Floor Statements

Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Stabenow, in introducing the Great Lakes Migratory Bird Research and Management Act to learn more about a potential problem regarding double-crested cormorants.

Cormorants are dark-feathered water birds with voracious appetites for alewives, perch and other fish in the Great Lakes. The double- crested cormorants reside throughout North America, but according to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the largest concentration of double- crested cormorants is in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes cormorant population migrates south, along the Atlantic coast and Mississippi River drainage to the southeastern States and Gulf of Mexico.

The Great Lakes population of cormorants was once in great jeopardy. By the early 1970s, the population had been severely harmed by chemical exposure and human contact. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports that around that time the Great Lakes population fell sharply, with few birds remaining or breeding successfully. Since then, however, there has been a huge turnaround due to conservation and pollution reduction efforts. And today the Great Lakes population of double-crested cormorants is at an historically high level.

Double-crested cormorants are very skilled at diving for fish. The increased population have led many people to believe that cormorants are at least partly responsible for declining fish populations near several northern Michigan communities.

To help provide better information on the impact of cormorants on the fish populations in the Great Lakes, we are introducing this legislation, which authorizes the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to develop a coordinated double-crested cormorant research program. As part of that research program, the Commission will recommend measures that will provide maximum sustained productivity of fishery stocks.

Under this legislation, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission would establish a committee that represents the multiple jurisdictions engaged in cormorants management to identify all of the existing control tactics and strategies in the Great Lakes region, determine the effectiveness of those tactics and strategies, and compare the tactics and strategies to the known life history of cormorant populations in the Great Lakes. In determining the effectiveness of existing control practices, the Commission will examine the impact that cormorants have on the Great Lakes fisheries.

Congress has authorized tens of millions of dollars for programs designed to restore and protect fish in the Great Lakes. Those efforts are in jeopardy because of our ignorance about the impact of double- crested cormorants on the Great Lakes fisheries. Having the best possible information about this unique problem is critical for ensuring a healthy balance between the cormorant and the fish populations.

Mr. President, today I introduced the Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act of 2006 with Senators Dole, Reed, Jeffords, Voinovich, and Martinez. This bill would allow the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to assist communities in transforming idle brownfield sites into productive uses. Brownfields are abandoned or underused industrial and commercial properties where redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination. More than 450,000 of these sites taint our Nation and limit the economic growth of communities. Brownfields redevelopment can provide new opportunities for businesses, housing, and recreational spaces such as urban parks.

Brownfields redevelopment is a fiscally sound way to bring investment back to neglected neighborhoods, clean up the environment and maximize use of existing infrastructure. My home State of Michigan has benefited from hundreds of brownfields redevelopment projects, and this bill would help to ensure that federal tools are in place to continue with these successes in Michigan and throughout the Nation.

The Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act would provide the Department of Housing and Urban Development with new tools to spur brownfields redevelopment. This bill would provide local governments with increased accessibility to HUD's Brownfields Economic Development Initiative grants by allowing HUD to make brownfields grants without requiring that communities pledge their future community development block grant funds as collateral. Removing this restriction from the HUD Brownfields Economic Development Initiative program would allow many more communities, especially smaller communities, to participate in the program. The bill also adopts the definition of brownfields used by the EPA, which would bring greater consistency and clarity to the federal government's brownfields programs.

The bill authorizes $50 million annually for this important Federal program, which provides funding for a wide variety of brownfield redevelopment activities--from site remediation to construction. Supporters of this bill include the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties, the Real Estate Roundtable, the National Association of Development Organizations, the Northeast- Midwest Institute, the National Association of Local Government Environmental Professionals, the Associated General Contractors of America, the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, and the Environmental Bankers Association.

I want to thank my Senate colleagues for working with me on this bill, and I want to especially thank Jack Reed who played a key role in the early drafting of the bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the American flag is a cherished symbol of our freedom and the democratic values and liberties that we believe in, and we should respect the flag as a reminder of the bravery of the men and women who have lost their lives fighting under its colors for our country. One of the most poignant images to a patriotic American is when that flag is draped over the coffin of a fallen soldier.

I detest flag burning. To deliberately desecrate the flag is an insult to anyone who has fought to defend it and to all of us who love it. Any person who destroys such an important reminder of sacrifice and patriotism deserves the scorn of all decent men and women.

Although I love the flag, I also love the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. For more than 210 years, this timeless document has protected our most basic freedoms. The Supreme Court has ruled that a physical attack on the flag is a protected form of speech under the first amendment.

In 1984, Gregory Johnson publicly burned an American flag as a means of political protest and was convicted of desecrating a flag in violation of Texas law. In Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court held that, although ``the government has a legitimate interest in making efforts to `preserv[e] the national flag as an unalloyed symbol of our country,' '' Johnson's burning of the flag was constitutionally protected speech.

In response to that decision, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act, a Federal law to prohibit flag-burning and other forms of desecration. I supported that legislation, but the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional in United States v. Eichman. The Court found that the statute suppressed constitutionally protected expression, and held:

The Government's interest in protecting the ``physical

integrity'' of a privately owned flag rests upon a perceived

need to preserve the flag's status as a symbol of our Nation

and certain national ideals. But the mere destruction or

disfigurement of a particular physical manifestation of the

symbol, without more, does not diminish or otherwise affect

the symbol itself in any way. . . . While flag desecration--

like virulent ethnic and religious epithets, vulgar

repudiations of the draft, and scurrilous caricatures--is

deeply offensive to many, the Government may not prohibit the

expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea

itself offensive or disagreeable.

Now that the Court has decided that flag burning as a means of expression is constitutionally protected, the question for the Senate is whether to amend the Constitution to ban such speech. Our Constitution has been amended only 17 times since the adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1789. The Bill of Rights has never been amended. I believe that to deliberately weaken the first amendment rights of all Americans is not the answer to those very few who attack a symbol of freedom.

Senator John Glenn, an American hero who fought for our country through two wars and took our flag into space, eloquently expressed this view before the Judiciary Committee:

[I]t would be a hollow victory indeed if we preserved the

symbol of our freedoms by chipping away at those fundamental

freedoms themselves. Let the flag fully represent all the

freedoms spelled out in the Bill of Rights, not a partial,

watered-down version that alters its protections.

The flag is the nation's most powerful and emotional

symbol. It is our most sacred symbol. And it is our most

revered symbol. But it is a symbol. It symbolizes the

freedoms we have in this country, but it is not the freedoms

themselves.

Steve Sanderson, a Michigan Vietnam-era veteran, expressed a similar view as quoted in the Detroit Free Press on June 14, 2006. He said:

Veterans certainly cherish the flag, perhaps more than

civilians who have never been to war can realize. But

commitment is not confined to that symbol. I am hurt when I

see the flag burned, largely because I've also seen the flag

draped on coffins of troops. But my patriotism lives in my

heart and mind. We set a very dangerous precedent if we argue

that certain forms of speech should be restricted because the

majority disagrees with the message and how it is expressed.

Mr. President, I love our flag. I love our Constitution. Flag desecration is repugnant, but it would be a mistake to let a flag burner cause us to weaken our first amendment guarantees. If we take this fateful step of singling out one symbol to exempt from the first amendment, will we next authorize Congress to make it a crime to rip up a copy of the Constitution or a copy of its Bill of Rights?

The American flag symbolizes our freedom, and that includes freedom from an overreaching government that decides which symbols are worthy of protection. We are honoring our flag and the republic for which it stands by refusing to amend the Bill of Rights in response to a few misguided people.

I do support the statute that will be offered as a substitute for the constitutional amendment, which provides that: ``Any person who shall intentionally threaten or intimidate any

person or group of persons by burning, or causing to be burned, a flag of the United States shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned for not more than 1 year or both.'' The Supreme Court has held that the first amendment does not provide full protection for what are called ``fighting words.'' or those words which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.

Also, in Virginia v. Black, a case that involved the burning of a cross, the Supreme Court held that the government can prohibit people from burning crosses with the intent to intimidate. In that case, Virginia law prohibited cross burning through a statute that made it unlawful for any person to burn a cross with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons. A majority of the Court held that it believed the substantive prohibition on cross-burning with an intent to intimate was constitutionally permissible. Writing for the majority, Justice O'Connor said:

The protections afforded by the First Amendment, however,

are not absolute, and we have long recognized that the

government may regulate certain categories of expression

consistent with the Constitution . . . Thus, for example, a

State may punish those words ``which by their very utterance

inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the

peace. . . . We have consequently held that fighting words

``those personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to

the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge,

inherently likely to provide violent reaction'' are generally

proscribable under the First Amendment.''

The substitute also contains an important provision to support our military families in their time of grief. During the past year, a fringe religious group has held protests at more than 100 military funerals across the Nation, claiming that the deaths of U.S. soldiers is God's punishment of America. In May, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act, which prohibits demonstrations at and around national cemeteries. This amendment would expand that Act to include military funerals at private cemeteries, funeral homes, and houses of worship. The families of the fallen have a right to be free to bury their loved ones and our heroes in peace.

I support this narrowly drawn substitute because it both protects the flag, consistent with the Bill of Rights, as well as honors those who have made the ultimate sacrifice while fighting under its colors.

Mr. President, during the week of June 19 through June 25, nationwide we celebrate in observance of Juneteenth Independence Day. Although passage of the 13th amendment in January 1865, legally abolished slavery, many African-Americans remained in servitude due to the slow dissemination of this news across the country. It was not until June 19, 1865, that Union troops reached Galveston, TX, and emancipated the last of the slaves. Since that time, over 130 years ago, the descendants of slaves have observed this anniversary of emancipation as a remembrance of one of the most tragic periods of our Nation's history. The suffering, degradation and brutality of slavery cannot be repaired, but the memory can serve to ensure that no such inhumanity is ever perpetrated again on American soil.

It is appropriate and necessary that we, as a nation, recognize Juneteenth and use this day to reflect upon how far we have come and how far we still have to go. While it was on this historic day in 1865 that slaves were finally freed of the onerous yoke of slavery, the same cannot be said about the burden of pervasive racial oppression and second-class citizenship, which would not be eradicated in earnest until 100 years later through the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Although we have made tremendous progress in eliminating discrimination and creating equal opportunities over the years, the American dream continues to elude the grasp of many Americans.

I would like to reflect on the courageous and revolutionary leaders who

pioneered the Civil Rights Movement and bridged the gap between emancipation in 1865 and equality in the 1960s. It seems only appropriate to begin with the person who first proposed to commemorate the achievements of former slaves and their descendants: Dr. Carter G. Woodson. A son of former slaves and a man who rose from the coal mines of West Virginia to the summit of academic achievement, Dr. Woodson's story is considered one of the most inspiring and instructive stories in African-American history.

Writer, editor, and lecturer Lerone Bennett tells us his story: ``At 17, the young man who was called by history to reveal Black history was an untutored coal miner. At 19, after teaching himself the fundamentals of English and arithmetic, he entered high school and mastered the four-year curriculum in less than two years. At 22, after two-thirds of a year at Berea College [in Kentucky], he returned to the coal mines and studied Latin and Greek between trips to the mine shafts. He then went on to the University of Chicago, where he received a bachelor's and master's degrees, and to Harvard University, where he became the second Black to receive a doctorate in history. The rest is history-- Black history.''

In 1926, Dr. Woodson founded African-American history month: a time to recognize the enormous contributions of a people of great strength, dignity, faith, and conviction, who strived for the betterment of a nation once lacking in humanity toward them.

So it is in the spirit and vision of Dr. Woodson that I pay tribute to three courageous and inspiring African-Americans who played significant roles in addressing American injustice and inequality.

The contributions of Sojourner Truth and Mrs. Rosa Parks, two women from my State, and the venerable Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., are indelibly etched in the chronicles of the history of this great Nation, and they are also widely viewed with distinction and admiration throughout the world.

Sojourner Truth, though unable to read or write, was considered one of the most eloquent and noted spokespersons of her day on the inhumanity and immorality of slavery. She was a leader in the abolitionist movement and a groundbreaking speaker on behalf of equality for women. Michigan honored her with the dedication of the Sojourner Truth Memorial Monument, which was unveiled in Battle Creek, MI, on September 25, 1999.

Truth lived in Washington, DC, for several years, helping slaves who had fled from the South and appearing at women's suffrage gatherings. She returned to Battle Creek in 1875 and remained there until her death in 1883. Sojourner Truth spoke from her heart about the most troubling issues of her time. A testament to Truth's convictions is that her words continue to speak to us today.

On May 4, 1999, legislation was enacted authorizing the President of the United States to award the Congressional Gold Medal to the late Mrs. Rosa Parks. I was pleased to coauthor this fitting tribute to Mrs. Parks, the gentle warrior who decided that she would no longer tolerate the humiliation and demoralization of racial segregation on a bus. Her personal bravery and self-sacrifice are remembered with reverence and respect by us all.

Fifty-one years ago, in Montgomery, AL, the modern civil rights movement began when Mrs. Parks refused to give up her seat and move to the back of the bus. The strength and spirit of this courageous woman captured the consciousness of not only the American people but the entire world. The boycott that Mrs. Parks initiated was the beginning of an American revolution that elevated the status of African-Americans nationwide and introduced to the world a young leader who would one day have a national holiday declared in his honor, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.

Perhaps more than any other single person, it was Dr. King--with his visionary leadership and inspiring rhetorical skills--who can be considered the driving force behind the 1960s civil rights movement.

Mr. President, we have come a long way toward achieving justice and equality for all. We still however have work to do. In the names of Rosa Parks, Sojourner Truth, Carter G. Woodson, Martin Luther King, Jr., and many others, let us rededicate ourselves to continuing the struggle for human rights.

I am happy to join with my colleague, Senator Barack Obama, in commemorating Juneteenth Independence Day with the submission of S. Con. Res. 42. This resolution recognizes the end of slavery and reminds us to never forget even the worst aspects of our Nation's history.

Mr. President, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, crime statistics indicated a growing threat posed by a military-style semiautomatic assault weapons in the hands of criminals. A 1994 report by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ATF, determined that while assault weapons made up only 1 percent of the guns in circulation in the United States at that time, they accounted for up to 8 percent of the guns used in crimes, ``thus making them preferred by criminals over law-abiding citizens 8 to 1.'' The ATF relied on data such as this to support the establishment of a federal ban on assault weapons. Such a ban was enacted by Congress as part of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act and was signed into law by President Clinton.

Following the enactment of the assault weapon ban, the National Institute of Justice, an agency within the Department of Justice, conducted a study that was mandated by Congress on the short-term impact of the statute. The study found that crimes involving assault weapons dropped 20 percent in the year following enactment of the law. Additional research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found deaths caused by guns dropped from 38,505 in 1994 to 29,573 in 2001.

Ten years after the assault weapons ban was passed, Los Angeles Chief of Police Bill Bratton said:

Since the assault weapons ban was passed in 1994, we have

seen a 66 percent decline in the frequency of assault weapons

use in crime. Violent criminals love these weapons because

they give them far more firepower than conventional weapons

that greatly increases their capacity to kill. We cannot

allow these weapons to get back into their hands.

On May 8 of this year, two Fairfax County police officers were shot to death by an 18-year-old armed with multiple guns, including an AK- 47-style assault rifle. Unfortunately, assault rifles like the one reported in this attack, as well as many other similar assault weapons, are once again being legally produced and sold as a result of the expiration of the assault weapons ban.

In 1994, I voted to establish of the assault weapons ban and 10 years later I joined a bipartisan majority of the Senate in voting to extend the ban for another 10 years. Unfortunately, despite the overwhelming support of the law enforcement community, the ongoing threat of terrorism, and the bipartisan support in the Senate, neither the President nor the majority's congressional leadership acted to protect Americans from assault weapons like the one used in the attack on the Fairfax County police station. As a result, 19 types of previously banned military-style assault weapons are once again on the streets and in the neighborhoods of our cities and towns.

Congress must take up and pass common sense gun safety legislation to help prevent such tragedies from occurring in the future.

Madam President, how much time remains?

How about Senator Warner's time?

Senator Kerry will go next.

The Senator is correct. I asked both Senators Kerry and Feingold as to what their preference is. They do prefer to go first. That is fine with me, if it is OK with the manager of the bill.

Madam President, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

Madam President, the credibility of the United States has been proven with the loss of lives and the number of wounded we have suffered in Iraq. We have proven our credibility over 2,500 times because we have lost more than 2,500 of our troops. We have proven our credibility over 17,000 times in terms of the number of people who have been wounded in Iraq. We have proven our credibility with hundreds of billions of dollars to give the Iraqis an opportunity to have a nation. It is up to them to seize that opportunity. It is up to them to decide to make a choice. Do they want a civil war? Do they want to engage in more sectarian battles? Or do they want to reach the kind of political compromises which are essential if they are going to have a nation and end the insurgency and avoid an all-out civil war?

Our credibility has been proven thousands of times and with billions of dollars. We have given a people an opportunity that is extraordinary. We cannot make the decision for them, whether they will seize that opportunity. Only they can make that decision.

Last year we adopted, by an overwhelming vote, an amendment which said that 2006 would be a year of significant transition, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for a phased redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq. Similar to last year's sense of the Congress, this year's sense of the Congress that we are offering is an attempt to change our policy from one of an open-ended commitment--a policy that, as the Secretary of State put it, we are there as long as they need us; as the President of Iraq, Mr. Talabani, put it, the Americans will stay with all the forces that we want for as long as we want them. That is a recipe, a formula for dependency. It is not the way in which Iraq can learn that it must, on its own, in a reasonable period of time, with reasonable notice and consultation, begin to ween itself, as General Casey put it, from overdependence on the American military.

That is the issue. That is what our amendment would urge the President to do. Our amendment does not order the President, as some on that side have actually put it. This is a sense of the Senate. This is something where we, the authors of this amendment, believe that we have a responsibility to use our best efforts to give our best advice as to what our policy should be. It is not a policy of immediately redeploying forces. There is not a precipitous nature to this amendment. It says

by the end of this year, in the next 6 months, to begin the phased redeployment of American forces from Iraq.

That is what the Iraqis say their policy is. That is what their security adviser says their policy is. Their own security adviser, Mr. Rubaie, in the Washington Post 2 days ago said: We envisage the U.S. troop presence by year's end to be under 100,000. That is a redeployment of 30,000 troops. Our amendment tells the Iraqis: Stay with that. Stick to that policy. It is the right policy. You must take over your own nation and make it work and make it happen.

Then Mr. Rubaie, the National Security Adviser of Iraq, in a written document presented to the American people through our newspaper, says that ``the removal of coalition troops from Iraqi streets will help the Iraqis who now see foreign troops as occupiers rather than liberators.'' He says, ``The removal of foreign troops will legitimize Iraq's government in the eyes of its people.''

Our amendment urging the President to end an open-ended commitment of our troops to Iraq and to begin the redeployment by year's end is a way of implementing what the Iraqis themselves have said they plan on doing.

All Senators want Iraq to end as a success story, every one of us. There is not one Senator who wants anything other than to maximize the chances of success in Iraq. No matter how we voted on the original resolution authorizing force, every one of the 25 or so Senators who voted against that resolution--and I am one of them--wants to maximize the chances of success in Iraq. But to do that, we must prod the Iraqis to take the responsibility for their own nation.

I thank the Presiding Officer and my dear friend from Virginia for the way in which this debate has proceeded. I hope we have made a contribution to the Senate and to the Nation.

Mr. President, I will be opposing the Chambliss amendment, although I am both a supporter of the F-22 and a supporter, generally, of multiyear contracts. Where they meet the criteria for multiyear contracts, I am very supportive of them because of, mainly, the money that can be saved.

I oppose this amendment with some reluctance. Again, I very much support, and have supported, the airplane. And I, in general, like the multiyear approach, where it meets the criteria. But some of the criteria have not been adequately met; for instance, whether the multiyear contract would result in substantial savings compared to using annual contracts. The studies are that the savings would be, I would say, very modest and not substantial. There are some savings, but I could not say they are substantial savings.

Another criteria is whether the contract is for a number which is expected to remain substantially unchanged during the contemplated contract period in terms of both numbers, production rate, procurement rate, and, again, total quantities. The F-22 total program quantities are likely to increase before the end of production.

There is also a requirement that there be a stable design for the property to be acquired and that the technical risks associated with the purchase are not excessive. There are some unresolved operational test deficiencies, and there are what I think can fairly be called major modifications that are planned for providing more robust air-to- ground capability.

There is also a question as to whether the estimates of both the cost of the contract and the anticipated cost avoidance through the use of a multiyear contract are realistic. Cost estimates are still problematic. The 2006 contract itself, we understand, has still not been signed. So it does not meet that criteria either.

I would hope that, perhaps next year, a multiyear would indeed meet the criteria so we could utilize a multiyear approach next year. But I do not believe this year it does meet the criteria for a multiyear contract. I, therefore, will be opposing the Chambliss amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if the Senator from Arizona will yield 1 minute?

Mr. President, I want to put in the Record a chart from the Institute for Defense Analysis. It compares savings on various programs, showing savings with the F/A-18, multiyear, from 7 to 11 percent; the C-17 airplane, of 10 percent; the C-130J, multiyear, of 10 percent; and the comparison to the F-22, which they estimate at 2.6 percent. I ask unanimous consent that this chart be printed in the Record.

I yield back my time.

Will the Senator yield?

While he was making reference to the Senator from Minnesota, I think the chairman was off the floor when the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Dayton, made some very glowingly positive and affirmative remarks about our chairman and about how he was really delighted to be able to cosponsor the amendment which had been introduced to name this bill after our beloved chairman. I wanted to make sure that he was aware of that and could look up those remarks later.

Mr. President, the amendments have been cleared on this side. It is a packet of 60 amendments, as I understand. I thank our staffs for working so hard on these amendments. There is a lot of interest in them by a lot of Members. We owe thanks to the staff for their great work. I have not only no objection but enthusiastically join in moving their adoption. I gather they have been agreed to by unanimous consent.

I commend the chairman for the way in which he has been able to manage this bill, as always. It is a testament to his ability and the respect that everybody has for him in the Chamber. I have never seen fewer quorum calls on a bill of this size than we have had this week. I am sure there have been a few. I have not counted them. There may have been a quorum call yesterday during the 8 or 9 hours of debate. If there was, I missed it.

I commend the chairman for putting us in a position where we can hopefully get this bill agreed to as soon as possible today. Again, I join him in not urging people to bring amendments to

the floor--we never do that--but in notifying people that if they have amendments, they should bring them to the floor.

There is recent evidence of that. But we agree on process. We agree on civility. We agree on most matters. We are able to work things out. It is his nature to do that, and we are all very much in his debt. Our wives are on the same path that we have been on.

Well, it was quoted this morning. It didn't carry the day, but it was very appropriate.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, there is a little uncertainty as to the modifications.

Is the one at the desk the modified version?

If the Senator will please withhold for a moment.

I have no objection.

Mr. President, we do accept the amendment on this side. There are no differences in terms of the North Korean threat. The question is whether or not we will be deploying a system which will be adequate to meet that threat. Right now we do not know. There has been no operational testing, realistic testing of our system. It needs testing.

Although we have differences and have expressed those and argued over those differences as to whether we ought to be producing 10 more missiles which have not been tested operationally or realistically-- whether we ought to be buying these final 10 missiles given the fact we want to make sure if we are going to have a system that it works, and we don't know that yet--as far as this Senator is concerned, I very much disagreed with this approach of buying before we fly. Usually we fly and test before we buy, but this system, we have decided, at least the majority of Senators have decided, that we are going to buy before we test. I think that is a mistake, but that is not the issue on this amendment.

This amendment would authorize $45 million, mainly for testing, mainly to improve the likelihood that a missile which has been deployed will in fact do the job. Since I have been one who has been arguing regularly for more testing, more realistic testing, more operational testing, it seems to me that I can very readily support funding which is going to go to more testing, which is really what this amendment is all about.

We have not had a single successful intercept test with an operational system. There have been two failures with this operational system. We don't know if our system would work. We obviously want it to work if we are going to have it.

Since this amendment basically is going to increase not only the pace of realistic flight testing of this ground-based, mid-course defense system but also is going to accelerate the ability to conduct concurrent testing while the missile defense operations are going on, since in both instances the focus is on testing and making sure that this system will work if ever called upon, I accept the amendment. I have no objection to it and, indeed, support its purpose.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dodd be added as a cosponsor to the Levin-Reed Iraq amendment.

Mr. President, we support the amendment. Obviously, if there is a desire for a rollcall, that is their right. We will be recommending a ``yea'' vote.

Reserving the right to object, we understand that District Judge Frank Whitney would probably be a voice vote; is that correct?

I understand that unresolved amendment on our side may have just been resolved. That adds a note of optimism.

Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

No objection.

Mr. President, I think there is strong support on both sides of the aisle for this amendment. This is money which goes to testing of the missile defense system mainly; it surely needs testing. That has always been the question. So I support this amendment, and I believe we could have a voice vote, but there has been a request for a rollcall vote. We support the amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, it is also a very strong voice for testing a missile system as well as supporting the men and women in the Armed Forces.

I wonder if we could get the attention of the Senate. It is our understanding now that we are going to proceed to a package which has been cleared and then move to final passage?

And then immediately move to consideration of a judge.

I thank my colleague.

Amendments Nos. 4520; 4374; 4521; 4522; 4523; 4458; 4524; 4264, as Modified; 4464; 4489; 4525; 4526; 4327, as Modified; 4527; 4434; 4393,

as Modified; 4312; 4424; 4416; 4364, as Modified; 4232; 4528; 4529;

4311; 4228; 4439, as Modified; 4530; 4337; 4531; 4411; 4336; 4361;

4532; 4533; 4534; 4535; 4381, as Modified; 4429; 4398, as Modified;

4451, as Modified; 4536; 4537; 4538; 4303; 4539; 4423; 4316; 4407;

4366; 4321; 4540; 4449; 4204, as Modified; and 4541, En Bloc

Specifically, the changes contained in this bill will increase the efficiency of the Department of Defense's operations by allowing the Guard and Reserve to train and instruct other component members as an additional duty. It is desirable for Active Guard and Reserve, AGR, and technician members of the National Guard and Reserve to be able to train members of all components to the extent that these duties do not interfere with the performance of the member's primary duties. Currently, titles 10 and 32, United States Code, limit the efficiencies that can be realized by restricting the employment of AGRs and technicians to ``organizing, administering, recruiting, instructing, or training'' the Reserve components. This bill will expand the role of AGRs and technicians so that they may instruct and train members of any other component, and also DOD civilian employees, DOD contractor personnel, and foreign military personnel.

The changes included in this bill will also increase the Department's flexibility in using the Guard and Reserve to support certain operations or missions. It is the committee's belief that members of the Reserve and National Guard need increased flexibility to support certain operations or missions assigned in whole or in part to the Reserve, or undertaken by the National Guard at the request of the President or Secretary of Defense. This bill will facilitate the transformation of the National Guard and Reserve from a Cold War ``strategic reserve'' to a present day ``operational reserve.'' An ``operational reserve'' actively supports ongoing operational missions where appropriate, while also providing the additional reserve capacity needed to meet surge requirements or support wartime or contingency operations. These amendments would make some distinctions between the duties that may be performed, in addition to their primary duties, by Reserve AGRs and technicians and those that may be performed by Guard AGRs and technicians in title 32 status. Generally, full-time Reserve personnel would be permitted to support title 10 operational activities, while full-time Guard, including AGRs and technicians, would be permitted to perform operational activities if authorized by the President or the Secretary of Defense.

I share the Senator's concern and will work with her to address these important questions.

Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

We will have more to say on this after the next vote. While everyone is here, I thank our chairman. This is the sixth bill he has brought to the Senate of the United States as chairman. It gets better every time. It gets smoother every time. That is owed to this great Senator from Virginia. We will have more to say about that when we bring the conference report back. A lot of Members need to leave. I want everyone to know before they leave, this Senator is entitled to their thanks.

Mr. President, as a result of the extraordinarily hard work, dedication, and cooperation, on a bipartisan basis, of every one of our committee members, and our extraordinary staff, as well as the assistance of really superb floor staffs on both sides of the aisle, we have just seen a unanimous passage of the Defense authorization bill.

As I mentioned before, this is a real tribute to our chairman. I am going to save all the accolades, however, for still a later time. When the chairman brings back a conference report, we will then, hopefully, have enough people here on the floor who can both join in the kudos and hear the applause for our chairman.

Our staff loses a great deal of sleep to get this bill passed. And there is never enough attention that is paid to staff. No matter how many times we take a moment to just say thanks to our staff, it never comes close to paying the tribute which is really owed to them.

Charlie Abell, who is the majority staff director, is just a wonderful human being as well as a gifted professional. He and all the other members of your staff, I say to Senator Warner, are really, really terrific. And I cannot say enough about Rick DeBobes, Peter Levine, and all of the members of my staff. Rick, our minority staff director, leads a truly extraordinary staff.

Mr. President, I guess the best way I can express my gratitude is to ask that the names of my staff be printed in the Record at this time. I ask unanimous consent that a list of their names be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, also, talking about accolades, I want to single out Senator Cantwell for an amendment which she authored relative to the replacement of National Guard equipment that has been left in Iraq and Afghanistan. The absence of this equipment has undermined the ability of the National Guard units to train and to meet the requirements in their home States. And the Cantwell amendment is going to require the Department to establish a comprehensive plan to recapitalize or to replace this equipment.

It is going to be an essential addition, replacement for the National Guard. There was not enough attention paid to this amendment as things kind of flew through here. I want to thank Senator Cantwell for her leadership in making sure our National Guard is well equipped and given the support they deserve.

Mr. President, I will be very brief. I wanted to get back in time to hear Senator Byrd speak about Senator Warner. I knew that is what you were going to do, and I missed only the opening. I was back long enough to get the full flavor of what Senator Byrd was saying. The honor that he has just bestowed upon Senator Warner is genuinely deserved and genuinely delivered. It comes from perhaps not just a Senate man, but the Senate man to another Senate man.

This institution we occupy for different lengths of time, but all relatively brief compared to its history, is really entrusted to all of us. I know of no two Senators sitting right across the aisle from each other in whom that trust is more genuinely felt and recognized and honored than Senator Byrd and Senator Warner. Just to be able to get back and listen to, Senator Byrd as he spoke about Senator Warner was a genuine treat for me.

He captured the essence of Senator Warner. I tried to do it a few times in the last few weeks very briefly, always saying that when we bring back that conference report, which will be Senator Warner's last conference report as chairman, that I hope there will be many Members on the Senate floor who can try to do what you did so beautifully today, Senator Byrd, which is to capture the essence of the great Senator and to express the gratitude of each of us and everybody in this body, and I know the men and women in the Armed Forces--but truly broader than that, the men and women of the United States--for the service that Senator Warner is providing.

So I thank Senator Byrd for taking the time to do what each one of us would want to do in our own ways, and that is just simply to acknowledge our love and our respect for a truly great man, a Senate man, from the Senate man, Senator Byrd.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Chris Thompson, a Marine fellow in the office of Senator Bill Nelson, be granted the privilege of the floor during further consideration of the Defense authorization bill.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Schumer be granted 5 minutes to speak as in morning business, and the 5 minutes would come off our time on this side from the Iraq amendment.

That is correct.

Madam President, I would make the same statement on behalf of our side, that Senators who do wish to speak in support of my amendment let us know, and we will try to work in as many as possible. There is a great demand for time, but it would help us a great deal to know who it is who seeks to speak, and we will try to sequence people to the best of our ability for the convenience of everyone.

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 4320 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Madam President, the current open-ended commitment of U.S. forces in Iraq is unsustainable and counterproductive, contributing as much to Iraqi instability as it does to Iraqi security.

Our troops have performed magnificently in Iraq. We are all deeply grateful for their professionalism and their sacrifices. But, ultimately, as our military commanders have repeatedly said, stability in Iraq can only come through a political settlement by the Iraqis, and the best way to bring about that political settlement is to make it clear, in words not yet spoken by the administration, that our commitment is not open-ended, and that a phased redeployment of our forces from Iraq will begin by the end of this year.

The administration's refrain that we are in Iraq as long as the Iraqis need us is creating a dependency of unlimited duration and gives the Iraqis the impression that their security is more in our hands than in theirs.

The hallmarks of the administration's open-ended policy are the President's extraordinarily broad and vague description of our mission--nothing less than ``complete victory,'' as he put it, along with the President's explicit commitment to stay until the Iraqis can ``govern themselves, sustain themselves, and defend themselves.'' The President's statement that American force levels in Iraq ``will be decided by future Presidents'' reinforced that unlimited commitment, as did Secretary Rice's statement that we will stay in Iraq ``as long as we are needed.''

The President of Iraq, Mr. Talabani, reflected the Iraqi perception of the administration's policy when he said that U.S. forces are ``ready to stay as long as we ask them no matter what the period is.'' That is what the President of Iraq says he understands our policy to be, that U.S. forces are ``ready to stay as long as we,'' the Iraqis, ``ask them, no matter what the period is.'' We must change that Iraqi perception and the open-ended commitment which led to it, and that is what our amendment would do.

Our amendment urges the President to begin the phased redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2006--to begin the phased redeployment of U.S. troops by the end of 2006. Our amendment also calls for a number of actions to help achieve the broad-based and sustainable political settlement so essential for defeating the insurgency and preventing all-out civil war.

It calls for adoption by the Iraqis of a fair sharing of political power and economic resources among all the Iraqi groups so as to invest them in the formation of an Iraqi Nation. That can be done by amendment to the Iraq Constitution or by legislation or other means, but it needs to be done within the timeframe provided for in the Iraqi Constitution; namely, 4 months from the beginning of the functioning of their parliament.

An international conference needs to be convened so as to more actively involve the international community and Iraq's neighbors in promoting a durable political settlement among Iraqis and by reducing regional interference in Iraq's internal affairs. It is also important to encourage more countries to contribute to Iraq's extensive needs and to ensure that pledged funds are forthcoming.

Our amendment also points out that it is critically important for the Government of Iraq to promptly and decisively disarm the militias and remove those members of the Iraqi security forces whose loyalty to the Iraqi Government is in doubt.

Now, what does our amendment urge the President to do relative to our troops in Iraq?

First, after consultation with the Government of Iraq, begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of this year.

Second, submit to Congress a plan by the end of 2006 with estimated dates for the continued phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq, with the understanding that unexpected contingencies may arise.

Third, expedite the transition of U.S. forces in Iraq to a limited presence and mission of training, providing logistical support, protecting U.S. infrastructure and personnel, and participating in targeted counterterrorism activities.

Our amendment does not establish a fixed ending date for redeployment. It doesn't set out fixed milestones once the phased redeployment has begun. So while it does not establish a timetable, it does establish a fixed, but not precipitous, time for the beginning of a phased redeployment--by the end of this year.

Beginning the phased redeployment of American troops in 2006 would send a very clear message to the Iraqis: We have been in Iraq over 3 years. We have lost 2,500 brave Americans and suffered more than seven times that number of casualties to make it possible for Iraq to become a free Nation. You, the Iraqis, must now decide whether you want a civil war or a nation.

Madam President, sending that message to the Iraqis and ending the open-ended U.S. policy towards Iraq will prod the Iraqis to take the necessary steps to end the dominance of the militias; will reduce the Iraqi dependence on the U.S. security blanket which deters tough choices by the Iraqis; will change the perception that we are permanently occupying Iraq, a perception which plays into the hands of terrorists; will reduce the number of U.S. targets for terrorists and insurgents; and will reduce the strain on U.S. forces.

Supporters of our amendment are just as determined to maximize prospects for success in Iraq as are the opponents of our amendment. We do not accuse opponents of our amendment of wanting failure or of advocating surrender to chaos and terror. We do believe that maintaining the status quo

and the open-ended commitment, which is the hallmark of that status quo and that open-ended commitment, and adhering to a bumper sticker slogan of ``stay the course'' is a recipe for continuing instability and failure.

Success isn't assured in any event, but letting the Iraqis know that we are not there for as long as they want us is key to avoiding a culture of dependency. The bottom line is that our open-ended policy and presence has become a deterrent to the very success that we want to bring about. Although the administration policy is aimed at providing security, it is a major contributor to instability.

The Iraqi leaders themselves have set a 6-month goal for making major progress in assuming their security responsibility. Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki said on May 22 that his government could take over security for 16 of Iraq's 18 provinces by the end of this year.

On June 11, the Iraqi National Security Adviser, Mr. Rubaie said:

I believe by the end of this year the number of the

multinational forces will be probably less than 100,000 in

this country.

That amounts to a reduction of at least 30,000 U.S. forces by the end of this year. Mr. Rubaie repeated that position in an op-ed in yesterday's Washington Post. He, again, is the National Security Adviser to the Prime Minister. Our amendment's call for the beginning of a phased redeployment by the end of this year fits the very goals Iraq's leaders have set for themselves.

Listen to what Mr. Rubaie wrote about the many benefits of Iraq reducing the number of coalition forces. This is benefits to Iraq of our reducing the number of coalition forces in Iraq:

It will remove psychological barriers and the reason that

many Iraqis joined the so-called resistance in the first

place. The removal of troops will also allow the Iraqi

government to engage with some of our neighbors that have to

date been at the very least sympathetic to the resistance

because of what they call the coalition occupation.

``Moreover,'' Mr. Rubaie said:

the removal of foreign troops will legitimize Iraq's

government in the eyes of its people . . . the drawdown of

foreign troops will strengthen our fledgling government to

last the full four years it is supposed to.

Mr. Rubaie's words are similar to those of General George Casey, the commander of the U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, who told Congress last fall:

Increased coalition presence feeds the notion of

occupation, contributes to the dependency of Iraqi forces on

the coalition, extends the time it will take Iraqi security

forces to become self-reliant, and exposes more coalition

forces to attack at a time when Iraqi security forces are

increasingly available and capable.

That is our commander talking about the disadvantages of having a large number of troops remain in Iraq.

Regardless of one's views on whether it was wise to attack Iraq--and I for one thought it was unwise, and so voted--and regardless of one's views on whether the war has been well managed--and I have been critical of the administration's management--all of us want to maximize the chances for success in Iraq. To maximize the chances for success in Iraq, the Iraqis must take control of their country. Our approach, our amendment, maximizes the chance for success.

Last year, by a bipartisan vote of 79 to 16, the Senate adopted an amendment stating that:

[C]alendar year 2006 should be a period of significant

transition to full Iraqi sovereignty.

The Senate language remained in the bill and was signed into law. Our amendment implements that policy direction. The Iraqis are standing up. U.S. and coalition forces have trained and equipped more than 250,000 Iraq security forces. More than two-thirds of Iraq's Army combat battalions are either in the lead or operating independently, according to the administration's May 2006 report to Congress. It is now time for the United States to set a date for the beginning--the beginning of a standdown.

Last fall, General Casey said that our presence in Iraq ``fuels the insurgency'' and that ``beginning to reduce our presence in Iraq'' as conditions warrant would result in ``taking away one of the elements that fuels the insurgency.'' That is our commander speaking. Conditions not only warrant the beginning of a reduction of our presence, conditions are such that only a phased, orderly redeployment beginning by the end of this year will maximize the chances of succeeding in Iraq.

By making clear that a phased redeployment of our forces from Iraq needs to begin this year, we will send a clear message to the Iraqis that our presence is not an open-ended security blanket and that they need to assume responsibility for their own future.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, am I responding on the time of the Senator from Virginia?

I am perfectly happy to engage in a colloquy at the instigation of the Senator from Virginia. Indeed, I will probably have some questions which I would want to propound to the Senator from Virginia.

On the other hand, I cannot agree that a colloquy which he instigates would be divided in terms of the time consumption. The usual policy around here is the persons who begin a colloquy have that colloquy charged to their time. I have more speakers than I have the time to allocate. It would be unfair to them for me to say that the time consumed in my answering the questions of the Senator from Virginia would come off the time for their remarks.

I am not only happy to engage in a colloquy, I look forward to it, but I would want to follow the usual procedure, which is that those persons who wish to ask questions of somebody have that colloquy taken from their time rather than from the time of the person of whom they are asking the questions.

If the Senator will allow a comment on that, we are not confined to that at all. I expect, when I ask questions of the Senator from Virginia or others who oppose this amendment, that their answers would come from my time and not from their time. I would apply the same rule to me as I suggest would be applied to the questions of the Senator.

Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. President, I am wondering if we could sequence speakers.

After Senator McCain is done, we would then seek to sequence the Senator from New York immediately after the Senator from Arizona.

And then Senator Salazar is here.

Let's leave it at that----

Because Senator Feinstein is now on the floor.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Rockefeller be added as a cosponsor of our amendment.

Mr. President, for the information of Senators--if I could get Senator Warner's attention--the order on our side will be Senators Clinton, Feinstein, and Salazar.

I yield 10 minutes to Senator Salazar.

Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. President, I yield 1 additional minute to the Senator.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. President, I understand that Senator Carper is on his way over. He is next on our side. I wonder if I may inquire how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. President, is the other side ready?

I wonder if I may list the sequence on our side so it would be understood that after Senator Carper, we would expect Senator Lautenberg and then Senator Murray, Senator Obama, Senator Biden, and Senator Durbin.

Mr. President, may I have 10 seconds? I wish to add my thanks to the Senator from Nebraska for his very constructive, positive remarks.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.

I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Washington.

I yield 10 minutes to Senator Biden.

Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

We started at 12:15. I would then yield for 10 minutes to Senator Biden. I then yield 8 minutes to Senator Obama, and then Senator Durbin will be next. Depending on how much time is left we can determine the time allocation.

No. We understand that.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Illinois 10 minutes.

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. President, I ask, how many minutes remain?

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island, my cosponsor, Mr. Reed.

Mr. President, I yield myself the remaining time.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, there is much we all agree upon in this body. We have an interest in the stability of Iraq. And we want to improve the chances of success in Iraq. The disagreement is over whether the present course, with its open-ended commitment to maintain our military presence in Iraq, as we now have it, contributes to that stability or whether or not we must prod the Iraqis to do what only they can do-- come together to end the insurgency and to avoid an all-out civil war.

The President of Iraq, Mr. Talabani, a few months ago, said the following about what Iraqis believe. He said that Iraqis believe that U.S. forces are ready ``to stay as long as we ask them, no matter what the period is.''

That perception on the part of the President of Iraq, reflecting the view, presumably, of many Iraqis, that the United States is ``ready to stay'' as long as the Iraqis ask us, no matter what the period is, is a perception which must end. It is a perception that was based on our administration's commitment, which was open-ended, unlimited, unconditional.

Iraqis must make a choice. It is a choice that our blood and our treasure has given them. The Iraqis, and the Iraqis alone, can unite to avoid all-out civil war, by making the political power sharing that needs to be done. Only the Iraqis can decide that they are going to divide the resources equitably so that they can bring in all the groups and the insurgency and avoid an all-out civil war. Only the Iraqis can unite to remove the militia control of the police.

Their unity can do that. We cannot do that for them. We have given them an opportunity. Mr. President, 2,500 American lives, 7 times as many American wounded, have given them an opportunity. They must make a choice: Do they want a nation or do they want civil war?

To maintain this open-ended commitment, which we now have, is contributing to a dependency of the Iraqis on us rather than forcing them, prodding them, to do what only they can do to build a nation.

The Levin-Reed sense-of-the-Congress amendment proposes that a phased redeployment of U.S. troops be begun by the end of this year. Our amendment does not establish a fixed ending date for redeployment. It does not propose a fixed timetable once the phased redeployment has begun. But while it does not establish a timetable, it does establish a fixed time for the beginning of a phased redeployment by the end of this year. It is not precipitous. It is by the end of this year begin a phased redeployment of American troops.

Mr. President, the National Security Adviser of Iraq has been quoted a number of times on the floor.

Do I have a minute?

I thank the Presiding Officer.

The National Security Adviser of Iraq said the following in yesterday's Washington Post: We envisage the United States troop presence by year's end to be under 100,000. That is a reduction of 30,000. That is totally in keeping with what the Levin-Reed amendment proposes. That is the Iraqi envisioned timetable. We want to hold them to that vision for their sake and for ours.

Then Mr. Rubaie, the Iraqi National Security Adviser, said the following--and these are words which every one of us should soak in-- that the removal of foreign troops will legitimize Iraq's Government in the eyes of its people.

Let us do that in a way which is thoughtful, orderly, and planned. And that is what the Levin-Reed amendment proposes.

I thank the Chair. And I thank my good friend from Virginia, our chairman, for the way in which this debate has been handled on both sides.

Mr. President, I would propose that the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Wisconsin control the time which has been allocated to them. And as to when they bring up their amendment, it would be up to them because, as I envision this, they and you or your designee would manage that time.

If the Senator would yield, I totally concur that this next amendment should be brought up and debated in an orderly way, but that being agreed upon, I would hope, between the sponsors of that amendment and the chairman, the Republican manager.

So I do not think there is any need for me, frankly, to intervene in that process. Perhaps you could hear from the Senator from Massachusetts as to what his plans are and how he plans to proceed. I think that would be helpful.

I suggest that the two Senators who need 10 minutes each be recognized now and that we try to negotiate these various time needs during their presentation.

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

No objection.

Mr. President, I would ask the Senator from Rhode Island, who is under a unanimous consent agreement to be recognized for 20 minutes, to yield to me for 2 minutes.

Mr. President, I noticed Senator Kyl again uses rhetoric which they apparently have decided will be used no matter what the facts of any particular proposal are. I would just point out in this morning's Washington Post that Mr. al-Rubaie, who is the National Security Adviser for Iraq, has argued that by year's end, we envision the U.S. troop presence to be under 100,000. That would be at least a 30,000 reduction. I wonder whether people, or Senators, who are going to mischaracterize the Levin-Reed et al amendment are going to also then suggest that the Security Adviser to the new Prime Minister of Iraq supports cut and run when he says that they envision a reduction of American troops to be below 100,000 by the end of this year, and he sets forth in this morning's Washington Post all of the reasons it is so important that foreign troops be redeployed, including to legitimize Iraq's Government in the eyes of its people.

I ask unanimous consent that the entire article written by the Security Adviser to the new Prime Minister, Mr. al-Rubaie, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after Senator Reed is recognized--the chairman and I have talked about this--at that point, the Dorgan amendment be the matter before the Senate. I believe that the Senator from Virginia and I have agreed that Senator Dorgan would be recognized for 10 minutes, to be followed then by the chairman for 5 minutes, and the intention then would be to proceed to a rollcall vote.

I ask unanimous consent I be allowed 1 minute to respond to my good friend's comments.

Mr. President, what we are dealing with is a historic use of no-bid contracts, where billions of dollars have been spent. There is good evidence they have been misspent in many ways, and there is a huge amount of waste and abuse.

I agree with my good friend from Virginia we do have committees that could look into this matter and could focus on this matter. The agendas of those committees are left basically to the chairmen of those committees. If the chairmen of those committees choose to focus their energies in other places--and I don't quarrel with the places they look--it does not mean the Senate should not express its opinion on the need to focus on these abuses, these excesses, this expenditure of billions of dollars on no-bid contracts.

Therefore, I support the Dorgan amendment.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Reserving the right to object. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, did I hear that they have an opportunity to speak on their amendments?

I missed that.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Is it not true that the Senator from Florida would fully agree that we want them to have sovereignty and we don't want to dictate to them what to do, but that his point is, is it not, that we still should strongly urge them not to exercise their sovereignty in a way which provides amnesty in advance since we are in the middle of a war with people who kill American troops? Is that not true? We can urge them without violating their sovereignty. Would the Senator not agree?

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4265

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Are we now voting on the Nelson-Menendez amendment?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 4308, 4299, 4349, 4271, 4226, 4350, 4351, 4352, 4353,

4354, 4213, 4210, 4300, 4209, 4215 as Modified, 4355, 4356, 4217 as

Modified, 4357, 4358, 4359, and 4360, En Bloc

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object because the amendments have been cleared on our side, I would suggest that if we have a moment here, after the UC is accepted, we read the list of the amendments so people will know their amendments are in here. But if the leaders are ready to send us forward on our next mission, then I would withdraw that suggestion.

Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am wondering whether we have an order here where we are alternating and, if so, what the situation is.

I wonder, as the alternative now comes to us, whether we could let Senator Harkin first go before Senator Enzi. On the other hand, if it is your turn in rotation, then we would have no objection.

Reserving the right to object, is it my understanding that there would be no amendments allowed to my amendment?

There is an objection, apparently, which we just received in the cloakroom.

Although I support it, we have to object.

Reserving the right to object, I assume there would be adequate time that we would be allowed to consider an amendment of the Senator from Virginia? As I understand, the Senator was talking about a possible amendment on Iraq.

Could be on Iraq.

Is the Senator offering the amendment he is referring to postcloture?

Reserving the right to object, when we were discussing this last, I asked whether or not the manager, the chairman, would make it clear that my amendment is not subject to amendment.

And also if the Senator would agree that the Kerry amendment--

Then the request is that the unanimous consent request be amended so that my amendment which is on file will not be subject to amendment.

It has not been filed.

That is correct.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia. We thank the Senator for his unvaried hospitality and good nature on these kinds of difficulties. We appreciate his determination to try to find the opportunity for a Guantanamo amendment or amendments. They are trying now, I believe, to figure out--I think it is going to be offered at 7 p.m. I guess they will be here to offer that amendment at 7 o'clock.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sharon Hudson- Dean, a fellow in the office of Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, be granted the privilege of the floor during the Senate's consideration of the fiscal year 2007 Defense authorization bill.

Mr. President, first let me commend the Senator from New Mexico for his amendment. It is a very significant amendment. It is carefully worked out. It is very much worthy of the Senate's consideration.

I know we are in morning business. I simply want at this point to inform the body that an amendment which I have now filed on behalf of myself, Senator Jack Reed, Senators Feinstein and Salazar, is now at the desk. Its number is 4320. Its purpose is to state the sense of Congress on the United States policy on Iraq.

I am not going to speak on the amendment at this time.

No, I would rather save my remarks for a time when it relates more to the issue at hand, when we call up this amendment. I thank my good friend from Virginia for that suggestion, but I think I would rather, at the time I call up the amendment, make the remarks.

Let me again thank my good friend from Virginia. I, too, indeed, remember that debate last year on that amendment. The Senator from Virginia made a very constructive contribution to the debate. The final outcome was not the original amendment that I filed, but what remained of the amendment was significant and I think had an impact on the policy of this country. I commended him then and I commend him now for that effort on his part. I look forward to a discussion about this amendment, No. 4320.