John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. We are making progress on this bill, but I strongly urge other colleagues to bring forward their amendments. We have a lot to do on this bill. We are dealing with a bill that is absolutely essential for the men and women of the Armed Forces and their families. We should move along as best we can to complete this important legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. We are up to 150 cleared.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to make it clear that I am inclined to support this amendment also. Momentarily, the distinguished Senator from Delaware is going to move to amend the pending amendment at the desk, to reflect some corrections and alleviate some concerns I and other colleagues have. But I wish to make it eminently clear this is not a mission amendment. This is along the lines of the need for greater diplomatic involvement. As a matter of fact, I can look back a year or so when my colleague was standing at that very desk and we had an amendment at that time on the previous authorization bill that he felt very strongly about. As a matter of fact, we gave it consideration at that time. It did not eventually become the law. Or in some respects it did.

Mr. WARNER. Well, Mr. President, I wanted to reflect that the Senator from Massachusetts was on this very point some time back, and now I think the realization is that, momentarily, we will have the opportunity to vote on this. I would not predict the outcome, but I thank him very much for his contributions. I wonder if I could invite our colleague from Delaware, given there is some likelihood that we can get the UC to have a vote, if he might want to amend his amendment at this time.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have now been informed there is some objection to any amendments at this point in time.

Mr. WARNER. In any event, at this point we will not seek to do the amendments, for whatever technical reason there may be, but I would like to do it when we can get to it.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first going to paragraph (4), deleting ``increasing'' and the concern of the distinguished ranking member, Senator Lugar, it was also a concern to the Department of State. So that has been done. All the concerns that have been brought to this Senator's attention, the Senator from Virginia, I think have been met by the Senator from Delaware, and it is for that reason I am pleased, if and when we get to the vote, to cast a vote in favor of this because I think it is an important amendment. Also, if I may say, it reflects a goal that I and many others have had for a long time; namely, to have a showing of some bipartisanship. I am hopeful this will draw votes from not only your side of the aisle but this side of the aisle, and it can be viewed as a truly bipartisan amendment. Certainly, you have distinguished cosponsors on it, Senator Brownback, Senator Hutchison, Senator Specter, and others, so I believe it will be viewed as a bipartisan amendment. And that in and of itself is an important contribution to this debate all around.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the situation the Senator has stated is under consideration by the leadership at this very moment and I am hopeful the body can be informed shortly with respect to the leaders' wishes with respect to time. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER. No objection.

Mr. WARNER. The Senator is correct. I brought it to your attention at the request of Senator Kyl.

Mr. WARNER. If the Senator will yield for the purpose of my commenting on this.

Mr. WARNER. Paragraph 5 is the language recommended by the Senator from Virginia. Incidentally, Senator McCain is the ranking member. I had that job off and on for 18 years.

Mr. WARNER. I wished to reflect that my colleague, Senator McCain, is the distinguished ranking member. But I put in paragraph 5, because this is a very challenging amendment, and I wanted to make certain that in no way did we overstep on the question of sovereignty. The word ``sovereignty'' is well described in international law and in other means as an accepted term, and it is well understood, so I am delighted the Senator agreed to put that in. Lastly, when we look at the enormity of the sacrifices of our country over these many years now--most notably the tragic loss of some 3,000, almost 3,800 individuals and many more wounded, and expenditures of so much of the taxpayers' funds--the contributions of all of that has gotten us to where we are today. The keystone of those achievements is the sovereignty that has been given to the Iraqi people. That is the major contribution of the enormity of our sacrifice through these years. So in no way did we want to backstep from all of this hard- fought ground to achieve sovereignty for the Iraqi people. So I am delighted the Senator accepted that. Then, if we can look at one other paragraph, Senator, and that was on page 2, paragraph (4), the Senator was going to consider deleting the word ``increasing'' correct?

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I believe I was on the floor before the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. WARNER. Fine. Well, I am not trying to run this.

Mr. WARNER. I am going to take 2 or 3 minutes.

Mr. WARNER. Does that accommodate my colleague?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I listened with great interest to our distinguished chairwoman. I say to her, I commend you on your leadership and that of our distinguished ranking colleague, Senator Inhofe. It is quite an achievement. It has been 6 years of working to get here, and I have been pleased to be a member of this committee for a couple decades almost now. But it is a great achievement. I strongly support what you have been able to do and personally thank you for your inclusion of an amendment that I have felt very important. Senator Webb, my colleague from Virginia, and I announced on July 30 the basic text of that amendment. I am pleased today to add a few closing words. The conference report--likely my last WRDA as a Senator--includes the high priority Craney Island Eastward Expansion project. Craney Island represents a significant opportunity for the Commonwealth to be home to the development of state-of-the-art cargo operations. The project will accommodate a major new terminal for the Virginia Port Authority and will create over 54,000 new jobs annually, with wages of about $1.7 billion. Now, this port serves not only the Commonwealth of Virginia, but its tentacles reach deep into America. Many States are served. As home to the world's largest naval base; that is, the Tidewater region, and as one of the business commercial ports on the east coast, Hampton Roads is a strategic, critical port necessary for national defense, commerce, and trade. So this project will also directly and indirectly serve our national defense. This project will help position the Hampton Roads region to strengthen its position as a major east coast port. The Port of Virginia serves as a gateway. It is an interesting term; it is a ``gateway.'' In other words, things flow in, things flow out, and not just for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Almost every State in the Union ships down through this port on some occasions. More than 55 percent of the cargo we move comes from outside of the borders of the Commonwealth of Virginia. That is to say, this project is not just important for Virginians but for other States and companies that rely on their goods moving through the port in a reliable and cost-effective, safe manner. For that reason, I am pleased the cost share for this project will be equally divided--equally divided--between the Commonwealth of Virginia, through its port authority, and the Federal Government. This is clearly a project with strong national benefits, and it is only fitting that in this case the Federal Government help shoulder part of the cost because of the national security interests and the fact that we serve so many other States. Again, I thank my distinguished chairman and the ranking member of our committee and others who made this amendment possible. I yield back the remainder of my time to my good friend and colleague, such as he may continue with his speech.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I believe our colleague from Indiana, under the UC, has now some 30 minutes; is that correct?

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I see our colleague from Massachusetts. Does he wish to put a formal request before the Chair with regard to his desire to address the Senate?

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, first, we would want to consult before that UC is given----

Mr. WARNER. With the Senator from Indiana, who I think has been waiting about an hour and a half.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank the Chair's inviting comment. Let us make it clear that I believe the UC, as structured, would be the Senator from Massachusetts will have 5 minutes, the Senator from Wyoming will have 5 minutes, and then the 30 minutes allocated to the Senator from Indiana will start.

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

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I, for one, will accept the challenge to carefully go back and look at the Senator's amendment and the foundation documents which he has described, and I look forward to Monday and Tuesday, perhaps, reengaging the Senator. I say to the Senator, I think it is a very heartfelt expression of your own views that you have shared with us this morning. I think it is a constructive contribution to this debate.