John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for 10 seconds?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend him for this initiative, but I hope he says ``oil and gas'' because off the east coast there is an abundance of gas, as shown by the previous studies. As he says, they have to be brought up to date. Do let us invoke gas because along the beaches--and I, as the Senator knows, twice tried to get legislation through, and a collection of Senators--and I say this in a lighthearted way; I call them the beach boys--will not permit this for fear that pollution could emanate from the drilling process onto their beaches. I suggest let's start with gas. There would not be any potential for the erosion of beaches as a consequence of an accidental spill. I do hope the Senator puts in the word ``gas.''

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Idaho. I also emphasize that the technology to do it safely and not be the victim of a disruption by Mother Nature is there.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator. I wish him well. He has my support.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the work of the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves. Under the leadership of Arnold L. Punaro, the Commission has done this Nation a great service. It was my privilege as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee to include the legislation that established the Commission in the annual National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. On January 31, 2008, the Commission submitted its final report to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees and the Secretary of Defense. That report is thorough, is based on substantial and careful research and an extensive information-gathering process, and reflects many hours of deliberations by the Commission's members. The 12 Commissioners, between them, brought 288 total years of military service, 186 total years of nonmilitary government service, and many years of private-sector experience to the task. In addition to Chairman Punaro, the Commission's members are William L. Ball, III; Les Brownlee; Rhett B. Dawson; Larry K. Eckles; Patricia L. Lewis; Dan McKinnon; Wade Rowley; James E. Sherrard, III; Donald L. Stockton; E. Gordon Stump; and J. Stanton Thompson. The Commission was established by Public Law 108-375, the Ronald Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005, as amended by Public Law 109-163, to assess the reserve component of the U.S. military and to recommend changes to ensure that the National Guard and other reserve components are organized, trained, equipped, compensated, and supported to best meet the needs of U.S. national security. The Commission's first interim report, containing initial findings and the description of a strategic plan to complete its work, was delivered on June 5, 2006. The second interim report, delivered on March 1, 2007, was required by Public Law 109-364, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, enacted on October 17, 2006. That second report examined 17 proposals contained in the National Defense Enhancement and National Guard Empowerment Act, and included 23 recommendations covering the broad spectrum of issues raised by the legislation. The Commission's second report was thoroughly reviewed by both Congress and the Department of Defense, and careful consideration was given to the Commission's recommendations that have changed, in a fundamental way, the Department of Defense's role for domestic security, taking significant steps towards improvements to make the nation safer from man-made and natural disasters. Secretary of Defense Gates also has taken timely and decisive action to implement those recommendations not requiring legislation, and has advocated before Congress for those requiring legislation. The final report of the Commission was constructed from 17 days of public hearings, involving 115 witnesses; 52 Commission meetings; more than 850 interviews; numerous site visits, forums, and panel discussions; and the detailed analysis of thousands of documents supplied at the Commission's request by the military services, government agencies, experts, and other stakeholders. It contains 6 major conclusions and 95 recommendations, supported by 163 findings. This prodigious, thorough effort met the expectations of Congress. In conducting its work, the Commission gathered information, analyzed evidence, identified significant problems facing the reserve components, and sought to offer the best possible recommendations to solve the problems identified. The Commissioners stated clearly their belief that the problems identified in the report are systemic, have evolved over many years, and are not the product of any one official or administration. Many of the Commission's recommendations to solve those problems can now be implemented; however, a number of them will take years to reach full implementation and will require additional work by Congress and the executive branch. At the core of these changes is the explicit recognition of the evolution of the reserve components from a purely strategic force, with lengthy mobilization times designed to meet threats from large nation- states, to an operational force. This operational reserve must be readily available for emergencies at home and abroad, and more fully integrated with active components. Simultaneously, this force must retain its own required strategic elements and capabilities. The Commission concluded that there will be greater reliance on the reserve components as part of its operational force for missions at home and abroad. Moreover, the Commission also concluded that the change from the reserve components' historic Cold War posture necessitates fundamental reforms to reserve components' homeland roles and missions, to personnel management systems, to equipping and training policies, to policies affecting families and employers, and to the organizations and structures used to manage the reserves. These reforms are essential to ensure that this operational reserve is feasible in the short term while sustainable over the long term. In fact, the Commission believes that the future of the all-volunteer force depends upon the continued success of our implementation of needed reforms to ensure that the reserve components are ready, capable, and available for both operational and strategic missions. In reviewing the past several decades of diverse use of the reserve components, as an integral part of operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the homeland, most notably the Commission has found indisputable and overwhelming evidence of the need for future policymakers and the military to break with outdated policies and processes and implement fundamental, thorough reforms in these areas. The members of the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves share this view unanimously. The Commission notes that these recommendations will require the nation to reorder the priorities of the Department of Defense, thereby necessitating a major restructuring of laws and DOD's budget. While there are some costs associated with these recommendations, the Commission believes that the problems are serious, the need to address them is urgent, and the benefits of the reforms we identify more than exceed the expense of implementing them. Clearly, the reserve force has proven itself to be a wise investment in our overall security structure and should be commended for their professional contributions to our Nation's defense. The Commission recognizes that these issues are extremely complex, and that there will be disagreement with some of the solutions it has proposed. That is to be expected. Commission members anticipate that this report will generate lively debate among the organizations and key policymakers responsible for protecting U.S. national security. With the submission of its last report, the Commission turns its findings, conclusions, and recommendations over to the legislative and executive branches, where Commission members feel confident that they will be carefully considered, improved upon, and implemented. The Commission has provided America a blueprint for our work on the National Guard and Reserves this year and in the future. Each of its 95 recommendations merits our careful consideration. The Senate Armed Services and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committees have already held hearings on the Commission's report, and we await the Department of Defense's formal response to its recommendations. It is with profound admiration and gratitude that I extend our collective thanks for the service that this Commission has rendered to our nation and to our men and women in uniform. I know my colleagues will agree when I say that this Commission has made profound and substantive recommendations for reforming our National Guard and Reserves and that we look forward to working to address the issues raised by the Commission's final report.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on April 13, 2008, America celebrated the 265th anniversary of the birth of Thomas Jefferson, who first served as Vice President and then subsequently was elected as the Nation's third President in 1801. He deemed his proudest achievement to be the ``Father of the University of Virginia.'' As part of the national celebration, President and Mrs. Bush invited distinguished scholars and others to pay tribute to the extraordinary achievements of this great American. I was privileged to attend along with John Casteen, current president of the University of Virginia, and many other invited guests from the Commonwealth of Virginia. Given the importance of this occasion and the respectful tributes delivered by the President, the First Lady, and two eminent scholars, I wish to record this event for the American people.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on October 6, 2007, the people of Virginia's First Congressional District lost one of its most respected and admired leaders, a dedicated Member of Congress and loyal friend, Representative Jo Ann Davis. Today, as a small tribute to her, the Senate passed H.R. 5489, which designated the United States Post Office at 6892 Main Street in Gloucester, VA, as the ``Congresswoman Jo Ann S. Davis Post Office.'' Last year, Senator Webb and I introduced a companion bill, S. 2725. Following a successful real estate career, Mrs. Davis decided to run for public office in 1997. After serving as a Delegate in the Virginia General Assembly for 4 years, Jo Ann Davis became the first Republican woman to serve Virginia in the U.S. Congress after winning her election in 2000. From her first day in office, Congresswoman Davis was a relentless champion for the needs of the First District. It was my privilege to work with her on many matters, ranging from national defense to the environment. I always admired Representative Davis for her strong convictions and the tenacity that she brought to bear in acting on them. She fought a courageous struggle against cancer, and I will certainly miss her insights and her friendship in our Virginia Congressional Delegation. Given her commendable public service at the Federal and State levels, I was pleased to offer this small token of recognition and gratitude for someone who had given so much to the Commonwealth and her country. I join with my colleagues from the Commonwealth and from the entire U.S. Congress in expressing my deepest sympathies to her husband, her two sons, and her extended family. They continue to remain in our thoughts and prayers.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in today's Record a detailed speech. I was privileged to go to the White House on Monday, when the President celebrated, with many others, the 265th anniversary of Thomas Jefferson. Those remarks are so prized, particularly in my State, but all across America, that I wish to put the content of those speeches in today's Record.

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, 1 year ago today, the horrific shootings at Virginia Tech claimed 32 innocent lives. In remembrance of the lives of promise that were forever lost that shocking day, I would simply like to read each of their names into the Congressional Record: Ross A. Alameddine; Christopher James Bishop; Brian R. Bluhm; Ryan Christopher Clark; Austin Michelle Cloyd; Jocelyne Couture-Nowak; Daniel Alejandro Perez Cueva; Kevin P. Granata; Matthew Gregory Gwaltney; Caitlin Millar Hammaren; Jeremy Michael Herbstritt; Rachael Elizabeth Hill; Emily Jane Hilscher; Jarrett Lee Lane; Matthew Joseph La Porte; Henry J. Lee; Liviu Librescu; G.V. Loganathan; Partahi Mamora Halomoan Lumbantoruan; Lauren Ashley McCain; Daniel Patrick O'Neil; Juan Ramon Ortiz-Ortiz; Minal Hiralal Panchal; Erin Nicole Peterson; Michael Steven Pohle, Jr.; Julia Kathleen Pryde; Mary Karen Read; Reema Joseph Samaha; Waleed Mohamed Shaalan; Leslie Geraldine Sherman; Maxine Shelly Turner; Nicole Regina White. The day after the shooting, I mourned with the campus community at a convocation held on the campus of Virginia Tech. While the mourning of that tragic day continues for all of us, in the past year the Tech family has come together to support each other in a way that all of America admires. I know that those who have suffered most in the tragedy, and their families, remain in the thoughts and prayers of not only all Hokies, but indeed Americans across the country.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the legislation currently before the Senate. The Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 seeks to provide assistance to families and businesses adversely affected by the decline of the values of real estate. While I support many of the worthy initiatives in this bill, such as the Federal Housing Authority modernization provisions and other resources to assist communities devastated by foreclosures, there are several provisions that cause me to withhold my support at this time. I note that the bill will go to a conference committee with the House of Representatives, and subsequent to their work, I will revisit this legislation. America, our Republic, rests on basic and time tested principles. Among them is our free enterprise system. The foundation of this system must not be unduly influenced from excessive government interference. Again, while this legislation contains a number of worthy initiatives, respectfully, in my view, this legislation as a whole overreaches and fails this basic test.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I rise today in support of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act, S. 2739. This omnibus package includes language that is especially important to my State, as well as the Nation. Amongst other things, S. 2739 would designate some of America's most historic and beautiful lands as National Heritage Areas, including the area along Route 15 in Virginia. Known as the Journey Through Hallowed Ground, this effort has been championed by myself, my good friend Congressman Frank Wolf, and Senator Jim Webb. I thank them for all their efforts on behalf of this legislation. As my colleagues are aware, National Heritage Areas are intended to encourage residents, government agencies, nonprofit groups, and private partners to collaboratively plan and implement programs and projects to recognize, preserve, and celebrate many of America's defining landscapes. Today, there are 37 National Heritage Areas spread out across the United States. In Virginia, we are lucky enough to have a landscape that is worthy of the recognition and celebration that a National Heritage Area designation would afford it. Stretching through four States, and generally following the path of the Old Carolina Road, today's Route 15, the proposed Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area is home to some of our Nation's greatest historic, cultural, and natural treasures. The region's riches read like a star-studded list of American History: Monticello, Montpelier, Manassas, Gettysburg. The list goes on. In all, there are 15 National Historic Landmarks, 47 historic districts, a number of Presidential homes, and the largest collection of Civil War battlefields in the Country. It is an area, literally, where America happened. With basic, technical assistance from the National Park Service, this proposed Heritage area would be managed by The Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership, a nonprofit entity whose sole purpose is to trumpet the magnificence of the Hallowed Ground's offerings. Already, the Partnership has provided opportunities for thousands of visitors to enjoy the region's spectacular natural and historical resources, and they have worked hard to get this area the designation and recognition it deserves. Now, before I conclude, I would like to take a quick moment to address several of the arguments voiced by critics against national heritage areas. First and foremost among these arguments, is that national heritage areas infringe upon private property rights. This simply is not accurate. As the Government Accountability Office, GAO, noted in testimony to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, ``National heritage areas do not appear [to affect] private property rights'', GAO-04-593T. Furthermore, as an example that they don't, I offer up the State of Tennessee, in its entirety, which today is designated a national heritage area and has had no intrusion on property rights. And, lastly, I point to language in this legislation that I specifically put in to ensure that no intrusion on property rights occured. It states, in some detail, that ``nothing in this subtitle abridges the rights of any property owner.'' Other criticisms include concerns about the costs of heritage areas, and also that heritage areas increase the role of the Federal Government. To the issue of costs, I note that heritage areas provide a way for the Federal Government to highlight our Nation's historical, cultural, and natural resources without having to actually own and maintain them--which, as we know by the current maintenance backlogs in the Park System, are quite costly to the American taxpayer. Secondly, I would like to remind my friends that often heritage areas require a funding match before a single Federal dollar can be appropriated. This is the case for the heritage area which I come to champion today--The Journey Through Hallowed Ground. Every taxpayer dollar that is appropriated to the Journey Through Hallowed Ground must be matched equally by non-Federal entities. As for the other criticism, that heritage areas increase the role of the Federal Government and impose upon State and local governments, I note that heritage areas require and provide exorbitant opportunity for State and local input. In fact, in forming the Hallowed Ground, the local coordinating entity sought and received support from every local city, county, and town within the proposed Heritage Area. The Governor and Virginia General Assembly, whom I sincerely thank, also supported this effort. I commend the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership for reaching out to all these groups. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, and I thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of The Journey Through Hallowed Ground.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on February 29, 2008, the Secretary of the Air Force, Michael W. Wynne, announced that the Air Force had made a selection in the KC-X competition for development and procurement of up to 179 tanker aircraft, which are urgently needed to support our armed forces. This was a critical step forward in the recapitalization of an aging fleet of aircraft that are essential for force projection, intelligence, surveillance, and global strike capabilities. A modern tanker force is at the heart of our national security. I understand that it was a carefully constructed and transparent process that the Department of Defense and the Department of the Air Force structured and faithfully implemented to reach this decision. As Secretary Wynne said, the announcement ``is the culmination of years of tireless work and attention to detail by our acquisition professionals and source selection team, who have been committed to maintaining integrity, providing transparency and promoting a fair competition for this critical aircraft program.'' The Boeing Company has filed a protest, as is their right under law, with the Government Accountability Office concerning the Air Force's award of this contract to Northrop Grumman. Further, as provided by law, the GAO will issue their decision within the next 100 days. I now would like to provide some context and historical background to the ongoing discussion by reviewing the oversight process employed by Senate oversight committees beginning with the original proposed tanker lease procurement. Nearly 6 years ago, a $30 billion authorization provision, placed in the fiscal year 2002 Defense appropriations bill, provided the Air Force the authority to lease, not purchase, up to 100 767s from Boeing, a sole source contract, for use as aerial refueling tankers. Authority to fund and execute this lease required approval of the 4 congressional committees of jurisdiction over defense programs. Three approved; but, the fourth, the Senate Armed Services Committee, disapproved. Under Senate procedure, the chairman of the committees made the decision for their respective committees. As chairman of Armed Services at the time, I found fault with the proposed lease contract and after consultations with Members--in particular Senator McCain, who provided valuable oversight of the entire process--the committee declined to approve the proposal. Additionally, consultations with outside experts had corroborated that procedures and provisions related to the lease contract required further oversight by Congress. Following a full committee hearing on September 4, 2003, I directed the Department of Defense, by letter to investigate the Air Force's initial proposal and analyze alternatives that would meet the operational requirement. Furthermore, in letters to the General Accounting Office, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Office of Management and Budget, among others, I directed that these other agencies provide assessments of the proposal. These assessments, as well as further oversight conducted by both the Senate Armed Services and Commerce Committees, led Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz to order a ``pause'' in the execution of the proposed lease contract. On December 2, 2003, I sent a letter to the Deputy Secretary to concur with the decision requiring a ``pause'' in execution, and stated further: The Department of Defense Inspector General inquiry should pursue the trail of evidence wherever it leads, in accordance with standard IG procedures. By February 2004, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld put a ``halt'' to the entire tanker lease process, pending the DOD inspector general report. During the following 3 years, the investigative process uncovered evidence revealing serious, criminal breaches in the very process that Americans trust to provide their service members with the equipment necessary to defend our great Nation. In fact, these efforts resulted in jail sentences for senior persons from the Air Force and Boeing, and a settlement of $600 million that was paid to the U.S. Treasury. The findings confirmed--the view of the Senate Armed Services Committee--that the Air Force's tanker lease proposal was faulty. Actions by the Congress allowed for the requisite time within which the executive branch could establish a free and fair competition. This ultimately resulted in a new proposed contract. On December 1, 2006, Senator McCain, then chairman of the Airland Subcommittee, wrote a letter to Robert Gates, then the President's nominee to be Secretary of Defense. In his letter, Senator McCain encouraged Secretary Gates to ensure a fair and open competition by issuing a second draft request for proposals in an effort to make certain that there was no ambiguity in the competition process. As chairman of the committee, I concurred with his initiative, given I have been a very strong proponent of competition. Since the announcement on February 29, 2008, by the Secretary of the Air Force with regard to the Department's acquisition decision, there has been, in my opinion, an injection of considerable misinformation in the public forum. Consequently, I believe I had an obligation to recite--and document--portions of the history relative to the debate. I am particularly concerned about allegations that the proposed contract would adversely affect job opportunities in America, given parts of the aircraft would be manufactured abroad. I draw on my experience as Under then as Secretary of the Navy, 1969- 74, when I solicited bids, for major procurements of fleets of new aircraft, from an American industrial base of many companies sized, financed, and experienced to compete. For many reasons that base, comprised of numerous large domestic companies, has consolidated and narrowed, but America remains the preeminent provider for the vast majority of our military procurements. Today, we also rely on our global partners for a wide diversity of technologies and support in joint military procurements. A prime example is the Joint Strike Fighter procurement. In closing, we must respect the right of Boeing to seek a review by the GAO as provided by law. It is my judgment that until the GAO acts and reports to Congress their findings; we should lower the emotional rhetoric, be accurate with the facts, and withhold judgment of the work done by a large dedicated group of uniformed and civilian acquisition specialists. I ask unanimous consent that several letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to express my great pleasure with the Senate confirmation of Kristine Svinicki to serve as a Commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. As you may know, Ms. Svinicki is both a longtime resident of my State, and a staff member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, which I have had the privilege to serve on for over 28 years. During her time with the Senate Armed Services Committee, Ms. Svinicki served with distinction, immersing herself in nuclear energy matters. Her tireless efforts proved invaluable in our committee's work, and her service has been appreciated by not only me but by the other members of the Armed Services Committee--on both sides of the aisle. It is not well known in some quarters, but the Armed Services Committee has jurisdiction over approximately two-thirds of the Department of Energy--including the very sizable nuclear weapons production sites and laboratory complex, as well as the extensive environmental program to clean up the legacy of nuclear contamination created during the Cold War. These are the programs which I hired Kristine to staff. With her extensive background and experience in nuclear matters both at the Department of Energy, where she worked prior to joining the Armed Services Committee, and subsequently in her work here in the Senate, Ms. Svinicki is uniquely poised to take on this next challenge. It is my sincere belief that Kristine Svinicki will be a favorable addition to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and I am pleased the full Senate agrees. I appreciate the overwhelming support given to her by this body, and I know she will do all in her power to honor the trust placed in her by the President, the Senate, and the American people.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on October 6, 2007, the people of Virginia's First Congressional District lost one of its most respected and admired leaders, a dedicated Member of Congress and loyal friend, Representative Jo Ann Davis. Today, I am proud to have Senator Jim Webb join me in introducing a bill to honor our dear colleague. This legislation would designate the United States Post Office at 6892 Main Street in Gloucester, Virginia, as the ``Congresswoman Jo Ann S. Davis Post Office.'' Representative Robert Wittman has introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives. Born in North Carolina, Jo Ann Davis attended Hampton Roads Business College in Virginia and later obtained her real estate license and real estate broker's license over the next several years. In 1990, she started her own company, Jo Ann Davis Realty, and followed this successful endeavor with a run for public office in 1997. Serving as a Delegate in the Virginia General Assembly for 4 years, Jo Ann Davis became the first Republican woman to serve Virginia in the U.S. Congress after winning her election in 2000. Representative Davis was a relentless champion for the needs of the First District. It was my privilege to work with her on many matters, ranging from national defense to the environment, and in that regard, she worked hard to improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay. Also, I commend her diligent leadership in the removal of the James River Reserve Fleet from Newport News. From her support for the Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge to her concern with the preservation of Dragon Run or providing funding for oyster restoration, she always put the quality of Virginia's environment above politics. With sincere passion and concern, Representative Davis worked to improve our Nation's armed services and the lives of the men and women who bravely answer the call to duty. She provided strong representation for the communities in and surrounding the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Dahlgren and the Marine Corps base at Quantico, ensuring that these facilities continue to make important contributions to protecting the nation and to the economic foundations of their respective areas. Her initiative to increase the life insurance benefit paid to survivors of military members and her advocacy on behalf of the rights and benefits of Federal employees will continue to be appreciated in the years ahead. I have always admired Representative Davis for her strong convictions and the tenacity that she brought to bear in acting on them. She fought a courageous struggle against cancer, and I will miss her insights and her friendship in our Virginia Congressional Delegation. I am pleased to offer this small token of recognition and gratitude for someone who has given so much to the Commonwealth and her country. I close with a personal note that we both shared interests in equestrian activities. There is an old English saying that ``the outside of the horse is good for the inside of the man.'' As an avid, accomplished rider, she often quipped with me that the saying applies equally to a woman. She loved the noble horse. I join with my colleagues from the Commonwealth and from the entire U.S. Congress in expressing my deepest sympathies to her husband, her two sons, and her extended family. They remain in our thoughts and prayers.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on October 6, 2007, the people of Virginia's First Congressional District lost one of its most respected and admired leaders, a dedicated Member of Congress and loyal friend, Representative Jo Ann Davis. Today, I am proud to have Senator Jim Webb join me in introducing a bill to honor our dear colleague. This legislation would designate the United States Post Office at 6892 Main Street in Gloucester, Virginia, as the ``Congresswoman Jo Ann S. Davis Post Office.'' Representative Robert Wittman has introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives. Born in North Carolina, Jo Ann Davis attended Hampton Roads Business College in Virginia and later obtained her real estate license and real estate broker's license over the next several years. In 1990, she started her own company, Jo Ann Davis Realty, and followed this successful endeavor with a run for public office in 1997. Serving as a Delegate in the Virginia General Assembly for 4 years, Jo Ann Davis became the first Republican woman to serve Virginia in the U.S. Congress after winning her election in 2000. Representative Davis was a relentless champion for the needs of the First District. It was my privilege to work with her on many matters, ranging from national defense to the environment, and in that regard, she worked hard to improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay. Also, I commend her diligent leadership in the removal of the James River Reserve Fleet from Newport News. From her support for the Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge to her concern with the preservation of Dragon Run or providing funding for oyster restoration, she always put the quality of Virginia's environment above politics. With sincere passion and concern, Representative Davis worked to improve our Nation's armed services and the lives of the men and women who bravely answer the call to duty. She provided strong representation for the communities in and surrounding the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Dahlgren and the Marine Corps base at Quantico, ensuring that these facilities continue to make important contributions to protecting the nation and to the economic foundations of their respective areas. Her initiative to increase the life insurance benefit paid to survivors of military members and her advocacy on behalf of the rights and benefits of Federal employees will continue to be appreciated in the years ahead. I have always admired Representative Davis for her strong convictions and the tenacity that she brought to bear in acting on them. She fought a courageous struggle against cancer, and I will miss her insights and her friendship in our Virginia Congressional Delegation. I am pleased to offer this small token of recognition and gratitude for someone who has given so much to the Commonwealth and her country. I close with a personal note that we both shared interests in equestrian activities. There is an old English saying that ``the outside of the horse is good for the inside of the man.'' As an avid, accomplished rider, she often quipped with me that the saying applies equally to a woman. She loved the noble horse. I join with my colleagues from the Commonwealth and from the entire U.S. Congress in expressing my deepest sympathies to her husband, her two sons, and her extended family. They remain in our thoughts and prayers.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am hopeful to join in the debate. I see my colleague from New Jersey. Does he have a pressing matter? I can wait until he completes his remarks, if that will help him.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. Mr. President, I have looked forward to this moment. This is a special day for me in many respects. But, first and foremost, what a privilege it is to stand on this floor with three magnificent combat veterans--my colleague and dear friend of 35 years, Jim Webb; Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, and my good friend from Nebraska, Chuck Hagel--all of these three gentlemen are combat veterans. Two were awarded the Purple Heart. My military career was far more modest. I would also like to thank the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, particularly its chairman and ranking member Senator Akaka and Senator Burr for their leadership on behalf of our veterans. I look forward to working with them on this initiative. And finally I just want to say thank you to all who have been working on this bill, particularly to Jim Webb, who led the effort, drawing on his experience as a young marine officer in Vietnam; as Assistant Secretary of Defense, explicitly assigned to the affairs of the Reserve and Guard units; and then in a position that we both shared as Secretary of the Navy. All of that experience he draws on to bring forth this bill and to lead this effort. Your career in the Senate, I think, will be marked by many successes, but this will be one of the foundations of that success. I say to my colleague that you will always look back upon this accomplishment with a humble sense of pride knowing that you ``led the charge.'' I am very optimistic that we will prevail with this legislation. There may be challenges, but we will prevail. We will prevail because it is the right thing to do. I also want to say thank you to my country that gave me an education, for my modest periods of service in World War II in the Navy and service in the Marines during the Korean war. It was not as valorous as the careers of the sponsors and cosponsors joining in this debate. Mr. President, I am grateful to have been the recipient of two GI bills and I wouldn't be standing here today--it is as simple as that, had it not been for the GI bill. Three months after I was discharged from the Navy, my father died. He was a very wonderful, successful medical doctor. He had served in World War I in the trenches in France as a medical doctor, caring for the wounded. I mention that only because I am not sure I would have had the means within our family structure to go on and receive higher education without the GI bill. The original GI Bill of Rights was enacted in 1944, and in successive Congresses they made changes to it. But the key to the bill that the two of us from World War II--Senator Lautenberg and myself--is that our group of veterans could go to any college or university of his choice, subject to academic or admission requirements. I want to repeat that. There wasn't a college or university in the United States to which they could not attend, for the GI bill covered the full tuition costs of all institutions of higher education. Today's GI bill, largely through the efforts of Sonny Montgomery, a dear friend whom we all value, simply does not have the financial provisions to enable young men and women of this generation to go to any campus they desire. There are low caps on the amount of tuition the current GI bill will cover. And so we have carefully structured in this bill the opportunity for institutions of higher learning to step up and share in this program. I would like to briefly outline the sharing provision. Under this legislation, the full basic educational benefit will allow GIs who have honorably served to have the full cost of tuition covered at any public college or university in their home State of residence. Veterans will also be given a monthly stipend tied to the Department of Defense's geographic rate for housing, and a small stipend for books. For veterans who choose to attend a private college or university--or an out-of-State public college or university--admittedly, this basic benefit might not cover the full costs of tuition. Thus, this bill will provide an educational enhancement for veterans who complete at least 36 months of honorable active duty service. The Federal Government will match--dollar for dollar--any additional financial contributions private and public colleges and universities voluntarily contribute toward their respective tuition costs. We believe that many institutions of higher learning will participate in this concept, thus vastly increasing the educational choices for veterans, commensurate with the choices that World War II veterans received. Mr. President, we talk a lot about academic freedom. It is one of the most cherished things we have in this country. It is a part of the fundamental system of higher education. With that academic freedom, from campuses all across this country, have come great ideas, great inspiration, and solutions which have helped this Nation structure itself as the strongest and most powerful in the world today. But that academic freedom comes at a price. And much of that price is borne by the young men and women today of the all-volunteer force who go forward, raise their right hand, and assume all the risks associated with military service and preserving our freedom. Educators should stop to think about that. It is important that institutions of higher learning, when possible, have as a part of a student body, young men and women who have proudly worn the uniform of this generation. And this bill puts forward a financial structure for the sharing of tuition costs. I was privileged to go to two schools in my State: Washington and Lee University and the University of Virginia. One a private institution, the other a public institution. But most of the private institutions today, fortunately because of their extraordinary standing and achievements, have tuition rates which cannot be met by a GI completing honorable service and relying on the current GI bill tuition caps. This bill enables a voluntary, I repeat voluntary, cost sharing between the U.S. Government and the academic institution. I think we owe no less to the preservation of academic freedom at these schools, that freedom being guarded by the young men and women who seek admission, and who have honorably served this Nation. Therefore, if a GI has the requisite academic credentials for admission--we are not asking that any special exception or deviation should be done by these schools. These valiant men and women deserve nothing less than our full measure of support and unending gratitude for their service and sacrifice. A GI bill for the 21st century, to provide educational benefits for uniformed personnel who are sacrificing so much to preserve our freedom, is the least we can do. So in closing, Mr. President, I say thank you. I have so much, individually, to be thankful for. Simply stated, I would not be a U.S. Senator today had it not been for the GI bill of World War II and Korea. I want the same opportunity for the current and future generations of ``fighters for our freedom.'' I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WARNER. Fine. That is under the control of the distinguished Senator from Missouri, and I will ask for such time as I may need at this point. I have always considered myself, here in the Senate, to be most fortunate for the various assignments I have had through this being my 30th year. There have been periods when I have served on the Intelligence Committee. I was once the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. Then, fortunately, I was selected to go back on the Intelligence Committee several years ago. It has been a part of my overall service to the Senate, and indeed to the Nation, to be on that committee. I was at first introduced to the world of intelligence in 1969 when I was fortunate enough to go to the U.S. Department of Defense at the Pentagon and serve the Navy, first as Under Secretary and then Secretary. So I have actively been involved in the work of the intelligence community for some many years. I am greatly concerned that we have before us today a piece of legislation which, even though a member of the committee and even though I worked with my colleagues to frame this legislation, I will have to vote against because of the actions that took place in the conference committee where an out-of-scope provision was put in--for the best of intentions, I am sure, but it wasn't carefully thought through, in my judgment, because this provision would say that henceforth, the CIA and the Federal Bureau of Investigation would have to conduct their interrogation procedures in accordance with the Army Field Manual. I was privileged again to be one of a group of a small number of Senators who, in the year 2005, worked on the Detainee Act and then subsequently, in 2006, worked on other legislation to try to delineate carefully the responsibilities of various agencies and departments of our Government as it related to the all-important collection of our intelligence and a part of that collection procedure being the interrogation of detainees. Now, we decided, after a lot of careful deliberation of the 2005 act, that we would restrict that to the men and women in the Armed Forces. There was a very good reason for that. In the course of our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, detainees came into the possession of our field forces, operating in combat conditions most of the times when these detainees were caught, and relatively, so to speak, while the military people are magnificently trained throughout their careers to deal with these situations of combat and the like, very few of them have had the opportunity to get into the profession of interrogation. In order to give them the protection they needed in performing interrogation at what we call the field and tactical level, it was important to draw up this act and to prescribe very clearly for the men and women in uniform--I repeat that: only for the men and women in uniform--very clearly the procedures they must follow to accord the values of our framework of laws, the fact that this is not a nation that stands for torture, and to also give them protection in the event that somehow they were challenged in a court of law, be it a military court or other courts, as to their performance by virtue of their interrogating activities of certain detainees. So there were many reasons to put it all down and say that this is the Army Field Manual, prescribe the authorized techniques, and therefore allow the men and women of the Armed Forces to continue their operations militarily, tactically, and to follow that field manual in such instances where it is necessary to interrogate detainees. But in the course of that debate--and understandably and I think quite properly--attention was given to whether we should have this type of procedure applicable to all the Government agencies and departments of our Federal Government. The decision was made, and the answer was no--not quickly, no; it was a deliberate no reached after a lot of careful consideration--that this Detainee Act should be for the purpose of our military people, and we purposely did not include the CIA and the FBI. As time evolved into 2006, when we had that legislation, once again we reiterated we would not include either the CIA or the DIA and then in any way at that time legislate their program, other than to say that the conduct of the CIA program and the FBI program has to be in total compliance with all the laws of our land, which in no way sanctioned abusive treatment, torture or those sorts of things. It is not a part of it. Furthermore, that both the procedures by the CIA and the FBI had to be in compliance with the treaties, the treaty obligations we have, particularly article 3, common article 3, which has been debated so carefully on the floor of the Senate. So, in effect, what we have before us momentarily in this vote is overruling the decisions that were made by this body in the context of drawing up those two statutes, one in 2005 and one in 2006. So I, for that reason, feel very strongly that I cannot support this. I think it has been indicated that the President doesn't support it and that if this were to arrive at his desk, in all probability, we would have a veto, and that would be regrettable because a lot of work has been put into this bill. There are portions of it that the distinguished Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, talked about which hopefully can be corrected. But we need an Intelligence bill. We have marvelous staff in the Senate and others who work on this problem of legislation year after year, and we are long overdue to have an Intelligence bill. It is unfortunate that in the last throes of the legislative process, in a conference, this provision, which we clearly know to be out of scope, was put into the bill, and it is for that reason that I will have to oppose the bill. There is another reason I would have to oppose it, and that is that the Army Field Manual, again, was for the military, but it is a manual. Certainly, under the current way it is framed and put together in the law, a manual can be changed. So while there are some 19 techniques that are detailed as approved for the use of our troops in the field and elsewhere, who is to say they couldn't add some more and that at that point Congress is not involved. So I am not sure people thought through the technical aspects of this thing, and to me, it is a very unwise decision. But I wish to reiterate to our colleagues that by virtue of taking the stance I take--and I presume a goodly number of individuals will join in this, unfortunately, and vote against this bill--this is not to say, in any way, that we are sanctioning that the Agency, the CIA, employ techniques which are in any way constituted as abusive treatment of human beings or torture or degrading. All of that is carefully spelled out in the framework of the laws of 2005 and 2006, and it cannot be done by the agency, nor the FBI--nor are they doing it. The Intelligence Committee has had a series of hearings. We have had the DNI, the Director of the CIA, the head of the FBI, and all of them have been carefully questioned and are on record saying that these procedures, which would be tantamount and antithetical to our laws of 2005 and 2006 are not employed now, and they will not be in the future. It is for that reason that I will have to oppose this bill. I urge my colleagues to do likewise because we will be taking away from the agencies the ability to perform a very limited number of interrogations, a very limited number--but they do them in an entirely different framework of circumstances, environment, than does the Army or other military members of our Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps under the Army Field Manual. The techniques applied by the CIA are in compliance with the laws, but they are not all written up so that a detainee knows full well that if they are apprehended, they will be subjected to the interrogation procedures of the agencies; he would know all about it if it is written up as it is in the Army Field Manual. That would take away a good deal of the psychological impact of highly skilled interrogating procedures. We are about to throw those away, abandon them. This is a very dangerous and complex world. I sometimes think, in the course of this political campaign, as I listen to my good friends-- three of them Members of this Chamber--vying for the Presidency of the United States, the awesome framework of complex situations that is going to face the next President of the United States. I must say, I have a few years behind me, and I have seen a good bit of history in this country, but never before has the next President, whoever it may be--never before have they faced such an awesome, complex situation in the world that is so fraught with hatred and terrorism and threats to the basic freedoms of our Nation and many other nations. It is going to be a real challenge for that next President to shoulder the responsibilities of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. And this set of procedures that we presently have in place, which complies with the law of our land, which complies with international treaties, must be left intact to enable the Intelligence Committee to conduct their interrogations and do so to produce facts which could very well save this Nation and facts that are, every day, helping to save the men and women of the Armed Forces in uniform wherever they are in the world--primarily in Iraq and Afghanistan--as they pursue their courageous responsibilities on behalf of us here at home. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. WARNER. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?