John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today with my distinguished colleague from New York, Senator Clinton, the National Highway Safety Act of 2003. It would be our intention in the course of the deliberations next year on the reauthorization or, as we call it, the successive piece of legislation to TEA-21, that this bill, which we introduce today, would be incorporated as an amendment. As the Congress prepares to consider legislation next year to enact a new 6-year surface transportation law to succeed TEA-21, our foremost responsibility, in my judgment and in the judgment of many, and in the judgment of the President of the United States, must be to improve highway safety for the driving public. Simply by increasing the number of Americans who will buckle up is the most effective step that can be taken to save the their lives and the lives of others. That is the single most important step. I am privileged to serve on the Environment and Public Works Committee that has now completed its markup of the TEA-21 reauthorization bill. The bill addresses, as it should, highway safety measures, such as how to build safer roads, how to do use new technologies to improve safety. But, statistics show that the greatest measure of safety, again, to drivers, passengers, and possibly third parties not connected with the vehicle, is through the use of a seatbelt. It is remarkable, the lives that have been saved through the use of this simple device. I have, through my career in the Senate--I say with modesty--been associated with, and indeed I think in the forefront of, trying to move forward on seatbelt legislation. I will not belabor what this humble Senator has done working with others through the years, but we are very proud today that America has about a 79 percent use rate of seatbelts. That has been translated into the saving of tens of thousands of lives and injuries in automobile accidents. Those are the facts. Are we just going to have a standstill, or are we going to move forward? Senator Clinton and I think we should move forward with this somewhat new approach. I will address the technical aspects as we go along. We have debated the benefits of seatbelt use on many occasions in this body, and elsewhere across America. And whether it is in the town forums we conduct, town meetings, or here on the floor of the Senate, there is always that individual who comes back: Don't tell me what I have to do. What does it matter to you, John Warner--or to any other colleague with whom I am privileged to serve--what does it matter to you whether I buckle up? Well, let's take a look. No one disputes that the absence of a seatbelt causes more serious loss of life and injury and, to some extent, crashes. The statistics show that with the impact associated with the crash, to the extent the driver can maintain, as best he can control of the vehicle in those fatal microseconds, often fatal, perhaps the severity of the crash, and perhaps the loss of life can be reduced by the use of a safety belt--simply said. Accidents involving unbelted drivers result in a significant cost to the wallet, out of your pocket. Many people are rushed from the accident scene to various emergency facilities. All of that has the initial cost of the law enforcement that responds, the rescue squads that respond, and eventually the emergency room or whatever medical facility you might have the good fortune to be taken to, to hopefully save you your life. That isn't free. There is a cost. Maybe it is a hidden cost in the budgets of the towns and the communities and the States, but there is definitely a cost. Regrettably, a number of persons who suffer those types of injuries are uninsured. Again, the cost often devolves down on the good old hard-working taxpayers; in most instances, the taxpayers who buckle up. This also is rather interesting and fascinating. When an accident happens, regrettably, on our roads and highways across this great Nation, we try to refrain from rubbernecking. Nevertheless, chances are that we take a glance. More often than not, the accident with the combined slowdown of those passing the accident causes significant congestion for some considerable portion of time. Either the lane in which we are traveling moves very slowly because of the accident or, indeed, we come to a standstill, as often is the case when a lane is closed to clear an accident. That standstill frequently is necessitated because of the severity of the injuries experienced in that accident. It takes the response team longer in their carefully trained steps to extricate the injured person, to give the initial treatment, and then to carefully transport that individual, if necessary, to a medical facility. That takes time. That road is backed up. That is lost time for your mission on the road, be it for business, family, or pleasure. That is lost time and productivity. Behind you often are trucks and other vehicles involved in commerce. That is lost time and delay due to the seriousness occasioned by injuries and accidents where there has been the lack of use of seatbelts. It is as simple as that. The legislation Senator Clinton and I are introducing today will take an important step forward for the States to adopt either a primary safety belt law, or take steps of their own devising to meet a 90 percent seat belt use rate--not the Warner-Clinton bill or the legislative measure put forth by the administration upon which Senator Clinton and I draw for concepts of certain portions. The States can decide for themselves how they achieve a 90-percent goal of the use of seatbelts in their respective States. That is the purpose of this legislation--to move every State to a 90-percent use rate for safety belts. In a letter dated November 12, 2003, to Chairman Inhofe of the Committee on the Environment and Public Works, on which I am privileged to serve, Secretary Mineta states: President Bush and I believe that increasing safety belt usage rates is the single most effective means to decrease highway fatalities and injuries. That is explicit and clear. The Secretary goes on to say: The surest way for a State to increase safety belt usage is through the passage of a primary safety belt law. I have had this debate with Governors, former Governors, even in this Chamber with former Governors. I think they would tell you that a primary safety belt law is a tough piece of State legislation to pass solely on its own. Frankly, it needs the impetus of Uncle Sam, the impetus of the Congress of the United States to move that process in the States forward, so the local politicians can shake their fist saying, it is Washington that has done it again--more regulation, more direction--you know the arguments. But I think quietly in the hearts of those State legislatures is the thought that we will improve safety in my State. We will improve the chance of survivability on the roads in my State. So that is why we are here today. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of Secretary Mineta's letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. WARNER. As provided in our legislation, the Warner-Clinton bill, States can increase seatbelt use either by enacting, as I said, a primary seatbelt law--everybody knows what a primary seatbelt law is and how it works. It means a law enforcement officer can literally stop a vehicle if they observe that the individual is not wearing his or her seatbelt. It is as simple as that. But a State, if they decide not to enact a primary safety belt law, can, by implementing their own strategies, whatever they may be--and there is a lot of innovation out in the States--that would result in a 90-percent safety belt use rate. So that is a challenge to the States. The current national belt use, as I said, is 79 percent. But many States--those that have the primary law are sometimes at 90, or even above 90, but those that do not have the primary seatbelt law are down sometimes in the 60 percentile. It is the weight of the primary States that carries the percentile and brings it up to 79 from those States that don't have an effective law. States with their primary safety belt law have the greatest success for drivers wearing seatbelts. On an average, States with the primary seatbelt law have a 10 to 15 percent higher seatbelt use compared to those with a secondary system. This demonstrates that secondary seatbelt laws are far more limited in their effectiveness than a primary law. Essentially, the secondary laws say that if a law enforcement officer has cause other than a perceived or actual seatbelt violation--namely, the driver didn't have it buckled--if they have cause to stop that car, for example, for a speeding offense or a reckless driving offense or indeed an accident and they observed there has been no use of the seatbelt, then in the course of proceeding to enforce the several laws of the State as regards speeding or reckless driving, or whatever the case may be, they can add a second penalty to address the absence of the use of the seatbelt in that State. Drivers are gamblers. They say: Oh, well, don't worry, I will not buckle up. State law doesn't require it. Unless they stop me--and they are not going to stop me today. It is that gambling attitude that, more often than not, will cause an accident. Then it is too late. So we come forward today to build on our national programs. We are building on what we did in TEA-21. I was privileged to be on the committee. I was chairman of the subcommittee 6 years ago. I worked with Senator Chafee, who was chairman of the full committee, and we drove hard to make progress with the seatbelt laws, and we did it. We basically put aside a very considerable sum of money to encourage States--again, using their own devices--to increase uses. As a direct consequence of what we did in TEA-21, there has been an 11 percent increase in these 6 years in the use of seatbelts. Sadly, traffic deaths in 2002 rose to the highest level in over a decade. It is astonishing. Of the nearly 43,000 people killed on our highways, over half were not wearing their seatbelts. That is according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. And 9,200 of these deaths might have been prevented if the safety belt had been used. Those are alarming statistics. Automobile crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans age 2 to 34. Stop to think of that: age 2, that means a child; that means a parent neglected to buckle up a child. Automobile crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans age 2 to 34. That is our Nation's youth. Do we have a higher calling in the Congress of the United States than to do everything we can to foster the dreams and ambitions and the productivity of our Nation's youth? I think not. And this is one of the ways. Last year, 6 out of 10 children who died in car crashes did not have the belt on--6 out of 10; that is over half. I plead with colleagues to join with me, join with the President who has taken this initiative. My primary responsibility in the Senate--and this is one of the reasons I got interested in this subject--is the welfare of the men and women in the Armed Forces. I say to colleagues, again, the statistics are tragic. Traffic fatalities are the leading non-combat cause of death for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. They are in that high-risk age category, 18 to 35. Someone even took a look at the statistics, the total of the fatalities last year, and said that represents in deaths approximately the size of the average U.S. Army battalion. That is several companies and maybe a reinforced element. Just think, that is the magnitude in one category of those who serve our United States, the men and women in the Armed Forces. I cannot think of any reason why we all cannot join behind this effort. That alone is a driving impetus for this Senator. The time is long overdue for a national policy to strengthen seatbelt use rates. I said a national policy, and that is what this bill represents, either through States enacting a primary seatbelt law or giving far greater attention to public awareness programs that result in more drivers and passengers wearing safety belts. Our goal is 90 percent--90 percent. I have been privileged to serve on this committee 17 years, and I, together with many others, notably my dear friend and late chairman, Senator Chafee, addressed this issue. Our committee is rich in the history of focusing revenue from the highway trust fund on effective safety programs. It goes back through many chairmen and members of the committee. With jurisdiction over the largest share of the highway trust fund, our committee has had the vision to tackle important national safety problems. Regrettably, I report to you that the recent markup of the committee on the proposed successor to the TEA-21 legislation, which we will take up next year, does provide more funding to help build safer roads--that is a step forward--but it does not have, in my judgment, that provision which represents a step up from what we did in TEA-21, that provision that would represent a recognition for the President's initiative. He has taken a decidedly strong initiative to increase the use of seatbelts. It is absent from the bill, and that is why, I say respectfully to Chairman Inhofe and others on that committee, we need a provision to strengthen and to move forward the position of the Congress on the issue of increased use of safety belts. That is the purpose of this legislation. It is just unfortunate, but those with reckless intent quickly disregard responsible behavior and drive unbelted at excessive speeds and many times with the use of alcohol. So no increased dollars for improved road engineering, which is in this bill, can defy in many instances and the type of personal conduct that results in reckless behavior. It is as simple as that. Our automobiles now come equipped with crash avoidance technologies and are more crashworthy than ever before, but these advances are only part of the solution. In repeated testimony before the Environment and Public Works Committee, from the administration, our States, safety groups, and the highway insurance industry, we are told that three main causes of traffic deaths and injuries are unbelted drivers, speed, and alcohol. The formula we have devised in this legislation does have a reduction in the amount a State receives under this proposed bill that we will consider next year when they fail to achieve the 90 percent safety belt use rate. It is as simple as that. But the formula is patterned directly after the law that is on the books now with respect to the .08 legal blood alcohol content level. The net effect of this legislation is simply to recognize we are asking that the same type of sanction policy with regard to one of the three major causes of death--alcohol--be equated to a second cause of death and injury, and that is absence of the use of seatbelts, bringing into parallel two of the three principal causes of death and injury on today's highways. The administration put forward an innovative safety belt program, as I said, under the leadership of the President that was a major component of their new core transportation program, the Highway Safety Improvement Program. Regrettably, this recommendation is not included in the bill that will come before my committee next year as a consequence of the markup seeking reauthorization of TEA-21. The proposed reauthorization bill also does not include the current program, the Safety Belt Incentive Grant program, that we even had in the previous highway bill, of which I was primarily one of the authors. Not only are we not going forward, but in a sense we are stepping backwards. I just cannot understand how we can, as a body, not observe our responsibility to do what we can to provide the necessary incentive to the States to take these steps. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to speak with regard to two matters of great concern to me. I recognize in all probability this will be the last day of the current session of this Congress. I simply express my warm greetings and thank-yous to my fellow colleagues in this Chamber, the staff who serve us in this Chamber, to the pages, to the guards and policemen, to those who work in the cafeterias--all of those, the greater body of infrastructure we are privileged to have in this magnificent institution known as the United States Senate. Each year I have been privileged to be here--and I must say with some great sense of humility, I mark my 25th year in the Senate late this month. When I was sworn in, in 1978, I believe, I filled a vacancy that occurred in December, and I did it on the second or third of January. So actually my 25th anniversary occurs in the first few days of January. It has been an enormously great, rewarding privilege for this humble soul to have served in the Senate. I believe I have served with well over 100 Senators in addition to those I am privileged to serve with in this Congress. Again, I am always mindful of all of those who make it possible in the infrastructure and the institution of the Senate to enable me and others to serve our Nation as best we can in diverse but nevertheless constructive ways for the betterment of all mankind and, yes, America and much of the free world. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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. Air Force nomination of Mary J. Quinn. Air Force nominations beginning Christopher C. Erickson and ending Mark A. Mcclain, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on November 17, 2003. Army nomination of Lance A. Betros. Army nominations beginning Thomas B. Sweeney and ending Paul L. Zanglin, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on October 30, 2003. Army nominations beginning John D. Mcgowan II and ending Kenneth E. Nettles, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on November 17, 2003. Army nominations beginning Vernal G. Anderson and ending Donald J. Kerr, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on November 17, 2003. Army nominations beginning Gaston P. Bathalon and ending Paula J. Rutan, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on November 17, 2003. Army nomination of William B. Carr, Jr. Army nominations beginning John E. Atwood and ending William E. Zoesch, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on November 17, 2003. Army nominations beginning Cheryl Kyle and ending Terry C. Washam, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on November 17, 2003. Army nomination beginning Michael A. Buley and ending Gary M. Zaucha, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on November 17, 2003. Army nomination of Gary R. McMeen. Marine Corps nomination of Michael S. Nisley. Marine Corps nominations beginning Leonard Halik III and ending Ernest R. Hines, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on February 1, 2003. Marine Corps nomination of David B. Morey. Navy nomination of Patrick J. Moran. Navy nomination of Lawrence J. Chick. Navy nomination of Robert E. Vincent II. Navy nominations beginning Rodney A Bolling and ending Jay S Vignola, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on November 3, 2003.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia, be authorized to meet on Tuesday, December 9, 2003, at 10 a.m. for a hearing entitled, ``Fair or Foul: The Challenge of Negotiating, Monitoring, and Enforcing U.S. Trade Laws.''

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 9, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the nominations of Ms. April H. Foley, of New York, to be first Vice President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States; and the Honorable Joseph Max Cleland, of Georgia, to be a member of the board of directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. As provided in our legislation, the Warner-Clinton bill, States can increase seatbelt use either by enacting, as I said, a primary seatbelt law--everybody knows what a primary seatbelt law is and how it works. It means a law enforcement officer can literally stop a vehicle if they observe that the individual is not wearing his or her seatbelt. It is as simple as that. But a State, if they decide not to enact a primary safety belt law, can, by implementing their own strategies, whatever they may be--and there is a lot of innovation out in the States--that would result in a 90-percent safety belt use rate. So that is a challenge to the States. The current national belt use, as I said, is 79 percent. But many States--those that have the primary law are sometimes at 90, or even above 90, but those that do not have the primary seatbelt law are down sometimes in the 60 percentile. It is the weight of the primary States that carries the percentile and brings it up to 79 from those States that don't have an effective law. States with their primary safety belt law have the greatest success for drivers wearing seatbelts. On an average, States with the primary seatbelt law have a 10 to 15 percent higher seatbelt use compared to those with a secondary system. This demonstrates that secondary seatbelt laws are far more limited in their effectiveness than a primary law. Essentially, the secondary laws say that if a law enforcement officer has cause other than a perceived or actual seatbelt violation--namely, the driver didn't have it buckled--if they have cause to stop that car, for example, for a speeding offense or a reckless driving offense or indeed an accident and they observed there has been no use of the seatbelt, then in the course of proceeding to enforce the several laws of the State as regards speeding or reckless driving, or whatever the case may be, they can add a second penalty to address the absence of the use of the seatbelt in that State. Drivers are gamblers. They say: Oh, well, don't worry, I will not buckle up. State law doesn't require it. Unless they stop me--and they are not going to stop me today. It is that gambling attitude that, more often than not, will cause an accident. Then it is too late. So we come forward today to build on our national programs. We are building on what we did in TEA-21. I was privileged to be on the committee. I was chairman of the subcommittee 6 years ago. I worked with Senator Chafee, who was chairman of the full committee, and we drove hard to make progress with the seatbelt laws, and we did it. We basically put aside a very considerable sum of money to encourage States--again, using their own devices--to increase uses. As a direct consequence of what we did in TEA-21, there has been an 11 percent increase in these 6 years in the use of seatbelts. Sadly, traffic deaths in 2002 rose to the highest level in over a decade. It is astonishing. Of the nearly 43,000 people killed on our highways, over half were not wearing their seatbelts. That is according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. And 9,200 of these deaths might have been prevented if the safety belt had been used. Those are alarming statistics. Automobile crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans age 2 to 34. Stop to think of that: age 2, that means a child; that means a parent neglected to buckle up a child. Automobile crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans age 2 to 34. That is our Nation's youth. Do we have a higher calling in the Congress of the United States than to do everything we can to foster the dreams and ambitions and the productivity of our Nation's youth? I think not. And this is one of the ways. Last year, 6 out of 10 children who died in car crashes did not have the belt on--6 out of 10; that is over half. I plead with colleagues to join with me, join with the President who has taken this initiative. My primary responsibility in the Senate--and this is one of the reasons I got interested in this subject--is the welfare of the men and women in the Armed Forces. I say to colleagues, again, the statistics are tragic. Traffic fatalities are the leading non-combat cause of death for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. They are in that high-risk age category, 18 to 35. Someone even took a look at the statistics, the total of the fatalities last year, and said that represents in deaths approximately the size of the average U.S. Army battalion. That is several companies and maybe a reinforced element. Just think, that is the magnitude in one category of those who serve our United States, the men and women in the Armed Forces. I cannot think of any reason why we all cannot join behind this effort. That alone is a driving impetus for this Senator. The time is long overdue for a national policy to strengthen seatbelt use rates. I said a national policy, and that is what this bill represents, either through States enacting a primary seatbelt law or giving far greater attention to public awareness programs that result in more drivers and passengers wearing safety belts. Our goal is 90 percent--90 percent. I have been privileged to serve on this committee 17 years, and I, together with many others, notably my dear friend and late chairman, Senator Chafee, addressed this issue. Our committee is rich in the history of focusing revenue from the highway trust fund on effective safety programs. It goes back through many chairmen and members of the committee. With jurisdiction over the largest share of the highway trust fund, our committee has had the vision to tackle important national safety problems. Regrettably, I report to you that the recent markup of the committee on the proposed successor to the TEA-21 legislation, which we will take up next year, does provide more funding to help build safer roads--that is a step forward--but it does not have, in my judgment, that provision which represents a step up from what we did in TEA-21, that provision that would represent a recognition for the President's initiative. He has taken a decidedly strong initiative to increase the use of seatbelts. It is absent from the bill, and that is why, I say respectfully to Chairman Inhofe and others on that committee, we need a provision to strengthen and to move forward the position of the Congress on the issue of increased use of safety belts. That is the purpose of this legislation. It is just unfortunate, but those with reckless intent quickly disregard responsible behavior and drive unbelted at excessive speeds and many times with the use of alcohol. So no increased dollars for improved road engineering, which is in this bill, can defy in many instances and the type of personal conduct that results in reckless behavior. It is as simple as that. Our automobiles now come equipped with crash avoidance technologies and are more crashworthy than ever before, but these advances are only part of the solution. In repeated testimony before the Environment and Public Works Committee, from the administration, our States, safety groups, and the highway insurance industry, we are told that three main causes of traffic deaths and injuries are unbelted drivers, speed, and alcohol. The formula we have devised in this legislation does have a reduction in the amount a State receives under this proposed bill that we will consider next year when they fail to achieve the 90 percent safety belt use rate. It is as simple as that. But the formula is patterned directly after the law that is on the books now with respect to the .08 legal blood alcohol content level. The net effect of this legislation is simply to recognize we are asking that the same type of sanction policy with regard to one of the three major causes of death--alcohol--be equated to a second cause of death and injury, and that is absence of the use of seatbelts, bringing into parallel two of the three principal causes of death and injury on today's highways. The administration put forward an innovative safety belt program, as I said, under the leadership of the President that was a major component of their new core transportation program, the Highway Safety Improvement Program. Regrettably, this recommendation is not included in the bill that will come before my committee next year as a consequence of the markup seeking reauthorization of TEA-21. The proposed reauthorization bill also does not include the current program, the Safety Belt Incentive Grant program, that we even had in the previous highway bill, of which I was primarily one of the authors. Not only are we not going forward, but in a sense we are stepping backwards. I just cannot understand how we can, as a body, not observe our responsibility to do what we can to provide the necessary incentive to the States to take these steps. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today with my distinguished colleague from New York, Senator Clinton, the National Highway Safety Act of 2003. It would be our intention in the course of the deliberations next year on the reauthorization or, as we call it, the successive piece of legislation to TEA-21, that this bill, which we introduce today, would be incorporated as an amendment. As the Congress prepares to consider legislation next year to enact a new 6-year surface transportation law to succeed TEA-21, our foremost responsibility, in my judgment and in the judgment of many, and in the judgment of the President of the United States, must be to improve highway safety for the driving public. Simply by increasing the number of Americans who will buckle up is the most effective step that can be taken to save the their lives and the lives of others. That is the single most important step. I am privileged to serve on the Environment and Public Works Committee that has now completed its markup of the TEA-21 reauthorization bill. The bill addresses, as it should, highway safety measures, such as how to build safer roads, how to do use new technologies to improve safety. But, statistics show that the greatest measure of safety, again, to drivers, passengers, and possibly third parties not connected with the vehicle, is through the use of a seatbelt. It is remarkable, the lives that have been saved through the use of this simple device. I have, through my career in the Senate--I say with modesty--been associated with, and indeed I think in the forefront of, trying to move forward on seatbelt legislation. I will not belabor what this humble Senator has done working with others through the years, but we are very proud today that America has about a 79 percent use rate of seatbelts. That has been translated into the saving of tens of thousands of lives and injuries in automobile accidents. Those are the facts. Are we just going to have a standstill, or are we going to move forward? Senator Clinton and I think we should move forward with this somewhat new approach. I will address the technical aspects as we go along. We have debated the benefits of seatbelt use on many occasions in this body, and elsewhere across America. And whether it is in the town forums we conduct, town meetings, or here on the floor of the Senate, there is always that individual who comes back: Don't tell me what I have to do. What does it matter to you, John Warner--or to any other colleague with whom I am privileged to serve--what does it matter to you whether I buckle up? Well, let's take a look. No one disputes that the absence of a seatbelt causes more serious loss of life and injury and, to some extent, crashes. The statistics show that with the impact associated with the crash, to the extent the driver can maintain, as best he can control of the vehicle in those fatal microseconds, often fatal, perhaps the severity of the crash, and perhaps the loss of life can be reduced by the use of a safety belt--simply said. Accidents involving unbelted drivers result in a significant cost to the wallet, out of your pocket. Many people are rushed from the accident scene to various emergency facilities. All of that has the initial cost of the law enforcement that responds, the rescue squads that respond, and eventually the emergency room or whatever medical facility you might have the good fortune to be taken to, to hopefully save you your life. That isn't free. There is a cost. Maybe it is a hidden cost in the budgets of the towns and the communities and the States, but there is definitely a cost. Regrettably, a number of persons who suffer those types of injuries are uninsured. Again, the cost often devolves down on the good old hard-working taxpayers; in most instances, the taxpayers who buckle up. This also is rather interesting and fascinating. When an accident happens, regrettably, on our roads and highways across this great Nation, we try to refrain from rubbernecking. Nevertheless, chances are that we take a glance. More often than not, the accident with the combined slowdown of those passing the accident causes significant congestion for some considerable portion of time. Either the lane in which we are traveling moves very slowly because of the accident or, indeed, we come to a standstill, as often is the case when a lane is closed to clear an accident. That standstill frequently is necessitated because of the severity of the injuries experienced in that accident. It takes the response team longer in their carefully trained steps to extricate the injured person, to give the initial treatment, and then to carefully transport that individual, if necessary, to a medical facility. That takes time. That road is backed up. That is lost time for your mission on the road, be it for business, family, or pleasure. That is lost time and productivity. Behind you often are trucks and other vehicles involved in commerce. That is lost time and delay due to the seriousness occasioned by injuries and accidents where there has been the lack of use of seatbelts. It is as simple as that. The legislation Senator Clinton and I are introducing today will take an important step forward for the States to adopt either a primary safety belt law, or take steps of their own devising to meet a 90 percent seat belt use rate--not the Warner-Clinton bill or the legislative measure put forth by the administration upon which Senator Clinton and I draw for concepts of certain portions. The States can decide for themselves how they achieve a 90-percent goal of the use of seatbelts in their respective States. That is the purpose of this legislation--to move every State to a 90-percent use rate for safety belts. In a letter dated November 12, 2003, to Chairman Inhofe of the Committee on the Environment and Public Works, on which I am privileged to serve, Secretary Mineta states: President Bush and I believe that increasing safety belt usage rates is the single most effective means to decrease highway fatalities and injuries. That is explicit and clear. The Secretary goes on to say: The surest way for a State to increase safety belt usage is through the passage of a primary safety belt law. I have had this debate with Governors, former Governors, even in this Chamber with former Governors. I think they would tell you that a primary safety belt law is a tough piece of State legislation to pass solely on its own. Frankly, it needs the impetus of Uncle Sam, the impetus of the Congress of the United States to move that process in the States forward, so the local politicians can shake their fist saying, it is Washington that has done it again--more regulation, more direction--you know the arguments. But I think quietly in the hearts of those State legislatures is the thought that we will improve safety in my State. We will improve the chance of survivability on the roads in my State. So that is why we are here today. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of Secretary Mineta's letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

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, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues a very thoughtful article written by Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations, entitled ``Search For A New U.N. Role.'' I commend the Secretary for his strong leadership over these years, and particularly for the courage he has shown as manifested by this op- ed piece, the courage he has shown to look to the future and to take such, what you might call, corrective measures or revisions as will further strengthen the United Nations as we, the body of nations, face a very perilous and uncertain world, a world filled with threats which really have little precedent in history and weapons that have little precedent in history. Fifty-two years ago, this humble soul was a second lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps and served under the United Nations banner in the Korean conflict in Korea. My service was--I say with deepest humility-- very modest, for I have often said on this floor that such military service as I had in the closing months of World War II and in Korea was very modest compared to others, but it did much for me. I am continuously trying to pay back to the current generation, the men and women of the Armed Forces, what was done for me. I simply cite that it was the U.N. banner under which the U.S. forces and the forces of a number of other nations, a coalition, fought those battles. This was the United Nations' first military mission, as I look back over this half century. Of course, we all recognize there has been no peace treaty. There has never been one signed. But also there has been no recourse to major military use of force on the Korea peninsula in this half century. So that mission of the United Nations, I would say, had a strong measure of success. To this day, our U.S. forces still serve in that theater under the U.N. banner to keep the peace on that peninsula. As Secretary Annan notes in his op-ed piece, the United Nations has been greatly tested in recent years. To his credit, the Secretary has been willing to face head on these challenges to the historic institution he is privileged to lead and has led with great distinction. Indeed, one of those tests was with the United States as we approached obligations which I strongly support, obligations the President has pointed out many times, obligations to bring a greater measure of freedom to the people of Iraq. But that is history. It was clearly a lesson learned by all who participated. Last week, Secretary Annan announced he has convened a panel to take a hard look at the mission of the U.N. and what changes the U.N. should make to ensure that it can be a relevant and effective institution in the future. The panel is expected to issue a report in the fall of 2004. I commend the Secretary for his courage in looking to the future and tasking this panel to give their views not only to him but to the entire community of nations which proudly form the United Nations. Without a doubt, the world needs a stronger United Nations, one that can address with greater decisiveness and swiftness the challenges to freedom in the future. I ask unanimous consent that the op-ed piece be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a dedicated patriot, sailor, husband and father, CPT Randel L. Zeller, USN. By the time the Congress reconvenes in January, Captain Zeller will have retired from active duty after 27 years in uniform with the U.S. Navy. CPT Randy Zeller has served the Navy and the Nation faithfully and well over these many years, most recently as the legislative director for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Captain Zeller deserves our recognition and gratitude. He has been associated with the Congress in a variety of positions for over seven years. His career accomplishments reflect the type of military officer this Nation has depended upon for over 225 years, during peace and conflict. I would like to take a moment to highlight Captain Zeller's career. The son of a career Army soldier, Randy Zeller was born at Fort Belvoir, VA. Continuing this family tradition of service, Randy earned an appointment to the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, graduating in 1975 with a bachelor of science degree in marine engineering. Following commissioning, he completed the nuclear power training program and the Submarine Officer Basic Course. This promising young officer was assigned to four tours aboard nuclear attack submarines, one tour on an aircraft carrier, a tour as commander of the USS Gato (SSN 615) and, as commander of the Trident Submarine Refit Facility. His tours of duty have included assignments to the USS Groton (SSN 694) as Division Officer in 1977; Submarine Training Department Head and submarine tactics instructor at the Fleet Anti-Submarine Warfare Training Center Atlantic in Norfolk, Virginia, 1980-1982; and, Chief engineer on the USS Phoenix (SSN 702), from February 1983-1985. In November 1985, he reported to Carrier Group Two (CCG-2) aboard the USS Coral Sea (CV-43), as a Tactical Action Officer and the Battle Force Anti-Submarine Warfare Officer. While assigned to CCG-2, he served on the Fleet Strike Warfare Commanders' staff during the surface action and contingency air strikes against Libya in 1986. In December 1987, he returned to the USS Groton as Executive Officer, serving until July 1990. During this tour, the USS Groton earned the COMSIXTHFLT ``Hook' em Award'' for anti-Submarine Warfare excellence and played a key role in contingency operations near Lebanon. Captain Zeller's first command was the USS Gato in March 1992. Not surprisingly, his ship executed several ``First of their kind'' missions, demonstrating the utility of the attack submarine in the post cold war era. For her service during the U.N. embargo of Haiti, USS Gato was awarded the Joint Meritorious Unit commendation. The USS Gato was also awarded the Navy Meritorious Unit commendation for exemplary performance from June 1993 to June 1994. In June 1994, Captain Zeller was the Naval Submarine League RADM Jack Darby national award recipient for inspirational leadership and excellence of command. After Captain Zeller left command in November 1994, he served in several important staff positions, during which he began his association with the congress. From January 1995 to March 1997 he served in the Department of the Navy's Office of Legislative Affairs in the Pentagon (OLA). At OLA he was instrumental in the Navy's successful effort to gain Congressional authorization for the third and final Seawolf class submarine, as well as the first ship of the Virginia Attack Submarine class. Recognizing his leadership talents and potential to assume greater responsibilities, Captain Zeller was selected to command the Trident Refit Facility (TRF), Kings Bay, Georgia, a 2000-man Fleet Maintenance Activity. During his tour, TRF was awarded the Meritorious Unit Commendation for outstanding Trident submarine maintenance performance. Following this highly successful command tour, Captain Zeller returned to service on the Secretary of the Navy's staff as the Deputy Chief of Legislative Affairs, from May 1999 to June 2000. Captain Zeller was then selected to be the Legislative Director for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. During this tour of duty from June 2000 until his retirement, Captain Zeller served the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Congress during an especially demanding time in U.S. history that included the attacks of September 11, 2001 on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and subsequent military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere in the Global War on Terrorism. His important contributions were of great importance in keeping the Congress fully informed regarding worldwide military developments and requirements. Captain Zeller's timely, responsive support was critical to the success of global U.S. military efforts. A successful military career is not accomplished without dedication and sacrifice. Captain Zeller is fortunate to have the devoted support of his wife, the former Deborah Lee Chairman of Dayton, OH, and their two children Alexandra (11) and Nathaniel (8). For their support, service and sacrifice, they have my profound appreciation, and that of a grateful Nation. It is a great honor and personal privilege for me to recognize the exemplary service of CPT Randel L. Zeller and his family today. Their selfless service to country, to the Navy, to their community, and to family serve as an inspiration to those whose lives they have touched, and who now carry on the proud traditions of our Armed Forces. As the Zeller family moves into a new chapter in their lives as valued citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia, I wish them the continued success and happiness they so richly deserve. May they always enjoy fair winds and following seas.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding Virginian and patriotic American who died of lung cancer on November 8, 2003--John R. (Jack) Chaillet, of Fairfax, VA. Jack, age 69, was a retired D.C. Police detective, who investigated many of the high-profile murder cases of the 1960's and '70's. He served 21\1/2\ years on the Metropolitan Police Department before he retired in 1978, serving most of his career as a detective in the Homicide Division. In 1977, he was a lead investigator in the Hanafi Muslim murders in which seven persons were slain and then D.C. Council member Marion Barry and two others were wounded after 12 Hanafis seized the District Building and two other facilities to avenge the death of members of their sect. Over two days, the group held 134 people hostage. Among hundreds of other cases, he and his partner were first on the scene of the car-bomb murder in 1976 at Sheridan Circle of Chile's former Ambassador to the United States, Orlando Letelier. This case was taken over by the FBI. In one of his cases involving the murder of a young female child, he collected the largest number of pieces of evidence ever gathered in a homicide case in D.C. including doorframes and bathtub. During his years in the Homicide Division, Mr. Chaillet developed a reputation as an investigator with patience and thoroughness in the vital collection of evidence. After retirement, he was told that many homicide detectives reviewed his reports for guidance in their cases and considered him a legend in homicide investigation. He was profiled, along with others, in a Washington Post weekend magazine article as one of the most outstanding D.C. homicide detectives. He worked many round- the-clock days and nights knowing the case must be pursued while the trail was hot. There was no overtime pay and the reward was in knowing the case was closed and another criminal was taken off the streets. Mr. Chaillet helped organize and lectured in a homicide school sponsored by the D.C. Police Department which detectives from all parts of the country attend and, therefore, made his name known through departments across the U.S. In these classes, he had a flair for presentations in slide shows which kept the classes interesting, dramatic and shocking. He also lectured at Criminal Justice classes at several community colleges and universities. Prosecutors liked to work with him as they knew they could count on him to help make their case with his meticulous notebooks, eloquent speaking voice and unflappability. He developed many contacts in the street and at Lorton Reformatory who provided him with information on open cases even after his retirement. After retiring from the Police Department, he performed security work for Drug Fair, former Regency Hotel, and the National Press Building. He also did background investigations of Federal job applicants, field investigations for the Environmental protection Agency, and court security assignments for the U.S. Marshal's Office. He was a native of Washington and a graduate of Anacostia High School, where he was an outstanding football player and received the All-Metro Award for two consecutive years. He served in the Army as a military police officer in Germany. He was a Member of the American Legion, Almas Temple Shriners, Scottish Rite, Masons, and the Fraternal Order of Police. He was a football coach for the Camp Sprints (Maryland) Boys Club for many years and a volunteer for charitable golf tournaments sponsored by the Fraternal Order of Police and Heroes, Inc. Survivors include his wife, Marie, of Fairfax; his sons, Kurt of Fairfax and Kyle of Berryville, daughters-in-law Karolyn and Caroline; and one grandchild, Logan James as well as many other relatives and a host of friends in the metropolitan area. My sincerest condolences are offered to his family and friends.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would propose to proceed for a short period--I think we are going back and forth--unless one of my colleagues signifies to the contrary. I have listened very carefully, as indeed I think all Senators have, to the very strongly held views of colleagues on this bill. My good friend, the Senator from Florida, who proudly serves on the Armed Services Committee, and I work together. I was quite interested in what he had to say. I guess on most military issues we are together, but on this one we seem to have differences of opinion. I would say that our distinguished colleague from Florida does represent quite a few senior citizens, so I expect he has done a little bit more of his homework to develop his views here tonight. Nevertheless, I respectfully differ, and we are going to have to think what is in the best interest of the country as we approach this vote, whenever that will occur. I rise in support of the conference report to H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003. Medicare was created in 1965, a nationwide insurance program that offered health insurance protection for approximately 40 million older Americans and those who have had the misfortune of becoming disabled. The program provides broad coverage for many health services, but there are gaps--how well we know that--in this program that has been working since 1965. Those gaps create no coverage in some instances. That is the reason we are here today, to plug those gaps. I think under the leadership of the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, the distinguished majority leader, many others who have worked so long and hard on this bill, we have done more than plug the gaps. We have done more. I hope that increase, which is well deserved by the seniors, is appreciated because it is important to these individuals. I myself proudly fit into the category of a senior citizen. In fact, when I am speaking publicly, quite often I am not introduced as a senior Senator but as a senior citizen. There is usually a lot of laughter among the crowd, but I look them square in the eye and say that I am very proud to have that status as a senior citizen. My mother lived to be 98 years old. I kind of hope I can follow along in her footsteps. One area in the current Medicare Program where a major gap exists is in the coverage of prescription drugs. We know that so well. Medicare currently provides no outpatient--if you are in the hospital, you can get some--prescription drug coverage. That is because when Congress created Medicare in 1965--it is interesting, when they created it in 1965, prescription drugs were not a major component of the health system. That is fascinating to me. My father was a medical doctor. He was a surgeon. I remember he used to carry that black bag, and he used to have several bottles of pills in it, to the best of my knowledge. I know he was very careful in how he dispensed all those drugs. But when we stop to think, it has been a dynamic, if not revolutionary, change in the practice of medicine and health care owing to the development of prescription drugs. So since 1965, there have been a lot of positive developments in health care. One major positive development is prescription drug innovations. We are proud in America of the many innovations we have had. Those innovations have improved the quality of life for those with chronic conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, and others. Prescription drugs are now an essential component of today's health care system. They often allow individuals to stay out of the hospitals and, therefore, not become a burden on the already overburdened health care system in the United States. That is owing to prescription drugs. That is the reason--the prescription portion of this--why I am so fervently and strongly in support of this legislation. I have had the good fortune of representing the citizens of the Commonwealth. I was talking to the distinguished majority leader. When this session of the Congress concludes, it will be 25 years. A quarter of a century I have been privileged to serve in this Chamber. Throughout that period of time, as all of us do, we travel extensively throughout our States. We have our town meetings and otherwise. How often have all of us come across those individuals who simply say they struggle to pay for these prescription drugs, a well-worn but truthful phrase. Often they give up the bare necessities of life--food and shelter--to pay for their drugs. So we have all heard those stories. I am proud that this act will go a very long way to remove that anecdotal phrase from our town meetings and from these individuals. They are not aggressive about it. Really, they are very sad and almost embarrassed to say they have to dip into their basic necessities of food and shelter to meet their daily requirements, weekly requirements, whatever the case may be. Some say they ration the drugs they are instructed to take by their physician. Imagine that. A physician says you take a pill a day, and they can't afford it. They take a pill every other day. That is just impacting the health of so many people. I hail this section on the prescription drugs. I think it is a remarkable step forward. This outpatient benefit is long overdue. Now we are about, with a historic vote, to provide that. Many of us have worked these years to try to come to this point in the Senate where we do have this prescription drug outpatient Medicare Program. I have in the past voted for a number of pieces of legislation, have cosponsored a variety of bills to add such a prescription drug benefit. In fact, in an effort to reach a legislative consensus, I even offered my own bill. It was bipartisan. I was joined by Senators Collins and Dayton early this year. It was very simplistic. I look at the remarkable size of that. It is about 8 inches thick. Our bill was probably not more than a dozen or so pages, but at least it went to a partial solution of this problem faced by so many people who could not afford their drugs. None of these measures ever got enough support in either the House of Representatives or the Senate. As a result, while we in Congress continued to debate this issue, America's seniors continued to suffer. Today, though, we have a historic opportunity before us. Early Saturday morning the other body passed their report and now we are about to pass ours. I am confident we will. At that moment, across this Nation will go the voice of the Congress saying that we have at long last, since 1965, done our best to try to put together legislation to take care of the 40 million beneficiaries of Medicare that exist today. Under this legislation, starting in 2004, all Medicare beneficiaries will be able to receive a Medicare-endorsed prescription drug discount card. It is estimated these cards will save seniors between 15 and 25 percent on their prescriptions. Low-income beneficiaries will also receive a $600 subsidy on their card towards the purchase of prescription drugs. I am very proud in the way the drafters of this bill have put such a tremendous emphasis on the low-income Americans. Pain knows no class, no age. Pain is endured by all. Perhaps those of us who have a bit more than others were able to alleviate our pain, but we certainly cannot let those less fortunate than ourselves suffer. So I think this $600 subsidy is a magnificent part of this bill. Then, starting in 2006, beneficiaries will be able to, at their option, sign up for a new Medicare prescription drug program. This program is entirely voluntary, so if a senior already has solid prescription drug coverage and does not want to participate, he or she doesn't have to sign up for the program. Those seniors that do voluntarily sign up for the program will receive standard prescription drug coverage that covers 75 percent of a senior's drug costs up to $2,250 in drug expenses, after meeting a $35 monthly premium and a $250 deductible. After a beneficiary has spent $3,600 out of their own pocket on prescription drugs, the standard plan's catastrophic coverage will cover at least 95 percent of prescription drug costs. Under the bill, very generous assistance is provided to low-income beneficiaries. In my view, these low-income provisions are truly the hallmark of the bill, as these seniors are truly the one's who have most struggled to obtain the prescription drugs they need. These seniors will pay little or no premium and little or no deductible, based on their income, and will only have to pay at most a $2 copay for a generic drug and up to a $5 copay for a brand name drug. What does this new drug benefit mean to Virginians? If passed and signed into law, it will provide the nearly 1 million Medicare beneficiaries in the Commonwealth with access to a Medicare prescription drug benefit for the first time in the history of Medicare. Almost 400,000 of these individuals will qualify for the generous low-income benefits. But, not only does this legislation directly help Virginia's Medicare beneficiaries by providing a prescription drug benefit, the legislation also provides needed enhancements to Medicare providers to ensure they are more adequately reimbursed for their services. As we have seen, without adequate reimbursement, health care access can become a real issue as doctors and other health providers cut back services or even close their doors to Medicare beneficiaries. That is one of the reasons I strongly support this bill. We simply have to help those people access the care which those of us here in the Senate and the Congress enjoy, and indeed that many other Americans with larger corporations and small businesses enjoy, too. Some of them are being denied the Medicare rights. This legislation recognizes this fact and provides significant assistance to Medicare providers. For example, the bill blocks the proposed 4.5-percent cut in physician reimbursement in 2004 and 2005 and updates their reimbursement by 1.5 percent in both 2004 and 2005. This one fix alone will result in an influx of almost $200 million into Virginia's health care system. Now, while I strongly support this historic legislation, I must admit that in no way is this bill a perfect bill. It is certainly not the bill I would have drafted. But, our leaders in the Senate on this legislation--the bipartisan team of Senator Grassley, Senator Baucus, Senator Breaux, and our Majority Leader Senator Frist--really should be commended for their work. After the Congress has for years struggled to reach an agreement on this matter, we have finally reached what appears to be a strong, compromise bill that the President will sign. And, while I intend to vote for this bill shortly, I do wish to take a moment to raise a few brief points of concern that I believe Congress must carefully watch as this legislation is implemented. First, Congress must be cognizant of the fiscal impact of this bill and its long term effect on Medicare and our Federal budget. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this legislation will cost the taxpayers approximately $400 billion over the next 10 years. Over the next few years we must closely watch the implementation of this new benefit to ensure that the program's costs do not explode exponentially beyond the CBO estimate. To do so would leave a tremendously unfair burden on America's younger generations. Next, we in Congress must pay close attention to the possible unintended consequences of this legislation. Almost \1/3\ of all seniors currently have retiree employer-sponsored prescription drug coverage. However, due to rising health care costs, more and more employers are dropping retiree health coverage. This legislation will provide a solid fall-back plan for those seniors who lose their retiree coverage due to rising costs. In crafting this legislation, though, we were mindful of the prospect that the mere existence of a Medicare prescription drug benefit might somehow encourage companies to drop their retiree prescription drug plan. This is certainly not our intention, and the legislation provides important Federal incentives to employers who offer good retiree prescription drug coverage. Nevertheless, we in Congress must provide strong oversight to ensure that this legislation does not have the unintended effect of actually causing retirees to lose existing employer-sponsored coverage. Finally, I regret that the bill before us today includes provisions that would sharply cut Medicare funding for cancer care provided to Medicare beneficiaries. After the Senate passed Medicare bill included a $16 billion cancer care cut, I fought hard with Senator Sam Brownback and Senator Bill Nelson to ensure that the final bill contained little or no such cut. Together, we garnered the support of 53 U.S. Senators. Ultimately, though, the Conference Report to H.R. 1 cuts reimbursement for cancer treatment by approximately $11 billion over the next 10 years. Proponents of this cut claim that it is needed so that cancer treatment reimbursement more accurately reflects the true cost to the physician. On the other hand, the hundreds and hundreds of cancer patients and oncologists who communicated with me on this issue maintain that these cuts will be devastating to cancer care in this country. I remain committed to working with my fellow Virginians and others in the Senate to ensure that cancer patients are not negatively affected by these provisions. In closing Mr. President, the bill before us today is the product of a number of years of hard work by a lot of people in the Congress. It presents the best opportunity we have ever had in the Congress to update the Medicare program with a prescription drug benefit. While I do have some serious concerns about certain provisions in the bill--on balance--I firmly believe voting for this bill is the right thing to do. I look forward to this bill becoming law but remain cognizant of the need for the U.S. Congress to closely monitor the implementation of this legislation.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to honor a Virginia Soldier, Sergeant Major Cornell W. Gilmore, who was tragically killed in action in Iraq on Friday, November 7th, 2003. I want to express gratitude, on behalf of the Senate, for his service to our Nation. The American people, I am certain, join me in expressing their prayers and compassion to his family. As the Sergeant Major of the Army's Judge Advocate General Corps, he served as the primary adviser to the judge advocate general on all matters concerning the health and welfare of all the enlisted soldiers within that command. A heavy responsibility that he bore freely and he served with great effect. He accompanied his commanding general, Major General Thomas J. Romig, to Iraq to ensure the soldiers legal needs were being met while away from home. Major General Romig stated that he was ``one of the most dynamic leaders I ever met.'' Sergeant Major Gilmore leaves behind his wife, Donna; his daughter, Dawnita; his son, Cornell, Jr.; his father William; and his mother, Louise. Sergeant Major Gilmore was both an exceptional soldier and a caring citizen, giving his time freely to community and his church. At every post throughout his career he has been a mentor to many through his love of God and music, most recently serving as the music minister at the Shilo Christian Church in Stafford, VA. The local media reported that 100 former pupils served in the choir during his funeral service with more than 1300 mourners present. His family members are brave Americans who have sacrificed so much for this Nation. We owe them and the other families who have lost their loved ones a debt of gratitude. Sergeant Major Gilmore was an exceptional man with a bright future and family in front of him. His wife stated, ``he lived and died doing what he loved best--being with soldiers.'' I cannot craft a finer eulogy, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the entire Nation shall mourn his loss.

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 seek recognition to honor a Virginia Soldier, CWO Sharon T. Swartworth, who was tragically killed in action in Iraq on Friday, November 7, 2003. I want to express gratitude, on behalf of the Senate, for her service to our Nation. The American people, I am certain, join me in expressing their prayers and compassion to her family. CWO Sharon T. Swartworth entered the Army shortly before her eighteenth birthday, her father signing the papers allowing her to enlist early. ``She traveled around the world before she was assigned to the Pentagon.'' She understood the importance of her present assignment and despite the personal risk, wanted to serve the United States and the people of Iraq during this critical time. A warrant officer of the Judge Advocate General's Corps, she served as the primary adviser to the judge advocate general on all matters concerning legal administrators in the Army. She was temporarily in Iraq to process awards for deserving soldiers and to ensure the legal needs of soldiers were being met. CWO Sharon T. Swartworth leaves behind: her son, William III; her husband, William, a captain of the Naval Medical Corps; and her father, Bernard Mayo. I, among many friends and colleagues, attended the ceremony at Arlington Cemetery. Her family, who has borne this tragedy with dignity, are brave souls who have sacrificed so much for this Nation. We owe them and the other families who have lost their loved ones a debt of gratitude. She was an exceptional woman with a bright future and family in front of her. Her father related, ``She did it all, and we can be proud of her. She was a soldier.'' I can not craft a finer eulogy. The Commonwealth of Virginia and the entire Nation shall mourn her loss.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I was going to reply to some of the points my colleague from Massachusetts made. As you well know, the General----

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. Major General Clark is a highly qualified officer for promotion to the rank of lieutenant general. I have met with him several times. His proposed assignment by the Secretary of Defense is to be Commander of the Fifth U.S. Army. He was first nominated for this position in the fall of 2002. He has appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee in executive session on two separate occasions. On both occasions he conducted himself with deference and respect not only for the serious issues at hand but for all persons involved in this tragic sequence of facts which preceded his nomination. He expressed great respect for the constitutionally-based advise and consent power and the responsibility of the Senate to look into this nomination with great thoroughness. Not surprisingly, General Clark has the full support of the Chief of Staff of the Army, General Schoomaker, and the civilian leadership of the Army for this promotion. Indeed, the Secretary of Defense personally, in a very respectful way, has talked to me about this nomination and his strong support for this nominee. I will detail at length later on in the course of this debate the very thorough steps taken by the Senate Armed Services Committee. I commend my colleagues on the committee. There were unusual facts associated with this nomination involving tragic loss of life, a strong disciplinary action against those who brought about the direct harm to the victim who gave his life. In the course of that, I and other members of the committee took it upon ourselves to meet with the family members of the deceased victim in this particular case. I wish to commend them. They handled themselves in a manner of great distinction, given the depth of emotion on their part. I also commend the former Vice Chief of the Army, General Keane. He took it upon himself time and time again, working with the distinguished Under Secretary of the Army, Les Brownlee, to repeatedly go back and reinvestigate certain aspects of this case, I hope to the satisfaction of all Members, certainly to this Senator and generally members of the committee. Mr. President, I yield the floor to accommodate my colleague. I again thank him for his strong tenacity in supporting this nomination throughout.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Massachusetts will accommodate the Senator from Virginia. I would like to make some comments with respect to his important remarks while they are fresh in the minds of the listeners. I think it is appropriate that I take a little time. Then, as far as I am concerned, we will both yield back our time and the Senator from Massachusetts can take some time on another matter, if he wishes. Is that helpful?

Mr. WARNER. The Senator is correct on that.

Mr. WARNER. I was not able to hear.

Mr. WARNER. Not to exceed a period of about 40 minutes for the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, there are a number of Senators who desire to speak. I will just say a few words. To accommodate my distinguished colleague from Kentucky, who has been a valiant supporter of this nomination and very persistent over this long period of time, I will yield the floor. He then could be followed by the Senator from Massachusetts and then I would continue my remarks. I wonder if I just might ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Virginia proceed for not to exceed 3 or 4 minutes, followed by the Senator from Kentucky for about 10 or 12 minutes, followed by the Senator from Massachusetts. How much time does my colleague desire?

Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague.

Mr. WARNER. I will summarize my comments in about 5 or 6 minutes, at the conclusion of which we could both yield our time.