John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 22, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting voting out the report on the Indian Lobbying Misconduct Investigation, and other pending matters.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, June 22, 2006, at 9:30 a.m in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. The agenda will be provided when it becomes available. I. Nominations: Brett L. Tolman, to be U.S. Attorney for the District of Utah. II. Bills: S. 2453, National Security Surveillance Act of 2006, [Specter]; S. 2455, Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006, [De Wine, Graham]; S. 2468, A bill to provide standing for civil actions for declaratory and injunctive relief to persons who refrain from electronic communications through fear of being subject to warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, and for other purposes, [Schumer]; S. 3001, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and Enhancement Act of 2006, [Specter, Feinstein]; S. 2831, Free Flow of Information Act of 2006, [Lugar, Specter, Graham, Schumer, Biden]; H.R. 1036, Copyright Royalty Judges Program Technical Corrections Act, [Smith-TX]; S. 155, Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2005, [Feinstein, Hatch, Grassley, Cornyn, Kyl, Specter]; S. 2703, Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 [Specter, Leahy, Grassley, Kennedy, DeWine, Feinstein, Brownback, Durbin, Schumer, Kohl, Biden, Feingold]; and S. 1845, Circuit Court of Appeals Restructuring and Modernization Act of 2005, [Ensign, Kyl].

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 22, 2006, to mark up pending VA legislation: The markup will take place in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 10 a.m. The bills to be considered are: S. 2562 (Chairman Larry E. Craig), the ``Veterans' Compensation Cost- of-Living Adjustment Act of 2006''; S. 3421 (Chairman Larry E. Craig), A bill to authorize major medical facility projects and major medical facility leases for the Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal years 2006 and 2007. Committee Print of S. 2694 (Chairman Larry E. Craig), the ``Veterans' Choice of Representation and Benefits Enhancement Act of 2006''. The Committee Print contains the following provisions: From S. 2694, as introduced: Attorney representation in veterans benefits cases before the Department of Veterans Affairs; From S. 2659 (Ranking Member Daniel K. Akaka): Eligibility of Indian tribal organizations for grants for the establishment of veterans cemeteries on trust lands; From S. 1759 (Chairman Larry E. Craig): Requiring the Secretary of the Army to remove the remains of Russell Wayne Wagner from Arlington National Cemetery; From S. 3069 (Senator Christopher Dodd): Extending the provision of government grave markers; From S. 2416 (Senator Conrad Burns): Expansion of education programs eligible for accelerated payment of educational assistance under the Montgomery GI Bill; From S. 3363 (Senator Mike DeWine): Accelerated payment of survivors' and dependents' educational assistance for certain programs of education; Original Provision (from Chairman Larry E. Craig): Extend reporting requirement on the operation of the Montgomery GI Bill program; Original Provision (from Chairman Larry E. Craig): Reducing amounts available for State Approving Agencies in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 paid from VA's readjustment benefit account; From S. 2121 (Senator Charles Schumer): Residential cooperative housing units; From S. 1252 (Ranking Member Daniel K. Akaka): Supplemental insurance for totally disabled veterans; Original Provision (from Chairman Larry E. Craig): Reauthorization for use of certain information from other agencies; Original Provision (from Chairman Larry E. Craig): Clarification of correctional facilities covered by certain provisions of law. From S. 1537 (Ranking Member Daniel K. Akaka): Establishment of Parkinson's Disease and Multiple Sclerosis Centers of Excellence. From S. 2634 (Chairman Larry E. Craig): Sections (a)(1) and (b)(1) of it the bill pertaining to Term Limits for the Positions of Under Secretary for Health and Under Secretary for Benefits. From S. 2762 (Ranking Member Daniel K. Akaka): Requirement for VA to pay full costs for certain service-connected veterans residing in state homes, provide medications for certain service-connected conditions to veterans residing in state homes, and create a limited authority for the Secretary to designate certain beds in non-state facilities as state homes for purposes of per diem payments. From S. 2433 (Senator Ken Salazar): A provision to create an Office of Rural Health in the Office of the Under Secretary for Health at the Department of Veterans Affairs. From S. 2753 (Ranking Member Daniel K. Akaka): A provision to authorize a pilot program to provide care-giver assistance and noninstitutional care services. From S. 3545 (Chairman Larry E. Craig, Ranking Member Akaka, Senators Burr and Obama): Improvements to services, housing, and assistance provided to homeless veterans.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 22, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed briefing.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 22, 2006 at 3 p.m. to conduct a hearing on ``The AT&T and BellSouth Merger: What Does it Mean for Consumers?'' in room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The witness list is attached. Panel I: Edward E. Whitacre Jr., Chairman and CEO, AT&T Inc., San Antonio, TX; F. Duane Ackerman, Chairman and CEO, BellSouth Corporation, Atlanta, GA; James F. Geiger, President and CEO, Cbeyond Communications, Atlanta, GA; and Jonathan L. Rubin, Senior Research Fellow, American Antitrust Institute, Washington, DC. Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, June 22, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. the Subcommittee on Clean, Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety be authorized to hold an oversight hearing on the regulatory processes for new and existing nuclear plants.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 22, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. for a field hearing regarding ``Lessons Learned? Assuring Healthy Initiatives in Health Information Technology.''

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 22, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 574, a bill to amend the Qunebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor Act of 1994 to increase the authorization of appropriations and modify the date on which the authority of the Secretary of the Interior terminates under the Act; S. 1387, a bill to provide for an update of the Cultural Heritage and Land Management Plan for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor, to extend the authority of the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission, to authorize the undertaking of a special resource study of sites and landscape features within the corridor, and to authorize additional appropriations for the corridor; S. 1721, a bill to amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to extend the authorization for certain national heritage areas, and for other purposes; S. 2037, a bill to establish the Sangre De Cristo National Heritage Area in the State of Colorado, and for other purposes; and S. 2645, a bill to establish the journey through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area and for other purposes.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. On behalf of the leadership, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Con. Res. 103 which was submitted earlier today.

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I further ask that when the Senate receives from the House a message that the House agrees to S. Con. Res. 103 and the conference report to accompany H.R. 889 is received from the House, the conference report be considered agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require. Mr. President, I remember so well last year when we debated an amendment of great importance, and our colleague from Michigan laid down an amendment. Then I took that amendment and rewrote certain portions of it. A great majority of the Senate--I can't remember exactly how many but a vast majority of the Senate--supported that. I have waited patiently for this amendment. It was given to me yesterday. I have studied it ever so carefully. I didn't denounce the amendment. I said it was a serious amendment. It is a serious amendment. It deserves serious thought. But, regrettably, there is no way in which I can truthfully say to my side of the aisle and others that this amendment can be revised or modified such that we could hope to get what we achieved last year--a large majority of the Senate supporting the amendment. That is unfortunate because we start out on a basis of where we could well end up today along strong partisan lines. That comes at a time when our Nation--indeed, the world and, most importantly, the men and women of the Armed Forces--would like to see the Senate and, indeed, hopefully, the Congress standing behind them with strong bipartisanship. But I fear that it is going to be lost with this amendment. First, I carefully point out to those who are following this debate that this amendment in effect is nonbinding. It is the sense of the Senate, or Congress, as the case may be. But nevertheless it sends signals. It sort of states what this body feels should be done by the President of the United States as he continues to exercise his constitutional powers--I underline ``constitutional powers.'' He is the Commander in Chief, not Members of the Senate--constitutional powers in carrying forward the actions of our Armed Forces, and the actions of our Government as we try to support the newly elected unified Government of Iraq. As the nature of this free advice may be, my burden--and those of us on this side--is to point out how this can be misconstrued as the message crosses the ocean and as the Congress is trying to order the President to do certain things. That is not going to be the case. I have had recently the opportunity to have some private conversations with the President of the United States. My gray hair indicates that I have been privileged to serve in this institution now in my 28th year and before that for a number of years in the Department of Defense. I have worked with, I say with a sense of humility, many Presidents through many chapters of American history. But I must say I have yet to find any President with a stronger resolve, a stronger conviction to do what he believes is in the best interests of the American people, employing the forces of our men and women of the Armed Forces, employing every means this Government has to bring about solutions which he has outlined time and time again in Iraq and, indeed, Afghanistan. It is remarkable, unwavering, listening to advice, taking into consideration the views of others but clearly looking into the future, a future that generations long after we are gone will look back on this chapter of American history and I believe will decide that we pursued the correct course. Hopefully, those generations will be enjoying the measure of freedom that we have today. But that will only come to pass if the Congress of the United States provides this President the support that he needs. Therefore, it may be in the nature of free advice, but I want to clearly indicate to all following that there is much to be done to try and explain where I see there is fault in this amendment. Last week, the Senate overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to establish an arbitrary deadline of a timetable for withdrawal of United States forces from Iraq. An arbitrary deadline of a timetable would have been a serious strategic error, and a historic mistake of withdrawing our forces prior to the Iraqis being able to defend themselves. It would encourage terrorism, embolden al-Qaida, and threaten American security. Regrettably, the various courses of action that spring forth from the Democratic side of this aisle concern me greatly. They may not say it is a timetable. It is interesting that in the course of the presentation of this amendment in the media, I have watched my colleagues from that side of the aisle explain what it is they are going to put before the Senate today. Time and time again, they keep saying it is not a timetable; it is not a timetable. Why must they keep saying that the language is clear, that it is not a timetable? But let us start with the key paragraph in the amendment of my good friend and long-time colleague. I repeat it. It is on page 6. Submit to the Congress a plan by the end of 2006 with estimated dates for the continued phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq. Folks, I don't mean to demean this, but that is the English language. It reads very clearly. It is a timetable, no matter how many times people protest it is not a timetable. It is the English language written with clarity. We cannot accept that. Our colleagues today on this side of the aisle will vigorously give their views as to why we cannot accept that. Foremost in my mind is the loss of our men and women of the Armed Forces, now 2,500 in number, that have given the ultimate that any human being, any soldier, any sailor, any marine, any airman can give and that of their families. I wonder how these individuals would look at this clause and find any other conclusion to draw but that this is a timetable--a timetable that could well cripple the ability of this new government created by the courageous actions of the Iraqi people time and time again in elections, after a hard fought political situation, in which emerges, hopefully, a strong Prime Minister. They are just beginning to take full seizure of the reins of sovereignty, something this Nation has not had for a very long time. As they are seizing those reins, we are asked to stand in the Senate and to lay out in writing for all those who want to destabilize this new government the timetable on which we will remove our Armed Forces. Of course, there is a collateral question that is not addressed in this amendment. Maybe my colleague will address it. The United States, albeit, is the principal force of military. Great Britain, commensurate with the size of their armed forces and their nation and their population, has made a very significant contribution, as has Poland, and I could enumerate the other nations; modest though they may be, they are there. How are they to respond to this amendment? Are they to go on and pursue the missions they have laid out or are they to devise a timetable? That is one of the many unanswered questions I find in this amendment. Perhaps my colleagues will be forthcoming. The major events certainly of the last 10 days--the elimination of al-Zarqawi, a terrorist without parallel in the contemporary times of all mankind, his elimination, the formation of this new government--has given a momentum forward. It has spawned a measure of hope among the Iraqi people. It has spawned a measure of hope within our Armed Forces that there is clear proof our many sacrifices to date are beginning to produce concrete, visible results that cannot be challenged. We are moving toward establishing a secure and prosperous nation that will be an inspiration for the entire region of that world, and it is hard to think at this time we would take any action in this Senate to set back that momentum. The only way we are going to see our troops come home is if they seize that sovereignty, exercise that sovereignty, produce their own security and begin to reestablish their infrastructure. I do not see this amendment in any way helping. I see this amendment as impeding the progress. Give this new government a timetable. I ask my colleague, give them a timetable if you have to give a timetable to establish their goals, seize the reins of sovereignty. Do not broadcast through this amendment a timetable with regard to our forces. We all know there have been some very difficult days, tragic hours, the most recent of which is the loss of our two brave soldiers seized, and although not fully confirmed, certainly the probability is they were badly abused, not treated as prisoners of war but badly abused by someone in Iraq. Who knows who they may have been? Obviously, the insurgents, presumably al-Qaida. Our President, Secretaries of State and Defense, and our military commanders have all stood and said forthrightly, these are painful losses. Each one of these individuals I know and have worked with personally. They feel the loss of life. They feel for the injured. They feel for their families. But to attain the freedom, not just for the Iraqis but for this country, from terrorism, that pain has to be endured, those losses are likely to continue. I commend all for being forthright that the days ahead pose challenges and further losses. Any amendment requiring phased redeployment as our policy on a timetable to begin in 2006 sends that signal that begins to set back the progress we have achieved to date. That phrase about the timetable of redeployment will be examined with utmost care by those who are trying to destabilize this government--be they al-Qaida, insurgents, or, unfortunately, the sectarian violence. They are likely to say, we will wait out the timetable and then we will resume the violence and with every means we can to destabilize this government. That will be the result of this amendment. This is an inopportune time because in the last 10 days we witnessed the death of the most prominent terrorist in Iraq, the complete formation of the Iraqi Government, a historic meeting in Baghdad between President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki, more raids against al-Qaida cells in Iraq, and a plan for the way ahead for this new democratically elected government in Iraq. We have the momentum. We must take advantage of this moment and this opportunity and move forward. I know other colleagues are anxious to speak. I want to share this time. I pose a question to my distinguished colleague from Michigan about another paragraph in his amendment. This one I find particularly puzzling. It is written, again, in very clear language, so I feel the meaning of it is written explicitly on page 5. It says that the President of the United States should do the following: (i) expedite the transition of United States forces in Iraq to a limited presence . . . What do you mean by ``limited presence''? . . . limited presence and mission of training Iraqi security forces . . . That we are doing with every bit of vigor we can possibly muster. . . . providing logistic support of Iraqi security forces . . . We are doing that as best we can. . . . protecting United States infrastructure and personnel, and participating in targeted counterterrorism activities; Does that mean we limit our force structure to the special ops forces? What is it that the balance of our forces do? Do they begin to rotate back under this timetable? I hope at some point in this debate those questions can be fully answered because the President is the Commander in Chief. He makes the decisions with regard to how our Armed Forces are employed utilizing the advice of the professional military commanders to direct specifically the actions to carry out the missions to achieve our goals. I say to my good friend, this paragraph D, the President should expedite the transition, what is the nature of the transition of United States forces in Iraq to a limited presence? I see no contingency phrase in this as there is elsewhere in this amendment. If they were to have a tremendous insurrection, what do we do if we have transitioned our forces? Does that mean they are moved somewhere? Does that mean they stay in their bases? This paragraph, in effect, is usurping the rights under the Constitution of the Commander in Chief to direct the day-by-day operations and deployment and disposition of our Armed Forces. I hope in the course of this debate they will find time to explain with greater clarity what is meant by that paragraph. After consultation, No. 2, ``with the Government of Iraq, begin the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq this year,'' to me, again, lays down a marker that something is in the hip pocket regarding a timetable. Yes, we start with the government, and the Senator from Michigan cited some of the current government officials and some of the statements they have made. I freely say some of those statements do raise questions in my mind, but this government has only been in business a bare month. We have to give them time. We have to give the new Congress of the Iraqi Government an opportunity to voice its views in conjunction with those of the government officials. This word ``after consultation . . . begin the phased redeployment,'' how about if the government said we did not want a phased redeployment at this time? What would be the purpose of the consultation if they said, We do not want it at this time? That statement, in effect, has been stated time and time again while there have been remarks that, yes, we hope you will lure your forces away, the bottom line is, they know they cannot survive with this new government if we begin any major withdrawal of forces in the coming 2 or 3 months while this government is taking root. That is clear. No one disputes that. But you say ``consultation,'' then ``begin the phased redeployment . . . from Iraq.'' That is not my idea of consultation. My idea of consultation is to take into consideration the viewpoints of both sides. So we come back to submit to Congress a plan by the end of the year 2006 with estimated dates for the continued phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq with the understanding that unexpected contingencies may arise. That is fortunate to have that in there, but that is sort of lost because of the prominence of the first sentence. That is what is going to be read and interpreted by the insurgents, all those who want to bring down this new government. That signal must not be sent by the Congress. Mr. President, I yield the floor at this time and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the same order with the addition of Salazar.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to thank our colleague from Texas for his powerful message and also for his work on the Senate Armed Services Committee where he has labored long and hard and well into the future, I hope. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we will go from one side to the other. I have waiting the Senator from Virginia, Senator Hagel, Senator Roberts, Senator Bond, and Senator Thune. I will try to get them all in order of appearance. The Senator from Virginia is next on our side. I will sort out the sequence of the others.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Oregon up to 10 minutes.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say to my colleague, what a truly heartfelt, remarkable set of comments. I thank the Senator for contributing to this important debate. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, take a minute or so.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, but can he give us some definition of the time desired by yourself and Senator Feingold? Let's assume it is a half hour now between the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Vermont; that is, 30 minutes.

Mr. WARNER. That would be an hour and 20 minutes before anyone on this side--

Mr. WARNER. Two hours and 20 minutes before anyone on this side gets an opportunity to seek recognition other than the manager for purposes of a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. WARNER. I do believe we ought to hear from our senior colleague as to what his desires might be.

Mr. WARNER. I have no objection, if you wish to initiate with those two Senators beginning with 10 minutes each. Then what is to follow thereafter?

Mr. WARNER. Therefore using what amount of time?

Mr. WARNER. So we are back to the hour and 20 minutes on that side before we receive any time on this side?