Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement that was entered into last night, a Senator designated on the Republican side was to offer an amendment at this time and then I was going to, or someone designated by me was going to offer a second-degree amendment.

I want Senator Graham to say what the intention was on that side-- that intention has been changed--and then I will comment on what he has to say.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from South Carolina. That is our understanding. We understand what his intent was. We both have been involved in some discussions on this matter. Our staffs are involved in some discussions on this matter.

Senator Graham has indicated his willingness to hold off offering his amendment at this time, with the understanding that he will have an opportunity at a later time to offer that amendment, and these discussions will continue in the interim.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask unanimous consent that the Sessions amendment No. 2024, as modified, be set aside until 4 p.m. today and that no amendment be in order to the Sessions amendment; that at 4 p.m. today, there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled between Senator Sessions and myself or our designees; that upon the use of that time, without further intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Sessions amendment, as modified.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Arizona. It is our hope that we can complete the debate on the wounded warriors legislation. I did intend to offer that as soon as this unanimous consent agreement is agreed to. Those who wish to speak on the wounded warrior legislation we invite to come to the floor in the next few hours. If the debate on that legislation is completed before 4 o'clock, the Senator from Arizona is correct, we would then, hopefully, have a vote on the wounded warriors amendment immediately after the vote on the Sessions amendment. If debate on the wounded warriors legislation is completed before 4 o'clock, as he indicated, there would then be an opportunity for another amendment to be offered as designated by the ranking member. I believe, in terms of alternating, it is now our turn. I will be offering, on behalf of many Senators, on a bipartisan basis the wounded warrior legislation. Then it is our understanding the next amendment would be from the Republican side.

I have no objection whatsoever to Senator McCain being recognized immediately after our UC is accepted--if it is--for a statement. Then it would be the understanding that I

would then be recognized to introduce the wounded warrior amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I did not have a chance, because the Senator was speaking, to ask the Senator from Arizona if there would be any objection if instead of offering the wounded warrior amendment at this time that I yield to the Senator from North Dakota for a statement on an amendment, a different amendment that he intends to offer. I think his statement would last 15 minutes or 20 minutes.

Mr. President, 15 or 20 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from North Dakota be recognized for up to 20 minutes to speak on an amendment that he would intend to offer at a later time, and immediately following that I then be recognized to offer the wounded warrior legislation.

Mr. President, that would be our plan and our hope. Perhaps the Senator from North Dakota could remind me, did we clear this amendment or was there a rollcall vote on this?

I would hope we could clear it again, and if not, there will be a spot for the Senator to offer the amendment.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining of the unanimous consent?

How much time does Senator Conrad, if I could address him, need? We were delaying introducing the wounded warriors legislation in order to give the Senator an opportunity to speak on the amendment which he plans on offering. Is that the same amendment which----

I wonder if the Senator could let us know about how long it would be?

Senator McCain is not here, but I doubt that he would have any objection, so therefore I take the liberty of asking unanimous consent that Senator Conrad be recognized for 10 minutes and then I be recognized to introduce the wounded warrior legislation. Senator Akaka is also here, and I am wondering if he has any objection.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I am offering this with Senators McCain, Akaka, Warner, Murray, Graham, and about 40 other Senators who are listed on the amendment.

This amendment, in bill form, was introduced on June 13 of this year. It was marked up and unanimously agreed to by the Armed Services Committee on the 14th of June. It was reported to the full Senate on the 18th of June. As of now, as I indicated, we have over 40 cosponsors. The ideas of many Senators and parts of legislation championed by many Senators are incorporated in this amendment.

This is truly a bipartisan amendment. It is an amendment that has had a huge amount of input by many Senators. Although I would prefer the Senate consider this important legislation as a stand-alone provision, a stand-alone bill, because of the shortage of floor time, we now offer it as an amendment to the national defense authorization bill. If it is adopted as an amendment, and assuming that our Defense authorization bill is passed, we would then seek to have it introduced and passed immediately thereafter as stand-alone legislation, so we would have it in two forms--one as an amendment to the bill and the other as a stand- alone bill passed by the Senate, so it could go immediately to the House, without waiting for a conference on the authorization bill between the Senate and the House, which would delay the passage of this very important legislation.

Shortfalls in the care and treatment of our wounded warriors came to our

attention as a result of a series of articles in the Washington Post in February. These articles described deplorable living conditions for some servicemembers in an outpatient status. They described a bungled bureaucratic process for assigning disability ratings that determine whether a servicemember will be medically retired with health and other benefits for himself and his family. They describe a clumsy handoff between the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs as the military member transitions from one department to another. The Nation's shock and dismay, when hearing about these problems, reflected the American people's support, the American people's respect, and the American people's gratitude to the men and women who put on our Nation's uniform. Those men and women deserve the best--not shoddy medical care and bureaucratic snafus.

The Armed Services Committee and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs held a rare joint hearing to identify the problems our wounded soldiers are facing. These committees have continued to work together to address these issues, culminating in the amendment we offer today. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs has also marked up separate legislation that will be offered as an amendment to our amendment. Their legislation will ensure that the Veterans' Administration appropriately addresses the problems our seriously wounded and injured servicemembers face after they transition to VA care.

The amendment we are introducing addresses the issues of inconsistent application of disability standards. It addresses disparate disability ratings, substandard facilities, lack of seamless transition from the Department of Defense to the Veterans' Administration, inadequacy of severance pay, care and treatment for traumatic brain injury and post- traumatic stress disorder, medical care for caregivers not eligible for TRICARE, and it addresses the need to share medical records between the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Our amendment addresses the issue of inconsistent disability ratings by requiring that the military departments use VA standards for rating disabilities, unless the Department of Defense rating is higher. So it would take the higher of the two ratings under our legislation. Our amendment adopts a more favorable statutory presumption for determining whether a disability is incident to military service. We do that by adopting the more favorable VA presumption.

We require two pilot programs to test the viability of using the VA to assign disability ratings for the Department of Defense. We also establish an independent board to review and, where appropriate, correct unjustifiably low Department of Defense disability ratings awarded since 2001.

Our amendment addresses the lack of a seamless transition from the military to the Veterans' Administration by requiring the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to jointly develop a comprehensive policy on the care and management of injured servicemembers who will transition from the Department of Defense to the VA.

We establish a Department of Defense and a Department of Veterans Affairs interagency program office to develop and implement a joint electronic health record.

The amendment authorizes $50 million for improved diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation of military members with traumatic brain injury, TBI, and post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD. We require the establishment of centers of excellence for both TBI and PTSD to conduct research, train health care professionals, and a number of other things.

We provide guidance throughout the Department of Defense in the prevention, diagnosis, mitigation, treatment, and rehabilitation of TBI and PTSD. And the amendment requires that the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, report to Congress with comprehensive plans to prevent, diagnose, mitigate, and treat TBI and PTSD.

The amendment increases the minimum severance pay to 1 year's basic pay for those separated with disabilities incurred in a combat zone or combat-related activity and 6 months basic pay for all others. This is quadrupling or doubling, depending on the circumstance, of the current arrangement.

Our amendment also eliminates the requirement that severance pay be deducted from disability compensation for disabilities incurred in a combat zone.

Our amendment also addresses the problem that exists because medically retired servicemembers who are eligible for TRICARE as retirees do not have access to some of the cutting-edge treatments that are available to members still on active duty.

The amendment does that by authorizing medically retired servicemembers to receive the Active-Duty medical benefit for 3 years after the member leaves active duty, and this can be extended to 5 years where medically required.

The amendment authorizes military and VA health care providers to provide medical care and counseling to family members who leave their homes and often leave their jobs to help provide care to their wounded warriors.

The dignified treatment of wounded warriors amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to establish standards for the treatment of and housing for military outpatients. These standards will require compliance with Federal and other standards for military medical treatment facilities, speciality medical care facilities, and military housing for outpatients that will be uniform and consistent and high level throughout the Department of Defense.

In summary, the dignified treatment of wounded warriors amendment is a comprehensive approach that lays out a path for the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to address shortfalls in the care of our wounded warriors in the Department of Defense and through the transition to care in the VA system. With the amendment we will be discussing in a moment, that has been adopted by the Veterans' Affairs Committee under the chairmanship and leadership of Senator Akaka, this bill will also address shortfalls in the VA system itself after the transition to the Veterans' Administration of our wounded warriors. Those warriors deserve the best care and support that we can muster. The American people rightly insist on no less.

There are a number of organizations which support this legislation. I will read from a release that was issued by one of those organizations. This is the Wounded Warrior Project:

[This] is a nonprofit organization aimed at assisting those

men and women of the United States armed forces who have been

severely injured during the war on terrorism in Iraq,

Afghanistan, and other hot spots around the world.

A description of this project is:

Beginning at the bedside of the severely wounded, Wounded

Warrior Project provides programs and services designated to

ease the burdens of these heroes and their families, aid in

the recovery process and smooth the transition back to

civilian life.

Just one paragraph from their release is the following:

With this legislation, the Senate is telling our nation's

wounded warriors that they have heard their concerns and are

ready to take appropriate actions to ensure that these brave

men and women are taken care of in a manner befitting their

sacrifices. . . . This wide ranging legislation will improve

the provision of health care and benefits to injured military

personnel and make the system much more efficient as well.

I ask unanimous consent that the statement of the Wounded Warrior Project and the statement of the Fleet Reserve Association be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. President, we have a number of amendments which have been cleared, 10 amendments which have been cleared which we will describe in a few moments after Senator McCain speaks and after Senator Akaka speaks. We will describe those second-degree amendments that have been cleared on both sides of the aisle.

Again, I especially thank my ranking member, Senator McCain, and all the members of our committee for the extraordinary work they have put in on this legislation. It is, as I mentioned, comprehensive and desperately needed.

I also thank Senator Akaka, who is chairman of our Veterans' Affairs Committee, for his leadership because that committee has worked very closely

with our committee on this joint project. This is truly not just a joint effort between two committees but just about every Member of this body has had a role and a voice in this legislation. It is one of the best examples, I believe, of not only bipartisan action that I have seen in the Senate, but also a very speedy action and, we believe, very thorough consideration as well.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

Wounded Warrior Project (WWP) Applauds Senate Armed Services Committee

for New Legislation to Assist Severely Wounded Servicemembers

Jacksonville, FL, June 14, 2007.--Today, the Wounded

Warrior Project (WWP) applauded the Senate Armed Services

Committee for the introduction of the ``Dignified Treatment

of Wounded Warriors Act'', a comprehensive piece of

legislation that will greatly assist severely wounded

servicemembers. WWP was particularly pleased to note that the

bill included several of the legislative proposals that the

organization has proposed and supported.

``With this legislation, the Senate is telling our nation's

wounded warriors that they have heard their concerns and are

ready to take appropriate actions to ensure that these brave

men and women are taken care of in a manner befitting their

sacrifices'', said WWP Executive Director, John Melia. ``This

wide ranging legislation will improve the provision of health

care and benefits to injured military personnel and make the

system much more efficient as well''.

The ``Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act'' is

sponsored by Senators Levin (D-MI), McCain (R-AZ), Akaka (D-

HI), Warner (R-VA), Clinton (D-NY) and others. Among the

provisions included in the legislation, the bill would

require the Department of Defense (DOD) to adopt a Pre-

Deployment Cognitive Assessment tool to help identify

Traumatic Brain Injury or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in

returning servicemembers. Additionally, it would require DOD

to work with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on

developing a caregiver training program for family members of

brain injured servicemembers, and reform the disability

evaluation and ratings system that military personnel must

navigate prior to retirement from service. The bill would

also create an overlap of DOD and VA benefits to allow

wounded warriors to benefit from the strengths of both

systems without having to choose access to one over the

other.

In addition to these provisions, at this morning's Senate

Armed Services Committee hearing, eight amendments suggested

by WWP were adopted into the bill.

``These provisions have grown out of our direct interaction

with our wounded warriors'', Melia said. ``We strongly

encourage the Senate to pass this bill and to work with the

House of Representatives to ensure these vital initiatives

are included in the final version of the bill that will

hopefully reach the President's desk. We stand committed to

assisting in any way.''

about wounded warrior project

Wounded Warrior Project (WWP) is a non-profit organization

aimed at assisting those men and women of the United States

armed forces who have been severely injured during the war on

terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and other hot spots around the

world. Beginning at the bedside of the severely wounded, WWP

provides programs and services designated to ease the burdens

of these heroes and their families, aid in the recovery

process and smooth the transition back to civilian life. For

more information, please call (904) 296-7350 or visit

www.woundedwarriorproject.org.

Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Hawaii would yield for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of the Senator from Hawaii, the Senator from Washington and the Senator from New York be recognized on this side to speak, and if there are Senators on the Republican side who wish to speak, that they be interspersed with those three Senators.

I know Senator Murray is going to be recognized now under our existing unanimous consent agreement. I ask, after she is recognized and after Senator Schumer, who is also in the sequence, is recognized, that Senator Carper of Delaware be recognized following Senator Schumer.

Madam President, before the Senator from New York is recognized under our unanimous consent agreement, I especially thank the Senator from Washington. She has been one extraordinary advocate for this cause of our veterans. She is a symbol of the effort that so many people in this Senate have put into this legislation, but I just want to especially identify her because she, along with Senator Akaka and other members of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, has joined with us as one. I thank her particularly.

The sequence is the Senator from New York, then the Senator from Delaware. But how long will this take?

Are we ready with the list?

Madam President, Senator Carper had to leave the Chamber for a moment. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Durbin now be recognized and then Senator Carper be recognized under the sequence previously ordered. That is always subject to a Republican coming because they would be interspersed among the listed Senators on this side of the aisle.

Mr. President, there was an agreement previously that we would alternate back and forth. If that is what Senator Isakson is seeking to implement, they have a right to do so. I would note to Senator Carper that we did agree that if a Republican did wish to speak, they would be recognized in an alternate way.

I ask unanimous consent that the following sequence be accepted for the Democratic Senators, subject to that same understanding that Republican Senators would be interspersed: After Senator Carper, Senator McCaskill, Senator Brown, and then Senator Lincoln would be the order on this side.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following Senator McCaskill's remarks, Senator Collins be recognized on the Republican side.

Will the Senator from Idaho yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from Idaho has completed his remarks, the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, be recognized; after Senator Lincoln, if there is a Republican here, they would then come next and that, after that, after Senator Lincoln, Senator Kerry be the next Democrat in sequence.

Mr. President, first, let me thank Senator Craig for all the work he and his committee put in on this bill. I know he and Senator Akaka and members of that committee have played a major role. Their amendment reflects additional work, and we are very grateful. I know every veteran in this country and their families are grateful.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator McCain and I, at this time, be allowed to offer six second-degree amendments which have been cleared--they shouldn't take more than a few minutes--prior to Senator Lincoln being recognized.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators Durbin and McCain, I call up amendment No. 2131, a second-degree amendment to our amendment. It requires the Secretary of Defense to develop a comprehensive plan for the provision to members of the Armed Forces with traumatic brain injury or post-traumatic stress disorder. The amendment has been cleared, I believe.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Graham, I call up amendment No. 2154, an amendment which improves the distribution of benefits under Traumatic Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senators Craig, Akaka, and McCain, I call up amendment No. 2115. It is a second-degree amendment to the wounded warrior amendment that requires the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the Center of Excellence in Prevention, Diagnosis, Mitigation, Treatment, and Rehabilitation of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder collaborates to the maximum extent possible with the National Center for PTSD and the Department of Veterans Affairs and other appropriate entities.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators Craig, Akaka, and McCain, I call up amendment No. 2114, which is a second- degree amendment to the pending amendment that requires the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the Center of Excellence in Prevention, Diagnosis, Mitigation, Treatment, and Rehabilitation of Traumatic Brain Injury collaborates to the maximum extent possible with the Department of Veterans Affairs and other appropriate entities.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Lieberman, myself, and Senator McCain, I call up amendment No. 2089, a second-degree amendment to our pending amendment. This relates to the Center of Excellence for

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Lieberman, McCain, and myself, I call up amendment No. 2090, a second-degree amendment to our pending amendment regarding the Center of Excellence for Traumatic Brain Injury.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Snowe and myself, I call up amendment No. 2162, a second-degree to the pending amendment. It requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on reductions in disability ratings.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I believe we have done amendment No. 2154. I thank the Chair and thank our good friends from Arkansas and Massachusetts for their understanding and, of course, my good friend from Arizona.

Madam President, that, of course, would be fine with me, but we have a vote scheduled at 4 o'clock. If that is going to delay that vote, we better clear that with folks who may be relying upon a 4 o'clock vote.

Madam President, how long will the Senator from Michigan wish to speak?

Madam President, then I join in that unanimous consent request that the Senator from Michigan be recognized for up to 10 minutes.

Now the vote will be delayed until about 5 after 4 o'clock.

Madam President, the next order of business we agreed upon will be to dispose of the wounded warrior legislation. There are three pending amendments which have now all been cleared. They need to be prepared and accepted. It may take us 20 minutes or so. Then there will be a vote.

Five minutes before a vote can begin, that will be fine. The sooner the better. We are all happy with that schedule. Is Senator Dorgan on the floor?

I will be happy to yield. I will be happy to yield in a minute to the Senator from Vermont. The next business, if it is agreeable with the ranking member, will be to dispose of the Dorgan amendment, at which point we are going to Levin-Reed. Is my understanding correct?

The Dorgan amendment is an al-Qaida amendment. We are trying to work out a UC that involves a series of amendments around Levin-Reed, including the Cornyn amendment.

I will be happy to yield.

Assuming cloture is invoked and we get to a vote on Levin- Reed, at that point there will be a side by side in this UC with the Cornyn amendment, but we have to leave open the possibility, then, of a side by side for an amendment with Cornyn.

Now I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Vermont.

If the Senator will yield, the staff is preparing a UC which covers the entire subject. It is too complex for us to say something and get into more trouble. Let's just get the UC.

If we get to a vote on Levin-Reed, it is our intention, and it will be implemented in a UC, that Senator Cornyn's amendment, which he wanted to be voted on side by side, would be voted on side by side, but we then need to have the opportunity to have a side by side with the Cornyn amendment. I am just cautioning everybody, because we have already had enough confusion on this subject, that we should wait for the staff to prepare that UC so everybody is satisfied.

I will be happy to yield.

My understanding is the current procedure, where we are, we alternate amendments. So the Senator from Arizona, the ranking member, can designate anybody he wishes on his side to offer an amendment. But in terms of laying aside what comes up, when it is voted on, and side by sides, that part has to be resolved by a UC.

We are going to try to dispose of the Dorgan amendment immediately afterward. But the next time the Senator from Arizona can designate a Member on his side, it is his intention to have the Senator from Texas recognized.

I am trying to figure out how to respond to Senator McCain. I am not sure I have a good response.

We are going to move to the Iraq legislation immediately after the disposition of the Dorgan amendment, subject to the Cornyn amendment, which will be next which is being figured out in a UC. We are then going to go to the Iraq legislation, the Levin-Reed legislation, so I cannot tell the Senator from Vermont how long the debate on that legislation is going to last. There are many people who wish to be recognized thereafter, and I cannot at this time tell him which one from our side will be the one to be selected. I don't want to make that choice now.

It is certainly my intention that Senators have that opportunity. The Senator from California has asked, a number of other Senators have asked, and it is my hope and intent that Senators will have an opportunity to offer amendments.

Madam President, I join my good friend from Arizona first of all in urging people to get their amendments in to us. I don't know the time that was suggested by the Senator, but I want to repeat it-- what was it? Well, the earlier the better because we have a lot on our plate.

Madam President, these are the three second-degree amendments--we referred to them before--and as soon as these amendments are disposed of, we are then going to move to vote on the wounded warriors legislation, and I believe we should have a rollcall on that legislation.

Amendment No. 2132 to Amendment No. 2011

(Purpose: To provide and enhance rehabilitative treatment and services to veterans with traumatic brain injury and to improve health care and

benefits programs for veterans)

Madam President, on behalf of Senators Akaka, Craig, Rockefeller, Murray, Brown, Mikulski, and Obama, I call up amendment No. 2132, an amendment to provide and enhance rehabilitative treatment and services to veterans with traumatic brain injury and to improve health care and benefits programs for veterans.

Madam President, I move to reconsider.

Madam President, on behalf of Senators Nelson of Nebraska and Graham, I call up amendment No. 2160, a second-degree amendment to our pending amendment; and on behalf of Senators Nelson and Graham, I send a modification to the desk.

Madam President, I move to reconsider.

Madam President, on behalf of Senators Nelson of Nebraska and Graham, I call up amendment No. 2159, a second-degree amendment to the pending amendment regarding travel reimbursement for specialty care; and on behalf of Senators Nelson and Graham, I send a modification to the desk.

Madam President, I move to reconsider.

Madam President, I believe we have now disposed of all the known amendments to the wounded warrior legislation, and I know that I am speaking on behalf of all of us, at least 50 cosponsors, that a lot of work was put in by a lot of Senators on this legislation. Both committees, Veterans' Affairs and Armed Services, have worked together, so thanks to all of the Senators for all of the work that has gone into this. In all the bills that have been filed, ideas have been taken from so many of those bills, and those Senators are a part of this legislation, so I hope we can now promptly, and even unanimously, in a very bipartisan way, adopt this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Cornyn now be recognized to call up amendment No. 2100; that after his statement of 20 minutes, his amendment be laid aside; that Senator Dorgan then be recognized to offer his amendment No. 2135.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on State, Local, and Private Sector Preparedness and Integration of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, July 12, 2007, at 2 p.m., in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Private Sector Preparedness, Part II: protecting our critical infrastructure.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 12, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

This hearing will address issues relating to telephone number portability.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 12, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nominations of Clarence H. Albright, of South Carolina, to be Under Secretary of Energy; Lisa E. Epifani, of Texas, to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs; James L. Caswell, of Idaho, to be Director of the Bureau of Land Management; and Brent T. Wahlquist of Pennsylvania, to be Director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 12, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``Airport Airways Trust Fund: The Future of Aviation Financing.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to hold a hearing on the nomination of Dr. James W. Holsinger to be Medical Director and Surgeon General of the Public Health Service, Department of

Health and Human Services during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 12, 2007 at 10 a.m., room G50 of the Dirksen Senate office building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, July 12, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on transportation issues in Indian country.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup session on Thursday, July 12, 2007, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen room 226.

Agenda

I. Bills

S.1145, Patent Reform Act of 2007, (Leahy, Hatch, Schumer, Cornyn, Whitehouse);

S.--, School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvements Act, (Chairman's mark);

S. 1060, Recidivism Reduction & Second Chance Act of 2007, (Biden, Specter, Brownback, Leahy, Kennedy, Schumer, Whitehouse, Durbin)

II. Nominations

William Lindsay Osteen, Jr. to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of North Carolina; Martin Karl Reidinger to be United States District Judge for the Western District of North Carolina; Timothy D. DeGiusti to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma; Janis Lynn Sammartino to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of California.

III. Resolutions

S. Res. 248, Honoring the life and achievements of Dame Lois Browne Evans (Brown);

Res. 236, Supporting the goals and ideals of the National Anthem Project (Bayh, Craig, Kennedy, Cardin, Durbin).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, July 12, 2007, at 9 a.m., in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Dirty Bomb Vulnerabilities: fake companies, fake licenses, real consequences.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 12, 2007 at 2:30 p.m., to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 12, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 488 and H.R. 1100, to revise the boundary of the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site in the State of North Carolina; S. 617, to make the National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass available at a discount to certain veterans; S. 824 and H.R. 995, to amend Public Law 106-348 to extend the authorization for establishing a memorial in the District of Columbia or its environs to honor veterans who became disabled while serving in the Armed Forces of the United States; S. 955, to establish the Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area; S. 1148, to establish the Champlain Quadricentennial Commemoration Commission and the Hudson-Fulton 400th Commemoration Commission; S. 1182, to amend the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor Act of 1994 to increase the authorization of appropriations and modify the date on which the authority of the Secretary of the Interior terminates under the Act; S. 1380, to designate as wilderness certain land within the Rocky Mountain National Park and to adjust the boundaries of the Indian Peaks Wilderness and the Arapaho National Recreation Area of the Arapaho National Forest in the State of Colorado; and S. 1728, to amend the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 to reauthorize the Na Hoa Pili O Kaloko- Honokohau Advisory Commission Reauthorization Act of 2007.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 12, 2007, at l0 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``A Global View: Examining Cross-Border Exchange Mergers.''

Mr. President, I will yield a moment first to Senator Webb to comment on the question which Senator McCain just raised about whether people can voluntarily go back before the dwell time period is over, and then I will yield myself 8 minutes, after which I will yield the remainder of my time to the control of Senator Webb.

Mr. President, there is ample evidence that 4 years of war has stressed our Armed Forces to the breaking point. Our Army and Marine Corps are stretched dangerously thin. They are wearing out. Earlier this year, we watched as they scrambled and pulled together the personnel, equipment, and training to meet the surge of additional forces to Iraq. They will continue to struggle to sustain this higher surge force level if it extends beyond this fall.

Unit rotations into and out of an overseas mission has been a fixture of U.S. military operations for many years. However, unit-rotation schemes have significant strategic risks, and risks are increased when deployed force levels spike or drop as our military strategy changes in the political or security environment, such as was done for past elections or the recent surge.

Short-notice deployment accelerations and extensions are inherently risky and complicate unit preparation and operations on the ground. Risks increase when we do not have sufficient ground forces overall to accomplish what we are asking them to do and still allow time for nondeployed units and individuals to fully recover from their last or prepare for their next deployment.

Multiple deployments with insufficient dwell time contribute to several problems among our troops: Insufficient dwell time increases operational risk as troops and units deploy without the time necessary to fully man, equip, and train before they leave their home station. Insufficient dwell time between rotations contributes to the retention problems we are seeing, especially among midgrade officers and sergeants. Insufficient time between rotations creates higher rates of mental health issues among troops with multiple and extended deployments. Insufficient dwell time puts much higher stress on our military families, resulting in higher than normal levels of divorce or abuse.

Last January, the Secretary of Defense announced a new approach to unit rotation. Among our Active component forces, he wanted to immediately achieve a minimum 1-to-1 deployed to at home or dwell time, on the way to achieving a goal of 1-to-2 or greater dwell time. Our Guard and Reserve forces would deploy for no longer than 12 months from start to finish, with a goal of no less than 5 years between deployments.

Well, the Webb amendment reflects those policy goals. The Webb amendment mandates that for each day deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, an Active-Duty servicemember will spend 1 day at home, and it mandates that our Guard and Reserves get a minimum of 3 years between deployments. It is essential that as we vote we understand that the amendment provides waiver authorities to the President and service chiefs to ensure the flexibility to respond to any emergency the Nation may face in the future, and those decisions are left to the President.

Mr. President, there is precedent for the Webb amendment. Congress took action in 1999 to relieve some of the deployment burden our forces were facing at that time and to drive the Department of Defense to a more precise management system that would take better care of troops and their families. It is true that Congress has the power of the purse, but under that same Constitution, we also have the power to regulate the Armed Forces by law, and that is what the Webb amendment seeks to do.

Congress established in law an annual deployment threshold for Active and Reserve forces above which servicemembers are entitled to special pay. We put that in law as part of our constitutional authority to regulate the Army and the Navy. The Secretary of Defense exercised his national security waiver authority of that requirement right after 9/ 11. It is not unusual to

have a waiver authority in law. It is not unusual for the executive to use that waiver authority, as they have done before.

Due to the deployment management standards of this earlier legislation, the services have in place the systems necessary to plan and execute the requirements of this amendment, and so it has served its purpose, and this one will as well.

It is a very useful amendment. The Defense Department will have to make earlier strategic and operational decisions, which will allow greater precision in planning unit and individual rotations, and that will result in greater predictability and stability for our troops and their families.

The Webb amendment promotes the health of our troops, ensuring time for post-deployment evaluation and recovery. The Webb amendment also promotes readiness, ensuring that units and personnel have the time-- the most precious of resources--to man, equip, and train for any future mission.

I hope the Senate will adopt the Webb amendment. It will be a useful contribution to the readiness and well-being of our Armed Forces.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, am I correct the leaders have reserved the final 20 minutes before the vote on cloture?

Mr. President, is the Senator from Michigan correct that if cloture is not invoked, the pending amendment would remain the Webb amendment?

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senators Reed, Smith, Hagel, Kerry, Snowe, Biden, Obama, and Clinton, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, our intention, after discussing this with the ranking member, is that we will now set aside these amendments and then the Republican side would designate another amendment that would then be offered. We understand it relates to Iran. That is our intention. I don't know if the sponsor of that amendment is ready.

I wonder if the Senator from Connecticut could introduce the amendment and, if he is not ready to speak on it, yield to other persons who could speak on other matters and his amendment.

If the Senator from Massachusetts is ready, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Massachusetts be recognized and afterward the Senator from Connecticut be recognized--if that is the intent of the ranking member.

Yes.

Mr. President, first, let me commend the Senator from Connecticut for his amendment. There is an awfully important message that is in that amendment about the threatening activities of Iranians against us in a number of parts of the world but more specifically in Iraq. This amendment is intended to capture some of the problems which are created by those activities of Iranians in Iraq particularly.

What we are trying to work out with the Senator from Connecticut, and again I commend him on his initiative, I think it is a very important one and I think it is possible the Senate can speak with one voice and we should speak with one voice on this issue.

There are language modifications which we are suggesting and which I have already had a chance to talk to my good friend from Connecticut about. I think if we either can have a brief quorum call or if anybody else who is here wishes to address the Senate on this or other subjects, they could be recognized at this point. But in the absence of that if I note----

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I apologize, Mr. President.

Mr. President, we are drafting a unanimous consent request to put in place what the Senator from Arizona has just described. But what it would be is that immediately following the disposition of the Lieberman amendment, as modified--and the modification is almost completed--that then there would be a recognition of Senator Hagel, with 2 hours, I believe, equally divided, and then there would be--I have not had a chance to talk with the Senator from Arizona, but it may be preferable to have the Kyl amendment just offered and laid down today and then the hour for Senators Salazar and Alexander and their cosponsors, with a half an hour, as I understand it, for the Senator from Arizona or his designee, to be recognized after that hour for Senators Alexander and Salazar et al. But their hour would be purely for a matter of debate. There is no amendment of theirs that would be pending at this time.

Mr. President, I think that would be the intention.

Whenever it comes up.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield on that, Senator McCain, actually, I think, was intending to protect that interest in the half hour which he requested. If that is not sufficient, then we could make that an hour.

We will have a unanimous consent request. This is being cleared on our side. I would also ask that Senator Smith be recognized for 10 minutes between now and the time we will, hopefully, vote on the Lieberman amendment.

Is the modification at the desk? Is that ready?

Mr. President, I think the Senator from Illinois is going to be recognized at this point. After he has his colloquy with Senator Lieberman, I would again seek the floor to put in place that unanimous consent agreement which we have just broadly outlined.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, the only issue is it is not in the proper form. I would urge the Senator to describe that modification. By the time he describes it, and I have had a comment or two, it will be in a form we could send to the desk.

Mr. President, let me again thank the Senator from Connecticut for these modifications. There are a number of other smaller modifications in the body of the amendment. The only one which I will read, make note of here--although there are a number of other very small ones--however, the one I do want to particularly point out, for those who are following this debate, is that the words ``of hostility'' are eliminated on line 14, page 7 in order to avoid any suggestion that this--I will give my interpretation, which I think fits exactly with what the Senator from Connecticut said--to avoid any implication in the body of the amendment that there is an authorization here for the use of force. And the words ``of hostility,'' in the context of that line, might have given an impression contrary to what is now explicit, that ``Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of Armed Forces against Iran.''

Again, I thank our friend from Connecticut for these modifications. I support the amendment. In fact, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to the amendment, and that Senator Salazar be added as a cosponsor.

With that, Mr. President, we wait for the form, and also the unanimous consent request which--

Mr. President, as soon as the modification is in proper form, it is the stated intention of the Senator from Connecticut to send that to the desk. In the meantime, if the Senator from Oregon could be recognized for 10 minutes.

To alert all Members, I think we will be ready for a vote at 5 minutes to 4 o'clock on the Lieberman amendment.

Should we get the yeas and nays on that amendment now? We have to wait until after it is modified to get the yeas and nays.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me first thank my good friend from Oregon for his extraordinarily prescient and moving statement. His support of this amendment has been a matter of great importance to the Nation, as well as to him personally and to the troops and their families. I want to personally tell him how moved I am by his words, and I wish everybody in this country could have heard his words. Hopefully, as many as possible will take a moment to read the words of Senator Smith.

Mr. President, I believe we will be ready to move to a vote very shortly. I think there will be a UC which will set the time for 10 minutes after 4, but we will wait for the staff. Can we announce that it will be 4:10 for the vote? If I could get the attention of the Senator from Arizona, because I am asking for unanimous consent that the vote now be scheduled for 10 minutes after 4.

I thank the Senator. Between now and then, the modification will, hopefully, be ready. It is at the desk. Does this require a motion or a unanimous consent or just a request to modify? I think the Senator from Connecticut needs----

Mr. President, again, I thank my good friend from Connecticut for his cooperation and for his modification of his amendment. I think it now will command and should command the overwhelming vote of the Senate. There is no division when it comes to threats to the troops of the United States. Those troops are threatened in many ways in Iraq, and one of the ways they are threatened is by the activities of Iranians.

We want to make it very clear to the Government of Iran that we speak as one when it comes to protecting those troops from those kinds of threats. I hope that message gets through to the leaders of Iran loudly and clearly as a result of the adoption--or the expected adoption--of the Lieberman amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 4:10 today be for debate with respect to the Lieberman amendment No. 2073, as modified, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senator Lieberman and Senator Levin or their designees; that no amendments be in order to the Lieberman amendment prior to the vote; and that at 4:10, without further intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Lieberman amendment, as modified.

Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate considers the Hagel amendment No. 2032 and the Graham sense-of- the-Congress amendment relating to readiness during today's session, that there be a total of 90 minutes, equally divided, between Senators Hagel and Graham or their designees, with the amendments being debated concurrently; that no amendments be in order to either amendment prior to the vote; that each amendment must receive 60 affirmative votes in order for the amendment to be agreed to; that if either or both of the amendments receive 60 affirmative votes, then the motion to reconsider be considered made and tabled; that if neither amendment receives 60 affirmative votes, then the amendment be withdrawn; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Hagel amendment; that upon disposition of the Hagel amendment, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Graham amendment; that there be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote in relation to the Graham amendment; following disposition of the Graham amendment, Senator McCain or his designee be recognized to offer the next first- degree relevant amendment, to be followed by Senator Levin offering a relevant second-degree amendment; further, that the time for debating the Hagel and Graham amendments be considered to have begun at 4:50 p.m. and charged according to usage to this point.

Mr. President, I did not hear the Republican leader.

I thank the leader.

Senator McCain and I have had discussions on this, that it was our hope we could have majority votes on these matters, but there would have been objection to that.

Is that a fair statement?

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Arizona. It is my intention that I bring up the wounded warriors amendment tomorrow as the amendment referred to here. It is a Levin-McCain et al. amendment. It is a bipartisan amendment. But it is the amendment that I intend, as of this moment, to bring up as the amendment referred to in this UC.

Mr. President, I thank my friend for that clarification.

I would hope that would not be the case and that be decided on a case-by-case basis.

I hope that will not be the case.

Mr. President, let me clarify something I said. Senator McCain is correct, and I misspoke. The reference to my bringing up the wounded warriors legislation is not governed by this UC. It is my intention. After the matters that are governed by this UC, that is what I would do. I can be recognized by the Chair under the rights of recognition in this body, and that is my intention.

I thank my friend from Arizona for that clarification.

Mr. President, if the Senator from Arizona will yield, I see that Senator Salazar is on the floor of the Senate as well. It is our intention--Senator McCain and I have spoken--that after these two votes, we then go into morning business. It is our understanding that Senator Salazar, Senator Alexander, and a number of other Senators during that period are going to want to speak relevant to the amendment which they have filed. The amendment will not be before us. It will just be that they will be talking about their amendment.

We tried to find a place for that to happen earlier today. It didn't happen. The time that it can happen very readily would be during that period of morning business that would come after the two votes which are presently scheduled. So I just want to put the Senate and, more importantly, Senators Salazar, Alexander, and others on notice about that possibility. For those who also want to comment on that amendment perhaps from a different direction, a different degree, opposition, or whatever, they obviously would be free to do so at that time, or at any other time, because this is not the time when that amendment is going to be offered.

Senator McCain is back on the Senate floor. I indicated, I would say to the Senator, that during the period of morning business, that group of Senators and any other Senator who wants to comment on that amendment would be more than free to do so. It would not be pending before the Senate. It would be just for their discussion. But I wanted to put them on notice because they tried earlier in the day to have that opportunity.

He was, indeed, and there are others, I know.

Madam President, is there any time remaining?

Madam President, I wish to ask the sponsor of this amendment, my recollection is that when the 12-month deployment was extended by 3 months, the Secretary of Defense announced it was his goal to bring it back to 12 months; is that correct?

I believe he said it somewhere publicly; I can't remember. One of the reasons to oppose the Graham amendment, it seems to me, is stated here: that the goal should be 15 months, which is worse than the current goal. The current deployment fact is 15 months, but the goal is to bring it back to 12 months. We want to do more than state a goal, we want to put this in law that it is a goal with a waiver.

What intrigues me about the Graham amendment is it is worse than the current goal. The goal is to bring that back to 12 months, and the Graham amendment is listed as being 15 months as the goal. I think it ought to be opposed on a number of reasons, reasons that have been stated, but also because it states as a goal a longer deployment length than what is the current DOD goal, which is 12 months.

I wonder if the Senator, after he is done, will yield 20 seconds to me?

Madam President, is there any time remaining?

Madam President, the stated goal of the Department of Defense remains 1 year, so this amendment, which says the goal should be 15 months for deployed forces, is harder on the troops than the current goal. I am going to read the current goal from Secretary Gates' January 12 Armed Services Committee statement:

The goal for the active force rotation cycle remains 1 year

deployed for every 2 years at home station.

So the Graham amendment goal of 15 months is harder.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Republican leader be recognized in order to speak regarding an amendment to be offered at a later time; further, that following those remarks, Senator Allard and then Senator Salazar be recognized to speak for up to 10 minutes each on the same subject; and then, that following those remarks, the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each; and then Senator Salazar be recognized to control 60 minutes.

Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 11, 2007, at 9 a.m., in order to conduct a hearing on the nominations of the Honorable Bijan Rafiekian, of California, to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States; Ms. Diane G. Farrell, of Connecticut, to be a member of the board of directors of the Export- Import Bank of the United States; Mr. William Herbert Heyman, of New York, to be a director of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation; Mr. William S. Jaisen, of Virginia, to be a Director of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation; and Mr. Mark S. Shelton, of Kansas, to be a Director of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 11, 2007, at 10 a.m. room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The hearing will examine the weather and environmental satellite programs of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, including the role of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in developing such satellites.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 11, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``Carried Interest, Part 1.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on Wednesday, July 11, 2007, at 10 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Strengthening the Unique Role of the Nation's Inspectors General.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Preserving Prosecutorial Independence: Is the Department of Justice Politicizing the Hiring and Firing of U.S. Attorneys?--Part VI'' on Wednesday, July 11, 2007, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building, room 226.

Witness list

Sara M. Taylor, Formerly Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Political Affairs, The White House.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 11, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 11, 2007, at 10 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Review of EPA's Proposed Revision to the Ozone NAAQS.''

Madam President, let me first thank Senator McCain for his great generosity in terms of his comments about the committee and the operations of our committee. As he well knows, our committee has had a great tradition of bipartisanship. He has made a major contribution, always, to that tradition. As ranking member, he has more than continued that tradition. He has made a major contribution to it and to the bill that is before us and to the bipartisan flavor of that bill.

While there obviously are and will be differences--which are understandable and appropriate--as he well points out, this is a bill that had unanimous support in the committee. We, in the next week or so, will be hearing differences on issues, including Iraq, and that is totally what we are all about: to express our feelings in a civil way and in a strong way.

But I add my thanks to him for his contribution for so many decades going back. When he speaks about the situation we are in in Iraq, he speaks with not only great feeling but also with great experience, and I think every Member of this body treasures our relationship with Senator McCain and the

experience he brings to this debate. He has the commitment, I hope, of everybody in this body that the debate, as we proceed relative to Iraq or any other issues in this week and next, will proceed in a very civil way.

This issue requires all of the wisdom we can muster, all of the experiences of the various Members, and he has my assurance, and I think he would have the assurance of every Member of this body, that the tone he sets and wants us to maintain will indeed be maintained by this Senate. I am confident of that, and thank him again for his remarks and for his great contribution to this bill.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate of the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which was not available when the report on that bill, S. 1547, was filed, be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of the Senator from Hawaii, on this side of the aisle, the order then be Senator Biden and Senator Boxer.

Madam President, Senator Biden was to be recognized next. I don't see him on the floor at this moment, so I will note the absence of a quorum for a few moments, and if he does not arrive, then I will give my remarks on the Webb amendment.

Madam President, I thank my good friend from California, and I have no objection at all.

Mr. President, first let me thank my dear friend, Senator Salazar, for his comments. They are particularly meaningful coming from somebody who as much as anybody in this body strives to bring Members together in common causes. I want to tell him how grateful I am for his comments but also, even more importantly, how grateful we all are for the effort he makes to cross the aisle and bring Senators together on important issues of the day.

Last night, I was not able to be present when our bill came to the floor. I was chairing a subcommittee meeting which I could not leave. I asked a number of colleagues on the Armed Services Committee if they could fill in for me, and very graciously and, as always, very competently, Senators Ben Nelson and Bill Nelson fulfilled that role and responded to that request, and I am very grateful to them for having done so. I wasn't able then to present the bill, as a bill of this magnitude should be presented, and I will take a few minutes at this time to do that.

The Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008 would fully fund the fiscal year 2008 budget request of $648.8 billion for national security activities of the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy.

The Senate Armed Services Committee has a long tradition of setting aside partisanship and working together in the interest of the national defense. That tradition has been maintained this year. I am pleased that our bill, S. 1547, was reported to the Senate on a unanimous 25- to-nothing vote of our committee. Additionally, S. 1606, the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act, which we will be taking up either as part of this bill or as a freestanding measure, was also reported by the committee on a unanimous 25-to-nothing vote. These votes stand as a testament to the common commitment of all of our Members to supporting our men and women in uniform.

Our bill contains many important provisions that will improve the quality of life of our men and women in uniform, provide needed support and assistance to our troops on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, make the investments we need to meet the

challenges of the 21st century, and require needed reforms in the management of the Department of Defense.

The bill before us, perhaps most importantly, continues the increases in compensation and quality of life that our service men and women and their families deserve as they face the hardships imposed by continuing military operations around the world. For example, the bill contains provisions that would authorize a 3.5-percent across-the-board pay increase for all uniformed military personnel, which is a half a percent more than the administration's request. Our bill authorizes increases in the end-strength of the Army and the Marines--13,000 for the Army and 9,000 for the Marines. Our bill authorizes payment of over 25 types of bonuses and special pay aimed at encouraging the enlistment, reenlistment, and continued service by Active-Duty and Reserve military personnel. Our bill authorizes payment of combat- related special compensation to servicemembers medically retired for a combat-related disability. We reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals to Department of Defense personnel by authorizing the use of Federal pricing for pharmaceuticals dispensed through the TRICARE retail program.

The bill also includes important funding and authorities needed to provide our troops with the equipment and support they will continue to need as long as they remain in Iraq and Afghanistan. For instance, the bill contains provisions which would add $4 billion above the amount requested by the administration for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles, so-called MRAPs, which improve protection for our troops exposed to improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. Our bill fully funds the budget request of $4.5 billion for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Office, while directing that office to invest at least $50 million in blast injury research and over $150 million for the procurement of IED jammers for the Army.

We invest more than $70 million in research and new technologies to enhance the force protection of deployed units, including advanced materials for vehicle and body armor, active protection systems that shoot down incoming rocket-propelled grenades, and sniper detection systems. And we add $2.7 billion for items needed by the Army but not contained in the President's budget, including $775 million for reactive armor and other Stryker requirements, $207 million for aviation survivability equipment, $102 million for combat training centers, and funding for explosive ordnance disposal equipment, night- vision devices, and machine guns.

The bill would also enhance our national security by aggressively addressing the risk of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In this regard, the bill would increase funding over the administration's request for Department of Energy nonproliferation programs by $87 million, increase funding for the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, CTR, by $100 million, eliminate funding restrictions that limit the use of CTR funds, and we expand the CTR Program to countries outside of the former Soviet Union.

The bill contains a number of provisions that will help improve the management of the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies. For example, the bill contains provisions that would establish a Chief Management Officer, finally, for the Department of Defense to provide continuous top-level attention to the high-risk management problems of the Department as recommended by the Comptroller General. I note that our Presiding Officer is a member of the committee which takes a particular interest in management issues, and the committee on which we both serve, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, has been interested in this subject for years, as long as probably both of us, the Presiding Officer and I, have been here together. We need a chief management officer for the Department of Defense and we would establish that office.

We would establish an acquisition workforce development fund to enable the Department of Defense to increase the size and quality of its acquisition workforce as needed to address systematic deficiencies in the Department's purchases of products and services.

We would tighten the rules for Department of Defense acquisition of major weapons systems and subsystems, components, and spare parts to reduce the risk of contract overpricing, cost overruns, and failure to meet contract schedules and performance requirements.

Our bill also contains a provision that would require increased competition in large so-called ``umbrella contracts'' awarded by the Department of Defense. The Armed Services Committee held a hearing in April on the Department of Defense's management of the $20 billion LOGCAP contract, under which KBR--until recently a subsidiary of Halliburton--has provided services to U.S. troops in the field. There is a history of highly favorable treatment of that contractor throughout this contract. For example, the company was given work that appears to have far exceeded the scope of the contract. All of this added work was provided to the contractor without competition. There were almost $2 billion of overcharges on the contract, and the contractor received highly favorable settlements on these overcharges.

When asked why the Army had waited 5 years to split the LOGCAP contract among multiple contractors so as to allow for the competition of individual task orders, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics responded:

I don't have a good answer for you.

The provision in our bill would avoid these kinds of abuses we get in sole-source contracts by ensuring that future contracts of this type provide for the competition of task and delivery orders unless there is a compelling reason not to do so.

There are far too many provisions in the bill to describe all of them, but there are a few more I wish to put some focus on.

Section 1023 of the bill would protect our troops, uphold our values, and help restore our image around the world by providing a fair process for reviewing the status of the Department of Defense detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere. This provision would require for the first time that long-held detainees receive legal representation, provide for legal rulings to be made by military judges, and prohibit the use of coerced statements.

Section 871 of the bill would require the Department of Defense to provide much-needed regulation for contractors operating on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over the past 4 years, contractor employees have frequently fired weapons at people and property in Iraq--including insurgents, civilians and, on occasion, even our own coalition forces. Yet we have no consistent system in place for regulating the conduct of these armed contractors, or for enforcing compliance with those regulations that do exist, that are supposed to govern the activities of our contractors we hire. The provision in our bill would ensure that commanders on the battlefield have the authority they have long needed to establish rules of engagement--as well as systems for reporting and investigating incidents involving the use of force--for armed contractors of ours in an area of combat operations.

Finally, shortfalls in the care and treatment of our wounded warriors came to the attention of the Nation in a series in the Washington Post last February. These articles described deplorable living conditions for some servicemembers in an outpatient status. They described a bungled, bureaucratic process for assigning disability ratings that determine whether a servicemember would be medically retired with health and other benefits for himself and for his family. A clumsy handoff was described and exists between the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs when a military member transitions from one department to another. The Nation's shock and dismay reflected the American people's support, respect, and gratitude for the men and women who put on our Nation's uniform. They deserve the best, not shoddy medical care and bureaucratic snafus.

I am very proud our Armed Services Committee approved S. 1606, the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors, by a unanimous 20-to-0 vote on June 14. This bill, which we worked on so closely with the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, would address the issues of inconsistent application of disability

standards, disparate disability ratings, substandard facilities, lack of seamless transition from the Department of Defense to the Veterans' Administration, inadequacy of severance pay, care, and treatment for traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. It addresses also medical care for caregivers not eligible for TRICARE, and the sharing of medical records between the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

In consultation with the leadership and with the Committee on Veterans Affairs, since there is unlikely to be available floor time to bring this critically needed bill to the floor as freestanding legislation, it will be offered instead as an amendment to the bill we have on the floor now. I will be offering this on behalf of a very large bipartisan group of Senators coming from not only both the Armed Services Committee and Veterans' Affairs Committee but from all Senators, just about, who will be offering this amendment. We owe it to our men and women in uniform to take up and pass this important legislation.

As of today, roughly 160,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are engaged in combat and combat support operations in Iraq. Almost 20,000 are engaged in combat and combat support operations in Afghanistan, and tens of thousands more are supporting the war effort through deployments thousands of miles from home.

While many of us believe the time has come to start bringing these troops home, we all know we must provide our troops the support they need as long as they remain in harm's way. We in the Nation are divided on the administration's war policy, but we are united in our determination to support our troops. Senate action on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 will improve the quality of life of our men and women in uniform. It will give them the tools they need to remain the most effective fighting force in the world. Most important of all, it will send an important message that we, as a Nation, stand behind them and we appreciate their service.

Finally, as I did earlier this morning, I note that this bill--a bipartisan bill--would not have been possible without the support and leadership of Senator McCain, my ranking member, and each member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. We owe a special debt of gratitude to those who served as subcommittee chairs and ranking members of the Armed Services Committee. This bill takes a long time to put together and then to mark up. It takes many months to perform those functions and many days in the markup process itself.

I also give a special thank-you to our former chairman, Senator Warner, who again did yeoman service to make it possible for this bill to come to the floor in a bipartisan manner, which it has. I look forward to working with colleagues to pass this important legislation. I hope we can proceed to the prompt consideration of it, and I hope that as soon as we address the amendment of Senator Webb, we are going to be able to move on to other amendments.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, while we disagree on a very critical issue, I as always look forward to working with Senator McCain to work out agreements so we can move this bill forward. I am confident we will pass the authorization bill this year, the way we have every other year, for the reasons Senator McCain gives, which are the critically important provisions in here for the men and women in our military and their families.

The difference is apparently as to whether this is an appropriate place to debate Iraq policy. It is an authorization bill, which, it seems to me, is a very appropriate place to debate policy; in fact, I think is the most appropriate place to debate a policy issue such as Iraq.

I have not wished this to be debated on an appropriations bill, because I don't think we ought to try to have a policy debate and decision when it involves the funding of our troops because I think hopefully all of us want to fund our troops. This is an issue as to whether we should change course in Iraq. This is a debate which is a healthy debate, it is an essential debate. I look forward actually to working with Senator McCain to see if we cannot come up with time agreements on debates on Iraq--on these amendments on Iraq.

There is going to be more than one amendment. There are going to be a number of amendments and hopefully we can come up with time agreements so we can have these debates, have votes on the Iraq issue, and then move on, and move forward and adopt an authorization bill with a lot of other amendments that are pending as well.

I am, as always, an optimist. I am particularly an optimist when I look at Senator McCain, when I realize that we have worked together before, as I have with Senator Warner, on issues that look intractable but which are not and can be worked out, and hopefully there can be time agreements on these amendments relative to Iraq--which are important amendments.

I cannot think of anything that affects the well-being of our troops or our Nation, frankly, more at this moment than the question of policy in Iraq, as to whether that policy needs to be changed. There are differences as to whether we ought to change course in Iraq, and there are some who feel that apparently the policy is working. There are some of us who feel the status quo is not working, we need to change it.

It is not the debate we should have or can have at this moment. We are in the middle of a discussion on the Webb amendment. But it is appropriate that on this bill, the Senate act. If anything, it has been too long, as far as I am concerned, since the Senate has taken a position on this. The last time we did it 4 months ago, the President vetoed it. We were unable to have our will expressed in a way that was not vetoed.

Waiting until September is not an answer, because there is no reason to believe that an effort in September will not be filibustered. There is no reason why in September, the people who oppose the change in course, the Senators who oppose it, will not get up and say: Well, let's wait until October when there is another report which is due. We cannot simply delay carrying out our responsibility. We cannot delay a debate which is on the most critical subject on the minds of the people of America. Waiting for September, when a general is going to give us a recommendation, and the President is going to give us a recommendation, is a delaying tactic on an issue which is the single most important issue on the minds of Americans today. There is no more appropriate place to debate this issue than on the Defense authorization bill, because it is here where policy issues can and should be debated; a better place than on an appropriation bill where the message which would be sent to our troops has more to do with whether we are going to fund the troops than whether we should continue a policy in Iraq which, so far at least, is not working.

So I am going to continue to be the optimist. I look forward to working with Senator McCain. I think our leaders can continue to work together to try to work on time agreements for the Iraq amendments. I hope and expect we will adopt an authorization bill this year.

There is nothing unique about the Senate having healthy, vigorous debate. That is not unique. Sometimes it looks as though we are not going to be able to get something done and, lo and behold, we are able to get something done because the American people want us--Senator McCain is right--the American people want us to act. We are on the verge of acting on the single most important issue on the minds of the American people. It was an issue which, more than any other, impacted the last election. It was an issue where the Senate spoke in April, and where what we did was vetoed by the President. It is an issue where now we must face an historic decision: Is the course in Iraq working or does it need to be changed? And, if it needs to be changed, what is our responsibility in terms of bringing about that change?

Those are issues we cannot duck. Those are issues we should not avoid. Those are issues which belong on our desks, and require the best possible judgment we can bring.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

I ask unanimous consent that after completion of the remarks of the Senator from Arizona, that Senator Reed of Rhode Island be recognized.

Madam President, I will suggest the absence of a quorum for a brief minute. Senator Jack Reed is scheduled to be next, and he is within, I think, 30 seconds of getting here. He delayed, as a courtesy to Senator Kyl, and so I will put in that quorum call for a minute so he can get here.

I believe the Presiding Officer would also need some time between the votes, and I believe that is not impacted by the current request; is that correct?

Between the votes or no?

I am pleased the long road to confirmation for three nominations for the Federal bench in the Western District of Michigan, Janet Neff, Robert Jonker, and Paul Maloney is apparently near the end of the road. Senator Stabenow and I worked with the White House on these nominations. Last year they were unanimously reported out of the Judiciary Committee and again this year. The confirmation of these nominees has been blocked since last November. The sticking point of the Senator who objected was that one of the nominees, Judge Neff, personally attended a same-sex commitment ceremony of a family friend who was a next-door neighbor of hers for 26 years.

When Judge Neff was asked to deliver some remarks, Judge Neff felt it was similar to being asked by one of her own daughters to be part of an important event in her life.

The ceremony was entirely private. It took place in Massachusetts, where Judge Neff has no official capacity. The ceremony had no legal effect. Judge Neff took no official role in the ceremony whatsoever.

Her qualifications are clear. She currently serves on the Michigan Court of Appeals, where she has served for a significant period of time.

Judge Neff graduated with honors from the University of Pittsburgh in 1967, then graduated from Wayne State University Law School in 1970. She has had a distinguished legal career. After law school, Judge Neff served as an estate and gift tax examiner for the Internal Revenue Service and then as a research attorney for the Michigan Court of appeals, before becoming an assistant city attorney for the city of Grand Rapids. Judge Neff has also worked in private practice, served as a commissioner for the Michigan Supreme Court and then as an assistant U.S. attorney. Judge Neff currently serves on the Michigan Court of Appeals. She has been granted numerous awards and honors, including the Outstanding Member for 2006 of the Women Lawyers Association of Michigan.

We are fortunate to have the opportunity today to confirm Judge Neff, along with two other qualified nominees, Robert Jonker and Paul Maloney.

I only hope now that we finally have an opportunity to confirm these three judges, that we will do so and do so overwhelmingly.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will hold a hearing entitled, ``Dirty Bomb Vulnerabilities: Fake Companies, Fake Licenses, Real Consequences.'' The Subcommittee's hearing will examine certain vulnerabilities in the Government's procedures for licensing radiological materials. This hearing builds upon the findings released at the Subcommittee's hearing on March 28, 2006, which examined certain flaws in U.S. safeguards against radiological and nuclear attacks. Specifically, the hearing will examine the effectiveness of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's materials licensing policies and procedures, including: (1) The process by which parties obtain NRC materials licenses; and (2) the vulnerability of NRC materials licenses to counterfeiting. Witnesses for the upcoming hearing will include representatives of the Government Accountability Office and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A final witness list will be available Tuesday, July 10, 2007.

The Subcommittee hearing is scheduled for Thursday, July 12, 2007, at 9 a.m., in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Elise Bean of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

Mr. President, this bipartisan substitute is nearly identical to S.487, which I introduced along with Senators Bond, Dorgan, Graham, Durbin, Mikulski, Pryor, Cardin, Isakson, Coleman, Brown, and Chambliss, and which passed the Senate on February 15, 2007. Companion legislation was introduced in the House where it was renamed in honor of our House colleague, the late Representative Charles Norwood, a longtime advocate of organ donation, who sponsored the legislation earlier this year along with Representative Jay Inslee.

Our legislation, the Living Kidney Organ Donation Clarification Act, will save lives by increasing the number of kidneys available for transplantation through a process called paired organ donation. It addresses this relatively new procedure, which is supported by numerous medical organizations, including the United Network for Organ Sharing, the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, the American Society of Transplantation, the National Kidney Foundation and the American Society of Pediatric Nephrology. Paired organ donation, which did not exist when the National Organ Transplant Act, NOTA, was enacted more than two decades ago, will make it possible for thousands of people who wish to donate a kidney to a spouse, family member or friend, but find that they are medically incompatible, to still become living kidney donors.

The legislation is necessary because the National Organ Transplant Act, NOTA, which contains a prohibition intended by Congress to preclude purchasing organs, is unintentionally impeding the facilitation of matching incompatible pairs. Our legislation would simply add kidney paired donation to the list of other living-related donation exemptions that Congress originally placed in NOTA. It removes an unintended impediment to kidney paired donations by clarifying ambiguous language in section 301 of the National Organ Transplant Act, NOTA. That section has been interpreted by a number of transplant centers to prohibit such donations. In section 301 of NOTA, Congress prohibited the buying and selling of organs. Subsection (a), titled ``Prohibition of organ purchases,'' says: ``It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human organ for valuable consideration. . . .'' This legislation does not remove or alter any current provision of NOTA, but simply adds a line to section 301 which states that paired donations do not violate it.

Congress surely never intended that the living donation arrangements that permit kidney paired donation be impeded by NOTA. Our bill simply makes that clear. Some transplant professionals involved in these and other innovative living kidney donation arrangements have proceeded in the reasonable belief that these arrangements do not violate section of 301 of NOTA, but they contend that they are doing so under a cloud.

In the process of kidney paired donor transplants, a pair consisting of a kidney transplant candidate and a biologically incompatible living donor is matched with another such pair to enable two transplants that otherwise would not occur. In other words, the intended recipient of each donor is incompatible with the intended donor but compatible with the other donor in the arrangement.

No Federal dollars are needed to implement this change. And, for each patient who receives a kidney, Medicare will save roughly $220,000 in dialysis costs. It is essential that we make the intent of Congress explicit so that transplant centers which have hesitated to implement incompatible living kidney donation programs can feel free to do so.

Mr. President, our immigration system is broken and needs reform. Undocumented immigrants flow through our porous borders. Employers hire them with near impunity. Our Government lacks the ability to adequately detect unauthorized employment, while employers in sectors such as agriculture, Michigan's second largest industry, fear that their crops will go unpicked for lack of legal, authorized workers. The bipartisan compromise bill before the Senate was an opportunity to make progress on a very difficult problem.

The first step in immigration reform must be stronger border security. Although there were some provisions in the bill before the Senate that I did not support, this legislation had strong border security measures, even stronger than the ones we debated a few weeks ago. In fact, it contained the funding for the enhanced border security.

We need a more secure, more sensible, and fairer system of immigration. Because of filibusters in the Senate we have been unable to fully consider and amend the bill. We do not know what the final language might have been, and we were unable to vote on amendments which we favored. We should have finished the consideration of those amendments to determine whether or not the final product was an improvement on the status quo. To do that, cloture was required to end the filibuster. I am disappointed that the Senate was thwarted in that endeavor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 165, the nomination of LTG Douglas Lute; that the time until 3 o'clock be for debate on the nomination, equally divided between myself and Senator Warner or his designee; that at the conclusion or yielding back of time, the nomination be laid aside and the Senate return to legislative session in morning business; and that at 4 p.m., the Senate return to executive session and the vote on confirmation of the nomination of Lieutenant General Lute.

I also am hopeful that there will be some votes on judicial nominees as well today, but that has not yet been cleared.

Mr. President, I yield myself 8 minutes.

I support the nomination of LTG Doug Lute to be Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Lieutenant General Lute is an accomplished senior officer with a distinguished record and great experience in both military tactics and national security strategy and policy. Lieutenant General Lute has been serving as the Director of Operations, J-3, on the Joint Staff since September of 2006. Immediately prior to this assignment, he served for more than 2 years as the Director of Operations, J-3, at U.S. Central Command, overseeing combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other operations in the CENTCOM area of responsibility.

While I know of no concerns as to General Lute's qualifications for the position to which he has been nominated by the President, there have been some other concerns expressed about this nomination. The first concern questions the need for the position itself as well as the potential for confusion as to who is responsible for Iraq and Afghanistan policy. On the one hand, the position implies a direct and independent relationship with the President as Assistant to the President, and on the other hand, as Deputy National Security Adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan, the position implies subordination to the National Security Adviser.

One can argue that the responsibility for Iraq and Afghanistan policy clearly belongs to the National Security Adviser, as well as the responsibility for directly advising the President on those issues. Creating a position with ambiguous subordination to the National Security Adviser could needlessly complicate and confuse an already confused policy process. I, too, have some concerns in this regard but not to the extent that I will oppose the President's decision to create such a position.

The other concern which has been expressed is that appointing an Active-Duty military officer to such a political position is a practice which should be avoided in that for the officer in question, it needlessly blurs the distinction between recommendations he might make based on unbiased professional military judgment and those based upon or colored by political considerations. In a larger sense, it is counter to the traditional American approach to civil-military relations. For the individual officer, it may also create difficulties in subsequently returning from a political position to a uniformed, apolitical, military position. I emphasize that General Lute will remain on active duty during this period.

However, this would not be the first time that uniformed military officers, remaining on active duty, have served

in such positions, one of the most notable examples being Colin Powell's own service as, first, the deputy National Security Adviser, and then as the National Security Adviser, and subsequent outstanding service as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. While I don't believe it should be the norm for a military officer to serve in these kinds of positions, I do not believe this should be a disqualifying concern in rare circumstances such as this, and therefore should not disqualify General Lute from his nominated position.

I do believe, however, that General Lute has been nominated for an unenviable position. He will be responsible for bringing coherence to an incoherent policy--a policy that is still floundering after more than 4 years of war in Iraq.

General Lute told the Armed Services Committee that ``the position is an advisor and coordinator, without directive authority beyond a small staff.'' He further said that the ability to move policy forward had to do more with such factors as ``Presidential direction and support, acceptance by other policy principals, broad commitment to a common cause, cultivated interpersonal relationships, personal integrity, and meaningful results.''

Secretary Rice, described as a close personal friend of the President--indeed almost a family member--was either not able to get that Presidential direction and support or not able to employ it to bring coherence to the President's policy. One must wonder how General Lute can be expected to be more successful.

It is no secret that several retired four-star general officers were offered the position and turned it down. According to media reports, one reason given by one of the generals was that the administration remains fundamentally divided on how to carry out the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Retired Marine GEN Jack Sheehan, who declined to be considered for the position, said:

The very fundamental issue is, they [the administration]

don't know where the hell they're going.

General Sheehan reportedly expressed concern that the hawks within the administration, including Vice President Cheney, remain more powerful than the pragmatists looking for an exit strategy in Iraq. This does not bode well for General Lute.

It is no secret that General Lute himself questioned the so-called surge strategy for Iraq before its announcement by President Bush last January. Indeed, General Lute confirmed that doubt at his hearing.

The surge is now complete, and the results are not very promising. American casualties are at some of the highest levels of the war, sectarian violence is rising again after a short reduction, and the insurgency is as active as ever, especially in the use of mass casualty-producing car bombs against Iraqi citizens and improvised explosive devices against United States and Iraqi forces.

The stated principal purpose of the surge was to give space and time for the Iraqi politicians to make progress on the critically important political reconciliation benchmarks, such as implementing legislation for the equitable distribution of revenues from oil sales, de- Baathification, and constitutional amendments, that would lead to reconciliation among the three main Iraqi groups. Progress is not apparent in those critically important political reconciliation areas-- again, the stated purpose of the surge.

I believe the only chance to get Iraqi politicians to stand up is when they know we are going to begin to stand down. Our soldiers risk their lives while Iraqi politicians refuse to take political risks and make the necessary compromises to promote reconciliation. Those are the compromises which everybody agrees must be made if there is going to be any hope to end the violence in Iraq. We cannot continue to have the lives of American servicemembers held hostage to Iraqi political intrigue and intransigence.

I hope once General Lute is confirmed, he will be willing and able to redirect Iraq policy to exert maximum pressure on Iraqi leaders to achieve political reconciliation. The beginning of that is a phased redeployment of United States troops from Iraq. That is the only leverage on those leaders with any hope of success, with them finally understanding that their future is in their hands and we cannot save them from themselves.

But as for today's nomination, I support the confirmation of LTG Douglas Lute to be the special assistant to the President and the Deputy National Security Adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield briefly?

Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, I yield the 6\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Virginia. If he needs additional time, I ask unanimous consent that he be given additional time, after the 6\1/2\ minutes. We will wait and see if that is the case.

Mr. President, apparently I have a minute and a half remaining. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Alabama, if he would like the time.

The vote will begin at 4. Under the order, there is another speaker scheduled at 3 o'clock.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Alabama be yielded 3 minutes, and then morning business start at 3:03 p.m.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, if the leader will yield for a question, those three additional judges you made reference to are the three Michigan district court judges?

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, the plague of gun violence is one that affects our society on many levels. Across the country people are calling out for a change in our Nation's gun policies. A recent article, The Battle Over Illegal Guns, in the June issue of Ladies' Home Journal Magazine, is a case in point. This article detailed the tragic death of Wake County, NC sheriff's department investigator Mark Tucker, and provided yet another example of a pervasive problem in our country that has not yet been addressed.

On February 12, 2004, Mark Tucker returned home from work to eat lunch. As he left his house to return to work, he noticed an unfamiliar car with an open trunk parked in a field near his home. He drove over to investigate it. As he stepped out of his unmarked patrol car, an 18- year-old young man pulled a gun out of the trunk of the unfamiliar car. The teenager, who was on probation for breaking into cars, stated he had only intended to engage in a little target practice that day. However, because he was on probation, he was not legally allowed to possess a firearm. When he saw Mark's badge he panicked, killing Mark with a single shot.

Because the teenager had a felony record, he was not legally permitted to purchase a gun himself. In order to circumvent this, he simply had a friend fill out the required Federal paperwork for him at the gun dealer. This type of transaction, when one customer stands in for another who is not legally able to purchase a weapon, is known as a straw purchase. According to a 2000 report by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ATF, straw purchases are the most common source of crime guns. Approximately half of the 1,530 trafficking investigations examined in the report involved stand-in buyers.

Though Federal law enforcement officials have increasingly teamed up with local officials over the past few years to increase prosecution of firearm-related crimes, not enough attention is being focused on the source of the problem. According to the ATF, nearly 60 percent of the guns used in crimes can be traced to just over 1 percent of this Nation's licensed gun dealers. Five out of six of these guns are obtained illegally.

This article not only detailed the tragic events which occurred in Wake County, it illustrated a problem that plagues our society. Negligent dealers and straw purchasers indirectly threaten the security of our communities by facilitating the transfer of dangerous firearms to potential criminals who may use them in violent crimes. We must do more to help our Federal, State and local law enforcement officials keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. Simply put, Congress needs to take up and pass sensible gun legislation.