John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank the Chair. I again thank my colleague from Rhode Island. Before the distinguished leader departs the floor, I simply wish to say that I appreciate his bringing up the nomination of Judge Glen Conrad to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. I was privileged to recommend Glen Conrad to President Bush for his current seat on the U.S. district court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Judge Conrad has served in this position for five years, and, prior to his confirmation by the Senate, he was a magistrate judge in the Eastern District for twenty-seven years. He has devoted his professional life to serving the Federal court system and is eminently qualified to fill one of those Fourth Circuit vacancies that desperately need it. I wish to thank my good friend and colleague, Senator Webb, who joined me in recommending Judge Conrad for the Fourth Circuit. We have submitted our blue slips to the Judiciary Committee, and I have confidence that the majority leader and the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee will find time to look at his nomination. Glen Conrad is a true public servant who is ready to take and fill a badly needed post. I thank the leader.

Mr. WARNER. I thank again our colleague from Rhode Island. I spoke earlier when the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, was on the Senate floor talking generally about the drilling offshore. I mentioned that for many years I have been working on it with other colleagues in this Chamber and lost the majority by one vote. I ask unanimous consent to amend those statements with further criteria.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, now I wish to briefly address what I think is a very important aspect of the ongoing debate on energy. I want to laud many Senators on both sides of the aisle who are looking at the gravity of the situation. Families sit around the kitchen table in the evenings and work out problems among themselves, including the gravity of the problems associated with the rising gas prices at the gas pump, food prices, and many other issues. I went in and made a study of the increased cost of a loaf of bread, dishwasher fluid--I could go on and on--hot dogs, hamburgers. The extent to which prices are going up is extraordinary, coupled with the increased price at the gas pump. We are all working together, and I firmly believe that under the leadership of Senators Reid and McConnell, we can come up with some sort of a bipartisan effort consistent with the overall policy the President has urged recently in his speech. As important as offshore drilling is--and I yield not a foot of ground on that; I think it is important, and that is why I have been advocating it for many years. I support battery-powered automobiles, wind energy, and all of the other renewables. But we have to do something now, today, and tomorrow to help the people sitting around their kitchen tables trying to solve their problems. I have been looking at several options, and I will review them briefly. I anticipate that one-third of Americans today are virtually desperate and trying to make ends meet with their family budgets, and the necessity to drive their automobiles to go to work, pick up their children, to visit their elderly grandparents--all of these things are matters of necessity, and they are trying to balance that out among themselves. What do we do about it? I introduced the Immediate Steps to Conserve Gasoline Act--an odd title but straightforward in what it says. My idea is as follows: Many folks--a third of them--are conserving; they are taking conservation steps. Look at the statistics. You see less driving. Quite a few statistics are coming in about less driving, which translates into less demand at the gas pump. A free marketplace should lead to some measure of reduction. We recognize that gasoline and petroleum is at worldwide pricing, and we are in a one-world market. We are competing with other nations, which are likewise experiencing the rising costs of fuel. My brother recently returned from a business trip to Europe. He is quite familiar with Central Europe and Austria. He said on the famous autobahn they are cutting back on the speed because there is a savings on gasoline. The faster you drive, the less efficient the carburetion process in the engine is in terms of delivering power. I suggested to the President, to the Secretary of Energy, and I have asked the Government Accounting Office to look at a chapter in American history. I remember it quite well, 1973 to 1974. I was at the Navy Department. My friend from Rhode Island, John Chafee, and I were together at that time. I remember the President, together with the full support of the Congress, enacted legislation whereby America imposed a hardship on itself; it was a program all across America--and it is all a matter of public record--that made the speed limit 55 miles per hour. What I have asked the President, the Secretary of Energy, the GAO, and others to do is to go back and examine that period, take a look at it. Fifty-five might not be the speed limit; it might be 60 or even a slightly higher speed limit because of the improved carburetion process and efficiency achieved in this nearly quarter of a century in today's modern automobiles compared to the 1973-1974 automobiles. It is interesting, in that period of time--and these are Government statistics--when the national speed limit was imposed, it saved 167,000 barrels of oil a day. The significance of that figure is that, in that period, 1973-1974, we were only 30 percent dependent upon importing oil from abroad. Now we are at 60 percent. So there has been a doubling of our dependency on foreign oil. Also, the number of vehicles on the road today--a quarter of a century later--is approximately twice the number of vehicles that were traveling America's highways and roads in 1973- 1974. I realize it is not popular to talk about it. Believe me, around my own dinner table at night, I have heard from my children, who are not at all pleased with this. Anyway, I think we have an obligation as a Congress, working with the executive branch, to look at it. That is all I am asking. Go study it, those who are far more knowledgeable than I and those who have all of the facts at their fingertips, and let's bring in the private sector to give their views and look at this potential. If we were to bring about some reduction of the high speeds on America's roads and highways today, I think you could translate that into less demand at the pump and less demand in terms of out-of-pocket costs. So there we are, simple as that. It is history, it worked, so let's look at it. That 55-miles-an-hour speed limit that was put in back then stayed for 20 years. Congress finally repealed it in 1995. Guess what. The cost of fuel had dropped to $2 a gallon or thereabouts. The other measure that I bring to the attention of my colleagues is this: The American people are using their own initiatives to save energy, and I am calling on the entire Federal Government, under the leadership of the President, and all of the agencies and departments to see whether they can reduce their overall use of gasoline by 2 to 3 percent--just by a small margin. We passed an energy act here not long ago, and I use that as a model. We were talking about other forms of energy there. That is becoming law. For 1 year, the Federal Government can say we are going to join the citizens and reduce our overall consumption of gasoline by 2 to 3 percent, give it a try--anything to bring off pressure at the pump. My two concepts fall clearly under the area of conservation. As I look at the various options my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are exploring and looking at, I do not see therein the conservation potential, thus far, which can bring about some relief. I am confident this can be done if it is done properly. The American people are not going to like it. Politically, it will be a tough one. Somehow, I have always felt, in the 30 years I have been privileged to be a part of this body, that we are called upon now and then to make tough calls and stand up to the American public and say we have to all pull together-- the people and the Government, State and Federal. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I have advised the Senate leadership that I will be necessarily absent from the Senate for the balance of this week. Today, were I able to be present for the vote on final passage of S. 2731, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR, I would have voted in favor of the bill.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have advised the Senate leadership that I will be necessarily absent from the Senate for the balance of this week. This evening, were I able to be present for the vote on the President's veto of the Medicare bill, I would have voted to override. Following consultation and discussion with my physicians, including the Capitol Physician's Office, I made the decision earlier this summer to treat my atrial fibrillation with a pacemaker, and made arrangement for scheduled admission to Inova Fairfax Hospital. Colleagues will recall that last fall I was treated for this common condition. This past Saturday doctors implanted a pacemaker, and consistent with the success of the routine procedure, I was released the following day. This morning I came to the Capitol, handled planned morning appointments, and voted on the floor of the Senate. During a follow-up visit this afternoon, the Capitol Physician's Office and my private doctors made the decision to schedule a readmission to Inova Fairfax Hospital where they will perform a second procedure to adjust the pacemaker, and will keep me for observation.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to inform the chairman that I shall speak myself, and Senators Sessions, Chambliss, and Graham also hope to be recognized. I have inquired at the desk, and there is some flexibility in our time here this morning, and we will go from one side to the other if Senator Levin has colleagues who are going to speak.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our colleague from South Carolina. He is too modest to say it, but I think he has logged as many trips into that region as any of us here, very often in the company of Senator McCain, who likewise has strong support for both of these officers. I thank the Senator for his work and his important contribution to the debate.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, subject to my leadership, I will certainly recommend that be done. Mr. President, very simply, two of America's finest sons are before this body with the very important responsibility entrusted by the Founding Fathers as they wrote the Constitution of the United States; namely, that the Senate shall give advice and consent. I have had the privilege through my lifetime to be associated with many senior officers of all branches of our military. I say unreservedly, these are two of the most extraordinary that I have been privileged to know and work with in my long career. On many trips to Afghanistan and to Iraq with the distinguished chairman of the committee--we so often travel together--on a number of those occasions we worked directly with General Petraeus and General Odierno. Therefore, they both have my strongest endorsement, and I congratulate them individually and I also congratulate their families. These are two fine officers, and their families have participated in their careers and backed them. If you look at the length of service that each has had in four deployed regions, most specifically Iraq, it has been a very extensive period of time, and the consequences on the family are often difficult to bear. But the families have stood by these fine officers through these long deployments. Both nominees have had extraordinary experience, and therefore I anticipate we will have a very positive confirmation by the Senate. They are highly experienced, indeed specifically trained. I sort of edited that word into my remarks because they have served a number of times in Iraq and moved up to higher responsibilities--in the case of General Odierno, and in General Petraeus, he takes on responsibility for the entire region. But he is magnificently trained to do so. Further, as we approach, again, our constitutional system by which we change Presidents, there is a continuity that these two officers offer by virtue of serving in these positions, if it is the will of the next President. That is invaluable in this region. That is because, as the distinguished occupant of the chair and many others know, the cultural situation in this part of the world is a very challenging one to fully understand and appreciate; to see that our Armed Forces act with them, work with them in such a way as to achieve the goals but at the same time protect our Armed Forces. I say ``with'' because the nations of Iraq and Afghanistan are now sovereign nations. As such, we are there by consent of that sovereignty to work with their forces. I also add that I don't know that I have ever experienced a dimension in contemporary times where the professional officers have had to work so very closely with other members of the executive branch, notably the National Security Council and the Department of State, working hand in hand. The current Ambassador in Iraq, Ambassador Crocker, is well known in the Senate, and I believe extremely admired and respected for the services he has rendered. He has been a partner with General Petraeus in working through their individual responsibilities, coming before the Congress jointly to make their reports. They know the region, they know the background, and they are fully qualified to undertake these responsibilities. At this point, I would like to yield the floor to my other colleagues. I may have a few closing remarks. I see the distinguished Senator from Georgia, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator from Georgia. He is a strong voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. His views with regard to the qualifications of these two officers with whom he has worked over these many years are of great value to the Senate. Mr. President, I see the presence on the floor of our distinguished colleague, another member of the committee, Senator Sessions. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague from Alabama, a member of the committee. He is a very strong voice. I only add to your observations, which are very accurate about the situation in Iraq, we all share a concern about the worsening situation in Afghanistan, and that will become General Petraeus's top responsibility. We are fortunate that he is eminently qualified and has studied the culture of the region, having understood the complexity, the geopolitical situation with regard to Pakistan and Iran. He is eminently qualified to step in and be the commander of those forces in that region.

Mr. WARNER. But his boots are on the ground now, not writing dissertations. Mr. President, I see our distinguished colleague from South Carolina. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank all the Members of the Senate. We just had two historic votes. The men and women in the Armed Forces, particularly those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, will be greatly heartened to hear that the Senate has given the strongest possible advice and consent, each Member coming to the floor and casting their vote. I think it is a landmark situation and one which is respected and appreciated across our uniformed services and the many civilians who serve with them. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer. Again, I am not taking a position that at this time we should invoke a new initiative in the Congress to pass legislation calling for a national speed limit because I simply do not have the facts. I am on a fact-finding mission. But if those facts come forward, as I believe they will, and show that this will help alleviate and lessen the demand at the pump and the cost to the American citizen, then I am quite likely to try--more than that, I am quite probably going to try--and garner support on both sides of the aisle to push forward with this legislation. I say so because I come back again to about a third of America at this point in time is frantically trying to make ends meet. We have to come up with a solution. We have to lead in the Congress, and hopefully the President will join. We have that duty. Therefore, these two letters going to, certainly, the GAO, an impartial arbiter of the facts and finder of the facts, will provide this Chamber with the information necessary to make an informed judgment as to whether to go forth with legislation. I deem that the Secretary of Energy will reflect, quite understandably, the policy of an administration toward such a measure to bring about alleviation of the pressures at the gas pump today and on families. Again, this step is in the category of conservation of energy. My colleagues--and I have participated with them--are looking at, in my opinion, three areas of addressing this problem: short-term, which is conservation, that is the only way to bring about some immediate measure of relief; secondly, intermediate steps, which I outlined in my speech here; and lastly, the long term. Much has been said about long- term steps. I take pride and push aside any sense of humility because for several years I have stood on this floor and urged offshore drilling, even put forth a measure here in this body which was defeated which called for the right of my State, Virginia, and such other States that might wish to join, through the Governor and the State legislature's participation, agreeing to drilling offshore of Virginia for gas. I am not suggesting I brought about a change of thinking in the administration, but the President now supports that concept. Indeed, a number of my colleagues now support that concept. I opine that I believe in due course the Congress will provide the President with legislation to take those important steps. But that offshore drilling will not lessen the price today at the pump. It will not help a case which was the final straw to decide that I would embark on this course, when I read an article about the meals on wheels program where the shut-ins at home, who for economic reasons and physical reasons and other reasons can't go out and get their meals. They rely upon a system of volunteers to bring the meals to their homes. But that program is beginning to founder because the volunteers simply cannot afford the additional cost of gasoline. I don't know about my colleagues, but this causes me severe heart palpitations and concern. The reporter said to me, when he interviewed me on this an hour or so ago, a national reporter: All right, Senator, are you willing to drive at a slower rate? What sort of car are you driving? I told him what type of car I drive. I said: There are occasions when I drive over 55 miles an hour, 60 miles an hour, sometimes 65. But I am willing to give up whatever advantage to me to drive at those speeds with the fervent hope that that modest sacrifice on my part will help those people across this land tonight and tomorrow and in the indefinite future dealing with this financial crisis. I point out also that in 1973-1974, these were automobiles, how well I remember, without growth of the quick production lines that started after World War II. America was flourishing. Then all of a sudden, the Arabs put an oil embargo on this country and took away our ability to get fuel. The President reacted quickly. The Congress reacted quickly. We put in that limit. In due course, the pressure on the pump declined and gas fell to about $2 a gallon. In 1995, 20 years after the enactment of this legislation by the Congress and the President, the 55 miles was lifted. Mind you, it wasn't one President; it was a series of Presidents who endorsed this program of conservation in terms of the reduction of speed. I don't know. At one time I used to be a pretty good mechanic on automobiles, but they have now gotten a degree of complexity that is beyond my grasp. I rely on my son, who has devoted much of his life to auto racing. He is a wonderful mechanic and an engineer on cars. He said the carburetion system--he argued with me about this when I spent the past weekend with him--shook his fist at me: I don't want this 55-mile-per- hour limit. And that is good advice. But he said the carburetion systems in cars today are better than they were in 1973 and 1974, and I judge that to be the case. So I asked in my letters: Analyze the technical capabilities of the cars today, and could we anticipate bringing about a savings at the gas pump by virtue of a national speed limit? So we have to get the facts and put them together. But I ask my colleagues, as they proceed to work on this issue--and I am all for the renewables, but that is long term. Offshore drilling: long term. We have to focus now on what measures we can take to help people now, if not long term. I know colleagues are getting the same calls and the same letters I am receiving from those people who, frankly, feel very oppressed by this rapid development. Although it has increased basically a dollar a gallon in the last year, so much of it has come on in the last 120 days, unanticipated in speed and causing great hardship here at home. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, July 3, 2008. Hon. Samuel W. Bodman, Secretary of Energy, Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Bodman: I write today with respect to the high cost of gasoline. Today, the average cost of a gallon of regular gasoline is more than $4.10. This is an increase of well over a dollar a gallon from a year ago. As you know, each and every day, Americans struggle to cope with this rapid, record increase in fuel costs. Across the United States, individual Americans are taking their own initiatives to find ways to reduce gas consumption through driving less, altering daily routines, and even changing or cancelling family vacation plans. To date, as far as I can determine, the federal government has taken few, if any, initiatives to join in this national effort to help address this ever increasing crisis. I believe it is essential that we continue to modernize our energy infrastructure and develop a reliable, commonsense American energy strategy--one that includes new supplies from domestic exploration and extraction, encourages conservation, and promotes the use and advancement of clean, renewable energies. I am among a group of many senators today who are working in a bipartisan fashion to find a solution. For the past several years, I have supported permitting the Commonwealth of Virginia to explore and extract energy offshore if its Governor and General Assembly so desire. This concept has just recently gained the support of the administration and a growing number of colleagues in Congress. However, the truth is that new technologies and new sources of energy will not provide meaningful relief for years to come as new technologies are developed and as new sources of energy are discovered and extracted. We must be straight with the American public and not raise hopes that these efforts will provide immediate solutions and possible relief. There are ways to give some immediate relief. In my view: new conservation efforts are the quickest way to see an immediate reduction in the price of gas at the pump. The American public is already doing its part through individual means of cutting back. On a federal level, on May 22, 2008, Senator Bingaman and I introduced, and the Senate unanimously passed by voice vote, a sense-of-the-Senate resolution (S. Res. 577) that urged the President to initiate, among all federal departments and agencies of the executive branch, a reduction of their daily consumption of gasoline--if only by a small percentage. To my knowledge, the administration has not responded to the Senate's action. In the absence of pending administration action, Congress should join with the public and make the concepts in the sense-of-the-Senate resolution a mandatory law. Turning to another concept, I call to your attention action taken by the Congress and the executive branch during a similar petroleum shortage that occurred in 1973 and 1974. In January 1974, the President signed into law ``The Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act'' (public Law 93-239), which passed both the House and Senate unanimously. This law was enacted in an effort to conserve fuel. Specifically, the law put forth inducements for states to reduce speed limits to 55 miles per hour (mph) on all major highways. Failure to do so would jeopardize the ability of states to secure federal highway funds. The law was originally intended to be temporary, ceasing to be in effect if the President declared that there was no longer a fuel shortage or on or after June 30, 1975, whichever occurred first. According to a Congressional Research Service report, the law resulted in reduced consumption of 167,000 barrels of petroleum a day, a roughly 2 percent reduction in the nation's highway fuel consumption. In addition, the National Academy of Sciences found that the law saved up to 4,000 lives per year from highway accidents. Given the significant increase in the number of vehicles on America's highway system from 1974 to 2008, one could assume that the amount of fuel that could be conserved today is far greater. Given the fuel savings of the act, and the resulting significant decrease in highway fatalities attributable to the national speed limit, Congress made the national speed limit permanent in December 1974. In 1995, the law was repealed. The purpose of this letter is to ask you to study this era of conservation, as I have, to determine whether the administration, with the support of Congress; should take similar action today. According to the U.S. Department of Energy Web site, engineering data shows that fuel efficiency decreases rapidly above 60 mph. Specifically, for every 5 mph an individual drives over 60 mph, that individual essentially is paying an extra 30 cents per gallon in fuel costs. As Congress continues to look for ways to ease this national problem, I put to you the following questions. I will share your responses with my colleagues. (1) Given the significant technological improvements since 1974, at what speed is the typical vehicle traveling on America's highways today most fuel efficient? (2) If a national speed limit was enacted similar to the 1974 law, but the speed limit under that law was consistent with most fuel efficient speed for the typical vehicle traveling on America's highways, what would be a reasonable projection for total fuel savings? And, what would be the savings for the average citizen who owns and operates a vehicle? (3) If a new national speed limit was enacted consistent with the two questions listed above, how many fewer barrels of petroleum a day would Americans consume? Is it reasonable to believe that there would be a reduction in price at the pump? And, if so, what are the ranges you could project for cost reductions? (4) If the federal government took the initiative to reduce its oil consumption, consistent the concepts of the sense-of- the-Senate resolution (S. Res. 577) how many fewer barrels of petroleum a day would be saved by the federal government? Given that Congress, upon its return next week, will be vigorously considering all options, your response to this request could be of great help to my colleagues and me. Again, years ago, the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act worked. The administration's advice, after examining this era and these concepts, would be helpful. With kind regards, I am Sincerely, John Warner.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of the leadership and the floor managers, I have been asked to propound a unanimous-consent request that the following Senators be recognized, assuming they are here on the floor in time to be recognized: I will speak now for about 15 minutes, to be followed by Senator Carper for 10 minutes. I see my distinguished friend, the Senator from Mississippi; if he could indicate how much time he would like.

Mr. WARNER. He is to be joined by Senator Wicker.

Mr. WARNER. All right.

Mr. WARNER. All right. And Senator Stabenow, I do not see her, but let's put her down for 10, and Senator Cornyn.

Mr. WARNER. With that in mind--I do not see any other Senators seeking recognition--I ask it in the form of a unanimous consent.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I see our distinguished colleague from Missouri on the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am going to speak for maybe 4 minutes. My distinguished colleague from Connecticut, who is too humble to say so, perhaps, deserves credit for what is going on this morning, together with Senator Cornyn. We are about to wind up in less than 15 minutes. I would think that at 11:15 we would be ready to go on the bill, and I wish to join the Senator from Missouri on this bill.

Mr. WARNER. No.

Mr. WARNER. So I would put it in the form of a unanimous consent request that we be allowed to continue at this point.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am very heart warmed that this concept is giving us the opportunity to talk about these magnificent documents. I was fortunate at one time to be designated by the President and actually confirmed by the Senate in a position for the Nation's bicentennial to lead discussions all across America in all 50 States-- and indeed I traveled to 22 foreign countries--working on the concept of America's bicentennial and of the magnificence of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights. I remember so well when talking to audiences the rapt attention that was given at that period in our history about the importance of these documents. Not one, not two--I don't know how many people would say to me that they felt the hand of divine providence came down and rested upon the shoulders of the Founding Fathers to put together such a magnificent framework of government. That framework of government today stands as the longest and oldest surviving form of a democratic republic on Earth. It is something to think about. All the other forms of government--monarchies and so forth--have either been changed or have gone into the dust bin of history but not ours. It is because of the genius of these individuals that enables us to carry forward. I remember I was challenged one time that Switzerland's Government was continuous. I reminded them that Napoleon crossed the Alps, I think it was in--and I will check it and correct it for the record--in about 1827 and annexed Switzerland to France. That persisted for some 18 months, and then Napoleon decided it was too cold over there, didn't want it, and cut it loose and let it go. I will polish that history later on. I believe we should focus on the magnificence of this document, its endurance, and that we are proudly the trustees of this framework of government, to make it work as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. We recognize that with the passage of time, there are things that have overtaken some of the original--not their basic concepts, but just the electronic world in which we live now, the instantaneous information world and all of those things have contributed. Nevertheless, we are the oldest surviving democratic republic on Earth today because of the magnificent work of the Founding Fathers. I yield the floor.