John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. The Senator from Arizona's understanding is correct. By providing for the lease of only 20 planes, and by putting the bulk of this acquisition back into the traditional budget, procurement and authorization process, this compromise is estimated to save taxpayers over $4 billion. I would like to take this opportunity to correct the legislative record. In a colloquy in the House among Chairman Hunter and Congressmen Dicks and Tiahrt, it was stated that this compromise codified an agreement with the administration as set forth in a November 5, 2003, letter to me from Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. For the record, the compromise does not endorse or codify any such agreement. The compromise is intended to ensure that Defense Department acquires tankers in a manner that meets its own needs, but also the needs and interests of taxpayers. While the Air Force maintained that its original lease proposal achieved this goal, it clearly did not. I fully expect the Defense Department to execute the terms of this compromise in a manner that fully protects American taxpayers' interests.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator from Arizona for his steadfast leadership and vigilance on this critical issue. There could be no doubt as to the Senator's sincerity in always protecting the interests of taxpayers.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, between now and the hour of 2:45, I yield such time as I have to the distinguished Senator from Nevada.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank our colleague for his kind remarks. I simply say, spoken like the true son of a great United States Senator, with whom I was privileged to serve and who emulated all of the characteristics the Senator from Arkansas has bestowed on me, undeserving as they may be, one David Pryor.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague for his remarks and, more importantly, his active participation in our committee's work throughout this year.

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first, may I thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer and I thank the distinguished chairman of our Judiciary Committee. I say to my colleague from Virginia how proud we are to be from the Commonwealth of Virginia from whence so many Framers of the Constitution came. I compliment you on your remarks tonight. I am privileged to serve with you because you represent, in my judgment, all the fine things about the Commonwealth. I try, in my humble way these 25 years, to do the same. The Senator referred to this Constitution. The question I have to our distinguished chairman is very simple. I want to go back to the hot summer of 1787, when 55 individuals had gathered from the Colonies to work from May 25 to September 17 to frame this precious document. It was a long, hot summer. Tireless trips from their homes to Philadelphia. As a consequence, today, our form of government is the oldest continuously functioning government on Earth today. I have been challenged on it. But almost every other government in existence at the time this Constitution was written have fallen into the dustbin of history. Someone challenged me about Switzerland. Yes, Napoleon crossed the Alps and ceased that government for a period of time. This is a government that has continued to function. As the delegates emerged on the final day, September 17, Ben Franklin walked down the steps and was met by a reporter. I thought of that little history tonight when a reporter asked me, what is it that you are doing tonight in the Senate? Mr. Franklin answered that question on September 17, 1787. He said to that reporter: We have given you a Republic, if you can keep it. This Constitution explicitly gives to the President of the United States the power to appoint the judges. In Section 2, it explicitly gives to the Senate, not the Congress, but to the Senate, the responsibility of advice and consent. Three coequal branches of the Government and the judiciary perform that critical function of keeping the power of each of the other two, executive and legislative, in balance. That is what we are doing tonight. I ask the distinguished chairman, are we not, in the immortal words of Ben Franklin, here tonight for one sole purpose, to keep our Republic?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have had the privilege of leaving the floor and talking with a number of visitors. It is remarkable how many people have come from all across the country to be here. They have asked me, in a very straightforward manner: Senator, we have followed this debate and we cannot understand how one side says there is no filibuster and the other side says there is a filibuster. So, Mr. President, I would hope we could enter into a colloquy and allow the colleagues here--the former attorney general of Alabama, who is on the Judiciary Committee, and the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, who has taken such a leadership role--to see whether or not in colloquy we can provide some clarity to those trying to follow this very important debate on this highly technical use of the word ``filibuster.'' So I am just wondering if you would state what your understanding is, and then my colleagues on this side will state their understanding.

Mr. WARNER. So, Mr. President, you have your chance. So let's go.

Mr. WARNER. In the nature of a question, first, I ask the Presiding Officer to inquire of the Parliamentarian if the word ``filibuster'' appears in any of the rules of the Senate. My understanding is that it does not.

Mr. WARNER. So the word ``filibuster'' is not in the rules. I want to clarify that. I have done a lot of study on this question, and I think I can work our way through it. It is not in the rules. Let's go to Webster's Dictionary. It is rather interesting, the word has been used throughout history in many ways. Filibuster--the first definition: ``An irregular military adventurer; an American engaged in fomenting insurrections in Latin America in the mid-19th century.'' But then we get to the last definition, and herein I think is some guidance: ``a: the use of extreme dilatory tactics in an attempt to delay or prevent action, esp. in a legislative assembly. b: an instance of this practice.'' I think somewhere in between lies the truth. So perhaps with this background and the assurance it isn't in the rules, the Senator from Alabama can continue to educate the Senate as to his perspective, and the Senator from New York can continue to educate the Senate from his perspective, and let us hope we have brought some light on this issue.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I can add one more thing, there is a very fine book issued by the Library of Congress. I ask the Presiding Officer the title of that book. The Parliamentarian knows of it.

Mr. WARNER. Yes, I have studied that, and it is issued by the Library of Congress; am I not correct in that?

Mr. WARNER. For those who want to pursue this in great depth. I thank my colleague for this colloquy, and I hope perhaps we got some clarity to the issue.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I listened carefully as our distinguished chairman was referring to other nominees who have been acted upon by the distinguished members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I have been studying extensively the very impressive record of achievement of a number of these individuals who are awaiting action on the floor. You mentioned Justice Janice Rogers Brown, a distinguished jurist of 25 years on the California Supreme Court. The record shows that she was born to very proud parents but ones of modest means. Sharecropping was their profession. This distinguished, hard-working young person worked her way through college, worked her way through law school, and has now served the people of California for a quarter of a century, including the last 7 years as a California Supreme Court justice. That is remarkable. Further, we heard that she was elected or reelected to the California Supreme Court. I think the chairman should explain the distinction between our Supreme Court, which is subject to the process we have been discussing these several days. But in a number of States, they do have a State election. All of us in this Chamber are here by virtue of the support of people in elections. But how many of us have been elected to the Senate with 76 percent? I don't think my distinguished junior colleague from the State of Virginia got that.

Mr. WARNER. Well, I was pretty close to it, I mention to the Senator. But I don't claim 76 percent. That is quite a record. We have heard that she has ruled for the plaintiffs in many civil rights and consumer protection cases. She is supported by her colleagues in California, those who know her best. But could the distinguished chairman advise the Senate with regard to his opinion with respect to the nomination as it is hopefully brought before the whole Senate?

Mr. WARNER. That is a dream of millions of students all across this country, to have that opportunity to come up through our system, to gain their degrees, to take their place in society, to stand for the cause of freedom in this great country, and some few do manage to get on the judiciary of the States. I know that Presidents look to the jurists in States, because they have a proven record, to select them for the Federal judiciary.

Mr. WARNER. I do hope this distinguished nominee will fare well and be treated with fairness when that name is brought before the Senate.

Mr. WARNER. She is proud of her African-American heritage. I hope the Senate gives her fair treatment.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, November 12, 2003, immediately following a 2 p.m., nomination hearing, for a hearing titled ``S. 1358, the Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act: Amendments to the Whistleblower Protection Act.''

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 12, 2003, at 4 p.m., in closed session to receive a classified operations/intelligence briefing regarding ongoing military operations and areas of key concern around the world.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, November 12, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., on ``Tobacco: State Use of Settlement Funds.''