Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, Senator Levin and I are currently conducting a hearing of the Armed Services Committee. Both of us believed it was imperative to come to the Chamber and express to the Senate our strong objection to the amendment offered by our distinguished colleague, Senator Coburn. I give this by way of background.

The Committee on Armed Services for some time has been, frankly, encouraging the Department to take steps to try to put in place a system that would revise the older means by which travel was accommodated for members of the Department and others. It is a very extensive number of individuals who are affected. The Department did put in place a program, albeit rather slowly. Nevertheless, it is now in place.

Congress, through the years, has criticized the Department for not providing better business practices, specifically for the inadequate oversight of their travel programs. Criticism centered around a growing number of separate, nonintegrated travel systems which did not provide the information required for DOD or congressional oversight. Therefore, the Defense Travel System was created by the DOD to address these criticisms and the desperate need to make this system work more cost- effectively.

Comparing the Defense Travel System to the legacy systems is inappropriate because the Defense Travel System performs different functions. The legacy systems are travel reservation systems. The DTS, as it is known, reengineers these legacy systems into a travel and financial management system which links 30 defense data and financial processing systems with the consequent lower transaction and processing fees and lower personnel costs. DTS is saving both people and money. A return to the legacy systems will require additional people, which is not funded. As DTS is further implemented, additional savings will be achieved.

Our joint plea is to allow DTS to remain in place and give it a reasonable chance to function and prove its goals. According to the GAO, the ``continued use of the existing legacy travel systems results in underutilization of DTS and affects the savings that DTS was planned to achieve.'' This includes paying higher processing costs through the legacy systems' manual travel vouchers as opposed to the processing of the travel vouchers electronically through DTS.

The GAO and the Department of Defense have briefed the Armed Services Committee staff that they believe DTS should be given a reasonable opportunity to continue to resolve the Department's travel programs.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I must say, I am impressed with the thoroughness with which our colleague has researched this issue and the fervor with which he speaks. But I pose this question: The Department of Defense estimates it will cause a 3-year delay and cost some $65 million to change the contract structure. I reiterate my strong opposition to the amendment because I don't think the Department has had the time operating DTS to adequately prove the principles and the goals they wished to achieve.

I recognize other colleagues wish to speak. I thank my colleague for the opportunity to have a colloquy.

If I might just make a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair. Our distinguished colleague from Connecticut has been waiting for a period of time. I wish to respect that, but I ask following his remarks if the Senator from Virginia could be recognized for the purposes of a colloquy with the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin.

Did we understand that the Senator from Illinois wants another 15 minutes?

Yes, of course, I recognize that. I was just trying to be informed as to how the rest of us can plan our schedules. The Senator from Connecticut might well desire what period of time?

I commend my colleague from Connecticut.

I yield the floor.

Certainly.

Amendments Nos. 1895, 1996, 2017

Mr. President, I have sent modifications to the desk on amendments 1895 for Senator Bingaman, 1996 for Senator Mikulski, and 2017 for Senator Bennett. I didn't know the amendments had already been sent to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent these amendments, as submitted, be agreed upon and not the modifications I sent to the desk.

I commend our distinguished colleague from Connecticut. I would say, knowing him through these many years and enjoying a warm and cordial friendship, his indignation was in full control and modest in comparison to other periods, but he is absolutely right. Were I in his position, I would be indignant about the fact that you have tried assiduously to urge the Department to follow the law which I was privileged to work with you in putting into effect last year. That law was Section 351 of the Defense bill last year. It set forth, as the Senator has in this bill, much the same relief for the men and women of the Armed Forces who, on their own initiative, have gone out and expended, and indeed their families have contributed, sums of money.

I am very much in favor of this. I hope the managers of the bill will see fit to accept it. But I do urge upon the managers and my colleague from Connecticut that consideration be given to a clause which was in the law last year. I will read it:

The protective safety or health equipment was purchased by

the member during the period beginning on September 11, 2001,

and ending on July 31, 2004.

That enables some period of time within which we have an understanding of what was involved in the expenditures. We, in the legislative body, call that a sunset provision. It is not found in the pending amendment.

Having had modest service myself, as a sailor and so forth, inconsequential though that be, I know a little bit about the life of a service person. The modern GI, this generation, I guess as great as any generation we have ever witnessed in the history of the country-- believe me, leave it to them and they can figure out a lot of things that presumably are better than provided by the military.

The Senator pretty well restricted himself to those essential things with which I agree. But if we leave this open, we enable these young men and women, proudly wearing the uniform today, to buy a whole lot of things. Next thing you know we are going to have an open door for a lot of things to be purchased.

A wrong, in my judgment, was done in the early procurement system of this equipment, failure to have it, failure to deliver it in a timely way to some of our troops, and you have made that clear today, as have other Senators on the floor. But I say, I do believe consideration should be given to some terminal date--maybe through 2006--in which to give the military the chance to make certain that everything that can protect the life is there, and there is no requirement for these young people to go out and purchase it on their own.

Yes.

Mr. President, if I could regain the floor?

I urge the adoption of the amendment in hopes that the distinguished colleague from Connecticut, with two extraordinary veterans of military life, can sit down and work this out in a mutually satisfactory manner.

Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement, we have been recognized, the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Michigan, to conduct a colloquy?

We yield for the parliamentary desire.

Mr. President, I note the presence on the floor of my distinguished colleague, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

During the course of yesterday, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee on appropriations, Mr. Stevens, and myself participated in a parliamentary situation, whereby the Senator from Virginia sent an amendment to the desk. It was actually filed. I asked it be called up and it was.

At that time, there was an objection interposed by the Senator from Alaska, referring to the Congressional Record of today, at page S10967.

We went through the parliamentary situation, whereby I desired to have the amendment considered. The Senator from Alaska objected. Whereupon, I raised the question of germaneness to the amendment, and it was referred to the Parliamentarian.

I would like to read exactly what the Parliamentarian stated on this occasion. I stated: ``the Parliamentarians have advised,'' and I stress that word ``advised''--``the Parliamentarians have advised'' that in the Parliamentarians' opinion ``there is sufficient language in the House bill to permit Senator Warner to assert the defense of germaneness with respect to his amendment numbered 1955.''

I ask, at this moment in time, a parliamentary inquiry. Has the Senator from Virginia correctly stated what was put forth to the Senate through the Chair? And, if so, what is the nature of the vote that is now before the Senate?

Would that be as requested by the Senator from Alaska?

I thank the Presiding Officer. I thank the Parliamentarian.

I took this action, frankly, on behalf of the men and women in the Armed Forces. Our Nation is engaged in war--a war on terror with two very major engagements, one in Afghanistan and the other of larger proportions in Iraq.

We have men and women in far-flung posts all over the world, men and women on the high seas, men and women back here training, and the men and women of the Armed Forces and their families look to the Congress of the United States to provide for their needs. That is clearly set forth as our responsibility in the Constitution.

The Committee on the Armed Services was established by this body for the purpose of examining the President's budget, examining a wide realm of other issues that come before us, and preparing each year a bill known as the authorization bill for a certain year--in this case it is 2006. Our committee did that and unanimously reported out favorably to the floor that bill. That bill was taken up by this body and debated for a series of days. Some 30 amendments by colleagues were accepted. They are part of the amendment that is now pending and is the subject of this vote this evening.

There came a time when it was the judgment of the majority leader and the Democratic leader that this bill would be taken down to give a higher priority to appropriations bills. That is a leadership decision. Thereafter, Senator Levin and I worked with our leadership in an effort to get our bill back at a specific place on the calendar so that it could be considered by the Senate. It had been our hope that that opportunity would have been given to us prior to the appropriations bill. All of us who have been privileged to work on these bills through the years--this is the 27th year in which I have been privileged to work. The same number of years of my colleague--recognize the value of the authorization bill being passed prior to the enactment of the appropriations bill.

Given that situation, realities are such that we were not able to get it up. We are now faced with the need to exercise every option under the rules to get our bill considered. Although it is an extraordinary procedure and it has only been done once in 1988, I think we at this juncture, given the indefinite time in which our bill could be taken up, and the short period in which, presumably, the Congress is going to remain in session, have to seize this opportunity at this time to have our bill considered in conjunction with the appropriations bill.

For that purpose, I filed the amendment, amended it to take out section B which relates to the Department of Energy, and section C which relates to MILCON, leaving section A which is those provisions which dovetail and support many provisions of this appropriations bill which is pending here today.

I have heard the distinguished managers of the appropriations bill time and time again in previous years, as in this year, explain the desirability of having the authorization bill acted upon prior to the appropriations bill.

I readily acknowledge to the managers of the appropriations bill the essential requirement to get passed as quickly as possible--hopefully, before this recess--the requirements for the ongoing financial needs of the Department of Defense. They are critical.

I have not put this on to that bill as a dilatory measure. And to expedite consideration of the authorization bill, I carefully selected a series of amendments, originally numbered 110 amendments, and filed them at the desk in two managers' amendments, the purpose of which was to say to our colleagues they are your amendments. Senator Levin and I have reconciled such differences as existed such that we both now agree--the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Virginia--that they are ready for enactment on our bill through the vehicle traditionally used of a managers' amendment requiring just one single vote, if necessary. We can perhaps incorporate them into the underlying bill--but one vote on these packages.

Given the changes in circumstances of germaneness, it was necessary for the Senator from Virginia to prepare a third amendment, which I will now file with the clerk. It is permissible under the unanimous consent, and I send to the desk about 100 amendments, which, in the judgment of myself and others, are germane to the bill. Therefore, I send that to the desk.

Mr. President, at this point in time, parliamentary inquiry: Does not the standing unanimous consent allow a Senator to file an amendment in the second degree?

Mr. President, I have to say in fairness that I have checked with the Parliamentarian each step of my procedure yesterday and today. I have checked, and it was the interpretation given to me, as frequently given to Members of this body by the Parliamentarians, that the unanimous consent did not prohibit, as the Chair just announced, the filing of second-degree amendments.

Could the Chair repeat that a little louder, please?

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Yes. That is precisely what I asked the Presiding Officer to accept, and I think your ruling is consistent with the request of the Senator from Virginia.

We can proceed.

Yes.

Mr. President, I yield for a question.

That is correct.

The Senator is correct. I would add that it was for the

purpose, at a subsequent time if the Senate enables this amendment of the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Michigan jointly put up, which is our annual authorization bill, that we would then ask this amendment be brought up of 101 amendments by our colleagues and be attached to our authorization bill by having one vote, if necessary, on one amendment, which encompasses by management procedure 100 amendments by our colleagues.

I yield for a question.

No. I have not made one, I say to the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, if I may try----

I say to the distinguished Senator from Alaska that the Chair has ruled that the----

If I could clarify what I am trying to do----

The Chair is correct.

Yes. I yield for a question.

Mr. President, that is the request of the Senator from Virginia. I thank the Presiding Officer.

I beg your pardon?

Mr. President, that is correct. In the event the Senate concurs in the position of both of us with regard to the forthcoming vote and the Senate agrees as to germaneness, it is my intention to call up my amendment, which is the 2006 armed services bill, and at that time to put on it a managers' amendment--jointly, the two of us-- which is the third pending amendment at the desk. We will discard the other two amendments because this third amendment has been carefully drawn to have those amendments, as the Senator from Michigan said, those amendments relative to part A, which constitutes the amendment at the desk at this time. It will be the subject of a vote, and not parts B and C.

Fine.

This third amendment I have filed is simply a consolidation drawing from the first amendment of 80-some amendments, and the second, I think, was 18 to 20. Only those amendments in this third filing are ones relative to part A. All amendments relative in the earlier packages--the first and the second I filed--basically were part A, but there were some relevant to parts B and C, so I removed those. Because if there is a challenge at the time I bring it up--assuming the Senate in its vote sustains the judgment of the Senator from Virginia and others that there is germaneness in our underlying amendment--then I seek to amend that with this third package which constitutes only amendments related to part A, such as if there is another challenge on germaneness I will not be burdened down by sections B and C.

In no way does this third filing in any way try to restore parts B or C. To the contrary, it takes out all amendments which are related to B and C, so hopefully if I have a further challenge on germaneness, it can be sustained, that they are germane.

Yes.

Mr. President, the statement is correct.

I would not use the word ``understanding.''

The Senator is exercising his rights in a very courteous way throughout.

Mr. President, that is correct. The third filing consists of amendments only relative to part A in the hopes--if we have another challenge at the time we try to amend it. So now the Senate is faced with a tough call on this vote. I fully appreciate for my colleagues the difficulty of trying to evaluate how Members should vote.

In all fairness, this Nation is at war. The men and women of the Armed Forces are watching ever so carefully what the Congress is doing. I am fearful if we do not avail ourselves of this opportunity to put our bill on--which has been done once before--and hopefully add those amendments which are very important to many Senators, that

this could be misconstrued not only at home, not only abroad by the men and women of the Armed Forces, but indeed there could be some puzzlement throughout the world as to where is the Congress in supporting the men and women of the Armed Forces.

This is a critical time. We must do it. I say to my good friend, it is not an effort in any way to undermine the Senator's efforts to get this appropriations bill through. By the incorporation of these 100 amendments, together with the 30-some amendments which have already been adopted by the Senate the previous time we had this bill on the floor, there will not be forthcoming a massive number of amendments which in the end could result in a further drawing out of the time needed to have this body exercise its judgment on the appropriations bill.

I plead with my colleagues to have an understanding of the imperative nature to act upon this bill promptly. It underlies much of what the Senator is trying to do in the appropriations bill. It is needed authorization language.

I see my colleague who has joined me in this, if the Senator wishes to go ahead. Does the Senator have a question?

That is what we have, a colloquy.

Yes.

I will be glad to yield for a question.

I thank my colleague.

We have worked these many years together and we have tried to work in the spirit of what is best, as our managers of the appropriations bill, for the men and women of the Armed Forces. I plead, give not just the managers a chance, but give the Senate, I say to our managers, the chance to show that they are not going to come up here with a whole lot of amendments to drag this appropriations bill down, trying to attach those amendments to our amendments.

We have worked hard for weeks to compile this list of 100 amendments. We do not know of any others out there--there are some, but not massive numbers--that are going to come in and literally capsize this appropriations bill. Give it a chance. After a day or so here, if the leadership finds factually that the Senate is taking steps, and is within their right to try and put second degrees on, and that is an impediment to finishing the bill by Friday, I am sure we can sit down with the two leaders and work out a solution.

I simply say, give us not just a chance but give the Senate as a body a chance to show responsibility to enact the annual authorization bill.

Amendment No. 1977

Mr. President, I endorse strongly the McCain amendment. I have been a cosponsor from the beginning. I have looked into this situation. At one time when I was privileged to be Secretary of the Navy when the war in Vietnam came to an end, I dealt extensively with the prisoner issue and their families in that tragic era of our history. I have had some insight into this situation which enables me to give the strongest possible endorsement to this amendment by the Senator from Arizona, a very respected member of this Senate and a man with an extraordinary record in the armed services of the United States.

The McCain amendment provides us with the opportunity to better ensure our Nation's military does not repeat the errors, faults and misdeeds we have seen occur at military detention facilities overseas as we fight this war on global terrorism.

As General Abizaid told us last week this will be a long war against terrorists and our Armed Forces must have clear and understandable standards.

The McCain amendment has two parts of equal vital importance, both critical. The first establishes clear rules for the conduct of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines involved in interrogation operations. It does not add new approaches or techniques, it merely takes Army doctrine which is our clearest guidance on conduct of interrogations and makes it our military standard as set forth in the Army Manual.

Clearly the Constitution gives Congress a role to play in the creation of rules pertaining to the treatment of detainees. Article 1, section 8 provides that the Congress shall have power to make rules concerning captures on land and water, and also to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. Rules for treatment and interrogation of detainees clearly falls within this authority given to Congress by the Constitution.

The second part of the McCain amendment speaks to American values. It tells our soldiers, sailors, airman, and marines, our allies, and the rest of the world that the cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment are not part of the American character.

Our standards against cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment are deeply rooted in our Bill of Rights. Ultimately it is our uniquely American character that must be embedded in our American way or war.

If I could make certain I still remain a cosponsor of the McCain amendment that is now the pending amendment.

Mr. President, I say to my two very dear and old friends, I tender any apologies, but I have acted strictly in accordance with the rules, exercising the right that any Senator has. I feel it is imperative because we are a nation at war. We have diligently tried to get up our bill, and this is an option I felt under the rules was open to me, and I have followed it.

There was a time, as Senator Stevens did correctly state--and he was correct in his statements--that we had hoped there would be an agreement between the two sides on what few remaining amendments to our bill, over and above the 100-plus that are in the amendment up here, could be acted upon expeditiously. I still feel there are but a few amendments out there and that we can--Senator Levin and I--resolve them.

I know parts B and C are essential to be enacted into law before this session concludes. I would assume at some point in time the leadership will enable us to bring up sections B and C, at which time such other amendments as colleagues may have can be brought forth and resolved at that point in time.

But I think it is imperative to act now on the core section of the armed services bill. I would hope our colleagues would see that we are giving the whole Senate a chance--not just the managers of the bill but the whole Senate a chance--to show the men and women of the Armed Forces, the people of this Nation, that we can, in these times of emergency, act in a bipartisan way to reconcile a problem such as this, and that if our amendment remains, after the vote at 7:30, and is brought up, that there will not be forthcoming a deluge of amendments which, in effect, would impair the ability of these two managers to get this essential piece of legislation acted upon prior to the commencement of the recess, and that there will be a future time with parts B and C, when they will be able to bring forth such additional amendments as they believe are necessary to be enacted in the 2006 armed services bill; that is, sections B and C would be the tree on which those amendments could be affixed.

So I say to my good friend, I have acted as I feel duty calls. You have stated very clearly the facts. And now I entrust the Senate to make the decision that is right for the country.

I yield the floor.

Parliamentary inquiry: Did not the Senator from Virginia on Monday file an amendment in the nature of a managers' amendment with 60 amendments and they have been at the desk since that period of time?

A matter of public record. Then yesterday I filed a second amendment with about 18 in the nature of a managers' amendment, and they were in the public record.

I say to my good friends, the amendment I filed today, the third one, is nothing more than taking from each package only those amendments which have been at the desk, filed, and consolidating them in a third package.

I say to my friend, I am in no way trying to be devious at all. Those amendments have been a matter of public record Monday, Tuesday, and today's amendment simply is a consolidation of all of those that have been at the desk in that period of time.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I want to commend my long-time friend, Senator McCain, for the initiative he has taken. It has been a privilege for me and many others to join him in this effort. I think what he stated here should be taken into consideration by every Senator tonight as they cast his or her vote.

Mr. President, I shall divide my time equally with my colleague Senator Levin, ranking member of the committee.

Mr. President, the question of germaneness has already been, in a sense, ruled on by the Parliamentarians who said in their judgment it is germane. The question is simply do we or do we not at this time, when our Nation is at war, bring up on the appropriations bill section A of the authorization bill?

I simply say to my colleagues, I trust you--I trust you to look at this extraordinary circumstance in which we are a nation at war, needing this bill to send a message. And I trust you that the amendment process will not be abused and that we can in a reasonable period of time accommodate those amendments that might be offered as second- degree amendments, and that your bill can go forward with the vitally needed appropriations funds.

I yield the floor.

Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, yesterday, in anticipation of the unanimous consent agreement, the Senator from Virginia, joined by the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, the managers and chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, filed an amendment, which amendment is the entire authorization bill prepared by the Committee on Armed Services and reported out favorably earlier this year. It was the subject of floor debate for some time. Some 30 amendments were added.

I also filed a second amendment, which represented 80 amendments which had been reconciled by the Senator from Michigan and myself and placed into the amendment to constitute a managers' amendment.

In other words, we agree as managers that they should be accepted subject to a unanimous consent agreement, which is the conventional way of handling a managers' amendment.

I now have with me today a third amendment, which represents another

16 amendments that the Senator from Michigan and I have agreed upon should be eventually added to our bill.

My first inquiry to the Chair is: Is it appropriate, at this time, given the unanimous consent that was agreed to this morning, to send to the desk and ask be filed a third amendment representing another managers' amendment for 16 reconciled amendments?

Then I do so at this time, and I ask it be assigned a number.

Mr. President, I have had the opportunity to consult with the distinguished manager and the ranking member. I have advised him of steps that I would like to take at this time.

I now ask that amendment No. 1955, which is the authorization bill, be called up for the purpose of sending to the desk a modification to that amendment.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I now send to the desk a modification to that amendment and ask that it be so modified.

Mr. President, my understanding is that amendment 1955, as modified, is available to be brought up for consideration.

I now ask that the amendment be considered.

I ask for its consideration.

Mr. President, that is correct.

Mr. President, I am having some difficulty--because of the conversations taking place elsewhere in the Chamber--following the distinguished manager's remarks.

Mr. President, at this time, I insert the defense of germaneness, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I do not intend to object, but I wish to advise the Members of the Senate the Record will reflect tomorrow the colloquy and actions taken by the distinguished managers and myself which gave rise to this amendment.

The Parliamentarian ruled with regard to my amendment as follows: We, the Parliamentarians, have advised that there is sufficient----

Mr. President, the Senator is right. I said the Parliamentarians have advised--that is as I have read it, in the Parliamentarian's handwriting--there is sufficient language in the House bill to permit Senator Warner to assert the defense of germaneness with respect to his amendment numbered 1955.

I did just that. I have acted consistently, having been working with the Parliamentarian through much of the day as to how to develop this procedure. I followed the rules as I understood them and advised the Parliamentarian.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished leader. I thank him for working with me continuously on this matter in every way to try to get our bill up because the distinguished majority leader, as well as the Democratic leader and Senator Levin and others, thinks it is imperative, with this Nation at war, this bill be addressed in a timely manner by the Senate and hopefully passed. It contains so many provisions which are essential to the men and women of the Armed Forces.

I have continuously fought that battle and will continue to do so. I participated in the drafting of this UC in a manner that enables the Senate to continue its work tomorrow, although I could have objected throughout. I would not object to allowing the Senate to continue its business and the Appropriations Committee to work the bill as sent.

I also believe, as you have advised me, you will continue to work, as will the Democratic leader, to seek a UC by which the Defense authorization bill can be brought up as a freestanding measure, at a time agreed upon by the two leaders, with a certain description of provisions that enable us to bring it up and how that further work on the bill will be conducted and in what

timeframe. That is important to the two leaders. Hopefully, we can achieve that tomorrow. If we do, then I would take the appropriate parliamentary steps to remove from the appropriations bill these matters.

So I thank the two leaders and reiterate the essential nature of bringing this bill forward. I feel very strongly about it. And I thank my colleague from Alaska with whom I worked today. I am not suggesting--anyway, we worked it out, followed the rules, and that is it. I thank the leadership.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: It is my understanding we are on the bill for appropriations for our defense purposes under the management of the distinguished Presiding Officer. Am I correct?

Mr. President, this is a matter that I have discussed with the managers of the bill as well as, on several occasions, our distinguished Republican and Democratic leaders. On behalf of Senator Levin and myself, I file today the 2006 authorization bill which has been prepared by the Committee on Armed Services. It was taken up by the Senate some weeks ago but, due to schedule pressures, we did not have the opportunity to finish that bill.

I emphasize that Senator Levin and I jointly are taking this action today. We do so having also worked very conscientiously with our two leaders to prepare a unanimous consent request, which is still in the works, by which our bill can once again be brought up as a freestanding measure and the Senate act upon it. I will not dwell at this time on the various options we are discussing as to how that UC is drawn up. Senator Levin and I believe that it is imperative, on behalf of the men and women of the Armed Forces, that this bill be considered in a timely fashion. As we continue our work on the UC, I have to seize upon this opportunity, together with Senator Levin, to file our bill as a proposed amendment to the appropriations bill, together with a managers' package, a proposed managers' amendment, of some 80 amendments that Senator Levin, since the time of the original consideration of our bill, and I have looked at, agreed, and would be seeking unanimous consent for the incorporation of those amendments in our bill.

The armed services bill was acted on with some 31 amendments at the time it was on the floor. So we have the original bill with 31 amendments which were agreed to in the course of several days of deliberation. Again, the Defense authorization act is too important to our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, and the national security of our country for the Senate not to complete action on it. If we cannot achieve unanimous consent prior to the final passage of this bill, it is the intent of Senator Levin and myself to urge upon the Senate the incorporation of the Defense authorization bill, together with at least a first managers' package of 80 amendments. For the convenience of Senators, I ask unanimous consent that a list of those 80 amendments and a brief description and the Senators, some 68 in number, who are affected by this managers' package, be printed in the Record.

By way of historical context, I would like to point out the following: There is an unbroken record for the last 45 years of Senate history that the Senate has passed an annual Defense authorization bill. The Senate and House have come to a conference agreement on and the President has signed that conference into law as the National Defense Authorization Act. Only once before has the chairman of the Armed Services Committee had to resort to the rare parliamentary procedure of proposing that that bill, the entire Defense authorization bill, be placed upon another legislative matter. That was in the year 1988.

Time is short. We must be reasonable in the amount of time we have been debating both the authorization bill and the appropriations bill. I ask for my colleagues' consideration and restraint in offering amendments to the appropriations bill, as well as to the authorization bill, hopefully, to achieve the unanimous consent agreement, which I hope will be offered in the next few days, to enable the authorization bill to become a freestanding bill with a designated number of amendments, with designated time agreements, and a clear estimate for both the Republican and Democratic leaders as to the number of days that would be required for completion. That will all be set forth, hopefully, in the next few days in a UC request.

We must be aware of the importance of the measure, the authorization bill. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, guardsmen, Active Reserve and National Guard, and countless civilians who support military, diplomatic, and humanitarian operations are serving valiantly in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations to secure our national security. This bill would provide them a broad range, literally a million-plus individuals in uniform and civilians, with better equipment to do their daily jobs and enhanced quality of life for themselves and their families through pay raises and benefits and the like.

For example, without this bill being acted upon by the Senate, we could not increase the death gratuity to $100,000, which the Senate strongly desires, for survivors of military members whose death resulted from wounds, injuries, or illnesses incurred under combat- related conditions or in a combat operation or a combat zone. We could not increase TRICARE benefits for the children of survivors. We could not provide the military services with the authorities for bonuses and other incentives needed to meet the troublesome recruiting situation today. We could not implement new assistance to school districts with significant enrollment increases in military-dependent students to stop troop relocations, creation of new units, and realignments under the BRAC Commission and, above all, the annual pay raises which the Congress provides for the men and women.

In addition to the above, the threat reduction program, which is designed to keep nuclear materials and expertise away from terrorists, would expire. Weapons systems costs would increase

because multiyear procurement authorities would not be enacted. Special acquisition authorities designed to facilitate the rapid procurement of technologies to prevent casualties from terrorist roadside bombs, or IEDs, would fail to go into effect. Military construction and family housing programs would be jeopardized, including over $1.5 billion to fund projects in support of communities that will be affected by the 2005 BRAC round, if that is eventually becoming law. These are a few of the essential authorities contained in the legislative provisions of this year's bill, something that I am proud to say the Senate Armed Services Committee has worked on since January of this year and resulted in 278 legislative provisions as contained in this bill.

I respectfully ask my colleagues to support my efforts and that of Senator Levin in bringing the Defense authorization bill to the floor.

As I said, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator Levin to announce that we have taken what I consider extraordinary action by filing two amendments to the pending bill. It is with great reluctance that I propose these amendments to the Defense Appropriations Act. But I do so only with the interests of the men and women of our armed forces at heart.

The first amendment consists of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006--including not only the version of the bill unanimously reported out of the Armed Services Committee on May 17, but also 31 amendments added to the bill when it was on the floor in July.

Senator Levin and I, with our respective leaders, are trying to work out a unanimous consent agreement that would return the Defense authorization bill to the floor as a stand-alone bill. However, in the absence of that agreement, we have to leave open the option of including this bill on another legislative vehicle. The Defense authorization act is just too important to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines and the national security of our country for the Senate not to complete action on the bill. If we cannot do this as a stand-alone bill, we need to find another way to bring this bill into law.

The second amendment we are offering today contains additional amendments that are agreed and ready to be included in a ``managers' package'' to the Defense authorization act. I offer this amendment to illustrate to my colleagues the significant progress that has been made on this bill so far. This new managers' package contains 80 amendments on behalf of 67 Senators. Together with the action already taken on this bill in July, our colleagues can clearly see that nearly every U.S. Senator has made an important contribution to the Defense authorization act.

I am committed to making this ``managers' package'' the first amendment to be considered to the Defense authorization bill once it is taken up as a separate bill. We are not finished reviewing proposed amendments. The committee is still working through a number of amendments that I expect would be included in a second managers' package.

Since January 1961, the Senate has passed an annual Defense authorization bill. Each and every year, for 45 years, the Senate and the House have come to a conference agreement on and the President has signed into law a National Defense Authorization Act. Only once before has the chairman of the Armed Services Committee had to resort to the rare parliamentary procedure of proposing to put the entire defense authorization bill on another bill. This occurred in 1988. As the custodian of this important piece of legislation, I find I am left with very few options this year to ensure Congress can adequately support our troops by passing this bill.

I, with my friend Carl Levin, am willing to do whatever it takes to pass this bill. Time is short and we must be reasonable in the amount of time we spend debating this bill. I ask for my colleagues' consideration and restraint in offering additional amendments to this bill and to support a unanimous consent agreement to limit the number of contentious amendments that may require time to debate on the floor. At the same time, Senator Levin and I pledge to work with Senators to accept as many amendments as possible in a managers' package.

Our responsibility to consider and pass the Defense authorization bill goes beyond statutory requirements, floor schedules, and historical precedent. We must also be aware of the importance of this measure to our men and women in uniform around the world. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen-- active, reserve, and National Guard--and, countless civilians who support military, diplomatic and humanitarian operations are serving valiantly in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations to secure hard-won military successes and to preserve peace and freedom. This bill will provide them with better equipment to do their daily jobs, and an enhanced quality of life for themselves and their families. Together we can and must complete this bill for them.

Without this bill, DoD could not, for example, increase the death gratuity to $100,000 for survivors of military members whose death resulted from wounds, injuries, or illnesses incurred under combat- related conditions or in a combat operation or a combat zone; increase TRICARE benefits for the children of survivors; provide the military services the authorities and pays needed to enhance recruitment and retention in the active and reserve forces; and implement new assistance to school districts with significant enrollment increases in military dependent students due to troop relocations, creation of new units and realignments under BRAC.

In addition, authorities related to the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program which is designed to keep nuclear materials and expertise away from terrorists would expire. Weapon systems costs would increase because multiyear procurement authorities would not be enacted. Special acquisition authorities designed to facilitate the rapid procurement of technologies to prevent casualties from terrorist roadside bombs or IEDs would not go into effect. Military construction and family housing programs would be jeopardized, including over $1.5 billion to fund projects in support of the 2005 BRAC round.

These are just a few of the essential authorities contained in the 278 legislative provisions in this year's bill.

So I ask my colleagues to support Senator Levin's and my efforts to bring the Defense authorization bill to the floor. We are all mindful of the risks members of the U.S. Armed Forces face every day and of the sacrifices made by the families and communities that support them. Our men and women in uniform have been asked to do much in the past year, and they have responded in the finest traditions of the generations of Americans that preceded them. The American people are proud of their Armed Forces for what they have accomplished, and for the manner in which they represent American values and the generosity of America. It is time for us in the Senate to do our part.

With the understanding that the two bills are filed, I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn.) The amendments will be filed for the Record.

Mr. President, there are no two individuals in the Senate today that have a finer reputation for Senatorial courtesy and for the need for our national defense legislation than the two managers of the appropriations bill, the Senators from Alaska and Hawaii, both of whom have had such distinguished careers in the uniform of the country in which we all take such pride.

Both of these individuals have conferred with my colleague, Senator Levin, and with me about the measures I have taken today. Senator Stevens very carefully pointed out to me exactly what he has said--his grave concern, understandable concern, and proper concern about the imperative need of the passage of the appropriations bill. In no way is it the intention of this Senator or Senator Levin to try to unduly delay that bill.

We will see whether a time agreement is achievable, either for consideration of our bill for a brief period of time, on the appropriations bill, or by virtue of a UC as a freestanding bill. I urge we try and do it on this bill.

The Senator pointed out the exigencies of conferences. In my research, there are several options on how to conduct a conference on these two bills. I am sure we can work out a method to do so. For example, it may be possible to split off the authorization bill prior to final passage of the appropriations bill in order to facilitate two separate conference reports. If that is not possible, the chairman of the subcommittee on appropriations could decide to hold what would be basically two conferences--one of the authorizers, one of the appropriators. But nevertheless, the appropriators would have overall control and only one conference report would be voted on by the Senate. I think either of these options could be achieved here. Certainly, I know Senator Levin and I would work to these ends. But I also bring to the attention of the managers, we all know full well there are several amendments--I shall not try to characterize them other than to say there are several amendments that are to be brought against the authorization bill which, I am inclined to believe, will be brought against the appropriations bill should we not move ahead with the authorization bill so those amendments can be authorized on this bill.

There is a strong conviction among a number of my colleagues--I don't agree, but I respect them--to have a commission to study how this country deals with its detainees and other commissions that are in the minds of others.

I don't think, unless there is clarity as to what is going to happen to the authorization bill, that you can rule out the possibility that one or more of these amendments might be directed in the next few days against this bill, with the best of intentions, and those would be time-consuming matters, I assume.

Yes, of course.

I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I join the distinguished majority leader and others who have spoken on behalf of the President's nomination of a very distinguished member of the bar of the State of Texas and, indeed, the profession of law all across America, where she has, through many years of long and arduous adherence to the profession of law, distinguished herself in so many ways.

I had the privilege over the years of working with Harriet Miers. I have the highest respect as a fellow lawyer for her professional abilities and her standards of ethics and conduct. I think she is a superb nomination. I commend the President of the United States. If I may say, in this season of our sports, he has hit another home run.

Mr. President, well done.

Mr. President, I rise to make a floor statement on behalf of a member of our Senate family.

I, like so many other Senators, come into a particular entrance here in the Senate as I drive in in the morning.

I rise today to pay tribute to Officer Lonnie Tabron. Officer Tabron retired from the Capitol Police on Saturday, October 1, 2005, having completed 22 years of distinguished service since his first day on the force, May 4, 1983.

Lonnie Tabron was born in Washington, DC, in July 1949, and he received his education in the District's public school system, where he always strived for excellence. After graduating from high school, Lonnie served the United States of America in the Armed Forces in Vietnam. He ably answered the call to duty and throughout his term in the Army, rising to the rank of sergeant, he represented our Nation with valor and integrity.

During his distinguished career as a Capitol police officer, Lonnie worked 21 years on the Senate side of the Capitol. With his assignment to the ``barricade,'' as it is referred to, on the Delaware and C Street entrance, Lonnie became friends with my colleagues and staff alike.

In the many years I entered that entrance, this fine man--whether it was bitter cold or intensely hot, raining or sleeting--always approached my vehicle, as all others, with a big smile on his face. In those days, when I guess my spirits were low, as I came, he lifted those spirits. He always had a warm smile and an enthusiastic ``Good morning, Senator.'' It has been my pleasure to receive those greetings, as I say, these many years. I shall dearly miss him.

Lonnie Tabron's philosophy in life consists of three main principles, and he sought to apply these important lessons to his career with the Capitol Police. Every day, Lonnie has remembered to treat others as he would like to be treated, to speak to others as he would like them to speak to him, and to respect others with the same measure of honor that he would expect from them. I believe these three traits are exceptionally appropriate, and Lonnie certainly embodied his beliefs in his service on Capitol Hill.

In his 22 years on the Capitol Police Force, Lonnie has demonstrated a willingness to help anyone who was in need. I appreciate very much his dedication to his job and his remarkable professionalism. As he enters his well-deserved retirement, Lonnie will be dearly missed by those who have had the opportunity to make his acquaintance. It is my honor and privilege to commend his outstanding service today and to wish him well in the years ahead.

I thank my senior staff member, Awilda Euill, who is with me on the floor today, a longtime admirer of Lonnie's. She assisted me in the preparation of this statement.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Outer Continental Shelf Revenue Sharing Act of 2005.

Earlier this year, the Congress passed a bill, and the President signed it into law. It is the first comprehensive energy package in over a decade.

Great strides were made in addressing the Nation's energy needs. This new law contains a number of valuable conservation measures and, as the chairman of the Energy Committee once stated, passage of this legislation means we will need 170 fewer powerplants by 2020. On the energy supply side, however, we still have much work to do. The recent disruptions in the Nation's energy supply caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita--tragedies, natural disasters of proportions never really seen before in this county--underscore the fragility of our energy supply system. The estimates are that 20 to 25 percent of our energy needs come in through that narrow nexus of Louisiana and Mississippi, right in that area.

During debate on the bill, I offered an amendment to provide for an increased domestic supply of oil and natural gas from Outer Continental Shelf lands. Regrettably, my amendment and other similar measures were not successful.

I thank the distinguished manager of that bill, Mr. Domenici, and others. They gave me a great deal of encouragement, as did the Senators from Louisiana, who likewise participated in that debate. But, nevertheless, I was not successful. I did say--and I suppose in a prophetic way--and I remember beckoning to fellow Senators on the floor, ``The day will come when I will once again stand on this floor and offer this same legislation, not knowing, of course, of the tragedies of Katrina. But that did give this Nation a serious wake-up call as to the fragility of our energy system.

Again, the tragic events of the past month along the gulf coast have thrust the issue of energy supplies back into the spotlight. We need only look at the rising gas prices all over our pumps in this Nation's land, where people--men and women--on small budgets are struggling to find the resources to meet their daily requirements of the use of the automobile and to inject these increased gasoline prices into their budgets. Prices at the pump have climbed quickly, and with the winter heating season approaching, we can expect natural gas and home heating oil prices to increase, perhaps going as high as 50 percent more than last year's level.

We need to address our inadequate refining capacity and expand conservation incentives. With more than 30 percent of our domestic supply of oil coming in from the Gulf of Mexico and a significant portion of our refining capacity located in the Gulf States, we must also look at ways to increase and diversify the location and sources of our domestic supplies of energy, as well as the refining capabilities; and natural gas, likewise.

Before passage of the energy bill, production revenues totaling more than $7.5 billion annually from offshore oil and gas belonged to the Federal Government. This is an inconsistent policy, however, because 55 percent of the revenues from land-based oil and gas production has always been returned to the States. The one exception to this rule is Alaska, which receives back 90 percent of such revenues. Thanks to the diligence of my colleagues from Louisiana, this inequity was partially addressed in the energy bill by providing that current offshore energy- producing States will now share in the Federal Government's royalties.

Indeed, it is a matter of fairness that these revenues be shared with the energy producing States. After all, it is the states closest to oil and gas production facilities that are assuming the risks that those production facilities will not have harmful environmental or economical impacts. Tourism is often the lifeblood of these regions which could be adversely affected by any environmental accidents. So it is very appropriate that they should receive a share of the revenues derived from offshore oil and gas production.

While the issue of revenue sharing was addressed in the energy bill for States currently producing oil and gas off their coasts, it does not include a comprehensive policy for offshore production opportunities.

Specifically, the bill does not allow other States to share revenues when and if they ever become producing regions. As we all know, the production of oil and natural gas has been subject to a moratorium along most of the Nation's coastline. While this moratorium has been in effect for some time, many Americans believe that it is now time to reevaluate its need. This past year in Virginia, both houses of the state legislature passed legislation asking for production to occur off the Virginia coast if the State is allowed to receive a share of the revenue. I think the rising costs of oil and gas are now leading other States to consider the same possibility.

The bill I am introducing today would provide a portion of revenues to States under the current moratorium that may decide to undertake future offshore exploration and production activities. My legislation is based, in large part, on the hard work of my colleagues who achieved a revenue-sharing proposal for their States and local governments in the recently enacted energy bill. The new law provides State and local governments with a share of the royalties from offshore energy production, but it is limited only to the five States that are currently exempt from the moratorium on offshore oil and gas leases.

As provided by current law, my bill requires the Federal Government to transfer 50 percent of the revenues received from any offshore leases to the States based upon the production levels. This would put oil and gas production in coastal areas on par with the production on other Federal lands throughout the United States. It is a matter of equity for all producing regions and represents a fair revenue-sharing model for the Federal and State governments.

My proposal does not affect the current moratorium on offshore energy production. As the moratorium expires, however, my legislation enables States that wish to pursue oil and gas production to be eligible for a portion of the royalty payments that otherwise would go exclusively to the Federal Government.

The amendment does not supersede a State's ability to veto any production proposals under their authority of the Coastal Zone Management Act, CZMA. It does not change the manner in which the Federal Government grants these production leases, and it does not lift the moratorium for any OCS land that is currently in place.

While I believe very strongly that the States should have a role in determining whether or not to utilize these resources, I also believe that they should receive a fair share of the revenues from any production that may follow.

I understand the concerns of some of my colleagues and their desire to avoid drawing specific boundary lines. While this amendment does not address all of the concerns, it offers a fair starting point to discuss this issue. It is my hope that we can all work together in addressing these concerns that will result in a commonsense approach to expand our domestic supply of oil and gas, to diversify the geographic concentration of our current industry, and to allow the States to have a role in the process.

Mr. President, the time has come for the Senate to speak boldly. We can all agree that more supply is needed and that there is a vast resource yet to be tapped. My proposal offers a fair way to encourage production in States that wish to do so. In the long term our Nation will benefit by reducing its dependence on foreign sources of energy and by diversifying the geographic source of our domestic supply.

I believe this proposal will solve a necessary part of the energy puzzle. I believe it is essential for our energy security, our economic security, and our national security to evaluate this, and other proposals, that address our energy supply needs.

Mr. President, as I say, today I introduce, again, this bill, which I put in a few months ago. It provides for the offshore drilling of oil. I recognize the sensitivity of that, but I say to my colleagues, we can not continually ignore these warnings, whether they are brought about by Mother Nature or political problems or wars or conflicts across our shores. Now is the time to lay down that framework of legislation for those States which, by actions taken by the Governor and the State legislature, say: We will permit offshore drilling off of this State's boundaries. Hopefully, we can receive for those States, should that take place, an additional source of revenue.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, and I will seek to have it considered by the Senate as a whole at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Outer Continental Shelf Revenue Sharing Act of 2005.

Earlier this year, the Congress passed a bill, and the President signed it into law. It is the first comprehensive energy package in over a decade.

Great strides were made in addressing the Nation's energy needs. This new law contains a number of valuable conservation measures and, as the chairman of the Energy Committee once stated, passage of this legislation means we will need 170 fewer powerplants by 2020. On the energy supply side, however, we still have much work to do. The recent disruptions in the Nation's energy supply caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita--tragedies, natural disasters of proportions never really seen before in this county--underscore the fragility of our energy supply system. The estimates are that 20 to 25 percent of our energy needs come in through that narrow nexus of Louisiana and Mississippi, right in that area.

During debate on the bill, I offered an amendment to provide for an increased domestic supply of oil and natural gas from Outer Continental Shelf lands. Regrettably, my amendment and other similar measures were not successful.

I thank the distinguished manager of that bill, Mr. Domenici, and others. They gave me a great deal of encouragement, as did the Senators from Louisiana, who likewise participated in that debate. But, nevertheless, I was not successful. I did say--and I suppose in a prophetic way--and I remember beckoning to fellow Senators on the floor, ``The day will come when I will once again stand on this floor and offer this same legislation, not knowing, of course, of the tragedies of Katrina. But that did give this Nation a serious wake-up call as to the fragility of our energy system.

Again, the tragic events of the past month along the gulf coast have thrust the issue of energy supplies back into the spotlight. We need only look at the rising gas prices all over our pumps in this Nation's land, where people--men and women--on small budgets are struggling to find the resources to meet their daily requirements of the use of the automobile and to inject these increased gasoline prices into their budgets. Prices at the pump have climbed quickly, and with the winter heating season approaching, we can expect natural gas and home heating oil prices to increase, perhaps going as high as 50 percent more than last year's level.

We need to address our inadequate refining capacity and expand conservation incentives. With more than 30 percent of our domestic supply of oil coming in from the Gulf of Mexico and a significant portion of our refining capacity located in the Gulf States, we must also look at ways to increase and diversify the location and sources of our domestic supplies of energy, as well as the refining capabilities; and natural gas, likewise.

Before passage of the energy bill, production revenues totaling more than $7.5 billion annually from offshore oil and gas belonged to the Federal Government. This is an inconsistent policy, however, because 55 percent of the revenues from land-based oil and gas production has always been returned to the States. The one exception to this rule is Alaska, which receives back 90 percent of such revenues. Thanks to the diligence of my colleagues from Louisiana, this inequity was partially addressed in the energy bill by providing that current offshore energy- producing States will now share in the Federal Government's royalties.

Indeed, it is a matter of fairness that these revenues be shared with the energy producing States. After all, it is the states closest to oil and gas production facilities that are assuming the risks that those production facilities will not have harmful environmental or economical impacts. Tourism is often the lifeblood of these regions which could be adversely affected by any environmental accidents. So it is very appropriate that they should receive a share of the revenues derived from offshore oil and gas production.

While the issue of revenue sharing was addressed in the energy bill for States currently producing oil and gas off their coasts, it does not include a comprehensive policy for offshore production opportunities.

Specifically, the bill does not allow other States to share revenues when and if they ever become producing regions. As we all know, the production of oil and natural gas has been subject to a moratorium along most of the Nation's coastline. While this moratorium has been in effect for some time, many Americans believe that it is now time to reevaluate its need. This past year in Virginia, both houses of the state legislature passed legislation asking for production to occur off the Virginia coast if the State is allowed to receive a share of the revenue. I think the rising costs of oil and gas are now leading other States to consider the same possibility.

The bill I am introducing today would provide a portion of revenues to States under the current moratorium that may decide to undertake future offshore exploration and production activities. My legislation is based, in large part, on the hard work of my colleagues who achieved a revenue-sharing proposal for their States and local governments in the recently enacted energy bill. The new law provides State and local governments with a share of the royalties from offshore energy production, but it is limited only to the five States that are currently exempt from the moratorium on offshore oil and gas leases.

As provided by current law, my bill requires the Federal Government to transfer 50 percent of the revenues received from any offshore leases to the States based upon the production levels. This would put oil and gas production in coastal areas on par with the production on other Federal lands throughout the United States. It is a matter of equity for all producing regions and represents a fair revenue-sharing model for the Federal and State governments.

My proposal does not affect the current moratorium on offshore energy production. As the moratorium expires, however, my legislation enables States that wish to pursue oil and gas production to be eligible for a portion of the royalty payments that otherwise would go exclusively to the Federal Government.

The amendment does not supersede a State's ability to veto any production proposals under their authority of the Coastal Zone Management Act, CZMA. It does not change the manner in which the Federal Government grants these production leases, and it does not lift the moratorium for any OCS land that is currently in place.

While I believe very strongly that the States should have a role in determining whether or not to utilize these resources, I also believe that they should receive a fair share of the revenues from any production that may follow.

I understand the concerns of some of my colleagues and their desire to avoid drawing specific boundary lines. While this amendment does not address all of the concerns, it offers a fair starting point to discuss this issue. It is my hope that we can all work together in addressing these concerns that will result in a commonsense approach to expand our domestic supply of oil and gas, to diversify the geographic concentration of our current industry, and to allow the States to have a role in the process.

Mr. President, the time has come for the Senate to speak boldly. We can all agree that more supply is needed and that there is a vast resource yet to be tapped. My proposal offers a fair way to encourage production in States that wish to do so. In the long term our Nation will benefit by reducing its dependence on foreign sources of energy and by diversifying the geographic source of our domestic supply.

I believe this proposal will solve a necessary part of the energy puzzle. I believe it is essential for our energy security, our economic security, and our national security to evaluate this, and other proposals, that address our energy supply needs.

Mr. President, as I say, today I introduce, again, this bill, which I put in a few months ago. It provides for the offshore drilling of oil. I recognize the sensitivity of that, but I say to my colleagues, we can not continually ignore these warnings, whether they are brought about by Mother Nature or political problems or wars or conflicts across our shores. Now is the time to lay down that framework of legislation for those States which, by actions taken by the Governor and the State legislature, say: We will permit offshore drilling off of this State's boundaries. Hopefully, we can receive for those States, should that take place, an additional source of revenue.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, and I will seek to have it considered by the Senate as a whole at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Awilda Euill, a staff member in my office, be granted floor privileges for October 3, 2005.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my letter to the majority leader dated September 29, 2005, be printed in the Record.

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

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

Mr. President, it is, indeed, a privilege for me to----

That is correct. I see one of my distinguished colleagues rising to be the floor manager of this period of time, but he very courteously said I could open up, if that is approved by the Chair.

Mr. President, as I said, it is a great honor for me to first and foremost stand on this floor at this great moment in contemporary history. Tomorrow, this Chamber will, I anticipate, with a strong bipartisan vote, exercise its constitutional right of giving consent to the nomination of John Roberts to serve as the next Chief Justice of the United States.

I am privileged to know the nominee by virtue of the fact that we both, at different times in our careers, served in a very prestigious and revered law firm in our Nation's Capital, the law firm of Hogan & Hartson. When I joined the firm approximately forty-five years ago, Nelson T. Hartson was very active in Hogan & Hartson. I had the good fortune of being one of his aides-de-camp. Mr. Hartson's philosophy and his standard of ethics permeated that law firm then, as they still do today.

As a consequence of our mutual affiliation with Hogan & Hartson, I was privileged to be asked by Judge Roberts to introduce him when he was nominated by the President to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In the 2 years he served on that court, he established an extraordinarily fine record.

I was privileged to once again introduce Judge Roberts to the Judiciary Committee some two weeks ago at the start of his confirmation hearing to serve in this highest of positions in our land.

I would simply say this: As I have come to know this magnificent individual, he is, in my judgment, an unpretentious legal intellectual. I say that because he is a man of simplicity in habits. He has a lovely family. He has a marvelous reputation among colleagues in the legal profession who are both Democrats and Republicans and conservatives and liberals. He is admired by all. In that capacity, as an unpretentious legal intellectual, he is, in my judgment, a rare if not an endangered species here in America for his personal habits and extraordinary intellect and for the manner he conducts himself every day of his life.

In fact, in the 27 years I have been privileged to serve in the Senate, slightly more than 2,000 judicial nominations have been submitted by a series of Presidents to the Senate for ``advice and consent.'' John Roberts stands at the top, among the finest.

I commend our President on making such an outstanding nomination--a nomination which will receive strong bipartisan support in the Senate.

Just 4 months ago, with the judicial confirmation process stalled in the Senate, and with the Senate on the brink of considering the so- called nuclear or constitutional option, there was an aura of doubt, at the time, that any Supreme Court nominee would receive a vote reflecting bipartisan support.

But on May 23, 2005, 14 U.S. Senators, of which I was one, committed themselves, in writing, to support our Senate leadership in facilitating the Senate's constitutional responsibility of providing ``advice and consent'' in accordance with article II, section 2.

In crafting our Memorandum of Understanding, the Gang of 14 started and ended every discussion with the Constitution. We discussed how, without question, our Framers put the word ``advice'' in our Constitution for a reason: to ensure consultation between a President and the Senate prior to the forwarding of a nominee to the Senate for consideration.

Accordingly, in the Gang of 14's Memorandum of Understanding, Senator Byrd and I incorporated language that spoke directly to the Founding Fathers' explicit use of the word ``advice.'' That bipartisan accord reads as follows:

We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United

States Constitution, the word ``Advice'' speaks to

consultation between the Senate and the President with regard

to the use of the President's power to make nominations. We

encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with

members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior

to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for

consideration.

Such a return to the early practices of our government may

well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately

accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.

With respect to the nomination before us today, I believe that the President has met his constitutional obligations in an exemplary way.

In my view, that consultation between the President and individual Senators laid a foundation for the confirmation of John Roberts with bipartisan support.

The Gang of 14's Memorandum of Understanding provided a framework that has helped the Senate's judicial confirmation process. It has enabled the Senate to have six up-or-down votes on judicial nominations and now the Senate is about to confirm Judge John Roberts.

While I thoroughly understand that President Bush didn't choose a nominee that some in the Senate might have chosen if they were President, that is not what the Constitution requires. Indeed, in Federalist Paper No. 66, Alexander Hamilton makes it clear that it is not the Senate's job to select a nominee. It is the Senate's responsibility to provide advice to a President on who to nominate and then to grant or withhold consent on that nomination. On the other hand, it is the President's responsibility, and solely the President's responsibility, to nominate individuals to serve on our courts. As Hamilton so clearly wrote:

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

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

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

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

oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves

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

President.

In my view, the Senate was given a meaningful opportunity to provide its advice to the President, and the President respected the Senate's views when he nominated John Roberts. Soon, the Senate will provide its consent to that nomination.

John Roberts' credentials are well-known and of the highest quality.

He earned a B.A., summa cum laude, from Harvard College and his law degree, magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School. At Harvard Law School, he served as managing editor of the Harvard Law Review. Subsequent to graduation, Mr. Roberts worked as a Federal law clerk for Judge Friendly on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the second Circuit, and later as a law clerk for Justice William Rehnquist on the Supreme Court. He has worked in the Department of Justice, the Reagan administration, the George H.W. Bush administration, and he practiced law for many years in private practice.

But while John Roberts' legal credentials are unquestionably impressive, equally important is the type of person that he is. Throughout his legal career, both in public service, private practice, and through his pro bono work, John Roberts has worked with and against hundreds of attorneys. Those attorneys who know him well typically speak with one voice when they tell you that dignity, humility, and a sense of fairness are hallmarks of John Roberts.

In my view, all of these traits came across to those of us who watched the hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. John Roberts unquestionably demonstrated a mastery of the law and a commitment to decide cases based upon the Constitution and the law of the land, with appropriate respect and deference to prior Supreme Court precedents. He views his role as one of impartial umpire, rather than as one of ideologue with an agenda. He testified to all of this under oath.

To me, all of these qualities--John Roberts' legal credentials and his temperament--represent the embodiment of a Federal judge, particularly a Chief Justice of the United States. And, I am confident that the vast majority of the millions and millions of Americans who watched his confirmation hearings agree.

Indeed, the American Bar Association has given John Roberts its highest rating, unanimously finding him ``well qualified'' for this position. And just slightly more than 2 years ago, the Senate unanimously confirmed him for a Federal appeals court judgeship by voice vote.

Before I conclude my statement in support of this outstanding nominee, I would like to highlight a few key facts of Senate history and tradition with respect to Supreme Court nominees. I find these facts particularly illustrative.

Over the last 50 years, America has seen a total of 27 Supreme Court nominees. Six of those nominees received the unanimous consent of the Senate by voice vote. Another 15 of those nominees, including seven current members of the U.S. Supreme Court, received the consent of the Senate by more than 60 votes. In fact, only three nominees to the Supreme Court over the course of the last 50 years have failed to receive the consent of the Senate.

Chief Justice Rehnquist was confirmed to the Court as an Associate Justice in 1971 with 68 votes in support, and later confirmed as Chief Justice with 65 votes. John Paul Stevens received the consent of the Senate 98 to 0. Justice O'Connor, Justice Scalia, and Justice Kennedy were all confirmed by the Senate unanimously. Justice Souter was confirmed via a vote of 90 to 9. Justice Ginsburg was confirmed by a vote of 96 to 3. And Justice Breyer received the Senate's consent by a vote of 87 to 9.

Like all of these highly qualified Americans who came before him seeking Senate confirmation to the Supreme Court, John Roberts has earned, over a lifetime, the strong vote of bipartisan support he is about to receive.

Mr. President, I will yield the floor to my distinguished colleague at this time who will be the manager of this period. I say to my colleague, thank you for participating in the Gang of 14, as we have become known. Perhaps in the course of our remarks today we can talk about the mission, the challenge of that group, and how, in my humble judgment, we did succeed in enabling our leadership to once again put in motion the Senate's role in the confirmation of those nominated by our President for the Federal judiciary.

I think back when there was a great uncertainty about that process, and even some thought of invoking certain rules of the Senate by way of change, and how my distinguished colleague from Nebraska and I stood, with others in that group, and were able to lay a foundation which, I say with a deep sense of humility, may well have contributed to our being here today and casting that historic vote tomorrow.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if I might say, the distinguished Senator from Nebraska was a leader among the Gang of 14. I say to the Senator, I guess you might say you were one of the ``Founding Fathers'' of that group, and modesty prevents you from acknowledging that leadership. We are joined on the floor by two of our colleagues. I purposely scheduled my appearance to coincide with members of the Gang of 14 whom I am privileged to be with today.

But I think, as the Senator pointed out about the advice and consent clause, we, the Gang of 14, want to acknowledge the important contribution of Senator Byrd of West Virginia. He and I sort of partnered together to draw up that short paragraph which recognizes and points out the Founding Fathers put the word ``advice'' in the Constitution for a specific purpose. As the distinguished Senator from Nebraska said, indeed, our President fulfilled that. But I wanted to acknowledge Senator Byrd's very major participation in our group.

Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague from North Dakota. That was truly a beautiful set of remarks. It is not just that you indicated that you will cast your vote in support; it was a very thoughtful reflection on a very important responsibility we as Senators have.

I thank again the Senator from Nebraska, the Senator from Arkansas, the Senator from Colorado. We have been a team together for some time. I am delighted to have had the privilege to be here on the floor with each of them.

In conclusion, I reflect back on, once again, the Federalist Paper No. 66 in which Alexander Hamilton said: It will be the office of the President to nominate and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint. There will, of course, be no exertion of choice on the part of the Senate. They may defeat one choice of the executive and oblige him to make another, but they cannot themselves choose. They can only ratify or reject the choice of the President.

We are on the eve of accepting that choice, giving our consent. Again, in my 27 years in this institution, I cannot recall a more humble and yet enjoyable group I have worked with than these 14 Senators. It had been my hope that our distinguished colleague from West Virginia could join us today. I asked him and he said he would if he possibly could. But were he here, we would all stand again and thank him for his guidance as we worked through this situation.

I thank my colleague from Nebraska and yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

I am going to follow on with some greater detail about, as you say, the extraordinary participation of the men and women of the Armed Forces and, indeed, the Coast Guard, which is separate from my report that will be included with others today.

It is very important that you addressed the Senate this morning. If I may say, I have been privileged to serve with you nearly a quarter of a century in this institution. I commend you for your personal courage. You have faced adversity such as few of us have ever experienced. Throughout this year, there has been personal tragedy--loss of your mother, loss of your house--yet we see the leadership you have provided, indeed, as has our President and this institution and others in the face of this hurricane.

The Armed Services Committee is starting its briefing this morning. Two reports come from the Department of Defense to the Congress everyday, giving a detailed analysis with regard to the deployment of our troops. I left the briefing to come speak to the Senate this morning. We will be changing the force structure to meet the needs. For example, in all probability, the carrier can now move out, if it has fulfilled its mission. Frankly, as distressing as it is, there are tremendous assets connected with mortuary responsibilities which are now being moved in by the Department.

I want to thank our colleague. I know the Presiding Officer, the President pro tempore of the Senate, shares these feelings with every Member of this body. We salute you and your family.

Mr. President, our distinguished colleague has stood the test----

--you and your fellow Senators from the three States most grievously affected. If you wait a minute, I will give you the following figures. Today, more than 72,000 members of the Armed Forces have been deployed to the Gulf Coast, including 22,439 Active-Duty and more than 45,871 members of the National Guard--of which over 400 come from my State, I say to the Senator. I went down Friday in my State to prepare one of the bases to receive the evacuees. But every single State in our Union, including the territories, has contributed their Guard in response to the needs of your community.

I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer. Mr. President, I would first like to say, as I mentioned, we receive a report everyday in the Senate from the Department of Defense regarding specifically the Guard and Active-Duty. Then, in addition, we receive a report from the Corps of Engineers. Our committee is a repository of these reports, but I am happy to share them with any Senators who so desire. They need only contact the Armed Services Committee or me personally, and I will see they are provided with the reports.

I join Senator Lott and others in expressing our profound gratitude and pride to the men and women of the Armed Forces and indeed their families who are left at home for their service, responding with courage and untiring professionalism and compassion to our fellow citizens who fell victim to this tragic disaster.

As you know, our military has a supporting role in the effort. I underline ``supporting role'' because in no way do we mean to displace the valiant efforts of those on the scene, the first responders, such that were able to muster their forces and respond.

I wish to pay tribute to the magnificent response of all. I have stated the numbers a minute ago.

Furthermore, I wish to highlight that the National Guard forces are meeting the challenge, as well as the national commitments--Afghanistan and Iraq. Once again, our Guard is--I don't like to use the word ``stressed,'' but they are challenged. I have spoken with General Blum, who is the Commander of the National Guard. He never once flinched when he said we are doing the job and we are going to succeed. Our hats are off to the National Guard. The Navy deployed 20 ships, including the USS Harry S Truman--it is an aircraft carrier. I remember when that ship was named--the USS Whidbey Island and the USS Iwo Jima and the USNS Comfort, the hospital ship. More than 400 aircraft, including 373 helicopters and 93 airplanes, are in support of search and rescue, medical evacuation, and logistical supply missions.

The heroism of those who pilot those helicopters and the crews who go down and rescue the individuals--those chapters in our history will be recorded for

posterity. They are absolutely magnificent. We have seen a tremendous response from our rotary and fixed-wing pilots.

Again, to date, the Active-Duty Forces have flown more than 2,783 sorties and the National Guard has flown more than 9,240 sorties. These sorties resulted in the evacuation of more than 80,000 people and the rescue of more than 15,000 people.

Additionally, more than 1,200 beds are available in field hospitals, and seven military installations are providing support as transportation staging areas as ice, water, food, and medical supplies as they became available.

Stop and think. In our daily lives, we go to our refrigerators and there is ice. Ice is something that is badly needed in these high temperatures. I specifically put it in because I watched, as almost every American has watched, as these individuals in their own quiet way ask for certain things. I was particularly struck by the need for ice and fresh water.

The amount of humanitarian support provided to the region is astounding. More than 16 million meals-ready-to-eat--the old MRE or military meals--44 million liters of water, and more than 175 million pounds of ice have been delivered to date.

The Army Corps of Engineers has 39 of its 137 permanent pumps operating throughout New Orleans, with an additional 46 military pumps operating at a lower capacity.

I understand the water level in New Orleans is dropping more than 1 foot per day. They have removed 94,000 cubic yards of debris and opened the Mississippi River to shallow draft traffic and deep vessels less than 39 feet.

As indicated by the tremendous support I have outlined, it is clear that the deep magnitude and devastation of Hurricane Katrina has resulted in an unprecedented response from the Department of Defense.

I want to say first that I do not wish to take away anything from the DOD or the dedicated men and women who have responded to the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina--as it is, without question, a catastrophe without parallel in modern American history, and of a magnitude not seen in my lifetime. However, as many of our colleagues know--and as chairman of the Armed Services Committee--I am deeply concerned that the Department of Defense and our President have authorities to correct standby authorities in permanent law which they need to manage disasters.

Shortly I will engage in a colloquy, hopefully, with my distinguished chairman of the Homeland Defense Committee on the subject of what we should do in the future to look at the framework of laws and standby authorities to determine how better--I repeat, how better--not to fault those who performed in this catastrophe, but how best the totality of all the resources of our Nation can be brought to bear should we ever have the misfortune of another natural disaster or, indeed, a terrorist act of the magnitude that we witnessed.

When I was privileged to assume chairmanship of the Armed Services Committee--before 9/11, I point out--our committee established a subcommittee called Emerging Threats. The function of that subcommittee has, is, and will be to look into the future to determine how best to prepare, primarily in our case, for a terrorist attack against our Nation. But those preparations can easily be directed toward a natural disaster, should it occur. I am very proud of the accomplishments of that subcommittee in the years I have been privileged to be chairman. But I believe the time has come that we reflect on the Posse Comitatus Act and other statutes which have stood by and served this Nation quite well in years past.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record additional documentation.

Mr. President, as we face an uncertain future as it relates to terrorism and the use of weapons of mass destruction, I have some thoughts with regard to this law which was passed in 1878 which restricts in certain ways--and the predicate for doing so is wise--men and women of the Armed Forces--that is, a permanent U.S. military as opposed to National Guard--in matters relating to law enforcement.

Traditionally, that has always been left to the local authorities, and that is the way it should be. But sometimes there may be one--I will have to examine the facts--that becomes so overwhelming or so incapacitated by a natural disaster, or perhaps a terrorist attack, that the Armed Forces may have to perform some of those duties. We want to make sure the President has that capability.

Also, there are other permanent laws on the books called the Insurrection Statutes. At a very minimum, I would like to see the name changed that we put on this for reasons quite different than the threats and challenges that face this Nation today. But that statute also might be reviewed, along with the Posse Comitatus Act, to see whether other permanent pieces of law should be modified to meet the contingencies we face here in the future.

I see the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Defense Committee. I wonder if I might direct a question to her.

In the briefings we have had before our committee by members of various departments and agencies who had authorities to deal with this, I came away with an impression that we have to, in a very quiet and careful manner, look at the totality of the permanent law and regulations to determine what changes should be made to meet a contingency of the nature we have experienced--indeed, whether it is a natural disaster or military terrorist attack in the future. I wonder if our distinguished chairman has progressed in her thinking on this point.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman. I am privileged to serve on her committee.

As a consequence of the close relationship between the Department of Defense and the various departments our committee--and I sit on a few-- has over situations such as this--I might note for the Record the person from FEMA who appeared before your committee for the briefing was a career employee. I found him to be very qualified. He has some 30 years of experience. I think he shared with our committee some of his most profound thoughts based on some, I believe, 30 years experience. Am I correct?

I thank the distinguished chairman.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support, once again, of America's teachers by joining with Senator Collins in introducing the Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2005.

Senator Collins and I have worked closely for some time now in support of legislation to provide our teachers with tax relief in recognition of the many out-of-pocket expenses they incur as part of their profession. In the 107th Congress, we were successful in providing much needed tax relief for our Nations' teachers with passage of H.R. 3090, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002.

This legislation, which was signed into law by President Bush, included the Collins-Warner Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2001 provisions that provided a $250 above the line deduction for educators who incur out-of-pocket expenses for supplies they bring into the classroom to better the education of their students. These important provisions provided almost half a billion dollars' worth of tax relief to teachers all across America in 2002 and 2003.

In the 108th Congress we were able to successfully extend the provisions of the Teacher Tax Relief Act for 2004 and 2005.

While these provisions will provide substantial relief to America's teachers, our work is not yet complete.

It is now estimated that the average teacher spends $521 out of their own pocket each year on classroom materials--materials such as pens, pencils and books. First year teachers spend even more, averaging $701 a year on classroom expenses.

Why do they do this? Simply because school budgets are not adequate to meet the costs of education. Our teachers dip into their own pocket to better the education of America's youth.

Moreover, in addition to spending substantial money on classroom supplies, many teachers spend even more money out of their own pocket on professional development. Such expenses include tuition, fees, books, and supplies associated with courses that help our teachers become even better instructors.

The fact is that these out-of-pocket costs place lasting financial burdens on our teachers. This is one reason our teachers are leaving the profession. Little wonder that our country is in the midst of a teacher shortage.

Without a doubt the Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2001 took a step forward in helping to alleviate the Nation's teaching shortage by providing a $250 above the line deduction for classroom expenses.

However, it is clear that our teachers are spending much more than $250 a year out of their own pocket to better the education of our children.

Accordingly, Senator Collins and I have joined together to take another step forward by introducing the Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2005.

This legislation will build upon current law in three ways. The legislation will: (1) Increase the above-the-line deduction, as President Bush has called for, from $250 allowed under current law to $400; (2) allow educators to include professional development costs within that $400 deduction. Under current law, up to $250 is deductible but only for classroom expenses; and (3) make the teacher tax relief provisions in the law permanent. Current law sunsets the Collins/Warner provisions after 2005.

Our teachers have made a personal commitment to educate the next generation and to strengthen America. And, in my view, the Federal Government should recognize the many sacrifices our teachers make in their career.

The Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2005 is another step forward in providing our educators with the recognition they deserve.