John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I am ready to indicate to my colleague we have worked on this amendment in the second degree. It is my understanding that the Senator from Rhode Island is prepared to take the Warner amendment as modified.

Mr. WARNER. Fine.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. This is one of those situations. Senator Reed is a very valued member of the committee and the amendment has strong cosponsorship; namely, Senators McCain and Hagel and others on our side. I think all along the committee has recognized the need to work with the Department of Defense, most specifically the Department of Army, to resolve this situation. I thought it necessary to second degree the amendment which would authorize the Department of Defense to pay the cost of the additional Active-Duty soldiers for fiscal year 2005 from supplemental or contingent emergency reserve funds because the sponsors of the amendment had not identified the considerable sum, some $2 billion plus, that their amendment would generate in the need for the Army budget. The Army needs this Active-Duty strength. I think we are in agreement on this point. Senator, I indicate now I am going to urge my colleagues to accept the amendment. I note that in the bill we are considering there is a specific authorization which the committee worked out in section 402 for temporary increases of up to 30,000 active duty soldiers above the currently authorized level. This goes 10,000 active-duty soldiers beyond the end strength level proposed in Senators Reed and Hagel's amendment. My second degree amendment, however, addresses the real issue stemming from these increases--how to pay for them. The Reed/Hagel amendment provides no offsets for the $2.4 billion cost of these extra troops. I submit that this is not a cost for the Department to take ``out of hide,'' or that the Department of the Army should absorb out of the FY 2005 budget. The approach in my second degree amendment reflects the recommendation of the Army Chief of Staff, General Schoomaker, who testified that using supplemental appropriations gives necessary flexibility and is, in fact, essential to preserve the Army's ability to plan for operational readiness in the present and modernization for the future. The Reed/Hagel amendment would have the effect of directing the Army to increase its end strength by 20,000 in FY 2005 at a cost of $2.4 billion. The amendment identifies no offset, it identifies no means to pay for these additional troops. Consider the potential effect of that proposal on the Army. The $2.4 billion represents a 15 percent reduction of funding for direct costs of operating forces for home station training, exercises and operations; in other words--fuel, spare parts, maintenance, food, and other consumables. Alternatively, this reduction would eliminate almost all funding for Army individual and unit training--such as basic training, flight training, and combat training center rotations. The $2.4 billion represents a 42 percent reduction of funding for Army command and control, logistics, weapons and ammunition transportation and storage. It could reduce resources to key readiness and modernization accounts, as indicated above, and divert money needed to train and retain more experienced personnel because of the imperative to satisfy an end strength number. My amendment would afford the Army the opportunity to flexibly execute its budget while increasing its manpower. I would ask you to keep this in mind and also keep in mind that the conferees will have the task of finding $2.4 billion in offsets if this amendment becomes a law.

Mr. WARNER. I think that is an accommodating gesture. In fact, the amount of time I reserved on this side, portions of it perhaps could be yielded back, and then absorbed by the proposal of the distinguished leader.

Mr. WARNER. It may not be necessary. But so many of our colleagues are doing a lot of work all over the system right now. They didn't recognize that this would be brought up at this time. We want to accommodate them.

Mr. WARNER. That is fine. I am not seeking unanimous consent. I am just trying, in a gentlemanly way, to organize this. I see the distinguished Senator from Nevada wishes to speak?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, would the distinguished Democratic leader allow the time to be managed on this side by either Senators Hagel or McCain, the time we have on this side? That would sort of divide it between yourself and the two colleagues on this side?

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.

Mr. WARNER. Have we pretty well resolved this? The Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Alabama, have we taken adequate time over here for our colleagues who have been in strong support? I think we have reached a conclusion on this matter. We will not need that extra tranche of time.

Mr. WARNER. I think we should allow some time for Senator Hagel. We will make that time available.

Mr. WARNER. Then let's hope Mr. Hagel can make it.

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

Mr. WARNER. The managers, together with our distinguished colleague from Nevada, would like to do the following to accommodate Senators on both sides: The Senator from Missouri would introduce an amendment, lay it down, and speak maybe 1 minute to it. We then would turn to the other side. The Senator from New York wishes to address the Senate for several minutes and then we will come back over to Senator Talent, who wishes to speak with Senator Clinton. They will each have a couple of minutes. Then Senator Brownback will lay an amendment down and Senator Dorgan may or may not speak to it, but there will be no more votes, of course, tonight.

Mr. WARNER. No, we might stop midway and clear the amendments. As soon as the package is ready, the Senator from Michigan and I may clear an en bloc package of amendments.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. That is very helpful.

Mr. WARNER. Yes, of course.

Mr. WARNER. Fine. I would say we will continue to work. At the moment, from the managers' perspective, at least this manager would have to take a close look at this. I hope in a short time we could establish a time agreement so we could move on with other matters.

Mr. WARNER. I wonder if the Senator will yield for a minute? The Senator from Missouri, perhaps the Senator from Iowa, could they advise the Senate with regard to your desire to make a change to the amendment? Has that been completed yet?

Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, I think the managers are doing our very best to move along this morning. We have had a number of unexpected switches by a number of Senators who start amendments and stop them for various reasons. We are prepared now to go ahead with the amendment of the Senator from Washington. But I say to our colleagues, when they have informed the managers they are prepared to go ahead, and then abruptly have to stop, it makes it increasingly difficult for us to work on this bill. I thank the Democratic whip. He has been most helpful. We have lost a lot of time this morning due to unexpected decisions.

Mr. WARNER. I thank our colleague. I asked the question so as to make it a part of the record of the proceedings today. So often when Congress acts on an amendment such as this, which is so important to so many families, they suddenly hear from Washington, ``You got childcare.'' But I think we better put in a caution: Yes, childcare hopefully will be made available, but there has to be some showing of a requirement. Because it is my understanding the Department of Defense now has a number of childcare centers here in the Greater Washington area. Frankly, the adequacy is questionable. Some families do not have access to them. But those families, I point out, might not be able to meet the criteria in the opening section 1: In any case where the children of a covered member of the Armed Forces are geographically dispersed. . . . Those families theoretically are not geographically dispersed, but they are caught in between the class that you are establishing and those who are near a major military installation here in Washington, yet there are inadequate childcare facilities. Those are the types of things that are going to have to be worked out should this become law.

Mr. WARNER. Fine. We definitely want to care for those. Those families who are not serving overseas yet have been pulled up abruptly from Reserve or Guard status, yet where the husband or the wife-- whichever the case the uniform may be worn--is not deployed overseas, they may have a critical problem, too.

Mr. WARNER. You make reference to those families overseas repeatedly. I just want to make sure about some of those at home.

Mr. WARNER. Fine. On the basis of that, we are prepared to accept the amendment on this side.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have indicated that colleagues on this side of the aisle are very anxious to work to make this childcare available subject to the availability of funds, as the amendment states. We are prepared to move on, make it totally bipartisan, and voice-vote this amendment.

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