John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. The bills will be read for the second time on the next legislative day; is that my understanding from the Chair?

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during this adjournment of the Senate, the majority leader or the assistant majority leader or Senator Santorum be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. For the information of all Senators, when the Senate reconvenes on Tuesday, September 2, the Senate will begin consideration of H.R. 2660, the Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill. There will be no rollcall votes on Tuesday, but Members are encouraged to come to the floor to offer and debate amendments to the bill. Senators who wish to offer an amendment should contact the bill managers so they can schedule an orderly process for debate. Any votes ordered with respect to amendments to the appropriations bill would occur on Wednesday, September 3. On behalf of the leader, I wish all of my colleagues a safe and restful period and, hopefully, one in which they can have an opportunity to be with their families. Yet, as always, we enjoy the engagement with our constituents and visits to places in our State. So this is a well-earned recess for the Senate. We have had a very active session. I commend our joint leadership for their leadership. We made some history here in the last 48 hours on certain bills passed and nominations accepted. I see a Senator desiring recognition, but I wonder if I might make the following request, with the understanding that the Chair will recognize our colleague who has been patiently waiting.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. So I say, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate adjourn under the provisions of H. Con. Res. 259, following the statement of our colleague, Senator Dayton, to speak for no longer than 20 minutes.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague. He is a very active member of the Armed Services Committee. Indeed, he did make reference to our excellent trip of nine Senators into Iraq, 3 days in country. It was a very important mission, defining exactly what I tried to enumerate in my remarks earlier, our responsibility to the men and women of the Armed Forces and their families. I thank the Senator.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. My concern is not just of today; it has been there for some significant period of time. This Senator has pressed the questions on that situation at every opportunity I have had to date. I will also reflect on the personal involvement I have had in addition to the period in Vietnam. When I first came to the Armed Services Committee, I worked under some of the greatest men I have ever known in the Senate: Scoop Jackson, John Stennis, Barry Goldwater, John Tower. I try, as best I can, in my duties as Senator today to draw on the wisdom they imparted to me in their teachings. Those men were historic in proportion to the Senate. I shall never achieve but a small fraction of their stature but, nevertheless, having the responsibility, I do my very best. I remember John Stennis asked me to work on a report for him of the effort we made to rescue the hostages illegally taken by the Government of Iran at the embassy. We all remember that challenge. The Pentagon prepared what I thought was a well thought through plan to rescue those hostages. It was the right thing to do. We put our military at great risk. It was a plan to use covert action and helicopters. I will not dwell on it because I did write that report for Senator Stennis. It is somewhere in the archives. The bottom line, a series of primarily mechanical failures, due to dust being taken into the intake systems, prevented the consummation of what I still to this day say could have been a successful operation. Certainly the heroics of the men involved who volunteered for that action were extraordinary. John Tower, when he was chairman, we went together, just the two of us, to Beirut shortly after the bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut, marines who were sent there for the best of purposes to try to alleviate the suffering. The tragic loss. Later, I was entrusted to work on the report for Somalia. My distinguished colleague, good friend, Carl Levin, and I went to Somalia. We worked on that report. It took us months to interview many individuals. How could we have experienced that tragic loss of men and women in our Armed Forces at the hands of savage attacks? That is a matter of record, the observations and conclusions Senator Levin and I put in that report. I don't want to take any more time of the Senate on what I personally have done. Many have done as much, if not more, in respective responsibilities, but I do draw on some experience. I am not hesitant to express my own concerns about some situations. If I were asked today, What should be done with respect to Liberia, I would simply say, I do not have the facts to make an informed decision. I hope in the executive branch there are those who do have sufficient facts to make an informed decision. Is this situation following the doctrine in our national security interests? I have even seen the word ``vital'' national security interests used. It has not been answered to my satisfaction. If we are going to make a departure from the doctrine, is that predicated on sound principles that equate, somehow, to violation of security interests? If so, should we state them? If so, should we explain to the people? I strongly believe, as I pointed out, that as we ask our men and women to take risks, we should, an as executive branch, as a legislative branch, have informed the American people, prepared the American--prepared them in a way to accept such losses as might occur. Has that been done? I fear, in my judgment, it has not been done. I have tried my best to respond to my constituents. I have been questioned about it a number of times. I do not have the facts to my satisfaction. But it is very clear throughout the history of that Vietnam experience, we should have, as I stated, gained the support of the general public, the support of the families of the men and women in the Armed Forces who must go in harm's way. That has not, to my satisfaction, been done. It is my hope that whatever decision process has to be made in the absence of the Congress will be made and carefully thought through. If we are going to depart from this doctrine on the use of force, if there are geopolitical pressures, if there are domestic political pressures-- whatever it is, spell it out: What were the factors taken into consideration to make such decisions as may--and I underline may--be made by the executive branch when the Congress is gone, assuming that some decisions will be made--I don't predict in any way what they may be, but assuming some decisions are made. Maybe the decision is not to be involved. I do fervently hope the Congress becomes engaged when we return, that we consider whether we have a resolution--first at the request of the administration, with the concurrence of the Senate leadership, and perhaps maybe some consultation with the committee chairmen and ranking members who are involved in the oversight committees--mine, Foreign Relations, certainly the Subcommittee on Appropriations, and others. So we go through a process. I was privileged--I remember it so well--in 1991 to be asked by then the distinguished leader, Robert Dole, to prepare a resolution for the utilization by the President of force in the Persian Gulf in the 1991 conflict. How well I remember that debate--3 days, 3 nights on this floor of the Senate and then the vote. And only by a margin of 5 votes did the Senate adopt a resolution in support of then the first President Bush to utilize force in that conflict. We had a larger vote with regard to the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. We had some closer votes. I worked on these resolutions and so forth and decisionmaking by the Congress in the Balkan situation. I watched, carefully, all of those matters as they were addressed by this body. Now, as we look at this situation in Liberia, we have a background of an ongoing conflict in Afghanistan and an ongoing conflict in Iraq. This mighty Nation is mourning the losses of uniformed members of the Armed Forces every week for some weeks now, doing the best we can individually to comfort and share the grief of the families. Just this week, one Senator approached me: His State suffered a loss, and how could we facilitate the interment that this brave soldier deserved in Arlington in a timely way? Those steps are being taken. But a number of Senators have approached me, and I am glad to help as best I can with this situation back home in the context of the loss of the brave men and women of the Armed Forces. This decision regarding Liberia could superimpose on those losses another level. It could. The risk, it seems to us, to be there--some of us who looked at this issue. Are we prepared as a nation to accept another circumstance in another theater that poses the threat of more casualties? I come back, is the United States of America--its citizens--prepared? Our Armed Forces today, in my humble judgment, are stretched. We have seen some questioning the morale. I happen to think the morale is quite high. The recruiting, to the everlasting credit of the American spirit, is still strong; the retention is still strong. The All-Volunteer Force has exceeded every expectation we had. I was privileged to be part of the framework in the Pentagon, under the leadership of a distinguished Secretary of Defense by the name of Melvin Laird, and a successor Secretary by the name of Jim Schlesinger, to envision and create and establish the All-Volunteer Force. It worked, and worked well. But that has its breaking points. Like everything else in life, it has its breaking points. I am not suggesting we have reached that limit, but we should never take our eye off the fact of that framework, that concept that everyone in uniform today is there because he or she has raised their arm and pledged allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and obligated themselves to accept the risks of military service. They do so thinking that the President, whoever that President may be, and the Congress, whatever the composition may be, are standing guard, protecting them and their families, protecting them and following the doctrine on the use of force, which presumably they have some knowledge of before accepting these obligations, that doctrine that I have enunciated and others have enunciated. That is a heavy obligation upon us. We have to make certain that, as these conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are concluded and the goals that we stated are reached--goals which enable both of those nations to achieve a measure of democracy and freedom that they never have had, certainly not in the last 30 years--after that, those successive goals--and there is no doubt that we must be steadfast in our resolve to achieve them--we have to make certain our Armed Forces remain strong to meet the unexpected contingencies that arise around the world. Those contingencies that could challenge the vital security interests of this Nation. That means a strong, active, All-Volunteer Force, a strong Guard and Reserve. We have to take those steps now to ensure that they are in place as we complete our mission in Afghanistan and Iraq, and indeed in many ways where our troops are throughout the world. I think they are on the border of being overdeployed and overextended, and we have to keep a very watchful eye. Early this week, the Secretary of Defense came up to the Hill along with General Keane and went over a rotation policy which is going to correct--and I repeat in their words--that ``some mistakes were made'' of late with regard to our troops currently engaged in the Iraqi conflict. I commend the general. He recognized that some mistakes have been made. They are going to correct them. I think now our forces will have a much clearer understanding, and their families--and I repeat--and their families will have a clear understanding as to their obligation. But always keep in mind that there is a tomorrow and a tomorrow, and what we do today in many ways establishes the foundation of what we can and cannot do on a tomorrow. I wish our President Godspeed to make his decision. And I am hopeful that this body will engage itself when it returns from this recess. Exhibit 2 u.s. senate committee on armed services Sir/Madam: There will be a meeting of the Committee on Armed Services, Room SR-325, the Caucus Room, Russell Senate Office Building, Thursday, July 24, 2003-9:30 a.m. To consider the following nominations: General Richard B. Myers, USAF, for reappointment as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and reappointment to the grade of general; and General Peter Pace, USMC, for reappointment as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and reappointment to the grade of general. The nominees will be present.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to address the Senate concerning my concern--I think there are others who feel similarly--about the crisis situation that is rapidly developing in Liberia and the decision framework that has confronted, is confronting, and will confront our Government. I carefully use the word ``Government'' because when men and women in the Armed Forces are sent into harm's way, there is a constitutional responsibility on the President as Commander in Chief and the principal architect of our foreign policy to make the decision to send them into harm's way. In no way in my 25 years in the Senate have I ever once questioned that constitutional authority. In fact, I will match my record--humble as it is--against any Member of this body with regard to participation in the war power debates, participation in the resolutions regarding the use of force, when we, as a body, are addressing our responsibilities with regard to the men and women of the Armed Forces. The President has a constitutional right. There is always debate, as reflected in the history of the War Powers Act, to what extent should he consult and, indeed, to what extent should he receive the specific concurrence of the Congress before exercising that very heavy responsibility. There are volumes written on this subject. But for simplicity, clarity, and brevity today, I simply say the Constitution gives that right to the President and should not be ever in question. To the extent that Congress has the opportunity, through consultation and through other actions working with the administration, I believe it is wise that Congress speak to this issue. About 4 weeks ago, I appeared on ``Meet the Press'' and somewhat indirectly referenced my concern about Liberia at that time. I expressed that the need to make a decision was coming down upon this Government, as indeed it has, and that it would be wise for the Congress to take a role. I cannot predict how this body would vote on it if it got to a vote. But I think the involvement of Congress when men and women go in harm's way is a very important responsibility as coequal branches of the Government, the executive and the legislative, and, indeed, an obligation. I have tried each day to spend some time on these issues. I read what I can from the press, which has been rather interesting and good coverage so far, and from other documents, official and otherwise. The complexity of this situation is really considerable. We do have these historical ties dating to the 1840s to this small country. At times, we have taken actions there. At times through the history of this country, we have sort of looked the other way. We have gone in before to try to quell disruption and violence, but I do not find a long history of strong involvement. We now have a despot who has been elected to the highest official post in that country, who has made representation that he will leave subject to certain contingencies. The President of the United States has indicated he wants to try and help the people subject, again, to the Liberian leader taking certain actions. This whole framework is quite unclear. The Secretary General of the United Nations visited here 2 weeks ago. I was privileged to sit in a small meeting hosted by the distinguished majority leader, at which time we expressed our views. He was quite concerned, as I am quite concerned--I think everybody is quite concerned who has followed this--about the extraordinary dimensions of human suffering, there is no dispute about that, human suffering as a consequence of the frightful public record of the current leader in Liberia, that leader who has indicated he is willing to leave. As I stand here addressing the Senate, on orders from the President, a very significant force, largely of marines, has progressed from the Horn of Africa around to the Mediterranean and is approaching, probably in the next 72 hours, a location somewhere off the coast of Liberia, where the ships will be positioned to await such further orders as the President may direct. Now, what of the role of the Congress? As chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I had hearings--at least a briefing--at my request on July 8. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs provided a very fine team of briefers where my committee, in S-407, heard their reports. A day or so ago, recognizing the Congress would soon be leaving for its August recess, I felt it wise to set a second briefing of the Armed Services Committee to which I invited really anyone in the Senate who wished to join, and also specifically a group of Senators, of which I am one, who soon will be embarking on a trip to the African continent. I was privileged to be included in that trip and expressed an interest to go primarily because of my concerns of national security in that region and the impending Liberian conflict. It had been my expectation that several of those Senators would have joined today had that briefing gone ahead. Yesterday afternoon, the Department of Defense, following the regular procedures we always follow, sent up the names of three briefers--2 from the Joint Staff and one from OSD policy--and it all seemed to be ready to go this morning when quite unexpectedly we received word from the Department of Defense that the briefers would not come. I will not dwell further on that procedure. I will say in my 25 years in the Senate, it is most unusual to conduct our affairs in that way between the Senate and the Department of Defense. Indeed, I am not sure I know of a precedent of that type of abrupt cancellation, but I will put that to one side and press on. I did feel it would have been helpful, certainly, to this Senator and several others--I know one or two on the Foreign Relations Committee yesterday expressed to me their concerns of where could they get information. Both of those Senators were invited to attend this morning. One of them is on the Subcommittee on African Affairs and he expressed to me his concern and asked how best he could get involved in learning more. I will move on now to this question about the seriousness of this problem. This type of civil war, regrettably, has persisted in Liberia for many years. There are essentially three factions now. There is one faction to the sort of fragile, if almost inconsequential, government that is in place today with this despotic leader. Then there is a group to the south that refers to themselves as the Model, M-O-D-E-L. There is a group in the north that refers to themselves as the Lurd, L U-R-D. Both of them are a mixture of groups of Liberians and others from other areas. Both groups are now converging on the central part of the country, Monrovia, and we have witnessed this outbreak once again of civil war and the devastation being wrought on innocent civilians. So what to do about it? Again, I am not prepared to give a clear answer. I would presume the administration is proceeding and in due course will share this information, but it is likely one or more decisions will be made in the absence of the Congress in formal session, so that concerns me because I feel strongly that congressional involvement in this situation is very important. I go back to our obligation to the men and women in the Armed Forces. Once this military force--that is the force at sea--is on station, I anticipate that will increase the international pressure on our Government--and I continue to use the phrase ``government''--to become more actively involved and send these forces in. Again, under the Constitution, the President has every right to make that decision on his own initiative, with or without consultation with the Congress, and to proceed. In doing that, I call the attention of the Senate to the military doctrine that has evolved since Vietnam. It was my privilege to serve in the Department of Defense for over 5 years during the Vietnam conflict as Navy Secretary. That period of history is indelibly etched in my memory, a period of history which reflected the Congress breaking away from successive administrations that were involved in that conflict, and the animosity in the Congress against the Department of Defense. I shared my burden of that animosity, along with three Secretaries of Defense whom I served with in that period. Two remain very dear friends and valued advisers to me to this day. The third has passed on. Out of that conflict, America began to examine the criteria by which this Nation should send men and women in uniform into harm's way--a very introspective, deep reflection on the tragic losses. My recollection is close to 50,000 men and women gave their lives in that conflict in Vietnam, and many more were wounded. So often in the evening hours of our duties in the Pentagon in those days, I would, as did the other service Secretaries, call families and attend funerals. I frequently met with groups regarding their deep concern about that conflict and their losses. I remember meeting with the wives of the prisoners of war on regular occasions. Then this country unfortunately, in many respects, turned its discontent on the men and women of the Armed Forces themselves. When they would return home from their tours of duty in Vietnam, indeed there were instances in commands in the European theater of breakdown in discipline and morale, because of the uncertainty surrounding that conflict, the enormity of the casualities that we would take. I mentioned the background because it was important America sit down and reflect on those criteria that Presidents--and indeed to the extent the Congress renders its approval--that Presidents and the Congress should follow. A brief summary of that doctrine would be that military action should be used only as a last resort and only if there is a clear risk to national security interests of the United States of America; and at times we take into consideration the security interests of our valued allies. So, is there a clear risk to national security by the intended target of our military action? What measure is the risk to the uniformed American? What measure is the risk to his or her life and limb? The force when used should be overwhelming and disproportionate to the force used by the enemy. There must be strong support for the campaign by the general American public and there must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict in which the military is engaged. I have generalized this but I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record following my statement a very important set of guidelines for the use of force that have been articulated through the years by our distinguished Secretary of State, Colin Powell--the so-called ``Powell Doctrine.''

Mr. WARNER. I have fairly stated the basic precedents that I embrace wholeheartedly. The Members of the Senate, in general, embrace these precedents. Therefore, I pose rhetorically the question: As the decision process is made at this time, given the Congress will be out of town, that process will be made by the executive branch, the President of the United States, assuming, as he does, full accountability, will those criteria for the use of force be the guideline or are we somehow going to make a departure, and if so, what is that departure? I fully recognize the dimension of human suffering today and the potential for even greater human suffering tomorrow, perhaps the next day. But at the same time, I fully recognize to the best I have been able to assertain, and I have not been able to assertain it to my complete satisfaction, but there will be an element of risk. I have asked not one, not two, but half a dozen distinguished military officers--some active duty, some not--whether they share my concern that there will be a measure of risk should we send troops into Liberia. I made reference to this in hearings we have had in the Armed Services Committee in connection with the reappointment of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Myers and of the Vice Chairman, General Pace. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an excerpt from renomination hearing.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Gregg substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill be read a third time; that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 13, and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that all after the enacting clause be stricken, and the text of S. 888, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that S. 888 be returned to the calendar, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Now, in the category of appointment authority, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the recess or adjournment of the Senate, the President of the Senate, the Senate's President pro tempore, and the majority and minority leaders be authorized to make appointments to commissions, committees, boards, conferences, or interparliamentary conferences authorized by law, by concurrent action of the two Houses, or by order of the Senate.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, September 2. I further ask that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin consideration of Calendar No. 197, H.R. 2660, the Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill, as provided under the previous order.

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 rise today to commend the distinguished service and leadership of Colonel David L. Hansen, who has ably served for the past 2 years as the district engineer for the Norfolk District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. COL Hansen will soon assume new responsibilities as the Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Resource Management at the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, VA. As he moves on to these new challenges, I want to convey my personal appreciation and the gratitude of all Virginians for his many accomplishments, and commitment to fulfilling the mission of the Corps of Engineers to provide superior planning, engineering, construction and conservation of our valuable water resources. In his brief tenure as district engineer, COL Hansen led the Corps in effective disaster response to many communities, particularly the city of Franklin, in helping them rebuild from the devastating flooding of Hurricane Floyd. He led the Corps in proceeding with the modernization of Hampton Roads Harbor with his initiatives that have resulted in the construction of the 50-foot outbound channel so that Virginia remains competitive with the world's leading ports and is ready to serve the next generation of cargo vessels. COL Hansen's hallmark has been in executing the Corps mission to protect and restore our environmental resources and he leaves us with a solid foundation to build upon in the years ahead. Through his unwavering determination, Virginians will soon enjoy a free-flowing Rappahannock River for 106 miles from the Chesapeake Bay to the Blue Ridge Mountains. The removal of the Embrey Dam at Fredericksburg has been a project that I am dedicated to completing, and COL Hansen's leadership has ensured that this will begin next February. The Chesapeake 2000 Agreement renewed the Federal-State partnership to restore and improve the management of the living resources of the Chesapeake Bay. Immediately, COL Hansen took the goals of the agreement and put them into action. A central feature of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement that I am actively involved with is the tenfold increase in native oyster stocks over the next 10 years. To accomplish this, we have pursued an unprecedented effort to build three-dimensional oyster reefs in traditional oyster grounds throughout the bay. COL Hansen has taken up this challenge with unprecedented energy and commitment to coordinate Federal and State policymakers and scientists. These are just a few examples of COL Hansen's leadership in working with private organizations, State and local governments and other Federal agencies to ensure the Corps responds effectively to natural disasters, water resource development, and environmental initiatives. He embodies the finest traditions of the Corps of Engineers and the principles of public service. We thank him for his service to our Nation and Virginia, and wish him and his family every success in his new assignment.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of the great capabilities that one of the institutions of my State can offer to our Nation in homeland security, and ask my distinguished colleague from Mississippi to consider it as he proceeds through the budget cycle. That institution, the Virginia Military Institute, has for over 163 years provided a unique environment to develop young men and women into citizen-soldiers--leaders with the broad skills necessary to keep America and its values secure regardless of the threats we may face. In the wake of September 11, 2001, new challenges have arisen for our Nation, not only to our physical well-being but also to the social and moral fabric of our society. As in the past, VMI is responding to help safeguard our country, by preparing civilian, government, and corporate leaders to succeed on the new domestic battlefields of the 21st century. To do so, VMI and the Commonwealth of Virginia are undertaking the establishment of the Center for Preparedness and Homeland Security, which will bring together Federal, State, military, business, and community leaders to undertake research, and develop new policy and response mechanisms to secure our homeland. It will engage in educational curriculum development, training and outreach programs, and national conferences to disseminate policy best-practices as widely as possible. In addition, VMI has already been asked to join one of the handful of distinguished educational institutions compromising the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium, one of this country's most important assets for training and policy development in the first-responder communities. Although no additional funding will be available for individual projects through this bill, I have been informed by the Appropriations committee that a new program will be established under the Office of Domestic Preparedness in FY04 for Emergency Training Grants, providing a sum of $60 million in peer-reviewed competitive grants to develop new capabilities for first-responders and disaster planning. I can offhand think of no educational program which would fit more appropriately into this mission area, and I will strongly encourage VMI to apply for a share of this funding. I would also ask my distinguished colleague from Mississippi to look at the valuable contributions VMI can make in this area and give every consideration appropriate to provide an opportunity for this great institution to secure reasonable resources.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I understand that S. 11 is at the desk and is due for its second reading.

Mr. WARNER. On behalf of the majority leader, I object to further proceedings on the measure.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I acknowledge that, as a body, we have just promoted Captain of the U.S. Navy Mark Ferguson to the rank of admiral. He will receive that promotion in due course. I hope to be present. Many Senators know Mark Ferguson. Perhaps their first recollection of him as a young officer is he was an aide-de-camp to the NATO Supreme Allied Commander. In that capacity, he made many visits to the offices of Senators, and on the occasions when General Clark was hosting congressional delegations in the NATO command area, this wonderful naval officer was integral in making the arrangements. He is a marvelous family man, what we call a black-shoe naval officer, which means he is proud of the shoes he has worn on the decks of all types of surface vessels throughout his career. He is a sailor's sailor and brings to this new post a marvelous background of achievement. We wish him and his family well in his new post as a young frocked admiral, which will take place during the course of this summer.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, just a day or so ago the Armed Services Committee, as is its responsibility, held a nearly 4-hour hearing on the nomination of General Abizaid, U.S. Army, for appointment to the grade of full general. Within days, a change of command will take place such that he will succeed General Franks as the Commander of the U.S. Central Command. I think General Franks has performed his duties with extraordinary professionalism, courage, and conviction, and his strength of mind and knowledge were an inspiration to all members of the Armed Forces who served in his command throughout the ongoing operations in Afghanistan and the ongoing operations in Iraq. I have come to know General Franks quite well. He is a lovely individual--he has his soft side--a marvelous husband, and he has a wife who has given him enormous support throughout his long and distinguished career in the Army. We are fortunate now to have an individual whom General Franks encouraged the President and the Secretary of Defense to have succeed him, and that is General Abizaid. General Abizaid will have as his responsibility the Central Command which extends from Africa right up to the European sector where it abuts with General Jones's role as the Chief of U.S. Forces in that area. He served as General Franks's principal deputy in the planning and execution of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The committee, in the course of the hearings, was very complimentary of both General Franks and General Abizaid and their staff and particularly the men and women in the Armed Forces who executed their plans, especially in the historic, stunning, 17-day advance to Baghdad that led to the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime. We all recognized throughout that hearing, as we did this morning in our briefings with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and GEN Peter Pace, that this operation is continuing in terms of the risks to the men and women in the Armed Forces every hour of the day. They are courageously facing those risks, and we must stay the course in this situation. General Abizaid, throughout his hearing, repeatedly said he is prepared to pick up the responsibilities of General Franks and stay that course and bring, from the military perspective, the fastest possible conclusion to the hostilities, such that Ambassador Bremer, working in parallel with CENTCOM, can reestablish a form of government under the control of the Iraqi people, and to bring to the Iraqi people the basic necessities of life, be it electricity, sewage, or otherwise. Now, the most challenging phase of the military operation, as we said in the course of the hearings, really once the major combat was secured, was finally bringing the situation under control to provide a sense of security throughout Iraq, and that is being done. We are making progress. He assured us that progress is being made and that he has the experience to carry it forward with his long distinguished career in the Army. He has been a part of the Central Command officer corps on four occasions in his career. So he does have extraordinary background, a unique background, to take on this responsible post. He was joined by his lovely wife Kathleen in the course of the confirmation proceedings. He was so respectful to his wife, which the record reflects. They have three children, all of whom are of adult age now, who are actively working one way or another in the cause of freedom in various parts of the world. He also brings experience with regard to joint duty, joint responsibilities. That means the combined efforts of the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marine Corps, and such other areas of military participation. I want to pay tribute to the civilians in the Department of Defense. They, too, are present throughout Iraq and accepting a very high level of risk in supporting the troops in their missions. His prior assignments were as Director of the Joint Staff, Director for Strategic Plans and Policy, J-5, on the Joint Staff, and a participant in joint operations in Kosovo and Bosnia, and in northern Iraq following Operation Desert Storm. He was integral in that situation. All of this eminently qualifies him for the challenges of commanding general of the U.S. Central Command. He brings a unique perspective to this post. He is truly an expert and a student in this region. He is currently serving his fifth tour of duty in the Middle East. He is fluent in Arabic and has a proud--and I underline this, a proud--family heritage closely tied to the cultures of this region of the world. He is the son of a man who served this Nation as an enlisted man in the U.S. Navy in World War II. So he comes from a family with longstanding service to this Nation. I had the joy of talking with his wife, and we reminisced about how her father was a medical doctor, serving in the combat zones of France in World War I, as did my father serve as a doctor in the Fifth Division in the trenches in France in World War I. That concludes my remarks with regard to General Abizaid. I am pleased this morning that the Senate has confirmed him and we will shortly notify the President. Nomination of Mark E. Ferguson III

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am deeply moved this morning, as are Senators all over America today--not only those who are present in the Senate, but so many who have gone on from the Senate to other careers-- about the loss of our distinguished colleague Senator Thurmond. I think it is coincidental, and indeed most fitting, that the Presiding Officer in the Chamber this morning is the son of the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, Senator John Chafee. I first met Senator Thurmond when I joined then the Secretary of the Navy, John Chafee, as his principal deputy and in later years to succeed him. Really, our first call was to come to the Senate to meet with Richard Russell, John Stennis, Strom Thurmond, John Tower, and Barry Goldwater. I remember our calls as the brand-new team of the Secretary of the Navy during the height of the war in Vietnam--at least one of the periods of great intensity--was in 1969. Senator Thurmond greeted us in his office in the same way that he greeted me throughout my 25 years in the Senate. Each of those years--except since his retirement in January that I shared with him, as did John Chafee and others--it was a learning experience every day you were with him. I stop to think of the men and women of the Armed Forces today all across the world, engaged in fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, and guarding the outposts of freedom. They have not lost Strom Thurmond because they have the wealth of the memories of him. I don't know of any class of individual--perhaps other than his immediate family--for whom Senator Thurmond had a deeper or more abiding love and devotion than those in uniform. This record last night covered briefly his distinguished military career, and I don't doubt others will address that. But we always remember that he was a judge in the State of South Carolina. By virtue of his age at that time--I think right on the brink of 40, give or take a year--he would not have been subjected to the draft. He would not, by virtue of his judicial position, have had to leave that position and go into the Armed Forces--other than by his own free will. He resigned his judicial post to go into the ranks of the U.S. Army, where he served with great distinction, going in on D-Day with the airborne assault divisions, landing, helping those who were wounded--that was his first call--and then marshaling the forces to mount the offensive against the German army, and going through those matters until victory in May of 1945. When we walked into his office, two things always struck me. One was the portrait that was obviously painted in the period when he was Governor--straight, tall, and erect, eyes that were penetrating, eyes that reflected a tremendous inner confidence and conviction, but eyes that had a soft side, because he did have a soft side. He loved humor. He was very often the object of a lot of humor, including respectfully from this humble Senator. But what a tower of strength. I served with him these many years on the committee as really an aide-de-camp--yes, a fellow Senator, but I was happy to be ``general'' Strom Thurmond's aide-de-camp on many missions--missions that took me abroad on occasions when he was chairman, and missions from which I learned so much at the hand of the great master on the subject of national events. He was unwavering in his steadfast support of Presidents, be they Democrat or Republican, and unwavering in his resolve for the care of the men and women in uniform on active duty, their families, the retirees. And, oh, Mr. President, did he love the National Guard. There wasn't a bill that went through the Armed Services Committee and conference when he wouldn't tug on my shoulder and say let's beef up a little bit for the Guard and Reserve here. Remember, in times of crisis, they are among the first to respond. That bit of wisdom has proven ever so true. Going back to the Balkans campaign, the Guard was actively engaged at all levels of that campaign. The Air Guard, for example, flew so many of the missions carrying food, medicine, and other supplies to the ravaged civilians and others in Sarajevo. I remember I joined one time in one of those missions. I remember it so well because the plane behind ours was shot down and lost--just to point up the risks that those Air Guard took on those missions. Now, today, in Operation Iraqi freedom, worldwide against terrorism, once again the Guard and Reserve are in the forefront--a Guard and Reserve that have benefited through the many years of Strom Thurmond being a Senator and receiving a fair allocation of equipment and money, often in competition with the regular forces. But Strom Thurmond was there with his watchful eye on the Armed Services Committee to ensure that degree of fairness for the Guard and Reserve. He rose to the rank of major general. I mentioned his portrait as you walked in. Then, in a very discreet way, there was a large frame that contained all of his many decorations. He rarely talked about them. As a matter of fact, only after one tried to elicit facts from him would he share facts about the combat of war and what he received in World War II, and the other recognitions by our Government and other governments for his contribution to freedom worldwide. So I say to my dear friend--really a big brother--I thank him for all he has done for the world, for the Nation, for this humble Senator and, I daresay, many others of my comtemporaries, as we came along in this institution on the learning curve that was often at the hands of Strom Thurmond. My final thoughts are with his family, his wife and children, all of whom I have known throughout these years, and with whom I have had the privilege so often to be photographed, from little sizes all the way up, as we do through the years with our colleagues. But I know the Presiding Officer's father, were he here today, would join in the most fervent and heartfelt expressions with regard to our comrad, our colleague, our dear friend, Strom Thurmond.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this morning we had another meeting organized by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Staff, General Pace, together with representatives from the intelligence agencies. This is the third time Secretary Rumsfeld has been to the Senate this week. He has been in close consultation with the Senate during these perilous days for our Armed Forces around the world, and most particularly in Iraq. Our discussions, by necessity, were largely related to classified matters and were behind closed doors. I do share with my colleagues two thoughts. I sensed by those colleagues--quite of number--who joined us this morning a heartfelt concern for the men and women of the Armed Forces who, around the clock, 7 days, 7 nights, are in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, most particularly, and we share in the bereavement of their families for those who are lost from time to time. Steadfast this Nation must remain in its resolve to bring to a conclusion the hostilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, such that the peoples of those two countries can themselves create a government free of oppression and persecution to enable them to have a very large measure of freedoms, freedoms we enjoy in the form of democracy, beginning with speech, privacy, and a sense of security in their homes, in their workplaces, and in the nation. This is a long and courageous struggle worldwide, headed by, if I may say most respectfully, a very strong and courageous President of the United States, George Bush, and those principal deputies and many others right down to the privates, sailors, airmen, and marines who are making possible this freedom throughout the world. We will stay the course. We will meet every challenge. We shall not waiver in the mission of this country. I just pray and hope the American people have a complete and full understanding of the risks they are taking and the absolutely essential requirement that this Nation continue its leadership and succeed.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on today's Executive Calendar: Calendar No. 248, the nomination of LTG John P. Abizaid to be General; and Calendar Nos. 254 through 277, and all nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Air Force, the Army, and the Navy. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Now, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period for morning business to be determined by the leadership. It is hoped during that period of time that Senators can make themselves available to speak with respect on our late colleague Senator Strom Thurmond.

Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, July 8, the time determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of Calendar No. 227, the nomination of David Campbell to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona, provided that the Senate then proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination with no intervening action or debate. I further ask consent that following the vote, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.