John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. And what time might the promise be executed?

Mr. WARNER. I will be glad to give you my copy, but I feel it is presumptuous of me to address it unless it is properly before the Senate.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, clearly what is read is correct. But I assure you that I forcefully argue that ours is in support of the troops. There is no suggestion that one is less patriotic than the other, if I may say to my dear friend.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, before the Senator yields, I would like to associate myself with his remarks. I, too, have confidence in our leadership being able to work this out accordingly. No matter how strongly I feel about my resolution, I shall vote with our distinguished leader on this issue and hope he can reconcile the differences.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President. I rise to introduce the Green Buildings Act of 2007. This bill is intended to continue the hard work of our former colleague from Vermont, Senator Jim Jeffords, and would place an emphasis on energy efficient and healthy building environments. In the opening weeks of this 110th Congress we have seen a significant focus on the future energy security and environmental health of our Nation and indeed the world. Much attention has been paid to the issue of global climate change and it is my firm belief that not only are the energy and environmental challenges that we face today varied, but that our solutions must be multi-faceted. In order to meet the rising demands of a growing world population and its expanding economies, we need to address the way we create energy, conserve energy, and preserve the environment. Green Buildings are structures that are designed and built with energy-efficient and renewable materials to conserve energy and environmental resources. These buildings last longer, use less energy, and promote a healthier environment for those who may work or live in them. Green buildings have reduced electricity, heating, and cooling requirements; use less water; and may even use renewable sources of water and electricity. Recent volatility in energy costs and constraints on the electricity grid in much of the U.S. have led developers to explore the potential economic benefits of these efficient buildings as well. It is my belief that green buildings will become a significant contributor to America's energy conservation efforts and that is why I am introducing this bill today. The proposal I offer today is one small step in the right direction and draws upon a bill approved by the Environment and Public Works Committee in 2006. The federal government is already setting an example in energy efficiency under the leadership of the White House and Department of Energy. This bill will take the next step and create an office within the General Services Administration (GSA) to oversee green building initiatives within the Federal Government and provide support for information to State and local governments as well as the private sector. With almost 9,000 buildings and 340 million square feet of space, the GSA has the experience and expertise to manage this effort for the Federal Government. The Office of Green Buildings at the GSA will be advised by a Green Buildings Council to be comprised of Federal, State, local, and private sector participants to establish guidelines and create resources for public and private builders across the country. It is my hope that the use of green buildings in the Federal real estate portfolio will contribute to increased health of the public, productivity of work, and conservation of energy. While some portions of the private sector have caught on to the many benefits of green or ``sustainable design,'' this bill's establishment of grants through the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) to assist school systems in their school construction efforts will bring these benefits to the places our children spend so much of their time and the facilities that consume a significant amount of energy in our communities. In addition to grants to school systems, the bill would create an indoor air quality program for Federal buildings, encourage incentives for Federal agencies, and authorize research and demonstration projects in each of the four climatic regions of the United States. The bill is modest in scope, authorizing $50 million over 5 years to begin this most important effort in the Federal Government. I know many of you share in my desire to advance our Nation's conservation agenda. Indeed, many have supported the efforts of our recently retired colleague from Vermont and have your own ideas. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and on the Environment and Public Works Committee as we move this proposal forward. Green Buildings will be a significant part of our country's energy and environmental future and this bill will help us in that effort.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President. I rise to introduce the Green Buildings Act of 2007. This bill is intended to continue the hard work of our former colleague from Vermont, Senator Jim Jeffords, and would place an emphasis on energy efficient and healthy building environments. In the opening weeks of this 110th Congress we have seen a significant focus on the future energy security and environmental health of our Nation and indeed the world. Much attention has been paid to the issue of global climate change and it is my firm belief that not only are the energy and environmental challenges that we face today varied, but that our solutions must be multi-faceted. In order to meet the rising demands of a growing world population and its expanding economies, we need to address the way we create energy, conserve energy, and preserve the environment. Green Buildings are structures that are designed and built with energy-efficient and renewable materials to conserve energy and environmental resources. These buildings last longer, use less energy, and promote a healthier environment for those who may work or live in them. Green buildings have reduced electricity, heating, and cooling requirements; use less water; and may even use renewable sources of water and electricity. Recent volatility in energy costs and constraints on the electricity grid in much of the U.S. have led developers to explore the potential economic benefits of these efficient buildings as well. It is my belief that green buildings will become a significant contributor to America's energy conservation efforts and that is why I am introducing this bill today. The proposal I offer today is one small step in the right direction and draws upon a bill approved by the Environment and Public Works Committee in 2006. The federal government is already setting an example in energy efficiency under the leadership of the White House and Department of Energy. This bill will take the next step and create an office within the General Services Administration (GSA) to oversee green building initiatives within the Federal Government and provide support for information to State and local governments as well as the private sector. With almost 9,000 buildings and 340 million square feet of space, the GSA has the experience and expertise to manage this effort for the Federal Government. The Office of Green Buildings at the GSA will be advised by a Green Buildings Council to be comprised of Federal, State, local, and private sector participants to establish guidelines and create resources for public and private builders across the country. It is my hope that the use of green buildings in the Federal real estate portfolio will contribute to increased health of the public, productivity of work, and conservation of energy. While some portions of the private sector have caught on to the many benefits of green or ``sustainable design,'' this bill's establishment of grants through the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) to assist school systems in their school construction efforts will bring these benefits to the places our children spend so much of their time and the facilities that consume a significant amount of energy in our communities. In addition to grants to school systems, the bill would create an indoor air quality program for Federal buildings, encourage incentives for Federal agencies, and authorize research and demonstration projects in each of the four climatic regions of the United States. The bill is modest in scope, authorizing $50 million over 5 years to begin this most important effort in the Federal Government. I know many of you share in my desire to advance our Nation's conservation agenda. Indeed, many have supported the efforts of our recently retired colleague from Vermont and have your own ideas. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and on the Environment and Public Works Committee as we move this proposal forward. Green Buildings will be a significant part of our country's energy and environmental future and this bill will help us in that effort.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, about a week ago, I think it was on the 23rd, my colleagues, the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Ben Nelson, and the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, and I, together with several cosponsors, put into the Record a resolution--I underline put into the Record--so that all could have the benefit of studying it. We three have continued to do a good deal of work. We have been in consultation with our eight other cosponsors on this resolution, and we are going to put in tonight, into the Record--the same procedures we followed before--another resolution which tracks very closely the one that is of record. But it has several provisions we believe should be considered by the Senate in the course of the debate. How that debate will occur and when it will occur. I cannot advise the Senate, but I do hope it is expeditious. I understand there is a cloture motion that could well begin the debate, depending upon how it is acted upon. We have also had a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee last Friday. We had a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee again this morning. Friday was in open session. The session this morning was in closed session. The three of us, as members of the Armed Services Committee, have learned a good deal more about this subject and, I say with great respect, the plan as laid down by the President on the 10th of January. We believed we should make some additions to our resolution. We have not had the opportunity, given the hour, to circulate this among all of our cosponsors so at this time it will not bind them, but subsequently, tomorrow, I hope to contact all of them, together with my two colleagues, and determine their concurrence to go on this one. I am optimistic they will all stay. But let me give the Senate several examples of what we think is important in the course of the debate--that these subjects be raised. We put it before the Senate now in the form of filing this resolution, such that all can see it and have the benefit, to the extent it is reproduced and placed into the public domain. Because the three of us are still open for suggestions, and we will continue to have receptivity to suggestions as this critical and very important subject is deliberated by the Senate. Our objective is to hope that somehow through our efforts and the efforts of others, a truly bipartisan statement--I don't know in what form it may be made--a truly bipartisan statement can evolve from the debate and the procedure that will ensue in the coming days, and I presume into next week. We feel very strongly that we want to see our Armed Forces succeed in Iraq to help bring about greater stability to that country, greater security to that country, so that the current elected government, through a series of free elections--the current elected government can take a firmer and firmer hand on the reins of sovereignty. We believe if for political reasons all Members of the Senate go over to vote with their party, and the others go over to vote with their party, we will have lost and failed to provide the leadership I believe this Chamber can provide to the American people so they can better understand the new strategy, and that the President can take into consideration our resolution hasn't been changed. We say to the President: We urge that you take into consideration the options that we put forth, the strategy that we sort of lay out, in the hopes that it will be stronger and better understood by the people in this country. Their support, together with a strong level of bipartisan support in the Congress for the President's plan, hopefully as slightly modified, can be successful. We want success, Madam President. We want success. So that is the reason we come this evening. I am going to speak to one or two provisions, and my colleagues can address others. First, the unity of command. We have a time-honored tradition with American forces that wherever possible, there be a unity of command from an American commander, whatever rank that may be, down to the private, and that our forces can best operate with that unity of command and provide the best security possible to all members of the Armed Forces that are engaged in carrying out such mission as that command is entrusted to perform. A number of Senators, in the course of the hearing on Friday and the hearing this morning, raised questions about this serious issue of unity of command. I say serious issue because the President, in his remarks, described--and this is on January 10--described how there will be an Iraqi commander, and that we will have embedded forces with the Iraqi troops. Well, we are currently embedding forces, but I think the plan--and that is what I refer to, the President's announcement on January 10 in the generic sense as the plan--will require perhaps a larger number of embedded forces. But the plan envisions an Iraqi chain of command. The Iraqis indicated, in working with the President, this plan in many respects tracks the exchange of thoughts that the President and the Prime Minister have had through a series of meetings and telephonic conversations. So the plan embraces the goals of the Prime Minister of Iraq, the goals of our President. But this is a unique situation where the Iraqis have a complete chain of command, from a senior officer in each of the nine districts in Baghdad, and the United States likewise will have a chain of command in that same district or such segments of this plan as the military finally put together--each will have a chain of command, the Iraqi forces and the United States forces. In the course of the testimony that we received, particularly testimony from the retired Vice Chief of the U.S. Army on Friday afternoon, he was concerned, as a number of Senators are concerned--and our provision literally flags this, and flags it in such a way that we call upon the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to look at that plan and to bring such clarification forward as may be necessary, and to do it in a way that will secure the safety of our forces, the protection of our forces, and yet go forward with this idea of a greater sharing of the command responsibility in the operations to take place in Baghdad. So we simply call on the administration to bring such clarification and specificity to the Congress and the people of the United States to ensure the protection of our force and that this command structure will work because I believe it doesn't have--I am trying to find a precedent where we have operated like this. I have asked the expert witnesses in hearings, and thus far those witnesses have not been able to explain the command structure that we have conceived, the concept of the plan of January 10, just how it will work. Likewise, we put in a very important paragraph which says that nothing in this resolution should be construed as indicating that there is going to be a cutoff of funds. Given the complexity of this situation, there has been a lot of press written on the subject of our resolution. Colleagues have come up to me and said: Well, can you assure me that this doesn't provide a cutoff of funds. Now, the cutoff of funds is the specific power given under the Constitution to the Congress of the United States. I personally think that power should not be exercised, certainly not given the facts and the circumstances today where this plan--which I hope in some manner will succeed and we are working better with the Prime Minister and his forces. So at this point in time I think it is important that our resolution carry language as follows: 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. So I think that very clearly eliminates any consideration there. At this time I would like to yield the floor so that my colleagues can speak, and maybe I will have some concluding remarks. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I really feel, if we could more fully-- --

Mr. WARNER. Does it affect what we are trying to lay down in any way?

Mr. WARNER. That is fine. I didn't realize that was coming to pass. It is late in the day, and I suppose we could anticipate a lot of things. But anyway I thank the Senator.

Mr. WARNER. It momentarily will be.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank our distinguished colleague from Maine. It has been a hard work in progress, but we reiterate, perhaps Members want to offer their own resolutions. We are open to suggestions. We are not trying to grab votes, just make ours stronger. I bring to the attention of my colleague, this is not to be construed as saying, Mr. President, you cannot do anything; we suggest you look at openings by which we could, hopefully, have substantially less United States involvement of troops in what we foresee as a bitter struggle of sectarian violence. The American GI, in my judgment, has sacrificed greatly, and their families, in giving sovereignty to this Nation. Now we see it is in the grip of extraordinary sectarian violence. Sunni upon Shia, Shia upon Sunni. I am not trying to ascribe which is more guilty than the other, but why should they proceed to try and destabilize the very government that gives all Iraqis a tremendous measure of freedom, free from tyranny and from Saddam Hussein. Why should the American GI, who does not have a language proficiency, who does not have a full understanding of the culture giving rise to these enormous animosities and hatreds that precipitate the killings and other actions--why should not that be left to the Iraqi forces? We have trained upwards of 200,000. We have reason to believe today there are 60,000 to 70,000 who are tested--in many respects they have been participating in a number of military operations, together with our forces. Let elements of that group be the principals to take the lead, as they proudly say, give them the lead, and go into the sectarian violence. That would enable our commanders, our President, to send fewer than 20,500 into that area. On the other hand, we support the President with respect to his options regarding the Anbar Province and the additional forces. Am I not correct in that?

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. You refer to the one commander you met. I wonder if the Senator would reference your trip in December and what others told you about the addition of United States forces. I think that is important for the Record.

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank my colleague. In my trip in the October timeframe, I would see much the same expression from military and civilian. Our codel visited, and it was following my trip that I came back and said in a press conference, this situation is moving sideways. My observations, together with the observations of others--some in our Government, some in the private sector--induced the administration--I am not suggesting we were the triggering cause, but we may have contributed--to go to an absolutely, as you say in the Navy, ``general quarters'' to study every aspect of the strategy which then was in place, and which now is clearly stated as late as yesterday by the admiral who will be the CENTCOM commander, wasn't working. I commend the President for taking the study and inviting a number of consultants. That whole process was very thorough. The point the Senator is making, as late as December--mine in October, yours in December--we both gained the same impressions that no one was asking for additional United States troops at that time.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. We should add an important reference to work done by the Baker- Hamilton commission. They have made similar findings. They mention a slight surge, but in my study of that one sentence in that report, I don't think they ever envisioned a surge of the magnitude that is here. They can best speak for themselves and, indeed, yesterday there was testimony taken from two senior members of that commission, but I don't know whether they were speaking for the entire commission, and whether, in their remarks, they may wish to amend portions of their report. I wasn't present for that testimony. I hope someone in the Foreign Relations Committee can make that clear. Were they speaking for the entire commission? Did they wish to have their remarks amend their report which we followed? It was one of the guideposts we used, the important work of that group. Again, we are doing what we think is constructive to help the Senate in preparing for its deliberations, to invite other colleagues to make suggestions. We stand open to consider other options that may come before the Senate. At this point in time, our resolution is the same form as the resolution we filed here a week or so ago. We are not changing any of the procedures by which the Senate takes into consideration our points. Whether we will be able to utilize this as a substitute should other amendments be called upon the floor, the rules are quite complex on that matter, and I will not bring all of that into the record at this point. But there are certain impediments procedurally as to how this specific resolution could ever be actually used for the purposes of a substitute. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, in the colloquy I participated in with my distinguished colleagues, Senator Ben Nelson of Kansas and Senator Collins of Maine--and I take responsibility--somehow we had a misunderstanding about the status. We wish to send to the desk and ask that this be numbered a new S. Con. Res. and, therefore, have the same status as the current S. Con. Res. we had submitted a week ago.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield to me for a minute?

Mr. WARNER. I thank both leaders.

Mr. WARNER. I join my leader in the objection because I do hope we can work it out, that we do not have to resort to a bill status. Everybody knows what the rules are and how that would then involve the President in a bill status. This should be a matter handled by the Senate and the other body, should they so desire. I say to my distinguished leader, I did mention this afternoon that I was going to take these steps--basically the changes from the original one, which we filed a week ago. Senator Nelson, Senator Collins, and myself are still there. There is no major significant changes. We added a provision regarding the serious problem I and other Senators see--and we learned of it in the open session on Friday in the Armed Services Committee and again this morning in closed session--of the need to clarify this question of how a dual command can take place in each of the nine provinces of Baghdad between the Iraqi military and the U.S. military. And, General Keane, on Friday, said he is going to urge General Petraeus to try to work with that. I think that can be handled, but it has to be clarified. The other thing is that some colleagues thought maybe we were laying the foundation of this body of the constitutional right of curtailing funds. That was never the intention, and that is made quite clear. The rest of it are changes that I believe are not ones that in any way affect basically the thrust of the original resolution, which was to try to put before the Senate as an institution the viewpoints of a bipartisan group--now 11 in number and others I think desiring to join--such that if the Senate speaks in some way on this eventually, after a debate, it represents to the American public the best efforts of this institution to reach a degree of bipartisanship on an issue which I think is one of the most important that I have visited in my now 29th year in the Senate. So I thank both leaders, and I join my distinguished leader at this time in the objection because I do hope we do not have to resort to legislative need of a bill.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join in that because I think the operative phrase is to let the Senate work its will. Those are the first words I used in connection with this resolution when I laid it down last week. It is essential. This is one of the most important historic debates, as the distinguished leader--both leaders--have said. We should let this body work its will.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I thank our distinguished colleague from Maine. I share her views, as I expressed them with our leader here, that it was certainly always the intention of the Senator from Virginia that this matter should be kept in a resolution status, thereby precluding any necessity for the President to become involved in the sense of a legislative process. I feel confident that what we have put forth are recommendations--not orders to the President, not contravening the President's constitutional authority in any way, but they are the heartfelt thoughts of Senators as to how there could be further modifications in the new strategy in such a way as to hopefully lower the profile of the United States Armed Forces in the Baghdad operation and, thereby, hopefully, wherever possible, not inject them into this sectarian violence which can be better handled by the Iraqis, who understand the Iraqis, who have a far better understanding of the cultural differences that give rise to so much of this sectarian strife today. I am optimistic that can come to pass and we can treat this in the resolution status and that Senators can work their free will. There may be ideas far better than what I have embraced in this resolution, together with my colleagues, Senator Collins and Senator Ben Nelson. We are open to ideas. It is best that those ideas be exhibited right here on the Senate floor in full view of all to determine their merit. I thank my colleague. I am honored the Senator sees fit to join us as a cosponsor.