Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask that it be considered to the pending bill.

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

Mr. President, this second-degree amendment offered by Senator Inouye and myself, with Senators McCain and Lautenberg as cosponsors, simply adds the additional rail security provisions of S. 1052, the Commerce Committee's Transportation Security Improvement Act of 2005, to the McCain amendment. The provisions in the second-degree amendment address rail worker security training, rail security public awareness, hazardous materials threat mitigation, railcar tracking, and update a few of the provisions that are in Senator McCain's provisions.

Taken together with Senator McCain's Rail Security Act of 2005, which Senator McCain offered to this bill, this amendment and Senator McCain's bill will form the rail security title of S. 1052 that was unanimously supported by the Commerce Committee. It is supported by both the railroads and the rail workers, and I urge its adoption.

I again say it is an amendment cosponsored by Senator Inouye, myself, Senator McCain, and Senator Lautenberg.

I urge the adoption of the second-degree amendment.

I now ask for approval of Senator McCain's amendment, as amended.

I ask unanimous consent to reconsider both those actions at the same time. I ask that they be reconsidered and the motions be laid on the table.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senator Clinton be added as a cosponsor to the Stevens second-degree amendment to Senator McCain's amendment No. 4922.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment proposed by Senator DeMint for Senator Inouye and myself, to the amendment numbered 4921, proposed by Senator DeMint. I ask it be considered.

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

I ask unanimous consent this be considered a complete substitute for the DeMint amendment.

I am pleased to offer this amendment on behalf of Senator DeMint. The second-degree amendment clarifies some issues in the legislation

and improves this important legislation. It has been agreed to now by Senator Inouye and myself and by Senator DeMint. I think we are closer to passing the WARN Act. We have been working for 3 years through the Homeland Security and appropriations bill to move DHS to improve the national alerting system. This amendment is a large step forward.

If the worst happens and there is a successful attack on one of our ports, we need a tool to effectively alert communities surrounding the port. The purpose of this amendment is to do just that: to move the emergency alert system out of the area of broadcast radio and television into the wireless era. We need to give the Nation an alerting system that harnesses all the capabilities of the digital age.

When disaster strikes, we know not everyone will be listening to the radio or television, but almost all Americans will be carrying a mobile phone, a Blackberry, or a PDA. There are over 200 million wireless subscribers in the United States.

This is crucial because regardless of when or where disaster strikes, be it American seaports, a rail terminal, or an airport, minutes save lives.

This amendment will provide a tool for emergency managers at all levels of Government--Federal, State, or local--so they can quickly and effectively reach all affected individuals with specific lifesaving instructions. In addition to the threat posed by terrorist attacks, this system, the system created by this amendment, will give our managers the ability to alert communities of other hazards such as natural disasters or manmade accidents.

It is already funded. I worked during last year's budget reconciliation bill to provide $106 million for this program.

I urge our colleagues to vote for the amendment and move the Nation one step forward to having a modern public safety alerting system.

I urge the adoption of this second-degree amendment.

Mr. President, 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, we will shortly have a request for a vote on this amendment, as amended. Hopefully, it will take place around noon tomorrow.

I know of no other business we have to come before us tonight. We will await the wrapup statement to be sent to us by the leader's office.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I concur with Senator Inouye and Senator DeMint.

Mr. President, there are moments in every lifetime which defy words. For me, those moments are the attack on Pearl Harbor, the day President Kennedy was assassinated, the Good Friday earthquake in Alaska, my own airplane crash in 1978, and the day I viewed the Exxon Valdez oilspill. My most recent and most vivid memory is the helicopter trip I took over Ground Zero with my good friend, Senator Inouye, on September 13, 2001.

The total impact of what Senator Inouye and I saw just shocked the two of us. We both went through World War II and saw a lot of trauma, a lot of destruction. But nothing was more stark in terms of our memories, particularly mine, than what I saw that day in New York. Embedded in my mind then were the questions: Who would do something like this? And why? We would soon learn the answers, and those answers changed our Nation forever.

September 11, 2001, was one of our country's darkest days, but the worst in our enemies brought out the best in our citizens. Their efforts reflected the words of the author Henry James:

We work in the dark, we do what we can, we give what we

have.

Following those attacks, Americans did everything they could to help those directly affected. Those of us in Congress almost immediately made $40 billion available to initiate recovery.

Since then, our country has been fortunate. We have met the terrorists abroad rather than here on our soil, and we have accomplished this in a way consistent with our ideals.

Democracy is harder to move than a dictatorship. It moves slowly, but it moves surely. There is much more work left to do, but so far, we have been able to prevent another massive terrorist attack on our country.

The terrorists who attacked us 5 years ago thought they could defeat us. They questioned our resolve and our dedication to our principles. They were wrong. Our resolve is strong, and it has brought about a different response than the terrorists anticipated. The past 5 years have been a proving ground for our country's courage and commitment.

Today I am reminded of the words once spoken by President Reagan. He said this:

Perhaps you and I have lived with this miracle too long to

be properly appreciative. Freedom is a fragile thing and is

never more than one generation from extinction. It is not

ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended

constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a

people. Those who have known freedom, and then lost it, have

never known it again.

Today we pause to remember those we have lost over the past 5 years, men and women who sacrificed everything so that this miracle, the great American experiment, could continue. Our thoughts and prayers are with them and with their families. And we will remember forever September 11.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Monday, September 11, 2006, at 2 p.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``NAFTA at Year Twelve.''

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

Mr. President, as we all know, Monday marks the fifth anniversary of September 11 and the terrorist attacks against this country. Shortly after those attacks, during the 107th Congress, the President signed into law the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, which was developed by our Commerce Committee to enhance our country's maritime security. Since then, our Commerce Committee has worked as hard as possible to pass and implement a number of initiatives which have made our ports and borders more secure.

Today we take up the Port Security Improvement Act of 2006. This bill marks the first time three Senate committees have merged their collective expertise and crafted a truly comprehensive approach to port security. A bipartisan group of members from the Commerce Committee, the Finance Committee, and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee have worked together for several months on this bill.

As I know the Senate will realize, these three committees each have tremendous knowledge about our ports and programs which protect and secure our international supply chain. I believe it is a credit to the Senate that each committee agreed to pool their resources, put aside jurisdictional issues, and reach a consensus on this bill.

When enacted, this bill will strengthen our land and sea ports, improve our maritime transportation security strategy, and enhance communication between the Department of Homeland Security and transportation security stakeholders.

It includes a plan to get our trade activities up and running again in the event of a transportation security incident. And it creates a pilot program which will study the feasibility of scanning each of the containers--100 percent of the containers--entering our ports.

Mr. President, I spent considerable time in the last couple of years examining our ports, and particularly the west coast, which is really sort of the domain I know best. When I was a boy, the Port of Los Angeles was three separate Ports of San Pedro, Long Beach, and Los Angeles. The Port of Los Angeles is now an enormous area. Forty percent of the seaborne trade of the U.S. comes through the Port of Los Angeles, the Port of San Francisco, and of course, the Port of Seattle, which is the home of our colleague, Senator Murray, but also is sort of the stepping stone into my State of Alaska. It is a dynamic port and one that has been experimenting to a great extent on how to bring about container inspection, container scanning.

I personally went through each of the ports to see what was being done. There are still a great many problems. I must say that the people operating the ports, including those who are really the working people, have gone out of their way to try to make certain that those ports are safe and secure and that the containers are, in fact, scanned to the best extent possible now. But we want to do this pilot program to see if it is possible to tell our people that 100 percent of the containers coming into the country are scanned.

This legislation will enhance the collection and analysis of information about cargo destined for our ports. Those in the shipping industry are our eyes and ears with respect to security, and this bill aims to increase awareness of the operations at domestic and foreign ports. Once those in industry share important information about cargo in the international supply chain, we must analyze it quickly. This legislation expedites that process and ensures it begins earlier in the supply chain--before containers even reach our shores. This act requires information about cargo be provided and analyzed before the cargo is loaded on a vessel in a foreign port and shipped here. That will be a significant change.

This bill also expands several initiatives with a proven track record of success. There are currently five interagency operations centers up and running throughout our country. These centers bring together Federal, state, and local security enforcement officials to ensure communication among them. This act expands this effort to each of the major seaports, and places the Coast Guard in charge of these centers.

This act also builds upon the Department of Homeland Security's past cooperation with foreign governments. The Container Security Initiative, CSI, contained within this bill enables the department, working in partnership with host government customs services, to examine high-risk containerized cargo at foreign seaports before it is loaded on vessels destined for the United States.

The Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, C-TPAT, a voluntary public-private partnership, is also strengthened in this bill. The Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection will now be able to certify that a business's supply chain is secure from the point of manufacture to the product's final U.S. destination. Under this legislation, whether cargo crosses our border at Laredo or arrives on a ship from Hong Kong, participating companies' supply chains will undergo a thorough security check. This will add another layer of security to the C-TPAT initiative. Since this is a voluntary system, we have also included provisions which encourage those in industry to go above and beyond the security requirements already in place. These new incentives include expedited clearance of cargo.

Mr. President, while I was disappointed earlier this year by the negative public reaction to foreign investment in our Nation's port terminals, we learned a great deal from hearings held by the Commerce Committee on this matter. As a result of those hearings, this bill requires DHS to conduct

background checks on all port personnel. Current law only requires the Transportation Security Administration to perform checks on those workers directly tied to transportation at the port, or involved in its security. From the Commerce Committee hearings, it was evident that a more stringent requirement was needed, and it is in the bill.

The events of September 11, 2001, forever altered the course of our Nation. Senator Inouye and I traveled to ground zero shortly after the attacks. It was a sad and terrible sight. It was also a stark reminder that we must do everything possible to prevent those who wish to harm Americans from carrying out their missions.

To prevent future attacks, we must secure our ports, and this bill is a major step forward in this effort. Senator Inouye, my co-chairman on the Commerce Committee, and I thank Senators Grassley, Baucus, Coleman, Collins and Lieberman for their leadership in drafting this bill. I would also like to thank the staff members on each of the committees; they have worked tirelessly on this bill.

Each of the committees involved in this bill has jurisdiction over an area vital to the safety of our ports. The Commerce Committee oversees issues related to the shipping industry, transportation security, and the Coast Guard. The Finance Committee oversees international trade and customs. And greater security of our ports and borders is central to the Homeland Security Committee's mission. Working together, our three committees have developed a comprehensive bill which will help shield our Nation from future terrorist attacks. It is my hope our colleagues will support this act and move quickly to pass this bill.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record following my statement a summary of the bill prepared by Ken Nahigian, who sits next to me and is counsel for our Commerce Committee.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Collins and Senator Grassley for their cooperation, and our counterparts on the other side of the aisle, my colleagues Senator Inouye, Senator Murray, and Senator Baucus, those who are working with us to move this bill as quickly as possible.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I understand that there was a negotiation going on concerning an amendment that is before the Senate now. I have been asked to call up Senator DeMint's amendment. There is a negotiation going on concerning a possible modification of it. He called and asked that this be placed before the Senate. I wish to comply with his request.

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

I thank the Senator from Arizona for his comments. I might say on the visit that I made to Los Angeles Harbor, it is very clear that rail is essential for the 40 percent of the cargo that comes into the United States. The majority moves out of the Los Angeles Harbor by rail, and currently that is very sensitive because there is only one rail coming out of there and there should be multiple rails.

Senator McCain has offered S. 1052, which our committee reported in November of 2005. That bill contained sections of aviation, rail, trucking, and port security.

In addition, Senator McCain's bill passed the Senate in 2004. It is not controversial. I will urge the Senate to let us pass it again without amendment so we can take it to conference, and I do believe it will become law.

It is very clear it is as essential as the port security section, and I thank him for bringing it to the floor. I intend to support it completely because I hope we can get back to both the aviation and trucking portions of S. 1052 sometime. I don't think it will be in this Congress, however, because it has become too controversial. But we intend to take them up again, I believe, early next year whether there is change of management or not in terms of the Commerce Committee. I do hope we can realize the aviation and trucking areas need to change, as far as security considerations are concerned, in terms of their basic law. But I am here to urge the Senate very favorably to approve this, and I am certainly urging the Senate to adopt the McCain amendment when we start voting on this bill next Tuesday.

Is there anyone else who wishes to comment at this time?

Amendment No. 4922, as Modified

Mr. President, it is my understanding that there is no one else who wishes to speak on the bill or the McCain amendment at this time.

Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter addressed to me dated September 8, 2006.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Pamela Friedmann, who is a fellow from the Transportation Security Administration, be granted privileges of the floor during the consideration of H.R. 4954.

Madam President, what is the pending business?

I ask unanimous consent that that amendment be set aside in order to consider the amendment to be offered by the Senators from North Dakota.

Madam President, we have time on the floor. I seek recognition.

He is right.

If that is an inquiry to me, I am interested in a time agreement, without any question. I am happy to set a time to vote, at noon or at any time.

We are checking.

Mr. President, it has been cleared on this side by Senator Inouye and myself.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the pending Conrad amendment at 12 noon, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote, and with the time equally divided between the two managers or their designees.

Mr. President, I am, as are the Senators from North Dakota, quite worried about this amendment. It is my intention to ask the Senate to vote. It is my understanding that they want a vote on this amendment. It is my intention to ask every Senator to vote for the amendment.

It is a political season. I understand that. I consider this amendment to be a slam at the intelligence community.

I can tell the Senate that there is more money than this available. If I tried to discuss the amount of money which is available, I would be violating my oath as far as confidential and classified material. For reasons of national security, I cannot elaborate on that.

I arranged for the two Senators from North Dakota to be briefed about the programs which Senator Inouye and I know about. We urged them not to offer this amendment. There are many funds dedicated in our bill for the global war on terrorism. There are funds in our bill to continue the search for Osama bin Laden. That has never lapsed. It does not need this amendment.

The classified annex accompanying this bill provides details of classified programs in this bill, and they are available to every Senator in room 405 if they want to question my view. Those were offered to the Senators from North Dakota. I do not know whether they took advantage of that or not.

We cannot discuss those programs here. We would jeopardize the lives of many people if we did so.

I know of no way to handle this amendment except, as I said, I ask all Senators to join and vote for this amendment and to trust Senator Inouye and myself to find a way to deal with it in conference. Maybe the Senate will listen to us when we come back.

I remember once, years ago when I offered an amendment to provide funds to deal with Osama bin Laden, offering a reward of dead or alive. That was objected to by a Member on the other side of the aisle.

I note that this amendment says to bring Osama bin Laden to justice. To bring him to justice--does that mean dead or alive? Must we keep him alive if we find him?

There are a lot of things we could discuss on the floor of the Senate about this issue.

I am going to sit down in a minute and I am not going to answer any questions. I am not going to discuss it any more because I consider it to be an irresponsible amendment that should never have been brought before the Senate.

With all of these pictures, it is a campaign period. But to imply to the American public that we have not been looking for Osama bin Laden for years--I can tell you, I am not going to press my friend from Hawaii, but we have spent hours and hours and hours with the intelligence community seeing how we can better devise methods to find this man.

I can assure the Senate that without any question the search for Osama bin Laden has not been hampered by a lack of funds. It has not been hampered by a lack of funds in this bill. If I tried to tell you where the funds are, I would violate my oath.

It is time for us to come to some understanding about what led to this amendment. It was the President's statement the other day. I was there. The conversation on this floor misses the point. It was not Hitler during World War II he was talking about; it was Hitler before World War II. Let me quote what he said on September 5. I listened to it. He said:

In the 1920's, a failed Austrian painter published a book

in which he explained his intention to build an Aryan super-

state in Germany and take revenge in Europe and eradicate the

Jews. The world ignored Hitler's words, and paid a terrible

price. His Nazi regime killed millions in gas chambers, and

set the world aflame in war, before it was finally defeated

at a terrible cost in lives.

Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their

intention as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. The

question is: Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what

these evil men say?

The world can tell I am close to losing my famous temper. I do have one. As I said, I arranged for these Members to be briefed on information that is in this classified annex. I don't understand this amendment.

I intend to let the Senators have their half of the time. The balance of the time will be spent in a quorum.

I yield to my friend from Hawaii.

Mr. President, I announce to the Senate that the next vote will be Senator Domenici's 13,000th vote.

I also announce to the Senate that my younger brother, from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, has a birthday today.

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 hope every Senator will vote for the amendment. I don't know any Senator who will vote against providing money to continue the search for Osama bin Laden. If I could disclose to you how much money is in this bill otherwise for a classified program, you would understand why this is a superfluous amendment.

Understanding that nobody would want to vote against something like this, if this amendment becomes law, the freedom of information provisions would mean all of the activities would be available to anybody. This is not a classified $200 million to search for bin Laden. Again, it is irresponsible, but I would not vote against the amendment. I don't want to be known for voting against additional money to search for Osama bin Laden.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Senator's amendment.

I object. What is this? I thought we would dispose of the Menendez amendment first. Are there further speakers on the amendment? I would like to see the amendment. Will the Senator agree to a time agreement for a vote on the Menendez amendment? Will Senator Menendez agree to vote at a time certain on his amendment?

I would be happy to yield.

Very well. I hope we can get a time agreement for a vote.

Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the Menendez

amendment be put before the Senate again. I ask unanimous consent that it be the pending business.

Mr. President, I want to be as courteous as possible. It is not a very good word to use, but it seems to me the Menendez amendment places a gag order on the Department of Defense. It says that the gains made by our military people and by the Iraqi forces cannot be reported to our people or to the Iraqi people.

It is a strange amendment, if you want to look at it, because it just says no funds may be expended for a public relations program to monitor news media in the United States and Middle East and create a database of news stories to promote a positive image of the war in Iraq.

The Department's press office normally reports day-to-day activities and is doing just that--getting the stories around and making sure we at home and the people in Iraq and our people in uniform know the positive side of this engagement.

I can tell you that at home we see the negative side all the time. It seems to me that answering questions with positive stories would be considered a PR effort. I do think it would have unintended consequences potentially impacting intelligence activities. I don't want to go into that too much, but the world knows about this information and the activities that have been going on for years. They have been going on for years.

We should not allow the Senate to take the position that prevents the Department of Defense to report on favorable news and to create a program to do that. To me, it constitutes a gag order.

I move to table the Senator's amendment.

Amendment No. 4897

It is my intention now to ask the Senate to make the Schumer amendment the pending business. I ask unanimous consent that is the pending business.

Mr. President, funding in this current year for activities in Afghanistan is $116.5 million.

That money is being used to build border crossing points and police headquarters and to train and equip Afghan national police and other security forces in drug detection and eradication.

A significant portion of those funds is still being programmed to be spent. There was a delay in getting that bill ready for expenditures for 2006 so there will be some carryover into 2007. We don't know how much that will be.

The President asked for an additional $18.5 million for this year in this bill, and the committee supported that request.

In addition to the funding in the Department of Defense appropriations bill before the Senate, the fiscal year 2007 Foreign Operations bill as reported to the Senate has $297 million for counterdrug activities in Afghanistan. The Commerce Science Justice bill includes $30.5 million for counterdrug activities in Afghanistan. This means in the current bills pending for approval, there is already $346 million for counterdrug activities in Afghanistan for 2007, notwithstanding the carryover money that is available. This means there is approximately $400 million that will be available in 2007 already and the Senator wants to add $700 million to that. That is an enormous amount of money.

The British Government actually takes the lead in counterdrug operations in Afghanistan. As we all know, NATO is in there now. The United States should not offer to take the entire financial burden of this operation. It is a multinational effort.

The Senator is right in his premise that poppy production sales are a funding mechanism for terrorist activities in Afghanistan. We do support poppy eradication efforts. However, we do not need to throw money at that problem. Four-tenths of a billion dollars ought to be enough for one year.

We have reviewed the counterdrug budgets for DOD and other agencies, and we believe they are sufficiently budgeted not only for this current year but for the 2007 year. If the Department needs additional funds for 2007, we will have a supplemental in the spring. I would be the first to support it if the Department came in and said they needed more money. However, in view of the fact that we are working with NATO and working with the British Government, which has the lead on this program, I do not think doubling the amount available for this program is prudent.

As a matter of fact, obviously from the experience in the current year, it would not be spent.

That should not be voted upon by the Senate. I move to table Senator Schumer's amendment.

I ask unanimous consent at 2 p.m. today the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the pending Menendez amendment, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Schumer amendment--I have always made the motions to table--that no second-degree amendments be in order prior to the vote, and there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to the vote on each amendment. I believe this has been cleared.

I don't wish to seem preemptory about this. I thank the Senators for their courtesy in bringing the amendments to the Senate.

Can we make the second vote 10 minutes? I ask unanimous consent the vote on the Menendez amendment be a 15-minute vote and the Schumer amendment be a 10-minute vote.

I ask unanimous consent it be in order for me to ask for the yeas and nays on both amendments at the same time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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 was off the floor, but I was informed of the amendment offered by Senators Reed and Bayh. It is my understanding--the Senator from Hawaii concurs--we would be willing to accept this amendment.

Does the Senator want a vote on it? We would be happy to take it by voice vote if he is ready to let us accept it.

Very well. I have no objection. This money, if nothing else, would be available to replace some of the Predators that have been lost. So we are willing to accept it, but if the Senator wishes a vote, I would ask that--Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on his amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for voting on this amendment be delayed until we can confer with the leadership.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the Senator's amendment will prohibit spending monies for a program to create a database for news stories that are positive. I do think there is an exception to that which says it does not apply to collecting and analyzing information in the news media. So they can spend money to analyze all the negative aspects of our news media, but they cannot spend money to collect the data that is necessary to provide the positive side of what our people are doing and what the Iraqi people are doing in Iraq in this terrible situation over there. I really think it is a gag order. I don't see why they should be able to collect all the news stories, but they can't collect the information that is positive and make it available.

So I move to table this, and I believe we will have a vote here fairly soon. The 2 minutes equally divided will be after this amendment; is that correct?

The yeas and nays have been ordered?

Mr. President, 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.

Amendment No. 4897

Mr. President, NATO is in charge, now, of Afghanistan. The British Government is the lead agency in counterdrug operations. Notwithstanding that, in this budget we have $346 million for counterdrug efforts in Afghanistan. In addition to that, there is a carryover available from 2007. It will be almost $400 million already, and the Senator wishes to add another $700 million. It is not our function. The lead agency is NATO, now, in Afghanistan.

I have made a motion to table. I urge the Senators to vote to table this amendment.

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

Mr. President, the pending business is the Boxer amendment?

I ask for the adoption of the Boxer amendment at this time with a voice vote.

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 ask unanimous consent that the Kennedy amendment No. 4857 be agreed to, with the motion to reconsider laid upon the table. I further ask unanimous consent that the Rockefeller amendment No. 4906 be withdrawn, and further, that the managers' amendment, which has been cleared by both managers, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. I ask unanimous consent that following this action, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to

the Reed amendment No. 4911, with no second-degree amendment in order to the amendment prior to the vote and that there be 4 minutes for debate equally divided prior to that vote. I ask unanimous consent that following disposition of that amendment, the only other amendment in order to the bill be the Bingaman-Domenici-Burns-Dorgan amendment relating to firefighters, and that following disposition of that amendment, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to vote on final passage of the bill, the Senate then insist on its amendments, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. President, that now means the floor is open for consideration of the Bingaman-Domenici-Burns-Dorgan amendment.

Mr. President, it is my understanding this is a modified amendment, modified from the original form. I ask the Senator from New Mexico if that is the case.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator and ask for adoption of the amendment.

Does Senator Burns wish to comment?

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, are there any other pending amendments not taken care of by the unanimous consent agreement? It is my understanding from the unanimous consent agreement that the only other amendment to be considered on this bill was the Bingaman amendment, and we now have a vote on the Reed amendment.

There is 4 minutes equally divided. I suggest the absence of a quorum, awaiting the arrival of the Senator from Rhode Island.

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

Mr. President, I understand the pending business is the Reed amendment with 4 minutes equally divided; is that correct?

Mr. President, we were willing to accept this amendment when the Senator first brought the Predator to the attention of this Congress. I am delighted to see more Predators being bought. This is sort of a premature type of advance. These monies would have been requested anyway for 2007, but we checked with the Department and they are willing to proceed with it now.

I urge the adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Funding Traumatic Brain Injury

Yes, that is the committee's intent.

The committee will encourage the Army to do so and thanks the Gentleman from Wisconsin for raising this important issue.

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

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to thank my staff for all their hard work on this bill, especially my clerk, Sid Ashworth. As always, she has done the work on this bill and a multitude of amendments, along with the staff. And Charlie Houy, on Senator Inouye's staff, has given good advice and leadership.

I also thank my colleague and partner, Senator Inouye. It is a nice birthday present to pass a bill of this size, I say to the Senator.

As I said, Charlie Houy, Betsy Schmid, Nicole Di Resta, and Kate Fitzpatrick for their support on this bill.

There is a large staff that works on this bill. We do not often name them all, but I will do it this time. This was a tough bill. I give credit to Kate Kaufer, Brian Wilson, Brian Potts, Alycia Farrell, Mark Haaland, Ellen Maldonado, Michael Pollock, Alison Garfield, Bridget Zarate, Jennifer Chartrand, and Janelle Treon. Miss Treon is not with us. She recently left the committee, but she was a vital partner in the creation of the bill. We wish her good luck in her new life in North Carolina. She can learn to dodge the hurricanes.

Thank you very much.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 7, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 7, 2006, to hold a hearing titled `` `Wounded Warrior' Insurance: A First Look at a New Benefit for Traumatically Injured Servicemembers''.

The hearing will take place in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 7, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet Thursday, September 7, 2006 from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. in Dirksen 562 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security be authorized to meet on Thursday, September 7, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing regarding ``IT Projects at Risk: Is it Too Late to Save $12 Billion?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Keeping Terrorists Off the Plane'' on Thursday, September 7, 2006, at 2 p.m. in Dirksen 226.

Witness List

Paul Rosenzweig, Counselor to the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Planning and International Affairs, United States Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC; Jayson P. Ahern, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, United States Customs of Border Protection, Washington, DC; Jess Ford, Director of International Affairs and Trade, Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC; and Leon J. Laylagian, Executive Vice President, Passenger-Cargo Security Group, Concord, NH.

Mr. President, what is the pending business on this bill?

Is the Kennedy amendment still set aside following that amendment?

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I cannot support this amendment. It is not

enforceable. It establishes policies that may in some situations dangerously restrict the options available to our commanders on the battlefield.

I do share the Senator's concern about potential use on the indiscriminate manner of these antipersonal weapons. Protecting innocent civilians from the violence and destruction of war is our goal. It is a laudable goal.

Of course, the consequences of using cluster munitions must be carefully considered before such weapons are engaged. This is a complex policy area. It deserves comprehensive review by the relevant policy committees, not only the Committee on Armed Services but also the Foreign Relations Committee. As the Senator has said, it has already been reviewed on a secretarial level several times in the Department of Defense.

This amendment is just not acceptable. It legislates the rules of engagement for an entire class of weapon. The task of settling the rules of engagement properly belongs to the military and to the commander and ultimately to the Commander in Chief.

In an extreme situation the commander must be able to use all options to shape the battlefield to protect our forces and those allied with us. Restricting the deployment of cluster munitions could severely hinder aviation and artillery capabilities and reduce the commander's capability to wage war successfully. It could severely degrade our allies' capability to defend themselves in threatening situations.

The Department of Defense already has guidance and target methodologies that emphasize minimizing dangers to civilians in or near the zone of conflict. This amendment requires that prior to the sale or transfer, the Department ensures that munitions will not be used in or near populations, including villages, camps, and groups of refugees, evacuees, or nomads. This could be obtained at the point of sale.

Once the weapons are transferred, it would be impossible to enforce. They place a burden on the military that is impossible to achieve.

The Arms Export Control Act already has broad guidelines on the use of weapons sold by the United States, and press reports indicate the State Department has opened an investigation into use of cluster bombs by Israel against Hezbollah to determine if those guidelines were violated. If it has, the United States may impose sanctions. This was done in 1982. The Department of State already has tools to enforce the humanitarian considerations and sanction wanton use of cluster munitions.

The Senate should recall the use of cluster munitions is consistent with the convention on certain conventional weapons and international humanitarian law, including the Geneva and Hague Conventions. I recommend the Senate refuse to accept this amendment.

I do support the Defense appropriations bill as drafted.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I reiterate my opposition to this amendment. The rules of engagement properly belong with the Department of Defense and the Commander in Chief. This amends and sets forth restrictions on the ability of our military to use these munitions to protect our people in the future. It also would put on our military and our executive branch the duty of trying to determine how weapons might be used in the future, should they sell these weapons to other countries.

We have been informed that this amendment is opposed by the Department of Defense. It is their determination that once the weapons have been transferred to a country under a sale that is permitted, it would not be possible to enforce this restriction. They point out the Arms Export Control Act already has broad guidelines on the use of weapons sold by the United States. And if that act is violated, the United States may impose sanctions and deny sale or transfer of weapons in the future, and has, as it did in 1982, sanctioned a country for misusing such weapons, not these in particular but the weapons that had been sold.

The Senator from California said if anyone wants to stand up and talk about using these munitions, they ought to defend them. Some of the instances which the Senator from California mentioned were years ago when the areas were not occupied by civilians at all. And later the civilians moved into the areas, areas that had not been cleared properly by the country involved. I think that is a dangerous situation. Obviously, it is a difficult situation.

But I would urge her to go back to the countries she mentioned and reconsider the reason for the use of these weapons in the past--in Korea, in Vietnam. I do not think we used them in Spain. But they were used in Spain after having been sold to Spain. The concepts here are impossible for our commanders to protect our forces with the prohibitions that are involved. It is impossible for us to enforce.

We have a population of approximately 300 million people. We are involved in situations throughout the world and have been. Just remember the ``Marines' Hymn: From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli.'' We have been doing this for years, protecting our system abroad and protecting freedom abroad. It is not the province of the Senate to enact rules of engagement. We authorize people to do it, and we review them--if you want to have a hearing on it and review the rules of engagement, I will be pleased to participate in such a hearing--but we do not write them. And we should not attempt to restrict them. I think this would place a dangerous restriction on the options available to our commanders, as I have said.

If the issue is a relatively high rate of existing inventory, as the Senator indicates, then the solution is to replace these munitions with improved items, many of which are not possible to manufacture now because of existing restrictions on such manufacturing.

I do not believe it can be shown we have used these weapons indiscriminately in civilian areas. I believe civilians have moved into areas where they have been used in defense of our country and defense of our people.

So under the circumstances, I oppose this amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, it is my understanding this is the time set for the vote on Senator Feinstein's amendment. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I thought we had an agreement to stand in recess at 12:30.

Was there an order for the recess at 12:30?

Will the Senator yield? I thought the amendment had been offered.

Madam President, I have no objection to offering the amendment and making comments about its introduction. The Senator wants 10 minutes?

I have no objection.

Mr. President, the distinguished Democratic leader seeks recognition now. I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader be recognized immediately following Senator Reid.

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator, the Democrat leader, the Senator from Nevada, is a close friend. I am sad to disagree with him as violently as I do.

I have known Secretary Rumsfeld, Don Rumsfeld, for many years. He came to Washington with Congressman Jerry Ford. He has been in and out of Washington. He has done a great many things, committed a great portion of his life to the service of this country. He is highly intelligent. He is one of the first persons to serve as Secretary of Defense twice. He served previously as Secretary of Defense. He was a person who served in the White House. He has been a very impressive Secretary of Defense.

Since 1981, either Senator Inouye or I have been the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. During that time, we have met with Secretaries of Defense. I met with them prior to that time, and I served in the Eisenhower administration and knew the Secretaries of Defense then and knew them personally. I can think of no one who has worked harder as Secretary of Defense than Don Rumsfeld.

I have been in meetings with him and members of the Joint Chiefs-- with all of the Joint Chiefs--with other members of the defense and intelligence establishment. The rapport he has built up among those who serve this country in uniform and serve this country in the intelligence field is overwhelming. I have been to meetings he has held with the Chiefs, just quiet dinner meetings, to discuss basic subjects that were part of our jurisdiction, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee jurisdiction. I have seen the way those people interact with Secretary Rumsfeld.

I know some people say there are dissidents in the Department of Defense. It would be surprising in a country as large as ours, with a Defense Department as large as ours, if there were not some. I do believe he has the support of those who are involved in managing our activities at home and abroad now in the defense area. He has a steady hand. I know he has the trust of the President. I admire the work he has done.

I find it unfortunate that this bill will be held up now for a period of time debating the future of Secretary Rumsfeld. I say categorically that this amendment is nongermane to this bill. It is subject to a point of order. I will make the point of order when the amendment is laid down. Everyone realizes that.

The time we take to discuss this subject is going to delay getting this bill to the President to be signed. I repeat what I have been saying for over a month: it must be to the President and signed and the money ready to be allocated on October 1. The funds are absolutely necessary this time. There will be no bridge for this period. These moneys must be available. I hope Members of the Senate will be brief. I will be reasonably brief in terms of what I am saying about my good friend, the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.

He has forged close relationships. He has earned senior military leaders' confidence. Just 2 weeks ago, I was in Fairbanks with him when he dedicated the Lend-Lease Memorial, the memorial to those Army Air Corps pilots who flew planes to Fairbanks and the Russian pilots who flew the planes on into Russia, going across the Bering Strait, going across Siberia, going across the Urals and into the area where they could be used in the defense of the Allies against the Nazi challenge to the world. Secretary Rumsfeld was overwhelming.

The interesting thing was our partner at the dinner table was the Secretary of Defense from Russia--a gentleman with a great deal of capability, by the way. He speaks English very well. We had a delightful conversation about the past, about the war.

It was my honor to serve in World War II as an Army Air Corps pilot. I was pleased to see so many of my colleagues. Everyone was delighted with Secretary Rumsfeld and was overwhelmed to have their pictures taken with him.

This man deserves the support of the Senate. He does not deserve the opposition, I am sad to say, in my opinion, on a purely political basis. There may be some on this side of the aisle who have lost confidence, but this Senator has not.

I hope and I pray that Members of the Senate will be reasonably brief in their comments on this proposal.

I am happy to yield.

I still have the floor. I am happy to yield. I want to have the consent entered into. If the Senator from Illinois is willing to enter into the agreement, we can go back and forth across the aisle. I am happy to agree to that unanimous consent with that understanding.

Another speaker on our side is coming. I wish to not make a statement in that queue, so to speak. I just want to speak as a manager of the bill. I was under the impression we would be able to get through this discussion prior to the submission of this resolution and be able to go ahead with the votes we have. We have at least three votes left tonight, and we have assurance that we are going to pass this bill tomorrow, and there are still quite a few other amendments out there.

So I would like to know--can I inquire, may we get a time agreement from the other side of when this bill will pass tomorrow? I would like to know what is going to happen to this bill now? We had the understanding--I agreed we could not finish it on Wednesday, as we initially agreed--that is today--and that we would finish it tomorrow. But we had not anticipated this prolonged discussion about a resolution that hasn't even been introduced yet.

Is the distinguished deputy leader willing to enter into some discussion about this?

We have not had any request for a time agreement. I have been willing to enter into a time agreement from the very beginning-- from the very beginning.

I would suggest then--is the Senator from Delaware going to speak next?

Pardon me. It is my eyes. I am sorry. Let's just skip this space and we will have a speaker come and follow him when he is finished.

No. We are alternating speakers on each side, and Senator Inhofe is coming.

Yes, you may.

I ask my comments not interrupt the Senator's speech in the Record.

Could the Senator yield to me? We have a time agreement following the disposition of this.

I ask unanimous consent following the disposition of the Reid amendment there be a period of 30 minutes equally divided in relation to the Kennedy amendment, No. 4885, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the amendment; provided further, following the vote, there will be 10 minutes equally divided in the usual form prior to a vote in relation to the Mikulski amendment, No. 4895, with no second-degree in order prior to that vote.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order against this resolution on the basis of precedent of the Senate of May 17, 2000. It is not appropriate to raise this amendment as a sense of the Senate on this bill.

Mr. President, there is now, for the Kennedy amendment, 30 minutes on a side, as I understand it; am I correct?

Fifteen minutes on a side?

Thank you.

Mr. President, I yield such time as the Senator from Virginia may use.

Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

And how much time on Senator Kennedy's side?

Mr. President, since 2005, the Defense Appropriations Committee has required the Department of Defense to report quarterly on the stability and security situation in Iraq. This is the most recent report. It was prepared in August and embargoed until September 1.

Six pages of the bill language is very detailed. Starting on page 233--my colleagues can look in the bill--it requires a comprehensive set of performance indicators and measures for progress and political stability in Iraq. In other words, we continue in our bill already, without the Kennedy amendment, the concept that every quarter the Department reports to us.

The first part of this report describes trends and progress toward meeting goals and political stability. That requirement is contained in section 9010 of our bill.

The second section of this report describes training development and readiness of the Iraqi security forces, including the forces of the Ministry of Defense and police and paramilitary forces of the Ministry of Interior.

The third section describes transfer of security responsibility from coalition forces to the Iraqi Government, including prerequisite conditions and criteria for assessing the readiness of provinces to assume responsibility for security.

As I said, this report is already prepared and was presented on September 1 and is on every desk in the Senate. The current report addresses the prospect of civil war on pages 33, 34, and 35. It is very clear. It has reviewed the concept of ethno-sectarian violence, and that is the greatest threat to security and stability. It also continues with regard to the concepts on page 34 and has a series of incident reports.

I can tell the Senate there is no question that the Department has discussed already in the report the concepts Senator Kennedy wants to have discussed. It says this on page 33:

Notwithstanding this concern, there is no generally agreed

upon definition of civil war among academic or defense

analysts. Moreover, the conflict in Iraq does not meet the

stringent international legal standards for civil war.

In other words, they have already reported to us, as Senator Kennedy would require. But Senator Kennedy wants to add additional requirements now. The question he asks, for example, in section (G), subparagraph 3: is the strategy of the United States Government to ensure that the United States Armed Forces will not take sides in the event of a civil war in Iraq?

It may be that we are already taking sides. We are supporting the Government if the insurrection is there. We need to help the elected Government against the al-Qaida attacks. There is no question that should be done. But the Kennedy proposal presumes the United States must not take sides. In other words, he would prevent what we are doing right now.

The question for the strategy of the United States in taking sides is repeated in section 6 of Senator Kennedy's amendment. I do not believe it is appropriate to direct foreign policy or military strategy through a reporting requirement on an appropriations bill.

Senator Kennedy and Senator Warner sit on the Armed Services Committee. That is where policy is discussed. I do not think this is the way the Senate should do business.

We are in a situation tonight where having had this discussion at length on

the other matter, I think too many Members of the Senate have not heard this debate and probably will come and say: What's going on?

The clear answer has to be that we should not dictate policy-- particularly military policy--in an appropriations bill. We provide the funding for whatever policies are already established by law, by regulation, by the Commander in Chief. This is something that requires the determination of the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the President to set military policy.

There is a constitutional question involved here, in my opinion, in terms of what Senator Kennedy wants to do. He wants to set up a situation whereby the Department of Defense has to decide if there is a civil war going on and if there is, then it has a set of procedures that must be followed. If they decide a civil war is not going on, there is another set of procedures that must be followed.

As a practical matter, what he is saying is reports such as this should come to the Senate quarterly and they should tell us in advance what are they going to do for the next quarter. In terms of military strategy and what we are doing over there, for those of us who have been there repeatedly, it is not possible to do that.

I certainly believe Senator Warner outlined the whole concept of civil war very clearly. You can call it a civil war if you want, but the question is, when you put it into an amendment that demands we have a report to assess a finding by the Department, which it must make whether or not there is a civil war going on, and then give it instructions based on how it makes that decision, I think, is micromanaging the Defense Department. If there is one thing we should not do on an appropriations bill is try to micromanage the Defense Department.

I urge the Senate not to support this amendment. I do believe the reports we are getting right now give us some measurement of what is going on, and on the basis of that let's make judgments which we should make. For instance, this bill measures progress toward a democratic Iraq.

It describes the obstacles toward political progress, and it gives us a comparison of the situation in individual Iraqi homes.

It tells us about the black market in Iraq and how it might affect what we are doing over there.

It discusses the al-Qaida influence in Iraq and the recent developments in the security environment.

This is a very extensive report. Like a lot of reports, it comes to us quarterly, Mr. President, but not a lot of people pay attention to it. We do. If you look at our bill, we prepared, on the basis of the last report, a continuation of the concept of what they should do in terms of improving these reports for the coming period.

I do hope the Senate will support our position that this is not the way to go, that this is not the thing to do.

Has my time expired?

I yield to my friend.

Mr. President, I disagree. This amendment is about changing the report requirements we have had in the past and that we have in this bill now. And we have had a satisfactory report.

If one looks at the report, there is no question there are attitudes in Iraq that indicate this may turn into a civil war. There is no question that is one of the major problems facing us today. To put on the Secretary of Defense the burden of deciding if there is a civil war and giving instructions whether there is or not, changing the basis of things we require that are serving us right now--I urge Senators to look at this report. There are graphs in the report. Are you very or somewhat concerned that a civil war might break out? There is great worry that it might. We should have that worry. But to force the Department of Defense to decide when it has turned into a civil war and give specific instructions in case they do make that decision, and if they don't make the decision--of course, that is not what the Senator from Massachusetts wants. He wants the decision that there is a civil war, obviously, because that would force a withdrawal.

This is very much connected with the debate we just had about the amendment that was considered to be not in order.

I urge the Senate to reject the Senator's amendment. I move to table his amendment and ask for the yeas and nays. Time is up, is it not, Mr. President?

The Senator from Massachusetts has 30 seconds.

I yield back my time. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

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.

Amendment No. 4895

Senator Mikulski has an amendment.

How much time remains?

Mr. President, I normally would agree with the Senator from Maryland, but the comments that were made are really not correct.

This has been reviewed by third-party entities, including the Government Accountability Office. We received a final report on May 30, 2006. The Department of Defense strongly opposes the amendment. If the language prevails, it will undermine the competitive sourcing program.

They have learned a lot about using A-76 on an enormous entity like the Walter Reed Hospital, but this amendment would preclude the Army from implementing a contract which has been reviewed three times and has been agreed to by the GAO.

The delay in this matter really came about--there is no question there is a serious delay--as it was reviewed and upheld on two occasions. These are third-party entities that did the review, including the GAO. We should not upset a process that has taken so long and is finalized now.

I yield back the remainder of my time and move to table the Senator's amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, 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.

Amendment No. 4883, as Modified

Mr. President, I have an amendment that we wish to adopt. As I understand it, the Allen-Durbin amendment No. 4883 has been cleared as modified. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 6, 2006, at 10 a.m., to receive a briefing on the Army Field Manual on Interrogation.

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 September 6, 2006, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``Stock Options Backdating.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, September 6, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to hold an oversight hearing to examine Federal renewable fuels programs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Wednesday, September 6, 2006, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony at a hearing entitled, ``Executive Compensation: Backdating to the Future/Oversight of current issues regarding executive compensation including backdating of stock options; and tax treatment of executive compensation, retirement and benefits.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Examining Competition in Group Health Care'' on Wednesday, September 6, 2006, at 11 a.m., in Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226.

Witness List

Panel I: The Honorable Tom Coburn, United States Senator, R-OK.

Panel II: Mr. Bruce McDonald, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC; Mr. David Wales, Deputy Director, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC; Dr. Mark Piasio, President, Pennsylvania Medical Society, Harrisburg, PA; Ms. Stephanie Kanwit, American Association of Health Plans, Washington, DC; Dr. Edward Langston, Chair-Elect, Board of Trustees, American Medical Association, Chicago, IL; Professor David Hyman, Professor of Law, Gallowich-Huizenga Faculty Scholar, University of Illinois College of Law, Champaign, IL.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Judicial Nominations'' on Wednesday, September 6, 2006, at 2 p.m., in Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 6, 2006, at 10:30 a.m., to hold a closed briefing.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, S. 3861, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. President, I ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 449, H.R. 2066.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendments be agreed to, the Levin amendment 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 bill be printed in the Record.