John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I asked the question, but I will finish it up. Let's be candid, we are talking about a bill that is 20 years ahead of us. Look how much gas has risen, 26 increases in the past, I think, 90 days. It has nothing to do with this bill. This bill has all types of checks and balances that the President can move in and stop these provisions from being invoked if he is concerned. I listened patiently to my colleague from Missouri: This is wrong, that is wrong, this is wrong. All right, folks, who is going to come forward in this Chamber and say this is what is right, here is the better approach? And let us be careful in the representation about these incredible increases and so forth. Give the time period and then contrast that to what has happened in the last 90 days, which has nothing to do with this bill--nothing. What has an impact is if this bill eventually becomes law, then it will put in place the mechanism by which to relieve the crisis we are faced with today--these repeated 26 increases in the cost of gasoline. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I am pleased to be here today for the opening debate on global climate change and the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act. The issue of global climate change is a pressing one that has ramifications far beyond our imagination. It is my firm belief that we need to temporarily put aside what we do not know about climate change and its potential impacts and to focus instead on what we do know in order to begin to address this critical problem. We know that the science is clear. Some might respectfully disagree, but they are in the minority. In fact, the science is so clear and the observations on the ground are so convincing that more than half of the States of this great Nation and more than 800 cities have taken the bull by the horns and have enacted or are working to enact legislation to reduce carbon emissions. I am the strongest supporter of states rights and I commend these States for their vision and their leadership absent Federal action. But we cannot have a patchwork approach to addressing climate change. Federal leadership is now warranted in this case. We know that allowing global climate change to go unchecked will result in increased threats to global security. In April 2007 the Center for Naval Analysis Corporation issued a report, ``National Security and the Threat of Climate Change,'' which detailed the numerous threats posed by climate change. The report found that global climate change does pose a significant threat to America's national security. The extreme weather and ecological conditions associated with climate change have the potential to ``disrupt our way of life and to force changes in the way we keep ourselves safe and secure.'' Some of the destabilizing impacts described in the report include: reduced access to fresh water, impaired food production, human health emergencies, and displacement of people. These are hardships that the globe will have to face. These serious implications of climate change will have security consequences for the United States. For example, there will be an increased potential for failed nations and growth of global terrorism. Another serious implication of climate change is the mass migrations of people that are likely to occur. Lack of water and food will force the movement of people. In the United States, the rate of immigration from Mexico is likely to rise because the water situation in Mexico is already marginal and could worsen with less rainfall and more droughts. In addition to these indirect risks to national security, there are also direct impacts on U.S. military systems, infrastructure and operations. Climate change will add stress to our weapons system, threaten U.S. bases throughout the world, and have a direct effect on military readiness. As stated in the CNA report: As military leaders, we know we cannot wait for certainty. Failing to act because a warning isn't precise is unacceptable. We know that the fate of the copious coal resources within our borders hinges on Congress providing regulatory certainty. Have you seen the record of late? Permit after permit for coal-fired powerplant is being declined. In fact, 54 percent of coal capacity ordered since 2000 has been canceled or put on hold in the last 2 years, in part due to uncertainty about climate legislation. The way to ensuring coal remains a viable resource for the future and allowing coal to continue to provide more than half the power in the U.S. is to give regulatory certainty so that investors will once again finance the building of coal-fired powerplants. With that said, I know that the coal industry doesn't support this bill. But we have done our best to provide more than the financial support the industry says is necessary to fund the technologies such as carbon capture and storage that are going to allow coal to remain viable. But inaction is not an option for our Nation, and it is not the best path forward for coal. The concept of mandatory, by law, cap-and-trade is proven to work. Cap-and-trade harnesses the best of free market power and brings in industry, as partners, in solving the energy and emissions challenges in the future. With all due respect to those who support the carbon tax approach, I believe while the administration of such a new tax may be simpler, there is no guarantee you get the environmental benefit that consumers are paying for. The very suggestion that there will be some huge increase in gas prices due to capping pollution is false. It is a scare tactic. Absent any program, gas prices have gone up about $1.10 this year alone. What the increases show is that the status quo of laws are not working. The United States will be hostage to the price of oil until we reduce our demand--and a cap on carbon is the most effective step we can take toward that goal. This bill provides a very large incentive for the private sector to receive the investment so they can create improved and new alternative sources of energy. It funds advanced vehicle technology, efficient hybrid fleets, advanced biofuels and mass transit that will transform the transportation sector and reduce our dependence on oil. Modeling suggests that the Act would reduce imports by 8 million barrels per day by 2025, more than the entire amount currently imported from OPEC. Overall, it reduces oil imports by up to 58 percent. We also know that the cost of inaction is much more likely to hurt American families and the American way of life more than the potential costs of action. Not addressing climate change is not going to keep energy bills low. Increased demand for energy will drive prices up, without the incentives for expanding the use of alternative energy sources or providing a safety net for consumers, as my bill would do. I relish this opportunity to debate climate change legislation in the Senate. It is my hope that we will have robust debate. I want my colleagues, both those who agree with my bill and those who don't, to have ample opportunity to offer amendments. If we are going to be serious, serious consideration must be given to all members who want to have their say in this landmark debate. In closing, I look forward to the time ahead spent on this bill, and I am available to address any questions, concerns, or issues my colleagues wish to raise with me. Madam President, once again, I think as we debated this afternoon, the bill has been passed out, put on each desk. I hope that represents the majority of our colleagues will agree to letting this bill go forward, because it is not just the bill, it shows the American people we are doing their business. We are trying, through a debate, well-intentioned individuals on both sides, to solve one of the most difficult problems ever facing America, our energy shortages, our increased prices of energy, carbon emissions, how it has affected our environment, all those things. Here it is. This is our joint effort, together with the chairman and members of the committee. If there is a better idea, bring it forward. This is the function which our Founding Fathers established this institution for. Bring forth our ideas and let us produce something and show the American people we can solve their problems. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from 20 different prominent, well-known industrial firms, confirming that this bill is necessary, be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, Senator Bingaman and I will be introducing in the Senate today a resolution to express the sense of the Senate regarding the use of gasoline and other fuels by the departments and agencies of the Federal Government. We simply refer to all of the problems we see every morning, as we get up, in the papers and on the television about how families are coping with this gas problem. We simply say in a respectful way in the last paragraph--I will read it: It is the sense of the Senate that the President should require all Federal departments and agencies to take initiatives to reduce daily consumption of gasoline and other fuels by departments and agencies. I thank my colleagues. The full text will be available to all Members this afternoon. It is not as if we will be able to vote on this, but it will be some message to take back home that you are in support of it.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue that hits deep at the heart--and pocketbooks--of Americans nationwide: rising gasoline prices. Each and every day, Americans contend with a rapid and inexplicable increase in gasoline prices. Over the last month, the average price of gasoline has increased a penny a day. A barrel of oil is at $133.17. The impacts of these increases are staggering. I have heard stories of how individual Americans are coping with the problem of increased gas prices as they conduct their daily lives with their families and in their work environments. They are finding ways to reduce their consumption of gasoline by driving less, altering daily routines, and even changing family vacation plans. To me, this example of changing family vacation plans is all the more poignant on the eve of what is usually a busy holiday weekend, a holiday that usually sees many Americans traveling by car out of town. In fact, travel over this holiday weekend is expected to be down for the first time since September 11, 2001. The bottom line, Mr. President, is Americans are tightening their belts in ways that bring hardships, but save dollars that are necessary to meet essential family needs. And while small in comparison to the overall problem of supply and demand of gasoline, these efforts do add up. I never dismiss the American ``can do'' spirit. In one word, it is individual conservation. And in cases such as this, when individuals are leading the way, the government should join. The purpose of the Sense of the Senate Resolution that I am pleased to offer is to urge the federal government to likewise take initiatives to cut back--even in a small measure--its daily consumption of gasoline and other fuels. I believe such a move would signal to Americans that their government is sharing the daily hardships occasioned by this turbulent, uncertain energy crisis.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. That is a very fine program enabling individuals who are qualified to go to colleges and universities all across America--all across America--to any college or university that accepts them, to obtain a grant from the United States of America to help him or her with their tuition and other expenses. This is the interesting thing. The program was initiated in 2000, but I use as a benchmark the year 2001. There were 4.8 million individuals who accessed this program. The Congress appropriated $8.7 billion to defer their expenses. Fast forwarding from 2001 until 2009, the total request is as follows: roughly, a 20-percent increase in the number of individuals going. It goes from 4.8 million to 5.7 million, a little under 1 million. Now here is the astonishing thing. The amount of money Congress appropriates for the 2009 class of 5.7 million is $18.9 million.

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator for correcting me. In the year 2009, it is $18.9 billion. That is over a 100-percent increase, keeping up with inflation, keeping up with added expenses. But that is not the case with the existing GI bill. Although there has been a CPI adjustment, it doesn't compare to how Congress has treated the category, a well-deserving category, of the Pell grants. So this is essentially what we are trying to do. My colleagues, the three of us, have worked together on the question of transferability. I wish to go back and acquaint the Senate with some history. I was chairman in 2001 of the Armed Services Committee, and I worked with a distinguished former colleague, Senator Max Cleland. He introduced, along with myself, on May 23, 2001, an amendment on the ability of a service person, after stipulating periods of time, to have some transferability to his family. The cosponsors, at that time, of the original amendment were Senators Bingaman, Dayton, Kennedy, Levin, and myself. I was the only Republican. There were several other Senators, four more. I was the only Republican who stepped up at that time. Later it became a bipartisan effort. In the evolution of events that year, we marked it up. But here is the interesting thing. On June 28, 2001, in the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, at a full committee hearing, there was no markup or no action taken on the bill. So then we decided, on the Armed Services Committee, we would act. In September of 2001, our bill was accepted by the full Senate and became law on December 28, 2001. I pay my respect to those who formulated the concept of transferability originally in the Senate. It is the law today. I will send to the desk later today an amendment, which Senator Webb, Senator Hagel, and I worked on. We are joined by two other original cosponsors, Senator Levin, current chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Senator Akaka, current chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. This amendment will be filed at the desk this afternoon. We are going to make a technical adjustment to it. The purpose of this amendment is to provide a 2-year pilot program of transferability. We track as closely as possible the original law I recited that was enacted on December 28, 2001. The details will be provided to the full Senate when we file the amendment. Essentially, we are asking an individual to complete his or her first 4-year term of enlistment and then, if they enlist for another 6 years, there is a vesting over a period of time of the full transferability of their benefits, as a sequence of time, to their family. In the letter from the Secretary of Defense to the Senate, which talked about the need for transferability--and I am not sure at that time whether he was referring to the existing law or a new law--he said: ``Transferability supports military families, thereby enhancing retention.'' There it is. We are meeting the Secretary of Defense's letter to the Senate expressing the need for this transferability. In my career, winding up 30 years in the Senate, I can't think of a piece of legislation in which I have had a greater emotional involvement. I am so pleased to share it with my good friend, the junior Senator from Virginia, and my friend from Nebraska. As I said when we first began to debate this bill, with a deep sense of humility, it is highly unlikely I would have ever achieved the opportunity to come to the Senate had it not been for the GI bill given to me by the United States in return for modest service in the last year of World War II and then a second period of active duty service during the Korean War, this time in the Marine Corps. I feel it so strongly in my heart. I don't know of any time I have felt more strongly the need to do something than this today. Through the years, I have been to Iraq many times, Afghanistan. Throughout the intervening period, I visited military bases and spent as much time as I could with the men and women of the Armed Forces today. Each of us does the same thing, works with our military. On Monday, I was privileged to go into the State that Senator Webb and I are privileged to represent. We worked together to get funding in years past--and he is supporting it today--to build a new armory for the National Guard in Virginia, a famous regiment that fought in World War I and World War II. Members of that regiment were the first to go in on D-Day. They fought subsequently. I felt at that time that we are doing the right thing with this bill, taking care of those future guardsmen and reservists and active-duty individuals. This is the right thing for the Senate to do. I understand there are honest differences of viewpoints and approaches. That is true with all legislation. Other colleagues have put in a different bill. It had a section on transferability. In some ways, it tracked what is existing law but not in the way we are doing this. This amendment, this bill, if amended, will bring forward existing law, incorporate it into the underlying amendment sponsored by Senator Webb and ourselves, and that will become, hopefully, at some point in time the new law that will govern future benefits of our GIs and sailors, airmen and marines. We file it today because I do not know exactly how this supplemental will go through. I don't know if there will be a window of opportunity put on it. If there is, we will exercise that opportunity. But if it is not, we are going to, as a team, bring it to the attention of the Armed Services Committee in the context of the annual authorization bill, which I presume will be done just before the Fourth of July recess. We will affix to it that bill so it will eventually be amending the underlying bill, which I hope becomes law very soon as a component of the supplemental process now being undertaken by the Senate and the House. Again, I salute my colleague from Virginia and my colleague from Nebraska. We have been here together. We have shared many opportunities to do something such as this together but none as important as this one. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Hagel, and I thank my distinguished partner in the Senate, Mr. Webb. We have known each other for a very long time, over 30 years. When I was in the Pentagon, we were associated together at that time. He had a long and distinguished career in the U.S. Marine Corps and following that in the Department of Defense in two very senior--including Secretary of the Navy--positions of civilian leadership. He has shown that same leadership from the day he crossed the threshold of the Senate, that this is his No. 1 priority. And how pleased and, indeed, humbled I am to join him and my good friend, Senator Hagel, in making this possible. What we are trying to do, very simply, is to enable this generation of young men and women to have, as nearly as possible, the same benefits as former generations--most specifically, the generation from World War II and the Korean War generation of which I was a part. Both of these gentlemen are highly decorated combat veterans. I have a less significant career in the service. But all three of us bring our own experience to bear on thinking this is essential for this generation who is going out and fighting as courageously as any servicemember in the history of this country and, in fact, perhaps with an added measure of courage because they are fighting an enemy that is so difficult to define, an enemy that does not have any state-sponsored nation attached to it, which is the form of the terrorism today. I wish to thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who has graced us on this floor for the purpose of listening in on this debate, for guiding it through the current supplemental bill in the Senate, and including Senator Webb's bill in it. Indeed, I saw Senator Murray here and Senator Inouye, who both helped us get that done. Now, much has been said by my colleagues about how we are trying to bring up the level of funding for the GI bill from the current existing Montgomery GI bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this document which traces the history of what is known as the Pell Grant Program.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my longtime friend and Member of this institution, Senator Byrd, for endorsing this bill and becoming a cosponsor. I also thank the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, who worked on this legislation and seeing that it was put into the supplemental.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference report to H.R. 2419, the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007. I am pleased to vote in favor of passage of the conference report, as this legislation includes a number of programs of paramount importance to the Commonwealth of Virginia, including the creation of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program to replenish the bay. Virginia, Maryland, and others in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed have worked diligently to implement programs to reduce nutrient run-off and other sources of pollution that enter the Bay, all in an effort to achieve a cleaner Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program will provide the Federal assistance necessary to support regional and State efforts to reach this important goal. In addition, this bill will enhance conservation across the United States. Its provisions, such as technical assistance and conservation easements, will help protect more land for preservation and environmental initiatives. Also, I note that provisions of this conference report provide greater research support and assistance for growers of specialty crops and significant changes to the nutrition title to promote better health for schoolchildren and increase support for our Nation's food banks. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have been working with Senator Boxer and Senator Lieberman for almost 10 months on a bill with regard to global climate change. This week--perhaps tomorrow or the first of next week-- we will offer a managers' amendment which will address the important issues my colleague raises. I simply ask this Chamber to consider that when our bill comes up there will be ample opportunity to address your issues and that we have a provision in the managers' amendment giving the President of the United States the chance to proceed to correct the very things the Senator seeks to be corrected with his motion.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized on this side after Senator Webb.

Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I stand before this Senate, which I have been in now almost 30 years, with a great sense of humility. I simply say that I would not be here had it not been for previous GI bills. I volunteered and served in the last year of World War II as a young sailor, 17 years old. Subsequently, I volunteered to go into the Marine Corps in 1948 and served on active duty during the Korean conflict, 1950-1952. That modest World War II service gave me a GI bill to get my undergraduate degree then, and my modest service in the Marine Corps on Active Duty--and I stayed in the Reserves for many years afterward-- gave me a second GI bill enabling me to get my law degree. I am here because of that education given to me and many other by a generous Nation. I have joined my distinguished colleague, and dear friend, the junior Senator from Virginia, Mr. Webb, who was a part of my staff when I was Under Secretary and Secretary of the Navy. We have known each other for many years and have worked together prior to coming to the Senate. I have the greatest admiration for him. He is too modest to talk of his military career, his service in the Department in the Defense, as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, and later as Secretary of the Navy. We have collaborated with the Senator from Nebraska, who is another distinguished veteran of the Vietnam period. I think the three of us are highly conscious of what we want to do for today's generation of young men and women in uniform and their families. In the aftermath of World War II, the first GI bill was passed in 1944. Sixteen million men and women were given that educational opportunity, of which 7.8 million veterans availed themselves of these GI bill benefits. All those individuals, including this humble Senator, were given the option to go to that university or that college of their choice, and that university or college, because of their academic credentials, would accept them. The dollars were not a subject, because the GI bill largely paid for all the expenses incurred by the veterans. That is the purpose of the Webb bill, to now give to this very courageous generation the same opportunities my generation had beginning in 1944. I think today's generation will be judged by history as just as great, or greater, than the World War II generation. We should give to this generation nothing less. I can assure you that, based on my experience--and I think my colleagues will agree--this will be an inducement to bring more high- quality individuals into uniform, knowing that for that service, their Nation would recognize it with the opportunity for them to pursue further education. Madam President, I will soon ask to have printed in the Record a part of the law as it exists today. Much has been said about the transferability of the GI bill rights to a spouse or a child. The Committee of the Armed Services on which I serve, put into law the first option by which a service person could have what is known as transferability of their GI bill to a spouse or child. It is still the law of the day. I think my distinguished colleague from Virginia, having recognized this as existing law, might well consider it as a part of his legislation. That is a decision he will make and one I will support. With that, I will yield the floor at this time.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague. Might that be in the form of an amendment to the Senator's existing bill?

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I admire the Senator's willingness to accept that. It was my hope that perhaps Senators could have worked together with those who sponsored the bill we just voted to table. But certainly Republicans exercised their right to have this vote on the measures put in by Senator Burr and Senator Graham.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I say to my good friend and the leader of this effort, and Senator Hagel, let's clarify what I recommend we consider. That is the insertion of a provision, if it is so decided by Senator Webb, on transferability, which would be for an individual to serve a second tour of service upon the completion of the first tour of service. This tracks with the 2001 legislation. Will the Senator from Virginia concur?

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague. I am proud to note that on the Webb bill I think it remains correct at this time that there are 11 Republican Senators who are cosponsors of the bill. This clearly indicates that Senator Webb has devised legislation which is bipartisan, and does reflect, as our colleague from Nebraska said, the will of the people of the United States to recognize the extraordinary heroism and commitment of the individual in uniform and their family and loved ones at home. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record current law enacted in 2001, to which I referred earlier.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the soldiers and civilian employees at Fort A.P. Hill for winning the Army Chief of Staff Communities of Excellence Award competition for fiscal year 2008. This prestigious annual award recognizes the tremendous effort made by Fort A.P. Hill to support soldiers, civilian employees, retirees, and their families. In addition, it highlights the superior business practices that have sparked innovation and enhanced efficiency at the installation. Fort A.P. Hill, as one of the Army's premier installations, has also achieved high marks in this competition in the past, finishing in third place each of the last 3 years. This year, the post hosted a week long visit by a team of evaluators who reviewed every facet of Fort A.P. Hill's operations. Following a scoring assessment by a panel of judges, Fort A.P. Hill was named the competition winner and was awarded $2 million to continue efforts to improve the post. With nearly 76,000 acres, including a 27,000-acre live fire complex that hosts personnel from every service in the Armed Forces, Fort A.P. Hill is rightly known as ``The Place Where America's Military Sharpens Its Combat Edge.'' I offer my congratulations for a job well done to Fort A.P. Hill's outstanding team.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the 3,000 military and civilian employees at Defense Supply Center Richmond for winning the Army Chief of Staff Communities of Excellence Award competition for fiscal year 2008. This prestigious annual award recognizes the tremendous effort made by Defense Supply Center Richmond to support members of the Armed Forces, civilian employees, retirees, and their families. In addition, it highlights the superior business practices that have sparked innovation and enhanced efficiency at the center. As one of three defense supply centers in the country, Defense Supply Center Richmond serves as the lead aviation supplier for the Defense Logistics Agency, managing more than 1.2 million repair parts and operating supply items. This includes over 1,300 major weapons systems and all manner of aircraft parts, manufacturing equipment, and environmental products. Defense Supply Center Richmond annually handles 5.3 million requisitions and supports over 24,500 customers across the globe. With ongoing military operations around the world, the exceptional work done by the dedicated workforce at Defense Supply Center Richmond has never been more appreciated or come at a more critical time. I offer my congratulations for a job well done to Defense Supply Center Richmond outstanding team.

Mr. WARNER

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

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.