Floor Statements

Madam President, I thank my friend from Indiana. I certainly want to associate myself with the remarks made on this floor on behalf of Senator Danforth. I know they have been uniformly, without exception, complimentary to him--not in a typical way we as matter of gesture may compliment public figures, but these were remarks by people who knew and who have known and who have worked with Jack Danforth for years and years and know him to be a tremendous public servant of deep integrity, thoughtfulness, and courage.

I am proud to say that he hails from the great State of Missouri. President Bush has simply selected a great man for this post. When he called me and told me about it, I told him I was thrilled. I could not think of a more qualified person to represent the United States at the United Nations.

Like most of us who have been around politics and government, I have known Senator Danforth and his wife Sally for many years. He served his country and the people of Missouri with dignity and distinction. It is appropriate to take a moment to place on the Record again his background and his credentials.

He served two terms as the attorney general of Missouri; three terms in the U.S. Senate; handled, as Senator Biden said, the difficult task of trying to bring peace to the Sudan, the difficult and delicate task of investigating the tragedy that occurred at Waco and emerged from that job, which could very easily have led to censure and disapproval from this town because it was a very controversial type investigation, with plaudits from everyone who recognized the thoroughness, the effectiveness, and the fairness of that investigation.

He knows the importance of bipartisanship. We have seen that from the comments on this floor today. Most recently the Nation appreciated his eloquence and his thoughtfulness as he said goodbye to President Reagan during his memorial service.

He is, in short, a considerate man with character, diligence, and whose abilities qualify him to represent our Nation. The Senate will support him unanimously and without opposition.

As Senator Biden said, he is going to have a very difficult job. The United Nations is not an easy place. We are engaged in a war on terrorism. I want to say that, in my judgment, the United Nations has never really come to grips with the danger we are fighting. That will certainly be one of Senator Danforth's tasks.

One of the reasons this transnational movement of thugs we are now confronting grew to be as powerful as it became is because of the neglect of the international community and the United Nations. Policies of appeasement do not work with this group of people. I am not certain the United Nations realizes that.

I harken back to the end 2002 and the speech Prime Minister Blair gave to the Parliament, which I had an opportunity to watch, about negotiations within the United Nations about trying to deal with the threat against representative freedom by Saddam Hussein. Prime Minister Blair made the point then that after years and years and years of negotiations of containment, of watching him violate the obligations he had made after we defeated him in 1991, after a long record of aggression toward his neighbors, the use of weapons of mass destruction, deception, and the United States and Great Britain asked for one more resolution demanding that he show he had disarmed, with a threat of force if he failed to comply. That was blocked in the United Nations to which Jack Danforth is going to be an Ambassador.

The United Nations is, in my judgment, important in reconstructing Iraq. But it is important that the United Nations understand the threat we are confronting.

After Saddam was removed and the United Nations came to assist with humanitarian reconstruction, their headquarters was attacked by the terrorists. It was a terrible tragedy. While on one level you can understand it, on another level it was unfortunate that they lowered the flag and left. But that is what the United Nations did. The terrorists took that as a sign of weakness.

Senator Danforth is going to represent us in an organization which is highly bureaucratic, which is troubled by its own Food-for-Oil scandal, and whose resolve in the face of terrorism has been questionable in the past. I know he will do a great job of representing American interests. I believe he can help us draw close again to our traditional allies. He is the kind of person who knows how to be gracious and courageous at the same time.

I wish him well. He certainly has my support. I know the Senate will support him unanimously as well.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I appreciate the chance to offer a word or two on the amendment. My friend from Missouri and my friend from Iowa have covered the ground very well. In part, I rise to compliment them on their dogged tenacity on behalf of these workers who deserve this compensation and now have a chance of receiving it because of their hard work.

I also compliment the managers of the bill who, even though in their States they do not have people directly involved in this, have seen the plight of our Missouri workers and Iowa workers and have worked with us to get this amendment adopted.

It simply means workers in Iowa and Missouri are going to have the same opportunity to get this compensation under expedited rules and procedures that already exist in other States so they will actually have some recourse and some compensation for the illnesses they have suffered because of this overexposure, and they will get it before they pass away because of the cancers that have resulted.

There have been many tragic instances where people have fought for this compensation, have waited for what the law says they are entitled to, and have never gotten it. This amendment holds out hope now that we will be able to do justice in these cases.

I compliment my friend from Iowa and my colleague from Missouri for their very hard work, and I join them in offering and supporting the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I rise to make a few remarks about my vote today for Senator Brownback's amendment regarding broadcast indecency. I supported this amendment as modified by the Burns second- degree amendment because it includes protections for small market stations. Combined, the Burns and Brownback amendments would curb the broadcast of indecent material without unjustly penalizing local broadcasters who unknowingly transmit it.

I have spoken with Missouri broadcasters who worry that the stand- alone Brownback legislation would subject them to large fines for merely transmitting a program containing indecent material, like that contained in the Superbowl halftime show, without their knowledge of the indecency. Combined, the Burns-Brownback amendments would not place broadcasters in this situation since it requires the Federal Communications Commission to consider several factors including knowledge in determining whether to levy a fine, and how much that fine should be.

Under current law, local broadcasters are essentially liable for everything that comes across their airwaves, even a Janet Jackson-type incident that they are downstream from and have had no opportunity to review. This quasi-strick liability standard is simply not fair, and that is one reason why I believe the law should be changed.

The Burns amendment in particular corrects this unfairness by requiring the FCC to consider factors in assessing fines including whether the material was scripted or recorded and whether the violator had a reasonable opportunity to review the script or recording, thereby demonstrating that the violator had knowledge that the indecent, obscene or profane material would be aired or, otherwise, had a reasonable basis to believe that live or unscripted programming would contain indecent material. In determining culpability, the FCC would be required to consider mitigating factors including whether the licensee had a reasonable opportunity to review the programming or had reason to believe it may contain obscene, indecent, or profane material. I believe these provisions address local broadcasters' concerns and protect them from arbitrary FCC enforcement.

I support the Burns-Brownback amendments because of these provisions, but I am still concerned about the phenomenon of congressional overreaction to current events. Like many other parents, I feel that this year's Superbowl halftime show contained indecent material and that those responsible should be held accountable. After the Superbowl, hundreds of Missourians contacted my to share similar views. There seems to be a tendency among elected officials to respond to such a strong outpouring of support by not only trying to fix the problem, but by trying to fix it in a way that swings the legislative pendulum too far in other directions, to over-regulate. I do not believe that these amendments as combined go too far, but if they do I want to hear from Missouri broadcasters and work with them to address their concerns.

I thank Senators Burns and Brownback for their hard work on this legislation, and for addressing my concerns.

Madam President, I rise today in support of the Bond- Harkin amendment. I am going to be brief because I think my colleague from Missouri has covered the ground. I imagine the Senator from Iowa will wish to speak further.

I want to begin by recognizing the work they have both put into this amendment. My friend from Missouri has been a tiger in support of compensation for these employees. He was moved--as I was moved and as the Senator from Iowa was moved--by the unique claim these individuals have on justice. This is not some kind of giveaway, but it is just compensation that is owed to them for the sacrifices they made on behalf of this country. That is really what this amounts to.

I was pleased to cosponsor this amendment. I am grateful to the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Michigan for their attempts to work this out. I hope we can do that. I know they want to. I know they recognize the justice of the claims.

We certainly understand the importance of doing this the right way. I just hope we can do this. At the end of the day, if we have to put it in without all of the t's crossed and the i's dotted and work on it in conference, I hope we can do that because we will have other opportunities further down the road in the Defense bill to tie up any loose ends which may exist. Certainly the Senators from Missouri and Iowa have worked in good faith, as I have, in trying to make this acceptable to the managers of the bill.

In Missouri, an estimated 3,500 people worked at sites which handled and processed highly radioactive material. These workers were exposed-- and in most instances unknowingly--to dangerous levels of radiation. It is not necessarily important to blame people for that. Those were in many cases the early years of nuclear work and people just didn't know, and it was necessary to do this work. That is why, without trying to point fingers, Congress created the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act--EEOICPA--of 2000, which was designed to provide these employees with the compensation they deserve.

Unfortunately, the process, as any of us know who sit on the Armed Services Committee or on the Energy Committee--both of which I sit on-- is complex, it is disjointed, and in many cases outright mishandled. As a result, in Missouri, hundreds of claims have been filed by surviving individuals who have received not only no compensation but no progress in the processing of their claims. In many cases those individuals faced 200 times the dosage of radiation that would be considered acceptable today. We know that happened because we know the nature of the processes in which they were working, and we can see the illnesses they now have.

That doesn't mean they can go back and reconstruct from worksheets that no longer exist--and which they wouldn't have access to anyway-- exactly what happened on a given day 50 or 60 years ago, which is the reason Senator Bond explained so lucidly we need a special exposure cohort, or an SEC, to expedite compensation for these employees. The amendment would simply allow these employees to be included in an SEC. They already exist for employees in other States.

An SEC is a group of employees with specific cancers who worked at specific nuclear facilities or who meet other requirements under the act. The designation would provide former employees at the site with expedited compensation for going through the lengthy and oftentimes impossible process of dose reconstruction.

I could go on. I know the bill handlers want to get the bill finished. The program so far has one of the most abysmal records of performance which I have witnessed in my now 10 years in the Congress on one side of the Capitol or the other. As the Department of Energy and the Department of Labor create bureaucratic paperwork burdens for sick former employees, this amendment, which would remove the barrier of dose reconstruction for those cases, is a small step forward toward giving them the justice which they so clearly deserve.

I believe workers in Missouri and Iowa ought to qualify for inclusion in the SEC.

It is a pleasure for me to cosponsor this amendment. I hope we can work out the issues that remain surrounding it and get it included in the bill.

I yield the floor.

I would like 5, but I probably will not use them.

Mr. President, I wish to say a few words on our amendment, but before I do that, let me take a minute to compliment again Senator Bond, who laid down the amendment and Senator Harkin for cosponsoring it, to assist former employees in Iowa and Missouri who were affected because they worked in plants that produced the atomic materials from which we made the atom bombs which won the war and then kept us safe.

Because of their exposure to the radiation, they have become ill and they deserve compensation. They are not getting it because of the convoluted procedures that are currently in place. We simply want to allow them to be treated separately as already occurs with employees in the four States.

I admire the way Senator Bond has fought like a tiger for those employees. I have joined him in doing that.

I appreciate the work of the managers of the bill in trying to figure out a way to accept that amendment. I hope we can, indeed, do that. It is just a matter of justice for these employees.

I also wish to speak for a moment about the amendment which Senator Clinton and I offered based on the legislation which we sponsored together some weeks ago. I want to return her kind words and say it has been a pleasure to work with her and her staff on a strong bipartisan basis to make these changes which we think are necessary to protect the health of our men and women in the military, and also to make certain they are ready to be deployed when they need to be deployed. Those are the two things we are trying to do.

Before employees, service men and women are deployed to combat theaters, we require that a blood sample be drawn from them, and after they return that another blood sample be drawn from them.

The point is, it has happened too often in the past where service men and women coming back from active duty show signs and symptoms of illness, and we can't figure out what is wrong. We need baseline blood tests so we can tell the extent to which their blood is deviate and their health symptoms are deviating from what they were before deployment. This will give us a clue as to what is wrong with them so we can avoid another gulf war syndrome episode.

I have had vets from Missouri over several years talking to me about this issue. We allow the military to do it today, particularly with regard to reservists and guardsmen because it is often not done because local commanders want to get them deployed and into the theater.

This is very important and now it will be the law. I am grateful to the managers of the amendment for accepting that part of the amendment.

The other point is to simply improve the health of our Active and Reserve component service men and women. We put in place a joint committee to oversee the medical tracking system that is supposed to be in place but isn't implemented as well as it should be.

We require that reservists receive detailed health assessments at least every 2 years. Right now they only get exams every 5 years.

We require routine health baselines for all our recruits entering the armed services so we will know the health status of people when they enter the military.

There are a number of other good measures as well.

I only have 5 minutes. I imagine I have used most of that.

Let us say it has been a pleasure to work with the Senator from New York and her staff. We are jointly grateful to the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Michigan for their openness on this amendment, and we are pleased that it was agreed to and look forward to holding it through the rest of the process.

I yield my time.

Mr. President, I have an amendment I wish to offer on behalf of Mr. Bond and myself. It is at the desk. I ask it be called up. It is amendment No. 3251.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in support of an amendment to designate the Liberty Memorial Museum in Kansas City, MO, as America's World War I Museum. All of us in Missouri are privileged to have such an outstanding museum and memorial to honor those who served during this critical period in our Nation's history.

World War I is, of course, an important part of America's history, and its history ought to be preserved so the generations of the 21st century can understand the role played by the United States in the preservation and advancement of freedom during that crucial time.

The Liberty Memorial Museum is the only public museum in the Nation that exists for the exclusive purpose of interpreting the experiences of the United States and its Allies in the

World War I years, both on the battlefield and on the homefront. It deserves this designation as America's National World War I Museum.

The museum has a truly amazing history. After the guns were silenced in 1918 and the huge celebrations died down, concerned citizens in the United States reflected on the war and the losses sustained. The Liberty Memorial Museum project began after the 1918 armistice through the efforts of a large-scale, grassroots civic and fundraising effort by the citizens and veterans in the Kansas City metropolitan area. In less than 2 weeks, $2.5 million was raised through donations from local citizens. That was in 1918. That gives the Senate some idea of the enormity of the efforts on behalf of this memorial.

After the conclusion of a national architectural design competition, ground was broken in 1921, construction began in 1923, and the Liberty Memorial Museum was open to the public in 1926.

At the dedication on November 1, 1921, the main Allied military leaders spoke to a crowd of close to 200,000 people.

It was the only time in history the leaders of the United States, Belgium, Italy, France, and Great Britain were together at one place. These were the military leaders during World War I and they convened in Kansas City in 1921 to open this museum.

Today, the Liberty Memorial Museum seeks to educate a diverse group of audiences through its comprehensive collection of historical materials, emphasizing eyewitness accounts of the participants on the battlefield and the homefront and the impact of World War I on individuals, then and now. The Liberty Memorial Museum continues to actively acquire and preserve such materials.

The designation of the museum as ``America's National World War I Museum'' is a great opportunity to use the invaluable resources of the Liberty Memorial Museum to teach the lessons of liberty to the Nation's schoolchildren through onsite visits, classroom curriculum development, distance learning, and other educational initiatives.

I am pleased to offer the amendment on behalf of Mr. Bond and myself. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for agreeing to include the measure in the underlying bill. It has been cleared on both sides and I look forward to the Senate adding it to this Defense measure.

I yield the floor, and I ask for adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Lore Aquayo of my office be allowed the privilege of the floor.

Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that following the scheduled vote, the Senate proceed to a second resolution, which is at the desk, and further that the resolution and preamble be agreed to, with the motion to reconsider laid upon the table.

Mr. President, it is an honor for me to join the Senate in honoring the memory and celebrating the life of Ronald Reagan. I want to say, first of all, how much I have appreciated the eloquence and the personal memories that have been offered on the Senate floor and in public by those who knew and remembered President Reagan. I, of course, remember him. I didn't know him personally.

I also want to say how much especially I have appreciated the grace and the charity shown to the former President by those here who were, when he was in office, his political opponents. I think it is a great testimony to their charity of spirit that they have done so and also a comment on how our system operates in times such as this. We can remember and appreciate a person for his good qualities without necessarily having to retreat from any disagreements we may have had with that person over political issues.

I am reminded of what Winston Churchill said on a similar occasion when he was offering remembrances of a colleague who had died, with whom he had had many differences. He said:

The fierce and bitter controversies which hung around him

in recent times were hushed by the news of his illness and

are silenced by his death. In paying a tribute of respect and

of regard to an eminent man who has been taken from us, no

one is obliged to alter the opinions which he has formed or

expressed upon issues which have become a part of history;

but at the Lychgate, we may all pass our own conduct and our

own judgments under a searching review. It's not given to

human beings, happily for them for otherwise life would be

intolerable, to foresee or to predict to any large extent the

unfolding course of events. In one phase men seem to have

been right, in another they seem to have been wrong. Then

again, a few years later, when the perspective of time has

lengthened, all stands in a different setting. There is a new

proportion. There is another scale of values. History with

its flickering lamp stumbles along the trail of the past,

trying to reconstruct its scenes, to revive its echoes, and

kindle with pale gleams the passion of former days. What is

the worth of all

this? The only guide to a man is his conscience; the only

shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his

actions. It is very imprudent to walk through life without

this shield, because we are so often mocked by the failure of

our hopes and the upsetting of our calculations; but with

this shield, however the fates may play, we march always in

the ranks of honour.

I stand here for a few minutes to remember a man who always marched in the ranks of honor and whose shield was the sincerity and rectitude of his actions at all times. He was not a mentor, because I did not know him personally, but he was a hero of mine.

Much has been said in the last few days about his humor and amiability. I agree that was a very important part of Ronald Reagan, of who he was and of his success. When I think of him, when I visualize him, I visualize him smiling, telling a joke, or offering some witticism or some piece of humor. I think that was a big part of his success.

It is important not to take yourself too seriously. That is a quality that often is lacking in this town. I think I can say that without being deemed uncharitable. But it was not a quality that was lacking in Ronald Reagan. He thought deeply about issues. He thought deeply about the country. I think people underestimated, to some extent, how deeply he thought and understood what was going on. He never pretended to know everything. I think that helped him a lot in his Presidency.

We should also remember President Reagan, however, not just for his qualities and his personality, but also for what he believed. He thought ideas were important, and he was right. I remember George Will said a few years ago--and I am paraphrasing him; he probably said it more eloquently than this--but the gist of his remarks was, the collapse of the Soviet Union proves that ideas not only have consequences, but that maybe only ideas have consequences.

President Reagan's friends and opponents have sometimes characterized his political philosophy as being an anti-Government philosophy or a simplistic belief in making Government smaller whatever the circumstances the country was confronting. I do not think that is correct. I think at best it is oversimplistic.

President Reagan understood that the issue of our time during his Presidency and the issue of our time now, I suggest, is not whether Government is going to be big or small, certainly in an absolute sense and often in a relative sense as well, but whether the Government, in doing whatever functions we believe it ought to do, will consistently respect the values and institutions of private life.

It is not a question of whether Government is important, because it is; it is a question of whether the Government believes it is more important than the private society and culture and people it is governing. That is where President Reagan drew the consistent line of his philosophy in his public life. His faith was in what the American people had built and have built and are continuing to build on their own, and in the associations and networks of private life that give life meaning, that give people a chance for happiness and opportunity. He believed in what people build in their families, in their small businesses, in their local schools, in their voluntary associations and organizations, in their churches, synagogues, and temples. He believed in the great traditions of American culture. He knew those traditions and the institutions that represent them grow and evolve organically over time and that they represent the wisdom of many generations of people about how we ought to live in our society so that we can have the maximum amount of justice and freedom and opportunity for all of our people.

What he wanted was for the Government to be vigorous in the areas it was supposed to operate but to respect those institutions rather than trying to overthrow them.

He said once in 1970:

It is not my intention to do away with government. It is

rather to make it work--work with us, not over us; stand by

our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must

provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not

stifle it.

I remember a few years ago when we were debating welfare reform in the Congress--and I was in the House at the time--a key point in that debate was when the Congress decided collectively that we were not talking about whether we were going to try in some sense to get rid of the welfare system. We were not going to retreat from the impulse of the 1960s to help people who were in poverty get out of poverty.

What we wanted, however, was a system that tried to do that in a way that respected and upheld the values that generations and generations of Americans have relied on to move up the economic ladder. We wanted a system that instead of punishing work, encouraged and required it. We wanted a system that instead of providing incentives against marriage, encouraged marriage and talked about its importance. We wanted a system that did not uproot neighborhoods and neighborhood institutions, that did not sweep them aside in the name of an all powerful and prescriptive government, but rather a system that helped build up again the vital parts of neighborhoods.

The reason that bill has been so successful, the reason it was supported by a vast majority in both Houses, and why it has been successful all over the country is not because it represented, I submit, a retreat by the Government from its commitment to helping people achieve the American dream, but rather because it represented a conscious commitment by the Government to work with the values of Americans, to respect those values and not to uproot them.

There is no question where President Reagan would have been in that fight, where he was in that fight, because the seeds of welfare reform were planted during his administration.

I am not going to go on. There are others who wish to speak. I thank the Senator from Florida for allowing me to go out of order because we try to go back and forth on both sides of the aisle.

Let me close with one of my favorite quotes from President Reagan. We are all doing that. It is from his second Inaugural Address in January 1985, and many have commented on President Reagan's optimism about America, how he was optimistic about America because he not only believed in those values and the institutions that represented them, but he had a tremendous faith in their power. I think he knew we were going to triumph over the Soviet Union in the cold war because he knew what we believed in was right, was powerful, and was good, and he was not afraid to state it in those terms.

Here is an example of his optimism from his second Inaugural Address:

Now we hear again the echoes of our past: a general falls

to his knees in the hard snow of Valley Forge; a lonely

president paces the darkened halls, and ponders his struggle

to preserve the Union; the men of the Alamo call out

encouragement to each other; a settler pushes west and sings

a song, and the song echoes out forever and fills the

unknowing air.

It is the American sound. It is hopeful, big-hearted,

idealistic, daring, decent, and fair. That's our heritage;

that is our song. We sing it still. For all our problems, our

differences, we are together as of old, as we raise our

voices to the God who is the Author of this most tender

music. And may he continue to hold us close as we fill the

world with our sound--sound in unity, affection, and love--

one people, under God, dedicated to the dream of freedom that

he has placed in the human heart, called upon now to pass

that dream on to a waiting and hopeful world.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I rise today to mourn the passing of a great businessman and a pioneer in the Hispanic community, Mr. Hector Barreto, Sr. The story of his life and his accomplishments are truly inspiring, and his leadership will be sorely missed.

Hector Barreto, Sr. was born in Mexico City and raised in Guadalajara, Mexico. In his early twenties, he immigrated to Kansas City, MO, where he met and married his wife, Maria Luisa. He started out digging potatoes on a farm near Corning, MO, for 80 cents an hour. After saving money from years of work, he was able to start his own restaurant, Mexico Lindo, which means ``Beautiful Mexico.'' Though Mexican restaurants were rare in Kansas City in the 1950s, Hector's business thrived, and its success allowed him to open a second and third restaurant as well as an import company and a construction firm.

In 1979, Hector founded the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce along with several other Hispanic business leaders. For the last 25 years, the Hispanic Chamber has represented the interests of the Nation's more than 1.2 million Hispanic-owned businesses and harnessed the vast economic potential of Hispanic Americans. Also in 1979, Hector decided to delve into politics, supporting Ronald Reagan's successful Presidential bid and eventually working on his transition team. President Reagan addressed the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in 1983, becoming the first sitting President to address such a conference.

Hector was also quite proud of his son, Hector Barreto, Jr., who like his father has made a name for himself in both business and politics. Hector Jr. delivered a speech at the Republican National Convention nominating George W. Bush for President, and President Bush later appointed him the administrator of the Small Business Administration.

Hector leaves behind Maria Luisa, his wife of 43 years, his children Hector Jr., Anna, Gloria, Rosa, and Mary, and 12 grandchildren. His efforts opened doors for millions of Hispanics and other Americans, and his legacy as a successful entrepreneur who lived the American Dream will live on.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 515, S. 1721.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the vote in relation to the Cantwell amendment, on Thursday, the Senate proceed to executive session and there be 10 minutes equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to three consecutive votes on the following nominations: Calendar No. 559, Sandra Townes, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York; Calendar No. 560, Kenneth Karas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York; Calendar No. 561, Judith Herrera, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Mexico. I further ask consent that following those votes, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:45 a.m. on Thursday, June 3. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, the Senate then begin a period of morning business for up to 60 minutes, with the majority leader or his designee in control of the first 30 minutes, and the Democratic leader or his designee in control of the final 30 minutes; provided that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of Calendar No. 503, S. 2400, the Department of Defense authorization bill.

Tomorrow, following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the Department of Defense authorization bill. Under the previous order, when the Senate resumes consideration of the bill, the pending Crapo and Graham amendments will be adopted, and Senator Cantwell will be recognized to offer an amendment. There will be up to 4 hours of debate on her amendment prior to a vote. It is anticipated that the vote in relation to the Cantwell amendment will occur at approximately 2:30 p.m. Immediately following the vote in relation to the Cantwell amendment, the Senate will vote on three judicial nominations. Therefore, for the information of Senators, there will be up to four stacked votes beginning in the early afternoon.

For the remainder of the day, the Senate will continue the amending process to the Department of Defense authorization bill.