John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. This outlines the course we will embark on at this point in time. I urge my colleagues to read this letter in the context of our debate today. I thank my colleague. Exhibit 1--Response From the Chief of Staff Josh Bolten to a Democratic Letter September 5, 2006. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Reid: Thank you for your September 4 letter to the President. I am responding on his behalf. A useful discussion of what we need to do in Iraq requires an accurate and fair-minded description of our current policy: As the President has explained, our goal is an Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself. In order to achieve this goal, we are pursuing a strategy along three main tracks--political, economic, and security. Along each of these tracks, we are constantly adjusting our tactics to meet conditions on the ground. We have witnessed both successes and setbacks along the way, which is the story of every war that has been waged and won. Your letter recites four elements of a proposed ``new direction'' in Iraq. Three of those elements reflect well- established Administration policy; the fourth is dangerously misguided. First, you propose ``transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection.'' That is what we are now doing, and have been doing for several years. Our efforts to train the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) have evolved and accelerated over the past three years. Our military has had substantial success in building the Iraqi Army--and increasingly we have seen the Iraqi Army take the lead in fighting the enemies of a free Iraq. The Iraqi Security Forces still must rely on U.S. support, both in direct combat and especially in key combat support functions. But any fair-minded reading of the current situation must recognize that the ISF are unquestionably more capable and shouldering a greater portion of the burden than a year ago--and because of the extraordinary efforts of the United States military, we expect they will become increasingly capable with each passing month. Your recommendation that we focus on counter-terrorism training and operations--which is the most demanding task facing our troops--tracks not only with our policy but also our understanding, as well as the understanding of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, that Iraq is a central front in the war against terror. Second, your letter proposes ``working with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources.'' You are once again urging that the Bush Administration adopt an approach that has not only been embraced, but is now being executed. Prime Minister Nouri al- Maliki is pursuing a national reconciliation project. It is an undertaking that (a) was devised by the Iraqis; (b) has the support of the United States, our coalition partners and the United Nations; and (c) is now being implemented. Further, in Iraq's political evolution, the Sunnis, who boycotted the first Iraq election, are now much more involved in the political process. Prime Minister Maliki is head of a free government that represents all communities in Iraq for the first time in that nation's history. It is in the context of this broad-based, unity government, and the lasting national compact that government is pursuing, that the Iraqis will consider what amendments might be required to the constitution that the Iraqi people adopted last year. On the matter of disarming militias: that is precisely what Prime Minister al-Maliki is working to do. Indeed, Coalition leaders are working with him and his ministers to devise and implement a program to disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate members of militias and other illegal armed groups. Third, your letter calls for ``convening an international conference and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq's sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort.'' The International Compact for Iraq, launched recently by the sovereign Iraqi government and the United Nations, is the best way to work with regional and international partners to make substantial economic progress in Iraq, help revitalize the economic reconstruction and rebuilding of that nation, and support a fair and just political settlement in Iraq--all while preserving Iraqi sovereignty. This effort is well under way, it has momentum, and I urge you to support it. Three of the key proposals found in your letter, then, are already reflected in current U.S. and Iraqi policy in the region. On the fourth element of your proposed ``new direction,'' however, we do disagree strongly. Our strategy calls for redeploying troops from Iraq as conditions on the ground allow, when the Iraqi Security Forces are capable of defending their nation, and when our military commanders believe the time is right. Your proposal is driven by none of these factors; instead, it would have U.S. forces begin withdrawing from Iraq by the end of the year, without regard to the conditions on the ground. Because your letter lacks specifics, it is difficult to determine exactly what is contemplated by the ``phased redeployment'' you propose. (One such proposal, advanced by Representative Murtha, a signatory to your letter, suggested that U.S. forces should be redeployed as a ``quick reaction force'' to Okinawa, which is nearly 5,000 miles from Baghdad). Regardless of the specifics you envision by ``phased redeployment,'' any premature withdrawal of U.S. forces would have disastrous consequences for America's security. Such a policy would embolden our terrorist enemies; betray the hopes of the Iraqi people; lead to a terrorist state in control of huge oil reserves; shatter the confidence our regional allies have in America; undermine the spread of democracy in the Middle East; and mean the sacrifices of American troops would have been in vain. This ``new direction'' would lead to a crippling defeat for America and a staggering victory for Islamic extremists. That is not a direction this President will follow. The President is being guided by a commitment to victory--and that plan, in turn, is being driven by the counsel and recommendations of our military commanders in the region. Finally, your letter calls for replacing Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. We strongly disagree. Secretary Rumsfeld is an honorable and able public servant. Under his leadership, the United States Armed Forces and our allies have overthrown two brutal tyrannies and liberated more than 50 million people. Al Qaeda has suffered tremendous blows. Secretary Rumsfeld has pursued vigorously the President's vision for a transformed U.S. military. And he has played a lead role in forging and implementing many of the policies you now recommend in Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld retains the full confidence of the President. We appreciate your stated interest in working with the Administration on policies that honor the sacrifice of our troops and promote our national security, which we believe can be accomplished only through victory in this central front in the War on Terror. Sincerely, Joshua B. Bolten, Chief of Staff. Identical Letters Sent To: The Honorable Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Leader. The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Leader. The Honorable Dick Durbin, Senate Assistant Democratic Leader. The Honorable Steny Hoyer, House Minority Whip. The Honorable Carl Levin, Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee. The Honorable Ike Skelton, Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee. The Honorable Joe Biden, Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The Honorable Tom Lantos, Ranking Member, House International Relations Committee. The Honorable Jay Rockefeller, Vice Chairman, Senate Intelligence Committee. The Honorable Jane Harman, Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee. The Honorable Daniel Inouye, Ranking Member, Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. The Honorable John Murtha, Ranking Member, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. WARNER. I return to the President's August 21 news conference. That sets the tenor for how we should address this debate not only in the Senate but across the land as we direct our attention to this important subject. The President concludes another paragraph in that news conference: And so we will continue to speak out in a respectful way, never challenging somebody's love for America when you criticize their strategies or their point of view. That is the context in which I wish to address the Senate this afternoon and have tried to do so in a respectful way, just as the President said. I turn to another part of the letter I referred to, written by the Democratic leadership, in which they say: We also think there is one additional measure you can take immediately to demonstrate that you recognize the problems your policies have created in Iraq and elsewhere, consider changing the civilian leadership at the Defense Department. Everyone has a perfect right to do that. That has been stated in this letter. We go back to the basic strategy of this great republic, as laid down by our forefathers in the Constitution. The President was given the responsibility as Commander in Chief, as President, to assemble the Cabinet of his choosing--or her, in the future, if we have a female President. He has exercised that. This Senate has given its advice and consent, as is required under the Constitution for each of the Members, including Secretary Rumsfeld. I draw upon my distinguished colleague from Alaska, his comments about Secretary Rumsfeld. Similar to the Senator from Alaska, I, too, have known Secretary Rumsfeld for a very long time. When I was Secretary of the Navy, he was in the White House at that time. I had some contact with him. In the ensuing years, I served under three Secretaries of Defense in my 5 years in the Department of Defense. In the ensuing years, in my years in the Senate, I have worked with each and every one of the Secretaries of Defense, so I have some understanding, modest though it be, with regard to that office and those who have served in that office. I find in my dealings with Secretary Rumsfeld over the years he has been in office--I worked on his confirmation, as a matter of fact, at that time--I have found him, much like the Senator from Alaska, to be an individual with whom I could work very successfully. I have established a working relationship and a mutual respect. I believe it is a fundamental right of the President to make his choice. This debate, in a way, is an attack on the President as to his choice and to his constitutional right to select his own Cabinet. In so doing, we must respect that Constitution and his right to do so. He has chosen Secretary Rumsfeld. Within the past day or two, he has reiterated his unwavering support. Consequently, we must recognize it comes down to the Constitution, the Presidential right to select members of his Cabinet. I join my colleague from Alaska and other colleagues in resisting, in every way, any call by which to indicate a lack of confidence in the President's choice for the Office of Secretary of Defense. I may have further remarks to deliver on this subject as the debate continues, but at this point I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this initiative by my fellow colleague on the Armed Services Committee, Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts. It is rather interesting, I went back and studied a lot of military treatises and precedents, trying to analyze what constitutes a civil war--Webster's Dictionary; Edward Luttwak, ``The Dictionary of Modern War''; Pennsylvania State University's ``The Classic International War''; and other treatises. It was interesting. There is another academic, with a last name spelled K- A-L-L-Y-V-A-S. He put out a treatise on warfare in civil wars. He talks about a conventional civil war, an irregular civil war, an asymmetric, nonconventional civil war. This is an academic exercise that yields nothing. The one thing that comes out in this study is that there are no two civil insurrections alike. There is not a blueprint that can be put on this problem in Iraq to say definitively that it constitutes a civil war. In fact, the situation in Iraq, no matter how disturbed all of us are about the rising number of deaths and the sectarian violence, it is very disturbing and I acknowledge that. It was never, in my judgment, foreseen that this level of insurrection would take place once we had a series of elections by the people of Iraq and a government put into place. But the basic formula of civil war has the principle in it that if the government is still functioning and if the Armed Forces of that country are still acting in support of the government, then it does not constitute a civil war. I urge my colleagues to turn their attention to the key fact here: What are the consequences if this government fails to have a security situation that enables it to exercise the full range of sovereignty? What are the consequences? What are the consequences if these valuable oilfields--maybe not all at once, but part of them--fall into the hands of terrorists who seize them? What are the consequences of the situation devolving to the point where the nations around it feel they must inject themselves into the situation? For example, those nations with Sunni populations, Jordan and Saudi Arabia and indeed Syria and Egypt; they are not going to stand on the sidelines. So I say to my colleague, we better look at what happens if this Government fails to receive that measure of support from the coalition forces, principally the United States, to enable it to continue to exercise the reins of sovereignty and continue to have the allegiance and loyalty of the Armed Forces which we have painstakingly trained in large numbers now and equipped. Therein is the debate we should have to let the American people know what are the consequences. If the oilfields were to fall into the wrong hands, they would provide an unlimited source of cash for the terrorists--terrorists who have the most frightful of all weapons today; namely, the human bomber. Couple that unlimited cash and what appears to be a number of human bombers and we have a serious problem. The Middle East would be thrown into a convulsive state. The credibility of our Nation, in the eyes of the world, would be tested, and we could no longer be a strong voice in trying to bring about order in this region and to contain the most serious problem, as I see it; that is, the possibility of Iran becoming a power enabling it to have nuclear weapons. We must maintain a strong presence and we cannot let this Government be in a situation where it can no longer exercise the reins of sovereignty. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I support the President's nomination of Kimberly Ann Moore of Falls Church, VA, to be a U.S. Circuit Court Judge for the Federal Circuit. I was pleased, along with Senator Allen, to introduce Ms. Moore to the Judiciary Committee on June 28, 2006, and it is my privilege to speak again on her behalf. All of us recognize the importance of the position to which President Bush has nominated Ms. Moore. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stands as one of the 13 Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals that operate just under the U.S. Supreme Court. The Federal Circuit, which consists of 12 judges, is a unique court in that it has nationwide jurisdiction in a variety of subject areas, including international trade, government contracts, patents, trademarks, certain money claims against the U.S. Government, and veterans' benefits cases. Given the court's highly technical jurisdiction, there is no doubt that serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is a challenging task. In my view, based on Ms. Moore's educational background and her legal and technical expertise, she is clearly up to the task. Ms. Moore received her undergraduate degree in 1990 in electrical engineering from the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology. A year later, she earned her masters of science and earned an impressive grade point average of 4.8 out of a 5-point scale. The nominee then went on to graduate cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 1994. Subsequent to graduation, Ms. Moore entered private practice where she worked as an associate at the well- respected law firm of Kirkland & Ellis. While at the firm, Ms. Moore specialized in intellectual property litigation. In 1995, the nominee left private practice to serve as a law clerk for the Honorable Glenn L. Archer, Jr., then-chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Ms. Moore served a 2-year clerkship on the court. After her clerkship, the nominee joined the faculty at the Chicago- Kent College of Law and, later the University of Maryland School of Law. At both law schools, Ms. Moore taught patent and trademark law. Beginning in 2000, Ms. Moore spent 3 years as an intellectual property litigation counsel at the firm of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in Washington DC. At the same time, however, she still managed to work in academia, teaching law as an associate professor at the George Mason University School of Law. In 2004, Ms. Moore became a full professor of law at George Mason University where she teaches intellectual property law. It is impressive to note that throughout her legal career the nominee has written and delivered over 60 published articles, books, and speeches, mostly in the realm of intellectual property law. Moreover, Ms. Moore has earned accolades from the National Law Journal, which recently selected her as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America. In my view, Ms. Moore is obviously very well qualified to serve as a judge on this prestigious court. I look forward to the Senate confirming this fine nominee overwhelmingly.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to discuss my absence today during rollcall vote No. 224. The vote was in reference to Senate amendment No. 4785, offered by my colleague, Senator Coburn. Senator Coburn's amendment, which sought to ensure fiscal integrity of travel payments made by the Department of Defense, passed the Senate by a vote of 96 to 0. During the vote, I was serving as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, chairing a very important hearing on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the global war on terrorism. Witnesses at the hearing included Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld; Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace; and General John Abizaid, Commander, United States Central Command. My vote would not have affected the outcome of this amendment.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I wish to acknowledge the retirement and to honor the service of a fellow Virginian, a true patriot, and a career civil servant of the Department of Defense who has given 39 years of dedicated military and civilian service to our country. Mr. Ralph Conte was born in Ponza, Italy, in 1940. He immigrated to the United States in January 1956 whereupon he studied engineering at New York University. He was commissioned as an Air Force officer through OTS in June 1967, and his first assignment was at Aviano Air Base, Italy. His military career included serving in Vietnam as a member of the premier combat engineering unit in the Air Force, known as RED HORSE. He further served at Kunsan Air Base in Korea and at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH. In 1975 he separated from active duty and continued service to his country as a civilian manager at Air Force Logistics Command and a NATO program manager at Ramstein Air Base, Germany. He finally settled in Virginia in June 1986, working for the Air National Guard eventually as the chief of programs. I believe everyone in the Air National Guard will attest that very few individuals have had a greater positive impact on providing the finest facilities and installations for the Air National Guard to accomplish their missions. During his tenure at the Air National Guard, Mr. Conte was directly responsible for planning and programming facility and real property requirements worth over $7 billion to support 177 Guard locations throughout the 50 States, 3 territories, and the District of Columbia. His leadership, outstanding technical expertise, and unlimited energy have created a blueprint for success for which generations of Air National Guardsmen will reap the benefits. I offer sincere appreciation and thanks for his service, and wish him and his family the best in retirement.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, when the matter of the pending Gulf of Mexico Energy Bill was first brought to my attention, and every day thereafter, I repeatedly spoke to the distinguished managers of this legislation about the need for States other than those specifically cared for in this legislation--namely, the Gulf States--the other coastal States to be permitted to amend this bill such that coastal States could begin the long process of asserting our rights as coastal States to those energy resources that, in all probability, are on the Outer Continental Shelf. Therefore, I readied an amendment that I send to the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. WARNER. My amendment represents a unique opportunity for this Senate, and indeed the entire Nation as a whole, to seek to determine if we cannot, as several coastal States, help our Nation in this dire need for additional sources of natural gas, and possibly, in some instances, States might elect to include oil, to meet the ever-looming resource crisis. I remember when the Energy bill which is now law was passed by the Senate. I stood at this very desk and I had an amendment very similar to the one which I am speaking about today. When that amendment was pushed to one side, I said I would stand here again, and here I am again today. But I understand--this is the 28th year I have been in the Senate--there are parliamentary means under the rules of the Senate to preclude Senators from offering amendments, and as such, I am being denied that opportunity. The bill before us today represents a step in the right direction-- and I commend those who have worked on it--to open access to more natural gas and oil in the Gulf of Mexico. However, I, like many others in this body, believe that more must be done because there is such a time lag between the potential passage of my amendment and the actual recovery of gas and oil from any of these moratorium states. We have to begin, and I had hoped on this bill I could mark that beginning. I worked with many of my colleagues on a proposal to address this supply issue by giving opportunities to the individual States to open up areas in the Outer Continental Shelf waters for the future potential exploration of gas and oil; thus, the coastal States. The amendment I crafted would address the current moratorium on energy and exploration in most of America's Outer Continental Shelf and is the evolution of various amendments and bills I have offered since the debate on last year's Energy Policy Act. It would give States the authority to extend the current moratorium prohibiting oil and gas development in most of the Nation's offshore waters or petition for waivers on their own terms to contribute to the Nation's energy supply. The facts, as I understand them, are as follows: U.S. demand for natural gas will grow by 40 percent in this country in the next decade to decade and a half. The demand for oil in the United States will grow by 31 percent over the same period of time. At current rates, domestic production will only meet one-third--I repeat-- one-third of our demand growth, leaving us increasingly dependent on politically unstable regions. I shall not recount all of them because they are growing by day. Regrettably, it looks as if Venezuela, from which we receive a good deal of our energy supplies, could be placed in the column of ``politically unstable.'' Indeed, many parts of Africa have become unstable, and we all know at this very moment the tragic situation that is unfolding in the Middle East. We must also be aware of the virtually exponential growth and demand in the developing nations, all competing in the world market for this fungible good named ``energy.'' China's energy consumption has grown by over 100 percent in the past 20 years. It is expected to double again in the next 20 years. Mexico's natural gas demand is expected to double by 2025. Energy consumption in India is expected to more than double in the next 20 years. We are too dependent indeed on overseas supplies, so we turn to our continental limits. Indeed, the question at hand is about the Gulf of Mexico. The bill authored by Chairman Domenici does increase our supplies, and I am very hopeful the Senate will act in passing this important piece of legislation. I propose to support it. I want to make clear that more must be done outside the Gulf of Mexico. With 20 percent to 25 percent of our domestic oil and gas production located in the Gulf of Mexico, we simply have to diversify our geographic supply. The Gulf of Mexico is subject to natural disasters. It is a tragic situation, but history records it. As a result of last year's hurricanes alone, we will lose 30 percent of our oil and 21 percent of our projected annual natural gas from in the Gulf of Mexico. This is all because of the extended closure of a significant number of platforms. In fact, a report issued last month by the Department of Interior states that 12 percent of U.S. oil production in the Gulf of Mexico remains shut in almost a year after last summer's events. Hopefully, that production will eventually return to normal levels, but it shows a certain degree of fragility in that area of the United States upon which we rely for such a high percentage of our energy requirements. The bill Chairman Domenici has brought to the floor will open up more than 8 million acres of oil and gas production. The amendment I propose would not directly open any areas or mandate any production. However, depending on the will of the individual States--and that is a combination of, depending on the State, the Governor, the legislature, and indeed the people themselves--my proposal would provide the opportunity for up to 350 million acres--mind you, 8 million acres under this bill pending--350 million acres to be considered for development. That is the coastal area around the United States. Now, I fully recognize the concerns of the environmentalists, and many times I have tried to work on this, but we have to strike a balance. We must do that. We have an obligation to our citizens. Modern technology has enabled the drillers to put down pipes and other devices to extract the oil and gas which, if subjected to a natural disaster or other problem, seal up quickly and do not spew forth into the pristine ocean and on to the shores the pollution we have witnessed in other catastrophic situations usually involving the transportation of oil from overseas. The Minerals Management Service reports that since 1980, 4.7 billion barrels of oil have been produced offshore with a spill rate of less than one-thousandth of one percent. Technology has progressed and it must be accepted that production of and protection of our natural resources are not mutually exclusive opportunities. Based upon preliminary resource estimates, my amendment could provide more than $2 billion in new Federal revenues and over $1 billion to States and their citizens that are willing to accept whatever risks still remain, who authorize production in Federal waters off their shores over the next 10 years. Many of my colleagues have expressed concerns about the Gulf of Mexico bill, and they stem from what is in the House bill. They said they do not want to lift the moratorium as the House bill would do. Well, I am not going to inject myself into the conference. I will leave that to the able leadership of others. However, I will say that my amendment would not lift one square inch of the current Federal moratorium. Instead, it would establish a process by which the States can petition the Secretary of Interior, subject to their own specifications, for a waiver from the moratorium on natural gas or oil production in most of the Outer Continental Shelf. If a State would rather continue the moratorium beyond 2012, the amendment establishes a process that would authorize the extension of that moratorium for up to 10 additional years. The principle of my amendment is simply to enable the individual States to have more control over the waters off their coasts than they do today and more control than they would under the recently passed House bill. I support the effort to open up areas of the Gulf of Mexico to enhanced energy production. However, it is my sincere hope that the Members of this body do not believe that this alone will solve our oil and gas supply problem. More must be done in conservation and more must be done in the area of American production. The time has come for the Senate to act on the issue of American production of natural gas and oil. Energy Security is National Security and for the people of America to be dependent upon foreign sources of energy is dangerous to our economy and our way of life. I have offered a balanced approach to address supply needs and environmental concerns. This is the way for all States to have a say in the policy. The current moratorium expires in 2012 and without legislation like that which I propose, these States would have no guarantee of protection. Mr. President, I see a number of our colleagues waiting here. But I will return to this floor time and time again, as long as I can draw breath, to fight for the rights of the individual coastal States to decide for themselves--not to be mandated by the Federal Government but to decide for themselves whether they want to step up and help America reach its energy needs. Now, I have talked to the managers of this bill--and at some point, maybe I can have a colloquy put into the Record today--but some assurances are being given to Senators who, like myself, represent the coastal States to see whether the legislation along the lines of the bill I have introduced today, a copy of which is appended to this statement, can, once again, be brought before this Chamber. Exhibit 1 Beginning on page 17, strike line 19 and all that follows through page 18, line 17 and insert the following: (f) Limitations on Amount of Distributed Qualified Outer Continental Shelf Revenues and Covered Revenues.-- (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the total amount of qualified outer Continental Shelf revenues and covered revenues made available under subsection (a)(2) and section 6(j)(1)(B) shall not exceed $500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2016 through 2055. (2) Expenditures.--For the purpose of paragraph (1), for each of fiscal years 2016 through 2055, expenditures under subsection (a)(2) and section 6(j)(1)(B) shall be net of receipts from that fiscal year from any area in the 181 Area in the Eastern Planning Area, the 181 South Area, or any area off the coastline of a covered State. (3) Pro rata reductions.--If paragraph (1) limits the amount of qualified outer Continental Shelf revenue or covered revenues that would be paid under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (a)(2) or clauses (i) and (ii) of section 6(j)(1)(B)-- (A) the Secretary shall reduce the amount of qualified outer Continental Shelf revenue and covered revenue provided to each recipient on a pro rata basis; and (B) any remainder of the qualified outer Continental Shelf revenues and covered revenues shall revert to the general fund of the Treasury.

Mr. WARNER. I am happy to do so.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Louisiana. Indeed, in two consecutive sessions of the General Assembly of Virginia, this subject has been on the agenda and bills have been passed by the House of Delegates and State Senate to send bills to the Governor. For whatever reason, Governor Warner--I am not here to criticize, but he saw fit not to let the bill become legislation, and Governor Kaine likewise disapproved of the language this past legislative session encouraging offshore development. I think progress has been made in our legislature as evidenced by the overwhelming votes of more than 75 percent of the State Senate and House of Delegates on this year's bill, and clearly the legislature is speaking for the people of Virginia, and they are ready to take on this challenge and to accept the consequences, whatever they may be. But I repeat: I think technology has gotten to the point where that risk is minimal, in my judgment. How it would affect adjoining States, that is subject to debate. If there were a mishap off the shore of Virginia and depending on the winds, the drift, the seas, and other things, if there were an accident which did emit some pollution, I am not sure anyone could write that into law as to what happens. It is important to note that my amendment includes provisions requiring the concurrence of neighboring states that would be within twenty miles of any production and, as I have said before, modern technology has made these risks very minimal. But it is an important aspect worth consideration--any legislation of the type I have offered. But it would seem to me collectively the coastal States should look to this as a possible increase in their energy and financial resources. As a matter of fact, my bill allows the citizens of any coastal State authorizing such production to retain a significant part of the proceeds from such drilling. I thank you for asking the question.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I rise to congratulate the dedicated leadership and employees of Fairfax Water. Their vision and hard work has paved the way for the opening of the Frederick P. Griffith, Jr. Water Treatment Facility on July 15, 2006. The Griffith plant is truly state of the art and we are proud that the Commonwealth has such an entity leading the way and setting such high standards for the rest of the country. Leaders at Fairfax Water truly recognize the importance of protecting our natural resources and preserving the facets of the surrounding area. I think it is most important to recognize that this new facility embodies our Nation's commitment to homeland security. The Griffith plant is equipped with numerous security measures which go a long way to ensure that Fairfax Water's nearly 1.5 million customers are well protected from potential threats be they natural or manmade. This is comforting to know especially when one considers the large number of critical government facilities which are served by Fairfax Water. These facilities include Fort Belvoir U.S. Army Reservation, Fort Belvoir Proving Grounds, facilities of the Central Intelligence Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Laboratories, U.S. Navy Family Housing, U.S. Coast Guard Information Systems Center, facilities of the General Services Administration, facilities of the U.S. Department of State; and office space and warehouses for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. As the senior Senator from the Commonwealth of Virginia, I am proud that these important installations are in my State. They provide many crucial services to all Americans, and have responsibilities beyond the Commonwealth. I am proud that Fairfax Water serves its local and national constituencies so well. Mr. President, I am sure that my colleagues will join me in offering congratulations and continued success to my friends at Fairfax Water.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and pay tribute to RADM James E. McPherson, the Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy. Admiral McPherson will retire from the Navy on July 28, 2006, having completed over 27 years of distinguished service to our Nation. Admiral McPherson, a native of San Diego, is a graduate of San Diego State University and University of San Diego Law School. He also earned a master of laws degree from the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School. Admiral McPherson began his military career as an enlisted man in the U.S. Army. He served over 3 years as a military policeman at the Presidio of San Francisco, with the Eighth Army in South Korea, and with the First Infantry Division. Notably, he is the first Navy Judge Advocate General to begin his career as an enlisted man. After receiving his commission as an ensign and completing Naval Justice School in Newport, RI, Admiral McPherson was assigned as an Assistant Force Judge Advocate for Commander, Naval Air Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet. He continued his distinguished career with assignments at the Naval Legal Service Office in Norfolk, VA; the Naval Air Station, Cubi Point in the Philippines; and as Command Judge Advocate onboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt. Following completion of graduate school, Admiral McPherson returned to the Naval Legal Service Office in Norfolk and served tours as senior defense counsel and senior trial counsel. He was then assigned as Force Judge Advocate for Commander, Submarine Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet; the assistant for legal and legislative matters for the vice chief of Naval Operations; and as special counsel to the Chief of Naval Operations. In September 2000, Admiral McPherson assumed command of Trial Service Office East in Norfolk, and in October 2002, he was promoted to rear admiral and assigned as the Deputy Judge Advocate General and Commander, Naval Legal Service Command. Admiral McPherson assumed his current duties as the 39th Judge Advocate General of the Navy in November 2004. The Nation, the United States Navy, and the Judge Advocate General's Corps have been fortunate to enjoy the talents and dedication of such a distinguished and wonderful gentleman. Admiral McPherson's commitment to the rule of law strengthened the Navy, and he has served this Nation well. I know all of my colleagues join me in congratulating Admiral McPherson on the occasion of his retirement, and we wish him fair winds and following seas.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. With that understanding, I support this provision and I believe it may be helpful in ensuring that this cleanup in the Narragansett Bay takes place, as it should.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished manager of this bill, Senator Inhofe, and the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, pertaining to a provision that would clarify that funds from the Department of Defense account for environmental remediation at formerly used Defense sites may be used for the removal of abandoned marine camels at any formerly used Defense site under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense. First, perhaps for those who are not familiar with marine and naval terminology, it would be useful to point out that a ``marine camel'' is nothing more than a large timber fender. These wooden fenders, or bumpers, are of the type that have been used since the days of sail to cushion a ship as it lays alongside a pier, or to act as a buffer between two or more ships when they are tied up alongside each other, either at a pier, a mooring, or at anchor. The purpose of the camel is to prevent damage to a ship or a pier that would otherwise occur when a ship rocks against a pier or against another ship due to shifting tides, currents, wakes from passing ships, and so forth. The problem this provision seeks to solve is that over the many years these marine camels have been in use at naval facilities, marine terminals, and moorings controlled and operated by the Department of Defense, they have been lost, sunk, or otherwise have become hazardous debris, often containing hazardous substances, in the waters and on the shores of formerly used Defense sites in Narragansett Bay. The purpose of this colloquy is to establish that the provision that has been included in the Water Resources Development Act is not an expansion of existing authority. This provision is clear that use of Department of Defense funds is linked to formerly used Defense sites that are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense. Therefore, this provision clarifies but does not expand the authority or responsibility of the Department of Defense to undertake environmental restoration.

Mr. WARNER. Further, it is also my understanding and I wish to make clear as part of our discussion that this provision is not intended to give a priority to clean up sites in Narragansett Bay over other formerly used Defense sites that present a greater risk to public health and safety. The Department of Defense establishes the priority for cleanup of formerly used Defense sites on the basis of risk to the public. The Senate Armed Services Committee has long supported the Department's policy of prioritizing environmental cleanup based on risk. We stand committed to that principle today. I ask my distinguished colleague to confirm that he shares my understanding on these fundamental points.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate was advised by hotline that this resolution would be voted on last night by voice vote. I indicated a desire to be allowed to speak for no more than 15 minutes before the vote, and that was agreed to. I said explicitly when further inquiry came to me that I would not in any way--in any way-- object to the Senate, if the leadership so desired, to voting on that measure last night by voice vote. I went back, checked with the senior staff of our cloakroom, and they verified it. There are e-mails to the effect that I said that. I did have an opportunity to speak last night at length--it is in yesterday's Congressional Record--regarding my concerns about that legislation, although I indicated in large measure I supported almost every provision, and we just participated in a voice vote where, in effect, my vote was counted in the ``yea'' column. Mr. President, I call to the attention of my colleagues my statement of yesterday beginning at page S7624. Mr. President, I awakened this morning to determine that the press is reporting the following: The Senate had been expected to quickly pass a resolution Monday night, but Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner of Virginia blocked the vote. That message was skillfully distributed throughout the world--the worldwide press. It made CNN and other responsible news organizations. That was the deliberate attempt by some individual or individuals to distort the truth, to distort what is in the Record. Mr. President, I am pleased to say that the remarks I made last night were, in part, taken into consideration, and the resolution which the Senate will soon vote on does reflect what my principal concern was with regard to the first draft; namely, that there was no reference to some--upwards of 25,000 Americans seeking to return or leave that war- torn area. Consequently, there is a provision, No. 11, placed in this resolution which says: Recognizes that thousands of American nationals reside peacefully in Lebanon, and that those American nationals in Lebanon concerned for their safety should receive the full support and assistance of the United States Government. I am glad I did what I did--made it clear that this has worked its way into the Record. There are other concerns that I have which are cited in the statement that I made yesterday and I am delighted to have the opportunity to correct what was a deliberate attempt to distort the record. I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer. During the course of the day, there was brought to the attention of the Members of the Senate a resolution regarding the situation in the Middle East. It was my understanding this resolution would be brought to the Senate tonight and that presumably it would be agreed to by the Senate. My concern is that there are certain additional matters which should be included. If the Senate is going to exercise the important act of bringing this up, seeking unanimous consent, and the message goes out all over the world that the Senate has spoken, I would support what is in this resolution. I believe now that is not going to take place tonight for various reasons. It is imperative that I address what was to have taken place, what I was told was to have taken place, assuming the unanimous consent could be achieved on both sides. No. 1, this matter is so important, it deserves an opportunity for a number of Senators to speak on a resolution of this import. I am now advised by our cloakroom that it will not be taken up tonight, but I will take this opportunity to address parts of it or at least one part that I think should bear further careful drafting and possibly be changed. Otherwise, it is only one section, on page 3, item 3, which says: (3) urges the President to continue fully supporting Israel as Israel exercises its right of self-defense in Lebanon and Gaza; There is no question about their right of self-defense against Hezbollah and Hamas, but I wondered whether we should draft it in this way. I urge those, since we are not going to take it up tonight, to make sure there is not an ambiguity there because the people of Lebanon are suffering enormously at this time, as are the people in Gaza. Many of those people are not aligned with either Hezbollah or Hamas. I am also concerned about the Government in Lebanon and the actions which are taking place now, what do we do if that Government were to fall. I would vote for this resolution if it were brought up tonight. I would have addressed the Senate and brought up other matters which I will now discuss. I turn now again to the fact that this is so important, it deserves the consideration of every Senator and a debate of some length. I don't know about the schedule of the Senate, but if we are going to go forward and send a message to the world about our position in the Senate with respect to the conflicts in Palestine, Lebanon, and Israel, and the suffering that is taking place on all borders, each side of the various borders, then it deserves very careful consideration. The purpose of me taking the floor is to point out some areas which deserve full consideration in that debate which are not included. I don't criticize the drafter of this resolution, but it requires the consideration of the whole Senate rather than a unanimous consent with a number of Senators who may not be here tonight. In the course of that debate, I urge a larger focus. For example, there is no mention in the resolution of some perhaps 25,000 Americans who are trapped or engulfed in one way in this conflict. How best do we address this conflict to help protect those 25,000 persons? That is an essential part of this debate. Second, I said the following on Friday night in response to a press inquiry when I first learned of this conflict: While I fully recognize that Israel was a victim of provocative attacks on her people and sovereignty, I urge the Administration to think through very carefully how Israel's extraordinary reaction could affect our operations in Iraq and our joint diplomatic efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue. This is a very critical time for the United States in the Middle East, and the Israeli actions will certainly have an impact beyond just Lebanon and Gaza. I stand by that statement. That is why I urge, and I am pleased to say this resolution, at such time as it would be brought up, will be broadened to cover the other points. First, are the 25,000 Americans trapped? Second, this Nation has made a very great sacrifice to achieve goals established by our President and a coalition of forces associated with our country in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Over 2,500 have lost their lives in Iraq; over 300 have lost their lives in Afghanistan. That is U.S. forces. Our coalition partners have lost. We have 20,000-plus wounded, many severely wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. And $436 billion is a rough calculation of just a part, not all, but a significant part of the investment of our country in achieving our goals in those nations, of stabilizing their governments now with free elections in both countries and hopefully enabling those governments to gain the strength to provide for the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan, a measure of liberty and freedom and possibly democracy which we enjoy here and in other nations. What is the effect of any statement made by the Senate? What is the effect on that very fragile situation in both countries? There is a resurgence in Afghanistan. I was just there a short time ago--and each of us have followed the news to date--a resurgence in the fighting. NATO has come in. We cannot just address one portion of the Middle East conflict without seeing how the manner in which we address that could affect the other areas, notably Afghanistan and Iraq. So I say to my colleagues, as I said Friday night, we urge our President, our administration, as they take such, hopefully, bold and firm and convincing initiatives in regard to the conflicts in Israel and Gaza and Lebanon, to be mindful of how it could impact on our conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq and our negotiations thus far with Iran in participating with other nations--not unilaterally--to try to bring about some resolution of what many of us considered up until this conflict--and I am not sure how we are going to eventually characterize the magnitude and the future potential spreading of this conflict--but certainly up until this conflict, in my judgment, the potential of Iran gaining nuclear weapons was absolutely--there was nothing more serious, in my judgment, than to try to resolve that. There is no reference in here to the other Arab nations. It is quite interesting; some of those nations have come forward in strong condemnation, joined our country, joined other nations, in condemning Hamas and Hezbollah. That is of importance. Now we see today that so many nations say the United States must take a stronger role in trying to work our way through this conflict, yes, supporting Israel but at the same time trying to bring about some resolution to spare the life and limb and suffering in Palestine, Lebanon, and Israel, to see that it not spread to other areas. Now, our President has indicated that the Secretary of State will soon embark on a mission. What we say in the Senate must be carefully drafted so it does not remove the flexibility that our Secretary of State--a very able person--will need in helping to resolve this problem. So I say that historically this Nation has stood steadfast, and I am proud that I have been among those in this Chamber in my 28 years here, to strongly support Israel. Our Nation is viewed upon as an honest broker--recognizing our support of Israel but as an honest broker. If the world is going to look to us as to how we can provide that leadership, I do not want any loss of flexibility on the part of the President and the Secretary of State and such others who may be tasked to try to work out this situation. Yes, I conclude our support for Israel is very strong, Mr. President, but it cannot be unconditional. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague. We have another distinguished colleague here. It is my understanding that at 8 o'clock, the time of the distinguished Senator from Kansas now shifts to the other side of the aisle, but my colleague said he only wants 3 or 4 minutes.

Mr. WARNER. I will try to compress my time in 10 minutes.

Mr. WARNER. I am here to accommodate all. Would the Senator like to finish his remarks?

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I respectfully request that on vote No. 198 my vote be recorded as yea. It will not make a difference in the final tally.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.