John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I recall very vividly the testimony we received from the whole group of the Joint Chiefs of Staff led by General Myers. General Myers was very strong on this point. You mentioned General Pace. Indeed, he was a leader on it. But, across the board, our chiefs stepped up. I say to the Senator, it is important this be done. We accept the amendment and are ready to move when you are ready to move.

Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, momentarily we will have another matter to be brought to the floor. We are making progress. At the moment, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I very much need to accommodate Senators on both sides of the aisle with a short unanimous consent request.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join my colleague in thanking former Senator Glenn for coming back and joining the longstanding tradition of the Senate, and a proper one. A former Senator is always welcome back on the floor. There is the desk at which he sat these many years, and as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I never heard about the blowup thing before, but I can say I have seen the Senator sit in that chair and blow up this place many times in his long distinguished career and fight for the things in which he believed. We send the best to you, dear friend, and your lovely wife Annie, and wish you well. Return many times.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at this point in time under the UC, there is 2 hours equally divided between the distinguished Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, and Mr. Kyl, who will soon be on the floor, and myself. I would say to Senator Lugar, I find myself in a bit of an awkward position at this time in opposition because I remember the breakfast that Sam Nunn had in the Armed Services Committee office when the first concept of Nunn-Lugar was adopted and how grateful all of us are for the Senator's continued service in these many years ensuing to make this very important program effective not only for this country, the citizens of Russia, and the former Soviet Union but also the world. I thank the Senator from Indiana. Amendment No. 1380

Mr. WARNER. I wish to commend my very dear and longtime friend, Senator Lugar--as I said, I was here when this program was initiated-- and our esteemed former colleague, Sam Nunn, for their vision and work in this very valuable program. Through the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program the United States has, since 1991, been providing assistance to states of the former Soviet Union to help them eliminate and safeguard weapons of mass destruction and related infrastructure materials. These programs helped to eliminate large Cold War stockpiles and dangerous weapons that were no longer needed. Today, this program is an important element in the continuance of our strategy to keep weapons of mass destruction and the know-how from falling into hands antithetical to the interests of those who are trying to fight terrorism and preserve freedom. When Congress first authorized the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, an important element of the authorizing legislation was the inclusion of certain conditions that must be met before a country could receive CTR assistance from the United States. I was a key author of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 1993, which reauthorized the original Nunn-Lugar program. I was a strong advocate of including the requirement that, for each recipient nation of CTR funds, the President certify that the recipient nation is committed to: making substantial investment of its resources for dismantling or destroying its WMD; foregoing any military modernization program that exceeds legitimate defense requirements and foregoing the replacement of destroyed WMD; foregoing any use in new nuclear weapons of fissionable or other components of destroyed nuclear weapons; facilitating U.S. verification of any weapons destruction carried out through the CTR program; complying with all relevant arms control agreements; and observing internationally recognized human rights, including the protection of minorities. I believe these conditions remain as relevant and important today as they were in 1993. They provide the Congress and the public relevant information about the countries that are to receive taxpayer-funded assistance for eliminating and safeguarding weapons of mass destruction. The conditions help provide us confidence that U.S. tax dollars will be well spent in countries that are committed to right- sizing their militaries, complying with arms control agreements, providing transparency regarding how CTR assistance is used, and respecting human rights. These certification requirements do not impede the provision of CTR assistance. For several years now, Congress has provided the President with waiver authority so that even if one or more of the certifications cannot be made for a particular country, the President may provide CTR assistance to that country if he certifies it is in the national interest to do so. The current waiver authority will expire in September 2005. That is why in this bill we have included a provision that would make permanent the President's authority to waive, on an annual basis, the conditions on provision of CTR assistance when he judges it is in the national security interest to do so. This provision for permanent waiver authority for the CTR programs that is in our bill is what was submitted in the President's budget request to Congress. Only subsequently, on June 3, 2005, Secretary Rice wrote to Senator Lugar stating that the Administration supports legislation to remove the certification requirements for provision of CTR assistance. Her letter went on to state that the administration is also willing to consider alternatives including the OMB-cleared legislative request from the Department of Defense for a provision to renew permanently the authority under which existing certification requirements may be waived. So the administration does not oppose the existing congressionally-mandated certification requirements, so long as there remains a waiver provision. Senator Lugar's amendment would also repeal the conditions Congress placed on the provision of CTR assistance to Russia for chemical demilitarization activities. Those conditions were established in the FY 2000 National Defense Authorization Act. They required the Secretary of Defense to certify that Russia has: provided a full and accurate accounting of its chemical weapons stockpile; demonstrated a commitment to commit $25 million annually to chemical weapons elimination; developed a practical plan for destroying its stockpile of nerve agents; agreed to destroy or convert two existing chemical weapons production facilities; and demonstrated a commitment from the international community to fund and build infrastructure needed to support and operate the chemical weapons destruction facility in Russia. For several years the Congress decided not to support the provision of CTR assistance for chemical weapons destruction in Russia. It was precisely the inclusion of these conditions in the authorizing language that persuaded the Congress to resume U.S. CTR assistance for this important endeavor. These conditions relevant to the chemical weapons destruction program in Russia also have a waiver provision, so that the assistance can continue in the absence of certification if the President deems it in the national interest. I feel strongly that the eligibility requirements and conditions for CTR assistance are entirely appropriate and should not be repealed. They remain an important element in assuring the American taxpayer that CTR dollars are being expended wisely and that the underlying aims of the CTR program are in fact being embraced by the recipient countries. This is essential to maintaining strong public support for CTR. The waiver authority ensures that even in cases where a country does not meet all the eligibility requirements, the President has the authority to provide CTR assistance if it is in the national security interest to do so. I urge my colleagues not to support Senator Lugar's amendment to repeal the conditions and eligibility requirements for the CTR program. We all share the goal of supporting programs like CTR that can help keep dangerous WMD, and technology and know how, from slipping out of the countries of the former Soviet Union. I continue to believe that the certification requirements are useful in helping to maintain public confidence in the CTR program. I say to my good friend, when we initiated these criteria, it was done because the American public never fully quite understood how we could require their tax dollars, which were so badly needed for schools and medical needs and innumerable requirements in this country, be given to countries which ostensibly, if they wanted to squeeze their own budgets, might well obtain the funds to do it by themselves. But I think it was right for this country to step forward. In the history of this country beginning, really, with the Marshall Plan, we have gone to the aid of other nations, and we have been the beneficiaries, as I stated in my opening remarks, of the success to date of the Nunn-Lugar program. But still it seems to me that we have an obligation on behalf of the American taxpayers who continue to willingly give their dollars to this important program to have in place certain criteria that must be met in order for those dollars to leave our shores and go abroad. Now, this year, in consultation with Senator Lugar and the Department of State, we put in this bill the permanent waiver authority for the President. And that was important. I think that cuts down on some of the administrative problems and the time delays. But the fundamental and compelling reason to have these criteria remain is for this institution, the Congress of the United States, together with the executive branch, to monitor expenditure of these funds and to have that leverage to get reciprocal actions and assurances from those countries to which our taxpayers' dollars go. Mr. President, at this time I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the time I put under the control of the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for bringing this amendment. There are some very distinguished cosponsors. It would be my expectation to reply to the Senator in brief tonight following this vote because I think some record should be made today. The Senator made his statement on the side of the proponents, and I need time within which to evaluate since I have just received this document, but I will be prepared, following this vote, to make some reply, and I hope that my colleague would likewise.

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at this time, I yield to the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. WARNER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to respond to our distinguished minority leader. I accept full responsibility for the timing and the management of this bill and making the decision that there would be no more votes tonight. My leader has entrusted me with that power, and I have so exercised it. I regret that it appears to the minority leader, a very valued and dear colleague in this Chamber, that it is not a proper course of action, but I accept that. We have a difference of opinion. The fact that we will not have votes tonight will not deter my distinguished colleague and me as managers from continuing to work through amendments. We will both be here throughout tomorrow. We could stack a number of amendments which could be addressed on the afternoon of Monday at such time as the two leaders determine it would be appropriate. As to the matter of cloture, again I accept full responsibility. This is the 27th Armed Services bill I have been privileged to be involved in. I believe that historically cloture is needed, particularly in the last week when colleagues, understandably, on both sides of the aisle have many matters of great interest to them and they desire to exercise their rights to amend this bill and otherwise to get a decision by the Senate as a body. So I accept the responsibility. Whether we go ahead and as the cloture ripens we go forward, that is a matter I will work on with my leader in consultation. And if there is such progress made on a list of amendments that remain, I would wish to take into consideration the possibility we might not vote on it. But I feel I have to have that in place to efficiently work and manage this bill in the interim period between now and Tuesday morning. But bottom line, I accept the responsibility. It is not that of the distinguished majority leader. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.

Mr. WARNER. Now, Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Michigan and I have cleared amendments. I would like to do them. Then I wish to entertain a colloquy with my colleague from South Dakota. Perhaps I will undergo that colloquy at this time. Amendment No. 1389 Again, the Senator has very cooperative in bringing this amendment to the attention of the Senate. I have had a few minutes to go over it. Let's see if we can, as best we are able, define certain parameters with regard to the goals of this amendment and its impact on the existing law. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a detailed listing of the BRAC timeline.

Mr. WARNER. We have completed the GAO reviews of the DOD list and reported findings to the President and defense committees. That was done July 1. We are in the process and the Commission is having a series of hearings all across the country. The Commission sends its recommendations to the President on September 8. Thereafter, the President reviews the recommendations of the Secretary of Defense and the Commission's list of recommendations and reports to the Congress. That is September 23. Then the Commission may submit a revised list in response to the President's request no later than October 20. And the final date for the President to approve and submit the BRAC list to the Congress, or the process is terminated, is November 7. So that frames the current timetable. Now, as I look over the Senator's--and I will go first to page 2, the section entitled: ``Actions Required Before Base Closure Round.'' The actions referred to in subsection (a)-- And that is essentially the timetable I have recounted here-- are the following actions: (A) The complete analysis, consideration, and, where appropriate, implementation by the Secretary of Defense of the recommendations of the Commission on Review of Overseas Military Facility Structure of the United States. I draw your attention to the word ``implementation.'' Now, this report, if finished, will be released August 15. But the implementation--I certainly have no facts before me at this time by which I could even conjecture how long it would take the Secretary of Defense to implement the recommendations of the Commission on Review of Overseas Military Facility Structure of the United States. So there is no determinate date at which time the provisions in (A) can be estimated; is that correct?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, our colloquy is addressed through the Chair. It is the word ``implementation.'' It could be that analysis could be completed--consideration. But the ``implementation'' leaves an indeterminate date for (A). I think we both agree on that point. Going to the next point: The return from deployment in the Iraq theater of operations of substantially all (as determined by the Secretary of Defense) major combat units and assets of the Armed Forces. Now, our President, I think quite wisely, and the Secretary of Defense have avoided any reference to a timetable with respect to the achieving of our goals in Iraq; namely, allowing that country to form its government, to provide for itself that measure of security to protect the sovereignty and, hopefully, law and order in that country, at which time it is expected that our President and the coalition leaders will make a determination as to the redeployment from the theater in Iraq of substantially all of the major combat units. So that clearly is a very difficult condition to meet in terms of when that could be completed, that with even conjecture, we cannot anticipate when that will be completed--unless you have facts that I am not aware of.

Mr. WARNER. Well, it is the words ``return from deployment.'' That, clearly, in the mind of this Senator, means all the major, as determined by the Secretary of Defense, combat units. It is not difficult for me to define what are major combat units. What I cannot estimate in any way reasonably, and nor should I, because it would impinge upon the President's decision--a correct one--not to try to set a timetable. So anyway, I will move on. But that is a very indeterminate condition, to me. We then go to (C). Now, I am told that report is likely to be finished by March of next year. Then let's go now to (D): The complete development and implementation by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security of the National Maritime Security Strategy. Now, I can possibly conjecture or maybe even estimate when the development would be completed by the two Secretaries, but I certainly would not be able to determine, nor can anyone else, in my judgment, when there would be implementation. So there is another open-ended criteria. Am I incorrect?

Mr. WARNER. What I am trying to convey, Mr. President, to my distinguished colleague is that the criteria you have established for a new timetable, which, again, is in a subsequent paragraph--that is in paragraph (2) on page 4--and I read it-- The report required under subparagraph (F) of paragraph (1) shall be submitted not later than one year after the occurrence of the last action described in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of such paragraph. So you add possibly up to a year on a whole set of indeterminate schedules up here. Now, I think I have made my point. I want to put this question to the Senator. As our colleagues have the opportunity--as we are now doing--to look at this and to either determine how best they can vote to protect the interests of their State and to protect the interests of the country, as we go through this very difficult process of BRAC this is my fifth one. It is not easy. I think they have to suddenly recognize the indeterminate schedule, as laid out by this amendment, will hold in limbo the whole BRAC process for, it could be, up to 2 years. I just throw the quick estimate out of 2 years. That 2-year period poses a frightful situation for the communities that will have had by that time the report of the BRAC Commission, which will send its recommendations to the President on September 8. So this amendment does not stop that process going forward. I am correct on that; am I not?

Mr. WARNER. That is fine. But on September 8, all the communities would know what is final, what is decided by the Commission on the President's original list that went up, which bases, facilities will be closed, realigned, whatever the case may be. It is a wide spectrum of decisions. Then they are subject to other additions, which they are in the process of going through. And they are permitted by law. So there it is: The BRAC Commission report is out, and these communities have to now cope with the high probability, under this amendment, were it to be adopted--2 years have lapsed. In the meantime, how can they attract new business as a consequence of such facility, the military they have? The businesses that are serving indirectly or directly the military facilities in that community, do they decide to put in new capital and continue to modernize their business to do their responsible actions to support that facility? You put a cloud of indecision and doubt over all the communities that will be affected by this September 8 decision. And BRAC is onerous in its own schedule right here. It is extremely hard. And now to take and hold these communities, literally, in irons for a period of 2 years until, if the amendment were adopted, certain adjustments might be made in the final Presidential decision--I just find this amendment, with all due respect to my good friend and colleague, who is a member of our committee, as one that will impose on communities a very severe hardship. I am not sure the Congress will want to do that. I say that to you in all respect.

Mr. WARNER. One last point, and then perhaps the distinguished ranking member would like to be engaged in this debate. One of the aspects of the BRAC process that has always troubled this Senator is the duty, beginning with the Governor of the State and the congressional delegation, to encourage the communities, with their support, to do everything they can to question such decisions as may be made regarding installations within that State and the several communities. In doing so, they engage in those activities which are quite normal-- hire lobbyists, experts to come in and help them. That whole infrastructure then essentially has to be kept in place for maybe up to another 2 years at an enormous cost to these communities. I will argue strenuously, when we get into further debate on the Senator's amendment, that the amendment, no matter how well-intended, will inflict on communities across this land affected by BRAC an unusual punishment that certainly I do not believe any of us would want to do. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. I understand that. But it seems to me, if you look at all of the information, data, reports in A, B, C, D, E, and F, to me, in fairness, the communities should have some involvement as to how that information may or may not impact the decision with regard to their community rendered by the BRAC Commission. I just can't see that everybody is going to fold their hands. If you are going to delay it for 2 years, some provision should be made to allow the active participation, once again, by the communities after this massive amount of data is brought into the public domain. I make that observation. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. My last question on that point, there will be an enormous amount of data generated, information and decisionmaking that will take place should the Senator's amendment become law. Is he suggesting that the communities then will have no participation in the deliberations as to how that data may or may not affect the decision of the Secretary of Defense regarding the prior decision of the Base Closure Commission and how the Secretary of Defense is to advocate? I just cannot see this amount of data and decision being made by all of these various tribunals and organizations and that the communities just have to sit there and fold their hands and let the executive branch go backwards and forwards until the President then submits something to the Congress.

Mr. WARNER. What we do have already is a statement by the President that any effort to delay or impede the BRAC process would lead to a veto, with such clarity in my mind. By the way, an amendment, if I may advise my good friend, quite similar to this amendment was considered by the House and defeated by a vote of 112 for and 316 against, or something. I think our colleague should know if this ever got into the bill, the President would have to veto the bill. We would have to start all over again on the Defense bill. I don't know when we would do it. But certainly if the House is any guide, it was thoroughly rejected. Am I not correct in that?