ms. ayotte: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that senator lieberman and i be allowed to engage in a colloquy. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. ayotte: constitution, mr. president. obtaining intelligence from high-value terrorist detainees is an urgent flat security priority -- national security priority that is essential to protecting americans. unfortunately, under current larks terrorists need look no further than the internet to find out everything that they need to know about our interrogation practices and how they can circumvent them. under the president's 2009 executive order 134 the 1, all's government interrogations are limited to the interrogation techniques that are available online and prescribed in the army field manual. as a result, all members of the intelligence community, including the nondepartment of defense intelligence professionals who support the high-value detainee interrogation group, must conform to the procedures of the army field manual, which was writte

ms. ayotte: thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. ms. ayotte: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to set aside the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that i call up en bloc 1239, 1256, 1257, and 1258. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from oregon, mr. merkley, proposes en bloc amendments 1239, 1256, 1257, and 1258. mr. merkley: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendments be set aside. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you. and i call for the regular order. the presiding officer: the amendment's now pending. mr. merkley: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the

ms. ayotte: that's fine. mr. levin: if we did not have somebody here, we were going to do two at a time. mr. mccain: yes, i think it's the other side's. mr. whitehouse: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: thank you, madam president, and i appreciate the courtesy of the senator from new hampshire. i will not speak long. i know she is here waiting to be heard, as we go back and forth across the aisle in sequence. i want to begin by thanking chairman levin and his ranking member, senator mccain, for the work they have done on this issue. they've done a lot of progress and i look forward to continuing work on the floor to try to conclude what i hope will be a successful agreement forren. but i'm here to speak about amendment 1092 of the national defense authorization act, which is the piece that has been put in that responds to the serious and ever-growing problem of counterfeit parts that appear in our military supply chain. our nation asks a lot of our troops. we s

ms. ayotte: i would agree with that. and i would just say, you've already pointed out how important it is to have these provisions in place to give officials that do this work every day that we have so much respect for the ability to gather intelligence. and we need this provision to protect our country from attacks on our homeland. it's so important. i would ask one question of the senator from south carolina. you've had -- you're familiar with the military commission. mr. graham: if i may, i think we need to move to the appropriations conference. go ahead, we'll do it very quickly. ms. ayotte: on,. i will ask you very quick. the senator from illinois said that we've only had six civilian trials of terrorists. excuse me, six military commission trials and hundreds of trials of civilian trials of terrorists. i would ask you, did the administration suspend military commission trials for a period? mr. graham: the reason we haven't had more is because the obama administration withdrew charges. thank goodness they reinstated

ms. ayotte: thank you, mr. chairman. you're very kind and it's been wonderful to serve under your leadership on the armed services committee, which is one of the great experienceness the u.s. senate is the armed services committee at a time when people see so much partisanship we work on a very strong bipartisan basis to ensure that our country is protected. with that i would like to yield to my colleague, who also serves on the armed services committee, whom i have great respect for, senator sessions from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president. the presiding officer: without objection, the amendments that the senator from new hampshire has filed will be considered to have been read and will be considered in the order that they have been ordered. mr. levin: if our friend would yield for one second -- the speaker pro tempore: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: we are then on the regular order. is that correct? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. levin: so the regular order, the levin-mccain amendment. is t

ms. ayotte: thank you, mr. president. i first of all want to thank chairman levin and ranking member mccain and remind everyone that this particular amendment addressing the detainee provisions passed overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis from the armed services committee. and the reason that we addressed this issue was because we heard witness after witness in a series of months before the armed services committee from our department of defense tell us for example when i asked the commander of africa command saying he'd need lawyerly help on how to answer what to do with a member of al qaeda who was captured in africa. this is an area that cried out for clarification, and that's the genesis of this amendment which is a very, very important amendment. just briefly, two issues: number one, on 1031, the arguments that have been raised about 1031, the statement of authority, this is a red herring. this provision was drafted as senator levin said very clearly, based upon what the administration wanted. and also really codifies

ms. ayotte: thank you, mr. president. i first of all want to thank chairman levin and ranking member mccain and remind everyone that this particular amendment addressing the detainee provisions passed overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis from the armed services committee. and the reason that we addressed this issue was because we heard witness after witness in a series of months before the armed services committee from our department of defense tell us for example when i asked the commander of africa command saying he'd need lawyerly help on how to answer what to do with a member of al qaeda who was captured in africa. this is an area that cried out for clarification, and that's the genesis of this amendment which is a very, very important amendment. just briefly, two issues: number one, on 1031, the arguments that have been raised about 1031, the statement of authority, this is a red herring. this provision was drafted as senator levin said very clearly, based upon what the administration wanted. and also really codifies

ms. ayotte: thank you, madam president. i would urge my colleagues to oppose the feinstein amendment. mr. levin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: madam president, i believe it is now in order for senator merkley to offer amendment number 1257, as amended, with the amendment at the desk. and the amendment at the desk has four words added to the printed amendment and those words are "nato and coalition allies." is that correct? the presiding officer: that is correct. mr. levin: i thank the presiding officer, and i yield the floor. mr. merkley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: madam president, i call up amendment 1257 under the unanimous consent agreement and -- as modified and rise to speak to him. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: excuse me. under the previous order, the amendment numbered 1257, as modified, is now the pending question. mr. merkley: madam president,

i'm joined by ms. kent in manchester, new hampshire for us. >>> there's some polls suggesting that newt gingrich is gaining in new hampshire. but live telephone interview shows, romney is way out in front. give me the sense of what the feeling is in new hampshire. do you feel anyone is gaining ground on romney. >> newt gingrich is surging against mitt romney in the latest poll. you can tell that this is important, why? because mitt romney's campaign is doubling down on their strategy. they've been campaigning for three days in a row. they'll be back tomorrow. you can tell they're watching their back, not taking anything for granted, which is unprecedented in this cycle so far, alex. >>> let's move on to jon huntsman. people are talking about him where he was poking fun at his candidacy. let's play some of it here. >> i love all of america from dallas, texas to manchester, new hampshire. from the majestic rocky mountains to the lake win poe saki. from silicon valley to the affordable outlet malls in new

ms. ayotte: thank you. mr. president, i rise today to discuss senate joint resolution 27, a resolution of disapproval of the cross-state air pollution rule. i appreciate my friend, the senator from kentucky, for bringing his concerns forward through this resolution. however, this is an issue that i have been extensively involved in as new hampshire's attorney general, and i believe this resolution is misguided. this issue requires a balanced approach and when looking at environmental regulations, we must review each on a case-by-case basis, and in that vein, i cannot support this resolution. the cross-state air pollution rule is designed to control emissions of air pollution that cause air quality problems in downwind states. and new hampshire is a downwind state. and it's estimated to reduce power plant sulfur dioxide emissions by 73% and emissions from nitrogen oxides by 54% from 2005 levels. it is important to note that similar pollution standards have been in place for six years, first implemented by the bu