John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Fine; I understand.

Mr. WARNER. I have to interpose an objection.

Mr. WARNER. Can I ask, is this a modification to the Leahy amendment?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my distinguished friend, the Democratic leader, I think the Senate Armed Services Committee, working in conjunction with the Senate Appropriations Committee in a bipartisan way, over a series of years now, has addressed, together with the participation of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, a number of issues which have substantially improved the ability of the veterans to meet their obligations to their families and to themselves for the balance of their natural lives. For 2 consecutive years and again this year, the distinguished Senator from Nevada brought forth a provision for concurrent receipts, which is an improvement in the bill on that. Senator Landrieu, together with two other colleagues, Senators Snowe and Ensign on this side, have now perfected an amendment which is going to help the widows as they meet--and perhaps those of the male sex who are recipients of the retirement benefits of a female veteran--as a consequence of this bill, each of those will be able to expect to have greater certainty as to the amount of money in terms of their retirement at that juncture in life when Social Security becomes available to the surviving spouse in that situation. As to the impression that the Senate, and particularly the Armed Services Committee, has not been very forthcoming in fulfilling what each of us believe in our hearts is that tremendous debt of gratitude to veterans and their families, I suggest the record states the Senate has worked its job and, in conjunction with the House, these matters have now become matters of statutory guarantee. The distinguished Democratic leader has proposed an amendment which requires a combination of discretionary and mandatory funding for veterans health care. The modification includes a requirement for a Comptroller General report by January 31, 2007, on the funding achieved by the amendment, and provides for an expedited review of a joint resolution of Congress to implement the Comptroller General's recommendations. The modification directs mandatory spending by the U.S. Treasury in the amount of $300 billion over 10 years. I want to repeat that. The modification directs mandatory spending--that is a very significant legislative initiative--by the U.S. Treasury in the amount of $300 billion over the next 10 years. Every Member of the body joins with Leader Daschle in recognizing the need to continue to provide adequate funding for the health care of veterans in this country. I would point out that, to my knowledge, funding for veterans programs has increased significantly in the past 3 years under the cognizance of the Congress. Spending for veterans health care has gone up 34 percent since the year 2001, and I believe my colleagues Senator Nickles and Senator Bond are both prepared to address the funding of health care for our Nation's veterans when they soon approach the floor to actively debate this amendment. The Senate budget resolution includes $29.1 billion for veterans health care, an increase of $1.4 billion, or 5 percent, in 2004. In light of these increases, in this Senator's opinion, any future significant increases for veterans health care warrant careful consideration by the Congress. Such consideration would be limited by this amendment, which mandates funding based on a per capita formula. For Federal budgeting purposes, the VA health system, as the DOD system, is discretionary, as juxtaposed against mandatory. Now that is what we are talking about, changing the manner in which we have been funding veterans health care these many years. It seems to me the discretionary program has worked well. It has served the veterans' needs and should remain as a matter of law. The amendment does not create an entitlement to VA health care. It replaces the current system of discretionary funding, which has no ceiling, with a formula-based approach which combines discretionary and mandatory funding. I have been informed that experts on veterans health care believe the proposed formula is flawed, that it will have the effect of turning the VA health care system into a kind of glorified HMO, with every incentive to enroll the young and healthy and cut corners on the care needed by the old and the sick. These incentives are contrary to the commitment of this Nation to the health care needs of our veterans. Treating the VA health care budget as mandatory rather than appropriated discretionary funding will hurt the ability of Congress to ensure accountability within the system and consistency of benefits throughout the country. The modification attempts to control the outcome of the appropriations process by, in effect, establishing a cap in the amount appropriated by Congress in future years equal to the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2004, which is $28.3 billion. It further yields to the Comptroller General the responsibility of determining whether adequate funding for veterans is achieved, and how to fund these programs in future years. Neither the original amendments, numbered 3408 or 3409, nor the modification proposed by the Senator from South Dakota is relevant to the Defense authorization bill. I hesitate to put that to my colleagues but it is clearly a fact. The only relevance is the unity of spirit is that of each of us in this chamber, and indeed I think the Congress, to share in supporting our veterans nationwide. These funding proposals contained in this amendment require the careful deliberation of Congress to the appropriate committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, prior to further action by this body. I yield the floor so my colleagues can address the subject.

Mr. WARNER. We will be able to advise the Senate as to the status of it.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to think a 30-minute time period, so about 7:20. I can ask for a quorum call until such time.

Mr. WARNER. That is fine. In addressing my colleague from Michigan, I speak to the Senate in its entirety, if you will give the managers of the bill a period of time to look through this, we might be able to quickly advise the Senate as to those we think we can accept. They will require some modification because in the procedure each side has voiced its own suggestions as to how they will be modified and shortly after we indicate to the Senate those amendments which we require would require more debate and possibly a recorded vote.

Mr. WARNER. The amendments of the Senator from Virginia are pending at the time the Senator from Michigan sent his list.

Mr. WARNER. That is provided for by the unanimous consent request; am I not correct?

Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent to authorize the managers of the bill to offer en bloc amendments from the filed list on my side of the aisle. I send to the desk a list of 22 such amendments out of some 40 that we have designated as being filed by Republican Senators, just slightly over half. I note the unanimous consent provides an exception for the managers' amendment which has to be cleared on both sides.

Mr. WARNER. I think that is an excellent idea. We can make it 6:45.

Mr. WARNER. I say to my colleague, he has the right to object, but we really are trying to structure this.

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, to go directly to the comments the Senator just made, as he and I were in our colloquy the other day, I pointed out that at the present time the United States, in the last fiscal year, sold $63 billion in defense sales and only purchased $5 billion. My point is, the Senator is going after the wrong target, the wrong segment of the industry by this amendment, because it will create greater loss of jobs if we go after that trade surplus that is in defense right now. That is why we plead with our colleagues to leave this sector of trade untouched. I believe it is very important we do that. The second thing that concerns me, and it is somewhat technical, in drawing up this bill, I gave specific instructions to the staff to preserve the sanctity of that part of ``Buy America'' which I and I think everybody in this Chamber supports, the Small Business Act, where 23 percent of the dollars for small businesses have to go, the shipbuilding, the blind and the handicapped, and the Berry amendment. Yet when the Senator modified his amendment, this section up here was taken out. That is caught up, and takes it out also. It seems to me it is important for the Senate to reaffirm the sanctity of those four categories of trade as being purely ``Buy America'' and let them stay. But the Senator has taken out the work of the committee when we put it in there. That is what troubles me. Lastly, we have here another communication from the Secretary of Defense of Great Britain, who is so explicit, he says: . . . efforts by Administration officials to introduce unnecessarily restrictive language into US/UK cooperative armament and research MOUs are a potentially serious blow to US-UK relations in the defence equipment co-operation field. They would put us under pressure domestically-- That is, before the parliament, their parliament would now begin to examine this tremendous trade surplus that we have with relationship to Great Britain --to review our own policies and to consider whether we are prepared to continue to place significant defence contracts with US suppliers in the face of what could only be seen as a demonstrably uneven playing field. The mutual operational, technological, and industrial benefits we have enjoyed over years of equipment cooperation could quickly evaporate with both of us being losers, and with obvious political ramifications. I say to my good friend, I recognize his intention to try and help America save jobs, but his amendment addresses the wrong sector of trade. He could do serious damage to a surplus we are generating with additional jobs in the United States as it currently exists. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the modifications are at the desk. We have examined them, and there is no objection.

Mr. WARNER. Regular order. Amendments Nos. 3235 and 3457

Mr. WARNER. I share that, but any manager has to be cognizant of the needs of his respective leader. So we will proceed to the first vote, with an understanding there will be a modest period in between to hopefully resolve this issue.

Mr. WARNER. In other words, if I understand the request now, it is simply to come in and be recognized for the purpose of laying down the amendment so it is in the queue, and then we will proceed with the Dayton amendment and those matters we originally scheduled?

Mr. WARNER. Could the Democratic leader then be recognized immediately after the luncheons?

Mr. WARNER. The two votes.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will not object, but I would state that the Department of Energy, addressing the ``loose nuke'' issue, says they expect to spend $87 million on it this year, and they can't spend any additional money on it. So I think that should be stated likewise.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to our colleagues, I think the Senator and I can agree on this point that there is no vote on this current 2005 authorization bill of greater significance than the vote we will take momentarily. I frame this vote as follows: The whole of America watched within the past few days the September 11 Commission, its Chairman, face the cameras and say, in response to the astonishment of the American people about the tragic events of September 11, we didn't foresee it, we didn't plan for it, we didn't fund for it, we didn't train for it, and it happened. I say respectfully to my colleagues, that is precisely what this vote is all about. The Senator laid down the priorities of the Central Intelligence Agency. I have them before me. I should repeat this one. They say the possibility that a WMD armed missile will be used against the U.S. forces or interests is higher today than during most of the cold-war period. Senator Levin and I have been partners for 25 years on this committee. We went through the cold-war era together. That is an astonishingly high expectation. True, the CIA put somewhat greater emphasis on a number of the programs that will be funded should the Senator's amendment pass, but the Senator would acknowledge to me, I think, that the administration, in sending forth this budget, covered those 10 programs. Six of those programs receive more money than asked for in the budget, and the remaining four programs were funded at the budget level. He points out a most recent program raised by the Secretary of Energy. I share his concern, but the Secretary of Energy said that can be financed through reprogramming, which is a procedure we follow regularly. In summary, we are at the crossroads momentarily of whether the Missile Defense Program that this Nation has been working on for these many years, that has been acted upon by the Congress in successive sessions, will continue. While the Senator said we are not dislodging what has been done by the past Congress, I ask, why we should even go forward with those expenses if we are going to stop the program and gap it, gap it for an indeterminate period? Should we be able to put it together again after several years, at a minimum, who can assure the technical workforce that put together the first missiles will be there? Who can say the contractor wants to pick up, once again, the burden of trying to restart a program, given the background of the stop/start by the Congress if this Levin amendment is adopted? This amendment will spread uncertainty into this program. The world will begin to say: America is not serious about missile defense. Much of the technology of these programs for missile defense could well be used in future years by other nations that will recognize their vulnerability to the missiles. When we say ``vulnerability,'' it is not necessarily limited to an aggressor firing, it could be an accidental firing. That has happened. I need only point out the tragic submarine experience. Both Russia and the United States have experienced errors with those magnificent platforms, causing death and destruction. Accidents happen even with the best of intent with military equipment. We see China coming on, we see North Korea. I think there is no dispute as to their potential today. We must look at ourselves and go back to that refrain of Lee Hamilton: We didn't plan, we didn't foresee, we didn't train, and it happened. A future generation of America can look on this Senate at this very moment and would have to see, henceforth, if this Nation ever experiences the type of attack to which the Central Intelligence Agency says we are vulnerable. I urge Members to stay the course and not send a signal that America has stumbled backward. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. That would be an option with equal division of time. Amendment No. 3409