John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say in response to the Senator's question that yesterday afternoon the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, came over to my office--we frequently visit each other in our offices. We spent over an hour and a half on a variety of subjects, and we addressed this issue. We discussed his coming up, which he is quite willing to do, for a hearing in the Armed Services Committee. We are continuing to look into this matter. But let me point out, we are talking about millions of people, as the distinguished Senator from Kentucky said, in the period of World War II, which I remember very well as a young man and as Secretary of the Navy during the period of the Vietnam era and Pol Pot. There is no comparison. Not one incarcerated individual at Guantanamo has lost his or her life. Not one. In sharp contrast to those mentioned about facts elsewhere in the history of this world, our Nation should look with pride as to how the Department of Defense has specifically addressed each of the grievances. They have allowed any number of us to come down there. It is in the hundreds who have come down. There are courts-martial being considered for some at this point in time. In other words, when wrongs are done, we carefully, methodically address them, giving due process to those who are under suspicion for having committed offenses. Given time, this entire situation at Guantanamo will be spelled out fully to the public. If there are individuals who have done wrong, they will be held accountable. I come back to the central theme that I have is these young men and women serving all over the world in uniform today and, indeed, members of our diplomatic corps, members of other Government agencies serving in harm's way, we have to think of them when issues are raised such as they were raised yesterday. I understand the Senator wishes to address a question to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that my time may be continued without limitation at this time.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I do not wish to create a parliamentary situation that precludes the Senator from expressing himself in any way that he wishes. I understood the Senator was about to ask a question. I will withdraw that. I will finish my statement, if I may, and then I will yield the floor. To equate actions of the men and women in the Armed Forces, proudly serving in uniform and thereby representing this Government of the United States with regard to their services down there in Guantanamo maintaining the detainees, to the genocidal acts of murder and repression of the Nazis or Soviet gulags or Pol Pot is insulting to our men and women in uniform who are fighting for the safety of all of us at home and, indeed, our friends and allies abroad. To the contrary, completely unlike the repressive regimes of the Nazis--and I was moved to come down here because I think there are only a few of us around who lived during that period of time and were able to fully absorb the frightful consequences of that worldwide conflict. We had 16 million men and women of the U.S. military in uniform at that time. I just think that there is absolutely no comparison to what that chapter of history brought upon mankind by means of death to this situation we have, which is under investigation. I was assured by the Secretary of Defense--I did not need the assurance because I knew it would be the case--that we will account for any wrongs that have been done under the due process of our system. The Department of Defense and others have investigated this situation and made known a series of facts at this time. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. WARNER. You are reading from a report of one of our investigative agencies. There is no verification of the accuracy of that report. You take it at face value. I pointed out--and I discussed it with Secretary Rumsfeld--this allegation of the FBI agent, together with a lot of other facts, is now being carefully scrutinized under our established judicial process. I trained as a lawyer and many years as a prosecutor and dealt with the Bureau. I have the highest respect for them. But I do not accept at face value everything they put down on paper until I make certain it can be corroborated and substantiated. For you to have come to the floor with just that fragment of a report and then unleash the words ``the Nazis,'' unleash the word ``gulag,'' unleash ``Pol Pot''--I don't know how many remember that chapter--it seems to me that was the greatest error in judgment, and it leaves open to the press of the world to take those three extraordinary chapters in world history and try and intertwine it with what has taken place allegedly at Guantanamo. I am perfectly willing to be a part of as much of an investigation as the Senate should perform and will in my committee. But I am not going to come to the floor with just one report in hand and begin to impugn the actions of those in charge, namely, the uniformed personnel, at this time. We should allow matters of this type to be very carefully examined before we jump to a conclusion.

Mr. WARNER. Could we inquire of the Senator as to the use of this memo on the floor? Is that consistent with the practices of this body as regards--

Mr. WARNER. I do not know how it came into your possession.

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER. Parliamentary inquiry: It is my understanding the senior Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, is to be recognized at the hour of 2 o'clock; am I correct?

Mr. WARNER. Well, then, I just simply, in my own right, seek the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Justice Janice Rogers Brown to serve as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court to which Justice Brown has been nominated is one with which I am, I say in a humble way, most familiar. I practiced law there. When I was an assistant U.S. attorney I appeared before the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on many occasions. But most significantly, upon my graduation from the University of Virginia Law School in 1953, I was privileged to serve as a law clerk to Judge E. Barrett Prettyman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Judge Prettyman later became chief judge of this very important circuit court. As a result of the profound respect so many people had, including myself, for Judge Prettyman, I had the honor several years ago of sponsoring, and with the help of others, passing, legislation to name the Federal courthouse in D.C. after Judge Prettyman. Now, a half century later, after I had the honor of serving as a law clerk on this court, I am pleased, today, to strongly support the nomination of Justice Janice Rogers Brown to this very same court. When I started to evaluate Justice Brown's qualifications for this prestigious judgeship, I turned first, as I do with every nomination, to the U.S. Constitution. Article II, section 2 of the Constitution gives the President the responsibility to nominate, with the ``Advice and Consent of the Senate,'' individuals to serve as judges on the Federal courts. Thus, the Constitution provides a role for both the President and the Senate in this process. The President has the responsibility of nominating, and the Senate has the responsibility to render advice and consent on the nomination. I am very pleased to have been a part of the group of 14 who brought before this body a concept by which we could proceed on these Federal judges. Justice Brown is the second in that series. I speak with pride about our accomplishment. In no way do we intend to usurp the roles of our distinguished majority leader and the Democratic leader. But, nevertheless, after consulting with them, we went forward with our framework agreement. And this agreement now seems to be working for the greater benefit of the Senate and for the important role the Senate has with respect to its constitutional responsibilities of advice and consent to help establish the third branch of our Government--our Federal judiciary. It is essential the vacancies be filled in a timely manner to enable that court to serve the people all across our Nation. With respect to judicial nominees, I have always considered a number of factors before casting my vote to confirm or give advice and consent, as the case may be. The nominee's character, professional career, experience, integrity and temperament are all important. In addition, I consider whether the nominee is likely to interpret law according to precedent or impose his or her own views. The opinions of the officials from the State in which the nominee would serve, or States in the case of the circuit court of appeals, the views of the persons who have known and have observed the nominee through the years, and the writings and the record of the nominee, all are taken into consideration. That is because I believe our judiciary should reflect a broad diversity of the citizens it serves all across the Nation. In this instance, I was privileged to invite Justice Brown to my office. We sat down, and I found her to be an extraordinarily accomplished individual. We had a very extensive exchange of views regarding the important post to which she has been nominated and the qualifications which she possesses. And she does possess outstanding qualifications; first, to have earned the nomination from our distinguished President and, secondly, to earn the support of this body in the advice and consent role. I believe she will make an excellent jurist on this most respected court. Her legal career spans more than a quarter of a century. After graduating with her bachelor's degree from California State University, Justice Brown went on to earn her law degree in 1977 from the University of California School of Law. After passing the California bar exam, which I believe is considered nationwide to be one of the most difficult of the bar exams, she began a career in public service, mostly in positions with the State of California. She worked in the deputy attorney general's office for the State of California, and later worked in the deputy secretary and general counsel's office in the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency of California--again, giving her a breadth and depth of experience regarding the problems and challenges that face our citizens all over this country. After practicing law in the private sector for about a year, Janice Brown returned to public service by working in Gov. Pete Wilson's legal affairs office from 1991 to 1994. How privileged I am to have served with Senator Pete Wilson, later Governor, in this body for a number of years. We became close friends. We worked together, particularly on matters regarding national security and the military. He was a former marine in his lifetime, as was I, and I have a great mutual respect for him. In 1994, Janice Brown left the Governor's office to serve as a justice on the intermediate California Appellate Court. Subsequently, in 1996, my good friend, then-Gov. Pete Wilson of California, had the honor of promoting Justice Brown to the California Supreme Court. With her appointment, Justice Brown became the first African-American woman to sit on the California high court. Mr. President, I take humble pride in having, during my career in the Senate, recommended to a President the first African American in our State's history to serve on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. His name came before the Senate. Subsequent to confirmation, and years of experience on the court, he rose to become the chief judge of the district in which his court resides in my State. This very fine man, with his customary quiet and dignified pride, his superb knowledge of the law, and understanding, serves Virginia with great distinction today. And such will be the case with Justice Janice Rogers Brown in her service to the Nation on this prestigious court. Indeed, since 1996 she has served the citizens of the State of California on the California high court, and she has earned their confidence as a jurist. In the California system, once a judge is appointed, he or she comes before the voting public for confirmation or rejection in the next general election. That moment came in 1998 for Justice Brown when she and four other justices on the California Supreme Court came before the public in that election. While all were confirmed by the California voters, it is notable that Justice Brown was confirmed with the highest percent of the vote, nearly 76 percent--an astounding vote of confidence. But Justice Brown's accolades don't just come from the voting public in California, they also come from a wide range of other people who know her well. Judges who served with her on the California Court of Appeals, a bipartisan group of law school professors in California, colleagues on other courts across the Nation, and others--they all agree: Justice Janice Rogers Brown is a brilliant legal scholar who respects the doctrine of stare decisis and who would make an outstanding Federal appeals court judge. All of this is reason enough to confirm this highly qualified individual. But, when you put all that Justice Brown has achieved in context, it becomes even more apparent what an amazing individual we have before us in the Senate today. You see, Janice Rogers Brown was born to sharecroppers in Greenville, AL. She attended segregated schools in the South and came of age in the midst of Jim Crow laws. Through hard work, she has earned her education and her legal credentials, and today she comes before us as one of the most brilliant legal minds this country has to offer. I am proud to speak on behalf of this outstanding nominee, and it is my hope that the Senate will soon confirm Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the Federal bench. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important bill related to education and our national, homeland, and economic security. I am pleased to be joined in this bipartisan effort with Senators Lieberman, Roberts, Stabenow, Allen, and Durbin. I am grateful to each of them for working closely with me in crafting this legislation. Our ability to remain ahead of the curve in scientific and technological advancements is a key component to ensuring America's national, homeland and economic security in the post 9/11 world of global terrorism. Yet alarmingly, the bottom line is that America faces a huge shortage of home-grown, highly trained scientific minds. The situation America faces today is not unlike almost fifty years ago. On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union successfully launched the first man-made satellite into space, Sputnik. The launch shocked America, as many of us had just assumed that we were preeminent in the scientific fields. While prior to that unforgettable day America enjoyed an air of post World War II invincibility, afterwards our nation recognized that there was a cost to its complacency. We had fallen behind. In the months and years to follow, we would respond with massive investments in science, technology and engineering. In 1958, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act to stimulate advancement in science and math education. In addition, President Eisenhower signed into law legislation that established the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). And a few years later, in 1961, President Kennedy set the Nation's goal of landing a man on the moon within the decade. These investments paid off. In the years following the Sputnik launch, America not only closed the scientific and technological gap with the Soviet Union, we surpassed them. Our renewed commitment to science and technology not only enabled us to safely land a man on the moon in 1969, it spurred research and development which helped ensure that our modern military has always had the best equipment and technology in the world. These post-Sputnik investments also laid the foundation for the creation of some of the most significant technologies of modern life, including personal computers and the Internet. Why is any of this important to us today? Because as the old saying goes--he or she who fails to remember history is bound to repeat it. The truth of the matter is that today, America's education system is coming up short in training the highly technical American minds that we now need and will continue to need far into the future. The 2003 Program for International Student Assessment found that the math, problem solving, and science skills of fifteen year old students in the United States were below average when compared to their international counterparts in industrialized countries. While slightly better news was presented by the recently released 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), it is still nothing we should cheer about. TIMSS showed that eighth grade students in the U.S. had lower average math scores than fifteen other participating countries. U.S. science scores weren't much better. Our colleges and universities are not immune to the waning achievement in math and science education. The National Science Foundation reports the percentage of bachelor degrees in science and engineering have been declining in the U.S. for nearly two decades. In fact, the proportion of college-age students earning degrees in math, science, and engineering was substantially higher in 16 countries in Asia and Europe than it was in the United States. In the past, this country has been able to compensate for its shortfall in homegrown, highly trained, technical and scientific talent by importing the necessary brain power from foreign countries. However, with increased global competition, this is becoming harder and harder. More and more of our imported brain power is returning home to their native countries. And regrettably, as they return home, many American high tech jobs are being outsourced with them. The effects of these educational trends are already being felt in various important ways. For example: according to the National Science Board, by 2010, if current trends continue, significantly less than 10 percent of all physical scientists and engineers in the world will be working in America. The American Physical Society reports that the proportion of articles by American authors in the Physical Review, one of the most important research journals in the world, has hit an all time low of 29 percent, down from 61 percent in 1983. And the U.S. production of patents, probably the most direct link between research and economic benefit, has declined steadily relative to the rest of the world for decades, and now stands at only 52 percent of the total. Fortunately, we already have an existing Federal program up and running that, if modified, can help. Under current law, the $14 billion a year Pell Grant program awards recipients grants regardless of the course of study that the recipient chooses to pursue. So, under current law, two people from the same financial background are eligible for the same grant even though one chooses to major in the liberal arts while the other majors in engineering or science. While I believe studying the liberal arts is an important component to having an enlightened citizenry, I also believe that given the unique challenges we are facing in this country, it is appropriate for us to add an incentive to the Pell Grant program to encourage individuals to pursue courses of study where graduates are needed to meet our national, homeland, and economic security needs. That is why today I am introducing this legislation. The legislation is simple. It provides that at least every two years, our Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and others, should provide a list of courses of study where America needs home-grown talent to meet our national, homeland, and economic security needs. Those students who pursue courses of study in these programs will be rewarded with a doubling of their Pell Grant to help them with the costs associated with obtaining their education. We in the Congress have an obligation when expending taxpayer money, to do so in a manner that meets our nation's needs. Our Nation desperately needs more highly trained domestic workers. That is an indisputable fact. And, in the Pell Grant program, we have approximately $14 billion that is readily available to help meet this demand. In closing, our world is vastly different today than it was when the Pell Grant program was created in 1972. My legislation is a common- sense modification of the Pell Grant program that will help America meet its new challenges. I hope my colleagues will join me in this endeavor. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important bill related to education and our national, homeland, and economic security. I am pleased to be joined in this bipartisan effort with Senators Lieberman, Roberts, Stabenow, Allen, and Durbin. I am grateful to each of them for working closely with me in crafting this legislation. Our ability to remain ahead of the curve in scientific and technological advancements is a key component to ensuring America's national, homeland and economic security in the post 9/11 world of global terrorism. Yet alarmingly, the bottom line is that America faces a huge shortage of home-grown, highly trained scientific minds. The situation America faces today is not unlike almost fifty years ago. On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union successfully launched the first man-made satellite into space, Sputnik. The launch shocked America, as many of us had just assumed that we were preeminent in the scientific fields. While prior to that unforgettable day America enjoyed an air of post World War II invincibility, afterwards our nation recognized that there was a cost to its complacency. We had fallen behind. In the months and years to follow, we would respond with massive investments in science, technology and engineering. In 1958, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act to stimulate advancement in science and math education. In addition, President Eisenhower signed into law legislation that established the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). And a few years later, in 1961, President Kennedy set the Nation's goal of landing a man on the moon within the decade. These investments paid off. In the years following the Sputnik launch, America not only closed the scientific and technological gap with the Soviet Union, we surpassed them. Our renewed commitment to science and technology not only enabled us to safely land a man on the moon in 1969, it spurred research and development which helped ensure that our modern military has always had the best equipment and technology in the world. These post-Sputnik investments also laid the foundation for the creation of some of the most significant technologies of modern life, including personal computers and the Internet. Why is any of this important to us today? Because as the old saying goes--he or she who fails to remember history is bound to repeat it. The truth of the matter is that today, America's education system is coming up short in training the highly technical American minds that we now need and will continue to need far into the future. The 2003 Program for International Student Assessment found that the math, problem solving, and science skills of fifteen year old students in the United States were below average when compared to their international counterparts in industrialized countries. While slightly better news was presented by the recently released 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), it is still nothing we should cheer about. TIMSS showed that eighth grade students in the U.S. had lower average math scores than fifteen other participating countries. U.S. science scores weren't much better. Our colleges and universities are not immune to the waning achievement in math and science education. The National Science Foundation reports the percentage of bachelor degrees in science and engineering have been declining in the U.S. for nearly two decades. In fact, the proportion of college-age students earning degrees in math, science, and engineering was substantially higher in 16 countries in Asia and Europe than it was in the United States. In the past, this country has been able to compensate for its shortfall in homegrown, highly trained, technical and scientific talent by importing the necessary brain power from foreign countries. However, with increased global competition, this is becoming harder and harder. More and more of our imported brain power is returning home to their native countries. And regrettably, as they return home, many American high tech jobs are being outsourced with them. The effects of these educational trends are already being felt in various important ways. For example: according to the National Science Board, by 2010, if current trends continue, significantly less than 10 percent of all physical scientists and engineers in the world will be working in America. The American Physical Society reports that the proportion of articles by American authors in the Physical Review, one of the most important research journals in the world, has hit an all time low of 29 percent, down from 61 percent in 1983. And the U.S. production of patents, probably the most direct link between research and economic benefit, has declined steadily relative to the rest of the world for decades, and now stands at only 52 percent of the total. Fortunately, we already have an existing Federal program up and running that, if modified, can help. Under current law, the $14 billion a year Pell Grant program awards recipients grants regardless of the course of study that the recipient chooses to pursue. So, under current law, two people from the same financial background are eligible for the same grant even though one chooses to major in the liberal arts while the other majors in engineering or science. While I believe studying the liberal arts is an important component to having an enlightened citizenry, I also believe that given the unique challenges we are facing in this country, it is appropriate for us to add an incentive to the Pell Grant program to encourage individuals to pursue courses of study where graduates are needed to meet our national, homeland, and economic security needs. That is why today I am introducing this legislation. The legislation is simple. It provides that at least every two years, our Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and others, should provide a list of courses of study where America needs home-grown talent to meet our national, homeland, and economic security needs. Those students who pursue courses of study in these programs will be rewarded with a doubling of their Pell Grant to help them with the costs associated with obtaining their education. We in the Congress have an obligation when expending taxpayer money, to do so in a manner that meets our nation's needs. Our Nation desperately needs more highly trained domestic workers. That is an indisputable fact. And, in the Pell Grant program, we have approximately $14 billion that is readily available to help meet this demand. In closing, our world is vastly different today than it was when the Pell Grant program was created in 1972. My legislation is a common- sense modification of the Pell Grant program that will help America meet its new challenges. I hope my colleagues will join me in this endeavor. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Correct, and we have a difference of views as it relates to our conscience.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my friend. I would also go back to Federalist 76 and read the following provision dated Tuesday, April 1, 1788, author Alexander Hamilton: The President is ``to nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and other officers of the United States whose appointments are not otherwise provided for in the Constitution. But the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior offices as they think proper in the President alone, or in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. The President shall have the power to fill up all vacancies which may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions. . . . This is the operative paragraph to which I wish to refer: It has been observed in a former paper that ``the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration.'' I said that. If the justness of this observation be admitted, the mode of appointing the officers of the United States contained in the foregoing clauses, must, when examined, be allowed to be entitled to particular commendation. It is not easy to conceive a plan better calculated than this to promote a judicious choice of men for filling the offices of the Union; and it will not need proof, that on this point must essentially depend the character of its administration. Mr. President, our distinguished President has served in office 4 years. He was reelected with a clarity by the votes. He is now putting together his administration for these coming years. The nomination of John Bolton, with whom I have had considerable experience in work, in whom I have a strong sense of confidence--he has chosen this individual, I might say by and with the consent of his Secretary of State, a very able and most credible individual, in my experience, in working with the distinguished current Secretary of State. The President, together with his principal Cabinet officers, has put together an extraordinary national security team. John Bolton will be a valuable addition to this team. The President and his Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, have been clear in their belief that John Bolton has the experience and skills to represent the United States at the United Nations and to carry out the President's priorities to strengthen and reform the United Nations. I agree with the confidence they place in this nominee. John Bolton has had a long and distinguished career in public service and in the private sector. Most recently, he has served for the past 4 years as the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs. In that capacity, Secretary Bolton worked to build a coalition of over 60 countries to help combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction through the Proliferation Security Initiative, PSI. He was a leader in creating the G-8 Global Partnership, which invited other nations to support the Nunn-Lugar nuclear threat reduction concept. As a result, many other nations are now participating with the United States in helping to eliminate and safeguard dangerous weapons and technologies which remain in the countries of the former Soviet Union. Previously, John Bolton has served as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, as an Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Justice, and many years ago he held several senior positions in the Agency for International Development. He has also had a distinguished legal career in the private sector. It is no secret that Mr. Bolton has at times advocated or represented positions which have sparked controversy. He has done so with a frankness and assertiveness that demonstrate his strongly held beliefs. As the Senate considers this nomination, we should keep in mind the words of Secretary Rice. She stated: The President and I have asked John Bolton to do this work because he knows how to get things done. He is a tough-minded diplomat, he has a strong record of success and he has a proven track record of effective multilateralism. Secretary Rice concluded her remarks by saying, and I quote again: John, you have my confidence and that of the President. Given the enormity of problems facing the U.N. today, we have an obligation to send a strong-minded individual to help constructively to solve these problems and to build the confidence of the American people in the U.N. I share the President's and the Secretary's belief that John Bolton will enthusiastically advance the President's goal of making the United Nations a stronger, more effective international organization. I urge my colleagues to support this nomination and to send Mr. Bolton to the U.N. to represent our Nation and to advance the President's agenda of reform. Such reform is necessary to restore American confidence in the U.N. and to ensure that the U.N. will remain a vital and respected international organization in the years to come. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record two articles from the New York Times and the Washington Post with regard to the Bolton nomination.

Mr. WARNER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, to my good friend from Delaware, one of the interesting aspects of what has occurred in the Senate over the last week or so is an impetus to go back and do a lot of historical research. I went back and looked at the Articles of Confederation and the Founding Fathers and what they had to say about this provision of advise and consent in the Constitution. It is interesting. I was very taken aback with how they went about modifying. If the Senator and others will indulge me, I would like to discuss that for a moment or two because I think it poses a question I would like to put to my good friend. That begins at this juncture. You may ask why it is particularly appropriate for the Senate to be in executive session today, because on this day in 1787, 218 years ago, our Founding Fathers of the United States Constitution first reached a quorum so that the Constitutional Convention could draft our Constitution and they could proceed. It took several years to get it done. George Washington had been calling for such a convention for years, but it was not until this day, 218 years ago, that the convention finally began. From May 25, 1787, straight through the summer, 55 individuals gathered in Philadelphia to write our Constitution. It was a hot summer, with long and arduous debate, and many drafts went back and forth. Careful consideration was given. Finally, in mid-September, it was over. It was a monumental achievement, one that would enable the United States today, 200-plus years later, to become the oldest, continuously surviving republic form of Government on Earth today. I mention all this because one of the key compromises our Founding Fathers made throughout the Constitutional Convention was with respect to the advise and consent clause. Our Framers labored extensively over this section of the Constitution, deferring final resolution of the clause for several months. Some of the Framers argued that the President should have total authority to appoint. Others thought both the House of Representatives and the Senate should be involved in the process. Ultimately, a plan that was put forth by James Madison--if I may say proudly--of Virginia, won the day, where the President would nominate judges and executive nominees, and the Senate would reject or confirm them. In Federalist Paper No. 76, in 1788, Alexander Hamilton explains in detail exactly why this compromise was so important. Let me read a portion of Hamilton's quote: It has been observed in a former paper that ``the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration.'' If the justness of this observation be admitted, the mode of appointing the offices of the United States contained in the foregoing clauses must, when examined, be allowed to be entitled to particular commendation. It is not easy to conceive a plan better calculated than this to promote a judicious choice of men for filling the offices of the Union. I presume he wasn't looking into the future, so I will add ``women.'' Today, this great compromise can be found, unmodified, in article II, section 2 of the Constitution. This section of the Constitution reads in part as follows: The President shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States. . . . Thus, the Constitution provides a role for both the President and the Senate in this process. The President has the responsibility to nominate, and the Senate has the responsibility to render advice and consent on the nomination. While article II, section 2 of the Constitution doesn't explicitly make a distinction between the Senate's role with respect to executive branch nominees and judicial nominees of the other branch of Government, the tradition of the Senate, in recognition of the Constitution, dictates otherwise. Traditionally, a President, especially after taking office following an election, is given greater latitude in selecting individuals to serve in the executive branch of Government. This is in recognition of the fact that the Constitution treats Senate-confirmed executive branch nominees far differently than Senate-confirmed judges. In contrast to Federal judicial nominees who, once confirmed under the Constitution, serve a lifetime appointment in the third branch of Government, independent of the President, executive branch nominees serve under the President solely at the pleasure of the President. That phrase, ``at the pleasure of the President,'' is paramount. This time- honored phrase, ``at the pleasure of the President,'' has been used by Presidents throughout American history to show the American people that the President is the final arbiter of accountability for executive nominees. I say that because I have fought hard here recently to deal with this question of the judicial nominees, along with some others. I am not here to seek whether we did right or wrong; history will judge that. But it was a magnificent experience to go back and study the process and listen to many scholarly people and to read extensively. But it is clear to me there is a difference between the judicial nominee who goes for life on the third independent branch--independent of Congress and the executive branch--and the President's right to select those individuals who he, together with his fellow Cabinet officers and others in the administration, feels are best suited to do the job. Would you agree there is a difference in that? I yield for the purpose of answering the question.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in the years I have been privileged to serve in this Chamber, I have so thoroughly enjoyed working with my good friend from Delaware. We have done a lot of things together. I listened carefully to his framework and remarks. I respectfully disagree, and I will so state my reasons momentarily. But I wondered if we could discuss for a few minutes the following. Before we start, I think it would be advisable for both sides to have from the Presiding Officer the time remaining on both sides for the record, so Senators listening will have an idea.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WARNER. Together with 14 in total.

Mr. WARNER. Coequal.

Mr. WARNER. The leadership of Senators McCain, Ben Nelson, and everybody else.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for the colloquy. We did settle clearly that greater latitude is given to the President.

Mr. WARNER. And the Senator from Virginia does not infer that latitude is a rubberstamp, that everyone goes through. Clearly--and I know my good friend from Delaware speaks as a matter of clear conscience--I speak as a matter of clear conscience.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, last Friday, May 13, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz ended his distinguished tour of duty at the Department of Defense. During his 4 years at the Pentagon, Secretary Wolfowitz played a critical role as our Nation responded to the terrorist attacks of September 11, and our military defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan and liberated Iraq from decades of tyranny. We continue to fight an all-out global war on terrorism, guided by the policies which Secretary Wolfowitz, acting as a true partner to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, helped to craft. He was a true partner with Rumsfeld throughout. I have had some modest experience in the Department having served there myself during the war in Vietnam as Secretary of the Navy. I served under Messrs. Laird and Packard. I served under three Secretaries. Their partnership, as the two principal's sharing an evergrowing, awesome, level of responsibilities has been exemplary in the annals of the Department of Defense. On April 29, I was privileged to attend a ceremony at the Pentagon in honor of Secretary Wolfowitz's years of service. The speeches given that day--by General Pace, Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Wolfowitz-- are among the finest I have ever heard, and are a true testament to this extraordinary individual. I wish Secretary Wolfowitz well as he prepares for his new duties as the President of the World Bank. I ask unanimous consent to have these speeches printed in the Record.