Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to address the Senate on the status of the progress the conferees are making with regard to the Defense authorization bill. We have been in constant negotiations throughout the week and I am pleased to say that Chairman Hunter, who has exhibited extraordinary leadership, together with myself, Senator Levin, and Congressman Ike Skelton, we concluded our final conference with Members today. It was my understanding the bill would be filed in the House tonight.

Accordingly, I provided a signature sheet, which is the standard protocol. All 13 members of the Armed Services Committee on the Republican side signed the sheet and Senator Levin likewise authorized me to include his sheet of those Democrats which signed. So they are now in the possession of the House of Representatives again in anticipation that the bill will be filed.

Congressman Hunter is a man I have dealt with for many years and have the greatest respect for, and because of our close working and trusting relationship, he called me tonight, about half an hour ago, to advise me there was some interest among some Members of the House to have that conference report on the House side reopened and another measure inserted. He described the measure, but as a matter of courtesy and privacy I will not describe it.

I indicated to Congressman Hunter and other members of the House leadership that I would be in opposition; that I felt duty bound as chairman to withdraw the signatures of the 13 Republicans. I called Senator Levin and acquainted him with the status of this matter and he asked that I ask Congressman Hunter to return his sheet with all signatures if the House, in its wisdom, opens that bill and inserts another provision in it. So that is the status.

In the very unfortunate event that we have our signature sheets returned to us and this particular provision is placed in the House bill, I would have to go to my Members on the Republican side and indicate to them that I could not support this measure if it were to be placed in this bill. I might support it in the context of other legislative means, but I would not on this. Therefore, there is a question of whether with my signature being withdrawn--Senator Levin said he expressed doubt that his members would join, so there would probably be insufficient signatures for the filing of this bill.

I do not take the floor by means of threatening those with good intentions to try every avenue to foster their interest in legislation, but our Nation is at war, and this bill has been, for various reasons, on a very long journey in getting to this moment in time. Many Members of this body, most especially the members of the Armed Services Committee, both sides of the aisle, have worked diligently on this bill. Our collective staffs have gone around the clock for days in this abbreviated session to try and produce the conference report, and I commend them for the work, and that report has been produced. It is our understanding that it was finalized about 2:30 today and the House was in the process of filing the bill tonight.

So I indicate that this Senator will not in any way allow this bill to come to the floor--I will exercise every right I have--with this provision in it. At this point in time, if, for example, for some reason--my colleagues and I do not in any way threaten my fellow colleagues who I presume might have an interest in this position--were to send over the report without my signature and such signatures that they may get on the other side and that comes over, then I am prepared to exercise my rights under rule XVIII and every available means not to allow this bill to contain this provision, because I think we are absolutely dutybound to the men and women of the Armed Forces and to their families and to the Commander in Chief, with whom I was privileged to meet yesterday, the President of the United States, on a matter that was of great importance to him and other members of our committee, most particularly one member, Senator McCain, who was with me. It was understood that we were finally resolving what we considered the last major issue.

I commend the President on the manner in which he and his staff worked with me and Congressman Hunter and others to resolve this question. So we had finally concluded and listened diligently today to the members of the committee who had some views and closed it out at 2:30.

Now this has arisen. Again, people over on the other side, the other body, have a perfect right to exercise their rights, but I have to indicate, and I think in fairness to the leadership of the Senate and the leadership of the House, my steadfast opposition to this procedure. There has to come a time around here when conference reports are closed, as it was indicated to us, signature sheets provided, and we should go forward.

This bill is vitally necessary to this Nation at this hour. When every day we are losing men, killed and wounded, and the horrific damages to them and their families, we must be steadfast in our resolve.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, with a deep sense of humility, I thank my colleague. I am undeserving of those remarks. Each day I am here, each day I grow a little older, I grow more humble and thankful to the good Lord for allowing me to greet each day and do what I feel is best in the interests of this country.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to recognize the service of an outstanding leader and public servant. After more than 38 years of combined military and civil service, Mr. Terry R. Little will soon retire from the Department of Defense, DOD, and move into private life.

Mr. Little is one of the most seasoned weapons acquisition program managers in the DOD. He has over 24 years of program management leadership in seven major weapon acquisition programs including two highly classified missile programs, the AIM-9X Short Range Air-to-Air Missile, the Joint Direct Attack Munition, the Small Diameter Bomb, the Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile, and the Kinetic Energy Interceptor Program. Each of these weapon systems has delivered, or promises to provide, unparalleled advancements in capability at affordable costs for the defense of our Nation. His creative ingenuity, tenacious organizational drive, and superior personal leadership directly enabled these advancements.

Mr. Little is currently the Executive Director of the Missile Defense Agency, MDA. In this capacity, he is responsible for acquisition, personnel, and administrative policy. His intellectual commitment for excellence and genuine concern for people have aided immeasurably to the day-to-day operation of the Agency. His professional achievements are numerous, impressive, and reflect his dedication and commitment for achieving the highest standards of professionalism and integrity in the service of the United States.

Terry Little has devoted his adult life to improving the DOD acquisition process. He has inspired teamwork and efficiency in many venues, and he has trained the next generation of acquisition managers to continue his legacy. For these and his many other contributions, Americans owe Mr. Little a debt of gratitude for a lifetime of selfless service and for his profound contributions to our Nation and our security. Those of us in the Senate will miss his leadership and contributions. We wish him and his family all the best in the years ahead.

Mr. President, I would like to recognize the professional dedication, vision and military service of GEN Leon J. LaPorte who is retiring from the U.S. Army after 37 years of dedicated service. It is a privilege for me to recognize the many outstanding achievements General LaPorte has provided the Army, and our great Nation.

General LaPorte was commissioned a second lieutenant in 1968 upon graduation from the University of Rhode Island. He was commissioned an armor officer and served in numerous positions of increasing responsibility to include the position from which he will retire. General LaPorte's contributions throughout his career have made an historic impact and greatly improved our Nation's security.

General LaPorte assumed command of the United Nations Command, Republic of Korea/United States Combined Forces Command, and United States Forces Korea on May 1, 2002. On October 1, 2005, General LaPorte became the longest serving U.S. commander in Korea. Earning this distinction is a tribute to his performance and the excellent relationships he fostered with our Korean allies. General LaPorte's tenure has been highlighted by several very crucial periods in the alliance. During his time in command, we have witnessed multiple North Korean maritime violations and numerous DMZ and airspace incursions. These threats to the security and sovereignty of Korea led General LaPorte to develop deterrent options and force enhancements that provided increased deterrence against aggression. Despite the tremendous implications involved, General LaPorte remained unflappable and skillfully designed military force packages that could be deployed against anticipated threat scenarios to address the uncertain political-military situations.

General LaPorte has been a principal participant in the fast-paced bilateral military and political discussions. General LaPorte earned the reputation as a well-respected ambassador for the United States. He developed and maintained close ties with the military and civilian leadership of the Republic of Korea in partnership with the U.S. Ambassador to Korea. He is credited with fusing a lasting bond between the two nations.

General LaPorte is a soldier's soldier. Throughout his career foremost in his thoughts and his actions have been initiatives in the best interest of the soldiers, civilians, and family members. These priorities are reflected in every decision he makes. He expects those serving below him to do the same. This was never more evident than when he deployed with the 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, TX as the Chief of Staff in October 1990 during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm and more recently during the deployment of one of his battalions to Iraq in support of OIF. General LaPorte was tireless in ensuring that each soldier was properly prepared, trained and equipped for the mission and that every family was cared for by a Family Readiness Group. The reenlistment rates in his units demonstrate the love, loyalty and dedication of those who served under General LaPorte.

During his illustrious career in the Army General LaPorte has been nothing less than brilliant. General LaPorte is a great credit to the Army and the Nation. As he now departs to share his experience and expertise with the private sector, I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to recognize his service and wish him and his wife Judy well in their new endeavors.

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize a dedicated law enforcement official at the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, NCIS, David L. Brant, who is retiring after 28 years of service to the United States. Culminating a law enforcement career spanning over 30 years, Director David Brant has announced his retirement from Federal service effective December 9, 2005.

Following graduation in 1975 with a master's degree in criminology from Indiana State University, Mr. Brant began his law enforcement career as a police officer with the Dade County Metropolitan Public Safety Department in Miami, FL. Two years later, he accepted an offer from the Naval Investigative Service and began his service as a special agent assigned to NISRA Norfolk, VA. During his 4 years in the Norfolk area, Mr. Brant served in four different NIS offices and also completed an assignment as special agent afloat aboard the USS Independence.

For 13 years, Mr. Brant served NCIS in a number of assignments in the United States and the Philippines, and he earned an appointment to the Senior Executive Service as Assistant Director for Counterintelligence in 1994. Mr. Brant served in that capacity until he succeeded Roy D. Nedrow as Director of the NCIS in May 1997.

Mr. Brant has been widely recognized within the Department of the Navy and the Department of Defense, as well as within the Federal law enforcement community, for his innovative and transformational approaches to enhancing law enforcement and counterintelligence capabilities. He has led NCIS in developing and implementing operational strategies, across all of the agency's mission areas, which serve as models for others to follow. Additionally, Mr. Brant established the Counterterrorism Directorate and built the Multiple Threat Alert Center, MTAC, specifically to enhance the ability of the NCIS to counter threats facing the Navy and Marine Corps.

Other noteworthy accomplishments during Mr. Brant's tenure include the creation of both the NCIS Contingency Response Field Office, CRFO, to improve the capacity of NCIS to deploy agents to meet naval requirements in high-threat environments like Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Deployment Support Office, DSO, to better support those personnel once they are deployed. Mr. Brant has also led the creation of the Law Enforcement Information Exchange, LInX, Program, which has brought local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies together to great effect in support of naval force protection and crimefighting in the Hampton Roads area and other parts of the country. He has partnered NCIS with the FBI on Joint Terrorism Task Forces, and assigned agents to Defense Department Force Protection Detachments, FPDs, around the world. Moreover, he has been an outstanding spokesman for NCIS and the Department of the Navy in senior level law enforcement, counterintelligence, and counterterrorism venues around the world.

Most of all, Mr. Brant appreciates that what makes NCIS a truly great agency is the quality of its people. He routinely fought to ensure that agents, analysts, and support personnel alike had the equipment, training, and support required to do their jobs. Under his leadership, NCIS gained civilian arrest authority and built a reputation as a first-class law enforcement agency. He established the Director's Advisory Board, DAB, to provide him with direct feedback for the field on emergent issues. Mr. Brant improved upon the NCIS support infrastructure by hiring specialists in the fields of communications, congressional affairs, human resources, and information technology. He increased the number of SES and other high-grade billets while also working diligently for the additional funding that will ensure the success of his agency for years to come.

During his career, Mr. Brant has been recognized as an outstanding leader by multiple organizations. For his distinguished service, he has received the Department of Defense Presidential Rank Award and the Department of the Navy Distinguished Service Award. Recently, he was honored by the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, HAPCOA, with the Aguila Award for Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice and by the Women in Federal Law Enforcement, WIFLE, as the 2004 Outstanding Advocate for Women in Federal Law Enforcement.

As he begins his well deserved retirement, Mr. Brant will remain in the Washington, DC, area with his wife Merri Jo, and his children, Emily and Andrew. I salute David Brant for his dedicated service to our country, and I wish him and his family well in the years to come.

Will the Chair advise the Senate with regard to the allocation of time at this point?

Would it be appropriate, then, for the Senator from Virginia to seek time at this point for about 8 minutes?

I yield the floor.

Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the time allocation?

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I shall take 7 minutes, and my distinguished colleague from Alaska will follow.

Madam President, the Committee on Armed Services has been working very conscientiously, as we should--and, indeed, all Senators should--on the question of the IEDs in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

Yesterday, our committee invited over from the War College 10 young officers, each of them having commanded a battalion of U.S. Army, U.S. Marines, and, in some instances, some Navy as the Navy is taking a very significant role in the ground operations in Iraq.

I have had the privilege of being associated with men and women of the U.S. military for many years, but I never saw 10 finer individuals. I sat in awe of how they, in a very confident and calm and professional manner, recounted their experiences over the last 18 months--different periods of time, ranging from 6 to 12 months--when they had command of the most magnificent troops, the most magnificent, dedicated military we have had in the contemporary history of America.

We owe those troops a high debt of gratitude. No matter what our political affiliation is, no matter what our philosophical approach is, we owe them and their families a tremendous debt of gratitude. I think that was expressed by this body when 98 to 0 we passed the

annual Armed Forces authorization bill. There was not one single dissenting voice. I went back and searched the Record. Indeed, during the Vietnam period when I was in the Pentagon, there was always a cadre that would vote against it. But I think it was a recognition in this Chamber--and I salute each Member of the Senate who voted for that bill and expressed on behalf of the men and women of the Armed Forces our gratitude.

But much more remains to be done. In the judgment of this Senator--I am just speaking for myself--I believe the next 4 to 6 months is absolutely the most critical period of this conflict in Iraq. How and why we got into that conflict is debated. It has been taking place, but I urge colleagues to look forward to the future to see how we can best support our forces as each one of the volunteers fulfills the orders of the Commander in Chief and carries out the mission.

During the course of the deliberation of our bill, the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, a member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Lieberman, gave an eloquent speech regarding that classic statement at the conclusion of World War II by Arthur Vandenberg: ``Politics should be checked at the water's edge.''

I say to my colleagues with great respect for all, now is the time. The next 60, 90, 120, 180 days is most critical. I urge us to put aside our political differences, put aside our philosophical differences, and look forward and seize the opportunity to support the Iraqis in their forthcoming elections on the 15th of December and the formation of that government in the ensuing 30 days thereafter.

We should be very strong in our efforts to impress upon this new government the urgency of time and the need to show a greater measure of strength and determination than ever before by the various transitional governments that have preceded this government. Now is the time for the Iraqi people and their new government to show determination, quadruple their efforts in forming their new ministries, standing them up so they can assume the full burden of that measure of democracy and freedom that they elect to have among themselves, and to rapidly try to bring this insurgency to a conclusion.

The ground situation as it develops in the ensuing months dictates any thoughts of how and when our forces can be deemed to have completed their mission and begin the return home.

Just days ago, this Chamber rejected an attempt again to set a timetable. We set no timetable. We are there in this critical period of the next 6 months to support the Iraqi people, to support this new government, but in return they must give us a full measure of support and equal effort to achieve these goals.

If I may return to the subject of the IEDs which was a principal part of our discussion yesterday, I will be consulting with Members, but I believe the Department of Defense has to redouble its efforts to deal with this difficult situation of the IEDs. Each of these officers recounted the number of casualties they experienced in their units. This great Nation shows the magnificent compassion for the families of not only those who lost their lives but lost their limbs, and we are deeply indebted to them. We owe them no less than our full measure of support here at home.

Let us check politics at the water's edge.

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, first, I advise the Senate that last night for a period of 2 hours we had a very thorough debate on amendments of my distinguished colleague from Michigan and amendments that I put in with our distinguished leader, Mr. Frist, and I believe cosponsors of Senator Levin, and we were joined by another colleague, Senator Lieberman. Of course, Senators don't have access to that Record yet. But I assure you the merits of both cases were thoroughly stated.

As we have 30 minutes divided between the two of us this morning, my distinguished friend and I talked this morning, and he expressed an interest in having his amendment voted first. As a matter of comity and courtesy, we offer that to the Senator from Michigan. If that is his desire, I ask unanimous consent that be the order in which votes be taken.

Mr. President, to inform the Senate, there are two amendments. Basically, as we will explain momentarily, the amendments are almost identical except in three areas. They are important areas, and we will go into that in some detail here in a moment.

The Levin amendment will go first, and ours will go second. There will be votes on both amendments.

We had the option to draw up an entirely different amendment, to go into many ramifications and many issues that we feel very strongly about on this side of the aisle. I take the responsibility. Or if anyone wishes to share it with me, they may well do so. I felt that it is so critical at this point in history with regard to the United States policy towards Iraq, together with our coalition forces, that the extent to which the Senate could speak with one voice had great merit. Therefore, essentially on this side we looked at the amendment of the Senator from Michigan and made, in my judgment, several minor modifications and one very significant modification. That is the standing.

As Senators vote, they will note the similarity between these amendments. But I felt the Senator from Michigan and I have a very strong feeling that the basic purpose of these amendments--whichever one is voted and survives--is to send the strongest possible message to the Iraqi people, the new government that will be formed subsequent to December 15, that our country, together with our coalition partners, has made enormous efforts, enormous sacrifice of life and limb, contributions by the people not only from our country but a number of other countries, to let them establish for themselves a form of democracy.

I believe we have made great progress with several transitional governments, a referendum vote, and now on the verge of what I perceive--and I think the Senator from Michigan shares the view--of an even stronger and larger vote to elect the permanent government.

The next 120 days, in my judgment, are critical--absolutely critical. Every word that comes from the Congress of the United States will be carefully scrutinized not only by the Iraqi people but by the nations throughout the Middle East and indeed our coalition partners. We have to be extremely careful in the formulation of those words and messages so they are not misconstrued.

I feel, with all due respect to the amendment originally drawn by my colleague from Michigan and others, that the last paragraph phrases a timetable of withdrawal requiring the President to file a report every 90 days giving specific dates and other factors.

That is the major change between these two amendments. The amendment of the Senator from Virginia strikes that last paragraph. I will go into further detail momentarily as to exactly why. We made the effort to have a bipartisan amendment. It is forward-looking.

Again, it is my intention to have the amendment on this side of the aisle not contain any language that could be misconstrued as a timetable which could establish and set up a fragile situation, particularly on the eve of another election on December 15.

I thank my distinguished colleague from Michigan. I commend him for much of the language he included in the amendment. I was privileged to draw on it. However, it sends that message on which we have absolute unity to the Iraqi people: We mean business. We have done our share. Now the challenge is up to you.

I yield the floor.

At this juncture, the distinguished Senator from Michigan and I would like to offer our managers' package to this bill. I send a managers' package of some 64 amendments to the desk. They have been cleared by both sides.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the amendments en bloc, the amendments en bloc be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to any of these individual amendments be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, for the past several years the Senate has been very engaged in producing a comprehensive energy policy. This summer we took a positive step forward passing the first Energy bill in more than 14 years.

It is my hope that this Energy bill will expand domestic supply, encourage alternative sources, and help reduce our overall demand for energy. Alternative energy sources will continually play a larger role in the Nation's future and I believe wind power is a part of that solution.

The Energy bill shifted the inadequate permitting process for alternative energy production on outer continental shelf lands from the Army Corps of Engineers to the Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service. Given the Minerals Management Service's experience with permitting offshore oil and gas leases, the inclusion of alternative energy production such as windmills is a natural fit. Now the permitting of wind farms, whether on or off shore, follows a strong permitting process with input from the local, State, and Federal Governments.

However, as windmills become a more prevalent part of the Nation's energy landscape, we must be fully aware of the effects these facilities may have on other aspects of the country's well being.

I have been prompted to look into this based upon the experiences of the United Kingdom, which has studied in detail the potential adverse effects of wind turbines on their radar abilities. The UK Ministry of Defence is now a part of the permitting process for potential wind farms in that country and some of these findings are currently being shared with our own Department of Defense. However, we need more study.

Today I offer an amendment to provide a study regarding the effects of wind turbines on military readiness, including an assessment of the effects such farms may have on military radar. My amendment also requires the report to include an assessment of technologies that could mitigate any adverse effects wind projects could have on military operations. As the entire world continues the development of alternative sources of energy, it is imperative that the Department of Defense and the Congress understand the effects that those energy sources may have on the military's ability to do its job.

Whether it is a wind farm in the middle of the Arizona desert, several miles off the Alaska Coast, or set along the shore of South Africa, this Nation's military simply must be able to adequately deal with the potential effects.

I thank the Senate for agreeing to include this study in the Defense Authorization bill and look forward to its findings.

Amendment No. 1345

Mr. President, as the world economy continues to develop, populations and economies grow, and energy demand continues to rise, it is imperative that we diversify our supply of energy. Nuclear power provides approximately 20 percent of our Nation's electricity needs and it is a clean air alternative to fossil fuels. The safety record of our commercial nuclear industry is a positive story and one that we need to share. In an era where resources have become increasingly scarce and expensive, it is unfortunate that nuclear power hasn't seemed to be a part of the readily accepted solution. We have not been building nuclear power plants in the past 20 plus years because of environmental and safety concerns and this is a trend that I feel must be reversed.

I feel these concerns and that opposition to nuclear power are simply a result of a lack of information. Today I offer an amendment that will provide objective data for the public to see. Specifically, my amendment calls on the Department of Energy to report to Congress on the technologies for advanced nuclear power reactors and the potential for safety enhancements as a result of those technologies.

This amendment will build on the nuclear provisions in the recently passed Energy bill. Specifically, the extension of Price Anderson insurance, incentives for nuclear power production, and support for the construction of new nuclear reactors are positive policy developments. In addition, there are several security related provisions regarding security exercises, worker screening, and minimum facility standards that will further enhance the safety and security of our nuclear facilities. However, I feel there is information that would help many understand the safety record of the industry and the potential enhancement of that through new technology in the future.

I believe we must expand our nuclear power output as part of a comprehensive energy policy and it is my hope that this study helps the public better understand the safe and reliable contribution nuclear power can make.

I thank the Senate for including this amendment.

Returning to the debate on the two amendments, I yield from my time 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. President, I assume that a minute comes to this side likewise.

Mr. President, I regret the term ``cut and paste'' was used. Senator Levin and I have worked together now for 27 years in the Armed Services Committee. I worked with him and told him we decided not to completely rewrite the amendment. This in an effort, as the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, a member of our committee, so eloquently stated, to reach a sense of bipartisanship at this very critical time, on the eve of another and perhaps the most significant election in Iraq, to show strong bipartisan support on those points on which we agree. And we agree almost on every point, with the exception of the last paragraph.

I was interested in listening to each of the debates thus far, and I did not hear anyone on that side specifically reinforce this last paragraph, which we cannot accept, nor should the country have Congress send across the airwaves of the world this message:

A campaign plan with estimated dates for the phased

redeployment of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq as

each condition is met, with the understanding that unexpected

contingencies may arise.

Therein is a short paragraph that could completely destabilize this forthcoming election on December 15, sending the wrong message. It is not needed.

This amendment, as drawn, is a very powerful, very powerful statement by the Congress--hopefully, if the House adopts it, but certainly by the Senate--of the need to tell the Iraqi people that we have done our share, we are not going to leave them, but we expect from them equal, if not greater, support than they have given to this date.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, my understanding is that I have 2 minutes remaining on the 15-minute allocation.

Given that we have no time to speak of before the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina and Senator Levin, I yield my 2 minutes for a matter other than the Iraqi debate, the habeas corpus issue, to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Warner amendment.

Mr. President, beginning with this vote, all remaining votes will be 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I am very grateful for the bipartisan support on this amendment. Our amendment is simply taking portions of the Levin amendment, putting them into an amendment that we put together, rather than draw up a totally new amendment, so we can have the maximum bipartisanship but carefully crafting the Warner amendment so that not any words can be construed to indicate there is a timetable for the withdrawal of coalition forces, most particularly U.S. forces.

We are on the verge of an historic election in Iraq for a permanent government in a matter of weeks, and thereafter they have 60 days in which to stand up that government. The next 120 days are absolutely critical. The Warner amendment is forward-looking. It clearly sends a message to the Iraqi people that we have stood with them; we have done our part. Now it is time for them to put their government together, stand strong so that eventually they can exercise total sovereignty and select their own form of democracy. We cannot allow any verbiage to come out of the Congress of the United States that can be construed as a timetable of withdrawal at this critical time.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, may we have order?

I ask the Presiding Officer to once again restate the sequence of votes that are about to take place.

I thank the Presiding Officer and again remind the Senators the votes are 10 minutes.

The time reserved to me under the Bingaman amendment I yield to the distinguished Senator from South Carolina.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2515, as Amended

Mr. President, we now turn to the underlying amendment. It is my understanding the Senator from South Carolina has agreed to a voice vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Order for Recess

Mr. President, I presume, now that the quorum call has been withdrawn, that under the unanimous consent agreement, the Senate may now move to third reading of the bill.

I thank the Senator from Connecticut. He has raised a significant concern that we both, and many others in this body, share. There is no question we must continue to provide our magnificent soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines with the finest equipment available to meet the mission requirements in Iraq and elsewhere around the world. In Iraq, there is no doubt that efforts to train and equip Iraqi Security Forces are decisive to Iraq's future and a major element in the policy of the United States. Lieutenant General Petraeus performed masterfully as Commander of the Multi-National Security Transition Command in Iraq that was charged with training the Iraqi Security Forces and now Lieutenant General Dempsey has the reins on this mission. During the most recent elections in Iraq, the performance of Iraqi Security Forces was an important contributor to that success. The Iraqi Security Forces provided protection to more than 6,000 polling sites. That was a very positive step in the right direction, but we still have some way to go in training and equipping the Iraqi Security Forces. As chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am monitoring the readiness of these Iraqi units. The viability of Iraqi units must be measured by a series of indicators, including efforts to measure intangibles such as morale and unit cohesion, as well as quantifying the military training of Iraqi Security Forces and the distribution of weapons and equipment. As the Senator from Connecticut indicated, the quality of the weapons and equipment we provide to the Iraqis must be of the caliber that contributes to the discipline, confidence, and morale of the Iraqis we are training. It is in the best interest of all that we move quickly to equip the Iraqi Security Forces with the proper equipment. We cannot ask the Iraqi Security Forces to conduct patrols or engage in battle in pickup trucks and SUVs while the embedded American forces are in up-armored HMMWVs and Bradley Fighting Vehicles. I am prepared to work with my colleague and the Secretary of Defense to provide suitable equipment for the Iraqi Security Forces. I am also prepared to work with other elements of the administration to engage our Allies and partners in this effort. I, for one, do not believe we have time to build and then rebuild the Iraqi Security Forces.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 1042, as amended, be printed as passed.

Mr. President, I now ask further unanimous consent that the Senate proceed immediately to the consideration en bloc of S. 1043 through S. 1045, Calendar Orders Nos. 103, 104, and 105; that all after the enacting clause of those bills be stricken, and the appropriate portions of S. 1042, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof according to the schedule which I am sending to the desk; that these bills be advanced to third reading and passed; that the motions to reconsider en bloc be laid upon the table; and that the above actions occur without intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, with respect to H.R. 1815, the House- passed version of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be discharged from any further consideration of the bill; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 1042, as amended, be substituted in lieu thereof, and that the bill be advanced to third reading and passed; that the Senate insist on its amendment to the bill and request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees; that the motion to reconsider the above-mentioned votes be laid upon the table; and that the foregoing occur without intervening action or debate.

I ask unanimous consent with respect to S. 1042, S. 1043, S. 1044, and S. 1045, as just passed by the Senate, that if the Senate receives a message with respect to any of these bills from the House of Representatives, the Senate disagree with the House on its amendment or amendments to the Senate-passed bill and agree to or request a conference as appropriate with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses; that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees, and that the foregoing occur without intervening action or debate.

Now, Mr. President, the Chair was about to announce the conferees.

The PRESIDING OFFICER appointed Mr. Warner, Mr. McCain, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Sessions, Ms. Collins, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Talent, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Graham, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Thune, Mr. Levin, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Reed, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Bayh, and Mrs. Clinton as conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. President, time is short. We are about to go to our respective caucuses, but I say to my colleagues that I wish to express my profound appreciation first and foremost to my distinguished friend and colleague of 27 years; we have been together in this Chamber, working toward the passage of authorization bills in each and every one of those 27 years. I thank my friend.

I thank the distinguished members of our staff, and I do use the word ``distinguished'': Charlie Abell, who left the Department of Defense at our request to come over to be our chief of staff, replacing a very fine person, Judy Ansley, who went on up to the National Security Council, and our Democratic staff director, Rick DeBobes, who has been with us many years. Together they have led a dedicated professional staff, all of whom deserve credit and recognition in helping Members reach agreements and to prepare all types of information needed by the Members, and I may say to give good, sound advice. I have always encouraged that of our staff. They are not just to be there to be ``yessayers'' or naysayers. They are to give us their best advice, and that they do.

Accordingly, I ask unanimous consent that the names of both the majority and minority staff be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as we stand in this great Chamber, I marvel at the work conducted by the Armed Services Committee since the beginning of the 109th Congress. The committee has conducted 46 hearings and received numerous policy and operational briefings on the President's budget request for 2006 and related defense issues. Since the committee reported out this important legislation on May 12, the Senate has debated many important provisions contained in this legislation. Along the way, there have been many contentious issues to resolve, such as detainee policy, missile defense, BRAC, and many others.

After a total of 12 days of debate on the Senate floor, we have now resolved them. I am proud we have achieved our goal of passing this important bill. This marks the 46th year the Senate has passed a national defense authorization bill. I thank particularly my ranking member and my colleagues for their support.

Mr. President, we won't make any predictions. We will get started and do our best. I thank my good friend and look forward to working with him again next year. We have truly formed a unique partnership, the two of us together. I thank so many Senators who recognize that he and I have a trusting partnership and resolved a lot of problems that otherwise could prove contentious and maybe not had a resolution. So to the next year.

I must say, I have consulted with the Senator from Michigan. Both of us have great concern about the IED problem. We are going to have one more hearing, in all probability a closed hearing, on this subject, listening to some viewpoints in the private sector. We regularly meet with those in the Department of Defense who have the primary jurisdiction over this problem. This is one issue on which I am gravely concerned and over which I lose sleep at night, as I am sure all of us do, about the frightful weaponry the insurgents are employing and how best we can put the entire country to work to resolve this problem.

I thank my good friend.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend; again, a partnership effort to achieve that.

Mr. President, on behalf of the distinguished majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:30 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2862, the Science-State-Justice appropriations bill. I further ask that there be 75 minutes of debate, with 22\1/2\ minutes under the control of Senator Shelby, 37\1/2\ minutes under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee, and 15 minutes under the control of Senator Coburn. I further ask that following the use or yielding back of time and at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to a vote on the adoption of the conference report, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, we will now go to the standing order.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 15, 2005, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Mr. Ben S. Bernanke, of New Jersey, to be a member and chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday November 15, 2005, at 10 a.m., on Public Policy Options for Encouraging Alternative Automotive Fuel Technologies.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 15, at 10 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to evaluate and receive a status report on the environmental management programs of the Department of Energy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet in open Executive Session during the session on Tuesday, November 15, 2005, at 10 a.m. to consider an original bill that will include the Committee's budget reconciliation instructions pertaining to expiring tax provisions and also additional incentives for hurricane affected areas.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 15, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on Treaties.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Judicial Nominations'' on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witness List

Panel I: Members of Congress.

Panel II: Virginia Mary Kendall to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois; Kristi DuBose to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Alabama; W. Keith Watkins to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of Alabama.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on Airland be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 15, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on defense acquisition issues related to tactical aviation and army programs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on

Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security be authorized to meet on Tuesday, November 15, 2005, at 3 p.m. for a hearing regarding ``Iran: Teheran's Nuclear Recklessness and the U.S. Response--The Experts' Perspective.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 15 at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following Bills: S. 431, a Bill to establish a program to award grants to improve and maintain sites honoring Presidents of the United States, S. 505, a bill to amend the Yuma Crossing National Heritage ARA Act of 2000 to adjust the boundary of the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area, S. 1288, a Bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements to protect natural resources of units of the National Park System through collaborative efforts on land inside and outside of units of the National Park System, S. 1544, a Bill to establish the Northern Plains National Heritage Area in the State of North Dakota, and for other purposes, S. Con. Res. 60, a concurrent resolution designating the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in Kansas City, Missouri, as America's National Negro Leagues Baseball Museum, S. 748 and H.R. 1084, Bills to authorize the establishment at Antietam National Battlefield of a memorial to the officers and enlisted men of the Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth New Hampshire Volunteer Infantry Regiments and the First New Hampshire Light Artillery Battery who fought in the Battle of Antietam on September 17, 1862, and for other purposes, and H.R. 2107, to amend Public Law 104-329 to modify authorities for the use of the Notational Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Maintenance Fund, and for other purposes.