John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. They will say it is because we are there for oil, and they will say, oh, they are going to make the Iraqis borrow the money. They don't understand the nuances, the technicalities of a loan, and so forth. What they will understand is that the Senate did not stand in support of the Commander in Chief, and I am fearful that the press will seize upon this and it will endanger the safety of our people. I say that as a friend and most respectfully.

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

Mr. WARNER. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. WARNER. Well, maybe we should cease this colloquy at this moment. I see others who perhaps would like to speak. Again, we commend the distinguished Senator from Kentucky for his initiative on this matter. I was somewhat saddened yesterday that we had to have a division of views on what I believe was the best of intentions by the Senator from New Mexico. I think now this is an opportunity for us to shake hands on both sides and move on and resolve this matter. I yield the floor.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WARNER. I think the Senator has answered the question. I believe we just have an honest difference of opinion. I think the press in that part of the world will be whipped into a frenzy, with those who will be saying ``we are winning, we are winning.'' That troubles me. I think that will endanger the security of our people in uniform when they are trying to carry out this mission. The press will be whipped up, and this will be the most clear symbolism that those who are against----

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished manager, and I commend the Senate for an excellent debate. I rise today to oppose this amendment that would use loans for much needed reconstruction, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Seldom do we have choices before us as fundamental as this one. We can truly help the Iraqi people and secure an important opportunity for change in this part of the world, or we can turn our backs and watch this fledging nation drown in a sea of debt. The second choice would represent failure. There is no choice. Failure is not an option. We must go forward; we must stay the course and help the people of Iraq win the peace without conditions. We have achieved extraordinary success, in a relatively short period, in Iraq. Saddam Hussein and the threat he posed are gone; the future is hopeful for the Iraqi people. We must send a strong message of resolve to our fellow countrymen, to our troops, to our coalition partners, and to the rest of the world, that we will see this through to completion-- to win the peace. Over the July 4, recess, I traveled, along with eight colleagues from the Armed Forces and Intelligence Committees, to Iraq. During the 3 days we spent in Iraq, we met with Coalition Provisional Authority leaders, military leaders, soldiers, and local Iraqi leaders. Their courage, dedication and determination in a very difficult environment was inspiring. We saw the enormity of the task with our own eyes--the antiquated, dilapidated oil infrastructure; the mismanaged irrigation system; the piles of garbage and open sewers; and the cowed and brutalized, but hopeful people of Iraq. These problems will not be fully fixed overnight, or even with this significant infusion of resources. But, it is an important step forward. We must quickly build on the foundation that has been laid by Ambassador Bremer, his international team, and the Iraqi people, to sustain and accelerate the momentum for building a secure, and economically viable, democracy in Iraq. Over the past few weeks, I have had the opportunity to meet with several Iraqi leaders. Recently, I met members of the Iraqi Governing Council. We noted the tragic absence of Ms. Akila al-Hashimi, a member of the Governing Council who was scheduled to travel to the United States this week but was gunned down last week outside her home in Baghdad, most likely by remnants of the Ba'athist regime intent on intimidating the new Iraqi leaders. She symbolized the courage, hope, and determination of many Iraqis to build a new, democratic Iraq, even in the face of great personal risk. We mourn her loss, along with the people of Iraq, and we must now renew our pledge to help Iraq establish the security, quality of life, and opportunity to enjoy the liberties of a free, democratic nation. Her colleagues on the Iraqi Governing Council are clearly committed to achieving these goals and deserve our support. Some have suggested that providing $20.3 billion dollars for Iraqi reconstruction is too generous and that full or partial repayment should be formulated. This notion is borne from the belief that Iraq is a potentially prosperous nation, well-endowed with oil reserves, that should be able to pay for its own reconstruction. I respectfully disagree. The idea of loans for Iraqi reconstruction, instead of grants, would be a terrible mistake. Iraq already has crushing debt, accumulated during Saddam Hussein's brutal, incompetent reign. Estimates of this debt range from $180 billion to almost $400 billion. Additional debt or encumbrances on future earnings now would be economically disastrous, and send the wrong message to Iraqis and, indeed, the world. General Jay Garner and Ambassador Bremer have both forcefully argued that Iraq must be granted significant debt reduction or forgiveness. The United States will seek to convince the principal holders of Iraqi loans--Russia, France, Germany and Saudi Arabia--to foregive some of all of these loans. To add additional loans, at the same time we are asking others to forgive loans, would be counterproductive and hypocritical. Later this month, the U.S. will hold a donors' conference in Madrid to solicit contributions from the international community for Iraqi reconstruction. To ask others to make grants to Iraq after we have structured some or all of our contribution to Iraqi reconstruction as loans would undercut our Government's efforts to obtain international support. In the conversations with Iraqi leaders I mentioned earlier, they were emphatic in their opposition to reconstruction support being structured as loans, especially if these loans were made in the form of ``liens'' against potential Iraqi oil revenues. They rightfully argued that the Iraqi people and the larger Arab and Islamic world would regard such a move negatively and conclude that their earlier suspicions that the U.S. was more interested in Iraqi oil than Iraqi liberation were true. We have an opportunity before us to send a message of full commitment to Iraq and of a balanced, fair U.S. foreign policy in the larger Middle Easter region, by providing this reconstruction assistance as grants to Iraq. A loan program using Iraqi oil as collateral would be viewed as just the opposite, and would be counterproductive to our larger goals and interests in this important region. There is a perception, I fear, that this supplemental will fully fund Iraq's reconstruction. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reconstruction needs of Iraq are enormous--not because of war damage, but because of three-plus decades of neglect, mismanagement and greed by Saddam Hussein's regime. The fund included in this supplemental will only begin to address these daunting needs, but adoption of this package will put the Iraqis in a much better position to help themselves in the future. The Iraqi leaders I spoke with want nothing more than to do just that, but they need our help for now, not with crippling conditions attached. Some have compared this supplemental for the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan to the Marshall plan that funded the reconstruction of Europe following World War II. Most would agree that the investment of our Nation in the Marshall plan has been paid back a hundred-fold. Some have correctly pointed out that the Marshall plan included loans that had to be paid back and the requirement for matching funds by the beneficiary nations, in some cases. The bulk of Marshall plan assistance, however, was in the form of grants. Students of history, of which there are many in this chamber, will recall, also, that while the Marshall plan began in 1948, it was preceded by a series of programs over a number of years, to provide financial support to meet the immediate needs of devastated European nations, including Germany. In today's dollar, the equivalent of over $100 billion in aid was provided by the U.S. to these nations before the Marshall plan went into effect. Included in this aid was over $35 billion in grants to put these nations in a position to help themselves with subsequent assistance. The situation is similar in Iraq today. This is a nation crippled by multiple wars, mismanagement, and neglect. The Iraqis are not yet in a position to help themselves, but they can be with our help. Providing loans to Iraq is an idea that may have merit in the future, but not now. By voting overwhelmingly to authorize the use of force in Iraq, we accepted the responsibilities and challenges of subsequent reconstruction. We must not now shrink from that responsibility. We must first provide the unconditional assistance that will lay the foundation for full reconstruction. That is in Iraq's best interest; it is in America's best interest. Let us join together to provide the resources that will meet the immediate needs of the Iraqi people and best serve our interests in Iraq and the larger Middle East region. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and send a message to the Iraqi people that we are committed to their liberation and reconstruction unconditionally. I was very deeply influenced and moved by the Senator from Washington, Senator Cantwell. She hit it. What is the message we send forth from this Chamber tonight? I must admit, in the briefings and so forth that took place today before the Armed Services Committee, I repeatedly heard, we are not getting the message out in that part of the world about what we are trying to do and the successes we have had to date in helping the people. Consequently, a vote that would carry this amendment will just spread through that world and be interpreted by that press. It will undo so much of what we have been able to achieve thus far in trying to convince that world we are there for their own interests, not for oil, not to profit from a loan or give a loan. It will be misinterpreted as a consequence of a very small amount of funding in this whole $87 billion. I would like to put a question to my good friend, fellow member of the Armed Services Committee, who is a strong supporter of the men and women of the Armed Forces, a simple question: Does this amendment make the streets safer for the men and women of the Armed Forces tonight, tomorrow tonight, and in the days and weeks to come, together with their coalition partners? If somehow you can convince me this will bring about a greater measure of safety--this is the thing that concerns me above all. The sacrifices being made by the men and women of the Armed Forces, their families here at home, people in the villages and towns who watched them march off to take up their stations in this battle for freedom. I cannot fairly discern any basis that this will help to make the streets safer for the uniformed people now serving in the coalition forces. I ask that most respectfully of my good friend and distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, may I say to my colleague from New Mexico, with whom I have had the privilege to serve now for close to two decades in this body, and who was a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and a very valued member, that he has gotten this Senator's attention. I appreciate what he is doing to support the pending amendment, and I urge colleagues to do likewise. If I might say first, while he was not present in the Chamber when I brought to the attention of the Senate that the debate which followed his amendment the other day did bring about this Senator's personal attention on the status of several decorations, I found that it was not moving along, in my judgment, in an expeditious and timely manner. That debate the other day served a very important service to the men and women of the Armed Forces who are engaged in these particular theaters. I would like to work with the Senator and with the Department of Defense to pursue his thoughts about perhaps additional recognition for service in the theaters of Iraq Afghanistan. I am just not prepared at this time to give a definitive answer. This is the course, as proposed by the amendment which is before the Senate, which has been followed for years. So many places in the world today have often no geographic boundaries and have no identity. Yet people who are on guard wearing our uniform, coalition forces and other nations, are subject to loss of life and limb in combating that terrorism. I am not able at this point in time to come up with some definitive suggestion. But I certainly would like to associate myself with the Senator's remarks that there should be an expression of gratitude to those persons serving in these theaters right now for their service and that given by their families. I thank the Senator. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. WARNER. The Senator is absolutely correct. As I said, we have brought this matter and the urgency of it to their attention, and that is one of the very positive results from the efforts of our colleagues on the other side and the initiative taken by the distinguished whip on this side in this amendment.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator is correct.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. I also add that, very importantly, one very good development resulted from the debate we had yesterday. I was under the impression that the two declarations to which the distinguished Senator from Arizona made mention were actually in being. I am perhaps remiss. I thought that by now they were in being, but in fact when I went directly to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and those involved in the process, I found this needed a little congressional incentive. That is the basic reason for this amendment that is laid down today. We have their attention now, and they are going forward with these decorations. So for that reason, we must say to Senator Bingaman that that was a very fortunate development.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I purposely desired the clerk to read the short amendment because this affects the interests in 6 States. This tragic hurricane struck North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia. Those are the States that were declared by the President as Federal disaster areas. The technical decision has been made by the appropriate authorities that these States suffered severe damage. On the 19th of September, the hurricane caused 45 deaths, and approximately $1.7 billion of total damages, of which approximately $450 million was sustained in Virginia and $410 million in Maryland. I offer this amendment on behalf of colleagues in all of those States. I have listed thus far myself, Senator Allen, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Dole. I expect other Senators from those States will desire to add their names at their own initiative. Why on this particular bill should this funding be provided? It is a legitimate question. No. 1, it is taken out of the funds in this bill for the Department of Defense. It is not an add-on or an end run. It is straightforward from the Department of Defense. In consultation with the individual military services, it was relayed to me that the functioning of these military facilities in the States enumerated is essential to the current operations of the United States military. Senator Allen, members of the Virginia delegation, and I, together with the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security went down to these hard-hit communities. We spent at least 1 day with the Secretary of Homeland Security looking at the damage in the Commonwealth of Virginia; and specifically, to the Langley Air Force Base and NASA facility. It is a relatively modest sum, but the Langley facility has a dual purpose. It serves both for the Department of Air Force and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. We simply couldn't have the construction and repairs eligible for one part of the facility and not the other. Of course, the debate was primarily for the Department of Air Force. That is one very modest and minor technical aspect of this. But the Department of Defense is willing to take those funds necessary for NASA from the funds I put in here, the reason being you simply cannot take a water line, for example, for a flood-damaged area and stop at the arbitrary line between where NASA operates and where the Department of Air Force operates. I am hopeful colleagues will not look upon that as any significant departure from the managers' effort to contain this legislation to expenditures related to the military. I really urge colleagues to support this. Our colleagues from these 6 States support it. I cannot speak for those who are not on here. I intend to visit with the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia on this matter in the course of the day as well as the junior Senator from West Virginia. It is my hope this Chamber will accept this amendment. Again, there was a Presidential designation of areas of destruction, and here in the Nation's Capital some of our military installations suffered damage. I point out that in the course of my trips--I think I made seven trips back to my State in connection with this very frightful hurricane--I worked with FEMA. I commend FEMA. The FEMA people came in, as well as the Small Business Administration, and helped tremendously. I recall being in Alexandria along with the Small Business Administration people, and we walked in and out of the various places of business--small restaurants and shops where water had come up waist high the previous evening. You can't imagine the despair on the faces and in the minds of a shopkeeper who was there amidst all of this mud, debris, foul-smelling effects of the flood; and then also trying to get briefed on the pathogens that could flow from the mold that will come forward. But I found the Small Business Administration people, and particularly FEMA, to be very reassuring to those people who were overcome with emotion and dispair. Senator Allen and myself on this particular day, and FEMA and the Small Business Administration people, gave assurance that the Federal Government would give a measure of help: Here are the forms, here is the instruction book, there will be a representative from FEMA and SBA at this location. You can go to that entity and seek assistance. That all worked quite well in my State. However, SBA or FEMA is not available to provide assistance to the military installations who were damaged. It is left up to the commander of those bases to finance these costs. I spent considerable time with the commander at Langley Air Force Base. I commend him. He stayed throughout the storm even though the base was largely evacuated. It was important to get the military equipment out of the path of the storm and locate that equipment in a remote area so they could continue to function. There was no gap in the fulfillment of the military mission. That commander and indeed the general officer in charge of that base and others are to be commended. I could recite other bases and installations, including Fort Story, the same thing: The commander and senior officers and enlisted personnel stayed throughout the storm. By and large, they helped save property and lives, no question about it. Had everyone departed and tried to get back--in some instances the roads were severed and you could not get back and more destruction would occur in that passage of time. There was considerable bravery from military and civilians on the military installations. FEMA cannot by law step in, nor can the Small Business Administration. Who is to fill the vacuum? The Congress. That is why I am asking the support for this amendment. Again, this includes six States. I have an evaluation of the various damages assessed by the military department in the several States. As far as I can determine, they are good, hard substantiated figures. There is no padding that I know of nor would I permit it. For example, in the U.S. Marine Corps, $16.5 million, primarily in North Carolina and right here below the District of Columbia, Quantico; the U.S. Army, $92 million; the Navy, $185 million; and the Air Force, $210 million. Mr. President, this amendment will provide approximately $500 million to repair and replace military and NASA facilities along the east coast that were damaged by Hurricane Isabel. These are the facilities in which our military personnel and their families live and work. The Air Force alone suffered approximately $210 million, much of that was the result of flooding at Langley Air Force Base. Damage at Naval facilities is estimated to exceed $180 million, while damage at Army and Marine Corps facilities is estimated to exceed $100 million. There was also an estimated $5 million in damage at the NASA facility in Langley. Make no mistake, this damage will have to be repaired and unless we provide the funding in this bill, it will come at the expense of operations and training. I am hopeful colleagues will support this amendment. I will leave it to the managers of the bill to decide how and when this matter is addressed formally, either by voice or recorded vote. I ask unanimous consent this be the pending business subject to the managers, and I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. What do you say to the widow of someone who has lost their life in Afghanistan? Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, I would like to think of myself as the last person to ever take the floor of the Senate and say a man or a woman proudly wearing the uniform of the United States should not receive everything that is offered. But in this instance--I do not oppose this--I simply ask you to examine it in the sense of fairness. What do you say to the widow of someone who lost his life in Afghanistan? What do you say to those who have injured soldiers in the Horn of Africa, Liberia, Philippines, Colombia, and other places, all engaged in the war on terrorism? I do not understand this. I have read it. I have reread it. It says, for example, to those serving in Iraq, prohibition of concurrent award of Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. They cannot receive it. For what reason, I do not know. I say to my dear friend, a former member of the Armed Services Committee, this is a matter that requires close examination. This issue of awarding men and women of the Armed Forces is properly reposed in the chairman and the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They acted in March of this year to create the Medal for the Global War on Terrorism. Our distinguished Senator from South Carolina, while serving in the Army, got a star for the European theater for engagements; those who crossed the Anzio Beach, those in Africa, a star. There was one theater medal with stars given for the various engagements. That is not this situation. That says the one who served in Iraq should get something special the others do not receive. That is not fair, I say to my good friend. Accordingly, at the appropriate time, I will move to table.

Mr. WARNER. Correct.

Mr. WARNER. That is correct.

Mr. WARNER. How can you elevate a death or a loss in Iraq over one in Afghanistan?

Mr. WARNER. Go right ahead.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on October 14, 2003, at Marine Barracks 8th & I, Washington, D.C.--the oldest post in the U.S. Marine Corps--GEN James L. Jones, Supreme Allied Commander Europe and Commander, U.S. European Command and the former Commandant of the Marine Corps will officiate at a retirement ceremony for MG Arnold L. Punaro. GEN Punaro is completing 35 years of superlative commissioned service in the United States Marine Corps and is someone I have worked with both in and out of uniform for over 25 of these years. Contingent on the Senate schedule, I intend to be present and join his many friends in wishing him and his family fair winds and following seas. Many here will recall Arnold's outstanding 24 year career in the U.S. Senate working for our former Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman, Senator Sam Nunn. He started as an intern in Senator Nunn's office in 1973, and rose to become Staff Director of the Senate Armed Services Committee. During that 24-year period he was involved in every major national security decision and set a standard of excellence and leadership that few others achieve. While he came from Georgia, I am proud to say he has been a Virginia resident for 30 years and someone with whom I worked closely during his years in the Senate. Simultaneously, he was engaged in a highly successful career in the United States Marine Corps which he entered out of college in 1968. At the peak of the draft, he was a volunteer into a tough outfit that I know well. He was an infantry platoon commander in combat in Vietnam where he was wounded in battle and decorated for heroism. Following active duty service, he went into the reserves in 1973. Over the next 30 years he would serve with distinction in both command and staff billets to include mobilization for Desert Shield/Desert Storm in 1990. He also was mobilized in 1993 to serve as the Commander of Joint Task Force Provide Promise, Forward, in command of all U.S. troops serving in the former Yugoslavia and in Macedonia. His command was part of a multi-national force and provided much needed stability in that region. He was promoted to general officer in 1994, and served as Commanding General of several major commands for 5 of his 9 years as a general. Just as he was the longest serving Staff Director of the Senate Armed Services Committee, he had the longest tenure as Commanding General of the 4th Marine Division--one of the legendary divisions of World War II Iwo Jima fame. Today this division has over 20,500 Marines and Sailors located in 105 cities and 38 states. The vast majority fought in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Under his leadership, the 4th Division's warfighting readiness was significantly improved as was demonstrated in Iraq and, upon his departure, he turned over an organization that had achieved the highest readiness ratings that DoD provides. That does not surprise any of us who worked closely with him over the years because he was known as someone who always had a vision and knew how to get things done--both strategically and tactically. He was direct, forceful, and always focused on reaching the goal. He was most recently mobilized--for the third time in his reserve career--for Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom as both the U.S. Marine Corps Director of Reserve Affairs and a Special Assistant to the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. During this period the U.S. Marine Corps had the largest call-up of its reserves in their history with a 99 percent show-rate, a rapid deployment to their operational assignments faster than required and great success in combat operations. His experience and leadership were crucial in both the mobilization and demobilization phase. During this same period his oldest son, Joe Punaro, a 2LT in the Marine Corps was serving as a platoon commander in Iraq in the same Regiment his father served in Vietnam--the 7th Marines of the 1st Marine Division. Joe worked for me as an intern in 2000 and I had the pleasure of visiting with him in Kuwait prior to the invasion. Arnold's daughter Julie is student teaching at Thomas Jefferson High School; daughter Meg is at Mary Washington College and plays on their field hockey team which is in the top ten, and son Daniel is a senior in high school and an aspiring college lacrosse player. His wife Jan has kept them all on this highly successful course. MG Punaro has now completed two outstanding careers--one in the Senate and one in the Marine Corps. He is a superb leader, thinker and doer. He is now on his third career as a senior executive for a key Virginia company. On behalf of the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee and Staff as well as the Senate, I want to extend our deepest congratulations and the gratitude of a grateful Nation.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I do not detect it. I think the Senator is standing there with full vigor. I believe we have pretty well covered the major issues.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I could probe my colleague, as I read this, it states very clearly: Provided further, That beginning not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority shall report to and be under the direct authority and foreign policy guidance of the Secretary of State. As I indicated, the Secretary is very much opposed to this amendment. We will very shortly have that evidence before the Senate. But it is clear from the reading of this that the $21 billion which is before this body right now as a part of the 87--and it remains a part; that issue has been addressed--would now be transferred to the Department of State for, frankly, writing all the checks, working on the allocation of priorities, the coordination with the military structure under the Secretary of Defense and General Abizaid, the CENTCOM commander. The whole thing is lifted and put under the State Department in 60 days after this, should it be enacted. Am I not correct?

Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, might I answer my colleague's very insightful question as to what the Secretary of State has in mind. I have just been in consultation with his office, upon learning of my distinguished colleague's amendment. Very shortly there will be a written communication coming to the leadership of the Senate expressing, without any equivocation, that he feels strongly that the Department of State, at this time, should not be given the responsibility. But there will come a time, I say to my distinguished colleague--an appropriate time, and perhaps without further interruption to your opening remarks--I could engage the Senator in a colloquy to discuss perhaps an alternative measure at some future time. Basically, it would be after the Iraqi Government is in place and the United States would, at that time, indicate an individual to become the U.S. Ambassador, at which time there could be an orderly transition from the Department of Defense to the Department of State. My concern, I say to my friend, is that it has taken Ambassador Bremer some 3 months now to gain the momentum he has. We have a critical issue before this body at the very moment of whether or not the additional funds will hopefully immediately be forthcoming. That decision will be finally made next week. I strongly support it, to continue that momentum. A shift at this time would result in loss of momentum. I conclude my few remarks at this moment by saying, throughout the testimony and private discussions with Ambassador Bremer, which I am sure my colleague from Vermont has had, he has constantly said that the danger to the coalition forces--that danger being indelibly impressed on us every day with the announcement of a loss or an injury to members of the uniformed services, and indeed others--David Kay is, at this moment, before committees of the Congress. In conversations with me, he has expressed the danger to his operation daily by their transit down these motorways and otherwise. The direct correlation of reducing the danger to our troops, to the Iraqi special survey group headed by David Kay, and to others performing NGO operations--this whole panoply of people--there is a direct correlation between the speed and the momentum that the Bremer operation has brought up to replace the infrastructure and the lessening of the personal risks to individuals.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, every courtesy has been extended, and I might add that I am in consultation with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee on this matter, who likewise is presently on the Senate floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I recognize that important bit of history. As I say to my friend of a quarter of century, we have had the privilege of serving here--and I see the distinguished acting minority leader on the floor--it would be the intention of the Senator from Virginia to move to table, but I first would like to hear an expression perhaps from others who might like to address the amendment.