Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and honor ADM Vern Clark, U.S. Navy, our 27th Chief of Naval Operations, who last week turned over the helm of the U.S. Navy to his successor. As former Secretary of the Navy and a member of the Armed Services Committee for 27 years, I have worked closely with every Chief of Naval Operations since Admiral Clark was Ensign Clark.

A child of the Midwest, Admiral Clark is a graduate of Evangel College and holds a master's degree in business administration from the University of Arkansas. It is this Nation's great fortune that Admiral Clark heard the call of the sea and attended Officer's Candidate School, receiving his commission in August 1968.

His first sea duty tour was aboard USS John W. Weeks, DD 701. One of the first things Admiral Clark did upon assuming his present post was to obtain the picture that formally hung in the wardroom of USS John W. Weeks to remind him of where he came from and to keep his focus on the fleet.

Admiral Clark has had the good fortune to spend more than half of his career in command. The Navy recognized early on his potential for leadership when as a lieutenant he commanded USS Grand Rapids, PG98. He would go on command USS McCloy, FF 1038, USS Spruance, DD 963, the Fleet Anti-Submarine Training Center Atlantic, Destroyer Squadron One Seven, Destroyer Squadron Five, Cruiser Destroyer Group Three, Second Fleet, and the U.S. Atlantic Fleet.

On those rare occasions when Admiral Clark was not in command, he served in a series of increasingly challenging shore assignments. He completed assignments as the Special Assistant to the Director of the Systems Analysis Division in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, the Administrative Assistant to the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Surface Warfare, and as the Administrative Aide to the Vice Chief of Naval Operations. He served as head of the Cruiser-Destroyer Combat Systems Requirements Section and Force Anti-Submarine Warfare Officer for the Commander, Naval Surface Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, and he directed the Joint Staff's Crisis Action Team for Desert Shield and Desert Storm.

Admiral Clark first hoisted his flag aboard the U.S. Transportation Command where he was Director of both Plans and Policy, J5 and Financial Management and Analysis, J8. While commanding the Carl Vinson Battle Group, he deployed to the Arabian Gulf and later served as the Deputy Commander, Joint Task Force Southwest Asia. Admiral Clark has also served as the Deputy and Chief of Staff, United States Atlantic Fleet; the Director of Operations, J3 and subsequently Director of the Joint Staff.

Admiral Clark assumed his duties in peacetime on July 21, 2000. Sitting in his office on September 11, 2001, war came to Admiral Clark's Navy when American Airlines flight 77 hit the Pentagon just a few yards from where he was sitting. Since that day he has skillfully led the Navy in the global war against terrorism. Throughout this time, he has continued to focus on his top five priorities manpower, current readiness, future readiness, quality of service and alignment. Chief among those priorities is manpower. Admiral Clark is fond of saying that the Navy is winning the war for people. That is due in no small part to his leadership during this difficult time.

Standing beside this officer throughout his superb career has been his wife Connie, a woman to whom he owes much. She has been his key supporter, devoting her life to her husband, to her family, and to the men and women of the Navy family. She has traveled by his side for these many years visiting the fleet. Her sacrifice and devotion have served as an example and inspiration for others. This team has served our Navy well and we will miss them both.

With these words before the Senate, I seek to recognize Admiral Clark for his unswerving loyalty to the Navy and this great Nation. We thank him and wish Vern, his wife Connie, and his sons Jeffery and Christopher fair winds and following seas as they continue forward in what will most assuredly remain lives of service to our country.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 210, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:45 a.m. on Tuesday, July 26. I further ask that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then resume consideration of S. 1042, as under the previous order. I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided between the stacked votes, and that following the first vote all votes be 10 minutes, and that the filing deadline for second-degree amendments be at 11 a.m. tomorrow.

I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess from 12:30, or at the conclusion of the last vote, whichever is latest, until 2:15 to accommodate the weekly party luncheons.

Mr. President, tomorrow, the Senate will resume consideration of the Defense authorization bill. Under the previous order, there will be 20 minutes of debate equally divided on the Collins and Lautenberg amendments, followed by a series of stacked votes.

We will have up to five votes beginning at approximately 10:15 a.m., and Senators should make sure they adjust their schedules accordingly.

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

Madam President, I was present last night. We had a colloquy among ourselves not unlike what took place today. The Republican leader, Senator Frist, entrusted me with the management of this bill. It was my decision with regard to the votes. It was my decision that we file a cloture motion. I accept full responsibility for those decisions. I am proud of the way we operate on this side, where our leadership reposes in their managers those responsibilities; I accept them. If, in due course, it proves to be in error, I accept that responsibility. But I do believe, based on some 27 years of experience managing this bill, that we can achieve the opportunity for all Senators to have their amendments heard and voted upon in a timely manner.

The matter of cloture, as it ripens on Tuesday, can be addressed by the leadership, in consultation with the managers, and a determination made as to whether it should or should not be invoked. I think that decision, in large measure, would be dependent on what we can achieve between now and Tuesday.

I look upon this in a very positive way. I have confidence in this institution, confidence in the managers of this bill to see that it is done in a fair and proper manner and done in the best interests certainly of the men and women of the Armed Forces.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, just to finish, I have a practice of not bringing up personal situations, and I am still going to refrain. If continued to be pushed on this issue, I will recount several things that occurred yesterday where I tried to accommodate interests on that side of the aisle, and when it is said that not a Democratic vote was taken, I know of one vote where I pleaded that it be made, found the time, but the sponsors decided--and it was a joint amendment with a Republican and a Democrat--not to do that.

I am not going to get involved in personal situations, but there is a limit to the patience of the Senator from Virginia. On this matter by Mr. Kennedy, I respect my good friend. Our friendship goes back as long as any two Members in this Chamber. This amendment is an important amendment, there is no question about it. But I ask the Senator from Michigan, was not the same amendment voted on by the Senate 3 weeks ago?

It is very similar, if not identical.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to pick up on my distinguished colleague's last point with regard to the projected budget cycle as it relates to this program. In fairness, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts should point out that while that document outlines a proposal for a program, Congress carefully has enacted the checks and balances such that every step of the way that program has to be reviewed by the Congress, authorized, and appropriated. Those are the types of checks and balances that should be accorded a program of this significance.

I point out, and I read from the conference report on the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004, the requirement for specific authorization of Congress for commencement of engineering development phase and subsequent phase of the robust nuclear earth penetrator, section 3117 of the law, the Senate amendment contained in provision 3135 that would require the Secretary of Energy to obtain specific authorization from Congress to commence development engineering phase of the nuclear weapons development process or any subsequent phase of a robust nuclear earth penetrator weapon.

So I assure my colleagues, I assure the American public, Congress is carefully monitoring each step of this proposed program.

My good friend from Massachusetts pointed out about the military requirements. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in appearing before Congress, established the military requirement. Senators on the other side of this debate have argued there is no military requirement, as did my good friend and colleague from Massachusetts. Congress should not be funding, he has argued. This is a case of getting so involved in technology that we lose sight of the purpose behind the words.

I think it is extremely important that the record of this debate reflect the following: In an appearance before the House Armed Services Committee in February of this calendar year, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Myers, addressed the following question:

Is there a military requirement for RNEP?

General Myers answered the question as follows:

Our combatant commander that is charged by this nation to

worry about countering the kind of targets, deeply buried

targets, certainly thinks there's a need for this study. And

General Cartwright has said such. I think that. I think the

Joint Chiefs think that. And so, the study is just that. It's

not a commitment to go forward with a system; it's just to

see if it's feasible.

It is just to see whether the technology of the United States can take an existing warhead. There was some inference that we are increasing the stockpile. It is very important to recognize we are simply performing tests and evaluation on existing warheads to determine whether they can be reconfigured to achieve the mission of penetrating the earth to certain depths, depending on the consistency of the soil and the above earth, and render less effective, if not destroy, a potential situation beneath the earth, which definitely challenges the security of this Nation and the world. It is as simple as that.

So this whole debate is about whether a modest sum of money can be continued to be applied to a program to determine a feasibility study. Depending on the outcome, the Congress comes back in and then establishes whether the facts justify, as well as the threat situation, as well as the military needs, the next step of a program that would take some several years to evolve and produce a weapon.

General Myers continued:

So we can argue over the definition of a ``military

requirement'' and when a ``military requirement'' is

established. We can

argue over when in the study of a concept--which is what we

are talking about here--when should the requirement be

established.

We can argue over definitions or we can listen to the

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Commander of Strategic

Command, who advise the Congress that it is in the interest

of the United States to complete the feasibility study.

Somewhat regrettably, over the past 24 hours we have had a lot of back and forth about time consumed on this, that and one of the other things. I tend to be very indulging in the fact that the Senate is an unusual body and there is the right to discuss whatever a Senator wishes. But just 3 weeks ago we had this exact amendment before this body, except for one change. Senator Feinstein had put the funds which would be resulting from a cancellation towards the public debt, a laudable purpose. It has nothing to do with the military requirements, nothing to do with anything about the weapon. Senator Kennedy made one small change: Let us take it from the public debt and give it to the DC National Guard.

Well, I can understand how the DC National Guard is brought into a clear focus in its responsibilities given the worldwide events of recent times. I am not unmindful of those situations. But if there is a need for funding for the D.C. National Guard, let it be brought forth independently. It should not be a predicate or a basis for making a major decision as to whether to go forward on this important research program and study.

So I say to my colleagues, if there is a problem with the D.C. National Guard, bring it to the attention of the managers. We will be on this bill for a few days. We have time. We will take a look at it.

I am mindful of what occurred here last night and what occurred here again this morning about how we are just grinding our wheels and not being productive. This same identical amendment was rejected by the Senate 3 weeks ago in a vote.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, I would like to amend it to enable the distinguished Senator from Alabama, whose subcommittee has jurisdiction over at least one of the amendments of Senator Allard, be permitted to use such time as he desires in the colloquy between the three Senators.

Madam President, before my colleagues depart--I have been engaged in a wide variety of activities here--can the Senator advise me, through the Chair, are these to be pending amendments to be voted on? Is there to be a further period of debate? We want to accommodate the Senator's desire if he could give us a clarification of the procedures he hopes to have.

Would the Senator consider seeking the votes now so they are in that category? Does the Senator wish to have a rollcall vote, Madam President?

I think that is sufficient clarification.

At the appropriate time, we can arrange that.

I thank the distinguished Senators from Colorado.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague, and I assure him, in consultation with the chairman and indeed the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, his amendment will be given every careful consideration.

Mr. President, at this time I know there is another Senator.

Yes, I wasn't quite certain. I thought there was a brief time in which you were going to address the Senate. I am trying to accommodate one of your colleagues.

Can the Senator advise the Chair and the Senate the time you would require?

Very well, Mr. President. We will all wait that period of time. Thank you.

I would very much appreciate it if the Senator will accommodate the Senate in that way.

Mr. President, I thank our colleague. The Senator brings to the Senate a very serious proposal. It will be given serious consideration.

At this time, the Senator from Colorado desires to be recognized.

Before the distinguished Senator addresses the Senate, I see our distinguished colleague from Connecticut. If I could inquire as to the Senator's wishes. We are trying to arrange a schedule.

If I might ask that the Senator from Connecticut be recognized following the remarks by the Senator from Ohio--the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. President, I wish to assure our distinguished colleague from Colorado that we will give very careful consideration to his amendments.

Have they been sent to the desk, I ask the Presiding Officer?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that they be set aside, such that the Senator from Connecticut is to be recognized.

Mr. President, if my distinguished ranking member is prepared, we are about to send a series of amendments to the desk which have been cleared on both sides. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider those amendments en bloc, the amendments be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table. Finally, I ask that any statements relating to any of these individual amendments be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, subject to anything my distinguished colleague would want to do, I would like to have the Senate go into morning business.

Mr. President, I thank my ranking member for his usual courtesy and our ability to work out matters to accommodate both sides of the aisle.

Mr. President, there is a matter that must come before the Senate.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Friday, July 22, 2005, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing on Nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on today's executive calendar: Calendar Nos. 185, 186, 187, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 223, 224, 225, and all nominations on the Secretary's desk.

I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and finally that the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 205, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1 p.m. on Monday, July 25, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of a resolution commemorating the 15th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the text of which is at the desk. I further ask that there be no amendments in order to the preamble or resolution, and that there be 1 hour of debate as follows: 30 minutes at 1 p.m. on Monday and 30 minutes at 5 p.m. on Monday, all equally divided between the majority leader or his designee and Senator Harkin or his designee. I further ask unanimous consent that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on the resolution, at the conclusion of which the preamble be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, all without intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 1 p.m. on Monday, July 25. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then proceed to the immediate consideration of the Senate resolution commemorating the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as under the previous order. I further ask unanimous consent that upon the use or yielding back of the first 30 minutes of debate on the ADA resolution, the Senate resume consideration of S. 1042, the Defense authorization bill; provided further, that Senators on Monday have until 2 p.m. in order to file timely first-degree amendments to the Defense bill.

Mr. President, on Monday, the Senate will consider a resolution marking the anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and a vote on the resolution has been ordered for 5:30 p.m. At approximately 1:30 p.m. on Monday, the Senate will resume consideration of the Defense authorization bill. Again, our next vote will occur at approximately 5:30 p.m. on Monday. It is my expectation that we will be voting in relation to one or more amendments to the Defense authorization bill following the vote on the ADA resolution, so Senators should be prepared for stacked votes beginning at 5:30 on Monday.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the two stacked votes on Tuesday, the Senate proceed immediately to a vote in relation to Frist amendment No. 1342, as now modified, with the changes that are at the desk; provided further that no second degrees be in order to the above amendment prior to the vote and notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, and I thank the Presiding Officer for his courtesy.