John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Of course.

Mr. WARNER. How much time does the Senator need?

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague. We are ready to vote.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, just a minute. In a conscientious effort to resolve this, I ask unanimous consent that each side be given another 5 minutes.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that is quite clear. Is the answer to my question, yes, you are trying to kill the initiation of an element that could lead to space-based weapons? Isn't that correct?

Mr. WARNER. I wonder if I may ask my colleague a question or two. For many years you served on the Armed Services Committee. You have a complete familiarity as to how we address issues. My recollection--and I don't think it is to be disputed--of the markup in the subcommittee is, when we looked at this line of funding, no one on your side of the aisle or anyone else raised an issue. We went to full markup, and no one raised an issue about it. Essentially you are coming in, which you have a perfect right to do, but you are coming in to kill a program. Am I not correct, this amendment kills the program?

Mr. WARNER. It is my understanding I have 15 minutes under my control.

Mr. WARNER. We thank our colleague very much.

Mr. WARNER. There is no objection on this side.

Mr. WARNER. Could that temporarily be set aside for 5 minutes so the Senator may be recognized and then we will return to that?

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: My understanding is that the Bingaman amendment is the order at this point in time.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, if I might say to my colleague, on a personal note, he and I have reminisced many times how we have been privileged to wear the uniform of our country. I am struck by the hundred years. That parallels the commode scene we had hear some years ago, if the Senator remembers. People operating in the Department of Defense have good intentions, be they in uniform or civilians. It is their country and their taxpayers' money. What we have to do is provide them with the proper direction when they need it to try to correct these things. But we have always, being military persons ourselves, to remember readiness is foremost. We have to err sometimes on the side of caution to maintain the readiness needed, particularly in today's environment, where unlike when you and I served there was time to get ready for military operations. World War II basically took a year to get cranked up and going. We don't have that time anymore with these modern weapons and terrorism and the like. We have to be ready because what is on the shelf and what is in inventory is about all the men and women in the Armed Forces have when they have to move out with such swiftness now to address the threats of today. I thank the Senator, but I just wanted to bring up that one note.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from Michigan. I say to the Senator from Iowa, really, in a way we appreciate what you have done because you have identified an issue that has been of concern to our committee for some many years. The Armed Services Committee has held hearings and sponsored much of the GAO's best- practices work. But there remain to be done some important aspects of this problem. DOD has made some progress but much more needs to be done. We recognize that. I want to work with the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Michigan and other members of the committee to address the inventory management problems at the Defense Department. I thank the Senator.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank our colleague from Oklahoma. I also thank our distinguished colleague from this side. It looks as if we are going to conclude this debate such that the Senate can turn to a rollcall vote at about 2:45.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, the modesty of my distinguished colleague sometimes is overwhelming. The concept of this language which he described and written in the King's English originated with him in the course of the markup of our bill. I then plagiarized it for the purpose of earlier legislation. I don't know whether the Senator from Florida has plagiarized it. But we owe him a great debt. I am so glad we had the early discussion today about the clarity of certain statutes and that the Senator recognized this one speaks with great clarity. That is why it prevailed on our side. I urge its adoption.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I join in this amendment. It had been my intention to add the second-degree amendment to the amendment we just voted on. I so indicated to my colleagues on this side, recognizing I think it is a benefit for the amendment to originate by our distinguished colleague and member of the committee from Florida on this side of the aisle. This makes ``parallel'' almost to the exact word treatment of both of these initiatives with regard to nuclear weapons in the current 2004 authorization bill. I commend the Senator. I urge its adoption.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the use of fences is quite common in a number of areas in the Defense authorization process.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that fence was met. The Department submitted its report. On receipt of that report, the program, as authorized last year, commenced. It is an ongoing program.

Mr. WARNER. I think we have clarified this situation as best we can. But I wish to state to my colleagues, it is the intention of this Senator--I hope to be joined by others; and, indeed, one on the other side of the aisle--to put in legislation, as a part of the consideration of this subject of the penetrator, the exact language we had and voted on very strongly here just 15 minutes ago.

Mr. WARNER. But if your amendment would pass, wouldn't it be the effect to the Department of Defense: Why waste last year's money if you are prohibited from spending another nickel?

Mr. WARNER. I readily state you have one position on the concept of whether this Nation should, you said, start up--but I think you agree with me now, it is ongoing--so stop where it is, this program. You make your point. I make my point. What I am trying to do is to clarify, for the benefit of our colleagues, precisely what I understand your amendment does. What this Senator, or perhaps joined by others, intends to do is, namely, make the effect of the amendment parallel to what we have done three times now. Three times this body has voted not to ban research on a nuclear system. You are asking for a ban. I draw your attention to your first sentence: ``Effective as of the date of the enactment of this Act, no funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for the Department of Energy by this Act or any other Act may be obligated or expended for development, testing,'' and so forth. Does that not capture the existing funds that were appropriated last year?

Mr. WARNER. I just think accuracy on these very important subjects is absolutely vital to establish credibility among our colleagues. I read from the report language. It says: This amount includes $21 million for advanced concepts, of which $15 million is authorized to continue the feasibility study on the robust nuclear earth penetrator. So the Senator was incorrect in his representation that he was endeavoring as if to say I am going to stop it now before it gets started. I think that is fair, to let the Congress know, and particularly the Senate, this thing was authorized last year and voted upon, approved, funded. This is a second tranche of funds for research. Essentially the amendment of the Senator is to establish a total ban on this entire program. If I may say on my own time, of course, it is the intention of the Senator from Virginia, again in total fairness to our colleagues, to incorporate in this legislation, in this bill, a provision which is identical in purpose to the one we just voted on, the Warner amendment. It will say: The Secretary of Energy may not commence the engineering development phase, that's the next phase, or any subsequent phase of the nuclear earth penetrator program unless specifically authorized by Congress. So into this legislation--it had been my intent to put it on in the second degree, but the time agreement understandably precluded that. It may well be other Senators will join us. But this is the intention of the Senator from Virginia. I wish to represent to all colleagues I will endeavor, and I have every reason to believe there is going to be support on the other side, to incorporate this language which will put Congress entirely in control of this program, entirely in control, just as I amended the previous legislation to put Congress entirely in control of every step as it goes along.

Mr. WARNER. I likewise encourage the adoption of the amendment. I think it is cleared on both sides. I commend the sponsors of this amendment for their hard work.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank both colleagues, the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from Michigan. I pick up on the statement of my working partner here for so many years, the distinguished ranking member. What the Senator from Virginia is endeavoring to do today is much like what the Senator from Michigan was endeavoring to do during the markup. Let us quietly try to assist our colleagues as they formulate their decisions as to what position to take. The Senate spoke yesterday to the effect that we are not going to impose a ban on research. I say to the Senate, that was a wise decision. We should continue with the basic theme that we are not going to impose a ban on this Nation with respect to this system or any other system which may be needed for the defense of this Nation--hopefully, never in terms of weapons of mass destruction--but we cannot send a message to the world that we are just going to ignore the fact that they exist in many parts of the world. We have to maintain a credible inventory ourselves as a deterrent against others who might threaten us. So we should not have a ban. But what we should have is in place a law which is clearly understandable. Now my colleagues go back and try to revise the existing law which has been in effect since 1994, which I say, with no disrespect to my colleagues. But when it was written--it is very convoluted, it is very difficult to understand because it says: ``LIMITATION--The Security of Energy may not conduct, or provide for the conduct of, research and development''--now they strike those words and put in their own-- ``which could lead to the production by the United States of a low- yield nuclear weapon. . . .'' Now, I have here a list of the seven steps followed in the life of a nuclear system. The first three--the concept study, the feasibility study, the design definition and cost study--have been authorized by the Senate as of yesterday in this amendment. So we are at this juncture, as my colleague from Rhode Island points to his chart, where the balance of these steps toward the full implementation of a nuclear system should be put in control of whom? And I say it should be put in control of the Congress of the United States, with very clear language. The statute, I say to my friend from Rhode Island, which you are trying to amend simply says, ``The Secretary . . . may not conduct, or provide for the conduct of'' this next step, full-scale engineering development. Theoretically, if you are so distrustful of the executive branch-- whether it is this one or a subsequent--they could jump over that--not easily but they could jump over and go on to the other steps. So the way this thing is written, it is very awkward. It says it only stops one step. So I say that is a bad way to go about it. I say the better, wiser way, as Senator Levin said, is the constructive way, as he pointed out in my amendment. It simply says we are not going to point to one step, we are going to point to all the steps and say as follows: ``The Secretary of Energy may not commence the engineering development phase''--that is the one you are endeavoring to block by amending this old statute--but I go on: ``or any subsequent phase, of a low-yield nuclear weapon unless specifically authorized by Congress.'' That language is as clear as crystal. This language is very awkward to interpret and read. It has a flaw in it, that you could literally jump over the one step that you are blocking and proceed, in some manner, albeit not the best, but proceed to the other steps. My amendment stops it. It is like a stop sign that says: We will not proceed as a nation until this body, the Congress of the United States, acts to authorize and appropriate the funds. I yield the floor.