Floor Statements

We are facing similar problems at the Jefferson Laboratory in Virginia. As the chairman knows, the Jefferson Lab in Newport News, VA, is one of our basic research labs that would be negatively impacted by this funding level.

Specifically, as a result of this cut the Jefferson Lab will have to reduce the physics output of this world-leading laboratory by 25 percent. Just last month the National Academy of Sciences issued a report titled ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' That report underscored that the Nation's economic health is seriously at risk without a sustained investment in science. The report noted that in Germany, 36 percent of undergraduates receive their degrees in science and engineering. In China the figure is 59 percent, and in Japan 66 percent. In the United States the corresponding figure is 32 percent.

It seems to me that this is a time when the Nation needs to invest in science, not cut science programs. At the Jefferson Lab we need to invest in the 12GeV upgrade necessary to sustain the pace of scientific discovery, not cut programs.

Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I wish to inform Senators that when we return to the bill, I know the distinguished colleague from Michigan and I are going to debate the two amendments that are pending relating to Iraq, one submitted by this side of the aisle and one by that side of the aisle, and then such discussions as the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from Michigan may have on the habeas corpus issue, will that be dealt with at all tonight?

We will continue to have a debate tonight on those amendments that are going to be voted on in the morning and such other matters as any Senator wishes to bring up relative to the bill.

Mr. President, I would only say let us not leave the impression that this side of the aisle is rushing to judgment. This framework of votes and amendments were carefully worked out on Thursday evening. The Senate has been in session since 2 today. There has been quite a bit of activity and opportunity for Senators to speak. I repeat, we are going to continue on shortly after our two colleagues finish.

Mr. President, it is the understanding of the distinguished Senator from Michigan and myself that the Senator from Minnesota has a period of time to speak with regard to the bill. Is that our understanding?

Then the distinguished Senator from South Carolina desires to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished Senator from Michigan relative to the amendments by the Senator from South Carolina. Am I not correct on that?

That will immediately follow the remarks of Senator Dayton.

We are in a period of morning business. The Senator is in no way restricted in what he wishes to address. We thought it was related to the bill, but whatever he desires.

Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from South Carolina and my colleague from Michigan whom I have worked with these many years.

If the Senator from South Carolina will retake his seat for a minute while the chairman speaks, I wish to say I thank my distinguished colleague because I look upon the work by Members of the Senate toward a resolution of these very difficult issues regarding prisoners taken in this series of conflicts, seeing what we have witnessed in terrorism, where there are no clear precedents, in many ways, in history for this nonstate-sponsored aggression.

As we witnessed in the tragedy in Jordan, it is not restricted to Iraq and Afghanistan. As General Abizaid has briefed the Senate and, indeed, briefed the American public on television, this is a worldwide movement that goes all the way from Spain to Indonesia. And you do not know where they will hit next or whom they will hit or by what means they will hit.

But I do believe as to the work initiated by our distinguished colleague from Arizona, Mr. McCain, which you and I worked with him on, this matter, which you and Senator Levin have worked on, and to a limited extent--I am supporting you--I have had a voice, this is--and I say this with great respect to the President and the administration--a coequal branch of Government, the Senate. The Congress has a very clear mandate in the Constitution that we shall take care of the men and women of the Armed Forces. And this is part of that.

So I say to my good friends who have worked on this, well done. You are profiles in courage.

Amendments Nos. 2518 and 2519

Now, Mr. President, as announced earlier, we will continue the remarks regarding the two amendments, one by my distinguished colleague from Michigan with his distinguished leader, the Senator from Nevada, and one by myself together with Senator Frist.

Now, I wish to make an opening comment, and then I would like to yield the floor for such time as my distinguished colleague may speak, and then I will make some closing comments.

But it is important in our bill, and particularly on the last day, to address the situation in Iraq. But, indeed, it is broader than Iraq. It is, as I said a moment ago, the militant Jihadists attacking from Spain to Indonesia, wherever they want to bring freedom and current government to a standstill.

So we could have devised on this an entire amendment out of whole cloth,

but it seemed to me--and I am going to take responsibility--it seemed to me that we could show the maximum bipartisanship if we took the amendment, as drawn by my distinguished colleague from Michigan, Senator Reid, and others, and made a minimal number of changes.

That is exactly the posture of these proper amendments. That, to me, indicates how much we really agree upon, page after page, paragraph after paragraph. It is carefully drawn so, first, the Senate expresses the sense of the Senate, not binding on the executive branch, it is the sense of the Senate. Then the second portion is a reporting requirement. But those reporting requirements are looking forward. We are not going back to debate history. History will debate that fully. We are going forward because the next 120 days, with Iraq in particular in mind, with the election in December, the formation of a new government, this next 120 days we must maintain stability, a clarity of understanding among the American people and the Iraqi people, and we cannot adopt any language, be it sense of the Senate or reporting language, that in any way raises speculation. Everything we say about the implementation of our Armed Forces should be with complete clarity.

The amendment by my good friend from Michigan left only the option, in the reporting to the President, of putting out unclassified information. That, to the maximum, the executive branch will do. But there are certain aspects--and every Member should be cognizant of this--of this very complicated war on terrorism that have to be given to the Congress in a classified version.

So that is the sum and substance of our amendment. Take away any indication of timetable, give the President the option to do unclassified and classified and have a forward-looking approach as we go into these next 120 critical days. This document can be referred to, hopefully, as a bipartisan instrument.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, to help those following, you have now concluded that section entitled ``Sense of the Senate.'' Both amendments have it phrased such, not binding on the administration.

As you carefully pointed out, but I would like to repeat, the entire section that you have referred to we have accepted--I accepted and recommended to my colleague--except for that one change of striking ``indefinitely'' and using ``any longer than required.'' And when I regain the floor, I will explain why I felt that modest one-word change was important. Other than that, we have accepted in its entirety that section entitled ``Sense of the Senate'' accept for a one-word change.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, for those following, we covered first the sense of the Senate. The Senator has now covered very carefully all the other provisions. It seems to me that there has been no disagreement whatsoever between the two sides. You pointed out, yes, I asked for 90 days; you have 30. But I don't think that was particularly troublesome. And I pointed out that one little change in language, ``to the extent practicable,'' so that the President could include classified. So in essence there is absolutely no difference between the two amendments up to the point you are now addressing, which is the last paragraph; is that correct?

No, I pointed that out.

I was referring to now the statutory report language. There is no difference until you get to the last paragraph.

Mr. President, again I commend my colleague. I think I have fairly clearly stated, and I believe there has been concurrence, the document prepared by the Senator and others is virtually accepted in our amendment. The changes that I put out, the one simple change in the sense of the Senate, you understood that. Then we get to the conditions, which is changing 120 days instead of 30. So I say to my colleague--and I think the Senator has been very fair and objective about it--the amendments are parallel in every respect except the last paragraph.

I say to my good friend, I say to all Senators, the next 120 days are critical. If this is to become law, the President would have to start every 90 days addressing the estimated dates for the phased redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq. No mention about the other coalition forces.

I say that few words can be interpreted by all as being the timetable, and we do not in this 120 days, in my judgment, want to have any hint whatsoever of a timetable. It is so critical, with all the progress thus far by the Iraqi people--elections and a series of transitional governments, then acceptance of the constitution by referendum, then the election of a new legislative body, and then they have to stand up and begin to strengthen the ministries and take hold in such a way that it is clear to the Iraqi people and the world that that government is in control. To put any language such as this in there, to suggest any timetable by which we begin to withdraw forces, would undermine entirely and make highly risky the next 120 days.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, there are rare moments in the life of the Senate that one shall never forget. I thank the Senator not just because he has indicated support for my amendment but for the Senator's very extraordinary observations about the times, the difficulty, and the need to have bipartisanship and to leave our politics at the water's edge. As I said earlier, I take responsibility for adopting this course rather than the earlier draft I had prepared.

I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, it is an expression of how close we really are on the fundamental things. The sole point of difference is how each Senator shall read the last

paragraph. It is as simple as that. I read it as lending to the world an interpretation of what we have done and what we will do in the future as embracing some definitive timetable, and the President will have to every 90 days address those key words and in doing so could well complicate and jeopardize the next 120 days, which this Senator thinks is so critical.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, our magnificent service men and women, along with allies and partners, are supporting the Iraqis as they develop their own concepts of democracy. Jointly we are improving infrastructure, improving the internal security, and together confronting the extremists.

By any fair objective political measure, the people of Iraq are making progress. In 1 year, the Iraqis elected a transitional government, ratified a constitution, and are preparing to elect a permanent parliamentary government on December 15th.

During many hearings and briefings, the senior military commanders, particularly General Abizaid has stressed that the extremist militant jihadists are focusing on dominating a geographic area that extends from Spain to Indonesia. The tragic events in Jordan underscore the accuracy of that military analysis.

The al-Qaida group in Iraq claimed responsibility for the tragic attacks in Jordan against innocent Arab civilians. While portions of Iraq remain focal points for terrorist attacks, the threat extends far beyond.

This enemy seeks neither compromise nor coexistence with the United States or others who do not share their world vision. The United States, along with partners and allies, must continue their strong resolve and effectively address this threat. The civilized world has no choice.

Of equal importance to the military mission in Iraq is the development of political structures and reconstruction of the infrastructure. I, like many of you, have made a number of trips to Iraq: I have seen progress.

Now I would like to specifically address the pending amendments related to our policy to achieve our military, political, and reconstruction goals in Iraq. While there are similarities, the amendments differ on several major points.

Both amendments recognize the magnificent work being done by our Armed Forces; the unwavering support of their families at home; the importance of political developments to take place in Iraq next year; the necessity to put Iraqi Security Forces in the lead in securing Iraq; and the requirement to keep the American people well informed of all aspects of the military, political, and reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

Both amendments call for the President to submit a quarterly report on our progress in Iraq. While Congress already receives a number of reports and Members and committees in both bodies receive briefings from civilian and military leaders, this report from the President would become the most comprehensive report on the situation in Iraq.

These are the three important differences between the two amendments.

No. 1 the reporting timeline--section c. The Warner-Frist amendment calls for the first report 90 days after the enactment of the Act. Ninety days allows the President sufficient time to assemble this very wide-ranging report. A report of this scope will require close consultation with all departments and agencies of the Federal Government; American diplomats in Iraq and in the region; United States allied and partnered nations; and our military leaders here and in the theater of operations.

The Levin amendment would allow for just 30 days of coordination and consultation before submitting the initial report. I believe that is insufficient time to produce a report as comprehensive as this.

No. 2 is section c. The Levin-Reid amendment calls for a completely unclassified report. The Warner-Frist amendment directs that the report be unclassified to the extent possible. This is an important distinction. Some information on international negotiations and agreements, and plans for Iraq's domestic security will be an integral part of the development of Iraqi security forces, this may be too sensitive to be presented in an unclassified forum. The Warner-Frist amendment allows the President to produce a classified annex if the President and his advisors believe it is necessary.

No. 3 is a campaign plan with estimated dates for phased withdrawal-- section c(7). The Levin-Reid amendment asks for a campaign plan with estimated dates for the phased withdrawal of U.S. forces to be published in the unclassified report. I believe that any program for the withdrawal of American combat forces must be conditions-based, and linked to specific, responsible benchmarks not just dates on a calendar, per se. While I agree that we must continue to make it clear to the Iraqis that a program for withdrawal is a common goal, any announcement of immediate withdrawal or even speculation of withdrawal before a secure and democratic Iraq is in place is simply not prudent.

I am concerned that the release of a timeline such as that in the last paragraph of the Levin-Reid amendment now that announces our withdrawal plans, even with estimated dates, could promote speculation and send an erroneous message to our troops, the Iraqi people, our coalition partners, and the terrorists.

I urge you to vote for Warner-Frist amendment and that we follow Levin and Reid, rather than an entire new amendment to show how much we do agree on and that this is an effort to seek partisanship.

We are down to two differences: the word ``indefinite,'' which to me precludes the chance--could be construed as we would not leave a very small unit there to facilitate the logistic transfer, the need to bring up to a level of acceptability the armaments the Iraqis have; and the continuation of some security work as well as training. But I will not belabor the point. I was very specific in the careful choice of words substituted for ``indefinite.''

The last paragraph--every Senator has to decide for himself or herself the clear meaning of the English language and whether that cannot be construed by many to invoke the thought of a timetable.

I say to my good friend, we have had a very good debate tonight. How fortunate we are that our distinguished colleague, a long-time member of the committee, the Senator from Connecticut, joined us.

I think we have done a good service to our colleagues who, in a very brief period tomorrow, will be required to focus on this and cast their votes accordingly.

Mr. President, I think the matter now is that the Senate should go off the bill and I will proceed to do morning business.

I ask unanimous consent there be a period for morning business with Senators to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today the Senate stand in adjournment until 9:45 a.m., on Tuesday, November 15. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate proceed to a period of morning business for up to 30 minutes, with the first 15 minutes under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee and the final 15 minutes under the control of the majority leader or his designee; further, that the Senate then resume consideration of S. 1042, the Defense authorization bill; I further ask that there then be 30 minutes of time equally divided between the Senator from Michigan and myself, between the bill managers, followed by a series of stacked votes as under the previous order; I further ask that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote; I further ask that following the vote on passage of the Defense bill, the Senate stand in recess until 2:15 p.m. to accommodate the weekly policy lunches.

Tomorrow the Senate will vote on final passage of the Defense authorization bill. Senators should note that we will have several votes starting at approximately 10:45. We have a lot to address this week and the majority leader reminds his colleagues to plan for many votes, late nights, and a longer than usual week.

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

Parliamentary inquiry, Madam President: We are in morning business?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the period of morning business be extended another 5 or 6 minutes.

Madam President, I am delighted to do that. We will have a 6-minute extension on each side in morning business.

Madam President, if the Senator will entertain a question, we will allocate my time on the question, as I propound it, and to the extent he responds will be on his time.

Madam President, I was grievously concerned when the Senator said we are locked down in a quagmire in Iraq. I have made a number of trips there and completed a trip there several weeks ago with Senator Stevens and Senator John Kerry.

Our troops are not in a quagmire. They are fighting a very courageous war against international terrorism. The movement sparked by Osama bin Laden, Zarqawi, and others is a worldwide movement. It goes from Spain to Indonesia. And they have selected, in the last 6 or 8, maybe a year's time, Iraq as the focal point to where they will challenge the free nations of the world in this struggle against terrorism.

By no means, by no stretch of any measure of military analysis, can it be said that our troops are bogged down in a quagmire. They are fully mobile. They are working better than ever with the Iraqi security forces, largely trained by the coalition forces, who are now fighting side by side with coalition forces and engaging the enemy wherever they can find them.

Iraq is a nation with vast borders which are unsecure. There is really no way to secure them to the point you can stop total infiltration. But these infiltrations of insurgents throughout the world are responding to a worldwide challenge to the free nations. We awakened in the last few days, or in just 24 hours or less, to an attack in Jordan, again sparked by the worldwide move in terrorism, against the Kingdom of Jordan.

So I say to my friend, I would hope that this comment about ``in a quagmire'' is not relative to the courageous performance of the men and women of the Armed Forces in this war on terrorism in Iraq. They are fully mobile. They are selecting their field of battle. They are assisted by the Iraqi forces. And they are taking a toll on the terrorists.

I ask my colleague, do you disagree with that analysis?

Madam President, I am perfectly willing to, at this point in time, conclude this colloquy. I certainly feel I have had adequate opportunity to make my point. So unless the Senator so desires, we will proceed on with the bill.

Madam President, I will simply state to my colleague and fellow member of the Senate Armed Services Committee that it is well recognized that certain intelligence that was used by not only our President but the Prime Minister of Great Britain, the President of France--we could go on and on--was universally accepted at that point in time. History has shown that a good deal of that intelligence turned out to be inaccurate.

But there were many reasons for going to war in Iraq, not the least of which our forces were trying to enforce the United Nations resolution prohibiting Iraq from taking certain actions to the north and to the south.

They were actually firing on our aircraft that were trying to patrol and enforce U.N. resolutions. Saddam Hussein ignored consecutive resolutions of the United Nations. That whole structure was before the world, and he was flaunting it.

Most recently, I note that the United Nations Security Council has extended the basis on which operations are now being conducted by the coalition of forces in Iraq today.

With regard to the administration, I commend the administration for putting out, for example, this report called ``The Special Inspector General for Iraq and Reconstruction.'' It is very truthful with the American people and, indeed, the world on the successes and the lack of success in certain areas. This administration is being accountable for its participation as one of the several nations in the coalition in putting the facts down. But when the Senator says it is all for naught, I say to myself, Iraq is in a struggle to establish its own government. We have just seen the referendum on the constitution. They have adopted the constitution. The constitution is subject to further rework as the next government stands up in the aftermath of the December 15 elections--free elections, free elections that have not taken place in Iraq in several decades. Much has been accomplished to try to stabilize that nation to enable it to select, by the freedom to vote, its own government and the degree to which it wishes to join the rest of the nations in exploring the challenges of democracy, particularly in that area of the world.

I salute the men and women of the Armed Forces who have made this possible. Yes, we always hope that diplomacy can solve the disputes between nations. Diplomacy can be no stronger than the will to back it up and enforce the decisions of the diplomats. That has been done bravely by the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States and other coalition forces.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, parliamentary inquiry as to the status of the Senate at this time.

Madam President, there is a further order for two votes to

occur beginning at the hour of 11:30. I think it would be helpful to all Members if the Chair would restate the timing and status of those votes.

I thank the Chair.

Under the time I control, I yield such time as my colleague from Alabama may desire to speak. He will speak as in morning business, to reserve the time on the bill, on such aspects of the amendments that he so desires.

Madam President, will the Senator yield?

Has the Senator put into the Record the name of the assistant he has worked with in developing this and explained about his background as having been there and participated? Because this is an extremely important segment of our debate that the Senator is filling in this morning. You are receiving a lot of this information from your very able assistant who is an on-the-scene individual responsible for some of this.

Madam President, I want to say again how important is the debate our distinguished colleague from Alabama has provided the Senate this morning on these key subjects. It is reassuring. The Senator made, as did I, reference to this report, which I think is an accurate compilation of what has been achieved and what remains to be achieved and the struggle they are having with regrettably this cultural thing called graft, which is all pervasive throughout much of the Middle East, but nevertheless somehow we are overcoming that.

I thank the Senator.

Madam President, it is my understanding that the time under the control of the Senator from Virginia has now expired.

And there remains what period of time?

Madam President, the Senate has already defeated this amendment twice--first on September 14, 2005, on the Commerce, State, Justice, Appropriations bill by a vote of 53-44 and then on October 19, 2005 on the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill by a vote of 54-44.

This amendment is unnecessary and duplicative of the current contracting oversight mechanisms created to meet the challenges that then Senator Truman identified. The Truman Committee was needed at the outbreak of World War II. There were no GAO or IG investigations, no Defense Contract Audit Agency or Defense Contract Management Agency. There were no conflict of interest laws to reign in the dollar-a-day men and no Truth in Negotiations Act, Whistle blower Protections, or Competition in Contracting Act.

The Armed Services Committee is currently performing its oversight tasks and I see no need for a Special Senate Committee to look at contracting practices in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The potential for fraud, waste and abuse is not limited to just Iraq and Afghanistan. The Air Force has just been through the worst contracting scandal in the last 20 years and the Armed Services Committee was at the forefront of uncovering this scandal by using normal committee legislative oversight tools. We conducted hearings, tasked the GAO and the Inspector General to review specific issues, and requested and reviewed thousands of documents.

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

Senator Ensign plans to conduct several more Iraq contracting hearings in the near future in the Readiness Subcommittee and Senator McCain is conducting a series of hearings on the overall procurement process.

The Office of the Special Inspector General of Iraq Reconstruction was established to look at Iraqi contracting. This new IG has routinely briefed this Committee and others on its findings.

Section 823 of this bill establishes a contract fraud task force at DOD to identify potential areas where DOD is susceptible to fraud, waste and abuse. This group will inform Congress on how to modify our contracting laws wherever we need to get tougher on contract fraud.

This is how best to conduct our oversight--through the established committee process and established oversight mechanisms. I am sure that the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who shares responsibility for the oversight and jurisdiction of contracts in Iraq, as well as the Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee who has jurisdiction of Federal contracting would agree.

I appreciate the concerns of the sponsors of this legislation. However, I do not support the establishment of a new special committee which would duplicate the work of this committee and others and only look at a narrow amount of Federal expenditure.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I speak on the bill for just a minute or two.

Mr. President, I say to my good friend and colleague, if there is an award to be made for determination, he has it on this particular issue. It is interesting that the Senator from North Dakota invoked a good deal of history as to the Truman committee. I think colleagues should know, however, that the Senate has already addressed this amendment on two previous occasions: first on September 14, 2005, on the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill. The vote was 53 to 44, defeated, and then again on October 19, 2005, on the DOD appropriations bill. Again, the Senate rejected it 54 to 44. Those matters should be before Senators.

At this point in time, a vote is imminent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the Executive Calendar.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 410. I further ask unanimous consent that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and finally that the Senate then return to legislative session. This has been cleared on both sides.

That is correct.

Yes, Mr. President. This is a subject I have discussed with the administration and most specifically with the Secretary of Defense. I assure my colleague that it will not establish a pattern because to me the advice and consent process is a very precise obligation of the Senate. This type of action is taken in this case because it is my understanding that the President will make a recess appointment within 120 days, and I assure the Senator this matter will not go beyond the 120 days.

I thank the Senator for bringing it up, and I thank him for his cooperation and the cooperation of other Senators on this matter.

Mr. President, I spoke with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld very early this morning on this issue.

Mr. President, under the order, the Senate is about to address the amendment by the distinguished Senator from North Dakota.

Amendment No. 2476

Yes.

Yes.

With time being given to the Senator from North Dakota if he wishes to rebut.

Regular order. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I further request the yeas and nays on the Talent amendment which follows.

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. 2477

Mr. President, if we could have order in the Senate, can the Senators with this amendment be recognized for, I think, 2 minutes each?

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, we are making progress on this bill. It is the intention of the joint leadership, the majority leader, and the Democrat leader, that this bill be finished. Senator Levin and I are doing the best we can to accommodate all colleagues.

The amendments we know of that remain--one by the distinguished Senator from South Carolina. At this time I would like to set the hour of 2:30 to consider that. Is that agreeable?

We simply bring it up at 2:30 and we determine how it unfolds with regard to second degrees.

There is no objection to that.

What I am trying to get at the moment is the amendments, and then we will try to splice in periods of time for our colleagues to speak to other matters on the bill.

Fine. Let's deal with the known quantities.

The Senator from Massachusetts wishes to bring up an amendment which is within the 12 amendments of the Senator from Michigan. That is to be taken up now. We will proceed with that. There may well be an amendment in the second degree; I cannot anticipate that.

We will try and package, for the moment, two items. The Senator from Massachusetts will now proceed on his amendment. We cannot predict how long it will take because we do not know of the potential for second degrees. That will take place under the underlying unanimous consent. At 2:30 we take up the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina and proceed on that.

So let us get those two locked in for the moment.

And Senator Burr needs 5 minutes.

Within that period of time we will accommodate the three colleagues for the matters they wish.

Further, I wish to inform Senators that the likelihood of any votes between, say, the hour of 12:45 and 2 o'clock is most unlikely. As a matter of fact, I ask unanimous consent there be no votes during that period of time to accommodate a number of Senators on both sides.

No.

2:15.

Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts provided us a copy of his amendment just a minute before he began his remarks to the Senate. Senator Roberts, on this side, is now in consultation with the ranking member, Senator Rockefeller, and I anticipate that one or both will shortly come to the floor on this issue. At this time I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call not be charged to the time of either the proponent of the amendment or those who will be giving a different perspective, perhaps, in opposition.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, in consultation with the ranking member, we are anxious to move now to further debate on the Kerry amendment. For that purpose, if we could get an estimate of the amount of time that might be required and we could proceed to the second-degree amendment.

Could the Senator advise the managers how quickly we could proceed with the resolution of your amendment, first and second degree to be offered by Senators Roberts and Rockefeller, short debate on that, and such final debate as needed on the underlying amendment, and move to a vote?

Mr. President, that is correct, I say to my distinguished colleague. The proposal, eventually is that you will have some sort of a----

That is correct, but then, as we have with others, if it is desired by the three principals here, to do it in a side-by-side fashion. There is a parliamentary means to do that.

Fine. In that event, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, we would need to examine the second-degree amendment by the distinguished Senator.

Mr. President, I would defer to the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. President, I believe that we are dealing with an important unknown; that is, the content of what the distinguished Senator from Delaware wishes to put on. May I make this suggestion, without any prejudice to this colloquy and honest effort to resolve it, if we were just to lay aside the Kerry amendment, go to another amendment, and then at such time as there is reconciliation of viewpoints, I think we could then perfect his amendment to whatever is needed and proceed.

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

The group that is working on the Kerry amendment, with the proposed Roberts-Rockefeller second degree, is working diligently, but it is important that we continue on the bill. At this time, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment by the Senator from Massachusetts be laid aside and that the Senator from South Carolina be recognized for the purpose of offering an amendment.

That can easily be arranged.

I so ask.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if the Senator from South Carolina would defer to the managers, I would like to address the Senate in connection with a unanimous consent request. My understanding is that it has been cleared on both sides.

I ask unanimous consent that it now be in order for Senator Graham to offer a perfecting second-degree amendment. I further ask unanimous consent that at 4:30 the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Graham second-degree amendment; further, that following that vote Senator Bingaman be recognized and it be in order for him to offer a motion to strike; further, that the Senate proceed immediately to a vote on the motion to strike.

Finally, I ask unanimous consent that if the motion to strike is agreed to, it be in order for Senator Graham to offer a further amendment.

Mr. President, would the Senator be willing to amend this by saying that the time remaining between now and 4:30 be equally divided between himself and Senator Graham? Would that serve your purpose?

There are no objections that I know of, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I have to at this time object.

I suggest the absence of a quorum so we can hopefully resolve this.

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

Mr. President, I appreciate the patience of all of our colleagues, wherever they may be. We are continuing to make considerable progress. That progress will hopefully lead to final passage tonight.

Consistent with those objectives, I ask unanimous consent that the Roberts amendment now be modified with the changes that are at the desk; provided further that the amendment be agreed to. I further ask consent that no later than the hour of 4:45, the Senate proceed to votes in relation to the following amendments: the Kerry amendment, as amended; Lautenberg No. 2478, as modified with the changes at the desk; Graham amendment 2516; the Bingaman motion to strike is under the previous order; conference report to accompany the foreign operations bill; further, that no second degrees be in order to the Kerry or Lautenberg amendments prior to the vote; and that there be 2 minutes equally divided before the votes, with the Lautenberg amendment getting 8 minutes equally divided before the vote. I further ask that after the first vote, all subsequent votes be 10 minutes.

I hear no further comment or objection.

Mr. President, I see that the Senator from Kansas says 5 minutes, and the Senator from Massachusetts is indicating some time to help our colleague.

Mr. President, I can only say to my colleague, having been a part of this, we seemed to reach a consensus. Staffs on both sides compiled this UC request, which my understanding is it was cleared, subject to clarification by the Senator from Michigan, and it was a concluded matter.

Mr. President, do I understand now that the Presiding Officer has ruled that the UC is in place that I so stated?

I thank the Chair.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask for the regular order.

Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. President, I worked on the amendment with the distinguished Senator from New Jersey. I have done so in consultation with my leadership and the leadership of the Intelligence Committee.

I would like to make this offer to my good friend. We have a rapidly moving bill. We have a number of amendments yet to vote on tonight. The leadership may well be addressing the Senate, the majority leader and Democratic leader, about this bill.

Is it at all possible that we can voice vote this amendment? I urge my colleague to do so.

Suppose we had a voice vote and you determined from the resounding ayes if it meets your specifications?

Mr. President, I say to my good friend, we have worked with you in a most cooperative way.

I would like to have the attention of my good friend. We have worked with you in a most cooperative way. What I am trying to do is convenience a number of Members who have commitments tonight. I once more ask if you will not accept this on a voice vote.

I will ask all.

If there is no objection.

So once again I ask my colleague if we could voice vote this amendment?

Yes.

I think the Senator is correct in his interpretation of the rules.

The Senator is correct. Can we have a standing division?

Will the Presiding Officer arrange for a division vote?

May we have order in the Chamber.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2516

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote.

For clarification, does the Senator formally withdraw his amendment?

Regular order. Has the Chair ruled on his request to withdraw the amendment?

I thank the Chair for the clarification.