John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this is a matter that I have discussed with the managers of the bill as well as, on several occasions, our distinguished Republican and Democratic leaders. On behalf of Senator Levin and myself, I file today the 2006 authorization bill which has been prepared by the Committee on Armed Services. It was taken up by the Senate some weeks ago but, due to schedule pressures, we did not have the opportunity to finish that bill. I emphasize that Senator Levin and I jointly are taking this action today. We do so having also worked very conscientiously with our two leaders to prepare a unanimous consent request, which is still in the works, by which our bill can once again be brought up as a freestanding measure and the Senate act upon it. I will not dwell at this time on the various options we are discussing as to how that UC is drawn up. Senator Levin and I believe that it is imperative, on behalf of the men and women of the Armed Forces, that this bill be considered in a timely fashion. As we continue our work on the UC, I have to seize upon this opportunity, together with Senator Levin, to file our bill as a proposed amendment to the appropriations bill, together with a managers' package, a proposed managers' amendment, of some 80 amendments that Senator Levin, since the time of the original consideration of our bill, and I have looked at, agreed, and would be seeking unanimous consent for the incorporation of those amendments in our bill. The armed services bill was acted on with some 31 amendments at the time it was on the floor. So we have the original bill with 31 amendments which were agreed to in the course of several days of deliberation. Again, the Defense authorization act is too important to our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, and the national security of our country for the Senate not to complete action on it. If we cannot achieve unanimous consent prior to the final passage of this bill, it is the intent of Senator Levin and myself to urge upon the Senate the incorporation of the Defense authorization bill, together with at least a first managers' package of 80 amendments. For the convenience of Senators, I ask unanimous consent that a list of those 80 amendments and a brief description and the Senators, some 68 in number, who are affected by this managers' package, be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER. By way of historical context, I would like to point out the following: There is an unbroken record for the last 45 years of Senate history that the Senate has passed an annual Defense authorization bill. The Senate and House have come to a conference agreement on and the President has signed that conference into law as the National Defense Authorization Act. Only once before has the chairman of the Armed Services Committee had to resort to the rare parliamentary procedure of proposing that that bill, the entire Defense authorization bill, be placed upon another legislative matter. That was in the year 1988. Time is short. We must be reasonable in the amount of time we have been debating both the authorization bill and the appropriations bill. I ask for my colleagues' consideration and restraint in offering amendments to the appropriations bill, as well as to the authorization bill, hopefully, to achieve the unanimous consent agreement, which I hope will be offered in the next few days, to enable the authorization bill to become a freestanding bill with a designated number of amendments, with designated time agreements, and a clear estimate for both the Republican and Democratic leaders as to the number of days that would be required for completion. That will all be set forth, hopefully, in the next few days in a UC request. We must be aware of the importance of the measure, the authorization bill. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, guardsmen, Active Reserve and National Guard, and countless civilians who support military, diplomatic, and humanitarian operations are serving valiantly in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations to secure our national security. This bill would provide them a broad range, literally a million-plus individuals in uniform and civilians, with better equipment to do their daily jobs and enhanced quality of life for themselves and their families through pay raises and benefits and the like. For example, without this bill being acted upon by the Senate, we could not increase the death gratuity to $100,000, which the Senate strongly desires, for survivors of military members whose death resulted from wounds, injuries, or illnesses incurred under combat- related conditions or in a combat operation or a combat zone. We could not increase TRICARE benefits for the children of survivors. We could not provide the military services with the authorities for bonuses and other incentives needed to meet the troublesome recruiting situation today. We could not implement new assistance to school districts with significant enrollment increases in military-dependent students to stop troop relocations, creation of new units, and realignments under the BRAC Commission and, above all, the annual pay raises which the Congress provides for the men and women. In addition to the above, the threat reduction program, which is designed to keep nuclear materials and expertise away from terrorists, would expire. Weapons systems costs would increase because multiyear procurement authorities would not be enacted. Special acquisition authorities designed to facilitate the rapid procurement of technologies to prevent casualties from terrorist roadside bombs, or IEDs, would fail to go into effect. Military construction and family housing programs would be jeopardized, including over $1.5 billion to fund projects in support of communities that will be affected by the 2005 BRAC round, if that is eventually becoming law. These are a few of the essential authorities contained in the legislative provisions of this year's bill, something that I am proud to say the Senate Armed Services Committee has worked on since January of this year and resulted in 278 legislative provisions as contained in this bill. I respectfully ask my colleagues to support my efforts and that of Senator Levin in bringing the Defense authorization bill to the floor. As I said, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator Levin to announce that we have taken what I consider extraordinary action by filing two amendments to the pending bill. It is with great reluctance that I propose these amendments to the Defense Appropriations Act. But I do so only with the interests of the men and women of our armed forces at heart. The first amendment consists of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006--including not only the version of the bill unanimously reported out of the Armed Services Committee on May 17, but also 31 amendments added to the bill when it was on the floor in July. Senator Levin and I, with our respective leaders, are trying to work out a unanimous consent agreement that would return the Defense authorization bill to the floor as a stand-alone bill. However, in the absence of that agreement, we have to leave open the option of including this bill on another legislative vehicle. The Defense authorization act is just too important to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines and the national security of our country for the Senate not to complete action on the bill. If we cannot do this as a stand-alone bill, we need to find another way to bring this bill into law. The second amendment we are offering today contains additional amendments that are agreed and ready to be included in a ``managers' package'' to the Defense authorization act. I offer this amendment to illustrate to my colleagues the significant progress that has been made on this bill so far. This new managers' package contains 80 amendments on behalf of 67 Senators. Together with the action already taken on this bill in July, our colleagues can clearly see that nearly every U.S. Senator has made an important contribution to the Defense authorization act. I am committed to making this ``managers' package'' the first amendment to be considered to the Defense authorization bill once it is taken up as a separate bill. We are not finished reviewing proposed amendments. The committee is still working through a number of amendments that I expect would be included in a second managers' package. Since January 1961, the Senate has passed an annual Defense authorization bill. Each and every year, for 45 years, the Senate and the House have come to a conference agreement on and the President has signed into law a National Defense Authorization Act. Only once before has the chairman of the Armed Services Committee had to resort to the rare parliamentary procedure of proposing to put the entire defense authorization bill on another bill. This occurred in 1988. As the custodian of this important piece of legislation, I find I am left with very few options this year to ensure Congress can adequately support our troops by passing this bill. I, with my friend Carl Levin, am willing to do whatever it takes to pass this bill. Time is short and we must be reasonable in the amount of time we spend debating this bill. I ask for my colleagues' consideration and restraint in offering additional amendments to this bill and to support a unanimous consent agreement to limit the number of contentious amendments that may require time to debate on the floor. At the same time, Senator Levin and I pledge to work with Senators to accept as many amendments as possible in a managers' package. Our responsibility to consider and pass the Defense authorization bill goes beyond statutory requirements, floor schedules, and historical precedent. We must also be aware of the importance of this measure to our men and women in uniform around the world. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen-- active, reserve, and National Guard--and, countless civilians who support military, diplomatic and humanitarian operations are serving valiantly in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations to secure hard-won military successes and to preserve peace and freedom. This bill will provide them with better equipment to do their daily jobs, and an enhanced quality of life for themselves and their families. Together we can and must complete this bill for them. Without this bill, DoD could not, for example, increase the death gratuity to $100,000 for survivors of military members whose death resulted from wounds, injuries, or illnesses incurred under combat- related conditions or in a combat operation or a combat zone; increase TRICARE benefits for the children of survivors; provide the military services the authorities and pays needed to enhance recruitment and retention in the active and reserve forces; and implement new assistance to school districts with significant enrollment increases in military dependent students due to troop relocations, creation of new units and realignments under BRAC. In addition, authorities related to the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program which is designed to keep nuclear materials and expertise away from terrorists would expire. Weapon systems costs would increase because multiyear procurement authorities would not be enacted. Special acquisition authorities designed to facilitate the rapid procurement of technologies to prevent casualties from terrorist roadside bombs or IEDs would not go into effect. Military construction and family housing programs would be jeopardized, including over $1.5 billion to fund projects in support of the 2005 BRAC round. These are just a few of the essential authorities contained in the 278 legislative provisions in this year's bill. So I ask my colleagues to support Senator Levin's and my efforts to bring the Defense authorization bill to the floor. We are all mindful of the risks members of the U.S. Armed Forces face every day and of the sacrifices made by the families and communities that support them. Our men and women in uniform have been asked to do much in the past year, and they have responded in the finest traditions of the generations of Americans that preceded them. The American people are proud of their Armed Forces for what they have accomplished, and for the manner in which they represent American values and the generosity of America. It is time for us in the Senate to do our part. With the understanding that the two bills are filed, I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn.) The amendments will be filed for the Record.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, there are no two individuals in the Senate today that have a finer reputation for Senatorial courtesy and for the need for our national defense legislation than the two managers of the appropriations bill, the Senators from Alaska and Hawaii, both of whom have had such distinguished careers in the uniform of the country in which we all take such pride. Both of these individuals have conferred with my colleague, Senator Levin, and with me about the measures I have taken today. Senator Stevens very carefully pointed out to me exactly what he has said--his grave concern, understandable concern, and proper concern about the imperative need of the passage of the appropriations bill. In no way is it the intention of this Senator or Senator Levin to try to unduly delay that bill. We will see whether a time agreement is achievable, either for consideration of our bill for a brief period of time, on the appropriations bill, or by virtue of a UC as a freestanding bill. I urge we try and do it on this bill. The Senator pointed out the exigencies of conferences. In my research, there are several options on how to conduct a conference on these two bills. I am sure we can work out a method to do so. For example, it may be possible to split off the authorization bill prior to final passage of the appropriations bill in order to facilitate two separate conference reports. If that is not possible, the chairman of the subcommittee on appropriations could decide to hold what would be basically two conferences--one of the authorizers, one of the appropriators. But nevertheless, the appropriators would have overall control and only one conference report would be voted on by the Senate. I think either of these options could be achieved here. Certainly, I know Senator Levin and I would work to these ends. But I also bring to the attention of the managers, we all know full well there are several amendments--I shall not try to characterize them other than to say there are several amendments that are to be brought against the authorization bill which, I am inclined to believe, will be brought against the appropriations bill should we not move ahead with the authorization bill so those amendments can be authorized on this bill. There is a strong conviction among a number of my colleagues--I don't agree, but I respect them--to have a commission to study how this country deals with its detainees and other commissions that are in the minds of others. I don't think, unless there is clarity as to what is going to happen to the authorization bill, that you can rule out the possibility that one or more of these amendments might be directed in the next few days against this bill, with the best of intentions, and those would be time-consuming matters, I assume.

Mr. WARNER. Yes, of course.

Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join the distinguished majority leader and others who have spoken on behalf of the President's nomination of a very distinguished member of the bar of the State of Texas and, indeed, the profession of law all across America, where she has, through many years of long and arduous adherence to the profession of law, distinguished herself in so many ways. I had the privilege over the years of working with Harriet Miers. I have the highest respect as a fellow lawyer for her professional abilities and her standards of ethics and conduct. I think she is a superb nomination. I commend the President of the United States. If I may say, in this season of our sports, he has hit another home run. Mr. President, well done.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to make a floor statement on behalf of a member of our Senate family. I, like so many other Senators, come into a particular entrance here in the Senate as I drive in in the morning. I rise today to pay tribute to Officer Lonnie Tabron. Officer Tabron retired from the Capitol Police on Saturday, October 1, 2005, having completed 22 years of distinguished service since his first day on the force, May 4, 1983. Lonnie Tabron was born in Washington, DC, in July 1949, and he received his education in the District's public school system, where he always strived for excellence. After graduating from high school, Lonnie served the United States of America in the Armed Forces in Vietnam. He ably answered the call to duty and throughout his term in the Army, rising to the rank of sergeant, he represented our Nation with valor and integrity. During his distinguished career as a Capitol police officer, Lonnie worked 21 years on the Senate side of the Capitol. With his assignment to the ``barricade,'' as it is referred to, on the Delaware and C Street entrance, Lonnie became friends with my colleagues and staff alike. In the many years I entered that entrance, this fine man--whether it was bitter cold or intensely hot, raining or sleeting--always approached my vehicle, as all others, with a big smile on his face. In those days, when I guess my spirits were low, as I came, he lifted those spirits. He always had a warm smile and an enthusiastic ``Good morning, Senator.'' It has been my pleasure to receive those greetings, as I say, these many years. I shall dearly miss him. Lonnie Tabron's philosophy in life consists of three main principles, and he sought to apply these important lessons to his career with the Capitol Police. Every day, Lonnie has remembered to treat others as he would like to be treated, to speak to others as he would like them to speak to him, and to respect others with the same measure of honor that he would expect from them. I believe these three traits are exceptionally appropriate, and Lonnie certainly embodied his beliefs in his service on Capitol Hill. In his 22 years on the Capitol Police Force, Lonnie has demonstrated a willingness to help anyone who was in need. I appreciate very much his dedication to his job and his remarkable professionalism. As he enters his well-deserved retirement, Lonnie will be dearly missed by those who have had the opportunity to make his acquaintance. It is my honor and privilege to commend his outstanding service today and to wish him well in the years ahead. I thank my senior staff member, Awilda Euill, who is with me on the floor today, a longtime admirer of Lonnie's. She assisted me in the preparation of this statement.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Outer Continental Shelf Revenue Sharing Act of 2005. Earlier this year, the Congress passed a bill, and the President signed it into law. It is the first comprehensive energy package in over a decade. Great strides were made in addressing the Nation's energy needs. This new law contains a number of valuable conservation measures and, as the chairman of the Energy Committee once stated, passage of this legislation means we will need 170 fewer powerplants by 2020. On the energy supply side, however, we still have much work to do. The recent disruptions in the Nation's energy supply caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita--tragedies, natural disasters of proportions never really seen before in this county--underscore the fragility of our energy supply system. The estimates are that 20 to 25 percent of our energy needs come in through that narrow nexus of Louisiana and Mississippi, right in that area. During debate on the bill, I offered an amendment to provide for an increased domestic supply of oil and natural gas from Outer Continental Shelf lands. Regrettably, my amendment and other similar measures were not successful. I thank the distinguished manager of that bill, Mr. Domenici, and others. They gave me a great deal of encouragement, as did the Senators from Louisiana, who likewise participated in that debate. But, nevertheless, I was not successful. I did say--and I suppose in a prophetic way--and I remember beckoning to fellow Senators on the floor, ``The day will come when I will once again stand on this floor and offer this same legislation, not knowing, of course, of the tragedies of Katrina. But that did give this Nation a serious wake-up call as to the fragility of our energy system. Again, the tragic events of the past month along the gulf coast have thrust the issue of energy supplies back into the spotlight. We need only look at the rising gas prices all over our pumps in this Nation's land, where people--men and women--on small budgets are struggling to find the resources to meet their daily requirements of the use of the automobile and to inject these increased gasoline prices into their budgets. Prices at the pump have climbed quickly, and with the winter heating season approaching, we can expect natural gas and home heating oil prices to increase, perhaps going as high as 50 percent more than last year's level. We need to address our inadequate refining capacity and expand conservation incentives. With more than 30 percent of our domestic supply of oil coming in from the Gulf of Mexico and a significant portion of our refining capacity located in the Gulf States, we must also look at ways to increase and diversify the location and sources of our domestic supplies of energy, as well as the refining capabilities; and natural gas, likewise. Before passage of the energy bill, production revenues totaling more than $7.5 billion annually from offshore oil and gas belonged to the Federal Government. This is an inconsistent policy, however, because 55 percent of the revenues from land-based oil and gas production has always been returned to the States. The one exception to this rule is Alaska, which receives back 90 percent of such revenues. Thanks to the diligence of my colleagues from Louisiana, this inequity was partially addressed in the energy bill by providing that current offshore energy- producing States will now share in the Federal Government's royalties. Indeed, it is a matter of fairness that these revenues be shared with the energy producing States. After all, it is the states closest to oil and gas production facilities that are assuming the risks that those production facilities will not have harmful environmental or economical impacts. Tourism is often the lifeblood of these regions which could be adversely affected by any environmental accidents. So it is very appropriate that they should receive a share of the revenues derived from offshore oil and gas production. While the issue of revenue sharing was addressed in the energy bill for States currently producing oil and gas off their coasts, it does not include a comprehensive policy for offshore production opportunities. Specifically, the bill does not allow other States to share revenues when and if they ever become producing regions. As we all know, the production of oil and natural gas has been subject to a moratorium along most of the Nation's coastline. While this moratorium has been in effect for some time, many Americans believe that it is now time to reevaluate its need. This past year in Virginia, both houses of the state legislature passed legislation asking for production to occur off the Virginia coast if the State is allowed to receive a share of the revenue. I think the rising costs of oil and gas are now leading other States to consider the same possibility. The bill I am introducing today would provide a portion of revenues to States under the current moratorium that may decide to undertake future offshore exploration and production activities. My legislation is based, in large part, on the hard work of my colleagues who achieved a revenue-sharing proposal for their States and local governments in the recently enacted energy bill. The new law provides State and local governments with a share of the royalties from offshore energy production, but it is limited only to the five States that are currently exempt from the moratorium on offshore oil and gas leases. As provided by current law, my bill requires the Federal Government to transfer 50 percent of the revenues received from any offshore leases to the States based upon the production levels. This would put oil and gas production in coastal areas on par with the production on other Federal lands throughout the United States. It is a matter of equity for all producing regions and represents a fair revenue-sharing model for the Federal and State governments. My proposal does not affect the current moratorium on offshore energy production. As the moratorium expires, however, my legislation enables States that wish to pursue oil and gas production to be eligible for a portion of the royalty payments that otherwise would go exclusively to the Federal Government. The amendment does not supersede a State's ability to veto any production proposals under their authority of the Coastal Zone Management Act, CZMA. It does not change the manner in which the Federal Government grants these production leases, and it does not lift the moratorium for any OCS land that is currently in place. While I believe very strongly that the States should have a role in determining whether or not to utilize these resources, I also believe that they should receive a fair share of the revenues from any production that may follow. I understand the concerns of some of my colleagues and their desire to avoid drawing specific boundary lines. While this amendment does not address all of the concerns, it offers a fair starting point to discuss this issue. It is my hope that we can all work together in addressing these concerns that will result in a commonsense approach to expand our domestic supply of oil and gas, to diversify the geographic concentration of our current industry, and to allow the States to have a role in the process. Mr. President, the time has come for the Senate to speak boldly. We can all agree that more supply is needed and that there is a vast resource yet to be tapped. My proposal offers a fair way to encourage production in States that wish to do so. In the long term our Nation will benefit by reducing its dependence on foreign sources of energy and by diversifying the geographic source of our domestic supply. I believe this proposal will solve a necessary part of the energy puzzle. I believe it is essential for our energy security, our economic security, and our national security to evaluate this, and other proposals, that address our energy supply needs. Mr. President, as I say, today I introduce, again, this bill, which I put in a few months ago. It provides for the offshore drilling of oil. I recognize the sensitivity of that, but I say to my colleagues, we can not continually ignore these warnings, whether they are brought about by Mother Nature or political problems or wars or conflicts across our shores. Now is the time to lay down that framework of legislation for those States which, by actions taken by the Governor and the State legislature, say: We will permit offshore drilling off of this State's boundaries. Hopefully, we can receive for those States, should that take place, an additional source of revenue. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, and I will seek to have it considered by the Senate as a whole at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Awilda Euill, a staff member in my office, be granted floor privileges for October 3, 2005.

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my letter to the majority leader dated September 29, 2005, be printed in the Record.

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, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is, indeed, a privilege for me to----

Mr. WARNER. That is correct. I see one of my distinguished colleagues rising to be the floor manager of this period of time, but he very courteously said I could open up, if that is approved by the Chair. Mr. President, as I said, it is a great honor for me to first and foremost stand on this floor at this great moment in contemporary history. Tomorrow, this Chamber will, I anticipate, with a strong bipartisan vote, exercise its constitutional right of giving consent to the nomination of John Roberts to serve as the next Chief Justice of the United States. I am privileged to know the nominee by virtue of the fact that we both, at different times in our careers, served in a very prestigious and revered law firm in our Nation's Capital, the law firm of Hogan & Hartson. When I joined the firm approximately forty-five years ago, Nelson T. Hartson was very active in Hogan & Hartson. I had the good fortune of being one of his aides-de-camp. Mr. Hartson's philosophy and his standard of ethics permeated that law firm then, as they still do today. As a consequence of our mutual affiliation with Hogan & Hartson, I was privileged to be asked by Judge Roberts to introduce him when he was nominated by the President to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In the 2 years he served on that court, he established an extraordinarily fine record. I was privileged to once again introduce Judge Roberts to the Judiciary Committee some two weeks ago at the start of his confirmation hearing to serve in this highest of positions in our land. I would simply say this: As I have come to know this magnificent individual, he is, in my judgment, an unpretentious legal intellectual. I say that because he is a man of simplicity in habits. He has a lovely family. He has a marvelous reputation among colleagues in the legal profession who are both Democrats and Republicans and conservatives and liberals. He is admired by all. In that capacity, as an unpretentious legal intellectual, he is, in my judgment, a rare if not an endangered species here in America for his personal habits and extraordinary intellect and for the manner he conducts himself every day of his life. In fact, in the 27 years I have been privileged to serve in the Senate, slightly more than 2,000 judicial nominations have been submitted by a series of Presidents to the Senate for ``advice and consent.'' John Roberts stands at the top, among the finest. I commend our President on making such an outstanding nomination--a nomination which will receive strong bipartisan support in the Senate. Just 4 months ago, with the judicial confirmation process stalled in the Senate, and with the Senate on the brink of considering the so- called nuclear or constitutional option, there was an aura of doubt, at the time, that any Supreme Court nominee would receive a vote reflecting bipartisan support. But on May 23, 2005, 14 U.S. Senators, of which I was one, committed themselves, in writing, to support our Senate leadership in facilitating the Senate's constitutional responsibility of providing ``advice and consent'' in accordance with article II, section 2. In crafting our Memorandum of Understanding, the Gang of 14 started and ended every discussion with the Constitution. We discussed how, without question, our Framers put the word ``advice'' in our Constitution for a reason: to ensure consultation between a President and the Senate prior to the forwarding of a nominee to the Senate for consideration. Accordingly, in the Gang of 14's Memorandum of Understanding, Senator Byrd and I incorporated language that spoke directly to the Founding Fathers' explicit use of the word ``advice.'' That bipartisan accord reads as follows: We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word ``Advice'' speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President's power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration. Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate. With respect to the nomination before us today, I believe that the President has met his constitutional obligations in an exemplary way. In my view, that consultation between the President and individual Senators laid a foundation for the confirmation of John Roberts with bipartisan support. The Gang of 14's Memorandum of Understanding provided a framework that has helped the Senate's judicial confirmation process. It has enabled the Senate to have six up-or-down votes on judicial nominations and now the Senate is about to confirm Judge John Roberts. While I thoroughly understand that President Bush didn't choose a nominee that some in the Senate might have chosen if they were President, that is not what the Constitution requires. Indeed, in Federalist Paper No. 66, Alexander Hamilton makes it clear that it is not the Senate's job to select a nominee. It is the Senate's responsibility to provide advice to a President on who to nominate and then to grant or withhold consent on that nomination. On the other hand, it is the President's responsibility, and solely the President's responsibility, to nominate individuals to serve on our courts. As Hamilton so clearly wrote: It will be the office of the President to nominate, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint. There will, of course, be no exertion of choice on the part of the Senate. They may defeat one choice of the Executive, and oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves choose--they can only ratify or reject the choice of the President. In my view, the Senate was given a meaningful opportunity to provide its advice to the President, and the President respected the Senate's views when he nominated John Roberts. Soon, the Senate will provide its consent to that nomination. John Roberts' credentials are well-known and of the highest quality. He earned a B.A., summa cum laude, from Harvard College and his law degree, magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School. At Harvard Law School, he served as managing editor of the Harvard Law Review. Subsequent to graduation, Mr. Roberts worked as a Federal law clerk for Judge Friendly on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the second Circuit, and later as a law clerk for Justice William Rehnquist on the Supreme Court. He has worked in the Department of Justice, the Reagan administration, the George H.W. Bush administration, and he practiced law for many years in private practice. But while John Roberts' legal credentials are unquestionably impressive, equally important is the type of person that he is. Throughout his legal career, both in public service, private practice, and through his pro bono work, John Roberts has worked with and against hundreds of attorneys. Those attorneys who know him well typically speak with one voice when they tell you that dignity, humility, and a sense of fairness are hallmarks of John Roberts. In my view, all of these traits came across to those of us who watched the hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. John Roberts unquestionably demonstrated a mastery of the law and a commitment to decide cases based upon the Constitution and the law of the land, with appropriate respect and deference to prior Supreme Court precedents. He views his role as one of impartial umpire, rather than as one of ideologue with an agenda. He testified to all of this under oath. To me, all of these qualities--John Roberts' legal credentials and his temperament--represent the embodiment of a Federal judge, particularly a Chief Justice of the United States. And, I am confident that the vast majority of the millions and millions of Americans who watched his confirmation hearings agree. Indeed, the American Bar Association has given John Roberts its highest rating, unanimously finding him ``well qualified'' for this position. And just slightly more than 2 years ago, the Senate unanimously confirmed him for a Federal appeals court judgeship by voice vote. Before I conclude my statement in support of this outstanding nominee, I would like to highlight a few key facts of Senate history and tradition with respect to Supreme Court nominees. I find these facts particularly illustrative. Over the last 50 years, America has seen a total of 27 Supreme Court nominees. Six of those nominees received the unanimous consent of the Senate by voice vote. Another 15 of those nominees, including seven current members of the U.S. Supreme Court, received the consent of the Senate by more than 60 votes. In fact, only three nominees to the Supreme Court over the course of the last 50 years have failed to receive the consent of the Senate. Chief Justice Rehnquist was confirmed to the Court as an Associate Justice in 1971 with 68 votes in support, and later confirmed as Chief Justice with 65 votes. John Paul Stevens received the consent of the Senate 98 to 0. Justice O'Connor, Justice Scalia, and Justice Kennedy were all confirmed by the Senate unanimously. Justice Souter was confirmed via a vote of 90 to 9. Justice Ginsburg was confirmed by a vote of 96 to 3. And Justice Breyer received the Senate's consent by a vote of 87 to 9. Like all of these highly qualified Americans who came before him seeking Senate confirmation to the Supreme Court, John Roberts has earned, over a lifetime, the strong vote of bipartisan support he is about to receive. Mr. President, I will yield the floor to my distinguished colleague at this time who will be the manager of this period. I say to my colleague, thank you for participating in the Gang of 14, as we have become known. Perhaps in the course of our remarks today we can talk about the mission, the challenge of that group, and how, in my humble judgment, we did succeed in enabling our leadership to once again put in motion the Senate's role in the confirmation of those nominated by our President for the Federal judiciary. I think back when there was a great uncertainty about that process, and even some thought of invoking certain rules of the Senate by way of change, and how my distinguished colleague from Nebraska and I stood, with others in that group, and were able to lay a foundation which, I say with a deep sense of humility, may well have contributed to our being here today and casting that historic vote tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might say, the distinguished Senator from Nebraska was a leader among the Gang of 14. I say to the Senator, I guess you might say you were one of the ``Founding Fathers'' of that group, and modesty prevents you from acknowledging that leadership. We are joined on the floor by two of our colleagues. I purposely scheduled my appearance to coincide with members of the Gang of 14 whom I am privileged to be with today. But I think, as the Senator pointed out about the advice and consent clause, we, the Gang of 14, want to acknowledge the important contribution of Senator Byrd of West Virginia. He and I sort of partnered together to draw up that short paragraph which recognizes and points out the Founding Fathers put the word ``advice'' in the Constitution for a specific purpose. As the distinguished Senator from Nebraska said, indeed, our President fulfilled that. But I wanted to acknowledge Senator Byrd's very major participation in our group.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague from North Dakota. That was truly a beautiful set of remarks. It is not just that you indicated that you will cast your vote in support; it was a very thoughtful reflection on a very important responsibility we as Senators have. I thank again the Senator from Nebraska, the Senator from Arkansas, the Senator from Colorado. We have been a team together for some time. I am delighted to have had the privilege to be here on the floor with each of them. In conclusion, I reflect back on, once again, the Federalist Paper No. 66 in which Alexander Hamilton said: It will be the office of the President to nominate and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint. There will, of course, be no exertion of choice on the part of the Senate. They may defeat one choice of the executive and oblige him to make another, but they cannot themselves choose. They can only ratify or reject the choice of the President. We are on the eve of accepting that choice, giving our consent. Again, in my 27 years in this institution, I cannot recall a more humble and yet enjoyable group I have worked with than these 14 Senators. It had been my hope that our distinguished colleague from West Virginia could join us today. I asked him and he said he would if he possibly could. But were he here, we would all stand again and thank him for his guidance as we worked through this situation. I thank my colleague from Nebraska and yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. WARNER. I am going to follow on with some greater detail about, as you say, the extraordinary participation of the men and women of the Armed Forces and, indeed, the Coast Guard, which is separate from my report that will be included with others today. It is very important that you addressed the Senate this morning. If I may say, I have been privileged to serve with you nearly a quarter of a century in this institution. I commend you for your personal courage. You have faced adversity such as few of us have ever experienced. Throughout this year, there has been personal tragedy--loss of your mother, loss of your house--yet we see the leadership you have provided, indeed, as has our President and this institution and others in the face of this hurricane. The Armed Services Committee is starting its briefing this morning. Two reports come from the Department of Defense to the Congress everyday, giving a detailed analysis with regard to the deployment of our troops. I left the briefing to come speak to the Senate this morning. We will be changing the force structure to meet the needs. For example, in all probability, the carrier can now move out, if it has fulfilled its mission. Frankly, as distressing as it is, there are tremendous assets connected with mortuary responsibilities which are now being moved in by the Department. I want to thank our colleague. I know the Presiding Officer, the President pro tempore of the Senate, shares these feelings with every Member of this body. We salute you and your family.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, our distinguished colleague has stood the test----

Mr. WARNER.--you and your fellow Senators from the three States most grievously affected. If you wait a minute, I will give you the following figures. Today, more than 72,000 members of the Armed Forces have been deployed to the Gulf Coast, including 22,439 Active-Duty and more than 45,871 members of the National Guard--of which over 400 come from my State, I say to the Senator. I went down Friday in my State to prepare one of the bases to receive the evacuees. But every single State in our Union, including the territories, has contributed their Guard in response to the needs of your community.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer. Mr. President, I would first like to say, as I mentioned, we receive a report everyday in the Senate from the Department of Defense regarding specifically the Guard and Active-Duty. Then, in addition, we receive a report from the Corps of Engineers. Our committee is a repository of these reports, but I am happy to share them with any Senators who so desire. They need only contact the Armed Services Committee or me personally, and I will see they are provided with the reports. I join Senator Lott and others in expressing our profound gratitude and pride to the men and women of the Armed Forces and indeed their families who are left at home for their service, responding with courage and untiring professionalism and compassion to our fellow citizens who fell victim to this tragic disaster. As you know, our military has a supporting role in the effort. I underline ``supporting role'' because in no way do we mean to displace the valiant efforts of those on the scene, the first responders, such that were able to muster their forces and respond. I wish to pay tribute to the magnificent response of all. I have stated the numbers a minute ago. Furthermore, I wish to highlight that the National Guard forces are meeting the challenge, as well as the national commitments--Afghanistan and Iraq. Once again, our Guard is--I don't like to use the word ``stressed,'' but they are challenged. I have spoken with General Blum, who is the Commander of the National Guard. He never once flinched when he said we are doing the job and we are going to succeed. Our hats are off to the National Guard. The Navy deployed 20 ships, including the USS Harry S Truman--it is an aircraft carrier. I remember when that ship was named--the USS Whidbey Island and the USS Iwo Jima and the USNS Comfort, the hospital ship. More than 400 aircraft, including 373 helicopters and 93 airplanes, are in support of search and rescue, medical evacuation, and logistical supply missions. The heroism of those who pilot those helicopters and the crews who go down and rescue the individuals--those chapters in our history will be recorded for posterity. They are absolutely magnificent. We have seen a tremendous response from our rotary and fixed-wing pilots. Again, to date, the Active-Duty Forces have flown more than 2,783 sorties and the National Guard has flown more than 9,240 sorties. These sorties resulted in the evacuation of more than 80,000 people and the rescue of more than 15,000 people. Additionally, more than 1,200 beds are available in field hospitals, and seven military installations are providing support as transportation staging areas as ice, water, food, and medical supplies as they became available. Stop and think. In our daily lives, we go to our refrigerators and there is ice. Ice is something that is badly needed in these high temperatures. I specifically put it in because I watched, as almost every American has watched, as these individuals in their own quiet way ask for certain things. I was particularly struck by the need for ice and fresh water. The amount of humanitarian support provided to the region is astounding. More than 16 million meals-ready-to-eat--the old MRE or military meals--44 million liters of water, and more than 175 million pounds of ice have been delivered to date. The Army Corps of Engineers has 39 of its 137 permanent pumps operating throughout New Orleans, with an additional 46 military pumps operating at a lower capacity. I understand the water level in New Orleans is dropping more than 1 foot per day. They have removed 94,000 cubic yards of debris and opened the Mississippi River to shallow draft traffic and deep vessels less than 39 feet. As indicated by the tremendous support I have outlined, it is clear that the deep magnitude and devastation of Hurricane Katrina has resulted in an unprecedented response from the Department of Defense. I want to say first that I do not wish to take away anything from the DOD or the dedicated men and women who have responded to the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina--as it is, without question, a catastrophe without parallel in modern American history, and of a magnitude not seen in my lifetime. However, as many of our colleagues know--and as chairman of the Armed Services Committee--I am deeply concerned that the Department of Defense and our President have authorities to correct standby authorities in permanent law which they need to manage disasters. Shortly I will engage in a colloquy, hopefully, with my distinguished chairman of the Homeland Defense Committee on the subject of what we should do in the future to look at the framework of laws and standby authorities to determine how better--I repeat, how better--not to fault those who performed in this catastrophe, but how best the totality of all the resources of our Nation can be brought to bear should we ever have the misfortune of another natural disaster or, indeed, a terrorist act of the magnitude that we witnessed. When I was privileged to assume chairmanship of the Armed Services Committee--before 9/11, I point out--our committee established a subcommittee called Emerging Threats. The function of that subcommittee has, is, and will be to look into the future to determine how best to prepare, primarily in our case, for a terrorist attack against our Nation. But those preparations can easily be directed toward a natural disaster, should it occur. I am very proud of the accomplishments of that subcommittee in the years I have been privileged to be chairman. But I believe the time has come that we reflect on the Posse Comitatus Act and other statutes which have stood by and served this Nation quite well in years past. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record additional documentation.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, as we face an uncertain future as it relates to terrorism and the use of weapons of mass destruction, I have some thoughts with regard to this law which was passed in 1878 which restricts in certain ways--and the predicate for doing so is wise--men and women of the Armed Forces--that is, a permanent U.S. military as opposed to National Guard--in matters relating to law enforcement. Traditionally, that has always been left to the local authorities, and that is the way it should be. But sometimes there may be one--I will have to examine the facts--that becomes so overwhelming or so incapacitated by a natural disaster, or perhaps a terrorist attack, that the Armed Forces may have to perform some of those duties. We want to make sure the President has that capability. Also, there are other permanent laws on the books called the Insurrection Statutes. At a very minimum, I would like to see the name changed that we put on this for reasons quite different than the threats and challenges that face this Nation today. But that statute also might be reviewed, along with the Posse Comitatus Act, to see whether other permanent pieces of law should be modified to meet the contingencies we face here in the future. I see the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Defense Committee. I wonder if I might direct a question to her. In the briefings we have had before our committee by members of various departments and agencies who had authorities to deal with this, I came away with an impression that we have to, in a very quiet and careful manner, look at the totality of the permanent law and regulations to determine what changes should be made to meet a contingency of the nature we have experienced--indeed, whether it is a natural disaster or military terrorist attack in the future. I wonder if our distinguished chairman has progressed in her thinking on this point.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman. I am privileged to serve on her committee. As a consequence of the close relationship between the Department of Defense and the various departments our committee--and I sit on a few-- has over situations such as this--I might note for the Record the person from FEMA who appeared before your committee for the briefing was a career employee. I found him to be very qualified. He has some 30 years of experience. I think he shared with our committee some of his most profound thoughts based on some, I believe, 30 years experience. Am I correct?

Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished chairman. I yield the floor.