John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 46 which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I do not want to get tangled up in the terminology, but the bill, as passed out by the Armed Services Committee that is pending before us, repeals, in the entirety, the law that was passed in 1994. Then you are coming along and saying: All right, I cede the ground that was authorized by this bill that just passed, but I wish to reimpose the limitation on the subsequent steps to the research. All I am saying is, let's be consistent. We have repealed. Leave it repealed. But insert the Congress at precisely the point the Senator raises there and say: Not one step more until the authorization and appropriation takes place.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have listened very carefully to the arguments by my two distinguished colleagues, the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from Michigan. The Senate has acted on repealing a portion of the ban, and I think it is important that the Senate be consistent and that it should be a total repeal unless it could be construed as not being the intention of the Congress to fully support the actions of the research in the first two steps. My second-degree amendment would allow the entire repeal, as called for in the bill, to take place. But very importantly, I then make it eminently clear that not one step can go beyond the research phase unless--and I read section (c): The Secretary of Energy may not commence the engineering development phase, or any subsequent phase, of a low-yield nuclear weapon unless specifically authorized by Congress. Laws should be written that are clear, so they are understandable. This second-degree amendment absolutely places in the mind of every reasonable person who reads it precisely what is the intent of the Congress. And that intent is that this is approved to go forward in the vote we have just taken. In the second degree amendment to the pending amendment, it is clear that Congress is fully in charge, working with the executive branch. The Congress, and only the Congress, can authorize and appropriate the funds necessary to go one step beyond what the earlier amendment provided. Very simple. I do not need to prolong this argument. The second degree amendment is eminently clear.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment. Research on precision low-yield nuclear weapon design is prudent in today's national security environment. Why would we want to prevent any type of research on weapons that might contribute to improving our national security? Authorizing the research does not authorize the production, testing, or deployment of a low-yield nuclear weapon. Congress reserves the right to decide that as a separate matter, should such a step be requested by this or any future Administration. I have received three letters on this matter: two from top military leaders, Admiral James Ellis, Commander of U.S. Strategic Command and General John Jumper, Chief of Staff to the U.S. Air Force, and one from Secretary of State Colin Powell. All three of these distinguished leaders urged support for repealing the ban on low-yield nuclear weapons research. In the current international environment, with many new unexpected threats, it is prudent to allow research on low-yield nuclear weapons to learn whether such weapons could add to the deterrent value of our nuclear force. A repeal of the ban on low-yield nuclear weapons research and development would permit the scientists and engineers at our national laboratories to consider whether these types of weapons are feasible and for what purpose. For instance, could such a weapon destroy a laboratory with biological and chemical agents without disbursing them as a conventional weapon would do? What would be the collateral effect? I do not agree with those who assert that even allowing this research to go forward would undermine our nuclear non-proliferation efforts. The United States is steadfast in its determination to prevent nuclear proliferation through many means including diplomacy, multilateral regimes to control the export of sensitive technologies, and interdiction of illegal exports. The U.S. also has a proven record of nuclear reductions. Secretary Colin Powell confirmed this view in his letter sent to me on May 5th, 2003. In that letter, Secretary Powell stated: ``I do not believe [repealing the ban on low-yield nuclear weapons research and development] will complicate our ongoing efforts with North Korea.'' Over the past decade--while the current prohibition on this type of research has been in place--the United States has taken thousands of nuclear weapons out of the active stockpile, abided by a moratorium on underground nuclear tests, designed no new nuclear weapons, and refrained from research on low-yield nuclear weapons. Some might argue that these activities served the purpose of encouraging other countries not to develop or proliferate nuclear weapons. But let's examine the record. Over the past decade, India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons for the first time. Other nations have continued to seek nuclear weapons capabilities, including Iraq, Iran and North Korea. And many nation are pursing chemical and biological weapons capabilities. I believe this shows that other nations make decisions about whether or not to acquire nuclear and other WMD capabilities based on their assessment of their own national security need--not based on U.S. action in this area. The argument that some make that if U.S. refrains from certain types of activities, others will follow, just does not stand the test of time. Some would also argue the authorizing of this research would lower the nuclear threshold. I disagree. As Ambassador Linton Brooks, Administrator of the Nuclear Security Administration, testified before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, on April 8, 2003, the ``[n]uclear threshold is awesomely high.'' If wars of the future are about winning hearts and minds, about liberating rather than conquering, then the threshold for using nuclear weapons remains very high indeed. But as long as we maintain a nuclear deterrence force, we would be remiss if we did not keep it safe, secure and reliable, and if we did not maintain our research capabilities both for ourselves and to understand what other countries might be exploring. It is worth noting that the United States had a large number of low- yield nuclear weapons in our inventory during the '50s, '60s, and '70s which have now been removed from the inventory. During each of these decades there were significant national security challenges to the United States. None of those challenges came close to reaching the nuclear threshold, notwithstanding the availability of low-yield nuclear weapons. We have a responsibility to ensure the safety and security of all Americans. We should not place artificial limits on the intellectual work of our gifted scientists to explore new technologies, to understand what is possible as well as what potential adversaries could be exploring. Should threats emerge which cannot be deterred or destroyed with conventional weapons, our President must have other options available to protect the citizens of the United States, our interests and our allies. This has been the policy of the United States for almost sixty years. The provision in the Senate bill merely permits the research that will inform future decisions as to whether such weapons would enhance the national security of our country overall. It does not prejudice how Congress would decide that question in the future. Let us not fear greater knowledge to inform our future decisions. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. WARNER. We are providing flexibility to my colleague from Michigan to try to make it work. Mr. President, I think it is important that in the Record of this debate there at least be one statement, if I may say, on behalf of the Senator from Virginia which enables the reader of the Record to determine with ease exactly what the debate is about. For that purpose, I will make a broad unanimous consent request. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following material be printed in the Record: First, the existing law passed in 1994, which is the subject of the debate we are now having. That is to be followed by the submission of the Department of Defense as to the rationale for removing this particular law. That is to be followed by the manner in which we did it in the Armed Services Committee--it is a copy of the bill section. That is to be followed by correspondence received by the Senator from Virginia, first from the Secretary of State in which he expresses his opinion in regard to the amendment; and then the statement by Admiral Ellis, Commander of the Strategic Command, stating his support for the work done by the committee. That is to be followed by a letter from General Jumper, expressing his support for the work done by the committee. Then I have listed as a matter of convenience for my colleagues the seven steps that are taken, traditionally, with respect to nuclear weapons. That is the information relevant to this debate.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we are now operating under a time agreement. We will have our distinguished colleague from Nevada here momentarily. For the moment, let's put in a quorum call and this side will bear the time on the quorum call because I see my two colleagues are engaged in a colloquy. So I observe the absence of a quorum and ask that it be charged to this side.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Would the Senator be gracious enough to check with the Parliamentarian? It seems to me before we get the body stirred up on the issue of BRAC, we ought to determine the relevance on that amendment with these unanimous consent requests. I say that by way of courtesy.

Mr. WARNER. I have to say to my friend, I would not want him to leave the floor under the illusion that if the amendment fails to meet the requirements of the Parliamentarian, that my colleague, the distinguished ranking member, and myself, would begin to sit as a supreme court with regard to the Parliamentarian's decision and render exceptions. If we were to do that, the whole efficiency of this process would soon disintegrate and put us in an impossible situation. The institution of the Senate relies upon the fairness and objectivity of the Parliamentarians. It is an institution since the beginning of times here. We, as Members, should not be asked or put in a position in which to overrule them, as you are fully aware.

Mr. WARNER. Will my colleague be willing to engage in a colloquy?

Mr. WARNER. It simply says: Agency, if it is that important in your judgment in reporting, it goes to the very heart of the oversight process. We should have raised it in subcommittee, adopted an amendment of this type, and worked it out. I was told the staff worked very closely with one another on the provisions we did put in the bill as to reporting on missile defense which we believed was a closed-out item.

Mr. WARNER. By way of senatorial courtesy, I bring to the Senator's attention the unanimous consent request drafted carefully and put into the calendar today. Would the Senator be willing to check with the Parliamentarian at his earliest opportunity? On this amendment, the Senator is a cosponsor, I think I heard.

Mr. WARNER. I simply say to my colleague that if there was a serious issue in the function of the Missile Defense Agency, in your judgment-- and you attach enormous importance to this--why did we not consider it in the course of the subcommittee hearing?

Mr. WARNER. Is that an acceptable offer?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, may I pose a question to my colleague? I see that Senator Bill Nelson of Florida is the ranking member on this subcommittee, together with Senator Byrd, Senator Reed, Senator Nelson of Nebraska, and Senator Dayton. The Senator has looked at this very carefully. Is there a means by which to work this out in some way--as to portions of it which you believe we will not go back over, and the issue of why it wasn't raised but now that it is raised--is there a means by which we can do it rather than taking up further time in the Senate on reporting requirements?

Mr. WARNER. I am not contesting that. You recognize that. I am just pointing out, in 25 years, how the committee has to do its work.

Mr. WARNER. I take it from your reply that one Senator thinks it is a matter of enormous importance. Was there a reason it wasn't brought up in the subcommittee of jurisdiction? We have the distinguished chairman here. So those members who, on our committee, have the first--should we say the first response? I like that phrase, first response--to look at matters of this nature, if it is that important why wasn't it brought up then? Then we had the subsequent markup session. If it was that important, why wasn't it brought up then? It seems to me that the way the members of the committee can best serve the Senate is to take those entrusted with specific subjects, put their minds on it, put it in the bill. If you had endeavored to put it in, it was rejected at subcommittee, rejected at full committee, then come on out on the floor and roll it out with all the guns and say: Look, colleagues, the committee didn't do its work.

Mr. WARNER. Thank you.

Mr. WARNER. What did the Chair say?

Mr. WARNER. We can't hear.

Mr. WARNER. The Senator from Virginia propounded a question to the Chair. My distinguished colleague from Nevada suggested maybe we shouldn't follow that procedure. I have now consulted with the Parliamentarian. They are prepared to answer the question propounded by the Senator from Virginia with regard to this practice over the last several years. Whatever period of time is stipulated I think is not that important. So I once again propound to the Chair the question of whether or not the means by which the Parliamentarian through the years has judged a question's relevancy-- has it changed, say, in the last 5 years?

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, if the Senator will yield?

Mr. WARNER. We are about to work out a timing for the vote on the Daschle-Graham or Graham-Daschle amendment. I simply ask that the 5 minutes equally divided be expanded to 10 minutes, so I think we are prepared to go ahead and set that, if that is the desire of the leader.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think that concludes all the remarks we have. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.