John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am joined here with my colleague, Senator Webb, and the two of us have put forward a resolution of the Senate, S. Res. 149. We are joined in the cosponsorship by the distinguished majority leader, Senator Reid, the minority leader, Senator McConnell, and all other Members of the Senate. Our resolution, jointly prepared by Senator Webb and myself, reads as follows: Expressing the condolences of the Senate on the tragic events at Virginia Tech University. Resolved, that the Senate (1) offers its heartfelt condolences to the victims and their families, and to students, faculty, administration and staff and their families who have been deeply affected by the tragic events that occurred today at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia; (2) expresses its hope that today's losses will lead to a shared national commitment to take steps that will help our communities prevent such tragedies from occurring in the future; and (3) recognizes that Virginia Tech has served as an exemplary institution of teaching, learning, and research for well over a century; and that the University's historic and proud traditions will carry on. I yield the floor to my distinguished colleague.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague. We have worked as partners on this resolution throughout the day. It has been a most unusual day for the two of us, for our Governor, for our State, and all its people. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 149, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at this time, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification to amendment No. 697, which is filed at the desk.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague. Amendment No. 697, as Modified Mr. President, the Senate, a few minutes ago, acted on an amendment, the Warner-Byrd amendment. It is a rather unique one. I first thank my distinguished colleague and mentor in many ways, Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia. We have collaborated together many times on pieces of legislation. But I approached him, and he concurred in my observations, that this was badly needed by the Congress, by the country, and indeed by the President and his staff, as well as the Department of Defense. Our amendment calls for the appropriation of a sum of money to enable a private sector entity to make an independent--independent of all entities, the Pentagon and otherwise, in the Federal Government-- assessment of the status of the Iraqi security forces, most specifically the army, the national guard, and other elements which are fighting alongside the coalition forces, and primarily the U.S. forces now in the operations in Baghdad. I have followed this issue for a number of years, and I have referred to the report to the Congress of May 2006, roughly a year ago. In that report, they talk about the: Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) continue to grow in strength and capability as indicated by: progress in the training and equipping of ISF personnel; assessed capabilities of operational units; and progress in assuming responsibility for security of areas within Iraq. In another part, on page 46: With the generation of Iraqi Army battalions now more than 89 percent complete, the focus of the Army's train-and-equip effort has shifted towards building combat support and combat service support forces. Now, this is a report, as I say, of a year ago. Compare that to the report Congress received this month, March of 2007, and the following paragraph, observation, from page 25: By the end of 2006, the United States and its Coalition partners met their force generation targets, while continuing their efforts to expand the size and capability of the ISF-- ``ISF'' being Iraqi Security Forces-- to meet emergent requirements. As of February 19, 2007, approximately 328,700 forces (not including replenishments) have been trained. The actual number of present-for-duty soldiers is about one-half to two-thirds of the total due to scheduled leave, absence without leave-- That is referred to by those of us who served as ``AWOL''-- and attrition. So it is not nearly, in 2007, as encouraging as the report in 2006. I felt, together with Senator Byrd and a group of cosponsors on this amendment, it was imperative we get an independent analysis of some of the reports of the Department of Defense and others to determine what is the viability of this force. Every plan we lay down and discuss here on the floor regarding Iraq-- the amendment yesterday adopted narrowly by Senator Reid, calling on certain troop deployments and dates; the President's program of January 20 of this year, in which he revised strategy and initiated what we commonly refer to as the surge operation in Baghdad today--every single plan, concept for the future of Iraq is dependent upon the military proficiency, the viability, the capability of the Iraqi security forces. I felt very strongly that we had to go and get a second opinion--a phrase often used in medicine, but it is just as important here in diplomacy. It is just as important in military analysis. Let us get a second independent opinion about these forces. Drawing on my own modest military career but a lifetime of experience in working with our military and having served in the Pentagon for over 5 years as Under Secretary and Secretary of the Navy, I have had some experience with training of forces. Our great country, since World War II, took recruits, brought them into recruit training, and in 6 to 7 months they were trained, capable individuals. They were then assigned to other units to have additional training, but they were often ready. Today, those same recruits in this generation of forces that we have serving on active duty in the Army and particularly the National Guard, they are trained in a period of 6 to 8 to 9 months, and then they go into combat situations. We have been training these 325,000 people, most of them, for a period of 2\1/2\ years. We need to know at what point this heavy investment of American taxpayers' dollars, the work of the U.S. military to train these individuals, at what point are we able to say: This force is able to take on these operations and perform them because all our planning is dependent on that. I find it most difficult to see how we have trained 325,000--that is over twice the number of U.S. forces in Iraq--we have trained them for these many years. Why are they not able to step up and take on the major operations now being performed by the U.S. forces? Our President has indicated we will continue to embed our forces with Iraqi units and continue to give them certain supplies and logistics and equipment. It seems to me the fighting, the brunt of the fighting ought to be borne by the Iraqi forces, and we, the United States, be it the Congress or the executive branch--but most importantly the people--are entitled to have an assessment of what we have created with the expenditure of these hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars to train these forces. Now, the concept is--and I will be working with the administration and hopefully this becomes law and work through the process of appropriations--this sum of money would go to a private, independent entity to engage individuals to make this report, and then the report comes back to the Congress of the United States. I thank my colleagues who have supported me, particularly my distinguished, longtime friend and associate from West Virginia, Senator Robert C. Byrd. We have done our work to initiate this all- important study because every plan we have is dependent upon a better understanding and knowledge of what has or has not been created in terms of the Iraqi security forces.

Mr. WARNER. I am pleased to yield to the Senator.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it seems to me we have to face the reality of fact. Now, this would be an independent report. Obviously, I think the Department of Defense would come back and provide some rebuttal or some additional information, so we would have to take all the viewpoints and put them together. But what I say to my distinguished colleague from Illinois is we are still relying solely upon these reports that come on an annual basis. I read through them, and I encourage others to do so. It is very difficult to glean from these reports that sound, basic fact: Are they trained? Are they equipped? Are they ready? Most importantly, I say to the Senator, do they have the commitment in their hearts to take orders and fight on behalf of the Iraqi people? That is what concerns me because of the large amount of AWOL, absentees, and all the other types of things that are reflected in this report.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my long-term friend, the distinguished Senator from Mississippi. We came to the Senate together some 29 years ago. I commend him for the leadership he has provided throughout his many years and, particularly, on this coming vote, which is most important--not just to the Senate but to the whole Congress and to the people of the United States and to the world. I strongly support the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran. Some many weeks ago, shortly after January 10, when the President announced his new strategy for a surge, I was among those few voices on this side that expressed concern about that initiative. I believed that this Nation had invested so heavily in Iraq, in life, in limb, and an extraordinary amount of money, much of that having been spent on the training of the Iraqi security forces, and that the time had come for those security forces to bear the brunt of the battle. Our group, having drawn up a resolution, endeavored to try to get it debated, but the record shows that opportunity, and the opportunity to vote on it, was not given. But that is history. At this time, however, I believe the operations of our troops under the new strategy are well underway. We have many men and women of our Armed Forces in harm's way, and we must be very cautious as to the message we send at this time. Mr. President, I say most respectfully that with this current draft we are trying to strike out the language that, if allowed to stand, would send a sound all over the world. It would be the bugle of retreat; it would be echoed and repeated from every minaret throughout Iraq: The coalition forces have decided to take the first step backward. We cannot send that message at this time. I will be among those who will constantly challenge any aspect of the policies of this administration which I believe are not in the best interest. I have two amendments that, hopefully, will be considered in the context of the pending bill. One calls for an independent investigation--independent of the Department of Defense and all entities of the Federal Government--of the Iraqi security forces, principally the army and, to some extent, the police, to determine what the status is of those forces today. What has been the result of the billions of dollars we have expended over 2\1/2\ years to train and equip them? Are they now, or in the immediate future, able to carry the burden of this fight to enable the people and the Government of Iraq to have greater security and eventually achieve the goals and the full reins of a democracy? The other amendment I have calls for a table of benchmarks and a reporting sequence from our administration as to whether the Iraqis are or are not meeting those benchmarks because any option laid down is dependent on the capability of the Iraqi security forces. Early reports in the engagements thus far indicate that, in some measures, they have met the commitments they made to have sent battalions, to have engaged with such limited aggression that has been brought against them in the course of this surge and against the coalition forces. Nevertheless, it is the American forces that are primarily in the lead, primarily in the support role and carrying the greater burden of this battle. So at this time I do not think it is wise to sound that bugle, that sound of retreat. Think of the consequences if that nation implodes and fractures and the Government and all of the gains that we have gotten thus far are lost. Think of the consequences on, for example, the potential for other energy sources to be developed in that region-- energy that is vital to the world, energy that must flow from that region through the Straits of Hormuz that could be jeopardized if there is a convulsion among the border states and the spreading of the anarchy that could simply flow from this most distressed land of uncertainty we call Iraq, this situation that is so fragile at this time. So I urge my colleagues, with no disrespect to those who put this in the bill, to support the Cochran amendment. Mr. President, while I have the floor, I simply ask unanimous consent to send a modification to the desk for an amendment filed, No. 698.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I respect the manager of the bill, and I thank her.

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

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I know there has been a diligent effort on both sides to get the Byrd-Warner amendment cleared. I am hoping to get the final clearance from Senator Stevens. I know where he is, and I have contacted him. If that could just be held in abeyance for a minute or two, in the meantime, may I modify one of the amendments that is filed at the desk? I ask unanimous consent to modify amendment No. 698.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will advise the leadership as soon as I get a message. I thank the distinguished leaders. Amendment No. 798 to Amendment No. 680

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my Virginia Senate colleague, Senator Webb, related to the No Child Left Behind Act. This legislation simply tries to hold certain schools harmless, for one year, from the sanction provisions under NCLB when such sanctions result solely because of bureaucratic problems with the implementation of the law. I am pleased to note that Congressman Tom Davis, Congressman Jim Moran, Congressman Bob Goodlatte, Congresswoman Davis, and Congressman Rick Boucher have joined Senator Webb and me in introducing the same bill in the House of Representatives. While I firmly believe that the goals behind NCLB are solid, there have been some challenges with the regulatory implementation of this new law, particularly in Virginia. Most recently, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the U.S. Department of Education have reached an impasse with respect to how best to test students with limited English proficiency. While, at this moment, I do not cast blame for how we came to this impasse, the simple fact is that it could result in a number of schools in Virginia being sanctioned under the Federal law--not because our schools are underperforming, but rather as a consequence of bureaucracy. This is clearly not the intent of No Child Left Behind. No Child Left Behind was intended to put in place a strong accountability system by which the Federal Government would receive favorable results for the billions of Federal dollars it spends on education. The law was structured to ensure that all students are included in States' accountability systems, and was designed to reward those systems that achieve goals under the accountability system, and to sanction those that do not. Regrettably, in my view, if legislation is not passed and signed into law that recognizes the unique situation faced in Virginia, and perhaps other States, then public schools in Virginia, and perhaps around the country, will be punished through no fault of their own. Let me be more specific about what has occurred in my State. On June 28, 2006, the Virginia Department of Education received notice from the U.S. Department of Education that the assessment that Virginia had used for years to test certain limited English proficiency students would no longer meet Federal requirements. The 2006-2007 academic school year started shortly thereafter, and, at that time, no alternative assessment had been approved. On December 11, 2006, representatives from the Virginia Board of Education and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction met with the U.S. Department of Education officials to discuss a one-year extension, by which Virginia would be permitted to use the same assessment it had used in prior years for testing LEP students. On January 4, 2007, the entire Virginia Congressional delegation sent a letter to Secretary Spellings supporting Virginia's request for a one- year extension for using an alternative assessment for testing LEP students. On January 29, 2007, Secretary Spellings wrote back to me denying Virginia's request. On February 8, 2007, Deputy Secretary Ray Simon wrote to Virginia clarifying that, while the previous test may not be used, another assessment is expected to obtain approval. Well, today is March 21, 2007. To date, Virginia still does not have an approved alternative assessment, and our State assessments are scheduled to be given in less than a month. With no appropriate test approved for students to take this April, how can Virginia schools be expected to meet federal standards? How can our State and schools develop, prepare for, and administer a new test when we are well past the middle of the school year? Common sense begs for a reasonable solution. In the interim, several school divisions in Virginia have voted not to test the LEP students at all. In turn, the U.S. Department of Education has threatened to withhold from Virginia millions of Federal education dollars. The legislation that we introduce today is designed to allow the parties involved to take a step back, develop an acceptable assessment, appropriately train and educate students on it, and allow the Virginia educational system to move forward without being sanctioned in a way that is inconsistent with the NCLB Act. This legislation accomplishes these goals by holding schools, local education agencies, and States harmless for one year from the sanctions provisions of NCLB if they meet certain criteria. Specifically a state must: (1) have had one or more approved academic assessment plans for the 2005-2006 school year; (2) have had one or more of such plans subsequently held invalid by the Department of Education for the 2006- 2007 school year; and (3) have the Governor of the State certify, in writing, to the Secretary of Education that the State cannot effectively train its educators on a new or alternative assessment prior to the date the assessment is to be administered, and that the administration of a new or alternative assessment is not in the best interest of the public school system and the children the system serves. This ``hold-harmless'' provision would only apply to those schools and school divisions that fail to meet the Federal standards solely because of these logistical problems. Unlike other proposals that have recently been introduced with respect to No Child Left Behind, this measure would not exempt states from accountability, nor exempt States, school districts and schools from the requirements of NCLB. Our bill simply calls for the suspension of penalties for one year for those schools and districts that, through no fault of their own, are being set up for potential failure because of bureaucratic logistical problems. This will give the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Federal Government ample time to address the testing situation effectively for the 2007-2008 school year. I would like to submit for the Record several letters expressing support for this legislation. The first letter is from Governor Kaine. The second letter is from Dr. Billy Cannady, the Superintendent of Public Instruction in Virginia; the third letter is from Dr. Mark Emblidge, President of the Virginia Board of Education; and the fourth letter is from the Virginia School Boards Association. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, may I say the distinguished Senator from Kentucky is exactly right. I am doing my very best, in consultation with Senator Nelson and other Members, to try to prepare this document. It is now in draft form. I would hope it could be concluded very shortly. So I plead guilty to the facts, and I apologize to the distinguished leader.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the superb contribution of the thousands of men and women deployed in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. The following e-mail, forwarded to my office by family members of a naval officer serving in Iraq is indicative of the fighting spirit and considerable sacrifice that members of the armed services are making on a daily basis. We owe all of these men and women a tremendous debt of gratitude for their outstanding service. This officer's perspective is most deserving of being considered by the American public. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the e-mail to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to provide some relief for our Nation's retired Federal employees from the severe increases in Federal Employee Health Benefit program (FEHBP) premiums. This measure extends premium conversion to Federal and military retirees, allowing them to pay their health insurance premiums with pre-tax dollars. Access to affordable health care is a critical issue for everyone. While Federal employees enjoy the ability to choose among a wide variety of health plans to best suit their needs, substantial increases in FEHBP premiums threaten to make health insurance coverage cost prohibitive for many Federal employees, their dependents, and Federal retirees. In response to these cost increases, a Presidential directive issued in 2000 extended premium conversion to current Federal employees who participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Premium conversion allows individuals to pay their health insurance premiums with pre-tax dollars. It is a benefit already available to many private sector employees and State and local government employees. While premium conversion does not directly affect the amount of the FEHBP premium, it helps to offset some of the cost by reducing an individual's Federal tax liability. Regrettably, our retired civil servants, who pay the same premiums as Federal employees, do not have this same opportunity. Extending this benefit to Federal retirees requires a change in the tax law, specifically Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code. This legislation makes the necessary change in the tax code. Under the legislation, the benefit is concurrently afforded to our Nation's military retirees to assist them with increasing health care costs. A number of organizations representing Federal and military retirees, including the National Association of Retired Federal Employees and the Military Coalition, have come out strongly in support of this bill. My support for this legislation spans four Congresses. In the 109th Congress, my premium conversion bill received considerable bipartisan support with 64 cosponsors. It is my sincere hope that this legislation will be passed by Congress this session. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this critical legislation and to show their support for our Nation's dedicated Federal civilian and military retirees. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to provide some relief for our Nation's retired Federal employees from the severe increases in Federal Employee Health Benefit program (FEHBP) premiums. This measure extends premium conversion to Federal and military retirees, allowing them to pay their health insurance premiums with pre-tax dollars. Access to affordable health care is a critical issue for everyone. While Federal employees enjoy the ability to choose among a wide variety of health plans to best suit their needs, substantial increases in FEHBP premiums threaten to make health insurance coverage cost prohibitive for many Federal employees, their dependents, and Federal retirees. In response to these cost increases, a Presidential directive issued in 2000 extended premium conversion to current Federal employees who participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Premium conversion allows individuals to pay their health insurance premiums with pre-tax dollars. It is a benefit already available to many private sector employees and State and local government employees. While premium conversion does not directly affect the amount of the FEHBP premium, it helps to offset some of the cost by reducing an individual's Federal tax liability. Regrettably, our retired civil servants, who pay the same premiums as Federal employees, do not have this same opportunity. Extending this benefit to Federal retirees requires a change in the tax law, specifically Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code. This legislation makes the necessary change in the tax code. Under the legislation, the benefit is concurrently afforded to our Nation's military retirees to assist them with increasing health care costs. A number of organizations representing Federal and military retirees, including the National Association of Retired Federal Employees and the Military Coalition, have come out strongly in support of this bill. My support for this legislation spans four Congresses. In the 109th Congress, my premium conversion bill received considerable bipartisan support with 64 cosponsors. It is my sincere hope that this legislation will be passed by Congress this session. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this critical legislation and to show their support for our Nation's dedicated Federal civilian and military retirees. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to join the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Joe Lieberman, in introducing legislation to designate the historic route undertaken by General George Washington and General Jean-Baptiste de Rochambeau to trap the British army at Yorktown, VA, as a national historic trail. This proposed national historic trail traces the 600-mile route that French troops under the command of General Jean-Baptiste de Rochambeau took from Newport, RI, to Yorktown, VA, during the Revolutionary War. American troops under the command of General George Washington joined the French force outside of New York City and, later that year, on October 17, the combined armies defeated British General Charles Cornwallis at Yorktown with the help of the French fleet commanded by Admiral Francois de Grasse. This historic trail would celebrate the Franco-American alliance and the heroic effort undertaken by these two great nations to ensure American independence. Led by their courageous and brilliant leaders, Generals Washington and Rochambeau, these two armies changed the course of history with their victory over the British at Yorktown. This national historic trail would recognize this historic route and educate the public at large about the contributions of these men and their armies. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation, and I thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Washington- Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail Designation Act.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to join the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Joe Lieberman, in introducing legislation to designate the historic route undertaken by General George Washington and General Jean-Baptiste de Rochambeau to trap the British army at Yorktown, VA, as a national historic trail. This proposed national historic trail traces the 600-mile route that French troops under the command of General Jean-Baptiste de Rochambeau took from Newport, RI, to Yorktown, VA, during the Revolutionary War. American troops under the command of General George Washington joined the French force outside of New York City and, later that year, on October 17, the combined armies defeated British General Charles Cornwallis at Yorktown with the help of the French fleet commanded by Admiral Francois de Grasse. This historic trail would celebrate the Franco-American alliance and the heroic effort undertaken by these two great nations to ensure American independence. Led by their courageous and brilliant leaders, Generals Washington and Rochambeau, these two armies changed the course of history with their victory over the British at Yorktown. This national historic trail would recognize this historic route and educate the public at large about the contributions of these men and their armies. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation, and I thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Washington- Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail Designation Act.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I have been privileged to be a Member of the Senate now in my 29th year. Never have I stood in the Senate and in any way impugned the integrity of any Senator to speak as she or he believes from their own heart about what is right. I have never tried to challenge the patriotism of any Senator as they express their views. I say to my colleagues, I entered this debate simply because I feel the Senate of the United States of America, an institute revered throughout the world, should have the right to go forward and debate this critical issue before America today, before the whole world. Over a week ago, I voted against cloture to support the rights of all colleagues to be heard. That issue has been back and forth between our two leaders now for some weeks. We have come to the point in time when we must move forward. The only vehicle for those who wish to have this institution move forward and fulfill its goal is to move, today, to vote for cloture. I shall cast that vote, not with a heavy heart but with a heart that I think I am doing right for the integrity of this institution. I have joined with my good friend Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Collins, and the other cosponsors, Senator Hagel, Senator Snowe, Senator Coleman, Senator Voinovich, and Senator Smith, all of whom, once again, signed onto this amendment, referred to as the Warner-Nelson-Collins amendment. We do so because we only wish to express a measure of disagreement on one basic point--an important one--with our President. The United States Congress is an independent branch of our Government. We are, as we often say, a coequal branch of our Government. We have the right to respectfully disagree. And we do so in our language. We support the President on the diplomatic aspects of his plan. We support the President on the economic aspects of his plan announced on the 10th of January. We only disagree with one portion of it: Madam President, do you need 21,500 additional men and women of the Armed Forces in this conflict-- indeed, it is more than that, as was testified before the Armed Services Committee the other day--to go into the streets and the alleys of Baghdad and to face an enemy which is largely today fighting a sectarian war? This country gave an enormous sacrifice of life and limb to give Iraq its sovereignty. It is the duty of the Iraqi Armed Forces to take on the sectarian fighting. The American GI does not know the language, does not know the historic background of over 1,400 years of dispute between the Sunni and Shia. And we have trained over 300,000 Iraqi forces. Why not give those forces the responsibility to take on this fight? Our resolution in no way has anything to do with the cutoff of funds. Senators stand up and castigate our resolution and claim it will cutoff funding. It will not cutoff funding to our troops. It supports the President. It supports the present level of all the troops throughout Iraq. It simply says: Mr. President, are there not alternatives other than using the American GI to put down this sectarian violence? Madam President, I do hope, as we pursue this, we respect one another and our rights in this institution because I feel ever so strongly that our resolution supports the President economically, supports the President diplomatically, states that the President is correct, and clearly states that we cannot let this battle be lost and let the Iraqi Government collapse. We do not wish to see the people of Iraq denied the sovereignty that our blood, sweat, and toil have given them. We stand by the President on that. We simply say: Mr. President, this particular battle in Baghdad is best fought by the Iraqis. I regret to say that a New York Times article--and I asked this in open testimony before the Armed Services Committee a day or so ago to the Chief of Staff of the Army and to the Commandant of the Marine Corps--the accuracy of this report, that in the most recent battle there were 2,500 Americans and 200 Iraqi security forces. That is contrary to what the President said. He said the Iraqis will take the point in this battle. The President also said the Iraqis will bear the burden in this battle, and we would be there in support. This is not support. We are fighting that battle. Again, this morning, I watched a report, presented by a U.S. general from Iraq, who stated that progress is being made in the battle in Iraq. Time and time again--he referred to the American forces making progress. He referred only to the United States forces fighting that battle, with no reference to the Iraqi forces. That is my point. That is why I steadfastly take this floor and respectfully disagree with the President. I will vote for the Gregg amendment. As a matter of fact, the Gregg amendment is in the Warner amendment.

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: At the hour of 1:30, is there an order for another Senator to be recognized?