge my colleagues to listen to what our officers and their families are saying through their support of the Webb amendment. As my colleagues know, I am a farmer; I am not a military expert. But I believe and the people of my State believe in no uncertain measure that we need to continue to have the strongest military in the world, not only today, not only 6 months from now, but 6 years from now as well. The good news is we have a strong military. I represent 3,500 Air Force personnel, more than 300 of whom are serving in Iraq and other places around the world today. I represent another 3,600 Guardsmen, many of whom have spent a tour or two in Iraq. I can tell my colleagues that these people are the best in the world at what they do, and I am proud to represent them. But the bad news is what I am hearing is we are in danger of losing too many young leaders in our military today who are leading a platoon but whom we will be relying on to lead brigades and entire divisions in the future. I know some people on both sides of the aisle have raised the question of how this measure will impact the schedule for the surge General Petraeus has outlined. The fact is, even if this amendment becomes law, the Pentagon would still have another 4 months to prepare for the change in policy, and if there is a national emergency, there is an opportunity for even more time. The fact is, this amendment will have a much greater impact on tomorrow's military than it will impact on the military surge. I believe we need the Webb amendment to ensure that we maintain a strong military today, tomorrow, and for years to come. I congratulate Senator Webb for this amendment. This has been a good debate. For the most part, it has been thoughtful and respectful. There have been differences of opinion, but it is time to allow this measure to have an honest vote before the Senate. Let's not simply debate whether to debate this amendment. Let's have an up-or-down vote on the measure. Our troops, their families, and the American people deserve nothing less. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I have a question for the Senator from Oklahoma. I have a statement that applies to servicemen going off to war in Iraq from the State of Montana, which does not apply to this bill. It is a statement I want to make as in morning business. If the Senator from Oklahoma has something applicable to this bill and he is time sensitive, I would defer to him, if he wishes.

Mr. TESTER. I thank the Senator. Madam President, first of all, I have a few comments to make about the bill. I thank the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Washington for their great work on this bill. I would hope that the Senate would pass this bill as it is because I think it is a good piece of legislation that fits the needs of our country very well. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I rise today to speak in opposition to an amendment Senator Coburn is going to be offering in a few minutes. I rise today to say a few words about a construction project this amendment is potentially eliminating. It is a construction project that is generating a lot of excitement and community pride in my home State of Montana. While campaigning for this Senate seat this time last year, I repeatedly said I support appropriations for projects that improve our Nation's infrastructure--projects such as safer bridges, better water canals, better highways, and improvements to our Nation's economic development. That is why I am following this project in Billings, MT, very closely. The project is a major effort by the people of Billings to reinvigorate their city's economy by rebuilding a well-known landmark--Cobb Field. Right now, crews are already working on the new stadium. Once finished, it will serve as a venue for sports, concerts, and art fairs throughout the year. It will attract visitors from all over the region. The people of Billings are very proud of Cobb Field and the role it plays in their community. That is why they voted to raise their own taxes by over $10 million to rebuild this stadium. They understand how important it is to be proud of a place where they can gather as families, host visitors, and enjoy American pastimes. The people of Billings also understand that the new Cobb Field will be a major economic boost. It will be an asset to the entire region. That is why I have requested the Senate invest $500,000 in this project. Believe me, it will go a long way in Billings--a community that has already done its part. I believe this is a pretty darn reasonable request. The community development fund in this appropriations bill specifically sets aside money for projects that boost economies in cities such as Billings. What is the community development fund for if it is not for good community development projects such as this? I am asking my colleagues not to remove any Federal funding in this community project. Instead, I stand before you to ask for a small investment in economic development for a growing community to provide jobs, tourism, and overall economic growth. While running for this Senate seat, I criticized Congress for sneaking in projects in the dead of night, attaching them to spending bills behind closed doors without any accountability. It happened a lot more often than most people think. Our Government spent a lot of money without properly vetting it through Congress. For the better, times have changed. I stand before you today to vigorously defend why I requested this funding project in the light of day. I am going to bat for it because Cobb Field deserves the funding. There are no secrets here, there is no waste--just a good, worthwhile community project that will only make a very special place in my home State even better. I am not going to let Cobb Field strike out. It is too much of an investment by Montana folks who work hard and raise families. They are taking it upon themselves to make their home better, and I will do everything I can to help. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I know that over the last 6 years every Senator has had to send some of their sons and daughters in their State off to war, but today is the first time as a Member of this body I have had to see so many members of a squadron in my State deployed. So it is with great pride that I rise to honor the 400 air men and women of the Air Force's 819th RED HORSE Squadron. About one-half of this squadron is deploying today for training in Wisconsin before going to Iraq later this year. Over the last decade, Malmstrom Air Force Base in Great Falls, MT, has been the home of the 819th RED HORSE Squadron. For the uninitiated, RED HORSE stands for rapid engineer deployable heavy operation repair squadron engineer. Basically, these are the men and women who rebuild Air Force facilities overseas, such as runways. They also have spent considerable time in Iraq rebuilding schools and homes. These are men and women who do some truly wonderful work. In a previous deployment to Iraq in 2005, the squadron was involved in 130 construction projects on 12 different bases in Iraq. The 819th has served in Afghanistan and Qatar. In every place they have taken on complicated engineering projects for the U.S. Government but have also done outstanding work with locals to rehabilitate housing and provide residents with everything from coloring books for kids to new washing machines. It is a combination of accomplishment, strength, and generosity that represents the best of our Nation. This afternoon, as the men and women of the 819th begin to train for the mission that will send them to Iraq, they leave behind spouses, children, and other family members. We know that piano recitals and football games will be missed this fall. There will be an empty chair at too many holiday meals. The 819th is an Active Associate unit, meaning that it is compromised of both Active-Duty airmen and Air National Guardsmen. For the citizen soldiers of our Air Guard, these deployments can be especially difficult, and I hope all Montanans will keep these airmen and their families in their thoughts and prayers. And when they return home, we have a moral responsibility to care for the folks who have worn the uniform of our country. Whether they return to Active Duty or reenter civilian life, the Federal Government must support them. Congress has taken numerous steps this year to provide more resources for the VA and to improve the quality of life for our troops. I hope we will continue to make progress in these areas so that when the 819th comes home we are able to welcome these airmen back home with our deeds and not just our words.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. I thank the Senator from Arizona. I think communication and trust is critical if we are going to address the issues in our forests today. I think if we can develop good communication with all parties involved, we will help move our forests to a healthier level. I thank the Senator for his comments.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise to share some news from my home State. I am anxiously following the wildfires burning across Montana. Over the last few weeks, tens of thousands of acres of the Treasure State have burned. In fact, the top four fires in the West are burning in Montana. Hundreds of folks have been evacuated from their homes. Interestingly enough, today, August 3rd, is traditionally only the third day of the wildfire season. Times are changing. This past weekend I had the opportunity to visit the front lines of two Montana wildfires, which tell two different fire policy stories. One thing they have clearly got in common: fine, hardworking men and women toughing it out in grueling conditions to protect each other and the public from harm's way. In my State, we are also relying on the hardworking folks in the Montana National Guard. As of today, about 130 guardsmen and women have been called to help fight Montana's fires. Some of these folks cancelled summer plans to answer the call to help. They are working alongside other firefighters to do dangerous, hot, dirty work to protect Montana's people and property. To all wildland firefighters across this country, I say thank you. We owe them all respect and gratitude. We also owe them policies that will best benefit the landscape they are working so hard to protect. The two fires I visited both started the same week, in late June. That is really early for Montana. Both are burning in the Bob Marshall Wilderness, a spectacular place where the Rocky Mountains spill onto the plains. The Ahorn fire was 15,000 acres when I visited. It is now over 40,000 acres, burning 30 miles west of the ranching and farming community of Augusta. The Forest Service is concerned because the Ahorn fire is big and unwieldy. It is burning near a ``fire exclusion'' area, an area that the Forest Service has not allowed fire to burn over the years in order to protect seasonal cabins on private land east near the forest boundary. As a result of the fuels that built up over the years due to suppressing fire, the Ahorn fire is going to do pretty much what the fire wants to do. The Forest Service threw $1 million at it when it first took off, and that ``didn't make a dent,'' according to the fire officials. The agency says it will not be successful in controlling the perimeter of the fire, though it probably will be successful at protecting those cabins. This has nothing to do with the agency's abilities. It has everything to do with fires that burn hotter and harder now because of a hotter climate and denser forests. To date, the Ahorn fire has cost nearly $5 million. Last Saturday, I also got a chance to see the Fool Creek fire. That fire was 6,200 acres when I saw it. Today it is about 22,000 acres. The Fool Creek fire is burning west of Choteau, another ranching and farming community. The Forest Service has been managing the Fool Creek fire as a ``Wildland Fire Use For Resource Benefit,'' which means fire bosses have been mostly allowing it to burn for the benefit of the forest. So far, it has been a lot more manageable because it is moving in and around lands that burned in 1988 and in 2000. It is still hot and dry out there and the fire made a big run yesterday, but all told, the fire has been easier to manage than Ahorn. To date, the Fool Creek fire has cost $1.3 million. That is four times less than the cost of fighting the Ahorn fire, with similar outcomes. It is not very popular to tell the American people that the Forest Service is letting the woods burn. But what we have learned in the last 20 years is: sometimes, it is the right thing to do. We have another problem in my home State, and that's the holdover from longstanding fights on how to manage our forests. We will never get back to the timber harvest levels of the 1970s, nor should we. But the pendulum has swung too far, and now we are too often fighting in the courts about cutting down trees. Quite frankly, we don't have enough people working out in the woods. That is a problem economically and ecologically. Throw in climate change, thousands of acres of dead, dry beetle-infested trees, and lots of new houses popping up on the edges of our national forests, and we have a perfect storm brewing. I don't think it is a coincidence that, with all the fuel buildup in our forests and the hottest summer on record, we're in the middle of a whopper of a fire season. Climatologists tell me that this is becoming the new norm. This is what we can continue to expect. Which means we have to get even smarter about when to fight wildfire, and where, and how best to stretch every dollar spent on battling them. And we have to get serious about supporting the Forest Service as it reduces fuels in the forests. With the Forest Service spending 45 percent of its budget on fire suppression, it barely has the time or the resources to restore our forests to health. With firefighting costs predicted to go even higher, creating a trust fund for fire management makes a great deal of sense to me. It is something we have to do in order to ensure that funds will be available to do the work of restoring health to our forests. Because when we restore our forests, we will make them more resilient to fire. This is something we have to do, and we have to do it fast, especially around our Western towns and communities. This issue won't go away when fire season comes to an end. The conversation will continue with my colleagues here in Washington and with all folks in. Montana. We'll be talking about fire and forest health and the opportunities they provide us. They are connected, and they are connected to Montana's well-being and economy.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Before I get into my remarks, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from California for the leadership they have shown on the WRDA bill. I couldn't agree more; infrastructure is critically important to this country. Infrastructure that revolves around our water resources may be the most important infrastructure we have. And to invest in that is truly a good investment that benefits our kids and grandkids and generations thereafter. So thank you both for your work on this bill and, hopefully, it can be passed with a good, healthy vote coming out of this body.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Leahy and Baucus to introduce the Organic Conversion Assistance Act to help provide needed technical and conservation assistance to farmers and ranchers converting to organic agriculture. I wanted to thank Senator Leahy for his leadership on organic agricultural issues and Senator Baucus for his long-time support for Montana's farmers and ranchers. My wife and I have spent our careers farming organically on our farm near Big Sandy, MT. Nearly 20 years ago we were struggling to get ahead and trying to decide if we could really make it farming while so many of our neighbors were packing up and moving away. We knew at that time that if we didn't make some changes to our business we would end up like so many of our neighbors leaving rural Montana for jobs in town. In 1988, we took what was then a risk and converted our farm to organic production. Our motivations were mostly economic but partly for health reasons. We wanted to farm on our own terms and to make more money. When I farmed conventionally I felt beholden to one big company after another from buying fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, fuel, to selling my grain to a corporation and shipping it by rail at high prices and we rarely came out ahead. Every season after I would spray for weeds and bugs, I would feel sick for a week afterwards. Organic agriculture let us take control of our farm and our livelihood. More and more farmers are converting to organics as consumer demand soars. Organics is now the fastest growing sector of the food industry expanding at a rate of over 20 percent a year. In Montana, we lead the Nation in organic wheat production and are a close second in the production of organic barley, peas and lentils. Consumer demand for organic products is growing so fast that we are now importing a significant portion of the organic food that is found in our grocery stores. In the U.S. we grow the highest quality and safest food in the world. I believe that increased production of domestically produced organic foods will help meet consumer demand, help keep farmers on the land, and because organic agriculture needs fewer inputs it helps conserve our land, and clean up our air and water. But if the U.S. is going to keep pace with imported organic products we need to get more acreage under organic production here at home. The legislation I am introducing today will provide conversion assistance to farmers making the transition from conventional to organic agriculture. Currently it takes 3 to 4 years to become certified organic, but during that period of time producers cannot receive the higher price that organics fetch in the market place. Furthermore, the shift towards a new way of farming and ranching creates technical challenges for many producers as they change the way they do things. Offering technical and educational assistance as well as cost-share funds for conservation initiatives under a certified organic plan will provide a needed helping hand to farmers. Making the conversion will help keep farmers on the land by putting a bit more money in their pockets and help our rural communities be viable. Many States have already adopted similar assistance programs and agricultural producers nationwide would benefit from having a consistent and available program in years to come. I would appreciate the support of my colleagues as this legislation moves forward.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Leahy and Baucus to introduce the Organic Conversion Assistance Act to help provide needed technical and conservation assistance to farmers and ranchers converting to organic agriculture. I wanted to thank Senator Leahy for his leadership on organic agricultural issues and Senator Baucus for his long-time support for Montana's farmers and ranchers. My wife and I have spent our careers farming organically on our farm near Big Sandy, MT. Nearly 20 years ago we were struggling to get ahead and trying to decide if we could really make it farming while so many of our neighbors were packing up and moving away. We knew at that time that if we didn't make some changes to our business we would end up like so many of our neighbors leaving rural Montana for jobs in town. In 1988, we took what was then a risk and converted our farm to organic production. Our motivations were mostly economic but partly for health reasons. We wanted to farm on our own terms and to make more money. When I farmed conventionally I felt beholden to one big company after another from buying fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, fuel, to selling my grain to a corporation and shipping it by rail at high prices and we rarely came out ahead. Every season after I would spray for weeds and bugs, I would feel sick for a week afterwards. Organic agriculture let us take control of our farm and our livelihood. More and more farmers are converting to organics as consumer demand soars. Organics is now the fastest growing sector of the food industry expanding at a rate of over 20 percent a year. In Montana, we lead the Nation in organic wheat production and are a close second in the production of organic barley, peas and lentils. Consumer demand for organic products is growing so fast that we are now importing a significant portion of the organic food that is found in our grocery stores. In the U.S. we grow the highest quality and safest food in the world. I believe that increased production of domestically produced organic foods will help meet consumer demand, help keep farmers on the land, and because organic agriculture needs fewer inputs it helps conserve our land, and clean up our air and water. But if the U.S. is going to keep pace with imported organic products we need to get more acreage under organic production here at home. The legislation I am introducing today will provide conversion assistance to farmers making the transition from conventional to organic agriculture. Currently it takes 3 to 4 years to become certified organic, but during that period of time producers cannot receive the higher price that organics fetch in the market place. Furthermore, the shift towards a new way of farming and ranching creates technical challenges for many producers as they change the way they do things. Offering technical and educational assistance as well as cost-share funds for conservation initiatives under a certified organic plan will provide a needed helping hand to farmers. Making the conversion will help keep farmers on the land by putting a bit more money in their pockets and help our rural communities be viable. Many States have already adopted similar assistance programs and agricultural producers nationwide would benefit from having a consistent and available program in years to come. I would appreciate the support of my colleagues as this legislation moves forward.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Surface Owner Protection Act to help protect private property on split estates. The Western U.S. is experiencing a boom in oil and gas exploration that will contribute to the domestic supply of energy in this country, improve our National security and help control energy costs for American consumers. But if it is not done right oil and gas leasing can be damaging to wildlife, pollute our water, and scar the land. Furthermore, in many areas of the West the land is in split estates where mineral rights are owned by the Federal Government, but the surface is owned by a private land owner. Oftentimes the process of oil and gas leasing and drilling does not adequately involve surface owners or protect their agricultural livelihoods that are disrupted during energy development. Split estates cover 58 million acres in the U.S., and 11.7 million acres in Montana alone. That is just slightly smaller than the size of New Jersey, Maryland, and Delaware combined. In states like Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado there has been a rapid increase in the number of leases and the amount of acreage that the Bureau of Land Management is approving for oil and gas exploration. It is expected that coal-bed methane development will bring tens of thousands of wells in coming decades. The rapid growth is causing general unease in some areas because surface owners have few rights when it comes to oil and gas exploration on their land. Too often surface owners have no idea that their minerals are owned by someone else or when they are going to be leased. The legislation I am introducing today is meant to better involve surface owners in the process of oil and gas exploration by requiring notification to surface owners when their land is going to be leased, require operators to replace any water that disrupts other users, and requires bonding for the reclamation of surface land. Surface owners should have a clear role in each step of the process from the day a lease sale is announced to the time when the rigs are gone and reclamation work is completed. Critics of this measure will argue that it gets in the way of drilling. I would say that oil and gas drilling should not get in the way of farmers and ranchers going about their business without clear legal guidelines. The protection of private property rights is crucially important as a personal freedom in the U.S. and we must take steps to protect them. I encourage members of this body to support this measure as we move forward because I believe that we can improve the way we conduct oil and gas leases on split estates. A better balance between oil and gas interests and surface owners is possible, but we need to make sure that we develop our energy resources in an appropriate manner with respect to private property owners.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the joint resolution be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating to the joint resolution be printed in the Record. The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 8) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed, as follows: S.J. Res. 8 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with section 5581 of the Revised Statutes (20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, in the class other than Members of Congress, occurring because of the expiration of the term of Patricia Q. Stonesifer of Washington, is filled by the reappointment of Patricia Q. Stonesifer, for a term of 6 years, effective December 22, 2007.

Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration of S.J. Res. 8 and that the Senate then proceed to its consideration.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. TESTER. I ask unanimous consent that the Armed Services Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Con. Res. 26 and the Senate proceed to its consideration.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m., Wednesday August 1; that on Wednesday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that there be a period of morning business for 30 minutes, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each and the time under the control of the Republican leader or his designee; that following the period of morning business, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 976 and resume consideration of the Ensign amendment No. 2538, with 30 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Ensign and Baucus or their designees, with no second- degree amendments in order prior to the vote; that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment without further intervening action or debate; that on Wednesday at 12 noon, Senator Byrd be recognized to speak as in morning business for up to 30 minutes.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. TESTER

Mr. TESTER. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.