John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the convenience of the Senate, stacking the two votes is quite acceptable.

Mr. WARNER. I discussed it with him, and it is fine.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we were going to intersperse a Sessions amendment for 30 minutes.

Mr. WARNER. He is not here.

Mr. WARNER. We must check with our Finance Committee regarding the time on the Biden amendment. We are trying to work toward putting the votes in one batch.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WARNER. Fifteen on this side, and I think the other side only needed 5 on that amendment.

Mr. WARNER. Then 30 minutes equally divided. That amendment will not require other than a voice vote which we will do. We will then immediately proceed to the Biden amendment.

Mr. WARNER. Correct. At the moment, that would require 2 hours equally divided, with the expectation that can be reduced in time.

Mr. WARNER. Absolutely, Mr. President.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think this might be an appropriate time that I would like to urge adoption of my amendment in the second degree to the Reed amendment.

Mr. WARNER. Let's have that.

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

Mr. WARNER. This amendment has the strong support of the Senator from Virginia. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 3371

Mr. WARNER. If the Senator will yield, I am advised by the parliamentarians that we may need to put in on the Reed amendment now that there are no further amendments, second degree or otherwise, in order on that amendment. The desk asked me to check that.

Mr. WARNER. The regular order is the vote on the Reed amendment?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the distinguished leadership on the other side and myself and the leadership on this side have worked out the following time agreements: On the amendment from the Senator from Rhode Island, which has a second degree from the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner--

Mr. WARNER. Correct--we would need 40 minutes equally divided on those amendments.

Mr. WARNER. A total of 40 minutes equally divided. We would then proceed to lay that aside and proceed to an amendment by the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. WARNER. Correct. That will take 20 minutes.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague.

Mr. WARNER. I interpret it quite differently. The amendment would prohibit deployment of the ground-based midcourse missile defense system until the Secretary certifies to Congress that the capabilities of the system to perform its national missile defense missions have been demonstrated in operationally realistic testing. We authorized precisely what was to be done last year. We are proceeding on that basis right now. And as I look at this amendment, it would be in effect to reverse what we did last year and start off in an entirely different direction. The test bed capabilities will include space, ground, sea-based sensors, missile defense interceptors, battle management facilities, software, command and control, and communications facilities. To provide additional realism, military operators participate in the tests, and the warfighter is developing a concept of operations. So, basically, what we are doing, if we were to adopt this amendment, is to put a halt on this system. As I said, I rise in strong opposition to the Boxer amendment. This amendment would prohibit deployment of the ground-based midcourse missile defense system until the Secretary certifies to Congress that the capabilities of the system to perform its national missile defense missions have been demonstrated in operationally realistic testing. This amendment, however, is flawed. Let me start by noting that the Missile Defense Agency, with the strong support of the Pentagon's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, is fielding an extensive missile defense test bed. This test bed is key to operationally realistic testing. The test bed capabilities will include space, ground, and sea-based sensors; missile defense interceptors; battle management facilities and software; and command, control, and communications facilities and software. To provide additional realism, military operators participate in the tests, and the warfighter is developing a concept of operations. The test bed facilities, the participation of military operators, and a good concept of operations provide MDA the ability to test realistically but also provide the initial defensive capability of the BMD System. This initial capability is based on the operational capabilities inherent in the test bed. We are, in fact, on track to field an initial, limited defensive capability later this year. That is what a number of Senators have described as a missile defense deployment. Indeed, the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command strongly supports the early operational exploitation of test bed capabilities. He is the individual charged with assessing the military utility of the BMD system. He testified forcefully to our committee that the BMD system provides a useful military capability, contributes to deterrence, and provides a useful option to military commanders and national command authorities, even in the early phases of testing. He testified that he intends to ``take full and early operational advantage of the system's anti-missile capabilities under development.'' He also wrote in a recent letter, ``U.S. STRATCOM supports the continued appropriate development of missile defense capabilities . . . under the evolutionary approach of concurrent test and operation.'' The amendment does not recognize the connection between the test bed and the fielding of operational capability. If you prohibit this ``deployment,'' you prohibit operationally realistic testing--and prevent the very basis for the certification that the amendment requires. The BMD system is already being rigorously tested. I would argue that it is one of the most thoroughly tested systems--at this point in its development--that we have. It has gone through thousands of hours of ground testing. The ground-based midcourse missile defense element that we are discussing has achieved successful intercepts in five of eight tests and proven the basic soundness of the hit-to-kill technology. The operational test community is deeply involved in the test program, each test includes operational test goals in addition to developmental test goals. Each test already includes a measure of operational realism. That testing will continue and will become progressively more realistic and challenging as the system matures. Testing successes will provide greater confidence that the system is performing as we expect it will. I would further note that the fielding of BMD systems is threat driven. Serious ballistic missile threats exist today and will increase in the future. Congress addressed this issue years ago in the National Missile Defense Act of 1999, which states that it is the policy of the United States to deploy a national missile defense as soon as technologically possible. The Senate passed that act by a vote of 97-3. We need to proceed expeditiously with fielding. This is entirely consistent with past practice. Our nation has often fielded military systems without completion of operational testing in response to an urgent military need. These systems include the Joint STARS system in the first Persian Gulf War, and the Global Hawk and Predator UAVs in the war on terror. Deployment of these systems--which had not completed testing--greatly increased the security of our nation. The same will be true when we have fielded the missile defense system. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I ask the chairman of the subcommittee to address the Senate and allocate the time on this side.

Mr. WARNER. Does the Senator from Colorado agree with me as to what this amendment does?

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. And the Senator from Missouri wishes to speak for how many minutes?

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I urge adoption of the amendment.