John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this letter to the editor is very worthy of our colleagues who, like me, are concerned about how thus far we are still trying to find the weapons, if they exist, but he covers very well one aspect of this, and it is deserving of the estimate. I commend Dr. Kay for his work and his continuing effort. Part of this bill has the funds necessary for him to continue this effort to resolve this very puzzling mystery about the weapons of mass destruction. I thank the Chair, and I thank my distinguished colleague and commend him once again. [From the Washington Post, Nov. 1, 2003] The Hunt for Iraq's Weapons The Oct. 26 front-page article ``Search in Iraq Fails to Find Nuclear Threat'' is wildly off the mark. Your reporter, Barton Gellman, bases much of his analysis on what he says was told to him by an Australian brigadier, Stephen D. Meekin. Gellman describes Meekin as someone ``who commands the Joint Captured Materiel Exploitation Center, the largest of a half-dozen units that report to [David] Kay.'' Meekin does not report, nor has he ever reported, to me in any individual capacity or as commander of the exploitation center. The work of the center did not form a part of my first interim report, which was delivered last month, nor do I direct what Meekin's organization does. The center's mission has never involved weapons of mass destruction, nor does it have any WMD expertise. Gellman's description of information provided by Mahdi Obeidi, chief of Iraq's pre-1991 centrifuge program, relies on an unnamed ``U.S. official'' who, by the reporter's own admission, read only one reporting cable. How Gellman's source was able to describe reporting that covered four months is a mystery to me. Furthermore, the source mischaracterized our views on the reliability of Obeidi's information. With regard to Obeidi's move to the United States, Gellman writes, ``By summer's end, under unknown circumstances, Obeidi received permission to bring his family to an East Coast suburb in the United States.'' The reader is left with the impression that this move involved something manipulative or sinister. The ``unknown circumstances'' are called Public Law 110. This mechanism was created during the Cold War to give the director of central intelligence the authority to resettle those who help provide valuable intelligence information. Nothing unusual or mysterious here. When the article moves to describe the actual work of the nuclear team, Gellman states that ``frustrated members of the nuclear search team by late spring began calling themselves the `book of the month club.' '' But he fails to note that this was before the establishment of the Iraq Survey Group. In fact, the team's frustration with the pace of the work is what led President Bush to shift the responsibility for the WMD search to the director of central intelligence and to send me to Baghdad. One would believe from what Gellman writes that I have sent home the two leaders of my nuclear team, William Domke and Jeffrey Bedell, and abandoned all attempts to determine the state of Iraq's nuclear activities. Wrong again. Domke's assignment had been twice extended well beyond what the Department of Energy had agree to. He and Bedell were replaced with a much larger contingent of experts from DOE's National Labs. Finally, with regard to the aluminum tubes, the tubes were certainly being imported and were being used for rockets. The question that continues to occupy us is whether similar tubes, with higher specifications, had other uses, specifically in nuclear centrifuges. Why anyone would think that we should want to confiscate the thousands of aluminum tubes of the lower specification is unclear. Our investigation is focused on whether a nuclear centrifuge program was either underway or in the planning stages, what design and components were being contemplated or used in such a program if it existed and the reason for the constant raising of the specifications of the tubes the Iraqis were importing clandestinely. We have much work left to do before any conclusions can be reached on the state of possible Iraqi nuclear weapons program efforts. Your story gives the false impression that conclusions can already be drawn. David Kay.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to note before the Senate a great professional honor bestowed recently on my constituent, Ronald W. Barton of Arlington: the Chairman's Medal of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. The Safety Board, the Senators will recall, was established by statute in 1988 for the purpose of providing the highest quality of technical oversight of the safe operations of the Nation's nuclear weapons complex--dozens of plants with very high risk radioactive material. To accomplish this very difficult task, the Safety Board has to attract and train the very best technical talent in the nuclear area. Chairman Conway's citation accompanying the award to Mr. Barton says in part: Mr. Barton joined the Board in 1994, bringing with him more than 25 years of project management and engineering experience in the design, construction, and operation of nuclear reactors for commercial facilities. He became an indispensable leader for the Board's technical staff, and was key to the development of more than half a dozen technical reports, which continue to have an impact on operations in the defense nuclear complex today. I have examined Mr. Barton's career, and I certainly agree with Chairman Conway. Mr. Barton not only brought his own expertise to the board, but he trained and developed a generation of young engineers to contribute to the admirable technical performance of the safety board, where a technical staff of about 60 oversees the safe operation of a complex of over 100,000 workers with a budget of over $16 billion. This technical staff is superb, and Ron Barton helped build it, and then led it by example. Now Ron must retire, much too early, because of his leukemia. We wish he were able to continue to serve, but we are grateful for the contributions he made to safety in the nuclear complex. For instance, Ron was the expert lead on at least six very complex and thorough technical studies, on such diverse areas as: DOE emergency management capabilities, confinement ventilation systems, fire protection, criticality safety, and documented safety analysis. This is an extraordinary list of achievements; these reports still guide the Department of Energy operations of these complex, hazardous facilities. We should be grateful to Ron for these contributions. Ron Barton is the best of the best, and the Nation will miss his contributions. We wish him good health and a happy retirement.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. How much time does this Senator have remaining?

Mr. WARNER. All right. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 3 minutes be given to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first, I commend my two colleagues from Washington. While we only have 2 or 3 minutes to speak about this matter, I would hate to know the number of hours that each of them have expended. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we have 5 minutes allocated to the Senator from----

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I simply conclude, we are here today because of the efforts of Senator McCain to bring this matter to our attention, and I salute him for that purpose. And I thank all. I yield back my time so the distinguished chairman can move ahead with the bill.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our distinguished minority leader for that. I have a draft in the form of an amendment which I hope to introduce into the Armed Services conference for purposes of incorporation in that bill. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to describe this proposal concerning the administration's request to proceed with the lease of 100 aircraft.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the past 2 years, this issue has had a rather contentious but serious debate--

Mr. WARNER. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WARNER. I commend my colleague from Michigan. We have been working together some 25 years on this committee now. Last night we studied the final language I crafted with the help of others and my colleague decided to join us. Senator McCain wishes to follow the two distinguished colleagues from Washington. Again, I commend the Senator. We met last night on the floor. We talked about it. We worked into the evening with our staff. I very much appreciate the expressions the Senator is about to make.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the past few years there has been a sort of contentious but serious and conscientious debate within the administration and the Congress as to how to resolve the problem for the Department of the Air Force. What I regard as a compromise to the pending understanding would be the following: First, according to my sources, in many ways this has been corroborated by the various Departments which worked with us. It would provide up to perhaps $4 billion in savings. It would give prompt delivery of 100 new tanker aircraft. It would put this program back into the traditional procurement process, put this program back into the traditional budget process, put this program back into the traditional authorization process, and provide the Air Force with title--underline ``title''--ownership of at least 80 of the aircraft under this contract. Pursuant to section 133 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2003, which established guidelines for the congressional review of any tanker lease, the Air Force, on July 10, submitted to the Congressional Defense Committees a new start notification of at least 100 aircraft. Under section 133 of the Defense Authorization Act of 2003, all four committees must act favorably on this notification for the lease to proceed. Our Senate Armed Services Committee has yet to act. We conducted extensive oversight of this tanker lease program, holding a hearing on September 4. During this hearing, I first put out my thoughts for public comment on the idea of leasing at that time up to 25 aircraft and purchasing the remainder. I have now modified that to 20 and 80. Subsequent to this hearing, the committee explored numerous options and requested additional studies from the Congressional Budget Office, the General Accounting Office and the Air Force. I commend the members of my committee for their careful review of this matter and coming up with this proposal despite the enormous pressure from many sectors to simply adopt the new start reprogramming request. The proposal amendment to be included in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004 would provide for the approval of a lease for 20 aircraft and authorize a multiyear procurement program for the remaining 80 aircraft. Thus, the Air Force would still obtain 100 tankers, in keeping with the goal of the Administration's tanker lease proposal. This approach allows the tanker program to get started with no lease payments required until fiscal year 2006 and no purchase payments required until fiscal year 2008, while still permitting the same schedule of deliveries as in the currently negotiated lease contract. This proposal would also authorize the use of incremental funding for the 80 aircraft purchase. Incremental funding is an approach that should not be taken lightly by Congress, but it is one that has been used for other weapon systems acquisitions where there was a critical need. I plan to continue to consult with all interested parties and work to get an agreement to include this proposal in the national defense authorization conference report. That action would provide the Air Force the option to immediately execute the program and being production of these 100 aircraft. I urge the support of my colleagues. Exhibit I

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, does the Senator from Washington wish to join?

Mr. WARNER. I think we should reserve it for the other Senator from Washington, too.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Daniel W. McGinty, upon his retirement from the Federal Government after 33 years of distinguished and dedicated service to our Nation and the Department of Defense. Over the last 10 years, some of us in this Chamber have had dealings with Dan, as he carried out his responsibilities as the director of congressional and public affairs for the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and most recently with the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). His frequent dealings with the staff of the Armed Services Committees of the Senate and House have been a paragon of professionalism, diplomacy, and conscientious service. With integrity and an engaging personal style, Dan consisently exercised a remarkable talent for reconciling divergent points of view, and doing so in a way that resulted in mutually acceptable outcome for all involved, be it in the arena of legislation or constituent services. Dan's career journey began more than three decades ago. Upon his graduation from Eastern New Mexico University in 1970, he entered the Army as a counterintelligence agent at Ft. Ord, California. Following an honorable discharge in 1973, Dan began his Federal civilian career at Kirtland Air Force Base, NM, progressing through a variety of contract-management positions over the ensuing 10 years. In the mid-1980s, Dan got his first taste of life in the Nation's Capital, serving as the strategic planning officer on the staff of the Commander, Air Force Systems Command. After 4 years in that position, he returned to Kirtland AFB to head up the resources-planning division. Then in 1989, upon the issuance of Defense Management Review Decision 916, which placed all Defense contract administration under DLA's Defense Contract Management Command, Dan returned to the Washington, DC, area to serve as the director of program and technical support for special programs at DCMC headquarters. But all that was mere prelude to what Dan will best be remembered for--his proficiency, acumen, and credibility as the congressional affairs impresario for DLA and DCMA, two of the Defense Department's leading combat-support agencies. Since February 1994, he has been a highly effective ambassador to Capitol Hill, articulating agency programs and deftly conveying his agencies' perspective on emerging legislation. Displaying an enviable blend of affability and sophistication, Dan established and enjoyed a marvelous rapport with Senate and House staff. Always responsive and informed, he consistently met the congressional and media demands placed on him while protecting and promoting the interests of the agencies he represented. Whether he was contributing to the successful development of a classified weapons systems program, responding to pointed questions from reporters, or explaining contract-management initiatives to congressional staff, Dan McGinty carried out his pressure-packed responsibilities with unwavering diligence, integrity, and competence. On the occasion of his retirement from Federal service, I offer my congratulations and thanks to this respected resident of northern Virginia, and wish him and his wife, Sue, well in their future pursuits.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. The Senator from Virginia simply asked the parliamentary situation, could I proceed as in morning business for 15 minutes?

Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague because you formerly served as attorney general. You have full comprehension of the importance of being fair to everyone. This recommendation I have is in the sense of fairness. I think it is in the interest of all, and I thank the Senator for his remarks.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. Muslims and Christians and people of other faiths all over this world are united in this fight against terrorism. We must make it very clear of our mutual respect for one another's faith. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: Is it in order at this point in time for the Senator to speak as in morning business for about 10 minutes?

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, the Senator is correct, to simply give full and complete opportunity and have him temporarily detailed elsewhere. I think until such time as this thing is resolved factually--what did happen, what didn't happen--as the Secretary of Defense said, he didn't fully have all the facts at his command at this point in time and was asked a question. Although I must say I have read press accounts where the general was trying to explain what he did say, you and I know from experience in public life, when you try to explain what you tried to say, you need time out to do a little study.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, the press have reported comments made by a general officer, General Boykin, and those remarks have been the subject of considerable concern. They are also regrettably a subject of great discussion in the Arab press. I also am concerned, and I rise to advise my colleagues and others of a recommended course of action. I do so by first reading a letter signed by Senator Levin and myself dated last Friday. We wrote this letter jointly in the course of the debate on this floor in response to the request by the Commander in Chief, the President, for some $87 billion to support our military and to support our reconstruction efforts in Iraq and elsewhere. I was a strong supporter and was happy to vote for it. Fortunately, the measure has passed and is now subject to the conferees. It is interesting, at the very time that we were passing this legislation, which are taxpayer funds in considerable amounts, the object was to provide freedom and quality of life for the people of Iraq. The people of Iraq largely follow the Muslim religion in teaching, in tenets, and it is dear to their hearts. At the same time, the coverage in the United States is about comments made by a distinguished officer, a man who has shown great personal courage in the profession as a soldier. Nevertheless, there are allegations with regard to these remarks that have been reported in the press. Senator Levin and I felt it was our duty, as chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, to make a recommendation to the Secretary of Defense. I am about to read that letter we sent on Friday, because I think it is a very responsible way to deal with a high-profile situation. Dear Mr. Secretary: Enclosed are copies of articles that have appeared in the press recently about public statements allegedly made in uniform by LTG William G. Boykin, U.S. Army, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. In matters pertaining to religious beliefs, the practice and expression, the Armed Forces have traditionally permitted as much latitude as possible, consistent with the requirement of good order and discipline in the military's ability to accomplish its mission. We recognize the right of every American to free speech. However, as is well established, in part--I add, part in law--there are limits on the right of expression for service members. Public statements by a senior military official of an inflammatory, offensive nature that would denigrate another religion and which could be construed as bigotry may easily be exploited by enemies of the United States and contribute to an erosion of support within the Arab world and perhaps--I underline perhaps--increased risk for members of the U.S. Armed Forces serving in Muslim nations. It is the responsibility of the United States Senate to render constitutional ``advice and consent'' with respect to the officer corps. Implicit in this confirmation process is our judgment that officers, especially those of flag and general rank, are persons possessing sound judgment and respect for the rights and beliefs of others. We recommend, therefore, that you refer this matter to the Department of Defense Inspector General for a thorough review of the facts and a determination as to whether or not there has been any inappropriate behavior by Lieutenant General Boykin. Please advise the committee of the results of this review. I now read from a press account of today, which purportedly carries-- and I have to rely on the authenticity of the press reports. I have no reason to disagree with them--an exchange between Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and members of the press corps. The question: Mr. Secretary, last week here you were referring to Lieutenant General Boykin, you and General Myers said in effect he has the right to freedom of speech and the freedom of expression and yet, as we all know, we are responsible for what we say. How can you keep a man in a senior position on your staff whose views are so diametrically opposed to those of the President and to yours? End of question. Response by Secretary Rumsfeld: Let me make several hopefully precisely put sentences on this subject. First of all, I appreciate your question because it correctly indicated that the President's views and my views, or the President's views are that this is not a war against a religion. And all I did, despite the columnists and the press reports to the contrary, all I did was precisely state what the President and what I think are--I am having some difficulty reading this but I just have to literally read it as printed. I have not seen General Boykin's comments. I have since seen one of the network tapes and it had a lot of very difficult to understand words and subtitles which I was not able to verify. So I remain inexpert on precisely what he said and I was told he used notes and not text. And so I will stop there. General Boykin has requested an Inspector General review of this matter, and I have indicated if that is his request, I think it appropriate. I know that General Pace, who was apparently with the Secretary, has talked to him more recently. You may want to comment as well. General Pace: Yesterday, Jerry and I were just waiting for a meeting to begin and he just mentioned to me how sad he was that his comments have caused the furor that they have. There is no doubt in my mind, in talking to him, that if he could pick his words more carefully he would. There is also no doubt in my mind that he does not see this battle as a battle between religions. He sees it as a battle between good and evil. He sees it as the evil being the acts of individuals, not the acts of any religion or affiliation with religion. So clearly, in my very short conversation with Jerry, which he instigated, he is sad that this is the way that it is, but he is anxious to have the investigator do the investigator's job. I commend the Secretary of Defense, and I commend General Boykin. I think Senator Levin and I took the proper step. We had the option to put this letter into the public domain on Friday, but purposely I said to my colleague and to others--by the way, there were a number of others, as Senator Levin and I just discussed, on his side of the aisle and on my side of the aisle who expressed concern and asked of us, as the chairman and the ranking member, what we intended to do. Well, we made this recommendation and we purposely withheld it from public delivery, public release, as a consideration to the Secretary, such that he might take it into consideration as he dealt with this matter. I just presume he saw it and that he did take it into consideration. But I think at this point in time, while we have young men and women patrolling the streets in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other areas of the world, it is best we try to take this matter, hopefully, off the front pages, with the representation to the American public and others that the proper authorities are reviewing it--the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, and I anticipate my committee and indeed perhaps others here in the Senate will review the matter. But in fairness to this distinguished officer, such that he can devote his full time and attention to dealing with this issue, I am recommending-- not calling for, not demanding but recommending, having spent some time in the Department of Defense myself--that without any prejudice this officer be detailed from his present position, a position that deals with the war on terrorism throughout the world, that he be detailed elsewhere temporarily until such time as the Inspector General comes back with his report, at which time we can have further deliberations. That is in fairness to so many people who are deeply concerned about this issue, and indeed the men and women of the Armed Forces, and indeed the integrity of the military itself. When an officer wears that uniform and he stands before the people of the United States, or wherever he may be, and he makes remarks, people see in that uniform that he has been appointed to that position by the President of the United States of America and confirmed by the Senate of the United States. In that confirmation process we look at the professional credentials, we examine all the material that comes before us, but implicit in our confirmation by this body, the Senate, pursuant to the Constitution, implicit therein is that we feel this individual should be promoted and given the rank to which the President has appointed him because we have confidence in him that he has good, sound judgment--I repeat that: good, sound judgment--in the exercise of his freedom to speak. That is the question that remains to be answered. He is in a very high-profile position with global responsibilities on the war on terrorism. I think temporarily, without any prejudice whatsoever, asking him to take on another assignment until this matter is fully examined and studied and a report made to the Secretary of Defense and the Senate is in the interests of all concerned and indeed this officer. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I am not asking the Senator to yield the floor, but the other part, in fairness--

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I could direct a question to my colleague, first, I hope in the course of this debate we have not impugned in any way the integrity of Ambassador Bremer.

Mr. WARNER. Will my colleague yield?