John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the President for the selection of Gordon England for the post to which the Senate will confirm him soon in the newly created Department of Homeland Security. I have had the privilege of working with Mr. England for some time now. Since he assumed the duties of Secretary of the Navy, we immediately became friends--because we had known each other while he was in the private sector, but, of course, I having had the privilege of serving as Secretary of the Navy some many years before, we were sort of a band of brothers--those of us who are privileged to serve in the greatest Navy in the world, and particularly in the post as a civilian boss. We have worked together these many years. I want the record to reflect the extraordinary qualifications of this nominee. The Navy will miss him. But duty calls so often. It did in this instance because the President and Secretary Ridge wanted to draw on someone who had a proven record of management capabilities. Gordon England exhibited that record while he was Secretary of the Navy. He will exhibit it as the hands-on operator of the management decisions in assisting the distinguished Secretary, Mr. Ridge. I am very pleased with this nomination. I want to mention just a few things about the distinguished career of this fine person. He began his career with Honeywell Corporation working as an engineer on the Gemini space program before joining General Dynamics in 1966 as an avionics design engineer in the Fort Worth aircraft division. He also worked as a program manager with Litton Industries on the Navy's E-2C Hawkeye aircraft. By coincidence, these are programs I worked on somewhat when I was Secretary, Under Secretary, and then, of course, while I have been here in the Senate serving now 25 years on the Senate Armed Services Committee. He served as executive vice president of General Dynamics Corporation from 1997 until 2001 and was responsible for two major sectors of the corporation--first, information systems, and international. Previously, he served as executive vice president of the Combat Systems Group, president of General Dynamics Fort Worth aircraft company. Before that, he served as president of General Dynamics land systems company producing land combat vehicles. He has had this management experience, particularly in high-tech areas. Much of the Homeland Defense Department function will be going to the private sector, encouraging that private sector to design state- of-the-art and beyond--I stress ``beyond''--technology to meet the many unknowns with which our Nation and other nations are confronted in this battle against worldwide terrorism. Mr. England is a native of Baltimore. He graduated from the University of Maryland in 1961 with a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering. In 1975, he earned a master's degree in business administration from the M.J. Neeley School of Business at Texas Christian University. He served as a member of the Defense Science Board and was vice chairman of the National Research Council Committee on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry. It is an extraordinary record. If I may say with the greatest respect to our President and to the new Secretary that his first Deputy, Gordon England, in the Department of Homeland Security, I think, can help avert what could come about as a tug of war between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense as it regards budget matters. Both have the highest priorities, properly accorded by our President, and indeed I think the Congress. Homeland defense is just starting. As their cash flow and appropriations come in, I hope they will be adequate to meet the needs of this new Department. If they are not, I hope we can find other means by which to finance those requirements. They should be given top priority financially and support-wise because they will guard us here at home--augmenting what is in place already by way of the National Guard, the North Command and the other commands of the Department of Defense--many other things that are in place in bringing together the various and disparate agencies and departments and put them under this one head. I am going to be ever watchful--and I think my good friend, Gordon England, likewise--to advise the Secretary of Defense and to advise the Secretary of Homeland Security. We cannot ever witness a budget war between these two strong and powerful and vitally needed Departments. Gordon England is eminently qualified to see that doesn't happen. Homeland defense starts beyond our shores in the forward-deployed positions of the men and women of the Armed Forces all over the world. For example, on the battlefields of Afghanistan, we have made great progress. I had the privilege just this morning of meeting with General Franks to talk about the progress he has made and the challenges that remain in Afghanistan. But he has, in large measure, achieved a goal of stemming the flow of terrorism from that troubled piece of land to other places in the world and will continue to fight that battle. That is the clearest example I can give right now of where we have to stop terrorism before it comes to our borders. Hopefully, it can be interdicted there and certainly interdicted before it gets into hometowns in America. Those two Departments must be adequately funded because they will work together to protect this great Nation. I wish my old friend good luck, fair winds, and flowing seas, as we say in the Navy. He is eminently qualified to take on this position. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WARNER. I will withhold until after the vote.

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I commend our distinguished senior colleague from Alaska. He speaks with a corporate memory dating back to when at age 17 he went into World War II and, as he said, flew those combat missions. I am proud of what the President has shown by way of leadership, and I said the other night, yes, I feel I know most of the facts but he may know a few more, and I repose trust in his judgment and his team to make the right decision. I wish to associate myself with the remarks of my distinguished colleague.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I was privileged to be present last night at the President's State of the Union Address. Earlier today, I said the State of the Union Address was delivered magnificently, in a way that I think touched the hearts and souls of millions of Americans. Certainly this heart and soul was deeply touched. I was very proud for the manner in which the President delivered that message--with sincerity, calmness, and confidence. It happened to be my 25th State of the Union Message. For a quarter of a century I have been privileged to represent the great State of Virginia and be a part of this institution. I have never been more proud of any President at any time than I was of George Bush last night. I want to address those very clear remarks with regard to the state of the world and, most specifically, the leadership that our Nation has given in the worldwide fight against terrorism. We are committed, and committed until the end, and the end is nowhere in sight. We made great progress. The President detailed that progress. We have much more progress to make. I am very pleased over the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. I have been a strong supporter of that from the beginning. I remember, before the White House staff decided we should move in that direction, I was among those, with many others in the Chamber, who advocated that we move in the direction to create a separate Department. We have done that. We have selected a fine Secretary and two of his first deputies to take up the heavy responsibilities. It is my hope that we will give it strong support in this Chamber, that we will give it strong financial support in terms of appropriations. We must guard against a competitive battle between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, because homeland security begins on the far-flung battlefields of the world. Today, it is Afghanistan and Indonesia; it is all across the world. And to the extent that we can defeat the efforts of any one, two, three, or four groups of individuals who, through the mechanism of terrorism wish to bring harm against the United States, let us hope we can do that in the far-flung lands of the world. That is homeland defense. That is the principal responsibility of the Department of Defense, with our troops in forward projection. They are to deter, first and foremost, to stop, discourage before it starts, any attack against the United States; but should that attack occur, then engage. We have seen the heroism of the men and women of our Armed Forces, together with the Armed Forces of other nations in Afghanistan. While that operation is by no means complete--and certainly in the last few days we witnessed another outbreak of hostilities--we are making steady progress. As we approach our budgetary responsibilities of the Department of Defense, and now the new Department of Homeland Security, we don't want to see a competition and a push-pull. Each is deserving of our full and strongest measure of attention and, eventually, authorizations and appropriations. I hope to take a strong lead in that effort. Returning to the remarks of our great President last night, he outlined the steps we have taken thus far with regard to the enormity of the threats posed by Iraq, most particularly under the leadership of Saddam Hussein, and recited what we have done. The President did not have to come to the Congress of the United States, but he did come to the Congress, and he received an overwhelming vote of approval--77 colleagues, I among them as one of the coauthors of the resolution--77 strong votes. He has now indicated further steps he is taking, working with the community of nations in the world--the United Nations and other nations such as Great Britain, Great Britain having taken a strong leadership role. He will be meeting with the Prime Minister of Great Britain in the coming days, talking regularly with heads of state in government worldwide in an effort to strengthen the already strong coalition of those nations willing, if force is necessary, to use force, to join us in support. The President has always said war is the last option. He reiterated that last night. Quite clearly, the steps he is taking, this weekend with heads of state in government, by sending our distinguished Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations to, once again, undertake the persuasion, which he has brilliantly displayed to date, are required among various nations in the course that is right and the course that is just and the course that will preserve the integrity of the United Nations as an organization. Saddam Hussein has thumbed his nose at that organization for 12 years, defied all the resolutions, even kicked the inspectors out, inspectors who were there pursuant to resolutions of the Security Council. That is a sad and distressing record, and we would not be where we are today with the world focusing on this situation, with the United Nations Security Council meeting, acting, and passing Resolution 1441, which is good and tough, had it not been for the leadership of our President working with Prime Minister Tony Blair and other heads of state in government. We owe our leaders a great debt because there may be a legitimate discussion about certain aspects of the policy on Iraq--and I welcome that debate; I think it strengthens our resolve--but there can be no dispute that Saddam Hussein possesses these weapons of mass destruction, has used them in the past, and today he is in absolute defiance of Resolution 1441. An impartial observer, Hans Blix, charged with the mission of conducting the inspections under the resolution has now reported to the United Nations and reported to the whole world about the continuous noncompliance, lack of cooperation by Saddam Hussein. Let me read a part of the Blix report. In Mr. Blix's words: Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and live in peace. Saddam Hussein has the power this afternoon, tomorrow, as he had for the 2 months of the inspections, to comply with Resolution 1441 and avoid even the threat, much less the actuality, of the use of force. But he has been defiant day after day, night after night, and I commend Mr. Blix and his organization for doing their best and for putting forward to the United Nations and the Security Council and, indeed, the whole world a very frank and candid report. Again, our President continues to work within the framework of nations seeking a course referred to as diplomacy to try to avoid the use of force, to try to have compliance with the security resolution. For 12 years, he has defied the United Nations, and subsequent to Resolution 1441 we have had these 2 months or so of inspections. Again, I commend you, Mr. President, for the calmness, for the confidence, and for the wisdom to continue on the course that you established, on the course that 77 of the colleagues in this Chamber strongly backed, but at the same time, Mr. President, reminding Saddam Hussein and reminding the world that diplomacy can be no stronger than the resolve of the nations to enforce it, and that resolve is there. In the words of the President, let there be no doubt, he will not let the security interests of this Nation or those of our principal allies and friends be put in peril by Saddam Hussein and his inventory of weapons of mass destruction if diplomacy fails. No timetable was established. Again, step by step he is proceeding through a process that is very important. I draw a contrast to what happened in 1991. Again, I was privileged to be the coauthor of that resolution. At the time, I was, with Senator Dole, one of the floor managers on this side of that historic debate. Mind you, we had some 500,000 men and women of the United States in position in the gulf region. We had a coalition of at least 12 nations with combatant troops that were going to join. This Chamber had its historic debate and, by a mere margin of five votes, was the resolution approved. Action was taken, and, very quickly and properly, the Members of this Chamber rallied behind the President and rallied behind the troops. We have troops today and will have troops tomorrow, as they did yesterday and the day before, leaving their families, leaving their homes, leaving their military assignments in the United States, individually and as units, and being forward deployed. Those forward deployments are essential because they back up the resolve of those trying to settle this matter diplomatically through a group of nations. Were it not for those deployments and the announcement by Great Britain and, indeed, some others to contribute forces, a lot of the rhetoric, a lot of the effort would simply not send a message to Saddam Hussein. I wish to commend our President. I notice there has recently been a statement to the effect that some of our colleagues might believe we should at this time, which surprises me--we want to stand solidly behind our President at this time as he continues his work with the heads of state in government; as our Secretary of State once again goes to the United Nations, we want to stand solidly behind him. But yet our colleague, Mr. Kennedy, issued a release yesterday which said: Much has changed in the many months since Congress debated war with Iraq. I think the inspectors have diligently worked hard. Some could say progress is being made. But stop to think of the progress that would have been made had Saddam Hussein just complied with Resolution 1441 and shown the inspectors where his arsenal was located, such that it could be verified, such that it could be audited and eventually destroyed. If we are to undertake debate, whether it is today or tomorrow, as indicated by my distinguished friend and colleague who serves on the Armed Services Committee, the first question I put is: Is the debate timely in terms of the steps our President committed to take, and has taken, this week and next week? Is the time of such a debate helpful to our President? Second, he says much has changed. Is there any indication Saddam Hussein has done one thing to comply with the most recent Resolution 1441, much less the resolutions of the 12 previous years? As an individual Senator, I have worked and attended almost all the briefings on this subject. I have participated in most of the debates. I have not seen a Senator bring to the forefront clear and convincing evidence that Saddam Hussein has done anything to comply with the terms of Resolution 1441. If anything, he has taken steps to thwart the efforts of the inspectors, to impede them. This type of inspection regime is not new. It was implemented in South Africa successfully. It was implemented in the Ukraine successfully. So there is a track record with the United Nations that is well known in the field of diplomacy and among the nations of the world, but that does not have any parallel to what Saddam Hussein has steadfastly refused to do. He has not budged an inch to comply with the current Security Council resolutions. That would be the second question I pose to Mr. Kennedy or other colleagues were they to come to the Chamber. Is it timely? Show me what Saddam Hussein has done to merit this further consideration, either by debate or otherwise in this Chamber. Time is not on our side. I am not suggesting I can set a timetable. Under the Constitution, that is the prerogative of the President of the United States, in accordance with those provisions which say that the executive branch shall negotiate. The executive branch sets the foreign policy of this country. We have the right to disagree, but they set the foreign policy. And the President did that last night. It is clear to me that every day that goes by, Saddam Hussein has the ability to take these weapons of mass destruction, which nobody disagrees he has--Hans Blix pointed it out clearly--and proliferate them around the world, and not necessarily by truckloads. A very small vial, one, two, or three dozen, can be distributed into the hands of a terrorist network. Those vials can make their way back and do untold harm to free citizens in the world. He has ability to disperse tons of anthrax. Two envelopes directed at this very Senate Chamber, which were never opened, resulted in tragic loss of life by postal workers and others. That was just two little envelopes, not vials, not tons, which he possesses. These are the threats that concern me. Time is not on our side. It is on Saddam Hussein's side. So I welcome the debate, if it is to come, and I hope those questions which I have posed today can be answered. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished managers of the bill in a brief colloquy, and commend them, along with the distinguished junior Senator from Montana, for providing substantial la mounts of funding in recent years for wildlife conservation efforts at the State level. As you know, United States laws and policies place the primary responsibility for implementing wildlife management programs in the hands of the 50 States, but effective implementation depends on Congress providing consistent and adequate funding to the States. For decades, such Federal funding has focused primarily on- and been largely responsible for- enormously successful programs ensuring conservation and sustainable use of important wildlife species hunted or fished by the millions of sportsmen across America. At the same time, the population of many non- game species has fallen dramatically over the past thirty years due in great measure to the lack of focus of Federal resources on the conservation of these species prior to their decline. The bottom line it that it is in the Federal interest to continue our partnership with the States and provide adequate funding so we can maintain the population of these non-game species of wildlife before they near endangered status, which is far more costly to correct. Funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program for Fiscal Year 2003 has fallen to dangerously low levels in the current bill. I ask the managers of the bill to give every consideration to addressing this issue to the best of their ability when this important program is considered in conference with the House of Representatives. I yield the floor to my distinguished colleague from Arkansas.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Corzine, in support of a series of commemorative postage stamps to honor the distinguished members of our armed services. As a veteran of World War II and Korea, I know firsthand the hardships of war. It certainly does provide a deeper appreciation for life and the struggles faced by the men and women who serve in our uniformed services. I also appreciate just how critical it is for our military personnel to be appropriately trained, well-equipped, and fairly compensated, both in times of peace and hostilities, for protecting the freedoms we enjoy as Americans. In May of 2000, a series of four stamps were issued by the United States Postal Service to acknowledge several distinguished leaders of the United States Army. This Resolution maintains that this honor should be extended to recognize the accomplishments of notable service members of the United States Navy, United States Marine Corps, United States Air Force and the United States Coast Guard. I take great pride in representing military personnel and the veterans of our great nation and I am pleased to support this admirable initiative.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Would the Chair advise the Senate with regard to the parliamentary situation?

Mr. WARNER. I see. I do not at this time know--I'm not entirely sure how we say majority or minority here in this situation.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished Senator from Nevada. I thought I would bring to this series of comments some experience I have been privileged to have in this institution. I mark a quarter of a century of service beginning this week in which I have been privileged to serve the people of Virginia and the people of the United States in this venerable institution. I just draw on some of my own experience, particularly as it relates to the Committee on Armed Services. Currently, the distinguished Senator from Michigan, my very good friend, Mr. Levin, remains as chairman of the committee. We are actively carrying forward the work of the committee irrespective of some of the difficulties we are facing on the floor as it relates to other matters. But that is the way Chairman Levin and I have operated through our years since we came together. Both of us mark a quarter of a century of service beginning this week in the Senate. I am very respectful of the distinguished majority leader, Senator Frist, Senator Daschle, and the respective whips in their efforts to try to negotiate a resolution to this unique situation--unique in some respects but in other respects I feel that elections are held in America and the results are announced to the people of our Nation. I know of no contest going on with regard to any of the 100 Senate seats, and most particularly those of the class who were just elected, or reelected in my case to a fifth term in the Senate. I don't know of any contest anywhere in the States in this Nation but such contest as this which most unfortunately remains here in this Chamber. But this is the way that I have conducted myself and as others have conducted themselves in these 25 years that I have been here as it relates to the Committee on Armed Services. I suppose if I were to say what some of the great lessons are that I have had as a Senator it would have been my service with men--and in some instances several women but most particularly the men--on the Armed Services Committee. I say women because when I was Secretary of the Navy I appeared before Margaret Chase Smith of Maine, an absolutely brilliant Senator and stalwart member of the Armed Services Committee. But Senator Stennis was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who followed in the tradition of Richard Russell. I really stood in awe to testify before Russell when I was Secretary of the Navy at the time I knew him in that period of time. When I joined the committee, Senator Stennis really took me under his wing and just sort of treated me almost like an adopted younger brother. It was a marvelous experience. He gave me a variety of special assignments when I first came to the Senate to serve him and the other members of the committee. Another Senator on the committee at that time was Scoop Jackson of the State of Washington. For those few of us here in the Chamber who had the opportunity to serve with him, he touched our lives very deeply. These men not only carefully operated under the rules of the Senate, but there was so much tradition and unwritten sort of rules of the Senate that they conveyed to us. Following Stennis, Senators Gore and John Tower; and then my longtime valued friend, Senator Nunn--I served as ranking on the committee under Senator Nunn as I do now under Carl Levin. But I thought I would go back and just describe how we handled the transition when Senator Jeffords made his decision, which decision was an incalculable blow to the Republicans who served with him in this institution because there had never really been a precedent at any time when the change of power in the Senate shifted other than by elections. It was unprecedented. But on May 24, the declaration of independence statement was made by Senator Jeffords. And from May 26 to June 3, the Senate was in recess. On June 5, 2001, Senator John Warner, acting as chairman, presided over an Armed Services Committee nominating hearing. At the close of the business on June 5, the Democrats became the majority party in the Senate when Senator Jeffords switched formally his party affiliation from Republican to Independent. On June 6, Senator Carl Levin was designated chairman of the Committee of Armed Services. On June 7, Senator Levin, as chairman, presided over the Armed Services Committee nominating hearing and other business of the committee. There it is. I had waited some 20 years through this procession of seniority. Then we have an election process in our conference. I became chairman and served in that 2-year period--some 18 months, whatever it worked out to be--after 20-some-odd years of training and preparation to take on that awesome responsibility. In less than 24 hours, I stood up as I was trained as a military man and handed the gavel to Senator Levin, and the business of the committee went on. That is sort of the transition, and that is the sort of spirit we have in that great committee on which I serve. We try to keep to a very minimum questions of partisanship because we have the responsibility for the men and women of the Armed Forces and, indeed, the security policies in terms of oversight of this Nation. We take that responsibility very seriously. As such, I am proud to say that I think Senator Levin and I have continued the traditions of those men who we deem great, great chairmen of this committee. I hope this casts some light on the negotiations that are being undertaken on our behalf by the leadership because I certainly value it. We took our blow when Senator Jeffords made his switch. But I think to the man and to the woman on this side of the aisle we did it, and we did it swiftly and in recognizing that the leadership in this Nation should never be in doubt. If I could just reminisce on one story that I remember so well. I was working on the staff of the Vice President of the United States, Richard Nixon. I was traveling with him in 1960--as we call it, an ``advance man.'' I had the last assignment of taking him to California that night when the nationwide election was held. The following morning I made the arrangements to convey the Vice President back to Washington. The election was still not fully decided in the minds of a number of people, primarily because of the celebrated block of votes in Chicago allegedly under the control of the then-mayor, the father of the current mayor, Richard Daley. But, in any event, we proceeded to the airport. I put the Vice President's plane on the end of the runway because we wanted to try to remove ourselves as much as possible from the clamor of the press watching the final results of that election unfold. There was a mechanic who had come out to make certain the plane was operative before we departed. We loaded all the staff. I then escorted the Vice President and Mrs. Nixon out, and one or two of his senior associates. The mechanic had a small radio that was blaring about these 10,000 votes. I watched the Vice President at that time instruct one of his aides to call in and say that he would not contest those votes because at no time did he feel there should ever be a doubt in the minds of the American people or in the minds of the world of the ability of the elections of this country to decide the change of power. Right there at the end of that airstrip when that decision was made, it was conveyed back to President Eisenhower, and that was it. That night, we came back to Washington and he formally conceded that election. I think that is an interesting precedent. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. I am sorry, I simply did not hear.

Mr. WARNER. Then, Mr. President, I will put again before the Chair the request on behalf of the Senator from Virginia to proceed as in morning business for, say, 6 minutes?

Mr. WARNER. I do not see where there is someone from the other side of the aisle seeking recognition, so the Senator from Virginia would ask for 7 minutes to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before the Senator departs, we have had the privilege of sitting next to each other for some period of time right there in the Senate. I, of course, admire him as one of the elder statesmen and pillars of this institution. I think, if people were asked what are the hallmarks because of which we have such strong admiration for the Senator from New Mexico, it would be because of his ability to reach across the aisle and work as he has always done these many years in the Senate. So I listened carefully to what my colleague had to say. It was not easy for you to say some of the remarks you did. You feel strongly about it, as do I. Here we are with a new Republican leader and we just want the work of the institution to go on, on behalf of the people of this Nation who entrusted to us the awesome power that resides in this Senate--the institution regarded as perhaps the most powerful legislative body, not only just here in the United States in comparison to the legislatures of our States, but, indeed, the world. I thank my friend.

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I judge the parliamentary situation is such that the Senator can speak as in morning business for not to exceed 10 minutes.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I yield the fllor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER. It states in part: Dear Mr. Secretary, we are writing to request that you or your Deputy, together with Joint Chiefs . . . testify before the Armed Services Committee next week, in both open and closed session-- We have now decided it will be just in closed session-- on current and potential U.S. military operations. . . . And the letter flows thereafter. It will be part of the Record. In no way is this to be construed as a summons to the Secretary by myself or Senator Levin with respect to our concerns about the consultation process between the Department of Defense and the Congress. To amplify on my concern about certain inquiries that have been received in my office in the last roughly 36 hours, I do feel very strongly about the situation in Iraq; likewise, the situation in Korea. I believe every Member of this body feels very strongly about it. Frankly, candidly, and proudly, I say that our President has exhibited the extraordinary leadership with regard to particularly the situation in Iraq and the manner in which he has taken steps in the international arena--the United Nations, the Security Council--working with the heads of state and governments of nations which are now and have been close friends and allies in trying to bring about peace in this world. I have said in this Chamber, and I will continue to say, that in my humble career, almost a quarter of a century in this body and some 5 years I spent in the Pentagon where I was exposed to international situations, foremost among them the war in Vietnam, Mr. President, the situation in Iraq is one of the most complex and serious situations I have ever witnessed in my professional career as a public servant. I think it requires the highest degree of attention that it is receiving by our President, that it has, is, and will be received by this august body, the Senate, and working with the House as a Congress as a whole. I think our President has received strong support with regard to the steps he has taken. I was proud with Senator McCain, Senator Bayh, and Senator Lieberman to draw up a resolution which was passed by this body on which, for the record--and it is in the Record--Senator Levin and I had disagreements, but there was a strong endorsement of the actions being taken by our President. In that context, I think the consultation process between the President and his principal Cabinet officers and others in the Congress has to be stronger than it has ever been because of the complexity of this situation. That is why I urged Senator Levin to have this hearing tomorrow. That is why I am taking other steps to see that our committee, the Senate Armed Services Committee, which presumably in the not too distant future I will be named chairman, receives the maximum amount of information, not only that it desires but that it needs to properly perform our oversight process, that it needs to properly not only relate to our constituents but to members of the administration to convey our feelings and views which indeed could be contrary in some respects to actions taken or that are about to be taken by the President and others as it relates to this situation. North Korea is a very special and complex situation. Again, I think our President is following the correct steps. Had I had the opportunity, I probably would have advised a greater relationship in terms of visitations and otherwise with the regime in North Korea, assuming the opportunity had been provided, but that government completely abandoned the commitments they had made earlier, and indeed the commitments which presumably they were continuing with this administration of President George Bush. I will not get involved in the various details there, but I am gravely concerned about the some 37,000 men and women in the Armed Forces who are essential on that border to show the resolve of this country to protect South Korea and to try to promote first the deterrence of any combat and then perhaps promote closer relationships between the North and the South. Those forces, together with other associated forces on standby, are in the area of North and South Korea for peaceful purposes. I do not know what will evolve from the efforts by the administration, which I think are very positive. The administration has sent a high-ranking official over there to see whether, in working with our principal allies on this matter--Japan, China, Russia--we can work together as a group of nations to once again bring back a course of action which will involve the cessation of the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction by North Korea and to foster a closer and more peaceful relationship with those two countries and North Korea as it relates to the neighboring countries in that area of the world, and hopefully to curtail the continued export by North Korea of weapons of mass destruction to other nations. I return to this whole subject of the consultation and its importance at this particular time because of the complexity and the difficulty of the American people to really fully grasp the seriousness of this situation in Iraq and the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. I saw where there is being planned what has been termed a peaceful march, a protest march, protesting the possibility of military engagement with Iraq at some point in time. I underscore that our President has made no decision about that and repeatedly says he has made no decision about it. For over 5 years during the war in Vietnam, I was privileged to serve in the Navy Secretariat. I remember so many times coming up to the Hill to testify. I remember the widening gap between the Congress of the United States and the administration in that period of time because of the different views with regard to that conflict. Who suffered the most? It was really the men and women of the Armed Forces who were courageously fighting in that war. I suppose at no time in the long public career which I have been privileged to have in this country have I had such heartfelt compassion for the men and women in the Armed Forces than in that period. They would come home on leave or come home wounded or tragically, in many cases, not come home as a consequence of being a casualty on the battlefields, battlefields which I visited on occasion, and the ships, and they would come home to a nation that did not understand what they were doing, a nation that was hostile to them individually and collectively, as well as to the families of those service persons. Strengthening the consultation between the Congress and the executive branch at this time is essential to see that that chapter in American history is never repeated. Today we have an all-volunteer force, and I think it is magnificent. I do not think we have to return to the draft--but I will save that for another day--because I experienced the draft periods. I was privileged to serve briefly in a very modest way in the Navy in the concluding months of World War II when the draft was on. I happened to volunteer at 17. Most of my age group at that time did volunteer for selective service. I served again in the Korean war, briefly again in Korea. Again, it was a draft situation. I do not want to return to those periods where men and women--well, in those days men were drafted. Any future draft would have to involve both sexes, but that is a subject for another time. I harken back to those periods of Vietnam, and I will watch very carefully what transpires in the next few days during this hopefully peaceful protest of the policies of the Government as they relate to the possible use of our troops in the war. I want to recount one other chapter which I will never forget. My recollection is it was Saturday afternoon and I was in my office and my beloved, dear friend John Chafee, who used to sit right at that desk, was Secretary of the Navy and I was Under Secretary, and Secretary Laird telephoned me and said: I would like to have you and John Chafee go down to The Mall and take a look at another demonstration--by the young men and women of that era--in protest to Vietnam and come back and have a talk with me. I remember so well that in those days we were all dressed up in our business suits even though it was a Saturday. We used to work pretty much 6 days a week during that war. We dispensed with our chauffeur- driven cars. We got in an old car and drove down to The Mall in some sort of cobbled together set of gym clothes, or whatever we had on. We blended right into that crowd. I can see it as clearly this moment as I did then. Estimates were there were close to a million--I want to repeat that-- close to a million young men and women. There was no particular anger, but they were protesting the war in Vietnam and the impact that war was having on their lives, their future, and their loved ones or friends or otherwise who had suffered the consequences of serving in uniform in that period. I do not want to see a return to that. I remember we went back and talked to Secretary of Defense Laird about what we had seen, and I can see him now. He was very concerned because we did not have in place then a clear policy by which at some point in time we as a nation had to come to the conclusion that we had to basically make an honorable and dignified exit in that situation. That is for another day for historians to examine. It is emblazoned in my mind. I do not see nor do I sense among our people across the Nation today any feeling that such magnitude of a problem exists at this point in time with regard to Iraq. Nevertheless, those situations come about sometimes quickly. That is why I will always be an advocate--whether it is the Bush administration, whether it is the Clinton administration, the Carter administration, or the previous Bush administration; I have worked with them all; I have been privileged to work in this body a quarter of a century--why I have been a steadfast proponent for consultation. I will continue. I hope it is not misconstrued by way of criticism. It is constructive thinking and drawing upon my own, you might say limited, experiences in previous military conflicts in this country. I recall at the conclusion of World War II when those in uniform came home. They were welcomed with open arms. It is impossible in these few minutes to describe the gratitude of the Nation, of the world, for the participation of those upward 16 million who served in that conflict and how all doors were open when they came home. That was not present in Korea. It is why it is called the forgotten war. When they came back, there was no warm reception. We read something about it, but we were not entirely sure what it was they were fighting for over there. It is called the forgotten war. Over 50,000 men, and some women, from the United States of America gave their lives in that conflict. That is why it is called the forgotten war. Fortunately, today there are a number of things that have taken place to properly put in perspective the enormous sacrifice this country gave to secure for South Korea the freedoms they have enjoyed, the freedoms that have flourished. It is with a certain sense of sadness I read from time to time now that certain elements of the South Korean people resent our presence there. The principle focus of these remarks is to reflect in the quiet moments at the end of a long day in the Senate a subject I feel strongly about, the consultation between the executive branch--whatever President it would be--and his principal Cabinet and other officers with this body, particularly in times as stressful and as complex as we are now facing here with the Iraqi situation or with the Korean situation. I encourage the Department of Defense at the earliest point to release such statistics they keep with regard to the consulting process, the number of times that the Secretary of Defense has been up to brief the Congress--as they are going to do tomorrow. To the extent I can reflect on those brief remarks that I make to our conference, they were done in a constructive tone, a noncritical tone, and against the background that I briefly described of what I have experienced in my years as a public servant in times that are parallel, in many respects, to what we have now with the extraordinary tensions in this world as a consequence of terrorists, as a consequence of a despot such as Saddam Hussein. Much is unknown about the Government of North Korea and its principal leaders. That is, in itself, very difficult. We have so little insight into that regime and particularly the leader of that nation at this time. I conclude by saying I will continue to speak out. If I feel strongly enough I will criticize. I have been known to do it. At this time I am trying to provide an element of constructive leadership as it relates to my good friend and longtime friend. When I was in the Navy, Secretary Rumsfeld was on President Nixon's staff in the White House, and we have known each other from that period of time. We formed a friendship then and have seen each other in the intervening years. We remain trusting and good, close working colleagues. Now and then he has a few choice words about me about some of the things I have done over here. He was not entirely pleased with my efforts on TRICARE For Life and current receipts, but those are honest differences between public servants. In this instance, what I said at that conference was done in a heartfelt, constructive manner and it was not in any way directed it as a personal criticism against any of the President's Cabinet or the President himself. It was done simply to lay down a format for consultation with this body in the weeks and months to come, as we are continuing to lead as a nation to secure freedom in this world and a greater degree of peace for others. Tomorrow's hearing will be very important before the Senate Armed Services Committee. I am confident the Secretary will share such information that is essential for us to perform our functions. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, January 8, 2003. Hon. Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, the Pentagon, Washington, DC Dear Mr. Secretary: We are writing to request that you or your Deputy, together with Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Richard B. Myers, USAF, testify before the Armed Services Committee next week, in both open and closed session, on current and potential U.S. military operations. In particular, we request that you discuss the commitment of military forces in and around Afghanistan allocated to the global war on terrorism, the buildup of U.S. military personnel and equipment in the Persian Gulf region to confront the threat posed by Iraq, and potential military commitments in support of a diplomatic solution to the enhanced tensions on the Korean Peninsula. As the 108th Congress convenes, our nation is facing a broad range of national security challenges. Together with a large coalition of nations, our troops are engaged in the second year of operations in Afghanistan; on an almost daily basis, U.S. military forces are deploying to areas around Iraq; and for the past month, we have witnesses escalating tension over the North Korean nuclear weapons program. Our Committee last conducted hearings on Iraq in September of 2002, prior to the vote on the resolution to authorize the use of force against Iraq, followed by a briefing in December. We had comprehensive hearings on Afghanistan in July 2002, and North Korea in March 2002, when the combatant commanders responsible for those regions testified. As the new Congress convenes, and the Committee has a large number of new Members, it is essential to our oversight responsibilities to gain a timely update on vital national security issues in order to fulfill our constitutional responsibilities. Sincerely, John Warner. Carl Levin.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, tomorrow morning the Senate Armed Services Committee will conduct a closed hearing with the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs as our witnesses. This came about in a routine way as a consequence of a letter that Senator Levin, the chairman of the committee, and I as ranking member, sent to the Secretary on January 8. Senator Levin and I have worked closely in the joint management of this committee, and I expressed to him, following the Christmas recess, the need that I perceived for Members to get a current briefing with regard to those issues relating to the Department of Defense, obviously one being the deployment to Iraq, the situation in Iraq, the situation in Korea, and other matters--generally speaking, the continuing war that the President is engaging against terrorist. I am about to read the letter we sent. I have been very much involved in these issues as a member of this committee. Senator Levin and I start our 25th year as Senators, and we have been together on that committee now this quarter of a century. We have worked together very closely in a trusting relationship, and that continues. We have had our strong differences, particularly when we manage the annual Defense authorization bill. We have taken the two desks of our respective leaders here and debated issues during those 25 years. We have our differences with regard to certain issues as they relate to Iraq. Interestingly enough, we planned a joint trip to Korea some 18 months ago, but that trip just could not be developed. I bring that background only to say this letter reflects a perfectly routine meeting that we have had through the years and the joint desire on behalf of the committee to have these two very important witnesses appear to bring us up to their current knowledge with regard to these issues. It is a routine matter. There is some concern that we have summoned the Secretary of Defense to be here tomorrow morning as a consequence of some publicity that has been put forward of recent regarding the relationships between the Congress and the administration and, most specifically, the Department of Defense. Some of that publicity relates to a conference Republican Senators held last week. I have always followed the rule-- and will continue to do so--that those are private matters between the respective conferences of this side of the aisle and that side of the aisle, and what transpires is simply our business. Nevertheless, certain facts have emanated from the one held by the Republicans. Coincidentally, the morning after that conference, Senator Levin and I--just the two of us from the Senate--had a breakfast meeting with the Secretary of Defense and about, I would say, eight of his senior members to discuss a wide range of issues. At that meeting, we brought up the subject of this letter, and the Secretary said: Of course, let's schedule whatever time you want. I have the letter. I am ready to come. In fact, he had just briefed the House Armed Services Committee in a similar way. This letter is straightforward. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, will the Senator yield so I can join in those well-deserved accolades?

Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. Madam President, I am very heartened by that news of the Senator's 85th birthday. I proudly have attained 75, and I am hopeful I can someday stand here at 85, to not just stand but pursue my duties as a Senator, if that case may be, with just half the vigor and strength of mind as displayed by our esteemed colleague from West Virginia, for whom I share the greatest affection, as he well knows. We have adjoining States. There is a little line drawn between certain areas which at one time was all Virginia. Nevertheless, we have people so much alike in their needs. I often work with my colleague to meet those needs. I thank him very much for this opportunity. I thank my colleague and wish him well, he and his lovely wife.

Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I say to my colleague from New Jersey, that is the most appropriate way to speak with regard to our party colleagues, those two magical words understood by every American: Thank you. If I may, I take that as my keynote and, likewise, make a few comments.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, this is a moment we look upon with mixed emotions: Yes, thank you for the service of these wonderful men and women and sadness of their departure; but to have the opportunity to say a word or two about the legacy they leave. This is the most extraordinary legislative body in the entire world. People have often asked me, When did you decide you were going to become a U.S. Senator or try for the Senate? I suppose I have never been able to give an adequate answer. But it is a privilege that few have. For those who do succeed, what a rich reward this service is. It has been for me, and I am now concluding my 24th year. In January, I will start a quarter of a century of service in the Senate. That hardly compares with my distinguished colleague from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, who has been here these many years, but a quarter of a century is a good start. I am privileged now that my State has reelected me for a fifth term. But it has been with the help of my family, my immediate family. I shared breakfast with my eldest daughter. We talked about the years I have been in public service and the opportunity I now have to continue in that public service. It has been a burden at times on the family but one which any family would do, as every family here of those privileged to serve in this Chamber look upon that as a great reward. I start with those colleagues who have served with me on the Senate Armed Services Committee and with my dear friend, Senator Thurmond. I remember so well when I was Secretary of the Navy and I would come up before the Armed Services Committee at various times, of course, in connection with budget requests, but at other times I was called on the carpet pretty thoroughly by Senator Thurmond during the war in Vietnam. I served 5 years and 4 months as the Navy Secretary. He used to question me. As the hearing ended, he would pull me over and say: Why don't you think about coming to the Senate someday? I owe Senator Thurmond a debt of gratitude for instilling in me the thoughts that eventually led to my election to the Senate. Senator Thurmond has touched every life with whom he has served in this Chamber these many years. He has touched mine very deeply. He was sort of like the older brother I never had. There is not a Senator here who, from time to time, does not quietly go and talk to the elder statesmen in the Senate about problems they have. I have certainly shared many conversations with Senator Thurmond. Both sides of the aisle, Senator John Stennis, Senator Scoop Jackson, Senator Barry Goldwater--he sat right over here--Senator John Tower. It has been an enormous benefit to me to serve with, really, these giants of the Senate and those who served on the Armed Services Committee. I was ranking on the committee for many years, and then, in a very courteous manner, Senator Thurmond came to me one day and said he really wanted to cap off his career serving as the head of the Armed Services Committee. So he succeeded me as ranking and then eventually became chairman of the committee. Even though he had the title and I had stepped down as ranking and so forth, I worked with him very closely and learned a great deal. And still, this last moment, last night, after he delivered his memorable few final remarks to this body, we visited quietly together in the hallway. Yes, Strom Thurmond, I thank you. I thank you for all you have done for me and for all you have done for America. Tom Brokaw has written about the greatest generation, those who served in World War II. Strom Thurmond has had the most extraordinary of service. I remember one time he called me up and he said: John, the President has invited me to go with him to the D-Day beaches. It was the 40th anniversary. It was the thinking of President Reagan at that time, very wisely, that many of those veterans would not live to see the 50th anniversary. So Strom embarked for the beaches of Normandy on the 40th. Howard Cannon, Democrat from Nevada, went with us. Howard Cannon had gone in on D-Day in a glider. Lowell Weicker went with us. I remember his father had been Chief of the Air Force Intelligence, 8th Air Force, Army Air Corps. So there were just the four of us who went. Strom Thurmond was assigned a helicopter right behind the President's helicopter and perhaps one with the Secret Service. We traveled up and down the Normandy beaches for 2 days, visiting almost every single site where our troops were involved. I just remember it so well. I remember one Member of the House of Representatives who joined us, beckoned to Senator Thurmond to come over, a Congressman from Florida. I will put his name in the Record. He said: Look, Strom, I can see the indentation where I dug my foxhole. Sure enough, there was the beach and an indentation was there. He was consumed with emotion; Strom likewise. I remember these two men embraced on that spot. There were other veterans, many of them there, who had participated in D-Day. I always respectfully kept a distance, a pace or two behind Strom Thurmond, who was a Major General in the National Guard, as he was greeted warmly, and likewise shared moments, deep thought with those veterans who had been there on that historic moment in American history. How well I remember that trip. How well I always remember Strom Thurmond and what he has done for America and what he did for this humble Senator. I served at the very end of World War II in the Navy, just in the training command, getting ready for our overseas assignments when, God bless America, the war ended. I was privileged to be a very minor part of the generation of Strom Thurmond. Also on our committee was Tim Hutchinson. Tim was a fighter then. He is a fighter now. He stood over there on the floor last night, and we talked a bit together. His spirits are high. He lost in a tough, competitive race. But he reflected on those achievements he was able to provide for the men and women of the Armed Forces as the chairman of the personnel subcommittee, when I was chairman of the committee, and then as ranking. Concurrent receipts is a very difficult issue, one that had to be addressed by the Congress. The distinguished Senator from Nevada, Senator Reid, and Senator Hutchinson, Senator Smith, Bob Smith, also a Member of the Armed Services Committee--I will speak about him momentarily. Senator Levin and I joined that triumvirate and finally we had what I call a measure of success on that issue. It seemed to be irresolvable, irresolvable for many years that the committee addressed this issue. But finally we established a beachhead and, while it is not satisfactory to all, it is nevertheless a beachhead for the first time in the history of the doctrine of concurrent receipts, which goes back 100 years. It is not easy to set aside 100 years of history to establish the beachhead we did. Tim was in the forefront in that. He also joined in the leadership when we put TRICARE For Life through. Those who serve in the Armed Forces of the United States always remember some of the circumstances when they came in and all the promises that were made when putting on that uniform. Particularly those who became careerists and spent 20- plus years in, they always felt they were entitled to assisted care and medical care and treatment for themselves and their families, which they were, in large measure, promised through the years. Put aside all of the legalities, nevertheless, to me it was a moral commitment of this country, to provide that care. Tim Hutchinson joined me. I was then chairman. We were able to put that into law such that that care now and for the indefinite future--so long as I am here, I will fight to preserve it--will be made available to those career individuals. Pay raises--all types of things the personnel committee is responsible for; again, the GI bill and other things. But I conclude with Tim on one remark. The Commandant of the Marine Corps approached me the other day just to give me a little update. The retention, particularly in the officer corps of the United States Marine Corps, is at the highest it has ever been in living memory. That comes about through many factors but the principal factor is the knowledge and the feeling--whether it is in the Marine Corps, the Navy, the Army or the Air Force--that the Congress of the United States stands there to help these individuals, and just to treat them fairly with regard to their pay and benefits and the needs of their families. Tim Hutchinson, I salute you. You did a marvelous job to care for the men and women of the Armed Forces. We also had Jean Carnahan serving on the committee. I remember so well that she fought hard for the FA-18, a modern naval aircraft. Here is this really extraordinary figure who bore the brunt of such tragedy, to quickly come to the Senate of the United States and assume not only the mantle of a Senator with the burdens of the office, under those tragic circumstances--I would say on her committee she performed very well. We were proud to have her. She was very gentle, a bit soft-spoken, but tenacious. So I wish that member of our committee well as she departs. Max Cleland: Max also was on the personnel committee, chairman and ranking. Max was a fighter. Max bears the scars of war and those are the scars of really a tenacious fighter. He carried that same measure of courage and tenacity here to his duties in the Senate. He fought hard for the GI bill. He fought hard for the F-22. That is our modern high altitude fighter. It has gone through a lot of trials and tough times, but it looks as if it is going to make it. In the next 20 to 25 years, that aircraft, at those high altitudes, with the ability to interdict any aircraft comparable in the world and have distinct technological advantages, and hopefully pilot advantages--it can provide the security of the airspace for the other elements of our military below that airspace, whether they be on land or on the sea. Those familiar with warfare know if you do not have the space secure, those beneath the airspace are in constant peril. Thank you, Max, for the GI bill, for end-strength adjustments. He recognized the stress being put on the men and women of the Armed Forces today and their families and deployment. He fought hard to see that those end strengths were in law, written such that the appropriate Chiefs of Staff and the other civilians in the Pentagon could make the adjustments necessary to better care for the men and women of the Armed Forces. Max also has a very special place in my heart because, as I mentioned earlier, I was privileged to be Under Secretary and Secretary of the Navy for 5 years during Vietnam. I visited Vietnam a number of times. I visited the aid stations where the wounded were brought straight from the field of battle. It is hard for people to realize, but those of us who were in the Pentagon in charge of the military service during that period would sit down each week and write some weeks 50, 60, and some weeks hundreds of letters to the families who lost their loved ones in the battles of Vietnam. You don't forget that. Each day that I was privileged to see this fine, strong American veteran brought back those memories for me in that period of history. As I look back on it now, it was a period where perhaps we should have seen earlier on in that conflict a different way to proceed to try to preserve the integrity of the Government of South Vietnam before it fell. But that I will save for another day. Max, I wish you well. Of course, Max did another thing to this old Senator from Virginia. He announced last night that he was going to get married. I think that leaves me now as the only bachelor in the Senate. Fred Thompson, of whom I will speak now, bailed out on me. And now Max has bailed out on me. I am all alone in that category. Fred Thompson: I remember there was a very successful advertisement years ago. I can't remember it clearly, but it sort of characterizes Fred Thompson. When he speaks, people listen. This is a man who has a remarkable presence--not only a commanding physical presence but an equally commanding strength of mind. And when he spoke, we listened, whether it was here on the floor or within our caucuses or listening to his speeches or when presiding over the Government Operations Committee. People listened reverently as Senator Thompson spoke. He also had a remarkable sense of humility. Those who have traveled through the Hollywood scene--some of which I have known in my lifetime-- often do not have a sense of humility. But Fred has. His capstone, I suppose, was last night when I believe the vote was 90 to 7 for the homeland defense bill about which he felt very strongly. I think America will look back, and hopefully will look at a successful piece of legislation to add to the bastion of defenses with which we must now defend this Nation. Fred, we thank you for your work on that and wish you well with your young bride. Phil Gramm: Few people realize it, but when we passed new highway trust fund legislation some years ago in 1996, I was privileged at that time to be chairman of the subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee that was charged with the principal responsibility of drafting the provisions of that historic piece of legislation which enabled each and every State to get a minimum of 90 cents return on those tax dollars paid by citizens of those States and visitors when they pumped a gallon of gas. We had a very inequitable and unfair system of donor States and donee States. The State of Virginia was a donor in that we only got 78 or 79 cents back, and the remainder of the Virginia drivers' Federal taxes went to other States. There were some other States such as Massachusetts that got over a dollar, for what reason I have never been clear on. But Phil went back and examined the tax structures supporting the highway trust fund. President Clinton had put another 5-cent tax on and split it between the highway trust fund and the general trust fund. Phil, as a member of the Finance Committee, got that reversed. All 5 cents went to the highway trust fund. Otherwise, the 50 States--I emphasize that--50 States could not have gotten a substantial increase in those dollars necessary for roads and bridges and other infrastructure measures to facilitate transportation. That, to me, is one of Phil's most significant accomplishments. He worked with us on the Environment and Public Works Committee and the transportation committees of the House and Senate to ensure that America got an equal and fair distribution of those highway trust fund moneys. Of course, Phil will always be remembered for his wit and for his wisdom--brilliant in both but equally controllable in both of those attributes. I say they are attributes. He is ever quick with the turn of a phrase, or a very insightful path to take to resolve a problem. Many times he stood up in our caucus to say this is a piece of legislation which I believe should take this course, and our leadership often followed that advice. We will miss you, Phil. But we will remember you, and we will remember you, as you say, with love and affection. Those are the words that he used so often. Of course, he, along with Fred Thompson, was one of the principal architects of the homeland defense bill. And I am confident that will in due course be a landmark piece of legislation that will serve this country well. Lastly, I speak of my colleague Bob Smith. Bob and I are friends based on our loyalty and indebtedness to the U.S. Navy. Bob's father was a very distinguished Naval officer in World War II. He fought in the Navy, and he fought through a number of combat situations in the Pacific to come home. And then his extraordinary capabilities in aviation enabled him to become a test pilot. That is sort of the ultimate desire of aviators--to become a test pilot to begin to push the frontiers of aviation and develop those aircraft for successive generations to combat the enemies that are lurking against this country. Bob's father had not been home from World War II but a few months when he was testing a plane that malfunctioned and he lost his life. Bob was robbed of his father at a very early age. He carried that thought with him--as he does today--with complete reverence to what his father did in the Navy. Bob served in the Navy himself during Vietnam. So the Navy has a very strong bond between us. I remember when he fought so hard right here on the floor-- originally, I didn't think it was a good idea, but I eventually decided to join him in going back to reexamine the circumstances of the USS Indianapolis. That was a remarkable chapter in Naval history. It was a magnificent heavy cruiser. It was the last ship sunk by enemy action. I could be wrong on some minor vessels, but the last capital ship sunk by an enemy action. A Japanese submarine sank that ship as it was making its way back to the Pacific theater to take up its position once again. It had been out there earlier in the Pacific. This was another tour, positioned with our fleet, when, in moonlight--the captain was asleep-- that ship took a torpedo and went down. A great many of the crew were lost when she went down. But a number survived and floated aimlessly in the oceans, suffering from the deprivation of water and intense sunlight. Sharks actually came in and physically devoured and maimed a number of those crewmen. The Navy search for that ship will always be one of controversy, but eventually a destroyer came alongside and found them. I remember very well an officer on that destroyer was a proud Virginian, Graham Claytor, who eventually became Secretary of the Navy. He followed me by a few years in the Navy secretariat. And he told me, firsthand, about the appalling sight of those men who had been at sea some several days, suffering extraordinary deprivation. The captain was held accountable, court-martialed, and although it dwindled off in a certain way--it pretty well drummed up--Bob felt that the captain had not received the full measure of justice to which he was entitled. He fought on the floor of the Senate, and eventually the Senate voted to, in large measure, restore--although the captain was long since dead--the equities, the recognition that he is entitled to for his heroism on that ship. So to this sailor, to this Vietnam veteran, who is so proud of the Navy, and who fought so hard when he was chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee in the Senate on missile defense--Bob, to this day, feels very strongly, as do I, to have this Nation have a workable, early deployable, limited missile defense system. Bob fought hard for that. Every Senator cherishes the opportunity to provide for their State's National Park Systems. Frank, I thank you for helping me, over your many years in the Senate, to make additions to Virginia's Park System. In particular, those initiatives, some of first legal impression, to make private land available for viewing and study by the ever growing number of visitors interested in the civil war. Thank you, Frank, for also being a ``Paul Revere'' on the need for a national energy policy and the increasing need to free America from the bondage of reliance on imported energy. We wish you and your wife good fortune as you are ``elevated'' to the Governorship of Alaska. So I again summarize simply by saying to my colleagues, thank you for all you did for this humble Member of the Senate. I wish each of you well in your next chapter of distinguished careers. We shall remember you here, one and all, in the Senate. I yield the floor.