John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I say to our distinguished colleague, I compliment her on the need to have more focus on these very important subjects regarding families. As I listened, I harkened back to my days and the composition of the Armed Forces in World War II and Korea. Far less than half were family. Today, three-quarters are family. The Army--and I expect other services but I have certainly heard in the Army--today they call it a family army. As we marched along this road to where, say, three- quarters now are hopefully blessed by a strong family background, I guess we have not kept apace with those matters which the Senator has enunciated today. So speaking for myself, I certainly indicate that I will work closely with the Senator, and knowing the interest of my good friend and colleague from Michigan in this area, I can assume we will work together to strengthen the concepts in the report.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our colleague. Back in prehistoric times when I joined the Marines, on the first day you were issued your rifle and the second day they told you if you were contemplating a wife, you bad better wait. The Marine Corps would issue that, too, at the appropriate time. So things have changed.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, as so many Members in the past few months, we have experienced moments of joy and moments of sorrow, sorrow in attending funerals for those who paid the ultimate price in our engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq. Members have attended those funerals and there we see the family in a way that brings to mind the importance of, up until that moment did we give them the care they deserved? And are we now giving them the care they need after the loss of their uniformed member?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague. She very much was active in the work of the committee. In years past, she was on the committee. She has not left it in a sense because the Senator gave us the encouragement to put in a number of these measures. So I thank my colleague.

Mr. WARNER. I find that the Senate is heavily engaged in committee meetings and briefings, and if it is agreeable to the Senator from Texas, I suggest we do a voice vote. Is that acceptable?

Mr. WARNER. Would that be acceptable to the Senator from Michigan?

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

Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent there be a time limitation of 60 minutes equally divided in the usual form with debate on the Lautenburg-Jeffords amendment No. 722 prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, and that no other amendments be in order prior to a vote in relation to the amendment.

Mr. WARNER. I do want our distinguished colleague from Nevada, who is the chairman of the subcommittee----

Mr. WARNER. That would be helpful and enable Senators to speak.

Mr. WARNER. Fine.

Mr. WARNER. Right.

Mr. WARNER. Right.

Mr. WARNER. No objection on this side.

Mr. WARNER. I just point out that on your side of the aisle, participating actively in markup in the full committee, there was no effort to examine it. The next question I ask my colleague: Are you aware how much money the taxpayers of this Nation put in previous programs for space-based weaponry prior to when President Clinton--I don't say this in a critical way; it is just a fact way--determined that we would not put another dollar in space based?

Mr. WARNER. That is correct.

Mr. WARNER. The Senator is on my time, and he is kind of getting into it a little bit. I need a few minutes here. We spent, as a nation, $1.8 billion on space-based intercepts from 1985 to 1993. This is for $14 million to go in and take a look at what has taken place in years prior thereto, by virtue of an expenditure of $1.8 billion, to determine the feasibility of whether this concept should be resumed. Essentially you are stopping us from even taking a look at this enormous investment which has been expended to determine whether we should once again begin in a substantial way to look at space-based interceptors. That is what is before the Senate, $14 million to go back and look at a program of $1.8 billion. It is for that reason that we vigorously oppose the amendment. I yield the floor at this time. I see the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. WARNER. Each side had 15 minutes. I am not sure for which side the distinguished ranking member is speaking.

Mr. WARNER. I think it is important that we hear from the ranking member because I have asked a question. We did not address this at all in the subcommittee or full committee markup. I presumed, since it was in our bill--I say respectfully to my colleague--I believe he was here to support the bill as written. I come at somewhat of a surprise now on exactly where my distinguished colleague from Michigan is on this amendment.

Mr. WARNER. But there was no opposition in the course of the markup, either in subcommittee or full committee.

Mr. WARNER. I will save this debate for another day. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. I yield.

Mr. WARNER. I draw the Senator's attention to the first words: No amount authorized to be appropriated by this Act for research. . . . It is right in there.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think there is some expression by our colleague to amend the amendment. I take that in good faith. I believe we need a little time to examine this proposal. The chairman of the subcommittee, the Senator from Colorado, is prepared to sit down with the Senator and see what we might be able to do to bridge the gap because this is essentially another vote, as it is now written, to stop the program cold, to put in a ban. We have been through a series of votes on that now and, thus far, we have prevailed to not let bans be put in place, and here is another one coming up. So, in good faith, we will take a look at such amendments that the Senator may wish. Therefore, I simply ask unanimous consent that this amendment be laid aside for a period of time.

Mr. WARNER. We have no objection if the Senator takes some time to speak.