John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague for his statement. I would like to address the Humvees because our committee had a special session on that issue. We should understand the Humvee was designed at the time to meet the array of weaponry and other types of threats to it. The proliferation, primarily in the campaign in Iraq, of the use of buried munitions in the roadway activated by a series of electronic ways, or hand operated, this proposed a challenge because the explosion came up beneath the vehicle. I think in a timely way we started to address that by putting armor on certainly the Humvees and leaving others without armor. One might ask: Well, why is that? It is because once the armor is added, the maneuverability of the particular vehicle that is armored becomes quite limited and that limits its tactical role. Consequently, the Army thought, and I agree with the Army on this, they needed inventories of both armored and unarmored Humvees. It got to be a misperception across the land that we were not providing adequate armor for our men and women when, in fact, we were, but we had to have the two different inventories and, depending on which vehicle was being used in an operation, problems could arise. So I am prepared on this side to accept the amendment.

Mr. WARNER. I was wondering if, as we go further into the afternoon, depending on the number of votes, we could vitiate the vote, although I recognize the Senator has a perfect right to ask for the vote.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our colleague. Let me say at the offset, he has been most cooperative in working on this amendment, and he recognizes the concerns the Department of Defense had and the staff for the majority had. We have determined that the Senator has met each and every one of those concerns with a modification to his original amendment. So I am prepared to indicate acceptance of that amendment, but I wish to engage the Senator from Connecticut in a short colloquy. This is a most unusual type of situation, Mr. President. We had the call-up of a number of reservists, units put together rather hurriedly in some instances. As the Department of Defense--most specifically the Army--stated, some errors were made, but I do not believe, as I listened very carefully to the Senator's presentation, that the total number of errors is very large. I do not find that it was a widespread situation. I say that only to indicate to the American public that following that unusual type of amendment, which is necessary and we are prepared to accept it, but I do not want to leave the impression with the American public that our commander, starting with the Commander in Chief, the President, sent men and women into harm's way where there was a widespread lacking of the necessary equipment to give them the protections needed. The concept of the use of body armor has been evolving over the years. It is now proven to have been very successful in the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The orders the Army had placed somewhat fell short, as the Senator said, over a period of time last fall. Our committee, indeed the other means of financing--I think some of the money in the supplemental that the Congress has adopted went to provide the necessary funds, but it was not a widespread situation. I think the Senator would concur with me on that point; would he not?

Mr. WARNER. I fully understand that. So that we can then have the efficiency of time, perhaps the Senator from Connecticut could then move to introduce his. Amendment No. 3312, As Modified

Mr. WARNER. I understand. We are prepared to address that amendment. For the moment, I will take a look at the Leahy amendment and figure out if there is a problem, and then I will bring it to the Senator's attention. I turn now to the Senator from Colorado, his second-degree amendment. Is he prepared to address that?

Mr. WARNER. The distinguished leader and I have never had a problem we could not work out. If this is a problem, we will work it out

Mr. WARNER. I am not suggesting that anyone else has been impatient. It is just the first we have heard of it. I would hope to have, as a matter of comity, an amendment from this side and an amendment from that side, and we would go back and forth and not have too many up here, gatekeepers to hold, have to lay them all aside seriatim.

Mr. WARNER. I understand. I discussed it with the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. WARNER. But you felt the necessity to it put it down now.

Mr. WARNER. So there will be no further addressing of that amendment until Wednesday.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before we started addressing the bill, the Senator from Nevada and I discussed this matter. I think we can work on this one. But the other amendment--I do not recall your mentioning that you were going to bring up a Leahy amendment.

Mr. WARNER. We are hopeful to get off to a vigorous start this afternoon. In consultation with the leadership on both sides at a later time, we will confirm the likelihood of at least one, and possibly two, votes occurring sometime after 5 o'clock. We will address that later. At this time, the distinguished Senator from Colorado is going to lay down an amendment which could result in a second degree; then colleagues on the other side, and the distinguished Senator from Nevada, will lay down an amendment. We will have a flurry of activity for a little while. I congratulate the distinguished majority leader for a very fine set of remarks regarding his trip. For those Senators who were not able to hear the remarks, I hope they will take the time to examine them in the Record. It is a very helpful perspective about the current situation in Iraq. I found it encouraging and upbeat. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I thought I would read part of this very moving speech. It starts midway in the speech and lays out the history of the brave men who participated in D-day landings, and in particular the Rangers. Behind me is a memorial that symbolizes the Ranger daggers that were first thrust into the top of these cliffs. And before me are the men who put them there. These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. These are the men who took the cliffs. These are the champions who helped free a continent. These are the heroes who helped end a war. Gentlemen, I look at you and I think of the words of Stephen Spender's poem. You are men who in your ``lives fought for life . . . and left a vivid air signed with your honor.'' Forty summers have passed since the battle that you fought here. You were young the day you took these cliffs; some of you were hardly more than boys, with the deepest joys of life before you. Yet you risked everything here. Why? Why did you do it? What compelled you to put aside the instinct for self- preservation and risk your lives to take these cliffs? What inspired all the men of the armies that met here? We look at you, and somehow we know the answer. It was faith and belief; it was loyalty and love. The men of Normandy had faith that they were doing what was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next. It was the deep knowledge--and pray God we have not lost it--that there is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were there to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt. You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One's country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you. The Presiding Officer, with his distinguished military service, understands, as do I, those words. The vision that he had not only for America but the free world, the strength of his convictions, the strength of his actions--it reestablished the strength of the Armed Forces which today have carried on, since that speech, with missions in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, and other areas of the world. It takes time to restructure and build up a military. I find this President is doing just that, President Bush. I am happy and privileged to be a part of the team that is working in the Senate to achieve that. As a matter of fact, the bill for the Armed Forces in 2005 is the current business before the Senate. Before I leave the speech, I was privileged, because of Senator Thurmond and the other Senators with me, we were not more than 15, 20 yards from the President when he gave the speech, right on this little spit of land that I visited 2 days ago. And suddenly you saw the Secret Service men sort of break and go off and quickly perform the duties they have to protect the President. There was this figure which came up the cliff unexpectedly, unannounced, because there had been a reenactment with men of the Armed Forces currently on duty to scale the cliffs for all to see. So that part was over. Yet suddenly there appeared another individual who had scaled the cliffs and the Secret Service tackled him. I remember the President, always composed, stood there and looked at this scene. Suddenly, an aide went over and whispered in his ear and the President went over and grasped this man and gave him a hug. He was one of the original rangers who scaled that cliff. He wanted to show the President and the world that he was still able to do it. He had bits and pieces of his own uniform on. Last, what are the ways in which we can honor this great President? Our hearts are so filled with gratitude and a sense of deep remorse at his loss. But it was his wisdom and foresight that strengthened America's military, and I think that requires some special recognition. I don't have all the answers now. I will be happy to work with others. I am not trying to be the sole author of anything, but some thought has been given to the Department of Defense--and I went back last night and did a little research, and this morning I called the former Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, a very dear and valued friend, under whom I served as Secretary of the Navy, and we reminisced about our days and some of the initiatives he took. He mentioned one specifically. There was some thought about naming the Department of Defense building for President Eisenhower. After some very considerable thought, the decision was made not to do that. One of the main reasons--and I remember this very well--is that that building stands as a symbol of the bipartisanship that must be present as we work with the men and women in the Armed Forces. I strive to achieve that, as does the Presiding Officer and many others. I am proud of the committee on which I have served--Armed Services-- for 26 years, under a series of chairmen and ranking members. We have always tried to put partisanship aside and we have been successful. But it is important that the building be viewed as bipartisan. Therefore, I remember Secretary Laird saying the naming of the building was not, in his judgment, what we should do. He confirmed that this morning, and I shared that feeling. He said he conceived the idea of naming a corridor for General Eisenhower. There is a technical thing there. The corridor is named after him as a general of the Armed Forces, a five-star general. His picture in uniform and many other pieces of memorabilia are along the corridor by the office of the Secretary of Defense. Previous Secretaries of Defense have honored the commanders in chief, the Presidents. So there is a corridor set aside for the commanders in chief, with portraits of every President since George Washington. Five living Presidents are there. You have Ford, Carter, George Herbert Walker Bush, President Clinton, and our current President Bush. All of their portraits are there. The way the Department of Defense has handled this in the past is to treat with equality the Presidents and their portraits, the recognition being bipartisan in nature in that building. We will have to put our minds together to see how best to do it. There is no question that Ronald Reagan gave a tremendous impetus to the concept of defending this Nation against missiles--missiles fired in anger or accidentally. Those things happen. He had the star wars concept. I was on the committee and we looked at this program. We began to do the initial work in the Congress to give support to the President's program. But eventually, from the standpoint of technology and costs, we looked at different ways to achieve our defense against missiles. It started way back under President Reagan when we put emphasis on this situation. Some of the thinking preceded President Reagan on how to defend this country against missiles. Today, we don't have a thing to interdict an intercontinental ballistic missile that would be fired in the direction of our 50 States. That is a separate matter. Therefore, I think we have to give a lot of careful thought and be ever mindful of how we recognize our commanders, with five still living, in terms of their contributions to the defense of this country. We will come up with an idea. I hope we can, in some way, appropriately recognize this great President for his extraordinary accomplishments in strengthening America. I conclude my remarks with the deepest sense of humility and gratitude toward the recollection, modest friendship, and the teachings I received from this great President. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues in paying profound respects to our late President Ronald Reagan, and I do so with a deep, deep sense of humility. It is interesting, I walked into my reception room just the other day. No matter how long one is around here, I think you sort of have to go back and refresh your recollection as to what you put up in your reception room, and I found six different photographs of myself with the good fortune to be in the presence of our former great President. I think back over my 26 years in the Senate, having had the privilege of working with all the Presidents in that period of time and, prior thereto, those Presidents when I was in the Department of Defense. Again, I say with a deep sense of respect and humility, I believe it is clear in my mind that I had the greatest opportunity to work with President Reagan, and probably had more opportunities to be with him in a professional capacity than any other President. I was ranking for a period of time on the Armed Services Committee and in every way supported him in his remarkable vision to build and restore the Armed Forces of the United States, which buildup, in my judgment, was a major contributor, if not the major contributor, to the eventual demise of the Soviet Union. There are several pictures of when he visited my home, which was a farm in Virginia, a farm in an area where I grew up in the summers as a very young man. He loved coming down to the farm. My farm was adjacent to the home of former President Kennedy, and the owner at that time was Bill Clements, who was a former Deputy Secretary of Defense. I served under him as Secretary of the Navy. He and I were very close friends. I introduced him to that countryside, and he bought the Kennedy home, which is a very small, modest home, reconstructed, so to speak, and enlarged by President Kennedy and Jacqueline Kennedy, his lovely, dear wife. President Ronald Reagan and Bill Clements set it up so he could come down there and spend some quiet downtime. And he loved to ride horses. In those days, I had a pretty good collection of horses, and I was happy to share them with him on occasion. He rode around on my farm. I certainly enjoyed being with him on several occasions. I have one of the pictures of the two of us riding together. I mention that because in that informal setting when there was just the two of us riding horses--I remember one time Mrs. Reagan was with us--this particular time I remember very well. We rode high up on the hill on the back of the farm. The hill has a vista down into the valley of Virginia. We checked the horses and began to talk about his great admiration for Stonewall Jackson and the various campaigns Jackson had up and down that valley during the Civil War. I was so impressed with his remarkable knowledge of the facts of that period of history, and in later years, in other discussions with him, again he would frequently make reference to the history of the United States. His knowledge was really second to none. He had a magnificent command of American history. But on this particular day, he reflected on a little self-deprecating humor, which he was very good at. He told me when Pearl Harbor occurred, he was a lieutenant in the Army Reserve Cavalry, again because he loved horses, he loved to ride. He promptly went down, Pearl Harbor Day or the day after, whatever the case may be, and said: I want to be activated. And sure enough, he was eventually activated. He wanted to take, as we say in the horse world, the bit in his teeth and charge--``Send me right away out to the front.'' I remember he gestured with his hand. But, no, they sent him to an old cavalry post, which was down in one of the Indian territories, and he laughed and joked and said: When we put those posts out there, the primary thing was to secure the settlers and to hopefully strike a peaceful balance with the Indians and make life such that those territories could be developed. But he said: I did a little homework--as he always did--before I went to this cavalry post and studied who the commanding officer and the other officers were. Well, in those days, the custom in the military, particularly the Army, was that when a soldier reported, perhaps with his wife, whatever the case may be, the commanding officer would have them over to pay their respects, to get to know each other as soon as they arrived on the post. In the old days with the covered wagons, it was a long journey. By the time they reached their destination, they were pretty well exhausted--food and otherwise. So this was a chance to introduce them. Reagan described the evening with great humor. He said: I walked in and there was the little colonel. He was a rather short fellow. He was all dressed in his uniform, with his riding boots, his Sam Browne belt. I was there in my lieutenant's uniform. He greeted me very warmly. He looked at me. And President Reagan had a remarkable way of cocking his head. His body language was extraordinary. His walk, his mannerism, it was a great part of his character that I admired, how he conveyed so much feeling with just the way he would use his hands and his head, his stride. It emulated such tremendous confidence he had in himself. But anyway, the colonel said: Now, Reagan, where have I seen you? Do I know you? Lieutenant Reagan said: No, sir, we have never met. The colonel failed to guess. He circled back again and said: Look here, young man, I know somehow I have seen you. Let's figure out where that was. What do you do? And Lieutenant Reagan said: Well, sir, I am involved in making movies. Suddenly this colonel became silent. Then he said: That is where I have seen you. You were in that movie called ``Brother Rat,'' which was about the Virginia Military Institute, and that movie didn't exactly, in my judgment, properly characterize the magnificence of that institute. As a matter of fact, I think it reflected dishonor upon that institute. And I remember you were in that movie. Lieutenant, your duty on this post is over. I will transfer you. In due course the President said he was transferred off the post, but I mention that because those of us who had the opportunity to be with him, particularly in informal settings, remember so well the magnificence of this man, the lessons he taught each of us. Again, going back to those days in the buildup of the Soviet Union, he was very conscious of the fact that the Soviet Union was on pretty shaky financial status at that stage and that the cold war posed a threat to the United States--intercontinental missiles, the threat to the standard forces of NATO, the Warsaw Pact nations, all of which are now, save one, members of NATO. Those of us who worked in the Senate--I remember John Stennis and Barry Goldwater, Scoop Jackson, John Tower, to name but a few--formed a group to work with the President in a bipartisan way on trying to strengthen America such that we could send a strong signal to the world, particularly the Soviet Union, that we mean business. Don't ever entertain the idea of striking out against the free world, be it the United States or our NATO allies. And the rest is history. ``Tear down that wall, Mr. Gorbachev.'' And that wall did come down. Those were extraordinary days I was able to share with him, and I say that with the deepest sense of humility. But I don't want to prolong my remarks. I do want to tell one other chapter. Just a few days ago I was a part of a delegation that went over to the Normandy 60th anniversary. Senator Akaka was with me and the distinguished Senator from New Jersey and his lovely new bride were with me. So there were three of us who had some experience in World War II, of the six here in the Senate. We spent a wonderful day at the ceremonies. But the next day we took time to go out to Pointe du Hoc. It was fascinating. There on June 6, 2004, I had been on that same spot of land 20 years before with Ronald Reagan. I remember the delegation. Strom Thurmond led it. Three of us went with him. Of course, Senator Thurmond had made a landing on the beaches on D-day. Other Senators, the Senator from Nevada, and Howard Cannon had likewise participated in the D-day landings. Of course, I was at that time the youngster, 17 years old, in that group back in the United States getting prepared to take our training and become replacements someday. That is all history. There I stood on that ground, and he had passed away within that 24-hour period. So I thought today I would read some of the remarks he made. I ask unanimous consent to print the entire speech, a very short speech, in the Record.

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

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank all Senators for their cooperation in regard to the work that the committee, Senator Levin and I, and all Members of the committee have performed on the National Defense Authorization Act, which is currently the pending business before the Senate. I state to all Senators that the amendments are in now. We have quite a few. In such time as staff will have this week, I and other Members of the committee will be working through these amendments. When the Senate resumes its business next week, my understanding is the leadership intends to bring up this bill and we will continue our work. We are making progress. At the same time, I commend the leadership of the Senate. It is most appropriate as a tribute to our late President and the deep respect so many hold him in that this Senate will not be conducting its normal workload this week. Our committee had planned to have a very important hearing on Thursday. We had confirmed witnesses and the hearing was set to have the Deputy Secretary of State, Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs before the committee. The principal agenda we were going to address was the transition taking place in Iraq, the government, our concerns regarding the hopeful U.N. Resolution, as well as documents being in place that will give a specific clarity to the question of the status of forces and how they will operate under the evolution of this new government. It is very important, not only for the safety of each member of the Armed Forces of the United States but our coalition partners, as we continue to pursue the goal as laid down by our President and the Prime Minister of Great Britain and others in bringing about peace in Iraq and providing for a security situation such that they can enjoy the freedoms we in this country and other countries enjoy. I myself am anxious to receive the report of our majority leader and others who were in Iraq meeting with officials. I will leave that for the moment. In conversations with the majority leader over the weekend, I was very encouraged by the positive observations he provided. We will not be able to move forward on this bill this week for very important reasons, nor will we have our hearing. I thought of having the hearing the following week but, again, it is extremely difficult for a committee to pursue a bill of this magnitude--and I think there are probably 200 amendments at the present time--and then have a hearing, which hearing would take 4 or 5 hours, in all probability. Consequently, I will not schedule a hearing that week, but I will be in consultation with the Senate leadership and the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin and all members of the committee, as to the course of action we will take to continue to pursue the hearings we deem necessary to fulfill the basic parameters of the investigation regarding the prisoner situation that were laid down in my opening statement on May 7 at which time the Secretary of Defense appeared before the committee. There had been a lot of press speculation, comments, and inquiries to my office about any changes. The answer, speaking for myself, is clearly no. It is my intention to try to achieve the necessary oversight. We cannot predict every course of action of the committee but basically the oversight we deem necessary on this important issue. At the same time, we must recognize important work is being done by the committee in getting this bill through and adopted. It is important because the Appropriations Committee, I understand, is awaiting the bill and the House is anxious to get started with the conference. All aspects are coming together. So for the present time I am not able to give an exact prediction. We are looking at the possibility of the earliest possible hearing to replace the one we are not going to have on Thursday. Thursday's hearing was going to be devoted to the transition of government and the security of our forces and the framework within which our coalition will operate in carrying out its mission. We nevertheless anticipated we would get an update from the Departments of Defense and State with regard to the various inquiries and investigations now underway, all of which were instituted by the executive branch. As far as I am concerned, the Department of Defense is pursuing those investigations in a very fair and objective and serious manner. Speaking for myself, I think the Department of Defense has been totally cooperative with me as chairman of the committee in bringing certain documents and other matters to the attention of the committee. There was a situation regarding General Taguba's report. I worked with the Department. The Department, in a timely way, is bringing to the Senate for its examination such other records as we deem to have been within the framework of that report and bringing them to the Senate in a timely fashion. They have been cooperative. I thank all Senators. We will be resuming our series of hearings on not only the prisoner situation but the transition in the government and other issues as quickly as we can following the completion of our bill in the Senate. I also at this time draw the attention of all Senators to an amendment which I put into the Record. The amendment is a very short one. It states the title of this bill, subject to the adoption of this amendment, will become the ``Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005.'' I have a number of cosponsors to this amendment at this time. I hope tomorrow other Senators might consider becoming cosponsors. I was privileged to be in the Senate through his Presidency and, at various times, served as ranking member of the committee. His steadfast determination to strengthen America's defense is one of the hallmarks of his administrations. I was so privileged, as were other Members of the body, to have worked with him on that buildup. That buildup, in my judgment, clearly laid the foundation for the eventual demise of the Soviet Union and the ability of diplomacy to work more effectively because, undoubtedly, through his actions and his remarks, the world clearly knew this President was going to guide this Nation to the position of such strength as necessary to back up diplomacy. After all, I think as a doctrine well established, diplomacy can only be as effective as a nation is capable of backing it up if it fails and have the determination to use such other assets as necessary to achieve its goals, in our case, in the area of the security and freedom of our great Nation; namely, national defense. Mr. President, with that, I think I will conclude my remarks, again drawing the attention of Senators to this amendment that I was privileged to submit together with Senator Frist, Senator Stevens, and, I must say, Senator Levin and Senator Inouye. So it is bipartisan in every respect. And Senator Lieberman has joined us. So I hope other Senators might consider joining us as cosponsors during the course of business tomorrow. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on May 20, 2004, there was some question whether the Senate Armed Services Committee was the correct committee of jurisdiction to consider the matter of cleaning up and closing tanks filled with defense nuclear waste. During the discussion on May 20, 2004, there were to have been printed in the Record materials including the President's budget request, appropriations acts, and authorization acts, which prove, irrefutably, that the funds for the cleanup and closure of the nuclear waste tanks at the Hanford Site in Washington, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, and the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, are appropriately within the jurisdiction of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I will ask that this material be printed in the Record, today. Additionally, I am including the pertinent portions of the Standing Rules of the Senate regarding committee jurisdiction. Listed under the section on the Committee on Armed Services it expressly includes ``the national security aspects of nuclear energy;'' under the section on the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources it expressly includes ``nonmilitary development of nuclear energy;'' and under the Committee on Environment and Public Works it expressly includes ``nonmilitary environmental regulation and control of nuclear energy.'' I believe these Rules show clearly and unambiguously that the Senate Armed Services Committee is the proper committee to consider defense nuclear waste cleanup issues. Finally, it is worth noting that, in 1982, the portion of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act dealing with defense nuclear waste was sent to the Senate Armed Services Committee for consideration. For all of these reasons, I assert that the Senate Armed Services Committee is the correct committee to consider cleanup and closure activities concerning defense nuclear waste.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask my colleagues for no more than 2 minutes. I listened intently to our distinguished Democratic leader as he outlined his proposal. Correct me if I am wrong, but I understood him to say that when a reservist goes on active duty, he has to worry about his costs. Could I direct the Senator to title 107(4)(a) entitled ``Medical and Dental Care'' which explicitly says for anyone, reservist or guardsman, on active duty for 30 days or less, they are entitled to it. There is no problem. They are treated exactly as the Active-Duty individual. So may I ask the Senator to refer to that statute and review the remarks that he made to the Senate.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I appreciate that the Senator at least clarified that point. I would like to point out also that in the existing bill, we have added 6 months after demobilization in a transition to civilian life. They are entitled to these same benefits. It isn't as if we drop them the day they walk out of the gate, having served with distinction in his or her service on active duty. I think we are framing this debate correctly. We have to look at the associated costs with this permanent entitlement program which is being proposed. Bear in mind, particularly to my colleagues who have had experience in the military themselves, we are narrowing the gap between the benefits for reservists and guardsmen and those who commit to enlistment for 5 years or those who aspire to be careerists for 20-plus years. Pretty soon people are going to say, why should I become a regular member of the U.S. Army and sign up for commitments of many years when I can stay in the Reserve and just about get all the same benefits that a regular gets? Once we start that breakdown, I dare say, my dear friends, we will have a lot of difficulty recruiting for the Active Forces and much less difficulty recruiting for the Reserve and the Guard. I believe the Senate is under an order.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I understand we will soon be carefully scripted by our very able staff.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, as to the points of the pending amendment that the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from South Dakota have spoken very eloquently about with regard to their amendment, I will interject briefly my own observations and strong opposition because I believe that the Armed Services Committee structured a very adequate program for the Reserves. I direct the attention of Members to page 135 and thereafter in the bill on each desk, which outlines what the committee did. Roughly, the President's bill had $300 million in allocations toward additional benefits for the Reserve and Guard. The committee went beyond that and added another $400 million, and now along comes this proposal which would add on top of that another $700 million. We are really beginning to face quite a severe dollar problem because unless this amendment is defeated, it would require the conference to seek out cuts in other military programs, all of those programs having been carefully evaluated by the two committees, the House and the Senate, and reduce them by some $700 million. That is the bottom line. The other reason I feel very strongly about that this proposed legislation is not in the best interest of the services, it really begins to provide for the Reserve and Guard Forces in a manner that is commensurate with the Active-Duty military personnel. Stop and think. When a young person--and oftentimes that person now has a family with a wife and vice versa as the case may be--sits down and evaluates their life and how they would like to make a commitment to service in uniform to this country, suddenly they look at the alternatives. Well, there is the Active and we get a certain degree of benefits under the Active; then there is the Reserve or the Guard, and they compare the benefits that they would get under that program. If this legislation is passed, it is beginning to close the last gap between the benefits on the Active side and the benefits on the Reserve and Guard side. Now, one might say, well, Senator, when the Reserves are called to active duty, they perform just as the Active member, and that is correct; they take the same risk as the Active member, and that is correct; the family assumes much the same hardships as the Active member, and that is correct. But when the Reserve completes his or her obligation of a callup, they return to the Reserve status, they return to their homes, they return to their civilian jobs and their life in the civilian community with such obligations as their Reserve or Guard requirements require. The Active person perhaps finishes their overseas commitment, they go back to the training base, they are fully in the military, fully subjected to the regimen of the military, fully subjected to going right back overseas on a very short turnaround basis. We have witnessed that during this conflict period covering the AORs of Afghanistan and Iraq. But the regular soldier, sailor, airman, and marine, when they commit to a tour of duty of 3 or 4 years' obligated service, or the officers accept their commissions and obligate themselves for 4 or 5 years, whatever the case may be, they understand that, but it makes for equity and fairness that the Active rolls have some benefits that compensate for the rigors, the constant risk, the constant disruption, the constant moving of the Active-Duty Force, unlike the reservist who is called back for a period of time, then released to go back to their civilian jobs and their homes. They could own that one home, whereas the military soldier, the careerist on active duty, often has to get a home, sell it, go get another one, sell it, move, move, sell, rent. Those are hardships for which I think through the years the Congress has carefully balanced out an equitable formulation of the benefits for the Active Force and the Guard and Reserve. This amendment makes a very substantial closing of that gap, and I think it will be an inducement for young people now to go into the Reserve and Guard because they are going to have just about the same benefits as the individual on active duty, but they can stay in their homes, stay in their jobs, perform their weekends and 2 weeks in the summer active field training. They can match both their civilian life and their Guard and Reserve life and balance it in such a way as to basically stay home. That is not so with the regular force. So when we reported out the bill S. 2400, we went further than the Senate has ever gone before to improve health care benefits for Reserve members, and it reflects our Nation's growing reliance on their service. When a Reserve or Guard is called up, within 30 days--and I think in a respectful way I brought this to the attention of the distinguished Democratic leader--they are treated just as an active Regular once they go on that active duty. We have added permanent TRICARE coverage before and after mobilization and created a new option for the Reserves and their families to participate in TRICARE while they are enjoying the benefits of civilian life. They have an option but they have to pay something for it. The bottom line is we are dealing with the taxpayers' money. That is what we are dealing with, the taxpayers' money, and it is quite a considerable commitment under this amendment. Our fundamental disagreement is how we achieve these goals. The difference, again, is cost. The amendment would be $700 million for this 1 fiscal year, $5.7 billion over the ensuing 5 years, and $14.2 billion over a 10-year period from adoption. We are under stringent budgets these days, and our military is very much in need of modernization, new equipment, additional training, reconfiguration, particularly the U.S. Army, and all those are costly items. If this amendment were adopted, it would draw down on that ability of modernization. Our statistics show the vast majority of reservists and their families, at least 85 percent according to the Comptroller General, have health coverage from their employers. Recruitment and retention among Reserves at the present time is not a crisis. So this is not a recruiting tool. So I ask my colleagues, why, then, should we respond to increasing calls to the Reserve providing health care compensation in a civilian capacity that is so costly as to guarantee erosion of funding needed for readiness requirements of the other military branches? Under S. 2400, all become eligible for TRICARE when they are mobilized in support of a contingency. All are eligible for 6 months additional coverage after they are demobilized. Mr. President, $200 million is set aside for a demonstration project to provide coverage for the unemployed and the uninsured. In addition to these new benefits, let us not forget that all reservists and their families are eligible to enroll in the Reserve dental insurance program, in which the government pays 60 percent of premiums for reserve families whose sponsors are mobilized for more than 30 days; and all reservists who retire with 20 years of creditable service are eligible for TRICARE for life when they reach age 60. Colleagues, the amendment will duplicate private insurance, handing a windfall to the insurance companies who are now paying full premiums for coverage of civilian-employed reservists. The amendment asks the taxpayers to take the place of employers in providing health care coverage for reserve members while they enjoy the benefits of civilian employment and civilian life. The underlying bill also includes authority for appointment of an independent commission on the future roles and mission of the reserves. This commission would examine all the proposals for enhancements to compensation and benefits of Reserve members that have been proposed in light of changes in current and future roles. We should not more blindly into a permanent and costly government entitlement for reservists while, unlike their active duty counterparts, they are enjoying the benefits of civilian life, and earning benefits in their civilian roles. This is the fundamental basis for the reserve: an option, desirable to many, to maintain civilian employment and benefit status and civilian lifestyles for the majority of their careers, while serving in reserve for the nation's active military components. Let us not ignore the significant investment and improvements in the underyling bill for reserve members and their families, which are affordable for this country, today and in the future. So I think we have hit a very balanced program in the committee bill acted upon by all members of the committee. To the best of my knowledge it was voted out unanimously by committee. I hate to see this treatment of the hard work of the committee. They are entrusted, by virtue of their assignments on this committee, with making the tough decisions as to how best to balance the benefits given to the Guard and Reserve and those in the Active Force. And I come back to the American taxpayer who has to foot a very considerable permanent guarantee, the entitlement under this program for many years. At this time I yield the floor. Would the Chair advise the Chamber with regard to the time remaining under the control of the Senator from Virginia and the control of the two proponents of the measure?

Mr. WARNER. I see. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WARNER. Correct.