John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair. Further, I ask unanimous consent that S. 1050, as previously passed by the Senate, be returned to the calendar.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WARNER. Those amendments will not be forthcoming.

Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. WARNER. I thank all Senators for their participation. This last vote was not an easy vote. Nevertheless, it came out in the best interests of our national security. I thank my distinguished colleague, the ranking member. I thank the whips, the Senator from Nevada, the Senator from Kentucky, the two leaders, Senator Frist, Senator Daschle, and particularly the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee and our fine staffs for enabling this bill to be put forward and voted favorably.

Mr. WARNER. On the last matter, I move to reconsider the vote.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the engrossment of S. 1047 as earlier passed by the Senate be corrected by inserting the amendments to H.R. 1588 agreed to today in the respective bills as follows: S. 1047, amendment No. 847, Kennedy-Cornyn-Brownback-McCain; amendment No. 848, Reid-Inhofe. Further, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to S. 1047, as corrected, S. 1048, and S. 1049, if the Senate receives a message with respect to any of these bills from the House of Representatives, the Senate disagree with the House on its amendment or amendments to the Senate-passed bill and agree to or request a conference, as appropriate, with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses; that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees, and that the foregoing occur without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, our committee through the years has addressed this very important amendment. I, too, commend the distinguished Senator from Nevada, who has been the spearhead, together with others, on this issue. He has enumerated others, including Senator McCain on this side, who have fought so hard for this measure. Senator Levin just spoke of his endorsement, and I now add mine. I don't wish to prolong this because in last year's record I spoke extensively on this measure. Each time I have addressed it, I have mentioned I have had two brief tours of active military duty, but pretty much of a lifetime association with the Reserves and the Guard in my State and others. My military career is insignificant compared to that of many valiant members of the Armed Forces, generations of whom, hopefully, are to be benefited, quite properly and justifiably and fairly, by this legislation. I see no further speakers on our side.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wonder if I may ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any votes ordered with respect to H.R. 1588 be postponed to occur at 2:50 p.m. today; provided further, that immediately following disposition of any pending amendments, the bill then be read a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage, as provided for under the previous order. I further ask unanimous consent that passage of S. 1050 be vitiated, and that following the passage of H.R. 1588, the Senate substitute be printed as passed.

Mr. WARNER. It is always a challenge, Mr. President, to go toe to toe with my distinguished colleague from Mississippi. The citizens are blessed for having such a powerful and respected voice in the Senate. We have had a long and strong relationship. I am still proud to call you leader. And you exhibit that leadership and have done so magnificently, particularly here recently. Quickly, I digress from what I intended to say by way of opening with a couple of points. That is, the BRAC process will not begin until Congress has received and reviewed an overseas basing master plan from both the administration and an independent commission to Congress authorized in the bill. Both of these reports should be available by August 2004. That is an important point raised. We have addressed it. That information will be before the Congress. Second, under the law as written, the Senator brings out a series of points about what this law does to protect us. There is quite a litany of steps. Congress will have numerous opportunities during the process to affect BRAC actions. First, Congress will review by joint resolution the proposed BRAC criteria submitted by the Department of Defense to Congress in February 2004. Second, Congress will review the DOD proposed force structure in February 2004 and can pass legislation at any point in the process to terminate the authority. Third, Congress can exercise ``advise and consent'' prerogatives on nominees to the BRAC commission. Fourth, Congress has 45 days after receiving the commission's list of recommended base closures and realignments to pass a motion of disapproval. The law has carefully been drawn to protect the interests of the several States and to give the tools to its elected representatives, Senate and House, to step into this situation at a series of junctures to protect the interests of their constituents as this process goes on. I pick up on another phrase used by my distinguished leader. With respect to the BRAC process, he enumerated his long association. Indeed, I have had quite an association with it myself. I suppose I go back to 1969 to 1974 when I was in the Navy Secretariat and had the decision to close, for example, the Boston Naval Shipyard and the Newport, RI, destroyer base. I am reminded of that on the floor of the Senate with great frequency by the colleagues from those distinguished States. Nevertheless, in those days we did not have a BRAC process. The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with his Service Secretaries-- Navy, Army, and Air Force--moved unilaterally. Congress came in. I remember going through days of hearings in the Senate caucus room. There must have been a dozen cameras focused on us while the various Members of the Congress berated this humble public servant, and the Chief of Naval Operations sitting next to me, with regard to the faulty process. Nevertheless, we had to move on. At that point in time, we were overburdened with an infrastructure that simply no longer was needed to support the size of the forces we had. That is the very thing we are confronted with today. For example, since the late 1980s, the Department has reduced force structure by 36 percent. That is the numbers of men and women in uniform, Guard and Reserve. But infrastructure--that is the barracks, the bases, the airfields, the training grounds that support that force--has been reduced only by 21 percent. That is showing the total disjunction between force level personnel and infrastructure to support and train those personnel. A 1998 DOD BRAC report to Congress, validated by the Congressional Budget Office, indicated the Department of Defense had 23 percent excess capacity. That basically still remains. I ask my colleagues, what businessperson in your State does not evaluate their infrastructure and determine what is needed and what must be disposed of in order to maintain the basic profit line and viability and the ability to keep its employees? Of course, we accept that as a pattern of business. I say most respectfully, the Department of Defense is a business, a very large business involved in a mission that is vital to the security, today, tomorrow, and in the indefinite future of this country. The management of that business--four Presidents in sequence and the Secretaries of Defense acting under those Presidents--has come before the Congress and asked for the authority to bring into alignment the base structure as this country is rapidly moving, under the leadership of the current Secretary of Defense, to a transition of the Armed Forces so we can keep apace with modernization; whether it is the smart bombs we saw that were used in the most recent conflicts, or the new ships that are on the drawing board, or, frankly, the lifestyles of the soldiers, sailors, and marines. When I was privileged to serve--we mentioned that more than we should this morning--I remember I slept in a barracks with 50 people all in one room. I was only 17 or 18. We got quickly adjusted to the lifestyle. We shared all types of facilities in World War II. Today, we try to give our men and women of the Armed Forces living compartments, once recruit training is completed, where they have a certain measure of privacy and personal dignity that I think is owing to these people who volunteer today. We cannot retain much of this infrastructure which is outdated, which still requires that it be heated, painted, maintained, drawing down O&M funds vital to build new facilities for the men and women of the Armed Forces. I could go on about the needs of the services, but I bring to the attention of the Senate the letters that have been forwarded to this body. As a matter of fact, the letter approved by the President of the United States has just been sent to me at this very moment. I will ask unanimous consent, during the course of this debate, that I can have printed in the Record letters from the Administration. Indeed, one from the Secretary of Defense makes it very clear that: The authority to realign and close bases we no longer need is an essential element of ensuring the right mix of bases and forces within our warfighting strategy as we transform the Department to meet the security challenges of the 21st century. Then the concluding paragraph--this particular letter went to the House of Representatives, but basically an identical one is being transmitted to the Senate: If the President is presented a bill to repeal or delay BRAC, then I [the Secretary of Defense] would join other senior advisers to the President in recommending that he veto any such legislation. Also accompanying that letter is a letter to me of 3 June, by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, supporting this current posture of BRAC; namely, that it is law today and joining me in urging Senators not to vote for the present legislation. I will quote the Chairman, General Richard Myers: In an environment where resources are scarce, we must eliminate excess physical capacity to allow for increased defense capability focused on ``jointness.'' There we are. The two spokesmen who are entrusted by law--not the BRAC law but the overall framework of the law of the United States as it relates to our security structure--these two men state unequivocally their opposition to the amendment that is presently before this Senate.

Mr. WARNER. Now, Mr. President, all time has expired but I see the presence of a very valued member of our committee, the Senator from Oklahoma, so I ask unanimous consent that he be given 5 minutes to speak to this matter. Regrettably, he is not aligned with the chairman, but occasionally that occurs. I ask that his remarks be included as if stated within the time limitation.

Mr. WARNER. Then he is within the bounds of his right to exercise such time as he wishes under the 10 minutes.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I observe no other speakers to this important amendment. The managers of the bill are prepared to take it on a voice vote. Therefore, I urge adoption of the amendment.

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

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we will proceed to a second amendment. Prior to that being done, I wish to advise the Senate there is a third amendment regarding the BRAC process which will be introduced by the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Mississippi. At this time, so the Senate is aware, we will ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment that will be offered.

Mr. WARNER. We will wait.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I understand that S. 1174 is at the desk and is due for its second reading.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask that the Senate proceed to the measure and I object to further proceeding.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Solving the Asbestos Litigation Crisis: S. 1125, the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2003'' on Wednesday, June 4, 2003, at 10 a.m., in the Hart Senate Office Building Room 216. Witness List: Professor Laurence H. Tribe, Ralph S. Tyler, Professor of Constitutional Law, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA; Jennifer L. Biggs, Tillinghast-Towers Perrin, St. Louis, MO; Dr. Mark A. Peterson, Legal Analysis Systems, Thousands Oaks, CA; Fred Dunbar, Senior Vice President, National Economic Research Associates, New York, NY; Professor Eric D. Green, Boston University School of Law, Boston, MA; Robert Harwick, Chief Economist, Insurance Information Institute, New York, NY; Dr. James D. Crapo, M.D., Department of S/M Pulmonary Sciences/Critical Care Medicine, National Jewish Medical Research Center, Denver, CO; Dr. Laura Stewart Welsh, M.D., Medical Director, Center to Protect Workers Rights, Silver Spring, MD; and Dr. John E. (Jack) Parker, M.D., Department of Medicine, University of West Virginia, Morgantown, WV.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 4, 2003 at 2:00 p.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on Impacts on Tribal Fish and Wildlife Management Programs in the Pacific Northwest.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 4, 2003 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on Proposals to Amend the Indian Reservation Roads Program-- S. 281, the Indian Tribal Surface Transportation Improvement Act of 2003, and S. 725, the Tribal Transportation Program Improvement Act of 2003.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 4, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing entitled ``Transforming the Department of Defense Personnel System: Finding the Right Approach.''

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 4, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. on hold a hearing on Iraq Stabilization and Reconstruction.