John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Florida. I think other Senators desire to speak on this amendment. I yield to the good judgment and fair judgment of the senior members of the Appropriations Committee as to the timing of the vote on this amendment. I do urge Senators to come and express their views on this important issue. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. Therefore, I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to oblige the distinguished chairman. May I hear the request again.

Mr. WARNER. I am perfectly agreeable to an equal division of the time. If the Senator needs 15, we have had the opportunity, Senator Nelson, myself, and others, and I believe the Presiding Officer may wish to speak, and Senator Allen. So that is agreeable.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to Senator Nelson and my colleagues, it is clear this decision to take the Kennedy and put it in a situation where it is going into mothballs was made in the final hours of the budget process. It was driven by the budget. The Chief of Naval Operations had testified before our committee, which testimony is before the Senate, that he always wanted 12 carriers. If we are to make a decision to go from 12 carriers to 11, that should be done in the QDR process which is underway now, which will be concluded this year, possibly impacted by the BRAC process which likewise is underway, and consequently there are orderly procedures legislated by the Congress by which a decision of this magnitude should be made. There are three Senators who desire to speak, and I will yield 2 minutes to each of them: Senator Allen, 2 minutes; Senator Martinez, 2 minutes, and Senator Talent, 2 minutes.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, might I inquire as to the total time remaining under my control?

Mr. WARNER. I yield 30 additional seconds to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. WARNER. So as a former Secretary of the Navy myself, I feel very strongly. I do not know of any Senator who stood on this floor more times to defend the Department of the Navy--I say with a sense of humility--than I. But I believe this time the decision was driven by the budget, and it is not a correct one given the status of forces in that area, given the uncertainty about the ability to continue the homeporting of a Navy carrier in our expensive base that we have maintained--as a matter of fact, as Secretary I put it together--in Yokosuka. If there is more time, I yield the time back and suggest the Senate work its will.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at this time, will you entertain a brief question?

Mr. WARNER. The Senator has read from a transcript. We have had a discussion about it. Wouldn't you say that the Chief of Naval Operations expressed a different view at a different time?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my good friend the funds needed, to the extent funds are needed, to keep this ship in an operational status are in the 2005 budget. The only reason we had to make reference with the sentence ``of the amount appropriated for the Department of Navy by this act'' was to get it germane so we could get it to the floor so the Senate of the United States can make a decision. I say to the Senator most respectfully, the funds that are needed to put this ship in such condition to continue are there. However, just today the admiral, who was the battle fleet commander who brought this ship back from its most recent deployment, said as follows: If improvements made to the JFK avionics maintenance facility prior to deployment-- The access to this ship. And he concludes by saying: The results from our aggressive self-sufficiency and superb technical support, mostly via aviation technology, enabled us to return from the deployment in outstanding material condition. That is the status of the ship. The reason we are trying to keep this in is not a political one, it is not relating to our various jurisdictions. It is for the interest of this country to keep a ship in port in Japan which is nonnuclear, while the Japanese Government and the local mayoral government--I think it is called a precept--make the decision as to whether they will ever allow a nuclear carrier in there. I think there is adequate testimony in our records of the Armed Services Committee to the effect the Navy believes keeping a ship in that area of operation, particularly at this time of heightened tension, is in the interest of our national security and our ability to work with our allies and friends in that region. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, can I inquire of the time remaining under my control? My understanding is there were 15 minutes to Senator Stevens and 15 minutes given to my side.

Mr. WARNER. I think, in the interest of moving this along, that we adhere to the request there be 15 minutes to each side.

Mr. WARNER. We failed to achieve an agreement. So can I reinstate the original request, 15 minutes to each side--it is now less the amount of time consumed by both sides--so the Senate can get on with its business?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I simply say to my good friend in a very dispassionate, calm way, you read from a document that is only 10 days old. They learned that I differed with them, and they have done everything they can to build a case to stop it. But not a dollar has gone out of the Navy Treasury. It is still there. You will see that that was done just 10 days ago. I say to my good friend, they made the decision to keep this in the budget. It was in the budget up until the last 2 days when down came a cut in dollars and they decided to go to where they maybe cut a few bucks out. They can restore them and that ship can stay alive and that ship can be added to address any problem to defend our interests in that area for an indefinite period of time because it is in good condition as certified today--am I correct, Senator?--by the admiral in charge of that ship?

Mr. WARNER. I ask Senator Collins be added to those as cosponsor, and that the list remain open because we have received a lot of calls from people who want to support this amendment.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Maryland. We have in the Senate a great respect and admiration for the junior Senator from Maryland for her commitment for the little person. I cannot think of another example in her long and distinguished career in the Senate where there is a clearer case for the small business, that individual who is struggling to make an honest living and provide jobs for others. We have before us today a tremendous challenge as it relates to immigration on a wide range of issues. This program works. It is very small in comparison to others, but it works. It serves the small businesses, not only seafood, which we have talked about before in the context of this amendment, but other small things--the bed and breakfasts, the small hotels that are so important in our respective States and elsewhere in America. I say to our colleagues, as they come to join us, it is essential that we pass this to help this category of small businesspersons and to lend credence to a program that works. For every one of these individuals who is brought in, it would be my judgment--and I concur, with my distinguished colleague--that there are two or three permanent American workers whose jobs are supported by their efforts. Oftentimes most of these come in for a short period, some several months, largely in the summertime; some in the fall. Then they go back to their homes beyond the borders of the United States. But the American worker then takes their work product and it enables them to have a full-time, 12- month means of employment. This is one on which my colleagues will be proud to vote for cloture. In effect, it will enable this legislation to pass. On behalf of the leadership of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the filing deadline for second-degree amendments be extended until the beginning of the cloture vote on the Mikulski amendment.

Mr. WARNER. Do I not have a bit of time on mine? On behalf of my colleague from Virginia, I ask unanimous consent that he proceed for 2 minutes.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the two Senators from Virginia accept the challenge of the Senator from Maryland to a cookoff on crabcakes. Before we started this, the Senator talked about her mother's formula. We have ours.

Mr. WARNER. With that, I yield the floor. Cloture Motion

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, as a cosponsor, I would like to have 2 minutes.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, as a cosponsor, may I have 2 minutes?

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I am joined by the distinguished Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, Senator Allen, Senator Martinez, Senator Talent, and Senator Collins. I am prepared to give my statement in support. I see the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. WARNER. I think the Senator is asking that he be recognized at the conclusion of the introduction of this amendment. Senator Nelson and I will be brief to accommodate our colleagues. Mr. President, this amendment ensures that all necessary repair and maintenance be accomplished on the USS John F. Kennedy to keep that ship in active status. The amendment also requires the Navy to keep 12 aircraft carriers until the later of several situations comes to the attention of the Senate and the Congress: 180 days after the next Quadrennial Defense Review is delivered to Congress, or the Secretary of Defense has certified to Congress the necessary agreements have been entered into to provide the port facilities for the permanent forward deployed aircraft carriers deemed necessary to carry out the mission in their area of responsibility. The ship, the USS Kennedy, was scheduled to start overhaul this coming summer. There was $334.7 million authorized and appropriated in the fiscal year 2005 for that purpose. So none of the funds in the underlying bill in any way are garnered by this amendment. In the last-minute budget cut in late December, the decision was made by the Department of Defense to defer maintenance and to decommission the Kennedy. The Chief of Naval Operations testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 10 of this year that all 12 aircraft carriers were in his original budget request. He stated, however, that ``this action was driven by guidance'' from the office of Management and Budget that ``led to the reduction of our overall budget.'' That repair and maintenance should go forward, starting this summer as originally planned. It is premature to decommission this ship, which was until this past December scheduled to remain in the fleet until 2018. The great ship, the John F. Kennedy, returned from deployment on December 13, 2004. I understand the ship is in good shape. In fact, in the words of the battle group commander, whose flagship was the Kennedy, the ship returned from deployment in ``outstanding material condition.'' The primary analytical document on military force structure is the Quadrennial Defense Review, or QDR. The QDR is, in the end, a compilation of detailed analyses of what the Nation requires to execute the National Military Strategy. I believe Congress should show restraint when it comes to making force structure decisions, and only do so in the context of the reports and the analyses produced by the Department of Defense and such other reports that may be relevant. In this case, however, the analyses that are available to us supports a force structure of 12 aircraft carriers, not 11. I also believe that, at some point, the number of aircraft carriers matters. If the aircraft carrier is not where the President needs it to be when a crisis erupts, its capabilities, however awesome, are not very meaningful. The deliberations on the next QDR have already begun, in accordance with the law, and it should be delivered by this time next year. It may show, with analytical rigor, that the number of aircraft carriers can be reduced. It may not. Nowhere is naval power more important to the National Military Strategy than in the Pacific Command Area of Responsibility. After retirement of the USS Kitty Hawk in fiscal year 2008, the Kennedy, if retained, would be the last remaining conventional aircraft carrier. This amendment ensures we have the aircraft carriers necessary to keep this area of the world covered until such time that the QDR, the Global Posture Review, and other uncertainties have been resolved. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. President, the CNO appeared before our committee here of recent. Now I will yield to my distinguished colleague from Florida, who was present during the course of that testimony, to insert that part which was in open session, which I think we should share with our colleagues. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Florida, my principal cosponsor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask my distinguished colleague from West Virginia if it would be in order to lay the amendment aside so I can send to the desk another amendment.