Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess so Members may greet our guests.

Mr. President, by request of the Administration, Senator Inouye and I introduce today the ``National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2005'', a bill to provide the regulatory framework for the development of aquaculture in the United States Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Concurrently, we have introduced an amendment to this bill to allow coastal States to decide whether or not they want offshore aquaculture in the EEZ off that State's coastline. We are cosponsoring Senator Snowe's amendment to strike the Jones Act waiver for vessels supporting offshore aquaculture facilities contained in the Administration's bill. I am also a cosponsor of Senator Inouye's amendment to better clarify language that environmental protections apply. As we review the Administration's measure in detail, there may be additional amendments offered to this bill and I look forward to working with my colleagues to address any concerns with the legislation.

Mr. President, I have time reserved at 5:30, but I will make a comment before that time.

Mr. President, I have had the pleasure to work with my good friend, John Bolton, on several issues. Each time I have worked with him, he has proven to be helpful and driven to obtain the results that will best serve the interests of the United States. He is a straight shooter, a no-nonsense type of guy who knows how to get results.

As most of my colleagues know, I take a special interest in issues regarding Asia. Alaska's past, present, and future have always looked westward to Russia, China, Japan, and the Korean Peninsula. It is for that reason that I have decided to support John Bolton.

North Korea has had nuclear aspirations many years and has taken aggressive steps to acquire nuclear weapons years before the Bush administration came into office.

John Bolton's straight-forward talk on North Korea should be applauded. He was telling the truth.

The United States made the good-faith effort with the 1994 Agreed Framework by providing food and support for building of the reactor. But this agreement was destined to fail because of North Korea's treacherous actions in the region. This is not a country we can trust. We now know that North Korea began cheating on it almost as the ink was drying by embarking on a covert uranium enrichment program.

The Bush administration has accomplished the core prerequisite for a lasting solution. It has galvanized the international community to work together on a lasting, multinational solution to the problem. The White House

has stated that the next venue for this discussion will be the United Nations.

John Bolton will be that voice, a compelling one, to ensure we are able to have an agreement that will stick. John Bolton is the strong voice that is required to ensure that America's vision on a nuclear weapon free North Korea is heard at the United Nations.

John Bolton believes in frank and honest diplomacy. John Bolton has not shied away from naming rogue states that violate international commitments such as the Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

He has had an effective working relationship with foreign governments, international institutions, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector for over three decades.

There is no question that John Bolton is qualified for the position of U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., and here are just a few reasons why:

As the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, John Bolton led the efforts to implement the President's strong nonproliferation agenda, including reform of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

He has actively promoted effective multilateral solutions to real- world problems such as the proposal to create a Special Committee of the International Atomic Energy Agency Board to focus on safeguards and verification of nuclear programs.

John Bolton helped to bring about new leadership to improve the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

He was the President's point person in designing the Proliferation Security Initiative. Over 60 nations are now working together to share intelligence and are taking action to stop the transfer of dangerous weapons. The Proliferation Security Initiative was instrumental in getting Libya to make the strategic decision to abandon its WMD programs.

The U.N. is in need of reform. John Bolton supports reform at the United Nations so it is accountable, transparent, and effective. While serving as the Assistant Secretary for International Organizations, he detailed his concept of a ``Unitary U.N.'' that sought to ensure management and budget reforms across the U.N. system. John Bolton will work with member states and the Congress to reform the U.N.

Allegations that Bolton manipulated intelligence are unfounded. As a policymaker, he asserted his view on intelligence. That was his job. Policymakers should question information extensively before accepting it as fact. These were internal policy debates, which occur in all Departments and agencies.

He may have disagreed with intelligence findings at times, but John Bolton always accepted the final judgments of the intelligence community.

Mr. President, it is not often we get the time to just come to the floor to talk about friendships and about what it means to be friends in the Senate. I wish to take some time today to talk about my friend, the former majority leader, former chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and longtime friend, Senator Byrd.

It just so happens that we have spent a lot of time together. I remember so well one great trip to London when we went there for the British-American Parliamentary Conference where we had a great deal of time to talk about the past and our own personal lives.

But I have come to the floor today to ask the Senate to join me in offering congratulations to my good friend and colleague, Senator Robert Byrd, and his wife Erma, who, on Sunday, will celebrate 68 years of marriage. This is an anniversary few of us will ever see, and as far as I can tell--I have checked with the Historian--no Senator has ever had the opportunity to celebrate 68 years of marriage. As a matter of fact, my oldest son Walter and his wife Debbie will celebrate 23 years of marriage on the same day, this Sunday.

Those of us in the Senate have relied greatly upon Senator Byrd's knowledge and love of history. With just a few short days remaining before their anniversary and because we will probably not be in session tomorrow, I think it is appropriate to return the favor and ask the Senate to reflect a moment on Robert and Erma's history together as husband and wife.

Robert Byrd and Erma James grew up together on the schoolyard of Mark Twain High School in West Virginia. They were high school sweethearts, although Senator Byrd has said himself he is ``not sure if [Erma] knew she was my sweetheart.'' They were. And they were married on May 29, 1937.

Over the years, their family has grown, as Senator Byrd likes to say, ``into a brood of fine people.'' Today, they are proud parents of two daughters and have known the joy of six grandchildren and six great- grandchildren.

For 68 years, Senator and Mrs. Byrd have shown us what it means to ``love, comfort, honor, and keep for better or worse, richer or poorer, in sickness and in health.'' Their story has been called ``one of the great American romances.''

Every year, in May, Senator Byrd comes to the floor to reflect on the meaning of Mother's Day and honor the Nation's mothers. His great speeches often mention Erma, the wonderful home she has made for him and their children, and the joy he takes in his family.

Two years ago, when Erma was sick, Senator Byrd stood up during an appropriations debate and told us he was going home. And I quote what he said at that time:

There are only two duties that will exceed my duties in the Senate, one is my duty to God and the second is to my family. I think my duty is to my wife.

Now, these moments are a great reminder to those of us who are married. We have married in this life, and we must do our best to keep the promises we made long ago.

I have had the honor to be married twice myself. One of the reasons I am here today is I remember the great comfort Senator Byrd gave to me when I lost my first wife. He has assisted me and my family in many ways. I also remember when he came to the floor and spoke of my first child in my second marriage and really extolled the concept of marriage at that time.

After 68 years, Erma and Robert still have the deep and abiding friendship that began in Beckley, WV; the love of their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren; and the respect of all of us in the Senate. I know of no other Senator who has celebrated over 50 years of service in Congress, and as I said before, there is no other Senator who could say he celebrated 68 years of marriage. It is an overwhelming accomplishment and really a credit to both Robert and Erma.

Earlier this month, in his annual Mother's Day address, Senator Byrd reflected on the early days of his marriage to Erma. He said:

Nearly seven decades ago, we were the rankest of amateurs

at marriage and parenthood.

This Sunday, our good friend and his wife will have proven they are now experts in both categories. My wife Catherine and I wish them the best.

Senator Byrd has often marked significant events by submitting works of poetry for the Record. I wish I had his capability for remembering poems and works of great art. But today, I offer a poem by the great Alaskan poet, Robert Service, and I offer it in honor of Senator and Mrs. Byrd's 68 years together. Robert Service's poem is entitled ``Home and Love,'' and it goes like this:

Just home and love! The words are small

Four little letters unto each;

And yet you will not find in all

The wide and gracious range of speech

Two more so tenderly complete:

When angels talk in heaven above,

I'm sure they have no words more sweet

Than home and love.

Just home and love! It's hard to guess

Which of the two were best to gain;

Home without love is bitterness:

Love without home is often pain.

No! Each alone will seldom do;

Somehow they travel hand and glove:

If you win one you must have two,

Both home and love.

And if you've both, well then I'm sure

You ought to sing the whole day long:

It doesn't matter if you're poor

With these to make divine your song.

And so I praisefully repeat,

When angels talk in heaven above,

There are no words more simply sweet

Than home and love.

I ask the Senate to remember to congratulate my good friend on 68 years of marriage.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached statement from the President of the United States be entered into the Record today pursuant to the War Powers Resolution (P.L. 93-148) and

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend, Senator Inouye, Co-Chairman of the Commerce Committee, and several of our colleagues, today in introducing the ``Transportation Security Improvement Act of 2005.'' The Commerce Committee is committed to fulfilling its oversight responsibilities with respect to the security of all major modes of transportation.

It has been four years since Congress enacted landmark aviation and maritime transportation security laws after the September 11 attacks. We must remain diligent in carrying out our responsibility to secure the Nation's domestic transportation system so as to ensure consumer trust and the uninterrupted flow of commerce. Recent reorganizations and budgetary decisions affecting the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) have effectively marginalized maritime and surface transportation security, suggested re-privatization of aviation security, and offered inadequate funding for the security of all modes.

The bill that we introduce today recognizes transportation security as a national security function and an economic necessity. The legislation would address security vulnerabilities that exist within our aviation, maritime, rail, and surface transportation systems. More specifically, the bill would, among other things: make notable changes to aviation security policy, including prohibiting the Administration from increasing passenger fees without the approval of Congress; eliminate the existing cap of 45,000 full time equivalent aviation security screening employees; enhance maritime cargo security by improving the examination of shipments before they reach U.S. shores; require TSA to conduct a railroad sector threat assessment and submit prioritized recommended solutions for improving rail security; make improvements to bus and motor carrier security by subjecting foreign commercial drivers transporting hazardous materials into the U.S. to submit to security background checks; and encourage the deployment of rail car tracking equipment for high-hazard materials rail shipments.

This is an important first step toward bolstering our nation's security with respect to transportation and I

look forward to working with Senator Inouye, as well as the Department of Homeland Security, DOT, and private industry, on this legislation in committee and on the Senate floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend, Senator Inouye, Co-Chairman of the Commerce Committee, and several of our colleagues, today in introducing the ``Transportation Security Improvement Act of 2005.'' The Commerce Committee is committed to fulfilling its oversight responsibilities with respect to the security of all major modes of transportation.

It has been four years since Congress enacted landmark aviation and maritime transportation security laws after the September 11 attacks. We must remain diligent in carrying out our responsibility to secure the Nation's domestic transportation system so as to ensure consumer trust and the uninterrupted flow of commerce. Recent reorganizations and budgetary decisions affecting the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) have effectively marginalized maritime and surface transportation security, suggested re-privatization of aviation security, and offered inadequate funding for the security of all modes.

The bill that we introduce today recognizes transportation security as a national security function and an economic necessity. The legislation would address security vulnerabilities that exist within our aviation, maritime, rail, and surface transportation systems. More specifically, the bill would, among other things: make notable changes to aviation security policy, including prohibiting the Administration from increasing passenger fees without the approval of Congress; eliminate the existing cap of 45,000 full time equivalent aviation security screening employees; enhance maritime cargo security by improving the examination of shipments before they reach U.S. shores; require TSA to conduct a railroad sector threat assessment and submit prioritized recommended solutions for improving rail security; make improvements to bus and motor carrier security by subjecting foreign commercial drivers transporting hazardous materials into the U.S. to submit to security background checks; and encourage the deployment of rail car tracking equipment for high-hazard materials rail shipments.

This is an important first step toward bolstering our nation's security with respect to transportation and I

look forward to working with Senator Inouye, as well as the Department of Homeland Security, DOT, and private industry, on this legislation in committee and on the Senate floor.

Yes.

Amendment No. 611

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for this question. Yes, I believe that funding for the AFRN could be an eligible activity within the funding we are providing in the Iraq Security Forces Fund. I cannot guarantee the Senator any particular level of funding will be provided, but I do agree with him that continued work on the AFRN is important.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, this past Sunday, the 8th of May, marked the 60th anniversary of the Allied victory in Europe during World War II. I have come to the floor today to honor those who served in that war and to mention our colleagues who answered the call of duty then.

When I first came to the Senate, I think more than half of the Senate had served in World War II. There are few of us left who served during that war, and in the Senate only five: Senator Akaka, Senator Inouye, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Warner, and myself.

That war was an enormous effort that involved our Nation's total manpower. Sixteen million Americans answered the call to serve, and more than 400,000 of them gave what Lincoln once called ``the last full measure of devotion.''

Here at home, Americans of all walks of life supported the war effort. Children collected rubber, tin, and steel. Families rationed food and gasoline. And women, in unprecedented numbers, took their place in industry and produced the tools that enabled us to win the war. They joined fields which had once been closed to them, and they never looked back.

When I went into the service, as most of my generation did, I was fortunate to do what I wanted to do, which was to fly. Sixty years ago, for those of us who served, every day was a milestone. Every day marked another step toward victory.

Today, we only recognize a handful of those days: Pearl Harbor Day, D-day, V-J Day, and V-E Day--which is what I speak of today.

There were so many who stepped forward when our country needed us, who sacrificed on the battlefield and here at home so we could win that war. It was a time defined by heroism, and it is hard to single out any one person who did heroic things. But I am here to remind the Senate that my friend, Senator Inouye, was a hero.

In military history there is a select group of men who have suffered grave injuries on the battlefield, continued their military careers, and gone on to further greatness. Horatio Nelson, Joshua Chamberlain, and John Bell Hood are all men who were tested on and off the battlefield, and their legacies endure.

Among these men, Senator Dan Inouye stands out because he overcame so much more just to become a soldier and waited so long to have his heroism officially recognized with the Congressional Medal of Honor.

It is hard to sum up my respect and admiration for my great colleague and friend from Hawaii. Our friendship has spanned many decades now, and we call each other truly brothers. We are brothers. I can think of no man I respect more.

Last month, Senator Reid came to the floor to honor Senator Inouye's service during World War II, also. Senator Reid said:

Dan Inouye is a step above all of us.

I agree with Senator Reid. As a World War II veteran, I am here to salute Dan Inouye. His courage and bravery and sense of duty are an inspiration to not only his Senate colleagues, but I feel to all Americans. In a time when men made the extraordinary seem ordinary, Dan Inouye stood out as a hero among men.

I would like to read part of the citation for action that resulted in Senator Inouye's Congressional Medal of Honor. Senator Inouye was recognized for valor in combat in the Italian campaign in a battle just 17 days before V-E Day. The citation says:

With complete disregard for his personal safety, Second

Lieutenant Inouye crawled up the treacherous slope to within

five yards of the nearest machine gun and hurled two

grenades, destroying the emplacement. Before the enemy could

retaliate, he stood up and neutralized a second machine gun

nest. Although wounded by a sniper's bullet, he continued to

engage other hostile positions at close range until an

exploding grenade shattered his right arm.

Despite the intense pain, he refused evacuation and continued to direct his platoon until enemy resistance was broken and his men were again deployed in defensive positions. In the attack, 25 enemy soldiers were killed and eight others captured. By his gallant, aggressive tactics and by his indomitable leadership, Second Lieutenant Inouye enabled his platoon to advance through formidable resistance, and was instrumental in the capture of the ridge. Second Lieutenant Inouye's extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit on him, his unit, and the United States Army.

On the battlefield and in Congress, Dan Inouye has faithfully served our country, his state of Hawaii, and the men and women of the military.

It is men such as Dan Inouye who inspired the phrase the ``Greatest Generation.'' I hope we remember all of them today.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about my good friend, John Negroponte. I have known him and Diana and their children--Marina, Alejandra, John, George, and Sophia--for quite some time. I think the Nation is very lucky to have a man of the caliber of John Negroponte on deck, so to speak, and willing to take the assignment of being the new Director of National Intelligence. He has had considerable experience as an ambassador.

I remember full well the first time I met him was in Honduras when he was the Ambassador there. We had a rather severe problem, as people will recall; we called them the Contras. But I got to know him fairly well in the time we were down there. When he returned to Washington, I met his wife and was with him and spent time with him on a family basis. I have spent time with him now in his various positions he has had since that time, at the U.N. and in Iraq.

He is a man of great talent and depth. I believe there are many of us--and I am one of them--who had severe questions about the direction we were taking in terms of this new Director of National Intelligence and how it would relate to existing agencies and to the State Department and to the Department of Defense and to the National Security Agency and all others who are involved in intelligence and relate to those in the Congress who have the oversight responsibility for the intelligence function and for the classified areas of the activities of our Nation.

John Negroponte is a man who can do this job. He is a man of great talent. But more than that, he has demonstrated the ability to work with people and various entities, not only here in our country but throughout the world. This new Director of National Intelligence could well become the most important Cabinet position we have in the years to come. John Negroponte is the man to fashion that office, to determine what it needs in order to function properly at the beginning, and to set the course for this new intelligence agency.

So I am here to urge that the Senate promptly approve this nomination and confirm John Negroponte so he can start on this very important task.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I oppose the Bayh-Kennedy amendment on the uparmored humvees. The validated global war on terror requirement for this is 10,079. I do hope the Senate will listen. This is very serious.

We received a letter last week from two senior Army general officers, the Army's G-8 Deputy Chief of Staff for Programs and the Army's G-3 Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, which states the total requirement for these vehicles is 10,079 and that industry will meet that requirement in less than 2 months with funds previously provided.

Keep in mind the pre-emergency throughput of these vehicles was 40 a month. We are now producing at the rate of 550 a month, and we will reach the maximum in June because we paid more to speed up this production.

We appropriated funds and reprogrammed to meet the total requirement. We have now met it. As a matter of fact, we produced 266 more vehicles than the Army wanted. This amendment is not about taking care of troops. I spent my career, and the Senator from Hawaii with me, to ensure the service men and women have the equipment they need, the support they need. This is about the production unit of a defense contractor, not about the people who are wearing the uniform in Iraq.

This manufacturer is currently producing these at the capacity, as I said, of 550 a month. Every month, 550 new humvees are going into Iraq. We will have more there by June than we need. There is no need for this. The sponsors want you to believe the Army wants and needs these, but that is not true. The Army's requirement will be met in June, and we have provided some money for all of them. In Iraq, we are meeting the requirements of the commanders in the field, and they have certified to that.

The additional funding of this amendment was not requested by the Department, and the commanders are receiving other vehicles now, for instance, the Striker, which is a different system and is providing more protection for the people in the field. They are going in there now.

Some people argue the need for these is going up. That is not true. The need for Strikers is going up, and we are sending Strikers in from Germany, from Hawaii, from Alaska, from Seattle. We are meeting the needs they demanded, and that is for the Strikers. This requirement is not increasing with the continued operations in Iraq.

A major difference now is, after February of this year, all vehicles operating outside the protective compound are armored, and we have met that need.

This is an emergency appropriations bill. I believe we should focus on the needs of validated requirements of the Department for the total global war, but this is not one of them.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I yield to my friend, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, so he might be heard on the matter. I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, that is correct. This money comes out of this supplemental for these purposes which is beyond the needs on this vehicle and reduce the amount of money for other items that are needed.

I yield back the remainder of our time. I thank the Chair for his courtesy.

Is all time yielded back?

Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. President, last evening, as we were finishing up this bill, we had a series of amendments that were offered as amendments, and we were in the process of changing them to sense-of- the-Senate resolutions. There are a couple others we failed to offer, approved by both sides. I ask unanimous consent they now be offered en bloc and have them considered en bloc.

I ask unanimous consent the amendments be agreed to.

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. 487, As Modified

Mr. President, I view this as a technical amendment to last year's bill. Last year, we provided these funds for the maritime cargo terminal, primarily because it is going to present us now with one of the most high-speed, advance-design capabilities of handling military sealift requirements. This provision clarifies the intent of the funds provided in prior fiscal years and provides authority to the Navy to execute those funds as we intended. The Navy says it needs this amendment in order to do that. We tried to clarify this issue in the 2004 bill but the Navy lawyers again said it wasn't sufficient. They want the greater authority to execute the funds in the way that is necessary for this port authority. Our language in the bill has been now reviewed by the Navy. The Navy now agrees with this language. If we finally enact this language, it will be sufficient to carry out our original intent.

I see the Senator from Arizona is on the floor. It is my intention to make a motion to table this amendment but I would be pleased to yield to the Senator. I do not want to offer my motion in a manner that would reduce his right to speak on the amendment.

Does the Senator wish time on this amendment?

I understand the Senator from Oklahoma has four amendments--three more?

Two more. I think they are all to the Defense portion of the bill. Are they? Is this the only one to the Defense portion of the bill?

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 471

Mr. President, we will soon have a time for a recorded vote. I will yield the floor at the appropriate time, if the Chair will notify me when it is time to start that vote.

Mr. President, there are a series of amendments now that have been filed on this bill to earmark money in the portion of the supplemental dealing with Defense. Our subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee did not earmark any money in the Defense portion of this bill. It was my position and the position of the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, that this is, after all, supplemental money on an emergency basis to deal with the problems of those who are in combat now: Iraq and Afghanistan and the war against terror.

We have urgent needs of those people. This money must be approved and must be available to them no later than the first week in May. Under those circumstances, I have come to the floor to tell the Senate now we are going to oppose any amendment that would earmark money in this bill.

There are some legitimate desires here on the floor for the Department to spend some of the money it has for specific purposes. I think a sense-of-the-Senate resolution in most of those instances would call that matter to the attention of the Department, and to a great extent I believe the Department would follow the suggestion of the Senate--of the Congress, if you want to make it a sense-of-the- Congress, as an amendment to this bill. We can change the amendments into a sense-of-the-Senate concept. But we cannot start taking these amendments. We turned down the amendments that came to us in subcommittee. We turned down the amendments that came to us in markup in the subcommittee. We turned down the amendments when they came to the full committee. Now to have them come to the floor in a cloture situation I think exacerbates the situation.

This is to say it is my intention to move to table any amendment that will attempt to earmark money in this bill or elsewhere for nonemergency purposes. I know of none of them I have seen that are emergencies that have been filed on this bill. But I assure the Senate we are sympathetic to many of the amendments. As a matter of fact, I think I may have cosponsored one or two of them myself in connection with previous bills, the annual appropriations bills for Defense.

But this is a supplemental. It is primarily designed to provide emergency funds. This is not the time for us to be taking up policy questions that should be addressed in the authorization bill or amendments that should be offered to the bills when we bring the bills out of the committee dealing with fiscal year 2006.

I believe it is almost time for the vote that is scheduled. Again, I urge my friends who have offered these amendments to stay on the floor and discuss them with us. Again, I say, many of them are very well intentioned. I personally would support them in many circumstances, but I cannot in good conscience do that now. We should take this bill as clean as possible to conference and get it out of conference as quickly as possible.

I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

(The remarks of Mr. Leahy, Mr. Reid, and Mr. Baucus are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. President, Senator Warner has offered an amendment relating to delaying the decommissioning of the John F. Kennedy aircraft carrier CB-67. Is that the pending amendment?

Amendment No. 516

Is the Warner amendment scheduled for a vote?

I ask unanimous consent the vote on the Warner amendment be scheduled to accompany the next vote requested by the Senate. I have been unable to make the statement I wanted to make on this amendment. I have been taken away for several other problems. I don't know when the next vote will be scheduled. But I do wish some time to discuss the amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that be postponed until the next amendment that is scheduled.

Mr. President, do I have a couple of minutes before the vote?

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. President, is the Warner amendment the pending amendment?

I have come to the Senate to oppose this amendment.

Mr. President, I have not had the opportunity to speak on this amendment. I seek to oppose it.

I ask unanimous consent that we have 15 minutes on each side on this amendment.

I asked unanimous consent that we have 15 minutes on each side, and I intend to oppose the amendment. I assume the Senator from Virginia would have another 15 minutes on the amendment.

Mr. President, I have two Senators on the floor who wish to argue about who gets the floor, but I have the floor. The Senator from Nevada wishes to have an opportunity to do something.

I ask unanimous consent that I be able to allow the Senator from Nevada to make his presentation without losing my right to the floor.

I regret that the Senator from Nevada is unable to do that.

Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor now to oppose the amendment offered by my friend from Virginia. He is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and I do so very reluctantly. However, at hearings held by the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations have opposed the goal of this amendment, which is to maintain 12 carriers in our fleet.

I want to read from that transcript. I said this to the Secretary:

Are you going to be terribly disturbed if we tell you to

keep the Kennedy where it is?

The Secretary of the Navy said:

Yes, sir, we would be terribly disturbed to keep the

Kennedy where it is. First of all, the money is out for the

Kennedy. It is not in our budget. If we have to keep the

Kennedy, then something else has to go. So we don't have the

money in the budget for the Kennedy. It's gone. It is $1.2

billion and it is 40 years old. It has never been through a

major upgrade. It is a Reserve carrier. So we have always had

the expense and serious issues in keeping the Kennedy

properly maintained. Frankly, it is so expensive for us and

it has marginal capability. As the CNO said, our carriers are

4 times more capable than they were during Desert Storm. We

are about to double capability by 2010 and, frankly, we do

not need this carrier.

We have a disagreement of opinion between the Senator from Virginia and myself caused by the testimony. Parenthetically, I say to my friend, I hope he will look at the amendment.

Yes.

Mr. President, I have been so informed by the Senator from Virginia, but he has not said that in my presence. Let me note for the Senator, the way this amendment is drafted, the money to maintain 12 carriers would come out of this bill, the supplemental appropriations, to be used for nonemergency purposes. Whatever happens to my objection, I hope that you will look at this amendment because we are informed that this would take $288 million out of the funds in this bill.

From a policy point of view, decommissioning the Kennedy as the Navy proposes in the fiscal year 2006 budget will have minimal near-term operational impact due to a previously scheduled complex overhaul that was scheduled to begin in May of this year. This complex overhaul would result in 2 years of nonavailability for the ship.

Decommissioning the Kennedy also has minimal near-term industrial base impacts and allows the Navy to free resources necessary to fight the global war on terrorism while preparing to face future challenges.

The Navy's plan to decommission the Kennedy will save $1.2 billion over fiscal years 2006 through 2011. These savings are critical for modernizing our Naval forces, and for providing the necessary resources for the Navy's shipbuilding account.

The Kennedy was chosen for decommissioning because of its material condition and operational readiness. The Kennedy has never been through a major upgrade. It served as a Reserve carrier from 1995 to 1998. The Navy has always had expenses and issues keeping the Kennedy properly maintained. It is expensive for the Navy and it is of marginal capability.

The Kennedy was scheduled to go through a complex overhaul from May 2005 to August 2006. It would be 40 years old coming out of this overhaul with the intent of extending it to 50 years of age.

The Navy now believes it would be difficult to maintain this platform within reasonable cost even after the complex overhaul given that it did not go through a mid-life service life extension program.

The overhaul risk in reducing the number of carriers from 12 to 11 is mitigated by several improvements realized in the multimission capabilities

of today's carrier strike groups. For example, carrier aircraft such as the F/A-18E and F/A-18F Super Hornets, are transitioning to the fleet with improved capabilities to hit multiple targets on a single sortie.

Our carriers today are at least four times more capable, as measured in number of targets serviced per day, than they were during Desert Storm. The Navy is expected to almost double this capability by 2010 as we bring on new airplanes, more precision weapons, and increased sortie rates with future carriers currently in development.

The Navy's fleet of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers has significant capabilities over conventional carriers, such as the Kennedy. Nuclear- powered carriers have greater range and speed, and can operate at full speed for indefinite periods without the need for refueling.

During flight operations, conventional carriers will need to refuel and re-arm every 2 to 3 days, compared to nuclear-powered carriers which will only need to re-arm and refuel every 7 to 10 days. The nuclear carriers have the capacity to carry 35 percent more fuel and ordnance than conventional carriers. Therefore, nuclear carriers are far less reliant on logistics support.

The Navy is also transforming how they operate and extracting more readiness out of the force. The Navy's fleet response plan is revolutionary and is providing greater availability of carrier strike groups.

The fleet response plan is supportable with an 11-carrier force as the emphasis is on enhanced readiness, speed of response, and increased carrier employability. These precepts continue to apply even with fewer carriers, as the Navy has ensured me that they will be fully able to meet combatant commander's requirements in key regions.

The Department has already begun to implement mitigation strategy to address the impact of the Kennedy's complex overhaul workload cancellation. Approximately $28 million has been expended in supporting the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility to execute required maintenance on the USS John C. Stennis, CVN-74.

Norfolk Naval Shipyard personnel are also executing work on the USS George Washington, CVN-73, currently undergoing a docking phased incremental availability at Newport News.

Approximately $26 million has been obligated to Norfolk Naval Shipyard and the private sector to accomplish this additional required maintenance.

Additionally, there are other nonrecoverable costs totaling $47.1 million. Some of these are planning costs that will be required to be spent again if the complex overhaul of the Kennedy is reinstated, thereby increasing the original cost estimate of the complex overhaul.

The Navy also informs me that workload disruptions throughout all shipyards would be severe if their workload mitigation plans were changed at this point in the fiscal year.

I repeat that. They have told me workload disruptions throughout all naval shipyards would be severe if their workload mitigation plans were changed at this point in the fiscal year.

I will try to respond to my colleagues who suggest the Kennedy would be available to replace the USS Kitty Hawk, which is currently forward deployed and permanently homeported in Japan, if the Kitty Hawk was not available for operations.

The Navy assures me the Kennedy would not be moved to Japan if something happened to the Kitty Hawk. The Navy leadership believes the Kennedy does not provide the capabilities required to meet the mission for that area of responsibility.

Although the Kennedy is older than the Kitty Hawk, the Navy provides regular upgrades and maintenance on the Kitty Hawk to keep her in excellent material condition. If the Kitty Hawk becomes unavailable for operations, the Navy will rotate a nuclear carrier into the region until the Kitty Hawk would be repaired.

Finally, I know many Senators are concerned that the retirement of the Kennedy will negatively impact base realignment and closure decisions, BRAC decisions, regarding Mayport, FL, and possibly leave the Nation with only one port facility on the east coast capable of supporting large-deck, deep-draft vessels.

I can tell those Senators the Navy is committed to retaining two strategic ports capable of accommodating large-deck, deep-draft ships on each coast.

To this end, Mayport continues to be a critical large-deck-capable port. In the near term, the Navy will look at homeporting a large-deck amphibious ship in Mayport to mitigate the impact to the community for the loss of the Kennedy.

As I said, I am here to oppose this amendment because of the cost it will impose on the Navy and the risk it will impose on future capabilities being developed for our naval forces.

There is no question in my mind this is the wrong way to go. The Navy has stated that to us very clearly in statements made to the Appropriations Committee, following the time of the comments to the Armed Services Committee.

I want to again say Secretary English, with the Chief of Naval Operations sitting by him, said this to our committee:

So we fully support taking out the Kennedy, and, Mr.

Chairman, if we are required to keep the Kennedy, then we're

going to have to take money out of someplace else because we

do not have the money to keep the Kennedy.

The impact of this amendment is it will be taking money out of this supplemental appropriations for this purpose. My good friend from Virginia I do hope will take, in any event, a look at his amendment because I do not think this emergency money ought to be diverted to a change in a policy decision and overruling the Secretary of the Navy with regard to how many carriers there are in our fleet.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

That was my understanding of the situation at the time. I think there have been more requests for time.

I have no objection.

How much time remains?

Mr. President, I have 5 minutes?

Please notify me when I have 1 minute remaining.

Mr. President, pursuant to rule VI, paragraph 2, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd be considered necessarily absent and he be excused from any further service of the Senate for the remainder of today.

Mr. President, this amendment says the money will come out of this bill. Now, it is true that for 2005 we did appropriate money to the Navy for the CV-67, the John F. Kennedy. But I have in my hand the cancellation of the complex overhaul. We know exactly where the money has been reallocated. It has been reallocated to a series of functions. Some of those functions are already prepared.

I say to my colleagues, no matter what we do, the money will come out of this bill because the money that was allocated in the 2005 bill has been used for the Stennis, for the George Washington, support travel for the CVN-73 and 74, for the USS Truman, CVN-75, for additional work at Hampton Roads, for the USS Charlotte, which is the SSN-766, a submarine, and for work inactivation of the carrier at Mayport. As a practical matter, they have already spent the $288 million in the 2005 bill--at least obligated it. The Senator from Virginia, I understand, disputes that. But that is the information we have received.

What I am saying, for our committee I oppose this amendment of Senator Warner because it, No. 1, will preserve 12 carriers; No. 2, it will take money from this bill or somewhere to go back and reinstate the basic complex overhaul which, as I said to the Senate, the Navy now believes is unwarranted because of the age of this vessel. This vessel is so old and it did not have a midlife service program. So there is no reason to suspect it will have 10 years' service after this overhaul is completed.

What this will do, if we spend the money, we are going to delay the modernization of the Navy. We know throughout the world nations are building more ships. We cannot keep up with them. We cannot keep up with them because we are keeping old hulls. It is time we woke up. We need smaller, faster, more capable vessels than these vessels we are talking about. To prolong their life is wrong.

The Secretary of the Navy and the CNO have taken a different position than they did 6 months ago on this issue. They finally came to the conclusion they could not do what they wanted to do, and they told us that in our committee. I am reporting that to the Senate.

The choice of the Senate is to support the Navy's position now as expressed by the Secretary and the Chief of Navy Operations and spend this money the way they want to spend it for the future, or to go back and reverse that decision and try to maintain a 40-year-old carrier and extend its life for 10 years when the experts say you can spend all this money and it still will not be a serviceable vessel to meet the needs of the Navy.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, I regret being here with this argument because I have such deep respect for Senator Warner, the Senator from Virginia, the former Secretary of Navy. But I think this year I am going to be at this desk saying this again and again. We are in a program of reshaping our military. We are looking out to the future, based on the lessons we have learned in Afghanistan and Iraq and the war on terrorism.

We note some of the failures of our system. One of them is the failure to modernize in time. We got behind. The very fact that this 40-year-old vessel is out there with overhaul appropriations was wrong to begin with. We should be looking to the future and to the needs of this Navy. I congratulate the Secretary of the Navy and the CNO for being willing to reverse their stand and come to us and say: Please oppose this amendment. Keep the schedule we have decided on and let us modernize the Navy.

That is the decision before the Senate. Are we going to go forward with the people making the tough decisions? Are we going to do it after BRAC? Are we going to do it for the Air Force? We are going to have some tough ones for the Air Force. Are we going to do it for the Army? We are going to have some tough decisions on the Army. Every single part of the military is going to be realigned in terms of spending this year, and this is the beginning.

I leave it to the Senate. Make the decision. Shall we follow the Chief of Naval Operations and the Secretary of Navy, their current position, or shall we follow the position they had just 6 months ago?

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

Mr. President, the global war on terrorism requirement for these uparmored humvees is 10,079 units. I have a letter from the Department of the Army signed by David Melcher, Lieutenant General, U.S. Army, and James Lovelace, Lieutenant General, Deputy Chief of Staff, which states the amount already appropriated and supported in reprogramming actions will fund the total requirement of 10,079 humvees by June of this year.

Without any money from this supplemental request, the total requirements have been set down for this system for this fiscal year.

This, after all, is a supplemental request, and we will be dealing with the Army's 2006 requirements in the full bill for the fiscal year 2006. We have appropriated and programmed moneys to

meet the requirements. As a matter of fact, the funds we put up already will exceed that requirement by 266 vehicles. The manufacturer is currently producing these humvees at the maximum capacity of 550 per month and will exceed the Department's requirements in June.

I am sad to oppose my good friend from Indiana, but the requirement for these uparmored humvees is not going to expand, in our judgment. The Army maintains they do not need more uparmored humvees in Afghanistan because they are too heavy to maneuver in the mountainous Afghan terrain. In the areas where they are capable of being used, we are bringing more and more critically needed equipment, such as the Strikers, into Iraq.

We should focus on the total funding for validated global war on terrorism requirements. These requirements were validated by the Army through its team system. There is no question that the procurement we have already paid for is sufficient to meet the total needs of the Army through the remainder of this fiscal year.

As I said, we are going to look at this in terms of 2006. The Army procurement request so far for 2005 has been sufficient. We do have critical force protection requirements, but we also have the problem of recapitalization of equipment used in operation and equipment that is coming up for rotation.

This is a very expensive time for the Army with the rotations that are going on. If we fund unvalidated requirements as proposed by this amendment at this time, that will come at the expense of validated requirements that have not been met.

We will look at this again in conference, I promise the Senator from Indiana. There is no question this is a system we provided in recent months for the global war on terrorism. This capacity of 550 per month is an enormous amount of production. We commend the manufacturer for increasing its rate of production, but what happens when you increase rate of production is you get to the end sooner.

We validated these requirements. We have met the requirements, and we do not need any additional money from this emergency bill to be spent for uparmored humvees.

I do not know if anyone else wishes to speak on the matter, but I oppose it. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Again, at the request of the Department of Defense and the Department of the Army I oppose the Senator's amendment.

If there is no further debate, I am pleased to have the vote on this matter.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the rollcall vote ordered on this amendment commence at 5:45 p.m.

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

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

I am pleased to join the Senator from Illinois to discuss this issue.

I appreciate the Senator not offering the amendment at this time.

I look forward to working with the Senator from Illinois on this issue during the appropriations process and ensuring that the needs of our service members are being met.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 440 and ask that it be brought before the Senate.

Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification of that amendment.

I ask that the amendment be adopted.

Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification of amendment No. 518.

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

Mr. President, I ask for the adoption of the amendment, as modified.

I send to the desk a modification of amendment No. 519.

I ask for adoption of the amendment.

I move to reconsider the votes, and to lay the motions on the table, en bloc.

The motions to lay on the table were agreed to.

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 send to the desk a modification of No. 480.

The clerk will report the amendment.

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

I ask for adoption of that 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 have gone through a series of amendments that have been offered to the Defense portion of this bill and have been able to work out substantial changes and modifications to meet the objectives of the sponsor as well as the urgency to get this bill done.

For the portion of the bill that represents Defense, I urge Members to come and discuss with us these amendments so we may find out how we can handle them. We are informed there are still three amendments that affect the Defense portion of the supplemental. There may be other Defense amendments, but those are all we have been notified of so far.

Again, I urge Members to contact us to see if we can work out these remaining Defense amendments.

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 send to the desk a modification of amendment No. 444.

I ask for adoption of the amendment. It is now a sense- of-the-Senate amendment and I urge its approval.

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.

Reserving the right to object, can we have a copy of that.

We have no objection.

Mr. President, we commend the Senator for his modification and this necessary amendment. It deals with travel by dependents and loved ones with those who are seriously ill or injured or in a situation of imminent death. I do think the modification meets the increasing needs of our service men and women and their families. So we are pleased to accept the amendment.

Will the Senator mind reconsidering that amendment at this time?

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. 459

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

Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification of amendment No. 418.

I urge the adoption of the amendment as modified.

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.