John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator McCain's legislative fellow, Navy CDR Shawn Grenier, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of S. 1042, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2006, which I hope will be brought up by the leadership shortly.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Andrew Feinberg, a military Fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the debate on S. 1042.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of Senator Snowe, that Mr. Christopher Krafft, a State Department Fellow, have the privilege of the floor during the consideration of this bill, S. 1042.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to the staff members of the Armed Services Committee during consideration of S. 1042, as follows: Judith A. Ansley, Richard D. DeBobes, Charles W. Alsup, June M. Borawski, Leah C. Brewer, Alison E. Brill, Jennifer D. Cave, Christine E. Cowart, Daniel J. Cox, Jr., Madelyn R. Creedon, Marie Fabrizio Dickinson, Regina A. Dubey, Gabriella Eisen, Evelyn N. Farkas, Richard W. Fieldhouse, Creighton Greene, William C. Greenwalt, Bridget W. Higgins, Ambrose R. Hock, Gary J. Howard, Jennifer Key, Gregory T. Kiley, Jessica Kingston, Michael J. Kuiken, Gerald J. Leeling, Peter K. Levine, Sandra E. Luff, Thomas L. MacKenzie, Michael J. McCord, Elaine A. McCusker, William G.P. Monahan, David M. Morriss, Lucian L. Niemeyer, Stan O'Connor, Cindy Pearson, Paula J. Philbin, Benjamin L. Rubin, Lynn F. Rusten, Catherine E. Sendak, Arun A. Seraphin, Joseph T. Sixeas, Robert M. Soofer, Scott W. Stucky, Kristine L. Svinicki, Diana G. Tabler, Mary Louise Wagner, Richard F. Walsh, Nicholas W. West, Pendred K. Wilson.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and honor Captain James C. Stein, United States Navy, as he retires from the Naval Service. Captain Stein is a Naval Officer of the finest caliber who has established an impeccable reputation in the Navy and with the Senate through his distinguished tour as deputy director of the Navy Senate Liaison Office. He is a 1982 graduate of the University of Notre Dame. As the midshipman achieving the highest 4-year academic average in the NROTC curriculum, he received the Notre Dame Reverend Hugh J. O'Donnell Award. A Captain's List flight student, he was designated a Naval Aviator in 1984. His initial squadron tours were with Patrol Squadron 26, Patrol Squadron 30 as a Fleet Replacement Squadron Instructor Pilot, and as a department head with Patrol Squadron 10. He served as the Assistant Navigator in USS Ranger, CV-61, during Operation Desert Storm, was selected as the 1991 Pacific Fleet Shiphandler of the Year, and ultimately earned designation as a Surface Warfare Officer. While ashore, Captain Stein earned a master of arts degree in national security and strategic studies from the Naval War College. He served on the chief of Naval Operations' staff as the assistant Maritime Patrol Aviation Requirements Officer, and deputy executive assistant to the director, Air Warfare. Selected for the Navy Federal Executive Fellowship program, he attended the Harvard University Center for International Affairs John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies. Captain Stein commanded Patrol Squadron 8, leading the Fighting Tigers on a highly successful Sigonella, Sicily deployment, earning the Naval Air Forces Atlantic Fleet Battle Efficiency Award, Meritorious Unit Citation, and Atlantic Fleet Retention Excellence Award. As commanding officer, Captain Stein was one of four finalists for the prestigious Vice Admiral J. B. Stockdale Leadership Award. Following command, Captain Stein reported to the Office of Legislative Affairs, where he has served as a valued advisor to the very top echelons of the Navy and Congress. His insight into the legislative process is respected and sought out by all levels of the chain of command. The Department of the Navy, the Congress, and the American people have been served well by this dedicated naval officer. Members of this Congress will not soon forget the leadership, service, and dedication of Captain Jim Stein. He will be missed. I have had the privilege of working with this outstanding Naval officer and commend him for his dedicated service to our country. We wish Jim, his lovely wife Melissa, and their sons Alexander and William, our very best as they move on to a bright future.

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today our President, President Bush, spoke so eloquently upon learning of Justice O'Connor's desire to step down and spend more time with her husband. I think that is such a beautiful and warm way to send a message all across America. I say, with a deep sense of humility, I consider her a friend. I am privileged to know her. I know her husband. He loves the outdoors. He loves the golf game. They are a wonderful couple who have inspired America. It is interesting, I also heard, this morning, another broadcast in which a retired Federal circuit court judge--an individual well known to the Senate, well known to America--in commenting upon this retirement, did so in a way that left me troubled. That is what brings me to the floor. I am not sure he paid the respect this great Justice is owed. I will let people who desire to look at his remarks. But then he said, in so many words--and used the word--that the Senate advice and consent process today is ``corrupt.'' That moved me to the point where I felt compelled to speak out today. What a privilege it has been for me, on behalf of Virginia, to stand on this floor for 27 years and to participate in debates and vote for the best interests of our Nation and the Commonwealth of Virginia. As I look at Justice O'Connor's record, it exemplifies to me a quotation from Shakespeare that I have always tried to follow: Unto thine own self always be true. The record will show and history will record the magnificent way in which she discharged public office not only in the Supreme Court but, indeed, back in the legislative body of her beloved State of Arizona. I will participate with my colleagues in this debate, this careful and fair and objective consideration of that individual selected by our President. As sure as I am standing here, I am confident that when it reaches the vote--and I think we will have an up-or-down vote; I will certainly do what I can to ensure that takes place--the American public will look back upon the duty of the Senate, under the Constitution, as having been fulfilled with dignity and in a manner to reflect confidence within this great Nation and our citizens. As you know, Mr. President, the executive branch, with the President, has a role in this nomination coequal to that of the Senate. In studying history, the role of the President is set out so carefully. I did this research when I worked with the ``Gang of 14,'' which I will mention here momentarily. But Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper No. 66, said: It will be the office of the President to nominate, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint. There will, of course, be no---- I repeat: ``no''---- exertion of choice on the part of the Senate. They may defeat one choice of the Executive---- I hope that does not happen in this case---- and oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves choose--they can only ratify or reject the choice of the President. How clear that is. And working with Senator Byrd and the other members of the 14 Senators who got together--and, by the way, I think the work of that group reflects credit on this institution--some six Federal judges are now serving our Nation as a consequence of their work, work which I always felt was in support of the Senate leadership and their valiant efforts to see that the consideration by Senators of nominees be fair and expeditious. But in the context of our sort of agreement--and I quote from it---- We [the 14] believe that, under article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word ``Advice'' speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President's power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration. Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate. As it has in contemporary times. The Founding Fathers put the word ``advice'' in there, drawn from our English language, clearly defined in dictionaries and by precedent. It simply speaks to the role of the Senate and its ability to counsel with the President. I am confident that will take place. This is a magnificent opportunity for the President, this nomination, in so many respects. Clearly, he is fully entitled, under the Constitution, to select an individual whose philosophy is basically consistent with the core values of our President and his goals that he wishes to achieve, not only during the course of his Presidency but with confirmation, judicial nominees remain on for some 10, 15, 20, 25 years--long after the President has stepped down from office. So that shows you the value of this nomination. But in this instance, our President has an opportunity, against a background of troubled times in our country. We are engaged in a very difficult war on terrorism. Great sacrifices are being made by our country. He can step forward and be a uniter, not a divider, in this nomination by selecting someone who will gain the confidence of the majority of Americans, someone who will enable the two aisles here to remove the center aisle, and we can join in a bipartisan way and give strong ratification to the President's choice. It is interesting. I went back to General Eisenhower. I reached back 50 years to examine the manner in which the President and the Senate worked together under this advice and consent clause. In that 50-year period, there have been 27 total nominees. Fifteen, better than half, were passed by the Senate either with voice vote--and as the Presiding Officer knows full well, that means total unanimity in the Senate--or with more than 80 votes, so 3 by voice and over half of those by 80 votes. Only 1 of the 27 passed by fewer than 60 votes, that threshold that describes the filibuster. Three were rejected by the Senate and one withdrew. To me, that shows action in history for a half a century, consistent with what the Founding Fathers devised in this magnificent Constitution of ours. That individual selected by the President--I suppose he or she, as the case may be--will be labeled a conservative. That is fine. That doesn't trouble me at all. That doesn't divide. That is consistent with the President's basic philosophy. But if we can put on the bench of the highest Court in the land, a Court that decides literally decisions which affect every one of us--every single American is affected by their decisions--an individual who will begin with the confidence of the American public as reflected in a strong bipartisan vote in this Chamber, that will be a great legacy for the President as a uniter and not a divider. I wish to reflect on the consultation. I am confident it will take place. There is no way of trying to describe it. It is up to the President. It is within his discretion. But I have confidence it will take place in a manner that history will document that will be more than adequate for the purpose. I also listened to a report this morning where one group has been gathering funds. They said they had $20 million ready to throw behind the President's nominee. Another group had an equal amount of money to throw behind such opposition as to mount against the nominee. They have a perfect right under freedom of speech, the magnificence of this country, but it would be my hope that they will play a constructive role and not look at this great moment in history of the selection of a Justice to the Court as something likened to a Super Bowl where the sides get in and start the clash. Rather, they should view themselves as being in consultation with the Senate--Senators individually and collectively--and do it in a constructive way. I remember so well the role of the outside groups in that extraordinary chapter of Senate history with regard to the Schiavo case. History will record the viewpoints of many as to how it was done. I myself will forever be concerned about the role, in particular, of the Congress and, most specifically, the Senate. I remember Palm Sunday when only three Senators, myself and two others, were on this floor, at which time we didn't have time to speak. We could only include a written statement which is in the Congressional Record. And I did so, expressing my disagreement with having the Senate go on record as supporting a greater role of the Federal judiciary. I felt the tenth amendment clearly established the prerogatives of the several States to handle matters of this type. I was the sole ``no'' vote that day. But only three Senators acted. The news broadcast said the Senate of the United States has decided. I will often reflect on that moment as to whether it did. Although accurate, three Senators can act on behalf of the body, but that was an example of where the outside interested parties became quite overbearing and in some ways distorted the important issue. I don't disagree with those who felt different than I. But they obfuscated and overdramatized the issue. There is nothing more important than trying to save a life. I understand that. I respect that. But I use that as an example to say, we cannot, in my judgment, in these troubled times in our history experience another chapter such as that. This nominee, I am confident, will be one who, first, with the selection by the President and then, in the course of review by the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate must be viewed as one committed to uphold and support the Constitution of the United States. The term ``activist'' jurist is one that troubles me and, indeed, many people, because it is the Congress of the United States with regard to Federal legislation and the respective 50 State legislatures. They are the bodies to write the law, not the State/Federal judiciary. We have seen a tendency recently for opinions to reflect a decision that doesn't necessarily rest on the core values of the Constitution but, rather, the core values of the writers of the opinion. I hope we see that this process moves forward and reflects great credit on our President and credit on this institution. As I say, the gang of 14 played a constructive role in the history of this body. The question was the use or nonuse of what was termed ``the nuclear option'' to set aside the 60-vote rule of the Senate. It is my fervent hope we don't reach that option--that option is still on the table; the record is clear--that we don't have any tendency or recourse to go to that because in these troubled times, when this country needs to be united, we would not want to send to the Supreme Court, by virtue of a vote under the doctrine of the nuclear option, that individual who would be tattooed for life. That is not what we need. We want that individual to go up there with the full confidence and trust of the American people, the widest margin of people that could possibly be drawn together, and to represent them and to make decisions which they will perceive were done by that individual and the other members of the Justices of the Court that are in the best interest of the country and each individual American. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. On Feinstein.

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. WARNER. My distinguished colleague on the Armed Services Committee is fully aware that we have worked on this matter for several years. There is an existing law that we passed on our bill. But the simple, basic, elementary thing here is we are talking about a study. And our distinguished colleagues from California, Massachusetts, and yourself make allegations of a lot of facts. What is the harm in getting the study? The study may confirm the very facts, and then the Senate is well informed. And the Congress must pass on any dollars before this thing proceeds to a full test situation.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am sorry, I did not hear the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. WARNER. The Presiding Officer is most correct. I extend my apologies to the Presiding Officer of the Senate. Mr. President, I asked if the Senator would yield for a question. I thought I said that.

Mr. WARNER. Why not have the study so the Senate and the Congress can all be well informed? And it will either verify or there will be a denial of the assertions made by our three colleagues who are in opposition, and possibly a fourth. It is interesting. We modified one of the weapons during the Clinton administration, and it was approved by that administration. But it was later determined that that weapon could not effectively deal with a hardened silo. I ask my good friend the question.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I could only say to my distinguished colleague, the Secretary of Defense Colin Powell, a man who has been held in high esteem by this body, disagrees respectfully with my good colleague from Michigan. But the effect of denying a study on this is simply saying to the world, where there are countries proceeding with nuclear programs, you can go deep. There is no deterrence on the horizon. It is off limits, and you can do as you wish and go deep, and you can then conceal your programs from the eyes of the world and there is no deterrence for them to go deep.

Mr. WARNER. In reply to my colleague, I refer to a letter from the Secretary of State a year ago: Dear Mr. Chairman--addressed to me--I am writing to express support for the President's 2004 budget request to fund the feasibility and cost study for the robust nuclear earth penetrator and to repeal the legislation that prohibits the United States from conducting research and development on low-yield nuclear weapons. I do not believe that these legislative steps will complicate our ongoing efforts with North Korea. And he goes on to explain the North Koreans will not be in any way deterred by this action of the United States to have a study.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I think there may well be----

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before the Senator yields, it is somewhat difficult for those who are just trying to grasp a short debate here tonight, which is really a repetition of 2 previous years of debates. Let us assure our colleagues that nothing in this entire test scenario will involve any fissionable material whatsoever. As the distinguished Senator said, it would not involve a bomb. It didn't involve the use of any fissionable material whatsoever. It is simply a study. It is important that the Congress be informed, and it is interesting that the money for this was struck last year. But guess what. North Korea went out and proudly announced--once the money was knocked out of the bill--we have a nuclear weapon. So I think it is very wise for this Nation to have this. It does not involve the use of any fissionable material.

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

Mr. WARNER. I respectfully request if the chairman, Senator Domenici, would engage in a colloquy regarding the Jefferson Lab in Virginia with the Senators from Virginia? First, I would like to compliment the chairman of the Energy & Water Subcommittee, and the ranking member, Senator Reid, for an excellent job in preparing a good and balanced appropriations bill for consideration by the Senate. I particularly want to compliment the chairman and ranking member for providing increases for the Office of Science and for the several important programs within the Office of Science, including Nuclear Physics. I know the chairman is well acquainted with Jefferson Lab in Newport News, VA, which is one of our world-class basic research laboratories. My colleague from Virginia, Senator Allen, and I are both proud of the excellent scientific programs at Jefferson Lab, which is a credit to the commonwea1th of Virginia and to the Nation. The increase in funding provided by the subcommittee for nuclear physics will permit Jefferson Lab to increase its operational time so the Nation's return on this investment will be enhanced. In the 10 years since commissioning, Jefferson Lab has made groundbreaking discoveries on several scientific fronts. An important next step to insure we maintain the pace of scientific discovery, as recommended by the Department's November 2003 report, is to upgrade the energy of the Jefferson Lab electron beam. This will enormously expand the scientific discovery potential of the lab, as well as leverage future technological advances. Senator Allen and I wrote to the subcommittee suggesting that language be included in the committee report urging that the Department proceed with the project engineering and design for this energy upgrade.

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, may I commend my distinguished colleague from Maryland and Senator Mikulski and others. The two Virginians and the two Marylanders have joined together, and it is a very important step to be taken in connection with a national commitment to the recognition of the Jamestown period. I wish we could in some way reduce this for the record, but we simply can't do it. There is an excellent review in the National Geographic of June of this year, on the whole area. It is something that I think an inordinate number of Americans will be interested in reading about because it goes to the very roots of the foundation of this great Nation. I thank the distinguished managers of the bill. Come 2007, we will celebrate the 400th Anniversary of the founding of Jamestown, the first permanent English settlement in the New World, as well as the heroics of its first leader, Captain John Smith. Lasting from 1607-1609, John Smith's historic 3,000-mile exploration of the Chesapeake's main stem and tributaries made him the first ambassador to the native peoples of the Chesapeake, allowing for the exchange of cultural customs and material goods. Along his journey, Smith noted the incredible bounty of the Bay, writing that ``oysters lay thick as stones'' and fish were so prevalent you could catch them ``with frying pans.'' What would this trail accomplish? It would allow Americans to retrace the paddle strokes and footsteps of Captain Smith, to gain a better understanding of the perils he and his fellow settlers faced during the voyages they took to better understand the New World. Ultimately, this proposed trail seeks to celebrate Captain Smith's foresight, the founding steps of America, and the bounty of the Chesapeake Bay. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this feasibility study for the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Watertrail.

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. I would like to engage the chairman in a colloquy on the facility needs at Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts. The President's budget request includes $4,285,000 to replace the main gate facility at the Filene Center. This project also includes the replacement of three temporary trailers. The purpose of this project is to vastly improve visitor services and security at the main gate entrance. These facility improvements are seriously needed to replace outdated and inadequate space for park employees, volunteers, park police and visitors. The current facilities, which have been considered ``temporary'' for over 20 years are functionally obsolete leaving visitors to wait in long lines for restrooms, and ticketing services. I recognize that the Park Service's construction budget is under significant financial constraints, but I must emphasize the financial contributions made by the Wolf Trap Foundation to begin the conception design work of this long-awaited project. I respectfully request that the chairman keep these facts in mind, and ask if he could share with the Senate his views on this important project.

Mr. WARNER

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