Floor Statements

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce 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 maintenance and 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.

These commendable efforts reflect the superb skills, resolve, and dedication of the men and women of our Armed Forces, as they adapt to the added dimension of international terror while providing for the security of our Nation.

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 with 21st century capabilities, 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. The Navy, in its evaluation of the future threat, has determined that a force level of 313 ships, 32 ships greater than today's operational fleet, is required to maintain decisive maritime superiority.

These findings are in whole agreement with previous 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 carrier strike groups 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 deployable without a significant investment of resources. Recognizing the great complexity and risks inherent to naval aviation, there are 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 make the necessary investments to deploy this aging aircraft carrier in the future prove prohibitive when measured against the critical need to invest in modernizing the carrier force, the submarine force, and the surface combatant force.

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 legislation which would amend section 5062 of Title 10, United States Code to eliminate the requirement for the naval combat forces of the Navy to include not less than 12 operational aircraft carriers.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce 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 maintenance and 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.

These commendable efforts reflect the superb skills, resolve, and dedication of the men and women of our Armed Forces, as they adapt to the added dimension of international terror while providing for the security of our Nation.

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 with 21st century capabilities, 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. The Navy, in its evaluation of the future threat, has determined that a force level of 313 ships, 32 ships greater than today's operational fleet, is required to maintain decisive maritime superiority.

These findings are in whole agreement with previous 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 carrier strike groups 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 deployable without a significant investment of resources. Recognizing the great complexity and risks inherent to naval aviation, there are 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 make the necessary investments to deploy this aging aircraft carrier in the future prove prohibitive when measured against the critical need to invest in modernizing the carrier force, the submarine force, and the surface combatant force.

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 legislation which would amend section 5062 of Title 10, United States Code to eliminate the requirement for the naval combat forces of the Navy to include not less than 12 operational aircraft carriers.

Mr. President, there had been an informal agreement among colleagues, subject to the Senator who is principally on the floor at this point in time--and I will let him speak for himself--that we were going to introduce a bill. It would take 4 or 5 minutes for my remarks and 4 or 5 for the Senator from Arkansas. We were intending to do that at the conclusion of the colloquy between Senators Feingold and Sessions.

Am I correct on that, the Senator had indicated that we could proceed?

Then I make a unanimous consent request that the Senator from Arkansas and I have 15 minutes equally divided, to be followed by Senator Leahy for such time as he may

need and then the distinguished Senator from West Virginia.

Then I revise the request. The Senator from Arkansas and I can drop to, say, 10 minutes, and 5 minutes for the Senator from Vermont. Well, let's drop it down to 8 minutes----

Mr. President, before the Senator leaves, what amount of time would the senior Senator from West Virginia like?

Mr. President, I would suggest to my distinguished colleague from Arkansas, recognizing that Senator Byrd has an extenuating circumstance he has to take care of, I would be perfectly willing to step aside and regain into the queue following the Senator.

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

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Warner and Mr. Pryor pertaining to the introduction of S. 2290 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I am privileged to rise with the distinguished Senator from Arkansas to introduce a bill today entitled the Reliable and Affordable Natural Gas Energy Reform Act of 2006

In September of 2005, at the time the Senate was examining a number of energy proposals under the distinguished chairmanship of Senator Domenici, I introduced a bill at that time quite similar to this one, although it included oil. This measure sticks to gas, and gas only, to enable the several States across our Nation to take such steps under State law, in combination with the Governors and the respective legislatures of the several States that desire to explore and the desire to drill for energy off their shores. That bill as yet is still on the docket.

Since that time I have had the great pleasure of joining my colleague from Arkansas to put this bill in. I am delighted that he indicated he would like to step forward and take the lead. I readily accede to that request.

So much of the concern about drilling offshore is understandably in-- and I am not here to criticize--the environmental community. I think my colleague from Arkansas can help me eventually convince the environmental community that the time has come for offshore drilling.

Two things have occurred in the interim between the 1988 moratorium, namely advancement in technology so we can safely, by engineering, put the wells in; and the second is the ever-tightening noose around the citizens of the United States of America with regard to their energy sources. The third thing that is occurring is the growing competition for energy worldwide--India coming on with enormous consumption requirements, and China with even larger consumption requirements.

I think the time has come that the Congress begin to reexamine its old policies with regard to those lands offshore of our several States.

At this time, I yield the floor to my colleague from Arkansas.

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

Mr. President, we earlier distributed material which referred to oil which was in an earlier draft. I have been in contact with the environmental community, and so forth. It is clear to me at this point in time that we have in this bill just gas. My fervent hope and belief is that the environmental community will see the advancements in technology and the tremendous requirements of this country for natural gas, that we can restrict it to gas.

At a later time, if we are successful in proving that the natural gas can be drawn and is safe, which I am confident we can do, maybe due to world circumstances and domestic circumstances we could go back at that time and revisit the issue of oil.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, our committee, under the leadership of Senator Domenici, is putting forward a proposal. I spoke with him today. This bill does not, in my judgment--and I hope he concurs eventually--conflict in any way with the objectives he is trying to achieve. He is a man who thinks forwardly and is so knowledgeable on the question of energy, the domestic situation here and the worldwide implication, and I think eventually he will be looking at something, and this may be a vehicle on which the Energy Committee will focus as they take the next step and begin to recognize the need to have some offshore drilling.

I thank my colleague on the Energy Committee.

I conclude my remarks by saying I am proud of the State of Virginia and its legislature. In the last session of the Virginia State legislature in the year 2005, both houses passed legislation authorizing precisely what we have here. In other words, let us go out and take a look at the shelf, find out what may or may not be off the coast of Virginia, and determine the accessibility and the feasibility and interest among industry to come and participate in the drilling.

But, unfortunately our former Governor--and I get along very well with Governor Warner--for reasons which he expressed, felt at this time the legislation shouldn't go forward in this session of the Virginia General Assembly. Again, the Senate stepped forward and passed legislation along the lines of what the General Assembly of Virginia did last year. It is my hope the House will do likewise, and that our new Governor, Governor Kaine, will take it under consideration, should both houses act--and hopefully they will act upon it favorably. Virginia is in a key location, and its citizens could benefit enormously if in fact earlier analysis of the shelf off of our State is confirmed as possessing resources of energy, namely natural gas.

I thank my colleague from Arkansas. He is a marvelous working partner. I look forward to working with him.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am privileged to rise with the distinguished Senator from Arkansas to introduce a bill today entitled the Reliable and Affordable Natural Gas Energy Reform Act of 2006

In September of 2005, at the time the Senate was examining a number of energy proposals under the distinguished chairmanship of Senator Domenici, I introduced a bill at that time quite similar to this one, although it included oil. This measure sticks to gas, and gas only, to enable the several States across our Nation to take such steps under State law, in combination with the Governors and the respective legislatures of the several States that desire to explore and the desire to drill for energy off their shores. That bill as yet is still on the docket.

Since that time I have had the great pleasure of joining my colleague from Arkansas to put this bill in. I am delighted that he indicated he would like to step forward and take the lead. I readily accede to that request.

So much of the concern about drilling offshore is understandably in-- and I am not here to criticize--the environmental community. I think my colleague from Arkansas can help me eventually convince the environmental community that the time has come for offshore drilling.

Two things have occurred in the interim between the 1988 moratorium, namely advancement in technology so we can safely, by engineering, put the wells in; and the second is the ever-tightening noose around the citizens of the United States of America with regard to their energy sources. The third thing that is occurring is the growing competition for energy worldwide--India coming on with enormous consumption requirements, and China with even larger consumption requirements.

I think the time has come that the Congress begin to reexamine its old policies with regard to those lands offshore of our several States.

At this time, I yield the floor to my colleague from Arkansas.

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

Mr. President, we earlier distributed material which referred to oil which was in an earlier draft. I have been in contact with the environmental community, and so forth. It is clear to me at this point in time that we have in this bill just gas. My fervent hope and belief is that the environmental community will see the advancements in technology and the tremendous requirements of this country for natural gas, that we can restrict it to gas.

At a later time, if we are successful in proving that the natural gas can be drawn and is safe, which I am confident we can do, maybe due to world circumstances and domestic circumstances we could go back at that time and revisit the issue of oil.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, our committee, under the leadership of Senator Domenici, is putting forward a proposal. I spoke with him today. This bill does not, in my judgment--and I hope he concurs eventually--conflict in any way with the objectives he is trying to achieve. He is a man who thinks forwardly and is so knowledgeable on the question of energy, the domestic situation here and the worldwide implication, and I think eventually he will be looking at something, and this may be a vehicle on which the Energy Committee will focus as they take the next step and begin to recognize the need to have some offshore drilling.

I thank my colleague on the Energy Committee.

I conclude my remarks by saying I am proud of the State of Virginia and its legislature. In the last session of the Virginia State legislature in the year 2005, both houses passed legislation authorizing precisely what we have here. In other words, let us go out and take a look at the shelf, find out what may or may not be off the coast of Virginia, and determine the accessibility and the feasibility and interest among industry to come and participate in the drilling.

But, unfortunately our former Governor--and I get along very well with Governor Warner--for reasons which he expressed, felt at this time the legislation shouldn't go forward in this session of the Virginia General Assembly. Again, the Senate stepped forward and passed legislation along the lines of what the General Assembly of Virginia did last year. It is my hope the House will do likewise, and that our new Governor, Governor Kaine, will take it under consideration, should both houses act--and hopefully they will act upon it favorably. Virginia is in a key location, and its citizens could benefit enormously if in fact earlier analysis of the shelf off of our State is confirmed as possessing resources of energy, namely natural gas.

I thank my colleague from Arkansas. He is a marvelous working partner. I look forward to working with him.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, it is my understanding at this time that there is an allocation of time reserved for the Senator from Virginia, and I shall proceed, although we are slightly off schedule. I don't wish to encroach on others, but I will proceed and watch the floor very carefully.

Then I will proceed, if I may, and ask unanimous consent to speak for not to exceed 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I think that would work out. Perhaps the intervening hour will be such that we won't need that additional 5 minutes because I think the managers and leadership have tried to carefully manage the time. I am just able to get started now because my colleagues gave very good speeches, and we all enjoyed it.

Mr. President, article II, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution explicitly provides for the responsibilities of the executive branch and Government and the Senate with respect to judicial nominations. The Constitution reads in part that the President ``shall nominate and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint judges of the Supreme Court and all of the officers of the United States.'' Thus, the Constitution provides the President of the United States with the responsibility of nominating individuals to serve on our Federal bench.

The Constitution provides the Senate with the responsibility of providing advice to the President on those nominations and with the responsibility of providing and withholding consent on those nominations. In this respect, article II, section 2 of our Constitution places our Federal judiciary in a unique posture with respect to the other two coequal branches of our Federal Government.

Unlike the executive branch and unlike the Congress, the Constitution places the composition and continuity of our Federal judiciary entirely within the coordinated exercise and responsibilities of the other two branches of the Government. Only if the President and the Senate fairly and objectively and, if I may say, in a timely manner exercise their respective constitutional powers can the judicial branch of Government be composed and maintained so that our courts can function and serve the American people.

For this reason, in my view, a Senator has no higher duty than his or her constitutional responsibilities under article II, section 2--the advise and consent clause.

With respect to the Senate's advice responsibilities under article II, section 2, I believe our Founding Fathers explicitly used the word ``advice'' in our Constitution for a reason. This was to ensure consultation between a President and the Senate prior to the forwarding of a nominee to the Senate for consideration. Adequate consultation prior to the forwarding of a nominee is of utmost importance. And, I compliment our distinguished President for recognizing that in the case of now, Justice John Roberts, and with respect to this nomination.

But, let's not forget that while the Constitution calls for the Senate to provide advice to a President on whom he should nominate, the decision of whom to nominate solely rests with the President of the United States.

Alexander Hamilton made this point crystal clear in the Federalist Paper No. 66 when he wrote:

It will be the office of the President to nominate, and,

with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint. There

will, of course, be no exertion of choice on the part of the

Senate. They may defeat one choice of the Executive, and

oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves

choose--they can only ratify or reject the choice of the

President.

That is precisely why we are here in these closing days of a very prolonged procedure with regard to Judge Alito.

I am privileged to indicate that I shall strongly support him at the time the vote is taken and cast my vote for him.

With respect to the issue of consent, I believe it is imperative that when a Senator considers whether to grant or withhold consent, he or she should recognize article II, section 2 and Alexander Hamilton's statement in Federalist No. 66. Accordingly, during the course of my 28 years in the Senate, I have always tried to fairly and objectively review a judicial nominee's credentials prior to deciding whether I will vote to provide consent on a nomination. I look at a wide range of factors, primarily: character, professional career, experience, integrity, and temperament for lifetime service on our courts. While I certainly recognize political considerations, it is my practice not to be bound by them.

These same fair and objective factors that I have used during my 28 years in the Senate have guided my consideration of Judge Alito's nomination.

When Judge Alito's nomination was first announced, I wasn't overly familiar with the nominee. But over the past few months, I have reviewed his record thoroughly. I met with the nominee twice--the first time prior to his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee and the second time after the hearings. Each time I asked him a number of indepth questions. I have also reviewed a number of his judicial opinions and followed the confirmation hearings before the Judiciary Committee. In addition, many people have written, emailed, called my office, or spoken to me personally about this nominee, and I have respectfully considered their views.

Having now completed my review of Judge Alito's nomination, I can say, without equivocation, that of the numerous judicial nominees I have reviewed during my nearly three decades in the Senate, Judge Alito's credentials and qualifications place him as very well qualified.

Judge Alito has an impressive record of legal accomplishments.

He received his bachelor's degree from Princeton University and attended Yale Law School. While at Yale, he served as an editor on the Yale Law Journal. Following graduation from law school, he worked as a law clerk for a Federal circuit court judge, Judge Leonard Garth of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Subsequent to his clerkship, Samuel Alito worked as an assistant U.S. attorney, as an assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States, and in the Office of Legal Counsel in the U.S. Department of Justice. In 1987, Mr. Alito was unanimously confirmed by the Senate to serve as the U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey. Three years later he was nominated and unanimously confirmed by voice vote to serve as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and he has served on this court for the last 15 years.

Without a doubt, Judge Alito has the requisite legal and professional experience to serve on the Supreme Court. Indeed, the American Bar Association, whose rating system of Federal judges is often referred to as the gold standard in the Senate, recently awarded Judge Alito a rating of well qualified--its highest rating.

But in addition to his impressive record of legal accomplishments, Judge Alito has also demonstrated--during his confirmation hearings and over the past 15 years on the Federal bench--a deep respect for legal precedent and for the constitutional responsibility of the legislative branch to write our laws. These qualities of Judge Alito were confirmed by the remarkable testimony before the Judiciary Committee of several current and retired Federal judges, appointed by both Republican and Democratic Presidents, who worked closely with Judge Alito on the Federal bench.

In my view, Judge Alito's strong record and experience, coupled with his appearance before the Judiciary Committee, eliminate any question of the existence of ``extraordinary circumstances'' that would justify denying him an up-or-down vote.

Judge Alito is an outstanding judicial nominee who I am proud to support for confirmation. I believe he will serve on the U.S. Supreme Court with distinction, and I commend our President on making such a fine nomination.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators be permitted to introduce bills and submit statements for the Record until 12 noon today.

Mr. President, we had a historic moment in the Commonwealth of Virginia this past weekend. I was privileged, along with Senator Allen, to attend the inauguration of our new Governor. We have an unusual situation in the Commonwealth of Virginia where our Governors are elected in what we call the off year for elections in America, but it was a very significant occasion for the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

An interesting footnote in history: our capitol building in Richmond is under renovation at this time. Consequently, very wisely, Governor Kaine selected Williamsburg, VA, for the purposes of his inauguration. As I said, it was a rainy day, but we all enjoyed it.

On behalf of the Congressional delegation and the people of Virginia, I am privileged to place into the Congressional Record the inaugural address given by Governor Timothy Kaine, Virginia's 70th Governor on January 14, 2006. Due to the extensive renovation of Virginia's Capitol in Richmond, Saturday's inauguration was held at the Colonial Capital of Williamsburg for only the third time in the Commonwealth's history and the first since that of Thomas Jefferson in 1779.

Williamsburg, Virginia was home to the first Capitol building in America and served as the home of the House of Burgesses. It is fitting that this inauguration took place in Williamsburg as Virginia and Nation prepares to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the founding of the Jamestown settlement in 2007.

We in Virginia are proud of our longstanding spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship among the various branches of government in the Commonwealth and with the members of our congressional delegation serving in Washington. I look forward to working with Governor Kaine as he is the eighth Governor to serve Virginia during my service in the United States Senate. It is in this spirit of bipartisanship that I ask unanimous consent that Governor Kaine's inaugural address to the Commonwealth of Virginia be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. President, first I commend my good friend, the good Senator from the State of New Jersey, for his remarks this morning on behalf of his colleague. I was privileged to attend what is known here as a reenactment in the Old Chamber just now and had the chance to wish him well. We do wish him well.

I certainly say to my distinguished colleague, the new Governor of New Jersey, our former colleague whom we all hold in high esteem, we wish him well in his responsibilities. The Senator mentioned that, of course, he departed to take on this authority. You know, there is a precedent in your State for recycling back here. It seems to me the distinguished senior Senator is here on his second term.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, I am proud to bring the Conference Report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 before the Senate for final passage. This has been a long and difficult conference, but we have achieved our goal of providing the necessary authorities and resources for our men and women in uniform to defend the freedom of America.

I thank my colleague and partner for these 27 years we have served together in the Senate, the senior Senator from Michigan, Carl Levin, for his consistently constructive help and leadership in bringing this important legislation to the floor.

An undertaking of this magnitude is ultimately a bipartisan, bicameral effort. Consequently, there are many people deserving of recognition. I want to thank all of our subcommittee chairs and ranking members for their tireless efforts. I also want to thank Chairman Duncan Hunter and Congressman Ike Skelton for their leadership and teamwork in producing this conference agreement.

This conference agreement could not have been reached without our dedicated, professional staff. I especially want to recognize the unwavering leadership of the Committee Staff Director, Charlie Abell and the Democratic Staff Director, Rick DeBobes, together with their staff, in bringing this process to a successful conclusion.

As we consider this legislation, we remain a nation at war. This year marks the fourth year in the global war on terrorism. On September 11, 2001, our Nation awakened to a terrorist attack. From this dark hour, our Nation quickly emerged stronger and more united because our Armed Forces, like the generations that preceded them, responded to the call of duty in Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and elsewhere around the world in the cause of freedom.

Hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, active and Reserve components, and countless civilians continue to serve valiantly around the world--from Iraq and Afghanistan to the Persian Gulf, Europe, Africa, and Korea--to secure peace and freedom. All Americans are proud of what our military has accomplished. Their sacrifices and service have removed obstacles to freedom and democracy in the regions of the Middle East and Asia.

We remain mindful that the defense of our homeland begins on distant battlefields. To the extent that we can prevent or contain the threats on these battlefields or potential battlefields, the less likely that we will experience a threat here at home. The threats to our Nation and the ongoing war on terrorism demand increased investment in our national security.

As we begin this debate, I remain mindful that no military victory is gained without significant sacrifice. I ask that we pause to remember those who died in the defense of our freedom, and the many others who were wounded. We honor their sacrifices and service. On behalf of a grateful Nation, we salute you. They and their families deserve our gratitude and unwavering support.

This year, the House and Senate conferees confronted especially difficult challenges affecting our Nation's security. These issues included U.S. policy on Iraq, detainee policy, and the Navy shipbuilding budget. With respect to these issues, I believe that the conferees reached a balanced agreement.

Overall, the conferees authorized funding of $441.5 billion in budget authority for defense programs in fiscal year 2006, an increase of $20.9 billion--or 3.1 percent in real terms--above the amount authorized by the Congress for fiscal year 2005.

The conference report underscores some key defense priorities critical to our national security, including authorities and resources to win the global war on terrorism and support for the men and women of the Armed Forces who are fighting so bravely in the global war on terrorism. Specifically, the conferees added $586.4 million over the President's budget request for combating terrorism. The conferees also authorized $50.0 billion in emergency supplemental funding for fiscal year 2006 for activities in support of operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the global war on terrorism.

The conferees further agreed to enhance congressional oversight of ongoing military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the global war on terrorism, including uniform standards for interrogation operations, while removing the burden of litigation from vital intelligence activities. The conference report also includes a 3.1 percent pay raise for all military personnel.

In addition, the conference report contains some provisions of which I am very proud that emphasizes our commitment to homeland defense, force protection, recruiting and retention of military personnel, quality of life programs, and modernization and transformation efforts.

To enhance the ability of the Department of Defense to fulfill its homeland defense responsibilities, the conferees agreed to: authorize $115.2 million for homeland defense and counterterrorism, including $19.8 million for specially trained and equipped teams to support civil or military authorities in the event of a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-explosive

attack or event; and enhance the Department's working relationship with the Department of Homeland Security for purposes of leveraging dual-use assets in conducting homeland defense and homeland security missions.

To rapidly deploy and acquire the full range of force protection capabilities for deployed forces, the conferees agreed to authorize an additional $610.0 million for up-armored high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles and wheeled vehicle add-on ballistic protection to provide force protection for soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan; designate an executive agent for a joint research and treatment effort to treat combat blast injuries resulting from IEDs, rocket propelled grenades, and other attacks; and facilitate the rapid deployment of new technology and tactics and the rapid deployment of equipment to counter the threat of improvised explosive devices.

To improve recruiting goals and retention of military personnel, the conferees agreed to create new and better incentives to meet the challenge of recruiting for the All Volunteer Force; and ensure the retention of experienced personnel in the active-duty ranks, in the Reserve, and in the National Guard.

To continue its commitment to quality health care for all beneficiaries, the conferees agreed to enhance access to health care coverage under TRICARE for every member of the Selected Reserve and their families, with Government subsidies based on new categories of eligibility.

To continue necessary modernization and transformation efforts, the conferees agreed to authorize an increase of $159.5 million for Navy Shipbuilding to accelerate the CVN-78 aircraft carrier, the LHA (R) amphibious ship, and the second DD(X) destroyer of the class. Much more must be done, however, to achieve stability in the Navy's shipbuilding budget and to protect this fragile sector of our industrial base.

I have a list of some of the highlights of this conference report that I ask unanimous consent to be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Each year since 1961, the House and Senate have reached a conference agreement on, and the President has signed into law, a National Defense Authorization Act. I now call upon my colleagues in this chamber to fulfill our responsibility and pass the annual Defense authorization bill, as has been the tradition of the Senate for each of the past 45 years. This is the 27th year that I have had the privilege of working on this important legislation.

I believe this conference report is a strong bipartisan bill that serves the interests of the men and women of our Armed Forces and of our Nation today. We must send a strong message of support to the men and women in uniform serving on the distant outposts throughout the world. I can think of no better way to honor their sacrifices and service, and that of their families than with the passage of the National Defense Authorization bill. This conference report provides the authorities and resources to win the global war on terrorism, while safeguarding Americans at home. It sustains the current readiness of the Armed Forces and provides the resources to prepare them for the future.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

Appendix A: Key Military Personnel Provisions--Conference Agreement

I thank our respective leaders, the majority leader and the distinguished Senator from Nevada, and my good friend and partner, our dear Senator Levin, and all members of the Armed Services Committee, and particularly our staff that made this bill possible. It has had a long journey. But we are here.

Mr. President, will the Chair advise the Senate with regard to any time allocation for remarks in connection with the pending matter?

To have worked from the beginning with Senator McCain then with Senators Graham, Levin and Kyl was a privilege, and, to achieve legislation which was needed for all our Nation's citizens was a humble, but very fulfilling, experience. We realized both the necessity for action in this area and the vital importance of dealing with the increasing flow of litigation involving Guantanamo detainees.

This legislative history should document that the McCain provisions, sections 1402 and 1403 of the bill, do not create a private right of action. Title XIV of the bill does provide a new affirmative defense that may be applied to civil actions brought under other statutes and to criminal prosecutions. This is essential to give potential defendants fair rights to defend themselves. Further, language was included affording the same right to counsel and to payment of litigation costs at Government expense for non-military personnel, in both foreign and domestic courts, that is presently extended to members of the Armed Forces.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, earlier this week, the Committee on Armed Services favorably reported the nomination of Mr. Dorrance Smith to the full Senate. Mr. Smith is an experienced and highly accomplished television executive, who has been nominated to be the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. I have a copy of Mr. Smith's biography, and I would note that he is a four-time Emmy award winning television producer who spent 9 months in Iraq from 2003 to 2004 where he served as Senior Media Advisor to Ambassador Paul Bremer. 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 of the Armed Services Committee on December 13, at which Mr. Smith was present, he fully and respectfully answered all questions posed to him. Many questions focused on an op ed article he wrote as a private citizen that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on April 25, 2005. 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. I am satisfied with Mr. Smith's responses. I would note that no major media outlet, except Al Jazeera, expressed any concern about Mr. Smith's op ed.

The post of Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs has been vacant since June 2003. Mr. Smith is an outstanding nominee. I urge favorable, rapid action by the full Senate on his nomination.

I ask unanimous consent that the above-referenced biography be printed in the Record.

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.