John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I shall be joined by a number of colleagues and the purpose of our taking this time is as follows: We have decided to put in an amendment to H.J. Res. 20, amendment number 259 which will be printed in today's record. This amendment mirrors S. Con. Res. 7, a resolution prepared by myself and others sometime last week, which expresses certain concerns we have with regard to the President's plan as announced on January 10 of this year. This amendment, to H.J. Res. 20 is cosponsored by Mr. Levin, Ms. Collins, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Hagel, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Smith, Mr. Biden, and as other Senators return to town, we may have further cosponsors. We are concerned that the fighting rages on throughout Iraq, and particularly in Baghdad. It is very important that the Senate should, as the greatest deliberative body--certainly in matters of war and peace--in a prompt way address the issues regarding Iraq. Our men and women in the Armed Forces are fighting bravely in that conflict, as they are in conflicts elsewhere worldwide. Our concerns are heartfelt, not driven by political motivation. As we gathered as a group in the past 2 weeks to work on this, we took note of the fact that the President, on January 10, in his message to the Nation explicitly said that others could come forward with their ideas. I will paraphrase it--the exact quote is in the amendment we are putting in today--that he would take into consideration the views of others. So in a very constructive and a respectful way, our group said we disagreed with the President and we gave a series of points urging him to consider those points as he begins to implement such plan as finally devised throughout Iraq but most specifically in Baghdad. We are very respectful of the fact that the plan put in by the President was in three parts: a diplomatic part, an economic part, and a military part. We explicitly stated in the resolution our support for the diplomatic and economic parts, and we are hopeful it can be put together in a timely fashion. There is some concern as to whether the three main parts can progress together, unified, in this operation, given the short timetable to implement it. So two parts of the program we wholeheartedly support and so state in this amendment. The concern is about the military section. We state the explicit nature of our concerns. Some Senators have suggested the resolution expresses matters which I can find no source whatsoever in the resolution for those complaints. Nevertheless, I will address in the course of this time each and every one of those concerns. Indeed, on the weekend talk shows, one Senator said: My problem with the Warner proposal and others that criticize the surge is, what is your plan? All right. That is a legitimate question. I say that our amendment states a clear strategy. It says as follows: The Senate believes the United States should continue vigorous operations in Anbar Province specifically for the purpose of combating an insurgency including elements associated with the al-Qaida movement and denying terrorists a safe haven. Secondly, the primary objective of the overall strategy in Iraq should be to encourage Iraqi leaders to make political compromises that will foster reconciliation and strengthen the unity government, ultimately leading to improvements in the security situation. Next, the military part of the strategy should focus on maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq, denying international terrorists a safe haven, conducting counterterrorism operations, promoting regional stability, supporting the Iraqi efforts to bring greater security to Baghdad, and training and equipping Iraqi forces to take full responsibility for their own security. Likewise, another part of our amendment states: The United States military operations should, as much as possible, be confined to these goals and should charge the Iraqi military with the primary mission of combating sectarian violence. The United States Government should engage selected nations in the Middle East to develop a regional, internationally sponsored peace and reconciliation process. Overall, military, diplomatic, and economic strategies should not be regarded as an open-ended or unconditional commitment, but rather, as a new strategy, hereafter should be conditioned upon the Iraqi government meeting benchmarks that must be delivered in writing and agreed to by the Prime Minister. Then we spell out a series of benchmarks. Such benchmarks should include, but not be limited to, the deployment of that number of additional Iraqi security forces as specified in the plan in Baghdad, ensuring equitable distribution of resources of the Government of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of recipients, enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that the oil resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner, and the authority of the Iraqi commanders to make tactical and operational decisions without political intervention. Further, some Senators have indicated, again incorrectly, that our resolution either fails to recognize, or disagrees with all aspects of the President's plan, namely the political and economic aspects, in addition to the military part of his plan. In fact, our resolution acknowledges directly that the President's plan is multi-faceted. Our resolution states, whereas, on January 10, 2007, following consultations with the Iraqi Prime Minister, the President announced a new strategy, which consists of three basic elements: diplomatic, economic, and military. As such, our resolution disagrees only with the military aspect of the President's plan, and actually supports the diplomatic and economic aspects of his plan. Finally, some Senators have suggested that our resolution either fails to support the troops, or threatens a cut-off in funding. Actually, our resolution does neither. It states forcefully our support for the troops: whereas, over 137,000 American military personnel are currently serving in Iraq, like thousands of others since March 2003, with the bravery and professionalism consistent with the finest traditions of the United States Armed Forces, and are deserving of our support of all Americans, which they have strongly; whereas, many American service personnel have lost their lives, and many more have been wounded, in Iraq, and the American people will always honor their sacrifices and honor their families. And our resolution, specifically protects funding for our troops in the field and states: the Congress should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as such an action with respect to funding would undermine their safety or harm their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions. In sum, our resolution aims not to contravene the Constitutional authorities as Commander-in-Chief, but, rather, to accept the offer to Congress made by the President on January 10, 2007 that, ``if members have improvements that can be made, we will make them. If circumstances change, we will adjust.'' It is clear that the United States' strategy and operations in Iraq can only be sustained and achieved with support from the American people and with a level of bipartisanship in Congress. The purpose of this resolution is not to cut our forces or to set a timetable for withdrawal, but, rather, to express the genuine concerns of a number of Senators from both parties about the President's plan. It is not meant to be confrontational, but instead to provide a sense of bipartisanship resolve on our new strategy in Iraq. It follows many of the conclusions of the Baker-Hamilton report by focusing on what is truly in our national interest in Iraq, and spells those goals out in detail. I want to divide our time between colleagues. I will ask at this time that the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Hagel, be recognized and that, following his comments, I shall be recognized again to give the remainder of my remarks. I say on a personal note to the Senator how much I valued our conversation over the weekend, together with our distinguished colleague from Maine, after which we decided today to put the language of S. Con. Res. 7 in as an amendment to the pending matter before the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that very point?

Mr. WARNER. We had in our discussions, and Senator Collins joined in this discussion--that we could not conceive--and that I, this Senator from Virginia, could ever participate in a cutoff-of-funding in regards to this situation in Iraq. But back to historical precedents. I have this volume, the ``Encyclopedia of the United States Congress,'' compiled by 20 eminent historians in 1995. And on this subject that the Senator addressed, they said the following: Another informal power of the Congress in the foreign policy field is the passage of resolutions by the House or the Senate, often called a sense-of-the-House or sense-of- the-Senate resolution. Although not legally enforceable, such resolutions are often taken seriously by the President and his foreign policy advisers because they are useful indicators of underlying public concern about important foreign policy questions. Moreover, as a general rule, the White House wants to maintain cooperative relations with the Congress and to give legislators the impression that their views have been heard and have been taken into account in policy formulation. Clear documentation of the Senator's points in this very erudite resource of the history of the Congress. I thank the Senator.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before the Senator leaves the floor, I have another point of history. I find this fascinating. I hope, hereafter, colleagues, pundits, and writers will at least recognize that, and I repeat it. Senate Historian documents confirm the Senate has been posing sense-of-the-Senate resolutions since 1789. Thus, our Framers of the Constitution and those who served in the early Congresses recognized the value of this type of resolution. I yield the floor. I thank my distinguished colleague from Maine, again, for her steadfast support and advice throughout this entire process today, tomorrow, and well into the future.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our colleague. I wonder if I could ask our colleague a question before she departs? She made reference to her trip and the discussions that she had with the senior commanders. I would like to bring to her attention testimony that came before our committee, of which the distinguished Senator from Maine is a member, at which time we heard from the Commander of the United States Central Command, General Abizaid. In the course of his testimony to Congress on November 15, 2006-- right in the timeframe the Senator made her trip--I will quote him, General Abizaid. The general said: I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, Corps Commander, and General Dempsey--we all talked together. And I said, ``In your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq?'' And they all said no. And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future. I say to my colleague, that quote captured my own visit, which was just barely a month before that, when I came back and I described in my public comments that the situation in Iraq was drifting sideways. That was a very serious summary. But I said it because I felt obligated to our troops who were fighting bravely and courageously and with a level of professionalism that equals the finest hour in the 200- plus-year history of our military--and the support their families give them. I felt ever so strongly that we were obligated as a country to reexamine our strategy and I called for that reexamination of strategy and it has been done. But I say to my colleague, General Abizaid's summary about the need for more forces, does that not summarize what you learned on your trip?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our colleague. I wonder if at this point in the colloquy--and then I will yield the floor because I know other Senators are anxious to speak--but we, the United States, the military, and the taxpayers have trained and equipped over 300,000 Iraqi security forces composed of the professional Army, police, border security, and a group of others. The thrust of our resolution originally, and this one that is here, the amendment which is identical, was to give the Iraqis this opportunity, which the Prime Minister himself called for. He said: Give us the opportunity to show that we can do this operation. That is the basis on which we drew up the resolution. And in our resolution we said two things: The responsibility for Iraq's internal security and halting sectarian violence must rest primarily with the Government of Iraq and Iraqi security forces. Then, specifically we said in the conclusion: The United States military operations should, as much as possible, be confined to the goals that are enumerated in the previous paragraph and should charge--I repeat--charge the Iraqi military with the primary mission of combating sectarian violence, and that is in the Baghdad operation. So I think those facts, our resolution, now referred to as an amendment, absolutely parallels what we learned firsthand on our trips into that region. Mr. President, I see other Senators are waiting. I see the distinguished senior Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague from Maine.

Mr. WARNER. I ask for 2 minutes.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator from Maine. The Senator mentioned the bipartisan spirit. I am very pleased to state that Senator Levin, whom I spoke with this afternoon, Senator Ben Nelson, who has been with us steadily on this, and Senator Biden allowed with very extensive enthusiasm to have their names attached as cosponsors. I thank my colleagues who have come over and participated in this debate and others who have listened. I thank the distinguished Senator, my good friend from Nebraska, for working so hard on this amendment. We will fight on. We may be idealists, but we will fight on for what we believe in and the integrity of this institution because we firmly believe, to the extent we can, forging a bipartisan consensus is the extent to which we can hopefully regain the full confidence of the American people on what we are doing in Iraq. I agree with the President, we should not let it slip into a chaotic situation, but we do have some different constructive thoughts as to our strategy ahead. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask the two managers, is it possible that the Senator from Virginia could get 2, 3 minutes at most to speak?

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer. I thank the two managers of this very important nomination. Mr. President, I have the deepest respect for my colleague, Senator McCain. We have an association that goes back some 30 years. It is not often we are on different sides of an issue. I wish to respect Senator McCain's evaluation of a military officer. I think probably he is as well qualified as anyone in this Chamber to speak to those critical issues. I bring a different perspective to this nomination. There is going to be, clearly, a division of thought as to General Casey and his role as the senior officer in charge of our combat missions in Iraq. But I wish to clearly say that throughout the history of the United States, the doctrine is civilian control over the military. True, we hold accountable, as best we can, those who we feel have not carried out their responsibilities in the best interests of the country. I believe the accountability of General Casey has been spoken to by the general himself. He recognizes mistakes were made, and I think he accepted that level of accountability he, as a military officer, had. But, indeed, it is the civilians above him, if there is greater wrong, who should be held accountable. Second, I think of the institution of the U.S. Army. The Chief of Staff is the very pinnacle of the military service, and those nominations are exceedingly carefully thought out from the President on down through the Department of Defense before a nomination goes forward. I was privileged for some many years to serve as the Navy Secretary and witness the careful process that went through selecting a chief of service. I was personally involved in two of those processes for the U.S. Navy. So I say to my colleagues, do take into consideration the differing views of Senator McCain and others eminently qualified to assess this nomination, but I believe this nomination was carefully thought through at all levels. It represents the institution of the U.S. Army, and they have to take pride in their senior Chief of Staff. I believe that General Casey, when one looks at the entirety of the record, is deserving of the support of colleagues in the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join my many colleagues today in recognizing this remarkable achievement of my longtime friend, Thad Cochran, who has crossed the threshold of casting 10,000 rollcall votes in the U.S. Senate. In the over 200-year history of the Senate, only 28 Senators have reached this historic milestone. Thad and I both are privileged to be 2 of the 28. Thad and I were first elected to the Senate in 1978, and we are the only remaining Republican Senators of the class. He was sworn in 4 days prior to my taking the oath of office; and, consequently, he is senior to me. I have always dutifully acknowledged that seniority. Colleagues have extolled his extraordinary record, and I shall not add further to his wonderful chapter of public service to Mississippi and our Nation. I have, however, a most unique, unlike any other Senator, reason to have the highest regard for this wonderful man. For an extensive period in my life, over 20 years, I was a bachelor. There was a tragic loss of a life in our community--Belle Haven--of a man greatly admired and respected by all. I was privileged to have a friendship with this man. Thad helped his family and widow in the wake of that tragedy. There came a time in the years that followed that loss when I said to Thad, you know, this widow is someone I admire greatly, could I be of help, for I am making little or no progress whatsoever in gaining her attention. Being very protective, he allowed he would--in his own good time--try to draw his friend's attention to me. And I am so grateful today to have my extraordinary wife, Jeanne, who as you well know, loves you dearly.

Mr. WARNER. I don't know that I would be standing here today, given my wayward ways in life, had it not been for Thad Cochran and this wonderful lady who cares for me now. So, Thad, I wish you well. What the future holds for both of us remains to be seen. But I am proud to be counted among your most devoted friends. As one describes you, I would say you reflect all the qualities a Senator should have--but foremost among them, is always your calm dignity. I yield the floor. I yield the floor. (Applause.)

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today with a deep sense of sadness, I wish to speak in honor of a wonderful man, Jacob N. Perkins--a former staff assistant in my office, who passed away on February 5, 2007. Although ``Jake'' worked for me some time ago--in 1990 and 1991--he remained a key part of what I like to call the extended Warner staff family. Jake first came to my office as a summer intern from Virginia Tech University. From day one, he impressed all of us with his profound work ethic, his absolute dedication and loyalty, his keen interest in government and politics, and his generosity of spirit. In fact, Jake was such an impressive young man that, after his internship, he was hired on as a member of my permanent staff to serve as my chief mail clerk. He always carried out his responsibilities in an exemplary fashion, giving 150 percent of effort each and every day. Upon leaving my office, Jake returned to Virginia Tech to finish his undergraduate work. In 1994, he received his bachelor's degree in political science, compiling nearly a 4.0 average his final 2 years of school. After graduating at Virginia Tech, Jake attended law school at the University of Maryland in Baltimore. Through all the time that has passed, Jake has remained a steadfast friend of my office, supporting my campaigns and projects whenever possible and maintaining warm and important friendships with current and former staff members. Indeed, only this past Christmas, he was the principal organizer of our annual staff alumni luncheon. In recent years, Jake began to have significant health problems. His passing away this past Monday at the early age of 37, reportedly due to kidney transplant complications, is a tragedy. Jake was a remarkable man in so many ways. For one, you would never have known he was ill, not even for a day. He was the type of man who never complained, who was always upbeat, and who continuously looked out for his friends and family. He was an avid Virginia Tech sports fan, an unfailing fan of the New York Yankees, and always eager to enjoy a game of golf with his friends. Jake had a tremendous community presence in his home of Poolesville, MD. From his leadership role in the local Chamber of Commerce, to organizing and serving as chair of ``Poolesville Day'' in honor of his beloved community, to helping coach youth basketball teams, to serving as an announcer at local school sporting events, Jake's dedication to community service exemplified the motto of his alma-mater, Virginia Tech: Ut Prosim--that I may serve. Jake Perkins was a big man with a big presence. The biggest thing about him, however, was his heart. He will be greatly missed by this Senator and many Warner staff members past and present. My sincere condolences go out to his dear mother, Mrs. Ellen Perkins of Poolesville, MD, and his brother and sister-in-law, Michael and Shoshana Perkins. We thank you for the gift of Jake's friendship in our lives. We will miss him, but we are forever grateful for the time we had with him. Jake Perkins will always be remembered.

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, during the course of the afternoon, a group of Republican Senators have been meeting, including our final meeting with our distinguished Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, and our assistant Republican leader, Senator Lott. We now have a letter signed by seven Senators: myself, Senator Collins, Senator Smith, Senator Voinovich, Senator Snowe, Senator Hagel, and Senator Coleman. The letter is addressed to our two Republican leaders and to the distinguished majority leader, Senator Reid, and the assistant majority leader, Senator Durbin. I would like to now read the text of the letter to place it into the Record: Dear Leaders: The war in Iraq is the most pressing issue of our time. It urgently deserves the attention of the full Senate and a full debate on the Senate floor without delay. We respectfully advise you, our leaders, that we intend to take S. Con. Res. 7 and offer it, where possible, under the Standing Rules of the Senate, to bills coming before the Senate. On January 10, 2007, the President stated, with respect to his Iraq strategy, ``if Members have improvements that can be made, we will make them. If circumstances change, we will adjust.'' In a conscientious, respectful way, we offered our resolution consistent with the President's statement. We strongly believe the Senate should be allowed to work its will on our resolution as well as on the concepts brought forward by other Senators. Monday's procedural vote should not be interpreted as any lessening of our resolve to go forward advocating the concepts of S. Con. Res. 7. We will explore all of our options under the Senate procedures and practices to ensure a full and open debate on the Senate floor. The current stalemate is unacceptable to us and to the people of this country. Mr. President, for reference purposes, a copy of S. Con. Res. 7 is printed in the Record of Monday, February 5, 2007 at page 51556. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I was, unfortunately, engaged in a briefing in S. 407 on the most recent NIE, and I have just come down to join my colleagues on the Senate floor and I caught some portions of the debate. But I would like to say to my colleagues that the Senator from Virginia, together with probably six or eight other Republicans, has been discussing this issue very carefully and thoughtfully and respectfully. Frankly, we have taken to heart what the President said when he addressed the Nation on January 10. His very words were: ``If there are those with ideas, we will consider them.'' We accept that invitation by our President and have tried in a very respectful way to simply state that we have some serious concern with the level of 21,500 additional troops. Now we learn it could even be larger than that, in testimony, open testimony this morning with the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. It could be 3,000 or 4,000 more. We tried in a very respectful way simply to express our concerns about an increase of that level at a time when polls show most of the Iraqi people don't want us there, much less increase the force. Now, I am not following the polls, but we are asking our troops to go into a very heated, emotional situation in that country. We simply said to the President: Shouldn't we put more emphasis on the utilization of the Iraqi forces? Shouldn't we let them bear the brunt of such additional security as must go into Baghdad? We learned this morning that the efforts to build up the forces have fallen short. I am not going to pronounce judgment on what happened on just 2 or 3 days' reporting, but clearly the number of Iraqis showing up is far below the estimates or significantly below the estimates we anticipated their participation would be in this operation which, in many respects, is to be joint. We talked with General Pace this morning about my concern of this concept of joint command and control. He assured us the American forces would have a linear straight line from an American senior officer right down to the sergeants operating the platoons on the front lines. But nevertheless the Iraqis are going to have their chain of command, and I think that puts a challenge to us. But I don't want to digress from my main point. Our group, in a conscientious and a respectful way, even wrote into the resolution that we in no way contest the right of the President of the United States under the Constitution to take the actions he has taken thus far and will take. But as long as I have been in this Chamber--now in my 29th year--I have always tried to respect another Senator's way of thinking. I don't question his integrity or her integrity or their patriotism or anything else. I do not do that now. I wish to make my points based on what I have put forth in this resolution with about six other Republican colleagues and a number of Democrats. We simply want to suggest--and we use the word ``urge''--we urge you, Mr. President, not ``direct you'' or ``you shall do this,'' we simply urge that you take into consideration all the options by which you can bring down this level and consider greater utilization of the Iraqi forces. Then we have the subsidiary question that this program is in three parts--one part military. So much of our focus has been on that. There is a diplomatic part. There is an economic part. In our testimony today with the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman, we stressed the need for all three of those parts to come together at one time to have the effect that the President desires with his new plan. Somehow, we gained the impression today that maybe the political part and perhaps the economic part are not quite as far along as some of the military thinking and planning. Actually, the troops are moving in as we debate this on the Senate floor. So there were several questions we respectfully raised with the President, urging him to take a look at this, by means of which to lessen--lessen the total number of 21,500 and, indeed, more now-- troops. We also point out the importance of the benchmarks. That is all in there. We carefully lay out that the benchmarks should be clearly and fully understood by both sides and a method put in place by which we can assess the compliance or noncompliance for those benchmarks. The Secretary of Defense today, in his testimony to us, in response to questions from this Senator and others, said: Yes, we will put in a mechanism by which to evaluate the degree to which the Iraqi compliance is taken with respect to benchmarks, the benchmarks that basically have to support the President's plan. In addition, we put in the resolution of the Senator from New Hampshire. I think it is important that we have an expression in here about the non-cutoff of funds. So our resolution has been presented to try as best we can to put together right here on the floor of the Senate a bipartisan consensus. I think the American public is entitled to see whether the Senate, an institution that is followed throughout the world, can come together and express in a single document--accompanied by lots of debate but in a single document--a joinder of a number of Republicans and a number of Democrats, so it is truly bipartisan, and therefore the American public will get, I think, the sense of confidence that this body is carrying out its responsibility under the Constitution to speak to this issue and to put onto a piece of paper what we think is the nearest a group of us can gather and express ourselves. And that includes a vote. I am not going to enter into further debate with the two leaders. I think they are trying to work out and resolve this problem. I support my leader with respect to the cloture, and that raises a question: How can I advocate that I strongly adhere to my resolution and at the same time support my leader? Well, when I first came to this Chamber many years ago, the old-time Senators who taught me so many lessons said: This is what separates the Senate from the House--the ability to have this almost unlimited debate by a single Senator. And it is, throughout the history of this institution, one of its revered tenets and its rules. To take that and deny it, deny Senators the ability to bring up their own resolutions to express their own views, is a curtailment that I believe we should consider long and hard. That is why I cast that vote yesterday. So I leave it to the two leaders, but I come back again to the need for this great institution to express itself through the votes of hopefully a significant number of Senators, that this is what we believe is the best course of action for our Nation to take as we revise our strategy in Iraq, as we move ahead. And in our resolution, we put in there ever so expressly that we agree with the President; it would be disastrous were we to allow this Government to collapse not knowing what government might or might not take their place, and to allow the Iraqi people to lose the ground they gained through courageous votes several times to put this Government together. It would be bad for Iraq, it would be bad for the region, and it could have ramifications on world peace and our efforts to stem this terrible growth of terrorism worldwide. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support, once again, of America's teachers by joining with Senator Collins in introducing legislation regarding the Teacher Tax Relief Act. Senator Collins and I have worked closely for some time now in support of legislation to provide our teachers with tax relief in recognition of the many out-of-pocket expenses they incur as part of their profession. In the 107th Congress, we were successful in providing much needed tax relief for our Nation's teachers with passage of H.R. 3090, the ``Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002.'' This legislation, which was signed into law by President Bush, included the Collins/Warner ``Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2001'' provisions that provided a $250 above the line deduction for educators who incur out-of-pocket expenses for supplies they bring into the classroom to better the education of their students. These important provisions provided almost half a billion dollars worth of tax relief to teachers all across America in 2002 and 2003. In the 108th Congress we were able to successfully extend the provisions of the Teacher Tax Relief Act for 2004 and 2005. In the 109th Congress we were able to successfully extend the provisions for 2006 and 2007. While these provisions will provide substantial relief to America's teachers, our work is not yet complete. It is now estimated that the average teacher spends $826 out of their own pocket each year on classroom materials--materials such as pens, pencils and books. First year teachers spend even more. Why do they do this? Simply because school budgets are not adequate to meet the costs of education. Our teachers dip into their own pocket to better the education of America's youth. Moreover, in addition to spending substantial money on classroom supplies, many teachers spend even more money out of their own pocket on professional development. Such expenses include tuition, fees, books, and supplies associated with courses that help our teachers become even better instructors. The fact is that these out-of-pocket costs place lasting financial burdens on our teachers. This is one reason our teachers are leaving the profession. Little wonder that our country is in the midst of a teacher shortage. Without a doubt the Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2001 took a step forward in helping to alleviate the Nation's teaching shortage by providing a $250 above the line deduction for classroom expenses. However, it is clear that our teachers are spending much more than $250 a year out of their own pocket to better the education of our children. Accordingly, Senator Collins and I have joined together to take another step forward by introducing this legislation. This proposed legislation will build upon current law in three ways. The legislation will: One, increase the above-the-line deduction, as President Bush has called for, from $250 allowed under current law to $400; two, allow educators to include professional development costs within that $400 deduction. Under current law, up to $250 is deductible but only for classroom expenses; and three, make the Teacher Tax Relief provisions in the law permanent. Current law sunsets the Collins/Warner provisions after 2007. Our teachers have made a personal commitment to educate the next generation and to strengthen America. And, in my view, the Federal Government should recognize the many sacrifices our teachers make in their career. This Teacher Tax Relief Act is another step forward in providing our educators with the recognition they deserve.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object, I inquire, at what point can other Senators speak? I presume at the conclusion of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia; is that correct?

Mr. WARNER. Might I make that a unanimous consent, that I can be recognized following the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for 10 minutes?

Mr. WARNER. All right. That is fine. And I notice the presence of the assistant Republican leader, so I would want to accommodate the assistant Republican leader. At some point, I am just asking, as a matter of courtesy, at what time may I speak? The Senator from Maine, Senator Hagel--there are several Members who would like to speak. If the Chair could help us, recognizing the leadership precedes.

Mr. WARNER. Could I then ask unanimous consent at the appropriate time that the Senator from Virginia be recognized for 10 minutes, the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Nebraska for 10 minutes?

Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object, could then the three colleagues I have mentioned--myself, Senator Collins, and Senator Hagel--follow the distinguished Senator from New York?

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object, if we can have one thing clarified. Under that time agreement, if we come to 4 o'clock, does that eclipse the ability of the Senator from Virginia to speak, the Senator from Maine to speak, the Senator from Nebraska to speak? Perhaps the two Senators from Nebraska wish to speak.

Mr. WARNER. Yes.