John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished leader. The Senator forgot the one time it was 5 weeks, but we got there.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished leader. I cannot remember how many years he was in the House and how many years he has been in the Senate, but I have only been here 27.

Mr. WARNER. If he had something such as this on the roll, he would have a challenge----

Mr. WARNER. Give them the benefit of the doubt to find out, but this is at the desk right now. This is the moving target on this BRAC. I am strongly in favor of the current BRAC law being implemented as it is written in the law, not deviating in any way. I cannot accept the delay, I say to my distinguished leader, because there are too many communities burdened by all the expenses of lobbyists, and so forth, and the uncertainty that would throw onto the business community not knowing, with the Thune amendment, for maybe another 2 years whether they are going to stay open.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am familiar with that. These communities could not begin to attract new business, could not get new capital. They would become almost stagnated not knowing which way that decision would go. I thank my distinguished leader for his participation in this debate.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might advise the Senate, there was a UC in place whereby the Senator from South Carolina was to be recognized for the purpose of bringing an amendment to the attention of the Senate. He has been patiently waiting some period of time. I would like to consult with the distinguished Senator from Michigan. I would like to give the Senator from South Carolina the opportunity to proceed, but I would like to be aware of what the needs of the Senator from Michigan are in regards to his side.

Mr. WARNER. It is a part of the Record.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, might I suggest that we take 15, and I would like to have 5 of those minutes.

Mr. WARNER. I am not aware of that. I have been on the floor. I know that we checked with the Senator's side and there was some doubt as to whether there could be votes.

Mr. WARNER. In fairness to our colleagues, let us clear that up in the course of the debate on the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina. Might I ask from the Senator from Florida how much time he would like?

Mr. WARNER. Absolutely.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think we had modified the previous order with a new UC whereby the Senator from South Carolina gets 15 minutes, 5 minutes under the control of the Senator from Virginia, and 10 under his control, followed by the Senator from Florida for 10 minutes. Am I not correct?

Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:45 a.m. on Tuesday, July 26. I further ask that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then resume consideration of S. 1042, as under the previous order. I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided between the stacked votes, and that following the first vote all votes be 10 minutes, and that the filing deadline for second-degree amendments be at 11 a.m. tomorrow. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess from 12:30, or at the conclusion of the last vote, whichever is latest, until 2:15 to accommodate the weekly party luncheons.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, tomorrow, the Senate will resume consideration of the Defense authorization bill. Under the previous order, there will be 20 minutes of debate equally divided on the Collins and Lautenberg amendments, followed by a series of stacked votes. We will have up to five votes beginning at approximately 10:15 a.m., and Senators should make sure they adjust their schedules accordingly.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 210, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. That is the full time?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before my distinguished colleague leaves the floor, she had the courtesy, as she always does, to show me the amendments. One of them relates to BRAC. The distinguished Senator from South Dakota offered a BRAC amendment the other night. I glanced at this one. It seems to be similar in form, but I have not had a chance to examine it. The purpose of my colloquy with the Senator would be to encourage Senators who are concerned about the important issues on BRAC to take note that we had an extensive colloquy between myself and the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, with the Senator from Michigan, the ranking member joining in, the other evening on the subject. I hope that other Senators who may be cosponsors or otherwise interested in this issue will find the opportunity to examine the original amendment and this amendment and that we hopefully today can have a continuation of this important debate on the issues relating to BRAC which are of great concern to a number of colleagues.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague. I do bring to the attention of colleagues that today is a good opportunity for debate such that we can have a vote on it as quickly as the proposers and others think it is appropriate.

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

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might ask my distinguished colleague a question or two. We are all good, strong supporters of the CTR program. But I am informed that you are taking $50 million from the missiles. I will address that question momentarily. But I think the Senate should know this--and I ask if I am in error, if the Senator would correct me, if not now, perhaps one of your staff members, in due course, could assist. The Senate should know there is $500 million of unspent 2005 money in the CTR program. The amendment would take this program, which as you point out has some test problems, and to give it the body blow this amendment would render, for $50 million will virtually cause a very severe perturbation in the production line. The Senator is familiar with how the production lines work. There are estimates of cost up to as much as $270 million to restart the line at some point in the future. But with $500 million for 2005 unexpended in CTR, I hope, if colleagues look at this amendment fairly and practically, maybe judge it on the merits--the use of these funds, to me, is not a justification for supporting the amendment.

Mr. WARNER. I agree with the Senator's premise but I wouldn't want Senators to believe that, if I am correct, the shortage of money is in CTR. I am informed there is, in the bank, $500 million of 2005 unexpended funds. Does the Senator want to address that now?

Mr. WARNER. I am a big supporter of CTR. I happened to be in the room on the day CTR was born--by Sam Nunn. I will never forget it. I have followed the program. I have been a supporter. I think there is quite a bit of funding in this budget for CTR right now. I point out, if the Senator is persuaded by the fact that CTR needs the money more than the missile program--and I will argue the point strenuously that is not the case--there is quite a bit of money. We are way into the 2005 cycle. As a matter of fact, September is on the horizon. So I hope the Senator could carefully research that point, come back, and if I am in error, I would certainly like to hear his views. I point out the current bill is consistent with the President's program that allocated $50 million toward this next tranche of the long-lead, cumulative money for ground-based interceptors. If you take $30 million out of the $50 million, I assure you, that does considerable disruption to the production line. Then I point out the amount available for construction of associated silos, reduced by $20 million. I wonder if you might take the chance to check on the fact that the President's budget in this bill only allocates $13.5 million to the initial construction of the associated silos, and therefore your $20 million is considerably in excess of the $13.5 million.

Mr. WARNER. We will have our staffs check those figures. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I would like to vigorously oppose this amendment for the following reasons. The impact of the amendment would be, first and foremost, to send a message that we are not supporting, as a nation, wholeheartedly the ballistic missile defense capabilities to defend ourselves. It is clear North Korea has capabilities. This program was engendered in large measure, and accelerated in large measure because of the threat posed by North Korea. I noted here recently that Japan is now building its missile defense system. So it is not that the United States alone, in the world of nations, considers it a threat; other nations consider the North Korean capabilities a threat. It is correct we have had these test bans, but the failures that more or less have been in the mechanical phase-- somehow the missile is adjusted in its launch pad as opposed to the actual failure of the missile itself. And then I will address this question of the break in production which could result--assuming the program is restarted in its full measure--maybe up to $270 million is one estimate I have been given to restart it. Again, I agree with the sponsors of the amendment that the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program is an important national security issue for the defense of our homeland against the growing threats. But asking us to choose between missile protection and CTR is a false choice. We need both. This bill funds the President's requested amount fully for both programs. The bill before the Senate authorizes the requested amount of $415.5 million for CTR programs within the Department of Defense and $1.6 billion for other nonproliferation efforts in the Department of Energy. There is a very strong recognition in this bill before the Senate, the authorization bill, of the importance of CTR. There is no current need for extra CTR funds. That is our basic proposition. They have in the bank very substantial amounts from 2005. They are unexpended. Whether they have been committed, I will have that checked. With a backlog that large and only roughly 70 days left in the fiscal year--that is an awful lot of money if someone is going to try to commit it and expend it in that period of time. The President's budget for missile defense, on the other hand, has already taken a considerable amount of cuts. Due to last-minute decisions made at the Department of Defense as the fiscal year 2006 budget was being finalized, the missile defense budget request was reduced by $1 billion in 2006 and $5 billion overall between 2006 and 2011. The sponsors of this amendment argue we should not provide long-lead funding for the GBI missiles 31 to 40 because of test failures. I am mindful of the recent difficulties encountered by the GMD system test program, but it is my view and that of the Department--and, indeed, independent authorities have looked at this problem--that these difficulties do not represent serious technological hurdles by the GMD program. Indeed, such problems are to be expected during the R&D and development phase of complicated weapons systems. To get at the root cause of the testing problems, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency, to his great credit, commissioned the Independent Review Team, called the IRT, to examine the recent GMD test failures. The IRT found, one, that no fundamental GMD system design flaws are related to the recent test failures. Moreover, this independent panel found no evidence that major modifications of the current system hardware or software will be required. In other words, it is unlikely that future testing will find some major fault in the system that will require costly retrofit to the already fielded and those in production line of the GBIs. For those of my colleagues concerned about testing, I point out that this bill before you contains a provision--developed in a bipartisan fashion during the committee's markup--which requires the Missile Defense Agency, the service operational test agencies, and the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation to plan and conduct tests that demonstrate the operational capability of the ballistic missile defense system. The bill also reallocates $100 million from longer-term development efforts to GMD testing, consistent with the recommendations of the Independent Review Team. The current and growing threat posed to our country by long-range ballistic missiles argues for proceeding without delay with the Department's approach of concurrent testing and fielding of ballistic missile defense capabilities for the homeland. Some of my colleagues suggest that because the current system is not fully proven, we should not procure additional missile interceptors. To this I would respond that General Cartwright, Commander of U.S. Strategic Command--the senior military official charged with advising the Secretary of Defense and the President on missile defense matters-- has testified, with respect to the current GMD system, that ``in an emergency, we are in fact in the position that we are confident that we can operate and employ it.'' In addition, the Pentagon's chief independent weapons tester, the Director for Operational Test and Evaluation, noted in his most recent Annual Report to Congress that ``the test bed architecture is now in place and should have some limited capability to defend against a threat missile from North Korea.'' In my view, it is a good thing that we have some capability--albeit limited--to defend the homeland against long-range missiles. For as General Cartwright testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in April, ``we have a realistic threat here; we have an imperative.'' General Cartwright is referring to CIA and DIA estimates that the North Korean Taepo-Dong 2 ballistic missile is capable of reaching the United States with a nuclear warhead--and that North Korea could resume flight testing of the Taepo-Dong 2 at any time. The Defense Intelligence Agency also estimates that Iran will have the capability to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile, ICBM, by 2015. We simply can't wait until the threat is upon us to deploy missile defenses; we can't wait until the GMD system is fully and completely tested before we start providing some measure of protection against this threat. It is our responsibility to field what capabilities currently exist, even while we continue to test and improve the system. By continuing to field missile defenses today, we send a message to potential adversaries that we will not be deterred or coerced by their possession of long-range ballistic missiles. In summary, I ask my colleagues to reject the amendment offered by Senator Levin. This amendment would needlessly delay the fielding of a ballistic missile defense capability to protect the homeland. As the Commander of STRATCOM warns, the threat is real. We must continue on the current path of fielding available capabilities--even while testing continues to improve the system over time.