John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. On my time, Mr. President, I commend my colleague, a strong member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Senator Pat Roberts, likewise, who is on our committee, and Senator Smith, a former member of the committee. These three Senators have involved our committee in this as well. And, I think, heretofore, the Intelligence Committee has taken a very active role. Senator Levin and I are both appreciative of their efforts on this issue on behalf of the committee. We thank them. I yield such time to the Senator from Montana as he may require.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for his remarks, most particularly the concluding remarks about that period during Vietnam. It was my privilege to serve along with the men and women in that period as Secretary of the Navy. I remember so well how they were received back home, in sharp contrast to the generation in which I had a modest association in World War II. With open arms were they welcomed home. I share your sentiments. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. At this time I yield as much time to Senator Ensign as he may require.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield such time as our distinguished colleague from Oklahoma may require. I might also say Senators Ensign, Burns, the Presiding Officer Senator Alexander, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Senator Allard, we are looking forward to their coming to the floor, in that sequence, on our side. We will alternate with my colleague. I alert my colleagues, this debate is moving right along and we are anxious to keep it going.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield a moment? I remember so well when we had last year's authorization bill on the floor. The distinguished Senator from Michigan and I time and again sought Senator Reid's assistance to keep that bill going, to reconcile issues such as health care, current receipts, the BRAC process, and other very strong issues. So the Senator has been a full honorary member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I recognize that I have the opportunity to work on this debate with my distinguished colleague, Senator Levin. We have served together, now, this is our 25th year on the Senate Armed Services Committee. I say to my colleague, I know of no debate of greater significance than the one we are about to undertake at a critical hour not only in the history of the United States but the history of the world. It would be helpful if I were to undertake to read the resolution that is at the desk that hopefully will be voted on by the Senate in a very short period of time after all Senators have had the opportunity to express themselves. The resolution is entitled ``Commending the President and the Armed Forces of the United States of America,'' submitted by Senators Frist, Daschle, Warner and Levin. Whereas Saddam Hussein has failed to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 949, 1051, 1060, 1115, 1134, 1137, 1154, 1194, 1205, 1284, and 1441; The most historic of all, in my judgment, resolution 1441, which received the unanimous vote of all Security Council members, 15-- Whereas the military action now underway against Iraq is lawful and fully authorized by the Congress in Sec. 3(a) of Public Law 107-243, which passed the Senate on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 77-23, and which passed the House of Representatives on that same date by a vote of 296-133; Whereas more than 225,000 men and women of the United States Armed Forces are now involved in conflict against Iraq; Whereas over 200,000 members of the Reserves and National Guard have been called to active duty for the conflict against Iraq and other purposes; and Whereas the Congress and the American people have the greatest pride in the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, and the civilian personnel supporting them, and strongly support them in their efforts; Now therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that Congress-- (1) commends and supports the efforts and leadership of the President, as Commander in Chief, in the conflict against Iraq; (2) commends, and expenses the gratitude of the Nation to all members of the United States Armed Forces (whether on active duty, in the National Guard, or in the Reserves) and the civilian employees who support their efforts, as well as the men and women of civilian national security agencies who are participating in the military operations in the Persian Gulf region, for their professional excellence, dedicated patriotism and exemplary bravery; (3) commends and expresses the gratitude of the Nation to the family members of soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and civilians serving in operations against Iraq who have borne the burden of sacrifice and separation from their loved ones; (4) expresses its deep condolences to the families of brave Americans who have lost their lives in this noble undertaking, over many years, against Iraq; (5) joins all Americans in remembering those who lost their lives during Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm in 1991, those still missing from that conflict, including Captain Scott Speicher, USN, and the thousands of Americans who have lost their lives in terrorist attacks over the years, and in the Global War in Terrorism; and (6) expresses sincere gratitude to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his government for their courageous and steadfast support, as well as gratitude to other allied nations for their military support, logistical support, and other assistance in the campaign against Saddam Hussein's regime. Mr. President, today in Iraq, in Afghanistan, on the high seas, at the far corners of the world, and here at home, our forces, active duty and reserve components alike, are confronting the oppression, tyranny, and terrorism that plagues and threatens the world and our Nation. I am so enormously proud of our military and their leaders who fashioned a force unlike any the world has ever known, a force capable of delivering overwhelming might anytime, anywhere, if necessary. Just weeks ago my distinguished colleague, Senator Levin, and I, together with Senator Roberts and Senator Rockefeller, were privileged to visit many of these troops in that region, Qatar, Kuwait, and other areas. A disciplined force this is, able to employ measured steps in an honorable and decent manner to ensure that everything possible is done to provide for the humanitarian and security needs of an innocent people, the people of Iraq. Truly the force has never seen an opportunity such as this, and it is under the command not only of our President but of officers of the United States, Great Britain, Australia, and indeed more. A decision to commit our sons and daughters to combat is never an easy one. Clearly, our President anguished over this decision. I was privileged to meet with him, with the leadership here just days ago. Clearly, he showed his steadfastness, his courage, his wisdom, his very balanced thinking, as he conducted himself with the advice of others, to reach this decision, which he did last night. We in the Congress debated this solemn responsibility to authorize the use of force last October. We took our constitutional responsibility seriously. We thoroughly examined the circumstances and voted overwhelmingly, 77 to 23, to authorize the Commander in Chief to use military force if, and only if, he determined that all diplomatic efforts to peacefully disarm Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime had been fulfilled. I personally think he did that and did it brilliantly. Those efforts, unfortunately, did not result in a Security Council resolution of unity, as it did with 15 votes in October. The Security Council became deadlocked for reasons we all know. It is important to note, however, that our President expended extraordinary efforts to bring this clear and growing threat to the attention of the United Nations and to try to build that consensus for a unified way to proceed. The United Nations was unable to step up to its responsibilities of enforcing its own mandates largely because of the intransigence of a very few nations to block any form of meaningful enforcement of these U.N. Security Council resolutions. The failure of the United Nations to step up to its responsibilities is most unfortunate, for the United Nations at this time in its long history of over 50 years is facing a challenge unlike any before, with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, particularly those of nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula, Iran, and other areas of the world. This could have been their finest hour. Our President has stepped up to his responsibilities to protect the American people from a grave and growing threat to our national security. Ultimately, the President's constitutional responsibility is to the American people. He made the determination that Saddam Hussein, armed with weapons of mass destruction, is an imminent threat to the security of the people of this Nation and, indeed, other nations. His most sacred responsibility is to protect the American people. The Congress, as a coequal branch of Government, has fulfilled, in my judgment, its constitutional responsibilities by giving the President the authority he needs to do so. Now the effort has begun to liberate Iraq, restore a secure environment, and ultimately bring a lasting peace with justice and representative democratic principles to a land that has known little peace throughout its history. Our forces are capable of helping Iraqis realize this dream. I have no doubt our forces will conduct themselves in a very responsible way. Our forces, supported by countless civilian employees and by families and loved ones back home, and joined by forces and support from many other nations--over 30, Mr. President--as a coalition to liberate Iraq, will prevail. We are all hopeful that this operation can be conducted with minimum loss of life, with minimum casualties, with minimum destruction and hardship. We must await that outcome. We must be prepared, however, for a broad and concerted effort that may take longer and involve more sacrifice than some have predicted. We cannot and will not waiver from our resolve to bring freedom and hope to this troubled Nation and to rid the world of this threat to regional and global security. I, again, salute our men and women in uniform, their families, and those who support them in this noble effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed under the time allocated to the distinguished majority leader, which I am privileged to manager.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before our distinguished leaders depart the floor, I wish to say as one Senator, I am very proud that the differences have been reconciled and that this resolution bears both of your distinguished names and that we will strive to have unity in this Chamber and to have a very constructive and clear debate as a message to the men and women of the armed forces, their families and, indeed, the whole world.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend our distinguished majority leader for his very heartfelt remarks. We were together last night at the meeting with the President. It was a somber meeting. But, clearly, the President is a man at peace with himself and has inner confidence. He has carefully gone about the decisionmaking to arrive at the decision he made last night and such decisions as he may make here in the ensuing hours and days to come. But most especially, in the minds of all of us last night were the men and women of the Armed Forces and their families. The distinguished leader has spoken most eloquently about them. Because, in the end, together with a large group of civilians who are employed in the various agencies and Departments of our Government, they must bear the risk, the brunt of such force as may be used against them. So I am privileged to stand here with my distinguished leader today. I, too, am concerned about the remarks of some of our colleagues. I found some of those remarks to be, in my judgment, a disbelief. I could not believe they were said. But bottom line, this morning, in the Armed Services Committee, in a formal meeting of the committee, I invited each Senator present, on both sides of the aisle, to address opening statements on the events of the last 24, 48 hours. I say to my distinguished leader and to my colleagues, I felt their responses were very responsible and, indeed, showing support for the men and women in the Armed Forces and the Commander in Chief, who must make those decisions to lead them. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support, once again, of America's teachers by joining with Senator Collins in introducing the Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2003. Senator Collins and I have worked closely for some time now in support of legislation to provide our teachers with tax relief in recognition of the many out-of-pocket expenses they incur as part of their profession. In the 107th Congress, we were successful in providing much needed tax relief for our Nation's teachers with passage of H.R. 3090, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002. This legislation, which was signed into law by President Bush, included the Collins/Warner Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2001 provisions that provided a $250 above-the-line deduction for educators who incur out-of-pocket expenses for supplies they bring into the classroom to better the education of their students. These important provisions will provide almost half a billion dollars worth of tax relief to teachers all across America over the next two years. While these provisions will provide substantial relief to America's teachers, our work is not yet complete. It is now estimated that the average teacher spends $521 out of his or her own pocket each year on classroom materials--materials such as pens, pencils and books. First-year teachers spend even more, averaging $701 a year on classroom expenses. Why do they do this? Simply because school budgets are not adequate to meet the costs of education. Our teachers dip into their own pocket to better the education of America's youth. Moreover, in addition to spending substantial money on classroom supplies, many teachers spend even more money out of their own pocket on professional development. Such expenses include tuition, fees, books, and supplies associated with courses that help our teachers become even better instructors. The fact is that these out-of-pocket costs place lasting financial burdens on our teachers. This is one reason our teachers are leaving the profession. Little wonder that our country is in the midst of a teacher shortage. Without a doubt, the Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2001 took a step forward in helping to alleviate the Nation's teaching shortage by providing a $250 above-the-line deduction for classroom expenses. However, it is clear that our teachers are spending much more than $250 a year out of their own pocket to better the education of our children. Accordingly, Senator Collins and I have joined together to take another step forward by introducing the Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2003. This legislation will build upon current law in three ways. The legislation will: No. 1, increase the above-the-line deduction for educators from $250 allowed under current law to $500; No. 2, allow educators to include professional development costs within that $500 deduction. Under current law, up to $250 is deductible but only for classroom expenses; and No. 3, make the Teacher Tax relief provisions in the law permanent. Current law sunsets the Collins/Warner provisions after 2 years. Our teachers have made a personal commitment to educate the next generation and to strengthen America. In my view, the Federal Government should recognize the many sacrifices our teachers make in their career. The Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2003 is another step forward in providing our educators with the recognition they deserve.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to provide some relief for our Nation's retired Federal employees from the severe increases in Federal Employee Health Benefit, FEHB, program premiums. This measure extends premium conversion to federal and military retirees, allowing them to pay their health insurance premiums with pre-tax dollars. Over 9 million Federal employees, retirees and their families are covered under FEHBP. In 2003 premiums are expected to rise an average of 11 percent, the third year in a row the average increase has exceeded 10 percent. The increasing cost of health care is a critical issue, especially to retirees living on a fixed income. The 2003 Cost of Living Adjustment, COLA, for Federal civil service annuitants is only 1.4 percent, the lowest since a 1.3 percent increase in 1999. The modest COLA is completely diminished by increased health care costs. In the fall of 2000 premium conversion became available to current federal employees who participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. It is a benefit already available to many private sector employees. While premium conversion does not directly affect the amount of the FEHBP premium, it helps to offset some of the increase by reducing an individual's federal tax liability. Extending this benefit to federal retirees requires a change in the tax law, specifically Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code. This legislation makes the necessary change in the tax code. Under the legislation, the benefit is concurrently afforded to our Nation's military retirees as well to assist with increasing health care costs. A number of organizations representing Federal and military retirees are strongly behind this initiative, including the National Association of Retired Federal Employees, the Military Coalition, the Fleet Reserve Association, and the Association of the U.S. Army. I encourage my colleagues to support this critical legislation and show their support for our Nation's dedicated Federal civilian and military retirees. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to provide some relief for our Nation's retired Federal employees from the severe increases in Federal Employee Health Benefit, FEHB, program premiums. This measure extends premium conversion to federal and military retirees, allowing them to pay their health insurance premiums with pre-tax dollars. Over 9 million Federal employees, retirees and their families are covered under FEHBP. In 2003 premiums are expected to rise an average of 11 percent, the third year in a row the average increase has exceeded 10 percent. The increasing cost of health care is a critical issue, especially to retirees living on a fixed income. The 2003 Cost of Living Adjustment, COLA, for Federal civil service annuitants is only 1.4 percent, the lowest since a 1.3 percent increase in 1999. The modest COLA is completely diminished by increased health care costs. In the fall of 2000 premium conversion became available to current federal employees who participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. It is a benefit already available to many private sector employees. While premium conversion does not directly affect the amount of the FEHBP premium, it helps to offset some of the increase by reducing an individual's federal tax liability. Extending this benefit to federal retirees requires a change in the tax law, specifically Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code. This legislation makes the necessary change in the tax code. Under the legislation, the benefit is concurrently afforded to our Nation's military retirees as well to assist with increasing health care costs. A number of organizations representing Federal and military retirees are strongly behind this initiative, including the National Association of Retired Federal Employees, the Military Coalition, the Fleet Reserve Association, and the Association of the U.S. Army. I encourage my colleagues to support this critical legislation and show their support for our Nation's dedicated Federal civilian and military retirees. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WARNER. You brought up the very important case of George Washington's nomination, Rutledge, who had been a constitutional Framer, and his colleagues in this Chamber, some of whom were constitutional Framers, turned him down, correct--but they did it by a vote. Am I not correct on that?

Mr. WARNER. I say to my colleague--

Mr. WARNER. You brought up the history of Rutledge. I discussed this at length last night on the Senate floor.

Mr. WARNER. I ask if the manager will give me a minute or two?

Mr. WARNER. That is the essence of what we are trying to establish here, namely that a vote is what the Framers envisioned when they put in the supermajority, as the Senator from South Carolina put it. They did not put a supermajority in for nominations, the concept being that the President and the Senate would work together. Otherwise, the President could thwart the process by putting no one up for judicial nomination, thinking that the Senate would be arbitrary, and the Senate could arbitrarily, as I think we are doing now, turn them down. As I mentioned last night on the Senate floor, unless we work together under the doctrine of checks and balances, which is inherent in the Constitution, we could thwart the ability of this Nation having any Federal judiciary.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 45, I voted nay, and it was my intention to vote aye. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I inquire of the Presiding Officer, are we now automatically returned to the period of time allocated to the pending nomination for the circuit court of appeals?

Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer. Mr. President, article II, section 2 of the Constitution provides that the President: Shall nominate by, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States. . . . As I read that historic phrase, and reflect and study on the history behind it, I reach the conclusion that these are coequal powers as it relates to the Federal judiciary responsibilities. They are balanced powers and, as such, they give strength to that time-honored doctrine of checks and balances between the three separate but coequal branches of our Federal Government. The debate before us today goes to the very heart of our Constitution and the doctrine of checks and balances. As such, we should examine the very roots of our Republic to determine these respective responsibilities of the three branches of our Government. The magnificence of the ``great experiment,'' a term used by the skeptics of the work of our Founding Fathers, is what has enabled our Republic to stand today, after over 200 years, as the longest surviving democratic form of government still in existence. I remember one time I used that phrase in an audience of some very erudite individuals. One person jumped to their feet and said: Oh, no, Switzerland. And I reminded them that Napoleon crossed the Alps and severed the continuity of that wonderful government. So there we are, these proud States, forming our Republic known as the United States. The survival of that great experiment is dependent upon the continuous fulfillment of the balanced, individual responsibilities of the three branches of our Government. I reflect now on the history of that clause ``advice and consent.'' During the Constitutional Convention, the Framers labored extensively over this clause, deferring for several months a final decision on how to select Federal judges. Some of the Framers argued that the President should have absolute and total authority to choose members of the judiciary. Others thought both the House of Representatives and the Senate should be involved in providing advice and consent. Ultimately, a compromise plan put forth by that distinguished Virginian, James Madison, won the day where the President would nominate the judges, and only the Senate, only one branch of the Congress, would render advice and consent. Such a process is entirely consistent with the system of checks and balances, that inherent doctrine in the Constitution that the Framers carefully placed throughout many provisions of the Constitution. Presidents select those who should serve on the judiciary, thereby providing a philosophical composition of that President and the times in which he is privileged to serve in that office. However, the Senate has a check on the President because it is the final arbiter with respect to a nominee. But I look at those responsibilities as coequal, a check and a balance, but neither branch of Government, executive nor the legislative, has a power greater. I think they are coequal in the exercise of joint responsibility to, in fact, create the third branch, the Federal judiciary, through this process. Historically, judicial nominations have needed only a majority of votes in the Senate for confirmation. I think that long history is for good reason. It is to preserve the inherent checks and balances and the coequal responsibility between the two branches in creating the judiciary. Only once, in these 200-plus years, has a judicial nominee been rejected by the Senate due to a filibuster. That was Abe Fortas, a nominee for the Supreme Court. Indeed, a simple majority of votes in support of the confirmation of a nominee is also consistent with the Constitution which specifically spells out instances where, for example, a supermajority of votes is needed. For example, under the Constitution, two-thirds of the Senate must vote to ratify a treaty. Two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict on an article of impeachment. Two-thirds of a House of Congress must vote to expel a Member of that body. Two-thirds of each House of Congress must vote to override a President's veto, and two-thirds of each House must vote to propose an amendment to the Constitution. So when the Framers wanted to change the power structure as it relates to the respective duties of the branches, it did so expressly by creating the two-thirds supermajority vote. In this instance, we are talking about a Senate rule which requires 60 votes to stop a filibuster. It is not constitutional. It is a Senate rule. The Framers did not think a supermajority was needed. The Framers probably did not have in mind the possibility someday of a 60-vote filibuster. So I come back that it is clear that the Constitution wanted to have a coequal responsibility and balance of power between the two branches as it related to their respective functions in forming and creating the Federal judiciary. If the Framers intended judicial nominees to be subjected to a supermajority vote, they would have included such language in the Constitution. In my view, the reason they did not include a supermajority requirement in regard to judicial confirmations is that otherwise it might prove too difficult for certain judicial nominees to be confirmed. If the bar was set too high, then the Senate would have far more power in the judicial process than the President. The checks and balances concept of our Founding Fathers would cease. Is this what the Framers intended, that that inherent balance of power should in any way be violated? Absolutely not. We do not want the checks and balances concept to cease in the case of judicial nominations. I recognize the filibuster, a rule created by the Senate itself and not by the Constitution, obviously does require the Senate to have 60 votes in certain circumstances in order for it to proceed. But in the context of judicial nominations, use of the filibuster to defeat a nominee would thwart the carefully crafted system of checks and balances put into place in our Constitution by the infinite wisdom of the Framers of that Constitution. Throughout the quarter of a century I have been privileged and had the honor of representing the Commonwealth of Virginia in the Senate, I have conscientiously in each of those years under all of the Presidents I have served with made the effort to work on judicial nominations in a fair and objective way, recognizing the doctrine of checks and balances and the coequal authority of the two branches. Whether our President was President Carter, President Ronald Reagan, President George Bush, President Clinton, or President George W. Bush, I have been privileged to accord equal weight to the nominations of all Presidents, irrespective of party. I have done so because of my belief that if the concept of equal power sharing and the concept of checks and balances was lost in the judicial confirmation process, then we may ultimately discourage many highly qualified men and women nominees from offering to serve in our judiciary. Certainly each Senator is entitled to vote for or against a particular nominee for any reason he or she deems important. And it is clear our Framers did not intend the Senate's role in the advice and consent process to be a rubberstamp. No one is suggesting that. Exercise your authority. Exercise your judgment. Do it fairly. Do it consistently with the doctrine of checks and balances inherent in the Constitution. This much is evident from history. Soon after the Constitution was ratified, the Senate rejected a nomination put forward by our first President, our founding father, George Washington. President Washington nominated John Rutledge to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Even though Mr. Rutledge had previously served as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, the Senate rejected his nomination. It is interesting to note many of those Senators who voted against the Rutledge nomination were also delegates to the Constitutional Convention. The key differences between the Rutledge nomination of over 200 years ago and the Estrada nomination of today is that Mr. Rutledge received an up-or-down vote. A simple majority controlled. The early Members of our Senate, some of whom participated in the Constitutional Convention, allowed an up-or-down vote on Mr. Rutledge even though they opposed him. On the other hand, Mr. Estrada has not received a vote and he is being subjected to a filibuster-proof majority for confirmation. Our Founding Fathers, I say to my colleagues, were not so prudent of the requirement for the 60 votes. Mr. Estrada is being opposed simply because of his political ideology. In the view of this Senator we ought to accord equal weight to a President's nominees, irrespective of party. I have tried to abide by this principle throughout my 25 years in the U.S. Senate. For example, in the 106th Congress and the 107th Congress, I was honored to support the nomination of Roger Gregory. Judge Gregory was originally nominated by President Clinton and he was supported by Virginia's former Democratic Governor Doug Wilder. Regardless of political ideologies, and regardless of which President nominated him, Judge Gregory was highly qualified to sit on the bench. We are fortunate to have him on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Judge Gregory is now the first African American Judge to ever serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and he is serving with distinction. Judge Gregory's qualifications were clear cut. Regardless of which President nominated him, he deserved the support of the United States Senate. Like Judge Gregory, Miguel Estrada's nomination is also a clear-cut case. Mr. Estrada has received a unanimous ranking of ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association. In my view, his record indicates that he will serve as an excellent jurist. Mr. Estrada's resume is an impressive one. Born in Honduras, Miguel Estrada came to the United States at the age of 17. At the time, he was able to speak only a little English. But, just 5 years after he came to the United States, he graduated from Columbia College with Phi Beta Kappa honors. Three years after he graduated from Columbia, Mr. Estrada graduated from Harvard Law School where he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review. Mr. Estrada then went onto serve as a law clerk to a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and as a law clerk to Judge Kennedy on the United States Supreme Court. After his clerkships, Mr. Estrada worked as an Assistant United States Attorney, as an assistant to the Solicitor General in the Department of Justice, and in private practice for two prestigious law firms. Throughout his career, Mr. Estrada has prosecuted numerous cases before federal district courts and federal appeals courts. He has argued 15 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. Without a doubt, Mr. Estrada's legal credentials make him well qualified for the position to which he was nominated. I am thankful for his willingness to resume his public service, and I am confident that he would serve as an excellent jurist. In closing, Mr. President, it is clear to me that the Senate's role in the confirmation process is more than just a mere rubber-stamp of a President's nomination; but it is the Senate's constitutional responsibility to render ``advice and consent'' after a fair process of evaluating a President's nominee. After that process is complete, nominees who emerge from the Judiciary Committee ought to be accorded up or down vote. Should a Senate rule overrule the Constitutional responsibilities of checks and balances? I think it should not. Thomas Jefferson once remarked on the independence of our three branches of government by stating, ``The leading principle of our Constitution is the independence of the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary of Each other.'' I would add that each branch of government must perform its respective responsibilities in a fair and timely manner to ensure that the three branches remain independent. In my view, we must ask ourselves: Is the current filibuster of Miguel Estrada's consistent with our country's last 200 plus years since our Constitution was ratified? Are we fulfilling our constitutional responsibilities to preserve the doctrine of checks and balances? In my view, we don't want to set a precedent that alters the inherent responsibilities of checks and balances in the judicial confirmation process. But, these questions are for each Senator to decide upon. I for one, though, fear the precedent that would be set if the Senate does not support cloture for Miguel Estrada and I fear what it might mean for the future of our Judiciary, and the future of our Republic. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am very grateful for the services of our distinguished colleague from Indiana and his long experience in the Senate and now having risen to new heights in his distinguished career as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I have also enjoyed a very warm and strong relationship with my colleague through the years. He is too modest to talk about it, but he served in the U.S. Navy in a position as adviser on foreign policy to the then-Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Burke. He watched many of the key issues on the world scene unfold. I made reference to the Chamberlain speech that we will have peace in our time. I addressed this colloquy to Senator Stevens who, like me, lived through that era. I wonder if the Senator might have some comments on it. It is so appropriate that the world be reminded that there have been parallels in history where we have been faced with the rise of a dictator, and the dictator possessed vast arsenals of weapons and had a proven track record of having used the weapons against other people and other nations, and how this is the time for the strongest leadership, which I believe is being offered by our friend. It is being offered by the Prime Minister of Great Britain. How severely we regret the leadership of France and Germany, certainly nations venerable in history, having lived through so many periods of turbulence on that continent, cannot recognize today the parallels of years past. I wonder if the Senator might have a viewpoint on that, particularly with reference to France.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I wish to associate myself with his comment about the great team of advisers the President has. They have time and again gone into the forums of the world to indicate the necessity for strong action and strong leadership at this time. We certainly have it in this President and his administration. I thank my colleague. I see, Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I yield the floor.