Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Michael Pollock and Alison Garfield, detailees

with the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, be granted floor privileges during the consideration of the fiscal year 2007 Defense authorization bill.

Mr. President, under the standing order, is not the Senate now to return to the annual authorization Defense bill?

Mr. President, we are ready to proceed. The work achieved yesterday resulted in unanimous acceptance of a bipartisan amendment sponsored by the Senator from Virginia and the joint leadership. We then proceeded to an amendment under an arrangement whereby the minority was able to offer an amendment by Senator Lautenberg. I had the opportunity to speak briefly with him this morning. There was some indication that he would be willing to accept a proposal I had to make a slight modification, in which case I would hope we could proceed to either an acceptance by voice vote or schedule a vote at a time so desired by the leadership of the Senate.

I assume at some point in time I will be able to obtain information on that point. Absent that, I see my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Michigan. I was advising the Senate that the pending amendment is the Lautenberg amendment. On another committee where we were together in a markup session, there was some indication that he would be amenable to a modest modification to bring his amendment in parallel with what the committee had done. That is the pending business. We then turn to an amendment by the Senator from Virginia which I would like to discuss with my senior colleague in a minute or two before we turn to that. Unless there is a matter to address the Senate on, I would suggest we place a quorum call in for a few minutes.

I was not able, in a busy markup session, to ascertain that.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague. For years, Senator Graham has been on the Armed Services Committee and has

really specialized in health issues and other issues relating to the welfare of the men and women of the Armed Forces and their families. I, like him, share concerns about the rising costs of these programs. How well he and I understand that there is only so much money allocated under the process of our budget to the men and women in the Armed Forces. They need equipment. They need training. They need housing. They need medical care. If we constantly begin to chip away, it ends up those moneys are withdrawn from the modernization account.

I thank the Senator.

Madam President, I wish to advise the Senator that we have carefully examined the amendment and we are prepared to accept it on this side.

Madam President, for those following the debate, I certainly would acknowledge that the Senator

from New Jersey had a distinguished record in World War II in the U.S. Army in Europe and understands very well, through firsthand experience, the hardships faced by those particularly in the enlisted ranks.

Madam President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I believe we now return to amendment No. 4211.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the distinguished President pro tempore of the Senate, Senator Stevens, be made a cosponsor, and the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, be made a cosponsor of amendment No. 4211.

Madam President, we are going to accept this amendment by voice vote. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I rise today to speak on this amendment that will direct the first ship of the Navy's future class of air carriers, heretofore known as CVN-78, shall be named the USS Gerald Ford, in honor of our great statesman and leader, whose distinguished career of service to our Nation has spanned more than six decades. I can think of no finer tribute to our Nation's 38th President and indeed to the United States Navy than to add his name to a warship.

Gerald Ford joined the Navy in February of 1942, along with millions and millions of other Americans who responded to the call following Pearl Harbor. It was just weeks after Pearl Harbor that he volunteered, in those first dark hours of the United States' entry into World War II. Leaving behind a family and a profession to serve in a distant corner of the globe, he exemplified his generation often referred to as the greatest generation and truly all generations of young Americans who have sacrificed to defend our freedom--be it freedom from tyranny or freedom from terror.

As a young lieutenant, Gerald Ford came within inches of being swept overboard while selflessly performing his duties in the raging storm that battered Admiral ``Bull'' Halsey's fleet during action in the Philippine Sea. He was aboard a small aircraft carrier at that time. It was the USS Monterey, CVL-26. That ship, the Monterey, earned 10 battle stars for her role at Makin Island, Kwajalein, Truk, Saipan, the Philippines, and other major engagements in the Pacific theater. Lieutenant Ford had volunteered for that service aboard that ship and sailed in harm's way with many others. This memorable footnote in history of that one action where he selflessly performed lifesaving duties aboard his ship would instill in the future President a lifelong respect and appreciation for the hardships and dangers that surround our brave men and women in uniform. His military experience proved invaluable to his service as commander in chief and President of the United States.

Following World War II, Gerald Ford again answered duty's call, gaining election in 1948 to the House of Representatives where he would ultimately serve our Nation for a quarter of a century. During those tumultuous years in our history, as Congress acted on grave and often divisive issues surrounding the Cold War, nuclear weapons policy, war in Korea and Vietnam, the assassination of a beloved President, the civil rights movement, and the resignation of a Vice President of the United States, Congressman Ford distinguished himself by his calm, steady guidance, his plain-spoken wisdom, his extraordinary character, and his openness. He was respected by all for his decency.

These qualities propelled Gerald Ford to the forefront of his party. From 1965 to 1973, as minority leader of the House of Representatives, he was a unifying force in the Congress, serving not merely his party and constituency, but reaching across the aisle to find common ground and resolve for the greatest issues of the day.

The history of the ensuing years is well known as a turning point in our modern history as a Nation, when the great system of checks and balances forged into our Government framework by the Founding Fathers met one of its greatest challenges. There was neither past precedent nor a clear path forward for the change of power that would take place. There was only certainty that the man who was to ultimately assume the responsibility of the office of the President of the United States must be a leader of uncommon integrity, one who would reach ably across the aisle as a leader of all the people, and one whose credibility at home and abroad would be a unifying force--a foundation for the future.

In that hour of crisis, when public confidence in the Office of the President had ebbed, and the division between the executive office and the Congress had widened to its greatest extent in a century, our Nation placed its hope and trust in Gerald Ford to restore the faith of the people of the United States in the Office of the President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

President Gerald R. Ford brought closure to the crisis with characteristic straight talk at his inauguration in August of 1974, when he humbly declared to the American people that: ``Our long national nightmare is over. Our Constitution works.'' With those words, our Nation moved forward under his leadership.

During his administration, President Ford's policies at home pursued the path of healing and rebuilding--addressing the wounds of Watergate and the end of the war in Vietnam. He halted the postwar decline of our Armed Forces and set an early course for our Nation's defense posture, which proved a well-placed step toward ending the Cold War.

Abroad, President Ford worked to achieve peace in the Middle East, to preserve detente with the Soviet Union, and to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. Furthermore, with a clear vision towards a prevailing freedom in Eastern Europe, President Ford advanced the cause of human rights and perhaps charted a way and new course for these people long oppressed under the Soviet regime with the signing of the final act of the conference on security and cooperation in Europe, commonly known as the Helsinki Agreement.

In the three decades since departing the White House, President Ford has continued his relentless pursuit of the ideals which mark America's greatness. To this day, Gerald Ford remains an international ambassador of American goodwill, a champion for higher education, a strong supporter of human rights, an ardent proponent of strong national defense and international leadership by the United States, and a trusted adviser to the succession of Presidents who have built upon his foundation.

I believe my colleagues will agree that it is entirely fitting that CVN-78 be named for a former carrier sailor, the USS Gerald Ford.

I acknowledge the help and guidance and assistance of many in bringing up this amendment, notably among them John March, a friend of mine and an acquaintance, a fellow public servant. We both came out of World War II and met at Washington and Lee University. He went on to become a distinguished Member of the House of Representatives, serving there for 14 years. Then he was counsel to President Ford at the time of these difficult decisions that I have referred to. He then served as Army Secretary, and I think to date he is the longest serving Army Secretary in the history of our country.

Likewise, a wonderful man, former Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird. He was Secretary when I was privileged to serve under him as Under Secretary and Secretary of the Navy, again a lifelong friend and admirer of Gerald Ford. Also, the Ford Foundation members, and so many others. I spoke with Vice President Dick Cheney yesterday. Indeed, he was Chief of Staff to President Ford in his years of the Presidency, and Don Rumsfeld also served and was appointed by President Ford as Secretary of Defense when he first served with great distinction.

So I introduce this amendment, now acted upon by the Senate, with the deepest sense of humility and gratitude to this fine man who touched my life, who helped form my career, who held a Bible on the steps of the Senate with me when I was sworn in as head of the Nation's bicentennial, having then just stepped down as Secretary of the Navy; again served under President Ford in that capacity, to take on the direction of that brief chapter of America's history where our country, together with 22 other nations, recognized the magnificent achievement of our great framework of Government beginning in 1776.

So I do so, and I am very heartened that I am joined by the distinguished President pro tempore of the Senate, Senator Stevens, who has been a lifelong friend. It is not entirely coincidental that I am joined by my distinguished colleague, friend, and coworker here in the venue of the Armed Services Committee for these 28 years that we have served together, the distinguished Senator from Michigan, from whence Gerald Ford came to serve his country as Congressman and Vice President.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the timeline of President Gerald R. Ford's life and career be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I thank my dear friend, Senator Levin. I am deeply moved by this occasion, as you can tell. This is my last opportunity as chairman of the committee to present a bill to the Congress, and to have this amendment a part of the bill is very special, and to be joined by the distinguished Senator from Michigan to share in the honors of putting this to the Senate. You and I earlier discussed the traditions of naming ships. I draw on my knowledge as former Secretary of the Navy that it more often originates in the executive branch, for which I have the greatest respect. But somehow I felt it appropriate, since President Ford is a truly remembered part of the legislature of America, the legislative branch, having served so long there, that the naming of this ship have its origin here in the Congress which he so dearly loved. So we have joined together for that purpose.

Oh, yes, once upon a time he occupied that chair, I say, with respect to the Presiding Officer, the President of the Senate, the one and only function and duty enumerated in the Constitution of the Vice President.

Madam President, I invite any other Senators who so wish to be added as cosponsors. I have asked unanimous consent that their names be added as they indicate to the Chair, the Presiding Officer, their desire and that be kept open until the hour of, say, 5 o'clock tonight.

Madam President, I think we are concluded on the amendments. We are proceeding in an orderly fashion. The amendment pending is that of the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin; am I correct, or has that been put forward yet?

We ask that following that, we try to alternate amendments. The next amendment would come from our side, and I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Pennsylvania be recognized for purposes of offering an amendment.

Sure, the amendment would come next.

I thank the Senator.

Amendment No. 4230

Would the Senator allow me a brief unanimous consent request? The distinguished Senator from Michigan and I wish to alert the Senate that following Mr. Dorgan's amendment comes the amendment of Mr. Santorum and then Mr. Durbin. So the order of amendments is Dorgan, Santorum, then we come back to Senator Durbin, and then I ask unanimous consent that Senator McCain be recognized for the purpose of offering an amendment.

I advise the Senate we are, as we say in the Navy, well underway on this bill. The Senator from Michigan and I are anxious to learn from Senators their desire to have amendments. We will do the best we can to accommodate them because it appears now we will be able to remain in session somewhat longer this evening than originally anticipated due to the cancellation, I understand, of the White House picnic. I will consult with the leadership. It is my hope we can work on into the early evening.

Mr. President, the ranking member, together with our leadership, had hoped to have a vote. That will not occur at this time. We are contemplating having that vote, which would be on the Dorgan amendment, at 3:45 today. At this time, I cannot speak to the finality of that. The leadership is considering that issue. In the meantime, I will address the Dorgan amendment.

The committee has been active in exercising oversight on the Department of Defense contracting, particularly in Iraq, and held a hearing earlier this year focused specifically on recent findings of the Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction. In addition, the committee held several acquisition reform and general contract oversight hearings this year.

I was particularly taken by some of the remarks of the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan. We do not take lightly the message that he spoke to today. The Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction was established by Congress in October 2004 to provide oversight of the Iraqi relief and reconstruction fund and all obligations, expenditures, and revenues associated with reconstruction and rehabilitation activities in Iraq.

The SIGIR oversight is accomplished via independent audit, field inspections, and criminal investigations into potential fraud, waste, and abuse funds. The SIGIR submits quarterly and semiannual reports to Congress, the latest of which contains 29 audits of specific projects and activities. The SIGIR operates a hotline for reports of possible waste, fraud, and abuse and has uncovered criminal activity that has been referred for prosecution.

There are three separate GAO reviews ongoing specifically to review contracting practices in Iraq--DOD's efforts to identify and resolve cost issues on Iraqi reconstruction contracts, Iraq reconstruction contracts, and agency competition requirements for Iraq reconstruction contracts since fiscal year 2004.

The proposed amendment covers a range of policies introduced under the jurisdiction of multiple committees, including Homeland Security, Governmental Affairs, Judiciary, and Armed Services. Careful consideration and deliberation is required on a number of proposed provisions in the amendment. For example, one provision in the amendment addresses the issue of the role of contractors in performing inherently governmental functions. Definitions of ``inherently governmental functions'' and the role of contractors in supporting the Federal workforce in a variety of duties is an important issue, the resolution of which would have wide-ranging consequences and impacts. It deserves investigation and debate, not a few pages with a larger amendment attached to a major bill.

Another provision addresses broad workforce policy issues. The amendment contains a number of other problematic provisions with undefined terms of statutory requirements and disclosure requirements with questionable benefits. I know the committees of jurisdiction, including Judiciary and Governmental Affairs, will also want to review the details and impact of the proposed legislation and to relate it to the current statute and regulations. The Armed Services Committee conducted oversight on the larger policy issues related to emergency or contingency contracting and held a previous hearing in May 2004 specifically on contract management in Iraq.

The committee has also held a number of Iraqi related hearings and briefings where Iraqi contracting issues have been discussed.

Frequent bipartisan staff briefings on Iraqi contracting have been conducted with DOD, GAO, DOD IG and SIGIR officials. Issues identified in the May 2004 hearing and in these briefings related to security contractors in Iraq and insurance costs have been the subject of legislation in the last two authorization bills. This year's authorization bill builds on these reforms with legislation specific to effective and accountable management of large programs and projects in hostile environments.

Problems identified such as improper billing, overcharges, and fraud against the government are addressed through existing mechanisms to identify these acts and punish those who defraud the government. For example the False Claims Act provides for criminal and civil sanctions. It is important we adhere to due process protections for debarments and suspension of contractors.

Department of Defense 7640.2--Contract Audit Followup system-- implements OMB Circular A-50--requires tracking of all audit reports with significant audit findings and is monitored by the DOD Inspector General, and includes semi-annual reports to Congress. Virtually all Defense Contract Audit Agency audits are subject to this followup tracking system.

Will the Senator yield?

Could the Senator state the time when the House cast that vote?

It seems to me that vote preceded some remarkable developments which have taken place in the international forum within our country. With the great leadership of the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, we have taken some strong initiatives to try and resolve primarily the issue of the desire to proceed with the weapons of mass destruction effort, but there are a lot of collateral ramifications to these important talks.

The House vote is of record, but we should let our colleagues know that vote took place way before what I regard as rather dramatic developments with respect to the international consortium of nations-- Great Britain, France, United States, and now recently both Russia and China participating in some way.

Does the Senator think the amendment is wise in light of what is taking place now?

Mr. President, I thank my colleague.

Yesterday, the Senate had an opportunity to visit with the Secretaries of State and Defense. I believe my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania was there, as was I. And while those discussions are private in nature, I just simply say that with those discussions, combined with other discussions and communications I have had with the Department of State, I am somewhat more encouraged about the prospects of the negotiations now taking place than perhaps my colleague from Pennsylvania.

My main concern is, given the fragility of the situation with regard to these negotiations, the almost overriding importance of the question of the weapons-of-mass-destruction issue, and the need to have Iran publicly begin to cooperate with the IAEA and other organizations to prevent the proliferation of that type of weapon--I just wonder, had the Senator thought about maybe an effective date of this amendment to give some reasonable period of time for these negotiations to take place as to the effective date of the amendment?

Mr. President, I certainly respect the views of my colleague who once served on the Armed Services Committee. I regret that the Senator felt there were other areas where he could serve his country other than in our committee. But we still consider him a member of the committee.

The Senator is quite accurate that it is likely that this bill will be before this body into next week. I am hoping to conclude next week. Then, of course, there will be a period of time thereafter in which we will have a deliberation between the two bodies in the conference.

But I would like to have some additional time today for purposes of consultation. I assure the Senator, he has a right to move forward, as he has sought to do at this time. I say to the Senator, if you can indulge the chairman in trying to schedule such action

as may take place on this amendment at some point today, a little later than now, I would be appreciative of that.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague. He is recognized as one of the leaders of our party, and he is very cooperative with regard to all legislative matters.

My understanding is the Dorgan amendment is the pending amendment; is that correct?

I see. And we did not move on the Dorgan amendment as of yet.

Set aside. At the appropriate time, will the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, when he completes his remarks, move to have this amendment set aside for the time being?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I see our colleague from Maine, a member of the committee, and in due course I expect, after the completion of the Senator's remarks, the Senator from Maine can be recognized.

Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague from Maine. She is a valued member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. She has taken enormous interest in shipbuilding. Obviously, she has one of the world's finest yards in her State. Nevertheless, naval power and seapower are of great interest to the Senator from Maine. I thank her for her remarks and her strong participation as a member of the committee.

Mr. President, at this time, it is our hope and expectation that we will have another amendment soon brought to the floor.

Amendment No. 4230

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

Mr. President, the Senator from Florida desires to speak regarding the National Guard. For that purpose--oh, yes, Mr. President, I had indicated to the distinguished Senator from Texas that she could speak. She wanted how much time?

Why doesn't the Senator from Texas go first.

Yes. The Senator from Texas and the Senator from Florida.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I have been trying to work with the Senator from Florida to revise a draft I saw.

Mr. President, it seems to me, if the Senator withdraws the amendment, the managers can work with him and then the Senator from Florida can speak to the generic substance of the amendment, which I believe is a very important amendment.

Mr. President, I say to my colleague, the Senator from Florida is now in the process of rewriting it. I suggest we wait until he has decided on the version he would like to submit at the appropriate time.

Mr. President, is the pending amendment the Dorgan amendment?

Mr. President, I move to table the Dorgan amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the motion to table occur at 3:45 this afternoon; provided further that between now and 3:45, Senator Dorgan be recognized to speak for up to 15 minutes on the amendment.

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

Mr. President, I have listened very carefully to my colleague. I spoke earlier about what our committee had done. The organization is now in place to try to monitor the situations the Senator has enumerated.

We will proceed to a vote at 3:45. I will at that time seek to be recognized for the purpose of tabling the amendment.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this juncture a paper provided by the Department of Defense, a copy of which I hand to my distinguished colleague, which recites the Department's understanding with regard to the career of this woman to whom the Senator has referred.

Mr. President, we are awaiting the arrival of Senator McCain. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recognize Senator McCain upon his arrival at the floor.

The Senator may wish to ask unanimous consent to place further material into the Record after he has had an opportunity to examine that paper. There may be some material the Senator believes should be added.

I got unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record but as a courtesy gave the Senator a copy thinking the Senator may wish to supplement it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am deeply moved by the thoughtful remarks of my longtime friend. I express my everlasting gratitude first and foremost for that friendship and, indeed, the friendship of your father, commander and chief of the U.S. Forces in the Pacific, who helped guide me in those difficult days of Vietnam when I was entrusted with the Department of the Navy.

I say to my friend, it is my fervent hope when I step down as chairman, as prescribed by the rules of our caucus, I will have the privilege to nominate you to become the next chairman of the Armed Services Committee. And I am confident that will be confirmed in our caucus and eventually by the full Senate and that you will lead this committee to greater levels and higher achievements, as has been the case of almost every step of your career.

I wish you well and also your family, dear friend.

Now, Mr. President, I believe we are going to turn to another amendment by the distinguished Senator from Arizona, and I am privileged to be a cosponsor of that amendment.

I commend the Senator. This is a very important step that you are initiating with regard to the future of how financing the Department of Defense is handled in the Congress of the United States.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to extend the time for the vote by 5 minutes and that I be recognized at the conclusion of the 5 minutes.

May I inquire of the distinguished Senator if he has any way of estimating the amount of further debate on this amendment because we could quite likely schedule it for a vote this evening, subject to his concurrence.

I understand Senator Byrd would like to.

Fine, then I ask unanimous consent that upon the conclusion of the scheduled vote, the Chair recognize the Senator from Arizona for such additional remarks as he may wish to make.

I thank my longtime colleague and friend, Senator Levin, for his remarks.

I advise the Senate at this time we will proceed to the vote. I will momentarily make a tabling motion, and then upon conclusion of the vote, we will return to the McCain amendment. It would be my fervent hope that we can have a vote on that amendment prior to the time the leadership desires that floor activities be terminated.

Amendment No. 4230

I move to table the Dorgan amendment and 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, I will now propound a unanimous consent agreement which I think is in the possession of my colleague.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 5 o'clock today be equally divided between myself and Senator McCain and the Democratic leader or his designee, with 20 minutes of the Democratic leader time under the control of Senator Byrd, and that at 5 o'clock a vote occur in relation to the McCain amendment No. 4242, with no further intervening action or debate, and no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote.

I assure the Senator he will have time.

Mr. President, I wish to advise colleagues that it may be that we can expedite the vote prior to 5 p.m. So it really, in a sense, is no later than 5 o'clock.

Mr. President, may we have order, please.

The Senator is entitled to be heard.

Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, the West Virginian, the gentleman from West Virginia.

Amendment No. 4242

Mr. President, may I commend our distinguished senior colleague, former majority leader of the

Senate, for that brilliant speech, most appropriate on this day. I am certain that speech will be carried and viewed by our troops wherever they are in the world. In well over 60-some nations our men and women are standing guard tonight, protecting our freedoms.

I congratulate you, sir. Thank you very much.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, I fully support the McCain amendment.

This amendment would require regular budgeting for ongoing military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Since 2001, the administration and Congress has funded our ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through emergency supplemental appropriation bills, as has been the case in previous times in our Nation's history. As the Congressional Research Service noted in a June 13, 2006 report, ``Supplementals have been the most frequent means of financing the initial stages of military operations.''

The report continues:

In general, however, past administrations have requested,

and Congress has provided, funding for ongoing military

operations in regular appropriations bills as soon as more

accurate projections of costs can be made.

Operations have stabilized to an extent that accurate estimates of future years' costs of the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan may be made. And, it is now time for the administration to present these costs as part of the regular budgeting process.

Emergency supplemental appropriation requests are not forwarded to Congress with the same level of budget justification and details that are routinely sent to Congress when the President's annual budget is forwarded in February each year. If the authorizing and appropriation committees are not allowed to scrutinize fully the effectiveness of defense programs, we are not providing the taxpayer with the full diligence due for scrutinizing the President's budget request. While, I--and I am sure all my colleagues--fully support our troops, and want to ensure they have all the resources they need, we must also provide strong budgetary oversight.

We have not always funded our war efforts through routine supplemental appropriations measures. It is worth examining history to perceive how the practice has been exploited beyond all reasonable defense, as Senator McCain recently recounted, and it bears repeating:

For the Korean war, which lasted 3 years, there was only one supplemental appropriations bill;

During the 11-year Vietnam War, there were four supplemental appropriation bills. As soon as troop levels in Southeast Asia stopped climbing, the Johnson and Nixon administrations requested funding for ongoing operations in the regular defense authorization and appropriation bills;

Since 9/11, there have been nine supplemental appropriation bills in 5 years to fund the ongoing war on terror, including two in each of the years of 2002, 2004, and 2005. It now totals over $420 billion in emergency supplemental funding.

Most of us have voted in recent years to support several Sense of the Senate amendments stating that the war should be budgeted for in the regular process. Just this past April 27, the Senate voted 94-0 to approve such an amendment. I fully supported that proposition each time it has been offered. Now, this amendment before us would put real meaning into the positions we previously voted to support.

Let me also be clear about what this amendment does not do. It does not seek to prevent any future emergency funding requests for war operations. But it does require budgeting for the ongoing expenses we know are going to occur. If next year, after the budget is submitted in February, a totally unforeseen expenditure arises that must be urgently addressed, the administration would have the ability to submit a supplemental request. But simple ``costs of doing business'' expenditures--costs that can be estimated and budgeted for, but are more conveniently funded without any offsets--would not be allowed.

I simply say that this amendment goes a long way to restore the proper balance, as we lay down our Senate procedures in committees, between the authorizing process and the appropriators. I do not suggest in any way that the appropriators intentionally encroached on the authorizing process. To the contrary. It was because of the exigencies, the difficulty in predicting the expenditures associated with the current military operations that necessitated these large appropriations. But this amendment will go a long way to restore that.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I know my distinguished colleague from Michigan has a few words, and then we will go to the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors to this amendment: Senators Snowe, Ensign, Lieberman, Obama, Inouye, Akaka, and Salazar.

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 Wednesday, June 14, 2006, at 10 a.m., to mark up S. 418 ``Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act,'' as amended by the committee print; S. 811 ``Abraham Lincoln Commemorative Coin Act,'' and to vote on the nominations of Ms. Sheila C. Bair, of Kansas, to be a member and chairperson of the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; Ms. Kathleen L. Casey, of Virginia, to be a member of the Securities and Exchange Commission; Mr. Robert M. Couch, of Alabama, to be President of the Government National Mortgage Association; Mr. Donald L. Kohn, of Virginia, to be vice chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; and Mr. James B. Lockhart III, of Connecticut, to be the Director of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. Immediately following the mark up, the committee will meet in open session to conduct a hearing on ``FASB's Proposed Standard on `Employers' Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans.' ''

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 14, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on ``Extension of HUD's Mark-to-Market Program.''

Mr. President, I would like to ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to hold an oversight hearing on Wednesday, June 14, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. to consider whether potential liability deters abandoned hard rock mine clean up.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 14, 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.

Post Office Naming Bills

1. S. 2228/H.R. 4456, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 2404 Race Street in Jonesboro, Arkansas, as the ``Hattie W. Caraway Station;''

2. S. 2376/H.R. 3934, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 80 Killian Road in Massapequa, New York, as the ``Gerard A. Fiorenza Post Office Building;''

3. S. 2722, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 170 East Main Street in Patchogue, New York, as the ``Lieutenant Michael P. Murphy Post Office Building;

4. H.R. 4108, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 3000 Homewood Avenue in Baltimore, Maryland, as the ``State Senator Verda Welcome and Dr. Henry Welcome Post Office Building;''

5. H.R. 3440, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 100 Avenida RL Rodriguez in Bayamon, Puerto Rico, as the ``Dr. Jose Celso Barbosa Post Office Building;''

6. H.R. 4786, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 535 Wood Street in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, as the ``H. Gordon Payrow Post Office Building;''

7. H.R. 4561, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 8624 Ferguson Road in Dallas, Texas, as the ``Franciso `Pancho' Medrano Post Office Building;''

8. H.R. 4688, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 1 Boyden Street in Badin, North Carolina, as the ``Mayor John Thompson `Tom' Garrison Memorial Post Office;''

9. H.R. 4995, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 7 Columbus Avenue in Tuckahoe, New York, as the ``Ronald Bucca Post Office;''

10. H.R. 3549, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 210 West 3rd Avenue in Warren, Pennsylvania, as the ``William F. Clinger Jr. Post Office Building;''

11. H.R. 2977, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 306 2nd Avenue in Brockway, Montana, as the ``Paul Kasten Post Office Building;''

12. S. 2690, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 8801 Sudley Road in Manassas, Virginia, as the ``Harry J. Parrish Post Office;''

13. S. 3187, a bill to designate the Post Office located at 5755 Post Road, East Greenwich, Rhode Island, as the ``Richard L. Cevoli Post Office;''

14. H.R. 5245, a bill to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 1 Marble Street in Fair Haven, Vermont, as the ``Matthew Lyon Post Office Building.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 14, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on S. 374, the Tribal Parity Act and S. 1535, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Amendments Act of 2005.

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 Wednesday, June 14, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witness list:

Panel I: The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. and The Honorable William Kovacic, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission, Washington,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 14, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on Technology, Innovation, and Competitiveness be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 14, 2006, at 10 a.m. on Alternative Energy Technologies.

Mr. President, before the distinguished Senator departs, I say to the Senator, you made mention of his heroic service, together with that of yourself and Senator Inouye in World War II. But I think the Record should reflect how you and I and others in the Chamber-- Senator Inouye--supported him in the World War II Memorial. This was something that was very dear to his heart, and he became the national public president figure to really raise those funds--almost all of the dollars from the public sector: dollars from veterans, dollars from all across America, and, indeed, some from beyond our shores.

To his credit, every time I pass it--and I am sure you view that magnificent memorial--I always remember his contribution in erecting it.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague. I played a very minor role in World War II in the last year, the closing year, when my class of 17, 18-year-olds joined.

And I say to the Senator, you, sir, were a great hero in that war, as was Bob Dole.

Mr. President, I also thank our colleague, Senator Smith, for initiating this recognition on the 10th anniversary of Bob Dole's retirement from the Senate.

When I came to the Senate--it is hard to believe--28 years ago, he very soon became a figure to whom I would turn from time to time to seek advice and counsel. He had a magnificent ability to reach across the aisle. And he very firmly believed in the concept of trying to do as much business as we could in a bipartisan way.

Much has been said about trips we take in the Senate. I value the trips I took with Senator Dole. I remember one very vividly when he quickly put together a delegation to visit Boris Yeltsin when he rose to the top position in then the Soviet Union, watching Bob Dole with that new world leader, the two of them together trying to reach common ground and common understanding in the midst of the Cold War between the United States and the then Soviet Union. He was a man who wisely thought about how this is one world in which we live today. Be it the means of our national security or otherwise, we have to have the vision to look abroad.

I also remember another day very clearly. That was in connection with one of the anniversaries of the landing of D-Day. He asked me to accompany him. He spoke in Italy that day. Then we doubled back and went up to Normandy. We also incorporated in that trip a visit to a small village on the top of a mountain. All the way up the side of the mountain, the old bus we were in was zigzagging up a narrow road. There were little signs: Welcome home, Bob Dole. After a luncheon, he took me and one other Member of the Senate and we walked a short distance from the hotel up on a hillside where there was a small stone wall. We stood there and joined him in a silent moment of prayer. Prayer was very important, as it is now, to Bob Dole. That is where he fell wounded and survived under extraordinary circumstances, largely owing to one of the civilian partisans who helped him get back to receive medical care. I will remember that moment always.

I also draw to the attention of my colleagues--I am not here to sell books--a great book he wrote called ``Great Political Wit: Laughing (Almost) All the Way to the White House.'' In it he talks about himself. I particularly like this. This was in the last page of the book called ``Great Political Wit'':

Don't feel too bad for me. The appearance of this book

coincides with the fiftieth anniversary of Harry Truman's

stunning upset of Tom Dewey in 1948, which not only changed

the course of American history but produced a patron saint

for every political underdog since. Like Truman, I have a

Midwestern preference for plain speaking, and a sometimes

impolitic habit of laughing at pomposity. Although there have

been times when I have been forced to eat my words--or

swallow my pride--I still find it hard to take too seriously

people who take themselves that way.

What people often forget is that the last laugh doesn't

belong to the victorious candidate--it belongs to the late-

night [show] comics.

In that book, he also told a story. I think this is applicable to close out my brief remarks this morning.

As presiding officer of the United States Senate, Vice

President Calvin Coolidge declared his intention to master

the rules governing the world's greatest deliberative body.

This didn't take long, said Coolidge, who quickly discovered

that the Senate has but one rule, which is that the Senate

will do whatever it wants whenever it wants to.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the distinguished ranking member, my good friend, the Senator from Michigan, is correct. We laid down an amendment on this side under the understanding this is the amendment that he selected to be laid down. I am just wondering if we can try to get some idea of the magnitude of the debate? I am not able to assess it on my side. I judge you are not. So we have some understanding of the time that is likely to be consumed in the debate--this is an important amendment--we will work on that together, in hopes we can get some time agreement and therefore we can then move on to other amendments.

I would simply ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the debate or the disposition of this amendment, that I be recognized to offer another amendment at that time.

I say to my distinguished colleague, it is my hope then we could alternate from side to side, so we could consider your amendment which would follow the third amendment, which I will put on.

Mr. President, I yield such time as the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma may require. He will be speaking with regard to a very important trip to Iraq. It bears directly on the pending measure; that is, a resolution on the success of our military in eliminating al- Zarqawi.

I yield to the Senator such time as he desires.

Mr. President, at the present time the bill is being amended by the amendment which you just addressed, and there is a pending amendment offered by the minority. That is the next order of business. This afternoon, I think there would be opportunity for additional amendments.

If the Senator so desires.

But, Mr. President, I first inquire as to the allocation of time on the pending measure.

If the Senator would like to take a minute or two, I would be happy to have you alert the Senate as to some of the matters you will be bringing up.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to both sides.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Sessions be added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 4208.

Mr. President, to return to the pending amendment offered by myself on behalf of the joint leadership of the Senate, this bipartisan amendment commends basically the U.S. Armed Forces, the intelligence community, and other agencies, along with coalition partners for the actions taken on June 7, 2006, that resulted in the death of Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. The military operation that resulted in the death of Zarqawi was truly an extraordinarily professional accomplishment of the combined U.S. and coalition forces and the infrastructure of intelligence, both civilian and military, that supported the operation. It displayed the precision, perseverence, and professionalism of our Armed Forces, supported by a sophisticated and superb intelligence apparatus that included U.S., Iraqi, and coalition intelligence organizations.

Behind the details that were made public so far, I assure all that there were months of coordinated hard work by analysts, human intelligence operatives, special operations forces, and military planners which were in place at the time various pieces of information with a precise direction to the whereabouts of Zarqawi came into the knowledge of the intelligence operators.

The death of Zarqawi is certainly a significant blow to the terrorist network in Iraq, Osama bin Laden's international network, and the al- Qaida organization wherever they lurk in the world today in the shadows of death and destruction to the freedom of others. At Camp David yesterday the President was very careful to, with a sense of deep humility, commend the men and women of the Armed Forces and others who performed this mission, but he put the results of the mission in the context of the realities of the situation in Iraq. The press today reports from Camp David the following by the President:

Zarqawi is dead, but the difficult and necessary mission in

Iraq continues. We can expect the terrorists and insurgents

to carry on without him. We can expect sectarian violence to

continue. Yet the ideology of terror has lost one of its most

visible and aggressive leaders.

I will have further comments today with regard to that important conference in Camp David. Zarqawi was the most prominent insurgent in Iraq and the most active of any of Bin Laden's affiliates around the globe. While Bin Laden hides in mountain caves capable of making occasional audio tapes, Zarqawi was working to trigger a civil war, disrupt the newly unified democratic process of the new unity Government in Iraq, and then use Iraq as a base to launch attacks throughout the region. There is proof of that intent by Zarqawi. This amendment proudly salutes the brave and professional work of our military forces as well as the formidable efforts of our military, civilian, and allied intelligence operations for our efforts to end this brutal reign of terror.

The operation that resulted in the death of Zarqawi was not an isolated act. It triggered 56 more raids against targets connected with Zarqawi's organization in the 48 hours after his death as U.S., coalition, and Iraqi forces capitalized on this mission by taking action to disrupt other parts of the al-Qaida network. This amendment also commends our coalition partners in Iraq's new government of national unity for their invaluable assistance in the operation and their extraordinary efforts to secure a free and prosperous Iraq. The amendment closes by most appropriately commending our civilian leadership, from the Commander in Chief on down, and military leadership for their continuing efforts to eliminate the leadership of al-Qaida in Iraq and elsewhere. In all, this was a very successful joint and combined military operation. This mission was planned and executed by talented and courageous Americans, Iraqis, and coalition partners.

They all had one purpose--to eventually make Iraq safe and secure.

The operation that resulted in the death of Zarqawi may have eclipsed a very significant political development, the appointment of Ministers of Defense and the Interior, thereby ending weeks of political debate and completing the formation of Iraq's first permanent unity government. The death of Zarqawi and the appointment of these two Ministers are two very significant events in our unrelenting effort, with the coalition forces, toward a free and prosperous Iraq. While Iraq's insurgency and its divisions along religious lines will not easily recede, the death of Zarqawi and the complete formation of Iraq's government of national unity are reasons for renewed confidence that 2006 is a period of transition in Iraq and that our objectives are achievable.

I point that out because a year ago when we considered this bill, I, together with Senator Levin, put in an amendment which outlined the progress that had to be made in 2006. These are chapters toward achieving the goal we stated in that amendment which was part of our bill last year.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I see one of our distinguished colleagues seeking recognition for an important set of comments.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I concur in that recommendation, and it is my hope that I can be a cosponsor on this side of the aisle because the amendment is very important.

That is correct.

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, I am anxious to consult with the distinguished ranking member of the committee here, so, for the moment, I will just ask for a quorum call before I put in the unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, I withdraw that request.

Mr. President, at this time I send to the desk an amendment. It has been agreed upon between the ranking member and that I would be recognized for the purpose of an amendment following the disposition of the Lautenberg amendment. So at this time I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration following the disposition of the Lautenberg amendment.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the scheduled recess today be extended to 3:30 p.m., further that the cloture vote on the nomination of Richard Stickler be vitiated and at 3:30 p.m. the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4939, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill.

Mr. President, I say to my good friend from Massachusetts and my distinguished colleague from West Virginia, I am not at liberty--I have no instructions from my leadership beyond propounding this. It was my understanding it was cleared on both sides. I assumed that when it was handed to me, and therefore I proceeded to request by unanimous consent these actions.

I think Members are anxious to go to a series of events now, namely the party caucuses, followed by the traditional photograph, and then there is a briefing at 2:30 by the Secretaries of State and Defense, which I believe is very important for Senators to have the opportunity to attend.

That is the purpose of this unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, the Senator has the right to object. That would do it. I can certainly say that I will relay the Senator's concerns to my leader. If that would suffice for the moment to allow this unanimous consent agreement to go forward? Would that be sufficient?

I have just been given a note indicating the leader will be fully briefed about the concerns of the Senator from Massachusetts.

Yes, I believe, I say to the distinguished former leader, I have the floor, but I yield the floor to him.

I propound the unanimous consent request.

You have my full attention.

If it is the desire of the Senator from West Virginia to object, I respect that right. The matter will now be put aside, if that is your desire.

Mr. President, it seems to me that we could have the certainty, then, if the vote is to be held, that we could go immediately following the vote to the supplemental.

Then I think for the moment that we are confronted with the parliamentary situation whereby there is objection.

No. Leave the unanimous consent request there. I understand there is objection.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 13, 2006, at 10 a.m. in 328A, Senate Russell Office Building. The purpose of this committee hearing will be to discuss United States Department of Agriculture Farm Loan Programs.

Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, June 13, 2006, at 10 a.m. on the Committee Update of S. 2686 Consumer's Choice and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday, June 13, 2006, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``A Tune-Up On Corporate Tax Issues: What's Going On Under The Hood?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 13, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing on ``Counterterrorism: The Changing Face of Terror.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Examining the Continuing Need for Voting Rights Act Section 203's Provisions Regarding Bilingual Election Materials'' on Tuesday, June 13, 2006, at

9:30 a.m., in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witness List

Panel I: John Transvina, President, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), Los Angeles, CA; Margaret Fung, Executive Director, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York, NY; Mauro E. Mujica, Chairman of the Board and CEO, U.S. English, Washington, DC; Deborah Wright, Acting Assistant Registrar-Recorder, Department of Registrar-Recorder, Los Angeles, CA; Peter N. Kirsanow, Member, National Labor Relations Board, Commissioner, United States Commission on Civil Rights, Cleveland, OH.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 13, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a closed briefing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security be authorized to meet on Tuesday, June 13, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., for a hearing regarding ``Autopilot Budgeting: Will Congress Ever Respond to Government Performance Data?''

Mr. President, I have been very much looking forward to this moment.

First, I ask unanimous consent that an article which appeared in the Charleston Gazette on June 12, 2006, be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. President, this article embraces the comments of many dear friends of the Senator, and I say with some humility, a few of my own comments as well.

I think back to reminisce on the 28 years that I have been privileged to have represented the Commonwealth of Virginia in this Chamber.

There is no single individual for whom I have greater reverence or respect than my dear friend, the senior Senator from West Virginia. We were bonded together early on. When I arrived here, he sought me out, and I sought him out because our two great States at one time, were one State, the State of Virginia. But now, even though we are two States, our states have so many issues in common.

How many times Senator Byrd and I have come to this floor with regard to the subject of the coal miners, their safety, their ability to operate and provide that essential component to America's energy needs, coal; how dangerous is the profession, how much we respect their families and other ones who share the risk that the miners take every day.

Then, more specifically, I remember so well how we have worked together all of these many years in support of clean-coal-burning technology.

Coal is the largest single reserve of energy that this Nation possesses--the largest, far beyond petroleum, far beyond natural gas, far beyond the other renewables, and so forth. Coal is there. Our research and industrial base works year after year to try to see how we can consume these vast coal reserves and thereby become less and less dependent on importing our energy needs, but burning it in such a way that it does the least possible harm to the environment, be it the air we breathe or the problems associated with acid rain, and so forth.

I commend my dear friend for all the work that he has done and will continue to do for years on clean coal technology.

Virginia and West Virginia also share a common border that is basically established by the Appalachian Mountains. This part of Virginia and West Virginia has its own magnificent qualities, particularly the sturdy lifestyle of the people who choose purposefully to live in those hills and valleys and those mountains which are so often ravaged by heavy floods and so often ravaged by other natural disasters, such as snowstorms.

Senator Byrd and I many times have gone to visit those regions in the aftermath of a natural disaster. We find no desire on the part of those people to leave those regions, only to remain.

Senator Byrd was instrumental in passing legislation which provides recognition for those geographic areas of the Appalachian range that are deserving of financial assistance and other forms of assistance because of the rigorous, challenging lifestyle in these regions. He has seen that funding has remained these many years equitably allocated between the several States.

I think of him foremost as one who is a family man. How often he has reminisced about the members of his family. He speaks with a great sense of pride and humility on how his family, much like every Member of this Senate, is closely involved in the life of the Senate, closely involved because of the commitments the families make: the many long hours Senators are required to either be in the Chamber or traveling throughout their States, traveling throughout the 50 States, or, indeed, around the world. It is a challenge for the families, and Bob Byrd is a family man, along with his beloved wife Erma.

I remember so well early on in my career, I had the privilege to be invited by Senator Byrd, to join him on a number of codels to various parts of the world. We served together on the Senate Committee on Armed Services these many years. So often we would visit the troops and others throughout the world.

One trip I remember ever so vividly, he took the first congressional codel to the then-Soviet Union to visit with Gorbachev, who had risen to a powerful position in the Soviet Union after a lot of strife and turmoil. That man exhibited extraordinary courage. I so looked forward to our important visit, as did every member of that codel--I think there were about a dozen of us who joined Senator Byrd to go over to the Soviet Union.

Senator Strom Thurmond, whose record Senator Byrd, with a sense of humility, passes today, was on that codel. And as we flew to the Soviet Union, I had the privilege--and maybe with one or two others--of working with Bob Byrd on remarks he wanted to make. That was an important set of remarks. Strom Thurmond represented the Republican side of that delegation. We were basically equally divided. I remember working through that statement well into the wee hours of the night as that plane was traversing that long distance.

The following day, Gorbachev announced he was going to allocate an hour and a half time to meet this delegation. The time was carefully allocated by Senator Byrd and Senator Thurmond to members of the delegation.

I recall that I was the junior man on that delegation. When he got to me, I had 2 minutes. I was proud to get 2 minutes. Our dear colleague and friend, the retiring Senator this year, Senator Sarbanes, senior, of course, to me at that time, turned to me and said: I will give you my 3 minutes so you can have 5 minutes because you are on that Committee on Armed Services, and there is nothing more important to be covered today than the issues relating to national defense. I will never forget that act of courtesy by Senator Sarbanes.

Senator Byrd delivered his remarks flawlessly. Gorbachev listened very carefully. Gorbachev made a few notes on a pad. He was followed, then, by Strom Thurmond, who delivered one of his thunderous, heartfelt remarks, beginning with how he stormed the shore on D-Day and how the Soviet Army was pressing on Germany from another direction. It was a confluence of primarily those two forces and Great Britain and, of course, their allies and the free French who brought a conclusion to the war. Gorbachev's father had been in the war. Strom reminisced, jokingly saying that he hoped he had not hurt his father. I recall Gorbachev very much was moved by that comment.

That was the type of thing for which Senator Byrd was so famous: putting together those delegations, going to those places in the world around which the axle of history was evolving at that time, or the spokes of history around that axle. What a privilege it was to travel with this great man.

I think of him as a historian. This Senator does not have the temerity, and I don't know of anyone who would challenge Bob Byrd on the history of this great institution. No man hath greater love for this Senate than Robert Byrd. He has expressed that with a sense of humility many times in speeches in the Senate.

When he reaches into his pocket and pulls out a copy of the Constitution--he almost knows it by heart--he always opens that little book. He can, as quickly as anyone in this Senate, find those passages that are relevant to the debate at hand or the issues at hand. Those are things we remember about him with such great respect.

He is a humorist. He can be tough. He can be firm. But, oh, can he bring a chuckle about in the hearts of all of us.

Sometimes in this Senate when things hit the high point of stress, I have seen Bob Byrd take to the floor with his very soft voice, dispel tension, dispel some of the rancor, and inject a note of humor.

Bob Byrd is also, it might surprise Members, an artist. One painting he did many years ago, some of us through the years have been privileged to get a copy of that painting. He has an eye for art. He also has an eye for music. I do recall the times when he played the fiddle, the music that he loved and still loves. I think he composed a little bit on the side from time to time.

I can recount so many things where he is far more capable than I. I have never considered myself a poet, but Bob Byrd can recall from memory hundreds of poems and recite them at times when it seems most appropriate.

He is a family man, historian, humorous, artist, musician, composer, poet, and then we think back always to his respect for the Bible, and second only to the Bible, his respect and love for the United States Constitution.

I went back and checked a little history. This Chamber honored me the other night after I cast my 10,000th vote, a very modest accomplishment in the face of Bob Byrd's accomplishment, my 28 years. He has been here just short of twice as long.

Also, someone thoughtfully said that I was the second longest serving Senator from Virginia. Lo and behold, who was the longest serving Senator from Virginia? None other than Bob Byrd's close friend of years past, Harry F. Byrd, Sr. I repeat, senior, because when I came to the Senate, Harry F. Byrd, Jr., was the Member of the Senate with whom I was privileged to serve as his junior Senator. But it is interesting, Harry F. Byrd, Sr., was born in Martinsburg, Berkeley County, WV. There you have it. He was the longest serving Senator and remains with that record at 32 years and 8 months for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Now Bob Byrd takes it not only for the State but for the whole of the history of the Senate.

There has to be something, I say most respectfully, in the water down in West Virginia, or the lifestyle, the hardiness, or the courage of the people that enabled these two distinguished Virginians, Robert C. Byrd and Harry Flood Byrd, Sr., to become the longest serving in their respective States.

Exhibit 1

[From the Charleston (WV) Gazette, June 12, 2006]

The Pillar of the Senate: 10 Presidents Later, Byrd Longest-Serving

Senator

(By Paul J. Nyden)

Sen. Robert C. Byrd becomes the longest-serving member of

the U.S. Senate today, having represented West Virginians for

17,327 days in the chamber.

Byrd began serving in the Senate more than 47 years ago, on

Jan. 3, 1959, after spending six years in the House of

Representatives and six years in the West Virginia

Legislature.

He also has cast more votes by far than any member of the

Senate: 17,662 times, as of last Friday.

``I consider him to be the pillar of the Senate,'' says

Sen. Paul Sarbanes, D-Md. ``His commitment to the United

States Senate and its history, customs and procedures is

equaled only by his commitment to the state of West Virginia,

our nation and our Constitution.''

Byrd's impact on fellow senators personally rivals his

institutional role, some of his colleagues said.

``Senator Byrd has been a very, very important figure in my

life,'' said Sen. John Warner, a Virginia Republican. ``He is

such a magnificent teacher of the history the Senate.''

Warner recalls a conversation he had with Byrd when Warner

was new to the Senate. ``He said, `At one time, our states

were together. I don't want to put them back together, but I

want to work together as full and equal partners,' '' Warner

said.

``I enjoy the man, ``Warner said. ``He is wonderful.''

Up to now, the Senate's longest-serving member had been the

late Strom Thurmond, R-S.C. The third- and fourth-longest-

serving members are Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and Daniel K.

Inouye, D-Hawaii, both of whom have been there more than 43

years.

``Byrd epitomizes the role that the framers of our

Constittion envisioned for the legislative branch,'' Sarbanes

said.

In fact, The Almanac of American Politics, a widely

consulted volume on federal politics, describes Byrd as the

politician who ``may come closer to the kind of senator the

Founding Fathers had in mind than any other.''

Since President Bush took office, Byrd has been one of the

Senate's leading voices on challenging the war in Iraq,

preserving Social Security and protecting workers' jobs and

safety.

Despite his strong positions, however, Byrd said he regrets

the increasing animosity in both legislative bodies. He said

he has always worked to be bipartisan.

``I thank the people of West Virginia for having repeatedly

expressed their faith in me,'' Byrd said. ``I never lose

sight of that. Every morning of every day of my life, my

first thought is, `What can I do today for West Virginia?' ''

Byrd's contribution to the state has been immense, said

Gov. Joe Manchin and members of West Virginia's congressional

delegation.

``I don't know of a person in West Virginia who has not

been touched, or benefited in a most positive way, by Senator

Byrd's service,'' Manchin said. ``I mean, Democrats,

Republicans, independents and people who don't vote--they all

benefit.''

Byrd has long been known as a ``legend'' in West Virginia,

said Jay Rockefeller, Byrd's junior Democratic colleague for

the state. ``But now he has surpassed even the great legends

of the Senate to become the longest serving senator in U.S.

history.''

He can take credit for ``highways, dams, bridges, federal

facilities and jobs, health centers and educational

institutions,'' Rockefeller said. ``And the best part is,

he's not finished.''

``What do you get when you multiply the power of the beacon

by the strength of a workhorse by the steadiness of an

anchor? Robert C. Byrd,'' said Rep. Nick J. Rahall, D-W.Va.

Byrd's ``ability to deliver for our state'' is awe-

inspiring, said David Hardesty, the president of West

Virginia University. ``His votes are guided by his

understanding of the Constitution and by his dedication to

the people of this state.``

Manchin also emphasized Byrd's future.

``People also need to know that Senator Byrd has a lot of

years of service left in him,'' he said. ``When people ask

about what he has done, he says, `I want to talk about people

who can help me do what we still need to do.' ''

Born in Wilkesboro, N.C., in 1917, Byrd grew up in a coal

mining family in Sophia, Raleigh County.

Nearly 20 years later, he married Erma Ora James, who

passed away on March 25 of this year. Today, Mrs. Byrd would

have turned 89.

Mr. President, before the distinguished Senator departs, I thank him for his kind remarks and thank him for his service on the Armed Services Committee.

He mentioned Richard Russell. Indeed, he had many years of service on the Armed Services Committee. I know he would be very proud of what Senator Chambliss has done to carry on the traditions which he instituted.

I earlier shared my respect for Robert Byrd and that great class of Senators with whom he worked in this institution, among them Harry F. Byrd, Sr., Richard B. Russell, and John Stennis. They were quite a team, and we have all learned from them. I must say, Senator Chambliss carries on those traditions with his great State.

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

Mr. President, we are now on the bill. Is that correct?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent if I may depart from the bill to speak as if in morning business regarding our distinguished colleague, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia.

Mr. President, to accommodate Members, we will be on the bill for some period of time. I will be joined by the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Levin, shortly after 5 o'clock today. In the meantime, we are open for statements.

Mr. President, before the Senator parts the floor, I say thank you for your kind remarks.

Yes, I do graciously and willingly step down. It is the rules of our caucus, and I respect that. But it has been a marvelous opportunity for me to have

this 6 years, and, indeed, a year or 2 before that as chairman. But I want to particularly comment on the long association and continued association of the senior Senator from Colorado with respect to issues of national security. The Senator has served on our committee, I think, about 8 years.

How many years?

That is correct. And you are distinguished in your steadfastness on the subject of missile defense and how to protect this country. How many times have you taken the floor and asked and received silence from the Senate: Do we have one--one--system that can knock down an intercontinental ballistic missile should we have the misfortune, be it accidental or otherwise, to have it targeted against our country? There has been silence in this Chamber until we started the missile defense program, and you steadfastly fought for that.

I say to the Senator, I also commend you for Rocky Flats. Year after year after year, you shepherded through the Senate, in the appropriations cycle, the funds to do that because of not just the importance of Rocky Flats but the importance of the overall program, what we call the cleanup program, the environmental program, in the Department of Defense to clean up a lot of the former military installations and particularly those associated with the production of fissionable material.

So I commend the Senator.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague.

Mr. President, it is my privilege to bring forward on behalf of the Armed Services Committee, and now on behalf of all of our colleagues, the annual Defense authorization bill. I do so with my longtime colleague and dear friend of 28 years serving on this committee, the senior Senator from Michigan, Mr. Carl Levin, who is currently the ranking member of the committee. He has been a working partner of mine, and I have been a working partner of his. He was once chairman of this committee. We have always been able to put aside such differences that we may have. I respect his difference of views, and he respects mine. We work as a team on behalf of our committee and all of our colleagues in producing this annual bill, and in all of these 28 years we have been together.

I thank all members of the Armed Services Committee. We have one of the larger committees. I thank our senior staff, particularly Mr. Charles Abell, my current chief of staff, and Rick DeBobes, the current chief of staff of the minority, and each and every one of their team, because it is a team effort. Our committee, I think almost more so than any others I know of, relies on this professional staff. It is really a professional staff that we have, in many respects, to put together this bill.

The bill before the Senate was unanimously reported out of the committee on May 9 after holding 36 hearings and receiving numerous policy and operational briefings on the President's budget request for fiscal year 2007 and related Defense issues. I commend my colleagues for their hard work and the swift manner in which they contributed to developing and writing this important legislation, not only at the hearings we had but in the subcommittee structure that worked so effectively to produce this bill.

Since the Armed Services Committee reported out this legislation, the United States remains engaged in the global war on terrorism, now in its fifth year.

Currently, the central battlegrounds in the war on terrorism are in Iraq and Afghanistan. But there are many, many other areas throughout the world where quietly, yet no less effectively, the men and women of the Armed Forces are stationed and joining in this collective effort of all uniformed personnel to perform the duties necessary to let this country remain free and those of our allies in the face of this terrorist threat.

It is so important, as we go through this bill, to pay our respects collectively to the men and women in uniform and their many civilian counterparts. There is an enormous cadre of civilians in the Department of Defense and serving elsewhere who are alongside the uniformed men and women throughout the world. But I want to pay particular respect to the Guard and Reserve who have risen to the call far beyond expectations in these conflicts of terrorism and have done their duties time and time again with great honor and distinction.

For each of the countries, the road to peace and stability and democracy has been marked by historical milestones, including a referendum in both Iraq and Afghanistan that adopted a constitution, elections that chose a democratically elected representative government, the formation of a unity government, and progress in building security forces capable of protecting their nation's freedom. Those are landmark and historical accomplishments in the course of world history, and they would not have been achievable without the sacrifices--regrettably, the loss of life, the loss of limb--by so many men and women in the Armed Forces and the support their families, by their side, have given them.

These accomplishments in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the global war on terrorism are a tribute to the dedication and skills of our uniformed men and women who are willing to respond to the call of duty, and to the military leaders who lead them.

The successes achieved in Iraq and Afghanistan have come at a great sacrifice, as I said, in life and limb. These sacrifices and service of our men and women in uniform have also removed obstacles to freedom and democracy in regions of the Middle East and elsewhere in Asia.

Throughout my many years of service I have never seen--and I repeat, I go back some 60 years, to the closing year of World War II, when I was a young 17, 18-year-old sailor--but I have had the privilege of being associated with the men and women in uniform in these 60-plus years, and we have never as a nation witnessed a finer, more dedicated professional force, both Active and Guard and Reserve, than we have today.

As I look back over the history of the U.S. Armed Forces, the challenges and responsibilities have never been greater than those that rest upon the shoulders of today's generation of the military--their leaders, their civilian leaders in the Department of Defense, with the Secretary of Defense and others, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Energy--all of this team that puts together our national security.

As such, we must take our responsibilities equally as serious to ensure that those who serve have the resources and authorities they need to win the global war on terrorism.

Again, drawing on my modest contribution in active service during World War II and again in Korea and time in the Reserve, I must say, it is so different, in this span of over a half century that I have had the privilege to be associated with these men and women, the challenges that face them today. In World War II we knew precisely who the enemy was. We knew the nations that sponsored the aggression. We knew generally the capabilities of their military, and we knew with greater specificity what we needed to do in America to arm ourselves, first and foremost, with the finest trained men and women--16 million responded in World War II to serve in uniform--and the equipment that they needed.

But today's war on terrorism is largely nonstate-sponsored. We do not know the origins of the hatred that is in the minds of those people who proudly claim the role of terrorist, what it is that engenders that hate such that they wish to strike out, often sacrificing their own life to do harm to those who love and cherish freedom. That is a particular challenge that our young men and women face today, unlike any other conflict of the magnitude we are now engaged in in Afghanistan and Iraq principally, unlike any other conflict in the history of our country. Therefore, we ask much of that individual in uniform today.

It is our privilege as Members of this venerable and distinguished Senate to,

at least once each time every year, and then, of course, in the subsequent appropriations process, provide nothing but the finest equipment obtainable, fair pay and allowances and health care and other requirements that the young men and women and their families of the Armed Forces so richly deserve. What a privilege it is to do that.

With our Armed Forces deployed in distant battlefields and countless others standing watch at home, we are committed to providing the necessary resources and authorities for each of them and their families.

Accordingly, this bill provides $467.7 billion overall in budget authority for fiscal year 2007--that is an enormous sum of money--an increase of $26.2 billion or 4.1 percent in real terms over the amount authorized by Congress for fiscal year 2006; additionally, $50 billion in emergency supplemental funding for fiscal year 2007 for activities in support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere in the global war on terrorism.

That is a new concept unlike any I have experienced in the early years in this Chamber, where we literally put in a block sum of money. Since we cannot anticipate with full specificity the needs and special requirements that flow from these operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is prudent and a necessary plan.

The bill further includes many important legislative provisions that would set forth critical policies for the Department of Defense. I would like to highlight a few provisions that would continue to support the modernization and transformation of the Armed Forces and highlight other provisions that would strengthen interagency operations abroad and at home.

The Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, is to be commended. When he first came to office we had no way of envisioning the magnitude of the war on terrorism. But he set in place the transformation, particularly of the United States Army but other areas of the Department of Defense. And that same transformation and modernization has gone ahead largely parallel to the efforts that we have undertaken in the actual combat of the world war on terrorism.

First of all, my colleagues and I on the committee and others in the Senate remain particularly concerned about the size of the Navy's fleet. In the past 15 years, there has been a declining trend in shipbuilding and a diminishing capacity in the shipbuilding industrial base. The fleet has been reduced to its smallest size since before World War II in terms of number of ships. There are fewer ships today than before World War II. That is an accurate statistic. But it would be incorrect if I didn't say that the smaller number of ships that we have today far exceeds the capabilities of the ships that we had when we entered World War II. So it is not just a numbers game. But it is interesting to point out that statistic in terms of the numbers.

The fleet has been reduced as a result of budget necessities and the extraordinary cost of the individual ships. That has dictated fewer ships, regrettably. But the current Chief of Naval Operations and the current Secretary of the Navy are determined to try, together with the support of the Congress, to turn that curve around and begin to increase the number of ships in the Navy. The time has come to reverse that current trend, and I commend the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Navy, Chief of Naval Operations, and all others working to try to reverse the trend. Indeed, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Gordon England, former Secretary of the Navy, has been at the helm in trying to increase the size and number of the United States Navy. Each of those individuals is mindful of what the Constitution says. It is the duty of the Congress to maintain--I repeat, maintain-- at all times a United States Navy, and then an Army and the size of the Army in accordance with what the needs are. We raise that Army depending upon the threats facing the country. But it is interesting that the Framers clearly recognized the importance of this Nation having maritime supremacy, which we do have today.

In many respects, we are an island nation--yes, bordered by our friends to the north, Canada, and our neighbors to the south. But nevertheless, with two mighty oceans on either side, it is imperative that this country maintain maritime superiority. So we worked diligently to strengthen the shipbuilding program and the industrial base which provides us those ships.

We fund the construction this year of eight warships, one above the President's request, and two new warship classes, the DDX destroyer and LHA(R) amphibious assault ship. We implement a long-range plan for the procurement of three ships of the future aircraft carrier class CVN-21 to improve the affordability of the future aircraft carrier class by authorizing multiple ship material procurements over 4-year increments. So that ship, indeed, is coming to life. The parts are being brought together to build that mighty warship of the future, the CVN-21.

We lay the groundwork to increase the submarine build rate to ensure our continued underseas superiority and increase our investment in the National Shipbuilding Research Program. The bill also includes a provision that would increase investment in unmanned systems to provide more flexible capabilities to the warfighter by requiring the Secretary of Defense to develop a departmentwide policy for development and operation of unmanned systems.

I am very proud of the record of our committee in encouraging the use here year after year of great numbers of unmanned platforms and to provide the research and development to achieve more new platforms. The recent extraordinary military accomplishment of, at long last, putting to rest the threat from Zarqawi was made possible by the use of an unmanned system in part, together with all elements of our intelligence collection, both military and civilian, and, indeed, finally the execution of a plan with great professionalism by those flying aircraft and those manning ground responsibilities. We will have further to say about that operation as this bill proceeds.

The bill further includes a provision that would continue the development and sustainment of the Joint Strike Fighter Program. After holding 2 days of hearings, I remain concerned that relying on a sole engine supplier for single-engine aircraft to do multiple missions for multiple services and multiple nations presents, indeed, a very serious challenge to the industrial base, the designers, and the manufacturers and all involved. I felt that we could not take the risk of this important program by limiting the engine base to but one single consortium of companies; rather, that we should have the two.

This concern is not a new one that I share, nor is it a concern of mine alone. Ten years ago, a decade ago, I and other colleagues on the Armed Services Committee expressed concern regarding the lack of engine competition for aircraft. In response to that concern, the committee included a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996 that directed the Secretary of Defense to ``evaluate at least two propulsion concepts from competing engine companies.'' Now a decade later, my colleagues and I on the committee continue to have that same concern, and we want to have competition for this engine, in the development of this engine and eventually in the manufacture, because competition historically has produced a better product.

Competition requires both competitors to constantly try to improve the technology of the engine, constantly to try to find means to reduce the cost of the engine. This is an enormously expensive program. Hopefully, we will procure more than several thousand airframes of different types, some to operate on carriers, some from land, some a mix, some with destall capabilities.

It is essential that the magnitude and complexity of this program rest on a solid foundation of propulsion, propulsion provided by two very competent and capable industrial base consortiums competing not only in cost but the continuing competition of design to perfect the best engine man and woman can make for this complicated aircraft. I am proud of what the committee has achieved on this program.

Therefore, the bill includes a provision that would add $400.8 million--that is not in the President's budget but in the committee's mark, now the bill before the Senate--for the development of the interchangeable engine during fiscal year 2007. Two models will

continue to strongly compete, one by one consortium, another by a second consortium of manufacturers. Indeed, I think by doing that we better serve those nations which have signed up and committed their dollars to the development of this aircraft, nations that are dependent upon this aircraft being designed and built and at a cost that they can afford.

We direct the Secretary of Defense to continue the development and sustainment of the Joint Strike Fighter Program with two competitive propulsion systems throughout the life of the aircraft or enter into a one-time, firm-fixed price contract for a single propulsion system throughout the life of the aircraft.

In addition to modernizing and transforming the Armed Forces to meet current and future threats, we must also strengthen interagency operations abroad and at home. The challenges posed by the Second World War led to increasingly more joint and combined operations within the U.S. military.

Now operations have become more interagency and coalition in nature and will be for the foreseeable future. The success of the U.S. efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the global war on terrorism will depend on coordinating all instruments of our national power to achieve peace and security in troubled regions around the world.

This will include deploying civilian personnel of each agency of our Government with expertise in the areas of rule of law and administration of justice, economic development, and civil administration to partner with U.S. military forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations to secure hard-won military successes and to preserve peace and freedom.

To strengthen interagency operations and to provide greater flexibility in the U.S. Government's ability to partner with nations in fighting terrorism, the bill includes provisions that would require the President to develop a plan to establish interagency operating procedures for Federal agencies to plan and conduct stabilization and reconstruction operations; provide to the heads of all executive branch agencies the same authorities the Secretary of State has with respect to providing allowances, benefits, and death gratuities for Foreign Service or civilian personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan; expand authorities for geographic combatant commanders to train and equip foreign military forces, and to provide urgent humanitarian relief and reconstruction assistance to foreign nations; expand authority to the Department to lease or lend equipment for personnel protection and survivability to our allies and coalition partners; and expand authority to provide logistics support, supplies, and services to our allies and coalition partners.

With the increased role of the Armed Forces in homeland security, I also remain concerned about whether current authorities on the use of the Armed Forces are adequate to deal with a serious or widespread breakdown in public order caused by a terrorist attack or natural disaster. The bill includes a provision that would update the provision in title 10 known as the Insurrection Act to clarify the President's authority to use the Armed Forces to restore order and enforce Federal laws in cases where, as a result of a terrorist attack, epidemic, or natural disaster, public order has broken down beyond the ability of local law enforcement or the State Guard, or a combination thereof, to effectively bring about law and order.

To more effectively support local, state, Federal agencies in response to manmade or natural disasters, the bill includes provisions that would authorize the Secretary of Defense to approve the deployment of Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams to Canada and Mexico, if requested.

We have perfectly equipped teams--at least one for each State--to deal with these problems. We should share them with our neighbors to the north and to the south, if so requested.

It would expand the types of emergencies for which the Secretary of Defense may prepare or employ Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams; and add $13.5 million to provide for the training and equipment of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams.

They were a concept developed in the Armed Services Committee, and I am very proud. It has taken us many years to get the funding stream to provide these teams so they cover adequately the best we can equally all 50 States.

These are just a few of the essential authorities among the more than 300 provisions included in this year's bill. I believe the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2007 sustains the advances made in recent years, and provides the necessary investments to prepare for the security of our Nation in the future.

I urge my colleagues to debate this bill in a constructive manner and to bring forth those amendments which you believe would further strengthen this bill. They will be fairly considered, I assure you. Therefore, I am anxious that this bill be established and passed by the Senate, having been amended where it is necessary. It has been the tradition of the Senate for 45 years to pass this bill each year.

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

Mr. President, I wish to comment on the F-22. It is a magnificent aircraft. It is absolutely essential for our inventory of weapons.

Stop to think that any use of our Armed Forces, wherever they may be in the world, is dependent on air superiority. The United States has that air superiority, but there are nations night and day trying to fashion airplanes or instruments that could take away that air superiority. This Nation is banking its future on that aircraft.

I am very pleased that our committee has marked up a strong bill on that issue. The Senator from Georgia may have some additional thoughts on it, which we will turn to in the course of the deliberations on this bill.

I salute the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss, for doing everything he can to ensure that the United States of America maintains its air superiority so that the men and women of the other Armed Forces, be they at sea, on the land--wherever they may be--have the sense of confidence that the skies above will not become some instrument of war in harm's way to them.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I wish to say with a deep sense of humility how much I appreciate his comments. To the extent I have had achievements as chairman of this committee, and before that as ranking member, it was largely due to the long-term friendship and confidence we share in each other's decisions.

Mr. President, I again thank my long-time friend, the ranking member of this committee.

We shall now be available for amendments. The bill is open for amendment. I intend to remain here for a while this evening. I think there is a strong likelihood that I will have an amendment to be offered on behalf of colleagues on our side very shortly relating to the military operation which resulted in the extinguishing of the life of al-Zarqawi.

I anticipate that. The Senator from Michigan will have it as soon as it is in final form.

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

Mr. President, by previous agreement between the distinguished majority leader and the Democratic leader, the chairman and ranking member of the committee will, for the remainder of this evening, as well as tomorrow morning, follow this protocol.

I will put forth an amendment momentarily on behalf of myself, Mr. Frist, Mr. Reid, and Mr. Levin, and it is a joint, hopefully bipartisan, accepted amendment to be debated further in the morning.

The military operation that resulted in the death of Zarqawi was a stunning accomplishment for U.S. forces. It displayed the precision, perseverance and professionalism of our Armed Forces supported by a sophisticated and superb intelligence apparatus that included U.S, Iraqi, and Coalition intelligence organizations. Behind the details that were made public, I can tell you, were months of coordinated, hard work by analysts, human intelligence operatives, and military planners.

The death of Zarqawi will hopefully lessen, but not end the violence in Iraq, but it is certainly a significant blow to the terrorist network in Iraq, to Osama bin Laden, and the al-Qaida organization.

Zarqawi was the most prominent insurgent in Iraq and the most active of bin Laden's affiliates. While bin Laden hides in mountain caves, capable of making occasional audio tapes, Zarqawi was working to trigger a civil war, disrupt the democratic process of the new unity government in Iraq, and then use Iraq as a base to launch attacks throughout the region. There is proof of that intent.

He had eluded capture for 3 years, he was indeed cruel, cunning, and cagey--and now gone.

I proudly salute the brave and professional work of our military forces as well as the formidable efforts of our military, civilian, and allied intelligence operations. This success is one that the entire intelligence community

should find very satisfying. The combined efforts of the Directorate of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, and all of our defense intelligence capabilities, and our military forces in Iraq, collaborated on this effort. I believe this success displays that reforms are working.

Amendment No. 4208

Mr. President, this amendment is regarding the successful operation by our military forces, the coalition forces, the civilian and military intelligence both abroad in Iraq, as well as those teams here in the United States, in the successful elimination of what is regarded as the No. 1 terrorist in all Iraq, Zarqawi. He is no longer able to operate as he once did.

At this time, I send this amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this be the pending business, with the understanding that it be laid aside tomorrow, in the morning, for such time as the distinguished ranking member seeks to gain recognition for the purpose of introducing an amendment from his side.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes debate on the Defense authorization bill on Tuesday, the time between then and 12:15 be equally divided between the chairman and ranking member or their designees; provided further, that at 12:15, the Senate proceed to vote on amendment No. 4208, with no amendments in order to the amendment. That is the amendment I just introduced.

Mr. President, the matters with regard to this bill are concluded for tonight. I yield the floor.

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 12, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony regarding the implementation of sections 641 through 645 of The Energy Policy Act of 2005, the next generation nuclear plant project within the Department of Energy.

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 12, 2006, at 3 p.m. to hold a hearing on the U.S.-Uruguay Bilateral Investment Treaty.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the staff members of the Committee on Armed Services--both Republican and Democrat--appearing on the list that I send to the desk be extended the privileges of the floor during the consideration of S. 2766, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2007.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator McCain's legislative fellow, Navy LCDR Damien Christopher, be granted floor privileges during the debate on this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to Mark Brunner, a military fellow in my office, for the duration of the Senate's debate on S. 2766, National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2007.

That having been done, I ask unanimous consent for privileges of the floor for Mark Brunner, a military fellow in my office, for the duration of this bill.

Mr. President, in consultation with the distinguished leadership on both sides, Senator Levin and I participating, I am pleased to ask unanimous consent that at 3 p.m. on Monday, June 12, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2766, the Defense authorization bill; further, that Senator Levin be recognized at 5:30 to make his opening statement; provided further that Senator Warner then be recognized and that no amendments be in order until the chairman is recognized at that time.

Again, I thank the leadership. I am very anxious, as are all members of the Armed Services Committee from both sides of the aisle, and my esteemed ranking member, Senator Levin, to begin this bill on Monday. It is our hope that we can proceed as quickly as possible, fully recognizing that there may be, hopefully, an interruption with regard to the supplemental appropriations conference report. At some point--and I discussed this with Senator Levin--it would be our intention to approach our leadership in hopes that in the amendment process, after a day or so in the beginning, we can turn to the tradition of having relevant amendments so that we can bring this bill to a close. That gives Senators an opportunity in the first day or so to present whatever they wish and then thereafter proceed to matters that have a direct relevance to the bill itself.

I thank the distinguished leader for the opportunity to address the Senate.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I wonder if I might ask if we could extend the time over here for a few minutes, maybe 5 minutes, to make a brief statement on this issue.

Yes.

I thank the distinguished leader.

Mr. President, I rise today with respect to S.J. Res. 1.

When considering proposed amendments to the United States Constitution, I first look back to history. In the summer of 1787, 55 individuals gathered in Philadelphia to write our Constitution. It was a very hot summer, and it was a long and arduous debate, many drafts back and forth, but careful consideration was given. Finally, in mid September, it was over. The Constitution they produced was a monumental achievement. But the Framers did not know at that time what a great achievement they had made, one that would enable the United States, today, these 200-plus years later, to become the oldest continuously surviving Republic form of government on Earth today.

Article V of the U.S. Constitution lays out the process for amending this magnificent document. In their wisdom, our Founding Fathers purposefully made the task immensely formidable. Of both Houses of Congress, two-thirds have to vote in favor of passing a proposed amendment. Subsequently, three-fourths of the states have to ratify that amendment over a period of time.

History documents that there have been many attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution. According to one study--since 1789, over 10,000 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed in Congress, but only 27 have ever been ratified.

With this historical framework in mind, I have reviewed S.J. Res 1-- the Marriage Protection Amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a document referred to as the ``box chart'' be printed in the Record following my statement.

The proposed constitutional amendment is simply two sentences. The first sentence reads that marriage in the United States shall only consist of the union of a man and a woman. This is a concept which I have consistently voted in support of--beginning with the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, and basically on this same constitutional amendment 2 years ago. The time-honored, deeply rooted tradition of marriage between a man and a woman ought to be protected, and I support that.

But the second sentence of the proposed amendment gives me great concern. It states that neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman. It gives me concern because I don't think the second sentence speaks with the clarity to which the American people are entitled. Any number of calls are coming into my office, as they are to other Members, and clearly the callers are focusing on the first sentence. When you try to explain the second sentence, they don't understand it.

My colleagues who are supportive of this proposed constitutional amendment have stated that it is their intent that this second sentence will leave to the several States the decision of whether to recognize relationships other than marriage, such as civil unions or domestic partnerships. But if that is the case, why not simply state that in plain English that is understandable for the millions upon millions of Americans who are interested in this amendment? It is amazing to me that a little more than 2 weeks ago, this Senate overwhelmingly approved an amendment to make English the national language of the United States. Yet today we debate an amendment to the U.S. Constitution--one of the most grave responsibilities incumbent upon Members of Congress--America's founding document--and the second sentence of that proposed amendment fails in many ways to speak with the clarity of the English language to which our public is entitled.

Some who have spoken in support of this proposed amendment have employed a box chart on the floor of the Senate, and I have asked unanimous consent to include that in the Record in an effort to demonstrate that the resolution would protect marriage but permit States to recognize relationships other than marriage. If this is the case, why not simply say so? Why not simply say that the power to recognize or to prohibit relationships other than marriage shall be reserved to the several States? Or why not simply drop the second sentence altogether if it is confusing? Either option would clearly allow the 50 States to work their will on the issues of civil unions or domestic partnerships. I believe it is extremely important that we leave to the States that responsibility.

If we wrote the second sentence plainly, we wouldn't need a box chart to sit here on the floor and try to decipher it.

My own State, the Commonwealth of Virginia, is trying to work its own will on these issues right now. With the lack of clarity in this proposed federal amendment, I have to wonder whether the proposed federal amendment respects the right of the several States to act in this area.

As the second sentence of this proposed amendment is written now, the intent of the amendment simply isn't clear. What if a State legislature wanted to pass a State constitutional amendment to allow domestic partnerships? As I read this proposed amendment, it would likely preclude a State legislature from so acting. This type of unnecessary confusion will undoubtedly lead to considerable litigation if this proposed amendment is accepted in its current form.

That, it seems to me, is not the duty of the Congress of the United States, to write something that just calls upon the courts to try to determine what was the intent of the Congress. Then we have to go to the box charts. Well, to me, the box charts speak in plain English language, and that is why I am hopeful that the framers of this amendment will perhaps consider amending it.

Therein rests the concern I have with S.J. Res. 1. I unequivocally support the first sentence; I support protecting marriage as the union between a man and a woman. I am concerned, however,

that the second sentence of this proposed constitutional amendment is unnecessarily vague and could well trample on the rights of the several States of our great Republic.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

Marriage Protection Amendment

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, has the motion to reconsider and the motion to table been stated?

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 hour is late. I humbly thank the dear Lord for the strength and wisdom He has given me, for the support and the friendship of--I calculated--the 241 Senators I have served with during this time, and for a family that has stood by me for these many years.

To the people of Virginia, I express thanks. And to whoever up there provides luck, I am the luckiest man you have ever met.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 4095