November 20, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10729 

pick our cases. In fact, if anyone had told me 

that my company would be before the U.S. 

Supreme Court defending inane comments 

by Cher and Nicole Ritchie, I would have 

said you’re crazy. But I would contend that 

the nature of this speech, and who said it, 

makes absolutely no difference. Because at 

the core of this case is an absolute threat to 

the First Amendment. It hinges on utterances that were unscripted on live television. 

If we are found in violation, just think about 

the radical ramifications for live programming—from news, to politics, to sports. In 

fact, to every live broadcast television event. 

The effect would be appalling. 

There is a certain symmetry to the fact 

that the oral argument in this case and the 

election of the 44th President of the United 

States are taking place on the same day: The 

Fox case, if successful, is an affirmation of 

the First Amendment. The election is an affirmation of our democratic process. And the 

two are inextricably intertwined. The First 

Amendment is central to our democratic 

process because it ensures a full and open 

dialogue about the candidates for office. 

Without the First Amendment, our democracy could not be sustained. 

But the truth is, people don’t think about 

defending broadcasters’ right to utter 

expletives in the same way they think about 

defending one’s right to speak critically of 

our government. But they should. The First 

Amendment is at stake in both cases. As a 

media company, we have not just a right but 

a responsibility to stand up to the government when it crosses that First Amendment 

line in the sand—even if the content we are 

defending is in bad taste. And in the indecency context, that line has not only been 

crossed, it has been obliterated. That is why 

Fox is fighting the FCC in this and several 

other indecency cases. 

I’ll admit: some of the content we are defending is not particularly tasteful: the 

expletives, the brief nudity, the carefully 

placed whipped cream and, of course, the 

pixels. I would not have allowed my own 

children, when they were younger, to watch 

some of these shows. But, I vow to fight to 

the end for our ability to put occasionally 

controversial, offensive, and even tasteless 

content on the air. 

Why? Because, if the government gets its 

foot in the censorship door with respect to 

unpopular entertainment content, it is the 

beginning of the steep slide toward censoring 

unpopular political content. And we have 

seen the beginnings of this downward slide in 

a recent case where the FCC initially found 

indecent content in a news program. If we 

allow our government to intrude into the 

creative process to censor the ‘‘bad words’’ 

at issue in the Fox case, I am afraid we will 

soon reach the bottom of the slide—to America’s detriment. 

Groups that claim to be interested in ‘‘protecting children’’ are helping the government along in its attempts to censor television. While I don’t agree with these groups, 

I do fully support their right to criticize 

what’s on television. But the job of protecting children is far too important to leave 

to government bureaucrats or so-called public interest groups. The job of protecting 

children lies with parents. The job of the 

government is to resist the views of interest 

groups with particular agendas and instead 

to enforce the law in a way that is consistent, fair, and constitutional. So I don’t 

blame these groups for the degradation of 

the First Amendment. I blame our government, which has succumbed to the views of a 

particularly vocal minority. 

Look, I am not insensitive to the fact that 

young children need to be protected. And 

that’s difficult in an era of single parent, or 

two working parent households. But the protection of children must be considered in a 

Twenty-First Century light. Nearly every 

TV set sold today includes a V-Chip, which 

allows parents to block content they think 

may be inappropriate for their children. 

Cable, satellite, and telco video providers 

have finely-tuned, comprehensive parental 

controls. And let’s not forget the most powerful technology available to parents: the onoff switch. These tools allow adults to protect their kids while still being able to access shows they love. 

We as media companies also have a responsibility: to rate shows accurately and consistently so the V-Chip works as it should. 

And, as I said earlier, we need to be responsible with our creative output. This is something we do on a daily basis through our 

Standards and Practices departments, not 

only by exercising editorial judgment but by 

constantly fine-tuning and improving our internal controls. 

Let’s step back for a minute and get some 

perspective on this issue. The indecency law 

applies only to broadcast TV: that’s a handful of channels. Over 85 percent of the country receives their broadcast channels 

through a cable, telco line, or satellite signal. Sitting right next to the broadcast 

channels on these multichannel systems are 

hundreds of other channels that are not subject to the indecency law. 

And those other channels are just a click 

away on the remote control. Nor does the indecency law apply to video-on-demand, pay 

per view, DVDs, or the mother of all content 

providers: the Internet. Does it really make 

sense to continue government censorship of 

the occasional bad word, brief nudity, or sexual innuendo on a handful of broadcast channels when we live in an environment of infinitely unregulated choices? In the mediarich world we live in, singling out a few 

channels for indecency enforcement is not 

legally sustainable. 

Quite simply, it is time for the government 

to get out of the business of regulating ‘‘indecent’’ speech on broadcast TV. The threat 

it poses to core First Amendment values 

cannot be justified in our technologically diverse world. Parents have the tools to decide 

what is appropriate for their children. Let’s 

let parents do their job and fire the government from the job of censoring speech. The 

First Amendment is too important to our 

democratic society—in this and future elections—to allow any encroachments to 

threaten our country’s critical freedoms. 

Thank you. 

f 

IDAHOANS SPEAK OUT ON HIGH 

ENERGY PRICES 

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, in midJune, I asked Idahoans to share with 

me how high energy prices are affecting their lives, and they responded by 

the hundreds. The stories, numbering 

well over 1,200, are heartbreaking and 

touching. While energy prices have 

dropped in recent weeks, the concerns 

expressed remain very relevant. To respect the efforts of those who took the 

opportunity to share their thoughts, I 

am submitting every e-mail sent to me 

through an address set up specifically 

for this purpose to the CONGRESSIONAL

RECORD. This is not an issue that will 

be easily resolved, but it is one that deserves immediate and serious attention, and Idahoans deserve to be heard. 

Their stories not only detail their 

struggles to meet everyday expenses, 

but also have suggestions and recommendations as to what Congress can 

do now to tackle this problem and find 

solutions that last beyond today. I ask 

unanimous consent to have today’s letters printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

We are glad to hear that at least one of our 

politicians is concerned about how the gasoline prices are affecting the middle class. 

Most of us feel that our government is extremely out of touch with the majority of 

the country. 

We are retired on a fixed income and we 

worked hard all our lives and saved to get a 

motor home for vacations, but unfortunately 

we now cannot use it because of the price of 

gasoline and it just sits there. We try to go 

out shopping for groceries and any other necessities just once a week, making a list of 

items and stores, color coding so we do not 

forget anything. The cost of energy also has 

increased the price of groceries tremendously, so basic foods and produce are the 

norm—doing away with any treats. We have 

never seen the price of gasoline increase day 

by day and a nickel to a dime at a time. 

We desperately need to have alternate 

sources of energy, such as coal, windmills, 

solar and nuclear. We should have been 

building new refineries and recovering oil off 

all of our coasts since the 1970s when this 

same problem came up at that time, but, to 

our shame, we did not. 

Automobiles should get a lot more than 

the 35 mpg that we have heard mentioned for 

future vehicles. It should be at the very least 

60 mpg, and there is no reason in this world 

with our technology that this could not be a 

reality. Something should be done to increase the mileage on all of the vehicles that 

are already on the road. This is never mentioned. We cannot just go out and buy a hybrid or other fuel efficient vehicle at the 

drop of a hat to help the situation. We drive 

our 2002 Honda 4 cylinder between 55 and 60 

mph on the highway to increase our fuel efficiency and you should see the bad looks we 

get. Highway mileage should be lowered to 55 

mph like in the 70s to help conserve. 

We do hope that our government does 

something quickly to improve this situation 

and that it is not handled like it was in the 

70s—all talk and no action. We need to be dependent on no one but ourselves for our energy needs. No one is going to take care of 

the USA and its citizens but the USA itself. 

We need some action now—Please. 

ROBERT AND ROBERTA, Idaho Falls. 

Thanks for the opportunity to respond to 

your e-letter regarding energy costs and gasoline prices. I agree that we in the US are far 

too dependent on petroleum for energy. But 

I think it is a selfish and short-sighted view 

to defeat the climate change legislation. Our 

focus should be, as you mentioned, on using 

less petroleum, not searching for petroleum 

everywhere we can, no matter the ecological 

cost. It is true; we do not have good mass 

transit in Idaho and especially in the more 

densely populated Treasure Valley. I think 

tax dollars would be well spent to improve 

the mass transit situation in the Valley. 

We need to give tax incentives to clean, renewable energy sources and rescind the tax 

breaks given to the huge oil companies who 

have been reaping record profits at the expense of all Americans. The answer is in conservation which includes improved mass 

transit and in alternative transportation 

where there would be improved avenues for 

bicycling and walking. 

It is true. I will not be driving as far for vacation this year, though I would like to explore areas in Idaho I have not yet seen. It 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
S10730 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE November 20, 2008 

now becomes an expensive venture just to 

get to the Sawtooths or White Clouds. 

TIM, Boise. 

I am contacting my Congressman about 

energy just as you have encouraged your 

constituents to do. I am in dismay, however, 

at the continued opportunism and political 

grandstanding. That is, the only answer I see 

from many is to drill more oil. Every credible energy scientist and economist knows 

that this will do little or nothing to curb our 

foreign oil imports and zero to reduce the 

cost of fuel. Yet, despite this ever-predictable call for more domestic oil production, 

you flatly concede that ‘‘speculation [is] now 

driving up the cost of oil.’’ So I ask: why are 

you and your colleagues still calling for 

more drilling when you know what it is you 

can do now to reduce fuel costs? Why are you 

not regulating ‘‘the speculation now driving 

up the cost of oil’’? Commodities speculators 

are at the heart of extreme oil prices, not 

supply and demand imbalances. We do not 

want to hear any red herring arguments 

about the average Joe’s retirement portfolio 

owning the bulk of oil company shares. The 

issue is speculation; the answer is regulation 

of speculation. 

JASON, Moscow. 

Last week I heard on the news that you 

have received many letters and e-mails related to high gas prices. Hence, I have decided to write in and give you my two cents 

on the matter. 

I believe that the primary culprit that is 

causing high gas prices is globalization; particularly in the emerging economies of China 

and India. The rapid growth of their economies has drastically increased their demand 

for petroleum. 

Along with developing a comprehensive energy policy, the executive and legislative 

branches of our federal government need to 

re-examine our economic policies, particularly in areas of foreign trade. During the 

past two decades, the American middle class 

has gotten the short end of the straw when it 

has come to previous trade policies. One does 

not have to look farther than our orchard industry in the Treasure Valley. These trade 

policies have really only benefitted the very 

wealthy in our country. When I was in college ten years ago, we talked about 

globalization in one of my classes and how if 

China copied the U.S.’s consumption then we 

would be paying a premium for gas. This is 

now reality. 

In conclusion, too often our government 

fails to look long-term. It is time for a 

change. We need to do in-depth independent 

analysis on our trade policies to determine 

what the long term effect will be on the average American. Government policies need 

to benefit society as a whole rather than a 

few. Our society is too self-centered on the 

‘‘me’’ rather than on the collective ‘‘community’’. We also need to have a comprehensive 

energy policy. This policy needs to be long 

term and address conservation, efficiency, 

alternative and renewable sources of energy, 

and possibly take into consideration additional domestic production of oil with stringent environmental safeguards and firm consequences for those companies that fail to 

comply with those safeguards. 

BRENT DANIELSON, Boise. 

I am a single father of two sons, 3 years 

and 13 months old. I am a truck driver. I 

make decent money and have good benefits. 

But these fuel prices have gone too far for 

our society! I am lucky I work at a place 

where I can get a free bag of potatoes every 

once in a while because I cannot go grocery 

shopping because it is all too expensive! 

Wages have not changed a bit. I am sick of 

it and I am losing almost all of my faith in 

our government and the people representing 

the common people like me. One of my best 

friends who was an owner-operator had to 

quit because diesel got too high for him to 

profit much at all. Now it is been three 

weeks and they just got their phone shut off 

two days ago and their power shut off today. 

My stimulus money has gone to my power 

bill, gas bill, rent etc. Sure you do not like 

to fill up your gas tank but does it cripple 

you financially like it does many, many people?! I think not. I have always stuck up for 

our local and federal government on many 

issues and criticized them on other issues, 

but this time I as well as many people are 

fed up. Seriously this time, I am to the point 

now where I am struggling to make ends 

meet. I have spent over $60 in the last three 

days in gas just to get to work and back— 

that is it! And I am close to empty again and 

I have to get diapers for my son before I go 

to work tomorrow. The diaper money is coming out of the power bill money I had put 

back. You need to sound off and be heard. At 

least make it known to us that you are voicing our concerns! 

CAMERON, Boise. 

My husband and I are retired, he is military retired and we recently purchased a 

small travel trailer since he can no longer 

ride his motorcycle and our maiden voyage 

with it cost $300 in gas to go 200 miles round 

trip! Between gas and food prices, we cannot 

afford to go anywhere, much less eat out. We 

have changed our daily living dramatically, 

and it is not a happy way to be in your retirement years. 

We urge you and all of Congress to start 

drilling in our nation and bring back more 

nuclear power plants. We must relieve ourselves of dependence on foreign oil ASAP. 

Lord only knows what our grandchildren 

have to look forward to at this insane rate! 

ANGELO, Hayden Lake. 

I will get right to the point—my wife and 

I are out of money. Our incomes have not 

changed and our incomes used to pay our 

bills with money to spare. We have a 91 

Honda wagon and a 99 minivan, we pay $50 

and $70 to fill them up. Grocery prices are up 

100% in the last couple years because gas 

prices are killing the trucking industry. Expensive gas has made almost everything else 

expensive. Today, after filling both our cars 

with gas and grocery shopping, (with a list, 

mind you), we ran out of money. For the 

first time ever, we put groceries on a credit 

card. We are not credit card people, so this is 

anathema to us. 

When I turn on the TV or radio I hear some 

politician telling us that drilling will not 

make a difference for ten years. As an engineering student, I cannot stomach that level 

of [deception]. First of all, I do not believe 

that is true and second, if it were true, then 

we sure better get started. What if every 

time an education bill were introduced, we 

responded by saying that we would not see 

the results for 12 years so let us not do it. 

What if I told my child not to go to college 

because they would not see a payoff for at 

least four years so do not bother. We are financially dying and our so-called leaders are 

regurgitating some of the stupidest things I 

have ever heard. 

The bottom line is this: This planet does 

not exist for its own sake, it exists for ours. 

We are not here by some cosmic accident; we 

are here by design and our designer gave us 

the tools we need to live and prosper. The 

failure to drill for new oil and create new refineries is the result of environmental philosophies, which are based on evolutionary 

thinking. To the environmentalist, our purpose here is no more significant than that of 

any other animal, and we, by accident of 

evolution, happen to have the power to sustain or destroy this environment. Without a 

cosmic caretaker, the earth itself becomes 

our only god and the environmentalist shows 

his worship by reducing or eliminating 

human impact upon it and by treating humans as vermin. It is an old religion and I 

am tired of suffering at the hands of it is 

misguided priests. 

Please do your best to release energy, specifically nuclear and oil, to the free market 

system. Irrational environmental policy and 

regulation have prohibited natural market 

forces from creating more supply and oilpricing based on speculation has prevented 

the market from determining price. Imagine 

going to Wal-Mart to buy a t-shirt and finding that they now cost $100; and when you 

ask the owner why this was so, he replies 

that speculators determined that cotton 

crops would fail next year, so in preparation 

they have raised prices early. As you know, 

this is not how prices are determined. The 

cotton producer charges as much as he can 

based on his costs and competitors prices 

and Wal-Mart charges a markup. If cotton 

crops indeed fail next year, then the buyer 

pays more for the rare product and they pass 

the increase to the consumer. When oil speculators set price, we pay increases at the 

pumps whether those speculations came true 

or not. There is no real connection to supply. 

Please work to make this kind of price setting illegal and please work to release drilling and refinement. The further we remove a 

commodity from the free market grid by socialist controls and uneducated environmental policy the more the people, you 

claim to represent, are hurt. Make the American dream possible by making it affordable. 

JASON, Boise. 

The rising cost of fuel has a tremendous effect on my household consisting of my husband and myself. I am sole support for our 

family. Senator, as you know, wages in 

Idaho fall behind many other states. The 

cost of gas is outrageous and I blame the 

Congress for a lot of it. Why are we not drilling in Alaska? Why are we not building refineries away from coasts where hurricanes 

have a tendency to hit? Why are not all of 

our refineries running full bore? 

There was a Democratic senator from the 

South who retired, I forget his name but he 

wrote a book, ‘‘A Grand Party No More’’. Before he retired, he went to see for himself 

where we would drill in Alaska. He said there 

would be no harm to anyone or anything, it 

is so far out in no man’s land. He said if 

there was a leak it would be of no consequence as it would freeze the minute it hit 

the ground. It is time we push the environmentalists to the wall and out of the way. I 

believe in saving trees and wildlife, but there 

is no danger to any of these where we would 

drill. I recognize that we need to become 

independent of so much oil but how do we do 

that. I drive a ‘95 Forerunner and it is paid 

for. Not the best gas mileage but it is paid 

for. I cannot afford any kind of a car payment for one of those new hybrids. Rebates 

are nothing, $2,000 in exchange for $26,000? 

The cost of a new car buys an awful lot of 

gas. My income does not allow for any car 

payment. 

Everything is going crazy! A loaf of bread 

that cost $2.89 last year is now $4.29. Anything with corn or wheat is gone out of sight. 

We pay farmers not to grow wheat and now 

I hear we have to import it? How sad for 

America. America has sold its soul to China, 

Mexico, Japan. If we were ever to go into another world war, we could not even build 

what we would need to fight it. Is there a 

steel mill left in America? Is there a textile 

mill left in America? You would be pretty 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
November 20, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10731 

hard pressed to find one, a sad statement on 

us. 

As to what I do? No trips during the week 

except to work and back. If I can do any errand on the way, great, otherwise, it waits 

till the weekend. I plan one trip, one circle. 

If something is missed, too bad, it is missed. 

The real clincher is this, I tithe to my 

church, I give the Lord 10% of my gross income. It costs me almost as much, $10 less, 

to keep my car in gasoline between paychecks. Now I think it is pretty awful when 

I have to give the gas company as much as 

I give the Lord. He gives me everything I 

have, the gas company gives me nothing except anger when I hear of the profits they 

make. And I think that pretty well sums it 

up, 10% to the Lord vs. almost as much to 

the gas company! 

DIANNE, Hayden Lake. 

I am a taxi driver here in Boise. In a year’s 

time, the cost to fill my tank has increased 

nearly 100% but my average fare has remained static. If it were not for my military 

retirement, I would no longer make enough 

to cover basic costs and make a profit. I am 

61 years old and am not practiced in a marketable skill so the prospect of making a 

move to another occupation is nil. My only 

reasonable hope is that Boise will increase 

our per mile fees in the near future; it is unlikely that fuel prices will decrease in the 

near future. 

I have been watching your position on domestic drilling with interest. Though alternative energy sources are imperative for the 

future of America, I am pleased to see that 

you share my position that energy self-reliance is the immediate solution to our 

present crisis. I applaud you and urge you to 

continue your good work and prosecute this 

agenda with rigor. 

EARLE, Boise. 

Not only is the fuel much too high but I 

cannot find employment. I am over 60, have 

experience, but it seems I am ‘‘over-qualified’’ or I need more ‘‘experience’’. What a 

lot of rubbish! I call it age discrimination, 

but that is difficult to prove. With the fuel 

prices so high, if I do find employment, it 

will take a huge chunk of my pay just to get 

back and forth to work. Are unemployment 

benefits going to be extended for Idaho residents? My benefits ended this week, no hope 

of a job in sight and my husband can not 

work due to medical reasons. What is a person to do? 

Getting Desperate. 

JANET, Emmett. 

As Director of Gritman Adult Day Health 

which provides day health care for elders 

who want to remain in their own home in 

Moscow and Latah County, I am including 

an article from the NY Times which talks 

about the cost of gas and how it affects rural 

elderly. It is very sad that these folks who 

often aren’t able to drive are so affected by 

the cost of gas. Please do everything you can 

to remedy this: http://online.wsj.com/article/ 

SB121263496261947543.html?mod=googlenews_ 

wsj 

BARB, Moscow. 

Gasoline prices are now far too high for the 

average family, and causing increasing rises 

in the cost of living in many other areas. For 

instance, every time one goes to the grocery 

store, an increase in pricing is noted on 

items, and thus causing many to have to go 

without needed supplies. Saving a percentage 

of income has become just a dream for many, 

and others cannot make ends meet without 

going into further debt. 

BEVERLY, Parma. 

Yes, gas has gotten way out of hand. Do 

what you can to decrease the costs and return to a life with some normalcy. 

DIANA, Kootenai. 

Thank you for at least noticing that we 

have a problem with the cost. I do not believe, however, that anything can be done 

with out us paying somewhere else. I make a 

good living working for the military here in 

Boise but am still unable to put any money 

aside. It is funny that every time we receive 

a pay raise that the price of fuel goes up and 

our health care premiums grow as well, so 

you never see any savings. Thanks again; 

good luck with this effort. 

f 

CLINTON, Emmett. 

RETIREMENT OF WAYNE RIDDLE 

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute 

to Wayne Riddle, who is retiring at the 

end of this year from the Congressional 

Research Service. Wayne is the model 

of a dedicated and talented public servant. He has spent his career working 

out of the public eye for the greater 

good, providing excellent assistance to 

all of us in Congress for over three decades, and also taking time to mentor 

younger staffers. 

Wayne is a graduate of the University of Virginia. He earned a master’s 

degree in economics from George 

Washington University while working 

at the Congressional Research Service, 

where he has spent the past 36 years 

serving as a key analyst on elementary 

and secondary education, and twice as 

head of the Education and Labor Section at CRS. 

Throughout that time, Congress has 

given high priority to strengthening 

the Nation’s schools, and Wayne has 

been helping us immensely every step 

of the way. He began not long after the 

passage of the original Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965—the 

Federal Government’s major program 

to improve educational opportunities 

for low-income students. Wayne has 

been indispensable in our work on 

every subsequent reauthorization of 

the act and on all our other efforts on 

elementary and secondary education, 

including the Goals 2000 Act during the 

Clinton administration and the No 

Child Left Behind Act during the current Bush administration. His guidance, support and knowledge on issues 

big and small have been invaluable to 

us time and again. 

As Wayne retires to devote more 

time to his family, I know that his colleagues at CRS will miss him, and so 

will we. I wish him a long, healthy, and 

happy retirement. He certainly deserves it, because he has served our 

country well, and made a very real difference in the lives of countless children who have benefited in their education because of his expertise and 

dedication. 

f 

REMEMBERING TONY DEAN 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I 

wish to recognize the passing of a very 

close friend of mine, Tony Dean. As one 

of this Nation’s foremost conservationists, one would be hard put to find 

someone who cared more about wildlife 

and the environment. Tony passed 

away on October 19. 

I had known Tony for years with his 

radio and television broadcasting, but I 

was fortunate enough to get to know 

him much better in my 2002 Senate 

campaign. He told me that he was willing to do whatever I needed him to do, 

and he was honest to his word. With his 

natural and effective connection to television viewers, Tony starred in two 

commercials that were critical to the 

success of my 2002 campaign. I have no 

doubt that Tony’s support was crucial, 

though it resulted in many tests to his 

courage. Even amidst the backlash of 

his supporting my campaign, he said, 

‘‘Tim, I know I did the right thing, and 

I’d do it again in a second.’’ Tony 

stared down the people who threatened 

him, and he refused to blink. 

During Senator TED KENNEDY’s eulogy of his brother Robert, Senator 

KENNEDY stated that, ‘‘Few are willing 

to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, 

the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery 

in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is 

the one essential, vital quality for 

those who seek to change a world that 

yields most painfully to change.’’ Tony 

had all those qualities, though most 

importantly, moral courage. And Tony 

Dean had moral courage in spades. 

It was my pleasure to have worked 

with Tony and I would like to offer my 

condolences to his family, friends, and 

fellow advocates. They have much to 

be proud of, and it is my hope that 

their memories will be rich with the 

great many accomplishments he 

achieved during his career. Those of us 

who loved him pray that what he was 

to us and what he wished for others 

will someday come to pass for the 

world. We will miss you, Tony. More 

than any of us can say. 

f 

FORT POLK BARRACKS 

PRIVATIZATION PILOT PROGRAM 

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, on 

September 27, the Senate passed the 

Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, 

which the President signed into law on 

October 14. The legislation includes 

critical provisions that will directly 

improve the quality of life for our men 

and women in uniform, support needed 

reforms in the operations of the Department of Defense and provide our 

soldiers, sailors, Air Force personnel 

and marines with the tools they need 

to defend our freedom. I thank and 

commend Senator LEVIN and our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee for the thorough work on this 

detailed legislation and their perseverance in crafting the legislation in a difficult and at times uncertain process. 

There were a number of filed floor 

amendments to the bill that were not 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE