John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I address the Senate on this issue and pose a question to my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Pennsylvania. I will put into the Record, following the conclusion of my remarks and my colloquy with the Senator from Pennsylvania, additional material. Before I yield the floor, it is my desire to conclude the time on our side with the Senator from Missouri, and then reserve the remainder of my time for tomorrow. It would be my hope that the Senator from Pennsylvania, likewise, would save such remarks he may wish to make for tomorrow. As he knows, there is a function going on now, which I think most of us are trying to attend. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at this time, I observe no other Senators desiring to address the subject with regard to the pending bill. Having said that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we have had a very good debate. We have voted on one amendment. We have time remaining on the Specter amendment. We should be able to conclude that debate in the morning and proceed, I presume, to a prompt vote on the Specter amendment, and then proceed with the other two amendments.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague Senator George Allen to introduce the Federal Employee Combat Zone Tax Parity Act, which would provide parity to civilian Federal employees by extending the tax credit currently received by military personnel in combat zones to the civilian Federal employees working along side them. My fellow Virginian, Congressman Frank Wolf, has introduced a similar bill in the House of Representatives. In addition, several Federal employee organizations, such as the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), the Financial Management Association (FMA), the Senior Executives Association (SEA), the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), and the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), strongly support this legislation. As of today, I have made eleven separate trips to Iraq and Afghanistan to see firsthand the work of our military personnel, which is essential to success in these regions. In addition, the work of our Federal civilian employees in these regions is significantly important. At the moment, a majority of the work in the reconstruction of these countries is being done by the military and the Department of State (DOS). These dedicated men and women deserve our gratitude. However, as I have said on a number of occasions, our challenging task requires the coordination and work of Federal agencies across the spectrum. Regardless of whether one is in the military or a civilian, there are certain risks and hardships associated with working overseas. As a result, the Federal Government provides certain incentives to individuals when they take on extremely challenging jobs. For example, those in the military working in a combat zone receive the Combat Zone Tax Credit. This tax credit permits military personnel working in combat zones to exclude a certain amount of income from their Federal income taxes. This benefit for the military was established in 1913. Private contractors working in Iraq and Afghanistan get a similar benefit. Under the Foreign Earned Income Tax Credit, contractors are allowed to exclude a portion of their income from taxes while they work abroad, like in Iraq and Afghanistan. To date, however, no similar benefit exists for Federal employees serving in the same combat zones. I do not believe it is fair for our Federal employees to be excluded from the same benefits available to military personnel and private contractors in the same combat zone. The Commonwealth of Virginia, of which I have been honored to serve for the last 28 years in the Senate, is home to over 200,000 Federal employees. I have long been a strong supporter of our Federal employees as I have been for our military personnel. Our efforts in the war on terrorism can only be successful with a highly skilled and experienced workforce. I can personally attest to the dedication of civil service employees throughout the Federal Government. Since the September 11th attacks, Federal employees have been relocated, reassigned, and worked long hours under strenuous circumstances without complaints, proving time and again their loyalty to their country is first and foremost. During my service as Secretary of the Navy during which I was privileged to have some 650,000 civilian employees working side by side with the uniformed Navy, I valued very highly the sense of teamwork between the civilian and uniformed members of the United States Navy. Teamwork is an intrinsic military value, in my judgment, and essential to mission accomplishment. A sense of parity and fairness is important for developing this teamwork. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the teamwork of the entire Federal Government is essential to harness our overall efforts to secure a measure of democracy for the peoples of those countries, and we need to make it easier for our Federal employees to participate. I recently offered additional legislation to achieve this goal. My bill, S. 2600, would provide the heads of agencies other than DOS and the Department of Defense (DOD) with the authority, at their discretion, to give their employees who serve in Iraq and Afghanistan allowances, benefits, and gratuities comparable to those provided to State Department and DOD employees serving in those countries. Currently, the agency heads of non-DOD and DOS agencies do not have such authority, and it is essential, as part of the U.S. effort to bring democracy and freedom to Iraq and Afghanistan, that agency heads be able to give their workers in those countries the same benefits as those they work beside. In the last estimate, there are almost 2,000 Federal employees working a variety of jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am grateful for their hard work in potentially dangerous situations. And, I know there are many other Federal employees who are anxious to serve their country and engage in these efforts, but it is a lot to risk. Providing parity in this important tax credit would provide a significant incentive for individuals to take on this challenge--a challenge that America desperately needs Federal employees to undertake. Throughout the world, America's civil servants are serving our government and our people, often in dangerous situations. They are on the ground in the war on terrorism taking over new roles to relieve military personnel of tasks civilian employees can perform. They are playing a vital role in the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan. We have a long tradition in Congress of recognizing the valuable contributions of our Federal employees in both the military service and in the civil service by providing fair and equitable treatment. This bill gives us the ability to continue this tradition while at the same time providing an important incentive to help America meet its needs. I urge my colleagues to join with me in support of this legislation.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague Senator George Allen to introduce the Federal Employee Combat Zone Tax Parity Act, which would provide parity to civilian Federal employees by extending the tax credit currently received by military personnel in combat zones to the civilian Federal employees working along side them. My fellow Virginian, Congressman Frank Wolf, has introduced a similar bill in the House of Representatives. In addition, several Federal employee organizations, such as the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), the Financial Management Association (FMA), the Senior Executives Association (SEA), the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), and the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), strongly support this legislation. As of today, I have made eleven separate trips to Iraq and Afghanistan to see firsthand the work of our military personnel, which is essential to success in these regions. In addition, the work of our Federal civilian employees in these regions is significantly important. At the moment, a majority of the work in the reconstruction of these countries is being done by the military and the Department of State (DOS). These dedicated men and women deserve our gratitude. However, as I have said on a number of occasions, our challenging task requires the coordination and work of Federal agencies across the spectrum. Regardless of whether one is in the military or a civilian, there are certain risks and hardships associated with working overseas. As a result, the Federal Government provides certain incentives to individuals when they take on extremely challenging jobs. For example, those in the military working in a combat zone receive the Combat Zone Tax Credit. This tax credit permits military personnel working in combat zones to exclude a certain amount of income from their Federal income taxes. This benefit for the military was established in 1913. Private contractors working in Iraq and Afghanistan get a similar benefit. Under the Foreign Earned Income Tax Credit, contractors are allowed to exclude a portion of their income from taxes while they work abroad, like in Iraq and Afghanistan. To date, however, no similar benefit exists for Federal employees serving in the same combat zones. I do not believe it is fair for our Federal employees to be excluded from the same benefits available to military personnel and private contractors in the same combat zone. The Commonwealth of Virginia, of which I have been honored to serve for the last 28 years in the Senate, is home to over 200,000 Federal employees. I have long been a strong supporter of our Federal employees as I have been for our military personnel. Our efforts in the war on terrorism can only be successful with a highly skilled and experienced workforce. I can personally attest to the dedication of civil service employees throughout the Federal Government. Since the September 11th attacks, Federal employees have been relocated, reassigned, and worked long hours under strenuous circumstances without complaints, proving time and again their loyalty to their country is first and foremost. During my service as Secretary of the Navy during which I was privileged to have some 650,000 civilian employees working side by side with the uniformed Navy, I valued very highly the sense of teamwork between the civilian and uniformed members of the United States Navy. Teamwork is an intrinsic military value, in my judgment, and essential to mission accomplishment. A sense of parity and fairness is important for developing this teamwork. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the teamwork of the entire Federal Government is essential to harness our overall efforts to secure a measure of democracy for the peoples of those countries, and we need to make it easier for our Federal employees to participate. I recently offered additional legislation to achieve this goal. My bill, S. 2600, would provide the heads of agencies other than DOS and the Department of Defense (DOD) with the authority, at their discretion, to give their employees who serve in Iraq and Afghanistan allowances, benefits, and gratuities comparable to those provided to State Department and DOD employees serving in those countries. Currently, the agency heads of non-DOD and DOS agencies do not have such authority, and it is essential, as part of the U.S. effort to bring democracy and freedom to Iraq and Afghanistan, that agency heads be able to give their workers in those countries the same benefits as those they work beside. In the last estimate, there are almost 2,000 Federal employees working a variety of jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am grateful for their hard work in potentially dangerous situations. And, I know there are many other Federal employees who are anxious to serve their country and engage in these efforts, but it is a lot to risk. Providing parity in this important tax credit would provide a significant incentive for individuals to take on this challenge--a challenge that America desperately needs Federal employees to undertake. Throughout the world, America's civil servants are serving our government and our people, often in dangerous situations. They are on the ground in the war on terrorism taking over new roles to relieve military personnel of tasks civilian employees can perform. They are playing a vital role in the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan. We have a long tradition in Congress of recognizing the valuable contributions of our Federal employees in both the military service and in the civil service by providing fair and equitable treatment. This bill gives us the ability to continue this tradition while at the same time providing an important incentive to help America meet its needs. I urge my colleagues to join with me in support of this legislation.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent a fellow from Senator Graham's staff, Adam Brake, have floor privileges for the duration of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at the present time, the members of the Armed Services Committee of the Senate and the members of the Armed Services Committee of the House are in a conference. A great deal of confidentiality is attached to that procedure. I do not in any way intend to violate that confidentiality. But before the conference--and this is not a matter of confidentiality--is a provision in the bill of the House of Representatives which is related to military chaplains. I will read from the House bill. Each Chaplain shall have the prerogative to pray according to the dictates of the Chaplain's own conscience, except as must be limited by military necessity, with any such limitation being imposed in the least restrictive manner feasible. That is the end of the proposed bill language. That is what I would like to address at this time. I first want to say that the Senate has no such provision, and therefore we have to resolve the difference between the two bodies. The House of Representatives put this provision in during markup, which is the time they go over their bill. Another amendment was offered in that markup and rejected. It is referred to as follows: ``Amendment to H.R. 5122, offered by Mr. Israel,'' Member of Congress, and it provides in section 590, which I just read, relating to military chaplains: at the end of the quoted matter inserted by each of the subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e), insert the following: ``, except that chaplains shall demonstrate sensitivity, respect, and tolerance for all faiths present on each occasion at which prayers are offered''. I personally have not decided on what version I personally feel should address this problem, so I remain of an open mind. But I remain very firmly of a mind that in the brief time that we have had an opportunity to look at it and examine it here on the Senate side, the time is inadequate to address an issue which I regard as of enormous importance. This is an issue that I would hope this Chamber would have the opportunity to discuss, whether to put into law a provision as proposed by the House or a provision as proposed by Mr. Israel, a Member of Congress, which addresses the perspectives of this issue from a different angle. This is just an example of the diversity of views on this important issue. Among the conferees--I cannot name names; I will not--there is a strong division, those in favor of certain language other than what is in the House bill. Some conferees think that the provision by Mr. Israel should be included. So there is at this time just an enormous uncertainty among the conferees. The House book that contains what we call report language, which is a very helpful instrument to try to explain the background of how provisions come into our legislation, trying to explain what some of the words mean, this book is silent. The only report language is a recitation, exactly, of the proposed bill language. So there is no guidance that Congress is providing on this important phrase. I hasten to point out that, as is the case in just about all matters that we take up in the Armed Services Committee regarding the annual authorization bill, the Secretary of Defense transmits to us opinions that he has, on behalf of the Department, with regard to proposed legislation. I now will have printed in the Record what is entitled: The Department of Defense Appeal, FY 2007 Defense Authorization Bill; Subject: Military Chaplains; Language/ Provision: House section 590 established chaplains at each of the Military Services would have the prerogative to pray according to the dictates of their own conscience, except as must be limited by military necessity. The Senate included no similar provision. The Department of Defense position is they oppose this provision. This reads as follows: This provision could marginalize chaplains who, in exercising their conscience, generate discomfort at mandatory formations. Such erosion of unit cohesion is avoided by the Military's present insistence on inclusive prayer at interfaith gatherings--something the House legislation would operate against. The Department urges exclusion of this provision. We have not decided as yet. But that is another dimension to the diversity of thinking on this very important provision. As all Members in this body fully appreciate and understand, when a matter of this controversy comes along you are often singled out by a variety of people who disagree. I have not taken a position, but nevertheless I am being besieged by telephone, by bloggers, by everything else--that I have taken this or that position. I will state momentarily what I think should be done. But I am very proud of my background. I was blessed with two magnificent parents. We were active in the Episcopal Church, and I have remained active in that faith nearly all of my life, nearly 80 years now. My uncle was a rector of a very prominent parish here in Washington, DC, in the shadow of the Washington Cathedral where I was raised, not more than three blocks from his church, and I was a regular attendee of Sunday school through that. I am just sorrowful that people attack me personally, as if I had no religious foundation. I have that foundation. I have had the privilege to serve in uniform. Not a career--and I have said it many times here on the floor of the Senate--of any great note, a very modest career, but as a young, 17, 18-year-old in the last year of World War II, just in the training command. We were trained to be replacements to go overseas to the Pacific. The war ended. We were sent home. But many a time in the course of that period in military service, the second chapter, this time as a United States Marine, a young officer serving in Korea, the First Marine Air Wing, at a time when, indeed, certainly the infantry troops in the front lines, where I visited on occasion, were being subject to the most difficult combat under rigorous conditions in Korea, but I knelt and prayed many, many times with my fellow soldiers--men and women, fellow marines, fellow sailors. So I speak as one who has benefited through the years from the religion that was instilled in me through my parents and the church of my choice, and it has given me a great strength to face up to the trials and tribulations that all of us experience in a lifetime. I respect the chaplains. I went to chaplains on occasion, and I am grateful for the counseling that they gave me. So I say, I look back with a sense of humility on what the military has taught me. Many times have I said I don't think I would ever have achieved the opportunity to be a U.S. Senator had I not had the opportunity, the privilege of serving in uniform during the periods of two conflicts of our Nation and the learning that I received throughout the military. I have often said the military did more for me than I ever did for the military. But I just will stand my ground against anyone who wishes to challenge my religion. Now, in my 28th year in this magnificent Chamber, many is the time I stood here as our Senate opens and listened to either our chaplain or a visiting clergy. Each of us have the privilege of inviting from our several States a visiting clergy to come and deliver a prayer. It is part of the life of the U.S. Senate. I know of no effort ever to try and censor or legislate the prayers given here in the Senate, either by our chaplain or by the many who come from all over America to give their prayers here. So I am not suggesting the military is like the Senate. But it is an example of the use of prayer. The military is different. It is for that reason, that it is different, that I think it is important that we proceed to resolve such problems as may exist today in the military regarding how our chaplains pray, that we resolve that only after the institutions of the Senate and the House of Representatives go through a careful and deliberative process, not just try in the heat of resolving a conference report, in brief meetings here and there among just a very few--well, sometimes all the conferees, sometimes in small groups--trying to reconcile the differences between legislative provisions in the House bill and those in the Senate bill. I would like to call our attention to the Constitution of the United States. It says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. This is such a fundamental part of our democracy. It is a pillar of strength in this Republic. But it is constantly reviewed by the courts against the different factual situations that come up. I think the military deserves no less than to have the most careful and deliberative review of this suggested language rather than to put it into law at this time. My recommendation--I will cooperate with the conferees--is that I am not prepared to take any position on how this language should be put into law or not put into law at this time. But I do say that I will strongly recommend to the Committee on Armed Services that the seriousness of this issue literally demands that as soon as the new Congress convenes in January, the committees of the Armed Services of the Senate and the House put on hearings at the earliest possibility. You could start with this language as recommended by the House of Representatives--the Senate has no language--to go through a process where people can come in. For example, I asked each of the chiefs of the chaplains of the Army, Navy, and the Air Force to come in and speak to the conferees--there were only four conferees there at that time--which they did. I attached the utmost confidentiality as to what they said. But I was left with the impression that now is not the time to try to quickly put this one sentence into law by virtue of incorporating it into the final draft of the conference report. Those chaplains would be quite willing to come before the Congress in open session. Let the whole of the United States see this debate unfold, as it should. Prayer is very important to the men and women of the Armed Forces. I remember so well the old maxim, ``There is no atheist in the foxholes of war.'' Military people, military families are heavily dependent upon the comfort that is given by prayer--prayer alone or prayer with others. I urge this Congress not to do at this time this one sentence. I will read it again. I have difficulty, as many times as I have read it, understanding exactly what it means. It says: Each chaplain shall have the prerogative to pray according to the dictates of the chaplain's own conscience except as must be limited by military necessity. What is that? What is military necessity? We should define that very carefully. I continue: With any such limitation being imposed in the least restrictive manner feasible. That, to me, is a complicated sentence and a complicated message to put forth. In conclusion, I will recommend to the conferees that at this time Congress not enact this bill language in the House, that we defer it to a time when the entire Senate and the entire House in open before the public invites in as many as we can possibly accommodate to give their views on the institution of the chaplain in the Armed Forces of the United States, an institution that I have known since the closing days of World War II and have known for over a half century and have seen it function and have seen it work. Before we change those rules, I think we owe no less to the men and women in the Armed Forces to have these deliberative bodies of the House and Senate have their hearings, debate the language, and then decide whether they wish or not to write language that in many respects we were admonished by the Founding Fathers to be careful, at least at the most under the First Amendment. In addition, some of the concern--and I think it is a legitimate concern--of those proposing this language emanates from actions taken by the Department of the Air Force, the Department of the Navy, and I believe--I have not seen it--the Department of the Army in issuing certain guidance. The guidance was issued recently about this subject of prayer and other matters relating to the chaplain. I will not go into it, but I will put in today's Record the documents that were issued by several military departments. You can read it for yourselves. I think that we should put in report language in our bill two things: First, that the Secretary of Defense will stay--that means hold in abeyance--enforcement of these newly promulgated regulations until such time as the Congress has had an opportunity to hold its hearings, go through a deliberative process, and then decide whether it wishes to act by way of sending a conference report to the President for purposes of becoming the law of the land. So it is twofold: let the system of the chaplain, which has been operating for my lifetime, half a century, serving the needs of the men and women of the Armed Forces, continue to do as they have done but stand down any regulations until studied by this coequal branch of the Government, which under the Constitution has a very special language provision that says we have a responsibility to care for the needs in general of the men and women of the Armed Forces. That is what the conference report does. I am hopeful that the conferees will see the wisdom of this action, let this bill go forward to the President's desk so it can become law, and it can care for the men and women of the Armed Forces. That will be written in report language. It does not have the force of law. But I am basically assured by the Department of Defense that they will comply; stay for the time being the most recent regulations, whatever they wish to call them, that have been sent out to their respective commands until Congress has had a reasonable time within which to decide whether they feel it is necessary to prepare for the President's signature a new law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional materials regarding this subject be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Yes, Mr. President, without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. I now request the opportunity to address the Senate under that provision.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would make an inquiry. I inquire of the distinguished majority leader if the Senate Armed Services Committee could be added to that list and, therefore, be able to continue our hearing.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our distinguished leader. With the concurrence of the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Levin, we have agreed to resume in open session a markup in the Armed Services Committee in Hart 216 at 2:15.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. That is well known to this Senator--that the Senator from Michigan and that side of the aisle has been totally cooperative in having a markup.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at this time, we seek the benefit of the comments of the Senator from Texas.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will eventually address my own remarks, but as the distinguished Democratic leader spoke, we had the majority leader here. It was his intention, of course, to follow the Democratic leader with his remarks. He was called to the White House, and therefore we will have to hear from our distinguished majority leader later in the day on this matter. If I could ask my colleagues across the aisle, perhaps we could alternate. Senator Stevens has spoken; perhaps I could follow your next speaker as a matter of comity.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at this point in time, I reserve, with the understanding that I encourage it be agreed to, but the distinguished Senator from Texas, the Senator from Alaska, and others are going to work on the sequencing over here, so I wonder if we could just informally say we will follow that until such time as one of these two come over and agree.

Mr. WARNER. A list, thank you.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before my colleague departs, I wonder if I might engage in a colloquy with him. I am the next speaker on this side. I have allowed my colleagues to go ahead of me to accommodate them. If the Senator wants to recite his unanimous consent request, we have absolutely no objection, and I would simply add to it that following the speaker on the Democratic side who follows me, the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire be recognized to speak on our side.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we have no objection. I would simply ask that it be amended such that following my taking the floor on our side, as I understand it, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts will speak, and then the Senator from New Hampshire on our side will be recognized.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my good friend and colleague, we have had 28 wonderful years together on the Armed Services Committee. Now, with the passage of time, the responsibility of the management of that committee rests on our two shoulders, I as chairman at the present time, incidentally succeeding my good friend as chairman before me for a brief period, and he is now a distinguished ranking member. But I would like to start my remarks with a question to my good friend by asking Senators as we participate in this debate to consider what I regard as a very interesting approach to this debate as characterized by our President in a news conference on August 21. He said the following: You know, it is an interesting debate we are having in America about how we ought to handle Iraq. There is a lot of people--good, decent people--saying: Withdraw now. They are absolutely wrong. It would be a huge mistake for this country. And I continue to quote the President: There are a lot of good, decent people saying, get out now. Vote for me. I will do everything I can, I guess, to cut off money, is what they will try to do to get our troops out. That, too-- The President said-- is a big mistake. It would be wrong, in my judgment, for us to leave before the mission is completed in Iraq. I will refer to this later. But this is the tenor. It seems to me that it is a very balanced and respectful tenor because the President went on to say: I will never question the patriotism of somebody who disagrees with me. This debate has nothing to do with patriotism. I take my cues from his approach and the manner in which he addressed the importance of the debate and how those who participate in it hopefully will be guided by his impressions. To my good friend from Michigan, I listened very carefully to much of what he said, and I commend him in the sense that he is consistent in his approach. But what I want to draw the Senator's attention to is, what are the consequences--to the whole region, to the people in Iraq, to the war we are waging against terrorism, to our people here at home--what are the consequences if this somewhat fragile and new Government struggling to put down its roots and exercise the full reigns of sovereignty, what are the consequences should it fail to be able to exercise the full spectrum of responsibilities of a sovereign nation that Iraq is now? It is a sovereign nation. I believe those consequences, of their inability to govern, the inability of those in control of their armed forces--we are not in control of their armed forces--they are a sovereign nation. It is the Prime Minister who will issue the orders to their armed forces, not General Abizaid or General Casey. We work in concert with them, but they are a sovereign nation. What are the consequences if this Government were not able to exercise the reins of sovereignty because of such conditions of further deterioration in the security situation? What are the consequences, I ask my good friend? I would name several, in my judgment. First and foremost, that nation is sitting on the second largest oil reserve in the world--the second largest oil reserve. There it is. It is not the property of the United States. It is not the property of the coalition forces. We are not there to fight over the oil. But we are there to try to elect a government--or not elect, but let a government handle those natural resources which can quickly, if properly extracted, turn into hard cash. If those reserves fall into the wrong hands, hands which are dealing with terrorism, which support terrorism, which are antithetical to every principle of free democracies in the world, ours or other free nations, it would give terrorists unlimited cash to pursue their goals on terrorism--unlimited. And you couple unlimited cash with the cruelest, yet regrettably most effective weapon of war of the terrorists; namely, the human bombers, who, regrettably, they can purchase for dollars--for Dinars--you are facing not only the coalition forces in Iraq but the forces of freedom the world over, a very dangerous combination of unlimited funding and the human bomber. The world stood in awe as we watched the human bombers inflict time and time again disastrous consequences on Israel. Now we have watched how they inflict disastrous consequences on our coalition forces in Iraq and, unfortunately, in a growing number of instances in Afghanistan. Secondly, if that Government were to fail after all of the courage that the coalition of nations, working with the United States, has shown in trying to give the Iraqi people a sequence of free elections, a freely elected government, a constitution; if that Government were to fail, it would seriously affect the credibility of the United States of America in that region and complicate the already complicated problem posed by Iran, a nation that is thus far manifesting an unrelenting intent to acquire the capabilities to manufacture and possess nuclear weapons. I would love to hear this Chamber debate what would be the consequences to that region if Iran were to obtain that capability and put it in its arsenal. There is no chapter in world history to match that threat--not the Cold War that our Nation and other nations faced with the Soviet Union. We always knew the Soviet Union had a degree of rational, objective understanding of the consequences of the use of the nuclear weapon. I have not seen any manifestations of this current Government in Iran that they operate in any rational, objective way. So I ask my friend, as you spell out your fervent belief that we should begin, as you said just now--I copied it down--a ``phased withdrawal,'' could that not trigger instability in that fragile Government? Take, for example, their legislative body which just convened again this week. Each of us travels to and from this Chamber with a sense of absolute security in this country that we can do so safely. But each member of that legislative body, as they traverse Iraq, given the instability of that country in many areas, questions the personal safety of individuals serving in this Government. If the message were that we are going to start to withdraw, it might well cause that individual legislator or member of the Cabinet of the Maliki government to say: Wait a minute. Am I going to take all these personal risks to myself and to my family if this Government is not going to succeed? And what if this withdrawal were to trigger, in the minds of many of those brave people stepping up to serve in public service in Iraq today--it might well trigger to them: I better consider my own personal safety rather than trying to continue this public service.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I respect my colleague's views. We have had this debate several times before. I recognize and feel, as do you, as do I and I think every Member of this Chamber, the extraordinary losses in this country of 2,600-some men and women who have given their lives and some over 20,000 who are trying to recover from wounds and the impact on their families. That is an enormous sacrifice. But what I say to you, my dear friend: You pose a big gamble. If you are not right and this legislature interprets that as a signal, the public servants in Iraq interpret that as a signal, the members of the Iraqi security forces--namely, the army--hear that their support base, logistically and other ways, the United States, that we are beginning a phased withdrawal, this could trigger the opposite reaction. If that Government were not able to function because of the lack of security and they lose reins of sovereignty, I ask my good friend, what happens? If these oilfields--maybe not all at once but fractionally--what happens if this country begins to divide in three parts: the Kurds in the north, the Sunnis in al Anbar, and down south in the Bosra region, the Shia? Iran is flexing its muscles in various ways, and as you and I know their influence is being felt in that country. What happens if they see we are not there with the resolve that our President, time and time again, has stated? Yesterday, I was privileged, along with others, to be in the audience when he delivered what I thought was one of his strongest and best speeches, sketching the whole history of the war on terrorism and with direct quotes of the principals who are fighting against our interests here in this country. I ask, what happens if that Government fails to exercise the full range of democracy? What is your anticipation?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have one other question for my colleague, and let me preface it with the following. You are a signatory of a letter, dated September 4, to the President, along with a number of your colleagues and the distinguished Democratic leader and the distinguished House Democratic leader and others. In it, you say the following: In short, Mr. President, the current path for our military, for the Iraqi people and for our security is neither working nor making us more secure. That is your basic thesis. And you list in here: Therefore, we urge you once again to consider changes to your Iraq policy. We propose a new direction, which would include: (1) transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection; (2) beginning the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq before the end of this year; (3) working with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources; and (4) convening an international conference and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq's sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort. These proposals were outlined in our July 30th letter and are consistent with the ``U.S. Policy in Iraq Act'' you signed into law last year. In reply, a letter, a very respectful letter, was forwarded to all signatories on September 5. It was signed by the Chief of Staff of the President, Joshua B. Bolton. It is interesting, his observations. You say stay the course. Did you have an opportunity to look at this letter? Fine. Let me just read it. He cites as follows: Thank you for your September 4 letter to the President. I am responding on his behalf. A useful discussion of what we need to do in Iraq requires an accurate and fair-minded description of our current policy: As the President has explained, our goal is an Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself. In order to achieve this goal, we are pursuing a strategy along three main tracks--political, economic, and security. Along each of these tracks, we are constantly adjusting our tactics to meet conditions on the ground. We have witnessed both successes and setbacks [acknowledging that, Senator] along the way, which is the story of every war that has been waged and won. Your letter recites four elements of a proposed ``new direction'' in Iraq. This I think most important. He cites in this letter that three of those elements reflect well-established administration policy and the fourth is dangerously misguided. I ask unanimous consent this be printed in the Record following this paragraph.

Mr. WARNER. He recites the changes in the administration adaptation to the ever-changing situation on the ground and with the Government. He recites each of the four points raised in your letter and addresses how this administration is pursuing a revised strategy. To say we are staying the course is an inaccurate statement.

Mr. WARNER. I understand.