John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague for his kind remarks. I should also wish to join him in thanking the members of our committee. We have had an excellent committee, and we have a very bipartisan, professional staff. I am sure we can do the job. I will point out one additional feature--military construction. I daresay that almost every Member of this body has a provision somewhere in this bill relating to military construction. Without passage of the bill, that simply will not take place.

Mr. WARNER. I yield my time to my colleague. I think I have 2 minutes remaining.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my understanding is at the hour of 5:30 p.m. the vote will commence. Cloture Motion

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on S. 2403, a bill to name the new United States courthouse in Richmond, VA, for two distinguished jurists and sons of VA. Senator Webb and I introduced this bill together last year, and the bill passed the Senate on June 24, 2008. The House of Representatives is expected to pass this bill tonight, with a minor technical change. It is my hope that the Senate will accept this minor modification and pass this bill when the legislation returns to the Senate tonight or early tomorrow. Our bill will recognize two of Virginia's outstanding jurists: Spotswood Robinson III and Robert Mehrige, Jr. They were lawyers who throughout their careers adhered to the principle of ``equal justice under law.'' The first, Spottswood William Robinson, III, was born in Richmond, VA, on July 26, 1916. He attended Virginia Union University and then the Howard University School of Law, graduating first in his class in 1939 and serving as a member of the faculty until 1947. Judge Robinson was one of the core attorneys of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund from 1948 to 1960, achieving national prominence in the legal community with his representation of the Virginia plaintiffs in the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education. Brown outlawed public school segregation declaring ``separate but equal'' schools unconstitutional. In 1964, Judge Robinson became the first African American to be appointed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and, in 1966, President Johnson appointed Judge Robinson the first African American to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Finally, on May 7, 1981, Judge Robinson became the first African American to serve as chief judge of the District of Columbia Circuit. Our second jurist, Judge Robert R. Merhige, Jr., was born in 1919 and later attended High Point College in North Carolina. He subsequently earned his law degree from the T.C. Williams School of Law at the University of Richmond, from which he graduated at the top of his class in 1942. From 1942 to 1945, Judge Merhige served in the U.S. Air Force, he practiced law in Richmond from 1945 to 1967, establishing himself as a formidable trial lawyer representing criminal defendants as well as dozens of insurance companies. On August 30,1967, Judge Merhige was appointed U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division by President Lyndon B. Johnson, serving as a Federal judge until 1998. In 1972, Judge Merhige ordered the desegregation of dozens of Virginia school districts. He considered himself to be a ``strict constructionist'' who went by the law as spelled out in precedents by the higher courts. In 1970, he ordered the University of Virginia to admit women. As evidence of Judge Merhige's groundbreaking decisions, he was given 24-hour protection by Federal marshals due to repeated threats of violence against him and his family. His courage in the face of significant opposition of the times is a testimony to his dedication to the rule of law. As my colleagues may be aware, I have worked to name the new courthouse in Richmond for these two men for several years. I am proud that the Virginia Congressional delegation, the Virginia Bar Association, the mayor of Richmond, and many others decided that the best way to honor both men was to have them equally share the honor of having the courthouse so named. With the ribbon cutting for this grand facility tentatively set for October 17 of this year, I can think of no better time than now to move this legislation in honor of Spottswood Robinson and Robert Merhige. I thank the committee for the consideration of this bill and look forward to working with my colleagues in seeking its passage.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a fellow Senator, a friend, and a true Southern gentleman, Senator Jesse Helms, who passed away on July 4, 2008. He was a man resolute in his beliefs. I have heard many say here in the Senate, as well as outside the Capitol Grounds, that regardless of what you thought about his position or opinion, you always respected Senator Helms for standing up for what he believed. As a master of the Senate parliamentary procedures, he did not hesitate to use this knowledge as a tool when he thought it was necessary to get his point across. While inevitably these tactics might have frustrated some of his colleagues from time to time, Senators couldn't help but marvel at his courageous defense of his beliefs, and they never doubted that Senator Helms would treat them with respect. I have heard from those close to Senator Helms, and experienced it myself, that he was true to his belief that standing up and defending one's opinion was never to be confused with, or providing a reason for, animosity towards one's opponents. His kindness and respect did not stop with his colleagues in the Senate. Senator Helms was a true advocate that Senators were here to represent and serve their constituents regardless of any party affiliation, and his office was known for its impeccable constituent services. His beliefs and service to his fellow citizens not only endeared him to those he served or those he served with, but also to those that had the privilege to serve on his staff. I don't think he even referred to them as his staff but as his Senate family--the Helms Senate family. His dedication to his staff is exemplified by the number of his staffers that went on to serve in important positions in federal and state government and in the private sector, having been ``tutored and trained'' in the discipline of Senator Helms. An excellent example is Robert Wilkie, now serving in the Defense Department as Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs. Respect for Senator Helms extends well beyond these Senate halls to across the globe. Senator Helms' experience with foreign policy started with his service in the U.S. Navy during World War II and continued with his efforts to reform the United Nations. His effect was no less prevalent when he was the first legislator to address the U.N. Security Council. I was privileged to witness his stalwart performance. It goes without saying that the Senate, this Nation, and the State of North Carolina are better today because of Senator Helms. I extend my most heartfelt condolences to the Helms family and his friends.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, are we in morning business at this point?

Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that I might use a portion of that 10 minutes to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, this week our Nation, and indeed nations throughout the world, paid our reverence to the men and women of a past generation who fought so valiantly to provide freedom for the Southern portion of the Korean Peninsula. They fought under the Commander In Chief at that time, President Harry Truman, a courageous man. It has been 55 years since that conflict. Today, the Senate Armed Services Committee held an extensive hearing on the current status of the Korean Peninsula, most specifically the progress we are making, in my judgment, with respect to North Korea. I played a very modest role in that war as a young Marine Lieutenant, for a period, 1951-1952, but my contribution and participation is of little consequence when you look at the extensive casualties our Nation took in that conflict. The total deaths were 36,574, the total wounded over 100,000, and 1.7 million-plus men and women in the Armed Forces were in and out of that theater to preserve freedom. Today, South Korea is a flourishing nation, one with a very strong economy. It ranks, I think, 11th worldwide. It is a partner in world affairs in terms of its strategic importance and, clearly, a participant in trying to secure freedom for others on that historic peninsula. I do hope, as the Senate begins to finish its work prior to the August recess, the Chamber will consider the nomination, which I understand is pending, of Kathy Stevens, a career diplomat of many years who has been nominated to become the new Ambassador to South Korea. I had the privilege of visiting with her, and I certainly felt that, in every respect, she is eminently qualified to take this important post. I wish to thank Ambassador Hill this morning, because he addressed a number of issues, most notably the question of the deprivation of basic human rights by North Korea to so many of its citizens. I support Ambassador Hill in his endeavor, and colleagues on both sides who, in the course of the hearing this morning, expressed our concerns about the human rights of individuals in North Korea and the environs. Senator Brownback, an internationally recognized spokesman on behalf of human rights, took an active role in today's hearing. I wish to note that Senator Mikulski and Senator Cardin from Maryland, Congressman Steny Hoyer, and I met with a group of Korean war veterans who came to the Hill to talk, to memorialize the sacrifices of so many of their fellow service persons of that generation. I am so humbled and privileged to have had that very modest, brief, tour of service with that generation. My service was inconsequential compared to the extensive loss of life and limb by others during this conflict. But I do urge America not to forget those who served in Korea. The war is often referred to as the ``forgotten war.'' But they laid the foundation for the current freedoms in South Korea. Indeed, Harry Truman's decision to stop the spread of communism on that peninsula saved other small nations in the region. Today, those countries might not have the freedoms, they now have, had it not been for the sacrifices of the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces, and other nations fighting under the ``banner'' of the United Nations Organization. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished leader. I do hope I can say one word. To my leadership, I have explained to you I will soon conclude 30 years in this Chamber. Having served with 264 Senators in that period of time, I say thanks to each and every one of them. But in that period, I think half my time has been devoted to issues relating to national security and the Armed Services. I checked the records of the committee. We have had 42 consecutive bills authorizing funds for the armed services of the United States. This will be the 30th of those bills that I have participated in, in bringing to the floor and, hopefully, getting a strong endorsement of this body. I fully recognize the issues my colleagues have foremost in their mind at this moment. Not a one of them is against our national defense, not a one of them by their votes now could be challenged as to their patriotism and devotion to the men and women of the Armed Forces of this country. But I will vote to go forth now, in an effort to support the cloture motion.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I recognize the members of the National War Powers Commission, particularly the cochairs and my dear friends--former Secretaries of State James A. Baker and Warren Christopher--for their distinguished and valuable work in bringing forward this critical legislation to address this important issue to our Nation. Few would dispute that the most important, and perhaps the most fateful, decisions our leaders make involve the decision of whether to go to war. Yet after more than 200 years of constitutional history, the extent of the powers the respective branches of government possess in making such decisions is still heavily debated. Let me first outline some points regarding the legislative history of the War Powers Resolution. On November 7, 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution over President Nixon's veto, by a vote of 284 to 135 in the House, and a vote of 75 to 18 in the Senate. The legislation was passed purportedly to restore a congressional role in authorizing the use of force that was thought by many to have been lost in the Cold War and Vietnam war. The War Powers Resolution was intended to provide a mechanism for Congress and the President to participate in decisions to send members of the U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities. Less than 2 years after its passage by Congress in 1973, legislative proposals were introduced to amend the War Powers Resolution. The War Powers Resolution continued to raise concerns among the executive and legislative branches of government throughout the next decade as the Nation faced such situations as in El Salvador, Lebanon, and Libya. Several legislative proposals were introduced in Congress to modify or repeal the War Powers Resolution. These legislative proposals were referred to the appropriate committee on the House or Senate side, but none were ever passed by Congress. The War Powers Resolution again became an issue regarding activities in the Persian Gulf after an Iraqi aircraft fired a missile on the USS Stark on May 17, 1987, killing 37 sailors. Shortly afterwards, the United States began to reflag Kuwaiti oil tankers and provide a U.S. naval escort for Kuwaiti oil tankers through the Persian Gulf. As military escalation also continued to increase in the Persian Gulf region as a result of the Iran-Iraq War, the Congress became concerned that U.S. forces could be committed to the region without consultation between the executive and legislative branch. Consequently, 20 years ago, on May 19, 1988, I, along with two of our former colleagues--Senators Mitchell and Nunn--joined Senator Byrd and introduced the War Powers Resolution Amendments of 1988, known as S.J. Res. 323. Senator Boren later joined as well as a cosponsor of this legislation in June 1988. I humbly state today that I was the only Republican cosponsor of the legislation. This piece of legislation, however, was referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where it remained. Subsequently, on January 25, 1989, I again joined Senator Byrd, but this time along with five of our former colleagues--Senators Boren, Cohen, Danforth, Mitchell, and Nunn--and introduced the War Powers Resolution Amendments of 1989, known as S. 2. Our former colleagues and I proposed legislation to modify the War Powers Resolution of 1973. These amendments were intended to: require the President to consult with six designated Members of Congress ``in every instance in which consultation is'' required under the War Powers Resolution of 1973; require the President and the six designated Members of Congress to ``establish a schedule of regular meetings'' to ``ensure adequate consultation on vital national security issues;'' establish a ``permanent consultative group'' within Congress, which would be comprised of 18 Members of Congress; and require the President to consult with the permanent consultative group at the request of a majority of the 6 designated Members of Congress, unless the President determines that consultation needs to be limited for national security purposes. Unfortunately, neither of these proposed pieces of legislation were voted on by the Senate. However, I subsequently cosponsored another similar piece of legislation, the Peace Powers Act of 1995, sponsored by our former distinguished majority leader, Senator Bob Dole. Hearings were held on this piece of legislation by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where it remained. For over 35 years, despite these and similar legislative efforts, no modifications were made to the War Powers Resolution Act of 1973. Today, there still remains no clear mechanism or requirement for the President and Congress to consult before committing the Nation to war. It is this Senator's opinion that the Nation benefits when the President and Congress consult frequently, deliberately, and meaningfully regarding matters of national security-and-that is exactly why I felt compelled to bring to my colleagues attention the important work recently completed by the National War Powers Commission. The National War Powers Commission was formed in February 2007--by the University of Virginia's Miller Center of Public Affairs, which is directed by Virginia's former Governor Gerald L. Baliles--to examine the respective war powers of the President and Congress. The University of Virginia, the College of William and Mary, Rice University, and Stanford University served as partnering institutions. On July 8, 2008, after more than 13 months of study, the Commission released their report and recommendations. I wanted to bring to the attention of my colleagues the important work done by this distinguished Commission to the War Powers Consultation Act of 2009. I strongly recommend that those interested in this important subject contact the University of Virginia's Miller Center of Public Affairs and also review a copy of the Commission's comprehensive report, titled ``National War Powers Commission Report,'' which can be accessed at the Miller Center's Web site, www.millercenter.org. The exemplary work by the National War Powers Commission, concluded with the following recommendations: the law purporting to govern the Nation's decision to engage in war--the War Powers Resolution--has failed to promote cooperation between the two branches of government; the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is ineffective at best and unconstitutional at worst; and the War Powers Resolution of 1973 should be replaced by a new law that would, except for emergencies, require the President and Congress to consult before going to war. I would specifically like to draw my colleagues attention to the Commission's legislative proposal, the War Powers Consultation Act of 2009. This proposed legislation contains four key components. These key components are: First, this legislation would replace the War Powers Resolution of 1973. It would ensure that Congress has an opportunity to consult meaningfully and deliberately with the President regarding significant armed conflicts, and would ensure that Congress has the opportunity to express its views as part of a consultative process. Second, this statute would create a process that will encourage the two co-equal branches of government to cooperate and consult in a way that is deliberate, practical, and true to the spirit of the Constitution. Third, the act would establish a ``Joint Congressional Consultation Committee'' with a ``permanent, bi-partisan joint professional staff'' with access to all relevant intelligence and national security information. Fourth, and finally, the act would require the President to consult with the Joint Congressional Consultation Committee ``[b]efore ordering the deployment of United States armed forces into significant armed conflict''--lasting longer than one week--and would mandate regular consultation thereafter. I have always believed that Congress has an important and central role in the decision of the deployment of our men and women of the armed forces into harm's way. Undoubtedly, the War Powers Consultation Act of 2009 would provide Congress and the President a well-defined mechanism for consultation on matters of the use of force in armed conflict. The decision to commit our country to war is by far one of the most critical decisions that faces our Nation's leaders. This proposal seeks a concrete and pragmatic solution to a longstanding problem that is only getting more difficult in a time where our Nation will continue to face unconventional threats and warfare. I urge my colleagues to review this important material and work together, with the next administration, to find a solution to this ever-present debate between a President and the Congress over their respective constitutional powers.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, while I do not believe that the provisions of title VI, subtitle A of S. 3297, corresponding to the National Capital Transportation Amendments Act, constitute a congressionally directed spending item, I certify, out of caution, that neither I nor my immediate family has a pecuniary interest in the aforementioned provisions, consistent with the requirements of paragraph 9 of rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. The President has joined, and the time is here. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of the votes that were actually cast on my amendment at one time, where I lost by--it was actually 44 to 43--1 vote.

Mr. WARNER. Or I would have received a majority vote at that time, notwithstanding the 60 votes required for passage, and we might be a little further down the road if that had happened.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have a long history of supporting opening the OCS to drilling. Aside from being a longtime supporter of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, I have also engaged in attempts to open the Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf Coasts to drilling. While we were successful in opening a portion of the gulf, the Pacific and Atlantic coasts remain off limits. Instead of focusing my effort on all the off-limit portions of the OCS, I have concentrated over the last year on opening the coast of Virginia, for exploration of natural gas only. I think the history on this effort demonstrates a momentum shift in the minds of my colleagues. In June 2007, I offered an amendment to the Energy Policy Act of 2007 that would allow for the exploration of natural gas in Virginia only. Extraction of natural gas could only occur if the Governor and State legislature approve such a move. That vote lost by a vote of 44 nays and 43 yeas. Of those 44 nays, there are two Senators who are now cosponsors of the Gas Price Reduction Act, a bill that includes a drilling title. With the nonvoting Members, I think we could win this vote today, on an up-or-down vote. This fact is significant because it represents a shift in momentum and the way my colleagues are now thinking of rectifying this energy crisis in which our Nation finds itself. Mr. President, I commend my distinguished colleague, whom I have been these 30 years sharing this floor with from time to time.

Mr. WARNER. We have collaborated on so many things together.

Mr. WARNER. But now, as both of us are looking forward to quietly stepping down, I say to the Senator, you are carrying as full a weight as you ever did, and you are the man of the hour among our peer group to work on this energy question because of the depth and background you have on this subject.

Mr. WARNER. So I commend you on your efforts with respect to drilling. But I wonder if you would bear with me a minute. Several years ago, I started on this, trying to drill offshore. Do you remember that?

Mr. WARNER. You always said to me, well, there will come a time.

Mr. WARNER. But I kept putting in bill after bill, and Senator Alexander joined me on one. And now--

Mr. WARNER. But I wish to say how pleased I am to see you vigorous and strong, and with our distinguished leader, Senator McConnell, leading the charge. I hope we get it up here and let these 100 Senators speak their will.

Mr. WARNER. We share that.

Mr. WARNER. I say to the Senator, go back and look at your mailbox, look at your e-mail, look at the hundreds of communications each of us are receiving every day.

Mr. WARNER. These people are gathered--I would say almost a quarter of Americans are gathered around the kitchen table every night looking at the increased costs in their food, the increased costs in their heating and their gasoline, trying to figure out how they are going to make ends meet, with relatively small amounts of dollars in the overall picture. But to them, it is the difference between buying a little extra food and having the choice to forego it. I yield the floor. Mr. WHITEHOUSE addressed the Chair.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, if I could make an inquiry of the distinguished leader while he is on the Senate floor, at some point I would like to work into the queue. If my good friend from Rhode Island is following the leader, perhaps I could follow him. Is there a standing order?

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I appreciate that courtesy, and I will just take, say, 6 minutes following the distinguished Republican leader.