John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the amendment is acceptable to this side.

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

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I believe, unless my distinguished colleague has a need to further address the Senate, we have concluded the opening round of our bill. My understanding is that the pending business will be amendment No. 1314 to S. 1042, am I correct?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have the floor. We have served together on this committee for 27 years and we have, once again, with the other wonderful collection of Senators on this committee and the staff, produced a bill which clearly supports our men and women in uniform and their families, and strengthens the national security of our Nation. I also want to acknowledge the strong support that we have received from the Republican leader and the Democratic leader of the Senate. These two individuals have teamed up in years past to assist the managers in getting this bill through the Senate. I cannot ever recall stronger leadership by the Senate leaders. Maybe when our distinguished colleague from West Virginia was the leader of the Senate at the time, I know he supported getting this bill through. His membership on this committee for these many years has been of great help to all of us who have been privileged to serve as chairman and ranking member. The bill before the Senate was unanimously reported out of the committee on May 12. It reflects the strong support for the members of our Armed Forces. The bill provides $441.6 billion in budget authority for defense programs for the fiscal year 2006, an increase of $21 billion, or 3.1 percent in real terms, above the amount authorized by the Congress for fiscal year 2005. At this juncture, I recognize the important contribution given by Senators Stevens and Inouye, the chair and ranking member, respectively, of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. It has been their hope that the Senate will act on this bill. Until such time as the Senate does act, it is not likely that they will proceed with the continuation of their deliberations, markup, and the like to bring their important bill to the floor. I say that because I want all Senators to recognize it is the intention of the Senate leadership and the managers of this bill, together with our two colleagues on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, that this bill be acted upon by the Senate prior to the scheduled recess for the month of August. I mention that because one Senator had very politely said to me: I would like to offer an amendment, but I think I will wait until after the August recess. I politely informed him that it is the intention of all parties that this bill be enacted prior to the August recess. He appreciated my candor. This amount is consistent with the President's budget request and within the budget resolution adopted by the Congress. The bill also includes authorization for $50 billion in emergency supplemental funding for fiscal year 2006 to cover the cost of military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout the world, together with our coalition partners, on the global war against terrorism. I also acknowledge that while we put proper emphasis on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terrorism, there are innumerable other missions undertaken night and day by the men and women of the Armed Forces for all aspects of the diverse security needs and requirements of this Nation. Many of them are on the far-flung outposts of the world performing those missions beneath the sea, above the sea, or in the air. We acknowledge with fervent gratitude their contribution, together with all of us who proudly served in uniform, and their families. The past 3\1/2\ years have been a time of great successes and enormous challenges for the U.S. Armed Forces. The mission of our men and women in uniform has never been executed with better skill and dedication. I myself am privileged to have had modest experience in uniform. I have had the privilege of having an association with the men and women in uniform for 60 years. That is a long period of time. Almost without exception, in all those years at some point in time I have had the opportunity to either serve alongside of, or be in support of, the men and women of our Armed Forces. I had a very brief career in World War II, inauspicious as it was, and I had the opportunity to serve in that historic period. I would say unequivocally that, while our generation of World War II was referred to as ``the greatest,'' this generation is every bit as great if not greater in the complexity of the threats posed against this Nation night and day and the sacrifices they are being called upon to make in the performance of their duties and those of their families. The rapid success, and it was a rapid success, of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and the rather prolonged but nevertheless successful operation to date, Operation Iraqi Freedom, has evolved into the hard work of reconstruction and stability operations in both theaters, necessary to secure peace and stability in their respective regions. Such important work brings with it new challenges associated with an extraordinarily high operational tempo on people and equipment and the need to counter asymmetric threats, including improvised explosive devices and the ever increasing, tragic, tragic use of the suicide bomber. Further, the responsibility of the Nation is to properly care for those who volunteer to serve--active, National Guard, reserve, retired, and their families. They deserve nothing less than our total support. The bill, in my judgment, meets those challenges. This bill is being considered at a time when the United States continues to work with a coalition to defeat terrorism globally and defend freedom and democracy. The recent tragic aftermath of terrorist bombings in London reminds us once again, in this global war on terrorism, of the ruthless nature of the enemy we face. When I say ``we,'' it is not only the United States, but freedom-loving people wherever they are in the world. It is a war we must and will win. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and Coast Guardsmen--active, reserve, and National Guard--and countless civilians who support military, diplomatic, and humanitarian operations are serving valiantly in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations to secure the hard-won military successes and to preserve peace and freedom. Successful elections in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past year are testament to the yearning of those people for a voice in their own destiny, the willingness of the United States to assist, and the professionalism of the brave Americans and their coalition partners who volunteer to serve. The U.S. Armed Forces serving around the world are truly the first line of defense in the security of our U.S. homeland. We are all mindful of the risks members of the Armed Forces face every day, and of the sacrifices made by the families and their communities. I repeat, the communities are so involved with the men and women of the Armed Forces stationed overseas, the men and women in uniform who have been asked to do much in the past year and who responded in the finest traditions of the generations of Americans who preceded them. The American people are proud of their men and women in uniform, and what they have accomplished to protect our freedom here at home and abroad. While recent successes have proven the value of past investment in the people and equipment of the U.S. Armed Forces, this is no time for any complacency. The recurring lessons of our military operations are that national security threats are ever changing and persistent. Victory and successes must be accomplished by vigilance and preparation. Such vigilance takes the form of enhanced readiness for today's Armed Forces, and preparation for future threats to the security of the United States, its interests, and its allies. In preparing this legislation, together with the members of our committee, we identified seven priorities to guide our committee's work on the national defense bill now before the Senate. The first priority is to provide our men and women in uniform the resources they need to win the global war on terrorism; second, to enhance the ability of the Department of Defense to fulfill its homeland defense responsibilities; third, to provide the resources and authorities needed to rapidly acquire the full range of force protection capabilities for deployed forces, particularly with regard to improvised explosive devices; fourth, to continue the committee's commitment to improve the quality of life for those who serve--active, reserve, National Guard, and retired, and their families, with particular emphasis on recruiting and retention and on the health care for those who bear the wounds of our war; fifth, to sustain the readiness of our Armed Forces to conduct military operations against all current and anticipated threats; sixth, to support the Department's efforts to develop the innovative, forward- looking capabilities necessary to modernize and transform the Armed Forces; and, finally, to continue active committee oversight of Department programs and operations, particularly in the areas of acquisition reform to ensure proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars. With passage of the bill before us, the Senate has the opportunity to send a strong message in support of the men and women of the Armed Forces serving at numerous posts at home and abroad that America values and honors their service and that of their families. The bill contains much-deserved pay raises and benefits for military personnel and their families, enhanced survivor benefits for those whose loved ones have made the ultimate sacrifice, improved health care for both active and reserve components of personnel and their families, and prudent investments in the equipment and technology our military needs to address current and future threats. I urge my colleagues to debate this bill in a constructive spirit and to support its adoption. There is one issue I would like to highlight: My colleagues and I on the committee, and I think almost every member of the committee shares this view, and many of us in the Senate--we are all concerned about the declining state of the building of new ships for the U.S. Navy. We do not believe the current or projected level of funding for shipbuilding is adequate to build the numbers of ships our Navy needs to perform and continue to perform its global missions. Always remember, the Constitution of the United States directs this Congress to raise its armies, but ``maintain'' a Navy. The Founding Fathers were specific in that direction to the Congress and it is our duty to fulfill it. They had the foresight to realize that a navy can not be quickly constituted or reconstituted. It takes a decade or more from the concept of a new ship through the years to prepare the plans, to test the ship, to test the system, and to finally slip it down the ways of the shipyard, and then for a period of time to further test it before it gains its ability to join the fleet. That is a long time. In many respects that was as true years ago as it is today, so we must learn the lesson that it takes time to maintain our Navy. As a maritime nation, that presence of our Navy is often displayed in the form, not only of our ships, not only through ensuring open sealanes of communication and training in international waters, but also the inherent diplomatic mission of visiting our ports and proudly showing Old Glory, our flag. The Navy currently has 288 ships in the active fleet. This is the smallest number of ships in the Navy since before--I would like to repeat this--the smallest fleet since before World War II. That is before December 7, 1941. I believe the shipbuilding budget must be reviewed by the administration as a matter of utmost urgency in the coming year, and I respectfully urge the President to establish a special shipbuilding fund, to direct the OMB to provide a dedicated fund for the building of ships rather than each year make the allocation--so much to the Department of the Navy, so much to the Department of the Air Force, so much to the Department of the Army. Keep those allocations as they are devised each year, but superimpose on the allocation of funding for the Navy a sum of dollars to turn around this declining curve of shipbuilding. America has much to be thankful for in terms of its patriotic young Americans who volunteer to serve and who have individually and collectively performed with such professionalism and distinction in defense of the United States. The efforts of the U.S. Armed Forces have been remarkable, but they are not without cost--the loss of priceless lives that must be honored and remembered; the responsibility to care for the survivors and their families; the cost of ongoing operations and related refurbishment or replacement of heavily used equipment; and the responsibility to assure that those who serve, and their families, receive the quality of life and the benefits they need and to which they are entitled. I believe the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006 prudently addresses the defense needs of our Nation and recognizes the service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform and their families, provides the resources necessary to win the global war on terrorism, and makes the necessary investment to provide for the security of our Nation in the years to come. I urge my colleagues to join me in sending a strong message of bipartisan support for our troops at home, their families, and to the other nations in the world--America is committed to freedom. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise regarding the pending bill, provided that no other Senators seek recognition on another matter. Seeing none, I wish to accommodate my colleagues whenever possible. It is now my privilege to once again bring forward for consideration by the Senate the annual Defense authorization bill. I commend my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee. We have a magnificent committee. All members are very active. Our attendance is good and I am proud that this institution has such diligent and hard-working Senators to provide their input to our work on the Armed Services Committee. I also recognize what I view, and this may be slightly biased on my part, as one of the finest professional staffs of any committee of the Senate. We have had a long history of extraordinary, competent, fair- minded, open-minded people who want to devote their careers to the men and women of the Armed Forces and the causes for which they offer their life and limb, and that of their families. Their work over the past several months has resulted in this important legislation. We completed the markup of this bill in record time and in the spirit of true bipartisanship. In particular, I am privileged to have the senior Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, a longtime, dear, and valued friend, as my ranking member and full equal working partner on this committee. He preceded me as the chairman of the committee, but we will not go back into those days, nevertheless.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, there has been tremendous effort of our committee on both sides of the aisle with respect to the equipment being used, primarily in Iraq at this time, but could well be used elsewhere. We refer to them as the up-armored high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles; humvees are part of that. There is a range of these vehicles. The purpose of this amendment is to add $105 million to the Army and $340 million to the Marine Corps for emerging up-armored HMMWV requirements that the United States Central Command, under General Abizaid, has established. In the last few days, I was down at Quantico where they have a magnificent research and development and forward-looking contingent. I looked on the parade grounds at a series of vehicles being modified in certain ways to provide a greater degree of protection to the occupants--namely, our soldiers or Marines--who must use these vehicles in the face of this insidious, frightful threat of suicide bombers, implanted bombs which are activated by different devices, even a simple cell phone. This is tough going. I commend a number of Senators--Senator Kennedy, Senator Bayh, a number of Senators on my side--who have been working this issue for some years. The hour and the time has come to add significant sums of money. At some point in this debate on the amendment I will go into further detail, but the Committee on the Budget allocated to the Committee on Armed Services a very significant amount of money to be authorized at our discretion for the purposes of the immediate requirements of the military in connection with their missions today, primarily in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army's current global war on terror requirement for up-armored HMMWVs is 10,000 vehicles. The Marine Corps current global war on terrorism requirement for up-armored HMMWVs is approximately 500 vehicles. The markup of the fiscal year 2006 Defense bill, the one we are on, recommends that $120 million be provided to the Secretary of the Army to address the emerging up-armored HMMWV requirements toward its 10,000-unit requirement. The Secretary of the Army was provided the authority and flexibility to procure up-armored HMMWV's tactical wheel add-on armor, the M1151, the M1152 HMMWVs, once the Army received a validated requirement from a combatant commander. The amendment is funded for 11,693 up-armored HMMWVs, and the Marine Corps is funded for 498 up-armored HMMWVs through December 2005. Since the markup of the fiscal year 2006 authorization bill, the committee has received new information that justifies, in our judgment, the increase of the Army and the Marine Corps requirement for dollars to meet the up-armored HMMWV goals. The Army has an emerging requirement for up-armored HMMWVs for Afghanistan which may increase the overall requirement by 300 up-armored HMMWVs. The Marines Expeditionary Force Forward Commander recently requested that all HMMWVs in his area of operation be upgraded to the up-armored HMMWV variant. This could potentially increase the Marine Corps requirement to 2,814 up-armored HMMWVs, of which 988 are now funded. In keeping with the commitment of the Committee on Armed Services to meet all force protection requirements, this amendment proposes to add $105 million to the Army budget authorized and $340 million to the Marines Corps to allow the Department to respond quickly to the commander's request. It is there. This is quite a complicated amendment. A number of Senators have expressed an interest in this amendment. I would like to debate this tonight. I request the leadership consider having a record vote in due course. I urge Senators who have an interest in this matter to communicate with me or Senator Levin. I would like to have Senators' views. I propose to put it to one side; thereby giving a full opportunity for all members to express their views. Again, I will seek the authority of the leadership to have a record vote on this. Each Senator will want to vote on this amendment. I cannot think of any equipment issue more important to the men and women from your States than this. I want to accommodate my colleagues, and I will yield the floor so my distinguished colleague, Senator Levin, can make such comments as he wishes.

Mr. WARNER. Now, Mr. President, I have, I think, discussed with our colleague another amendment. It relates to a subject that one of our distinguished Members of the House of Representatives, Congressman Skelton, sent. He actually brought this up as a freestanding issue in the House of Representatives. It was considered by the House and adopted. So it is now, presumably, before the Senate as a freestanding item. But it would be my desire, subject to the viewpoints of my colleague, Senator Levin, that it be incorporated in this bill, identical to what Congressman Skelton wishes to do. The essence of it is as follows: The National Defense University and the Joint Forces Staff College do an extraordinary job of preparing our military and, indeed, a number of civilian personnel for greater responsibility. The Joint Advanced Warfighting School, which is part of the Joint Forces Staff College, has created and is now presenting a course on Joint Campaign Planning and Strategy. The first class graduated recently, and it was composed of an impressive group of global war on terrorism officers, in other words, officers who are devoting, at this time, their professional attention to this subject. The amendment authorizes the award of a Master of Science degree, and it is one I think is deserving of the consideration of this body and, hopefully, adoption by this body. It is an amendment which I will now send to the desk for immediate consideration.

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

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to thank my longtime friend and committee member, the Senator from Alabama. We have worked together. We have traveled together. We have been to Iraq together. We went down last Friday to Guantanamo to inspect the detention facilities down there. He has always responded to the request of the chairman, pack a bag, will travel, take on any mission. I thank him. I also thank him for working as subcommittee chairman and getting the work done in his subcommittee.

Mr. WARNER. In brief, the amendment would amend section 2163 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the president of the National Defense University to confer the degree of Master of Science in Joint Campaign Planning and Strategy on those students attending the Joint Advanced Warfighting School at the Joint Forces Staff College who pursued the particular course. The Joint Forces Staff College initiated a new advanced course of study in Joint Campaign Planning and Strategy in 2004. The program received its full accreditation from the Department of Education in the fall of 2004. As I said, the first class graduated in 2005. So the legislation would authorize conferral of the degree retroactively to that class of 2005 and prospectively to the future classes.

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

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the pending amendment which I sent to the desk, I ask unanimous consent that it be laid aside.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I urge adoption of these amendments.

Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1324

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send an amendment on behalf of Senators McConnell, Bunning, Allard, and Salazar, which would provide the Secretary of Defense authority to use research and development funds available for chemical weapons demilitarization activities under the Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternative Program to carry out construction projects for facilities necessary to support chemical demilitarization at Pueblo Army Depot in Colorado and Bluegrass Army Depot in Kentucky. I believe it has been cleared.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to adopt this amendment.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the prospective member of the Supreme Court. The nomination of Judge John Roberts has been transmitted to the Senate by President Bush. I express my very strong support, based on the facts as we now know them, for this outstanding individual. I wish to commend the President of the United States on his selection, and particularly commend him with regard to the procedures he followed pursuant to the constitutional clause of advice and consent. He consulted a number of the Members of the Senate in the context of this nomination of Judge Roberts and, indeed, the process that will soon be undertaken by the Senate. Also, I wish to speak to the Gang of 14, a bipartisan group of 14 individuals, 7 Republicans and 7 Democrats, of which I have been privileged to have been a member of from the very beginning, and I wish to speak to the work the group performed on behalf of the leadership and the Members of this body. In the course of drawing up the memorandum of understanding between members of the Gang of 14, I was privileged to work with my good friend of so many years and, indeed, a former leader of the Senate, Robert Byrd of West Virginia. We devised the portion of our memorandum of understanding as it relates to advice and consent. Speaking for myself, I believe the President lived up to, in every respect, what our expectations and desires were in putting in that clause. I thank my friend from West Virginia, as I have often done on the floor of the Senate, for his advice, and sometimes consent, to my own views. Mr. President, that group of 14 did provide the foundation for our leaders--Republican and Democrat--to bring forth the nominations of six Federal circuit judges, each of whom received the advice and consent of the Senate, and now serve as federal judges. I think that is an important point that should be brought up in the context of this nomination. Also, the question is sometimes asked about another clause of our memorandum of understanding, extraordinary circumstances. I feel as follows: By way of background, I was privileged to introduce the then-lawyer John Roberts to the Senate Judiciary Committee on two occasions. The Judiciary Committee had two hearings and asked him to appear in both instances. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the remarks I made at those hearings, which detail extensively his biography and the like.

Mr. WARNER. So I was privileged to have that opportunity. In the context of performing that task before the Judiciary Committee, I made an independent assessment for myself of his credentials to be a Federal judge. Indeed, I talked to a number of friends who knew him very well. I point out that I was privileged to serve as a law clerk on the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, where he is currently serving. In addition, I had the great opportunity to be associated with the law firm of Hogan & Hartson, eventually becoming a partner. Justice Roberts, of course, in his distinguished career, likewise was a member of the firm of Hogan & Hartson before going into various responsible positions in the executive branch, which are enumerated in my detailed biographical sketch of him. I bring that up because I have a very strong feeling about the firm of Hogan & Hartson. I had the opportunity while there to be closely affiliated with senior partner Nelson T. Hartson. I was a junior lawyer and he was then general counsel to Riggs National Bank and other financial institutions here in the Nation's Capital. I had the privilege of carrying his briefcase, as a young lawyer often did, and preparing his memorandum and briefs and the like during my own work for those clients. He was a magnificent man of the old school and of the law firms of this Nation. Hogan & Hartson stands out second to none as a law firm in this Nation. I remember so well that Nelson T. Hartson had ethical standards second to none. His leadership permeated down through that firm, certainly in those early days when I was privileged to be there. The firm is much larger now, but it still has a profound reverence for its founder, its leader and former senior partner Hartson, and the principles for which he stood, primarily in the area of ethics. As to my independent examination, I certainly believe John Roberts brings to this Senate a clear record of extraordinary public service and achievements. But the question is sometimes asked about the issue of extraordinary circumstances in reference to the memorandum of understanding among the Gang of 14. I can only express my own opinion, but I do so very carefully. I am respectful of the process by which the chairman and ranking member of the Senate's Judiciary committee will examine this nominee. They both are dear and valued friends whom I have known over the course of the 27 years I have served in the Senate. They have an important function to perform in the Judiciary Committee. In no way do I want to get out ahead of their examination of the record. Therefore, based on what I know today regarding John Roberts and my own independent investigation at the time I was privileged to introduce him, I can only opine as this process evolves that there will not be, in my judgment, a body of fact that would give rise in any way to invoking the extraordinary circumstances provision of the Gang of 14's memorandum of understanding. Again, I carefully couch that, reserving my respect, as we all do, for the work to be done by the Judiciary Committee. But in the end, I repeat, I do not think there will be any body of fact that will give rise to invoking the extraordinary circumstances clause. I had the pleasure this morning to call quite a few friends all across the Commonwealth of Virginia, on both sides of the spectrum, to listen to their views about this nominee. I regard those conversations as private, certainly in terms of the names of the individuals. But I was given the liberty to say two individuals, whom I have known for my entire 27 years plus--I will add 1 year, 28 years, 1 year campaigning for the Senate when I knew them both--two of the most extraordinary and nationally and internationally known religious leaders shared with me their strong approval and appreciation to the President for the nomination of this distinguished gentleman. Likewise, I talked with a number of friends on the other side of the spectrum, two of whom are acknowledged liberals whom I have known for decades and whose opinions I value from time to time. These individuals with whom I spoke this morning have known Judge Roberts, and they likewise recognize the extraordinary credentials of this fine individual, and I think in their own ways expressed strong support. I mention that because I think it is important for all of us to reach out and seek the views of those who feel, as I do, that this nomination is one of the most important contemporary chapters of American history. Also, this morning, in response to several press inquiries about the Senate, I have stated that I unequivocally believe that this institution will proceed with its responsibilities under the Constitution, under the advice and consent clause, in a manner that reflects credit on the Senate itself and in a manner that reflects fairness and dignity towards the nominee. I believe that the Senate will proceed in the finest traditions of its over 200 years of experience in terms of its duties of advice and consent, and I think our Nation, and indeed, much of the world, will concur when the process is finally complete. I conclude by moving into that terrain that is always a bit dangerous--listening to good friends who have known John Roberts for many years talk about him. I met with him briefly this morning. We joked together about this. He said: Now, I am a little apprehensive, John, about some of the persons with whom you talked. But in any event, just the warmest accolades were extended by old friends who mentioned the fact that John Roberts had been very active in what we call pro bono cases. When I was an assistant U.S. attorney in the District for years, I saw the abuses of the system where those apprehended under the law for alleged criminal violations did not receive the quality of legal representation to which they were entitled. I participated with a number of my friends in establishing at Georgetown University the Prettyman Institute, which trains young lawyers in how to deal with pro bono cases. I remember Judge Oliver Gasch, now the late Judge Gasch, who was very active in working with me, as we worked with the Georgetown University Law School and established that institute. It has been very successful. I mention that because John Roberts has had quite a record, as has Hogan & Hartson, in pro bono representation of those whose economic circumstances are so much less fortunate than ours, but nevertheless are entitled to first-class representation, and this fine lawyer and jurist has given that in years past. In addition, in the firm of Hogan & Hartson, John Roberts was also often sought out by the young lawyers to counsel with them on how best to do his expertise, that is appellate court work. That is always magnificent in a firm when there is an individual to whom the young lawyers can go, perhaps those outside of the firm too, and get advice. Also, there is a small lunchroom in the firm now and there is a table there. It is interesting, the table is dedicated to William Fulbright, a distinguished Member of the Senate who later worked with Hogan & Hartson. Around that table some great conversations occurred. Often, when John Roberts was at the table with his other partners and fellow lawyers in the firm, they recognized that he could be engaged in almost any subject and have a serious contribution. For example, he loves sports. Like so many of us, given the opportunity, when he gets up in the morning, he kind of looks at the sports page before he goes to all of the news on the other pages. Certainly I do, and I think a lot of Americans do that. He can give you statistics about the Redskins and the baseball teams and others. It is extraordinary. When I look at the entirety of this individual and look at the American public--I am not talking just about the interest groups who will take a role in this one way or another, as they should and are entitled to, but I am talking about those citizens who watch our government perform its duties--I believe the American public will judge this individual as the facts come out. For those who will follow it, it will be quite an education with regard to not only the institution of the Senate and its constitutional responsibilities of advice and consent, but the law of the land and the very large number of issues that face this Nation today, issues that may well come before the Supreme Court someday. So there is an educational process for all of us to be had. But I think in the final analysis, the American public will say to itself: This man has the right stuff and will do the right thing for America and for us as individuals. Mr. President, I have already placed in the Record my introduction of then-lawyer Roberts, now Judge Roberts, at two previous hearings. I have an extraordinary letter written by, I think, about 150 lawyers, many of whom I know because so many of them I have had associations with through the years. It is addressed to the leadership of the Judiciary Committee. It says: The undersigned are all members of the Bar of the District of Columbia and we are writing in support of the nomination of John G. Roberts, Jr., to serve as a federal court of appeals judge. . . . It is extraordinary. It is Democrats on one side, Republicans on the right, and a mixture in the center. I cannot recall in my years here ever seeing a document of such import as this in the context of a judicial nomination. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of the leadership, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding passage of H.R. 3057, Salazar amendment No. 1263, as modified, which is at the desk, be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.