Floor Statements

Would the Senator yield, so I might propose a unanimous consent request?

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, following the remarks of the Senator from Nebraska, I would like to ask unanimous consent that I be recognized so I can speak on behalf of the ranking member, Senator McCain, with regard to the bill which is now being brought up.

Mr. President, I would like to say what a pleasure it is to join my good friend from Nebraska, a member of the Armed Services Committee, on the floor on the occasion of the 29th authorization bill that I have been privileged to join with other colleagues on the floor submitting to the Senate. Earlier today, I had a lengthy meeting with Senator Levin, our distinguished chairman, and I have also had the benefit of a report from the distinguished ranking member, Senator McCain, who has returned from a trip to Iraq. So on behalf of our two principals, we are here today to initiate consideration of this all- important bill at a very critical juncture in the history of our great Nation.

I am privileged to rise in support of this piece of legislation, Mr. President. The bill was voted out of our committee unanimously, and that has usually been the case. I say that with a sense of pride through the many years I have served on the committee, over half that time as either the chairman or the ranking member. Our committee is proud of the fact that members of the committee, as well as our respective professional staffs, work together to try to achieve the highest possible degree of bipartisanship, given that we are entrusted, under the Constitution, the Senate, and the Senate has entrusted our committee with bringing forth each year the recommendations on behalf of the men and women in the Armed Forces.

I commend our distinguished chairman, Mr. Levin, and Mr. McCain, the ranking member, for the markup session, which my colleague and I were in attendance I think throughout. It was done expeditiously, fairly, and openly, in terms of all Senators being given every possible option to present their views in preparing for the bill that is now on each Senator's desk. So again, I thank and join my colleague from Nebraska in thanking the chairman and ranking member and our staffs because I think we have achieved a truly bipartisan endeavor on behalf of the committee and forwarded to the Senate.

As the ranking member, Mr. McCain, and I worked with our subcommittees, and indeed Mr. Levin. I attended a number of subcommittee meetings. We were fortunate to have strong chairmen of the subcommittees and ranking members, as my colleague from Nebraska mentioned in his opening statement, together with a strong professional staff, and their reports, by and large, were incorporated in the bill. Therefore, the committee has met its responsibility and fully funded--I repeat, fully funded--the President's $648 billion budget request for national defense.

As Members of the Congress, funding our Nation's defense is a fundamental responsibility. We must ensure our military is prepared, well trained, and well equipped to defend us and our allies in today's very complex world of threats. We must provide the best resources with the best value for our Armed Forces. We owe that to our service men and women, to their families, and, indeed, to the taxpayers. I am proud to say that, in my judgment, this bill meets those criteria.

The bill approves $2.7 billion for items on the Army Chief of Staff's Unfunded Requirements List, including $775 million for reactive armor and other Stryker requirements, $207 million for aviation survivability equipment, $102 million for combat training centers, and funding explosive ordnance disposal equipment, night vision devices, and other weapons. These are critical items in our fight against al-Qaida, the Taliban, and other threats throughout the world. Given the dangers we face as a nation, our men and women in uniform should want for nothing in our battle against terror.

I selected the Army to start with because I am very admiring of the Chief of Naval Operations, who is alleged to have said recently that while he is proud to be Chief of the Navy, his biggest concern today is that of the needs of the U.S. Army, and, indeed, the President has recently indicated that if all goes well in the course of the hearings in the Senate and our committee and the Senate confirms Admiral Mullins to be the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, he truly inherits that mantel of heavy responsibility showing equal regard for our services. But he did single out the Army as an institution at this time badly in need of the attention, not only of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs office but indeed of the Congress of the United States.

I believe with the increase in the end strength of the Army, we have met the President's request to do what we can at this critical time to keep our Army strong, particularly for those families who at this very moment--thousands and thousands of families--have their loved ones serving abroad in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Likewise, the committee approved for the Navy the first next generation--that is the first ship in the next generation of our carriers, proudly named, in large measure by the urging of the Senate, the U.S.S. Gerald Ford for the former President of the United States, the former Republican leader in the House of Representatives.

It has also restructured the littoral combat ship program to achieve maximum value and accountability. Moreover, we approved $4.1 billion of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected--that is the MRAP--vehicles for all the services.

The committee also decided to assign fixed-wing, intra-theater airlift functions and missions to the Air Force and shift Army aircraft funding in 2008 to the Air Force, which was unusual but necessary to achieve improved efficiency and synergy in our airlift capability.

While weapons and equipment are critical in any conflict, it is the support we give our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines that determines success or failure.

We are asking more of our troops today than we did a generation ago-- with longer and successive deployments. Our troops deserve our respect and gratitude for the countless sacrifices they and their families make daily. I welcome the committee's decision to approve a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise for all military personnel and the authorization of $135 billion in allowances, bonuses and other benefits. We are improving the quality of life for our men and women in uniform while enhancing our future readiness.

The committee has approved measures that satisfy our current and future requirements. We've increased the end strengths of the Army and the Marines to 525,400 and 189,000, respectively. By boosting the Army's and the Marines' numbers, I hope we can build a more flexible active-duty force and deploy reservists more prudently.

I thank the chairman for his leadership. The committee has approved a bill that meets the President's request, the needs of our troops and is fiscally responsible to our constituents. I hope my colleagues will join me and members of the committee in supporting this year's Defense authorization bill.

I wish to draw the attention of the Senate at this time to the following. We today start this bill amidst great

concern. We start very important legislation at a time in our history unlike any I have witnessed. I share the privilege of being among the elder Senators in this Chamber. The conflict in Iraq in particular is posing extraordinary challenges both to our President, the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and to the Congress which must provide the needed support. Indeed, we owe no less than the greatest obligation to the many people of our United States of America whose families, one way or another, are involved in these conflicts--largely by virtue of proudly wearing the uniform of one of our services--but there have been literally tens of thousands of other Americans who are taking risks in these conflicts to give support to the men and women of our Armed Forces.

Many colleagues over the recess period have expressed their concerns, quite properly, about certain directions that our Nation could be taking and is now taking, and otherwise, to address the conflicts-- primarily in Iraq. I anticipate a number of amendments will be brought forward in the coming days--weeks, perhaps--as the Senate debates this bill. I encourage that. I thoroughly believe the depth of the complexity of the Iraq situation deserves the attention of each and every Senator. I hope they will avail themselves of such opportunities as they can to address their fellow Senators and convey their thoughts.

Several have recently spoken out very strongly on this issue. I personally have commended each and every one, even though I may not fully agree with all of their statements. This is a critical time in America's history. That is the purpose of this Senate, which is recognized perhaps as the one forum among the legislative branches throughout the world where there is literally almost total freedom for any Member of this body to come forward and address his or her fellow Senators and express his or her views.

I look forward in the coming days and weeks to engaging in debates. A number of us--I don't single myself out, but quite a few--have been asked by the press, do we have views at variance with the President's, at variance with those of some of our colleagues. I am speaking only for myself. I have decided to withhold some of the views I currently am looking at. I spent a good deal of time in the recess period visiting personally at the various agencies and departments of our Federal Government entrusted with intelligence responsibilities, security responsibilities, and other responsibilities with regard to these conflicts. I profited greatly. Each time, while I may not have agreed with everything that was related to me, I was certainly impressed by the quality of people and their professionalism throughout the Civil Service ranks of our Federal Government with regard to their discharging their individual responsibilities at this point in time in our history on issues which are extremely complex to resolve.

I also briefly responded to press inquiries this morning about the timing of what thoughts I may have, and when I might share them with my colleagues. I am frequently--today being an example--speaking privately with a number of colleagues in this body on their views. But publicly I have decided to withhold some ideas I may have which may be incorporated in one or more amendments until such time as the President has had the opportunity to address the Nation.

I wish to go back in a very respectful way and remind the Senate of the legislation, the appropriations bill passed some 6 or 7 weeks ago. That bill included a bill that I and others brought to the Senate floor. It received, I think, over a majority of votes. That bill that I brought to the floor together with a number of cosponsors--indeed, my distinguished colleague from Nebraska was very much an active party with it--that bill was embraced in the final version of the appropriations bill which became the law of the land.

In that bill the provisions that we discussed and debated here in the Senate, and indeed which had passed by a majority vote, required as follows. I wish to read the ``Reports Required'' portion.

The President shall submit an initial report, in classified

and unclassified format, to the Congress, not later than July

15, 2007, assessing the status of each of the specific

benchmarks established above, and declaring, in his judgment,

whether satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks

is, or is not, being achieved.

I had the opportunity this morning to join his senior staff at the White House and discussed my views with them. We discussed this report. I left that meeting this morning with the definite impression that the White House and other elements of our Government are approaching this legislative requirement--which originated in this Chamber and was adopted by this Chamber and eventually became law--they are approaching that responsibility with an absolutely sincere depth of commitment.

I was asked by the press whether I thought they would brush it off. I resoundingly replied, ``No.'' As a matter of fact, I have reason to believe that the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense are very actively working with senior White House staff and others--the Director of our Intelligence, the Director of the CIA--they are all actively working in preparation of that report.

I read the next provision in our bill.

The President, having consulted with the Secretary of

State, the Secretary of Defense, the Commander of Multi-

National forces--Iraq, and the United States Ambassador to

Iraq, and the Commander of U.S. Central Command, will prepare

the report and submit [it] to the Congress.

Paragraph 3:

If the President's assessment of any of the specific

benchmarks established above is unsatisfactory, the President

shall include in that report a description of such revisions

to the political, economic, regional, and military components

of the strategy, as announced by the President on January 10,

2007. In addition, the President shall include in the report,

the advisability of implementing such aspects of the

bipartisan Iraq Study Group--commonly referred to as Baker-

Hamilton--as he deems appropriate.

No. 4:

The President shall submit a second report to the Congress,

not later than September 15, 2007, following the same

procedures and criteria, outlined above.

No. 5:

The reporting requirement detailed in section 1227 of the

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 is

waived. . . .

--given that these reports are going to be put in.

Speaking only for myself, I am going to withhold any comments I have specifically in large measure out of deference to exactly what we asked the President to do and exactly which I feel the President is about to do. I have reason to believe and it is my hope that it is done possibly a little earlier than the 15th, since the 15th falls on a day this weekend, thereby giving Members the opportunity to see exactly what he has done in response--again I reiterate--to the law as written by the Congress and a law that originated in this Chamber.

With that, I look forward to the week, working with my colleagues.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I understood that at 4:30 the Senate was to turn to the debate on the pending judicial nominations which will be voted on at 5:30. Now, the two Senators who were to come to the floor at this appointed time--

I wish to speak to the judicial nominees. I will tell my colleague what I will do to accommodate the Senator, if he will give me a few minutes and I will put this into the Record.

Mr. President, I want to accommodate my good friend in any way he wishes to be accommodated, if that is his desire, but with the appearance of one of the Senators on the floor, I hope I can get in under this unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. President, on the Defense bill, I ask unanimous consent that Scott Suozzi, a military fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges.

Mr. President, I note with great respect and approval the Senator's comments to support his nomination. The Senator and I have discussed this nomination, and I strongly endorse the President's nomination of General Lute and welcome the support of our distinguished chairman of the committee.

The Senator made reference to General Sheehan and others who apparently had some contact with the White House personnel, and others, regarding possibly taking on this assignment. In no way can I believe their comments should be held against the distinguished nomination of General Lute. They are part of the public records, but I think sometimes when the President speaks with individuals about the possibility of serving him, those matters are best left confidential-- for any President. I certainly treat them that way. I was somewhat taken aback by the judgments of General Sheehan and others. No disrespect to the chairman, but they are of no significance here.

This is a highly distinguished officer. He fought in the second armored cavalry regiment in Operation Desert Storm. He later commanded the second armored cavalry regiment in 1998 to 2000, and the multinational brigade east in Kosovo in 2002. In 2003, he was assigned as deputy director of operations in headquarters European command and, in that capacity, played an important role in responding to the impending humanitarian crisis in Liberia. It was in that context that I first met this distinguished officer.

General Jones was, at that time, NATO commander. I talked with him about the problems we were experiencing over the African coast at that time. As you may recall, elements of the Marine Corps and other Naval units were sent down there to try to--and indeed they did--succeed in contributing to a cessation of a lot of the tensions which could have erupted into a civil war.

At that time, General Lute was director of operations for the U.S. Central Command, where he served over 2 years. I was privileged to join him off the coast aboard those naval vessels, and he accompanied me when I went in and worked with the Ambassador in the incipient days of that potential conflict.

As a key member of the joint staff, I visited him many times in the Department of Defense and received excellent briefings from him about the worldwide situation. I have witnessed firsthand the extraordinary, professional capabilities of this fine officer.

In the estimation of GEN David Petraeus:

Doug Lute knows Iraq. Doug Lute knows Iraq, the region, and

in Washington will be a great addition to the team that is

striving to achieve success in Iraq. He is also a doer.

Ambassador Crocker added:

General Lute's knowledge and experience will make him a

valuable partner to our efforts in Iraq. I look forward to

working closely with General Lute in the coming months.

There has also been some indication that people are concerned about the precedents connected with this assignment. I will put into the Record a list of individuals who have served Presidents in this capacity over the past years. Notably among them were General Haig, military assistant to the President for national security affairs; Lieutenant General Scowcroft; Admiral Poindexter; GEN Colin Powell; General Kerrick; GEN Michael Hayden, Director of Central Intelligence at the present time and on active duty.

I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in the Record.

I would also put this into the Record at this point. I solicited the White House's views regarding any legalities of this nomination. I have the letter of Mr. Fielding, counsel to the President. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I feel that this gentleman, General Lute, is eminently qualified, as the President has indicated. It is the personal prerogative of the President to select those who wish to advise him in a confidential vein. General Lute will undertake that with great distinction.

Mr. President, I yield such time as the Senator from Alabama wishes to take.

Mr. President, I rise today in support, once again, of America's teachers by joining with Senator Collins in introducing the Teacher Tax Credit Act of 2007. Other original cosponsors of this bill include Senators Chambliss, Coleman, Cornyn, Isakson, Lugar, Snowe, and Voinovich.

Senator Collins and I have worked closely for some time now in support of legislation to provide our teachers with tax relief in recognition of the many out-of-pocket expenses they incur as part of their profession. In the 107th Congress, we were successful in providing much needed tax relief for our Nations' teachers with passage of H.R. 3090, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002.

This legislation, which was signed into law by President Bush, included the Collins/Warner Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2001 provisions that provided a $250 above-the-line deduction for educators who incur out-of-pocket expenses for supplies they bring into the classroom to better the education of their students. These important provisions provided almost half a billion dollars worth of tax relief to teachers all across America in 2002 and 2003.

In the 108th Congress we were able to successfully extend the provisions of the Teacher Tax Relief Act for 2004 and 2005. In the 109th Congress we were able to successfully extend the provisions for 2006 and 2007.

While these provisions will provide substantial relief to America's teachers, our work is not yet complete.

It is now estimated that the average teacher spends $826 out of their own pocket each year on classroom materials--materials such as pens, pencils, and books. First-year teachers spend even more. Why do they do this? Simply because school budgets are not adequate to meet the costs of education. Our teachers dip into their own pocket to better the education of America's youth.

Moreover, in addition to spending substantial money on classroom supplies, many teachers spend even more money out of their own pocket on professional development. Such expenses include tuition, fees, books, and supplies associated with courses that help our teachers become even better instructors.

The fact is that these out-of-pocket costs place lasting financial burdens on our teachers. This is one reason our teachers are leaving the profession. Little wonder that our country is in the midst of a teacher shortage.

Accordingly, Senator Collins and I have joined together to take another step forward by introducing legislation today that creates a refundable tax credit for teachers. The Teacher Tax Credit Act of 2007 will simply provide a refundable tax credit up to $150 for classroom expenses and professional development expenses.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the end of my statement the attached letter from the National Education Association endorsing the Collins-Warner Teacher Tax Credit Act of 2007. I will also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the end of my statement the attached letter from the Virginia Education Association endorsing the Collins-Warner Teacher Tax Credit Act of 2007.

Mr. President, our teachers have made a personal commitment to educate the next generation and to strengthen America. In my view, the Federal Government should recognize

the many sacrifices our teachers make in their career.

In addition to the refundable tax credit legislation that we are introducing today, earlier this year Senator Collins and I introduced S. 505, The Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2007. S. 505 will build upon current law by increasing the above-the-line deduction, as President Bush has called for, from $250 allowed under current law to $400; allowing educators to include professional development costs within that $400 deduction; and making the teacher tax relief provisions in the law permanent.

The Teacher Tax Credit Act of 2007 is another step forward in providing our educators with the recognition they deserve.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today in support, once again, of America's teachers by joining with Senator Collins in introducing the Teacher Tax Credit Act of 2007. Other original cosponsors of this bill include Senators Chambliss, Coleman, Cornyn, Isakson, Lugar, Snowe, and Voinovich.

Senator Collins and I have worked closely for some time now in support of legislation to provide our teachers with tax relief in recognition of the many out-of-pocket expenses they incur as part of their profession. In the 107th Congress, we were successful in providing much needed tax relief for our Nations' teachers with passage of H.R. 3090, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002.

This legislation, which was signed into law by President Bush, included the Collins/Warner Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2001 provisions that provided a $250 above-the-line deduction for educators who incur out-of-pocket expenses for supplies they bring into the classroom to better the education of their students. These important provisions provided almost half a billion dollars worth of tax relief to teachers all across America in 2002 and 2003.

In the 108th Congress we were able to successfully extend the provisions of the Teacher Tax Relief Act for 2004 and 2005. In the 109th Congress we were able to successfully extend the provisions for 2006 and 2007.

While these provisions will provide substantial relief to America's teachers, our work is not yet complete.

It is now estimated that the average teacher spends $826 out of their own pocket each year on classroom materials--materials such as pens, pencils, and books. First-year teachers spend even more. Why do they do this? Simply because school budgets are not adequate to meet the costs of education. Our teachers dip into their own pocket to better the education of America's youth.

Moreover, in addition to spending substantial money on classroom supplies, many teachers spend even more money out of their own pocket on professional development. Such expenses include tuition, fees, books, and supplies associated with courses that help our teachers become even better instructors.

The fact is that these out-of-pocket costs place lasting financial burdens on our teachers. This is one reason our teachers are leaving the profession. Little wonder that our country is in the midst of a teacher shortage.

Accordingly, Senator Collins and I have joined together to take another step forward by introducing legislation today that creates a refundable tax credit for teachers. The Teacher Tax Credit Act of 2007 will simply provide a refundable tax credit up to $150 for classroom expenses and professional development expenses.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the end of my statement the attached letter from the National Education Association endorsing the Collins-Warner Teacher Tax Credit Act of 2007. I will also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the end of my statement the attached letter from the Virginia Education Association endorsing the Collins-Warner Teacher Tax Credit Act of 2007.

Mr. President, our teachers have made a personal commitment to educate the next generation and to strengthen America. In my view, the Federal Government should recognize

the many sacrifices our teachers make in their career.

In addition to the refundable tax credit legislation that we are introducing today, earlier this year Senator Collins and I introduced S. 505, The Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2007. S. 505 will build upon current law by increasing the above-the-line deduction, as President Bush has called for, from $250 allowed under current law to $400; allowing educators to include professional development costs within that $400 deduction; and making the teacher tax relief provisions in the law permanent.

The Teacher Tax Credit Act of 2007 is another step forward in providing our educators with the recognition they deserve.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement, I now call up the amendment I have at the desk. It is No. 1566.

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

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer and my colleagues and, indeed, the floor managers for giving me this opportunity.

I rise to bring before the Senate an amendment similar to amendments I have put forward on this same subject in years past, but I think at this time on this particular bill it is extremely important this body-- --

Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. President, I apologize, and I certainly allow that to go ahead. I thought that was done.

Amendment No. 1557 To Amendment No. 1502

(Purpose: To establish a national greenhouse gas registry)

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I say to the distinguished floor manager, do we have to lay this amendment aside and then go back to mine or is that taken care of? Could we ask the Parliamentarian to clarify the situation in light of the recent UC agreement?

Automatically; is that correct?

I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.

Amendment No. 1566

Mr. President, as I was saying, I have raised this basic amendment or similar ones to it over the years, but I think it is particularly pertinent this Chamber once again address this issue. I am anxious the Chamber give it very serious consideration because our situation in the United States of America and, indeed, in the context of the global demand for energy, is becoming more serious.

Our citizens are laboring under higher prices--be it for home heating oil, gasoline, natural gas--and we must look at the full potential of America to help resolve this situation. So in that sense we could, hopefully, reduce some of our dependence on the need to import various forms of energy from abroad.

It is my firm belief the United States must take a balanced approach toward its energy policy. Not only must we increase conservation--I support that--and efficiency efforts--I strongly support that--use more alternative and renewable fuels--I support that, to the extent we can; there is quite a deliberation going on as to the ability of certain States, including mine, which does

not have a lot of natural wind power during much of the year, to try to bring in wind power but, nevertheless, I encourage clean coal technology. The bottom line is, we simply have to look at the natural resources we have in this country.

Because the United States has strong domestic natural gas resources, and because the potential for increasing our domestic supply exists-- because the demand is ever increasing for natural gas--I bring forward this amendment.

Natural gas is the fuel of choice for many of America's businesses and industries. Today, natural gas meets 23 percent of U.S. energy requirements. It heats 57 percent of U.S. households and accounts for 90 percent of the new electricity--new electricity--capacity built in the last 5 years.

I might also add, for those colleagues who have an interest in gasohol, look at how most of the gasohol is produced and its reliance on natural gas. That is a growing source of energy for our country, and it involves a large usage of natural gas.

Our supply clearly is not meeting our growing demand. Prices--I find this astonishing--prices for natural gas have risen 74 percent since 2000. That is in the last 7 years. Domestic production has remained comparatively flat, but imports are on the rise.

I want Senators who are thinking maybe this amendment does not meet all of their needs to think carefully about what I have said: a 74- percent increase in prices, domestic production remaining basically flat, and our imports, at considerable prices, are on the rise.

It is time America turned to its own resources. Therefore, I offer today an amendment to the pending legislation that seeks to allow my State--the Commonwealth of Virginia, providing its Governor and the State legislature concur--to explore for natural gas offshore. If that exploration--the first step. This is a two-step amendment. It simply says, first, the Governor and the State legislature--going through the various procedures with the Department of the Interior--can explore. If they find a reservoir of natural gas which economically can be extracted to help meet America's needs, then they can start a second step. The Governor has to go back to the State legislature, and with the concurrence of our Government--the legislature and Governor acting together--then, working with the Department of the Interior, the State can provide for the extraction of this natural gas, which will come-- all of it--to America--it is ours--thereby lessening our reliance on importing it.

I know the Virginia General Assembly, over the years, and the Governors of Virginia have already expressed--the last two--a measure of support for exploring--I underline and I carefully delineate ``exploration'' from ``extraction.'' The Virginia Governor and the State legislature have indicated, in various ways, they are receptive to a program regarding the exploration of natural gas off the Atlantic Coast.

The amendment I offer today returns power to the Commonwealth of Virginia, using this two-step process I have outlined, to make decisions about exploration and, if they wish to go to the second step, taking the second procedure to extract that gas for purposes of bringing it to America.

So, specifically, it first allows the Governor of our State to petition the Department of Interior for a targeted waiver from the current moratorium to explore for natural gas in the waters of the Outer Continental Shelf. That term is well defined.

Should this exploration justify a second step--namely, that the exploration shows there is a sufficient reservoir for economic extraction--then the Governor goes back to the legislature, and if they agree, they can further pursue that extraction by working out arrangements, which are well known, with the Department of Interior; namely, to petition the Department of Interior for the various permittings that are required.

Again, the Virginia General Assembly has already passed legislation in favor of, and the Governor of Virginia has already expressed his support for exploring--that is ``exploration''--for natural gas in this area offshore.

When drafting this legislation, I was certain to note that Virginia's neighbors should also have an input on what goes on near their own coastlines. Consequently, if Virginia petitions the Secretary of Interior for the right to explore--that is, do the exploration--or the right to extract--a subsequent step--the Secretary of the Interior, in both instances, shall provide our Atlantic coastal neighbors with an opportunity to comment on the petition or petitions coming from the State of Virginia, because I want to ensure that these neighboring States have a voice in this process before the Secretary of the Interior--and therein resides the ultimate authority--issues the appropriate concurrences to, first, explore and, then subsequently, to extract.

This amendment also addresses a matter of equity by allowing for revenuesharing between the Federal Government and the Commonwealth of Virginia for this offshore reservoir of gas, should it be produced, that is extracted and brought to America.

My bill is modeled, in large measure, after last year's Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, S. 3711. That bill states that 50 percent of all revenue would be tagged for the General Treasury. Mr. President, 37.5 percent would be for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Mr. President, 6.25 percent would go to the land and water conservation fund for conservation purposes.

In addition, I have put in here--and this is for the first time that I have seen it--I want to alleviate the concerns of bordering States, and therefore, in this bill, another 6.25 percent of any revenues would be placed into a fund administered by the Secretary of the Interior which would be used to mitigate for any damages incurred by those several States as a consequence of the drilling, the exploration process, and the subsequent extraction process.

Now, it is highly unlikely, with the advanced technology, that anything would occur. You need only look at the aftermath of the travesty we experienced with the various hurricanes in the gulf recently: While some rigs were made inoperable, to the best of my knowledge, there was no consequent damage to the shoreline as occasioned by the disruption of the operation of those rigs, certainly none of any great consequence. So I repeat that it is a source of revenue for Uncle Sam, the State, and it seems to me to be very equitable in the distribution of these funds.

I once again note that this bill is natural gas only. There is no mention, no request for other products such as oil.

I have again tried to make it clear that this Nation is in dire straits regarding its domestic energy supply and its ever-increasing reliance on foreign energy. Now is the time for each Member of the Senate to stand and be counted. Geological exploration and geological analysis of these areas offshore to date have indicated that there are potentially enormous reserves of natural gas off the Atlantic coastline. I say to my colleagues, I say to every citizen of this country, now is the time we should begin to, first, find out and corroborate and verify the existence of those reserves and, second, let the individual States decide for themselves by a Democratic process-- i.e., the Governor working with the State legislature--to start the extraction of those natural resources of gas.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I simply say to my distinguished colleague and chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, on which I am privileged to serve, this amendment is carefully drawn to apply only to Virginia.

The Senator can oratorically describe something. This is a one-State package.

Mr. President, will the Senator entertain a question?

Mr. President, this measure is deserving of a strong colloquy. I have often felt it is through the colloquies that the Senate does its best work, not through a series of canned speeches and everybody getting up and down. Anyway, so much for that.

The Senator from California said 25 years this moratorium has been in effect. I say to my good friend, I have been here 29 years, and I have watched the Nation in these 25 years grow more and more dependent on foreign energy. When this moratorium was put in, we didn't have $4 to $5 a gallon gasoline prices. We didn't have natural gas at its all-time high. I say to my good friend from California, this is a changing world, and we cannot lock ourselves into a world that existed 25 years ago and ask our citizens to continue to bear these ever-increasing costs.

This Senate last year approved legislation which granted to the several States in the gulf the right to continue drilling. So it is not as if I am breaking a precedent. Other States have been accorded this right. Why deny my State, if my citizens, my Governor, decide it is in the best interest of our State? Is there nothing left to States rights?

The Senator talks about this pollution thing--

Yes. Then I will pose a second one.

If the Chair would indulge as much colloquy as is possible--and before the chairman leaves, she posed, in a sense, a situation. So if I could ask just two quick questions, I ask of my colleague.

I thank my colleague.

Now, the Senator from California is the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and she has raised this specter of oil flow, and my good friend from New Jersey is talking about the oil that has washed up.

Does the Senator from California know what percentage of the oil that reaches our beaches, absent a tanker problem, the oil that seeps from this drilling, what percentage ever comes to shore?

I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the following from the National Academy of Sciences, a very trusted and respected objective organization. According to their studies, less than 1 percent of petroleum seepage comes from drilling and extraction activity--63 percent, conversely, comes from natural seepage; 32 percent from cars, boats, and other sources; and 4 percent from transportation.

So I just have to say this is workable.

Well, then, I would say to both colleagues, if I could, lastly, put the question to both colleagues, because this is intrinsic to the debate: Is it your position that the United States of America shall never permit its several States to ever, ever, ever drill offshore, be it east coast, west coast? And, somehow, I don't know how you rationalize it, we will let the gulf do it, but we won't let the two coasts do it?

If I could have my colleague answer that question.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: I believe the Senator from New Jersey has the floor, and I believe the rules do not permit him--

I think he yielded for the purpose of a question, not to your right to the floor. Just a technicality, but I think we ought to--

That is right, but, Mr. President, I don't hear the question. I hear a speech. That is fine. I think we want to hear the speech. I don't wish to deny him the right to speak, but let us at least follow parliamentary procedure.

I wonder if I might reply to my good friend for a minute, and I will then likewise yield the floor so my colleague from Florida, my good friend, can continue in his own right.

First, I think I have worked out with the Department of Defense an answer to your question. I simply do not have with me at this time the documents, so therefore I am going to have to indulge the Senate by either laying my amendment aside or some other parliamentary procedure to let the Senate go forward until I can come back with that. I thank the Senator for bringing that up because it is an important consideration. We have a significant command there, the Atlantic Command.

I wish to go to the amendment of my good friend and read the last paragraph:

Requirement.--The Secretary shall not approve a petition

under this paragraph unless the Governors of all States

within 100 miles of the coast waters of the State--

presumably the State making the petition--

have approved the petition.

That gives all the Governors a veto power on this; Mr. President, would that be correct? I pose that as a question to my colleague.

There is a difference between the amendments. My amendment generally states the Secretary of the Interior, who is the final arbiter of this whole issue, would entertain the petitions from the several Governors, whatever geographic area, as he, the Secretary of Interior, makes a decision.

But I think the Senator has gone a step too far. If there is anything left of States' rights after this sort of paragraph, I don't know what it would be. Listen to what you say:

The Secretary [Interior] shall not approve a petition under

this paragraph unless the Governors of all States within 100

miles of the coastal waters of the State have approved the

petition.

It doesn't say anything about working it out. It is flat veto power put in the hands of such Governors within 100 miles.

Mr. President, I am enjoying this debate, perhaps to educate the Senate. But I bring up another situation to my good friend who has recently joined this body. I don't know how many times I have gone to the floor and contested the right of the several States north of my State, largely, to ship through Virginia thousands of tons of garbage by truck, by rail, leaking, exuding methane gas in my State.

You have the good fortune of a clause in the Constitution on interstate commerce, by which you can throw up your hands and say it is the exercise of that constitutional power. You say my State cannot object to your shipping garbage through it every day. The Senator knows New Jersey ships through 1,000 tons of it. Yet you are saying to me, we cannot go through a process--working with the Federal Government of the United States and the Department of Interior--to drill offshore unless your Governor and all others, any one of the Governors within 100 States--if he has not given the approval, this thing stops?

No, 100 miles.

Mr. President, ``in concert'' to me means entrusting to the Secretary of that department of our Federal system, by which the power resides, to grant or deny the license. That Secretary has to arbitrate the concerns of all Governors within 100 miles of this drilling, so to speak. I thought that is the only procedure I know. But I think you have gone to an extreme. You put an absolute veto power in.

At this time, I would like to advise my colleague that, in consultation with the managers of the bill, I would like to lay my amendment aside until I can give a definitive answer to the Senator from Florida. I think I have it worked out in the Pentagon, but I need to provide you with the documents to manifest that resolution.

I will put in a quorum call at this time, such that the managers can advise me.

I will withhold that if the Senator wishes to speak.

Mr. President, in reply to the question of my good friend, I remember that very well. As a matter of fact, he and I worked on that. I remember breaking out the charts in the Armed Services Committee and looking how the aircraft and everything would operate and the ships in that area. You are well spoken and well taken on that.

But I have to tell you, Senator, face to face, things have changed. Every day, things change. We have to reexamine, periodically, that framework of laws that have protected our environment, to a certain extent, in the light of our growing desperate needs for energy and the growing capability of our industrial base to do the drilling, to do the extraction in such a way as to minimally put at risk our environment.

I do not take a backseat to any person in this Chamber with regard to my fervor in protecting the environment. I don't want to be called a tree hugger, but I am one step removed. I work on that Environment Committee, where I have now served 24 years or something--I don't know, a long time.

That is correct. But the military can't do a broad sweep. I know what is underlying this thing. I have to get the papers here. There are certain navigational aspects of it, certain electronic aspects, but the military can't say no drilling on the east coast.

I hope it works out my way, Madam President.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I call for the regular order, and I believe that will make my amendment pending. I send to the desk a modification. I have a right to modify my amendment.

Madam President, I should like to read it for the benefit of those following the debate. The modification is as follows. A new section is added to my amendment:

(5) No extraction or exploration plan under this provision

shall be accepted by the Secretary of the Interior if the

Secretary of Defense determines that such a plan is

inconsistent with critical military test or training

activities off the Virginia coast.

The distinguished Senator from Florida referred to a letter he read regarding the concerns the Department of the Navy--and most specifically, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy--had with regard to the ability of this body to enact legislation which presumably would result in the Department of Defense finding that something was done inconsistent with our national security interests. So this modification corrects that so that the Secretary of the Interior, acting under my amendment, would not take any such action unless he had the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense.

I also have discovered, since the colloquy between Senator Nelson of Florida and myself, a letter which was written subsequent to the letter he had and addressed the Senate. This letter addresses a modification to the letter of April 10, 2006. This letter was written on November 27, 2006, and it states the following:

Notwithstanding the above, the Department is willing to

discuss with you--

That is, the Department of Interior--

possible alternatives that may provide opportunities for

exploration and potential joint use of the Mid-Atlantic area

consistent with the critical military test and training

activities in this area.

The letter goes on to say:

Our departments--

That is, the Department of Defense and the Department of the Interior--

have worked closely together over the years to insure a

continuing successful leasing program with a manageable

impact on defense operations. We agree that oil and gas

development on the Outer Continental Shelf must strike a

balance between our Nation's energy and national security

goals. As the administration moves forward on a plan to best

meet the Nation's oil and gas energy needs for 2007 to 2012,

we look forward to working with you to ensure its success.

Clearly, this indicates that with all good intention my colleague from Florida read the older letter which is now amended substantially by a subsequent letter that the Department of Defense will work with the Secretary of Interior to make certain that any action with respect to drilling off the coast of Virginia is not inconsistent with national defense requirements.

Madam President, I am perfectly willing to accommodate the managers as to how best they want to proceed on a vote. I hope I can get my amendment up this afternoon for purposes of a vote, but I leave that to the discretion of the managers.

I yield the floor, and I thank the Chair for her courtesy.

Mr. President, I would like to speak on behalf of my amendment, which presumably will be voted on here in a matter of minutes.

I accept the 60 votes because what I want to do is to have a record of just where the sentiments are among my esteemed colleagues with regard to what I view as an advancement in technology and a worsening of the situation with regard to our energy supply and why these two forces cannot converge in such a manner as to enable a Member of the Senate to acknowledge that a State has a right to utilize those resources on the Continental Shelf off of its shore. It just concerns me greatly. I mean, natural gas is up--a 78 percent increase in price since the year 2000.

My good friend and chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee got up in her usual eloquent way to explain why she was very much opposed to my amendment. So I went back and did a little homework and determined that California is the second largest consumer of natural gas in the Nation. So I say to my colleague: Where is it going to come from? Where is it going to come from?

Florida. My good friend got up and raised a technical amendment, which momentarily knocked me off stride, but I went back and found documents

which clarify the situation that the Department of Defense will work with the Department of the Interior, and in no way should a petition be filed by the Governor of Virginia for a drilling permit to explore and determine the presence or absence of natural gas off our coast, in no way will that interfere with national security. And that letter is in the record. But he is very much against that. It is interesting; Florida consumes 2\1/2\ times the amount of natural gas that Virginia consumes, and New Jersey--my good friend who opposed me on this-- consumes twice the amount of natural gas that the State of Virginia consumes.

My State is simply trying to manifest the courage, and thus far two successive Governors have broken ground on this, both of them distinguished members of the Democratic Party. And the State legislatures--coincidentally under the control of Republicans--have indicated Virginia's willingness to look in the direction of drilling offshore.

Our State, I believe, is on the verge of stepping up to accept the responsibility to help this Nation meet its needs to begin to prepare to ward off this energy crisis which is rapidly coming our way.

I thank Virginians. I would hope that given the right of States to make choices for themselves, my colleagues would see fit to recognize the problem of the shortage of energy and the need for States such as ours to step up and help.

Mr. President, may I thank my colleague for his very thoughtful remarks.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter which superceded the letter to which the Senator from New Jersey referred to be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, our country today faces serious issues with our immigration policy. I appreciate the opportunity that we have before us to engage in this important debate and to work the will of the Senate on this complex matter.

The legislation we have before us, the compromise reached by a number of our colleagues, has provided us with a starting point for reform of a broken immigration system and to strengthen our border security.

Recognizing, however, that there are ways that we can improve upon the work of the ``grand compromise,'' as it has come to be known, I have joined with Senator Cornyn as a cosponsor of an amendment that would increase the amount of funding made available to State and local governments to mitigate the costs of public education and health care created by the inadequacy of our current immigration system.

I understand from my conversations with Virginians around the State that unauthorized immigration has caused a fiscal burden on State and local governments, one which must be addressed by this Congress. The provisions of the legislation before us include a crucial State impact assistance account that would provide reimbursement for state and local entities for the vital services that they provide.

The amendment that I am pleased to cosponsor adds additional funding to this account without adding a burden to taxpayers. By increasing, for immigrants in both the Y- and Z-visa categories, the fee that these applicants must pay at the time of their application, this amendment makes a positive step toward alleviating the burdens faced by health providers, educational agencies, and others eligible for funding through the State impact assistance account.

Under this amendment, the fee on applicants for these categories would be set at $750, and an additional fee of $100 would be set for each additional dependent. For the primary applicants in both the Y- and Z-visa categories, this represents an increase of only $250 above the legislation in its current form. I note that this amount $750 is also the same fee agreed upon under legislation passed by the Senate with a majority of support last year.

In my view, any legislative approach to provide overall immigration reform must rest on the foundation that an outright amnesty is unacceptable and that securing our borders is imperative. Then, in a sound, workable, and realistic way, this Congress must address the issue of the millions of undocumented workers who are already in our country. All of these components are absolutely essential to ensuring our security as a nation.

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

Madam President, I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer for allowing me to come over at this point in time. I shall take but a few minutes to address the Senate and the American public about the passing of a dearly beloved colleague with whom I and other Members of this great Senate have shared a friendship through the many years.

Each of us is deeply saddened at the passing yesterday evening of this valued friend and colleague. I first came to know him in 1995, when he took the seat of Malcolm Wallop. I had known Malcolm Wallop very well, still know him quite well. He was a very strong-minded, able, tough U.S. Senator, tough in the sense that he was a man of resolute convictions.

We wondered who would take his place. Craig Thomas took Senator Wallop's place, and I think even Senator Wallop, were he here today to address the Senate, would agree he has followed in the footsteps of many great Senators who have come from the great State of Wyoming.

He also served as a Marine officer from 1955 to 1959. He entered as a private and was released as a captain. I say, with a sense of humility, I entered the Marine Corps as a private and parted, many years later, as a captain. Therefore, we had a special bond.

But he was able, through the years, to carry on I think one of the great attributes of the Corps--taught to all of us--and where I failed, he succeeded. I used to have a nickname for him. I called him: Ramrod. He did not have to say ``I was a marine'' because you could tell by the way he walked, the way he carried himself, and the way he had his chin always projecting. That is the way we were taught in the Marines. It fell by the wayside with this humble Senator, but it never left the posture of that great marine and great Senator.

As marines served over the past 5 years on the tip of the spear around the world, all of our marines, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan of recent, it was helpful for the Senate to have Senator Thomas's perspective in looking out for our marines in a very special way.

He was very active in the Marine Caucus, meeting for breakfast at 0800 in the morning, getting together, talking about years past, years present, and years in the future. Each year, the Commandant of the Marine Corps would come over, and, quite understandably, the job fell to Senator Thomas, which he loved, to introduce the Commandant of the Marines.

I refer then to our Marine Corps Hymn, which all of us sing. And I quote one stanza:

Our flags unfurl'd to every breeze,

From dawn to setting sun.

The Sun has set on this great marine, and that is how I shall always remember him. Whatever the challenges facing us in the Senate, he was steadfast, unruffled, and committed to the task at hand, like the marine he was and always will be in our memories.

It is interesting, another characteristic of marines--our good friend, Conrad Burns, being one, and to some extent myself--we tend to be rather gregarious, somewhat undisciplined and rough and ready. But Senator Thomas was a very quiet man, very introspective in his thinking, with a smile on his face. But he could project his persona without some of the other attributes we marines pride ourselves in.

He chaired the Senate Rural Health Caucus. I am a member of that caucus, and I stop to think--I do not know how many are members of it-- it was an effective caucus. We got together particularly on issues of medical care and how, through the past decades, that care has shrunk in the rural areas because of the lack of young men and young women going in and practicing medicine and accepting the hardships and indeed the less pay the rural areas have. But he left his hallmark trying to encourage better medical care in those regions, which are in every State of our Union.

We both loved fishing. How many times we talked about trout fishing. He always said to me: John, I have a very special stream, almost untouched, largely unknown, but I will take you there someday, and you will experience a trip you will never forget. I have missed that trip.

His constituents, his loving family, and, above all, his wife Susan are in our thoughts and prayers. I ask colleagues to stop and think on those evenings when we got our evening engagements and we were, fortunately, going to be accompanied by our wives, that Susan would stand watch at the door of the Senate. I can see that spot. As you approach the Chamber, it is on the left, right there next to the column. I would always see her and wave a ``hello.''

So I say to her and her family, thank you for sharing in our lives the richness of the life of your Craig Thomas.

From one marine to another, I simply say: Fair Winds and Following Seas to you, sir. Semper Fi.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about my long-time great friend, advisor, and colleague, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, who just became the longest serving Republican Senator in the 218 year history of the United States Senate.

I have worked with Senator Stevens on a wide array of matters, but none more closely than national security and defense issues. Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye exemplify that extraordinary group of veterans, largely of World War II distinction and experience, that led the Senate I joined 28 years ago. They found the time to teach the new Senators, inspiring them to gain the experience to someday take their places of responsibility in the Senate. I owe a great deal of gratitude to that generation, and particularly to Ted.

He has loyally served the men and women of the Armed Forces throughout his long Senate career, particularly through his leadership positions on the Senate Appropriations Committee.

My good friend has compiled a remarkable record on national security, ranging from complex issues of global strategy all the way down to the very basic pay and quality of life issues for the men and women in uniform and their families. His own distinguished record in World War II as an aviator provides special insights into military matters.

Military matters, however, are not the only field in which the senior Senator from Alaska has invested his time and passion. Senator Stevens has also fought hard to find ways to meet America's energy needs, offering the extraordinary resources of his own State to meet these demands. I think back time and time again when Senator Stevens has taken to the Senate floor urging his colleagues to fully address America's demand for energy. Dressed in his trademark ``Hulk'' tie, he was a sight to behold and quite a force to reckon with. If only Congress had listened to Mr. Stevens a decade or two ago, not just limited to Alaska issues, but towards a broad world view on energy, America might not be so dependent on foreign oil today.

Senator Stevens truly loves Alaska. I remember one codel trip in particular. A few years back, Senator Stevens had escorted a small group of Senators, making stops along the way, up to Prudhoe Bay, one of the closest points to the Arctic. Senator Symms, our former colleague from Idaho, and I decided we had enough learning for the day. So, unwisely, we chose to play hookie and dashed from the group for an impromptu plunge in the frigid waters of Prudhoe Bay while the other Senators looked on in disbelief. We were quite a sight as we crawled ashore frozen to the bone.

Despite this experience, I am proud to say that Senator Stevens hasn't held my rowdiness against me, as he has invited me back to Alaska over the years.

Ted Stevens is not only a great champion for Alaska, American energy, and our Nation's armed forces, but he is also a champion of the Senate. One of the most lasting legacies he has had on this special body, and one of the legacies he has imparted on me, is his remarkable record of work with new senators from both sides of the aisle. Throughout many years, Senator Stevens has voluntarily stepped forward to counsel new colleagues about the history and intricacies of the legislative process in the Senate.

I am particularly indebted to him for helping me. Therefore, Mr. President, it is my honor and privilege to today congratulate my good friend, Senator Ted Stevens, on becoming the longest serving Republican in the Senate. Carry on, dear friend.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, Tuesday, May 22 was a memorable day in the life of the U.S. Senate. In keeping with longstanding tradition, each year, Senate spouses gather to give a luncheon in honor of the First Lady of the United States of America.

Last year, Landra Reid served as Chairman and Jeanne Warner served as co-chairman. The theme was a unique one, entitled, ``100 Dresses.'' This year, Jeanne Warner became Chairman, Grace Nelson became co- chairman and Landra Reid, together with over 20 Senate spouses, organized another highly successful and enjoyable luncheon. This year's event, entitled ``Heartfelt Safari,'' focused on the President and Mrs. Bush's initiative to help alleviate the plight of malaria in Africa. The number of deaths this year from malaria could be as high as two million, largely among children in Africa. Part of the proceeds from the luncheon will be donated to a well-respected not-for-profit charity--Malaria No More--that works to alleviate this tragic suffering.

In the evening, our two Senate leaders presided over a dinner honoring the Senate spouses. Senator Reid opened with a moving framework of remarks, humorously recounting how the esteemed author, Ralph Waldo Emerson, once spoke for over 2 hours at a Harvard University event in the 1830s. He quickly assured the audience he would not seek to match Emerson, and he then proceeded to give a very warm introduction of an honored guest, Placido Domingo. The renowned singer regaled the audience with anecdotes about his career and about America's growing interest in opera.

Senator McConnell concluded the evening, reciting the vital role performed by Senate spouses through the years. His remarks were warmly received by so many colleagues that I am privileged to offer for the Record, on behalf of all Senators, his thoughts, and I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record.

Madam President, we have seen recently where it is the intention of the President to designate Lieutenant General Lute to take a position in the administration as an Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as working with the National Security Council. I have known this fine officer for some time. I have done an overseas trip with him to Africa. We went down to Liberia at a time of great trouble down there with a change in the administration. I have seen him working on the Joint Staff. I have had the opportunity to be briefed by him. I want to lend my strongest endorsement for this nomination.

I also wish to have printed in the Record the history of how active- duty military officers have been assistants to Presidents. I point out, from 1969 to 1970, General Haig was Military Assistant to the Presidential Assistant for National Security Affairs. General Haig then moved up in 1970 to be Deputy National Security Advisor. Then in 1973- 1974, he was White House Chief of Staff and, following that, he had other important positions.

General Scowcroft, while on active duty, was Deputy National Security Advisor from 1973 to 1975. Admiral John Poindexter was National Security Advisor from 1983 to 1985, National Security Advisor from 1985 to 1986. Lieutenant General Colin Powell was Deputy National Security Advisor in 1987 and then Colin Powell moved up to National Security Advisor from 1987 to 1989.

I will have printed in the Record a list of those individuals who served our Presidents in the past in a comparable way.

I think it would be advisable if the President were to determine that General Lute would have an exemption, a security exemption granted by the President, such that he does not have to respond to the committees of the Congress, to come up as a witness. Otherwise, he should get an annex office up on Capitol Hill to respond to the many inquiries that will be generated here on the Hill and focused on General Lute to make a response. I think he can be more effective to the President if he is given that waiver authority.

I urge my colleagues to look with an open mind at this nomination. I spoke to Chairman Levin today. He indicated as soon as the papers were forwarded, our committee, the Senate Armed Services Committee, would review it in the context of our authority to review the change of position and assignments of general and flag officers. It is in that context that we would have a hearing on this nomination. I hope thereafter we can report it to the floor and that the Senate will act favorably upon it.

I thank the Chair for its customary indulgence on this, and thank my colleague from Connecticut. I ask unanimous consent that list be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, among the four amendments this morning will be one submitted by me, together with my principal cosponsor, Senator Collins. The purpose of this amendment is to require the administration to keep the Congress well informed. The situation in Iraq changes almost daily. Our losses continue. In my judgment, it is the responsibility of every Member of the Congress to keep well versed on this situation, keep in mind the perspectives with regard to the strategy as enunciated by the administration, and maintain their own individual opinions about that strategy and how this operation is going. Daily, each of us must consult with our constituents. Regrettably, almost weekly many of us have to speak with families of the loved ones they have lost or those who have been seriously injured.

There are several parts to the amendment I put forward. I thank many Senators who worked with me--indeed,

both sides of the aisle, together with their professional staffs. The first part of the amendment goes through extensive findings, principally acknowledging the extraordinary heroism and bravery of the men and women wearing the uniform of our country, together with our coalition partners and the families who stand behind them. They unquestionably have performed in a manner consistent with the finest traditions of the professionalism of the U.S. military.

The findings also address the historical progress of the Iraqi Government in its formation, but also raises questions of the several benchmarks, benchmarks which were selected and composed by the Iraqi Government, announced by that government, and their commitments to trying to meet those benchmarks.

Taken together, I think it is very important that our strategy in Iraq be put in a position where it reflects in many respects the degree of success in meeting these benchmarks and, if these benchmarks are not met, then such changes as our President desires to make from his strategy as announced on January 10 of this year.

We, in this amendment, recite as the benchmarks that are most serious his forming a constitutional review committee and then completing the constitutional review; enacting and implementing legislation on debaathification; enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources of the people of Iraq without regard to sect or ethnicity of recipients; and enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner.

That is sort of a description of the basic category of these benchmarks. Then we go on to require the President of the United States to report on how this sovereign Government of Iraq is or is not achieving progress toward accomplishing the aforementioned benchmarks, and shall advise the Congress on how that assessment requires or does not require changes to the strategy announced on January 10, 2007.

Among the reports required, the President shall submit an initial report in classified and unclassified form to the Congress not later than June 15, 2007.

I purposely selected that date because our schedule reflects that this body will go into a recess for much of August. I think it is absolutely imperative every Member have the benefit of the latest possible assessment of the performance or nonperformance by the Iraqi Government of these benchmarks, as well as the situation in Iraq. So the President will do that on July 15, assessing the status of each of the benchmarks.

Next, the President, having consulted with the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, the commander of the multinational forces, General Petraeus, and Admiral Fallon, will prepare a report and submit to the Congress his findings. If the President's assessment of any of the specific benchmarks established above is unsatisfactory, the President shall include in that report a description of such revisions to the political--not just the military but the political, the economic, regional, and military components of the strategy as announced by the President on January 10, 2007.

In addition, the President shall include in the report the advisability of implementing such aspects of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group report as he deems appropriate. That was a very valuable report. I think it has provided a considerable number of guideposts that have been embraced by Members of this body.

Then the President shall submit a second report not later than September 15, 2007, following the same procedures and criteria enunciated above. The reporting requirement of the Armed Services Committee bill of last year will be waived through September 15 so as not to have duplication. Then testimony before the Congress. Prior to the submission of the President's second report on September 15, 2007, and at a time to be agreed upon by the leadership of the Congress and the administration, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and the commander of multinational forces, General Petraeus, will be made available to testify in open and closed sessions before the relevant committees of our Congress. There again, we get their independent report followed by that of the President.

We also place some limitations on the availability of the nonmilitary funding in this appropriations bill, such that the President can restrict that funding in those instances where he believes, first, there is more than adequate funding in the pipeline already and therefore it doesn't require the additional expenditure of funds; or, second, the Iraqi Government has substantial cash in their reserve accounts that could be applied to the nonmilitary aspects. Further, the President is given waiver authority with regard to the benchmarks so the flow of these funds is tied in some respects, again, to the performance of the benchmarks.

We also put a section in this report requiring the redeployment of our forces in such circumstances as the sovereign Iraqi Government, having taken actions consistent with their Constitution, should call upon the United States and other partners of the coalition forces to withdraw certain elements of their troops--respecting, once again, and placing upon them the obligation to fulfill the responsibilities of sovereignty.

Also, we put in this amendment requirements for independent analysis of much of the same material that is being reviewed by the administration. While we have over the years, for example, trained for now 2\1/2\ to 3 years, some 325,000 Iraqi armed forces and police, what is the ability of that trained group, such as it is, to take up more and more of the responsibility in the fighting, and particularly that fighting that relates to sectarian violence?

For that purpose, we have two parts. The first addresses the Comptroller General. He is being requested to make an assessment of all of the benchmarks as to whether they have been met or not met. Second, we appropriate a sum of money to fund an independent organization and a very senior, well-respected, retired, four-star officer to head up a military, professional assessment by the retired community, of the Iraqi forces. I think that is a pivotal part of this amendment. I just hesitate to think why any Member could vote against a provision saying that we need a fresh, new, independent assessment of the capabilities or lack of capabilities of the Iraqi security forces. That is in here.

Mr. President, I urge colleagues to carefully consider this amendment.

It is for their benefit to keep them informed, both requiring the administration to come forward with timely reports and testimony and, secondly, two independent organizations, one the Comptroller General to give an assessment of benchmarks and, second, that we have an organization well known to all of us here, a private sector organization to give support to a senior, highly respected uniform retired four-star general to make an assessment of the military capabilities of the Iraqi forces.

Again, I thank my colleagues. I particularly thank my principal cosponsor, the Senator from Maine, for her diligent effort throughout the preparation of this amendment as well as the previous initiatives we have taken on this floor over the past 2 months with respect to the President's policy, particularly the surge policy.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on that point, will the Senator yield?

We worked together on this provision for some time. It has been 2 months in the making. I supplied it to several colleagues in the House, notably Jim Moran, who is on the Appropriations Committee. They seized it and, verbatim, this provision with regard to establishing an ability to have, independent of the Pentagon, an assessment of the Armed Forces and security forces in Iraq is in the House appropriations bill now going into conference. So I believe it is imperative that we, this body, likewise put that provision in our Senate bill.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, I again wish to address the amendment I have put forward together with Senator Collins. I realize there is a provision in here with regard to a waiver, and that relates to the President's ability to redirect funds that are nonmilitary. But I say to my colleagues that while that particular section of this bill was amended at the last minute, the other sections absolutely remain strong and essential to keep this body informed; namely, the two independent studies, one to be performed by retired military with respect to the proficiency, capability, professional abilities of the Iraqi security forces; and, secondly, the one that requires the General Accounting Office to give an opinion with regard to the compliance or noncompliance of benchmarks.

So in this amendment, yes, I still think there is a lot of strength and validity to the provisions regarding the restriction of funds to be expended by our Government in terms of the nonmilitary spending. The other portions of this bill remain strong and should earn the support of all colleagues who wish to be kept advised of this ever-changing situation.

I yield the floor.

I yield back the time on this side.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we retrieve 4 minutes of the time.

I wish to address the very harsh criticism of my distinguished friend and leader.

I say to my friend, I have worked on this amendment. I spent a good deal of time in the office

of colleagues on the other side of the aisle yesterday, incorporated several provisions in this amendment at their request. I say it was a good-faith effort to do my very best to point out the need for this Senate and the Congress as a whole to get the most timely flow of information available to us, both from the President and from two independent groups. I say when you get a man of the stature of General Jones, who is willing to go out and work with private sector organizations to make a professional assessment of the military of Iraq, that, I say to my friend, the distinguished leader of the Democratic side, is not weak tea. That is a commitment by a very brave, credible American to try to help this institution, the Congress, have a better understanding about the viability and the professional capabilities of the Iraqi armed forces.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we feel the matters directed in the Feingold amendment have been addressed repeatedly by the Senate, and the Senate has spoken its will and rejected those concepts.

I yield the floor and urge my colleagues to vote against the Feingold amendment.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, I yield such time as the distinguished Republican leader requires.

Mr. President, the amendment embraces provisions which provide the ability for the Senate--indeed, the Congress as a whole--to become better advised with regard to the President's position on the compliance or noncompliance with the benchmarks, as well as an independent group headed by the former commandant of the Marine Corps, General Jones, as to the proficiency and the professional ability of the Iraqi security forces.

Secondly, another provision allows the GAO to give an independent analysis to the Congress on the Iraqi Government's achievement or nonachievement of the benchmarks. This is an amendment to help keep us informed. So when we proceed----

To go on the August recess, we will be better equipped to deal with this question on the public's behalf and to tell our constituents our own individual feelings about this controversial issue.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I rise to say a few brief words about the Reverend Jerry Falwell, who passed away earlier today at the age of 73.

I have personally known Reverend Falwell since I first ran for election to the U.S. Senate in 1978. And, since that time, I have come to befriend a man who in many ways became a pillar of strength and inspiration not only to his community of Lynchburg, VA, where he was born but indeed to people around the world.

Throughout the 28-plus years that I have had the good fortune of representing the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia in the U.S. Senate, Reverend Falwell was always a constituent of mine, and he would often offer his counsel to me about pressing matters of the day. He would always do so in a polite, yet firm manner.

While I might not have always agreed with him, I have always admired Reverend Falwell, particularly for his unwavering commitment to what he thought was right. Jerry Falwell never ran from controversy, and he always stuck to his beliefs.

Indeed, I believe it was the firmness of his convictions that, in part, allowed Jerry Falwell to achieve so much success in whatever he undertook in life. He was an intensely driven man.

At the age of 22 he started a Baptist church in Lynchburg, VA, with 35 members. Reportedly, on the first Sunday his congregation met in 1956, the first offering totaled $135. Today, that same church has upwards of 24,000 members and annual revenues of all of his ministries total over $200 million.

In 1971, Jerry Falwell founded Liberty University--a liberal arts, Christian institution of higher education. Today, Liberty University employs more than 1,000 Virginians and educates more than 20,000 students a year either on its campus or through distance learning programs.

In my view, the thousands and thousands of students who Liberty has educated these many years will undoubtedly be one part of Reverend Falwell's strong legacy that will last for generations.

My thoughts and prayers today go out to the Falwell family, including his beloved wife of nearly 50 years, and his three children.

While I am up, I wonder if I could indicate to the managers that I intend to

file an amendment tonight along the lines established by the distinguished majority leader regarding amendments to be considered on this bill which relate to the appropriations bill now being formulated to provide for the funds for the troops. I think it is the wisdom of the two leaders jointly that on this bill those Senators who wish to have language attached to any appropriations bill would make known their desires through adding an amendment on this bill. Cloture will be filed on such amendments for tomorrow. If my amendment is selected by the Republican leader, then I understand it would be subject to a cloture vote tomorrow. But it would at least give me and my principal cosponsor, Senator Collins, the opportunity to express our two views and others who have been associated with us to likewise join in expressing their views. I will do that following the vote tonight.

I yield the floor and thank the managers.

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

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