John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. And who is that Senator?

Mr. WARNER. Can my colleague finish up in 1 minute? I want to try to accommodate my colleague.

Mr. WARNER. I was not here.

Mr. WARNER. Well, I have to jump a plane, but how much time does my colleague wish?

Mr. WARNER. If my colleague can make it 3 minutes, then I think my colleague from Missouri is anxious to catch his plane also.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to address the issue of the Iraq resolutions. Tomorrow at 1:45, I will vote for cloture, and I do that for reasons that I will set forth. I, like many of us, have to leave early this afternoon. I have consolidated all my State obligations and speeches between now and late tonight so I may return for the vote. I want to go back and retrace the history of this debate. When I returned from Iraq, with several other Senators, and Senator Levin with me, at that time I was chairman of the Armed Services Committee and he was ranking. I indicated to the Nation by way of a press conference that I felt the situation was going sideways; that our strategy was not working. Initially, in the days following that, I was highly criticized for those remarks. Eventually, however, others began to recognize the situation as I had, and, indeed, the President, when he was asked publicly if he supported the observations that I had made, said yes. I commend the President for immediately swinging into full gear his whole administration to study intensively the matters with regard to the current strategy. It included work by the Baker-Hamilton group, which I think played a very constructive role. In the resolution which I prepared, with the assistance of Senator Ben Nelson and Senator Collins, we make direct reference to that. I bring up that background because the President then, on January 10, announced his intention to go forward with a changed strategy. The President, in that speech, specifically said: If Members have improvements that can be made--I repeat--if Members have improvements that can be made, we will make them. If circumstances change, we will adjust. Now, that was an open invitation to Members of Congress and others to address this very important plan laid down by the President. Our group, my 2 colleagues who worked with me, Senator Levin joining us later, and a half dozen others, some 8 or 10, up almost to 12, joined in an honest forthright way in accepting the President's offer. That is how this started. In drawing up our resolution, we were careful to say, yes, we had different views, but we urged the President to consider all options--I repeat all options--other than the utilization of 21,500 individuals to go into that situation. Specifically, our resolution charges the Iraqi military with taking the lead, with taking the brunt. I reiterate, the Iraqis should be taking the full measure of responsibility for this Baghdad campaign. Therein rests this Senator's primary concern with the President's plan. I say that because our American GIs have fought bravely, courageously, and we have had sacrifice and loss of life and limb, and in no way have they failed in the attempt to try to help the Iraqi people achieve their freedom, achieve their Government through elections, and to become a sovereign Nation. Now it should fall upon the over 300,000 Iraqi troops, police, and other security officials to bring about the cessation of this violence in Baghdad. The Iraqis are far better qualified by virtue of their understanding of the language. They have a far better understanding of what is it that is bringing about this sectarian violence. These are the very people we liberated and gave them back their sovereign land and who are now fighting themselves, Sunni upon Shia, Shia upon Sunni, with wanton murder and criminal activity. Our forces do not understand the language. It is hard for those here in this Chamber to go back and look at the origins of the difference between the Sunni and Shia, which go back some 1,400 years. Our troops shouldn't be in there trying to decide do we shoot at a Sunni or do we shoot at a Shia. That should be the responsibility of the Iraqi forces. That is the principal reason I found differences with the President. Our leaders, the Record will reflect, have tried to reconcile the differences between our two sides. The last time I didn't support cloture. I did that to support the institution of the Senate, because this Senate stands apart from the House, and stands apart from legislatures all over the world because of the right and the freedom to debate and for all to bring forth their ideas. We are behind that now. So far as I know, the leaders have done their best and we were not able to achieve agreement, and now, procedurally, we are faced with the situation of a House resolution, which will be voted on in an hour or more, and will then be considered by the Senate. For that purpose, I will vote cloture. We supported the President in our resolution. As I read the House resolution, it does not reject the President's initiative to have a diplomatic component to his plan. The House resolution does not reject the economic aspect of what the President puts in his plan. So I say to my colleagues that what comes before us does not reject outright the President's program. It directs itself to that military operation, much as we did in S. Con. Res. 7, and says respectfully that we urge the President to consider all options, options that were set forth in testimony before the Armed Services Committee by General Abizaid, when he said we don't need any more troops; by General Casey, when he was up for confirmation and he said he thought we only needed two brigades, not five brigades. So it is against that background that I think our group has come forth in response to the President's invitation and stated our case in a very respectful way. This matter we will address, the House resolution, I do not believe rejects the entire plan of the President. The components of diplomacy and the components of economics are there. It is only the question of how we employ our forces. I say the burden falls on the Iraqi security forces. I will submit for the Record a New York Times story which appeared this week outlining an operation in which we had 2,500 Americans and less than 100 Iraqi forces turned up to participate. I asked about this yesterday when questioning the Chief of Staff of the United States Army and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, as to what their idea of the plan had been, and it was represented to us that there were to be joint forces, a joint command. Certainly this is an early report, and I cannot speak to the authenticity of the article, but I have invited the Department of Defense to comment on it. It indicates to me that the Americans are bearing the brunt, not the Iraqi forces. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: My understanding is that the matter before the Senate at this time is the continuing resolution and that Senators may address aspects of that resolution at this point in time; is that correct?

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, the Senate has before it the continuing resolution which is an absolutely essential piece of legislation to permit our Government to go forward. We are about to have a vote, I understand, at 4:45 in relation to that resolution. The resolution has been consistent with the rules and precedent of the Senate, put before the Senate in such a way as to make extremely restrictive the ability to amend that resolution. Nevertheless, a group of Senators have felt ever so strongly about our initiative, which is contained in S. Con. Res. 7, a document that was filed at the desk in connection with the debate on Iraq. We feel very strongly that the program announced by the President on January 20 of this year contained therein aspects to which we could not give our full concurrence. There is a range of differences of opinion between our group, and when I say ``our group,'' they have identified themselves from time to time as being cosponsors and other Members of the Senate. Speaking for myself, I felt the plan, as announced on January 20, did not speak to the clarity I thought necessary, to say this operation should be highly dependent on the Iraqi-trained military and other security forces. Our Nation, together with coalition partners over the period of this long conflict--in the not-too-distant future months or so it will begin a fifth year--have invested heavily in dollars and sacrifice and otherwise to train the Iraqi forces to take on their own security obligations. The figure ``over 300,000'' has been frequently referred to in briefings and otherwise, that we have thus far, in one way or another, trained and equipped. As a member of the Committee on Armed Services in the course of briefings and, indeed, in the Intelligence Committee, both of which I serve on, it has been represented through the years, most particularly the last 2 to 2\1/2\ years, there has been a steady improvement in the quality and the professionalism of these Iraqi forces. Now, 2\1/2\ years is a long time to train a military person. In the United States, we have prided ourselves since the days of World War II in taking a 17- or 18-year-old individual and training that individual to be a fighting person in 6, 8, 9 months and then some training with a unit and therein to a combat situation. Throughout our history, they have discharged themselves with the highest degree of professionalism. Many of the forces we currently have in Iraq have followed that pattern of less than a year's training. How well we know the courage with which the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States, with the strong support of their families, have fought, suffered severe wounds, and died to enable the Iraqi people to have their freedom, to have a nation which is regarded as a sovereign nation today, to have a government elected by themselves. I find it highly perplexing that in that cadre of some 300,000, there are not those elements that could have been utilized to a far greater degree in this campaign. We have heard reports--within the last 2 days I received confirmation--that those Iraqi contingents, those troop commitments to this surge plan which is now in operation still fall short of the level of numbers in the commitment to have them in place. Nevertheless, given the magnitude of that force, in our resolution, we specifically say the President should charge--we use the word ``charge''--hold them accountable for taking the lead, for taking the point, for bearing the principal burden of this operation called ``surge'' in Iraq as enunciated by the President on January 20. Therein, rests this Senator's grave concern about the utilization of 21,500--and even a somewhat larger force than originally announced--in this operation. We gathered together individuals of honest thinking, clear thinking-- not by political motivation--and have tried to continuously push our resolution before this Senate such that each and every Senator could express his or her agreement, concurrence, or disagreement. We have not yet succeeded, but we are going to continue to press on. There is some representation--I don't know whether it is final--that the Senate may see after we come back from this recess the measure that will be presumably passed by the House this week and presented in what I'm told could well be an identical form. We feel very strongly our resolution, S. Con. Res. 7, without any changes in it, should be brought up as a substitute amendment, but at the present time, given the few minutes remaining, I see my distinguished colleague who has joined me in this effort, the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Ben Nelson. We have put forward this S. Con. Res. 7, which requires the funding for the Government. At this time, I ask the pending amendment be set aside so I may offer amendment numbered 259 which is our S. Con. Res. 7, in identical form, which is pending at the desk.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I receive that with a great deal of disappointment because I felt, in this critical period of time as this operation in Baghdad is getting underway, the constructive recommendations to the President, as embraced in our resolution, should be brought before this Senate for full discussion. I see my colleague. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. If the Senator will yield?

Mr. WARNER. I would have it reflected in our colloquy that I did support that because it has always been my understanding, this being the greatest deliberative body in the world's organization, legislatures should have that as a fundamental precedent. I supported the Senator, much to the risk--and I was defamed from coast to coast--but I stood by the Senator's right to have his amendment, along with mine, considered by this body.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I----

Mr. WARNER. I certainly recall, over a period of 29 years, the importance of the continuing resolution and the greater utilization, regrettably, of the necessity for leaders on both sides to resort to that. But I would have to say to my good friend, the imperative of the ability for our Government to function requires the flow of money. And unless this particular continuing resolution is acted upon by this body within the next few days, it will, indeed, impair the ability of our Government to function. So we have to take into consideration those things. Madam President, might I ask my friend, our good friend from Nebraska was to have had 2 minutes to rejoin in my effort to get the amendment up. At some point, might he be recognized and----

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank my friend from Arizona for his usual good humor and courtesy.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, if I might be recognized to thank my colleague from Nebraska and then thank our colleague for his courtesy.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague from Arizona.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007. This bill seeks to add six new wilderness areas, expand six existing wilderness areas, and create two new national scenic areas in the Jefferson National Forest. Today, Congressman Rick Boucher will join me by introducing companion legislation in the United States House of Representatives. Throughout my nearly three decades in the United States Senate, I have strived to preserve Virginia's natural resources through the designation of wilderness areas and, today, I am proud to say that Virginia boasts just over 100,000 acres of designated wilderness lands. However, there is still much work to be done. If enacted, the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007 will substantially increase this figure by expanding our opportunities for uninterrupted enjoyment in the forest with the addition of nearly 43,000 acres of new wilderness and wilderness study lands and almost 12,000 acres of national scenic areas. Virginia is blessed with great natural beauty and diversity. From the coves and inlets of the Chesapeake Bay, to the exquisite peaks of the Shenandoah Mountains, residents and visitors alike can enjoy a bountiful array of natural treasures. As demand for development in Virginia continues to increase, it is imperative that Congress act expeditiously to protect these wild lands. Through wilderness and national scenic area designations, we can ensure that these areas retain their natural character and influences. As an avid outdoorsman, I enjoy opportunities for recreation like most Americans. Therefore, I want to stress the many joyful outdoor activities that will be enhanced by the wilderness designation in these areas, including: hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, canoeing, and horseback riding, to name a few. By designating these lands as wilderness and scenic areas, we ensure that Virginians will be able to enjoy these activities in an unspoiled playground for generations to come. I am pleased that my colleague from Virginia, Senator Jim Webb, has agreed to co-sponsor this important legislation, and I urge the rest of my colleagues to join me in support of this bill. I thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007. This bill seeks to add six new wilderness areas, expand six existing wilderness areas, and create two new national scenic areas in the Jefferson National Forest. Today, Congressman Rick Boucher will join me by introducing companion legislation in the United States House of Representatives. Throughout my nearly three decades in the United States Senate, I have strived to preserve Virginia's natural resources through the designation of wilderness areas and, today, I am proud to say that Virginia boasts just over 100,000 acres of designated wilderness lands. However, there is still much work to be done. If enacted, the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007 will substantially increase this figure by expanding our opportunities for uninterrupted enjoyment in the forest with the addition of nearly 43,000 acres of new wilderness and wilderness study lands and almost 12,000 acres of national scenic areas. Virginia is blessed with great natural beauty and diversity. From the coves and inlets of the Chesapeake Bay, to the exquisite peaks of the Shenandoah Mountains, residents and visitors alike can enjoy a bountiful array of natural treasures. As demand for development in Virginia continues to increase, it is imperative that Congress act expeditiously to protect these wild lands. Through wilderness and national scenic area designations, we can ensure that these areas retain their natural character and influences. As an avid outdoorsman, I enjoy opportunities for recreation like most Americans. Therefore, I want to stress the many joyful outdoor activities that will be enhanced by the wilderness designation in these areas, including: hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, canoeing, and horseback riding, to name a few. By designating these lands as wilderness and scenic areas, we ensure that Virginians will be able to enjoy these activities in an unspoiled playground for generations to come. I am pleased that my colleague from Virginia, Senator Jim Webb, has agreed to co-sponsor this important legislation, and I urge the rest of my colleagues to join me in support of this bill. I thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have been on the road and I telephoned in and asked the cloakroom to reserve the period of 3:45 to 4:30 for the Senator from Virginia and seven other Senators to speak briefly. I ask unanimous consent that my request be granted.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.

Mr. WARNER. No. Before the Senator begins to speak, I want to make this clear. I ask the Presiding Officer, am I not to be recognized for the time between 3:45 and 4:30?