John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator. We did start out on that subject, but I wished to make reference to other statements the Senator made. Going back to the question of Korea, I think your concerns are important, as are mine. I simply say I think our President is vigorously trying to exercise leadership in world diplomacy with a multilateral approach with the nations of Russia, China, South Korea, and Japan at this point, and I have not read into any of the statements or actions that would say that after the full exploration of the multilateral approach, hopefully participation by those nations as partners, possibly of a bilateral approach--indeed, the Secretary of State has made an offering of food to care for the tragic situation of starvation in the North Korean section of that peninsula.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think we have somewhat debated this issue. I believe the President has made strong overtures to the international community. Certainly he gave a brilliant speech in the U.N. He is working within the Security Council. Our Secretary of State has addressed the issue today. Perhaps at another time I would very much be privileged to engage our distinguished colleague in a debate on the subject. I thank my colleague.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might say in conclusion, to those who perhaps take views different from I and others, I hope that debate would include very clearly a message to Saddam Hussein in Iraq that his lack of cooperation is the root cause of the problem today. So I thank my colleague for this opportunity. Maybe at a later date we can get into a further discussion.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I share those concerns. My State has likewise contributed many reservists and guardsmen. As a matter of fact, I have been working with colleagues today on a question relating to that. Were it not for the sacrifices of those individuals, the reservists, active duty, and many others, we would not be where we are trying to solve this problem diplomatically. Say what you want about this President, I have seen a measure of courage in this fine man that I have not seen in others. He has all along said: The buck stops on my desk, and I accept responsibility. I thank my colleague.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I accept that challenge. I thank my friend.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. The public, today, across this Nation is exercising our greatest freedom, freedom of speech. Central to many town meetings, central to the media today, are the issues relating to Iraq. I find this strong and thoughtful debate, no matter on which side of the issue individuals or writers may be, extremely important at this key time in America's history. I have been fortunate to be on planet Earth somewhat longer than many, and I have been fortunate to have been on the scene and been in a position to observe World War II, Korea, Vietnam and, this being my 25th year in the Senate, together with my colleagues in this Chamber over these many years, these wonderful years, I have been in a position to observe, and if I may say with some modesty, participate in those decisions facing our Nation as it relates to national security. I have said many times of recent that this particular framework and decisions facing this President, President George Bush, this very courageous President, are as complicated, if not more complicated, than any I have ever seen in this span of my 76 years. I commend our President and his team--Secretary of State Powell, Secretary Rumsfeld, National Security Adviser Rice, and many others. I followed, as I hope other colleagues did, another brilliant speech given today by the Secretary of State--no equivocations, respect for others and their views, but clearly staying the course, a course on which our Nation embarked to pursue diplomacy to resolve these issues. Iraq is foremost in our minds but close in parallel to significance is the Korean peninsula. There, again, we are being confronted with a situation that requires the strongest of commitments and the strongest of diplomacy. And our President, again, is guiding that diplomacy such that we should address this issue in a multilateral context. I think he is on the right track. Worldwide terrorism: How many could have foreseen before September 11 that this country would be in the grip, not of state-sponsored terrorism--some state-sponsored but now more the individual. The al- Qaida, the Hamas, you can recite these organizations that challenge our freedoms, our very security, and our most precious security at home. Yes, America is engaged in this important debate. I commend all. There is a diversity of thought, and I am perfectly willing to listen carefully and heed the thoughts of others. But in that debate a question has arisen, and an important one: What has been, what is, and what is to be, the role of the Congress, and most particularly, the Senate? The Senate is known and respected worldwide as a debating society; an institution where we have this marvelous opportunity for unlimited debate in certain instances, but most significantly, debate among 100 individuals, well-informed, very conscientious Members who work hard at their duties. We are the world's greatest institution for deliberations, and I am proud, modestly, to be a part. But we symbolize the hope across this world for freedom such as we enjoy in the United States, the hope to fight despair and hunger and political oppression. The Senate so often and carefully addresses those issues day by day. As there is diversity of views in debate on Iraq across this Nation, there is diversity among Members in the Senate. That is the way it should be. Therein lies our strength. But there are some who have come up with some viewpoints which I simply do not share. Some in this Chamber have exercised their very right to criticize the body as an institution for what it has done, is doing, and, more particularly in their views, has not done. Some have gone so far as to say, ``We are sleepwalking through history;'' ``this Chamber is hauntingly silent.'' Those are strong words, and words that I heed, and listen to, and in this instance I have great respect for the marvelous Senator who stated those words. I can remember in the debate on Iraq that we had back in November, 5 hours one day, debating with that particular Senator, whom I admire. So the debate goes on. But my point is, even though the rafters of this Chamber are not rattling with the rhetoric on Iraq, there are many very important functions going on beyond this Chamber, in the halls of the Senate, in the committee rooms, in the offices of Senators, throughout the entire infrastructure of this institution--in our field offices in our respective States where I and others so frequently meet our constituents. The debate on Iraq is taking place in a responsible way, in my judgment, in the Senate, and this institution is fulfilling its role. Other Senators have criticized our President. We are really at war now. Yes, I agree that diplomacy is still at work and that final decision to go or not to go is yet to be made by our President, by the very courageous Prime Minister Tony Blair, and other heads of state and government of the group of willing nations, those willing to face up to the need to remove weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein. Yes, they criticize the President. But really we are at war now, and I question how severe that criticism should be. I was with the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Levin, the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Roberts, and the vice chairman, Mr. Rockefeller. The four of us toured Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf region. As we were there, missions were being flown in Operation Northern Watch, Operation Southern Watch, and other activities were taking place regarding which I am not at liberty to describe, nor should I describe, here on the floor. But men and women in the uniform of the United States, and indeed a great many civilians--particularly those of the Agencies and Departments of this Government who perform our intelligence missions throughout the world--are taking grave risks at this very hour. For that reason, I think we should exercise a measure of restraint and caution exercising our right to criticize, be it the President or criticize this institution. I looked into the faces of those individuals, some who might well have been involved in the recent capture of this individual who allegedly plotted 9/11, planned it, and those plans might well have included the very building in which I am so privileged to stand at this time. We shall learn in due course more and more about the aims of the terrorists who struck us on 9/11, the aims of the terrorists who are still planning to strike us. But let the debate go on. This is a strong nation, and our citizens are of strong mind, and our citizens are of a fair mind. Our citizens are very mindful of those in uniform, and those not in uniform, who today are taking the risks beyond our shores to interdict those who would bring harm to these great United States of America. Homeland defense, how important that subject is. Our President again has led. We created that Department. But homeland defense begins beyond the shores where the men and women of the Armed Forces and civilians and others are stationed, in so many nations. It begins there for the reason that, to the extent they can interdict, to the extent they can crush the terrorists before their plans are unwrapped to inflict damage on our beloved homeland--that is where homeland defense begins. So my reply today to my good friends who have taken this institution and called upon it in certain ways, as to what it is doing, I would say most respectfully that the Senate as a body has been, is, and will continue to be responsibly engaged in this debate; responsibly engaged in the consultation as it relates to these issues, consultation with the administration, consultation with our constituents, consultation with heads of governments and states--which I was privileged to do on this trip with my colleagues--consultation with our militaries of the United States and the military leaders of other nations. There is a broad range of activity by many Members of this body, a broad range of activities that I think are as important as any debate that takes place on the floor of the Senate. We had a historic debate, as I alluded, last fall. My calculation-- others' may be different--is that debate lasted longer than the one we had in 1991. I remember that debate very well. I was privileged to be one of the coauthors of the resolution, as I was a coauthor of this resolution, this resolution which, after this very lengthy debate, was adopted with a strong vote of support for our President to have the authority to use force--77 strong votes. But those activities did not end. In other words, there were many activities going on apart from the debate at that time: The same series of meetings and briefings, the same consultations going on just prior to that debate and during that debate. Those same meetings have continued on to this very hour. I am proud of the role of this institution. I am proud of it. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a chronology that I put together of the meetings in which I have participated with many other Senators. For example, on September 4, a meeting to discuss Iraq with President Bush at the White House; a number of us were there; September 5, a briefing on Iraq with CIA and DOD officials; programs, 25 in number, of all of the times that I have been involved. Most particularly, I am very proud of the record of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Again in the fall, under the able chairmanship of my distinguished colleague here. We have been at business, Mr. President.

Mr. WARNER. Here is the record. Decide for yourselves. I would like most respectfully to encourage the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, to likewise put in the Record the activities which they as individuals, they as leaders of their committee, have done in connection with this very important issue, or series of issues facing our Nation today. The Armed Service Committee and the entire Senate have spent an enormous amount of time reviewing, discussing and debating Iraq. In the Armed Services Committee alone we have had at least twelve hearings or briefings since September 2002 where the issue of Iraq was discussed extensively, if not exclusively. That is in addition to numerous briefings for all Members by Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell and other Administration officials. Also, the President, Vice President and other members of the Administration have hosted countless events for Congressional leadership to exchange views on Iraq. In October 2002, we had a thorough debate on the floor of the Senate on a resolution to authorize the use of force. That debate exceeded the amount of time we spent debating the resolution to authorize the use of force against Iraq in 1991. The resolution passed by an overwhelming vote of 77 to 23. While there have been many developments since October, the vast majority have all reinforced the case that the authorization for the use of force should remain unchanged. The military buildup has been in support of the President's diplomatic efforts. If anything, the events since October have clearly shown that inspections are not succeeding and there is no compelling evidence that they will succeed in disarming a regime that will not cooperate with the inspectors. We must keep in mind that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs have been designed to operate under an inspection regime. That is why more time for inspections will not produce substantive results--if Saddam Hussein continues to deny, deceive and defy inspectors. President George Bush wants to build a broad international coalition to confront the threat Iraq poses to global security. Far from ``going it alone,'' he has taken his case to the United Nations. President Bush presented a remarkable speech to the U.N. on September 12, 2002, that brought to the attention of the world the threat this man, Saddam Hussein, represents. Were it not for the leadership of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, the world would not be focused on this clear and growing threat to global security. The U.N. is really the organization that is being tested here. Is it to be a decisive fore in international affairs that enforces the will of its members, or is it to be the organization that stands in the way of timely, decisive action and takes no action to enforce its mandates? The United States, Britain and Spain tabled a clear resolution this week that reaffirms U.N. Security Council resolution 1441 and the 16 resolutions that came before it, and simply states what is plain to all of us: that Saddam Hussein has failed in this, his final opportunity to cooperate fully with U.N. demands that he destroy his weapons of mass destruction. The Security Council now must decide whether it will live up to its sometimes difficult responsibilities. By failing to act, the U.N. would only damage its own credibility, not deter the U.S. and the other members of the ``coalition of the willing'' from exercising their rights and responsibilities to protect the security interests of their nations from the threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Failure to achieve consensus cannot and should not be used as an excuse for inaction. If our principles, our security, our interests are at stake, we must act, in spite of differences with others, and whether or not others choose not to act for their own reasons. A strong, clear-thinking and decisive UN can make the world stronger and safer, but a UN unable to make difficult decisions will be of little use in dealing with Iraq and other security challenges, such as North Korea. Resolution 1441, which the security Council passed 15-0, is not about inspections, it is about disarmament. It is about offering Iraq a final--17th--opportunity to turn away from a rogue, non-cooperative status and become a responsible member of the community of nations, in this case by living up to the terms of the cease fire signed 12 years ago. With other Senators, I had the opportunity to travel to the Middle East and Afghanistan recently, and I can say without equivocation that our brave young men and women mobilizing in support of this mission are the best trained, best equipped fighting force ever assembled, and the best defenders of freedom any country could possibly have in this situation. They are ready, and so is America, to lead a coalition of nations in disarming Saddam, if necessary. The decision time is rapidly approaching. We will welcome UN support, but, make no mistake: we will do what is necessary, without the UN if need be. America is ready to face that challenge. This is not a ``rush to war'' as some have suggested. Saddam Hussein agreed to disarm 12 years ago this month. The United Nations has passed 17 Security Council Resolutions with regard to Iraq and their transgressions against their own people, their neighbors and the international community. Every conceivable diplomatic, economic and military avenue, short of overwhelming force, has been tried. There is one last faint hope that diplomacy can succeed, if Saddam Hussein agrees to fully cooperate and disarm, without further delay. But, it is certainly not a rush to war. Some have asked, ``why now?'' I would remind those who ask such a question that the risks of further delay or inaction could be far more costly and devastating than confronting Saddam Hussein now. This is a man who has used chemical agents on his own people and his neighbors. This is a man who has had 4 unimpeded years to accelerate and hide his WMD program. This is a man who is attempting to develop new means to deliver weapons of enormous danger well beyond his own borders. This is a man who has ties to terrorist groups who have sponsored terrorist attacks against U.S. interests. We cannot wait for another 9/11 or similar event before we act. Meeting with leaders in the Persian Gulf region recently, I was persuaded that there is far more support in the entire Gulf region for disarming Saddam promptly than has been reported publicly. Most of Saddam's neighbors want him removed--quickly--so that he is no longer a threat to them, no longer a force for instability in their region, no longer repressing the quality of life of the people of Iraq. This confrontation with Saddam Hussein is about disarming a dangerous, brutal dictator. But, it is about other things, including freedom and liberty for the Iraqi people. As our President reminded the world in his address to the United Nations in September 2002, ``Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it, and the security of all nations requires it.'' Claims that the Administration has failed to plan or prepare for a post-conflict Iraq and accommodate the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people are simply not true. The Departments of Defense and State, along with other interaency partners and international organizations have undertaken extraordinary steps to prepare to meet the security, economic and humanitarian needs of a post-war Iraq. We have received extensive briefings at the staff and Member level detailing these preparations. Can all of the questions be answered definitively? No. To try to do so would be deceiving to our people. While some have faulted the lack of specificity regarding cost of a conflict or of securing the peace following potential conflict, the Administration has been prudent and honest in its uncertainty about how long any conflict may last and how long it will take to transition to a democratic, free Iraq. Past administrations have provided quick, unrealistic estimates that satisfied the immediate concerns, but later proved wrong. For example, we all remember the famous claim of the previous administration that we would be out of Bosnia in one year. That was in 1995--we are now beginning our 8th year of military presence in that nation. I commend this Administration for its honesty. They will share information on costs and duration of any operations when they can have reasonable confidence in the estimates. Further delay and concessions will not lead to the disarmament of Saddam Hussein. He has proven that for 12 years. He must understand through the strength of our coalition--and, if possible, with the UN-- that disarmament without further delay is his only option. As history tells us, ``peace in our time'' with this man will not be achieved by appeasement. This is a time for action. I will perhaps at a later date expand on the theme I have spoken about today. But the principal reason I come forward is to show this Senator's strong support because of the action of our President, strong support for Secretary of State Colin Powell in my remarks today, and most significantly strong support for the work of this institution, of which I am privileged to be a Member, and for the work they have done. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining my colleague Senator Dodd in the introduction of the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Act. The SAFER Act establishes a new grant program that will provide direct funding to fire and rescue departments though the new Department of Homeland Security. This funding will help to cover some of the costs associated with hiring and training new firefighters. Our Nation's fire departments must be able to hire the necessary personnel in order to meet the ever increasing demands on local first responders. Many Americans are not aware of the staffing shortages we may face in our fire and rescue departments. The role of firefighter in our communities is far greater than most realize. They are first to respond to hazardous materials calls, chemicals emergencies, biohazard incidents, and water rescues. These are dangers which our fire rescue personnel deal with on a daily basis. The National Fire Protection Association, a nonprofit organization which develops and promotes scientifically based consensus codes and guidelines, issued minimum staffing standards of at least four firefighters per apparatus. Furthermore, local departments are expected to comply with Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, standards, which require a minimum of two qualified firefighters inside and two qualified firefighters outside of a structure fire or similar incident. Except in cases of a known need for rescue, a fire company with less than four personnel cannot enter that structure to fight a fire or respond to an incident until additional firefighters arrive on the scene, ready to go. I am honored to be an original cosponsor of this important legislation. I encourage my colleagues to support this measure not only because of the firefighters role in our homeland security endeavors, but also in recognition of the critical day-to-day services they provide in our Nation's communities.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to contribute to the public discourse and national debate we are witnessing with regard to a potential conflict--if diplomacy fails--with Saddam Hussein's brutal regime in Iraq. All of our offices have been inundated with calls, e- mails, and letters from concerned constituents about the consequences of war with Iraq. It is a timely debate of utmost gravity and importance. It is the essence of our democracy. I, for one, have been supportive of our President's policies and intentions with regard to Iraq. I am firmly convinced that--should our efforts at the United Nations fail to convince Saddam Hussein to disarm--we must decisively end the menace that he represents to the world and to his own people. He has tyrannized his nation, the region and, indeed, the entire world for over two decades. I am proud that our President has shown the courage to bring this present and growing danger to the world's attention. It is not easy to muster the courage, in the face of widespread apprehension, to confront the truly evil elements of our global community. It is easier and more popular to procrastinate and defer decisions. Our President is a man of principle however, who will not shrink from the dangers that threaten our Nation. He has carefully laid out a case against Saddam Hussein and has brought to the attention of the world the terrible threat this man and his regime represent to our national and global security. I am proud to stand with him and with my colleagues who have given the President the authority he needs to effectively confront Saddam Hussein, with military force, if necessary. This morning's Washington Post contained a thoughtful editorial on this important subject: ``Drumbeat on Iraq? A Response to Readers.'' It is an editorial that captures, in a balanced manner, the essence of the debate and is, in fact, responsive to the diverse readership of the Post. I commend this editorial to my colleagues and my constituents. I further thank the Washington Post for this thoughtful contribution to the national debate on this subject. The prospect of conflict is never a pleasant option. The consequences of inaction in this case are unacceptable. Our President has enhanced the security and safety of our Nation by forcefully confronting those who would bring harm to our shores. We can no longer stand idly by. In the case of Saddam Hussein, I fully agree with the conclusion of this Washington Post editorial that, ``. . . a long term peace will be better served by strength than by concessions.'' We must find the strength, as a nation--hopefully as an international community--to act if this last chance for diplomacy fails. I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Mrs. Brenda Geist on the occasion of her retirement from the Department of the Navy. Today, we celebrate with Brenda and her family her remarkable 37 years of exemplary and distinguished service to the Navy and the Nation. It is a privilege for me to address the Chamber today in honor of Brenda. ``Far and away the best prize that life offers,'' Teddy Roosevelt remarked, ``is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.'' When Brenda first began with the Navy Department at the Charleston Naval Station, she understood that supporting the men and women of the Sea Service was indeed work worth doing. Brenda has remained true to this principle ever since. From the small Navy office on the Cooper River to the many postings around the world that followed, Brenda quickly became recognized by all for her acumen and accomplishments. Understandably, Brenda's talents were ultimately sought by the Chief of Naval Operations and the Secretary of the Navy in Washington, D.C. In 1987, Brenda was selected to serve as the director of the Congressional Travel Division for the Navy Secretary's legislative affairs office. Past being prologue, Brenda's record of success continued unabated and has been nothing short of outstanding. For 15 years, Brenda has been a key advisor to a succession of eight admirals. During her tenure, Brenda planned and coordinated travel around the world for more than 300 congressional delegations. A superb financial manager, Brenda also responsibly managed annual budgets of over $1.5 million--maintaining flawless documents and receiving the highest possible praise at every audit. Every day, her work directly supported the positive, productive interaction of senior Navy leadership and the Congress. The Pentagon on the Potomac is a long way from the little Navy office on the Cooper River. Brenda's heartfelt commitment to the Navy's officers and sailors, her guiding compass over the years, never wavered. Sharing this adventure with Brenda is Captain Gary Geist, U.S. Navy Ret., her husband of 24 years, and their children, Jim, Stacey, Darcey, Sam, and Curtis. With the loving support of her immediate Navy family, Brenda time and again, rose to the occasion for her larger extended Navy family. Mr. President, I invite you and our Senate colleagues to join me and offer our sincere appreciation to Brenda Geist for her years of dedication and outstanding service. We wish her and her loving family ``fair winds and following seas'' as they begin their next adventure together. They will be sorely missed, but most certainly never forgotten.

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. Madam President, pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 2 of Senate Rule XXVI, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the rules of the Committee on Armed Services for the 108th Congress adopted by the committee on February 13, 2003.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I was privileged to be a law clerk.

Mr. WARNER. I was about to say, I had the privilege of introducing him and I did so for several reasons. One, I carefully examined the distinguished dossier of this lawyer. But am I not correct this is a nomination to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia?

Mr. WARNER. I will phrase it as a question. I just wanted to lay a predicate, a foundation for the purpose of the question. I said this was a personal matter. I assert that because I had the privilege of introducing this distinguished nominee----

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, colleagues, this nomination for this Senator is a personal matter, for the reason that I was privileged to-- --

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator from Utah if he will yield for a question.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Miguel Estrada, who has been nominated by our President to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides the President with the authority to nominate, with the ``Advice and Consent of the Senate,'' individuals to serve as judges on the Federal courts. Thus, the Constitution provides a role for both the President and the Senate in this process. The President has the power to nominate, and the Senate has the power to render ``Advice and Consent'' on the nomination. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution places the composition of our Judiciary entirely in the hands of the President and the Senate. Therefore, in order for our Judiciary to effectively administer justice, it is incumbent upon the ability of the Executive and the Legislative branches of Government to work together. Throughout the quarter century I have had the honor of representing the Commonwealth of Virginia in the United States Senate, I have conscientiously made the effort to work on judicial nominations with the Presidents with whom I have served. Whether our President was President Carter, President Reagan, President Bush, President Clinton, or President George W. Bush, I have accorded equal weight to the nominations of all Presidents, irrespective of party. Based on the last several years, I am concerned that we as a body are no longer according equal weight to the nominations of our Presidents irrespective of party. The process has become highly politicized and, as a result, we are ultimately discouraging highly qualified nominees from serving in our Judiciary. If we as a Senate continue to let partisanship remain the hallmark of the Senate's judicial confirmation process, and we hold up judicial nominees based on their party affiliation, then our judiciary will suffer. Throughout my 25 years in the United States Senate, I have always carefully scrutinized judicial nominees and considered a number of factors before casting my vote to confirm or reject. The nominee's character, professional career, experience, integrity, and temperament are all important factors. In addition, I consider whether the nominee is likely to interpret law according to precedent or impose his or her own views. The opinions of the officials from the State in which the nominee would serve and the views of my fellow Virginians are also important. In addition, I believe our Judiciary should reflect the broad diversity of the citizens in serves. These principles have served well as I have scrutinized the records of over a thousand judicial nominees. One most recent instance that is important for us to remember is my support for the nomination of Judge Gregory to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Judge Gregory was first nominated by President Clinton and subsequently nominated by President Bush. Regardless of which President nominated Judge Gregory, the fact is that he was highly qualified for the federal bench. Therefore, I supported his nomination when President Clinton nominated him late in the 106th Congress, and when President Bush nominated him early in the 107th Congress. 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. The same is true with the nomination of Miguel Estrada. Mr. Estrada has received a unanimous ranking of ``Well Qualified'' by the American Bar Association. And, 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 on to 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, and he has argued 15 cases before the United States 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. Mr. President, Miguel Estrada's nomination is a clear-cut case. I urge the Senate to confirm his nomination.

Mr. WARNER. Yes, Mr. President. I shall pose it in the form of a question. I had the privilege of being a law clerk on the same circuit court of appeals many years ago. I ask my distinguished colleague, when a United States Senator goes before the Judiciary Committee for the purpose of introducing a nominee, does not that Senator place his or her credibility before that committee in making those statements?

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. But I think, my dear friend, we should note that we have present in the Chamber today the visiting Chaplain who comes from the State of Virginia. I think it is a matter of consequence that he is here today in the time that you and I speak. And he, too, expresses, as he did in the opening prayer, what is in his heart today, as he is in this Chamber, participating and listening to our speeches. So we are fortunate. We thank the guest Chaplain.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I am deeply moved. A hero I am not, my dear fellow. I served twice in active duty for brief periods, and I benefited greatly in that service. I try today, as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, to return to the men and women of the Armed Forces more than what I received by way of training and other benefits from serving in the military. My tours of active duty are inconsequential compared to the glorious careers of the persons who we honor today and, indeed, all others really that I have served with and see on the far-flung battlefields of the world as I travel through their posts, and will do soon again, to do what I can to benefit their lives, their welfare, their safety, and that of their families.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, it is interesting; as the two of us approached the floor, a reporter paused in a very courteous way to ask me some questions. He is doing a study on the demographics of the Senate, and in particular on the number of Senators who have had an opportunity to serve in uniform. I expressed an opinion that I have expressed many times to a similar request. I find that, while it has its advantages, there is certainly no disadvantage to those who have not had the opportunity to serve in uniform. I think we all learn very quickly how to address the responsibilities we have with respect to the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States. But in the few steps that I took walking to the Chamber, I say to my colleague, I did reflect momentarily on two brief periods that I was privileged to serve in uniform at the very end of World War II when I did not see combat as did the spouse of the distinguished Presiding Officer of the Senate, our former colleague, Senator Dole, in no way have I ever put myself in the category of Senators Dole, Inouye, Stevens, Hollings, and many others since then who served in Vietnam with such great distinction on the battlefield. But I did come to know many of my colleagues. Then I served briefly in the Korean war as a ground communications officer in the first wing. But I got to know aviators very well in that capacity. I recall that one of our tentmates did not return, and also our commanding officer lost his life. I was part of the detail that went out to retrieve him from a mountainside. I empathize, as do the other men and women of the Armed Forces, for the loss of those astronauts who achieved their status through training in the U.S. military. What a privilege it is for all of us who had the opportunity to serve, to serve with others, and to share in their everyday happenings and glory--and sometimes in the status of their death--that we do here, brothers and sisters in the Senate today. A number of our colleagues had the opportunity to go down to the services. I had to remain here. But I join with my colleagues in our reverent and humble way of expressing our deepest sympathies to the families, to the survivors, to the fellow enlisted military officers who served with these individuals throughout their careers, and to the Nation. The whole Nation is grieving for their deaths. It is a marvelous thing to see Americans come together from all walks of life and to join in prayers and in other ways--so often in quiet ways--to express our feelings over this tragic loss to our Nation, and indeed to the world, because the world is largely dependent on those nations that have trained those going into space with particular missions. We lost the very brave and extraordinary military officer from our strong ally, Israel. While our Nation grieves for the deaths of the seven pioneers in space, for their friends and families, and for the States those brave souls called home, we join in mourning with all States in the Union. And yet we celebrate in a way their entire lives. We in Virginia are united in our solemn remembrance of one of those astronauts, CPT David Brown, whose parents, Dorothy and Paul, live in Washington, VA. My distinguished colleague spoke of his wonderful conversation with his brother today. In the United States of America, we are a nation of pioneers--blazing trails from the 16th and 17th centuries to build ourselves a new nation, venturing west in the 18th and 19th centuries to fulfill our manifest destiny; and today in the 20th and 21st centuries leaving the outer bounds of our own atmosphere to learn more about this planet and others, and to share that knowledge with the world. Shuttle launches and landings have become routine over the last several decades, yielding a false sense of security. We now recognize how false it is--for we are shaken to our very core. Brilliant were the remarks delivered today by our President--and those who gathered with him at the memorial service. President Bush is well known to my colleague as a fellow Governor. They served together. How often the Senator from Virginia told me about the moments they shared when both of them were Governors. But he--not unlike my dear friend, the Senator from Virginia--has a remarkable way to step into a period of mourning and bring strength to the families who remain, and to the Nation. I certainly commend our President. Over 100 times our brave astronauts have challenged the laws of gravity--I love that phrase; I wrote it myself--the laws of gravity propelling themselves, their shuttles, and their payloads hundreds of miles from the Earth's surface. Their work has yielded a great deal of scientific advancement--especially medical advances--credited with enhancing the quality of life not only of ourselves but, indeed, the world. Space research, technology, and exploration are major contributors to enhancing our national security, to improving our standard of living, and broadening our scientific knowledge--and to carry on the pioneering traditions of our Nation. NASA has been the driving force for these many accomplishments. May I say the current Administrator of NASA is a member of our Senate family. In many ways, he worked with this institution. He went on to become Secretary of the Navy, an office that I was once privileged to hold. Our thoughts and prayers are with him. I think thus far he has shown strong leadership in addressing this tragedy, proceeding immediately to try to unearth the facts and to procure the knowledge from all sources, wherever they may be, to try to find the answers for this tragedy. We are a nation of risk-takers. But with exploration comes inherent risks. We have continually tempted fate through superior science and with the most talented men and women in their fields--astronauts who are the best and the brightest--those who fulfill their dreams and, I think more importantly, who have instilled in generations of young people their commitments and their dreams to perhaps become astronauts or dreams to perhaps one day wear the uniforms of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Coast Guard, and the Air Force. Last night I was privileged to attend a public meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations and of the four members of the chiefs of the services and/or their designated persons, who spoke brilliantly. In the cross questions, they addressed their pride in those men in uniform who achieved the status of astronaut--most particularly, at least two of them knew personally two of those who were lost on this mission. I was so proud of the way they spoke and talked with resolve as to how we press on in space, and how generations upon generations will be coming behind to take their places, not unlike the men and women of the Armed Forces who throughout the world today are standing watch over our freedom, most particularly in the stressful situations of the Korean Peninsula and, indeed, the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan. How proud we are of the men and women of the Armed Forces. The Columbia crew trained for their mission for years and in an instant our Nation has lost seven brave brothers and sisters; Commander Rick Douglas Husband, U.S. Air Force Colonel, father of one daughter and one son; hometown, Amarillo, TX; Pilot William C. McCool, U.S. Navy Commander, father of three sons; hometown, San Diego, CA: Kalpana Chawla, Ph.D. in aerospace engineering, hometown Karnau, India; Michael P. Anderson, lieutenant colonel, U.S. Air Force, father of two daughters; hometown, Spokane, WA; Laurel Blair Salton Clark, commander, U.S. Navy, mother of one son; hometown, Racine, WI; Ilan Ramon, colonel, Isreli Air Force; And David M. Brown, captain, U.S. Navy; hometown, Washington, VA. I am proud to stand here today on behalf of all Virginians to honor his memory and celebrate his life. How proud Virginia, his parents, his friends, and his family are of this distinguished man: CPT David Brown. In his last words from space, CPT Brown wrote an e-mail to his parents in Virginia. My colleague referred to an e-mail he wrote to his brother. This is an e-mail he wrote to his parents: If I'd been born in space, I would desire to visit the beautiful Earth more than I ever yearned to visit space. It's a wonderful planet. Quiet, confident, heroic, adventuresome, dedicated to the welfare of others, and always seeing the best in our world: CPT Brown. My colleague enumerated the details of his family and his education, but I do wish to recount one story. His parents were not surprised by his choice. Paul and Dorothy Brown watched their son grow up in the Westover section of Arlington with a clear sense of adventure. He flew with a friend in a small plane at age 7. And while at William and Mary, he worked two jobs just to gain the dollars for his flying lessons. In a speech to students last September, CPT Brown predicted that at some point a shuttle flight would end with the loss of crew and aircraft. But he encouraged the young people to have ``a big vision, accept the risks and be persistent in pursuit of [your] goals.'' Last Christmas, CPT Brown had a conversation with his brother Doug, who asked what would happen if something went wrong in space. He simply said: ``Well, this program will go on.'' And the remainder of that conversation my dear colleague put in the Record. We are a nation of patriots. Not only must we remember these brave men and women of the Columbia, but all men, all women in uniform, who protect this great Nation. And I suppose since 9/11 each of you in this Chamber, like I, stop quietly when you see the uniform of a fireman, a policeman, or a medical worker, or those who form the vast infrastructure in this country and take risks day and night so we can enjoy the highest quality of life of any nation in this world. I say to our Armed Forces on deployment around the world, who have been dispatched for the cause of protecting freedom, and to our police and firefighters, you are in our thoughts and in our prayers every day. Ours is a grateful Nation for the risks you and your families--and I underline families--take. Today we must mourn our loss: the crew of the Columbia. Tomorrow we will continue their work. I emphasize that. Our President said that. Tomorrow we will continue their work, their search for knowledge, and their exploration of new frontiers. We will remember them with reverence, just as we remember the settlers at Jamestown in 1607, and the expedition of Lewis and Clark in 1803. We will remember them, just as we remember our lost soldiers, sailors, and airmen, who have given their lives--generations of lives-- to protect our freedoms. And we will remember them, just as we will remember the others who have fallen in space, who dared to dance among the stars. We remember them. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, may I say to my good friend, the junior Senator, that he delivered his remarks with great empathy and feeling. I wish to congratulate him. I have come to know him as a man who has intense feelings for people; and as a former Governor the many times he had to respond to catastrophes and loss of life in our State, he certainly has learned how to speak for the families and the survivors, and to speak with admiration about those who made the sacrifice. I thank the Senator for the privilege of serving with him.

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.