Floor Statements

Mr. President, the two leaders and I and Senator Kennedy have had an opportunity to talk about, first, the parliamentary situation and, secondly, an amendment that the Senator from Massachusetts desires to bring up. We have come to an agreement whereby for the next 30 minutes, we will leave the procedure of the pending amendment in place, and the Senator from Massachusetts will be recognized to address the Senate with regard to the subject of an amendment that he intends to bring up at some point in time. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Massachusetts now be recognized for a period of 30 minutes.

Before I finish, I have a request of the leadership. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 389, S. 2012.

I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be agreed to, the committee-reported substitute, as amended, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I return to my original unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that I may be allowed to speak in morning business not to exceed 5 minutes.

Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, we have yet to bring up the Defense authorization bill. The leadership is continuing to work out, hopefully, an accommodation for the initiative of the Senator from Massachusetts on the very important amendment on minimum wage. So I wish to inform colleagues that hopefully this will be procedurally worked out, such as we can bring the bill up and then proceed on the bill. But in the meantime, we remain in morning business, and if there is additional time the Senator from Massachusetts would like or the distinguished Senator from New Mexico-- and I see the Senator from Kentucky--I will be perfectly willing to try to accommodate Senators.

Might I inquire of the Senator from Kentucky the subject on which he would like to speak?

Fine. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that another 10 minutes be allocated to Senator Kennedy under his jurisdiction.

Mr. President, I understand from the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts that this concludes for this period of time his comments on the minimum wage. I would simply ask at this time unanimous consent that those Senators desiring to have statements on the minimum wage amendment printed in the Record appear following Senator Kennedy's colloquy with his colleagues.

We will, of course, I say to my good friend, in due course comment and provide a response to, first, your request on procedure, and, second, to the substance of this very important amendment. So I thank you for the cooperation that you have shown this morning.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of Calendar No. 711, Donald Kohn; provided further that Senator Bunning be recognized to speak for up to 15 minutes; following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination, with no further intervening action or debate.

Finally, I ask unanimous consent following the vote, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I simply would say, it says ``Senate resume legislative session.'' It should be: The Senate will resume the session of morning business. We wouldn't return to legislation right away.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, unless there are other Members seeking recognition, I know our distinguished colleague from New Mexico wishes to speak, and we will continue in morning business with Senators speaking up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his cooperation on the procedure this afternoon. This is a very significant and important amendment. In due course we will have comments from our side with regard to the amendment. I am certain the distinguished ranking member and I will work out a timely schedule for you to bring it up again, take such time as you need for further debate, be followed by a debate on this side and then a vote, because it certainly is one that deserves the attention of the Senate.

Mr. President, I see my distinguished ranking member here. We are in morning business, I say to my colleague.

Why don't you go ahead and speak on it?

Mr. President, in his usual courtesy, the Senator from Michigan handed me, a few moments ago, this amendment. I glanced over it. It is, indeed, I think, a very serious-minded approach. I am not sure at this point in time I am ready to say that I concur in all provisions. But it is reminiscent of the initiative taken last year by the distinguished Senator from Michigan when he put in an amendment with regard to the situation in Iraq. I recall very well having taken that amendment and reworked it in some several ways, and eventually the Senate adopted that amendment. So I will, accordingly, give it very serious consideration, and at an appropriate time I look forward to engaging him in debate on this amendment.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I notice in this amendment, though, language quite similar to what we had last year in one provision on this amendment.

At this time, unless the Senator from New Mexico desires to further address the Senate, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am advised the distinguished majority leader will momentarily come to the floor for purposes of stating the proposal we have with regard to the matters Senator Kennedy addressed earlier. Until such time occurs, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

No objection.

Mr. President, I had stepped off the floor for a minute. You are going to introduce your legislation as an amendment to the authorization bill.

I appreciate that cooperation.

I thank my colleague.

I believe we should proceed under the standing order.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that at 5 o'clock we will have the vote; is that correct?

Upon the conclusion of that vote, would the Chair advise, are there any orders with regard to the business to be conducted then by the Senate?

On the authorization bill for the Armed Forces?

I thank the Chair. It is my understanding two Senators, both of whom are members of the Armed Services Committee, the senior Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Rhode Island, desire to address the Senate. I want it clearly understood, we do not wish to have additional amendments filed. I will have to work this out in the interim period. I will do my best to accommodate these Senators without amendments being filed to the bill at this time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Momentarily, I will ask that the quorum call be reinstated, but I ask unanimous consent that the time be allocated equally between both sides on the pending nomination.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 19, 2006, at 4 p.m., in closed session to consider S. 3237, the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2007.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, June 19, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony regarding implementation of the renewable fuel standards in the 2005 energy bill and the future potential of biofuels such as biodiesel, celluosic ethanol, and E85.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, June 19, 2006, at 3 p.m. to hold a hearing on nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee

on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Immigration Enforcement at the Workplace: Learning from the Mistakes of 1986'' on Monday, June 19, 2006, at 2 p.m. in SD226.

Witness list

Panel 1: The Honorable Stewart Baker, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC; Julie Myers, Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC; and Martin Gerry, Deputy Commissioner for Income Security Programs, Social Security Programs, Social Security Administration, Baltimore, MD.

Panel 2: Richard Stana, Director of Homeland Security and Justice, Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC; C. Stewart Verdery, Jr., Former Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security, Adjunct Fellow, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, DC; Cecilia Munoz, Vice President, Office of Research, Advocacy and Legislation, National Council of La Raza, Washington, DC; and Linda Dodd-Major, Former Director of Office of Business Liaison, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Washington, DC.

Mr. President, I was much taken by the remarks of the Senator from North Dakota. I have great respect for the Senator from North Dakota. I tell you, you do a lot of homework. You do a lot of independent work. And while I do not have the expertise with regard to the reservations that you have, any of us listening to your comments would immediately come to the conclusion that we better step in to help. And I say to the Senator, you can count on me when the time comes. I think that matter should be addressed as quickly as we can by the Senate.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I say to my distinguished ranking member, I think at this time it would be appropriate if the Senator wishes to bring up his amendment.

We are in business, I say to my colleagues wherever they are, for purposes of amendments. The Senator from Michigan and I will be here for some period of time in hopes of processing amendments.

Mr. President, if I could engage my distinguished ranking member in a colloquy, historically this amendment is almost identical in form to what came before the Senate on 14 September last fall, 2005. It was defeated by a vote of 53 to 44. And that was on the Commerce- State-Justice appropriations bill. Then, with the tenacity of our good friend from North Dakota, he brought the same amendment up again on October 19, 2005. Again, it was defeated by a vote of 54 to 44 on the Transportation appropriations bill.

So the Senate on two occasions has examined this before other committees and defeated it.

Now, let's go back a little bit in history, and this is a part of Senate history that you have greater familiarity with than do I. Your distinguished predecessor, Senator Nunn, when I worked with him--he was chairman, I was the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee-- there would be times when he would say, ``John, I simply have to take off a week; I have this special committee.'' He was then on the committee on which you served, I think, throughout your tenure in the Senate; now called Homeland Security, it used to be called Government Operations. And the Senate as a body some time ago decided to take the roots of the Truman Commission, which, indeed, was a successful operation, and repose it, place it into the Government Operations Committee, now the Homeland Security Committee.

Another 28 years.

Mr. President, I say to my good friend, yes, there are instances of fraud and abuse, and work has been done by the Armed Services Committee Readiness Subcommittee. I believe Senator Akaka is on that committee from your side of the aisle. It is a lot of work. It is not as if somebody is sitting on their hands.

Fraud, waste and abuse within the Federal contracting system, while not pervasive, is a significant problem that we as a Congress must, and are, addressing.

The potential for fraud, waste and abuse is not limited to just Iraq and Afghanistan. Through the use of normal committee legislative tools and processes we have uncovered fraudulent and wasteful cases and are conducting systemic oversight.

The Armed Services Committee has conducted numerous hearings and briefings on acquisition oversight and reform (including oversight of contracting in Iraq) and has initiated investigations by the GAO and the Inspector General on DOD acquisition practices and programs.

Other committees, such as Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and Foreign Relations, with jurisdiction over government contracting, have similar oversight records.

The Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction was established to look at Iraqi contracting. The special IG routinely briefs this Committee and others on its findings.

Just yesterday we approved an amendment to expand the special IG's oversight to include a broader range of funds being used to contract for Iraq reconstruction activities.

And, as I noted earlier this week, the special IG submits quarterly and semi-annual reports to Congress. The inspector general operates a hotline for reports of possible waste, fraud and abuse and has uncovered criminal activity that has been referred for prosecution.

The special inspector general's efforts have yielded important oversight results and have prompted three specific lessons learned initiatives.

The lessons learned initiatives are: (1) human capital management; (2) contract management; and (3) program management.

The contract management report should be out later this summer.

The committee has also addressed contract and acquisition reform through a series of legislative provisions and initiatives.

I will highlight three recent examples:

No. 1, Section 817 of last year's defense authorization act addressed the need for a joint contingency contracting plan;

No. 2, Section 841 of that same legislation required GAO to review efforts of the Department to identify and assess areas of vulnerability for contracting waste, fraud and abuse. This report should be completed soon;

No. 3, the committee included a provision in this year's bill to build on previous oversight efforts in the contracting area. Section 864 of our bill would require the Department to develop contingency program management plans. This section is part of a series of provisions designed to improve acquisition and contracting outcomes across the department through better overall program management.

I believe our activities, which I have very briefly outlined here, represent the best approach to conducting oversight. We bring in the experts and have them address systemic and specific problems.

We want to avoid an approach that would lead to wasting much of our oversight efforts on anecdotes of individual fraudulent acts which mayor may not show that we have a systemic problem.

We need to prosecute those singular cases and protect against fraud, waste and abuse in a way that can still deliver goods and services to the warfighter as quickly as possible.

So I say to my colleague, I appreciate his concerns and I look forward to working with him to address problems with Federal acquisition.

However, I do not support the establishment of a new special Committee which would duplicate the work of this Committee and would only look at selected Federal expenditures and contracts.

I come back to this creation of the entity that the Senator from North Dakota wants and I again draw attention to the fact that Homeland Security has been given by the Senate the overall responsibility and an investigating committee with special funding, special staff to do investigations. Senator Nunn utilized it frequently when he was chairman of our committee. But there isn't a committee in this body that is not faced from time to time with the subject of fraud, waste, and abuse. And the Senate decided, rather than have each of the committees have their own special investigating team, to put together this subcommittee in the Government Operations Committee to do this work.

So I come back to my friend and just ask, why should we create something additional to what is already present, structured by the Senate to address the fraud, waste, and abuse problems in all the committees that we serve on and it was placed in the Homeland Defense Committee?

Mr. President, I would certainly entertain that.

You serve on that committee.

What I would suggest we do is have a consultation with Senators Collins and Lieberman and then follow up with a letter, if we deem appropriate.

That committee has done a prodigious amount of work. I certainly commend the chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee. They are workers.

So we have a procedure on that. For the moment, I suggest we set aside the pending amendment and turn to the matter of trying to clear some amendments on this side. Is that appropriate at this time?

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

Fine. The Senators I have indicated here on my sheet are

Senators Sessions, Obama, Allard, Salazar, and I judge that scribbling is Senator Warner of Virginia.

Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan and I have been here, together with the leadership of both sides, making it clear we are ready to conduct business on such amendments as may be brought before the Senate on this bill. I believe at this time we have now completed such business as was ready. I anticipate the leadership will advise us with regard to the schedule on Monday, and most certainly we will be back up at some point in time during that day to continue. I hope I will be joined by my distinguished colleague from Michigan urging Senators to come to the floor.

On our side of the aisle, I only know of perhaps two amendments that might be offered--one, as you are quite familiar with, by the Senator from Georgia with regard to certain aircraft programs. That is clear on its face. The other one I will work through. Frankly, I would have to say to my colleagues throughout the Senate, most particularly to my ranking member, I begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel, certainly as regards the amendments that could be forthcoming from this side of the aisle.

I know the Senator from Georgia wishes to offer his.

Correct.

I think the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts intends to revisit his strong approach to some of the situations in Iraq, particularly regarding troop structure.

In addition to the one from the Senator from Massachusetts?

I see the distinguished minority whip here. Maybe he could advise us what his ascertainment might be with regard to the balance of amendments on that side.

Mr. President, Senator Frist and I have discussed that. I believe he is in conversation with the leadership on your side. I heartily endorse that approach. Perhaps we could formalize it in some way.

Only in the sense that the two leaders and you and I come to the floor. I am not suggesting cloture or anything of that nature. I would hope this bill could be passed on by the Senate without the benefit of any cloture motion.

Whatever the distinguished Senator from Illinois wishes, please proceed.

Mr. President, we should consult with leadership. The yeas and nays having been ordered, I wonder if the Senator would be gracious enough to allow the Senator from Michigan and myself to consult with leadership as to the time for a vote.

Is that the intent?

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague.

We are trying to work this out. There is a problem. The problem is not to the generic virtues of Senator Feingold's amendment--which, incidentally, I support--but it is a question of the allocation of some funding in it and how that impacts on other areas of funding. As soon as I can work that out, I will advise the Senate. I am hopeful we can eventually go to a vote.

Mr. President, we are prepared to go ahead with a voice vote at this time, if it is agreeable. I add my endorsement of the basic thrust of the amendment. Like others, I have had the opportunity to be debriefed by the inspector general, and I am very impressed with his conscientious service on this matter. He periodically goes over to Iraq, that theatre, and Afghanistan, for periods of time. He has accepted the challenges of this post with enormous enthusiasm and skill.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, the leadership and the managers have reached a recommended unanimous consent request which I now propound.

I ask unanimous consent at 12 noon today the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to Santorum amendment No. 4234, to be followed by a vote in relation to a first-degree amendment to be offered by Senator Biden related to the same subject; further, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 12 be equally divided between myself, representing Senator Santorum and others, and Senator Levin, with no second degrees in order to either amendment prior to the votes; provided there be 2 minutes for debate equally divided between the votes.

Mr. President, I am not able to answer that question. I believe that would be correct. I would be perfectly willing to have it that way because I know we did Senator Durbin's this morning.

Fine.

Mr. President, I so amend the unanimous consent request that there be a time not to exceed whatever is appropriate for this proper recognition by the Senate of the loss of life.

Mr. President, I think we are ready for the Senator from Delaware.

Let it be charged equally.

Mr. President, I yield such time as our colleague wishes. I ask unanimous consent that each manager have at least 3 minutes to address this at the conclusion of the remarks by the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. President, first, I ask the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, in fairness, I think he should wrap this debate up. How many minutes does he desire?

Mr. President, let us establish the hour of 12:15 for the vote, with 5 minutes at the conclusion for the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania and 5 minutes under the control of the Senator from Virginia and 5 minutes under the control of Senator Levin. I ask unanimous consent that be the case.

Mr. President, I say to my distinguished colleagues here that in the course of this debate, I have studied this matter very carefully. I spoke out on it yesterday expressing my concerns. I do believe the actions proposed by the Senator from Pennsylvania are not irresponsible. They are a clear matter of conscience and what he thinks is in our best interest.

My concern, which I think is the Senator's concern, is that the timing is unwise. I support the Senator from Nebraska in that observation, as I do the Senator from Delaware, because we have a negotiation of great sensitivity underway at the direction of the President, who, under the Constitution of the United States, has the primary responsibility in the matter of conducting foreign affairs. His chief designee, the Secretary of State, has spoken through Senator Biden.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter addressed to me, to which I will refer momentarily, from the Department of State.

I strongly believe the Senator from Pennsylvania is of clear conscience on this matter.

Regarding the fact that he had these cosponsors and the fact that the House spoke on this in April, since the April timeframe--and I believe his earlier amendment had 60 cosponsors--much has transpired. That has been addressed here today, the sensitivity of these negotiations between our Nation and other nations in line for the interests of the United States and the Government of Iran. Therefore, my concern about this amendment is the timing of it.

I now would like to refer to the letter forwarded to me as chairman, dated today, which was printed in the Record. One paragraph reads:

The amendment runs counter to our efforts and those of the

international community to present Iran with a clear choice

regarding their nuclear ambitions. The amendment, if enacted,

would shift unified international attention away from Iran's

nuclear activities and create a rift between the U.S. and our

closest international partners. Moreover, it would limit our

diplomatic flexibility.

Mr. President, I have to accept the good faith of the Secretary of State on this matter and as communicated to this Chamber.

I yield the floor.

Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Yes, 3 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey, with an additional 3 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania, and then the vote.

Mr. President, we are under a unanimous consent agreement. The time, I believe, has expired.

Will the Senator yield back the 6 seconds so we can get to the vote? I regret we have to move forward.

There are Senators who have to go to the Pentagon for a memorial service. The yeas and nays have been ordered.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I yield a minute to the distinguished senior

Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, my understanding is the Senate now turns to the measure by the Senator from Florida, is that correct?

No objection.

Mr. President, following that, I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Arizona be recognized.

Would the Senator from Arizona yield to me for a few minutes?

Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts and I did have a brief conversation just before the conclusion of the vote in the middle of the noon hour. I, in an effort to try and keep momentum on the bill, did inquire of the desire to move forward with his amendment. I only conveyed his response to me, which was not at this time--he was in consultation with colleagues--to my distinguished ranking member, advising him we best look at other amendments to keep the momentum going forward. I then departed for the memorial services at the Department of Defense honoring those who lost their lives on 9/11. And, therefore, when I arrived back we were in the middle of the debate that has been described by the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. President, I say to my very good and longtime friend, we have known each other since the closing months of the war in Vietnam when I was Secretary and he was serving in our naval service and returned. So I just think sometimes of the great fortune of this body to have men such as John McCain, Daniel Inouye, and Ted Stevens, and others, who have experience firsthand. I do not claim that same experience that these men had in the mortal combat of the wars.

Senator McCain recounts the history of our Nation very accurately; that is, when the conflicts are over, it has always been the stature and the greatness of this Nation to bind the wounds of war and to move forward with peace.

I say to the Senator from Florida, I have just handed him the corrections that are now in the press, corrected by the national security adviser to the new Prime Minister of Iraq, in which it is very explicit that there was an error in translation. Some misfortune. But he sets it forth here with absolute clarity, and I think that I would want to state for my colleagues exactly what he said. He said the following--and he said it, I presume, with the full knowledge of the Prime Minister.

He said: We thank--and the quote is--``the American wives and American women and American mothers for the treasure and the blood they have invested in this country . . . of liberating 30 million people in this country. And we are ever so grateful.''

And further, he affirmed their position of the government that they ``will never give amnesty to those who have killed American soldiers or killed Iraqi soldiers or civilians.''

It seems to me that puts to rest, as my colleague from Arizona said, this issue. And I wonder if the Senator would consider the withdrawal of his amendment to obviate the necessity on our side to take other steps, and let us move forward with the bill.

Yes, of course.

Mr. President, I am delighted to accommodate my colleague. I would hope we could discourse this matter in the traditional way of a colloquy, but if you want the exclusive right to the floor--if that is your desire--then I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Is that your desire?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, that is the national security adviser.

Mr. President, first I would like to say to my colleague, we have had a very strong, fervent and heartfelt debate, not a brouhaha by any definition of the use of those terms. We have heard from two of the most respected combat veterans currently serving in this Chamber. It was not in the nature of a brouhaha. They were simply reciting the history of this great Republic since its inception as to how it has dealt with adversaries in the several conflicts that we have had.

I first say to the Senator, I hope that you will reconsider the use of that term.

Yes, of course.

Mr. President, I so note his comments.

Again, addressing the Senator's amendment, it clearly, in my judgment, restricts in some respects the recognition that this is a sovereign government in Iraq today, in the hands of a duly elected Prime Minister and others, and that this amendment could well be construed as restricting what they can and cannot do. That was so eloquently stated by Senator McCain. I wondered if the Senator would care to try and revise the amendment so it is consistent with the longstanding practices of our country with respect to our adversaries, in some way to recognize that it is not in conflict with that?

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator McConnell now be recognized, that the pending amendments be set aside, and that Senator McConnell then offer an amendment which is relevant to the Nelson amendment; provided further that if and when the McConnell and Nelson amendments are scheduled for votes--that would be sometime next week--the McConnell amendment would be voted on first. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following the offering of the amendment, Senator Chambliss be recognized in order to offer an amendment.

Mr. President, if I might amend the UC to delete the last sentence which reads:

Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following the

offering of the amendment, Senator Chambliss be recognized in

order to offer an amendment.

I ask that sentence be dropped.

Mr. President, I now ask that the amendments be laid aside. The leadership is in agreement that there will be no more votes tonight. We will now turn to other matters relating to the bill. My understanding, then, is these two amendments are now the pending amendments; is that correct?

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

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

Mr. President, on behalf of myself and members of the Armed Services Committee, I send a series of amendments to the desk which have been cleared by myself and the ranking member. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider these amendments en bloc, the amendments be agreed to en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that any statements related to any of these individual amendments be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished ranking member for his always cooperative efforts to move this bill along. I think we have made progress on the bill.

We did make progress. There will be a briefing in S-407 tomorrow with regard to operations in Iraq. Members of the Senate are invited. I expect we will convene in the morning under an order later this evening from the leadership, but we will be back on the bill for some period of time tomorrow.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 15, 2006, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``The OFHEO Report of the Special Examination of Fannie Mae.''

Committee on Foreign Relations

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 15, 2006, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing on a nomination.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 15, 2006, at 10 a.m. for a business meeting to consider pending committee business.

Agenda

Legislation

1. S. 2145, Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2005;

2. S. 1554, a bill to establish an intergovernmental grant program to identify and develop homeland security information, equipment, capabilities, technologies, and services to further the homeland security of the United States and to address the homeland security needs of Federal, State, and local governments;

3. S. 1741, Disaster Area Health and Environmental Monitoring Act;

4. S. 1838, Federal and District of Columbia Real Property Act of 2005;

5. S. 2068, a bill to preserve existing judgeships on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia;

6. S. 2146, a bill to extend relocation expenses test programs for Federal employees;

7. S. 2296, Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act;

8. H.R. 3508, 2005 District of Columbia Omnibus Authorization Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, June 15, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., in the Senate Dirksen Office Building, Room 226. The agenda will be provided when it becomes available.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Judicial Nominations'' on Thursday, June 15, 2006, at 2 p.m., in the Senate Dirksen Office Building Room 226.

Witness list

Panel I: The Honorable Thad Cochran; the Honorable Trent Lott; the Honorable James Inhofe; and the Honorable Luis Fortuno.

Panel II: Jerome A. Holmes to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit.

Panel III: Daniel P. Jordan III to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi; Gustavo A. Gelpe to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 15, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed briefing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on Fisheries and the Coast Guard be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 15, 2006, at 10:30 a.m. on the Coast Guard's Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Superfund and Waste Management be authorized to hold a hearing on Thursday, June 15, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct oversight of the Superfund Program.