Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we extend morning business until 7:30.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 5714, which was received from the House.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate a message from the House with respect to S. 602.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow) laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives:

Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 602) entitled

``An Act to develop the next generation of parental control

technology'', do pass with the following amendment:

Strike section 2 and redesignate section 3 as section 2.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate concur in the House amendment and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 706, submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I understand that there are four bills at the desk and I ask for their first reading en bloc.

I now ask for a second reading en bloc and object to my own request en bloc.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, November 19; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each; that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3297.

I further ask unanimous consent that with respect to the measures read for the first time, they be considered as having been read a second time on Tuesday for the purpose of placing the bills on the calendar with respect to rule XIV.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, I had occasion to share my thoughts about the Senator from Virginia before and do not intend to expand on those remarks at this point other than to note that I think all of us, particularly those of us who are new, very much feel we are graced by this institution and by the opportunity we have to serve in it. Some of us have the opportunity to grace it back, and Senator Warner of Virginia has certainly done that.

I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, be recognized.

Mr. President, I am particularly gratified to be speaking about this now because you, the distinguished Senator from Colorado, were formerly the attorney general from Colorado at a time when I was the attorney general of Rhode Island, and I just want to make a quick point.

We all recall the very unfortunate tragedy, really, that befell the Department of Justice as a result of extremely unfortunate decisions made at the management level which culminated in the forced retirement--the firing, if you will--of a significant number of U.S. attorneys for political reasons. The fallout from that disaster has obviously been profound: the Attorney General resigned, the entire top structure of the Department of Justice is gone, and a lengthy investigation has taken place into what happened.

In the last 2 days, the Office of Inspector General at the Department of Justice and the Office of Professional Responsibility of the Department of Justice have released their report. It is about this big--it is 348 pages, I think--and I have been through it.

First of all, I want to compliment the Office of Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility on the work they did. It is an exhaustive, thorough, and profound piece of investigative research. But what sticks out more than anything else from that report to me is the fact that former White House appointees refused to be interviewed. The former counsel, a lawyer, to the White House refused to be interviewed. The President's political adviser refused to be interviewed. More than that, the White House itself refused to provide internal e-mails relevant to this investigation to the Department of Justice.

We have been denied those things on grounds of executive privilege, but there is no executive privilege between the White House and an executive agency. So there were no grounds for refusing to cooperate and refusing to provide those materials. There was no legal justification for it. They just said no.

Worse still, as the Presiding Officer knows, there is an office within the Department of Justice known as the Office of Legal Counsel-- I repeat, within the Department of Justice. The Office of Legal Counsel itself refused to provide a document in its possession to the Office of Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility in this investigation. It was a triple stonewall--the former White House officials, the White House itself, and the Office of Legal Counsel with respect to this one White House document. As a result, the inspector general's report itself concludes that their investigation was hampered--that is their word--that their investigation was hindered-- that is their word--and that there were gaps left in this investigation as a result of the failure of the White House to cooperate and instruction to the OLC not to produce the document. And indeed, one of the people who refused to cooperate--a former White House employee, former White House Counsel Miers--indicated that the reason she wasn't was because to cooperate with this would be inconsistent with White House instructions not to cooperate with Congress.

So here is the point. Where is the Attorney General in this? You have been an attorney general; I have been an attorney general. What happens when you are in charge of an investigation and your investigators are hampered and hindered in their investigation in a way that leaves gaps in the investigation as a result of noncooperation by your own administration? What do you do? We were elected to our positions as attorney general. We would have known what to do.

I think this is a very important moment in the history of the Department of Justice. It is a contest of wills between the White House refusing to cooperate and the Department of Justice going about its legitimate investigative function. I think the Attorney General has an important role. I think it is vital for the Attorney General to stand with his investigators, with his

Office of Inspector General, and with his Office of Professional Responsibility. I think he has no choice, without doing lasting damage to the Department of Justice and creating forever the precedent that when it comes to the investigative responsibilities of the Department of Justice, White House participation is optional, even when the investigation leads into the White House. That is an admission by the Department of Justice at the highest level, by the Attorney General himself, that the White House is above the law in this country, which I don't think is the right answer.

I haven't been in that position. I know it is a tough call. But other Attorneys General have been in that position and they have faced that tough call. Just recently, we learned that Attorney General Ashcroft was prepared to resign in a similar face-off with the White House. Backed by Deputy Attorney General Comey and others in the Department and faced with that stern resolve by those men, the White House blinked and backed down. So the question now is, Does Attorney General Mukasey have that same stern resolve or will he be the one who blinks and backs down? He has appointed a new Special Prosecutor, but we don't know what is going to happen there.

As a former attorney general, the Presiding Officer knows well that could disappear into a grand jury, be protected by Rule 6(e) secrecy of the grand jury, and never be heard from again. This could be a way to put the investigation aside and quiet it rather than to see it through. But what the Attorney General can do is march up to the White House and say: This noncooperation is not tolerable, it is not acceptable, and I will not stand for it. One of two things is going to happen: Either the White House is going to cooperate with my investigation or I am going to resign.

That is the position the Attorney General is now in.

Winston Churchill used to talk about the fine agate points on which great institutions and history turn. I think Attorney General Mukasey is at one of those points, and the question for him now is, Do you blink or do you stand with your investigators?

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Iowa. I said I would be brief, and I was only marginally brief. Perhaps by Senate standards I was brief but not by real standards, and I appreciate his patience.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, September 30; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 2095.

Madam President, tomorrow the Senate will resume consideration of the rail safety/Amtrak legislation postcloture. There will be no rollcall votes during Tuesday's session.

Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand in recess under the previous order.

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

Mr. President, we are all awaiting efforts of the negotiating teams who are working on a rescue plan to the current financial crisis. Many of us--as I know the distinguished Senator from Montana has--have lobbed in our thoughts and ideas, now we are waiting anxiously to see how they have fared in the negotiations.

And I would like to take this time while we wait to address another subject because a few months from now our colleague, John Warner, will retire from the Senate after 30 years of service to the people of Virginia and the people of America. His work in this Chamber and all these halls has made our country stronger. And in a place where partisan rancor too often rules the day, his is a legacy of honor and dignity that will stand long after he has gone. So I wanted to take a few moments to salute this man.

When John Warner's country called, he answered. In 1945, at 17 years of age, he enlisted in the U.S. Navy and was sent to fight in World War II. When the war was over, John attended a great Virginia institution, Washington and Lee University, on the GI bill. And in 1949, he entered law school at my own alma mater, the University of Virginia. But America called again, and John answered again, interrupting his studies to serve as a ground officer with the 1st Marine Aircraft Wing in Korea. He returned home again, went back to UVA, and received his law degree in 1953. I would graduate almost 30 years after him. John continued to serve in the Marine Corps Reserves after the war, attaining the rank of captain.

John Warner's mother once said she hoped he would one day become the Secretary of the Navy. Well, in 1972 he fulfilled that hope, serving until 1974, during the challenging years of the Vietnam conflict. In that office, he succeeded his dear friend John Chafee, a fellow marine, later to become a U.S. Senator. It is John Chafee's seat that I am now privileged to hold.

During his first campaign for the Senate, Senator Warner told the Washington Post:

When I was Secretary of the Navy I drove the admirals

crazy. When I went to visit a ship I liked to go all over it

and talk to sailors.

He is, in the words of ADM Mike Mullen, ``a man whose love of country is matched only by his love [of] those who defend it.''

In the Senate, John Warner's commitment to the men and women of America's armed services is evident in nearly everything he does. Alternating as chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee with his dear friend Carl Levin of Michigan, he has fought to ensure that those who serve this country receive the best possible health care and benefits. In 1999, they achieved for our troops their first major pay increase in 16 years--and this year, did it again.

In his 30 years in the Senate, John Warner has dedicated himself to helping his constituents and keeping our Nation secure. He has supported the hundreds of thousands of members of the military who are based in Virginia and serve at more than 90 installations throughout his State. He has helped keep Virginia's storied shipbuilding industry strong, preserving jobs and sustaining communities on Virginia's Atlantic coast.

In my home State of Rhode Island, on top of our State House dome is a statue of the Independent Man. The statue represents a spirit of liberty and freedom that has been cherished in Rhode Island back to the days of Roger Williams. Well, John Warner is Virginia's Independent Man. Over and over again, he has put his country first and done what he thought was right no matter what the politics.

Senator Warner saw the need for a change of course in Iraq, and he has worked for real, urgent solutions to the threat of global warming. As part of the Gang of 14, he sought middle-ground answers to the challenging, controversial topic of judicial nominations. He refused to support President Reagan's nomination of Robert H. Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987--a principled stand with a political cost.

In 1994, when the Virginia Republican Party endorsed Oliver North for the State's junior Senate seat, John Warner refused to support the candidacy of a man who had been convicted of a felony. He said then:

I do not now, nor will I ever, run up my white flag and

surrender my fight for what I believe is in the best interest

of my country, my State and my party.

His relationship with our colleague, our fellow freshman in the Senate, Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, is a model for the rest of the Senate of collegiality, enabling them together to extract from the difficult logjam of judicial nominations talented judges to serve Virginia.

Former Virginia Governor Linwood Holton paid Senator Warner what I'd call the ultimate compliment around here:

He wants to solve problems.

We will all miss John Warner when he leaves the Senate this January. His hard work and independent spirit have enriched Congress for the past 30 years. And I count myself very fortunate to have served with him.

On a personal note, I thank John Warner for his exceptional, I daresay even avuncular kindness to me in my first term. From the vantage point of 30 years' seniority, I am a mere speck in the sweep of his tenure here. He has served with 273 Senators, I believe, and yet he has made me feel so welcome. In that kindness, I am the beneficiary of his friendship of many years with my father, a friendship that lasted as long as my lifetime to date. My father was a fellow World War II veteran, a fellow marine, a fellow public servant, and a man who I remember today as I express my affection and gratitude to the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia.

Reporters interviewing John Warner have noted his tendency to close his eyes and lean back in his chair while answering questions. It's not a sign of disrespect, they know, but rather a sign of deep concentration. I've seen him concentrating that way myself in deliberations behind the heavy steel doors of the Intelligence Committee.

I envision sometime, when the press inquiries, staff updates, legislative proposals and constituent requests have slowed, that Senator John Warner will take a moment to close his eyes, lean back in that chair, and reflect on what an extraordinary career his has been. I hope he remembers all the good he has done and all the goodwill and admiration he has earned among those who have been privileged to serve with him. Senator Warner, I wish you, your wife Jeanne, and your family Godspeed and best wishes in all your future endeavors.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during

floor consideration of H.R. 2638 that Arex Avanni, a detailee to the Committee on Appropriations, be granted the privilege of the floor.