John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, as I have looked back on my years here, one of the chapters I have enjoyed the most is the debates we have had together, and this is not in the nature of a debate, Mr. President, but I do ask the Senator who now--in your current capacity and your long experience in foreign relations, you probably have a better grip than most of us as to the likelihood--and you mentioned it--of the political reconciliation taking place in Iraq. I am talking about the top down, not the smaller, but little things that happened in Al Anbar--which are very positive, but I don't think you can grow political reconciliation all the way from the bottom up. It has to come from the top down. Our good friend here, Senator Levin, and I were there in Iraq a few weeks ago and we could not find any basis for projecting when that might come to pass. That is the very thing that underpins the entire policy we are pursuing. Because we all acknowledge a military solution is not there. It has to be a political reconciliation from the top down--albeit to get some form of unity government--maybe an adaptation of what the Senator is now advocating. But what is the Senator's projection of the likelihood of that occurring?

Mr. WARNER. If I can interrupt my good friend, the central issue is, we are losing, as you pointed out, our greatest national treasure: our youth, killed and wounded. How much longer? You are talking about indefinite periods of time. What do we do now by which to give a greater measure of protection to them while this process that you indicated is very slow can evolve, and what pressures are we going to put on the greater international community, the top five, to do what you have defined?

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I have a heavy heart. It is with great regret that I share with the Senate that the Honorable H. Emory Widener, Jr.--one of our country's extraordinary jurists, an exceptional Virginian, and a good friend--has passed away. For 38 years, he served our Nation and Virginia as a member of the Federal judiciary. Our Nation has lost one of its finest jurists, someone who was universally admired for his dedication to the Constitution, to the laws passed by the Congress and subsequently enacted, and to the impartial treatment of those who appeared before him. Emory Widener started his career in public service by entering the Naval Academy in Annapolis. Responding to the call of duty, he served as an officer in the final year of World War II. He later served in the Korean war and received an honorable discharge in 1958. Following 2 years in the Naval Reserves, he began law school at Washington and Lee University, and upon graduation he returned to that region of Virginia which he loved so dearly, southwest Virginia, to enter private practice in Bristol. In 1969, Emory Widener was nominated for a lifetime appointment to the Federal court as a U.S. district judge for the Western District of Virginia and was promptly confirmed by the Senate. After an unusually brief period of time, only 2 years, he became the chief judge of this Federal court. In 1972, he was nominated for a seat on the Fourth Circuit and again received an expedient confirmation by the Senate. By his extraordinarily well written opinions, Judge Widener became a legend on the Fourth Circuit. Judge Widener's exemplary judgment and integrity were profound assets to this important court, and I always have had a deep admiration and respect for this magnificent man and jurist. He was a legal giant in Virginia, a legal giant in America's Federal courts, and his service as a jurist should be a model for others. Without question, southwest Virginia has lost one of its dearest friends. Yet the region can everlastingly point with great pride and admiration to the achievements of one of its greatest sons. He will be missed not only in Abingdon, VA, where his kept his office, but also by he fellow jurists, those who practiced before him, and throughout the Commonwealth and the Nation. We all join in extending our deepest sympathies to his family and his friends as they mourn his passing.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. The factual basis that this follows--I wish to thank him and I wish to indicate to my colleague from Virginia the exact background. I first saw the amendment, prepared by, I believe, Senator McCain and Senator Graham, yesterday when it was circulated to the members of the Armed Services Committee. At that time, I promptly suggested a change in the amendment or, more specifically, an addition that a waiver be put in. I suggested the President. The draft now has the Secretary of Defense. I say to my good friend--and, indeed, Senator Webb and I share a very strong bond of friendship. It actually goes back over 30 years, when I was in the Navy Secretariat. Senator Webb, at that time, a young--still young but anyway a bit younger--Marine captain who, fortunately for me and others in the Secretariat, was assigned to our staff. He had just finished his tour in Vietnam, where he displayed a measure of courage few in uniform in the history of our country can equal. For that he received our Nation's second highest decoration. I stand in awe of his military career. My modest career pales in comparison to his. Nevertheless, we did form at that time a friendship and resumed it once he came here. I would like to also say, Senator Webb and I were both privileged to serve as Secretaries of the U.S. Navy. As I look back on the good fortune I have had in life, that was a chapter--5 years, 4 months, 3 days as Secretary of the Navy--that I cherish as the very foundation for whatever I have achieved thereafter in life. It was the association, the learning I had from men and women of the Armed Forces, that gave me a certain sense of confidence and inner strength that has enabled me to go on and do other things, most humbly, I say, to serve Virginia for now my 29th year in this chamber. I have come to know Senator Webb, of course, in the perspective of being a Senator. I said to others that he possesses the intellectual ability, the sincerity, the feeling about people to make him a great Senator. His career is before him; my career is behind me. When I leave some 14 months from now, having finished 30 years in the Senate, I leave with a sense of confidence that this fine young Senator will represent Virginia well, and they can take righteous pride in his leadership. But the amendment by Senator Graham is one I somewhat disagree with my colleague on. It embraces the principles he put forth in his amendment, principles which led me to join him when he first laid down his amendment and vote for that amendment. So the question arises: Why, at this point in time, would I go into a very intense deliberative process of reconsidering that process? I will enumerate those reasons. But I wish to go back again to the service we both had as Secretary of the Navy. It was the management of a force of men and women in uniform. During my period, it was somewhat larger in number than when Senator Webb was Secretary of the Navy. But nevertheless, we both learned the difficulty, the challenges of managing under the all- volunteer force the men and women of our Armed Forces. One of the reasons I joined my good friend was the all-volunteer force. I was in the Department of Defense, as I stated, from 1969 through 1974, serving under three Secretaries of Defense, Melvin Laird being the first. He had the concept of going to the all-volunteer force. That concept was not by any means readily accepted. There was considerable and, I think, justified doubt among the uniform ranks at that time, in the White House, and elsewhere, that this daring concept, this unique concept would be able to adequately serve America, given the troubled world, not only at the time of Vietnam but subsequently and particularly at that time in the midst of the Cold War when the Soviet Union, in many respects, had challenged us potentially in terms of their military prowess. Nevertheless, in the wisdom of the executive branch, we went forward, and the Congress subsequently endorsed it. Senator Webb's amendment, I say without any equivocation, is designed to help protect the concept of the all-volunteer force. It was for that reason that I joined him because I felt, having been in the Department of Defense at the period of time when the formative stages of that concept were developed, I had a stake in it. I have said many times on this floor it is a national treasure that the members of today's Armed Forces, every one of them, are men and women who have raised their hands and volunteered. They were not subjected, as previous generations had been, to a draft and compelled to go into uniform. They were there, every one of them, because they wanted to be there, they wanted to be a part of the Armed Forces that would protect our country. If we add up all the men and women in the Armed Forces today and include the very valuable Reserve and Guard--because the Reserve and Guard are as much a part of our defense structure, more so than they have ever been--and how magnificently the Reserve and Guard have proven throughout the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, their ability to take on in every way responsibilities, dangers, and personal risk equal to the regular force. I come back to that little chapter when both of us served as Secretary, and then he subsequently served in the Department in other capacities where Senator Webb gained a basic knowledge of personnel management, management of not only the Navy Secretariat but prior thereto, when he was looking at all the force structures of the Department of Defense. I readily acknowledge he is an expert and, in some ways, more current than I am, in terms of the management of our forces in uniform. We have a difference, Senator Webb and I, and I will spell it out, with regard to the amendment. I endorsed it. I intend now to cast a vote against it. The reasons are as follows: I went forward some months ago and informed the Senate and, indeed, informed the country, having returned from my 10th trip to Iraq, that I was gravely concerned about the situation over there and gravely concerned about the turbulence here at home, gravely concerned that the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps were being pushed to the limits, greatly concerned that our Guard and Reserves were being pushed to the limit. Furthermore, I felt that the surge--although I did not fully support the surge, and the record of this body, the Senate, clearly reflects my concerns--at that time, I felt that far more of the responsibility should be borne by the Iraqi forces. In January of this year, 2007, when the President announced his policy regarding the surge, I believed that Iraqi forces should take on a far greater role, particularly as it related to the sectarian violence--the criminal elements that are striking against our forces, and for nothing more than a few bucks undertaking, to put at risk the lives of our great soldiers, airmen, marines, and sailors. I thought that the Iraqi force should take on that and we should concentrate more on the security of that nation, to maintain the sovereignty and integrity of its borders and tighten the borders. I won't go into the details, but the record is clear that I questioned the surge. Once the decision was made, I think I felt, like most Senators, that I should support the President, and I have tried to do so. But back again to the force structure problem. At that time, I felt that we should send a signal to the Iraqi Government by putting some teeth in what the President had repeatedly said; namely, we are not going to be there forever. Our Ambassador in Iraq at that point in time had said something to that same effect. At the time that I announced the recommendation to reduce the forces and have that reduction take place so they could be home by Christmas, Ambassador Crocker had said: We are not giving you a blank check. They were just verbal statements directed at the Maliki government and all levels of the Iraqi Government to say that we are not going to be there forever, but you had to put teeth in it. I felt if we first announced that we were going to take the first group home--and I carefully said that the President should consult with the ground commanders before he accepted any recommendation from me or anybody else to reduce force levels and begin to send people back such that they would be back home with their families before Christmas, and the President obviously did that. In his message of a week or so ago, he indicated--not necessarily agreeing with me--that he agreed with the concept; that after consultation with General Petraeus and other on- scene commanders, that they could now, based on certain successes of the operation of the surge and visible successes that the intelligence community verified. Indeed, Senator Levin and I, on our trip a few weeks ago, saw with our own eyes, where there had been measurable success of the surge--but consequently the President agreed with the thought that troops could begin to depart Iraq ahead of schedule and come home. There are further details of that well-known to Members of this body. So first and foremost, I asked for that, the administration and the uniformed side agreed with it, and it was done. That put me in a different posture because I felt my thought that it was time to bring some people home was accepted, and therefore I could then turn to the Webb amendment and the need to go back and get a clear understanding from the U.S. military, the uniformed side, of the consequences of the well-intentioned principles of the Webb amendment. I would like to also digress momentarily to talk about politics. The Senator felt challenged. I wasn't here for the earlier debate. I was holding a briefing with senior members of the military from the Department of Defense on this very subject--the Webb amendment. And I can tell you without any equivocation whatsoever, knowing Senator Webb as I do, that politics is not a factor in his judgment. He honestly believes--he honestly believes--based on his long experience and his current knowledge of the readiness of the situation of our Armed Forces today that we need a policy, and we need it now, of a 1-month home for every month served abroad in a combat zone. As I said, I agreed with him. But in that subsequent period of time, I have had consultations with a lot of senior military officers and just concluded a briefing with Lieutenant General Ham, the Director of Operations of the Joint Staff and Lieutenant General Lovelace, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations for the U.S. Army. Two respected three-star generals, whom I invited to come over here and further brief me and several other Senators who were present. They are not politically motivated. They are motivated by what they have to do to be fair to those serving in Iraq today. It is their professional judgment that if this amendment were to be adopted and become law--and I will put aside all the other issues of a possible veto, and I just don't want to see another veto scenario here right in the middle of the war, and that is another reason--but they are absolutely convinced, and have now convinced me, that they cannot effectively put into force that amendment at this time, without causing severe problems within the existing forces and those who are serving there. One of the consequences that could change in some fashion could be the very thing I advocated--namely, let us bring some of the troops home by Christmas. That might not be feasible if this amendment were adopted. The announced schedule of withdrawals--bringing the force structure down by July 2008 to what we call the pre-surge level, announced by the President and General Petraeus that might not be achievable, the reason being that on any day, if you look at the totality of the U.S. Army, about one-third of it is globally deployed beyond our shores--some 250,000 men and women in uniform. There is a rotation in and out of Korea of roughly 20,000 a year and rotation in other areas of concentration. You just cannot simply look at Iraq or Afghanistan; you have to look at the totality of the Army. A soldier coming out of, say, Korea, having spent a year over there and expecting to have a year back at home, joins a unit for further training, and that unit is suddenly called to go to Iraq. Well, the only recourse is to begin to pull that soldier and some others out because of their need to have 12 months back here. In fairness, that soldier should have 12 months back here, but that unit has to deploy. These generals, again putting all politics aside, they have not been ordered to do this; they are simply trying to manage the U.S. Army today in a way that is equitable to every single soldier, and they have convinced me they cannot manage it in this time period. If this amendment were changed to be effective at, say, the beginning of fiscal year 2009--starting in October of 2008--they feel they could manage it, certainly with regard to the combat units that are going over. But they still have a problem with--for example, in Iraq today there are some 50,000 soldiers who are in what we call combat support roles, not just cooks and bakers, although they are essential, but the people who are performing the removal of the IEDs over which the combat trucks roll to go forward to the front. If there is any single front in Iraq, and I don't think there is, the concept being they are deployed there to different parts of Iraq. Iraq is a 360-degree battle zone, in my judgment. And how well we know that the IED is causing the most severe damage to our soldiers in terms of loss of life and limb in Iraq today. They explained to me that the persons, the explosives experts who know how to go in and detect and remove these lethal weapons, are in short supply. The Army is doing everything it can, the Marine Corps everything it can, to train sufficient numbers of these individuals to come in and do these jobs, but they, too, have to be treated with a sense of fairness. They cannot be subjected to having to stay there maybe 15 months, maybe even longer, because we have no replacement for them. So at another time, because I don't want to go into greater detail here--there was point after point these generals made in our briefing and that I have studied that clearly documents the difficulty, the unfairness, to others now serving in Iraq if this amendment were to become law. Now, to the credit of Senator Webb and in my conversations with him-- although I don't know that I was the one who persuaded him--he went ahead and added an extension to his amendment, so that it goes into effect 120 days after the authorization bill is signed into law. Well, that still does not carry it anywhere near the October 2008 date, which is the earliest date that the Army feels it can now follow the Webb amendment and its goals. These generals told me there is no one who wants to move to the 1-to-1 ratio with any greater fervor or desire than the senior military staff of the U.S. Army and, indeed, others in the Department of Defense. They want it. They would do everything within their realm of professional responsibility to make it happen. But they simply cannot make it happen in the time frame as it is now couched in the provisions of the Webb amendment. Mr. President, for those reasons and others--and I know I am taking generously of the time of others here--I feel I will have to cast a vote against my good friend's amendment. It is a change of vote for me, I recognize that, but I change that vote only after a lot of very careful and analytical work with the uniformed side of the Department of Defense. The Secretary of Defense has written me on this subject, in a very detailed letter. I have a great deal of respect for him. I traveled with him this week and talked to him, and I tried to explain that possibly there are changes which could be made to the Webb amendment which would enable us to go forward and enact it into law, as opposed to a sense of the Senate, which I do hope we vote on later, but that was not achievable. I did my very best, but it was not achievable. So I say to my good friend from Virginia, I agree with the principles you have laid down in your amendment, but I regret to say that I have been convinced by those professionals in uniform that they cannot do it and do it in a way that wouldn't invoke further unfairness to other soldiers now serving in Iraq. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Sailor, you rascal. How could you forget that?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might ask the Senator a question because, indeed, the Senator has a career of active-duty service to the country that cannot be paralleled, certainly by this humble Senator or many others. But don't you believe in your heart of hearts the Webb concept of 1 to 1 is a good one, and if it were possible for the military to achieve it they would do so, and we would all vote for this amendment?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on that point, I grilled these officers today very intensely. You may recall that in January, subsequent to the President's announcement of the surge, the Secretary of Defense stepped up and said: Hold everything. I am going to put in place a callup policy for the Reserve and the Guard which will enable them to have a clearer understanding of how much active service they will be called upon to do and, more important, once that active service is completed, how much time they can remain home. Now, a reservist has to maintain two jobs, in a way: his Reserve job and his job with which he puts, basically, the bread on the table for his family, in the private sector. So they are different than the regulars. I was told today that, if the Webb amendment became law, they would have to go back and revisit and change that policy that the Secretary of Defense enunciated for the Guard and Reserve in January, this year. Is that your understanding?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I conclude my remarks by saying--others are waiting to speak--the reason I brought up Senator Webb's distinguished career as former Secretary of the Navy, and indeed in the Department of Defense in an earlier assignment, is he understands these arguments. He has looked at them. I respect his views. We have a personal difference of opinion on the professional viewpoints, that it can or cannot be done. He believes honestly it can be done. I believe, based on what I related this morning and that my ranking member has stated--we feel it can't be done. Therein is the problem. I, in no way, in any way denigrate what Senator Webb is trying to do. It is just that we have an honest difference of opinion, mine based on basically the same facts that have been given to him. He has a different analysis than do I.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. No objection. As a matter of fact, we have worked out in a very satisfactory way each of these amendments.

Mr. WARNER. No objection.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote on the package of amendments.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2064 on behalf of Senator Graham.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we do have these two first-degree amendments side by side for purposes of the debate, and at this time there are no time agreements.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have discussed this with the Senator from Arizona, who is here on the floor for purposes of that debate. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I was absent from the floor when my distinguished colleague was thoughtful enough to make a few comments about his old friend, but it is deeply appreciated, and I thank my dear colleague very much. We have done many things together, and I have more to go.

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I am sorry to take the time of the Senate, but this amendment affects the State Senator Webb and I are proud to represent, and there are just some mistaken facts I want to clear up in the record. The proponent of the amendment said that this thing would cost $16 million, a bike path, but in effect it ended up costing $1.2 million. The bike path was a part of a larger project of $210 million under the SAFETEA-LU law, and there was no earmark that we can find. It was required by the Federal authorities to build a bike path as replacing a bridge. So I am sorry. I tried to help my colleague, but I just got this information. I have been in a hearing all day, or most of the day, in the Armed Services Committee. But I will amplify this for the record. I apologize, but I felt it important that the record be corrected. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might add, we were both at the hearing in the Senate Armed Services Committee when the staffs frantically contacted us to try to correct this factual error.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to add a dimension to this debate, and that is that I have had the privilege of knowing Admiral McConnell for some years. He does not have a scintilla of politics. He left a very lucrative position in the private sector to once again join and serve as a public servant. Thus far, I think all of us would say he has handled this challenging new office, Director of National Intelligence, with great distinction. How well I remember just a week or so ago, I say to my distinguished colleague from Missouri, when he came up in S-407 and spoke to some 30 or so--more than that, close to 40 Senators, bipartisan--and Senator after Senator got up and complimented him on his very straightforward manner of delivery. Without hesitation he called the situations that were before him in question as he saw them. He communicated publicly with the Senate, expressing on the second of August his views of what he believed should be in those revisions that should be made by the Congress. I find this procedure very disturbing. It is essential for the United States of America to continue to obtain the intelligence under this program. There is every desire to make sure that we will comply with the law, but the law does need some revision. It is incumbent upon this body and, hopefully, the House of Representatives to resolve this situation before we go into the August recess, because it is our own security that will suffer unless we follow the advice of this very distinguished public servant who only wishes to do what is best in the interests of the United States and the people of our country and our troops serving abroad, our troops serving wherever they are in the world.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am honored to join with my colleagues in this colloquy on developing a bipartisan approach to addressing climate change. As my friend from Connecticut already stated, we have agreed on the principal outlines of a climate change proposal that we intend on moving through the Environment and Public Works Committee this fall. Climate change is a very big problem, and the solution will require a very big tent. In addition to the good work by my colleagues standing here today, we also welcome continued leadership by Senators Carper and Alexander on our committee, Senators Kerry and Snowe in the Commerce Committee, Senators Biden and Lugar in Foreign Relations, and many others. I can say with utmost confidence that Senator Lieberman and I embrace the principles for action described by our colleagues today. As always, the details matter a great deal. Senators Bingaman and Specter have clearly invested significant time and effort on this issue, and we truly welcome their input as we move legislation through the committee. Like my colleagues, I believe that as we legislate on climate change we must be careful to protect our economy and pay special attention to those industries and regions that will bear the brunt of achieving necessary reductions. That is why last week I joined Senators Landrieu, Graham, and Lincoln in introducing legislation that I hope will allay the concerns of some Senators about the economic impacts of a cap-and- trade program. We have included this bipartisan measure in the proposal Senator Lieberman and I have agreed to today. While I believe the cost- containment measures we have proposed present a sound basis for legislation, I, too, am open to consider a combination of efforts and ideas so long as the resulting product makes sense ecologically, economically and politically. It will not be easy, but if we can succeed in uniting our coalitions of support, I believe we will have the ability to pass climate legislation in this body. In my 28 years in the Senate, I have focused above all on issues of national security, and I see the problem of global climate change as fitting within that focus. As with national security concerns, to succeed in addressing the threats of global climate change, we must be united at home.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I was likewise in the committee when we were informed by the chairman and ranking member that we had an extra minute to finish the markup. But the best I can do is add, if I were present, I would have voted no.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam. President, today I rise in support of the Unemployment Insurance Modernization Act which was introduced on July 25. I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Olympia J. Snowe, John D. Rockefeller IV, and Maria Cantwell to introduce this bipartisan proposal which seeks to encourage States to modernize their unemployment insurance systems. The Unemployment Insurance Modernization Act would make $7 billion in incentive payments available to States to encourage them to expand eligibility for benefits and provide training to workers struggling with long-term unemployment. The unemployment insurance, UI, program must be reformed to address fundamental shifts in the economy. The UI system provides needed benefits to millions of U.S. workers each year. But the system needs to be updated to better assist today's more highly mobile workforce and long-term unemployed workers left behind by declining industries. Today, many unemployed workers do not qualify for benefits because their most recent work is not taken into account. Others exhaust their benefits before finding work, joining 1.1 million long-term unemployed workers and an additional 1.5 million discouraged job-seekers struggling to get by. For these reasons, only 35 percent of unemployed workers currently collect unemployment benefits. The UI Modernization Act sets aside $7 billion from tax receipts authorized under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, FUTA, to provide incentive payments to encourage States to update their UI systems. The bill rewards states for: (1) removing barriers that block coverage for low-wage and part-time workers; (2) ensuring a more family-friendly UI system; and (3) helping dislocated workers increase their skills. It also provides $500 million in funding to States to improve the administration of their unemployment compensation systems. These administrative payments are fully paid for from the existing UI trust fund. The UI Modernization Act would give States the resources and flexibility they need to pass important reforms. Each State would have a chance to receive a share of the $7 billion set aside for incentive payments. To receive one-third of its allotted funds, a State must adopt an ``alternative base period'' allowing workers to meet eligibility requirements by counting their most recent wages. This makes the system--which has traditionally relied on wage data that is up to 6 months old more accurate and helps workers who have recently satisfied earnings requirements to collect the benefits they deserve. States that have already adopted such a system would also receive these incentive payments. States will receive the additional two-thirds of their share of funds if they adopt or have adopted two of the following reforms that benefit workers: (1) provide unemployment compensation for workers who have voluntarily left their jobs due to the illness or disability of an immediate family member, the relocation of a spouse for employment, or domestic violence; (2) provide training benefits to unemployed workers laid off from a ``declining'' occupation who are enrolled in a State- approved training program for entry into a high-demand occupation; (3) provide unemployment compensation benefits to individuals seeking part- time work; (4) raise maximum compensation caps so that all long-term unemployed workers can receive a full 26 weeks of benefits; or (5) pay unemployed workers at least an extra $15 per week for each of the worker's dependents. Mr. President, in periods of unemployment, workers need a sound program of training and benefits to find new and rewarding opportunities. This bill will provide important resources to States like Virginia, as they improve their programs to help workers and their families in times of need.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, Senator Levin, along with Senator McCain, have forged a comprehensive, bipartisan legislative package to ensure that wounded and injured members of the Armed Forces receive the finest care and benefits, which they richly deserve. I thank Senators on both sides who participated in this legislation, on the basis of their own legislative initiatives and their amendments--10 of which were agreed to when the bill was considered by the full Senate on July 12, 2007. I want to underscore that this bill is--in no way--a reflection of concern about the quality of acute medical care that our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines receive when they sustain wounds or illness in the field of battle. Our men and women in uniform receive the best treatment anywhere in the world, and that fact has been sustained by every outside panel studying the problems arising from the disclosures at Walter Reed last February. In fact, just today, the President's Commission on Care for America's Wounded Warriors, the Dole-Shalala Commission, found that the survival rate of those seriously injured has markedly increased compared to the rate in Vietnam and previous wars. The report of a commission appointed by Secretary Gates, and led by two distinguished former Secretaries of the Army, Togo West and John Marsh confirms this by stating: Through advances in battlefield medicine, evacuation care, the Department has achieved the lowest mortality rates of wounded in history. Let us never doubt the bravery and skill of our medical personnel. This bill, approved by the Senate this morning, addresses the failure of systems--again, quoting from the Department of Defense Commission report--failures which included the: product of bureaucratic behavior, inability to reconcile institutional disparities, and leaving the wounded warrior and family to untangle that which government agencies cannot. It is with great humility that I recall that I was the first Member of the Senate to visit Walter Reed--on February 23, 2007. It happened to be the same day that Secretary Gates visited Walter Reed to conduct his own inspection. In the intervening months, many encouraging developments have taken place. I applaud the leadership of Secretary Gates in promptly taking action to correct deficiencies at Walter Reed, and insisting on accountability for failures in leadership that contributed to unacceptable conditions for our soldiers. Our committee has also have received assurances from the Secretary of the Army Pete Geren, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England and the Deputy Secretary of Veterans' Affairs Gordon Mansfield, that each will work tirelessly to improve the consistency and effectiveness of their management of all soldiers and veterans. The bill which has now been passed by unanimous consent is comprehensive and deserving of our support. It incorporates many of the findings of completed studies and reviews, as well as the constructive ideas of Members of the Senate. This legislation will ensure that wounded and injured members of the Armed Forces receive the care and benefits that they deserve. It will improve physical and mental health benefits for the severely wounded, to ensure that they have the broadest possible options for care from military, veterans and private sector health care resources. It includes significant initiatives in the areas of traumatic brain injury, TBI, and post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, for soldiers and veterans. This addresses the Dole-Shalala findings that over 52,000 Iraq and Afghanistan returning veterans have been treated for PTSD symptoms by the VA. This legislation also creates a special review board to reexamine disability determinations which fall below the 20 percent threshold if a former member of the armed services feels that he or she received an unfair rating. Additionally, the bill requires the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs to rapidly move to fundamentally change and improve the disability evaluation systems within the two departments. I am pleased that the legislation will ensure that as policies and programs are developed to improve care and management of wounded soldiers and veterans, that such policies and improvements will apply equally to members of the Active and Reserve components. The bill also requires that military personnel continue to receive the best possible care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center until equivalent medical facilities are constructed at the National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, and the Fort Belvoir, VA, Army Community Hospital--and requires the Department of Defense to study the feasibility of accelerating the relocation of medical capabilities in the National Capital Region required by the Base Realignment and Closure Act of 2005. The Senate can be proud that it has put the needs of our wounded warriors first and set forth bipartisan jurisdictional boundaries. I want to thank my colleagues--especially Senator Akaka, chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs, and Senator Craig, the ranking member, for their cooperation, and for the work of both our committee staffs--working together--in the preparation of this legislation. It is my hope that we will proceed expeditiously to conference with the other body on wounded warrior legislation and promptly resume consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008 when Congress reconvenes in September. We owe this to our men and women in uniform and their families stationed throughout the world. They deserve nothing less than our full support.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague Senator Alexander as a cosponsor of his important amendment. I understand that Senator Collins and Senator Voinovich are also cosponsors. This amendment is simple. It provides funding--$300 million--for grants to the States for the continued development and implementation of the REAL ID program. This funding is fully offset by an across the board reduction of all discretionary amounts included in the underlying bill. Mr. President, the REAL ID program is critical for our national security. We know, from history, that the duplication and falsification of drivers' licenses is a reality, and this fact is a national security concern. As you may recall, all but one of the 9/11 hijackers obtained some form of U.S. identification--some by fraudulent means--which aided them in boarding commercial flights. We need confidence that the individual that displays this card is, in fact, the rightful owner of it. And this card, the REAL ID, will provide that confidence. The proposed regulation for the REAL ID program sets out common standards for the security and information on the card itself. These standards require: minimum data visible on the card, such as full names; verification of identity documents, such as birth certificates and Social Security numbers; physical security features embedded in the card to protect privacy and make tampering more difficult; security of manufacturing facilities and background checks for employees handling these applications and cards. In my view, the Federal Government must be a good working partner with the States, and this amendment, which provides funding for the program, is a step in the right direction. We must proceed with this program on a partnership concept of States and the Federal Government working together. For that reason, I am pleased to learn that the National Governors Association supports this amendment. This program is an important step in achieving some type of identification that will help America feel more secure in our daily requirements to identify ourselves and to otherwise conduct our life here at home.