John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. No, and I am glad the Senator has raised that point. It was drawn up very skillfully in the House of Representatives, picking selective quotes from our great President, whom I support, but those of us in the Chamber recognize, and as I have elicited from the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and as agreed upon by my distinguished friend from Indiana, the ranking member, this document commits us to nothing more than the authorization of specific amounts of dollars to the nations that are aspiring to join. That is all it is. But as it is reproduced and sent across the ocean to Europe and printed in the papers, I think people can say: Oh, the Senate has now acted; not maybe in finality, but we are one step closer before we have the facts before the body.

Mr. WARNER. It is in honor of a very valued former colleague of the Congress whom I respect. All of that to one side, I believe the rhetoric as written and as framed could send the wrong message. That is the sole reason I am here tonight, because if we were to separate the money from the rhetoric, or portions of the rhetoric--and this, of course, is not open to amendment--I would be voting with the Senator. So it is the verbiage that surrounds this. I will ask my friend from Delaware a question or two. I am not entirely sure, procedurally, what it is we are going to achieve by this vote because the money has already been appropriated. Even though the Senator from Virginia stopped the authorization, as we know that does not necessarily stop the appropriators. I share a good laugh with my colleague because they are a law unto themselves. This magnificent Senate is predicated on the rules that we have the authorizing committee, of which my colleague from Delaware is the chairman--I am the ranking on the Armed Services Committee--and we authorize. The appropriators then agree or disagree with regard to the amounts of money, but in this case, as they have done in others, they went ahead and appropriated the funds. So in a sense, we are talking about a hollow victory tonight, but I direct my attention, once again, to the rhetoric. My friend from Delaware said the open-door policy, but I go to the letter from the Secretaries of State and Defense which says the following: Later this year at the NATO summit in Prague we will have an opportunity to take a further historic step to welcome those of Europe's democracies that are ready and able to contribute to Euro-Atlantic security into the strongest alliance the world has ever known. I agree with that. I am not opposed to any further enlargement, but I do not subscribe to this concept of open door. I say to the distinguished chairman, at what point does the Senate have the opportunity to make an assessment as to what each of these countries bring, so to speak, to the table? How well prepared are they? What we are doing is saying to the American taxpayer, and we are saying to the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States, an attack against one is an attack against all. Such new members as we may admit, what do they bring to the table to participate in, first, deterring an attack, and then, if necessary, repelling that attack? Do they bring sufficient to hold their own, or is there going to be an increased dependency, I say to my two good friends, on the American military? In Kosovo, over 70 percent of the airlift was U.S. Approximately 50 percent of the combat missions in bringing ordnance from air to ground were U.S. Now, that is disproportionate. At another time--I am not going to belabor this tonight, but if one looks at the NATO budgets, they are not all increasing, as our President is increasing, by 44-plus billion dollars, a bill for the American taxpayers, our budget, to strengthen our military. I say to my colleagues, they cannot point out one single NATO country that proportionately is increasing their military budget as great as ours. So my question to my friend--he used the phrase ``open-door policy,'' but I presume he subscribes to what is in the Secretary's letter; namely, ``that are ready and able to contribute to security.'' Am I correct in that analysis?

Mr. WARNER. And my colleagues have an equal amount, I presume.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have under my control as one in opposition to this measure how much time?

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to discuss my absence during the vote to table the Senate amendment No. 3419 offered by my colleague Senator Lieberman. Although my vote would not have affected the outcome, I would have voted to table the amendment. The language in the legislation, which was also included in the Jordan Free Trade Agreement singed into law on September 28, 2001, is vital to ensuring that Congress preserves its exclusive right to establish and enforce U.S. labor and environmental standards. During the vote I was attending a White House signing ceremony for H.R. 169, the Notification and Federal Employee Anti-discrimination and Retaliation Act, ``No FEAR'' Act. I was the sponsor of this legislation in the Senate, S. 201--the Federal Employee Protection Act. The press has referred to the No FEAR Act as ``the first civil rights bill of the new century.'' It significantly strengthens existing laws protecting Federal employees from discrimination, harassment, and retaliation for whistle blowing in the workplace. It is an unfortunate fact that too many federal employees are subjected to such treatment with alarming regularity. I am pleased that President Bush has signed this important legislation and honored I was invited to the Oval Office for the signing ceremony. No FEAR will promote a more productive work environment by ensuring agencies enforce the laws intended to protect Federal employees.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the President ``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States . . . .'' The debate before us today involves this clause of the Constitution, and this debate is a very important one. We should put aside partisanship and examine the very roots of our Republic to determine the respective responsibilities of the three branches of our government. The magnificence of the ``Great Experiment,'' a term used by the skeptics of the work of our founding fathers, is what has enabled our Republic to stand today, after over 200 years, as the longest surviving democratic form of government still in existence. But, the survival of that ``Great Experiment'' is dependent upon the continuous fulfillment of the balanced, individual responsibilities of the three branches of our government. Let's reflect on the historical roots of the ``advice and consent'' clause. During the Constitutional Convention, the Framers labored extensively over this clause, deferring a final decision on how to select federal judges for several months. Some of the Framers argued that the President should have total authority to choose the members of the Judiciary. Others thought that both the House of Representatives and the Senate should be involved in providing ``advice and consent.'' Ultimately, a compromise plan, put forth by James Madison, won the day--where the President would nominate judges and only the Senate would render ``advice and consent.'' Such a process is entirely consistent with the system of checks and balances that the Framers carefully placed throughout the Constitution. Presidents select those who should serve on the Judiciary, thereby providing a philosophical composition in the judicial branch. However, the Senate has a ``check'' on the President because it is the final arbiter with respect to a nominee. Throughout the debates of the Constitutional Convention, there appears to have been little debate on what factors the Senate should actually use when evaluating presidential nominees. It is likely that this silence was intentional. The first test case arose with our First President! Soon after the Constitution was ratified it became clear that the Senate did not take its ``advice and consent'' role as one of simply rubber-stamping judicial nominees. This became evident when the Senate rejected a nomination put forward by our first President and a founding father, President George Washington. President Washington nominated John Rutledge to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. And, even though Mr. Rutledge had previously served as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, the Senate rejected his nomination. It is interesting to note that many of those Senators who voted against the Rutledge nomination were also delegates to the Constitutional Convention. From the earliest days of our Republic, the nomination process has worked. We must now reconcile and make sure it continues to work. Based on history, it is clear to me that the Senate's role in the confirmation process is more than just a mere rubber-stamp of a President's nomination; but it is the Senate's Constitutional responsibility to render ``advice and consent'' after a fair process of evaluating a President's nominee. This process illustrates well how our three branches of government are interconnected yet independent. Thomas Jefferson remarked on the independence of our three branches of government by stating, ``The leading principle of our Constitution is the independence of the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary of Each other.'' But, I would add that each branch of government must perform its respective responsibilities in a fair and timely manner to ensure that the three branches remain independent. In my view, we must ask ourselves, is the current Senate posture of the nomination and ``advice and consent'' process during the early days of the Bush Administration consistent with our country's experience over the last 200 plus years since our Constitution was ratified? That is for each Senator to decide. Currently, more than 10 percent of Federal judgeships are vacant. And, for the 12 Circuit Court of Appeals, nearly 20 percent of the seats are vacant. Is our federal Judiciary able to fulfill its obligations? That is for each Senator to decide. In day to day court workloads, judicial vacancies result in each of the active and senior status judges having a greater caseload. This, in turn, often results in a longer time period for cases to be decided. The ultimate effect is that Americans who have turned to the court system seeking justice in both civil and criminal matters are left waiting for a resolution of their case. And, all too often, justice delayed is justice denied. Our current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Judge William Rehnquist, has expressed his views on this subject several times during both the Clinton and Bush Administrations. Judge Rehnquist recently reiterated remarks he made first in 1997 when he stated, ``the President should nominate candidates with reasonable promptness, and the Senate should act within a reasonable time to confirm or reject them. Some current nominees have been waiting a considerable time for a Senate Judiciary Committee vote or a final floor vote.'' I am in complete agreement with the Chief Judge. We must act in a timely fashion to fill judicial vacancies.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is with heartfelt regret that I must vote against the 2002 farm bill conference report. It had been my sincere hope this farm bill would improve conditions for the nation's farmers. Unfortunately, it is a budget buster that stimulates overproduction, devastates the Virginia peanut industry, and does not adequately protect the Chesapeake Bay. While I recognize the hard work and good intentions that went into this bill, I cannot in good conscience vote for it. It is not good for Virginia and it is not good for the nation. Agriculture is a crucial industry in Virginia. Farming has been a way of life in Virginia since the first English settlers arrived at Jamestown in 1607. Virginia is a recognized leader in tobacco, peanuts, and poultry production while cotton, corn and soybeans are rapidly gaining in importance. Farming represents almost 10 percent of the jobs in Virginia. And there is no doubt farming is vital to the Nation as a whole. Our farmers produce the safest, most reliable, and most abundant food supply in the world. A stable supply of food and fiber is essential to our national economy and our national security. We do not want to depend on imported food the way we rely on foreign oil. Unfortunately, this conference report does little to ensure the long term health of domestic agricultural production. This conference report will increase farm spending by 70 percent or about $82.8 billion over ten years while the budget agreement only allows $73.5 billion in new farm spending. These farm subsidies will cost $200 billion over ten years or $20 billion annually. While all this is done in the name of preserving the family farm, government subsidies since the 1930s have not prevented their disappearance. Recently, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the Federal budget will operate at a deficit of $100 billion this year. We are fighting an expensive war on terrorism. Now is not the time to increase spending on farm programs that may hurt the American farmer more than they help. Every dollar of deficit spending now puts the solvency of social security in jeopardy for future generations. But while the conference report is bad for the country, it is particularly bad for Virginia. When the Senate passed the 2002 farm bill, I supported it because of some key improvements over the House farm bill for the peanut program and the Chesapeake Bay nutrient reduction pilot program. Now that the bill has emerged from conference, these important gains have been stripped out. After the House of Representatives passed its version of the farm bill, Senator Allen and I worked to improve the bill and were able to achieve significant improvements in the peanut program. First, the target price in the Senate bill was $520 per ton while it was $480 in the House bill. Second, the loan rate in the Senate bill was $400, while it was $350 in the House Bill. Finally, the Senate version contained an 11-cent per pound quota buyout for 5 years, and the House version provided only 10 cents. Make no mistake, the Senate target price was not as high as I believed it should be, but under the circumstances, it was a significant improvement over the House-passed bill. In years past, the peanut-producing States have stuck together during debate on the farm bill. Unfortunately, this year, Virginia was left with few allies on peanuts. We simply did not have the votes to make the improvements to the peanut program we wanted. In both the Cochran-Roberts and the Hutchinson substitute amendments, we had negotiated to include a $550-per-ton target price. Unfortunately, both amendments failed. So while the Senate farm bill was far from perfect, I voted for it to support the Senate's position in conference. Now that the House-Senate conference on the farm bill is complete, I am extremely disappointed with the results. The target price has been reduced to $495 per ton, a level far below the break even point for most Virginia peanut farmers. And the conference report makes this new peanut program effective for fiscal year 2002. Peanuts have already been planted in Virginia. In the interest of basic equity, this new program should begin in fiscal year 2003. Farmers planting under one farm bill and harvesting under another illustrates that Congress is out of touch with rural America. While the old peanut program was supposed to be a ``no-net cost program'', the new peanut program will cost the taxpayer upwards of $4 billion. This is a bad deal for the taxpayer and a disaster for southeast Virginia. Finally, the conference committee stripped out the $70 million Chesapeake Bay nutrient reduction pilot program. The bay is a national treasure and vital to the economy of Virginia. This pilot program would have encouraged farmers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to use less fertilizer and compensated them if this resulted in lower yields, creating a win-win situation for farmers and environmentalists. Unfortunately, the House did not agree to this provision. This conference report hurts the very farmers it is meant to help. This farm bill is not good for Virginia and not good for America. It hurts Virginia peanut farmers. It endangers the Chesapeake Bay. It costs the taxpayers too much. And, it raids the Social Security trust fund. Accordingly, I must vote no on the 2002 farm bill conference report.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Another view that was expressed in the New York Times on April 3 by Thomas Friedman states as follows: President Bush needs to be careful that America does not get sucked into something very dangerous here. Mr. Bush has rightly condemned Palestinian suicide bombing as beyond the pale, but he is not making clear that Israel's war against this terrorism has to be accompanied by a real plan for getting out of the territories. Why? Because President Bush, like all other key players, does not want to face the central dilemma in this conflict, which is that while Israel must get out of the West Bank and Gaza, the Palestinians cannot at this moment be trusted to run those territories on their own, without making them a base of future operations against Israel. That means some outside power has to come in to secure the borders, and the only trusted powers would be the U.S. or NATO. Of course, the United States would be a vital complement of NATO. The only solution is a new U.N. mandate for U.S. and NATO troops to supervise the gradual emergence of a Palestinian state, after a phased Israeli withdrawal, and then to control its borders, says the Middle East expert Stephen P. Cohen. People say that U.S. troops there would be shot at like U.S. troops in Beirut. I disagree. U.S. troops that are the midwife of a Palestinian state and supervise a return of Muslim sovereignty over the holy mosques in Jerusalem would be the key to solving all the contradictions of U.S. policy in the Middle East, not new targets. I ask unanimous consent to have the entire article printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join other colleagues in commending our distinguished junior Senator from the State of Connecticut, with whom I am privileged to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee, for his leadership, and my colleague from Oregon for his service on the Foreign Relations Committee and for taking this initiative. This is done in a true spirit of bipartisan leadership in our wonderful Senate. It comes at a timely moment. I am pleased to be a cosponsor because I firmly believe the portions of this amendment that relate to this conflict are well stated and should be studied and read by all. I am grateful that the leadership of the Senate, in my understanding, working with the executive branch, has decided it is timely for the Senate to act on this particular amendment. As I have often noted, the executive branch proposes, but the Congress disposes. In matters of foreign policy, however, the President has a principal role in guiding the affairs of the United States, and the Congress should follow his lead, wherever possible. Timely, informed debate about matters, such as the one before us, that include divergent views and new ideas are intended to assist the executive branch as they perform their challenging, often daunting responsibilities. I rise today to express my profound and growing concern about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people, and to express my support for the amendment before the Senate, which recognizes that Israel is engaged in an all-out war against terrorism in its homeland. Implicitly, the amendment recognizes the loss of life and the human suffering of both sides of this conflict. I feel strongly that this current conflict is of such gravity as to demand the attention of Congress and, most specifically, the Senate, and also demands our most valued resources and our best possible effort. There is an ill wind blowing out of the Middle East that we have not experienced before. We have seen conflict, indeed, for centuries. But this one is different. It is a force that could fan the flames of conflict out of control, unless we act soon to stop this unending violence and human suffering. All of us have listened for years as this problem has erupted from time to time. We have discussed it and debated it. The unfortunate end of much of this discussion is a grim resignation by some that this is an insoluble problem. I do not believe it is insoluble. We cannot accept that as an answer, and I join those who refuse to recognize it as unsolvable. But it is solvable only if we work together for a common solution--only if we put forward our own ideas, which may not be consistent, or expressed, or affirmed by others. That is basically what I am about to do. I commend our President, the Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Secretary Rumsfeld, with whom a group of us met yesterday, for the persistence this administration has shown and for its leadership role. Understandably, there is a legitimate debate as to whether certain actions they have taken, or not taken, were timely or done in a manner that fully reflects the need to stop this terrible conflict. But I think we can examine the past at another time. It seems to me that, just by keeping both sides talking, our President and the administration are renewing hope in a region that is virtually devoid of any optimism. Hope is important in the near term, but hope is not a method for a long-term solution. Bold ideas are needed, and they are needed now. Something has changed in this chapter of the long history of conflict in the Middle East, and it is time we recognize it and face up to it and give our best judgment as to how to end it. The anti-Israeli and anti-United States sentiments in the Arab world are stronger than they have ever been before. I have had the opportunity to associate with that part of the world ever since I was Under Secretary of the Navy and first visited there early in 1970-71. Thereafter, I have been back many times. At that time, our Navy put an installation in Bahrain, and I worked on other military installations in the region. I have been back a number of times, as have others. Unfortunately, certain negative sentiments are growing as young, frustrated Arabs, with few prospects for ever enjoying happiness or opportunities--such as we enjoy in this country or are enjoyed elsewhere in the world--believe all is lost. They have a distorted image and understanding of the Israeli people and the need for the Israeli people to live safely within the safe, recognized borders. The recent suicide bombings are something that I personally have difficulty comprehending. Only once before in history can I recall this scale of suicide, and that was in the closing months of World War II. I was a young sailor in a training command and we witnessed from afar the tragic suicide operations in the Battle of Okinawa, where Japanese pilots were strapped into their aircraft and their aircraft were used as missiles, devouring them and their lives. That was a tragic chapter in the war in the Pacific. It was shortly thereafter that President Truman made the decision to end that war as quickly as possible, utilizing means that we all recognize now. Unfortunately, the negative sentiments in the Arab world that foment irrational suicides and other radical actions are growing and we have to do everything we can to reverse it. If we do not act to preserve the will of the vast majority of peoples in the Middle East, the radical minorities may well gain further advantage, and that we cannot allow. The result would be increased killing, and, indeed, it threatens to undermine the position of the United States in that part of the world-- a position that many administrations have worked hard on, and that many individuals have conscientiously worked on over the years. We cannot allow that to be further eroded. Our position in the Middle East and our ability to successfully wage war against terrorism globally is at stake. I share these thoughts with my colleagues. There has been no shortage of experts and observers offering opinions and ideas for ending the violence and solving--or at least mitigating-- this crisis. I add my voice with this idea: First and foremost, we must foster in every way possible a cease-fire. Clearly, this has been elusive in the past, and other cease-fires have lasted only for brief periods. But this one must take on a permanence. The Israelis want the acknowledged right to exist in the region within safe and secure borders. The Palestinians want an independent state. The Bush administration has stated its support for both goals. I commend our President. This must be the basis of any cease-fire. At the time of the cease-fire, of course, the parties must attempt, in good faith, to reconcile the many differences that exist. That will take time and careful, conscientious negotiations. During that period of negotiation, there must be stability in that region. By stability, I mean stopping the suicide bombings, stopping the incursion of armored vehicles into the areas where the Palestinians live. That must be maintained, for an indefinite period, while the negotiations take place. To guarantee that this cease-fire is effective, it is my hope that there will be a recognition by both the Palestinians and the Israelis of the need to have an outside, independent, objective force-- call them peacekeepers--come in and establish a cessation of the conflict, such that conscientious negotiations can take place-- establish a cessation of the conflict so one cannot resume the conflict in order to gain some point or points in the course of the negotiations. It must remain absolutely static until the negotiations have run their course--hopefully successfully--with the conclusion that will be accepted by both sides in the form of a peace agreement, or treaty, or whatever the case may be. Those are the two fundamentals--a cease-fire and a willingness by both sides to recognize that an independent, impartial force must come in for peacekeeping purposes. It must be at the invitation of both sides. You cannot thrust such a military force upon either side. It has to be jointly accepted. Now, who should undertake that? Others have their views, and I have mine. I feel very strongly--and this is not a well-received thought at the moment, but it should be considered--that the NATO forces are the logical, best force to come in at this time, following the cease-fire and the willingness of both parties to accept outside military forces. They are the best choice because, No. 1, they are trained and they are ready to go on short notice. They are trained in peacekeeping-- Bosnia and Kosovo being examples. It represents 19 nations, so the coalition is in place. Any other peacekeeping option would require building a political coalition, which would require considerable time. We have to act promptly. We have to move with trained forces, and we have to move with a coalition that has been in place and has the internal structure, command, and control to take on this serious and very difficult mission. NATO troops, as I said, are ready to roll. NATO is an established coalition, as I mentioned, with a proven record of success. Then there is the added advantage--and again this is my own thought-- there is a perception that the United States has a bias towards only the Israeli perspective in this conflict, and I am not going to try and reconcile that now. Indeed, we value a strong relationship with the State of Israel and we have done so for a very long period of time, and we will continue, in my judgment, to do that. On the other side, there is a perception that the European nations have a bias in favor of the Palestinian interests. I am not here to debate that. To me, there is an advantage to bringing the United States and our NATO partners in Europe together to assume responsibility, with their military forces, for the peacekeeping mission. To me, that would lessen some of the debate on which side has a perception that the other side is not looking at this conflict in a manner that truly will resolve it, resolve it such that both parties can accept eventually a peace agreement. In April of 1999, at its 50th anniversary summit in Washington, DC, NATO adopted a new strategic concept which expanded NATO's responsibilities in overall global security issues. I will read from it. This is found in part 1, paragraph 10 of the strategic concept adopted roughly 23-24 April 1999. I remember it well. I was not entirely in favor and so expressed my concerns about NATO moving beyond what I felt was the parameters of the original charter. The strategic concept identifies the ``fundamental security tasks'' of NATO and includes in those tasks to do the following: `` . . . to stand ready to contribute to effective conflict prevention and to engage actively in crisis management, including crisis response operations.'' I read directly from the document. The current situation, in my judgment, demands immediate concern and support for all those who want a civilized, peaceful future in the Middle East. Decisive action is now called upon. This is a concept that should be carefully considered in the course of the days and weeks to come as we work to achieve a cease-fire and then in working for a peaceful solution. I also will read from two articles that appeared in the press. One on Wednesday, April 17, Wall Street Journal, by Eliot Cohen, ``Keepers of What Peace?'' he states a position contrary to mine: As an alternative, there is more and more talk of sending American troops, possibly as part of an international operation, to separate the two sides and keep the peace. Such notions have been bruited about before, most notably on the Golan Heights, but never in this context. It is an appallingly bad idea. Peacekeeping works best under one of two situations: When both sides want the peacekeepers to ratify a cease fire line or boundary that both can live with almost indefinitely as, for example, Cyprus, or once one side has been decisively beaten, as in today's Yugoslavia. Peacekeeping is not like normal military activities. I ask unanimous consent that the entire article be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER. What I propose today is the idea of one Senator, shared by some and disagreed by others, but I do hope it is worthy of consideration by those who will undertake to resolve this conflict. Again, I thank the sponsors. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in my twenty-four years in the United States Senate, I have had the responsibility as a United States Senator, in keeping with the long standing traditions of the Senate, to recommend to the President of the United States well qualified Federal judicial nominees for Federal courts sitting in Virginia. I deem this one of my most important duties as a United States Senator. Since his inauguration, I have the had the honor of recommending individuals to President George W. Bush for two positions on the Federal courts sitting in Virginia. First, I was pleased to recommend Roger Gregory to serve as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. President Bush subsequently nominated Mr. Gregory, and the Senate confirmed this nomination on July 20, 2001. Today, I rise in support of another nominee that I have recommended to President Bush, Mr. Henry Hudson. On January 24, 2002, President Bush nominated Judge Hudson to serve on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Senator Allen and I both strongly support Judge Hudson's nomination. Judge Hudson's background makes him highly qualified for this judgeship. And, it is important to note that the Virginia Bar Association ``highly recommends'' him as well. Judge Hudson's experience with the law is extensive, beginning with his service as a Deputy Sheriff in Arlington County, Virginia, in 1969 and 1970. He then went to law school, graduating from American University in 1974. Subsequent to his graduation from law school, Mr. Hudson entered legal practice as a prosecutor. First, he served as an Assistant Commonwealth's attorney for five years and then as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia. In 1986, Mr. Hudson was confirmed by the Senate and began his service as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, a role in which he served in until 1991. After leaving the U.S. Attorney's office, Judge Hudson once again received Senate confirmation and served as the Director of the United States Marshal Service from 1992 to 1993. After completing his work at the Marshal Service, Mr. Hudson entered private practice until he was a sworn in as a Judge on the Fairfax County, Virginia Circuit Court. Judge Hudson has served as a judge on this important court since 1998. During his time on the Fairfax County Circuit Court bench, Judge Hudson has been known as a fair, objective judge who conducts proceedings with dignity and with the appropriate judicial temperament. I am confident that he will continue his service on the Eastern District of Virginia bench consistent with this reputation. Clearly, Judge Hudson is a highly qualified nominee. Accordingly, I will soon be speaking directly with Chairman Leah and Ranking Member Hatch about an appropriate time for a confirmation hearing for this nominee.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I support H.R. 169, the Notification and Federal Employee Anti-Discrimination Act. This historic bill--the first civil rights bill of the new century--strengthens existing laws protecting Federal employees from discrimination and harassment in the workplace. H.R. 169 will create a more productive work environment by ensuring that agencies enforce the laws intended to protect Federal employees from harassment, discrimination and retaliation for whistleblowing. I thank the chairman of the Government Affairs Committee, Senator Lieberman, as well as Ranking Member Thompson and Senator Akaka for their leadership on this issue in committee. Their dedication to the passage of this ground-breaking initiative has proven to be of monumental importance. I applaud the leadership of Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner for introducing this important legislation. Working with Congressman Sensenbrenner, I introduced a similar bill in the Senate S. 201, the Federal Employee Protection Act. After the House passed H.R. 169 by a vote of 420 to 0, I urged the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs to act on H.R. 169 rather than my bill in the interest of moving the process forward. Finally, I recognize the work of the No Fear Coalition led by Marsha- Coleman Adebayo on this bill. Their efforts have been incredible. The Notification and Federal Employee Anti-discrimination Act contains three main provisions: one, when agencies lose judgments or make settlements in harassment, discrimination and whistleblower cases, the responsible Federal agency would pay any financial penalty out of its own budget, rather than out of a general Federal judgment fund; two, Federal agencies are required to notify their employees about any applicable discrimination, harassment and whistleblower protection laws; and three, each Federal agency is required to send an annual report to Congress and the Attorney General. Under current law, agencies are not accountable financially when they lose harassment, discrimination and retaliation cases because any financial penalties are paid out of a Government-wide fund and not the agency's budget. I firmly believe that because there is no financial consequence to their actions, Federal agencies are essentially able to escape responsibility when they fail to comply with the law and are unresponsive to their employees' concerns. Reports that Federal agencies are indifferent or hostile to complaints of sexual harassment and racial discrimination undermine the ability of the Federal Government to enforce civil rights laws, and hamper efforts to recruit talented individuals for Federal employment. Retaliation against whistleblowers creates a climate in which those people best able to provide accountability to the Government--and to the taxpayer--are unwilling to speak out. The Federal Government must set an example for the private sector by promoting a workplace that does not tolerate harassment or discrimination of any kind but encourages employees to report illegal activity and mismanagement without fear of reprisal. I urge my colleagues to support this meaningful legislation.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to support the efforts of Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley to ensure that the tax package from the Finance Committee begins to reform our tax policies to provide equitable treatment for the highway trust fund, the only source of Federal revenues to improve our Nation's transportation infrastructure. The Finance Committee's package ensures that revenue from the 2.5- cent excise tax on the sale of gasohol will be transferred to the highway trust fund. It has been my privilege to work closely with Senator Baucus as a senior member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works during the development of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21. He has always been a steadfast partner on surface transportation issues, and once again, he is providing the necessary leadership to protect the solvency and purpose of the highway trust fund. All vehicles, regardless of whether they use gasoline or gasohol, cause the same damage to our roads. The highway trust fund is the only means to finance highway maintenance and expansion activities, and without the Highway Trust Fund Recovery Act our States would receive less funding to improve our roads. Depositing the 2.5 cents into the highway trust fund, however, is an important first step, but only part of the solution. I have been working with Senator Baucus and others to offer an amendment to provide for the full transfer of 5.3 cents to the highway trust fund, but we have decided to reserve this issue for another time. I remain fully committed to restoring the integrity of the highway trust fund by recovering the entire 5.3 cent per gallon subsidy that gasohol currently receives. The bill before the Senate also contains other provisions which will contribute to further reductions in revenues to the highway trust fund. Depending on the final disposition of the renewable fuels provisions, revenues to the highway trust fund could significantly decrease as the renewable fuels mandate increases. I look forward to working with Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member Grassley, and the leadership of both parties to fully restore revenues to the highway trust fund so that our national network of highways remains a premiere system.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record the remarks of President George W. Bush in regard to the stance that Greece has taken in our war against terror. The remarks follow. President Bush: There's a huge number of Greek Americans who live in our country, who still have got great fondness for the country of their ancestors. I am most appreciative of Greece's strong stand against terror. Greece has been a friend in our mutual concerns about routing our terror around the world, and I want to thank them for that very much. I'm also very appreciative of Greek Prime Minister Simitis' administration working with Turkey. Relations have improved with Turkey, and as a result the world is better off. And I want to thank Greece for their vision, for their Foreign Ministry's hard work to do what is right for the world, to make the world more peaceful.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I recognize a former member of my staff, C. Stewart Verdery, who is leaving the Senate staff after several years of providing valuable counsel for many of us here. Stewart first came to the Senate as a legislative counsel in my office and, because of his good work, when I assumed the chairmanship of the Committee on Rules and Administration, I asked him to join the committee staff and serve as counsel. In addition to his excellent work on legislation and other issues before the Rules Committee, Stewart served the committee at a time when we faced an unusual challenge--that of conducting the first major investigation of a contested Senate election since the 1970s and the first involving allegations of fraud since the 1950s. Stewart played a key role coordinating the onsite investigations and then worked with outside counsel in questioning of witnesses both onsite and here in Washington. He had a major role in drafting a committee report on the investigation which now takes its place with other historic documents in the 213-year history of the Senate to uphold standards and guide procedures for handling contested elections. His wise counsel and steady hand were invaluable to me and to the Senate. After his outstanding work on the Rules Committee, Stewart went on to serve with the Senate's Assistant Republican Leader, Don Nickles, as General Counsel. In his duties there, he worked directly with many Senators in this body. Stewart was widely respected for his knowledge of facts and sound political judgement. As he leaves the Senate, we wish him well. I am confident he will go on to add new successes to the many he has chalked up during his years here.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today in introducing legislation to allow our disabled military retirees to receive all of the compensation they have earned through their service to our Nation. With this legislation, we are taking the next critical step in eliminating a tremendous injustice that impacts disabled military retirees. Many of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, have joined in cosponsoring this important legislation. What is our common goal? To ensure that an important class of disabled veterans, military retirees who have suffered disability during their years of military service, are fairly and appropriately compensated by the Nation they served so well. We cannot and should not wait any longer for this to happen. Last year, with overwhelming bipartisan support, the Congress overturned the 110-year-old prohibition against ``concurrent receipt'' as part of the Fiscal Year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act. In other words, we repealed the prohibition in law that prevents military retirees from receiving both their regular retired pay and veterans disability compensation, without a dollar for dollar offset. Unfortunately, we did not have the necessary funding to pay for this repeal. The resulting compromise in conference was a confidential repeal. On its face this legislation before us is a somewhat technical proposal. By its terms, it simply repeals language enacted in law last December that requires the President to propose offsetting legislation funding concurrent receipt and requires Congress to pass ``qualifying offsetting legislation'' before concurrent receipt of military retired pay and veterans' disability compensation can begin. The underlying authorization to receive both concurrently, as provided for in the Fiscal Year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act, stands. The condition which has delayed implementation would be removed by the legislation we are introducing today. Both Senator Levin as chairman, and I as ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, have requested that the Senate Budget Committee include funding in the budget resolution to fund this hard- earned benefit. I have requested that this funding be included ``above the line''--that is, in addition to the President's requested amount for defense. In my view, Congress should not be forced to cut the President's requested initiatives and programs--which are critical to the ongoing war on terrorism, to fund this benefit. The House Budget Committee has already included a portion of the funds required for ``concurrent receipt'' in their budget resolution, ``above the line.'' It is time to move forward on this important issue. The legislation we are introducing will permit implementation of the law the Congress has already passed, and I am confident that, working with the Budget Committee, we can find the money to pay for it. Our Nation has no more valuable assets than our men and women in uniform. They are called upon to leave their families, deploy to areas around the world, and face threats on a daily basis. They are on the front lines, defending our freedom. Our Nation must meet its commitment to those dedicated Service members. How can we ask the men and women who have so faithfully served to sacrifice a portion of their retirement because they are also receiving compensation for an injury suffered while serving their country? Our career military service members were promised health care for life for themselves and their families. Two years ago, we the Congress acted to make that promise a reality. Yes, there was a significant cost associated with providing that care. But there is no cost too high to provide for those who ensure our freedom. Today we are considering a similar situation. Is the cost too high of providing our disabled military retirees both the military retired pay they have earned and compensation they are due for a disability they received while serving their Nation? I think not.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today in introducing legislation to allow our disabled military retirees to receive all of the compensation they have earned through their service to our Nation. With this legislation, we are taking the next critical step in eliminating a tremendous injustice that impacts disabled military retirees. Many of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, have joined in cosponsoring this important legislation. What is our common goal? To ensure that an important class of disabled veterans, military retirees who have suffered disability during their years of military service, are fairly and appropriately compensated by the Nation they served so well. We cannot and should not wait any longer for this to happen. Last year, with overwhelming bipartisan support, the Congress overturned the 110-year-old prohibition against ``concurrent receipt'' as part of the Fiscal Year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act. In other words, we repealed the prohibition in law that prevents military retirees from receiving both their regular retired pay and veterans disability compensation, without a dollar for dollar offset. Unfortunately, we did not have the necessary funding to pay for this repeal. The resulting compromise in conference was a confidential repeal. On its face this legislation before us is a somewhat technical proposal. By its terms, it simply repeals language enacted in law last December that requires the President to propose offsetting legislation funding concurrent receipt and requires Congress to pass ``qualifying offsetting legislation'' before concurrent receipt of military retired pay and veterans' disability compensation can begin. The underlying authorization to receive both concurrently, as provided for in the Fiscal Year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act, stands. The condition which has delayed implementation would be removed by the legislation we are introducing today. Both Senator Levin as chairman, and I as ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, have requested that the Senate Budget Committee include funding in the budget resolution to fund this hard- earned benefit. I have requested that this funding be included ``above the line''--that is, in addition to the President's requested amount for defense. In my view, Congress should not be forced to cut the President's requested initiatives and programs--which are critical to the ongoing war on terrorism, to fund this benefit. The House Budget Committee has already included a portion of the funds required for ``concurrent receipt'' in their budget resolution, ``above the line.'' It is time to move forward on this important issue. The legislation we are introducing will permit implementation of the law the Congress has already passed, and I am confident that, working with the Budget Committee, we can find the money to pay for it. Our Nation has no more valuable assets than our men and women in uniform. They are called upon to leave their families, deploy to areas around the world, and face threats on a daily basis. They are on the front lines, defending our freedom. Our Nation must meet its commitment to those dedicated Service members. How can we ask the men and women who have so faithfully served to sacrifice a portion of their retirement because they are also receiving compensation for an injury suffered while serving their country? Our career military service members were promised health care for life for themselves and their families. Two years ago, we the Congress acted to make that promise a reality. Yes, there was a significant cost associated with providing that care. But there is no cost too high to provide for those who ensure our freedom. Today we are considering a similar situation. Is the cost too high of providing our disabled military retirees both the military retired pay they have earned and compensation they are due for a disability they received while serving their Nation? I think not.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, today I rise to address issues related to my vote on H.R. 2356, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Bill. For some time President Bush has clearly indicated his willingness to sign campaign reform legislation passed by the Congress. I have great respect for his judgement and this was an important consideration in making my decision to support this legislation. The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Bill is not perfect legislation, but I believe it may be the best the Congress is able to produce. I approached both McCain-Feingold and now the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Bill with an open mind and feel it is in the best interests of the nation to implement achievable reform legislation rather than hold out for perfect--and probably unattainable--reform legislation. During each of the last two Congresses I introduced my own campaign finance reform bills--``The Constitutional and Effective Reform of Campaigns Act,'' or ``CERCA.'' My proposals have been good faith efforts to strike middle ground in this important debate and were offered as alternatives to the bills that have been debated before the full Senate in the past. The principal points in my bills were enhanced disclosure, increased hard dollar contribution limits, a cap on soft money and paycheck protection. As chairman of the Rules Committee during the 105th Congress, I chaired twelve or more hearings on campaign reform including the funding of campaigns. My bill was a result of these 2 years of hearings, discussions with numerous experts and colleagues, and the result of over 2 decades of participating in campaigns and campaign finance debates. My bill capped soft money thereby addressing the public's legitimate concern over the propriety of large soft money donations while allowing the political parties sufficient funds to maintain their headquarters and conduct their grassroots effort. The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Bill bans all soft money. And while I would have preferred merely to cap soft money as we already cap hard money, a total ban is the only option currently on the table. In addition to the issue of soft money, there is the issue of raising the hard money caps. Candidates for public office are forced to spend too much time fundraising at the expense of their legislative duties. The current individual contribution limit of $1,000 has not been raised, or even indexed for inflation for over 20 years. This situation requires candidates to spend more and more time seeking more and more donors. The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Bill increases the individual contribution limits to $2000 and indexes that limit for inflation. My campaign finance legislation contained a similar provision which ensured that a greater percentage of political contributions would be fully reported and available for all to see. It is my firm belief that the Congress has a responsibility, in accord with the constitution, to balance the rights of those who care to participate in the political process with the desire to improve accountability and responsibility within the campaign system. Precisely because of my concern that previous campaign finance reform proposals did not adequately respect the First Amendment Freedom of Speech, I was compelled to write my own campaign reform proposals that focused on disclosure and accountability. Clearly, today's legislation faces constitutional challenge, however, those decisions will ultimately have to be resolved by the judicial branch of Government.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a great American who has served his country well. For over five decades, Cliff LaPlante has dedicated himself to supporting the defense needs of the Nation. Born in upstate New York, Cliff entered the service of his country as an Air Force officer during the Korean War. During his 20 years of Air Force service, Cliff specialized in acquisition matters where he helped ensure that our troops were provided with the best equipment our industrial base could provide. Cliff became well known to this body long before leaving the Air Force in his role as a legislative liaison officer to Capitol Hill. He truly distinguished himself as a trusted and admired representative of the Air Force. Selected to be a full Colonel in 1970, Cliff decided to forgo this much deserved promotion and instead served for eight years as the Boeing Company's first full-time liaison representative to Capitol. In 1979, Cliff joined the General Electric Company where he has remained for the past 23 years helping General Electric to ``Bring Good Things to Life.'' Now, after more than 50 years of service, Cliff is retiring from General Electric, to begin yet another chapter in his life. Together with his wife, Cecilia, Cliff has established a charitable foundation called ``Children Come First.'' This foundation is dedicated to helping underprivileged children. In the same spirit that has exemplified all of Cliff's past undertakings, he will devote much of his time lending a helping hand to kids to ensure they have a chance filled with hope for tomorrow. I will miss this jaunty man with the fast walk and warm, charming personality. Along with all my colleagues who have enjoyed his friendship over the years, I wish him well in his latest ``retirement'' and the best of luck with his ``Children Come First'' Foundation.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan, bicameral legislation to help ensure the continued effective administration of justice in the Commonwealth of Virginia. I am joined in the Senate on this initiative by my colleague Senator George Allen. Congressman Robert Scott is introducing similar legislation today in the House of Representatives. Simply put, the legislation we are introducing today will convert a temporary judgeship in the Eastern District of Virginia into a permanent one. Without swift passage of this legislation, the Eastern District of Virginia could lose an authorized judgeship, thus placing an even greater workload on the already hard working judges that serve in this judicial district. By way of background, in 1990, Congress authorized a temporary judgeship for the Eastern District of Virginia, bringing the total number of authorized judgeships in that district to ten, nine permanent judgeships and one temporary judgeship. In 2000, Congress looked closely at the heavy caseload the judges of the Eastern District of Virginia carried, and as a result Congress authorized one additional permanent judgeship. With the advice of Senator Allen and me, President Bush has nominated Mr. Henry Hudson to fill this judicial vacancy. I strongly support Mr. Hudson's nomination and look forward to him receiving a confirmation hearing and a vote in the full Senate. Mr. Hudson has been deemed ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association. Thus, to date, eleven judgeships are currently authorized on the Eastern District of Virginia's bench. However, the temporary judgeship in the Eastern District of Virginia is set to expire with the first vacancy occurring after April 8, 2002. Thus, when one of the active judges on the Eastern District bench retires, takes senior status, or passes away, that position will not be filled, thus leaving the court with one less authorized judgeship than it has currently. It is important to note that Mr. Hudson's nomination will not be effected by the lapsing of the temporary judgeship. If the temporary judgeship in the Eastern District of Virginia lapses, and this judicial district loses an authorized judgeship, an already overworked judiciary will be without relief. The Judicial Conference of the United States recommends that a district have a newly authorized judgeship when the weighted filings per judge exceed 430 cases. In 2001, the weighted caseload per judge on the Eastern District was 617. If Virginia's temporary judgeship expires, the per judge weighted caseload would sky-rocket to 679 cases per judge. Moreover, it is now clear based on experience that the Department of Justice has prosecuted and will continue to prosecute terrorist cases in the Eastern District of Virginia. Already, the Eastern District is proceeding with the cases of Zacaris Moussaoui and John Walker Lindh. While the judges on the Eastern District bench stand ready to proceed with these and other cases, these cases could significantly increase the numbers of cases and the complexity of cases the judges on this bench preside over. Given its already high case load and given the fact that the Eastern District is facing the likelihood of even a higher caseload with the terrorist prosecutions, the Eastern District of Virginia is in a unique position. Converting the temporary judgeship to a permanent one will provide some relief. Accordingly, Congressman Scott, Senator Allen and I have joined together in support of this legislation that will simply allow the Eastern District to continue to maintain its current level of eleven district court judges. This request is inherently reasonable. We are simply asking to maintain the status-quo of eleven authorized judgeships on the Eastern District bench. Meanwhile, the Judicial Conference currently recommends one additional permanent judgeship and the conversion of a temporary judgeship to a permanent judgeship. I ask Chairman Leahy and Senator Hatch to swiftly report this legislation from the Judiciary Committee, and I urge my colleagues to support final passage. Time is of the essence. We must ensure that the judicial system in the Eastern District of Virginia continues to be able to serve Virginians, and indeed the country, in an efficient manner. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan, bicameral legislation to help ensure the continued effective administration of justice in the Commonwealth of Virginia. I am joined in the Senate on this initiative by my colleague Senator George Allen. Congressman Robert Scott is introducing similar legislation today in the House of Representatives. Simply put, the legislation we are introducing today will convert a temporary judgeship in the Eastern District of Virginia into a permanent one. Without swift passage of this legislation, the Eastern District of Virginia could lose an authorized judgeship, thus placing an even greater workload on the already hard working judges that serve in this judicial district. By way of background, in 1990, Congress authorized a temporary judgeship for the Eastern District of Virginia, bringing the total number of authorized judgeships in that district to ten, nine permanent judgeships and one temporary judgeship. In 2000, Congress looked closely at the heavy caseload the judges of the Eastern District of Virginia carried, and as a result Congress authorized one additional permanent judgeship. With the advice of Senator Allen and me, President Bush has nominated Mr. Henry Hudson to fill this judicial vacancy. I strongly support Mr. Hudson's nomination and look forward to him receiving a confirmation hearing and a vote in the full Senate. Mr. Hudson has been deemed ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association. Thus, to date, eleven judgeships are currently authorized on the Eastern District of Virginia's bench. However, the temporary judgeship in the Eastern District of Virginia is set to expire with the first vacancy occurring after April 8, 2002. Thus, when one of the active judges on the Eastern District bench retires, takes senior status, or passes away, that position will not be filled, thus leaving the court with one less authorized judgeship than it has currently. It is important to note that Mr. Hudson's nomination will not be effected by the lapsing of the temporary judgeship. If the temporary judgeship in the Eastern District of Virginia lapses, and this judicial district loses an authorized judgeship, an already overworked judiciary will be without relief. The Judicial Conference of the United States recommends that a district have a newly authorized judgeship when the weighted filings per judge exceed 430 cases. In 2001, the weighted caseload per judge on the Eastern District was 617. If Virginia's temporary judgeship expires, the per judge weighted caseload would sky-rocket to 679 cases per judge. Moreover, it is now clear based on experience that the Department of Justice has prosecuted and will continue to prosecute terrorist cases in the Eastern District of Virginia. Already, the Eastern District is proceeding with the cases of Zacaris Moussaoui and John Walker Lindh. While the judges on the Eastern District bench stand ready to proceed with these and other cases, these cases could significantly increase the numbers of cases and the complexity of cases the judges on this bench preside over. Given its already high case load and given the fact that the Eastern District is facing the likelihood of even a higher caseload with the terrorist prosecutions, the Eastern District of Virginia is in a unique position. Converting the temporary judgeship to a permanent one will provide some relief. Accordingly, Congressman Scott, Senator Allen and I have joined together in support of this legislation that will simply allow the Eastern District to continue to maintain its current level of eleven district court judges. This request is inherently reasonable. We are simply asking to maintain the status-quo of eleven authorized judgeships on the Eastern District bench. Meanwhile, the Judicial Conference currently recommends one additional permanent judgeship and the conversion of a temporary judgeship to a permanent judgeship. I ask Chairman Leahy and Senator Hatch to swiftly report this legislation from the Judiciary Committee, and I urge my colleagues to support final passage. Time is of the essence. We must ensure that the judicial system in the Eastern District of Virginia continues to be able to serve Virginians, and indeed the country, in an efficient manner. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we are grateful this morning to have a very distinguished member of the clergy of Virginia participate in the opening of today's session as the Chaplain. It is my honor and privilege to join others this morning. My colleague, Mr. Allen, was here, and Senator Reid participated in introducing Dr. David Russell. Dr. Russell hails from Spotsylvania, VA, and is pastor of the Cornerstone Baptist Church in Falmouth, VA, a community of just over 3,600 outside Fredericksburg. He served in the Korean war, as did I, and he served in the U.S. Air Force from 1949 until 1952. It is interesting that our periods overlapped. I served in the Marines in Korea in the fall of 1951 until the spring of 1952. In short, Dr. Russell has served his Lord, his nation, stretching back over 50 years. He is also privileged to be the national chaplain of the American Legion, an organization of which I am privileged to be a member, as was my father. My father served in World War I as a young doctor in the trenches in France and proudly joined the Legion. I still possess the American Legion pin that my father carried in that period of time. Dr. Russell's distinguished background, however, includes another profound and noteworthy matter. It has to do with his service as a long-time member of the Chapel of Four Chaplains. In fact, he now serves as the Virginia State Chaplain of the Chapel of Four Chaplains. There may be some who are not familiar with the Chapel of Four Chaplains. I would like this morning to advise the Senate on this historic moment in America's history. The inspiration for the Chapel of Four Chaplains and its mission of unity without uniformity comes from the courageous acts of four Army chaplains who were serving aboard the USS Dorchester when it was hit by an enemy torpedo and sank in the North Atlantic on February 3, 1943. The four chaplains, LT George Fox, LT Alexander Goode, LT John Washington, LT Clark Poling, a Methodist, one of Jewish faith, one of Catholic faith, and one of the Dutch Reform Church, respectively-- quickly spread through the ship to tend to the wounded and dying, to comfort those able to attempt survival in the icy arctic water. They died together, going down with the ship, after giving their lifejackets to other members of the crew. Of the 902 service persons aboard that merchant seaman ship and civilian workers on that ship, 672 died, 230 survived. President Truman was the Commander in Chief under whom the distinguished guest today and I served in the Korean war, and indeed in my brief service at the conclusion of World War II when I served in the Navy, he was Commander in Chief at that time. In his dedication speech, in 1951, in a memorial to these four brave men, he said: This interfaith shrine will stand through long generations to teach Americans that as men can die heroically as brothers, so should they live together in mutual faith and good will. These words are as important today as they were 51 years ago. The Senate is indeed privileged to have this distinguished American before us today. This has been an unusual week for me in the sense that on Monday I attended the funeral services at Arlington of Corporal Matthew Commons, U.S. Army, Company A, 1st Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, who lost his life just a few days ago in Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan. Last night, I delivered a eulogy on behalf of an old friend in Virginia, an African American who served aboard the carrier Yorktown and was in 11 major engagements in World War II. His name was Richard Hall. He worked with me down in Virginia for these many years, and was a dearly beloved friend. In the last 2 weeks, America experienced approximately nine deaths in Operation Anaconda. But I reflected last night, as I do briefly this morning, on the history of two battles which took place 70-some-odd years ago. Let's see, it was 16 December 1944 to 19 January 1945--the Battle of the Bulge. I mention this because we, the United States, suffered about 41,000 casualties in that battle: Killed in action, 4,000; wounded, 20,000; missing, 17,000; all occurring in 35 days of fighting. That was in Europe. In the Pacific, where Richard Hall served in so many conflicts, the Battle of Iwo Jima was fought over 36 days from 19 February to 26 March 1945. I remind America we had 26,000 casualties: Killed in action, 6,800; wounded, 19,200. I also remind America of the enormous service these men and women have given this Nation. Today we can stand and share in the freedom provided by the members of our Armed Forces. This freedom is predicated on the sacrifices, be it by CPL Matthew Commons 10 days ago, or in those two battles of World War II. We must be ever mindful of the service of men and women in the Armed Forces throughout our history that makes possible our life today. I thank my colleagues for this opportunity to address the Senate.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have worked closely with Senator Collins for sometime now on legislation to provide much needed tax relief for our educators. Today, I am pleased to report that the Senate should soon pass H.R. 3090, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002, as previously passed by the House of Representatives. With passage of this legislation, Senator Collins and I will have finally achieved our shared goal of providing much needed tax relief for our Nation's teachers. The Collins-Warner provisions that are in this legislation, were crafted by Senator Collins and myself after months of consultations with Senator Grassley, Senator Baucus, Senator Allen and House Ways and Means Chairman Thomas. Congressman Scott from Virginia was also a very good working partner on this legislation, having introduced similar legislation on the House side. The National Education Association played a key role and its many members should look with pride and satisfaction on their constructive advice to the Congress. The president of the Virginia Education Association, Jean Bankos, also helped lead this superb effort. Simply put, the Collins-Warner provisions provide a $250 above the line deduction for educators who incur out of pocket expenses for supplies they bring into the classroom to better the education of their students. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that this provision will provide almost half a billion dollars worth of tax relief to teachers all across America over the next 2 years. Our teachers in this country are overworked, underpaid, and all too often, under-appreciated. In addition to these factors, our teachers expend significant money out of their own pocket to better the education of our children. Most typically, our teachers are spending significant amounts of money out of their own pocket on classroom expenses, such as books, supplies, pens, paper, and computer equipment. These out of pocket costs place lasting financial burdens on our teachers. This is one reason our teachers are leaving the profession. Little wonder that our country is in the midst of a teacher shortage. Estimates are that 2.4 million new teachers will be needed by 2009 because of teacher attrition, teacher retirement and increased student enrollment. While the primary responsibility rests with the States, I believe the Federal Government can and should play a role in helping to alleviate the Nation's teaching shortage. On a Federal level, we can encourage individuals to enter the teaching profession and remain in the profession by providing tax relief to teachers for the costs that they incur as part of the profession. Our teachers have made a personal commitment to educate the next generation and to strengthen America. While many people spend their lives building careers, our teachers spend their careers building lives. The Teacher Tax Relief provisions in this bill go a long way toward providing our teachers with the recognition they deserve by providing teachers with important and much needed tax relief. I am proud to have had the opportunity to work with Senator Collins, Senator Allen, and so many others to make this goal a reality.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I have worked closely with Senator Collins for some time now on legislation to provide much needed tax relief for our educators. Tonight, I am pleased to report that the Senate should soon pass H.R. 3090, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002, as previously passed by the House of Representatives. With passage of this legislation, Senator Collins and I will have finally achieved our shared goal of providing much needed tax relief for our Nation's teachers. The Collins/Warner provision that is in this legislation, was crafted by Senator Collins and myself after months of consultations with Senator Grassley, Senator Baucus, Senator Allen, and House Ways and Means Chairman Thomas. Simply put, the provision provides a $250 above the line deduction for educators who incur out of pocket expenses for supplies they bring into the classroom to better the education of their students. The National Education Association played a key role and its many members should look with pride and satisfaction on their constructive advice to the Congress. The President of the Virginia Education Association, Jean Bankos also helped lead this superb effort. Our teachers in this country are overworked, underpaid, and all too often, under- appreciated. In addition to these factors, our teachers expend significant money out of their own pocket to better the education of our children. Most typically, our teachers are spending significant amounts of money out of their own pocket on classroom expenses--such as books, supplies, pens, paper, and computer equipment. These out of pocket costs place lasting financial burdens on our teachers. This is one reason our teachers are leaving the profession. Little wonder that our country is in the midst of a teacher shortage. Estimates are that 2.4 million new teachers will be needed by 2009 because of teacher attrition, teacher retirement and increased student enrollment. While the primary responsibility rests with the states, I believe the Federal Government can and should play a role in helping to alleviate the Nation's teaching shortage. On a federal level, we can encourage individuals to enter the teaching profession and remain in the profession by providing tax relief to teachers for the costs that they incur as part of the profession. Madam President, our teachers have made a personal commitment to educate the next generation and to strengthen America. While many people spend their lives building careers, our teachers spend their careers building lives. The Teacher Tax Relief provisions in this bill go a long way towards providing our teachers with the recognition they deserve by providing teachers with important and much needed tax relief. I am proud to have had the opportunity to work with Senator Collins and so many others to eventually make our goal a reality. I commend the leadership of the majority and the minority for their efforts. I have long supported the concept of having the stimulus package. While it may not be what each of us wanted, it is essential, particularly the unemployment provisions and the provisions about teachers, with which I have long been associated. I thank the leadership. Madam President, I commend the President of the United States for his commitment, along with his several Cabinet officers who have fought so strongly for passage of a stimulus package. The American economy is, I believe, showing some signs of recovery, but I believe that this is an additional step to shore up the confidence of the people of this country in the economy. Within the stimulus package we will vote on tomorrow are provisions that I worked on with Senator Collins and others for some time that relate to teachers. In my visits to educational institutions throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia, I have often learned--inadvertently, not because teachers come up to me and tell me about it, because they are rather modest--but, in fact, so many of our teachers, particularly those in the lower grades and those in schools which, for whatever reason, might not be as well financed as other institutions in our State, have taken from their own pockets, funds to buy school supplies which are needed to help their particular students in their classroom perform their educational responsibilities. Sometimes it is paper. Sometimes it is crayons, occasionally books. I find this extraordinary. As I say, they have not come to me and asked: Oh, we want this, we want that. They are very humble about it. Senator Collins and I, and my colleague, Senator Allen, who has been very active in the entire area of education with me--I happen to serve on the committee for education in the Senate--but we have as a team, together with other Senators, have been working on this concept for some time. The National Education Association took a pivotal role in seeing that this legislation was incorporated in the House bill. Now at long last, we do have a measure of success, and it is owed to the teachers and the National Education Association and other colleagues here who have worked on it with me. I am delighted over the whole prospect of this being passed. It is only a $250 above the line deduction. But at long last teachers can point to something--``this is our's; we helped make it happen, and we are proud of it.'' I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, on Monday night Senator Pat Roberts was recognized as the 2002 recipient of the National Guard Bureau's ``Sonny Montgomery'' Award. Senator Roberts' comments upon receiving this award highlight, in a most thoughtful and eloquent manner, the absolutely critical role our Nation's National Guard plays in the defense of our homeland and our own strategic defense in critical areas beyond our shores--an example being the 29th Division, with elements from Virginia, now serving in Bosnia. This vital role is nowhere more evident than in Virginia where our National Guard men and women patrol the skies over our Nation's Capital and help defend key military posts and bases across the State. I would like to highlight my colleague's wise admonition that we must ``preserve our founding fathers intent with respect to the National Guard, specifically preserving the connection between military forces and the States, between our national defense and America's local cities and towns.'' Excellent advice, we in the Congress must be very careful to heed it. As America is continuing its preparations to defend our homeland against territorial threats, we owe a debt of gratitude to our respected colleague, from the great State of Kansas, as he, serving as chairman of the ``Subcommittee on Emerging Threats'' of the Armed Services Committee during the 106th Congress, laid foundations--at times in the face of skepticism and resistance--before the attacks of September 11, foundations we are rapidly building on today to strengthen our Homeland Defense. As Americans reflect, with deep gratitude, on the proud history of America's military, let us never forget that the Guard was our first, being founded in 1636. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Roberts' remarks be printed in the Record along with introductory comments by the distinguished Chief of the National Guard Bureau, Lieutenant General Russell C. Davis.