John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Jim Webb, to introduce legislation that seeks to establish the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library. President Woodrow Wilson was born in Staunton, VA, in 1856. He was first elected to the Presidency in 1912 and was reelected in 1916. Throughout his lifetime, Wilson advocated engagement with other nations in the search for peace, expansion of economic opportunities to more Americans, commitment to democratic principles at home and abroad, and protection of the Nation's people and institutions. He created the Federal Reserve and was President when women were finally granted the right to vote. President Wilson's legacy and historical significance are forever linked with his profound efforts in World War I and its aftermath, particularly with his attempts to broker a lasting peace in a fractured Europe. He was a man of ideals, always maintaining a ``simple faith in the freedom of democracy.'' It is the utter strength of his faith in democracy that continues to inspire our Nation today. During my time in the Senate, I have witnessed the growth and development of the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library and have seen firsthand the benefits it has provided for its community, the Commonwealth, and the country. The library has done remarkable work in preserving and protecting historical documents related to Woodrow Wilson's life. Equally remarkable has been its ability to share his life with communities around the world. As you know, Virginia is often referred to as the ``Birthplace of Presidents,'' as it has produced more Presidents than any other State in the Union, eight in total. I want to respectfully acknowledge our most recent President from the Commonwealth of Virginia through the recognition of this Presidential library. I can think of no better place to preserve his life's work than where his life began. I thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to honor President Wilson's legacy by joining me in support of this bill.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Jim Webb, to introduce legislation that seeks to establish the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library. President Woodrow Wilson was born in Staunton, VA, in 1856. He was first elected to the Presidency in 1912 and was reelected in 1916. Throughout his lifetime, Wilson advocated engagement with other nations in the search for peace, expansion of economic opportunities to more Americans, commitment to democratic principles at home and abroad, and protection of the Nation's people and institutions. He created the Federal Reserve and was President when women were finally granted the right to vote. President Wilson's legacy and historical significance are forever linked with his profound efforts in World War I and its aftermath, particularly with his attempts to broker a lasting peace in a fractured Europe. He was a man of ideals, always maintaining a ``simple faith in the freedom of democracy.'' It is the utter strength of his faith in democracy that continues to inspire our Nation today. During my time in the Senate, I have witnessed the growth and development of the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library and have seen firsthand the benefits it has provided for its community, the Commonwealth, and the country. The library has done remarkable work in preserving and protecting historical documents related to Woodrow Wilson's life. Equally remarkable has been its ability to share his life with communities around the world. As you know, Virginia is often referred to as the ``Birthplace of Presidents,'' as it has produced more Presidents than any other State in the Union, eight in total. I want to respectfully acknowledge our most recent President from the Commonwealth of Virginia through the recognition of this Presidential library. I can think of no better place to preserve his life's work than where his life began. I thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to honor President Wilson's legacy by joining me in support of this bill.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is entitled, ``Minority Serving Institutions for Advanced Technology and Education,'' amendment to S. 1642, The Higher Education Act Amendments of 2007. I remember in the 1980s, traveling to several of the historically-- and they referred to them as ``historically Black colleges'' in the Commonwealth of Virginia, I noticed the absence of so much infrastructure in these struggling institutions that other institutions often had in abundance. Having had an engineering background myself, at my old school, Washington Lee University, we had laboratories with an abundance of equipment and all types of high technology. I suppose at that time the thoughts in my mind led toward this day, and it has been a long climb up the mountain--not by just this Senator from Virginia but by many, many Senators. I remember Senator Cleland was very interested in this, former Senator Cleland, Max Cleland of Georgia, and my colleague and former Senator George Allen of Virginia. Fortunately, today, with the two managers of this bill, the chairman and ranking member of this important committee, the HELP Committee, and with the help of many others and the primary cosponsor, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, and my colleague from my State, Senator Webb, we are here this afternoon to present this amendment. I first ask unanimous consent that those Senators who desire to put in statements regarding this amendment of course may do so and that they be colocated in the Record following the introduction of this amendment.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it appears statistically that over 60 percent of the jobs in America, all across our land, require not only a basic knowledge but really an advanced skill in what we refer to as ``information technology.'' Jobs in this area, frankly, pay and command higher salaries. Today, as I said, many of the minority serving institutions--this covers a wide group of institutions which I will address later in my text, but the minority serving institutions simply lack the resources, the necessary capital, endowments, and all types of financing that go into these institutions to acquire the basic equipment, whether it is an actual computer itself, or the technology to hook it into systems, and they also need technology capabilities in their classrooms, dormitories and libraries. It is for that purpose we are asking the Senate today to support this bill to provide the sum of money for 5 consecutive years to form a competitive grant program so this wide range of institutions may compete for this pot of money and hopefully obtain it for their respective institutions. We need to bridge--and I use the term the ``digital divide'' to help students who want to develop the skills necessary to succeed in a technology-based economy so that they can compete in today's modern world and take these jobs, which, incidentally, are badly needed in the workforce, and therefore get salary and perhaps a step up on the ladder of development of their career. This is definitely a bipartisan amendment and, as I said with the deepest sense of humility, many, many Senators have worked toward this day. Specifically, the legislation will establish, as I said, a grant program for these institutions of higher learning to bring increased access to computers, technology, and the Internet to their student populations. Institutions can use funds to acquire equipment, instrumentation, networking capability, hardware and software, digital network technology, wireless technology, and infrastructure to develop and provide these educational services. In addition, the grants can be used for such activities as campus wiring, equipment upgrades, and technology training. Finally, Minority Serving Institutions could use these funds to offer their students universal access to campus networks, thereby increasing connectivity and making infrastructure improvements. Moreover, much has been said in this education debate about the importance of math and science education. I remember well, I and other Senators 2 years ago were authors of the SMART grant program, which provides stipends to economically disadvantaged students in their third and fourth year of college or university training who elect to study critical majors in math, science, and engineering and key foreign languages. We must now begin to encourage and provide for those students who want to start earlier than their third and fourth year and begin to enter and study these critical fields, not only of math and science but of high tech. I point out, I remember very well when I came out of the Navy at the end of World War II, I had the GI bill, and I went to my university--a small one--and they had a very small engineering department at that time. The engineering department is now gone because it couldn't take the competition of larger schools. But I remember so well we would go into the laboratories in the afternoon and spend long hours. We didn't have any air-conditioning, so we opened the windows, obviously. You could hear the other students out on the playing fields enjoying all kinds of sports and other things while we were there laboring over the laboratory requirements. Then, at night, of course, we all had the obligatory homework. It seems to me that those of us who were in the high-tech and the math--I was a math major and physics major--we would spend endless, long hours on our homework. I bring that up not to in any way eulogize myself and my career but simply to say that those students who want to dedicate that extra time to study in the high-tech world--and it does require extra time, thereby giving up some of the pleasures in life--we ought to have the proper equipment available for all of them. The National Science Foundation reports that the percentage of bachelor's degrees in science and engineering across America has been declining. Many a time I and other Members of this body have pointed out how America is falling behind, particularly with reference to India and to China, as such a higher percentage of their university graduates are following the high-tech careers. So let's give a leg-up to those young people who want to devote that extra time, that extra motivation in their studies for these specialties in math, science, and technology. This amendment also addresses the shortage of qualified professionals that teach courses in these areas. You simply have to have not only the hardware within the institution but knowledgeable teachers and professors, and this amendment provides an inducement for their training. As I said, I am proud to say that my great State is home to six institutions that qualify for this grant program. Throughout the years that I have been in the Senate, they have proudly been referred to as Historically Black Colleges and Universities, known as the HBCUs: Norfolk State University, St. Paul's College, Virginia University of Lynchburg, Virginia Union University, Hampton University, and Virginia State University. Right now, at this point, I thank all of the faculty and presidents of those institutions and administrators who through these many years, year after year, have come into my office pleading for this modest program to help them put in the infrastructure and gain the teaching faculty to help the students who want to pursue these careers in science, math, and technology. Likewise, all across America, Minority Serving Institutions will qualify for this grant program. There are over 200 Hispanic-Serving Institutions, over 100 Historically Black Colleges outside of Virginia, and over 30 Tribal Colleges throughout the United States. In addition, Alaska Native-serving institutions and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions are also eligible for these grants. In the mid-1980s, on the campus of St. Paul's, my first thoughts regarding the growing disparity between Historically Black Colleges and other institutions of higher education with respect to the infrastructure began leading up to this day. This Senate has addressed similar pieces of legislation in the past year. In 2003, a similar bill passed in the Senate with a roll call vote of 97 to 0. In 2005, a similar bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. So I am pleased today, together with Senator Kerry and Senator Webb, to offer this not only on behalf of ourselves, but the many Senators who through the years--some who have now retired-- have worked hard on this legislation. Again, I salute the faculty and presidents, and so forth, at these institutions and, most particularly, I salute the students who are ready and willing to seize the opportunity that this bill will provide to advance their intellectual skills to meet the requirements of today's workforce, so that America can be competitive. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my friend who has worked with me for these 29 years. Following Senator Enzi, I wonder if I may have 2 minutes on one other point.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer, and I wish to particularly thank the managers of this bill. In my 29 years here in the Senate, I have stood on the floor many times with Senator Kennedy, but at this time, we are absolutely joined in this magnificent piece of legislation which I submit on behalf of Senator Kerry and Senator Webb and many other Senators who have worked on it through the years. To my good friend, Senator Enzi, I was once on his committee, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP), but as we move around here, I just couldn't get on the HELP Committee this time around. I commend Senator Enzi and Senator Kennedy and their staffs for their very hard work in preparation of this amendment, and my staff, senior member Angela Stewart. Over the weekend, I was traveling, as many of our colleagues were in our respective States, and she and I must have had at least six to eight telephone calls over the period of 2 days, just working out refinements and protocol with regard to this amendment. I think it is a representation of the Senate. No matter whether we are here on the floor or wherever we may be, we constantly are working on the legislative proposals that many of us have from time to time. Again, I wish to draw attention to the title of this particular amendment. First, I send it to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for the kind remarks of the Senators. Mr. President, I will just tell a short story. Senator Kennedy mentioned the importance of this to the Armed Forces to have a pool of trained individuals to join the military today. I would like to contrast it to an early experience I had in life. In the winter of 1945, the war was raging in Europe--although it ended in May, it was still going on, as was the war in the Pacific. Like everybody else on my block, all students who were 17 and 18, we all joined the military. I don't claim to have a military career of any great consequence, but I will never forget the first night. We had been on a small train that stopped in stations all across the east coast picking up a dozen or two 17- and 18-year-olds on the train. It was cold as the dickens, and the train was chugging its way up to the Great Lakes. We arrived at 2 or 3 in the morning. We were tired, cold, and huddled into a great big room. A petty officer, who was quite rotund, got up on a little platform and screamed at us, ``All you guys who can't read and write raise your hands.'' I had the benefit of a wonderful education in high school. I almost flipped out. I did not realize, really, that many people didn't have the basic skills that I had been given. Then the petty officer said, ``All you smart so-and-sos fill out the forms for the others.'' About 20, 25 percent of the fellows came out of the coal mines and steel mills of Pennsylvania and up through the valley, where the train went picking up these guys. So we filled out the forms. I want to say that those men had very short training once we got to the Great Lakes. The rest of us were shunted aside for technical schools. Within 90 days, they went aboard ships and right into the battle. On those ships in those days there were dozens of jobs that persons who could not read and write could perform, and perform very well. In no way do I denigrate their abilities to fight, as they did bravely in World War II--those who could not read and write. Today's ship in the U.S. Navy--take a destroyer. The destroyers today are considerably larger than the destroyers of the past. But the crews are dramatically reduced in number, which means that every one of those naval persons today has to have high-tech skills. It is true also in the Army and Marine Corps. When you visit Iraq and see the troops there, as most of us have, they are all working with high-tech equipment. There is no place available today in the military for one who is not skilled in high-tech work. So it is a changed society, albeit my story dates back more than a half century. They were fighters then, but in today's military we access those in the military with high school equivalent. The ones who show a technical proficiency are immediately moved into advanced technical courses. So this legislation is laying the foundation for those in these institutions who so desire to join the U.S. military, and they will arrive on the first day not requiring a fellow soldier, sailor, airman, or marine to fill out their form. They are all smart and able to work with the high-tech equipment. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I object.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, I am given an opportunity now, which I have been looking forward to, to have a little colloquy with my long-time friend, Senator Levin, now chairman of the committee, and address one or two issues to explain why I feel very strongly that I have to oppose this amendment. Just 49 days ago, the President signed into law an appropriations bill which contained legislative language, which legislative language originated on the floor of the Senate. I was privileged to be a part of the drafting of that language, and it eventually has become now the law of the land. I would like to review some of the points we put in that language which is the law. It, first, requires the President to come forward on July 15, which he did. He submitted an assessment of the benchmarks. It further directed that General Petraeus be here in September with Ambassador Crocker. It further called upon the new organization which was created in this most recent appropriations bill, again originating, this part of the legislation, on the floor of the Senate. We put together a requirement that there be an independent study group of the Iraq security forces. We have periodically through the years received reports from the Department of Defense describing how many battalions of the Iraqi forces are trained, how many are equipped, how many are ready to take the point by themselves, how many are dependent on U.S. forces. That is quite an accumulation of data. I felt very strongly, and other colleagues did, that we wanted to have a report independent of the Department of Defense, and that report performed by individuals who had many years of experience assessing the capabilities of men and women in uniform. How fortunate we were that the former Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Jones, offered to head that group. He formed a group of fellow officers, most of them three and four stars now retired, who likewise have had years of experience and training in evaluating our Armed Forces. And they added two police chiefs. They just finished this past weekend. They returned on Saturday from a 1-week trip to Iraq to study the forces. Part of the law requires that they come forward with a report. And I am pleased to say, having consulted with General Jones, that report will be available early in September, such that the President, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and others can take it into consideration as they formulate the sequential requirement of the President to come forth and report to America, the Congress, and his people his opinion of the situation in Iraq as of September 15 of this year. It is for that reason that I believe we should hold in place additional legislation at this time until the President has had the opportunity, that Congress has had the opportunity, and, most importantly, the American people have had the opportunity to study all of these facts provided by the professionals. I would like to also add that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Pace, has also stated he will have a report, his own assessment, of the situation over there, and his assessment of the Iraq security forces; that is, both military and police, prepared for that September timeframe. So that is the focal point. I say with deep respect to my colleague, Senator Levin, chairman of the committee, which I am proud to have served on now 29 years with Senator Levin, side by side, that it seems to me we have passed a law where we put in the process by which America would proceed to the 15th of September, at which time the President will report to the Nation about such changes as he deems--the President, as Commander in Chief, exercising his clear authority under the Constitution, to change or revise the strategy and how our forces will be implemented in the future. Later this evening, perhaps when I have further time, I will address the Warner-Lugar amendment, which goes into some detail about our recommendations to the President--I repeat: recommendations. Not directing him as a matter of law--on that report on 15 September; to include certain items in it. But the point I wish to make is I feel that if the Senate were to adopt, by way of a vote--which now requires 60 votes--the Levin amendment, it would be in contravention to the very spirit, letter, and purpose of the law that this body adopted 49 days ago. That would bring about confusion in the minds of the troops, confusion in the minds of the world. How can America take such a zigzag course in legislation at such a critical time in our history, while trying to provide the Iraqi people with a stable situation so they can have some measurable quality of life and freedom and move ahead and hopefully have a nation that will join other nations in the world in our struggle against terrorism? That is my main concern. I also point out that my good friend, Senator Levin, voted for the Cornyn amendment, which we adopted this morning, and among the findings are, as follows: The Cornyn amendment, which Senator Levin and I, and 90-some other Senators supported, stated: A failed state in Iraq would become a safe haven for Islamic radicals, including al Qaeda. We read today in the National Intelligence Estimate addressing the potential of al-Qaida and how so much of that potential is directed, clearly, at the United States. The Cornyn amendment also said: The Iraq Study Group report found that ``(a) chaotic Iraq-- should we have a precipitous pullout-- could provide a still stronger base of operations for terrorists who seek to act regionally or even globally.'' Further, the Cornyn amendment recited: A National Intelligence Estimate concluded that the consequences of a premature withdrawal from Iraq would be that--(A) Al Qaeda would attempt to use Anbar province to plan further attacks outside of Iraq; (B) neighboring countries would consider actively intervening in Iraq; and (C) sectarian violence would significantly increase in Iraq, accompanied by massive civilian casualties and displacement. Now, I read that because my valued friend, Senator Levin, appeared last night on a national program, the Jim Lehrer show, and he was asked repeatedly in that interview about how he would envision an Iraq having to experience a withdrawal timetable, which is fixed in his amendment. How would Iraq be, once that timetable went into effect and those troops would withdraw? I read through very carefully the transcript, which I have here, and I cannot find in there the specific references, much like what was in the Cornyn amendment. It seems to me there might be some disconnect between what you said publicly last night and the document to which you attached your vote in support today. So I would like to entertain a colloquy and have my good friend explain how he envisions what the consequences to Iraq would be should his amendment be law eventually. We would first have to pass it here and then it would have to go to a conference with the House and then survive and become a part of the conference report.

Mr. WARNER. I would say to my colleague, the President, when he enunciated his new policy on January 10, the purpose was to lay a foundation of security such that the Iraqi Government could perform in a manner given that the security is very serious in Iraq. Even though I had misgivings about the surge, I put those aside once the President had made a decision to go forward. I wish to support the troops, and they are carrying out this mission. I think there is a strong chance there will be some measure of achievement of the surge militarily. I agree with my colleague, the performance of the Iraqi Government to date has been extraordinarily disappointing. I have stated that on this floor a number of times, as have other colleagues. But the point I wish to urge is that if we were to take--tomorrow, for example--and begin to change the intentions of the Senate, which were expressed in law 49 days ago, and suddenly announce a withdrawal program, as the distinguished Senator from Michigan has in his amendment, it would be perceived as an undercut to the very military operation we are trying to bring about now. Why can't we wait until September, until the President has had the benefit of all the convergence of this information, and then, as a body, review his remarks and statements and possibly change the strategy subsequent to the 15th of September? Because I do believe that your amendment is in conflict with what we did 49 days ago.

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. That is correct.

Mr. WARNER. Well, Mr. President, the distinguished ranking member, Mr. McCain, in his remarks of this morning, made it very clear that the President made it very clear, if we proceed with the course of adopting your amendment, then there will be another veto, and then we are back into that sequence and a veto on a bill which you and I have worked on for these 29 years. How many times have we been on the floor supporting the annual authorization bill? We have gotten a bill each of those 29 years that we have been on that committee. This will be the first time a President was compelled to veto it because he is repeating his actions he took earlier, 2 months ago.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator is correct, that Government has not performed. But we, 49 days ago, structured a careful sequence of events between now and September to make certain the information, the facts, the opinions, the conclusions which would guide the President in that revision of strategy the distinguished Senator McConnell made observation about some time ago, that information is converging at that very point in time. I say to the Senator, we are so close. I would not want to see the Congress disrupt what it has already enacted and put it into law as to what is to take place in September. It is for that reason I simply cannot support my distinguished colleague from Michigan.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will conclude my time and yield the floor because other colleagues sequentially are participating. Perhaps we will be able to reopen this colloquy at another time during the debate. But I certainly share with you the enormity of loss of life, the loss of limb, of the hardships of the military families. Even those families who fortunately have not suffered loss of life or limb nevertheless have repeated tours of duty and separations from their loved ones brought on by this war. But I am concerned we might lose all of that which has been given if we make the wrong decision now and precipitously fix a date for pullout. All that sacrifice might be lost. I am certain my colleague shares with me that one of the goals we should have in this situation is to make certain those losses were not in vain.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my time is nearly up. It may not be enacted for 4 or 5 months, but the signal will go out of this Chamber, if we adopt your amendment, that the Senate, in less than 40 days, has changed the law that it passed a short time ago, and it looks like a zigzag course that this Nation is taking in one of the most serious situations in my lifetime--this situation in the Middle East. It is essential to our security that area of the world not implode. I yield the floor to the other Senators who are scheduled to speak.

Mr. WARNER. Well, Mr. President, the amendment which I worked on and which went into the appropriations bill, those are the same benchmarks in that bill.

Mr. WARNER. Well, they track, in large measure, the same.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. WARNER. What is the order?

Mr. WARNER. Would we have the benefit of an important discussion on your amendment?

Mr. WARNER. I wish to address it, but as a matter of courtesy--we have been at this for 29 years--I am going to wait until you speak, and then I will speak.

Mr. WARNER. We have been here many years together. We manage, even though we oppose each other. But I do oppose you on this one, my dear friend.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague.