the building of systems and organizations the human televisions match with our electronics and our technological capability that will continue to allow us to be a safer nation and what americans have now recognized is a very unsafe world i yield the floor the question is on the amendment as amended is there a mr brownback mr bunning mrs clinton mr coburn mr cochran mr coleman ms collins mr conrad mr and no way mr isaacson mr johnson mr lay he mr eleven mr lieberman mrs lincoln mr lott mr lug mr martinez mr mccain mrs mccaskill mr mcconnell mr menendez mr nelson of florida mr roberts mr rockefeller mr salazar mr sanders mr schumer mr session warner mr webb mr white house mr wyde nelson of florida nelson of nebraska pryor reid of nevada stabenow now warner and whitehouse no senator voted in the negative mr coleman mr coleman i'm mr kyle mr kyle  mr sanders mr sanders mr shelby a mr schumer a what is regularity the regular what would be the levin amendment i call for the regular order the amendment is now pending mr president i ask unanimous consent that senator sanders be recognized for three minutes a mr president i understand that the senator from vermont was going to speak for a couple of minutes and i would have the floor after that very well that's understandable and you don't know more than ten minutes probably less than that i am in my men my unanimous consent the request that and his staff be granted the floor privileges during the today's debate without objection the senator from vermont i think the senator from michigan to uli mr president a number of vermont families are traveling to allington national cemetery this week they are a special group and they are here for a very special reason the group is called the vermont colon and they represent the many families that i was a state where i was a loved one during the war in afghanistan or the war in iraq on saturday july hundred seventy eight he was a graduate of the two thousand and one class of norwich university and served as a police officer in wilmington vermont as well as the wyndham county sheriff's department a first lieutenant in the vermont national g he served with the third battalion one hundred seventy second mountain in fact he was killed west of ramadi iraq on september nineteenth two thousand and five when the scout platoon it was leaving was ambushed the vermont fall and serve a wonderful and unique purpose they allow families from vermont web soffit on imaginable loss to come together and support each other in a way that they and only they can do is the president today we're on the life objection objection objection is heard mr president i'm disappointed that an objection has been raised i intended to offer amendment twenty one eighty nine it's at the desk it's the coleman dem prohibit the f c c from reinstating the fairness doctrine let me just tell over what we intend to do i'm not asking for a vote here i'm not asking for a any kind of limitations in time or i just want a mammoth to be put in a queue it's an amendment by the way which the houses of issue it's what the house dealt with and in the house this issue this bill passed i think over three hundred votes in favor hundred thirteen democrats commission would not be able to reinstate the fairness doctrine and it says in our read the commission shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule regulation policy doctrine or other requirement that is the purpose or effect of reinstating or promulgating a whole applaud the requirement that broadcasters including the armed forces network including the armed forces network present opposing viewpoints in controversial issues of public importance commonly referred to as the fairness doctrine versus president there is nothing fair about the fairness doctrine in the past few weeks there has been discussion among some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have said very publicly time to reinstate the fairness doctrine we have troops in the field of combat today putting their lives on the line and part of what we protect into this country that the first of all him as a first amendment is freedom of speech  fairness amendment is a is a relic of a via gone past it was tossed and the ash heap of history about one hundred eighty seven was in place from forty nine to eighty seven its intended effect was to have the federal government monitor what's said on the airwaves and then require a broadcast is present with the federal government calls balance the effect was much different than that much different than that in effect stifle speech if you're a broadcaster you own a station and you're subject to find some kind of penalty if you don't provide the kind of balance that the government says you must provide then you run the risk of some kind of penalty you may well choose and in fact history showed what happened it may well choose simply to play country music and i love country music but i also love free speech and we don't want to put in place anything that stifles free speech we've moved from one hundred forty nine when you had a few t v stations in and the information that you got came from a relatively few sources to a world today in which we have broadband and high speed internet and satellites and blogs and a whole range of information and that's a good thing particular this issue even comes up because of concerns of my friends on the other side of the aisle the talk radio somehow is dominated by conservatives one may argue that perhaps broadcast journalism may be dominated by liberals i mean studies that have shown that but for us we shouldn't care to terms of whether it's dominated by and have to grab the response of the government come in and try to somehow measure or comes to information this president i absolutely believe that americans should hear both sides absolutely but i believe strongly believe that the government should not be in the position of deciding and dictating now here is the other side there is we have in the in the wind in the world of communications today americans have all sorts of options to he have aside all they got to do is turn a dial all they've got to do is push a button all they got to do is press a mouse and they have that ability once in a deal for the question president i yield to question does senator concede that the airwaves belong to the american people president i can see the air always belong to the american people would sooner you'll for further question present the question with the senator concede that those who use the people's airwaves to make a profit have to do it with a license from our government its president i understand and agree that we have a licensing process i know what it might be leading to but i want to make sure that the premise is something that we may agree on the airwaves blog the american people those who profit from them do it by permission of the people through their government and that those who use those are way should do it responsibly and should seek to provide both points of view both sides of the story so that americans can reach a decision as the senator from minnesota if he disagrees with any of those things here's what i dismiss president i would say to my to my learned colleague from illinois here is our off point of disagreement there is no question in fact that there is a licensing process i was a former mayor we licensed a lot of things but i think one of the basic principles at stake is that we don't license and measure content when it comes to speech and that's my concern that in fact because of the multiplicity of communications options that are available to suit a sense today as i said before blogs and internet and and broadband and which we didn't have didn't have twenty thirty years ago where where my objection lies in the importance of this amendment is to say government shouldn't be monitoring and regulating content when not to king about obscenity there are things of the senate  and the cry then is to regulate contact and that's what i object to if i can ask the senator to yield further for question there was a recent episode within the last two years where the public broadband broadcasting corporation took the show off the air by bill moyers and wanted to replace it with a show authored by the wall street journal and there were complaints obviously that mr moore's was too liberal and content does the senator from minnesota believe that that was a fair outcome or what he conceded would be a fair outcome to allow the american people to watch both shows by the wall street journal and bill moyers and to hear both points of view and decide what they've read with its president i first i'm thrilled that i'm having this discussion with the senator from illinois and my concern is i just offered an amendment which was objected to that we had the amendment not been objected to we would have a time for a full debate on this amendment the senator from illinois i know the senator from south dakota has a great interest in this issue i presume that my colleagues on the other side of the aisles senator from massachusetts junior senator massachusetts has raised concerns about the fairness about the way that we should reinstate the fairness doctrine has said that publicly i would love to have this debate and yet i stand here offering amendments objected to which will limit the debate and so we have we're having this this this colloquy and i appreciate that will respond but i'm disappointed that the other side of the aisle not give us an opportunity for a full debate on this issue in fact i think i want all sides to be heard what i don't want and where there's a fundamental disagreement is for the regulatory power of government to sit in judgment as big brother to oversee and take stock with pencil and pad and take notes well we had shown hannity over here and now we've got to get somebody on the run the left over there balance should be here but we have a marketplace that provides that opportunity we have folks who support the senator from illinois perspective we have folks who support my perspective sometimes where the same but for the government to dictate that's the concern about then that's why that that's why the f c c got rid of the fairness doctrine eighty seven it's why the or the appropriate committee of jurisdiction we can really get into this question but the senators are arguing that the marketplace can provide what is a senator's response of the marketplace fails to provide what if the marketplace does not provide opportunities to hear both points of view since the people who are or seeking the licenses are using america's airwaves does the government speaking for the people of this country have any interest at that point to step in and make sure there is a fair and balanced approach to the information given to the american people president i'll respond to the final question here did very very clear disagreement here the government does not does not have the responsibility to regulate content of speech that's what the first amendment is about exactly what the first amendment is about government is not supposed to be regulating content in a time in one nine hundred forty nine when you had three network t v these stations basically when you had limited channels of communication i presumed there was a legitimate concern on the part of some that in fact government needs to step in and ensure balance but now we're in two thousand and seven we're in a time where we've got twenty thousand fact you know opportunities for stations  satellite you have cable you have blogs you have a whole range of information i think it would be i can't even conceive i can't even conceive that the market cannot provide opportunities for differing positions  and in the end in the end consumers also have a right based on the market to make choices and so they make choices that say we want to hear more of one side than the other that's ok and i think it's very dangerous i say to my wife my friends and i think it's very dangerous for government to be in the position of deciding what's fair and balanced because as we see on the floor of the senate oftentimes amongst ourselves learned hopefully learn individuals who had the great home by opportunity serving us and we have differences as to what is fair and balanced and some of the reason i think we have a first amendment is that we get government out of out of the the measuring controlling dictating regulating content and that's my concern and that's what this amendment about and i would love to have the debate with the center from illinois i would have hoped that this amendment which simply been put in queue would have been heard i think americans love a fair fight i think americans love this kind of dialogue there's nothing fair about the fairness doctrine is nothing fair if they if the intent here really i think we've got to lay it on the table the intent  this is to got to shut down or to limit the you know conservative talk radio that's where the concern is and yet as i said before one can raise questions about balance in the print media one can raise questions about balance in the broadcast media but i don't think it's the role of government to be sitting there listening and then weighing deciding what's fair and balance and then requiring under under penalty a broadcaster to say you have to then present this opposing point because what's going to athan mr president the history has shown this broadcasters are simply going to say let's do something else why be in that position where there's a line that may be cross that i don't know what that line is that line may change depending on who is sitting there as a as an f c c chair and again as i said before be on the market principle cruise we first amendment principles there are market principles talk radio has flourished because the market the consumer says i want to listen and they have then been given choices they can simply turn off the dial turn or they can shut off the radio if they don't want to listen but it has flourished and it's flourished because of demand and that's the market not because of government command not because of government control we don't want the government regulating content like never before americans have a wealth of information a viewpoint thanks to cable television radio and internet and that's a good thing and let it flourish john kennedy stated we are not afraid to entrust the american people with unpleasant facts foreign ideas alien philosophies and competitive values for a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and false w an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people its president i'm not afraid of the people i'm not afraid of the people having access to the information ideas that they want to have access to but i am afraid of the government stepping in and regulating content we have a first amendment that's that the underpinning the foundation of all the other amendments the fairness doctrine flies in the face of that it was rejected it was rejected in one thousand nine hundred seventy the idea of bringing it back today is a very very bad idea this amendment specifically includes the armed forces network off oaks are out there on the front line variety they should be able to tune into whatever they want to tune into and they shouldn't be thinking that back home someone at the  listening and monitoring and deciding what is say there and what is balance that the people decide that the market decide that the first amendment claridge mr president with that i yield the floor the senator junior senator from pennsylvania be recognized to speak as if in morning business for ten minutes so objection without objection as defender from florida as president is there a time limit on my remarks twenty minutes i think the presiding officer mr president i come to this discussion of the iraq issue from a position of having been in the political arena for thirty five years my brand of politics is moderation my representation is generally recognized as being in the mainstream that is clearly where my state of florida in the majority of its politics is in the mainstream of american politics and say it so many people like to categorize us and little boxes of where our politics is i am generally categorized in that box as a moderate democrat and i am here today to stay why i will vote for the leaven reid amendment with regard to the troops in iraq now how do but i come to this conclusion remembering in alford lord tennyson's poll in ulysses he says that i am a part of all that i have met certainly my frame of reference was shaped in large part upon graduation from college being commissioned as a lieutenant in the united states army reserve and being on active duty first going on active duty as a first lieutenant and then within a year since that was the vietnam era the repeated of promotion and serving the second of my two years of active duty as a captain in the us army that was a tough experience for our country militarily because that was in the middle of vietnam and it was at a time that as i went on active duty president johnson had just announced that he was not going to run for reelection and in large part that was  cause of the conflict with a nation that was split asunder over the issue of support of the war and then the two years of active duty the beginning of the nixon administration as they tried to grapple with the war ultimately concluding some four years later that we had to start withdrawing it was a time that certainly is different from now because there is such respect for our troops now that was not necessarily the case all the time back then when i was in the military certainly all the intercourse that i had as a military officer was was the best but that was not the case for a lot of our returning soldiers and indeed they came home to an america that did not support them and did not stand up for them and we learned a lot of very painful lessons out of that vietnam experience there's hardly a one of us in this chamber who have the fresh memories of that time that when we go down on to the mall to the vietnam memorial that there is not some kind of emotion that is in  often the emotion of choking up as you see those almost sixty thousand names and you see those dramatic statues of both the men and the women that served in vietnam and one of the awful lessons of vietnam is that you cannot conduct a war unless you have the support of the american people and so tragically that's the situation that we're getting to do that it's a lot different than vietnam because there is just outright  patriotic support for our troops and the extraordinary job that they are doing but it is very clear if you listen and to the street if you talk to your people back home you realize that the american people are not satisfied with the conduct of this war they are not satisfied with the progress of this war and the american people in increasingly larger are not supporting this war how did i come to this conclusion well back in two thousand and three when we voted on the all through zation for this war i voted for it as did most of the senators here the information that we were given at the time was clearly information that we believed and that was that there were weapons of mass destruction there were certainly chemical and biological weapons we were led to believe that saddam hussein had a very active nuclear program i'm not talking about whispers behind the door or sayre tish's notes that were passed in the night i'm talking about meeting after meeting right up there and ask zero seven the security in the united states capitol sometimes when seventy five senators were present being briefed by the highest levels of the government the secretary of defense the national security adviser the head and deputy head of the cia the head of the defense intelligence agency all over and over these were the impressions and did the specific information yes i got a copy of the national intelligence report and it was in a meeting called by our chairman joe biden who had in that same room a secure meeting of which we discussed it with representatives that were there to discuss and indeed the director of the cia george tenet at a later meeting after others had already briefed that there was a program that saddam hussein likely had to take unmanned aerial vehicles put biological and chemical weapons on them put them on ships off the east coast of the united states and launch them over east coast cities of the united states that i conclude that there was an imminent threat to the interest of the united states by virtue of the information that i was given you bet and george tenet even confirmed that after the fact when it became available that that was not the case and what was worse that i was not told that in the intelligence community that a major part of the intelligence community air force intelligence disputed that fact about the unmanned aerial vehicles in fact air force intelligence knew more about unmanned aerial vehicles and anybody else and they disputed and they said they were likely for reconnaissance purposes not for offensive parks but that's not what i was told and that's not what george tenet said even after the fact when i questioned him about it after we had already voted so knowing today what i know that none of that was true would have voted the same way of course i would but i voted in two thousand and three for that  on the basis of what i was told of which i believed then last year mr president the agitation continued to swell and the question came up about withdrawal mr president again i supported the administration and i voted against a withdrawal timeline and this is last year in two thousand and six because i felt like that if we had a chance of making it successful that we should not be micromanaging the military and let them in their decisions but things started to change at the end of the year is one of the big things that changed iraq study commission report larry eagleburger former secretary of state he replaced by the way robert gates when gates had to resign because the president was making him secretary of defense gates was in on a lot of this testimony listen to the rest of vernon jordan ed meese former attorney general sandra day o'connor everybody knows who she is leon panetta former chief of staff to the president bill perry former secretary of defense chuck robb former colleague here alan simpson former colleague here that's who made up this arac study commission report and they came out unanimously there were five democrats and five republicans it was co chaired by jim baker the former secretary of state and lee hamilton the former chairman down in the house of the international relations committee and they said there's got to be a different way and it had to be a goal of withdraw  and so when this issue came up after this report i voted this past spring voted for the goal and that was sponsored goal of april of the next year now that amendment has been changed with one primary change and that is to make it a requirement of a gradual withdrawal starting one hundred twenty days from now so that be the middle of november with the goal of that gradual withdrawal being completed by april of next year oh eight but that doesn't mean a complete withdrawal because what they are amendment says is that they're going to leave gave a good portion of the troops there to do a number of things now what is that now i want to say that except for the mandate all  requirement of that withdrawal eleven read amendment is very similar to this the iraq study commission report and indeed of us salazar amendment gives almost word for word this iraq study commission but what's before us is something very similar but instead of the goal of withdrawal by next april the requirement and so it would require this levin reed amendment would require the president to implement a comprehensive diplomatic political and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with iraq's neighbors it would ensure that our troops who remain in iraq will perform the most vital missions that of protecting the united states and coalition personnel training and equipping the iraqi army and continuing to fight the terrorist groups particularly qaeda and it requires the president to pursue an international mediator appointment with the authority to engage iraq's various factions in inclusive political process that's something that the iraq study commission required so matter of fact the rac study commission report says get go and do an aggressive diplomatic effort in the region all of those five republicans and those five democrats in that commission said you ought to open up to syria and  open up to iran under the theory that indeed we ought to be talking to our enemies and it was the upon that report that i took off for the middle east about nine countries within a two week period and one of those stops that i went to was to go back to syria for my third visit with the president of syria assad the white house said don't go the state department came and visited me and said don't go i said the cat's out of the bag there's this this bipartisan commission says we've got to open up that's the common sense things to do i was attacked by tony snow in his daily briefing well a month ago secretary rice is meeting with the syrian foreign minister the same one that i met with along with president assad i've already reported on that report i won't go back into that but it's just all a part of the necessity of us in gauging diplomatically in the region at the same time we're trying to figure out what to do with our military so six months ago over many objections the president then decides that he needs to send more troops to iraq in a surge and he said it was intended to great bring about greater stability i opposed the surge i pointed out that my experience and understanding of being in baghdad  would put additional american soldiers and marines in the middle of a sectarian violence cross bar of a civil war this president the sectarian violence has only been going on for one thousand three hundred twenty seven years ever since the battle of karbala in six eighty eight d when after that battle you had in effect the shiites separating from the sunni's and that led to and tipped with the that it's hard for us in america to understand and yet it continues and so i said at the time there was a surge that i would support and that was out in the aisle unbar province which is mainly sunni and where the real enemy there is al qaeda that i feel that the marines we're having some success i understand i have one minute left mr president i would ask for an additional five minutes is the objection without objection i felt like the marines were making progress but there you had just sunni's and you had al qaeda that was trying to undermine the sunni leadership and the marines working with the sunni's were having some effect that's the part of the surge i supported i did not support the surge going into baghdad in the middle of that crossfire of a civil war but the president ignored the findings and the warnings of the iraq study group of which it had recommended a comprehensive strategy for changing the course in iraq and so what's happened mr president in the last six months we have spent more than sixty billion dollars and we've lost another six hundred american lives and many more have suffered grievous injuries and despite those losses the sectarian violence has only increased just yesterday the white house and the president reported that the iraqi government has failed to meet many of the benchmarks that we laid out in that requirement earlier this year mr president only the iraqis can make the compromises necessary to end this war and our continued open ended presence has provided them with no incentive to do so we cannot and we should not be in the middle of that crossfire of their civil war what we need is a diplomatic solution with an aggressive diplomatic effort which was argued by the iraq study group and we also need a political solution it's not going to be a military solution it's going to have to be a political solution and of course the suggesti that i'm drawn to is the one put forth by senator biden where you have under the iraqi constitution a federal form of government that can allow the autonomy of various regions it's not necessarily just the three that can provide for their own governor it's with a federal national government that would allocate the oil revenues according to the population percentage but the president has not change course in iraq despite the facts on the ground and the overwhelming will of the american people and so with a heavy heart it brings me here to say that now we must by law insist that he began the reduction of the forces in iraq and the transition of our mission there obviously as with every senator i do not reach this conclusion lightly nor with any pleasure i am extremely concerned by the great toll that this war has taken on armed forces and our military families across our nation with the thousands killed and many more injured i'm very concerned about the lack in training and the time for recuperation by our troops especially the national guard and the reserves and i am very close to the florida national guard mr president i'm very concerned about the situation in iraq that it keeps escalating the violence especially among the iraqis and the lack of their production of an economic lifeline by the production of their own oil it's being lost to theft and to sabotage and they can't get their arms around it and i'm very concerned about the plight of the iraqi people including now more than two million refugees i'm concerned about the possibility of greater regional violence and instability i'm concerned about the failure of the maliki government the failure of the government in and of itself but especially as we see now the failure of the government to lead and enact necessary reforms mr president i'll conclude by saying that an open ended commitment keeping our troops in the middle of a civil war is not the solution we must not only demand that the president change the course mr president the center from pennsylvania is recognized for ten minutes thank you mr president i rise today mr president to speak about children's health insurance for a number of reasons but principally because the present united states several times in the last couple of weeks and months but especially this past week has spoken to this issue in a way that i think is misleading in a way that i think doesn't do justice to this important compelling issue whether or not this country is going to make the real commitment to ensuring all of our children this is an issue that you and i mr president have spoken about and many others in this in this chamber and it's a major priority for the american people i'll give the bad news first the bad news is we have nine million american children who have no health insurance at all and that number stares in the face every day there's no reason why this congress and this united states senate should do something about that it's particularly disturbing and insulting that we have not only nine million american children but we have that number in the face of some other numbers like tax cuts for very wealthy people over and over again the last couple of years this congress in the congress before it has made judgments about priorities and i'm afraid there are some people are making that judgment again about tax cuts for very wealthy people over health care for children that's the reality and unfortunately we have now not only the nine million uninsured but here's another number of that nine million six million children of that nine are eligible for programs that can help them now with their medicaid or the state children's health insurance program and the final bit of bad news and the challenge really for us not only as the senate but as as as a people is that eighty percent of the six million who could be helped right now by both programs eighty percent of them come from working families and that should be disturbing to all of us here's the good news we can solve this problem not in one budget not in one year but over time if we make the real commitment we can do it by supporting s chip the state children's health insurance program in my home state of pennsylvania we call it chip but the the federal government refers to it as s chip in our state over one hundred sixty thousand kids are served by this program right now but there are tens of thousands of other children were not covered right now we need to cover them in pennsylvania and across the country we know that there are millions of children right now across the country are not covered today who could be covered if we make the folk amendment and we talked about children's health insurance a of people watching a lot of people thinking about this issue say oh it's another government program going to cost a lot of money why are we doing this well here's the evidence we've had a ten year experiment in this country and children's health insurance thank god u nder a democratic president clinton and a divided congress ten years ago that document was made and now we have the evidence we know that all these children six million now covered nine million not covered but we do have six that are that are covered we know the tremendous benefit that that means to employers way down the road we also know what that means for the skills that are developed for one child and for many others it's better for economic growth to ensure children it's better for gross national product it's better to to build a skilled workforce with children's health insurance but here's the challenge we have in terms of this year's budget i and many others including the presiding officer and many people in this chamber mostly on this side but even some on the other side of the aisle supported a proposal to say that over five years we would spend fifty billion dollars on children's health insurance sounds like a lot of money doesn't it when you break it down ten billion a year for children's health insurance i think is a small investment over the life of that child and over the life of our country so that's what the goal was and that still is the goal  here is the is the difficulty we've got to deal with the the realities of the budget senator max baucus and others on the finance committee and frankly in both parties mostly on the democratic side have worked an agreement on thirty five billion dollars which is a very good start and we can grow that but they deserve a lot of credit for for making sure that that money was put in the finance committee proposal it's still being worked on but here's the problem in the face of that bipartisanship ten years ago and every year since on children's health insurance in the face of all the benefits to our economy not to mention the life of a child and also in the face of the consensus that's emerging now in this body about the priority of children's health insurance to get at least the thirty five billion over five years here's the problem we have a president who thinks something else president bush recently talked about this initiative to get fifty or even to get thirty five is somehow i federalization of health care for children which is i guess to some people a scary word in a word that that is causes them some concern but there are a lot of governors across this country republicans and democrats who think otherwise so i think i have a basic question for the president and i'll conclude with this because he's been misleading people on this issue here's the question for the president states if you can give a tax cut in one year for people making over two hundred thousand dollars a year that amounts to a hundred billion dollars mr president if you if that's your policy to give one hundred billion dollars in tax cuts to very wealthy people why would you not be willing to spend ten billion a year for children's health insurance that's a question i have for the president so the president and this congress is really concerned about a skilled workforce and really developing entrepreneurs and people think and contributory khana me we better make the commitment to children in the dawn of their lives to make sure that they can have the skills they need down the road but even apart from the skills it's the right thing to do so mr president you can help the millionaires the multimillionaires and the billionaires why won't you make a full commitment to help the children of america the working poor and middle income children mr president i yield the floor senator from michigan mr president the motion now that is pending is the levin read it out amendment in this floor is open for senators to come and speak on that amendment and i would hope that those who have the speeches would do that we need to get to a vote on this amendment early next week and there's just no no reason that this amendment should the subject of a filibuster when the subject is on every american's mind they want us to be able to vote up or down on this amendment i hope it is not necessary that there has to be a cloture amendment because the senate should express its will on a subject of this importance that this is a one of the many times which will be available the next few days to speak on this amendment will be here monday afternoon we're here now will be here tuesday obviously before the meetings of our parties at lunch and i would hope that people would take advantage of this opportunity to come and speak pro or con on the pending amendment there is no excuse for filibuster an amendment of this importance that the entire country is watching so i'm going to the absence of a quorum here and just express the senator levin coming to the floor speaking on behalf of his amendment one of several amendments pending to this defense programs bill earlier they passed an amendment which would offer a fifty million dollar reward for information leading to the capture of osama bin laden but his eighty seven to one amendments to his bill possible throughout the day today debate continuing into next week and next week they'll take up an amendment to require iraq troop withdraw by the end of april two thousand and eight similar legislation passing in the house yesterday to vote there to twenty three to two one now the house is not in for legislative business today they do have a pro forma session this afternoon at four p m eastern next week the house turns back to spending bills couple of two thousand eight spending bills for energy and water including one point one billion dollars package of your marks in that bill and the labor health and human services spending bill for two thousand and eight that's part of what's ahead next week in the house eleven read it all amendment and that we will after we leave here today be returning on monday it is time that the leaders will set to this bill this bill will be the pending matter and this amendment will be the pending matter on monday when we return and i think the senator from virginia for suggesting that we make that clear and i yield the floor thank you mr president i concur in the distinguish chairman so observations here that i wish to compliment you and me ranking member of mr mccain for the progress that you've made this week on this bill having had this responsibility sharing it with you for these many years lugar and i hope to be filing that before twelve noon today here on monday because senator mccain and i have both spoken on the necessity of getting amendments that are going to be filed to be file by the end of business on monday we have a lot of amendments that we've got to consider hopefully we can clear some but the body would be very colleagues would really be i think doing the body of thievery get these amendments in if there are was president senator from michigan while the senator from virginia is on the floor while the senator warner senator warner we just for one more minute while the senator from virginia is on the floor i would ask unanim consent at this time that we proceed to a period of morning business with each senator recognized for up to ten minutes without objection so