Floor Statements

Mr. President, on behalf of the minority leader, no objection.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on S. 2403, a bill to name the new U.S. courthouse in Richmond, VA, after two distinguished jurists and sons of Virginia.

Senator Webb and I introduced this bill last year, and the bill passed the Senate on June 24, 2008. The House of Representatives passed the bill last night, with a minor technical change, by a vote of 376 to 0. Tonight, I would like to thank the Senate for accepting this minor modification and once again passing this bill.

Our bill recognizes two of Virginia's outstanding jurists: Spotswood Robinson III and Robert Mehrige, Jr. They were lawyers who throughout their careers adhered to the principle of ``equal justice under law.''

The first, Spottswood William Robinson III, was born in Richmond, VA, on July 26, 1916. He attended Virginia Union University and then the Howard University School of Law, graduating first in his class in 1939 and serving as a member of the faculty until 1947.

Judge Robinson was one of the core attorneys of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund from 1948 to 1960, achieving national prominence in the legal community with his representation of the Virginia plaintiffs in the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education. Brown outlawed public school segregation declaring ``separate but equal'' schools unconstitutional.

In 1964, Judge Robinson became the first African American to be appointed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and in 1966, President Johnson appointed Judge Robinson the first African American to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Finally, on May 7, 1981, Judge Robinson became the first African American to serve as Chief Judge of the District of Columbia Circuit.

Our second jurist, Judge Robert R. Merhige, Jr., was born in 1919 and later attended High Point College in North Carolina. He subsequently earned his law degree from the T.C. Williams School of Law at the University of Richmond, from which he graduated at the top of his class in 1942.

From 1942 to 1945, Judge Merhige served in the U.S. Air Force. He practiced law in Richmond from 1945 to 1967, establishing himself as a formidable trial lawyer representing criminal defendants as well as dozens of insurance companies.

On August 30,1967, Judge Merhige was appointed U.S. District Court judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, by President Lyndon B. Johnson, serving as a Federal judge until 1998. In 1972, Judge Merhige ordered the desegregation of dozens of Virginia school districts. He considered himself to be a ``strict constructionist'' who went by the law as spelled out in precedents by the higher courts. In 1970, he ordered the University of Virginia to admit women. As evidence of Judge Merhige's groundbreaking decisions, he was given 24-hour protection by Federal marshals due to repeated threats of violence against him and his family. His courage in the face of significant opposition of the times is a testimony to his dedication to the rule of law.

As my colleagues may be aware, I have worked to name the new courthouse in Richmond for these two men for several years. I am proud that the Virginia Congressional Delegation, the Virginia Bar Association, the mayor of Richmond, and many others decided that the best way to honor both men was to have them equally share the honor of having the courthouse so named.

With the ribbon cutting for this grand facility tentatively set for October 17 of this year, I am please by the passage of this legislation in honor of

Spottswood Robinson and Robert Merhige. Mr. President, in conclusion, I thank my colleagues in joining me in support of this legislation, and I thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of these two great Virginians.

Mr. President, I wonder if I might pose a question to the leadership. Senator Levin and I just met in preparation to move forward, hopefully, on the annual authorization bill. This would be the 30th bill Senator Levin and I have worked on together. In the interim period, over the summer, our staffs have done a lot of very valuable work in terms of trying to sort through reconciliation between the House and Senate provisions. But it is our recommendation to the leadership that we try to obtain a UC to enable the amendments that would be brought forward to be relevant to the work of the committee, or the text of the bill.

I am just wondering, what do the respective leaders have to guide the Senator and myself on this issue?

Mr. President, I thank the leaders. I only say that Senator Levin and I are ready, beginning tomorrow morning, if this procedural motion this afternoon at 5:30 is carried, to go to work. Hopefully, we can waive any 30-hour requirement, or whatever might be attached to this, and proceed directly to the bill. We both have amendments that can be brought up, and we welcome amendments from our colleagues. Again, the issue of relevancy is imperative if we hope to complete this bill this week.

Mr. President, I thank the leaders.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I first wish to congratulate my colleague of some 30 years that we have worked together on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Under his leadership this year, we passed the 2008 bill unanimously by the committee in April. Here we are in September, and we are finally getting to the opportunity presented to our colleagues and, hopefully, this week we will act on this bill.

Earlier this afternoon, the distinguished majority leader and the minority leader addressed the Senate on their express hope that this bill will be acted on expeditiously and done so within this week. That will require, however, in my judgment--and I speak only for myself--a unanimous consent request relating to the amendment process. We are anxious to receive amendments from our colleagues, but unless we maintain some order in terms of relevant amendments, I am fearful we will not be able to expeditiously handle this bill. That is a matter that is now being quite fairly and forthrightly worked upon by the respective majority and minority leaders, and certainly my distinguished colleague, Senator Levin, and I have discussed this together and have a joint recommendation for our leadership.

I also wish to express my appreciation to our professional staff, both majority and minority, who have worked on this bill throughout the summer. Such that on the assumption that we can pass it and then get to a conference we will have beforehand reconciled some of the differences between--that is on an informal basis, but on a formal basis, we will be able to reconcile in a conference this bill and then bring it back in the form of a conference report.

This will be the forty-third--bill No. 43--consecutive authorization bill adopted by the Senate. I am hopeful the unbroken record of 42 consecutive times will now be the 43rd, and that puts the Senate clearly on record as supporting the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States who most justly deserve all the support we can give them. I point out that we have a specific constitutional responsibility toward the men and women of the Armed Forces. It is this bill, coupled with such appropriations as may be acted upon by other committees--this is the discharge of our constitutional responsibility.

We are at a very dangerous crossroads in the history of the world. Our forces today are fighting in two theaters--Iraq and Afghanistan-- and are standing watch on many other theaters and outposts across the world. They are facing the threats of militant extremists at home, worldwide, abroad, in all corners of the globe. We are also astounded by the performance of what heretofore we thought was a supporting partner in world affairs--Russia--by virtue of their aggressions in Georgia, and the instability in Pakistan, a major non-NATO ally but nevertheless a major ally. Hopefully, with the election of a new President, that country can begin to govern itself strongly because it is very important, with our forces on the border of Pakistan and our operations against the insurgents and the Taliban in Afghanistan, it is essential we have the strongest of working relationships with Pakistan. Then we have, unfortunately, the nuclear ambitions and the hostile behavior of Iran. All of those propose a profound and wide-ranging challenge for U.S. interests and our friends and our allies in the international community as a whole.

We are fortunate today that the people in the United States of America are so supportive of our Armed Forces. I have had the privilege to observe this Nation in previous conflicts beginning in World War II. In World War II 16 million men and women of the Armed Forces were greeted when they returned home from a solid victory against the axis powers, as well as those of the Pacific. Then, following the Korean conflict, again I had the opportunity to observe firsthand the deterioration of the support in the many respects it was given to the Armed Forces who fought so bravely in that conflict. I pause to think that we have celebrated the 55th anniversary of that conflict. Over 30,000 Americans--Americans in uniform--lost their lives in that conflict. Another 90,000 were wounded. Today, currently, 8,000 are still unaccounted for.

So we have a different attitude today. In Vietnam, we likewise experienced a lot of antagonism against the men and women of the Armed Forces. Today, this country is united behind those men and women and giving support to their brave families.

We have also had the good fortune for 35 years to have an All- Volunteer Force. This bill is constructed to continue that support of the All-Volunteer Force. I can recall, in the Vietnam period, I was privileged to be Secretary of the Navy--Under Secretary for some 5 years--that the constricted force experienced a lot of problems. It was during that period in 1973, I remember vividly that the then-Secretary of Defense, Melvin Laird, had the vision to have the All-Volunteer Force. It eventually came into law with the support of the Congress. It was a major gamble, I say to my colleagues--a major gamble. It was the first significant large military power in the world--the United States of America--to try and have this national security policy, this national security defended by all volunteers, but it has worked and worked well beyond the early concepts we had in mind. It has been a superb military force that has preserved America's freedom.

We also have in this bill a reflection on the future needs of our Armed Forces. This bill will provide better compensation and first-rate health care to improve the quality of life of the men and women on Active Duty and in the National Guard and Reserve and their families. I will enumerate a number of provisions in this bill that address those issues.

We also authorize Active Duty end strengths, increases for the Army to go to 532,000-plus and for the Marine Corps, 194,000-plus, respectively. We authorize an increase of 3,371 full-time personnel for the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve. We authorize the costs of special pay and allowances, death benefits, and permanent change of station moves. It authorizes $26 billion for the Defense Health Program. It requires the Secretary of Defense to develop a comprehensive policy to prevent, regrettably, the increasing rate of suicides.

So I say to my colleagues, this bill is absolutely essential-- absolutely essential--and it provides the statutory authorities that our men and women of the Armed Forces need to succeed in combat and stability operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We will authorize those funds necessary to seek to reduce our Nation's strategic risks by taking action to restore, as soon as possible, the readiness

of the military services to conduct the full range of their assigned missions. I wish to correct that by saying by taking the action aimed at fully restoring, since much of our military is in a state of high readiness today.

This bill will improve the efficiency of Defense Department programs and activities, promote the transformation of the Armed Forces to deal with the threats of the 21st century, and improve the ability of the Armed Forces to counter nontraditional threats, including terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

In addition, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 includes authorization of $24.8 billion in Division B for military construction, BRAC, and family housing programs. Because MILCON projects require a line item authorization by law, and considered new- starts, DOD will not be able to carry out any new project in fiscal year 2009 if this bill is not enacted.

Of the 24.8 billion, $11.7 billion is for military construction, $3.2 billion for the construction and operation of family housing, and $9.1 billion to implement the results of the 2005 BRAC.

Within the BRAC account, 282 projects are at risk across the country, including critical construction to establish new hospitals at the Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, MD; Fort Belvior, VA; and Fort Sam Houston, TX, to facilitate the closure of inadequate facilities at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC. Other critical BRAC construction at Fort Bliss, TX, and Fort Benning, GA, is required to facilitate the return of U.S. forces from overseas locations and the establishment of new modular units. Also BRAC construction at Eglin Air Force Base, FL, is required to support the joint Air Force and Navy training.

In closing, this is an important bill that takes care of our troops and their families. It sustains a national treasure, the All Volunteer Force, and authorizes funding for the Department of Defense and the national security programs of the Department of Energy.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the motion to proceed to the Defense authorization bill for the sake of the men and women in uniform and in spirit of Article I, section 8 of the Constitution that assigns to Congress the powers ``to raise and support Armies'' and ``to provide and maintain a Navy.''

Mr. President, I defer to our distinguished Chairman. Again, I congratulate the chairman on bringing this bill to the floor.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague for his kind remarks. I should also wish to join him in thanking the members of our committee. We have had an excellent committee, and we have a very bipartisan, professional staff. I am sure we can do the job. I will point out one additional feature--military construction. I daresay that almost every Member of this body has a provision somewhere in this bill relating to military construction. Without passage of the bill, that simply will not take place.

I yield my time to my colleague. I think I have 2 minutes remaining.

Mr. President, my understanding is at the hour of 5:30 p.m. the vote will commence.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on S. 2403, a bill to name the new United States courthouse in Richmond, VA, for two distinguished jurists and sons of VA.

Senator Webb and I introduced this bill together last year, and the bill passed the Senate on June 24, 2008. The House of Representatives is expected to pass this bill tonight, with a minor technical change. It is my hope that the Senate will accept this minor modification and pass this bill when the legislation returns to the Senate tonight or early tomorrow.

Our bill will recognize two of Virginia's outstanding jurists: Spotswood Robinson III and Robert Mehrige, Jr. They were lawyers who throughout their careers adhered to the principle of ``equal justice under law.''

The first, Spottswood William Robinson, III, was born in Richmond, VA, on July 26, 1916. He attended Virginia Union University and then the Howard University School of Law, graduating first in his class in 1939 and serving as a member of the faculty until 1947.

Judge Robinson was one of the core attorneys of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund from 1948 to 1960, achieving national prominence in the legal community with his representation of the Virginia plaintiffs in the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education. Brown outlawed public school segregation declaring ``separate but equal'' schools unconstitutional.

In 1964, Judge Robinson became the first African American to be appointed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and, in 1966, President Johnson appointed Judge Robinson the first African American to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Finally, on May 7, 1981, Judge Robinson became the first African American to serve as chief judge of the District of Columbia Circuit.

Our second jurist, Judge Robert R. Merhige, Jr., was born in 1919 and later attended High Point College in North Carolina. He subsequently earned his law degree from the T.C. Williams School of Law at the University of Richmond, from which he graduated at the top of his class in 1942.

From 1942 to 1945, Judge Merhige served in the U.S. Air Force, he practiced law in Richmond from 1945 to 1967, establishing himself as a formidable trial lawyer representing criminal defendants as well as dozens of insurance companies.

On August 30,1967, Judge Merhige was appointed U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division by President Lyndon B. Johnson, serving as a Federal judge until 1998. In 1972, Judge Merhige ordered the desegregation of dozens of Virginia school districts. He considered himself to be a ``strict constructionist'' who went by the law as spelled out in precedents by the higher courts. In 1970, he ordered the University of Virginia to admit women. As evidence of Judge Merhige's groundbreaking decisions, he was given 24-hour protection by Federal marshals due to repeated threats of violence against him and his family. His courage in the face of significant opposition of the times is a testimony to his dedication to the rule of law.

As my colleagues may be aware, I have worked to name the new courthouse in Richmond for these two men for several years. I am proud that the Virginia Congressional delegation, the Virginia Bar Association, the mayor of Richmond, and many others decided that the best way to honor both men was to have them equally share the honor of having the courthouse so named.

With the ribbon cutting for this grand facility tentatively set for October 17 of this year, I can think of no better time than now to move this legislation in honor of Spottswood Robinson and Robert Merhige. I thank the committee for the consideration of this bill and look forward to working with my colleagues in seeking its passage.

Madam President, are we in morning business at this point?

I ask unanimous consent that I might use a portion of that 10 minutes to proceed as in morning business.

Madam President, this week our Nation, and indeed nations throughout the world, paid our reverence to the men and women of a past generation who fought so valiantly to provide freedom for the Southern portion of the Korean Peninsula. They fought under the Commander In Chief at that time, President Harry Truman, a courageous man.

It has been 55 years since that conflict. Today, the Senate Armed Services Committee held an extensive hearing on the current status of the Korean Peninsula, most specifically the progress we are making, in my judgment, with respect to North Korea.

I played a very modest role in that war as a young Marine Lieutenant, for a period, 1951-1952, but my contribution and participation is of little consequence when you look at the extensive casualties our Nation took in that conflict.

The total deaths were 36,574, the total wounded over 100,000, and 1.7 million-plus men and women in the Armed Forces were in and out of that theater to preserve freedom.

Today, South Korea is a flourishing nation, one with a very strong economy. It ranks, I think, 11th worldwide. It is a partner in world affairs in terms of its strategic importance and, clearly, a participant in trying to secure freedom for others on that historic peninsula.

I do hope, as the Senate begins to finish its work prior to the August recess, the Chamber will consider the nomination, which I understand is pending, of Kathy Stevens, a career diplomat of many years who has been nominated to become the new Ambassador to South Korea.

I had the privilege of visiting with her, and I certainly felt that, in every respect, she is eminently qualified to take this important post.

I wish to thank Ambassador Hill this morning, because he addressed a number of issues, most notably the question of the deprivation of basic human rights by North Korea to so many of its citizens. I support Ambassador Hill in his endeavor, and colleagues on both sides who, in the course of the hearing this morning, expressed our concerns about the human rights of individuals in North Korea and the environs. Senator Brownback, an internationally recognized spokesman on behalf of human rights, took an active role in today's hearing.

I wish to note that Senator Mikulski and Senator Cardin from Maryland, Congressman Steny Hoyer, and I met with a group of Korean war veterans who came to the Hill to talk, to memorialize the sacrifices of so many of their fellow service persons of that generation.

I am so humbled and privileged to have had that very modest, brief, tour of service with that generation. My service was inconsequential compared to the extensive loss of life and limb by others during this conflict.

But I do urge America not to forget those who served in Korea. The war is often referred to as the ``forgotten war.'' But they laid the foundation for the current freedoms in South Korea. Indeed, Harry Truman's decision to stop the spread of communism on that peninsula saved other small nations in the region. Today, those countries might not have the freedoms, they now have, had it not been for the sacrifices of the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces, and other nations fighting under the ``banner'' of the United Nations Organization.

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

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished leader. I do hope I can say one word. To my leadership, I have explained to you I will soon conclude 30 years in this Chamber.

Having served with 264 Senators in that period of time, I say thanks to each and every one of them. But in that period, I think half my time has been devoted to issues relating to national security and the Armed Services. I checked the records of the committee. We have had 42 consecutive bills authorizing funds for the armed services of the United States. This will be the 30th of those bills that I have participated in, in bringing to the floor and, hopefully, getting a strong endorsement of this body.

I fully recognize the issues my colleagues have foremost in their mind at this moment. Not a one of them is against our national defense, not a one of them by their votes now could be challenged as to their patriotism and devotion to the men and women of the Armed Forces of this country.

But I will vote to go forth now, in an effort to support the cloture motion.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a fellow Senator, a friend, and a true Southern gentleman, Senator Jesse Helms, who passed away on July 4, 2008. He was a man resolute in his beliefs. I have heard many say here in the Senate, as well as outside the Capitol Grounds, that regardless of what you thought about his position or opinion, you always respected Senator Helms for standing up for what he believed.

As a master of the Senate parliamentary procedures, he did not hesitate to use this knowledge as a tool when he thought it was necessary to get his point across. While inevitably these tactics might have frustrated some of his colleagues from time to time, Senators couldn't help but marvel at his courageous defense of his beliefs, and they never doubted that Senator Helms would treat them with respect. I have heard from those close to Senator Helms, and experienced it myself, that he was true to his belief that standing up and defending one's opinion was never to be confused with, or providing a reason for, animosity towards one's opponents.

His kindness and respect did not stop with his colleagues in the Senate. Senator Helms was a true advocate that Senators were here to represent and serve their constituents regardless of any party affiliation, and his office was known for its impeccable constituent services. His beliefs and service to his fellow citizens not only endeared him to those he served or those he served with, but also to those that had the privilege to serve on his staff. I don't think he even referred to them as his staff but as his Senate family--the Helms Senate family.

His dedication to his staff is exemplified by the number of his staffers that went on to serve in important positions in federal and state government and in the private sector, having been ``tutored and trained'' in the discipline of Senator Helms. An excellent example is Robert Wilkie, now serving in the Defense Department as Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs.

Respect for Senator Helms extends well beyond these Senate halls to across the globe. Senator Helms' experience with foreign policy started with his service in the U.S. Navy during World War II and continued with his efforts to reform the United Nations. His effect was no less prevalent when he was the first legislator to address the U.N. Security Council. I was privileged to witness his stalwart performance.

It goes without saying that the Senate, this Nation, and the State of North Carolina are better today because of Senator Helms. I extend my most heartfelt condolences to the Helms family and his friends.

Mr. President, today I recognize the members of the National War Powers Commission, particularly the cochairs and my dear friends--former Secretaries of State James A. Baker and Warren Christopher--for their distinguished and valuable work in bringing forward this critical legislation to address this important issue to our Nation.

Few would dispute that the most important, and perhaps the most fateful, decisions our leaders make involve the decision of whether to go to war. Yet after more than 200 years of constitutional history, the extent of the powers the respective branches of government possess in making such decisions is still heavily debated.

Let me first outline some points regarding the legislative history of the War Powers Resolution. On November 7, 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution over President Nixon's veto, by a vote of 284 to 135 in the House, and a vote of 75 to 18 in the Senate. The legislation was passed purportedly to restore a congressional role in authorizing the use of force that was thought by many to have been lost in the Cold War and Vietnam war. The War Powers Resolution was intended to provide a mechanism for Congress and the President to participate in decisions to send members of the U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities.

Less than 2 years after its passage by Congress in 1973, legislative proposals were introduced to amend the War Powers Resolution. The War Powers Resolution continued to raise concerns among the executive and legislative branches of government throughout the next decade as the Nation faced such situations as in El Salvador, Lebanon, and Libya.

Several legislative proposals were introduced in Congress to modify or repeal the War Powers Resolution. These legislative proposals were referred to the appropriate committee on the House or Senate side, but none were ever passed by Congress.

The War Powers Resolution again became an issue regarding activities in the Persian Gulf after an Iraqi aircraft fired a missile on the USS Stark on May 17, 1987, killing 37 sailors. Shortly afterwards, the United States began to reflag Kuwaiti oil tankers and provide a U.S. naval escort for Kuwaiti oil tankers through the Persian Gulf. As military escalation also continued to increase in the Persian Gulf region as a result of the Iran-Iraq War, the Congress became concerned that U.S. forces could be committed to the region without consultation between the executive and legislative branch.

Consequently, 20 years ago, on May 19, 1988, I, along with two of our former colleagues--Senators Mitchell and

Nunn--joined Senator Byrd and introduced the War Powers Resolution Amendments of 1988, known as S.J. Res. 323. Senator Boren later joined as well as a cosponsor of this legislation in June 1988. I humbly state today that I was the only Republican cosponsor of the legislation. This piece of legislation, however, was referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where it remained.

Subsequently, on January 25, 1989, I again joined Senator Byrd, but this time along with five of our former colleagues--Senators Boren, Cohen, Danforth, Mitchell, and Nunn--and introduced the War Powers Resolution Amendments of 1989, known as S. 2. Our former colleagues and I proposed legislation to modify the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

These amendments were intended to: require the President to consult with six designated Members of Congress ``in every instance in which consultation is'' required under the War Powers Resolution of 1973; require the President and the six designated Members of Congress to ``establish a schedule of regular meetings'' to ``ensure adequate consultation on vital national security issues;'' establish a ``permanent consultative group'' within Congress, which would be comprised of 18 Members of Congress; and require the President to consult with the permanent consultative group at the request of a majority of the 6 designated Members of Congress, unless the President determines that consultation needs to be limited for national security purposes.

Unfortunately, neither of these proposed pieces of legislation were voted on by the Senate. However, I subsequently cosponsored another similar piece of legislation, the Peace Powers Act of 1995, sponsored by our former distinguished majority leader, Senator Bob Dole. Hearings were held on this piece of legislation by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where it remained.

For over 35 years, despite these and similar legislative efforts, no modifications were made to the War Powers Resolution Act of 1973. Today, there still remains no clear mechanism or requirement for the President and Congress to consult before committing the Nation to war.

It is this Senator's opinion that the Nation benefits when the President and Congress consult frequently, deliberately, and meaningfully regarding matters of national security-and-that is exactly why I felt compelled to bring to my colleagues attention the important work recently completed by the National War Powers Commission.

The National War Powers Commission was formed in February 2007--by the University of Virginia's Miller Center of Public Affairs, which is directed by Virginia's former Governor Gerald L. Baliles--to examine the respective war powers of the President and Congress. The University of Virginia, the College of William and Mary, Rice University, and Stanford University served as partnering institutions.

On July 8, 2008, after more than 13 months of study, the Commission released their report and recommendations. I wanted to bring to the attention of my colleagues the important work done by this distinguished Commission to the War Powers Consultation Act of 2009. I strongly recommend that those interested in this important subject contact the University of Virginia's Miller Center of Public Affairs and also review a copy of the Commission's comprehensive report, titled ``National War Powers Commission Report,'' which can be accessed at the Miller Center's Web site, www.millercenter.org. The exemplary work by the National War Powers Commission, concluded with the following recommendations: the law purporting to govern the Nation's decision to engage in war--the War Powers Resolution--has failed to promote cooperation between the two branches of government; the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is ineffective at best and unconstitutional at worst; and the War Powers Resolution of 1973 should be replaced by a new law that would, except for emergencies, require the President and Congress to consult before going to war.

I would specifically like to draw my colleagues attention to the Commission's legislative proposal, the War Powers Consultation Act of 2009. This proposed legislation contains four key components. These key components are: First, this legislation would replace the War Powers Resolution of 1973. It would ensure that Congress has an opportunity to consult meaningfully and deliberately with the President regarding significant armed conflicts, and would ensure that Congress has the opportunity to express its views as part of a consultative process.

Second, this statute would create a process that will encourage the two co-equal branches of government to cooperate and consult in a way that is deliberate, practical, and true to the spirit of the Constitution.

Third, the act would establish a ``Joint Congressional Consultation Committee'' with a ``permanent, bi-partisan joint professional staff'' with access to all relevant intelligence and national security information.

Fourth, and finally, the act would require the President to consult with the Joint Congressional Consultation Committee ``[b]efore ordering the deployment of United States armed forces into significant armed conflict''--lasting longer than one week--and would mandate regular consultation thereafter.

I have always believed that Congress has an important and central role in the decision of the deployment of our men and women of the armed forces into harm's way. Undoubtedly, the War Powers Consultation Act of 2009 would provide Congress and the President a well-defined mechanism for consultation on matters of the use of force in armed conflict.

The decision to commit our country to war is by far one of the most critical decisions that faces our Nation's leaders. This proposal seeks a concrete and pragmatic solution to a longstanding problem that is only getting more difficult in a time where our Nation will continue to face unconventional threats and warfare.

I urge my colleagues to review this important material and work together, with the next administration, to find a solution to this ever-present debate between a President and the Congress over their respective constitutional powers.

Mr. President, while I do not believe that the provisions of title VI, subtitle A of S. 3297, corresponding to the National Capital Transportation Amendments Act, constitute a congressionally directed spending item, I certify, out of caution, that neither I nor my immediate family has a pecuniary interest in the aforementioned provisions, consistent with the requirements of paragraph 9 of rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate.

Mr. President, I have a long history of supporting opening the OCS to drilling. Aside from being a longtime supporter of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, I have also engaged in attempts to open the Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf Coasts to drilling.

While we were successful in opening a portion of the gulf, the Pacific and Atlantic coasts remain off limits.

Instead of focusing my effort on all the off-limit portions of the OCS, I have concentrated over the last year on opening the coast of Virginia, for exploration of natural gas only. I think the history on this effort demonstrates a momentum shift in the minds of my colleagues.

In June 2007, I offered an amendment to the Energy Policy Act of 2007 that would allow for the exploration of natural gas in Virginia only. Extraction of natural gas could only occur if the Governor and State legislature approve such a move.

That vote lost by a vote of 44 nays and 43 yeas.

Of those 44 nays, there are two Senators who are now cosponsors of the Gas Price Reduction Act, a bill that includes a drilling title.

With the nonvoting Members, I think we could win this vote today, on an up-or-down vote.

This fact is significant because it represents a shift in momentum and the way my colleagues are now thinking of rectifying this energy crisis in which our Nation finds itself.

Mr. President, I commend my distinguished colleague, whom I have been these 30 years sharing this floor with from time to time.

We have collaborated on so many things together.

But now, as both of us are looking forward to quietly stepping down, I say to the Senator, you are carrying as full a weight as you ever did, and you are the man of the hour among our peer group to work on this energy question because of the depth and background you have on this subject.

So I commend you on your efforts with respect to drilling. But I wonder if you would bear with me a minute. Several years ago, I started on this, trying to drill offshore. Do you remember that?

You always said to me, well, there will come a time.

But I kept putting in bill after bill, and Senator Alexander joined me on one. And now--

The President has joined, and the time is here.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of the votes that were actually cast on my amendment at one time, where I lost by--it was actually 44 to 43--1 vote.

Or I would have received a majority vote at that time, notwithstanding the 60 votes required for passage, and we might be a little further down the road if that had happened.

But I wish to say how pleased I am to see you vigorous and strong, and with our distinguished leader, Senator McConnell, leading the charge. I hope we get it up here and let these 100 Senators speak their will.

We share that.

I say to the Senator, go back and look at your mailbox, look at your e-mail, look at the hundreds of communications each of us are receiving every day.

These people are gathered--I would say almost a quarter of Americans are gathered around the kitchen table every night looking at the increased costs in their food, the increased costs in their heating and their gasoline, trying to figure out how they are going to make ends meet, with relatively small amounts of dollars in the overall picture. But to them, it is the difference between buying a little extra food and having the choice to forego it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE addressed the Chair.

Madam President, if I could make an inquiry of the distinguished leader while he is on the Senate floor, at some point I would like to work into the queue. If my good friend from Rhode Island is following the leader, perhaps I could follow him. Is there a standing order?

Madam President, I appreciate that courtesy, and I will just take, say, 6 minutes following the distinguished Republican leader.

Madam President, I thank the Chair. I again thank my colleague from Rhode Island.

Before the distinguished leader departs the floor, I simply wish to say that I appreciate his bringing up the nomination of Judge Glen Conrad to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. I was privileged to recommend Glen Conrad to President Bush for his current seat on the U.S. district court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Judge Conrad has served in this position for five years, and, prior to his confirmation by the Senate, he was a magistrate judge in the Eastern District for twenty-seven years. He has devoted his professional life to serving the Federal court system and is eminently qualified to fill one of those Fourth Circuit vacancies that desperately need it.

I wish to thank my good friend and colleague, Senator Webb, who joined me in recommending Judge Conrad for the Fourth Circuit. We have submitted our blue slips to the Judiciary Committee, and I have confidence that the majority leader and the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee will find time to look at his nomination. Glen Conrad is a true public servant who is ready to take and fill a badly needed post.

I thank the leader.

I thank again our colleague from Rhode Island.

I spoke earlier when the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, was on the Senate floor talking generally about the drilling offshore. I mentioned that for many years I have been working on it with other colleagues in this Chamber and lost the majority by one vote.

I ask unanimous consent to amend those statements with further criteria.

Madam President, now I wish to briefly address what I think is a very important aspect of the ongoing debate on energy. I want to laud many Senators on both sides of the aisle who are looking at the gravity of the situation. Families sit around the kitchen table in the evenings and work out problems among themselves, including the gravity of the problems associated with the rising gas prices at the gas pump, food prices, and many other issues. I went in and made a study of the increased cost of a loaf of bread, dishwasher fluid--I could go on and on--hot dogs, hamburgers. The extent to which prices are going up is extraordinary, coupled with the increased price at the gas pump.

We are all working together, and I firmly believe that under the leadership of Senators Reid and McConnell, we can come up with some sort of a bipartisan effort consistent with the overall policy the President has urged recently in his speech.

As important as offshore drilling is--and I yield not a foot of ground on that; I think it is important, and that is why I have been advocating it for many years. I support battery-powered automobiles, wind energy, and all of the other renewables. But we have to do something now, today, and tomorrow to help the people sitting around their kitchen tables trying to solve their problems. I have been looking at several options, and I will review them briefly.

I anticipate that one-third of Americans today are virtually desperate and trying to make ends meet with their family budgets, and the necessity to drive their automobiles to go to work, pick up their children, to visit their elderly grandparents--all of these things are matters of necessity, and they are trying to balance that out among themselves. What do we do about it?

I introduced the Immediate Steps to Conserve Gasoline Act--an odd title but straightforward in what it says. My idea is as follows: Many folks--a third of them--are conserving; they are taking conservation steps. Look at the statistics. You see less driving. Quite a few statistics are coming in about less driving, which translates into less demand at the gas pump. A free marketplace should lead to some measure of reduction. We recognize that gasoline and petroleum is at worldwide pricing, and we are in a one-world market. We are competing with other nations, which are likewise experiencing the rising costs of fuel.

My brother recently returned from a business trip to Europe. He is quite familiar with Central Europe and Austria. He said on the famous autobahn they are cutting back on the speed because there is a savings on gasoline. The faster you drive, the less efficient the carburetion process in the engine is in terms of delivering power.

I suggested to the President, to the Secretary of Energy, and I have asked the Government Accounting Office to look at a chapter in American history. I remember it quite well, 1973 to 1974. I was at the Navy Department. My friend from Rhode Island, John Chafee, and I were together at that time. I remember the President, together with the full support of the Congress, enacted legislation whereby America imposed a hardship on itself; it was a program all across America--and it is all a matter of public record--that made the speed limit 55 miles per hour. What I have asked the President, the Secretary of Energy, the GAO, and others to do is to go back and examine that period, take a look at it. Fifty-five might not be the speed limit; it might be 60 or even a slightly higher speed limit because of the improved carburetion process and efficiency achieved in this nearly quarter of a century in today's modern automobiles compared to the 1973-1974 automobiles.

It is interesting, in that period of time--and these are Government statistics--when the national speed limit was imposed, it saved 167,000 barrels of oil a day. The significance of that figure is that, in that period, 1973-1974, we were only 30 percent dependent upon importing oil from abroad. Now we are at 60 percent. So there has been a doubling of our dependency on foreign oil. Also, the number of vehicles on the road today--a quarter of a century later--is approximately twice the number of vehicles that were traveling America's highways and roads in 1973- 1974.

I realize it is not popular to talk about it. Believe me, around my own dinner table at night, I have heard from my children, who are not at all pleased with this.

Anyway, I think we have an obligation as a Congress, working with the executive branch, to look at it. That is all I am asking. Go study it, those who are far more knowledgeable than I and those who have all of the facts at their fingertips, and let's bring in the private sector to give their views and look at this potential. If we were to bring about some reduction of the high speeds on America's roads and highways today, I think you could translate that into less demand at the pump and less demand in terms of out-of-pocket costs.

So there we are, simple as that. It is history, it worked, so let's look at it. That 55-miles-an-hour speed limit that was put in back then stayed for 20 years. Congress finally repealed it in 1995. Guess what. The cost of fuel had dropped to $2 a gallon or thereabouts.

The other measure that I bring to the attention of my colleagues is this: The American people are using their own initiatives to save energy, and I am calling on the entire Federal Government, under the leadership of the President, and all of the agencies and departments to see whether they can reduce their overall use of gasoline by 2 to 3 percent--just by a small margin.

We passed an energy act here not long ago, and I use that as a model. We were talking about other forms of energy there. That is becoming law.

For 1 year, the Federal Government can say we are going to join the citizens and reduce our overall consumption of gasoline by 2 to 3 percent, give it a try--anything to bring off pressure at the pump.

My two concepts fall clearly under the area of conservation. As I look at the various options my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are exploring and looking at, I do not see therein the conservation potential, thus far, which can bring about some relief. I am confident this can be done if it is done properly. The American people are not going to like it. Politically, it will be a tough one. Somehow, I have always felt, in the 30 years I have been privileged to be a part of this body, that we are called upon now and then to make tough calls and stand up to the American public and say we have to all pull together-- the people and the Government, State and Federal.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I have advised the Senate leadership that I will be necessarily absent from the Senate for the balance of this week. Today, were I able to be present for the vote on final passage of S. 2731, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR, I would have voted in favor of the bill.

Mr. President, I have advised the Senate leadership that I will be necessarily absent from the Senate for the balance of this week. This evening, were I able to be present for the vote on the President's veto of the Medicare bill, I would have voted to override.

Following consultation and discussion with my physicians, including the Capitol Physician's Office, I made the decision earlier this summer to treat my atrial fibrillation with a pacemaker, and made arrangement for scheduled admission to Inova Fairfax Hospital. Colleagues will recall that last fall I was treated for this common condition.

This past Saturday doctors implanted a pacemaker, and consistent with the success of the routine procedure, I was released the following day.

This morning I came to the Capitol, handled planned morning appointments, and voted on the floor of the Senate. During a follow-up visit this afternoon, the Capitol Physician's Office and my private doctors made the decision to schedule a readmission to Inova Fairfax Hospital where they will perform a second procedure to adjust the pacemaker, and will keep me for observation.

Mr. President, I wish to inform the chairman that I shall speak myself, and Senators Sessions, Chambliss, and Graham also hope to be recognized. I have inquired at the desk, and there is some flexibility in our time here this morning, and we will go from one side to the other if Senator Levin has colleagues who are going to speak.

Mr. President, subject to my leadership, I will certainly recommend that be done.

Mr. President, very simply, two of America's finest sons are before this body with the very important responsibility entrusted by the Founding Fathers as they wrote the Constitution of the United States; namely, that the Senate shall give advice and consent. I have had the privilege through my lifetime to be associated with many senior officers of all branches of our military. I say unreservedly, these are two of the most extraordinary that I have been privileged to know and work with in my long career.

On many trips to Afghanistan and to Iraq with the distinguished chairman of the committee--we so often travel together--on a number of those occasions we worked directly with General Petraeus and General Odierno. Therefore, they both have my strongest endorsement, and I congratulate them individually and I also congratulate their families. These are two fine officers, and their families have participated in their careers and backed them. If you look at the length of service that each has had in four deployed regions, most specifically Iraq, it has been a very extensive period of time, and the consequences on the family are often difficult to bear. But the families have stood by these fine officers through these long deployments.

Both nominees have had extraordinary experience, and therefore I anticipate we will have a very positive confirmation by the Senate. They are highly experienced, indeed specifically trained. I sort of edited that word into my remarks because they have served a number of times in Iraq and moved up to higher responsibilities--in the case of General Odierno, and in General Petraeus, he takes on responsibility for the entire region. But he is magnificently trained to do so.

Further, as we approach, again, our constitutional system by which we change Presidents, there is a continuity that these two officers offer by virtue of serving in these positions, if it is the will of the next President. That is invaluable in this region. That is because, as the distinguished occupant of the chair and many others know, the cultural situation in this part of the world is a very challenging one to fully understand and appreciate; to see that our Armed Forces act with them, work with them in such a way as to achieve the goals but at the same time protect our Armed Forces.

I say ``with'' because the nations of Iraq and Afghanistan are now sovereign nations. As such, we are there by consent of that sovereignty to work with their forces.

I also add that I don't know that I have ever experienced a dimension in contemporary times where the professional officers have had to work so very closely with other members of the executive branch, notably the National Security Council and the Department of State, working hand in hand.

The current Ambassador in Iraq, Ambassador Crocker, is well known in the Senate, and I believe extremely admired and respected for the services he has rendered. He has been a partner with General Petraeus in working through their individual responsibilities, coming before the Congress jointly to make their reports. They know the region, they know the background, and they are fully qualified to undertake these responsibilities.

At this point, I would like to yield the floor to my other colleagues. I may have a few closing remarks.

I see the distinguished Senator from Georgia, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

I thank the Senator from Georgia. He is a strong voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. His views with regard to the qualifications of these two officers with whom he has worked over these many years are of great value to the Senate.

Mr. President, I see the presence on the floor of our distinguished colleague, another member of the committee, Senator Sessions.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague from Alabama, a member of the committee. He is a very strong voice. I only add to your observations, which are very accurate about the situation in Iraq, we all share a concern about the worsening situation in Afghanistan, and that will become General Petraeus's top responsibility. We are fortunate that he is eminently qualified and has studied the culture of the region, having understood the complexity, the geopolitical situation with regard to Pakistan and Iran. He is eminently qualified to step in and be the commander of those forces in that region.

But his boots are on the ground now, not writing dissertations.

Mr. President, I see our distinguished colleague from South Carolina.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank our colleague from South Carolina. He is too modest to say it, but I think he has logged as many trips into that region as any of us here, very often in the company of Senator McCain, who likewise has strong support for both of these officers. I thank the Senator for his work and his important contribution to the debate.