John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague. Mr. President, it is my privilege to bring forward on behalf of the Armed Services Committee, and now on behalf of all of our colleagues, the annual Defense authorization bill. I do so with my longtime colleague and dear friend of 28 years serving on this committee, the senior Senator from Michigan, Mr. Carl Levin, who is currently the ranking member of the committee. He has been a working partner of mine, and I have been a working partner of his. He was once chairman of this committee. We have always been able to put aside such differences that we may have. I respect his difference of views, and he respects mine. We work as a team on behalf of our committee and all of our colleagues in producing this annual bill, and in all of these 28 years we have been together. I thank all members of the Armed Services Committee. We have one of the larger committees. I thank our senior staff, particularly Mr. Charles Abell, my current chief of staff, and Rick DeBobes, the current chief of staff of the minority, and each and every one of their team, because it is a team effort. Our committee, I think almost more so than any others I know of, relies on this professional staff. It is really a professional staff that we have, in many respects, to put together this bill. The bill before the Senate was unanimously reported out of the committee on May 9 after holding 36 hearings and receiving numerous policy and operational briefings on the President's budget request for fiscal year 2007 and related Defense issues. I commend my colleagues for their hard work and the swift manner in which they contributed to developing and writing this important legislation, not only at the hearings we had but in the subcommittee structure that worked so effectively to produce this bill. Since the Armed Services Committee reported out this legislation, the United States remains engaged in the global war on terrorism, now in its fifth year. Currently, the central battlegrounds in the war on terrorism are in Iraq and Afghanistan. But there are many, many other areas throughout the world where quietly, yet no less effectively, the men and women of the Armed Forces are stationed and joining in this collective effort of all uniformed personnel to perform the duties necessary to let this country remain free and those of our allies in the face of this terrorist threat. It is so important, as we go through this bill, to pay our respects collectively to the men and women in uniform and their many civilian counterparts. There is an enormous cadre of civilians in the Department of Defense and serving elsewhere who are alongside the uniformed men and women throughout the world. But I want to pay particular respect to the Guard and Reserve who have risen to the call far beyond expectations in these conflicts of terrorism and have done their duties time and time again with great honor and distinction. For each of the countries, the road to peace and stability and democracy has been marked by historical milestones, including a referendum in both Iraq and Afghanistan that adopted a constitution, elections that chose a democratically elected representative government, the formation of a unity government, and progress in building security forces capable of protecting their nation's freedom. Those are landmark and historical accomplishments in the course of world history, and they would not have been achievable without the sacrifices--regrettably, the loss of life, the loss of limb--by so many men and women in the Armed Forces and the support their families, by their side, have given them. These accomplishments in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the global war on terrorism are a tribute to the dedication and skills of our uniformed men and women who are willing to respond to the call of duty, and to the military leaders who lead them. The successes achieved in Iraq and Afghanistan have come at a great sacrifice, as I said, in life and limb. These sacrifices and service of our men and women in uniform have also removed obstacles to freedom and democracy in regions of the Middle East and elsewhere in Asia. Throughout my many years of service I have never seen--and I repeat, I go back some 60 years, to the closing year of World War II, when I was a young 17, 18-year-old sailor--but I have had the privilege of being associated with the men and women in uniform in these 60-plus years, and we have never as a nation witnessed a finer, more dedicated professional force, both Active and Guard and Reserve, than we have today. As I look back over the history of the U.S. Armed Forces, the challenges and responsibilities have never been greater than those that rest upon the shoulders of today's generation of the military--their leaders, their civilian leaders in the Department of Defense, with the Secretary of Defense and others, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Energy--all of this team that puts together our national security. As such, we must take our responsibilities equally as serious to ensure that those who serve have the resources and authorities they need to win the global war on terrorism. Again, drawing on my modest contribution in active service during World War II and again in Korea and time in the Reserve, I must say, it is so different, in this span of over a half century that I have had the privilege to be associated with these men and women, the challenges that face them today. In World War II we knew precisely who the enemy was. We knew the nations that sponsored the aggression. We knew generally the capabilities of their military, and we knew with greater specificity what we needed to do in America to arm ourselves, first and foremost, with the finest trained men and women--16 million responded in World War II to serve in uniform--and the equipment that they needed. But today's war on terrorism is largely nonstate-sponsored. We do not know the origins of the hatred that is in the minds of those people who proudly claim the role of terrorist, what it is that engenders that hate such that they wish to strike out, often sacrificing their own life to do harm to those who love and cherish freedom. That is a particular challenge that our young men and women face today, unlike any other conflict of the magnitude we are now engaged in in Afghanistan and Iraq principally, unlike any other conflict in the history of our country. Therefore, we ask much of that individual in uniform today. It is our privilege as Members of this venerable and distinguished Senate to, at least once each time every year, and then, of course, in the subsequent appropriations process, provide nothing but the finest equipment obtainable, fair pay and allowances and health care and other requirements that the young men and women and their families of the Armed Forces so richly deserve. What a privilege it is to do that. With our Armed Forces deployed in distant battlefields and countless others standing watch at home, we are committed to providing the necessary resources and authorities for each of them and their families. Accordingly, this bill provides $467.7 billion overall in budget authority for fiscal year 2007--that is an enormous sum of money--an increase of $26.2 billion or 4.1 percent in real terms over the amount authorized by Congress for fiscal year 2006; additionally, $50 billion in emergency supplemental funding for fiscal year 2007 for activities in support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere in the global war on terrorism. That is a new concept unlike any I have experienced in the early years in this Chamber, where we literally put in a block sum of money. Since we cannot anticipate with full specificity the needs and special requirements that flow from these operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is prudent and a necessary plan. The bill further includes many important legislative provisions that would set forth critical policies for the Department of Defense. I would like to highlight a few provisions that would continue to support the modernization and transformation of the Armed Forces and highlight other provisions that would strengthen interagency operations abroad and at home. The Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, is to be commended. When he first came to office we had no way of envisioning the magnitude of the war on terrorism. But he set in place the transformation, particularly of the United States Army but other areas of the Department of Defense. And that same transformation and modernization has gone ahead largely parallel to the efforts that we have undertaken in the actual combat of the world war on terrorism. First of all, my colleagues and I on the committee and others in the Senate remain particularly concerned about the size of the Navy's fleet. In the past 15 years, there has been a declining trend in shipbuilding and a diminishing capacity in the shipbuilding industrial base. The fleet has been reduced to its smallest size since before World War II in terms of number of ships. There are fewer ships today than before World War II. That is an accurate statistic. But it would be incorrect if I didn't say that the smaller number of ships that we have today far exceeds the capabilities of the ships that we had when we entered World War II. So it is not just a numbers game. But it is interesting to point out that statistic in terms of the numbers. The fleet has been reduced as a result of budget necessities and the extraordinary cost of the individual ships. That has dictated fewer ships, regrettably. But the current Chief of Naval Operations and the current Secretary of the Navy are determined to try, together with the support of the Congress, to turn that curve around and begin to increase the number of ships in the Navy. The time has come to reverse that current trend, and I commend the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Navy, Chief of Naval Operations, and all others working to try to reverse the trend. Indeed, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Gordon England, former Secretary of the Navy, has been at the helm in trying to increase the size and number of the United States Navy. Each of those individuals is mindful of what the Constitution says. It is the duty of the Congress to maintain--I repeat, maintain-- at all times a United States Navy, and then an Army and the size of the Army in accordance with what the needs are. We raise that Army depending upon the threats facing the country. But it is interesting that the Framers clearly recognized the importance of this Nation having maritime supremacy, which we do have today. In many respects, we are an island nation--yes, bordered by our friends to the north, Canada, and our neighbors to the south. But nevertheless, with two mighty oceans on either side, it is imperative that this country maintain maritime superiority. So we worked diligently to strengthen the shipbuilding program and the industrial base which provides us those ships. We fund the construction this year of eight warships, one above the President's request, and two new warship classes, the DDX destroyer and LHA(R) amphibious assault ship. We implement a long-range plan for the procurement of three ships of the future aircraft carrier class CVN-21 to improve the affordability of the future aircraft carrier class by authorizing multiple ship material procurements over 4-year increments. So that ship, indeed, is coming to life. The parts are being brought together to build that mighty warship of the future, the CVN-21. We lay the groundwork to increase the submarine build rate to ensure our continued underseas superiority and increase our investment in the National Shipbuilding Research Program. The bill also includes a provision that would increase investment in unmanned systems to provide more flexible capabilities to the warfighter by requiring the Secretary of Defense to develop a departmentwide policy for development and operation of unmanned systems. I am very proud of the record of our committee in encouraging the use here year after year of great numbers of unmanned platforms and to provide the research and development to achieve more new platforms. The recent extraordinary military accomplishment of, at long last, putting to rest the threat from Zarqawi was made possible by the use of an unmanned system in part, together with all elements of our intelligence collection, both military and civilian, and, indeed, finally the execution of a plan with great professionalism by those flying aircraft and those manning ground responsibilities. We will have further to say about that operation as this bill proceeds. The bill further includes a provision that would continue the development and sustainment of the Joint Strike Fighter Program. After holding 2 days of hearings, I remain concerned that relying on a sole engine supplier for single-engine aircraft to do multiple missions for multiple services and multiple nations presents, indeed, a very serious challenge to the industrial base, the designers, and the manufacturers and all involved. I felt that we could not take the risk of this important program by limiting the engine base to but one single consortium of companies; rather, that we should have the two. This concern is not a new one that I share, nor is it a concern of mine alone. Ten years ago, a decade ago, I and other colleagues on the Armed Services Committee expressed concern regarding the lack of engine competition for aircraft. In response to that concern, the committee included a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996 that directed the Secretary of Defense to ``evaluate at least two propulsion concepts from competing engine companies.'' Now a decade later, my colleagues and I on the committee continue to have that same concern, and we want to have competition for this engine, in the development of this engine and eventually in the manufacture, because competition historically has produced a better product. Competition requires both competitors to constantly try to improve the technology of the engine, constantly to try to find means to reduce the cost of the engine. This is an enormously expensive program. Hopefully, we will procure more than several thousand airframes of different types, some to operate on carriers, some from land, some a mix, some with destall capabilities. It is essential that the magnitude and complexity of this program rest on a solid foundation of propulsion, propulsion provided by two very competent and capable industrial base consortiums competing not only in cost but the continuing competition of design to perfect the best engine man and woman can make for this complicated aircraft. I am proud of what the committee has achieved on this program. Therefore, the bill includes a provision that would add $400.8 million--that is not in the President's budget but in the committee's mark, now the bill before the Senate--for the development of the interchangeable engine during fiscal year 2007. Two models will continue to strongly compete, one by one consortium, another by a second consortium of manufacturers. Indeed, I think by doing that we better serve those nations which have signed up and committed their dollars to the development of this aircraft, nations that are dependent upon this aircraft being designed and built and at a cost that they can afford. We direct the Secretary of Defense to continue the development and sustainment of the Joint Strike Fighter Program with two competitive propulsion systems throughout the life of the aircraft or enter into a one-time, firm-fixed price contract for a single propulsion system throughout the life of the aircraft. In addition to modernizing and transforming the Armed Forces to meet current and future threats, we must also strengthen interagency operations abroad and at home. The challenges posed by the Second World War led to increasingly more joint and combined operations within the U.S. military. Now operations have become more interagency and coalition in nature and will be for the foreseeable future. The success of the U.S. efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the global war on terrorism will depend on coordinating all instruments of our national power to achieve peace and security in troubled regions around the world. This will include deploying civilian personnel of each agency of our Government with expertise in the areas of rule of law and administration of justice, economic development, and civil administration to partner with U.S. military forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations to secure hard-won military successes and to preserve peace and freedom. To strengthen interagency operations and to provide greater flexibility in the U.S. Government's ability to partner with nations in fighting terrorism, the bill includes provisions that would require the President to develop a plan to establish interagency operating procedures for Federal agencies to plan and conduct stabilization and reconstruction operations; provide to the heads of all executive branch agencies the same authorities the Secretary of State has with respect to providing allowances, benefits, and death gratuities for Foreign Service or civilian personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan; expand authorities for geographic combatant commanders to train and equip foreign military forces, and to provide urgent humanitarian relief and reconstruction assistance to foreign nations; expand authority to the Department to lease or lend equipment for personnel protection and survivability to our allies and coalition partners; and expand authority to provide logistics support, supplies, and services to our allies and coalition partners. With the increased role of the Armed Forces in homeland security, I also remain concerned about whether current authorities on the use of the Armed Forces are adequate to deal with a serious or widespread breakdown in public order caused by a terrorist attack or natural disaster. The bill includes a provision that would update the provision in title 10 known as the Insurrection Act to clarify the President's authority to use the Armed Forces to restore order and enforce Federal laws in cases where, as a result of a terrorist attack, epidemic, or natural disaster, public order has broken down beyond the ability of local law enforcement or the State Guard, or a combination thereof, to effectively bring about law and order. To more effectively support local, state, Federal agencies in response to manmade or natural disasters, the bill includes provisions that would authorize the Secretary of Defense to approve the deployment of Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams to Canada and Mexico, if requested. We have perfectly equipped teams--at least one for each State--to deal with these problems. We should share them with our neighbors to the north and to the south, if so requested. It would expand the types of emergencies for which the Secretary of Defense may prepare or employ Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams; and add $13.5 million to provide for the training and equipment of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams. They were a concept developed in the Armed Services Committee, and I am very proud. It has taken us many years to get the funding stream to provide these teams so they cover adequately the best we can equally all 50 States. These are just a few of the essential authorities among the more than 300 provisions included in this year's bill. I believe the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2007 sustains the advances made in recent years, and provides the necessary investments to prepare for the security of our Nation in the future. I urge my colleagues to debate this bill in a constructive manner and to bring forth those amendments which you believe would further strengthen this bill. They will be fairly considered, I assure you. Therefore, I am anxious that this bill be established and passed by the Senate, having been amended where it is necessary. It has been the tradition of the Senate for 45 years to pass this bill each year.

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

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to comment on the F-22. It is a magnificent aircraft. It is absolutely essential for our inventory of weapons. Stop to think that any use of our Armed Forces, wherever they may be in the world, is dependent on air superiority. The United States has that air superiority, but there are nations night and day trying to fashion airplanes or instruments that could take away that air superiority. This Nation is banking its future on that aircraft. I am very pleased that our committee has marked up a strong bill on that issue. The Senator from Georgia may have some additional thoughts on it, which we will turn to in the course of the deliberations on this bill. I salute the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss, for doing everything he can to ensure that the United States of America maintains its air superiority so that the men and women of the other Armed Forces, be they at sea, on the land--wherever they may be--have the sense of confidence that the skies above will not become some instrument of war in harm's way to them.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I wish to say with a deep sense of humility how much I appreciate his comments. To the extent I have had achievements as chairman of this committee, and before that as ranking member, it was largely due to the long-term friendship and confidence we share in each other's decisions.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I again thank my long-time friend, the ranking member of this committee. We shall now be available for amendments. The bill is open for amendment. I intend to remain here for a while this evening. I think there is a strong likelihood that I will have an amendment to be offered on behalf of colleagues on our side very shortly relating to the military operation which resulted in the extinguishing of the life of al-Zarqawi.

Mr. WARNER. I anticipate that. The Senator from Michigan will have it as soon as it is in final form.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, by previous agreement between the distinguished majority leader and the Democratic leader, the chairman and ranking member of the committee will, for the remainder of this evening, as well as tomorrow morning, follow this protocol. I will put forth an amendment momentarily on behalf of myself, Mr. Frist, Mr. Reid, and Mr. Levin, and it is a joint, hopefully bipartisan, accepted amendment to be debated further in the morning. The military operation that resulted in the death of Zarqawi was a stunning accomplishment for U.S. forces. It displayed the precision, perseverance and professionalism of our Armed Forces supported by a sophisticated and superb intelligence apparatus that included U.S, Iraqi, and Coalition intelligence organizations. Behind the details that were made public, I can tell you, were months of coordinated, hard work by analysts, human intelligence operatives, and military planners. The death of Zarqawi will hopefully lessen, but not end the violence in Iraq, but it is certainly a significant blow to the terrorist network in Iraq, to Osama bin Laden, and the al-Qaida organization. Zarqawi was the most prominent insurgent in Iraq and the most active of bin Laden's affiliates. While bin Laden hides in mountain caves, capable of making occasional audio tapes, Zarqawi was working to trigger a civil war, disrupt the democratic process of the new unity government in Iraq, and then use Iraq as a base to launch attacks throughout the region. There is proof of that intent. He had eluded capture for 3 years, he was indeed cruel, cunning, and cagey--and now gone. I proudly salute the brave and professional work of our military forces as well as the formidable efforts of our military, civilian, and allied intelligence operations. This success is one that the entire intelligence community should find very satisfying. The combined efforts of the Directorate of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, and all of our defense intelligence capabilities, and our military forces in Iraq, collaborated on this effort. I believe this success displays that reforms are working. Amendment No. 4208

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this amendment is regarding the successful operation by our military forces, the coalition forces, the civilian and military intelligence both abroad in Iraq, as well as those teams here in the United States, in the successful elimination of what is regarded as the No. 1 terrorist in all Iraq, Zarqawi. He is no longer able to operate as he once did. At this time, I send this amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes debate on the Defense authorization bill on Tuesday, the time between then and 12:15 be equally divided between the chairman and ranking member or their designees; provided further, that at 12:15, the Senate proceed to vote on amendment No. 4208, with no amendments in order to the amendment. That is the amendment I just introduced.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the matters with regard to this bill are concluded for tonight. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, June 12, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony regarding the implementation of sections 641 through 645 of The Energy Policy Act of 2005, the next generation nuclear plant project within the Department of Energy.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator McCain's legislative fellow, Navy LCDR Damien Christopher, be granted floor privileges during the debate on this bill.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to Mark Brunner, a military fellow in my office, for the duration of the Senate's debate on S. 2766, National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2007.

Mr. WARNER. That having been done, I ask unanimous consent for privileges of the floor for Mark Brunner, a military fellow in my office, for the duration of this bill.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in consultation with the distinguished leadership on both sides, Senator Levin and I participating, I am pleased to ask unanimous consent that at 3 p.m. on Monday, June 12, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2766, the Defense authorization bill; further, that Senator Levin be recognized at 5:30 to make his opening statement; provided further that Senator Warner then be recognized and that no amendments be in order until the chairman is recognized at that time.

Mr. WARNER. Again, I thank the leadership. I am very anxious, as are all members of the Armed Services Committee from both sides of the aisle, and my esteemed ranking member, Senator Levin, to begin this bill on Monday. It is our hope that we can proceed as quickly as possible, fully recognizing that there may be, hopefully, an interruption with regard to the supplemental appropriations conference report. At some point--and I discussed this with Senator Levin--it would be our intention to approach our leadership in hopes that in the amendment process, after a day or so in the beginning, we can turn to the tradition of having relevant amendments so that we can bring this bill to a close. That gives Senators an opportunity in the first day or so to present whatever they wish and then thereafter proceed to matters that have a direct relevance to the bill itself. I thank the distinguished leader for the opportunity to address the Senate.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wonder if I might ask if we could extend the time over here for a few minutes, maybe 5 minutes, to make a brief statement on this issue.

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished leader.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today with respect to S.J. Res. 1. When considering proposed amendments to the United States Constitution, I first look back to history. In the summer of 1787, 55 individuals gathered in Philadelphia to write our Constitution. It was a very hot summer, and it was a long and arduous debate, many drafts back and forth, but careful consideration was given. Finally, in mid September, it was over. The Constitution they produced was a monumental achievement. But the Framers did not know at that time what a great achievement they had made, one that would enable the United States, today, these 200-plus years later, to become the oldest continuously surviving Republic form of government on Earth today. Article V of the U.S. Constitution lays out the process for amending this magnificent document. In their wisdom, our Founding Fathers purposefully made the task immensely formidable. Of both Houses of Congress, two-thirds have to vote in favor of passing a proposed amendment. Subsequently, three-fourths of the states have to ratify that amendment over a period of time. History documents that there have been many attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution. According to one study--since 1789, over 10,000 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed in Congress, but only 27 have ever been ratified. With this historical framework in mind, I have reviewed S.J. Res 1-- the Marriage Protection Amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a document referred to as the ``box chart'' be printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. WARNER. The proposed constitutional amendment is simply two sentences. The first sentence reads that marriage in the United States shall only consist of the union of a man and a woman. This is a concept which I have consistently voted in support of--beginning with the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, and basically on this same constitutional amendment 2 years ago. The time-honored, deeply rooted tradition of marriage between a man and a woman ought to be protected, and I support that. But the second sentence of the proposed amendment gives me great concern. It states that neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman. It gives me concern because I don't think the second sentence speaks with the clarity to which the American people are entitled. Any number of calls are coming into my office, as they are to other Members, and clearly the callers are focusing on the first sentence. When you try to explain the second sentence, they don't understand it. My colleagues who are supportive of this proposed constitutional amendment have stated that it is their intent that this second sentence will leave to the several States the decision of whether to recognize relationships other than marriage, such as civil unions or domestic partnerships. But if that is the case, why not simply state that in plain English that is understandable for the millions upon millions of Americans who are interested in this amendment? It is amazing to me that a little more than 2 weeks ago, this Senate overwhelmingly approved an amendment to make English the national language of the United States. Yet today we debate an amendment to the U.S. Constitution--one of the most grave responsibilities incumbent upon Members of Congress--America's founding document--and the second sentence of that proposed amendment fails in many ways to speak with the clarity of the English language to which our public is entitled. Some who have spoken in support of this proposed amendment have employed a box chart on the floor of the Senate, and I have asked unanimous consent to include that in the Record in an effort to demonstrate that the resolution would protect marriage but permit States to recognize relationships other than marriage. If this is the case, why not simply say so? Why not simply say that the power to recognize or to prohibit relationships other than marriage shall be reserved to the several States? Or why not simply drop the second sentence altogether if it is confusing? Either option would clearly allow the 50 States to work their will on the issues of civil unions or domestic partnerships. I believe it is extremely important that we leave to the States that responsibility. If we wrote the second sentence plainly, we wouldn't need a box chart to sit here on the floor and try to decipher it. My own State, the Commonwealth of Virginia, is trying to work its own will on these issues right now. With the lack of clarity in this proposed federal amendment, I have to wonder whether the proposed federal amendment respects the right of the several States to act in this area. As the second sentence of this proposed amendment is written now, the intent of the amendment simply isn't clear. What if a State legislature wanted to pass a State constitutional amendment to allow domestic partnerships? As I read this proposed amendment, it would likely preclude a State legislature from so acting. This type of unnecessary confusion will undoubtedly lead to considerable litigation if this proposed amendment is accepted in its current form. That, it seems to me, is not the duty of the Congress of the United States, to write something that just calls upon the courts to try to determine what was the intent of the Congress. Then we have to go to the box charts. Well, to me, the box charts speak in plain English language, and that is why I am hopeful that the framers of this amendment will perhaps consider amending it. Therein rests the concern I have with S.J. Res. 1. I unequivocally support the first sentence; I support protecting marriage as the union between a man and a woman. I am concerned, however, that the second sentence of this proposed constitutional amendment is unnecessarily vague and could well trample on the rights of the several States of our great Republic. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Marriage Protection Amendment

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, has the motion to reconsider and the motion to table been stated?