Floor Statements

Mr. President, will the Chair advise the Senate with regard to the time agreements at this point?

Mr. President, can the Senator from Virginia ask for a period of 5 minutes to discuss a matter of importance to all Senators?

Mr. President, this morning I had the privilege of engaging in a colloquy with the distinguished minority leader with regard to the desire of the Senate to have Secretary Rumsfeld come in open session and respond to questions from Senators with regard to the very serious situation of allegations about the mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq.

Senator Daschle, Senator Frist, and I--Senator Frist and I worked on it yesterday together; we worked on it again today--Senator McCain, Senator Levin--I just left him--so there has been a group of us who have worked on this.

I just finished a conversation with Secretary Rumsfeld, and he has always been quite willing to come up. It is a question of the time and the ability to get together a team of witnesses to join him. That has now been concluded. So the distinguished majority leader and I have set the time for this to be 11:45 on Friday morning for a session of approximately 2 hours with the Senate Armed Services Committee. Following that, the respective leaders of the Senate will have the usual type of briefing in S-407, at which time other Senators not members of the Armed Services Committee will have the opportunity to engage the Secretary in questions with regard to their individual concerns on this and such other topics as they may have.

I thank my colleagues. Many of you have come to me and spoken about that, and spoken to Senator Levin, and to our leaders. There is always a willingness on behalf of the Secretary to come forward. He will be joined by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Chief of Staff of the Army, the Acting Secretary of the Army, and perhaps others, because I was very insistent and he was quite willing to provide a full array of witnesses such that the entire spectrum of facts now known and available can be shared openly with the Senate and the general public.

I thank the Chair. I hope all colleagues can arrange their schedules to attend these very important meetings.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an exceptional officer in the United States Air Force, an individual that a great many of us have come to know personally over the past few years--Colonel William ``Bill'' Groves. Colonel Groves, who currently serves in the office of Air Force Legislative Liaison, will retire after 21 years of active duty Air Force service. During his time in Washington, and especially with regard to his work here on Capitol Hill, Colonel Groves epitomized Air Force core values of integrity, selfless service and excellence in the many missions the Air Force performs in support of our national security. Many Members and staff have enjoyed the opportunity to meet with him on a variety of Air Force issues and came to deeply appreciate his character and many talents. Today it is my privilege to recognize some of Colonel Groves' many accomplishments, and to commend his superb service he provided the Air Force, the Congress and our Nation.

Colonel Groves entered the Air Force by Direct Appointment in 1983 with a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Akron School of Law. During his 21-year career, he served three tours as a Staff Judge Advocate, with assignments at the 6th Air Refueling Wing, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, and the Aerospace Guidance and Metrology Center. In 1990, he completed a Masters of Law program in Government Procurement at George Washington University, in Washington, DC. He has completed two overseas tours in Germany and was deployed in 1994 as the Legal Advisor for the Combined Air Operations Center, Vicenza, Italy, during Operations DENY FLIGHT and PROVIDE PROMISE. Just prior to his current assignment, he served as Assistant General Counsel for Procurement, Missile Defense Agency here in Washington, D.C.

In 2001, Colonel Groves was selected as Chief, Programs and Policy Branch for the Air Force Directorate of Legislative Liaison. During this period, Colonel Groves led 14 liaison personnel responsible for all Air Force interactions with the Armed Services Committees on personnel issues, readiness, depot maintenance, environmental compliance, airspace and range operations, force structure, base closure, health care, inspector general matters, military construction, and acquisition policies. Additionally, he directed the process used for USAF activities worldwide to submit legislative proposals to Congress. In his years of working with the Congress, Colonel Groves provided a clear and credible voice for the Air Force while representing its many programs on the Hill, consistently providing accurate, concise and timely information. His integrity, professionalism, and expertise enabled him to develop and maintain an exceptional rapport between the Air Force and the Congress. The key to his success, I believe, was his deep understanding of congressional processes and priorities and his unflinching advocacy of the programs essential to the Air Force and to our Nation. I am greatly appreciative of Colonel Groves' 21-year service to his Nation and offer my sincere wishes for a happy and prosperous retirement. On behalf of the Congress and the country, I thank Colonel Groves and his wife Joanne for the commitment and sacrifices that they have made throughout his honorable military career. I know I speak for all of my colleagues in expressing my heartfelt appreciation to Colonel Groves for a job well done.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important piece of legislation for my State, the Virginia Ridge and Valley Wilderness and National Scenic Areas Act of 2004. This bill will add four new wilderness areas, five additions to existing wilderness areas, and two National Scenic Areas to the Jefferson National Forest. Congressman Rick Boucher is introducing companion legislation in the United States House of Representatives.

It is no coincidence that I introduce this legislation on Earth Day, a time when we can reflect on our natural world and the obligations we have to protect the earth which provides so richly for us. Throughout my career in the United States Senate, I have strived to preserve Virginia's natural resources and heritage through the designation of wilderness areas. In fact, I have worked to pass three wilderness bills through Congress. I stood here not four years ago and introduced a bill that added two exceptional areas in the George Washington National Forest to the wilderness system. With the help of many, that legislation is now law, and Virginia has approximately 100,434 acres of designated wilderness lands.

However, there is still work to be done. Within the Jefferson National Forest, designated wilderness areas total only 7 percent of the total forest acreage. The enactment of this legislation will substantially increase our opportunities for uninterrupted enjoyment in the forest with the addition of nearly 29,000 acres of new wilderness areas and almost 12,000 acres of national scenic areas.

Virginia is blessed with great beauty and natural diversity. From the complex ecosystem of the Chesapeake Bay, to the exquisite vistas, streams, vegetation, and wildlife of the Shenandoah Mountains, residents and visitors alike can enjoy a bountiful array of natural treasures. As demand for development in Virginia increases, it becomes incumbent upon Congress to act expeditiously to protect these wild lands. Through wilderness and national scenic area designations, we can ensure that these areas retain their primeval character and influences.

I consider myself an avid outdoorsman, and I enjoy opportunities for recreation. I want to stress the many activities that will continue to occur in these wilderness areas, including: hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, canoeing, and horseback riding, to name a few. In addition, the Wilderness Act is flexible and provides for reasonable local forest management and emergency services in wilderness areas, such as the use of motorized equipment and aircraft for search and rescue operations; or to combat fire, insects and disease.

I am particularly pleased to include in the legislation an authorization for the establishment of a non-motorized trail between County Route 650 and Forest Development Road 4018 outside of the new Raccoon Branch Wilderness area. This trail will follow the historic Rye Valley Railroad Grade and will be a popular route for mountain bikers, equestrians and hikers. In addition, this bill directs the Forest Service to develop trail plans for the wilderness and national scenic areas.

As a father and a grandfather, I feel a weighty obligation to ensure that our children have lasting opportunities to enjoy Virginia's immense natural beauty and diversity. This legislation is a crucial step in our quest to preserve these lovely areas for the enjoyment and use of future generations.

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

Mr. President, there has been some discussion on the floor, as there should be, about the very serious situations, challenging situations that our Nation and other nations fighting against terrorism and for freedom are facing now in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the company of the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, and the senior Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Hollings, I visited those two countries just four weeks ago. Senator Hollings, Senator Stevens, and I had an opportunity to discuss with the heads of state and government and our military leaders the situation, and we also visited with our troops. We visited Jordan. We visited Iraq. We visited Kuwait. We visited, of course, Pakistan. We went into Afghanistan, and we came back through Paris where we had, I thought, a very interesting and lengthy opportunity to discuss our views with President Chirac of France.

Today I would like to discuss some of these issues that were discussed on the floor today. I do so by expressing that the past few weeks have been particularly challenging for the citizens of the United States of America and, indeed, the citizens of other coalition countries fighting bravely with us in those theaters of war, namely, Afghanistan and Iraq.

We are ever mindful the risks our troops face every day and the sacrifices made by the families and the communities that support them as those who have been removed from power seek to delay their inevitable defeat as terrorists lash out against the loss of yet another haven, both in Afghanistan and in Iraq, where terrorism has been spawned to spread worldwide.

We mourn every loss of life of these brave men and women in uniform and salute those who serve and their families for their bravery, their commitment, and their sacrifice. We are at a critical juncture for the coalition operations in both of these theaters. The brilliant military victories achieved by our forces, together with coalition partners, have presented an opportunity to fully defeat violence and terror in both Iraq and Afghanistan, nations whose previous rulers had perpetrated violence and terror on their own populations, neighbors, and, indeed, the world.

The cycle of violence that has gripped this part of the world must end if we are to win the global war on terrorism and to make America and the world a safer place. Deviation from our current course will only embolden--embolden--those who are intent on causing instability and anarchy in these regions of the world.

We have achieved extraordinary success in a relatively short period of time. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein and the threat he posed are gone, and now he, I think, to the credit of the Iraqi people, is likely to face a court of law and be judged by his own peers for his frightful administration over a period of over 30 years in that country and the hardships he imposed.

We must continue, however, to send a strong message of resolve to the people of Iraq, to our troops, to our coalition partners, and to the rest of the world that we, the United States of America, will stay the course and get the job done. As President Bush stated last week:

Now is the time and Iraq is the place in which the enemies

of the civilized world are testing the will of the civilized

world. We must not waiver.

I take great encouragement by listening to that strong statement. I have supported the President throughout these operations. As I said, I recently visited both of those areas, and I have done it three or four other times. It has been an opportunity for me, as chairman of our Armed Services Committee, to follow these operations very carefully.

President Bush has set a course that calls for the return of political sovereignty to the Iraqis on June 30. It is critical that we end our status as an occupying power and give the Iraqis an increased stake in what happens in their nation.

I would like to pause on that point. Yesterday, in the course of our series of hearings before the Armed Services Committee, at which time we had the benefit of the testimony of the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Mr. Wolfowitz, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Ambassador Gross, I raised a question about the use of the term ``sovereignty.'' I have watched

carefully as all those in positions of authority have begun to discuss what takes place on the 30th of June.

It has been referred to, and I do not say this out of disrespect but just factually, somewhat loosely. People have said we are going to convey sovereignty, as I have just read from these remarks. Others say it is a conveyance of power to a new Iraqi interim form of government. I shall address that later.

In the hearing yesterday, through questioning by myself and other colleagues, it was clearly established that the security of Iraq must be maintained by the coalition forces until such time as the Iraqis can put in place, whether it is police, a national guard, an army, or a combination of all of those forces, a force such that we can turn over to them completely the operations that must take place to repel the insurgents and otherwise maintain security in that country.

The question is, Since that must be maintained and the document that the Iraqi Governing Council and the Coalition Provisional Authority put together--the Transitional Administrative Law--specifically states that the Iraqi security forces, as they come along, will be under the unified command of a U.S. led multinational force that is authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 1511. This resolution goes into some detail with regard to how the security will continue to be maintained under the auspices of the coalition military leadership. The security will still emanate from the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and others who are now directing, through their military commanders, the security operation in Iraq. Those forces are going to stay.

If we look at the pure definition of ``sovereignty,'' one must say: Wait a minute. The very heart of being a sovereign nation is providing security of one's borders, of one's internal situation, and security against anyone attacking one's nation. That is the very heart of what I believe is sovereignty. But that authority simply does not pass, as I said, because of the Transitional Administrative Law and related orders enacted by the Iraqi Governing Council and the Coalition Provisional Authority, which are the current authority in Iraq, and by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1511. So I think as we use the term ``sovereignty'' with reference to what passes on June 30, we should be very careful to say limited sovereignty passes.

A great deal of responsibility will be transferred to this new entity, but the security function is going to remain under the control of those I have just described until such time--presumably with the combined judgment of the coalition forces and the governing body of Iraq--there is a sequential series of governing bodies that take place, and until that time we are going to be very active in continuing to support a security framework so that government can work.

Again, I return to the date of June 30. This date was endorsed by the U.N. special representative, Mr. Brahimi. Mr. Brahimi and the U.N. are playing an important and growing role in this transition of the government and will continue to play a critical role, hopefully, in helping Iraq on its path to democracy.

The President's appointment earlier this week of the trusted international statesman and current U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., John Negroponte, as the first U.S. Ambassador to a free and democratic Iraq is another important step in the process. I have known Mr. Negroponte for a number of years, and I have the highest regard for his professional capabilities and his character.

Continued U.S. commitment to the June 30 transition date is of enormous importance to the Iraqi people and to the region, for it will be the day Iraq takes its place in the community of free nations and the day Iraqis assume responsibility for their future. A free, democratic Iraq means defeat for the forces of terrorism and instability in Iraq.

Clearly, the recent surge of violence in Iraq is related to the imminent transfer of sovereignty. Those who fear democracy are trying to delay its arrival. Those who incite terror realize their days are numbered. Opponents of a free and democratic Iraq are desperate and will become even more desperate, we all fear--at least I do, and I think some others--in the weeks to come until June 30.

It is my hope, but I certainly do not want to raise expectations, but I do have a hope that once the realization, after June 30, settles in among the Iraqi people that at long last the first of a series of steps to give them total sovereignty is occurring, that 80 to 90 percent of Iraqi citizens want this program to succeed and the coalition forces to finish their work. Those people will help us in establishing a greater degree of security in Iraq.

We must be prepared, however, for such violence as does continue to occur between now and June 30 and afterwards. There is not going to be a cliff, an abrupt drop-off. It is likely to continue for a period of time, but our coalition forces are resolute to maintain that security.

Some greater detail was shared with this body by the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of State yesterday during our hearing outlining these first steps towards democracy, including: formation of an Iraqi Interim Government, with the assistance of the U.N., and extensive consultation with the Iraqi people, to accept limited sovereignty on June 30, 2004; the organization of elections for a representative national assembly and transitional government, to be held no later than January 31, 2005; the drafting and ratification of a constitution by October 2005; and, elections and formation of a constitutional Iraqi government by the end of December 2005. During this interim and transitional period, considerable effort will be made by U.S. and coalition forces to select, train, equip and mentor the various components of the Iraqi security forces, so as to be able to assume increasing responsibility for the internal security and external defense of Iraq.

This is a good plan--a realistic plan--that has received the support of Ambassador Brahimi, the special representative of the U.N. Secretary General, Kofi Annan. This plan, and what additional support may be required from the U.N., are the subject of ongoing discussions at the

Madam President, I commend our distinguished colleague from Texas. He spoke from the heart on this measure. It is a matter of utmost seriousness.

I ask unanimous consent I be made a cosponsor on this pending legislation.

Madam President, I rise again to join the Senator from Texas and many other Members on this side of the aisle in strong support of health care liability reform.

My father was a medical doctor. He was an obstetrician. I am grateful to so many doctors from whom I am hearing all across America about this crisis. My father had no great interest in politics. He voted regularly; I remember that. I think most physicians find little time to involve themselves in politics. But this is a political question. We have to look at it fair and square and call it as it is.

America is crying out from every corner of our land, from all 50 States, for relief from the oppressive number of lawsuits brought against the medical profession, a profession that is not interested in politics. They are only interested in caring for the citizens of this Nation.

I am proud to stand with the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Frist, the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, the Senator from Texas, the Senator from Nevada, and others, time and time again in this Senate to urge this body to rise above politics and extend a helping hand to the medical profession.

Early this year, I was pleased to offer my own amendment on health care liability reform. My amendment was called the Protect the Practice of Medicine Act, amendment No. 2624, but procedural impediments--I have to recognize we follow the rules around here--prevented the Senate from addressing that bill. My amendment was supported by the American Medical Association, the American College of Surgeons, and a number of other associations representing the men and women in our medical profession. Unfortunately, a procedural move by the opponents precluded the Senate from voting on this amendment.

I stand today in hopes there will be a vote on this measure. This measure is very much like the measure I put forth; indeed, the goals are common.

Opponents of health care liability reform have been using procedural tactics in the Senate to prevent an up-and-down vote on these issues for many years. The consequences are grave. Men and women continue to leave the practice of medicine due to the high cost of malpractice insurance, and patients continue to lose access to medical health care.

We have all heard the real stories from doctors about the rapidly increasing costs of medical malpractice insurance. In some States, malpractice insurance premiums have increased as much as 75 percent in 1 single year.

As have others in this body, I have received numerous letters from medical professionals from the Commonwealth of Virginia and across the Nation that share with me the very real difficulties they encounter with malpractice insurance and the consequences of this problem.

Let me read one of those letters sent to me by a doctor in Virginia. The doctor writes:

I am writing you to elicit your support and advice for the

acute malpractice crisis going on in Virginia. . . . I am a

48-year-old single parent of a 14 and 17 year old. After all

the time and money spent training to practice OB/GYN--

That is obstetrics, my father's profession, or specialty--

I find myself on the verge of almost certain unemployment

and unemployability because of the malpractice crisis. I have

been employed by a small OB/GYN group of doctors for the last

7 years. . . . Our malpractice premiums were increased by 60

percent in May of 2003. . . . The prediction from our

malpractice insurance carrier is that our rates will probably

double at our next renewal date in May 2004. The reality is

we will not be able to keep the practice open and cover the

malpractice insurance along with other expenses of medical

practice.

Another letter writer from the Midwest:

Due to the rapid increase of premiums, the crisis is one of

affordability and availability of insurance for physicians. .

. . The result of this is premature retirement, physicians

moving to more favorable areas--

Moving from one State to another State--

discontinuing high-risk procedures or finding other ways to

make a living out of medicine. All of this, of course,

affects the patients, who have increasing difficulty finding

medical care.

Letter after letter are stories of the effect this crisis is having across America.

Time magazine and Newsweek have thoroughly detailed the crisis doctors are facing. I have the two recent issues entitled ``Lawsuit Hell,'' and the second, ``The Doctor is Out.''

It is being discussed all across America. That is why it is so imperative this institution, the Senate, be given the opportunity to vote on this issue.

In June of 2003, Time magazine had a cover story on the effects of rising malpractice insurance rates. The story entitled ``The Doctor is Out'' discusses several doctors all across America who have had to either stop practicing medicine or had to take other action due to increased insurance premiums. One example cited in the Times article is the case of Dr. Mary-Emma Beres. Time reports:

Dr. Mary-Emma Beres, a family practitioner in Sparta, N.C.,

has always loved delivering babies. But last year, Dr. Beres,

35, concluded that she couldn't afford the tripling of her

$17,000 malpractice premium and had to stop. With just one

obstetrician left in town for high-risk cases, some women who

need C-sections now must take a 40-minute ambulance ride.

Dr. Beres' case makes clear that not only doctors are being affected by the medical malpractice crisis but patients, as well. With increased frequency due to rising malpractice rates, more and more patients are not able to find the medical specialists they need in their community or in a neighboring community and have to travel long distances or even go out of State, to other States, where there has been closer control on the types of lawsuits that generate these exorbitant fees.

Newsweek magazine had a cover story on the medical liability crisis. That cover story was entitled ``Lawsuit Hell.'' I was struck by the feature in this magazine about a doctor from Ohio who saw his malpractice premiums rise in 1 year from $12,000 to $57,000. As a result, this doctor ``decided to lower his bill by cutting out higher risk procedures like vasectomies, setting broken bones, and delivering babies''--even though obstetrics was his favorite part of practice. Now he glances wistfully at the cluster of baby photos still tacked to a wall in his office. `I miss that terribly,' he says.''

While these stories are compelling on their own, the consequence of this malpractice crisis can even be greater.

On February 11, 2003, a woman by the name of Ms. Leanne Dyess of Gulfport, MS, shared with both the HELP Committee--of which the distinguished chairman is present managing this bill--and the Judiciary Committee her very personal story about how this crisis has affected her.

She told us how, on July 5, 2002, her husband Tony was involved in a single-

car accident. He was rushed to the hospital in Gulfport where he had head injuries and received medical attention. Tony could not be treated at the Gulfport hospital because they did not have the specialist necessary to take care of him. After a 6-hour wait, he was airlifted to the University Medical Center. Today, Tony is permanently brain damaged.

According to Mrs. Dyess, no specialist was on staff that night in Gulfport because rising medical liability costs had forced almost all of the brain specialists in that community to abandon their practices. As a result, Tony had to wait 6 hours before the only specialist left in Gulfport could treat Tony to reduce the swelling in his brain.

As you can see, without a doubt, the astronomical increases in medical malpractice insurance premiums are having wide-ranging effects. It is a national problem, and it is time for a national solution.

President Bush has indicated that the medical liability system in America is largely responsible for the rising costs of malpractice insurance. The American Medical Association and the American College of Surgeons agree with him, as does almost every doctor in Virginia with whom I have discussed the issue.

The President of the AMA, Dr. John Nelson, has publicly stated:

We cannot afford the luxury of waiting until the liability

crisis gets worse to take action. Too many patients will be

hurt.

The American College of Surgeons concurs by stating:

More and more Americans aren't getting the care they need

when they need it. . . . The ``disappearing doctor''

phenomenon is getting progressively and rapidly worse. It is

an increasingly serious threat to everyone's ability to get

the care they need.

Let me state unequivocally that I agree with our President, with the AMA, with the American College of Surgeons, and with the vast majority of doctors all across Virginia.

While the amendment I offered earlier this year is somewhat different from the measure before us today--the goals are the same: to ensure that patients have access to quality health care and to protect the practice of medicine from frivolous lawsuits and runaway jury verdicts.

The legislation before us today is a commonsense solution to a serious problem, and it is time for us to vote up or down on this legislation.

Over the past several weeks, I have listened closely to my colleagues speak on the floor of the U.S. Senate about the importance of having an up-or-down vote on particular legislation. And, in response, I ask, how is this bill any different?

I, for one, intend to vote to end the filibuster on health care liability reform legislation. The consequences of continued dilatory tactics are too profound to patients and doctors in this country. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam President, I hope this institution can live up to its responsibility as duly elected representatives of the people of this country and respond to the cries of the people of this country to address this situation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1890, the Stock Option Accounting Reform Act. I am pleased to cosponsor this important legislation, and I applaud the distinguished Senator from Wyoming, Senator Enzi, and the distinguished Democratic whip for their leadership.

I urge all my colleagues to pay close attention to this legislation, and to join those of us who believe that the mandatory expensing of stock options would harm American companies, and more importantly, harm American workers who benefit from the issuance of stock options from their employers.

The Financial Accounting Standards Board--FASB--may soon take action that would require public companies to record employee stock options as an expense. This will unequivocally impede economic growth and stifle the economic recovery of our high-tech sector as well as other industries.

As a result of FASB's proposal, companies will take a massive earnings charge based on stock option ``costs''. Just as we hope to turn the corner, the tech industry will be disproportionately hit with phantom costs that will undermine general investor confidence in the tech recovery.

Expensing will destroy our partnership culture of distributing stock options to our entire workforce. We know from empirical research that broad-based employee ownership delivers higher returns to shareholders, greater productivity, and increased returns on equity.

In addition, small companies and start-ups, which depend on employee stock options to attract the smartest and brightest, will be dealt a detrimental blow. The costs associated with the implementation of this new rule will inhibit small business growth. In a time when the United States is struggling to keep more jobs in America, this proposal undermines U.S. competitiveness.

Talented and skilled U.S. workers will be forced to look to our competitors, countries such as Taiwan and Singapore, for high paying technology based employment.

It is imperative that the United States retains its status as a global technology leader. Innovation and hard work are two basic fundamentals that founded our country. Broad based employee stock options provide incentives for workers to work harder, promote savings and serve as an incentive for creating new ideas, which ultimately promotes economic growth.

I commend my colleagues for introducing this important piece of legislation, and it is my hope that you will join me in voting in favor of S. 1980.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. What is the current order?

Fine. Thank you. Mr. President, I desire to speak, say, for 7 minutes, and then I would be happy to engage in a colloquy or otherwise with my colleagues on the other side.

I thank the Chair.

Shall I divide it with my distinguished colleague?

Mr. President, I will just take 3 minutes, and then I will yield to my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Colorado.

Mr. President, with enormous enthusiasm and pride I rise today to commend President Bush and his national security team for the continually strong leadership they are providing in the ongoing global war on terrorism, and particularly as they assist the Iraqi people in their imminent transition to sovereignty.

Almost 1 year ago, a coalition of nations, led by the U.S. Armed Forces, and, indeed, those from Great Britain, liberated the Iraqi people from decades of repressive, tyrannical rule at the hands of Saddam Hussein. That day, April 9, will long be celebrated in the history of Iraq.

Our President did the right thing--he did the right thing--in gathering a coalition of nations to rid Iraq of a leader who had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, who had a regime of over 30 years of tyrannical oppression, murdered indiscriminately. This individual simply had to be brought to the terms of accountability, accountability to his own people. That orderly process is now under way. He defied international law for over 12 years. Clearly America and the world are safer today, and Iraq is a better place with a hopeful future as a result.

Tragically, the effort to make America and the world safer and to defend freedom around the world is not without an enormous cost to this Nation in terms primarily of lost lives and those who bear the scars and the wounds of war, and their families who must bear these losses. They have our deepest compassion. I extend my heartfelt sympathies to the families of the loved ones of those who have died and those who bear the wounds of combat. We are fortunate as a Nation to have dedicated citizens who willingly volunteer to make such great sacrifices to defend this Nation's liberty.

Just weeks ago, together with the distinguished Senator from Alaska and the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, I went to Iraq and Afghanistan and again looked into the faces of those brave young men and women and thanked them on behalf of the people of this Nation.

In just 3 months--91 days to be exact--the sovereignty that has been held in trust by the Coalition Provisional Authority since Iraq was liberated on April 9, 2003, will be returned to the Iraqi people. This will represent an important milestone on Iraq's path to freedom and democracy, but it is a path fraught with continuing dangers.

The recently adopted ``Transitional Administrative Law'' states that ``the work of the [Iraq] Governing Council shall come to an end'' upon the assumption of sovereignty by an Iraqi Interim Government on June 30, 2004. The TAL further states that this Iraqi Interim Government ``shall be constituted in accordance with a process of extensive deliberations and consultations with cross-sections of the Iraqi people conducted by the Governing Council and the Coalition Provisional Authority and possibly in consultation with the United Nations.''

Yesterday, the Armed Services Committee, which I am privileged to chair, received testimony from several Department of Defense officials regarding on-going military operations and activities in Iraq, and preparations for this transition to sovereignty. While some concerns about details of the transition remain, I was greatly encouraged by the testimony the Committee received. A coordinated process of deliberation and consultation with the Iraqi people is underway by the Coalition Provisional Authority, the Iraqi Governing Council, and representatives of the United Nations to define and select an Iraqi Interim Government.

Much remains to be done in this process, but it is a process that must not be delayed. The moment has arrived for the coalition to move from occupying power to partner. The moment has arrived for the Iraqi people to assume responsibility for their destiny.

The path to full freedom and democracy in Iraq will not be without difficulty and missteps. That is to be expected, but we must not be afraid to continue that journey. Symbolically, much will change on June 30. Iraq, after 30 plus years of isolation, will rejoin the community of nations and resume responsibility for its actions and relations with other nations. In terms of the reconstruction and security efforts initiated by the Coalition Provisional Authority and coalition forces, little will change on July 1. Ongoing training of Iraqi Security Forces, assistance in restoring security, revitalization of essential infrastructure, and institutionalization of democratic processes will continue.

Two weeks ago, I traveled to Iraq, together with Senator Stevens and Senator Hollings. I was impressed by the progress that has been made since I last visited that nation in July. The challenges ahead are daunting, but the

spirit of our men and women in uniform, and that of the Iraqi people, was reassuring and inspiring.

While the progress made in Iraq is substantial, it must be viewed in the context of the entire Middle East. Iraq can serve as an example and a beacon of hope, but much more complex issues must be addressed.

During my recent trip to the region for consultation with both U.S. and foreign leaders, there was a consistent expression of concern about the continuing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. The lack of progress toward a peaceful resolution continues to fan the flames of discontent across the entire region. The continuing violence breeds more violence that will undermine positive developments anywhere else in the region. We must redouble our efforts to find common ground on this difficult issue, if we are ever to achieve a peaceful world and triumph over terror and violence.

There are more challenges ahead, and there will be disappointments. That is clear. It is equally clear that President Bush and his national security team are up to the challenge. President Bush has provided steady, strong leadership in troubled times and will lead us to a safer, more secure future.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, as elected representatives of the American people, Senators seek to ensure that the U.S. Government protects the American people from international terrorism. We seek also to ensure that the cherished liberties of the American people are preserved, and to keep the people as fully informed as possible, as we fight the war on terror.

On February 24, 2004, the Counsel to the President of the United States, former Texas Supreme Court Judge Alberto R. Gonzales, addressed the Standing Committee on Law and National Security of the American Bar Association. Judge Gonzales discussed the legal basis for detention of enemy combatants in the war on terror, including U.S. citizens Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla. His address set forth details of the decisionmaking steps that

resulted in the detention of Messrs. Hamdi and Padilla as enemy combatants. The U.S. Supreme Court has accepted the cases of Messrs. Hamdi and Padilla for review during its current term.

So that all my colleagues and the American public may be informed on this important matter, I ask unanimous consent that the address by Judge Gonzales be printed in the Record.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from North Dakota. Momentarily, he is quite correct, we will address that.

This amendment raises the caps and we do not have an offset in it. We believe at this point in time the urgency of the matter dictates that we do just what I hope the Senate will do by virtue of adoption of this amendment.

Momentarily, the Senator from Oklahoma will return to the floor and perhaps the Senator will ask if we may proceed.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that there is an hour equally divided. Am I correct on that?

Mr. President, I thank both managers of the bill for their cooperation.

Yes.

No objection.

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

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

Mr. President, in this amendment, I am joined by Senator Stevens, Senator McCain, Senator Inhofe, Senator Roberts, Senator Collins, Senator Chambliss, Senator Graham, Senator Craig, and Senator Talent.

The amendment is very simple. It restores funding for the Department of Defense to the level requested by the President for fiscal year 2005. Specifically, this amendment will add $6.9 billion to the level contained in the pending budget resolution for the national defense 050 budget function.

As we review our budget priorities for the coming year, it is clear many important programs must compete for limited resources. Hard choices must be made. As we individually wrestle with the hard choices we must make, I remind my colleagues we have no more solemn responsibility than that imposed by the Constitution of the United States and that is to provide for the common defense of this great Nation, the United States. This is the most important function of the Federal Government.

The President requested $420.7 billion for defense-related activities for fiscal year 2005. That request includes funding for the Department of Defense, the defense activities of the Department of Energy--that's roughly two-thirds of the total Department of Energy budget--and a significant amount for the intelligence community.

Our military service chiefs--the Chief of Naval Operations, Chief of Staff of the Army, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, Chief of Staff of the Air Force--all four service chiefs came before the committee and asked that we authorize and obtain the full amount requested by the President.

As you well know, having spent a considerable portion of my career in the Department of Defense, each year the President goes to the Department for their recommendations, a budget is made up and it is submitted and it finally is submitted to the Office of Management and Budget on behalf of the President and Congress.

Recognition must be given that we are a nation at war. Those are the very words used by our distinguished colleague, the manager of this bill, moments ago. Terrorists brought this war to our shores on September 11, 2001. President Bush, together with a coalition of nations, responded forcefully and effectively. This Chamber provided a resolution expressing support for the President to bring the war on terrorism to the terrorists.

Hundreds of thousands of our servicemen and women are now deployed around the world defending our Nation in Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and other military operations in the ongoing war on terrorism. Hundreds of thousands more are forward deployed in Korea, the Balkans, at sea and elsewhere, protecting American interests and deterring aggression.

I wonder if our Nation realizes that well over half of the United States Army today, some 320,000 men and women, proud to wear the uniform of the United States Army, are deployed overseas, over half of the total standing Army--leaving their families behind, going into harm's way to protect us. Others stand vigilant at our borders and at our ports and in our skies here at home. We have an obligation, in my judgment, to live up to the President's budget request, which budget request was carefully prepared in consultation with the Chiefs and other senior members of the defense force.

What have our Armed Forces accomplished in the last few years? The simple answer is, everything we have asked of them and more. They have confronted brutal regimes in Afghanistan, and Iraq and given the people of those regions hope, and an opportunity to experience freedom and democracy. In Iraq, together with a coalition of nations, they liberated a repressed nation--a country larger than Germany and Italy combined--in roughly 3 weeks. The Armed Forces accomplished this with unprecedented precision, and with casualties far below estimates. This level of professionalism is what we have come to expect of our military.

Such expectations must be tempered by the realization that the magnificent professionalism of our Armed Forces is a product of strong leadership, patriotic young men and women, supportive families, great American technology, and strong, consistent resources. All of these things require the long term support of the Congress in the form of funding, guidance and support.

At a time of unprecedented demands on our military, it is critical that we provide our men and women in uniform--active, reserve, and National Guard--the funding they need to continue to successfully accomplish their missions. To meet the challenges we now face around the world, and to prepare for the future, the President has proposed a budget that includes $420.7 billion for national defense. It is a prudent request that maintains the readiness of our current force and makes the investments necessary to develop and field the capabilities that will keep our Nation safe from the uncertain threats of the future.

We are blessed with a military that has responded to the demands of a post-September 11 world with extraordinary commitment, but even the best military has its limits. The pace of recent operations is putting increased demands on our forces around the world, increased demands on our Reserve and National Guard units, and increased demands on military families. Our military has dedicated personnel--active duty, reserve, guard and retirees--and families who must be fairly compensated with competitive pay and a good quality of life. Our military has equipment that has been heavily used in recent operations that must be repaired or replaced, and new capabilities that must be developed and procured to meet future threats. And finally, our military has an aging infrastructure that must be modernized.

In my opinion, the President's budget request for defense has struck the proper balance to accomplish these goals. At this critical time in the war against terror, when we are asking so much of our uniformed personnel and their families, and when we are seeking the continued cooperation of our allies, what message do we want to send? We must send a message of continued commitment and resolve by supporting the level of funding for defense requested by the President. Our military deserves no less.

At this time, Mr. President, I yield the floor and grant such time as the distinguished Senator from Alaska may desire

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

Mr. President, I presume the managers desire to have this amendment laid aside for the present time, unless there are other speakers.

I yield such time as the Senator from Oklahoma desires.

Mr. President, would you advise the Senator from Virginia the amount of time we have left?

Mr. President, the Senator from South Carolina desires a couple of minutes following the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague.

Mr. President, how much time remains under the control of the Senator from Virginia?

Mr. President, we will yield our time if the other side will yield their time and go on to the next matter.

Mr. President, of the 2 minutes under my control, I would like to give a minute to my distinguished colleague, Senator Stevens.

Mr. President, I will be happy to follow with the remainder of my time, if the other side wishes to address this issue.

Mr. President, I say to my distinguished colleague in reply that you have brought this to the attention of the Senate year after year, as you should.

We are endeavoring, through oversight and otherwise, to correct it. But those problems in no way are owing to the valor of the men and women in uniform and their families.

That is what this vote is for.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. President, I commend my distinguished colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, who has been working on an amendment with me, and I will be his principal cosponsor on the amendment.

Senator McCain and I and other members of the Armed Services Committee, in the course of last year's authorization bill, had extensive deliberations on the core issue with regard to how such legislation, as proposed by the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, would impair our ability to work with so many of our allies on defense contracts, and the high dependence today that we have on that working relationship between a number of individual allies.

For example, the Joint Strike Fighter, which is to hopefully be the plane that will be utilized in the cause of fighting freedom by so many nations that are working on it, nine different nations are on that particular contract. Great Britain has already put down $2 billion toward that contract. At some point, I will put in the Record a printed letter written by the Ambassador of Great Britain in the context of the debate we had on last year's authorization bill, which is directly apropos of the matter before us.

Furthermore, I am going to hand to the Senator from Arizona a letter that arrived from the Under Secretary of Defense.

Yes.

The Senator is correct, Mr. President.

Mr. President, my distinguished colleague, a distinguished military professional in his own right, knows the answer full well. It was given to us this morning by General Jones, the NATO commander. The Senator was sitting next to me. It was given to us by General Abizaid, Director of Central Command, which has jurisdiction over Afghanistan and Iraq. They are fighting in both of those areas with coalition forces--again, troops being lost, life and limb--of nations that would be affected by this amendment as presently drawn.

I just observed where the distinguished Senator from Connecticut and yourself had a colloquy, which I followed off the floor. I think you are making progress toward the amendment that the Senator has, to which I have affixed my cosponsorship, which will resolve this problem. But it is important that we come to the floor--the Senator from Arizona and myself, and perhaps others--to alert colleagues. You have men and women in the Armed Forces from each of your States engaged in the very conflicts that the Senator from Arizona has recounted.

Right here in the Senate on this floor, Mr. President.

Mr. President, the Senator is quite observant in his long experience. It is a very negative effect. I also bring to the Senator's attention that we heard this morning that we are thinking of reducing some of our very large bases in Europe and putting a smaller U.S. presence in a number of countries--I mean, actually going in, spending MILCON, and putting our troops in more forward positions in this most uncertain war on terrorism. So it affects that, as well as the ability of that country to engage with us in military alliances.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Dodd amendment and support of the McCain second degree amendment. The Dodd amendment would prohibit any portion of work covered under a Federal contract for goods or services from being performed at locations outside the United States. This will do incalculable damage to our national security, undermine our relationship with our allies, and violate many of our trade agreements with respect to defense procurement. The Dodd amendment will spark a trade war in aerospace and defense trade--one of the few remaining areas that the United States has a manufacturing trade surplus. It will lead to the destruction of the U.S. aerospace industry and the loss of thousands of jobs that will migrate overseas.

How can I be so sure of the impact of this legislation? It is because, last year, the Senate Armed Services Committee fought off on a bipartisan basis similar legislation from the House of Representatives. For 6 months, this issue was debated in the National Defense Authorization Conference. In the end, we narrowly averted a national catastrophe that would have put every soldier, sailor, airman and Marine in harms way. This legislation, like the legislation from the House on last year's defense bill, marks a return to the days of Smoot- Hawley and the Buy American Act of 1933, which were passed at the height of the depression and extended the misery for so many Americans during that decade.

The Dodd legislation would significantly change the Defense Department's industrial base policy and have a devastating effect on the health of the U.S. aerospace industry. The Dodd amendment, if passed, would erase decades of procurement reforms designed to integrate the civilian and military industrial bases that support DOD, destroy our global aviation trade surplus, increase program costs, and substantially delay the transformation our forces.

One might ask how would such a well meaning amendment do such harm? First, one has to understand what has happened in the defense market in the last 15 years. After the first Gulf War, it was realized that DOD no longer dominated many of the most dynamic industries such as the computer and telecommunications industries. To maintain and transform the force, DOD needed to tap into this commercial market, but none of these industries wanted to sell to DOD because of the extraordinary red tape involved with Government contracting. The Clinton administration and the Congress passed far-reaching acquisition reform measures to allow DOD to tap into the commercial marketplace. The Dodd amendment places this progress in jeopardy.

Under the Dodd amendment, the Defense Department would no longer realize the efficiencies of using commercial buying practices, as many commercial companies with a relatively small portion of their business base devoted to defense would stop selling to the Defense Department. Why? Because commercial companies will be required to identify every microchip, every part, all of its raw materials to ensure that they were produced in the United States. As was the case before the 1994 and 1996 acquisition reforms very few commercial companies will want to do this.

As a result, the Defense Department will have to pay more for its products and will not have access to the most advanced electronics and information technologies from the commercial marketplace. Every weapon system in the U.S. inventory uses information technologies and electronics systems no

longer being made in the United States. DOD will have to recreate a DOD specific supply chain with contractors that only support the Defense Department at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars.

To conform with the Dodd amendment, the Defense Department would need to require companies to comply with a substantial data gathering exercise, merely for the right to bid on a program. It is likely that DOD would have to impose burdensome compliance and certification requirements which would expose bidders to significant liabilities, even in cases where a contract is awarded to another bidder. A commercial contractor who may do less than 1 percent of its business with the DOD is not going to expend this kind of effort for so little return.

To comply with the Dodd amendment, defense and nondefense business segments would have to be separated, slowing the development of next- generation war fighting systems and increasing program costs. For example, the aircraft engine business supports both civilian and military requirements and is only competitive because of the economies of scale inherent in producing for both markets. To conform with this language, U.S. engine manufactures would have to establish two sources of supply and two different production lines--one for the military and one for the civilian marketplace. Military and civilian engines costs would skyrocket and, most likely, the commercial engine market will be lost to overseas competitors because it will be cheaper to buy European engines. Thus, these jobs will be ``off-shored,'' something that the authors of this legislation are trying to prevent.

The international considerations of the Dodd amendment are immense. this isolationist, go-it-alone approach will have serious consequences on our relationship with our allies. Currently, our allies purchase over 26 percent of their defense needs from the United States compared to less than 1 percent that the United States buys from our allies. We don't need protectionist measures to protect our aerospace industry. However, if we pass this legislation, our allies will retaliate and the ability to sell U.S. equipment as a means to greater interoperability with NATO and non-NATO allies would be seriously undercut. Critical international programs, such as the Joint Strike Fighter and missile defense, would likely be terminated as our allies reassess our defense cooperative trading relationship.

As a result, U.S. aerospace trade and the jobs and benefits that it brings to the U.S. economy will be jeopardized. Aerospace exports 40 percent of its products. In 2002, the U.S. aerospace industry delivered a $30 billion export surplus, the largest of any sector of the U.S. economy.

What will the Dodd amendment mean for the budget? The cost of defense programs would skyrocket putting even greater pressure on domestic programs. Since companies would have to separate their defense and commercial businesses, overhead and program costs will increase. Because the number of companies willing to sell to the Government would also decrease, there would be less competition, less innovation, and fewer new technologies in defense products. With international programs jeopardized, there would be little or no cost-sharing by our allies such as the $4 billion invested by our allies in the Joint Strike Fighter program, further adding to the costs that the U.S. taxpayer will have to bear.

Overall program cost increases would force a scaling back of procurement and R&D programs. Operational costs would rise as older legacy systems would remain in use for longer periods. The safety of our men and women in the Armed Forces will be put at risk with this older equipment.

Defense transformation and the acquisition of new technologies would be drastically slowed or curtailed. The electronics and information technology building blocks would no longer be available from American commercial sources for our weapon systems. This would disrupt existing programs such as the Virginia class submarine, the Future Combat System and the F-22. An inefficient technology base serving only defense will have to be constituted at great expense in funding and time. The long- term result would be less equipment and technology in the hands of our warfighters.

Finally, the aerospace and defense industry competes with other industry sectors for investment based on a number of economic factors such as projected rate of return. The investment community would likely be concerned about investing in an industry that would be cut off from commercial sources of advanced technology, forcibly disengaged from the global marketplace and forced to rely on a single customer's requirements.

Now the supporters of this amendment will state that they have provided for a national security exemption. Unfortunately, this exemption is unworkable as it needs to be made at either the Presidential or the Secretary of defense level for each contract. The Department of Defense has over 500,000 contracts and many more individual task orders on these contracts. This is an impossible and unnecessary waiver to implement.

Mr. President, again, supporters will also state that the requirements of the Dodd amendment do not apply to procurement covered by the WTO's agreement on Government procurement. That is helpful for the rest of Government, but most defense contracts are not covered by the WTO, World Trade Organization. DOD has separate trade agreements that cover defense cooperation. These include so-called memorandums of understanding with 21 of our closest allies, additional agreements with Canada, and seven declarations of principal countries, over 60 acquisition and cross-servicing agreements, and additional provisions in NAFTA and those that apply to the Caribbean Basin countries. All of these agreements would be overridden by the proposed Dodd amendment.

The sponsors of the amendment have tried to limit the damage by only applying those restrictions to ``new'' contracts. This would be of limited help, for example, on the Joint Strike Fighter. In essence, the sponsors would welcome foreign nations' participation and money on the current development contract, but these nations would not be allowed to participate on any follow-on production contract. Under these conditions, the Joint Strike Fighter partner countries will leave the program and JSF will be terminated. It is simply that. And we desperately need it in this country. We may have to foot the entire bill of the JSF out of our own military budget if this type of legislation were to pass.

So my conclusion is that this amendment is not in the best interest of the security efforts of our Nation. It would jeopardize, as the Senator from Arizona has said, the efforts of our men and women in the Armed Forces as they work, fighting along with coalition partners in many parts of the world. So I strongly join with Senator McCain on the second-degree amendment to exempt DOD contracts from the restrictions contained in the Dodd amendment.

I urge the support of my colleagues. Please contact your own defense contractors if there is any doubt in your mind. You each have them.

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

Madam President, today at Arlington National Cemetery we laid to rest a great patriot to whom I am proud to pay tribute. Captain Henry ``Hank'' W. Putek, Sr., USN, was a naval aviator whose lifelong love of flying led to a 27 year Navy career that spanned the cold war and included service in Korea and Vietnam. It is my solemn honor today to recall his selfless commitment to this great Nation.

A pilot from the age of 14, Captain Putek obtained a commission in the U.S. Navy in 1953 through the Naval Aviation Cadet program. His distinguished career in naval aviation began with flight training in Pensacola, FL where he earned the coveted ``wings of gold'' of a naval aviator. He went on to fly combat jets in Korea and Vietnam, including the F-9 Fury, Douglas Skyraider, and F-4 Phantom. He served in numerous aircraft carriers with such storied names as Lexington, Wasp, Yorktown, Hornet, and Saratoga. In the race for space, Captain Putek was a project engineer for various research and development efforts and piloted tracking aircraft during the Gemini program. Captain Putek was a Navy test pilot who accumulated an astonishing 7,600 hours in 22 types of military aircraft throughout his career.

In 1977, Captain Putek retired from the United States Navy but continued to pursue his love for aviation as a training director with Piper Aircraft Corporation. He qualified in 22 Piper models and types. He was well known in his hometown as the owner of a bright orange ``Davis'' single engine aircraft, his pride and joy, which he built by hand.

Captain Putek is survived by his wife of 47 years, Mary Louis Putek, his sons, Hank and Jon, his daughters, Gwen and Janet, his sister, Dolores, and his brother, James. He was a loving husband and father, a passionate aviator, and a true gentleman.

Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague from California. I salute her leadership on this measure.

I am very hopeful we can persuade the Senate this morning to continue this legislation.

Might I say that when first introduced, it was somewhat different than what the President indicated he would support. At my request, the Senator conformed her bill so it is precisely the legislative measure to which the President of the United States has indicated he would lend his support.

I could say many things about this bill. But in the time constraints we have, law enforcement was the pivotal decision which switched me from 10 years ago voting against this measure, to today not only standing here to vote for it but joining in the leadership of the Senator from California to get it passed. Law enforcement has shown it has reduced the use of these weapons in crime.

My words pale in significance to the law enforcement officers from the four corners of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The sheriff of Amherst County, the chief of police of Blacksburg, the chief of police of the town of Vienna, the chief of police of Waynesboro, the acting chief of police of Fairfax County, the sheriff of the city of Alexandria, the chief of police of Roanoke, the chief of police of Virginia Beach, the chief of police of Chesapeake, the chief of police of Portsmouth, the sheriff of Roanoke City, the chief of police of Newport News, the chief of police of Winchester, the chief of police of the city of Alexandria, the chief of police of Arlington County, the chief of police of Staunton, the chief of police of Salem, the sheriff of Rockingham County, and the chief of police of Norfolk-- the four corners of the Commonwealth of Virginia. These law enforcement officers come forward to support this legislation.

I yield the floor.