John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize CDR Mark S. Hochberg on his retirement from 20 years of faithful and dedicated service to the U.S. Navy. Throughout his career as a Seabee and civil engineer, he has made countless contributions to our Navy and Nation that improved the Navy's readiness and bettered the lives of its men and women. I want to thank him for his service and wish him the best of luck in all his future endeavors.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and honor SGM Alford L. McMichael, U.S. Marine Corps. He retires after 36 years of dedicated service to his country and the U.S. Marine Corps. The consummate Marine, he typifies every desirable characteristic of a staff Non-Commissioned Officer, NCO--unsurpassed leadership, mentorship, guidance, courage, and dedication. Sergeant Major McMichael has served his country in tours throughout the world. He has provided leadership to generations of marines through tours of duty as sergeant major of the Marine Corps Officer Candidates School, 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, the 1st Marine Aircraft Wing, Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps Manpower and Reserve Affairs Division, and the 14th sergeant major of the Marine Corps. His career culminated in his appointment as the first senior noncommissioned officer for Allied Command Operations to Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, the strategic NATO headquarters in Mons, Belgium. In that capacity, Sergeant Major McMichael has been instrumental in developing and elevating the role of the noncommissioned officer in the militaries of NATO member countries in order to enhance their military effectiveness. With limited resources and with purpose of conviction, Sergeant Major McMichael has been responsible for the Armed Forces of predominantly former Soviet-block nations to adopt professional noncommissioned officer and staff noncommissioned officer programs. This momentous feat, accomplished virtually singlehandedly, is a landmark in the Alliance's 21st Century transformation. The United States and the NATO Alliance have been most fortunate to have had Sergeant Major McMichael within their ranks for over three decades. The Department of the Navy, the U.S. Marine Corps, Congress, and the American people have been served extraordinarily well by this dedicated American. Members of this Congress will not soon forget the leadership, service, and dedication of Sergeant Major McMichael. He will be missed, yet his contributions will resonate far and deeply into the institutions to which he so well and faithfully devoted his life. From a grateful nation, we bestow our profound appreciation to Sergeant Major McMichael, his lovely wife Rita, and their daughter Portia, and offer our very best as they end an important chapter in their lives and embark upon a new journey. May they forever be counted in our blessings.

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the courtesy of my colleague. I believe what I am going to say, since the Senator is addressing the issue of the DP World port terminal transaction, might bear on his remarks. Mr. President, I have had the opportunity to work very closely with the White House and the administration, with our distinguished leader, Bill Frist, and several other Senators on this question. I have had the opportunity to meet and work with representatives of the DP World company who came to the United States for the purposes of sharing the importance of this contract and their perspective. I shall not recount the events that have occurred here in the last few days. But I have just been contacted by Edward Bilkie, chief operating officer, of DP World. And in an effort to get this message to all interested parties as quickly as possible, I indicated a willingness to read a press release that is now being issued by DP World. It reads as follows: Because of the strong relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States and to preserve this relationship, DP World has decided to transfer fully the U.S. operations of P&O Ports North America, Inc. to a United States entity. This decision is based on an understanding that DP World will have time to effect the transfer in an orderly fashion and that DP World will not suffer economic loss. We look forward to working with the Department of the Treasury to implement this decision. His Highness Sheikh Muhammad al-Maktum, Prime Minister of UAE, has directed the company, in the interest of the UAE and the United States, to take this action as the appropriate course to take in the future. Mr. President, I would say that I started the day with the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and General Abizaid-- discussing with them not the politics strictly--but potential security implications. It is not just the security of the United States with which we are concerned, but that of the free world, for much of the world is engaged in this war on terrorism. It is absolutely essential that we, the United States, and our coalition partners in the region of the Persian Gulf, who are doing our best to secure the stated goals in Afghanistan and in Iraq, sustain a strong working partnership. Indeed, the relationships among the coalition of partners--most specifically the United States, the Government of UAE, the Government of Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar--must be maintained as strong as possible because they are valued partners in this war on terror. This is not just a matter of importance regarding the current operations at the moment in Afghanistan and Iraq, but rather in looking to the indeterminate future as to how long our coalition partners will be engaged in the war on terrorism to deter any attacks, and if necessary, to use force of arms to prevent injury to life and limb of citizens in the free nations of the world. This has been a very interesting chapter in my 28 years of having the privilege to be a Member of the Senate. But I believe both governments have collaborated and acted in good faith, recognizing the circumstances at hand and our shared objectives from this time forward. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two letters addressed to me from the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Army.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am having it duplicated, and I will hand the Senator a copy.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have no objection. I would like to be recognized following the Senator from New York for a period of about 10 minutes.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we awakened this morning with the news, confirmed, that major steps are going forward in connection with this very important issue of the ports. I use that generic term, ``the ports,'' because it relates to a transaction that has been thus far approved by the administration whereby a company, owned by the United Arab Emirates, will be engaging in terminal operations in a half dozen or so of our terminals here in the U.S., having acquired those assets from a British firm which has been conducting those operations for some time. I am very pleased that the leadership of the Senate--notably my distinguished majority leader, with whom I have been in conversation in the past 72 hours--is taking a leadership role. I hope the other side shortly will speak to their role in bringing into focus the importance of this issue and facilitating the several committees of the Senate to have hearings, briefings, or otherwise acquire the facts. Last week, I believed it was imperative that a certain amount of facts get into the public domain as quickly as possible. On short notice, I held a briefing--in contrast to a full hearing--a briefing by the Senate Armed Services Committee and the principals, basically the Deputy Secretaries of the various departments and agencies which have the primary responsibility within the group of 12 of the organization known as CFIUS, or the Committee for Foreign Investment in the United States. The manner in which the President, acting upon the recommendation of the CFIUS group, indicated that he and the administration approved of this transaction will be examined in the context of these committee hearings and also the intelligence that was a key factor because everyone is constantly concerned about the security of this Nation as it relates to the war on terrorism and most specifically the port security situation. Very legitimate concerns, very legitimate arguments, very legitimate positions, in some ways, have been stated at all levels of our society. I believe it is important, before people become rigid in their thinking, that they at least possess all of the basic facts. My remarks today will not address the past. I am concentrating on looking forward, as I have spent a great deal of time in the past week on this situation. This particular contract, this one commercial situation, is of importance to many parties and of importance to this country, but it has ramifications across our global economy. Our Nation is daily dealing in a one-market economic market. Really it is a one- world market of diplomacy among the free nations as well. Indeed, it is a one-world market in terms of our individual and collective securities, particularly in the war on terrorism. It has been fascinating to me, although I have visited the UAE in times past, to focus once again on this pivotal and rapidly growing nation, a nation of several emirates which have drawn together, a nation which is becoming one of the major financial markets in the world and major investors in the world. According to the United States Trade Representative, the United States and UAE engaged in $4.6 billion worth of trade in 2003--and that figure has doubled since then according to the Financial Times. More than 500 U.S. companies have regional headquarters in the Emirates. Oil and Gas are leading industries in the UAE, as the country holds approximately 8 percent of the world's crude oil reserves and has the 5th largest natural gas reserves. In addition, at the end of 2005 Emirates purchased 42 Boeing 777 aircraft for approximately $9.7 billion. This represents some of the vast investments by UAE in America and American investment in the UAE. On Saturday afternoon I went to the Department of Defense. I went down to the Joint Staff, where I met with the key officers who are dealing with a variety of issues relating to this and other matters to verify that over 500 U.S. warships docked--and I use the word ``docked'' because they went right to the piers. Our sailors went off; others came on to work with the ships. They didn't anchor out in the harbor and send in the lighters and the other transportation. It is the only port in that region in which we can dock our major supercarriers. In addition, there are airfields that are supporting the ongoing operations we have in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is important to look at security concerns. I personally went down and received the briefings--I hope others do--on the intelligence assessment that went into the first review of CFIUS negotiations. The facts speak for themselves. Ambassador Negroponte will be before the Armed Services Committee, and I will propound questions on the procedures and his own assessment. Hopefully that can be put into the public domain. As we embark on this new voluntary 45-day investigative period--and I have some association with the company in this. They asked to come to see me, having followed with great interest the hearings at my committee, over which I presided, in which I, in a very evenhanded way, I believe, we began to address these issues. I spent several hours with them. They were going to file here, within the next few days, the key documents with the Treasury Department which will trigger the 45-day time investigation. I believe our leadership should focus on that time period. It ends up on, basically, April 15, at the very time we proceed on another recess. They, the company, hope to conclude by May 1. I am sure the leadership of both sides, working with the administration, will try to find some way so Congress can stay abreast of the proceedings, rather than receive the entire record and decision making of CFIUS on the eve of going on another recess period. Also, we have to be extremely careful in this 45-day process because we will be setting precedents as to how our Nation proceeds under the CFIUS process. We have to proceed with a certain amount of confidentiality because when other free enterprises come to invest in the U.S., they will go before CFIUS for review. Thousands of these cases have been handled. We have been doing it since, roughly, 1988, and even going back before that under the Defense Production Act to the 1950s. While it is important that we know more of the facts; we have to do it in a way to preserve a certain degree of confidentiality in the business world. Otherwise, there could very well be a chilling effect on foreign investment in the U.S. We don't want companies to say we can't come to the United States because in the course of trying to do our business--which is a private transaction so often between two companies--our proprietary information could be compromised. This is going to pose a challenge. My last point--I am gravely concerned about the image of America. I have checked into the press coverage of this in the Arab world, and I regret to say that it is extremely disturbing. We cannot, in the course of our responsible work in the Congress and the continuing responsible work of the administration, allow our actions to be viewed by others as being biased. Congress must look at this not only as a business deal between two companies but also consider the global diplomatic, economic, and military security issues associated with this acquisition. It is imperative we not send a mixed message to--or impose a double standard on--our allies by expecting assistance in the global war on terror and an open door policy toward investing in their country while sending a message that they are not welcome to invest in ours. We have to show that, yes, we are concerned about security, but in doing so and working through this process, we should not be perceived as treating elements of the Arab world and governments of the Arab world as second- class citizens. It is imperative that at the conclusion of this-- however it comes out, and I am hopeful it will come out positively--the U.S. is viewed by the Arab world as a reliable working partner and that recognizes the importance, particularly in the war on terrorism, of having the support of a number of Arab nations to protect our interests and those of other nations in the free world. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. If the Senator is asking, yes, I will take 7 or 8 minutes.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend and colleague. I would like to stay here and have the benefit of his remarks, but I am a member of the Homeland Security Committee. We are having a hearing on this subject now. But I say to my good friend that he is privileged to represent a State which is at the vortex of commercial transactions of world trade and the one-world market of which I just spoke. I hope, in the ensuing days as we begin to debate this and discuss it, he will avail himself of his industrial base in his State and the finances in his State to get a broader picture of the magnitude of the investment by the Government of Kuwait and, indeed, other Arab nations in the United States of America. Consequently, it is essential that we view this situation as one that is not influenced by any bias or prejudice or duality or double standards. No. I say to my friend, just ask your businessmen why would a company such as the UAE organization be looking to acquire just the franchises to operate terminals--not own terminal. We have to get that out. The terminals will remain in State control. Why would they want to invest $6.8 billion in projects throughout the world and in any way facilitate any individual or group to try an act of terror and be forced to jeopardize their own investment? We have to attribute to these people, even though they are beyond our shores, a tremendous business acumen, concern over their own security and their own interest. Having the opportunity to meet with the Mr. Bilkey Saturday evening-- he asked to see me, and I was happy to do that--I learned a great deal about the knowledge and level they have of how to put a greater security situation in the transit of these containers. Let us give them an opportunity. I thank my friend for his remarks.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a moment?

Mr. WARNER. I thank the majority leader for working with the minority leader to get these three nominations confirmed. Two are under the category of the Department of Defense, and the third is Energy. Nevertheless, the Energy nominee works carefully with the Committee on Armed Services, which makes up 60 percent of the Department of Energy's budget. Together with my colleague, Senator Levin, we have worked very hard, and this is probably one of the shortest periods in which we have been able to completely go through the advice and consent process very carefully, meticulously, but in a very timely fashion. I will have further remarks about these nominations, but the Department is very much in need of these key personnel, particularly the Under Secretary of the Army, a former member of Congress. I thank the leader for his cooperation in insisting that we get these nominations done in a timely manner, and I thank the staff. There is a lot of staff work that went into this effort.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I again thank the distinguished majority leader. He made reference to the George Washington Farewell Address. I remember 25 years ago, a quarter of a century ago, I gave the address and I was awakened on that day to 25 inches of snow. The only people who came to the Congress that day were the Presiding Officer, a clerk, and myself to deliver that address. I remember I walked from my then- residence some 2 miles in the snow. There was a farmer's march here, and they were all in a tent camp, and a tractor drove me up the hill the final 3 or 4 blocks. It was one of the few moments of any fame in my life. I was picked by The New York Times as the ``Man of the Week'' for forging through the storm to give that very important address. Since then, it has all been downhill for me. I wish to address the Senate with regard to these nominations for the Department of Defense. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a brief biography of each of these distinguished Americans who have stepped forward to take on these responsibilities.

Mr. WARNER. In a time of great concern for those of us who, on a daily basis, work the situations primarily in Iraq and Afghanistan, I hope to make I think my sixth or seventh trip to that region in the not-too-distant future, and I am hopeful that a number of Senators will find the opportunity to make similar trips because the situation in both areas, in my judgment, still has a high degree of fragility and a high degree of uncertainty. We have to reinforce the resolve of our Nation, working with our coalition partners, to achieve the goals that were set down by the respective governments in the coalition and, indeed, the wise and strong leadership of the President of the United States, in the absolute necessity that we enable both of these nations to establish that form of democracy that they consider best suits them. Great progress has been made in Afghanistan. Elections have been held there. We have seen recent elections likewise in Iraq. Progress is being made. I will have further remarks on this subject when the Senate returns after the recess. But it is absolutely imperative that the various factions in Iraq--Shia, Kurds--work together to bring in a representative group from the Sunni faction to establish this government. It seems to be off to a start, a little slower--I will speak for myself--than I had hoped. But we have to impress upon the leadership in those three political divisions that time is running out. That government must be formed. They must pick individuals of unquestioned strength and integrity to run the Ministries--primarily the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of the Homeland--the Interior. I think we have given an extraordinary measure, through loss of life, loss of limb, through economic support. It is an enormous drain. We will soon be dealing with enormous sums of money in continuing supplementals to allow those people in Iraq, as well as Afghanistan, to achieve their level of democracy. As does every Member of this Chamber, I feel for those members of the family in the United States, and indeed for those of our coalition partners, who have lost a family member or are bringing back their family member to nurture that individual who has been wounded so they can once again resume their life and their own responsibilities. Surveillance I wish to comment on a different subject which has given me a great deal of concern, and that is this question of surveillance. I will unhesitatingly now say, given the statements yesterday by the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee--I am privileged to serve on that committee--that in consultation with the White House, we will proceed, hopefully, on a constructive and fair and objective, to the extent we can get politics out of it, look at the existing laws and determine such modifications as can be agreed upon. I have continuously taken that stance, quietly, in consultation with my colleagues here, with members of the gang of 14, I may say, which has taken a constructive role in other areas--they have given some consideration and they have a position on that after we return. But it is imperative that we approach this in a bipartisan way. The intelligence system underpins--it is the foundation on which we conduct our operations of the military in harm's way. It is what we call a force multiplier, meaning for every bit of factual, sound, accurate intelligence effort that can be given to the Armed Forces engaging the enemy, the likelihood is that it produces an advantage such that you possibly would have fewer military people to carry out the mission if you know with great precision what has to be done. We refer to it as a force multiplier in the annals of military planning and history, throughout our recent history. That system has undergone some stresses, occasioned by the wise--I was a partner through this-- legislation to establish the means by which our Nation, through its military and civilian representatives, deals with those taken as prisoners. That is behind us. We are now faced with the imperative necessity to give our President every possible power in which to continue to utilize the wide spectrum of assets this Nation has to gain that same intelligence to guide us in the days and the weeks and the months to come and, indeed, I say the years to come because the war on terrorism is going to go on long after I have departed this Earth, and it will be the responsibility of my children and my grandchildren, regrettably, for their lifetimes. That is the turn of events that we now experience in this troubled world. Consequently, our President, as the leader of the most powerful Nation of the free world, must be given all the powers that we possibly can under our Constitution, preserving the integrity of what we call our basic rights and freedoms as given by the Constitution. But at the same time, without that valuable intelligence, we run a greater and greater risk to preserve these freedoms if we do not have it strong and in place and fully functioning. I hope we can arrive at some legislative package--and it should not be seen as the administration giving in to the Congress or the Congress overriding. No, we must work as coequal branches in partnership. Recently I had a chance to have a private conversation with the Attorney General of United States and, indeed, the senior officers who are engaged in intelligence gathering. I felt they should build a bridge between the two branches of Government and let us cross it together and decide how we can strengthen this system and leave no doubt--I underscore that--no doubt in the minds of every American citizen that our President is acting within the law, acting consistent with the Constitution of the United States as those powers were enumerated 200-plus years ago but still are as vitally important today as ever. But this world has moved so far, for example, in the 30-odd years of the FISA Act, which is the core piece of legislation at the moment that is out in the public domain with years of study--so much new technology has come on that it is time to look at the revisions which need to be made under that act. I do not think we should hold tenaciously on this question of the constitutional authority of Government as being the sole province of the administration for interpretation. Having trained in the law myself, I don't express any great expertise, but I know men and women of clear and sound and patriotic conscience on both sides of this issue looking at the words of the Constitution will determine exactly what the powers of our President are. Yes, this is a political potion and element to the debate, but still beyond that there are men and women of good, sound character and will on both sides of that issue. People say: Well, let it be resolved by the courts. It may well come to pass. But each day we let this uncertainty exist has the potential to further impair the intelligence system. Those of our citizens engaged in it and those partners we share intelligence with around the world are beginning to wonder if there is an uncertainty about the status and the authority of what we are doing out on the front lines gathering intelligence, as well as all the way through the chain back to those in positions of responsibility in Washington and elsewhere. You might not get the degree of intelligence that you need. We have to remove that uncertainty, and move this Nation forward ever so strongly in its collection capabilities, and remove from those citizens--I am not one who follows the polls, and I am not one dictated to by the polls, but the reality is a lot of citizens of clear conscience believe the President may not be acting within the law. We have to remove that. We want every person in the United States to believe our President is acting within the law as we pursue this war on terrorism. I am very pleased to support what the distinguished Chairman Pat Roberts said about the meeting yesterday, and that there will be, in a consultative process, an analysis made by the Congress and the administration in resolving this, and possibly we can seek legislation. It will be a challenge because of the question of the degree of knowledge that we have with regard to how collection is undertaken and how we translate that into law. That will be an unusual challenge facing this body, and we are going to have to reach down and search in our souls and put politics to one side and determine that we are acting in the present and long-term interests of this country--that we have to do it in such a way that when it is concluded we have across the board supported the American public to continue to move forward stronger. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important piece of legislation related to our Navy and National Security. The Department of Defense has submitted its report to the Congress on the Quadrennial Defense Review for 2005 and, as we are all well aware, in the 4 years since the previous Quadrennial Defense Review. The global war on terror has dramatically broadened the demands on our naval combat forces. In response, the Navy has implemented fundamental changes to fleet maintenance and deployment practices that have increased total force availability, and it has fielded advances in ship systems, aircraft, and precision weapons that have provided appreciably greater combat power than 4 years ago. These commendable efforts reflect the superb skills, resolve, and dedication of the men and women of our Armed Forces, as they adapt to the added dimension of international terror while providing for the security of our Nation. However, we must consider that the Navy is at its smallest size in decades, and the threat of emerging naval powers superimposed upon the Navy's broader mission of maintaining global maritime security, requires that we modernize and expand our Navy. The longer view dictated by naval force structure planning requires that we invest today to ensure maritime dominance 15 years and further in the future; investment to modernize our aircraft carrier force with 21st century capabilities, to increase our expeditionary capability, to maintain our undersea superiority, and to develop the ability to penetrate the littorals with the same command we possess today in the open seas. The 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review impresses these critical requirements against the backdrop of the national defense strategy and concludes that the Navy must build a larger fleet. The Navy, in its evaluation of the future threat, has determined that a force level of 313 ships, 32 ships greater than today's operational fleet, is required to maintain decisive maritime superiority. These findings are in whole agreement with previous concerns raised by Congress as the rate of shipbuilding declined over the past 15 years. Now we must finance this critical modernization, and in doing so we must strike an affordable balance between existing and future force structure. The centerpiece of the Navy's force structure is the carrier strike group, and the evaluation of current and future aircraft carrier capabilities by the Quadrennial Defense Review has concluded that 11 carrier strike groups provide the decisively superior combat capability required by the national defense strategy. Carefully considering this conclusion, we must weigh the risk of reducing the naval force from 12 to 11 aircraft carriers against the risk of failing to modernize the naval force. Maintaining 12 aircraft carriers would require extending the service life and continuing to operate the USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67). The compelling reality is that today the 38-year-old USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) is not deployable without a significant investment of resources. Recognizing the great complexity and risks inherent to naval aviation, there are real concerns regarding the ability to maintain the Kennedy in an operationally safe condition for our sailors at sea. In the final assessment, the costs to extend the service life and to make the necessary investments to deploy this aging aircraft carrier in the future prove prohibitive when measured against the critical need to invest in modernizing the carrier force, the submarine force, and the surface combatant force. We in the Congress have an obligation to ensure that our brave men and women in uniform are armed with the right capability when and where called upon to perform their mission in defense of freedom around the world. Previously, we have questioned the steady decline in naval force structure, raising concerns with regard to long term impacts on operations, force readiness, and the viability of the industrial base that we rely upon to build our Nation's Navy. Accordingly, I am encouraged by and strongly endorse the Navy's vision for a larger, modernized fleet, sized and shaped to remain the world's dominant seapower through the 21st century. However, to achieve this expansion while managing limited resources, it is necessary to retire the aging conventional carriers that have served this country for so long. To this end, Mr. President, I offer this legislation which would amend section 5062 of Title 10, United States Code to eliminate the requirement for the naval combat forces of the Navy to include not less than 12 operational aircraft carriers.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important piece of legislation related to our Navy and National Security. The Department of Defense has submitted its report to the Congress on the Quadrennial Defense Review for 2005 and, as we are all well aware, in the 4 years since the previous Quadrennial Defense Review. The global war on terror has dramatically broadened the demands on our naval combat forces. In response, the Navy has implemented fundamental changes to fleet maintenance and deployment practices that have increased total force availability, and it has fielded advances in ship systems, aircraft, and precision weapons that have provided appreciably greater combat power than 4 years ago. These commendable efforts reflect the superb skills, resolve, and dedication of the men and women of our Armed Forces, as they adapt to the added dimension of international terror while providing for the security of our Nation. However, we must consider that the Navy is at its smallest size in decades, and the threat of emerging naval powers superimposed upon the Navy's broader mission of maintaining global maritime security, requires that we modernize and expand our Navy. The longer view dictated by naval force structure planning requires that we invest today to ensure maritime dominance 15 years and further in the future; investment to modernize our aircraft carrier force with 21st century capabilities, to increase our expeditionary capability, to maintain our undersea superiority, and to develop the ability to penetrate the littorals with the same command we possess today in the open seas. The 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review impresses these critical requirements against the backdrop of the national defense strategy and concludes that the Navy must build a larger fleet. The Navy, in its evaluation of the future threat, has determined that a force level of 313 ships, 32 ships greater than today's operational fleet, is required to maintain decisive maritime superiority. These findings are in whole agreement with previous concerns raised by Congress as the rate of shipbuilding declined over the past 15 years. Now we must finance this critical modernization, and in doing so we must strike an affordable balance between existing and future force structure. The centerpiece of the Navy's force structure is the carrier strike group, and the evaluation of current and future aircraft carrier capabilities by the Quadrennial Defense Review has concluded that 11 carrier strike groups provide the decisively superior combat capability required by the national defense strategy. Carefully considering this conclusion, we must weigh the risk of reducing the naval force from 12 to 11 aircraft carriers against the risk of failing to modernize the naval force. Maintaining 12 aircraft carriers would require extending the service life and continuing to operate the USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67). The compelling reality is that today the 38-year-old USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) is not deployable without a significant investment of resources. Recognizing the great complexity and risks inherent to naval aviation, there are real concerns regarding the ability to maintain the Kennedy in an operationally safe condition for our sailors at sea. In the final assessment, the costs to extend the service life and to make the necessary investments to deploy this aging aircraft carrier in the future prove prohibitive when measured against the critical need to invest in modernizing the carrier force, the submarine force, and the surface combatant force. We in the Congress have an obligation to ensure that our brave men and women in uniform are armed with the right capability when and where called upon to perform their mission in defense of freedom around the world. Previously, we have questioned the steady decline in naval force structure, raising concerns with regard to long term impacts on operations, force readiness, and the viability of the industrial base that we rely upon to build our Nation's Navy. Accordingly, I am encouraged by and strongly endorse the Navy's vision for a larger, modernized fleet, sized and shaped to remain the world's dominant seapower through the 21st century. However, to achieve this expansion while managing limited resources, it is necessary to retire the aging conventional carriers that have served this country for so long. To this end, Mr. President, I offer this legislation which would amend section 5062 of Title 10, United States Code to eliminate the requirement for the naval combat forces of the Navy to include not less than 12 operational aircraft carriers.

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Then I make a unanimous consent request that the Senator from Arkansas and I have 15 minutes equally divided, to be followed by Senator Leahy for such time as he may need and then the distinguished Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. WARNER. Then I revise the request. The Senator from Arkansas and I can drop to, say, 10 minutes, and 5 minutes for the Senator from Vermont. Well, let's drop it down to 8 minutes----

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before the Senator leaves, what amount of time would the senior Senator from West Virginia like?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would suggest to my distinguished colleague from Arkansas, recognizing that Senator Byrd has an extenuating circumstance he has to take care of, I would be perfectly willing to step aside and regain into the queue following the Senator.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Warner and Mr. Pryor pertaining to the introduction of S. 2290 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, there had been an informal agreement among colleagues, subject to the Senator who is principally on the floor at this point in time--and I will let him speak for himself--that we were going to introduce a bill. It would take 4 or 5 minutes for my remarks and 4 or 5 for the Senator from Arkansas. We were intending to do that at the conclusion of the colloquy between Senators Feingold and Sessions. Am I correct on that, the Senator had indicated that we could proceed?

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am privileged to rise with the distinguished Senator from Arkansas to introduce a bill today entitled the Reliable and Affordable Natural Gas Energy Reform Act of 2006 In September of 2005, at the time the Senate was examining a number of energy proposals under the distinguished chairmanship of Senator Domenici, I introduced a bill at that time quite similar to this one, although it included oil. This measure sticks to gas, and gas only, to enable the several States across our Nation to take such steps under State law, in combination with the Governors and the respective legislatures of the several States that desire to explore and the desire to drill for energy off their shores. That bill as yet is still on the docket. Since that time I have had the great pleasure of joining my colleague from Arkansas to put this bill in. I am delighted that he indicated he would like to step forward and take the lead. I readily accede to that request. So much of the concern about drilling offshore is understandably in-- and I am not here to criticize--the environmental community. I think my colleague from Arkansas can help me eventually convince the environmental community that the time has come for offshore drilling. Two things have occurred in the interim between the 1988 moratorium, namely advancement in technology so we can safely, by engineering, put the wells in; and the second is the ever-tightening noose around the citizens of the United States of America with regard to their energy sources. The third thing that is occurring is the growing competition for energy worldwide--India coming on with enormous consumption requirements, and China with even larger consumption requirements. I think the time has come that the Congress begin to reexamine its old policies with regard to those lands offshore of our several States. At this time, I yield the floor to my colleague from Arkansas.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a moment on that point?