Floor Statements

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I see the distinguished majority leader. My understanding is he wishes to lay down an amendment, for which I am grateful. We would be happy to lay aside the pending amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I commend the distinguished majority leader, and I associate myself with his remarks and this report.

I just looked at one thing, and the staff advised me that the terms ``Boy Scouts'' and ``Girl Scouts'' embrace what is known as the Cub Scouts. I want to make sure my understanding is correct that was the intention of our distinguished leader, because a lot of families are very active in those organizations.

Mr. President, I thank our distinguished leader. I, too, have had a very modest career in the Scouts. I was sort of attenuated when I left and joined the Navy in World War II. So I never attained any special recognition. But I must say that the training that was given to me helped me enormously in my early training in the military because first you learned discipline, then you learned regimentation. You learned the concept of sharing with others, the need to work with your fellow Scouts. It is a magnificent organization. I am so glad you have done this.

I also must say I have attended the rally in Virginia to which you referred. I will never forget waiting, as one of the several speakers. I was a most inconsequential speaker because a world-famous baseball player attended. As far as the eye could see, there were clouds of dust. They looked like the Roman legions marching in. Tens of thousands of Scouts assembled at this rally, all carrying their banners, and the parents were all seated under the trees watching this rally. It was a spectacle to behold. It was a marvelous experience.

So again, Mr. President, I encourage other Senators to join our distinguished leader in support of this legislation.

Mr. President, I wish to thank our distinguished colleague from Tennessee. I listened carefully to his remarks. It did evoke memories of this humble Senator when I had a rather inauspicious career in the Boy Scouts. Nevertheless, they did a lot more for me than I did for them.

I remember the jamborees. I can remember very well on our first encampment filling a tick bag full of barn straw which we used for a mattress. I was greatly impressed with that.

Mr. President, in consultation with the majority leader and the distinguished Senator from Michigan, as to the amendment by Senator Frist, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be laid aside and that we return to my amendment No. 1314.

On that matter, it is contemplated now that we will have a vote in relation to the Warner amendment regarding the wheeled motor vehicles, armored, today at 12:30.

I think it is important. Senator Bayh has been very active on this issue.

Amendment No. 1314, as Modified

Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification to my amendment in the nature of a technical modification. I believe it has been examined by the other side. This modification identifies an offset of $445.4 million from the Iraqi Freedom Fund for this amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator DeWine and Senator Collins be added as cosponsors to the amendment.

Mr. President, this amendment was debated yesterday. I see other Senators seeking recognition. From my perspective, the debate has been satisfied, unless there are other Senators.

Has the Chair ruled on the vote at 12:30? I ask unanimous consent that the vote in relation to the Warner amendment No. 1314 regarding wheeled vehicle armor occur today at 12:30 with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote.

I bring to the Senator's attention, we did have that discussion. I didn't, at the time, recognize the imminence of the vote. I see a colleague who does have an amendment in relation to the bill. Therefore, I am hesitant to grant UC to go off the bill. Could I inquire of the Senator from Oklahoma?

Mr. President, are there other colleagues who wish to address the Defense bill? Hopefully, we can accommodate our colleague from Oregon. Let's determine, procedurally, the order in which matters in relation to this bill should be brought up.

I thank the Senator from Maine.

I thank the distinguished Senator from Tennessee. I bring to his attention that that measure has been laid aside. It doesn't preclude his speaking to it, but we will see what we can do.

I ask my colleagues on this side, the Senator from Oregon, do you want 10 minutes or 8 minutes?

I wonder if the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma could proceed, followed by the Senator from Maine, and then prior to the vote, if you desire to do it before 12:30?

I would like to ask my colleague, the Senator from Michigan, to concur in that UC, that following the vote, the Senator from Oregon be recognized for a period of not to exceed 10 minutes, and we will go off the bill for that purpose.

I assure you that you will have 5 minutes in that period of time. If the Senator from Oklahoma could present his amendments, followed by the Senator from Maine, the Senator from Tennessee, and then Senator Kennedy.

Not the pending. In other words, I desire not to go off the bill to accommodate our friend from Oregon. He has now been accommodated. We are looking at a period of roughly 40 minutes to be allocated among three Senators who wish to speak to matters in relation to this bill and reserving at 12:25 that Senator Kennedy be recognized for a period of 5 minutes.

Mr. President, we will do our very best to at least introduce an amendment at that time.

Might I inquire as to the amount of time the distinguished Senator from New Jersey might wish?

Five minutes then.

I have no objection.

Mr. President, the Senator's amendment will be considered on the floor in due time. But I assume that at least two of the amendments involve another committee, the Banking Committee, other than the Armed Services Committee; would I be correct in that?

I thank the Senator. As to the other two amendments, is it his judgment that they are solely within the jurisdiction?

I accept that.

Mr. President, at this time I believe our colleague from Maine has an amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Cantwell and Snowe be added as cosponsors to the amendment of the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. President, I want to make certain the Senator from Virginia is added as a cosponsor to the Frist amendment now pending at the desk.

The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, I believe, under the UC is about to address the Senate.

Mr. President, can we have a clarification?

Mr. President, that is very clear. The Senator from New Jersey seeks up to how much time?

Can we enter into a time agreement equally divided?

Mr. President, I think we will have to enter into that agreement later, but I will work toward that goal.

Is the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey now at the desk?

Mr. President, I ask that the amendment now be laid aside for purposes under the UC agreement so that the Senator from Massachusetts may address the Senate, I believe for 5 minutes.

I will be happy to share my brief time for remarks with my colleague. The Senator has joined our bill and I appreciate him expressing confidence in this amendment of the Senator from Virginia. I commend the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Bayh, and many others who worked in this area of the up- armoring of our military vehicles. But I must take issue with the Senator's observations that in any way the Department of Defense is open to criticism because it has been a constantly evolving requirements issue before the combatant commanders.

When we look at this record in a careful manner, we will see that the Department has responded very quickly to the communication from the combatant commanders to adjust through the military departments, primarily the Department of Army, the procurement of the necessary equipment.

This Senator from Virginia and others are very conscious of the IED problem. I just visited Quantico and looked at their research and development facilities dealing with the IED question. Our committee periodically, at least every 60 to 90 days, has the general in charge of the overall responsibility of IEDs in the Department to brief us on what are his needs and are they fully met financially and in every other way.

I frankly think the record shows that the Department of Defense is doing its very best for a quickly evolving and changing set of facts requiring the addition of up-armored vehicles.

Mr. President, is the amendment the pending business for the purpose of a vote at 12:30?

I yield the floor.

I believe the vote is in order at this time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Before the Senator from Oregon addresses the Senate, I wish to speak for 2 minutes and thank colleagues for their strong support of this amendment. We do not often get 100 votes. It was not put up here in mind that there would be 100 votes. It is very reassuring to send this strong messages to our Armed Forces and indeed throughout the world that the Senate stands behind those measures which will strengthen our ability to fight terrorism in the world.

At this point in time in the struggle against terrorism, not only with our country but the coalition of nations, the type of weapons being employed, while basic in nature, are lethal in nature, and it requires the modification of our military equipment. This amendment provides the funds to do it.

I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on our side we will at an appropriate time interject our opposition to this amendment. We have just gotten the amendment, and it requires some further study. So until such time as I get some additional material, I will have to defer my statement in opposition.

Mr. President, as I said, in due course I will have further to say. But again it comes down to separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, and given those situations--and I respect my good friend's evaluation of the tragedy associated with people in those lands and the potential for some dollars being funded toward that purpose. But the President has to look at this situation constantly, every day, 365 days a year. Situations change. And for the Congress to lay on a blanket prohibition on Presidential power to exercise his discretion of where and when and how to disrupt the flow of dollars, as pointed out by my colleague from New Jersey, we are very much hesitant to do that. So at the appropriate time I will have further to say about this amendment.

Mr. President, it is always a pleasure to hear my old friend and colleague in the Senate of so many years. At the appropriate time I and others will put forth our case on this issue.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Lautenberg amendment be laid aside and that time be granted to our distinguished colleague and very valued member of the committee, the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed.

Mr. President, will the Senator kindly yield so I can inform the Senate of the desire on behalf of this side of the aisle?

I will wait to propound the unanimous consent request until the other side responds. I am going to ask unanimous consent--but I will wait until we get a response from the other side--that a vote on or in relation to the Frist amendment No. 1342, regarding supporting our Boy Scouts, and others, occur at 2:15 today, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote; provided further that there be 2 minutes equally divided for debate prior to the vote. So I

say there is the strong likelihood that request will be granted.

I thank the Senator for his courtesy.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his comments. Senator Reed is an esteemed member of the committee.

I assure the Senator, I have been in consultation with our leadership and presumably the Senator's leadership about this bill. We brought it up with the understanding that there may be matters that require the attention of the Senate, at which time we do not do anything but put it aside for a brief period of time and then bring it up again. This is my 27th time I have had the privilege of being engaged in one level or another the managing of the Defense bill. I can recall one time it took us 4\1/2\ weeks to get it through. But it was a leadership decision and the managers of our bill recognize from time to time we have to accede.

I am not here to try and prejudge what legislation may or may not be brought up, but I assure the Senator, I am in total support of the leader making those decisions.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague. If the Senator participated in many of these bills before--for example, tonight, I am not being entirely popular with a number of individuals because I am requesting of the leadership the right to go on into the night with votes, as late as we can possibly go, and then tomorrow morning have more votes and continue tomorrow. After the votes, presumably, if they are scheduled in the morning, it may well be we will continue on the bill with some understanding among Members that the votes we desire, as a consequence of the other work on Friday, will be held on Monday some time.

I assure the Senator from Rhode Island, I am working as hard as I can to get this bill passed. I thank the Senator for his cooperation.

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

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

Mr. President, in concurrence with my distinguished ranking member, I advise the Senate that we will have a vote on amendment No. 1342, regarding supporting the Boy Scouts, occurring at 2:30, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote; provided further, there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided before the vote.

That is correct.

I am prepared to discuss it.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for raising this question. The distinguished Senator from Michigan discussed it with me earlier. You have read it and you have interpreted it correctly. It is to sustain the level of funding and activities that have been historically provided by the several agencies and departments of the Government heretofore.

I say to my good friend, that is the way the bill reads, and there 60-some cosponsors who, presumably, have addressed that. I brought it to the attention of the staff of the leader a short time ago and indicated this, asking do I have a clear understanding, and the Senator has recited the understanding that I have.

Mr. President, if I may say to my colleagues, in no way does this bind the Appropriations Committee to exercise such discretion as it may so desire in that level of funding. If it was brought to their attention that there was malfeasance or inappropriate expenditures at some point in

any program, they are perfectly within their authority to limit or eliminate the funding altogether.

Mr. President, this issue was raised and the legal counsel drew this up. I must say, you raise a point, but I am sure if there are any improprieties associated with these programs, the appropriators have full authority to curtail or eliminate the funding.

Mr. President, what I suggest in the parliamentary situation is that I withdraw the unanimous-consent request at this time. In the interval, until we raise the question to vote again, the Senator presumably will engage with the leader's office regarding these concerns. So I withdraw the request at this time rather than amend it.

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

Mr. President, the amendment--we call it generically the Boy Scout amendment--offered by the distinguished majority leader is being looked at in the full expectation that it can be resolved and voted on at an appropriate time this afternoon. For the moment, I believe the distinguished Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from New York have an amendment, and I think we should proceed with that debate.

Yes. I thank my colleague. In view of the fact that there is a strong indication by myself and my distinguished ranking member that it be accepted, can we reach a time agreement?

Equally divided between yourself and the Senator from New York? Then I think 10 minutes for Senator Levin--let us assume that we can do it in 30 minutes.

I ask unanimous consent that the time agreement for the amendment offered by the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from New York be 45 minutes, 30 minutes to the proponents, and 15 minutes reserved to the managers.

Mr. President, clarification: Did 7 go to 15? Which is fine. You have 15 minutes, now, total, under your control.

No objection.

Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the Senator from South Carolina for the lineup of speakers.

The distinguished ranking member and myself are prepared to accept this amendment. But I want to talk just a bit about the importance of what these two Senators, primarily the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from New York, have done. This is a very significant piece of legislation. We laid the foundation last year and had some incremental improvement, but this really carries the ball the balance of the field and scores a touchdown in behalf of the men and women in the Armed Forces and Reserve.

As the Senator from South Carolina has pointed out, this is not a free benefit. There is going to be, I say to both of my colleagues, the Senator from New York and the Senator from South Carolina, a reasonable fee.

But if I could bring back a little personal experience, in 1950, I was a member of the Marine Corps Reserve, having come up from the enlisted ranks and gotten my commission. The Korean war sprung on us totally without anticipation. I remember at the time

Truman was in office, and Louie Johnson was basically the Secretary of Defense who disbanded the military. Suddenly we had to do a rapid turnaround, and we had nowhere to go but to call up the Reserves. I was just a young bachelor then. I was happy to go, but when I was in my first training command in the fall of 1950 at Quantico in the first special basic class, why, over half the class was married and had to leave their families and everything and quickly return. Most of us had been in World War II and gotten our commissions.

I simply point out that is another hidden element to this; that is, when you are maintaining voluntarily the status of being in the Select Reserve, you are subject to call at a late hour of the night to pack your bags, leave your family, leave your job, and go. And if you look, there are 1,142,000 members of the total Reserve, and the Select Reserve is only 700,000. I mean, it is a significant number, but it is that group of 700,000 that is subject to call on very short notice. And that is ever present. It sometimes requires a problem with the employer, to maintain that status knowing that valuable employee could leave on less than 30 days' notice and the employer has to seek another to fill the post, and so forth. So there is much to be said about staying in.

I recall when I got back from Korea, I was finished my obligated military service and could have cashiered out, but I stayed in the Reserves another 10 or 11 years, to my recollection--I think it was 12 years. There were certain benefits that were an inducement to stay in and, frankly, I enjoyed it enormously. I don't have a military career of great consequence. I am certainly grateful for the opportunity to serve, and I think this is a marvelous thing.

I would like to be listed as a cosponsor, as my distinguished colleague from Michigan likewise, and we salute the two Senators who pioneered this approach.

In the beginning we had to look at the dollars and the figures and balance it out.

As the Senator said, fight on. And we will be there, and each of these Members will be by our side. I hope Members can walk out of that conference some day with a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment.

I urge adoption of the pending amendment.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I thank our colleagues.

We are open for further amendments. The Boy Scout amendment is being reviewed. The Lautenberg amendment is, likewise, being reviewed on our side. It will take the managers a few moments to advise the Senate as to what the next matter will be.

Therefore, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada has consulted with the managers of the bill and desires to address the Senate in the context of several amendments. We thank the Senator very much for his participation.

Mr. President, at this time my distinguished colleague has a matter which he would like to bring to the attention of the Senate.

Mr. President, I wish to be made a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. President, I recall very vividly the testimony we received from the whole group of the Joint Chiefs of Staff led by General Myers. General Myers was very strong on this point. You mentioned General Pace. Indeed, he was a leader on it. But, across the board, our chiefs stepped up.

I say to the Senator, it is important this be done. We accept the amendment and are ready to move when you are ready to move.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, momentarily we will have another matter to be brought to the floor. We are making progress. At the moment, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I thank our distinguished colleague from Maine, who is going to address a very important subject.

Mr. President, we would like to accommodate the Senator. My only inquiry is, we now have on the floor the two principals on this important measure. If you wish, for a few minutes, to lay down an amendment, I am sure we could do that. I would like to have this important debate resumed.

I have no objection.

Mr. President, I very much need to accommodate Senators on both sides of the aisle with a short unanimous consent request.

This is a matter the ranking member and I have worked on.

I ask unanimous consent that between the hours of 4:30 and 6:30 tonight the amendment by Mr. Lugar be brought up with 1 hour on each side, with the hour in opposition under the control of Mr. Kyl, with a rollcall vote immediately following.

I thank the Senator. There are no second degrees.

Mr. President, I want to engage the Senator from Maine and the Senator from New Jersey. We have a unanimous consent request from our colleague from Texas. Would the Senator from Texas repeat that for the Senator from Maine.

Would the Senator from Maine advise the chairman as to when you would resume your debate with the Senator from New Jersey?

I thank our colleague.

I ask the Chair to restate the unanimous consent request which we are ready to accede to on both sides.

Yes. The Senator from Texas can state her request.

Mr. President, I join my colleague in thanking former Senator Glenn for coming back and joining the longstanding tradition of the Senate, and a proper one. A former Senator is always welcome back on the floor. There is the desk at which he sat these many years, and as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

I never heard about the blowup thing before, but I can say I have seen the Senator sit in that chair and blow up this place many times in his long distinguished career and fight for the things in which he believed. We send the best to you, dear friend, and your lovely wife Annie, and wish you well. Return many times.

Mr. President, at this point in time under the UC, there is 2 hours equally divided between the distinguished Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, and Mr. Kyl, who will soon be on the floor, and myself.

I would say to Senator Lugar, I find myself in a bit of an awkward position at this time in opposition because I remember the breakfast that Sam Nunn had in the Armed Services Committee office when the first concept of Nunn-Lugar was adopted and how grateful all of us are for the Senator's continued service in these many years ensuing to make this very important program effective not only for this country, the citizens of Russia, and the former Soviet Union but also the world. I thank the Senator from Indiana.

Amendment No. 1380

I wish to commend my very dear and longtime friend, Senator Lugar--as I said, I was here when this program was initiated-- and our esteemed former colleague, Sam Nunn, for their vision and work in this very valuable program.

Through the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program the United States has, since 1991, been providing assistance to states of the former Soviet Union to help them eliminate and safeguard weapons of mass destruction and related infrastructure materials. These programs helped to eliminate large Cold War stockpiles and dangerous weapons that were no longer needed. Today, this program is an important element in the continuance of our strategy to keep weapons of mass destruction and the know-how from falling into hands antithetical to the interests of those who are trying to fight terrorism and preserve freedom.

When Congress first authorized the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, an important element of the authorizing legislation was the inclusion of certain conditions that must be met before a country could receive CTR assistance from the United States.

I was a key author of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 1993, which reauthorized the original Nunn-Lugar program. I was a strong advocate of including the requirement that, for each recipient nation of CTR funds, the President certify that the recipient nation is committed to:

making substantial investment of its resources for dismantling or destroying its WMD;

foregoing any military modernization program that exceeds legitimate defense requirements and foregoing the replacement of destroyed WMD;

foregoing any use in new nuclear weapons of fissionable or other components of destroyed nuclear weapons;

facilitating U.S. verification of any weapons destruction carried out through the CTR program;

complying with all relevant arms control agreements; and

observing internationally recognized human rights, including the protection of minorities.

I believe these conditions remain as relevant and important today as they were in 1993. They provide the Congress and the public relevant information about the countries that are to receive taxpayer-funded assistance for eliminating and safeguarding weapons of mass destruction. The conditions help provide us confidence that U.S. tax dollars will be well spent in countries that are committed to right- sizing their militaries, complying with arms control agreements, providing transparency regarding how CTR assistance is used, and respecting human rights.

These certification requirements do not impede the provision of CTR assistance. For several years now, Congress has provided the President with waiver authority so that even if one or more of the certifications cannot be made for a particular country, the President may provide CTR assistance to that country if he certifies it is in the national interest to do so.

The current waiver authority will expire in September 2005. That is why in this bill we have included a provision that would make permanent the President's authority to waive, on an annual basis, the conditions on provision of CTR assistance when he judges it is in the national security interest to do so.

This provision for permanent waiver authority for the CTR programs that is

in our bill is what was submitted in the President's budget request to Congress. Only subsequently, on June 3, 2005, Secretary Rice wrote to Senator Lugar stating that the Administration supports legislation to remove the certification requirements for provision of CTR assistance. Her letter went on to state that the administration is also willing to consider alternatives including the OMB-cleared legislative request from the Department of Defense for a provision to renew permanently the authority under which existing certification requirements may be waived. So the administration does not oppose the existing congressionally-mandated certification requirements, so long as there remains a waiver provision.

Senator Lugar's amendment would also repeal the conditions Congress placed on the provision of CTR assistance to Russia for chemical demilitarization activities. Those conditions were established in the FY 2000 National Defense Authorization Act. They required the Secretary of Defense to certify that Russia has:

provided a full and accurate accounting of its chemical weapons stockpile;

demonstrated a commitment to commit $25 million annually to chemical weapons elimination;

developed a practical plan for destroying its stockpile of nerve agents;

agreed to destroy or convert two existing chemical weapons production facilities; and

demonstrated a commitment from the international community to fund and build infrastructure needed to support and operate the chemical weapons destruction facility in Russia.

For several years the Congress decided not to support the provision of CTR assistance for chemical weapons destruction in Russia. It was precisely the inclusion of these conditions in the authorizing language that persuaded the Congress to resume U.S. CTR assistance for this important endeavor. These conditions relevant to the chemical weapons destruction program in Russia also have a waiver provision, so that the assistance can continue in the absence of certification if the President deems it in the national interest.

I feel strongly that the eligibility requirements and conditions for CTR assistance are entirely appropriate and should not be repealed. They remain an important element in assuring the American taxpayer that CTR dollars are being expended wisely and that the underlying aims of the CTR program are in fact being embraced by the recipient countries. This is essential to maintaining strong public support for CTR.

The waiver authority ensures that even in cases where a country does not meet all the eligibility requirements, the President has the authority to provide CTR assistance if it is in the national security interest to do so.

I urge my colleagues not to support Senator Lugar's amendment to repeal the conditions and eligibility requirements for the CTR program. We all share the goal of supporting programs like CTR that can help keep dangerous WMD, and technology and know how, from slipping out of the countries of the former Soviet Union. I continue to believe that the certification requirements are useful in helping to maintain public confidence in the CTR program.

I say to my good friend, when we initiated these criteria, it was done because the American public never fully quite understood how we could require their tax dollars, which were so badly needed for schools and medical needs and innumerable requirements in this country, be given to countries which ostensibly, if they wanted to squeeze their own budgets, might well obtain the funds to do it by themselves. But I think it was right for this country to step forward. In the history of this country beginning, really, with the Marshall Plan, we have gone to the aid of other nations, and we have been the beneficiaries, as I stated in my opening remarks, of the success to date of the Nunn-Lugar program. But still it seems to me that we have an obligation on behalf of the American taxpayers who continue to willingly give their dollars to this important program to have in place certain criteria that must be met in order for those dollars to leave our shores and go abroad.

Now, this year, in consultation with Senator Lugar and the Department of State, we put in this bill the permanent waiver authority for the President. And that was important. I think that cuts down on some of the administrative problems and the time delays. But the fundamental and compelling reason to have these criteria remain is for this institution, the Congress of the United States, together with the executive branch, to monitor expenditure of these funds and to have that leverage to get reciprocal actions and assurances from those countries to which our taxpayers' dollars go.

Mr. President, at this time I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the time I put under the control of the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl.

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

Mr. President, I ask the indulgence of all Senators. We are about to vote, but I ask that we give consideration, at this point in time, to an amendment that will be offered by the Senator from South Dakota.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for bringing this amendment. There are some very distinguished cosponsors. It would be my expectation to reply to the Senator in brief tonight following this vote because I think some record should be made today. The Senator made his statement on the side of the proponents, and I need time within which to evaluate since I have just received this document, but I will be prepared, following this vote, to make some reply, and I hope that my colleague would likewise.

Yes.

The Senator is correct. Given the importance of this amendment and the interest in this amendment, I wish to lay down some parameters tonight about my concerns.

Would the Senator be available for further debate tomorrow?

Perhaps we can discuss it.

Amendments Nos. 1390 through 1400, En Bloc

I ask unanimous consent that the vote be delayed for a few minutes because we have a series of amendments at the desk which have been cleared by myself and the distinguished Senator from Michigan. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider these amendments en bloc, that the amendments be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

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, at this time, I yield to the Senator from Indiana.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Now, Mr. President, while we will not have further rollcall votes tonight, it is the intention of the managers to continue tonight to first clear package of amendments that we have, and then there may well be a lot of other Senators who want to discuss their amendments.

The Senate will come in tomorrow at such hour as specified by the leadership and there will be filed a cloture motion. Following that, the managers will entertain further amendments and have debate on those amendments. So we have made some progress. We still have a goal to complete this bill as early as we can next week, working with our leadership. But we will need the cooperation of Senators.

I again thank the Senator from South Dakota for bringing forth this very important amendment on BRAC. There remains a very important amendment by the distinguished Senator from Michigan and Mr. Rockefeller and others. Perhaps the Senator from Michigan could give us some timetable as to when the Senate could expect to have an opportunity to debate that amendment.

Mr. President, my understanding is there will not be votes tomorrow.

Mr. President, I wish to respond to our distinguished minority leader. I accept full responsibility for the timing and the management of this bill and making the decision that there would be no more votes tonight. My leader has entrusted me with that power, and I have so exercised it. I regret that it appears to the minority leader, a very valued and dear colleague in this Chamber, that it is not a proper course of action, but I accept that. We have a difference of opinion.

The fact that we will not have votes tonight will not deter my distinguished colleague and me as managers from continuing to work through amendments. We will both be here throughout tomorrow. We could stack a number of amendments which could be addressed on the afternoon of Monday at such time as the two leaders determine it would be appropriate.

As to the matter of cloture, again I accept full responsibility. This is the 27th Armed Services bill I have been privileged to be involved in. I believe that historically cloture is needed, particularly in the last week when colleagues, understandably, on both sides of the aisle have many matters of great interest to them and they desire to exercise their rights to amend this bill and otherwise to get a decision by the Senate as a body.

So I accept the responsibility. Whether we go ahead and as the cloture ripens we go forward, that is a matter I will work on with my leader in consultation. And if there is such progress made on a list of amendments that remain, I would wish to take into consideration the possibility we might not vote on it. But I feel I have to have that in place to efficiently work and manage this bill in the interim period between now and Tuesday morning.

But bottom line, I accept the responsibility. It is not that of the distinguished majority leader.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.

I say to my colleagues, I accept the responsibility. I listened carefully to these points. I suggest we all do our very best between now and Tuesday morning to put together a record of accomplishments to have the votes--they can be set up quite easily tomorrow, tonight, Monday--and we will reassess this situation.

Clearly, with the representations that underlie your statements that we need to move forward, with that momentum on that side, I would be very happy to match it on this side. I assure you it will be forthcoming. But I am not going to sit here and recount the number of instances today I have worked with Senators on both sides of the aisle--of which my distinguished colleague is aware--who, for various reasons, could not do this or that. And I respect that. But we have had a reasonable amount of work achieved today. So might I suggest at this point in time that we have made our case with all points. I accept responsibility. Let's go forward and see what we can achieve.

Now, Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Michigan and I have cleared amendments. I would like to do them. Then I wish to entertain a colloquy with my colleague from South Dakota. Perhaps I will undergo that colloquy at this time.

Amendment No. 1389

Again, the Senator has very cooperative in bringing this amendment to the attention of the Senate. I have had a few minutes to go over it. Let's see if we can, as best we are able, define certain parameters with regard to the goals of this amendment and its impact on the existing law. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a detailed listing of the BRAC timeline.

We have completed the GAO reviews of the DOD list and reported findings to the President and defense committees. That was done July 1. We are in the process and the Commission is having a series of hearings all across the country. The Commission sends its recommendations to the President on September 8. Thereafter, the President reviews the recommendations of the Secretary of Defense and the Commission's list of recommendations and reports to the Congress. That is September 23. Then the Commission may submit a revised list in response to the President's request no later than October 20. And the final date for the President to approve and submit the BRAC list to the Congress, or the process is terminated, is November 7. So that frames the current timetable.

Now, as I look over the Senator's--and I will go first to page 2, the section entitled: ``Actions Required Before Base Closure Round.''

The actions referred to in subsection (a)--

And that is essentially the timetable I have recounted here--

are the following actions:

(A) The complete analysis, consideration, and, where

appropriate, implementation by the Secretary of Defense of

the recommendations of the Commission on Review of Overseas

Military Facility Structure of the United States.

I draw your attention to the word ``implementation.'' Now, this report, if finished, will be released August 15. But the implementation--I certainly have no facts before me at this time by which I could even conjecture how long it would take the Secretary of Defense to implement the recommendations of the Commission on Review of Overseas Military Facility Structure of the United States. So there is no determinate date at which time the provisions in (A) can be estimated; is that correct?

Mr. President, our colloquy is addressed through the Chair. It is the word ``implementation.'' It could be that analysis could be completed--consideration. But the ``implementation'' leaves an indeterminate date for (A). I think we both agree on that point.

Going to the next point:

The return from deployment in the Iraq theater of

operations of substantially all (as determined by the

Secretary of Defense) major combat units and assets of the

Armed Forces.

Now, our President, I think quite wisely, and the Secretary of Defense have avoided any reference to a timetable with respect to the achieving of our goals in Iraq; namely, allowing that country to form its government, to provide for itself that measure of security to protect the sovereignty and, hopefully, law and order in that country, at which time it is expected that our President and the coalition leaders will make a determination as to the redeployment from the theater in Iraq of substantially all of the major combat units. So that clearly is a very difficult condition to meet in terms of when that could be completed, that with even conjecture, we cannot anticipate when that will be completed--unless you have facts that I am not aware of.

Well, it is the words ``return from deployment.'' That, clearly, in the mind of this Senator, means all the major, as determined by the Secretary of Defense, combat units. It is not difficult for me to define what are major combat units. What I cannot estimate in any way reasonably, and nor should I, because it would impinge upon the President's decision--a correct one--not to try to set a timetable. So anyway, I will move on. But that is a very indeterminate condition, to me.

We then go to (C). Now, I am told that report is likely to be finished by March of next year.

Then let's go now to (D):

The complete development and implementation by the

Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security

of the National Maritime Security Strategy.

Now, I can possibly conjecture or maybe even estimate when the development would be completed by the two Secretaries, but I certainly would not be able to determine, nor can anyone else, in my judgment, when there would be implementation. So there is another open-ended criteria. Am I incorrect?

What I am trying to convey, Mr. President, to my distinguished colleague is that the criteria you have established for a new timetable, which, again, is in a subsequent paragraph--that is in paragraph (2) on page 4--and I read it--

The report required under subparagraph (F) of paragraph (1)

shall be submitted not later than one year after the

occurrence of the last action described in subparagraphs (A)

through (E) of such paragraph.

So you add possibly up to a year on a whole set of indeterminate schedules up here. Now, I think I have made my point.

I want to put this question to the Senator. As our colleagues have the opportunity--as we are now doing--to look at this and to either determine how best they can vote to protect the interests of their State and to protect the interests of the country, as we go through this very difficult process of BRAC this is my fifth one. It is not easy. I think they have to suddenly recognize the indeterminate schedule, as laid out by this amendment, will hold in limbo the whole BRAC process for, it could be, up to 2 years. I just throw the quick estimate out of 2 years. That 2-year period poses a frightful situation for the communities that will have had by that time the report of the BRAC Commission, which will send its recommendations to the President on September 8.

So this amendment does not stop that process going forward. I am correct on that; am I not?

That is fine. But on September 8, all the communities would know what is final, what is decided by the Commission on the President's original list that went up, which bases, facilities will be closed, realigned, whatever the case may be. It is a wide spectrum of decisions. Then they are subject to other additions, which they are in the process of going through. And they are permitted by law.

So there it is: The BRAC Commission report is out, and these communities have to now cope with the high probability, under this amendment, were it to be adopted--2 years have lapsed. In the meantime, how can they attract new business as a consequence of such facility, the military they have? The businesses that are serving indirectly or directly the military facilities in that community, do they decide to put in new capital and continue to modernize their business to do their responsible actions to support that facility?

You put a cloud of indecision and doubt over all the communities that will be affected by this September 8 decision. And BRAC is onerous in its own schedule right here. It is extremely hard. And now to take and hold these communities, literally, in irons for a period of 2 years until, if the amendment were adopted, certain adjustments might be made in the final Presidential decision--I just find this amendment, with all due respect to my good friend and colleague, who is a member of our committee, as one that will impose on communities a very severe hardship. I am not sure the Congress will want to do that. I say that to you in all respect.

One last point, and then perhaps the distinguished ranking member would like to be engaged in this debate. One of the aspects of the BRAC process that has always troubled this Senator is the duty, beginning with the Governor of the State and the congressional delegation, to encourage the communities, with their support, to do everything they can to question such decisions as may be made regarding installations within that State and the several communities.

In doing so, they engage in those activities which are quite normal-- hire lobbyists, experts to come in and help them. That whole infrastructure then essentially has to be kept in place for maybe up to another 2 years at an enormous cost to these communities. I will argue strenuously, when we get into further debate on the Senator's amendment, that the amendment, no matter how well-intended, will inflict on communities across this land affected by BRAC an unusual punishment that certainly I do not believe any of us would want to do.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Yes.

My last question on that point, there will be an enormous amount of data generated, information and decisionmaking that will take place should the Senator's amendment become law. Is he suggesting that the communities then will have no participation in the deliberations as to how that data may or may not affect the decision of the Secretary of Defense regarding the prior decision of the Base Closure Commission and how the Secretary of Defense is to advocate? I just cannot see this amount of data and decision being made by all of these various tribunals and organizations and that the communities just have to sit there and fold their hands and let the executive branch go backwards and forwards until the President then submits something to the Congress.

I understand that. But it seems to me, if you look at all of the information, data, reports in A, B, C, D, E, and F, to me, in fairness, the communities should have some involvement as to how that information may or may not impact the decision with regard to their community rendered by the BRAC Commission. I just can't see that everybody is going to fold their hands. If you are going to delay it for 2 years, some provision should be made to allow the active participation, once again, by the communities after this massive amount of data is brought into the public domain. I make that observation.

I yield the floor.

What we do have already is a statement by the President that any effort to delay or impede the BRAC process would lead to a veto, with such clarity in my mind. By the way, an amendment, if I may advise my good friend, quite similar to this amendment was considered by the House and defeated by a vote of 112 for and 316 against, or something.

I think our colleague should know if this ever got into the bill, the President would have to veto the bill. We would have to start all over again on the Defense bill. I don't know when we would do it. But certainly if the House is any guide, it was thoroughly rejected.

Am I not correct in that?

Mr. President, I thank our colleague. We have had quite a good debate. I am prepared to move on, subject to the views of my colleague.

Rest assured, that will be done. I will prepare a letter. The Senator from Michigan and I will be here tomorrow morning and perhaps we can make a joint request outlining precisely what our views are.

I anticipate that the reply from the administration would be forthcoming on Monday. I think the Senator would be available to debate this matter later in the afternoon.

The Senator has a very distinguished list of cosponsors, I might add.

Mr. President, in great seriousness, referring to the cosponsors, they are Senators Lieberman, Snowe, Lautenberg, Johnson, Dodd, Collins, Corzine, Bingaman, and Domenici.

I stick by my words that it is a distinguished list of cosponsors.

Mr. President, the managers wish to advise the Senate that we have accomplished a good deal today, and we will be fully in business tomorrow, with the exception of rollcall votes. It is our hope and expectation that we can go through a number of amendments and stack those votes for a time to be decided by leadership.

Therefore, Mr. President, I think we can move off of the bill and do such wrap-up as is necessary.

Mr. President, 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 there now be a period for the transaction of morning business.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to conduct a committee business meeting during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 21, 2005 at 10:30 a.m. in SR-328A, Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of this business meeting is to mark up an original bill regarding the reauthorization of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 21, 2005, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the ``The Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to the Congress.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, July 21, 2005, at 10 a.m., on pending committee business.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 21, at 10 a.m.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony regarding the current state of climate change scientific research and the economics of strategies to manage climate change.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on Thursday, July 21 at 10 a.m. to consider pending nominations:

Jill L. Sigal to be Assistant Secretary of Energy for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs; David R. Hill to be General Counsel of the Department of Energy; James A. Rispoli to be Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management; R. Thomas Weimer to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Policy, Management and Budget; Mark A. Limbaugh to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Water and Science.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 21, 2005, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing on United Nations Reform.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 21, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on Nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to hold an off-the-floor markup during the session on Thursday, July 21, 2005, to consider the nominations of Richard L. Skinner to be Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Brian David Miller to be Inspector General of the General Services Administration, and Edmund S. Hawley to be Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, July 21, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on S. 1003, the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Amendments Act of 2005.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, July 21, 2005 at 9:30 a.m., in Senate Dirksen Office Building, Room 226.

Agenda

I. Bills: S. 1088, Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005, Kyl, Cornyn,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 21, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Bioterrorism and Public Health Preparedness, be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 21, at 10 a.m., in SD-430.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Federal Management, Government Information, and International Security be authorized to meet on Thursday, July 21, 2005 at 2:30 p.m., for a hearing regarding ``U.S. Financial Involvement in Renovation of U.N. Headquarters in New York City''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight be authorized to meet during the session on Thursday, July 21, 2003, at 2:30 p.m., to hear testimony on ``Updating Depreciable Lives: Is there Salvage Value in the Current System?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ken Casey, in Senator Chambliss' office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the Defense authorization bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Katy Hagan, a detailee with the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, be granted floor privileges during the consideration of this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3377 which was received from the House.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the adjournment of the Senate, the majority whip be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills and joint resolutions.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 202, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the concurrent resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S.

Res. 203, 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 the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration of the bill H.R. 2385, and that the bill be referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 544 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, there is one matter remaining. I want to thank all of those who have been working very hard on the Defense authorization bill. I am not just speaking of the Senators or their staffs but all of those who make it possible for this venerable and great institution to work. Long hours are expended here. This Chamber remains open, and while there are not many people to be seen, there are many people around this Chamber working diligently to keep it open. I thank them all, and I would assure them that momentarily this final matter will be concluded and we will be able to stand in adjournment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, will the distinguished Senator yield? I ask unanimous consent that I can follow the Senator from Texas and seek recognition.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the prospective member of the Supreme Court. The nomination of Judge John Roberts has been transmitted to the Senate by President Bush. I express my very strong support, based on the facts as we now know them, for this outstanding individual.

I wish to commend the President of the United States on his selection, and particularly commend him with regard to the procedures he followed pursuant to the constitutional clause of advice and consent. He consulted a number of the Members of the Senate in the context of this nomination of Judge Roberts and, indeed, the process that will soon be undertaken by the Senate.

Also, I wish to speak to the Gang of 14, a bipartisan group of 14 individuals, 7 Republicans and 7 Democrats, of which I have been privileged to have been a member of from the very beginning, and I wish to speak to the work the group performed on behalf of the leadership and the Members of this body.

In the course of drawing up the memorandum of understanding between members of the Gang of 14, I was privileged to work with my good friend of so many years and, indeed, a former leader of the Senate, Robert Byrd of West Virginia. We devised the portion of our memorandum of understanding as it relates to advice and consent. Speaking for myself, I believe the President lived up to, in every respect, what our expectations and desires were in putting in that clause. I thank my friend from West Virginia, as I have often done on the floor of the Senate, for his advice, and sometimes consent, to my own views.

Mr. President, that group of 14 did provide the foundation for our leaders--Republican and Democrat--to bring forth the nominations of six Federal circuit judges, each of whom received the advice and consent of the Senate, and now serve as federal judges. I think that is an important point that should be brought up in the context of this nomination.

Also, the question is sometimes asked about another clause of our memorandum of understanding, extraordinary circumstances. I feel as follows:

By way of background, I was privileged to introduce the then-lawyer John Roberts to the Senate Judiciary Committee on two occasions. The Judiciary Committee had two hearings and asked him to appear in both instances.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the remarks I made at those hearings, which detail extensively his biography and the like.

So I was privileged to have that opportunity. In the context of performing that task before the Judiciary Committee, I made an independent assessment for myself of his credentials to be a Federal judge. Indeed, I talked to a number of friends who knew him very well.

I point out that I was privileged to serve as a law clerk on the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, where he is currently serving. In addition, I had the great opportunity to be associated with the law firm of Hogan & Hartson, eventually becoming a partner. Justice Roberts, of

course, in his distinguished career, likewise was a member of the firm of Hogan & Hartson before going into various responsible positions in the executive branch, which are enumerated in my detailed biographical sketch of him.

I bring that up because I have a very strong feeling about the firm of Hogan & Hartson. I had the opportunity while there to be closely affiliated with senior partner Nelson T. Hartson. I was a junior lawyer and he was then general counsel to Riggs National Bank and other financial institutions here in the Nation's Capital. I had the privilege of carrying his briefcase, as a young lawyer often did, and preparing his memorandum and briefs and the like during my own work for those clients. He was a magnificent man of the old school and of the law firms of this Nation.

Hogan & Hartson stands out second to none as a law firm in this Nation. I remember so well that Nelson T. Hartson had ethical standards second to none. His leadership permeated down through that firm, certainly in those early days when I was privileged to be there. The firm is much larger now, but it still has a profound reverence for its founder, its leader and former senior partner Hartson, and the principles for which he stood, primarily in the area of ethics.

As to my independent examination, I certainly believe John Roberts brings to this Senate a clear record of extraordinary public service and achievements. But the question is sometimes asked about the issue of extraordinary circumstances in reference to the memorandum of understanding among the Gang of 14. I can only express my own opinion, but I do so very carefully.

I am respectful of the process by which the chairman and ranking member of the Senate's Judiciary committee will examine this nominee. They both are dear and valued friends whom I have known over the course of the 27 years I have served in the Senate. They have an important function to perform in the Judiciary Committee. In no way do I want to get out ahead of their examination of the record. Therefore, based on what I know today regarding John Roberts and my own independent investigation at the time I was privileged to introduce him, I can only opine as this process evolves that there will not be, in my judgment, a body of fact that would give rise in any way to invoking the extraordinary circumstances provision of the Gang of 14's memorandum of understanding.

Again, I carefully couch that, reserving my respect, as we all do, for the work to be done by the Judiciary Committee. But in the end, I repeat, I do not think there will be any body of fact that will give rise to invoking the extraordinary circumstances clause.

I had the pleasure this morning to call quite a few friends all across the Commonwealth of Virginia, on both sides of the spectrum, to listen to their views about this nominee. I regard those conversations as private, certainly in terms of the names of the individuals. But I was given the liberty to say two individuals, whom I have known for my entire 27 years plus--I will add 1 year, 28 years, 1 year campaigning for the Senate when I knew them both--two of the most extraordinary and nationally and internationally known religious leaders shared with me their strong approval and appreciation to the President for the nomination of this distinguished gentleman.

Likewise, I talked with a number of friends on the other side of the spectrum, two of whom are acknowledged liberals whom I have known for decades and whose opinions I value from time to time. These individuals with whom I spoke this morning have known Judge Roberts, and they likewise recognize the extraordinary credentials of this fine individual, and I think in their own ways expressed strong support.

I mention that because I think it is important for all of us to reach out and seek the views of those who feel, as I do, that this nomination is one of the most important contemporary chapters of American history.

Also, this morning, in response to several press inquiries about the Senate, I have stated that I unequivocally believe that this institution will proceed with its responsibilities under the Constitution, under the advice and consent clause, in a manner that reflects credit on the Senate itself and in a manner that reflects fairness and dignity towards the nominee. I believe that the Senate will proceed in the finest traditions of its over 200 years of experience in terms of its duties of advice and consent, and I think our Nation, and indeed, much of the world, will concur when the process is finally complete.

I conclude by moving into that terrain that is always a bit dangerous--listening to good friends who have known John Roberts for many years talk about him. I met with him briefly this morning. We joked together about this. He said: Now, I am a little apprehensive, John, about some of the persons with whom you talked. But in any event, just the warmest accolades were extended by old friends who mentioned the fact that John Roberts had been very active in what we call pro bono cases.

When I was an assistant U.S. attorney in the District for years, I saw the abuses of the system where those apprehended under the law for alleged criminal violations did not receive the quality of legal representation to which they were entitled. I participated with a number of my friends in establishing at Georgetown University the Prettyman Institute, which trains young lawyers in how to deal with pro bono cases. I remember Judge Oliver Gasch, now the late Judge Gasch, who was very active in working with me, as we worked with the Georgetown University Law School and established that institute. It has been very successful.

I mention that because John Roberts has had quite a record, as has Hogan & Hartson, in pro bono representation of those whose economic circumstances are so much less fortunate than ours, but nevertheless are entitled to first-class representation, and this fine lawyer and jurist has given that in years past.

In addition, in the firm of Hogan & Hartson, John Roberts was also often sought out by the young lawyers to counsel with them on how best to do his expertise, that is appellate court work. That is always magnificent in a firm when there is an individual to whom the young lawyers can go, perhaps those outside of the firm too, and get advice.

Also, there is a small lunchroom in the firm now and there is a table there. It is interesting, the table is dedicated to William Fulbright, a distinguished Member of the Senate who later worked with Hogan & Hartson. Around that table some great conversations occurred. Often, when John Roberts was at the table with his other partners and fellow lawyers in the firm, they recognized that he could be engaged in almost any subject and have a serious contribution. For example, he loves sports. Like so many of us, given the opportunity, when he gets up in the morning, he kind of looks at the sports page before he goes to all of the news on the other pages. Certainly I do, and I think a lot of Americans do that. He can give you statistics about the Redskins and the baseball teams and others. It is extraordinary.

When I look at the entirety of this individual and look at the American public--I am not talking just about the interest groups who will take a role in this one way or another, as they should and are entitled to, but I am talking about those citizens who watch our government perform its duties--I believe the American public will judge this individual as the facts come out. For those who will follow it, it will be quite an education with regard to not only the institution of the Senate and its constitutional responsibilities of advice and consent, but the law of the land and the very large number of issues that face this Nation today, issues that may well come before the Supreme Court someday.

So there is an educational process for all of us to be had. But I think in the final analysis, the American public will say to itself: This man has the right stuff and will do the right thing for America and for us as individuals.

Mr. President, I have already placed in the Record my introduction of then-lawyer Roberts, now Judge Roberts, at two previous hearings. I have an extraordinary letter written by, I think, about 150 lawyers, many of whom I know because so many of them I have had associations with through the

years. It is addressed to the leadership of the Judiciary Committee. It says:

The undersigned are all members of the Bar of the District

of Columbia and we are writing in support of the nomination

of John G. Roberts, Jr., to serve as a federal court of

appeals judge. . . .

It is extraordinary. It is Democrats on one side, Republicans on the right, and a mixture in the center. I cannot recall in my years here ever seeing a document of such import as this in the context of a judicial nomination.

I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, on behalf of the leadership, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding passage of H.R. 3057, Salazar amendment No. 1263, as modified, which is at the desk, be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I rise regarding the pending bill, provided that no other Senators seek recognition on another matter. Seeing none, I wish to accommodate my colleagues whenever possible.

It is now my privilege to once again bring forward for consideration by the Senate the annual Defense authorization bill. I commend my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee. We have a magnificent committee. All members are very active. Our attendance is good and I am proud that this institution has such diligent and hard-working Senators to provide their input to our work on the Armed Services Committee.

I also recognize what I view, and this may be slightly biased on my part, as one of the finest professional staffs of any committee of the Senate. We have had a long history of extraordinary, competent, fair- minded, open-minded people who want to devote their careers to the men and women of the Armed Forces and the causes for which they offer their life and limb, and that of their families.

Their work over the past several months has resulted in this important legislation. We completed the markup of this bill in record time and in the spirit of true bipartisanship. In particular, I am privileged to have the senior Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, a longtime, dear, and valued friend, as my ranking member and full equal working partner on this committee. He preceded me as the chairman of the committee, but we will not go back into those days, nevertheless.

Mr. President, I have the floor.

We have served together on this committee for 27 years and we have, once again, with the other wonderful collection of Senators on this committee and the staff, produced a bill which clearly supports our men and women in uniform and their families, and strengthens the national security of our Nation.

I also want to acknowledge the strong support that we have received from the Republican leader and the Democratic leader of the Senate. These two individuals have teamed up in years past to assist the managers in getting this bill through the Senate. I cannot ever recall stronger leadership by the Senate leaders. Maybe when our distinguished colleague from West Virginia was the leader of the Senate at the time, I know he supported getting this bill through. His membership on this committee for these many years has been of great help to all of us who have been privileged to serve as chairman and ranking member.

The bill before the Senate was unanimously reported out of the committee on May 12. It reflects the strong support for the members of our Armed Forces. The bill provides $441.6 billion in budget authority for defense programs for the fiscal year 2006, an increase of $21 billion, or 3.1 percent in real terms, above the amount authorized by the Congress for fiscal year 2005.

At this juncture, I recognize the important contribution given by Senators Stevens and Inouye, the chair and ranking member, respectively, of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. It has been their hope that the Senate will act on this bill. Until such time as the Senate does act, it is not likely that they will proceed with the continuation of their deliberations, markup, and the like to bring their important bill to the floor. I say that because I want all Senators to recognize it is the intention of the Senate leadership and the managers of this bill, together with our two colleagues on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, that this bill be acted upon by the Senate prior to the scheduled recess for the month of August.

I mention that because one Senator had very politely said to me: I would like to offer an amendment, but I think I will wait until after the August recess. I politely informed him that it is the intention of all parties that this bill be enacted prior to the August recess. He appreciated my candor.

This amount is consistent with the President's budget request and within the budget resolution adopted by the Congress. The bill also includes authorization for $50 billion in emergency supplemental funding for fiscal year 2006 to cover the cost of military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout the world, together with our coalition partners, on the global war against terrorism.

I also acknowledge that while we put proper emphasis on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terrorism, there are innumerable other missions undertaken night and day by the men and women of the Armed Forces for all aspects of the diverse security needs and requirements of this Nation. Many of them are on the far-flung outposts of the world performing those missions beneath the sea, above the sea, or in the air. We acknowledge with fervent gratitude their contribution, together with all of us who proudly served in uniform, and their families.

The past 3\1/2\ years have been a time of great successes and enormous challenges for the U.S. Armed Forces. The mission of our men and women in uniform has never been executed with better skill and dedication. I myself am privileged to have had modest experience in uniform. I have had the privilege of having an association with the men and women in uniform for 60 years. That is a long period of time. Almost without exception, in all those years at some point in time I have had the opportunity to either serve alongside of, or be in support of, the men and women of our Armed Forces. I had a very brief career in World War II, inauspicious as it was, and I had the opportunity to serve in that historic period. I would say unequivocally that, while our generation of World War II was referred to as ``the greatest,'' this generation is every bit as great if not greater in the complexity of the threats posed against this Nation night and day and the sacrifices they are

being called upon to make in the performance of their duties and those of their families.

The rapid success, and it was a rapid success, of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and the rather prolonged but nevertheless successful operation to date, Operation Iraqi Freedom, has evolved into the hard work of reconstruction and stability operations in both theaters, necessary to secure peace and stability in their respective regions. Such important work brings with it new challenges associated with an extraordinarily high operational tempo on people and equipment and the need to counter asymmetric threats, including improvised explosive devices and the ever increasing, tragic, tragic use of the suicide bomber. Further, the responsibility of the Nation is to properly care for those who volunteer to serve--active, National Guard, reserve, retired, and their families. They deserve nothing less than our total support. The bill, in my judgment, meets those challenges.

This bill is being considered at a time when the United States continues to work with a coalition to defeat terrorism globally and defend freedom and democracy. The recent tragic aftermath of terrorist bombings in London reminds us once again, in this global war on terrorism, of the ruthless nature of the enemy we face. When I say ``we,'' it is not only the United States, but freedom-loving people wherever they are in the world. It is a war we must and will win.

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 the hard-won military successes and to preserve peace and freedom. Successful elections in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past year are testament to the yearning of those people for a voice in their own destiny, the willingness of the United States to assist, and the professionalism of the brave Americans and their coalition partners who volunteer to serve. The U.S. Armed Forces serving around the world are truly the first line of defense in the security of our U.S. homeland.

We are all mindful of the risks members of the Armed Forces face every day, and of the sacrifices made by the families and their communities. I repeat, the communities are so involved with the men and women of the Armed Forces stationed overseas, the men and women in uniform who have been asked to do much in the past year and who responded in the finest traditions of the generations of Americans who preceded them. The American people are proud of their men and women in uniform, and what they have accomplished to protect our freedom here at home and abroad.

While recent successes have proven the value of past investment in the people and equipment of the U.S. Armed Forces, this is no time for any complacency. The recurring lessons of our military operations are that national security threats are ever changing and persistent. Victory and successes must be accomplished by vigilance and preparation. Such vigilance takes the form of enhanced readiness for today's Armed Forces, and preparation for future threats to the security of the United States, its interests, and its allies.

In preparing this legislation, together with the members of our committee, we identified seven priorities to guide our committee's work on the national defense bill now before the Senate. The first priority is to provide our men and women in uniform the resources they need to win the global war on terrorism; second, to enhance the ability of the Department of Defense to fulfill its homeland defense responsibilities; third, to provide the resources and authorities needed to rapidly acquire the full range of force protection capabilities for deployed forces, particularly with regard to improvised explosive devices; fourth, to continue the committee's commitment to improve the quality of life for those who serve--active, reserve, National Guard, and retired, and their families, with particular emphasis on recruiting and retention and on the health care for those who bear the wounds of our war; fifth, to sustain the readiness of our Armed Forces to conduct military operations against all current and anticipated threats; sixth, to support the Department's efforts to develop the innovative, forward- looking capabilities necessary to modernize and transform the Armed Forces; and, finally, to continue active committee oversight of Department programs and operations, particularly in the areas of acquisition reform to ensure proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

With passage of the bill before us, the Senate has the opportunity to send a strong message in support of the men and women of the Armed Forces serving at numerous posts at home and abroad that America values and honors their service and that of their families.

The bill contains much-deserved pay raises and benefits for military personnel and their families, enhanced survivor benefits for those whose loved ones have made the ultimate sacrifice, improved health care for both active and reserve components of personnel and their families, and prudent investments in the equipment and technology our military needs to address current and future threats.

I urge my colleagues to debate this bill in a constructive spirit and to support its adoption.

There is one issue I would like to highlight: My colleagues and I on the committee, and I think almost every member of the committee shares this view, and many of us in the Senate--we are all concerned about the declining state of the building of new ships for the U.S. Navy. We do not believe the current or projected level of funding for shipbuilding is adequate to build the numbers of ships our Navy needs to perform and continue to perform its global missions. Always remember, the Constitution of the United States directs this Congress to raise its armies, but ``maintain'' a Navy. The Founding Fathers were specific in that direction to the Congress and it is our duty to fulfill it. They had the foresight to realize that a navy can not be quickly constituted or reconstituted. It takes a decade or more from the concept of a new ship through the years to prepare the plans, to test the ship, to test the system, and to finally slip it down the ways of the shipyard, and then for a period of time to further test it before it gains its ability to join the fleet. That is a long time.

In many respects that was as true years ago as it is today, so we must learn the lesson that it takes time to maintain our Navy. As a maritime nation, that presence of our Navy is often displayed in the form, not only of our ships, not only through ensuring open sealanes of communication and training in international waters, but also the inherent diplomatic mission of visiting our ports and proudly showing Old Glory, our flag. The Navy currently has 288 ships in the active fleet. This is the smallest number of ships in the Navy since before--I would like to repeat this--the smallest fleet since before World War II. That is before December 7, 1941.

I believe the shipbuilding budget must be reviewed by the administration as a matter of utmost urgency in the coming year, and I respectfully urge the President to establish a special shipbuilding fund, to direct the OMB to provide a dedicated fund for the building of ships rather than each year make the allocation--so much to the Department of the Navy, so much to the Department of the Air Force, so much to the Department of the Army. Keep those allocations as they are devised each year, but superimpose on the allocation of funding for the Navy a sum of dollars to turn around this declining curve of shipbuilding.

America has much to be thankful for in terms of its patriotic young Americans who volunteer to serve and who have individually and collectively performed with such professionalism and distinction in defense of the United States. The efforts of the U.S. Armed Forces have been remarkable, but they are not without cost--the loss of priceless lives that must be honored and remembered; the responsibility to care for the survivors and their families; the cost of ongoing operations and related refurbishment or replacement of heavily used equipment; and the responsibility to assure that those who serve, and their families, receive the quality of life and the benefits they need and to which they are entitled.

I believe the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006 prudently addresses the defense needs of

our Nation and recognizes the service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform and their families, provides the resources necessary to win the global war on terrorism, and makes the necessary investment to provide for the security of our Nation in the years to come.

I urge my colleagues to join me in sending a strong message of bipartisan support for our troops at home, their families, and to the other nations in the world--America is committed to freedom.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I certainly concur in those observations about our highly esteemed colleague from West Virginia. I thank the Senator for his kind remarks.

I think this is No. 27 for us--a quarter of a century. It is a pretty good record.

I am quite anxious, as I know the Senator is, that Senators bring forth amendments.

I will propose an amendment for deliberation. Moments ago, I notified your staff about it. I am perfectly willing to procedurally take it up because I know two colleagues on that side of the aisle are interested in the same subject. We notified our offices this amendment would be brought up. They may have some views on it. I hope they will address their views.

Amendment No. 1314

I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, there has been tremendous effort of our committee on both sides of the aisle with respect to the equipment being used, primarily in Iraq at this time, but could well be used elsewhere. We refer to them as the up-armored high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles; humvees are part of that. There is a range of these vehicles.

The purpose of this amendment is to add $105 million to the Army and $340 million to the Marine Corps for emerging up-armored HMMWV requirements that the United States Central Command, under General Abizaid, has established.

In the last few days, I was down at Quantico where they have a magnificent research and development and forward-looking contingent. I looked on the parade grounds at a series of vehicles being modified in certain ways to provide a greater degree of protection to the occupants--namely, our soldiers or Marines--who must use these vehicles in the face of this insidious, frightful threat of suicide bombers, implanted bombs which are activated by different devices, even a simple cell phone. This is tough going.

I commend a number of Senators--Senator Kennedy, Senator Bayh, a number of Senators on my side--who have been working this issue for some years. The hour and the time has come to add significant sums of money.

At some point in this debate on the amendment I will go into further detail, but the Committee on the Budget allocated to the Committee on Armed Services a very significant amount of money to be authorized at our discretion for the purposes of the immediate requirements of the military in connection with their missions today, primarily in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Army's current global war on terror requirement for up-armored HMMWVs is 10,000 vehicles. The Marine Corps current global war on terrorism requirement for up-armored HMMWVs is approximately 500 vehicles.

The markup of the fiscal year 2006 Defense bill, the one we are on, recommends that $120 million be provided to the Secretary of the Army to address the emerging up-armored HMMWV requirements toward its 10,000-unit requirement. The Secretary of the Army was provided the authority and flexibility to procure up-armored HMMWV's tactical wheel add-on armor, the M1151, the M1152 HMMWVs, once the Army received a validated requirement from a combatant commander. The amendment is funded for 11,693 up-armored HMMWVs, and the Marine Corps is funded for 498 up-armored HMMWVs through December 2005.

Since the markup of the fiscal year 2006 authorization bill, the committee has received new information that justifies, in our judgment, the increase of the Army and the Marine Corps requirement for dollars to meet the up-armored HMMWV goals. The Army has an emerging requirement for up-armored HMMWVs for Afghanistan which may increase the overall requirement by 300 up-armored HMMWVs.

The Marines Expeditionary Force Forward Commander recently requested that all HMMWVs in his area of operation be upgraded to the up-armored HMMWV variant. This could potentially increase the Marine Corps requirement to 2,814 up-armored HMMWVs, of which 988 are now funded.

In keeping with the commitment of the Committee on Armed Services to meet all force protection requirements, this amendment proposes to add $105 million to the Army budget authorized and $340 million to the Marines Corps to allow the Department to respond quickly to the commander's request. It is there.

This is quite a complicated amendment. A number of Senators have expressed an interest in this amendment. I would like to debate this tonight. I request the leadership consider having a record vote in due course. I urge Senators who have an interest in this matter to communicate with me or Senator Levin.

I would like to have Senators' views. I propose to put it to one side; thereby giving a full opportunity for all members to express their views. Again, I will seek the authority of the leadership to have a record vote on this. Each Senator will want to vote on this amendment. I cannot think of any equipment issue more important to the men and women from your States than this.

I want to accommodate my colleagues, and I will yield the floor so my distinguished colleague, Senator Levin, can make such comments as he wishes.

Mr. President, it is a perfectly reasonable request. I fully wish to accommodate my colleague's wishes. We will lay this amendment aside. But I would like to draw attention to the fact that the subject is one which has been under constant review, the subject of five hearings in committee over a period of time. It is so important, I would like to have this bill start off with the amendment. I am hopeful, with the concurrence of the leadership, we can address this amendment this evening.

I am perfectly willing to lay it aside now and let colleagues come over and speak to it, as you say, and take such parliamentary steps as they so desire.

So at this time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment of the Senator from Virginia be laid aside.

Now, Mr. President, I have, I think, discussed with our colleague another amendment. It relates to a subject that one of our distinguished Members of the House of Representatives, Congressman Skelton, sent. He actually brought this up as a freestanding issue in the House of Representatives. It was considered by the House and adopted. So it is now, presumably, before the Senate as a freestanding item. But it would be my desire, subject to the viewpoints of my colleague, Senator Levin, that it be incorporated in this bill, identical to what Congressman Skelton wishes to do.

The essence of it is as follows: The National Defense University and the Joint Forces Staff College do an extraordinary job of preparing our military and, indeed, a number of civilian personnel for greater responsibility. The Joint Advanced Warfighting School, which is part of the Joint Forces Staff College, has created and is now presenting a course on Joint Campaign Planning and Strategy.

The first class graduated recently, and it was composed of an impressive group of global war on terrorism officers, in other words, officers who are devoting, at this time, their professional attention to this subject.

The amendment authorizes the award of a Master of Science degree, and it is one I think is deserving of the consideration of this body and, hopefully, adoption by this body. It is an amendment which I will now send to the desk for immediate consideration.

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

In brief, the amendment would amend section 2163 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the president of the National Defense University to confer the degree of Master of Science in Joint Campaign Planning and Strategy on those students attending the Joint Advanced Warfighting School at the Joint Forces Staff College who pursued the particular course.

The Joint Forces Staff College initiated a new advanced course of study in Joint Campaign Planning and Strategy in 2004. The program received its full accreditation from the Department of Education in the fall of 2004. As I said, the first class graduated in 2005. So the legislation would authorize conferral of the degree retroactively to that class of 2005 and prospectively to the future classes.

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

Mr. President, the pending amendment which I sent to the desk, I ask unanimous consent that it be laid aside.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to thank my longtime friend and committee member, the Senator from Alabama. We have worked together. We have traveled together. We have been to Iraq together. We went down last Friday to Guantanamo to inspect the detention facilities down there. He has always responded to the request of the chairman, pack a bag, will travel, take on any mission. I thank him.

I also thank him for working as subcommittee chairman and getting the work done in his subcommittee.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, we are working with the other side. I think we have a package of cleared amendments, but maybe the Senator wishes to address something else.

Amendment No. 1315

I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Jon Kyl as a cosponsor of amendment No. 1314.

Mr. President, with the attention of my distinguished ranking member, we ask that a series of amendments, which I will now send to the desk, which have been cleared, be considered, and I ask that any statements relating to the individual amendments be printed the Record.

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

Mr. President, I urge adoption of these amendments.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1324

Mr. President, I send an amendment on behalf of Senators McConnell, Bunning, Allard, and Salazar, which would provide the Secretary of Defense authority to use research and development funds available for chemical weapons demilitarization activities under the Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternative Program to carry out construction projects for facilities necessary to support chemical demilitarization at Pueblo Army Depot in Colorado and Bluegrass Army Depot in Kentucky. I believe it has been cleared.

Mr. President, I urge the Senate to adopt this amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, the amendment is acceptable to this side.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I believe, unless my distinguished colleague has a need to further address the Senate, we have concluded the opening round of our bill. My understanding is that the pending business will be amendment No. 1314 to S. 1042, am I correct?

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.