Floor Statements

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

Mr. President, when the matter of the pending Gulf of Mexico Energy Bill was first brought to my attention, and every day thereafter, I repeatedly spoke to the distinguished managers of this legislation about the need for States other than those specifically cared for in this legislation--namely, the Gulf States--the other coastal States to be permitted to amend this bill such that coastal States could begin the long process of asserting our rights as coastal States to those energy resources that, in all probability, are on the Outer Continental Shelf. Therefore, I readied an amendment that I send to the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record following my statement.

My amendment represents a unique opportunity for this Senate, and indeed the entire Nation as a whole, to seek to determine if we cannot, as several coastal States, help our Nation in this dire need for additional sources of natural gas, and possibly, in some instances, States might elect to include oil, to meet the ever-looming resource crisis.

I remember when the Energy bill which is now law was passed by the Senate. I stood at this very desk and I had an amendment very similar to the one which I am speaking about today. When that amendment was pushed to one side, I said I would stand here again, and here I am again today. But I understand--this is the 28th year I have been in the Senate--there are parliamentary means under the rules of the Senate to preclude Senators from offering amendments, and as such, I am being denied that opportunity.

The bill before us today represents a step in the right direction-- and I commend those who have worked on it--to open access to more natural gas and oil in the Gulf of Mexico. However, I, like many others in this body, believe that more must be done because there is such a time lag between the potential passage of my amendment and the actual recovery of gas and oil from any of these moratorium states. We have to begin, and I had hoped on this bill I could mark that beginning.

I worked with many of my colleagues on a proposal to address this supply issue by giving opportunities to the individual States to open up areas in the Outer Continental Shelf waters for the future potential exploration of gas and oil; thus, the coastal States. The amendment I crafted would address the current moratorium on energy and exploration in most of America's Outer Continental Shelf and is the evolution of various amendments and bills I have offered since the debate on last year's Energy Policy Act. It would give States the authority to extend the current moratorium prohibiting oil and gas development in most of the Nation's offshore waters or petition for waivers on their own terms to contribute to the Nation's energy supply. The facts, as I understand them, are as follows:

U.S. demand for natural gas will grow by 40 percent in this country in the next decade to decade and a half. The demand for oil in the United States will grow by 31 percent over the same period of time. At current rates, domestic production will only meet one-third--I repeat-- one-third of our demand growth, leaving us increasingly dependent on politically unstable regions. I shall not recount all of them because they are growing by day. Regrettably, it looks as if Venezuela, from which we receive a good deal of our energy supplies, could be placed in the column of ``politically unstable.'' Indeed, many parts of Africa have become unstable, and we all know at this very moment the tragic situation that is unfolding in the Middle East.

We must also be aware of the virtually exponential growth and demand in the developing nations, all competing in the world market for this fungible good named ``energy.'' China's energy consumption has grown by over 100 percent in the past 20 years. It is expected to double again in the next 20 years. Mexico's natural gas demand is expected to double by 2025. Energy consumption in India is expected to more than double in the next 20 years.

We are too dependent indeed on overseas supplies, so we turn to our continental limits. Indeed, the question at hand is about the Gulf of Mexico. The bill authored by Chairman Domenici does increase our supplies, and I am very hopeful the Senate will act in passing this important piece of legislation. I propose to support it.

I want to make clear that more must be done outside the Gulf of Mexico. With 20 percent to 25 percent of our domestic oil and gas production located in the Gulf of Mexico, we simply have to diversify our geographic supply.

The Gulf of Mexico is subject to natural disasters. It is a tragic situation, but history records it. As a result of last year's hurricanes alone, we will lose 30 percent of our oil and 21 percent of our projected annual natural gas from in the Gulf of Mexico. This is all because of the extended closure of a significant number of platforms. In fact, a report issued last month by the Department of Interior states that 12 percent of U.S. oil production in the Gulf of Mexico remains shut in almost a year after last summer's events. Hopefully, that production will eventually return to normal levels, but it shows a certain degree of fragility in that area of the United States upon which we rely for such a high percentage of our energy requirements.

The bill Chairman Domenici has brought to the floor will open up more than 8 million acres of oil and gas production. The amendment I propose would not directly open any areas or mandate any production. However, depending on the will of the individual States--and that is a combination of, depending on the State, the Governor, the legislature, and indeed the people themselves--my proposal would provide the opportunity for up to 350 million acres--mind you, 8 million acres under this bill pending--350 million acres to be considered for development. That is the coastal area around the United States.

Now, I fully recognize the concerns of the environmentalists, and many times I have tried to work on this, but we have to strike a balance. We must do that. We have an obligation to our citizens. Modern technology has enabled the drillers to put down pipes and other devices to extract the oil and gas which, if subjected to a natural disaster or other problem, seal up quickly and do not spew forth into the pristine ocean and on to the shores the pollution we have witnessed in other catastrophic situations usually involving the transportation of oil from overseas. The Minerals Management Service reports that since 1980, 4.7 billion barrels of oil have been produced offshore with a spill rate of less than one-thousandth of one percent. Technology has progressed and it must be accepted that production of and protection of our natural resources are not mutually exclusive opportunities.

Based upon preliminary resource estimates, my amendment could provide more than $2 billion in new Federal revenues and over $1 billion to States and their citizens that are willing to accept whatever risks still remain, who authorize production in Federal waters off their shores over the next 10 years.

Many of my colleagues have expressed concerns about the Gulf of Mexico bill, and they stem from what is in the House bill. They said they do not want to lift the moratorium as the House bill would do. Well, I am not going to inject myself into the conference. I will leave that to the able leadership of others. However, I will say that my amendment would not lift one square inch of the current Federal moratorium. Instead, it would establish a process by which the States can petition the Secretary of Interior, subject to their own specifications, for a waiver from the moratorium on natural gas or oil production in most of the Outer Continental Shelf. If a State would rather continue the moratorium beyond 2012, the amendment establishes a process that would authorize the extension of that moratorium for up to 10 additional years. The principle of my amendment is simply to enable

the individual States to have more control over the waters off their coasts than they do today and more control than they would under the recently passed House bill.

I support the effort to open up areas of the Gulf of Mexico to enhanced energy production. However, it is my sincere hope that the Members of this body do not believe that this alone will solve our oil and gas supply problem. More must be done in conservation and more must be done in the area of American production.

The time has come for the Senate to act on the issue of American production of natural gas and oil. Energy Security is National Security and for the people of America to be dependent upon foreign sources of energy is dangerous to our economy and our way of life.

I have offered a balanced approach to address supply needs and environmental concerns. This is the way for all States to have a say in the policy. The current moratorium expires in 2012 and without legislation like that which I propose, these States would have no guarantee of protection.

Mr. President, I see a number of our colleagues waiting here. But I will return to this floor time and time again, as long as I can draw breath, to fight for the rights of the individual coastal States to decide for themselves--not to be mandated by the Federal Government but to decide for themselves whether they want to step up and help America reach its energy needs.

Now, I have talked to the managers of this bill--and at some point, maybe I can have a colloquy put into the Record today--but some assurances are being given to Senators who, like myself, represent the coastal States to see whether the legislation along the lines of the bill I have introduced today, a copy of which is appended to this statement, can, once again, be brought before this Chamber.

Exhibit 1

Beginning on page 17, strike line 19 and all that follows

through page 18, line 17 and insert the following:

(f) Limitations on Amount of Distributed Qualified Outer

Continental Shelf Revenues and Covered Revenues.--

(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the total amount

of qualified outer Continental Shelf revenues and covered

revenues made available under subsection (a)(2) and section

6(j)(1)(B) shall not exceed $500,000,000 for each of fiscal

years 2016 through 2055.

(2) Expenditures.--For the purpose of paragraph (1), for

each of fiscal years 2016 through 2055, expenditures under

subsection (a)(2) and section 6(j)(1)(B) shall be net of

receipts from that fiscal year from any area in the 181 Area

in the Eastern Planning Area, the 181 South Area, or any area

off the coastline of a covered State.

(3) Pro rata reductions.--If paragraph (1) limits the

amount of qualified outer Continental Shelf revenue or

covered revenues that would be paid under subparagraphs (A)

and (B) of subsection (a)(2) or clauses (i) and (ii) of

section 6(j)(1)(B)--

(A) the Secretary shall reduce the amount of qualified

outer Continental Shelf revenue and covered revenue provided

to each recipient on a pro rata basis; and

(B) any remainder of the qualified outer Continental Shelf

revenues and covered revenues shall revert to the general

fund of the Treasury.

I am happy to do so.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Louisiana. Indeed, in two consecutive sessions of the General Assembly of Virginia, this subject has been on the agenda and bills have been passed by the House of Delegates and State Senate to send bills to the Governor. For whatever reason, Governor Warner--I am not here to criticize, but he saw fit not to let the bill become legislation, and Governor Kaine likewise disapproved of the language this past legislative session encouraging offshore development. I think progress has been made in our legislature as evidenced by the overwhelming votes of more than 75 percent of the State Senate and House of Delegates on this year's bill, and clearly the legislature is speaking for the people of Virginia, and they are ready to take on this challenge and to accept the consequences, whatever they may be. But I repeat: I think technology has gotten to the point where that risk is minimal, in my judgment. How it would affect adjoining States, that is subject to debate. If there were a mishap off the shore of Virginia and depending on the winds, the drift, the seas, and other things, if there were an accident which did emit some pollution, I am not sure anyone could write that into law as to what happens. It is important to note that my amendment includes provisions requiring the concurrence of neighboring states that would be within twenty miles of any production and, as I have said before, modern technology has made these risks very minimal.

But it is an important aspect worth consideration--any legislation of the type I have offered. But it would seem to me collectively the coastal States should look to this as a possible increase in their energy and financial resources. As a matter of fact, my bill allows the citizens of any coastal State authorizing such production to retain a significant part of the proceeds from such drilling. I thank you for asking the question.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to congratulate the dedicated leadership and employees of Fairfax Water. Their vision and hard work has paved the way for the opening of the Frederick P. Griffith, Jr. Water Treatment Facility on July 15, 2006. The Griffith plant is truly state of the art and we are proud that the Commonwealth has such an entity leading the way and setting such high standards for the rest of the country. Leaders at Fairfax Water truly recognize the importance of protecting our natural resources and preserving the facets of the surrounding area.

I think it is most important to recognize that this new facility embodies our Nation's commitment to homeland security. The Griffith plant is equipped with numerous security measures which go a long way to ensure that Fairfax Water's nearly 1.5 million customers are well protected from potential threats be they natural or manmade. This is comforting to know especially when one considers the large number of critical government facilities which are served by Fairfax Water. These facilities include Fort Belvoir U.S. Army Reservation, Fort Belvoir Proving Grounds, facilities of the Central Intelligence Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Laboratories, U.S. Navy Family Housing, U.S. Coast Guard Information Systems Center, facilities of the General Services Administration, facilities of the U.S. Department of State; and office space and warehouses for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. As the senior Senator from the Commonwealth of Virginia, I am proud that these important installations are in my State. They provide many crucial services to all Americans, and have responsibilities beyond the Commonwealth. I am proud that Fairfax Water serves its local and national constituencies so well.

Mr. President, I am sure that my colleagues will join me in offering congratulations and continued success to my friends at Fairfax Water.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and pay tribute to RADM James E. McPherson, the Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy. Admiral McPherson will retire from the Navy on July 28, 2006, having completed over 27 years of distinguished service to our Nation.

Admiral McPherson, a native of San Diego, is a graduate of San Diego State University and University of San Diego Law School. He also earned a master of laws degree from the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School.

Admiral McPherson began his military career as an enlisted man in the U.S. Army. He served over 3 years as a military policeman at the Presidio of San Francisco, with the Eighth Army in South Korea, and with the First Infantry Division. Notably, he is the first Navy Judge Advocate General to begin his career as an enlisted man. After receiving his commission as an ensign and completing Naval Justice School in Newport, RI, Admiral McPherson was assigned as an Assistant Force Judge Advocate for Commander, Naval Air Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet. He continued his distinguished career with assignments at the Naval Legal Service Office in Norfolk, VA; the Naval Air Station, Cubi Point in the Philippines; and as Command Judge Advocate onboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt. Following completion of graduate school, Admiral McPherson returned to the Naval Legal Service Office in Norfolk and served tours as senior defense counsel and senior trial counsel. He was then assigned as Force Judge Advocate for Commander, Submarine Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet; the assistant for legal and legislative matters for the vice chief of Naval Operations; and as special counsel to the Chief of Naval Operations. In September 2000,

Admiral McPherson assumed command of Trial Service Office East in Norfolk, and in October 2002, he was promoted to rear admiral and assigned as the Deputy Judge Advocate General and Commander, Naval Legal Service Command. Admiral McPherson assumed his current duties as the 39th Judge Advocate General of the Navy in November 2004.

The Nation, the United States Navy, and the Judge Advocate General's Corps have been fortunate to enjoy the talents and dedication of such a distinguished and wonderful gentleman. Admiral McPherson's commitment to the rule of law strengthened the Navy, and he has served this Nation well. I know all of my colleagues join me in congratulating Admiral McPherson on the occasion of his retirement, and we wish him fair winds and following seas.

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

Mr. President, I seek recognition to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished manager of this bill, Senator Inhofe, and the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, pertaining to a provision that would clarify that funds from the Department of Defense account for environmental remediation at formerly used Defense sites may be used for the removal of abandoned marine camels at any formerly used Defense site under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense.

First, perhaps for those who are not familiar with marine and naval terminology, it would be useful to point out that a ``marine camel'' is nothing more than a large timber fender. These wooden fenders, or bumpers, are of the type that have been used since the days of sail to cushion a ship as it lays alongside a pier, or to act as a buffer between two or more ships when they are tied up alongside each other, either at a pier, a mooring, or at anchor. The purpose of the camel is to prevent damage to a ship or a pier that would otherwise occur when a ship rocks against a pier or against another ship due to shifting tides, currents, wakes from passing ships, and so forth.

The problem this provision seeks to solve is that over the many years these marine camels have been in use at naval facilities, marine terminals, and moorings controlled and operated by the Department of Defense, they have been lost, sunk, or otherwise have become hazardous debris, often containing hazardous substances, in the waters and on the shores of formerly used Defense sites in Narragansett Bay.

The purpose of this colloquy is to establish that the provision that has been included in the Water Resources Development Act is not an expansion of existing authority. This provision is clear that use of Department of Defense funds is linked to formerly used Defense sites that are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense. Therefore, this provision clarifies but does not expand the authority or responsibility of the Department of Defense to undertake environmental restoration.

Further, it is also my understanding and I wish to make clear as part of our discussion that this provision is not intended to give a priority to clean up sites in Narragansett Bay over other formerly used Defense sites that present a greater risk to public health and safety.

The Department of Defense establishes the priority for cleanup of formerly used Defense sites on the basis of risk to the public. The Senate Armed Services Committee has long supported the Department's policy of prioritizing environmental cleanup based on risk. We stand committed to that principle today. I ask my distinguished colleague to confirm that he shares my understanding on these fundamental points.

With that understanding, I support this provision and I believe it may be helpful in ensuring that this cleanup in the Narragansett Bay takes place, as it should.

Mr. President, yesterday the Senate was advised by hotline that this resolution would be voted on last night by voice vote. I indicated a desire to be allowed to speak for no more than 15 minutes before the vote, and that was agreed to. I said explicitly when further inquiry came to me that I would not in any way--in any way-- object to the Senate, if the leadership so desired, to voting on that measure last night by voice vote. I went back, checked with the senior staff of our cloakroom, and they verified it. There are e-mails to the effect that I said that.

I did have an opportunity to speak last night at length--it is in yesterday's Congressional Record--regarding my concerns about that legislation, although I indicated in large measure I supported almost every provision, and we just participated in a voice vote where, in effect, my vote was counted in the ``yea'' column.

Mr. President, I call to the attention of my colleagues my statement of yesterday beginning at page S7624.

Mr. President, I awakened this morning to determine that the press is reporting the following:

The Senate had been expected to quickly pass a resolution

Monday night, but Armed Services Committee Chairman John W.

Warner of Virginia blocked the vote.

That message was skillfully distributed throughout the world--the worldwide press. It made CNN and other responsible news organizations. That was the deliberate attempt by some individual or individuals to distort the truth, to distort what is in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to say that the remarks I made last night were, in part, taken into consideration, and the resolution which the Senate will soon vote on does reflect what my principal concern was with regard to the first draft; namely, that there was no reference to some--upwards of 25,000 Americans seeking to return or leave that war- torn area. Consequently, there is a provision, No. 11, placed in this resolution which says:

Recognizes that thousands of American nationals reside

peacefully in Lebanon, and that those American nationals in

Lebanon concerned for their safety should receive the full

support and assistance of the United States Government.

I am glad I did what I did--made it clear that this has worked its way into the Record. There are other concerns that I have which are cited in the statement that I made yesterday and I am delighted to have the opportunity to correct what was a deliberate attempt to distort the record.

I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague. We have another distinguished colleague here. It is my understanding that at 8 o'clock, the time of the distinguished Senator from Kansas now shifts to the other side of the aisle, but my colleague said he only wants 3 or 4 minutes.

I will try to compress my time in 10 minutes.

I am here to accommodate all.

Would the Senator like to finish his remarks?

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.

During the course of the day, there was brought to the attention of the Members of the Senate a resolution regarding the situation in the Middle East. It was my understanding this resolution would be brought to the Senate tonight and that presumably it would be agreed to by the Senate.

My concern is that there are certain additional matters which should be included. If the Senate is going to exercise the important act of bringing this up, seeking unanimous consent, and the message goes out all over the world that the Senate has spoken, I would support what is in this resolution. I believe now that is not going to take place tonight for various reasons.

It is imperative that I address what was to have taken place, what I was told was to have taken place, assuming the unanimous consent could be achieved on both sides.

No. 1, this matter is so important, it deserves an opportunity for a number of Senators to speak on a resolution of this import. I am now advised by our cloakroom that it will not be taken up tonight, but I will take this opportunity to address parts of it or at least one part that I think should bear further careful drafting and possibly be changed. Otherwise, it is only one section, on page 3, item 3, which says:

(3) urges the President to continue fully supporting Israel

as Israel exercises its right of self-defense in Lebanon and

Gaza;

There is no question about their right of self-defense against Hezbollah and Hamas, but I wondered whether we should draft it in this way.

I urge those, since we are not going to take it up tonight, to make sure there is not an ambiguity there because the people of Lebanon are suffering enormously at this time, as are the people in Gaza. Many of those people are not aligned with either Hezbollah or Hamas.

I am also concerned about the Government in Lebanon and the actions which are taking place now, what do we do if that Government were to fall.

I would vote for this resolution if it were brought up tonight. I would have addressed the Senate and brought up other matters which I will now discuss.

I turn now again to the fact that this is so important, it deserves the consideration of every Senator and a debate of some length. I don't know about the schedule of the Senate, but if we are going to go forward and send a message to the world about our position in the Senate with respect to the conflicts in Palestine, Lebanon, and Israel, and the suffering that is taking place on all borders, each side of the various borders, then it deserves very careful consideration.

The purpose of me taking the floor is to point out some areas which deserve full consideration in that debate which are not included. I don't criticize the drafter of this resolution, but it requires the consideration of the whole Senate rather than a unanimous consent with a number of Senators who may not be here tonight.

In the course of that debate, I urge a larger focus. For example, there is no mention in the resolution of some perhaps 25,000 Americans who are trapped or engulfed in one way in this conflict. How best do we address this conflict to help protect those 25,000 persons? That is an essential part of this debate.

Second, I said the following on Friday night in response to a press inquiry when I first learned of this conflict:

While I fully recognize that Israel was a victim of

provocative attacks on her people and sovereignty, I urge the

Administration to think through very carefully how Israel's

extraordinary reaction could affect our operations in Iraq

and our joint diplomatic efforts to resolve the Iranian

nuclear issue.

This is a very critical time for the United States in the

Middle East, and the Israeli actions will certainly have an

impact beyond just Lebanon and Gaza.

I stand by that statement. That is why I urge, and I am pleased to say this resolution, at such time as it would be brought up, will be broadened to cover the other points.

First, are the 25,000 Americans trapped? Second, this Nation has made a very great sacrifice to achieve goals established by our President and a coalition of forces associated with our country in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Over 2,500 have lost their lives in Iraq; over 300 have lost their lives in Afghanistan. That is U.S. forces. Our coalition partners have lost. We have 20,000-plus wounded, many severely wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. And $436 billion is a rough calculation of just a part, not all, but a significant part of the investment of our country in achieving our goals in those nations, of stabilizing their governments now with free elections in both countries and hopefully enabling those governments to gain the strength to provide for the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan, a measure of liberty and freedom and possibly democracy which we enjoy here and in other nations.

What is the effect of any statement made by the Senate? What is the effect on that very fragile situation in both countries? There is a resurgence in Afghanistan. I was just there a short time ago--and each of us have followed the

news to date--a resurgence in the fighting. NATO has come in.

We cannot just address one portion of the Middle East conflict without seeing how the manner in which we address that could affect the other areas, notably Afghanistan and Iraq.

So I say to my colleagues, as I said Friday night, we urge our President, our administration, as they take such, hopefully, bold and firm and convincing initiatives in regard to the conflicts in Israel and Gaza and Lebanon, to be mindful of how it could impact on our conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq and our negotiations thus far with Iran in participating with other nations--not unilaterally--to try to bring about some resolution of what many of us considered up until this conflict--and I am not sure how we are going to eventually characterize the magnitude and the future potential spreading of this conflict--but certainly up until this conflict, in my judgment, the potential of Iran gaining nuclear weapons was absolutely--there was nothing more serious, in my judgment, than to try to resolve that.

There is no reference in here to the other Arab nations. It is quite interesting; some of those nations have come forward in strong condemnation, joined our country, joined other nations, in condemning Hamas and Hezbollah. That is of importance.

Now we see today that so many nations say the United States must take a stronger role in trying to work our way through this conflict, yes, supporting Israel but at the same time trying to bring about some resolution to spare the life and limb and suffering in Palestine, Lebanon, and Israel, to see that it not spread to other areas.

Now, our President has indicated that the Secretary of State will soon embark on a mission. What we say in the Senate must be carefully drafted so it does not remove the flexibility that our Secretary of State--a very able person--will need in helping to resolve this problem.

So I say that historically this Nation has stood steadfast, and I am proud that I have been among those in this Chamber in my 28 years here, to strongly support Israel. Our Nation is viewed upon as an honest broker--recognizing our support of Israel but as an honest broker. If the world is going to look to us as to how we can provide that leadership, I do not want any loss of flexibility on the part of the President and the Secretary of State and such others who may be tasked to try to work out this situation.

Yes, I conclude our support for Israel is very strong, Mr. President, but it cannot be unconditional.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I respectfully request that on vote No. 198 my vote be recorded as yea. It will not make a difference in the final tally.

I thank the Chair.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I believe at this time I am scheduled. Does the Senator from Pennsylvania have control of the time?

I will take a few minutes.

Mr. President, I was completing my luncheon and walking through the hallway back to my office when a reporter in a very respectful way spoke with me and asked how I intended to vote on this amendment.

I said I intended to vote as I have done three previous times; basically to support it, the other options.

He said: What is the driving force? Is it your highest priority? And he asked a series of questions in a very polite way which really said: Stop and think what it is I am about to do and why I am about to do it.

I gave him a reply which follows along these lines: I listened to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania yesterday referring with a deep sense of emotional pride about how his family had proudly worn the uniform of our country, and most particularly his father who was in the great Army that went over in 1917-1918 to save Europe, in World War I, and how he was severely wounded in the Battle of the Argonne.

I checked my own father's record. I, of course, have it proudly on the wall in my Senate office. He served in World War I. He was engaged in several major battles. He was a doctor in the trenches and cared for the wounded. He was in the Battle of the Argonne. How do we know perhaps my father rendered medical assistance to Senator Specter's father. But those things are instilled in sons and daughters by their parents.

When it came time for me to proudly raise my right arm and volunteer in World War II, I did so because of my father and how proud he was, as was my mother, who, incidentally, was with the American Red Cross in World War I tending to the wounded in the hospitals in the United States.

In my father's library in which I grew up as a small boy, there were remnants and artifacts that he brought back from France from the 1917- 1918 experiences. I remember a small American flag, his helmet, his old belt, and

several other artifacts, and how he and my brother and I treasured them as young persons.

My military service is of no great consequence. I did have the opportunity for a short period in the final year of the war to go through the training command, but I remember very well I was then just in the training part of it--I think, out of boot camp or perhaps in boot camp--seeing that flag raised on Iwo Jima. We didn't know at that time in February-March of 1945 how long that war was going to last. We had no idea. We just experienced the Battle of the Bulge in which the final thrust of the German forces trapped so many of our soldiers with unexpected casualties in the 40,000s in that battle and now Iwo Jima, some 17,000 I think killed, wounded, and missing in that battle for about 5 weeks.

I remember the picture of that flag going up. Now we see it on the monuments out here which the Marines revere so deeply.

That was one of the reasons I later joined the Marine Corps and served for another period on active duty, this time in Korea as a young officer with the Marines. There was no particular valorous service, just like many others. You raised your arm and did what you were told to do and thanked God you got home in one piece. That is what we were all glad to do.

So I am very humble about what little active service I had. But I have had the privilege of being associated with the men and women of the Armed Forces for over a half century, now in this Chamber serving with others, again, 28 years on the Senate Armed Services Committee doing everything we can for the men and women of the Armed Forces.

So I told this reporter that I felt I had a duty to those who had worn the uniform of our country so proudly in these many years that I was privileged to be associated and learn from them and profit from them and my experience in the military.

It has been a great, wonderful opportunity for me to have this service in the Senate and have as a part of it the responsibilities. So I thought I would recount some statistics.

In World War I, the conflict in which our fathers served, I say to Senator Specter, 116,000 killed, 204,000 wounded; World War II, 405,000 killed, 671,000 wounded; Korea, 54,000 killed, 103,000 wounded; Vietnam, 58,000 killed, 153,000 wounded; Desert Storm, that is the first engagement with Saddam Hussein's forces, 382 killed, 467 wounded; Afghanistan, 291 killed, 750 wounded; the second battle with Saddam Hussein, Iraqi Freedom, 2,521 killed, over 18,000 wounded.

Most, if not all, of those brave men, and I expect some women--I fully anticipate women were included--came back to their beloved country from those foreign lands and at some point before they were finally put into Mother Earth an American flag was put on that casket. There is not a one of us in this Chamber who has not had the privilege to go to those services. There is not a one of us whose throat hasn't swelled or whose eyes haven't welled up when that takes place.

So, Mr. President, that flag symbolizes the everlasting--I repeat everlasting--gratitude of the citizens of this great Nation for that giving of a life in the cause of freedom. I could do no less than proudly stand here and vote ``aye'' for this amendment, as I shall do.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I yield to myself such time as I may require. I thank the Senator from Arizona. He has been a very strong voice, not only in this debate but all debates.

Once again, to me, the debate today hinges around getting this new Government, in which we have invested an awful lot over these 18 months in life and limb, dollars, and in every other way, up and running. It is now running, Mr. President. I have just left a meeting with the Secretary of Defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and General Casey, the field commander in Iraq, who were briefing a few of us this morning. Clearly, that Government is setting down its roots, getting stabilized, operating as a sovereign entity. We must give them that support and not send a signal that we are going to pull, possibly, the rug out from under them because it is our security environment, together with the coalition partners, that is enabling that Government to function.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, in fairness, we should give the sponsors of the Kerry-Feingold amendment the opportunity to speak to the Senate.

My understanding, Madam President, is that Senator Kerry has approximately 7\1/2\ minutes; is that correct?

Madam President, before we start on the next speaker, as I understand it, the standing order recites that the Levin amendment would be the first vote. If I understand the request of the distinguished colleague from Michigan, there is a preference to have it switched so that the Kerry vote will be first. Is that a request being propounded?

Madam President, there will be no objection on this side to that request. So for the advice of all Senators, the first vote that will occur will be on the Kerry-Feingold amendment to be followed by the Levin-Reed amendment.

I yield such time as the distinguished Senator requires.

Madam President, I commend my longtime friend from Arizona. He in a very succinct way looked at this debate in the context of what is going on today and tomorrow and the weeks and months to come in Iraq, but he is also looking at it in the context of the future, how generations that follow us will look back on this chapter and moment in history and how the Congress of the United States, hopefully, has given support to the Commander in Chief under the Constitution--our President--to direct the operations of the current conflicts.

The Senator also touched on how we have conducted this debate. I wish to just repeat a few remarks of my opening remarks yesterday with respect to my colleague from Michigan in addressing his amendment. I said that I have studied it carefully. I did not denounce the amendment; I said it was a serious amendment, and it is a serious amendment. It deserves serious thought, and I, and I think others, have given that serious thought to our colleague on his amendment. But I strongly oppose it.

Unlike last year where I sat down and was able to work out with him a conciliatory, bipartisan amendment which got three-quarters of the votes of the Senate, it just, in the form he presented it, was not an option this time. Therefore, regrettably, we approach these critically important votes with far greater partisanship than I had hoped. I had hoped we would have greater bipartisanship.

But my basic message to America and to my colleagues is that we have put an enormous investment into these conflicts, both in Iraq and in Afghanistan. We are focusing today on Iraq, but we have to look at the others.

Madam President, 2,500-plus Americans have lost their lives and left families and loved ones grieving, and 18,000 have survived their wounds and are working to reestablish themselves, many going back into uniform or having never left uniform, but remaining in, which is to their everlasting credit, but others receiving the love and the care of their families and their communities in which they live. There has been enormous sacrifice. We have dollars incalculable in amounts.

Also, what we have on the line is the credibility of the United States of

America. The voice of this Senate will be recorded momentarily. I am optimistic it will be recorded in a way to support the President and his statements that we are there to work with the Iraqi people, to establish their democracy, which they have worked on these 18 months, now with a permanent, unified government, and to try to let this Government of only weeks establish itself, send its roots into the ground, derive its strength, and begin to govern and govern fully a sovereign nation and take on all of the responsibilities.

Both of these amendments, the amendment of the Senator from Michigan and the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts, would send a message which would indicate there is some wavering, some equivocation here at home in supporting our President, the Commander in Chief, and that goes to the basic credibility of the United States of America, which is on the line in these votes.

There is not one of us here who doesn't desire to have our forces brought home at the earliest possible date, but the formulation by which they can come home rests on the ability of this Government to seize those reins, to establish that security, to rebuild that infrastructure, and gain the confidence and the respect of the Iraqi people. That is a tough job, given the strong dissent between the various religious factions, but this Government appears to be up to it. It must be given a chance. It cannot be crippled at this earliest stage by messages coming from this Chamber and elsewhere that we have less than full confidence in their ability to achieve the goals of a full democracy in Iraq, and they are taking the reins to direct their people. Our credibility is on the line, Madam President.

So I say to my colleagues as you approach this vote, it will be one of the most important that you have ever cast. Future generations of Americans will look back upon this very moment to determine if two branches of our Government, the executive and the legislative, stood side by side in honoring those who have given their lives, their wounds, and the 1 million other men and women of the Armed Forces, plus untold American citizens who, in the years of the Iraqi conflict, have gone over and accepted the risks of serving there, be that in the military or civilian capacities. This is a very heavy investment which has been made by many thousands of courageous Americans to see that we have gotten to where we are today; namely, a new government, a unity government, and to give that government a chance to function without in any way jeopardizing that by sending a signal that we have less than full confidence in their ability to achieve their goals.

Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

I reserve the remainder of the time.

Madam President, I had intended to reserve a brief period of time for the President pro tempore, Mr. Stevens, but in his absence, I will just once again conclude.

The message today is whether we are here to uphold the credibility of the United States of America, as stated most eloquently by our President, as we have come to establish a new government in Iraq. That has been achieved. It has now been 18 months since the beginning of their elections, brave elections, followed by the establishment of a unity government. That Government is functioning, and we must give it an opportunity to govern.

Our President said it most succinctly upon his return from Iraq:

My message to the Iraqi people is this: Seize the moment.

Seize this opportunity to develop a government of and by and

for the people. And I also have a message to the Iraqi

people, that when America gives a commitment, America keeps

its commitment.

I yield the floor and yield back any time remaining.

Madam President, the order requires that the votes be taken. I ask for the yeas and nays on both amendments.

At this time, the parliamentary situation is leader time, and I yield the floor to the distinguished Democratic leader.

I thank our colleague.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, the following two votes will each be 10 minutes in duration.

I move to reconsider the vote.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, first, on behalf of Senator Levin and myself, I thank all the Members for the strong cooperation to procedurally move this series of amendments and to proceed with the bill. Speaking just for myself--my ranking member is absent for a moment--I believe very strongly that this bill can be completed today before sunset. Of course, this is one of the longest days of the year, so that might be a little longer than some might wish, but I do think it is achievable. I say that most respectfully.

What we recommend to be done now--and I will ask unanimous consent-- is the Senate now turn to an

amendment by the distinguished Senator from Texas, and I am told by the Senator that she will seek a voice vote. That has been cleared on both sides. The next amendment will be offered by our distinguished colleague from Georgia, a member of the committee, Mr. Chambliss. That will take perhaps an hour or more and will require a record vote. Thereafter, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate then recognize the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Dayton, to address the Senate with regard to amendments and the bill as a whole.

I would also say to colleagues, subject to confirmation by the leadership, that I am recommending there be no votes from now until 3:30. There are two very serious functions taking place, both of a religious nature, in our city, and Members are attending either the last rites of Philip Merrill, a personal friend of mine, a wonderful man who recently lost his life on the Chesapeake Bay, and then I understand a distinguished archbishop of the Catholic Church is being installed with a ceremony today.

Therefore, the bill will continue its momentum in this period of time, and following those votes, I am certain the leadership will give the managers such guidance as to when we can conclude this bill, which again I hope will be today.

So at this time, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be an hour equally divided between the distinguished Senators from Georgia and Arizona on the Chambliss amendment.

We have covered as much ground as we can procedurally at this point, and I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 4377

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, we will turn to the distinguished Senator from Georgia for his amendment, with 1 hour equally divided.

Mr. President, I find myself, as chairman, having to live up to my responsibilities. Not only do I have the highest regard for our colleague from Georgia, I have a high regard for this airplane. These airplanes are stationed in Virginia. I am supporting the position taken by Senator McCain against the constituent interests in my own State because I feel ever so importantly the statements made by Senator McCain--namely, that the oversight which our committee tries to provide should be respected in this Chamber. It is our collective judgment. The majority of the

Senators, having voted on this in various ways in our committee, believe that we should not go to this multiyear procurement at this time for reasons eloquently stated by the Senator from Arizona.

I regret deeply to be in opposition to one of our most valued Members, the Senator from Georgia, but let me point this out: You have to sometimes stand apart from constituent interests, State interests, and do what you believe is in the best interests of this country.

I say this with a sense of humility. I walked into the Pentagon in February of 1969 as then-Under Secretary of the Navy. The halls of the building were filled with the wreckage of a plane called TFX in which this country had invested billions of dollars to build and it was finally concluded that, for a number of reasons, the contract shouldn't go forward. Thereafter, in the positions as Under Secretary and Secretary of the Navy, I worked with the S-3, a new AFW airplane, bringing that along. I worked with the F-14. As a matter of fact, this distinguished aide of the Armed Services Committee was an F-14 pilot and has reminisced with me many times--thank you for putting two engines on that plane--because many a time he landed on a carrier with one engine.

The planes are complicated situations, and they are becoming more and more complicated each year, and it is the collective judgment of the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee that we should not abdicate our oversight and jump into this multiyear procurement.

I support the airplane. I am hopefully getting additional aircraft at my base in Virginia. I am proud of that. But I am going to support what I think is a proper management decision. To support the Chambliss amendment would be, frankly, a violation of statute on the books, the law of the land. Subsection A(1) through subsection 6 of section 2306(b) of title 10, United States Code, establishes the conditions for entering into a multiyear procurement contract. The statute requires the use of such a contract resulting in a substantial savings. This multiyear procurement proposal under this amendment would not provide substantial savings--some savings but not substantial. The statute also requires that the estimates of both the cost of the contract and the anticipated cost avoidance through the use of a multiyear contract are realistic.

Just listen to what Senator McCain said. The estimates are not realistic. The Air Force had budgeted for 24 F-22A aircraft in fiscal year 2006 but will only be able to buy 22 or 23 aircraft with the available funds.

Mr. President, the statute also requires that there is a reasonable expectation that throughout the contemplated contract period the head of the agency will request funding for the contract at the level required to avoid contract cancellation. There is no reasonable expectation that the level of funding required to avoid contract cancellation will be met. The multiyear justification package sent to Congress on May 16, 2006 presented a program that was underfunded by $674 million.

By statute, I say to colleagues, this amendment cannot be supported. By statute, by the majority of the members of the Committee of the Armed Services having examined it carefully, through subcommittee and full committee review, it cannot be supported. I say most respectfully to the Senator from Georgia, we are facing here a rather interesting chapter of a very significant and important defense contractor trying to get through this body a decision which is in violation of statute and overrides the judgment of the majority of the members of the Armed Services Committee. I urge Senators not to support this amendment.

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

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Minnesota. He will be departing our committee this fall, as he departs the Senate. I appreciate the work he has contributed to our committee throughout the year.

It is time for my distinguished colleague from Michigan, ranking member, and I to offer a package of amendments.

Yes.

I was absent from the floor. I express my humble appreciation to my colleague from Minnesota. I recall that he accompanied Senator Levin and me to Iraq one time. That was when I first became aware of the knowledge that he had on world affairs and other subjects. He has contributed to the greater good of the Committee on Armed Services. I thank him for his service. But there is more time; he has a little bit left to go.

Amendments Nos. 4492; 4493; 4494; 4266, as Modified; 4495; 4307, as Modified; 4326, as Modified; 4224; 4496; 4309, as Modified; 4345; 4368;

4497; 4222; 4498; 4499; 4202, as Modified; 4500; 4441; 4231, as Modified; 4409; 4501; 4502; 4503; 4504; 4505; 4506; 4331; 4507; 4508; 4509; 4510; 4219; 4386; 4511; 4197; 4512; 4513; 4514; 4515; 4342; 4365;

4241; 4220, as Modified; 4371; 4244; 4516; 4466; 4517; 4363, as

Modified; 4450, as Modified; 4362, as Modified; 4275, as Modified;

4475, as Modified; 4276, as Modified; 4469, as Modified; 4477, as

Modified; 4518; 4214; and 4519, En Bloc

At this time I send a series of amendments to the desk. They have been cleared by myself and the ranking member. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the amendments en bloc, the amendments be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Finally, I ask that any statements relating to any of the individual amendments be printed in the Record.

I thank my distinguished colleague for his remarks.

If I might draw to the attention of my distinguished colleague, we have been consulting with our respective leadership and their staffs. We have a joint goal of trying to complete this bill today and have third reading and final passage. The bill is now open for amendment. We have some knowledge of some amendments that may be offered. We would urge those who wish to offer amendments, recognizing cloture has been agreed to by the Chamber, nevertheless within the confines of that cloture, we are ready to have the opportunity to consider further amendments.

I believe I am about to put in the first quorum call for the purpose solely that we have no amendments at the moment pending. That is the first time in the consideration of this bill, I believe.

I thank my colleague who has worked side by side with me these 28 years on these matters. When I look back on my modest career in the Senate, I can't think of any other Senator with whom I have had a better relationship and a more trusting one, although we do disagree on occasion.

That is right. Who quoted Edward R. Murrow, something about the strength of our Nation depends on the diversity of thinking and expression?

I thank my colleague. I do believe those two amendments on which we spent so much time were carefully and fully debated. I accept with a sense of humility the outcome, that we were able to prevail on this side of the aisle. However I underline that I do that with a sense of deep humility.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the amendment sponsored by the Senator from Alabama, concerning the need to add an additional $45 million to the Missile Defense Agency for testing and operations of the ground-based midcourse defense, GMD, system.

In December of 2002, the President directed the Department of Defense to begin fielding an initial set of missile defense capabilities that included ground-based interceptors for the defense of the United States against the long-range ballistic missile threat. Given our total vulnerability to that threat, the Missile Defense Agency chose to begin the simultaneous fielding of missile defense interceptors even while developmental testing continued to validate the effectiveness of the system. While this is not a conventional acquisition approach, I believe it was prudent given the emerging ballistic missile threats we expected to face.

Recent North Korean preparations for the test launch of a long-range ballistic missile confirm the wisdom of the administration's approach: we need to have an emergency missile defense capability in place, even while development and testing of the system continues.

Moreover, I believe Iran's continuing development of longer range ballistic missiles, coupled with their intention to acquire nuclear weapons, also argues for fielding missile defense capabilities as soon as technically feasible and in numbers sufficient to stay ahead of the threat.

Just last month, from the floor of the Senate, I spoke to my colleagues about how NATO might respond to the greatest threat to regional and global stability that we face today: Iran. I noted

that I support the principle of preserving as many options as possible in diplomacy, and to bolster those diplomatic options, NATO should consider erecting a ``ring of deterrence'' that would surround Iran to deter the use of actual force, as was done so successfully during the cold war.

I believe that a ground-based interceptor site in Europe, as is being proposed by the Department of Defense, would contribute to this deterrence of Iranian--or any other--missile threats, and would be consistent with NATO activities already underway to provide missile defense capabilities for the Alliance in the next decade. Most important, a missile defense site in Europe would send a message to nations developing longer-range missiles that the United States and its allies will not be intimidated by the threat of ballistic missiles armed with weapons of mass destruction.

The amendment before us now recognizes the accomplishments of the Department of Defense in fielding, in such a short time, a limited missile defense system that is now available in an emergency to provide a measure of protection for the American people against a long-range missile threat--such as the missile that now sits on a North Korean launch pad.

One of the limitations of the current GMD system, however, is that it is difficult to maintain the system on alert while it is undergoing the testing necessary to further improve its capability and reliability. To address this limitation, the Missile Defense Agency plans to create the infrastructure and redundant communications links necessary to permit the system to remain on alert even while test events are underway. This amendment helps advance these plans so that we are better prepared to address the threat posed by the development of a North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile.

In closing, I would note that in my many years here in the Senate, I have been privileged to participate in many a debate over missile defense. We have examined this issue from every conceivable angle-- cost, technology, policy, strategy, and diplomacy--and the debate always appeared to me to be somewhat theoretical, since we lacked actual missile defense capabilities.

But today this is no longer the case. The United States now has a limited capability to defend its territory, deployed forces, and its allies against missiles of all ranges. It is a limited capability, to be sure, but one that now provides the President and his senior officials with additional options that can reinforce diplomacy and deterrence or, as a last resort, protect against the growing ballistic missile threat.

Mr. President, if I might first thank my colleague from Oklahoma. A few people around here will say they are going to be here at a certain time and show up at a certain time. The Senator was committed to come here at a certain time, and I thank him.

Mr. President, is it possible for the managers to look at this for a moment before it is sent up? I think it would help facilitate matters.

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

If I can address the Senator with regard to this amendment, it is an amendment the Senate has visited before.

I would like to have the Senator's observation of whether my information is correct. The Senator has been at this 2 years. I commend the Senator for that work. As a consequence of that work, the Department has done some things, have they not?

It has been told to me that 95 percent of the Senator's goals have been achieved and that by October 1 of this year, it will be 100 percent.

Mr. President, my friend is an expert on this, and I freely admit I am not.

It is represented to me the DTS, the defense system is not merely a travel booking system, but it has much broader functionality than any of the Federal Government e-travel systems. In short, DTS is an end-to-end accounting system that automatically handles the entire range of otherwise very expensive and time-consuming manual tasks associated with DOD travel.

Any fair comparison has to begin with the fact that DTS offers an end-to-end travel management capability that incorporates military entitlements and DOD travel policies, and e-travel services simply do not.

Mr. President, I continue to be very depressed by the knowledge that this Senator has on the subject. I freely admit that I do not have the depth of knowledge.

I understand initially the amendment called for a study. Then, as provided under the rules of the Senate, the Senator modified the amendment, and it is now a very specific piece of legislation that I am advised could well end the program.

Somewhere between a study and trying to end the program, should the Senator prevail, there must be a basis on which we can have an accommodation so I can accept some measure to meet the Senator's goals and incorporate it in the bill, assuming my distinguished ranking member will accept my recommendation.

Mr. President, why doesn't the Senator go to his next amendment? In the meantime staff can go to work.

I say that is not fair to the men and women of the Armed Forces who use this program.

I am not trying to keep in place something that is not adequately serving this constituency and the Department of Defense. I would rather put in a fix if I can get in my mind what that fix can be. The amendment could virtually bring what is in existence at DTS to a standstill.

I thank the cooperation of the Senator.

We certainly want to accommodate the Senator. I suggest at the conclusion of the presentation of this next amendment.

Mr. President, the managers are working to try to resolve a number of issues in the hopes we can complete this bill. I will eventually reply to the Senator from Georgia. I wonder if at this time, without losing the floor, he will yield to his colleague to speak on another matter.

I thank the Senator.

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

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his cooperation. We are trying to reduce the number of rollcall votes so that we can conclude this bill. We are very close to doing so.

I yield the floor for the purposes of the Senator from Oklahoma being recognized.

Mr. President, as a courtesy to the Senator, I move to reconsider the votes and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.

I believe we will shortly have a UC request to present, but I am looking for the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions. If I could have his attention, my understanding is that the Senator desires a rollcall vote on his amendment.

Fine, the amendment has been debated on both sides.

Mr. President, we want to schedule that vote. So it is agreed that will be the subject of a rollcall vote.

Mr. President, could those three votes be sequenced, the first vote will take the normal course and the next two votes be 10 minutes each?

I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer. Secondly, there seems to be only one remaining amendment which we are trying to resolve. Then I would approach the leadership jointly for final passage of the bill.

Would the majority leader authorize the chairman to seek final passage when we are ready to go?

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, before we proceed to the next vote, I would like to propound the following unanimous-consent request:

I ask unanimous consent that following the next vote, which is on the Sessions amendment, I then be recognized in order to send to the desk a series of amendments that have been cleared on both sides. I further ask unanimous consent that following action on those cleared amendments, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on final passage of the bill, with no intervening action or debate; provided further, that after passage, the Senate proceed to the votes in executive session as under the previous order.

We have reached an agreement on the pay raise issue. I would prefer to do that following final

passage and have the colloquy inserted in the Record prior to.

I thank the Presiding Officer, and I thank my colleagues.

Amendment No. 4471, as Modified

Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, this is an amendment by the distinguished Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, and the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Frist, and it has been carefully worked and debated. I ask that the vote begin.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, for those Senators who may not have heard that vote, if I am correct it was 98 yeas, 0 nays. That is a strong voice from the Senate of the United States in support of the men and women of the Armed Forces. I thank each and every one of you.

That is correct.

That is correct. The prior vote being on the missile defense.

I send a series of amendments to the desk which have been cleared by myself and the ranking member. I ask unanimous consent the Senate consider these amendments en bloc, the amendments be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table. Finally, I ask that any statements pertaining to any of these individual amendments be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I understand under the order we now proceed to the final passage of the authorization bill.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, once again I thank colleagues for the unanimous vote, 96 to 0, sending a strong message to the men and women of the Armed Forces.

I thank my distinguished colleague.

Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts is correct.

The group that has consulted with the committee staff was the senior enlisted ranks. The problem rests in the senior enlisted ranks, the warrant officer ranks. That is where the targeted money was applied. We will look at it further in conference.

I thank the Senator.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, if I might join my distinguished colleague from Michigan, it has been a privilege for me, as it has for these 28 years we have been together, to work as partners and in many respects equals. He has been chairman of the committee. I have been chairman of the committee. We have both occupied positions of chairman and ranking member in these many years that we have been fortunate to serve on this committee together, and we have a very outstanding group of colleagues who are members of the committee. I thank my good friend for these many years. I am very proud, as he is, of this piece of legislation, which at this critical juncture in our Nation's history, with our forces serving in over 60 Nation across the world, and their families here at home are with them, we have them in mind at all times and, indeed, a very significant group of Civil Service employees who likewise are serving our Nation in their capacities with the Department of Defense and other departments and agencies related to our national security.

Senator Levin mentioned particularly our senior staff, our full staff, as a matter of fact. In many ways, some of the juniors work harder than seniors some days, but I won't get into that. I best leave that to my able staff director, Charlie Abell, as you leave that to your staff director. But we are fortunate to have these two staff directors and these magnificent staffs. They really are professional staffs. The appointment of our staff, I don't even recall inquiring as to the political affiliation of so many of these individuals that I have had the privilege of working with these many years in the Senate. But indeed, they do work long hours. Their reward is not the pay. Their reward is a sense of satisfaction, as it is for you and me and members of our committee and, indeed, the Members of the Senate, of what we are trying to do on behalf of the uniformed men and women of the Armed Forces and their families and their civilian counterparts.

I thank my distinguished colleague.

I ask unanimous consent that S. 2766, as amended, be printed as passed.

Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed immediately to the consideration en bloc of S. 2767 through S. 2769, Calendar Order Nos. 427, 428, and 429, that all after the enacting clause of those bills be stricken and that the appropriate portion of S. 2766, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof, according to the schedule which I am sending to the desk; that these bills be advanced to third reading and passed, the motion to reconsider en bloc be laid upon the table, and that the above actions occur without intervening action or debate.