John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue that is critical to the national security of our Nation: the adequate control of the export of sensitive technologies. I have been active in this debate for the past 2 years, together with Senators Helms, Shelby, McCain, Thompson, and Kyl. We have worked with our colleagues on the Banking Committee, particularly Senators Gramm, Sarbanes, and Enzi, to craft a bill that protects our Nation's security, while at the same time allowing for appropriate commercial activity. In April, I reluctantly objected to the motion to proceed to S.149, the Export Administration Act. At that time, I thought it was premature for the Senate to consider this bill until we had received detailed information from the Administration on this issue. I believe the Senate is now in a position to act on this important legislation. I have tried for the past 2 years to work in a conscientious way with all parties to resolve the differences over this legislation. These differences have cut to the very essence of how the United States plans to protect its national security in an era of rapid globalization and proliferation of technology. My goal in this debate has been to strike the proper balance between national security and commercial interests. As we all know, the high tech industry in the United States is currently second to none. We must ensure our domestic industry remains competitive without limiting access to new markets. Considering the rate at which technology becomes obsolete, being the first to deliver a product to a market is crucial. And while we cannot completely abandon national security concerns in favor of industry, we must not unnecessarily hinder the ability of our high tech companies to compete on the world stage. That is what I believe we have accomplished with this bill. This is a complicated issue that cuts across the jurisdiction of six Senate Committees. Five Committee Chairmen with responsibility for national security matters in the U.S. Senate have continuously worked to improve this bill--myself as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Shelby of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Thompson of the Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Helms of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator McCain of the Commerce Committee. In addition, Senator Kyl has been a leading participant in our discussions with the Banking Committee, the committee of primary jurisdiction. The higher penalties and increased enforcement authority, the authority to require enhanced controls on items that need to be controlled for national security reasons, the requirement for the Department of Commerce to notify the Department of Defense of all commodity classifications are examples of progress made on the national security front. I have great respect for the tireless efforts and dedication of my distinguished Banking committee colleagues, Senator Gramm and Senator Enzi, in creating the EAA of 2001. I thank them for meeting with me and others several times throughout the past two years to listen to our concerns with balancing national security matters with economic interests. I hope these concerns will remain a priority for all of us. In this year's version of the EAA, the Banking Committee has included additional national security protections at the urging of the administration. As the debate on these issues has shown, there were concerns about the last administration's record in protecting some of our vital technology. A new administration is able to look at old problems with a fresh approach. It is in that context that the administration reviewed this bill at the request of myself, Senators McCain, Shelby, Thompson, Helms and Kyl. The National Security Advisor and three cabinet Secretaries were intimately involved in this review. As a result, the administration proposed a series of legislative changes that the Banking Committee has included in the bill that is before us. Once these changes were made and the administration was actively engaged on the issue, the question then became a technical matter of how the administration would implement the statute. When the Senators expressing concerns regarding this bill were briefed on the results of the administration's review, we were informed that an interagency agreement had been achieved on how the administration would enhance national security controls during the course of implementing the EAA. Under the administration's proposal, we were informed that some national security protection that we had sought in the past would be included in the executive order that implements S. 149. Thus began a dialogue with the administration to come up with a better understanding of how this bill would be implemented. My past concerns with earlier versions of EAA were based on concerns expressed by the Department of Defense. Last year, DOD provided the Senate Armed Services Committee with specific legislative changes that were necessary in their judgement to fix last year's EAA bill. This included addressing issues related to a national security carve-out or enhanced controls, commodity classifications, the enhanced proliferation control initiative, and deemed exports. The Bush administration shares the concerns of the previous administration but has chosen to pursue some needed changes administratively. In this regard, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a letter I received from Secretary of Commerce Evans be made a part of the legislative record. This letter provides some insight into the administration's interpretation of the bill language and commits the administration to implementing, for example, a ``disciplined and transparent process for escalating and deciding disputes'' on commodity classifications. I am satisfied with the response that the administration has given me that they can work within the confines of this statute to protect national security. I trust that this administration will be able to do so. The Congress will, however, need to provide diligent oversight to ensure that this administration will conform to the high national security standards that they have set for themselves. When the EAA comes up for renewal in three years time, we may have to be more stringent in putting explicit national security protections in statute rather than leaving it to the discretion of the administration. I want to thank my colleagues on the Intelligence, Foreign Relations, Commerce and Governmental Affairs Committees. These Members have worked over the last two years to improve this bill and ensure that our national security interests are protected. I know the job isn't finished yet. It has just begun and I will stand with my colleagues to ensure that our export control process is designed and operated to ensure that weapons of mass destruction do not get into the wrong hands. It is time for the Congress to act on this bill. There is a need to reauthorize the EAA. The national security protections such as the national security carve out, increased penalties for export control violations, and greater visibility for the DOD over commodity classifications are positive steps. We need to lock in these improvements and work to ensure that nonproliferation concerns are protected and strengthened and that vital technology is protected. And we need to allow our domestic industry to compete in the world market without unnecessary and outmoded restrictions.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss embryonic stem cell research, having just participated in a hearing on stem cell research before the Senate's Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. The future of stem cells in the United States, indeed the world, poses one of the greatest challenges to our Government since the foundation of our Republic over 200 years ago. Enormous pressures will be placed upon our Presidents. President Bush, at the threshold of this debate on new developments in medical research, has taken an important step forward. I commend the President for supporting some degree of Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. I also particularly commend the President for his efforts to ban human cloning. Likewise, Congress must write laws striking a balance. On the one hand, ethical, moral, and religious standards give our Nation its strong foundation and must be considered. On the other hand, we must allow science to go forward, within reasonable bounds, to assess the ability of the new frontier of embryonic stem cell research to alleviate the human suffering being experienced by millions. Like our executive and legislative branches of Government, our judiciary will also be faced with challenges. The judiciary must interpret, not re-write, the law of the land, as a flood of cases will come before the courts. If the three branches of our Government fail, in the judgment of Americans, to discharge their respective responsibilities in a fair, objective way, there will be many adverse impacts upon the American people. For example, this science will simply leave the U.S. laboratories and move off shore. The United States will no longer be a Nation that imports and keeps our best researchers; rather, we will become a Nation that exports our brain power in crucial fields. Americans seeking medical treatment will likewise go abroad. Consequently, our Government is faced with challenges. But, to the extent we allow embryonic stem cell research at home, within a fair and balanced framework of regulations, we can better control the important ethical, moral and religious standards vital to our culture here in the United States. America has accepted the awesome responsibility of being the only world superpower in areas of security, the preservation of freedom, and the fostering of the principles of democracy and human rights throughout the world. Are we as a Nation going to be a superpower in medical science, advocating ethical standards for others beyond our shores; or are we, as a Nation, going to retreat behind unrealistic, unenforceable barricades, and leave advancement in the science of this emerging field to the rest of the world? The facts are that an overwhelming amount of evidence exists that indicates that stem cell research holds enormous potential for treatment, and ultimately cures, for many diseases such as Parkinson's disease, cancer, ALS, Alzheimer's, heart disease, spinal chord injuries, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, and diabetes. Constantly, my Senate staff and I meet and hear from many Virginians who suffer from these and other diseases. And, many of these same individuals succumb to their disease, as no cure has yet been found for their illness. Embryonic stem cell research offers a real opportunity to help save lives in the future. After thoughtful consideration, I came to the conclusion that the Federal Government, subject to restrictions, should fund embryonic stem cell research so that we remain a superpower in medical science. I joined with several of my colleagues in the Senate in writing to President Bush expressing my support for Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research prior to the President's August 9th announcement. I ask unanimous consent that the letter to President Bush be printed in Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to once again state my strong support for legislation that increases access to post conviction DNA testing. Our judicial system has numerous safeguards in place to help protect against wrongful convictions of innocent people. The presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is one of many protections our judicial system provides to protect against wrongful convictions. Rights to appeal criminal convictions are another example. Despite these many protections, I recognize that wrongful convictions, unfortunately, do occur. In my view, we must continuously examine our judicial system to determine if new protections are available to ensure that individuals are not imprisoned for crimes they did not commit. In the Commonwealth of Virginia, we need look no further than the Earl Washington case to understand that individuals can be convicted of crimes they did not commit. Washington, a mentally retarded man, spent more than a decade on death row after being convicted for the 1982 rape and murder of 19-year-old Rebecca Williams. In 1994, Governor Wilder commuted Washington's sentence to life in prison as a result of DNA test results. Since 1994, more sophisticated DNA tests became available, and these tests proved conclusively that Washington did not commit the rape and murder. As a result, last year, Governor Gilmore granted Washington a full pardon for this conviction. Subsequently, the Virginia General Assembly unanimously passed legislation signed into law by Governor Gilmore that allows for inmate access to post conviction DNA testing. Certainly, Earl Washington's case is not unique to Virginia. Wrongful convictions occur in both Federal and State courts all across the country. The Washington case, however, makes clear to me that post conviction DNA testing must be made more available. Over the last few years, DNA testing has proved to be a reliable means for identifying criminals when biological evidence exists. While DNA testing is standard in today's investigations, such technology was not available even a decade ago. DNA is more and more frequently used by prosecutors to prove guilt. In my view, it should also be made available to prove innocence. Access to post conviction DNA testing, in circumstances where DNA evidence can prove innocence, is of utmost importance to the administration of justice. In addition to increasing access to DNA testing, we must look at other ways to improve the administration of justice in our system. The Justice Project, a national non-profit organization focusing on identifying and solving issues of fairness in our judicial system, reports that since 1973, 95 people have been exonerated and released from death row. Of those 95 wrongful convictions, only 10 were discovered as a result of DNA testing. Thus, while access to DNA evidence is one new, important component that we must pursue to protect against wrongful convictions, it cannot be the only avenue we pursue. We have all read or heard about the horrific cases where individuals are convicted and sentenced to death after a trial where the defense attorney slept through portions of the case, was inexperienced in death penalty cases, or failed to even interview important witnesses. Such incompetency on the part of a defense attorney undoubtedly results in some wrongful convictions. Certainly, convicted defendants may appeal their conviction to a higher court based on the assertion that they were denied a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. However, I believe that our system, particularly in the highly complex capital punishment cases, can do a better job at ensuring effective assistance of counsel prior the time a case gets the appellate level. In this regard, I share the views of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who, in a recent speech, stated that perhaps it's time to look at the minimum standards for appointed counsel in death cases and adequate compensation for appointed counsel when they are used. Increasing access to post conviction DNA testing, and undertaking a closer examination of the issue of national, minimum standards for appointed counsel in death penalty cases, are two steps in the right direction to improving our judicial system and further protecting against wrongful convictions. My colleague, Senator Leahy, has joined with Senator Gordon Smith and Senator Collins in introducing legislation that improves access to post conviction DNA testing and provides for minimum standards for appointed counsel in death penalty cases. Today, I am pleased to join as a cosponsor of this important legislation, S. 486, the Innocence Protection Act. While I do believe that some technical improvements can be made to the Innocence Protection Act, I support its overall goal of additional, reasonable, protections against wrongful convictions. Specifically, the Innocence Protection Act contains provisions relating to habeas corpus reform. Under the bill, prisoners in States that do not adopt appointed counsel minimum competency standards will be subject to differing habeas corpus rules than prisoners in States which have adopted such standards. In my view, habeas corpus reform is outside the scope of this legislation, and the issue ought to be thoroughly examined by the Judiciary Committee and addressed in separate legislation. In addition, the Innocence Protection Act directs the Attorney General to withhold a portion of the funds awarded under the prison grant programs from death penalty States that have not established or maintained a system for providing legal representation in capital cases that satisfy the standards called for by this bill. In my view, a more appropriate way to encourage States to adopt minimum competency standards would be through awarding new grant money for those States that adopt such standards. Nevertheless, despite these differences, the goal of the Innocence Protection Act is an important one. I look forward to working with the sponsors of this legislation on these concerns, and look forward to working for passage of legislation that will further protect against wrongful convictions.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will allow Federal employees to keep frequent flyer miles they receive while on official government travel. This will level the playing field between Federal employees and their counterparts in the private sector where companies traditionally allow employees to retain frequent flyer miles and similar benefits earned while on business travel. In 1994, a law was passed that requires Federal employees to surrender their frequent flyer miles back to their agencies. The frequent flyer miles would then be used to defray the costs of future travel costs by agency personnel. A recent review conducted by the Government Accounting Office reports that these miles usually become lost, however, in an administrative shuffle. Airlines do not keep separate business and personal accounts for the same individual. While the law had good intentions, it is impractical, if not impossible, for an agency to apply the miles or travel benefits elsewhere. While travel may be inherent with certain jobs, business related travel often impedes on an individual's personal time, time that person could be spending with family and at home. Allowing Federal employees to keep their frequent flyer miles will also help to support the government's ongoing efforts to recruit and retain a skilled, qualified workforce. Furthermore, I believe it will boost morale in the federal workforce. I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and show their support for the dedicated employees of the Federal workforce. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will allow Federal employees to keep frequent flyer miles they receive while on official government travel. This will level the playing field between Federal employees and their counterparts in the private sector where companies traditionally allow employees to retain frequent flyer miles and similar benefits earned while on business travel. In 1994, a law was passed that requires Federal employees to surrender their frequent flyer miles back to their agencies. The frequent flyer miles would then be used to defray the costs of future travel costs by agency personnel. A recent review conducted by the Government Accounting Office reports that these miles usually become lost, however, in an administrative shuffle. Airlines do not keep separate business and personal accounts for the same individual. While the law had good intentions, it is impractical, if not impossible, for an agency to apply the miles or travel benefits elsewhere. While travel may be inherent with certain jobs, business related travel often impedes on an individual's personal time, time that person could be spending with family and at home. Allowing Federal employees to keep their frequent flyer miles will also help to support the government's ongoing efforts to recruit and retain a skilled, qualified workforce. Furthermore, I believe it will boost morale in the federal workforce. I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and show their support for the dedicated employees of the Federal workforce. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation to fulfill an urgent need of the Army National Guard. I recently visited the Headquarters of the Virginia National Guard and the Maneuver Training Center at Fort Pickett. I conferred with Major General Claude A. Williams, the Adjutant General, of the Virginia National Guard. Major General Williams heads a superb organization composed of outstanding units, including the 29th Infantry Division, Light, the 91st Troop Command, the 28th Engineer Brigade, the 54th Field Artillery Brigade, and the 192nd Fighter Wing. The Maneuver Training Center at Fort Picket and its personnel perform a vital training mission for units of the active Army, Army Guard, and Reserve. I was astonished to learn during my visit last month that the Army has funded only 59 percent of the validated operational billets for Active Guard and Reserve, ``AGRs'', and military technicians within the Army National Guard units. The ``full rate'' in Virginia is even lower than this national average, only 51 percent. I raised a question about this and expressed my concern to the Secretary of the Army and Chief of Staff of the Army at a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. The legislation I am introducing today requires annual increases in the numbers of full time active-duty officers and military technicians in the Army National Guard--724 AGRs and 487 military technicians each year for the next 11 years. The legislation is based on a plan drawn up, cooperatively, by the Active Army and the Army National Guard. When fully implemented, the increases contained in the legislation will raise the Guard's ``fill rate'' from its present level of 59 percent of valid personnel requirements, to a level of 71 percent--an acceptable level within current force structure and readiness planning parameters. AGRs and Military Technicians are critically important force multipliers for Army National Guard units. They directly impact training, command and control, technical, functional, and military expertise required to effectively train, administer, and prepare ready units and equipment for transition from peacetime to a wartime posture. AGRs and Military Technicians perform functions vital for meeting supply, training, and maintenance requirements of the Army National Guard units. The increases in authorized end strengths set forth in this legislation are essential because of the increased reliance on Guard units to carry out Army missions. Each Army National Guard division has been assigned rotational duty in Bosnia-Herzegovina with the Stabilization Force, SFOR, missions in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The 29th Infantry Division, Light, of the Virginia National Guard is now fully engaged in executing its phased deployment to Bosnia and will be in place in October of this year. I applaud the Army for its ongoing efforts to integrate the National Guard in its operational planning. The Guard needs these soldiers in place in their full time support roles to ensure its success. I know that Army leaders must make difficult decisions each year based on changing priorities and requirements and that the President must do the same in his annual budget submission. I am convinced, however, that the increases in end strength prescribed in this legislation are necessary and must be assigned the highest priority.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, last year after years of negotiating, Congress was able to reach a compromise to finally replace this dilapidated bridge. We were able to work with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, from Maryland, and from the House to make certain this much needed replacement project was fully funded. This decision by Congress demonstrates the strong commitment by the United States Senate to provide all our citizens a flexible, safe, and efficient interstate highway system. This year, the administration and the House of Representatives have demonstrated their support of this project as the President requested $28.2 million and the House allocated $29.5 million for Fiscal Year 2002. However, the Senate FY2002 Transportation appropriations bill does not address funding for the Wilson Bridge, placing this project in jeopardy. Mr. President, the unique nature of this roadway as a federally owned bridge, its importance to the Capital region, and the surrounding mid- Atlantic region, demands that we restore these funds.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am deferring to my junior colleague from Virginia and am pleased to be an original cosponsor of legislation introduced by Senator Allen to place actual language from the Constitution on the back of the one dollar bill. This legislation is related to a bill I introduced last year based on the idea of students at Liberty Middle School in Ashland, Va. Working with their teacher, Randy Wright, this began as a school project several years ago. I commend these students and Mr. Wright for their continued dedication on seeing this idea realized. If you would think for a minute about the circulation of one dollar. it is fascinating to imagine how many people this message will reach, just how many hands a dollar will pass through even in just one year. Moreover, I believe this initiative exemplifies many of the principles laid out in the Constitution and the people's role in our government. The Constitution is our Nation's most noble achievement. It embodies the freedoms and liberties we enjoy as Americans, and gives value and meaning to the laws by which we live. I agree with the students of Liberty Middle School that the Constitution belongs to the people. It should be in their hands. I am pleased to support this important initiative.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am deferring to my junior colleague from Virginia and am pleased to be an original cosponsor of legislation introduced by Senator Allen to place actual language from the Constitution on the back of the one dollar bill. This legislation is related to a bill I introduced last year based on the idea of students at Liberty Middle School in Ashland, Va. Working with their teacher, Randy Wright, this began as a school project several years ago. I commend these students and Mr. Wright for their continued dedication on seeing this idea realized. If you would think for a minute about the circulation of one dollar. it is fascinating to imagine how many people this message will reach, just how many hands a dollar will pass through even in just one year. Moreover, I believe this initiative exemplifies many of the principles laid out in the Constitution and the people's role in our government. The Constitution is our Nation's most noble achievement. It embodies the freedoms and liberties we enjoy as Americans, and gives value and meaning to the laws by which we live. I agree with the students of Liberty Middle School that the Constitution belongs to the people. It should be in their hands. I am pleased to support this important initiative.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I may speak for 30 seconds. Throughout this procedure I worked hard in this case for Roger Gregory, of course, but I want to extend special recognition to my staff member, Christian Yiahilos, who has been untiring in his efforts in research and other matters relating to this nomination. I think we ought to recognize the valuable support we get from staff, including my chief of staff, Susan Magill.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished managers. Indeed, we are fortunate here in the Senate to have two such outstanding Senators to head up the very important Judiciary Committee because the third branch of our government is the Federal judiciary. Throughout the nearly 23 years I have been privileged to serve as a United States Senator, I have taken a very active and conscientious role in making recommendations to our Presidents for nominees to serve on the Federal judiciary. We are at a historic moment here today with Judge Gregory, as we are about to confirm the first African-American Judge to the United States Court of Appeals on the Fourth Circuit. Virginia, and indeed all the States within the Fourth Circuit, is diverse in its citizenry. Our Judiciary should reflect the broad diversity of the citizens it serves. Accordingly, I had the privilege and the honor of recommending to President Reagan the first African-American in the nearly 200 year history of the Commonwealth of Virginia to serve on the Federal bench. That judge, Judge James Spencer, a United States district judge, has served with great distinction. I also had the privilege and honor of recommending to the first President Bush, the first woman to serve on the United States District Court in the Commonwealth of Virginia, Ms. Rebecca Smith. Judge Smith, likewise, has served with great distinction. And, today, the Senate will confirm Judge Gregory and another chapter of history is documented between the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Federal judiciary. I remember very well when Roger Gregory's name first came to the United States Senate. I had not known him directly, and shortly after he was nominated, I quickly made arrangements to confer with him. Soon, we established a close professional relationship and personal friendship; I have stood by his side ever since through a rather challenging and unusual process of confirmation. Judge Gregory is eminently qualified for a lifetime judgeship on the Fourth Circuit. Former Governor of Virginia, Governor Douglas Wilder, the only African-American in the history of the United States in this century to serve as chief executive of one of our States, addressed a letter to me, my colleague Senator Allen, and Congressman Scott, in support of Judge Gregory. I would like to read portions of this letter into the Record. I submit the letter in its entirety for the Record. Although the House of Representatives is not directly involved in the judicial confirmation proceedings, Members do play an active role. I thank Congressman Scott for his strong support throughout the Gregory confirmation process. And, I also submit a letter of support from Congressman Scott to be printed in the Record. Governor Wilder stated: Gentlemen: I first want to thank you for the strong and unwavering support relative to the nomination of Roger L. Gregory for a position on the United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. It has been invaluable in the process. I also want to thank the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy . . . as well as the former Chairman, Senator Hatch, for the courtesies extended to the nominee. I also commend Senator Charles S. Robb for starting the process by recommending Judge Gregory to President Clinton for the bench. Needless to say, there are a number of persons who have played a pivotal role in bringing this nomination to this point; but none more outstanding than the nominee himself. I have long felt confident that once a hearing was in place, others would more widely see the sterling qualification of the individual . . . I have known the judge since his college days at Virginia State University through the present. I have known him as a student, law partner and friend. I know that he enjoys a splendid reputation with the bench and bar, as well as, being an integral part of the community at state and local events. His devotion to family and civic responsibilities is outstanding and his character is beyond reproach. Impartiality, integrity and resourcefulness will guide him in his decision making. I am confident he will make a very lasting contribution . . . Mr. President, over the history of the Fourth Circuit, there has been a total of 41 judges who have served on the court. Throughout my 23 years in the United States Senate, I have had the honor of participating in the Senate's ``advise and consent'' constitutional role for 16 of these judges. In fact, of the 11 active judges currently on the court, I have participated in and supported the confirmation of 10 of these judges. Only Judge Widener, who was confirmed in 1972 and who is a jurist I have come to know and greatly respect, has a confirmation that preceded my Senate service. Roger Gregory has been a respected member of the Virginia bar since 1980. He has worked for one of Virginia's most respected law firms, Hunton & Williams, and he co-founded his own firm in 1982 with Governor Doug Wilder. Judge Gregory is well known as a skilled litigator. Judge Gregory, I believe, also has the requisite judicial temperament. Many, if not all Senators are concerned about judicial activism. The Judiciary's role is to interpret the law, not to make law. Judge Gregory assured me he will follow this traditional, constitutional, role. From my conversations with Judge Gregory, and based on his judicial questionnaire, I am confident that he recognizes the importance of the separation of powers laid out in our Constitution. Mr. President, Judge Roger Gregory is obviously a very accomplished American. He is well qualified to continue service on this important court, and I am certain that he will continue to serve on this court with honor, integrity, and distinction. It is time to confirm Judge Gregory to a lifetime appointment. I urge my colleagues to support this fine nominee for confirmation. I ask unanimous consent that the letter from former Governor Doug Wilder and a letter form Congressman Bobby Scott be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise in favor of an amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Sarbanes and Senator Allen relating to the ongoing effort by the Corps of Engineers, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State of Maryland to give new life to the Chesapeake Bay oyster. Since 1996, the Corps of Engineers has joined with Maryland and Virginia to provide oyster habitat in the Chesapeake Bay. This partnership has stimulated significant financial support from Virginia and Maryland, dollars from the non-profit Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and many individuals. The oyster, once plentiful in the Bay, has been ravaged by disease, over-harvesting and pollution. Oyster populations in the Bay are nearly non-existent at 99 percent of its traditional stock. In 1999, watermen landed about 420,000 bushels--approximately 2 percent of the historic levels. Since the beginning of the joint federal-state Chesapeake Bay Restoration program in 1983, we have learned that restoring healthy oyster populations in the Bay is critical to improving water quality and supporting other finfish and shellfish populations. According to scientists, when oyster populations were at its height, they could filter all of the water in the Bay in three to four days. Today, with the depleted oyster stocks, it takes over one year. Although it took a long time to develop, there is now consensus in the scientific community, and among watermen and the Bay partners that increasing oyster populations by tenfold over the next decade is a key factor in restoring the living resources of the Bay. Using historic oyster bed locations, owned by the Commonwealth, this federal-state effort has built three-dimensional reefs, stocked them with oyster spat and designated these areas as permanent sanctuaries. These protected areas, off limits to harvesting, have shown great promise in producing oysters that are ``disease tolerant'' which are reproducing and building up adjacent oyster beds. The new Chesapeake Bay 2000 Agreement, between the federal government and the Bay states, calls for increasing oyster stocks tenfold by 2010, using the 1994 baseline. This goal calls for constructing 20 to 25 reefs per year at dimensions where the reefs rise about the Bay bottom so that young oysters survive and grow faster than silt can cover them. Mr. President, with the funding provided last year to the Corps and the additional state funds, there is now an active oyster reef construction program underway in both Virginia and Maryland. My amendment today recognizes the significant allocation of state scientists and state programs that devote their time and resources to the oysters restoration partnership. Integral to the entire project is the state effort to map the large oyster ground areas to determine those sites most suitable for restoration, and to provide suitable shell stock. For example, in Virginia the focus of the next oyster reef construction area is on the large grounds in Tangier and Pocomoke Sounds. State Conservation and Replenishment Department staff created maps that were gridded and more than 3,000 acres were sampled and evaluated. Eight sanctuary reef sites and more than 190 acres of restorable harvest areas were identified during the oyster ground stock assessment in this area earlier this year. In preparation for reef construction this summer, Virginia contracted with local watermen to clean the harvest areas and reef sites. In June of this year, four areas were planted with 86,788 bushels of oyster shells at a cost of $139,000 in state funds. The State of Maryland has been equally committed to providing resources to the Corps for the construction of reef sites in the Maryland waters of the Bay. Consistent with other Corps programs, my amendment permits the Corps to recognize the strong partnership by the states to restore oyster populations and provide credit toward the non-federal cost share for in kind work performed by the states. This federal-state sanctuary program is essential to restoring the Chesapeake Bay oyster. The oyster is a national asset because it has the capability to purify the water by filtering algae, sediments and pollutants. Sanctuary oyster reefs also provide critical habitat to other shellfish, finfish and migratory waterfowl. It has been my privilege to see the construction of these sanctuary reefs last April and I am encouraged by the success of the initial reefs built in Virginia. I am confident that this program is the only way to replenish--and to save--the Chesapeake Bay oyster. I respectfully urge its adoption.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a man whose lifetime record of achievement and service is the embodiment of the best of America. My friend, Mortimer Caplin, has for 6\1/2\ decades honorably served his Nation, his community, and our beloved University of Virginia, amassing an exemplary record of accomplishment of the highest order. I ask unanimous consent that the following remarks made by Robert E. Scott, Dean of the University of Virginia Law School, be printed in the Record. These remarks are part of a speech Dean Scott made during the presentation to Mr. Caplin of The Thomas Jefferson Foundation Medal in Law, the University of Virginia's highest honor. Remarks of Dean Robert E. Scott Upon the Presentation of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation Medal in Law to Mortimer M. Caplin, April 12, 2001 Mr. President, Mr. Rector, and Distinguished Guests: Today is the 10th, and last time I will stand in this glorious space and introduce a recipient of the Jefferson Medal in Law. None of the prior occasions have given me as much joy and pleasure as the duty I discharge today. It is my great honor to present Mortimer M. Caplin, the 2001 recipient of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation Medal in Law. Mortimer Caplin represents the very best of the University's aspirations for its own. Some people gain distinction by happenstance, by being in the right place and the right time and then rising to the occasion. Mortimer Caplin's reputation rests on a lifetime of achievement. Throughout the nearly seven decades that he has been associated with the University, he has exemplified a singular constancy of excellence. At every step of the way he has shown how talent, courage, persistence and a commitment to service can combine to inspire and transform us. These are exactly the qualities that Mr. Jefferson exemplified in his own life and wanted his University to embody. Mortimer Caplin was born in New York in 1916. He came to Charlottesville in 1933, graduating from the college in 1937 and the Law School in 1940. As an undergraduate, he not only earned the highest academic honors but excelled at what the University then regarded as the most estimable athletic endeavor its students could undertake, intercollegiate boxing. At the Law School, he displayed the same pattern of remarkable success. He was elected editor-in-chief of the Law Review and went on to serve as law clerk for Judge Armistead Dobie, a former Dean of the Law School who by tradition chose the most outstanding graduate of each class as his assistant. Mort had barely begun his career as a New York lawyer when World War II broke out. In anticipation of the conflict, he already had enlisted in the Navy and took up his commission shortly after Pearl Harbor. Eager for active duty, he requested a transfer out of the stateside intelligence work that was his first assignment. The Navy responded by making him a beachmaster on Omaha Beach during the Normandy invasion. Facing enemy fire, Mort had to make hard choices quickly to ensure that supplies and reinforcements kept coming. When the occasion required it, he used creativity and imagination to cut through bureaucratic impediments to achieving his essential mission. Thus, when a ship's captain refused to beach his vessel at a time when the ammunition it carried was in short supply along the front and no other method of delivering its cargo presented itself, Mort invented a two-star general whose imaginary order got the job done. Mort Caplin returned from the war to New York, but not many years later heard the University's call and answered, joining the Law faculty in 1950. For over a decade he taught federal taxation and constitutional law. During this time he produced important scholarship and excelled in the classroom. Perhaps equally important was the leadership role Mortimer Caplin played at the University and in the Charlottesville community. In 1950 Mort led the Law faculty in its unanimous decision to admit Gregory Swanson to the Law School, the first African-American to enroll at the University. Subsequently, Mort was a central figure in organizing the efforts of the Charlottesville community to circumvent the ``massive resistance'' campaign that Virginia's political leaders had launched at the Supreme Court's desegregation mandate. Mort, along with other law faculty and their spouses worked unceasingly to ensure that neither children nor civil rights suffered during this dark time in Virginia's history. A brilliant and popular professor, Mort Caplin dazzled his students. One who was especially impressed was Robert F. Kennedy, the younger brother of a rising star in the Democratic Party. Several years later, after that rising star had become the President of the United States, John F. Kennedy appointed his brother's former tax professor as United States Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Mort accepted this challenge with his characteristic energy and good judgment. He led that critically important if sometimes unpopular agency for three years, at a time of significant changes in the United States economy and the tax system. At the end of his term, the Treasury Department granted him the Alexander Hamilton award, the highest possible honor that institution can bestow. Having traveled to Washington, Mort chose to stay. He recognized the need for a first-rate law firm specializing in tax practice and, with Douglas Drysdale, another Virginia alumnus, founded Caplin & Drysdale. Shortly after establishing his law firm, Mort resumed his teaching at the Law School. For more than twenty years he taught advanced courses emphasizing the interplay of tax law and practice. For many students at Virginia, tax law with Mortimer Caplin became a springboard for a career both as public servants and as practitioners in the nation's elite law firms. Mort consistently emphasized the importance of a lawyer's independence and judgment, and preached the central obligation of advancing the public interest while serving one's clients. He sought to lead his students to a life in law that would ennoble and dignify the person living it. During this time of building a prestigious law firm and extending a teaching career, Mort Caplin still found time for significant service to the bar and the general public. He served as President of the Indigent Civil Litigation Fund and on the executive committee of the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights under Law, on numerous significant committees of the American Bar Association, and various charitable organizations. His service as a trustee of the Law School foundation in particular provided great vision and support during a period of change and growth. In recognition of this service, Mort collected a remarkable number of awards and distinctions, honorary degrees and other testimonials to his generosity and accomplishments. In 1988, at the age of 72, Mort Caplin became a Professor Emeritus of the University. This simply opened a new phase in his astonishing career of service and dedication to this University and to the profession. Still to come was a five- year term on the University's Board of Visitors and exemplary service to the Law School as chair of the executive committee of our recently concluded capital campaign. When we began the Law School campaign in July 1992, the first person I went to see was Mortimer Caplin. When I asked whether he would lead what would become an eight-year fundraising effort. Mort replied simply, ``I'll do it.'' True to his word, he did. By dint of his example and leadership, the Law School recently concluded the most successful campaign in the history of American legal education. Mort Caplin remains to this day a central figure in the governance of the Law School and its guidance into the twenty-first century. He has been a driving force behind the Law School's commitment to a broad public vision, as reflected in our decision to dedicate our Public Service Center in his honor. He, in turn, has honored, elevated, and enriched us along every possible dimension. Mr. President, Mortimer Caplin comes to us today as the embodiment of what Mr. Jefferson envisioned as the best that we Americans have within us. He has lived a life in law as a high calling, one dedicated to advancement of knowledge, service to the nation, husbanding the great resources with which we have been endowed and ensuring that all Americans can take part in our great national banquet and enjoy the opportunities that life in America presents. On behalf of the School of Law and the selection committee, it is my privilege to introduce Mortimer M. Caplin as the 2001 recipient of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation Medal in Law.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with Chairman Byrd and Ranking Member Burns concerning the renovation and restoration needs of the National Park Service property, the Arlington House, across the Potomac River in Arlington National Cemetery. Arlington House is uniquely associated with the historic Virginia families of Washington, Custis and Lee. It was built by George Washington Park Custis and was the home of Robert E. Lee until the Civil War. Over the years, Arlington House has become an integral part of the core monument area here in the Nation's Capital. Not only is it located at the center of the Arlington National Cemetery, but it is emblematic of the post-Civil War bond between North and South, Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee are symbolically united by the Memorial Bridge which connects the Lincoln Memorial to Arlington House. In recent years, the National Park Service has been unable to properly maintain the physical structure of Arlington House to safeguard its artifacts and collections, thereby causing many of the rooms in this historic house to be closed to the public. The National Park Service has identified the total funding requirements to restore Arlington House. It is my understanding that a minimum of $2.5 million is needed in fiscal 2002 to preserve this facility. I am aware that the chairman and ranking member were faced with many significant funding demands in this bill. They have done an admirable job to provide the maximum amount of funding available to preserve our nation's historic resources. I bring to their attention the significant needs of Arlington House and respectfully request that in conference with the House that this matter be given their attention.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my amendment to the bill will redesignate Building 1500 at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, VA, as the Norman Sisisky Engineering and Management Building. I am joined by my Virginia colleague, Senator George Allen. As a Navy veteran of World War II, Congressman Sisisky was proud to be a part of one of the most extraordinary chapters in American history, when America was totally united at home in support of our 16 million men and women in uniform on battlefields in Europe and on the high seas in the Pacific--all, at home and abroad, fighting to preserve freedom. During our 18 years serving together, Congressman Sisisky's goal, our goal, was to provide for the men and women in uniform and their families. The last 50 years have proven time and again that one of America's greatest investments was the G.I. Bill of Rights, originated during World War II, which enabled service men and women to gain an education such that they could rebuild America's economy. The G.I. Bill was but one of the many benefits that Congressman Sisisky fought for and made a reality for today's soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. His strength in public life was supported by his wonderful family; his lovely wife Rhoda and four accomplished children. They were always by his side offering their love, support, and counsel. He worked tirelessly throughout Virginia's 4th District, however, there was always a special bond to the military installations under his charge. As a former sailor, the Norfolk Naval Shipyard was high among his priorities. He knew the workers by name and the monthly workload in the yard. In consultation with his family and delegation members, we chose this building at the shipyard as a most appropriate memorial to our friend and colleague. I waited until the special election was concluded so the entire Virginia delegation could join together on this legislation. Norman Sisisky was always a leader for the delegation on matters of national security. We are honored to join in this bi-partisan effort to remember Congressman Norman Sisisky and his life's work; ensuring the Nation's security and the welfare of the men and women in uniform and their families. Along with my remarks, I would like to include the remarks of the Commander Chief of the Atlantic Fleet, Admiral Bob Natter. Admiral Natter worked very closely with Norman Sisisky throughout his career and joins me and the entire Virginia delegation in supporting the naming of Building 1500; the Norman Sisisky Engineering and Management building. Admiral Bob Natter, Commander in Chief, Atlantic Fleet writes: It is highly fitting to name the Norfolk Naval Shipyard's Engineering and Management building at the Navy's oldest and most historic shipyard after Representative Norman Sisisky. Mr. Sisisky was on hand in 1983 for the dedication and ribbon cutting of this building, which has become the most recognizable building on the shipyard. His dedication and service to our Navy, this great shipyard, and its many employees mirror the Norfolk Naval Shipyard motto of ``Service to the Fleet, any ship, anytime, anywhere.'' From improvements in quality of life to technology that have made Norfork Naval Shipyard one of the finest yards in the nation, Mr. Sisisky strongly supported the best interests of our Navy and our Nation. Among a wide range of projects at the shipyard, he supported a new bachelor enlisted quarters which today houses 300 Sailors and served as a model for the entire Navy. He was an ardent supporter of a waterfront improvement project that significantly expanded shipyard capabilities, including the capacity to conduct simultaneous repairs on two DDG 51 class ships. He was personally dedicated to keeping this great public shipyard competitive, in cost and in unparalleled quality. Perhaps most of all, the Sailors of the Atlantic Fleet and the dedicated men and women of the Norfolk Naval Shipyard who work tirelessly on our ships and submarines knew Norm Sisisky was their strongest supporter and would fight for their best interests. His presence at nearly every important Navy event in the community made him a popular, recognizable and appreciated friend among uniformed Sailors and civilians alike. He has made an indelible mark on this community and a lasting contribution to the Atlantic Fleet. We are honored to have this centerpiece of the Norfork Naval Shipyard named after Norman Sisisky, a great patriot who will forever be remembered as a great friend of the Navy.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Was that in the unanimous consent agreement?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 852, Withdrawn

Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague from Nevada.

Mr. WARNER. I understand we will proceed to a voice vote and the amendment of my distinguished colleague will be withdrawn.

Mr. WARNER. We have worked it out together. I ask that the yeas and nays be withdrawn.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my modification has been sent to the desk.

Mr. WARNER. I send a modification to the desk.

Mr. WARNER. Your amendment is withdrawn?

Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object, should we lay out a full understanding of our agreement?

Mr. WARNER. If that is of no help, we need not do that.