John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished manager. I commend him, Senator Kennedy, and many others who have worked on this legislation which I wholeheartedly support. We are privileged to have, in my State, a number of tobacco farmers who are enduring extraordinary economic hardships. Also, I serve on the committee on which serves the distinguished manager of this legislation, the Health Committee, as it relates to the Federal Drug Administration. I understand you have coupled the two together. That has been the objective of our committee some several years now during which we have looked at this, and the two will be put together. I once again indicate my support and accommodation to those who made it possible. Mr. President, I speak today with a great deal of anxiousness and anticipation. As a result of the World Trade Organization's finding of U.S. noncompliance with international trade obligations, retaliatory tariffs have been exacted on U.S. exports. Each month these tariffs will increase until Congress passes the FSC/ETI bill. The costs to the American economy can be avoided. I am pleased that we can pass this bill today and am hopeful that it can move swiftly through conference. Oftentimes things move at a glacial pace here in the U.S. Senate. But if there is one thing I have learned in my many years as a Member of this institution, it is that there are rare instances that the pace becomes so swift that one could miss something if he or she were to blink. The announcement that we would return to consideration of the FSC bill with an amendment on tobacco may have struck many of us as an indication that today was to be one of those days. However, today is just the next step in the long journey for many of us in this room. For a number of years I have worked with many of my colleagues in the Senate and Members of the House of Representatives to address an issue of vital importance to the rural communities of the South. We have met with our farmers, drafted numerous pieces of legislation, consulted with experts in economic and agriculture policy--and we have done it over and over again. Today, the Senate finally stands poised to speak as a body to end the outdated tobacco quota system. Our tobacco-growing communities, long dependent on the cultivation of tobacco, have been devastated by foreign competition and the quota system that keeps the price of leaf artificially high. The amendment submitted by the Senator from Ohio contains language from a bill crafted by a coalition of members from the tobacco farming States of Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia. The Tobacco Market Transition Act will end the current tobacco quota system, provide compensation to growers and owners of quota, and provide grants to States and institutions of higher education to reduce community reliance on the production of tobacco. I have been a member of this body for 26 years and can say without equivocation that for the farm communities of southside and southwest Virginia there is no more important national policy. I can also say that not much is more controversial and polarizing than tobacco legislation. There are concerns with a buyout that ``makes farmers instant millionaires,'' or that it raises taxes, or that it imposes a cost to the general treasury. I am pleased to say that this amendment does none of those things. Still, many have stated that a buyout will not pass the Senate without being coupled to legislation specifically giving the Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate tobacco products. While these two policy goals have for years seemed mutually exclusive, sometimes in the legislative process major national needs that appear to be in conflict come together to forge a comprehensive national policy. Such is the case today, as we consider both a tobacco quota buyout and FDA regulation of tobacco as part of one amendment. While many tobacco farmers vehemently opposed FDA regulation of tobacco not even 10 years ago, the issue has evolved since then. Today, the simple fact today is that most tobacco farmers support FDA regulation so long as it is coupled with a tobacco quota buyout. That has certainly become the predominant view of Virginia tobacco farmers who I have spoken with over the last several years. And, that is clearly the view of several groups who represent growers in my State. The Virginia Farm Bureau; the Virginia Tobacco Growers Association; the Virginia Sun-cured Growers Association; the Virginia Dark-Fired Growers Association; the Virginia Agricultural Growers Association; Allies for Tobacco, Inc.; and Concerned Friends for Tobacco all have signed on to a set of core principles stating that it is in the best interests of the public health community and the tobacco producer community for the FDA to have authority to establish fair and equitable regulatory controls over tobacco products. But not only has the farm communities' position on FDA regulation of tobacco evolved over the years, so has the position of the largest tobacco company in the United States, if not the world. Less than 10 years ago, Phillip Morris actively opposed efforts to grant the FDA authority over tobacco. Today, that same company, now known as Altria, which is headquartered in the Commonwealth of Virginia, is actively supporting legislation to grant the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco. What we have seen over the last 10 years is an amazing coming together of public health advocates, tobacco farmers, and a major tobacco company. Many in the Congress have helped lead the way. The amendment that stands before us is the culmination of the hard work of many, including Senators Frist, McConnell, Kennedy, DeWine, and the chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Gregg, who always helped keep this issue on the committee's agenda. My colleague from Virginia, Congressman Tom Davis, also played an important role. The compromise that has been reached in the Senate is an important one not only because, as I stated earlier, it will provide the help that our tobacco farmers so desperately need. It is also important because it will improve our public health. And that second point is an important one to me. You see, my father was a doctor. He was a surgeon gynecologist, and he dedicated his life to medical research. Much of his research was spent on efforts to eradicate cancer. Ironically enough, though, it was ultimately this same devastating illness that my father worked so hard to find a cure for that ultimately took his life. So, as I think about my father today, I know that he is smiling down because the Senate is about to pass a bill that could help reduce the cases of cancer and reduce the number of premature deaths in this country related to tobacco. We know that smoking is one of the foremost preventable causes of death in the United States. It is estimated to cause over 400,000 deaths in America each year. That is why we have warning labels on cigarette packages and public awareness campaigns against smoking. The dangers of smoking are clear. The bill before us today will help us reduce those dangers in many ways. Most notably, in my view, is the modified risk section, which I believe is the hallmark of the FDA portion of this amendment. This section provides the FDA the authority to approve modified risk tobacco products that reduce harm of tobacco-related disease and benefit the public health. With the imprimatur of the FDA, current users of high- risk tobacco products could be encouraged to use these reduced risk products. And, as they move down the continuum or risk with the products they use, we should see a corresponding decrease in the number of tobacco related illnesses as well. While the public health benefits of this amendment are strong, it is also very important to make clear that the FDA legislation before us today is balanced. I worked extensively with Senator DeWine and Senator Kennedy to make sure of that. For example, this legislation will in no way restrict the rights of adult Americans who wish to smoke or use other tobacco products. At my request, and the request of others, Senator DeWine and Senator Kennedy modified their original legislation to make it clear that the FDA would not have the power to ban all cigarettes and other tobacco products. Under this amendment, that power is reserved to Congress, where it properly belongs. Today we take a great step to protect the public health of all American citizens and the economic health of our tobacco farmers, their families, and their communities. The passage of this amendment is a great triumph for this body and represents the spirit of legislative cooperation and compromise that has long been the cornerstone of this institution. It is my sincere hope that we can soon celebrate the final conference report for this bill and the inclusion of the amendment on which we vote today. Thank you, and I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, did the distinguished Democratic whip wish to be recognized?

Mr. WARNER. Ten minutes.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague from Colorado. I commend him, as well as the Senators from Texas, Pennsylvania, and Alabama, and so many who have worked on this important constitutional amendment, S.J. Res. 40. I have listened to the debate the past several days. I have actually gone back, together with my staff, and reviewed the Congressional Record of Friday and Monday. I feel obligated to indicate to the Senate my own views with regard to this resolution and what I intend to do. First, I intend to vote in support of cloture on the motion to proceed to the Federal Marriage Amendment, S.J. Res. 40. I feel very strongly that the Senate should be accorded the opportunity to debate in full and to amend, if it is necessary, and I think it is necessary, S.J. Res. 40. For that purpose, I hope cloture prevails and that we can, as a body, continue to address this very important legislation. It is of utmost seriousness. My greatest concern throughout this process is the heavy weight that rests on all of us when we go to amend that document which has enabled this Republic--each morning we open the Senate by our Pledge of Allegiance to this Republic, which I think historians will agree is the longest continuous surviving republic in the history of the world. It is a remarkable document, the wisdom that is incorporated in our Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights. Therefore, I think it is incumbent upon the Congress to proceed with the utmost care when amending our Constitution. I think that should be brought out in the ensuing debate if cloture prevails, and I hope it will, and I lend my support. The proposed constitutional amendment reads as follows: Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. . . . I unequivocally support that part of this resolution. The second part, which reads: Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and woman. Therein rests a concern that I have with S.J. Res. 40, and one I will work with others to address in the event hopefully that this Senate will continue its debate and the amendment process. I unequivocally support the first sentence, as I said. The time-honored tradition of marriage between a man and a woman ought to be protected in light of the attacks by certain opportunists in the judiciary on this time- honored part of our culture and heritage, a culture and heritage that our Nation, a young nation, shares with nations far older than ours. Again, the second sentence gives me this pause, despite the statements by many of my colleagues to indicate what they believe the intent is. I do not think it speaks to the clarity that the public is entitled to and wants, and this could lead to a great deal of confusion among the American public, and I do not want to create that confusion. It could lead to considerable litigation. Perhaps of the greatest concern on my part, it could lead to some measure of hindrance of the ability of the several States, all 50 of them if necessary, to work their will through their legislatures on the very important issues that remain; namely, whether to recognize or not to recognize those other forms of relationships, particularly the domestic partnership relationships. For these reasons, I intend to align myself post-cloture with those Senators who seek to modify the resolution to retain only, and I repeat to retain only, the first sentence: Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. I see in the Chamber the distinguished Senator from Utah. I wonder if I might pose a question. As I look at this language which gives me pause and I have spoken to, the second sentence, ``Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require,'' suppose a State wishes to enact those laws they deem necessary on behalf of the people of that State, either to recognize or not to recognize the domestic partnership. Suppose they wish to put that in as a part of their constitution subject to the passage of this amendment. How would this amendment then be construed? Would it overrule a state's subsequent amendment to its own constitution?

Mr. WARNER. Suppose they wish to do it not by statute but actually by an amendment to their constitution? The Senator and I understand that a constitutional amendment has a greater longevity than a statute because what the legislature does via statute one day they can undo the next day.

Mr. WARNER. I understand very clearly the intent of this in the minds of many. The State legislatures can take such steps. I believe there is a measure of confusion that causes me to pause. But it reads that ``neither the Constitution nor the constitution of any State,'' and what the Senator says is they wish to but legislation not in the form of State law, but that constitutional provision would not then be overruled by this.

Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I rise today in support of the nomination of former Senator James Danforth to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. I can think of no person better qualified to fill this critical position during the war on terrorism. Senator Danforth is a true statesman, and is one of my closest friends over my 26 years of service in this Chamber. During this time in the Senate, our friend was a valued colleague and an even more valuable servant of the people of Missouri. He was first elected in 1976, 2 years before I came to the Senate, and served 18 years in this body. The fact that he was elected to three consecutive 6-year terms from the ``Show Me'' State of Missouri illustrates his remarkable wisdom and his ability to listen to his constituents in deciding important issues of the day. After leaving the Senate, our colleague remained in service to his country, chairing a committee that reviewed the Federal response to the Branch Davidian activity in Waco, TX. More recently, Senator Danforth served as special envoy to the Sudan--an area of the world experiencing a particularly difficult and tragic humanitarian situation. In this capacity, he continued to demonstrate the compassion and goodwill that we became so familiar with in this body. Senator Danforth left the Senate to answer a calling to the Episcopal priesthood. Even while he served among us in the Senate, our colleague volunteered on occasion as a pastor at the National Cathedral, where my own uncle served as rector in St. Albans Parish nearly three-quarters of a century ago. I was baptized and confirmed there on the Cathedral close, and was married at a chapel of that Cathedral just this past year. Senator Danforth and I not only were close friends; we shared a special bond of affection for that great Cathedral, which played such an important role in both of our lives. And most recently, our good friend did such a magnificent job officiating in that same Cathedral at the funeral of President Ronald Reagan. Hearing our colleague's voice at that historic and difficult occasion gave comfort to each of us who were humbled to attend that ceremony. He did us proud: and we expected no less. Now our dear colleague opens the next chapter of his exemplary career in public service. In these most difficult of times, when our relations with our allies are so critical to our fight against a new enemy, I am confident that our good friend will carry himself with the same distinction--the same wisdom and thoughtfulness--that he demonstrated, over the years, next to us, in this very Chamber. Mr. President, each of us, as Americans, is fortunate that our colleague will once again be by our side in this critical public role. I wish our dear friend all the best in his important new post.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am available for the colloquy.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, he spoke to me about it, and I expressed a willingness to indicate to both colleagues that the Senate bill contains a provision coauthored by my two distinguished colleagues on a subject that is of great importance to the men and women of our military. And it is the intention of the Senator from Virginia, as a conferee, to support the Senate positions as we proceed through the resolution of such differences as the House and the Senate may have.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, as always and customary with the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, you have spoken to the situation factually. Historically, that is the way we have dealt with those matters in the Senate. I appreciate you respect my position as a conferee. I cannot make ironclad commitments, other than I have always gone into a conference to try to support the position as taken by this collective body in its decisionmaking process. Mr. President, I thank my colleague.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished managers of the bill. I appreciate that. This is a matter that is of great importance to the U.S. Navy. I am happy to do it.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join in that request.

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, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 2400 as amended be printed as passed.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed immediately to the consideration en bloc of S. 2401 through S. 2403--Calendar Order Nos. 504, 505 and 506; that all after the enacting clause of those bills be stricken and the appropriate portion of S. 2400, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof, according to the schedule which I am sending to the desk; that these bills be advanced to third reading and passed; that the motions to reconsider en bloc be laid upon the table; and that the above actions occur without intervening action or debate.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, with respect to H.R. 4200--Calendar Order No. 537--the House-passed version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate turn to its immediate consideration; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 2400, as passed, be substituted in lieu thereof; that the bill be advanced to third reading and passed; that the Senate insist on its amendment to the bill and request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees; that the motion to reconsider the above-mentioned votes be laid upon the table; and that the foregoing occur without intervening action or debate.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that concludes the matters addressing the bill. I thank the leadership of both sides, members of our committee, and the wonderful, fine staff we have, particularly my staff, Mrs. Ansley, and my good colleague over here, my partner for these 26 years we have been in the Senate. Guess we landed another one, not necessarily in record time. Our calculation is 16 legislative days. So perhaps we have set something of a record as the days were fairly consecutive. I thank the chief of staff sitting here. Thank you, Captain.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my friend. These many years we have worked, really, as partners, and achieved one of the highest degrees of bipartisanship in the discharge of our respective responsibilities, together with the staffs.

Mr. WARNER. I thank our distinguished majority leader, truly a very gracious soul and of pure heart.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the names of staff printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER. I am happy at this time to yield the desk back to the majority leader. I hope I never see this again for another year.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished minority leader very much for his words.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I see the proponent of the first amendment on the floor, and we are prepared to engage. So at this time, I yield the floor.