John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. There is a difference between the amendments. My amendment generally states the Secretary of the Interior, who is the final arbiter of this whole issue, would entertain the petitions from the several Governors, whatever geographic area, as he, the Secretary of Interior, makes a decision. But I think the Senator has gone a step too far. If there is anything left of States' rights after this sort of paragraph, I don't know what it would be. Listen to what you say: The Secretary [Interior] shall not approve a petition under this paragraph unless the Governors of all States within 100 miles of the coastal waters of the State have approved the petition. It doesn't say anything about working it out. It is flat veto power put in the hands of such Governors within 100 miles.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am enjoying this debate, perhaps to educate the Senate. But I bring up another situation to my good friend who has recently joined this body. I don't know how many times I have gone to the floor and contested the right of the several States north of my State, largely, to ship through Virginia thousands of tons of garbage by truck, by rail, leaking, exuding methane gas in my State. You have the good fortune of a clause in the Constitution on interstate commerce, by which you can throw up your hands and say it is the exercise of that constitutional power. You say my State cannot object to your shipping garbage through it every day. The Senator knows New Jersey ships through 1,000 tons of it. Yet you are saying to me, we cannot go through a process--working with the Federal Government of the United States and the Department of Interior--to drill offshore unless your Governor and all others, any one of the Governors within 100 States--if he has not given the approval, this thing stops?

Mr. WARNER. No, 100 miles.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, ``in concert'' to me means entrusting to the Secretary of that department of our Federal system, by which the power resides, to grant or deny the license. That Secretary has to arbitrate the concerns of all Governors within 100 miles of this drilling, so to speak. I thought that is the only procedure I know. But I think you have gone to an extreme. You put an absolute veto power in. At this time, I would like to advise my colleague that, in consultation with the managers of the bill, I would like to lay my amendment aside until I can give a definitive answer to the Senator from Florida. I think I have it worked out in the Pentagon, but I need to provide you with the documents to manifest that resolution. I will put in a quorum call at this time, such that the managers can advise me. I will withhold that if the Senator wishes to speak.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in reply to the question of my good friend, I remember that very well. As a matter of fact, he and I worked on that. I remember breaking out the charts in the Armed Services Committee and looking how the aircraft and everything would operate and the ships in that area. You are well spoken and well taken on that. But I have to tell you, Senator, face to face, things have changed. Every day, things change. We have to reexamine, periodically, that framework of laws that have protected our environment, to a certain extent, in the light of our growing desperate needs for energy and the growing capability of our industrial base to do the drilling, to do the extraction in such a way as to minimally put at risk our environment. I do not take a backseat to any person in this Chamber with regard to my fervor in protecting the environment. I don't want to be called a tree hugger, but I am one step removed. I work on that Environment Committee, where I have now served 24 years or something--I don't know, a long time.

Mr. WARNER. That is correct. But the military can't do a broad sweep. I know what is underlying this thing. I have to get the papers here. There are certain navigational aspects of it, certain electronic aspects, but the military can't say no drilling on the east coast.

Mr. WARNER. I hope it works out my way, Madam President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I call for the regular order, and I believe that will make my amendment pending. I send to the desk a modification. I have a right to modify my amendment.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I should like to read it for the benefit of those following the debate. The modification is as follows. A new section is added to my amendment: (5) No extraction or exploration plan under this provision shall be accepted by the Secretary of the Interior if the Secretary of Defense determines that such a plan is inconsistent with critical military test or training activities off the Virginia coast. The distinguished Senator from Florida referred to a letter he read regarding the concerns the Department of the Navy--and most specifically, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy--had with regard to the ability of this body to enact legislation which presumably would result in the Department of Defense finding that something was done inconsistent with our national security interests. So this modification corrects that so that the Secretary of the Interior, acting under my amendment, would not take any such action unless he had the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense. I also have discovered, since the colloquy between Senator Nelson of Florida and myself, a letter which was written subsequent to the letter he had and addressed the Senate. This letter addresses a modification to the letter of April 10, 2006. This letter was written on November 27, 2006, and it states the following: Notwithstanding the above, the Department is willing to discuss with you-- That is, the Department of Interior-- possible alternatives that may provide opportunities for exploration and potential joint use of the Mid-Atlantic area consistent with the critical military test and training activities in this area. The letter goes on to say: Our departments-- That is, the Department of Defense and the Department of the Interior-- have worked closely together over the years to insure a continuing successful leasing program with a manageable impact on defense operations. We agree that oil and gas development on the Outer Continental Shelf must strike a balance between our Nation's energy and national security goals. As the administration moves forward on a plan to best meet the Nation's oil and gas energy needs for 2007 to 2012, we look forward to working with you to ensure its success. Clearly, this indicates that with all good intention my colleague from Florida read the older letter which is now amended substantially by a subsequent letter that the Department of Defense will work with the Secretary of Interior to make certain that any action with respect to drilling off the coast of Virginia is not inconsistent with national defense requirements. Madam President, I am perfectly willing to accommodate the managers as to how best they want to proceed on a vote. I hope I can get my amendment up this afternoon for purposes of a vote, but I leave that to the discretion of the managers. I yield the floor, and I thank the Chair for her courtesy.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to speak on behalf of my amendment, which presumably will be voted on here in a matter of minutes. I accept the 60 votes because what I want to do is to have a record of just where the sentiments are among my esteemed colleagues with regard to what I view as an advancement in technology and a worsening of the situation with regard to our energy supply and why these two forces cannot converge in such a manner as to enable a Member of the Senate to acknowledge that a State has a right to utilize those resources on the Continental Shelf off of its shore. It just concerns me greatly. I mean, natural gas is up--a 78 percent increase in price since the year 2000. My good friend and chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee got up in her usual eloquent way to explain why she was very much opposed to my amendment. So I went back and did a little homework and determined that California is the second largest consumer of natural gas in the Nation. So I say to my colleague: Where is it going to come from? Where is it going to come from? Florida. My good friend got up and raised a technical amendment, which momentarily knocked me off stride, but I went back and found documents which clarify the situation that the Department of Defense will work with the Department of the Interior, and in no way should a petition be filed by the Governor of Virginia for a drilling permit to explore and determine the presence or absence of natural gas off our coast, in no way will that interfere with national security. And that letter is in the record. But he is very much against that. It is interesting; Florida consumes 2\1/2\ times the amount of natural gas that Virginia consumes, and New Jersey--my good friend who opposed me on this-- consumes twice the amount of natural gas that the State of Virginia consumes. My State is simply trying to manifest the courage, and thus far two successive Governors have broken ground on this, both of them distinguished members of the Democratic Party. And the State legislatures--coincidentally under the control of Republicans--have indicated Virginia's willingness to look in the direction of drilling offshore. Our State, I believe, is on the verge of stepping up to accept the responsibility to help this Nation meet its needs to begin to prepare to ward off this energy crisis which is rapidly coming our way. I thank Virginians. I would hope that given the right of States to make choices for themselves, my colleagues would see fit to recognize the problem of the shortage of energy and the need for States such as ours to step up and help.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, may I thank my colleague for his very thoughtful remarks.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter which superceded the letter to which the Senator from New Jersey referred to be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, our country today faces serious issues with our immigration policy. I appreciate the opportunity that we have before us to engage in this important debate and to work the will of the Senate on this complex matter. The legislation we have before us, the compromise reached by a number of our colleagues, has provided us with a starting point for reform of a broken immigration system and to strengthen our border security. Recognizing, however, that there are ways that we can improve upon the work of the ``grand compromise,'' as it has come to be known, I have joined with Senator Cornyn as a cosponsor of an amendment that would increase the amount of funding made available to State and local governments to mitigate the costs of public education and health care created by the inadequacy of our current immigration system. I understand from my conversations with Virginians around the State that unauthorized immigration has caused a fiscal burden on State and local governments, one which must be addressed by this Congress. The provisions of the legislation before us include a crucial State impact assistance account that would provide reimbursement for state and local entities for the vital services that they provide. The amendment that I am pleased to cosponsor adds additional funding to this account without adding a burden to taxpayers. By increasing, for immigrants in both the Y- and Z-visa categories, the fee that these applicants must pay at the time of their application, this amendment makes a positive step toward alleviating the burdens faced by health providers, educational agencies, and others eligible for funding through the State impact assistance account. Under this amendment, the fee on applicants for these categories would be set at $750, and an additional fee of $100 would be set for each additional dependent. For the primary applicants in both the Y- and Z-visa categories, this represents an increase of only $250 above the legislation in its current form. I note that this amount $750 is also the same fee agreed upon under legislation passed by the Senate with a majority of support last year. In my view, any legislative approach to provide overall immigration reform must rest on the foundation that an outright amnesty is unacceptable and that securing our borders is imperative. Then, in a sound, workable, and realistic way, this Congress must address the issue of the millions of undocumented workers who are already in our country. All of these components are absolutely essential to ensuring our security as a nation.

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer for allowing me to come over at this point in time. I shall take but a few minutes to address the Senate and the American public about the passing of a dearly beloved colleague with whom I and other Members of this great Senate have shared a friendship through the many years. Each of us is deeply saddened at the passing yesterday evening of this valued friend and colleague. I first came to know him in 1995, when he took the seat of Malcolm Wallop. I had known Malcolm Wallop very well, still know him quite well. He was a very strong-minded, able, tough U.S. Senator, tough in the sense that he was a man of resolute convictions. We wondered who would take his place. Craig Thomas took Senator Wallop's place, and I think even Senator Wallop, were he here today to address the Senate, would agree he has followed in the footsteps of many great Senators who have come from the great State of Wyoming. He also served as a Marine officer from 1955 to 1959. He entered as a private and was released as a captain. I say, with a sense of humility, I entered the Marine Corps as a private and parted, many years later, as a captain. Therefore, we had a special bond. But he was able, through the years, to carry on I think one of the great attributes of the Corps--taught to all of us--and where I failed, he succeeded. I used to have a nickname for him. I called him: Ramrod. He did not have to say ``I was a marine'' because you could tell by the way he walked, the way he carried himself, and the way he had his chin always projecting. That is the way we were taught in the Marines. It fell by the wayside with this humble Senator, but it never left the posture of that great marine and great Senator. As marines served over the past 5 years on the tip of the spear around the world, all of our marines, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan of recent, it was helpful for the Senate to have Senator Thomas's perspective in looking out for our marines in a very special way. He was very active in the Marine Caucus, meeting for breakfast at 0800 in the morning, getting together, talking about years past, years present, and years in the future. Each year, the Commandant of the Marine Corps would come over, and, quite understandably, the job fell to Senator Thomas, which he loved, to introduce the Commandant of the Marines. I refer then to our Marine Corps Hymn, which all of us sing. And I quote one stanza: Our flags unfurl'd to every breeze, From dawn to setting sun. The Sun has set on this great marine, and that is how I shall always remember him. Whatever the challenges facing us in the Senate, he was steadfast, unruffled, and committed to the task at hand, like the marine he was and always will be in our memories. It is interesting, another characteristic of marines--our good friend, Conrad Burns, being one, and to some extent myself--we tend to be rather gregarious, somewhat undisciplined and rough and ready. But Senator Thomas was a very quiet man, very introspective in his thinking, with a smile on his face. But he could project his persona without some of the other attributes we marines pride ourselves in. He chaired the Senate Rural Health Caucus. I am a member of that caucus, and I stop to think--I do not know how many are members of it-- it was an effective caucus. We got together particularly on issues of medical care and how, through the past decades, that care has shrunk in the rural areas because of the lack of young men and young women going in and practicing medicine and accepting the hardships and indeed the less pay the rural areas have. But he left his hallmark trying to encourage better medical care in those regions, which are in every State of our Union. We both loved fishing. How many times we talked about trout fishing. He always said to me: John, I have a very special stream, almost untouched, largely unknown, but I will take you there someday, and you will experience a trip you will never forget. I have missed that trip. His constituents, his loving family, and, above all, his wife Susan are in our thoughts and prayers. I ask colleagues to stop and think on those evenings when we got our evening engagements and we were, fortunately, going to be accompanied by our wives, that Susan would stand watch at the door of the Senate. I can see that spot. As you approach the Chamber, it is on the left, right there next to the column. I would always see her and wave a ``hello.'' So I say to her and her family, thank you for sharing in our lives the richness of the life of your Craig Thomas. From one marine to another, I simply say: Fair Winds and Following Seas to you, sir. Semper Fi.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about my long-time great friend, advisor, and colleague, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, who just became the longest serving Republican Senator in the 218 year history of the United States Senate. I have worked with Senator Stevens on a wide array of matters, but none more closely than national security and defense issues. Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye exemplify that extraordinary group of veterans, largely of World War II distinction and experience, that led the Senate I joined 28 years ago. They found the time to teach the new Senators, inspiring them to gain the experience to someday take their places of responsibility in the Senate. I owe a great deal of gratitude to that generation, and particularly to Ted. He has loyally served the men and women of the Armed Forces throughout his long Senate career, particularly through his leadership positions on the Senate Appropriations Committee. My good friend has compiled a remarkable record on national security, ranging from complex issues of global strategy all the way down to the very basic pay and quality of life issues for the men and women in uniform and their families. His own distinguished record in World War II as an aviator provides special insights into military matters. Military matters, however, are not the only field in which the senior Senator from Alaska has invested his time and passion. Senator Stevens has also fought hard to find ways to meet America's energy needs, offering the extraordinary resources of his own State to meet these demands. I think back time and time again when Senator Stevens has taken to the Senate floor urging his colleagues to fully address America's demand for energy. Dressed in his trademark ``Hulk'' tie, he was a sight to behold and quite a force to reckon with. If only Congress had listened to Mr. Stevens a decade or two ago, not just limited to Alaska issues, but towards a broad world view on energy, America might not be so dependent on foreign oil today. Senator Stevens truly loves Alaska. I remember one codel trip in particular. A few years back, Senator Stevens had escorted a small group of Senators, making stops along the way, up to Prudhoe Bay, one of the closest points to the Arctic. Senator Symms, our former colleague from Idaho, and I decided we had enough learning for the day. So, unwisely, we chose to play hookie and dashed from the group for an impromptu plunge in the frigid waters of Prudhoe Bay while the other Senators looked on in disbelief. We were quite a sight as we crawled ashore frozen to the bone. Despite this experience, I am proud to say that Senator Stevens hasn't held my rowdiness against me, as he has invited me back to Alaska over the years. Ted Stevens is not only a great champion for Alaska, American energy, and our Nation's armed forces, but he is also a champion of the Senate. One of the most lasting legacies he has had on this special body, and one of the legacies he has imparted on me, is his remarkable record of work with new senators from both sides of the aisle. Throughout many years, Senator Stevens has voluntarily stepped forward to counsel new colleagues about the history and intricacies of the legislative process in the Senate. I am particularly indebted to him for helping me. Therefore, Mr. President, it is my honor and privilege to today congratulate my good friend, Senator Ted Stevens, on becoming the longest serving Republican in the Senate. Carry on, dear friend.

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, Tuesday, May 22 was a memorable day in the life of the U.S. Senate. In keeping with longstanding tradition, each year, Senate spouses gather to give a luncheon in honor of the First Lady of the United States of America. Last year, Landra Reid served as Chairman and Jeanne Warner served as co-chairman. The theme was a unique one, entitled, ``100 Dresses.'' This year, Jeanne Warner became Chairman, Grace Nelson became co- chairman and Landra Reid, together with over 20 Senate spouses, organized another highly successful and enjoyable luncheon. This year's event, entitled ``Heartfelt Safari,'' focused on the President and Mrs. Bush's initiative to help alleviate the plight of malaria in Africa. The number of deaths this year from malaria could be as high as two million, largely among children in Africa. Part of the proceeds from the luncheon will be donated to a well-respected not-for-profit charity--Malaria No More--that works to alleviate this tragic suffering. In the evening, our two Senate leaders presided over a dinner honoring the Senate spouses. Senator Reid opened with a moving framework of remarks, humorously recounting how the esteemed author, Ralph Waldo Emerson, once spoke for over 2 hours at a Harvard University event in the 1830s. He quickly assured the audience he would not seek to match Emerson, and he then proceeded to give a very warm introduction of an honored guest, Placido Domingo. The renowned singer regaled the audience with anecdotes about his career and about America's growing interest in opera. Senator McConnell concluded the evening, reciting the vital role performed by Senate spouses through the years. His remarks were warmly received by so many colleagues that I am privileged to offer for the Record, on behalf of all Senators, his thoughts, and I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, we have seen recently where it is the intention of the President to designate Lieutenant General Lute to take a position in the administration as an Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as working with the National Security Council. I have known this fine officer for some time. I have done an overseas trip with him to Africa. We went down to Liberia at a time of great trouble down there with a change in the administration. I have seen him working on the Joint Staff. I have had the opportunity to be briefed by him. I want to lend my strongest endorsement for this nomination. I also wish to have printed in the Record the history of how active- duty military officers have been assistants to Presidents. I point out, from 1969 to 1970, General Haig was Military Assistant to the Presidential Assistant for National Security Affairs. General Haig then moved up in 1970 to be Deputy National Security Advisor. Then in 1973- 1974, he was White House Chief of Staff and, following that, he had other important positions. General Scowcroft, while on active duty, was Deputy National Security Advisor from 1973 to 1975. Admiral John Poindexter was National Security Advisor from 1983 to 1985, National Security Advisor from 1985 to 1986. Lieutenant General Colin Powell was Deputy National Security Advisor in 1987 and then Colin Powell moved up to National Security Advisor from 1987 to 1989. I will have printed in the Record a list of those individuals who served our Presidents in the past in a comparable way. I think it would be advisable if the President were to determine that General Lute would have an exemption, a security exemption granted by the President, such that he does not have to respond to the committees of the Congress, to come up as a witness. Otherwise, he should get an annex office up on Capitol Hill to respond to the many inquiries that will be generated here on the Hill and focused on General Lute to make a response. I think he can be more effective to the President if he is given that waiver authority. I urge my colleagues to look with an open mind at this nomination. I spoke to Chairman Levin today. He indicated as soon as the papers were forwarded, our committee, the Senate Armed Services Committee, would review it in the context of our authority to review the change of position and assignments of general and flag officers. It is in that context that we would have a hearing on this nomination. I hope thereafter we can report it to the floor and that the Senate will act favorably upon it. I thank the Chair for its customary indulgence on this, and thank my colleague from Connecticut. I ask unanimous consent that list be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, among the four amendments this morning will be one submitted by me, together with my principal cosponsor, Senator Collins. The purpose of this amendment is to require the administration to keep the Congress well informed. The situation in Iraq changes almost daily. Our losses continue. In my judgment, it is the responsibility of every Member of the Congress to keep well versed on this situation, keep in mind the perspectives with regard to the strategy as enunciated by the administration, and maintain their own individual opinions about that strategy and how this operation is going. Daily, each of us must consult with our constituents. Regrettably, almost weekly many of us have to speak with families of the loved ones they have lost or those who have been seriously injured. There are several parts to the amendment I put forward. I thank many Senators who worked with me--indeed, both sides of the aisle, together with their professional staffs. The first part of the amendment goes through extensive findings, principally acknowledging the extraordinary heroism and bravery of the men and women wearing the uniform of our country, together with our coalition partners and the families who stand behind them. They unquestionably have performed in a manner consistent with the finest traditions of the professionalism of the U.S. military. The findings also address the historical progress of the Iraqi Government in its formation, but also raises questions of the several benchmarks, benchmarks which were selected and composed by the Iraqi Government, announced by that government, and their commitments to trying to meet those benchmarks. Taken together, I think it is very important that our strategy in Iraq be put in a position where it reflects in many respects the degree of success in meeting these benchmarks and, if these benchmarks are not met, then such changes as our President desires to make from his strategy as announced on January 10 of this year. We, in this amendment, recite as the benchmarks that are most serious his forming a constitutional review committee and then completing the constitutional review; enacting and implementing legislation on debaathification; enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources of the people of Iraq without regard to sect or ethnicity of recipients; and enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner. That is sort of a description of the basic category of these benchmarks. Then we go on to require the President of the United States to report on how this sovereign Government of Iraq is or is not achieving progress toward accomplishing the aforementioned benchmarks, and shall advise the Congress on how that assessment requires or does not require changes to the strategy announced on January 10, 2007. Among the reports required, the President shall submit an initial report in classified and unclassified form to the Congress not later than June 15, 2007. I purposely selected that date because our schedule reflects that this body will go into a recess for much of August. I think it is absolutely imperative every Member have the benefit of the latest possible assessment of the performance or nonperformance by the Iraqi Government of these benchmarks, as well as the situation in Iraq. So the President will do that on July 15, assessing the status of each of the benchmarks. Next, the President, having consulted with the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, the commander of the multinational forces, General Petraeus, and Admiral Fallon, will prepare a report and submit to the Congress his findings. If the President's assessment of any of the specific benchmarks established above is unsatisfactory, the President shall include in that report a description of such revisions to the political--not just the military but the political, the economic, regional, and military components of the strategy as announced by the President on January 10, 2007. In addition, the President shall include in the report the advisability of implementing such aspects of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group report as he deems appropriate. That was a very valuable report. I think it has provided a considerable number of guideposts that have been embraced by Members of this body. Then the President shall submit a second report not later than September 15, 2007, following the same procedures and criteria enunciated above. The reporting requirement of the Armed Services Committee bill of last year will be waived through September 15 so as not to have duplication. Then testimony before the Congress. Prior to the submission of the President's second report on September 15, 2007, and at a time to be agreed upon by the leadership of the Congress and the administration, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and the commander of multinational forces, General Petraeus, will be made available to testify in open and closed sessions before the relevant committees of our Congress. There again, we get their independent report followed by that of the President. We also place some limitations on the availability of the nonmilitary funding in this appropriations bill, such that the President can restrict that funding in those instances where he believes, first, there is more than adequate funding in the pipeline already and therefore it doesn't require the additional expenditure of funds; or, second, the Iraqi Government has substantial cash in their reserve accounts that could be applied to the nonmilitary aspects. Further, the President is given waiver authority with regard to the benchmarks so the flow of these funds is tied in some respects, again, to the performance of the benchmarks. We also put a section in this report requiring the redeployment of our forces in such circumstances as the sovereign Iraqi Government, having taken actions consistent with their Constitution, should call upon the United States and other partners of the coalition forces to withdraw certain elements of their troops--respecting, once again, and placing upon them the obligation to fulfill the responsibilities of sovereignty. Also, we put in this amendment requirements for independent analysis of much of the same material that is being reviewed by the administration. While we have over the years, for example, trained for now 2\1/2\ to 3 years, some 325,000 Iraqi armed forces and police, what is the ability of that trained group, such as it is, to take up more and more of the responsibility in the fighting, and particularly that fighting that relates to sectarian violence? For that purpose, we have two parts. The first addresses the Comptroller General. He is being requested to make an assessment of all of the benchmarks as to whether they have been met or not met. Second, we appropriate a sum of money to fund an independent organization and a very senior, well-respected, retired, four-star officer to head up a military, professional assessment by the retired community, of the Iraqi forces. I think that is a pivotal part of this amendment. I just hesitate to think why any Member could vote against a provision saying that we need a fresh, new, independent assessment of the capabilities or lack of capabilities of the Iraqi security forces. That is in here. Mr. President, I urge colleagues to carefully consider this amendment. It is for their benefit to keep them informed, both requiring the administration to come forward with timely reports and testimony and, secondly, two independent organizations, one the Comptroller General to give an assessment of benchmarks and, second, that we have an organization well known to all of us here, a private sector organization to give support to a senior, highly respected uniform retired four-star general to make an assessment of the military capabilities of the Iraqi forces. Again, I thank my colleagues. I particularly thank my principal cosponsor, the Senator from Maine, for her diligent effort throughout the preparation of this amendment as well as the previous initiatives we have taken on this floor over the past 2 months with respect to the President's policy, particularly the surge policy. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on that point, will the Senator yield?

Mr. WARNER. We worked together on this provision for some time. It has been 2 months in the making. I supplied it to several colleagues in the House, notably Jim Moran, who is on the Appropriations Committee. They seized it and, verbatim, this provision with regard to establishing an ability to have, independent of the Pentagon, an assessment of the Armed Forces and security forces in Iraq is in the House appropriations bill now going into conference. So I believe it is imperative that we, this body, likewise put that provision in our Senate bill. I thank my colleague.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I again wish to address the amendment I have put forward together with Senator Collins. I realize there is a provision in here with regard to a waiver, and that relates to the President's ability to redirect funds that are nonmilitary. But I say to my colleagues that while that particular section of this bill was amended at the last minute, the other sections absolutely remain strong and essential to keep this body informed; namely, the two independent studies, one to be performed by retired military with respect to the proficiency, capability, professional abilities of the Iraqi security forces; and, secondly, the one that requires the General Accounting Office to give an opinion with regard to the compliance or noncompliance of benchmarks. So in this amendment, yes, I still think there is a lot of strength and validity to the provisions regarding the restriction of funds to be expended by our Government in terms of the nonmilitary spending. The other portions of this bill remain strong and should earn the support of all colleagues who wish to be kept advised of this ever-changing situation. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. I yield back the time on this side.