Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to share with our colleagues remarks I have made recently at the Atlantic Council, the Council on Foreign Relations, and other forums regarding a role NATO should consider by joining others seeking to achieve a diplomatic resolution of the potential nuclear weapons threat posed by Iran.

I have long been, and remain to this day, a steadfast supporter of NATO. No alliance, since World War II, has achieved a more successful, steadfast record of achieving peace.

I applaud NATO for embracing the concept of ``out of area'' missions. In Iraq, despite continuing violence, a new unified government is emerging. Even with the differences of opinion among NATO nations related to Iraq, NATO did step forward to participate in the important mission of training Iraqi security forces.

There is no better example of NATO undertaking important ``out of area'' missions than the leadership NATO is providing in the International Security Assistance Force, ISAF, in Afghanistan.

Recently I was in Afghanistan and saw firsthand how ISAF is expanding its reach to provide security and stability throughout Afghanistan. ISAF forces are accepting risks in the face of a rising number of attacks, while the new Government forges ahead putting down roots of democracy so that Afghanistan can take its place among the free nations of the world.

The principal focus of my remarks today is on how NATO might respond to the greatest threat to regional and global stability that we face today: Iran.

I had the privilege this week to join Senator Lugar and other Members in a private meeting with Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA. Dr. ElBaradei generously shared his insights on the situation with Iran, and how he continues to try to fulfill the responsibilities of his organization. I greatly respect his views.

I agree that when faced with a fork in the road between negotiation and confrontation, the world has rightly chosen, for the present, the path of negotiation. There is time--but not unlimited--to pursue a peaceful resolution to persuade Iran not to pursue steps leading to the development and acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Underway at this very moment are negotiations--the United States together with France, Great Britain, Germany, and other members of the EU, are doing everything to persuade Iran not to develop nuclear weapons.

The U.N. Security Council and the IAEA are also playing important roles in these diplomatic efforts.

Currently, Iran boasts about its inventory of missiles which can range throughout the Middle East and reach Europe. If Iran defies diplomacy and develops nuclear weapons, the threat will increase exponentially.

Free nations are and must face this reality now. As the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned in his address to a joint session of Congress this morning:

A nuclear-armed Iran is an intolerable threat to the peace

and security of the world. It cannot be permitted to

materialize.

I support the principle of preserving as many options as possible in diplomacy.

One of those options is to engage in bilateral talks between the United States and Iran, and/or between one or more other nations that share our objectives and Iran.

Just this morning, the international press is reporting that the Iranian leadership is making serious overtures to the United States to initiate a bilateral dialogue. Dr. ElBaradei confirmed in our meeting with him that Iran is open to such a dialogue. The United States should keep this option on the table, and consider when it is timely to explore procedures for bilateral talks.

Iran needs to understand that the free nations of the world are serious. Iran can go ahead with its civil nuclear program, under the inspection regime of the IAEA, insofar as it relates to Iran's legitimate energy needs, but we will not, as a consortium of free nations, permit Iran to acquire a nuclear weapons capability.

Another option is deterrence. Let's reflect on the worst case scenario: If diplomacy did not succeed, at some point in time, and there is confirmation that Iran is defiantly going forward with a nuclear weapons program, what is the response of the team of nations conducting the diplomacy?

We should reflect on the lessons of the Cold War, when deterrence succeeded. We should consider erecting a ``ring of deterrence'' that would surround Iran and deter the use of actual force, as was done so successfully during the Cold War.

Initially, such a plan could be limited to a stand-off naval force operating in international waters, and a stand-off air capability in international airspace.

Has any organization had a better record for planning and effecting a policy of deterrence than NATO?

I call upon the North Atlantic Council of nations to discuss the option of deterrence and hopefully to initiate a study of what is a logical sequence of actions to show support to the path of negotiation.

Such a step forward would give NATO a place at the international table as a partner in the diplomatic efforts being pursued by the IAEA, the

U.N. Security Council, and a consortium of nations who are deeply concerned such as Great Britain, France, Germany and the United States.

Such an initiative would signal the seriousness with which the 26 NATO nations view the concerns of the international community, and would lend important support to the combined diplomatic efforts underway.

I bring to your attention two quotes which, though not directly in context, demonstrate general thinking on why NATO should begin to prepare to address the potential threats from Iran.

In a speech on November 3, 2005, the Secretary General of NATO, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, said:

Either we tackle challenges to our security when and where

they are, or they'll end up on our doorstep.

He is absolutely right.

On February 10th of this year, 2006, the Secretary General said at a press conference:

Iran is of course a very, very, relevant subject for NATO.

That Iran can be discussed in NATO, yes.

With a sense of fairness, I point out that in his remarks of February 10, 2006, the Secretary General also said the following:

We follow the EU-3 in their negotiations with Iran,

together with America, we follow Russia, the IAEA, and we

have no intention of playing the first violin, or playing any

direct or active role in this dispute.

I say, most respectfully, to the Secretary General: Mr. Secretary, the problem of Iran could be on your doorstep very soon, if it is not already there. The time to join the roundtable of diplomacy is now.

As we in the Congress, and others, continue our work and support of NATO, we have got to prepare for the many challenges in this troubled world. We may not know today what some of those challenges may be, but we must keep NATO strong, viable, and forward thinking.

NATO's most valued asset is the respect, confidence, and, above all, the trust people have for its past record of success and future potential.

We sleep better at night knowing that NATO is standing watch.

I say to all who support NATO, we cannot allow ourselves to lapse into an exercise of nostalgia, basking in the greatness of this organization, greatness achieved by our predecessor trustees and respected leaders of NATO, down through the past half century.

In my most recent consultation with General Jones, I recorded a few notes, which I share with you today. We agreed on the following: ``NATO has been and must remain a great alliance. Great alliances do great things. It is possible that NATO's most important days and most important missions lie ahead in the future.''

Mr. President, I rise to add my support to this very important amendment offered by my good friend and colleague from Nevada, Senator Ensign.

Last Monday evening, a week ago, the President addressed this Nation, forcefully and articulately making the case that one of the necessary steps in undertaking comprehensive immigration reform is to secure our national borders, particularly along our Southwestern States.

Following the President's speech by little more than a day, the Armed Services Committee held a hearing during which we closely questioned senior members of the Department of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Chief of the Border Patrol, and the Chief of National Guard Bureau on the President's plan.

I strongly support the President's plan, and, on the basis of our hearing and subsequent discussions, I strongly believe that the National Guard is capable of providing this temporary support to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection without degrading either its readiness for combat or its ability to respond to domestic emergencies.

I also believe that this amendment is important to show that the Congress is behind this effort to secure our borders as part of comprehensive immigration reform, and that we will provide the resources and legislation to do so. This amendment provides specific authority for deployment of the National Guard, and does so in a way that is careful to authorize both the types of activities, the duration of the training rotations, a limit on the authority to use the Guard for direct participation in law enforcement consistent with the President's intent, and a sunset date for the authority.

I commend my colleague from Nevada, who serves with me on the Armed Services Committee, for this important amendment that puts the full force of Congress behind the President's initiative to secure our borders and support our Border Patrol with the National Guard.

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

Mr. President, we want to accommodate colloques. If the request is to be asked and granted by the Chair, then I suggest the morning business hour for the Republican side be extended 10 minutes to accommodate that.

How much time does the Senator require?

Mr. President, at this time I seek the concurrence of the Presiding Officer to speak about 12 to 14 minutes regarding General Hayden.

I have known this fine officer for some time. I worked with him, and I'm very pleased that the President of the United States has asked the Senate for its advice and consent on this important nomination.

Mr. President, our Nation is at war on two main battlefields--Iraq and Afghanistan. The national security apparatus of our country centers around the White House, the National, Security Council there, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security and, most importantly, the new organization headed by John Negroponte, our national intelligence community.

It is imperative that this Nation receive as early as possible the replacement for Porter Goss to take over his position with the Central Intelligence Agency, and I hope that the hearings, which I believe will be scheduled, subject to Chairman Robert's views, early next week. Early next week there will be a very thorough investigation of this officer, and we, the Senate as a body, can conform General Hayden and move forward. This Senator, the Senator from Virginia, will give him the strongest support and as an ex officio member of the Intelligence Committee, I will participate in those hearings.

Before turning to General Hayden, though, I would like to say a few words about Porter Goss. Mr. President, I am privileged to know this fine public servant who, presumably, is going to step down here shortly and conclude, perhaps, maybe not, maybe another assignment some day, but he certainly has had a distinguished public record of service. He was at the CIA himself, and served thereafter in the Congress. That is when I first came to know him.

The Presiding Officer may recall that there was a time here, a dozen or so years ago, when, I remember, our good friend, Senator Moynihan from New York, said, it is time to re-examine the CIA, and possibly abolish it. Well, I and others came to the forefront and did what we could to begin to put that debate into balance. And we successfully put in a bill, and Porter Goss in the other body put in a similar bill, to establish a commission to review the origins of the CIA, and see how it was an integral part of our intelligence system.

The late Les Aspen, the former Secretary of Defense, was the first chairman of that commission. He had an untimely death, and was succeed in that position by former Secretary of Defense Harold Brown, at that time also having finished his work in the Department of Defense. The Commission did an excellent job. I just point that out as a reference in history of how hard Porter Goss has fought throughout his career to preserve the integrity and the viability of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Now, we do not know, many of us, all the facts regarding this transition of positions. I personally hope to visit with Mr. Goss, and will do so prior to the hearings, so that I can understand his perspective more fully. But he did a lot of valuable work at that agency, notably he began to restore the focus of the agency to its principle function as it was established some 50 years ago, and that is the collection of human intelligence. So I say to Porter Goss, well done. And I say to General Hayden, you fill the shoes of a very able man, but you have a challenge of your own.

Now, there are several issues that have been brought up by the general's nomination, and I would like to address those issues. First, there is a question of surveillance. As the head of the NSA, the National Security Agency, General Hayden was in the business of collecting electronic signals from around the world, from emissions abroad. We will go into that very thoroughly during the course of the hearings. I think that debate I appropriate. But I wish to point out that a very important debate has proceeded on that

issue on the Senate floor. It will continue for some time. And that is a debate over the legal ramifications, in other words, what are the origins of the power of the President to have directed this type of collection?

I do believe that you can separate the collection, really, into two parts. One, the value of the collected intelligence from abroad as a contribution to our overall security. We have established now, here in the Senate, a larger committee that is looking into that, and I am confident that there will be a unanimous view that the collection of this intelligence, thus far, has been an important contribution to this Nation's effort in the war on terrorism.

The other question, equally important, is the question of legality. Now, let me make it clear. In my visit with General Hayden yesterday, I said to him, ``You're not a lawyer.'' He said, ``No, I'm not a lawyer . . . I, General Hayden, when instructed to initiate this program, carefully assessed all variety of legal opinions, and it was clear by those contributing the legal opinions, the Attorney General, the White House Counsel, and others, that I had the authority to do so. As a non- lawyer, I accepted their opinions, like all of us do every day in life, I accepted the opinions of our counsel, whether it be in private or public life.''

So I believe that the Intelligence committee, as it sorts that out, will eventually find that, while we may not resolve--and I doubt in the context of this nomination we will in fact resolve--the very important questions of the legalities of this program, we will decide that General Hayden acted in accordance with prudence, and was guided by appropriate counsel. So I believe that that issue will not be an impediment to his nomination.

Next is a question of the fact that this distinguished officer has risen through the ranks to become a four-star general. I have been privileged, I say with a sense of humility, to work with the uniformed people of this country for close to a half a century, in one way or another. I had a very modest military career of my own, but particularly when I was Secretary of the Navy, I had the opportunity work with and assess the biographies and the careers of many officers with worked their way from the lowest ranks up to four-star ranked general and flag rank in the Navy and Marine Corps.

Now, I certainly say to the people of this country, that an individual who can withstand all of the rigor, all of the competition, to come from the very bottom to the very top is one who has been screened and thoroughly reviewed by many peer groups. And how proud this officer is to have succeeded to have gained four-star rank. I do not personally have any trouble with his retaining that rank in this capacity, if confirmed by the Senate to lead the CIA. The question is raised, though, legitimately. It should be a civilian running our intelligence. But my distinguished colleagues, I say to you, it is a civilian that runs the intelligence community: John Negroponte. He is now the top individual in charge of this magnificent intelligence system that this country has.

Yesterday, I visited with Secretary Rumsfeld on this issue on several occasions by phone, and he spoke publicly to the issue, as well. He endorses General Hayden. He said, General Hayden will report directly to John Negroponte, the head of the overall intelligence community. And in no way does Secretary Rumsfeld feel that the fact that General Hayden continues to wear this uniform should there be any impediment in the chain of command, or in the responsibilities or the direction that this officer will give to his responsibilities. So, again, I believe that issue will be resolved in the committee hearings.

In the work of the Intelligence Committee to review the credentials, the integrity, the character of this individual, I am confident that he will meet the highest standards of the office which he aspires to take over at the direction of the President. So that will be behind us.

Finally, I would like to say a little bit about the Central Intelligence Agency itself. It is in Virginia, and I am privileged, as a current Virginia Senator, as have my predecessors, to give a little special attention, to that Agency. When the new structure of the intelligence community was devised here on the floor, I was active in the debate, and I think, if I can say with some modesty, helped to preserve more and more of the functions of that agency which I felt should remain in that agency, and the CIA has survived that legislation, I believe, quite well.

There is still more to be done in finally convincing various persons, distinguished individuals in that Agency, that this is the way it is under the law, and this is the way we have got to conduct our business in the future. General Hayden can do that. He did it at NSA. He made a transformation of the thought process over there, and likewise he can do it here.

But it is interesting: who would be his deputy? Well, we don't know entirely for sure, but I would like to read part of a column in today's Washington Post by David Ignatius. I happen to know him. His father, coincidentally, was Secretary of the Navy just before the late Senator Chafee and joined that Secretariat. And he is an author of some distinction.

He points out that the current thinking, and I believe it to be correct, is that the transition in the CIA would be painful for General Hayden, I read from his article, but he's got a good choice for the second person in Mr. Stephen Kappes. And it is interesting about Mr. Kappes' career. I would like to read just a part of the column.

At the core of the intelligence puzzle is the CIA, whose very name is outdated. It is no longer the Central Intelligence Agency, coordinating the work of the community. That's the DNI's job now. In a sensible reorganization, the CIA should refocus on the specific mission for which it was created more than 50 years ago--gathering HUMINT, which is intelligence jargon for the secrets between someone's ears. The days when the CIA could be all things to all intelligence consumers are over. Today's CIA should be a truly secret intelligence service in which the job of analysts is to target operations. The all-source analysis that creates finished intelligence should be managed by the

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today, once again, in support of health care liability reform.

I have long been a major supporter of reforming our medical malpractice laws in an effort to stem the astronomical increases in health care costs. In fact, in the 108th Congress, I was pleased to offer my own amendment on health care liability reform called the Protect the Practice of Medicine Act.

While my amendment was supported by the American Medical Association, the American College of Surgeons, and a number of other associations representing the men and women in our medical profession, unfortunately, a procedural move by opponents prevented my amendment from receiving an up-or-down vote.

In fact, opponents of health care liability reform have been using procedural tactics in the Senate to prevent an up-or-down vote on this issue for years now. The consequences are grave: men and women, who have invested years of their lives training to become doctors and hundreds of thousands of dollars on their education, continue to leave the practice of medicine due to the high cost of malpractice insurance.

Opponents of reform argue that the cost of medical malpractice insurance is stabilizing and that the increases in malpractice premiums are not as dramatic as they were a few years ago. The truth is that these premiums remain extremely high. Having rates stabilize does not mean that those rates have gone down. Time and time again, doctors come into my office and tell me that they are having a difficult time making a living and keeping quality staff because of the staggering amounts they are paying for medical liability insurance.

I have received numerous letters from medical professionals in the Commonwealth of Virginia and from across the Nation that share with me the very real difficulties they are encountering with malpractice insurance and the consequences of this problem. Let me read part of one those letters that was sent to me by a doctor in Virginia. The doctor writes:

I am writing you to elicit your support and advice for the

acute malpractice crisis going on in Virginia. . . . I am a

48-year-old single parent of a 14 and 17 year old. After all

the time and money spent training to practice OB/GYN, I find

myself on the verge of almost certain unemployment and

unemployability because of the malpractice crisis. I have

been employed by a small OB/GYN Group for the last 7 years. .

. . Our malpractice premiums were increased by 60 percent . .

. The reality is that we will not be able to keep the

practice open and cover the malpractice insurance along with

other expenses of practice.

Out of respect for this doctor's privacy, I will not share the doctor's name, but I do keep her letter in my files.

According to the American College of Surgeons, many surgeons are being forced to retire earlier, stop providing high-risk procedures, or move to States where strong medical liability reforms are in place.

On March 16, 2006, Norfolk, VA's, newspaper, the Virginian-Pilot, featured the story of Dr. Shawne Bryant, an OB/GYN in Kempsville, VA. Dr. Bryant explained that she stopped performing surgery in 2003, citing high malpractice insurance rates. She redirected her talent into quiltmaking.

Dr. Bryant, who has been in the field of obstetrics and gynecology for 21 years, said, ``I used to be in the operating room two to three days a week. This [quiltmaking] is an outlet for me because I'm still working with my hands.'' Since giving up the practice of surgery, Bryant has made eight quilts.

Both Time Magazine and Newsweek have thoroughly detailed the crisis doctors are facing across America.

In June of 2003, Time Magazine had a cover story on the affects of rising malpractice insurance rates. The story, entitled ``The Doctor is Out,'' discusses

several doctors, all across America, who have had to either stop practicing medicine or have had to take other action due to increased insurance premiums.

One example cited in Time's article is the case of Dr. Mary-Emma Beres. Time reports that, ``Dr Mary-Emma Beres, a family practitioner in Sparta, N.C., has always loved delivering babies. But last year Beres, 35, concluded that she couldn't afford the tripling of her $17,000 malpractice premium and had to stop. With just one obstetrician left in town for high risk cases, some women who need C-sections now must take a 40-minute ambulance ride.''

Dr. Beres' case makes clear that not only doctors are being affected by the medical malpractice insurance crisis--patients are as well. With increased frequency, due to rising malpractice rates, more and more patients are not able to find the medical specialists they need.

Newsweek also had a cover story on the medical liability crisis. That cover story was entitled ``Lawsuit Hell.'' I was particularly struck by the feature in this magazine about a doctor from Ohio who saw his malpractice premiums rise in one year from $12,000 to $57,000 a year. As a result, this doctor, and I quote from the article, ``decided to lower his bill by cutting out higher-risk procedures like vasectomies, setting broken bones and delivering babies--even though obstetrics was his favorite part of the practice. Now he glances wistfully at the cluster of baby photos still tacked to a wall in his office, `I miss that terribly,' he says.''

Without a doubt, the cost of medical malpractice insurance premiums are having wide-ranging effects. It is a national problem, and it is time for a national solution.

President Bush has indicated that the medical liability system in America is largely responsible for the rising costs of malpractice insurance. The American Medical Association and the American College of Surgeons agree with him, as does almost every doctor in Virginia with whom I have discussed the issue.

Let me state unequivocally that I agree with our President, with the AMA, with the American College of Surgeons, and with the vast majority of doctors all across Virginia.

I am pleased that S. 23, the Healthy Mothers and Health Babies Access to Care Act, reduces the excessive burden the liability system places specifically on the delivery of obstetrical and gynecological services. And I am pleased that S. 22, the ``Medical Care Access Protection Act of 2006'' or ``MCAP Act,'' extends liability protections to all health care providers and health care institutions.

These bills are a commonsense solution to a serious problem, and it is time for us to vote up or down on this legislation.

Mr. President, last evening, as most of us had departed with the understanding that the floor was about to close, our colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, the distinguished whip of the Democratic Party, came over and proceeded to give what I felt was a very strong critique of all of those things in Iraq which in his judgment and, to some extent, the judgment of others sharing it went wrong. There was little or no reference to what went right and the progress that has been made in Iraq.

He concluded again with his own personal views with regard to Secretary Rumsfeld and what should be done with respect to his services in the future.

It is interesting. Yesterday, Senator Biden also spoke out with regard to his concept of this very difficult dilemma, facing not only the Iraqis but all those nations working to help the Iraqis form their government, as to how certain modifications should be taken with regard to the new government, namely three secretaries having their own say in this matter with an overall arching government on top. Senator Biden's commentary, in my judgment, was constructive, and was maybe a little too late to back up from where we are at this moment. But it was nevertheless a positive contribution to the debate and constructive, in sharp contrast to the comments of Senator Durbin.

A lot of things have gone right in Iraq, not the least of which is the freedom of elections, the formation of a new government, the difficult process that their political structure went through in selecting a new prime minister, and making the commitments by that newly selected prime minister to finish within this month of May the appointments necessary to have a government in place and one that hopefully will work to establish and take upon itself the responsibility of full sovereignty of that nation. This was a ray of optimism, in my judgment, a ray of hope.

If there were any time in the entire history of this Iraqi confrontation situation and the Iraqi war when the new leaders of Iraq need support, it is now. I daresay the constructive criticism of many-- I led a codel with Senator Levin a few weeks ago, and other codels have gone through. The Secretaries of State and Defense have been through. Ambassador Khalilzad has done a remarkable job in encouraging the Iraqi leadership to move forward with this new government. That has been done.

Now is not the time to stop all the constructive debate but to stop those remarks and debate which can be pulling back from the gains we have made, showing less than full support to the Iraqi people for their courage and their new government.

I have studied each of the generals individually. On the whole, I personally believe it was a constructive contribution to the debate. Others may differ. Somehow, I believe throughout our history our senior uniformed officers--and, indeed, others, including enlisted men--have come forward at times to provide their own perspectives which are contrary to the policymakers in charge of that period of history.

I commend all who are participating in the constructive debate. It should go forward at this time. This Nation is at war. At the very minute we are privileged to be in the Senate exercising freedom of speech and debate, young men and women in our Armed Forces are in harm's way, subjecting themselves to life at risk and, indeed, giving their lives and limbs. We must be ever mindful of the suffering of their families.

Now is the time to show our strongest resolve in Iraq. The President has made a decision as to the leadership he desires, including Secretary Rumsfeld. He has that right as Commander in Chief under the Constitution. He has exercised that unequivocally and stated his views. It is now a matter for all to respect that judgment of the President and move forward.

I personally have worked with many Secretaries of Defense; three I served under in the Department of Defense. Every one in the last 30- plus years I have worked with--except one, coincidentally; when Secretary Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense I was taking 2 years of my life preparing to try and get elected to the Senate, so with that one hiatus I have worked with them all, I have established a satisfactory, hard-working relationship with Secretary Rumsfeld.

Our committee is now in the midst of its markup and prepared to bring to the Senate its annual authorization bill. This is the most intense work period between our committee and the Department of Defense.

I conclude by saying think first of our troops and their sacrifices that they have made, the risk they face each day, and our goals to try and support the formation of some type of democratic government of the choosing of the Iraqi people and their leadership. Progress is being made every day now. Now is the time to stand steadfast in our support of our troops, the coalition forces, the Iraqi elected leaders, and the people.

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

Mr. President, I ask if I might have the privilege of introducing the visiting pastor who gave the morning prayer before the Senator from Oklahoma speaks.

Mr. President, it is a wonderful privilege for me to introduce to our colleagues Rev. Frank Wade, who most recently is the rector at St. Alban's Church. I want to say upfront that this great pastor married me and my wife Jeanne some 2 years ago. It was a real experience. It was so magnificent in that we counseled with him--even though both of us are well into adulthood--and received his guidance for some weeks prior to that beautiful ceremony, which was held in the Washington Cathedral. That is a site--St. Alban's and the Washington Cathedral--where I have spent so much of my life. Preceding Dr. Wade was my uncle, Charles Tinsley Warner, rector of St. Alban's Church for almost 40 years, from the late 1920s and 1930s all through World War

Mr. President, I understand from the managers that amendment No. 3621 has been agreed to on both sides. First, let me describe this amendment.

Mr. President, today we are holding expectations that a new unity in government in Iraq will soon be completed. It has been long awaited. I have just completed. I think, my seventh

trip there with Senator Levin and other Members of the Senate. We had a delegation of six.

During the course of our inspection visit, it was repeatedly brought to our attention that there was a desperate need for additional civilians from the Department of Energy to work on the power systems, the oil, and from the Department of Justice to work on the civil justice system; from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to work on the health situations. And I have been working with members of the administration, and, indeed, the President himself on two occasions has stressed the importance of encouraging more civilians within our civil structure to go over and help this government fully establish itself, exercise the responsibilities of sovereignty, and to move forward.

There need to be modest corrections made to the existing law to enable the Secretaries and heads of the agencies to provide certain benefits, inducements, and other situations with their respective individual employees in the hopes that they can quickly give up the security of their neighborhoods and life today and join the brave men and women of the Armed Forces in, hopefully, completing in a shorter period of time this task to provide for full sovereignty in Iraq.

Many civilian agencies and departments already have provisions to provide pay, allowances, benefits, and gratuities in danger zones. However, others do not. This amendment applies to those currently without such authorities.

Over the past few months, the President has explained candidly and frankly, what is at stake in Iraq and Afghanistan. The free nations of the world must be steadfast in helping the people of these nations to attain a level of democracy and freedom of their own choosing.

It is vital to the security of the American people that we help them succeed such that their lands never again become the breeding ground or haven for terrorism as was Afghanistan for Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

We have seen how terrorists and insurgents in Iraq have failed to stop Iraq's democratic progress.

They tried to stop the transfer of sovereignty in June 2004;

They tried to stop millions from voting in the January 2005 elections;

They tried to stop Sunnis from participating in the October 2005 constitutional referendum;

They tried to stop millions from voting in the December 2005 elections to form a permanent government under that constitution; and

In each case, they failed.

Just in the past few days, there have been significant, encouraging developments toward forming a unity government in Iraq. Clearly, the efforts of administration officials and congressional members in meetings with Iraqi leaders and parliamentarians have contributed to these developments.

In my view, this represents important forward momentum, which has been long awaited. The new leadership in Iraq is making commitments to complete cabinet selection and take other actions to stand up a unity government. This is a pivotal moment in that critical period many of us spoke about after the December elections. We must be steadfast and demonstrate a strong show of support for Iraq's emerging government.

For 3 years now the coalition of military forces have, from the beginning, performed with the highest degree of professionalism, and they and their families have borne the brunt of the loss of life, injury, and separation.

In hearings of the Armed Services Committee this year, with a distinguished group of witnesses, and based on two--and I say this most respectfully and humbly--personal conversations I have had with the President of the United States and, indeed, the Secretary of State, I very forcefully said to each of them that we need to get the entirety of our Federal Government engaged to a greater degree.

The Department of Defense concurs. I was struck by the 2006 QDR which so aptly states that:

Success requires unified statecraft: The ability of the

U.S. Government to bring to bear all elements of national

power at home and to work in close cooperation with allies

and partners abroad.

I would add that General Abizaid, when he appeared before our committee this year, stated in his posture statement:

We need significantly more non-military personnel * * *

with expertise in areas such as economic development, civil

affairs, agriculture, and law.

I fully agree. I along with 5 other Senators heard the same sentiments from our field commanders and diplomatic officials during at trip to Iraq and Afghanistan last month.

The United States has a talented and magnificent Federal work force whose skills and expertise are in urgent need in Iraq and Afghanistan. We must provide our agency heads with the tools they need to harness these elements of national power at this critical time.

I have spoken about this publicly on previous occasions. I have written to each cabinet secretary asking for a review of their current and future programs to support out Nation's goals and objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I have spoken to the President about this.

The aim of this bill is to assist the United States Government in recruiting personnel to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to avoid inequities in allowances, benefits, and gratuities among similarly- situated United States Government civilian personnel. It is essential that the heads of all agencies that have personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have this authority with respect to allowances, benefits, and gratuities for such personnel.

In my conversations with President Bush and the cabinet officers and others, there seems to be total support.

The administration, at their initiative, asked OMB to draw up the legislation, which I submit today in the form of an amendment.

I hope this will garner support across the aisle--Senator Clinton has certainly been active in this area, as have others--and that we can include this on the supplemental appropriations bill.

The urgency is now, absolutely now.

Every day it becomes more and more critical that the message of 11 million Iraqi voters in December not be silenced. We want a government, a unified government stood up and operating. To do that, this emerging Iraqi Government, will utilize such assets as we can provide them from across the entire spectrum of our Government. Our troops have done their job with the coalition forces.

Now it is time for others in our Federal work force to step forward and add their considerable devotion and expertise to make the peace secure in those nations so the lands of Iraq and Afghanistan do not revert to havens for terrorism and destruction. I know many in our exceptional civilian workforce will answer this noble call in the name of free people everywhere.

I have sent a letter to the Chief of Staff at the White House in this regard on March 15, and I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

My understanding is the amendment was introduced by myself, I think 2 days ago. There was some debate at that time. I know of no opposition to it.

Therefore, I ask the pending amendment be laid aside and that the Senate consider this amendment.

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.

Amendment No. 3620

Mr. President, I wish to bring up a second amendment. It relates to the Carrier John F. Kennedy. I ask I be permitted here momentarily to have this amendment called up.

The department of defense has submitted its report to the Congress on the Quadrennial Defense Review for 2005 and, as we are all well aware, in the 4 years since the previous Quadrennial Defense Review the global war on terror has dramatically broadened the demands on our naval combat forces. In response, the Navy has implemented fundamental changes to fleet deployment practices that have increased total force availability, and it has fielded advances in ship systems, aircraft, and precision weapons that have provided appreciably greater combat power than 4 years ago.

However, we must consider that the Navy is at its smallest size in decades, and the threat of emerging naval powers superimposed upon the Navy's broader mission of maintaining global maritime security, requires that we modernize and expand our Navy.

The longer view dictated by naval force structure planning requires that we invest today to ensure maritime dominance 15 years and further in the future; investment to modernize our aircraft carrier force, to increase our expeditionary capability, to maintain our undersea superiority, and to develop the ability to penetrate the littorals with the same command we possess today in the open seas.

The 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review impresses these critical requirements against the backdrop of the National Defense strategy and concludes that the Navy must build a larger fleet. This determination is in whole agreement with concerns raised by congress as the rate of shipbuilding declined over the past 15 years. Now we must finance this critical modernization, and in doing so we must strike an affordable balance between existing and future force structure.

The centerpiece of the Navy's force structure is the carrier strike group, and the evaluation of current and future aircraft carrier capabilities by the Quadrennial Defense Review has concluded that 11 aircraft carriers provide the decisively superior combat capability required by the national defense strategy. Carefully considering this conclusion, we must weight the risk of reducing the naval force from 12 to 11 aircraft carriers against the risk of failing to modernize the naval force.

Maintaining 12 aircraft carriers would require extending the service life and continuing to operate the USS John F. Kennedy, CV-67.

The compelling reality is that today the 38 year old USS John F. Kennedy, CV-67, is not qualified to perform her primary mission of aviation operations, and she is not deployable without a significant investment of resources. Recognizing the great complexity and the risks inherent to naval aviation, there are very real concerns regarding the ability to maintain the Kennedy in an operationally safe condition for our sailors at sea.

In the final assessment, the costs to extend the service life and to safely operate and deploy this aging aircraft carrier in the future prove prohibitive when measured against the critical need to invest in modernizing the naval force.

Meanwhile, each month that we delay on this decision costs the Navy $20 million in operations and manpower costs that are sorely needed to support greater priorities, and it levies and untold burden on the lives of the sailors and their families assigned to the Kennedy.

We in the Congress have an obligation to ensure that our brave men and women in uniform are armed with the right capability when and where called upon to perform their mission in defense of freedom around the world. Previously, we have questioned the steady decline in naval force structure, raising concerns with regard to long term impacts on operations, force readiness, and the viability of the industrial base that we rely upon to build our Nation's Navy. Accordingly, I am encouraged by and strongly endorse the Navy's vision for a larger, modernized fleet, sized and shaped to remain the world's dominant seapower through the 21st century.

However, to achieve this expansion while managing limited resources, it is necessary to retire the aging conventional carriers that have served this country for so long.

To this end, Mr. President, I offer this amendment which would eliminate the requirement for the naval combat forces of the Navy to include not less than 12 operational aircraft carriers.

I spoke to this amendment 2 days ago. Several colleagues, I know, have an interest in it. But here is the situation. John F. Kennedy bears one of the most famous names in naval history. That ship has sailed for 38 years in harm's way to defend the interests of this country. That ship has finally come to its resting place. It is now berthed in Jacksonville, FL. It has been the determination of the Chief of Naval Operations that its present condition--it is a conventionally powered ship--no longer enables that ship to perform its primary mission, namely launching and retrieving aircraft and other associated missions of a carrier. Its systems have finally worn out. Its powerplant has worn out.

At 38 years of age and the enormous investment necessary to bring it back--if in fact they could repair it, and there is some doubt as to whether even with the expenditure of huge sums they could repair it-- then the ship would have a limited life.

We have known for about 3 or 4 months about the condition of this ship and the Navy's intention to retire it. A year or so ago, I and others put in a law by which we told the Department of Defense that they must maintain a fleet of 12 carriers. This amendment simply amends that law such that that number is now 11, and thereby allows this ship to be retired.

I would point out to my colleagues, quite apart from the fame of this ship, there are 2,000 sailors in the ship's company. If you added up all the family members of the total naval family of husbands and wives and children associated with that ship, it is probably as high as 5,000 individuals. They must be considered, as to their future. Right now there is no future. They have to

remain aboard that ship until certain steps are taken to begin to fully deactivate it. But not all of them. Most will be transferred to other assignments and their families relocated.

It is costing the taxpayers $20 million a month to maintain that size of crew and this ship in Jacksonville, FL. I think it is the appropriate time the Senate recognize we must entrust to the Chief of Naval Operations, and to others, the decision to retire this ship. This amendment is for that purpose. I am the last one to ever want to retire naval ships, and I have had the experience as a former Secretary of the Navy, but I recognize that time comes. It has come with this famous ship.

I do not want this issue to be used in a way to detract from the extraordinary record of this ship and the proud name it bears. I hope my colleagues will agree to allow this amendment to be called up for consideration.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 3616, 3617, 3618 and 3619, en bloc

I ask that the pending amendments be laid aside and I be allowed to send to the desk two amendments.

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

Madam President, the U.S. Navy today very proudly has 12 aircraft carriers on active service. That is a figure that was acted upon by this body and the other body and enacted into law, instructing the Commander in Chief, the President, and the Secretary of Defense to maintain no less than 12 carriers in our fleet.

Subsequent to the legislation by the Congress, and the law enacted, the Navy has determined that the USS John F. Kennedy--a ship that bears a name in which every Member of this Chamber takes a deep and abiding pride--that ship is now 38 years old and is, in the judgment of the Chief of Naval Operations, not qualified to perform her primary mission of aviation operations. And she is not deployable without a significant investment of resources. By that I mean to return her to her primary mission would require an inordinate amount of money to go into reconstruction of the launching and arresting gear, the main powerplant, steam-powered plant. She is a conventional as opposed to a nuclear-powered carrier.

It is a decision of the Department of the Navy that those expenditures on a ship 38 years old are simply not prudent, not in the best interests of the Navy, and those funds should be directed towards new ship construction.

As to the risks inherent to naval aviation--and they are very significant risks to all of us who have been aboard those carriers and watched aircraft take off and land--and as to maintaining her at sea, at this point in time she cannot perform that primary mission. Therefore, the purpose of this amendment is to revise the previous legislation such that the Secretary of the Navy can retire this ship.

Now, I recognize to many it is a painful thing to realize this ship can no longer serve. But these are the consequences, if we were not to enact this legislation: Each month there is a delay on a decision--the decision being not acting on this piece of legislation--costs the Navy $20 million in operations and manpower funds, funds that are sorely needed elsewhere by the Navy.

It puts an extraordinary burden upon the sailors who are proudly attached to this ship and deep in their hearts regret that ship can no longer perform its primary mission. And it puts a burden on their families. There have to be adjustments in their new assignments--moves, transfers, and all the other personnel actions that are essential to maintain our fleets throughout the world.

Madam President, as I said, I rise today to offer an important piece of legislation related to our Navy and national security.

The Department of Defense has submitted its report to the Congress on the Quadrennial Defense Review for 2005 and, as we are all well aware, in the 4 years since the previous Quadrennial Defense Review the global war on terror has dramatically broadened the demands on our naval combat forces. In response, the Navy has implemented fundamental changes to fleet deployment practices that have increased total force availability, and it has fielded advances in ship systems, aircraft, and precision weapons that have

provided appreciably greater combat power than 4 years ago.

However, we must consider that the Navy is at its smallest size in decades, and the threat of emerging naval powers superimposed upon the Navy's broader mission of maintaining global maritime security requires that we modernize and expand our Navy.

The longer view dictated by naval force structure planning requires that we invest today to ensure maritime dominance 15 years and further in the future; investment to modernize our aircraft carrier force, to increase our expeditionary capability, to maintain our undersea superiority, and to develop the ability to penetrate the littorals with the same command we possess today in the open seas.

The 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review impresses these critical requirements against the backdrop of the National Defense Strategy and concludes that the Navy must build a larger fleet. This determination is in whole agreement with concerns raised by Congress as the rate of shipbuilding declined over the past 15 years. Now we must finance this critical modernization, and in doing so we must strike an affordable balance between existing and future force structure.

The centerpiece of the Navy's force structure is the carrier strike group, and the evaluation of current and future aircraft carrier capabilities by the Quadrennial Defense Review has concluded that 11 aircraft carriers provide the decisively superior combat capability required by the National Defense Strategy. Carefully considering this conclusion, we must weigh the risk of reducing the naval force from 12 to 11 aircraft carriers against the risk of failing to modernize the naval force.

Maintaining 12 aircraft carriers would require extending the service life and continuing to operate the USS John F. Kennedy, CV-67.

The compelling reality is that today the 38-year-old USS John F. Kennedy, CV-67, is not qualified to perform her primary mission of aviation operations, and she is not deployable without a significant investment of resources. Recognizing the great complexity and the risks inherent to naval aviation, there are very real concerns regarding the ability to maintain the Kennedy in an operationally safe condition for our sailors at sea.

In the final assessment, the costs to extend the service life and to safely operate and deploy this aging aircraft carrier in the future prove prohibitive when measured against the critical need to invest in modernizing the naval force.

Meanwhile, each month that we delay on this decision costs the Navy $20 million in operations and manpower costs that are sorely needed to support greater priorities, and it levies an untold burden on the lives of the sailors and their families assigned to the Kennedy.

We in the Congress have an obligation to ensure that our brave men and women in uniform are armed with the right capability when and where called upon to perform their mission in defense of freedom around the world. Previously, we have questioned the steady decline in naval force structure, raising concerns with regard to long-term impacts on operations, force readiness, and the viability of the industrial base that we rely upon to build our Nation's Navy. Accordingly, I am encouraged by and strongly endorse the Navy's vision for a larger, modernized fleet, sized and shaped to remain the world's dominant seapower through the 21st century.

However, to achieve this expansion while managing limited resources, it is necessary to retire the aging conventional carriers that have served this country for so long.

To this end, I offer this amendment which would eliminate the requirement for the naval combat forces of the Navy to include not less than 12 operational aircraft carriers.

Therefore, I urge the Senate to act favorably upon this amendment. At this time I will not seek the yeas and nays. I will defer to the manager that at such time as he believes it is appropriate that this matter be brought up.

Now, Madam President, to the second amendment. I have taken a great interest, along with other Senators--and it came into clear focus on my last trip to Afghanistan and to Iraq--that we simply have insufficient infrastructure in place from those Departments and agencies other than the Department of Defense. We are ever so proud of the courage and the dedication of the men and women in uniform who each day are assuming risks to see that the people of Iraq and Afghanistan have a government of their own choosing and take their place alongside other democracies in our world community.

But they need help, those military people. The Iraqi people need help. The new government which is making considerable progress towards its formation needs help. We need people experienced in agriculture, people experienced in commerce, people who can help them devise a code of military justice, a framework of laws, the whole framework of infrastructure that must be put in place to support these emerging democracies.

I first learned of this need in testimony months ago by General Abizaid, General Casey, Ambassador Khalilzad appearing before the Armed Services Committee and, indeed, in other public appearances. I have talked to them personally.

I subsequently have had two brief meetings with the President of the United States on this subject. I am very pleased to say that he is in full support of this legislation, which legislation devised by the Office of Management and Budget enables the various Cabinet officers to give additional incentives to their employees to accept all of the risks and hardships of being transferred to Iraq to perform missions to support our military, to support the formation of the new government by the Iraqi people.

Madam President, as I said, I rise today to propose an amendment along with Senators Lugar and Clinton that will equalize authorities to provide allowances, benefits, and gratuities to civilian personnel of the U.S. Government serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Many civilian agencies and Departments already have provisions to provide pay, allowances, benefits, and gratuities in danger zones. However, others do not. This amendment applies to those currently without such authorities.

Over the past few months, the President has explained candidly and frankly what is at stake in Iraq and Afghanistan. The free nations of the world must be steadfast in helping the people of these nations to attain a level of democracy and freedom of their own choosing.

It is vital to the security of the American people that we help them succeed such that their lands never again become the breeding ground or haven for terrorism as was Afghanistan for Osama bin Laden and al- Qaida.

We have seen how terrorists and insurgents in Iraq have failed to stop Iraq's democratic progress.

They tried to stop the transfer of sovereignty in June 2004; they tried to stop millions from voting in the January 2005 elections; they tried to stop Sunnis from participating in the October 2005 constitutional referendum; they tried to stop millions from voting in the December 2005 elections to form a permanent government under that constitution; and, in each case, they failed.

Just in the past few days, there have been significant, encouraging developments toward forming a unity government in Iraq. Clearly, the efforts of administration officials and congressional Members in meetings with Iraqi leaders and parliamentarians have contributed to these developments.

In my view, this represents important forward momentum, which has been long awaited. The new leadership in Iraq is making commitments to complete cabinet selection and take other actions to stand up a unity government. This is a pivotal moment in that critical period many of us spoke about after the December elections. We must be steadfast and demonstrate a strong show of support for Iraq's emerging government.

For 3 years now the coalition of military forces have, from the beginning, performed with the highest degree of professionalism, and they and their families have borne the brunt of the loss of life, injury, and separation.

In hearings of the Armed Services Committee this year, with a distinguished group of witnesses, and based on two--and I say this most respectfully and humbly--personal conversations I have had with the President of the United States and, indeed, the Secretary of State, I very forcefully said

to each of them that we need to get the entirety of our Federal Government engaged in our efforts to a greater degree.

The Department of Defense concurs. I was struck by the 2006 QDR that which aptly states that:

Success requires unified statecraft: the ability of the

U.S. Government to bring to bear all elements of national

power at home and to work in close cooperation with allies

and partners abroad.

I would add that General Abizaid, when he appeared before our committee this year, stated in his posture statement:

we need significantly more non-military personnel . . .

with expertise in areas such as economic development, civil

affairs, agriculture, and law.

I fully agree. I, along with five other Senators, heard the same sentiments from our field commanders and diplomatic officials during a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan last month.

The United States has a talented and magnificent Federal work force whose skills and expertise are in urgent need in Iraq and Afghanistan. We must provide our agency heads with the tools they need to harness these elements of national power at this critical time.

I have spoken about this publicly on previous occasions. I have written to each Cabinet Secretary asking for a review of their current and future programs to support our Nation's goals and objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I have spoken to the President about this.

I will ask to have a copy of one of the letters printed in the Record.

The aim of this bill is to assist the U.S. Government in recruiting personnel to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to avoid inequities in allowances, benefits, and gratuities among similarly situated U.S. Government civilian personnel. It is essential that the heads of all agencies who have personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have this authority with respect to allowances, benefits, and gratuities for such personnel.

In my conversations with President Bush and the Cabinet officers and others, there seems to be total support.

The administration, at their initiative, asked OMB to draw up the legislation, which I submit today in the form of an amendment.

I hope this will garner support across the aisle--Senator Clinton has certainly been active in this area, as have others--and that we can include this on the supplemental appropriations bill. The urgency is now, absolutely now.

Every day it becomes more and more critical that the message of 11 million Iraqi voters in December not be silenced. We want a government, a unified government, stood up and operating. To do that, this emerging Iraqi Government will utilize such assets as we can provide them from across the entire spectrum of our Government. Our troops have done their job with the Coalition Forces.

Now it is time for others in our Federal workforce to step forward and add their considerable devotion and expertise to make the peace secure in those nations so the lands of Iraq and Afghanistan do not revert to havens for terrorism and destruction. I know many in our exceptional civilian workforce will answer this noble call in the name of free people everywhere.

Madam President, I ask for the consideration of this amendment at such time as the distinguished manager so desires. I will reappear on the floor. Perhaps these amendments can be accepted. If not, I will ask for rollcall votes.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the before mentioned letter to Cabinet officials regarding interagency support to our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, we wish to confine ourselves strictly to the time the joint leadership agreed upon in the event we need recorded votes.

Mr. President, Dorrance Smith, the nominee, is designated to be the principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense on matters relating to public affairs in the media. Mr. Smith is a four-time Emmy Award- winning television producer, a political consultant, and a media strategist who has worked for over 30 years in television and politics. He spent 9 months in Iraq, in the years 2003 and 2004, where he served as senior media advisor to the setup at that time.

He was responsible for developing a state-of-the-art communications facility in Baghdad for the Coalition Provisional Authority and a public diplomacy strategy for the U.S. Government. In addition, Mr. Smith was asked to overhaul certain aspects of the Iraqi media network, which he did. He was quite successful, such that they had a television channel that was launched on satellite.

For those efforts, he was awarded by the Secretary of Defense a medal for exceptional public service.

I have met with Mr. Smith on several occasions. I believe him to be highly qualified, and I fully support his nomination.

At a full Armed Services Committee hearing on October 25, 2005, and later, at an Executive Session on December 13th, at which Mr. Smith was present, he was questioned about an Op Ed article he wrote that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on April 25, 2005, which I also attach. In this article, based on his in the trenches experience as Ambassador Bremer's Senior Media Advisor in Baghdad, Mr. Smith questioned the practice relied on by major media outlets in the United States of airing video of insurgent attacks supplied by the Arab satellite news channel Al Jazeera. Mr. Smith has clarified his intent about the role of U.S. Networks in his in raising these issues for discussion and public scrutiny. He has emphasized publicly that he has never written or stated that the United States networks aid and abet terrorists. In this regard, I have attached Mr. Smith's response to a question for the record he provided after the hearing.

I ask unanimous consent that a biography of Dorrance Smith, and some questions and answers during his nomination hearing be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that our distinguished colleague from Rhode Island will be addressing another matter.

Let me interject an observation or two, and then I will be happy to yield the floor.

Mr. President, the good Senator from Michigan and I have been partners on this committee now the 28th year and rarely do we have matters of--particularly with executive positions--difference because we screen them carefully. But on this one, we do. That is the way the system works.

I cannot impress upon my colleagues too strongly several points.

One, we did have an executive session, and I shall observe the confidentiality of that session, but I got quite a different impression when Senator Levin and I largely--I think Senator Reed was present-- cross-examined Mr. Smith very carefully. I felt he more or less acknowledged a better selection of words in hindsight he should have made.

In no way do I believe he was trying to smear the press. I think the best evidence I can produce for my colleagues that it wasn't sort of a smear is that, to the best of my knowledge--and I will put the question to all Members of the Senate, most particularly my distinguished ranking member--we did not

receive--at least I did not--any comments from the media industry, individual stations, or trade associations, or anything else. I think they took this in stride as a 30-year veteran of their profession with great distinction.

Everybody makes an error now and then. Who among us on this floor has not made a public statement that he or she wishes perhaps they had couched in different words?

To deny this man the position of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, having been nominated by the President of the United States, having really been personally screened by the Secretary of Defense and others for the position--the Secretary of Defense, with whom I have discussed this matter, has total confidence in this individual. He has been performing in an acting capacity in the Department now for some period of time.

I urge my colleagues to look at the overall picture, but most importantly, is anybody going to stand up and say: Oh, no, this is what the media industry communicated with me, and for that reason I feel I should oppose the nomination? I don't think that evidence is before us.

That industry is tough, tough on itself, and it wants to maintain its reputation. The industry, as such, has accepted this as an event which happens to all of us who speak in public life.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I know of no other Senator who is going to speak with regard to Mr. Smith.

Mr. President, I thank my long-time friend and good colleague for his thoughtful remarks, and I assure you, I offer the same long-term

feelings for you. But in this instance, I come back to the simple proposition that there is not a one of us who has not at times in our public career uttered or written statements that we wish we could have revised. I felt in executive session he was sufficiently contrite and acknowledged that he still has the basic concerns about al-Jazeera, and I share those concerns, but a better choice of words might have avoided it. Then all of the networks he enumerated, I didn't get any communications on it from any of them.

I suggest at this time, so that we can move and accommodate all of our colleagues--and I am very grateful to the majority leader and the Democratic leader for allowing these nominations to be acted upon today. For all Members, last night, I am pleased to say, we voice voted the Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, so we made good progress in putting into position those persons who have been designated by the President for the Department of Defense.

We now turn to Peter C. W. Flory who became the principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs in 2001. In this capacity he serves as the principal assistant to the Assistant Secretary of International Security Affairs who is the principal adviser to the Secretary of Defense on the formulation and coordination of international security strategy and policy for East Asia, South Asia, the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, Africa, and Latin America. I wish to put further facts regarding this distinguished gentleman into the Record, but I am very anxious to keep the momentum. I think the concern of my colleague can be best expressed by himself momentarily, perhaps not to Mr. Flory himself but to the matter of process, and that process is an issue that in some respects I share with my distinguished colleague.

I yield the floor.

I will not object, but I wish to advise my colleague a number of my colleagues are on the tightest of schedules. I am proposing, on the conclusion of the debate on Flory, we immediately go to an up-or-down vote on Smith followed by a cloture vote on Flory. Is that understood?

If cloture is obtained, will the Senator be willing to have a voice vote on Flory?

We will reserve that for the leadership, but as manager that would be my position. I must impress upon colleagues--they are all here, those able to remain for the votes--in order to accommodate a great many, let us hold rigidly to the time schedules allocated for the votes.

Mr. President, by way of wrapup, Mr. Flory is nominated to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy.

Peter C.W. Flory, by recess appointment on August 2, 2005, became Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy. He previously served from 2001 to the present as the principal assistant to the Assistant Secretary for International Security Affairs, who is the principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense on the formulation and coordination of international security strategy and policy for East Asia, South Asia, the Middle East and Persian Gulf, Africa, and Latin America.

From April 1997 to July 2001, Mr. Flory was Chief Investigative Counsel and Special Counsel to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, SSCI. Mr. Flory had responsibility for the People's Republic of China and other regional issues, as well as counterintelligence, covert action, denial and deception, and other intelligence oversight matters.

An Honors Graduate of McGill University, Mr. Flory received his law degree from Georgetown University Law Center. After working as a journalist, he served as a national security advisor to Members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. From 1989 to 1992, Mr. Flory served as the Special Assistant to Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Paul D. Wolfowitz. From 1992 to 1993, he was an Associate Coordinator for Counter- Terrorism in the Department of State with the rank of Deputy Assistant Secretary. From 1993 until he joined the SSCI staff in 1997, Mr. Flory practiced law with the firm of Hughes, Hubbard & Reed LLP.

Mr. Flory speaks German and French. He and his wife Kathleen have six children, and reside in Nokesville, Virginia.

I would simply conclude, this is somewhat of a dilemma for those not following it. This man is eminently qualified to discharge the responsibilities to which the President has nominated him. There is no doubt in my mind.

I have worked with my colleague. I will continue to work with my colleague. It is no different than other chairmen and ranking members, irrespective of party. We are always in a push-pull contest with the executive branch regarding the documents we need to perform oversight. I do not in any way disparage or criticize my colleague's observations. I think he is meticulously correct in what he has set forward to the Chamber. But the problem is, I am not sure this gentleman was party to in any way the obstruction of those documents coming forward. Those decisions primarily were made by his superiors. I think it would penalize him for actions of superiors, which superiors were acting as they believed in the best interests of the United States, and within the parameters of the time-honored traditions between the executive and legislative branches about the privacy of certain documents.

I hope now we could move on. I see my friend, the Senator from Rhode Island. Does he have a few concluding words?

Wait a minute. I must get from my side a clarification on that. My understanding is there were two votes.

You said the last vote. Let's be clear.

We could consequently have a voice vote. I doubt if it will be necessary.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the nomination of Dorrance Smith.

I urge we proceed immediately to the second vote, a cloture vote on Peter Flory.

cloture motion

Mr. President, this will be the last recorded vote of the day. There could be a voice vote subsequently, but this will be the last recorded vote for the record.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.