John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we are still getting the concurrence of one side on the unanimous consent request. It was my understanding it was cleared. I think it will eventually be cleared. In the meantime, I yield the floor so that our colleague from Iowa can speak.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, might I ask the Senator to yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa. I am prepared to restate the unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 p.m., the Senate proceed to 30 minutes of debate, equally divided in the usual form, relative to the McConnell and Nelson amendments; provided further, that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on the McConnell amendment No. 4272, as modified-- The modification is at the desk. Did the Chair rule on the modification? Amendment No. 4272, as Modified

Mr. WARNER. To be followed by a vote on the Nelson amendment No. 4265, and that no amendments be in order to the amendments prior to the votes, with the modification that is at the desk having now been acted upon.

Mr. WARNER. That is correct, 30 minutes of debate equally divided.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, to accommodate the Senate, would we not at 12:30 p.m. go into recess? Perhaps I can ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion--how much time does the Senator wish to speak?

Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator of Iowa, the Senate stand in recess until the hour of 2:15 p.m.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the pending business is the DOD authorization bill and most specifically the amendments by Senator McConnell and Senator Bill Nelson of Florida. The McConnell amendment is to be voted on first, followed by a vote on the second amendment. Am I correct?

Mr. WARNER. I shall address the McConnell amendment. First, the amendments have a great likeness. But I felt, in working with the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, that his amendment--I ask unanimous consent that I be a cosponsor of that amendment.

Mr. WARNER. That is correct. Based on my discussions with Senator Nelson, he in good faith read those reports and felt very strongly, as I think many of us do, about the issue of amnesty and came forward with that amendment. Then, we purposely delayed final action on these two amendments last week, such that in the intervening time there would be further clarification. I do believe there has been some further clarification of this matter. I can address that in the context of a communication from the Department of State, I say to my good friend from Kentucky. I was able to obtain this information, which hopefully will be forthcoming momentarily, stating just that: The Iraqi Government understands precisely what the situation is, that an error was made and they have put in place I think adequate corrections.

Mr. WARNER. I believe very strongly that a second amendment was needed because of what we have been working toward--the United States and its coalition partners--from the very beginning, and that is to provide the Iraqi people with a sovereign nation in which they can exercise the full range of authorities and responsibilities of a sovereign nation. Therefore, they went about a series of elections. Every Member of this Chamber recognizes the courage of the Iraqi people in three elections. Then there was the formation of a permanent government, a unity government. Having achieved that, they are now beginning to exercise the full responsibilities of a sovereign nation. I was concerned that we, as a legislative body of our Nation, not indicate that we are infringing on their rights of sovereignty. This whole issue of amnesty is an important one. I do not, in any measure, suggest it is not important. But I think we have to observe that they are a sovereign nation. How they go about it should largely be within the confines of their own wisdom and goals because our whole future is dependent on this Government and the people of Iraq taking back their country such that our forces can come back home. Whatever that Government does that is constructive toward reaching that goal I want to support. So in working on this amendment, I, working with the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, drafted one or two provisions with him which state as follows: It is the sense of Congress that the goal of the United States and our Coalition partners has been to empower the Iraqi Nation with full sovereignty thereby recognizing their freedom to exercise that sovereignty. Through successive elections and difficult political agreements the unity government is now in place exercising that sovereignty. We must respect that exercise of that sovereignty in accordance with their own wisdom; History records that governments derived of free elections should not grant amnesty to those who have committed war crimes or terrorist acts, and; [further] The United States should continue with the historic tradition of diplomatically, economically, and in a humanitarian manner assisting nations and the people whom have fought once a conflict is concluded.

Mr. WARNER. I am happy to yield the floor, if the Senator so desires.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, he was fired.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator is exactly correct.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think, certainly in my judgment, that would be an acceptable situation because there is clarity in the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky about a point that is very important to me; i.e, sovereignty, exercise of that. With no disrespect to the Senator from Florida, I believed his amendment as originally drafted, and the intent, was to reach across the ocean and have the U.S.A. reach into the Government and try to dictate what was to be done. So I believe the Senator is correct in that, and I join him in that suggestion to our colleagues.

Mr. WARNER. Yes, of course.

Mr. WARNER. President, first, the distinguished Senator from Florida referred to a Los Angeles Times article. I think that article should be placed in the Record following the colloquy between myself and the distinguished Senator from Florida and the Senator from Texas. Also, I am not sure that we should make decisions here based on one report of one newspaper. I am not impugning the Times; it is an outstanding newspaper. But we just do not have any corroboration of some of the statements. I point out they refer to the amnesty plan which currently would include insurgents alleged to have staged attacks against Americans and Iraqis. The second sentence down is the reconciliation plan which is expected to be formally announced soon. So that plan is in the making. There is still some formulation of policy going on. It is for that reason that I believe a strong vote on both of these amendments sends a subtle message about our concern. Let us assume for the moment that that plan has not been made formal. I inquired of the Department of State as to whether or not anything had transpired over the weekend. There was one meeting between Prime Minister Maliki and the charges d'affaires of the American Embassy. The charges d'affaires reported back to the Department of State.

Mr. WARNER. Has the 15 minutes allocated to the Senator from Virginia expired? I ask unanimous consent that both sides be extended 5 minutes in this debate.

Mr. WARNER. It was stated that there was a meeting between the charges d'affaires at the U.S. Embassy and Prime Minister Maliki on 17 June. Prime Minister Maliki affirmed that any future amnesty would not differentiate between those who killed Iraqis and those who killed coalition forces. None of these people would be pardoned. Second, Prime Minister Maliki confirmed that there should not be a concern that his reconciliation plan would prohibit Multinational Forces-Iraqi--MNFI--operations or impose a timeline for future Iraqi support of the MNFI, the point being that they are looking at this situation. I think that these two amendments will send not a message that invades or impairs their exercise of the right of sovereignty but expresses the concern on behalf of all. The distinguished Senator mentioned the tragic loss of our two servicepersons. It has not, to the best of my knowledge, been confirmed officially, but nevertheless earlier media reports the tragic killing and mutilation of these two brave American soldiers, which is just an example of the ferocity of this conflict that we are experiencing over there and the enormous risks being taken by the men and women of our Armed Forces. So I think the message sent by both of these amendments is a timely one. I urge Senators to vote for both. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. If I might on the Senator's time because ours is down to about 1 minute.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think we should visit that issue only if in fact at some point in time that position is made official. The purpose of that language--and I accept full responsibility for that language--is I feel fervently that the ability for us to conclude our operation with our coalition partners in Iraq and to bring our troops home is predicated on the strength of the sovereignty exercised by this government. The Senator knows full well as do others in this Chamber that there is a high disrespect, unfortunately, among many Iraqis for the United States and its government. If there are any of our fingerprints that we are trying to dictate to that sovereign nation how they must make decisions, I fear it could impede the progress to bring our forces home. That is why that is in there.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I may call the Senator's attention to page 1 of the McConnell-Warner amendment. It says: Sense of the Congress commending the government of Iraq for affirming its position of no amnesty for terrorists who attack United States Armed Forces. Could that be any clearer?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am certain that working on the predicate that they are a sovereign nation, they can make decisions. There will be decisions which are inconsistent with the views that we hold in this country. How do we enforce our views without interfering with their sovereignty? First, let them speak with absolute clarity to this. The McConnell amendment--and the Senator keeps saying within the four corners. Look at corner No. 1. The introductory has very clear and expressed language against the policy. Will there be times that we disagree with their exercise of sovereignty and their own wisdom? Yes. But if we are to obtain what we hope is our goal of giving that nation its sovereign right, we cannot be dictating to them how they reach their final decision.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my friend at this point in time that we believe the amendment speaks for itself. The first section of the amendment cites a sense of the Congress commending the Government of Iraq for affirming its position of no amnesty for terrorists who attack U.S. Armed Forces. What could be clearer than that? That sets the tone and the thrust for the entire amendment. I have said to my colleagues, it seems to me, in the spirit of comity, we have had a good debate, we have seen some further clarification of this issue in the time that has evolved since Thursday and today; secondly, assuming time is a measure of accuracy, this policy is undergoing evaluation in Iraq right now. These two amendments, side by side, receiving a strong vote of the Senate, should suffice in the mission the Senator from Florida set out on and on which I join him.

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