John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, do we have that amendment reconsidered and tabled?

Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 4077, As Modified

Mr. WARNER. There is no objection.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the chairman is correct.

Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. WARNER. Our Republican leader has reviewed this and approves it.

Mr. WARNER. I agree with my colleagues that reauthorization of Price- Anderson, both for DOE contractors and for NRC licensees is a priority for the Nation. I am hopeful that these two provisions to extend Price- Anderson will soon be enacted into law.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to express my profound appreciation to the distinguished Senator from Michigan for his able assistance. We have worked together, this is our 24th year on bills of this matter. Again, I think we have achieved a bill which is in the best interest of the country. I thank you, sir. I thank all members of the Armed Services Committee. I thank all staff persons on the Armed Services Committee, particularly my able assistant, the chief of staff on the Republican side, Ms. Ansley, and her counterpart--maybe the word ``counterpart'' is a little soft--her partner, David Lyles.

Mr. WARNER. I join my colleague in thanking our distinguished majority leader and Republican leader, who worked hand in hand with us, and, indeed, the majority whip. I would only revise one thing about the majority whip: He does use, as he drives the buggy, the whip. But he uses it judiciously and fairly. I received a little crack this morning myself, as did one other colleague from the other side. It was equal. At any rate, he succeeded, and I thank my dear friend. I have the utmost admiration for him.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. WARNER. Let's assume for purposes of this debate that the approximate cost of the amendment, I say to the Senator from Georgia, would be about $500 million; is that correct?

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, may I say to the distinguished leader that we have, as I am sure each manager has, tried to contact all offices and all Senators who have expressed any desire to either speak or submit amendments otherwise. But, as I understand it, we will hopefully vote around 2 o'clock. Can we allow a reasonable period such that if there is anything I have left undone Senators may contact me, or reciprocate on your side? Perhaps we can get a unanimous consent request in 15 or 20 minutes to lock in the vote at 2 o'clock.

Mr. WARNER. The Senator is correct.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I make these few remarks concerning the Reed amendment now before the Senate. With the modifications that I have proposed and the majority has accepted, I am not objecting to the inclusion of this amendment in the defense authorization bill. These modifications were at the request of the Department of Defense. But I do have concerns with its substance, concerns that are shared by the Administration and, specifically, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency. This amendment offered by Senator Reed would require the Director of the Missile Defense Agency to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on each flight test of the ground-based midcourse missile defense system, what we used to call the national missile defense system. This amendment would add an additional three to five reports a year to the long and continually growing list of reports that the Missile Defense Agency must submit to Congress annually. Last year, at the insistence of our majority, the defense authorization act required several reports to Congress on missile defense. I strove, with some success, to assure that those reports were consistent with what Congress requires of other defense programs. This year, the bill our majority crafted in committee imposes five new reporting requirements related to missile defense, including annual operational assessments on research and development programs, annual assessments of military requirements for all Missile Defense Agency programs, and detailed cost information on several missile defense programs--information, I might add, that in some cases simply isn't available. My specific concerns are, as follows: First, this amendment requires a report on every single flight test of the national missile defense system. I am unaware of any other program in the Department of Defense for which we in Congress impose such detailed reporting requirements. As I stated earlier, my intent last year was to make reporting requirements on missile defense programs consistent with those for other defense programs. Second, this amendment adds to the already substantial reporting burden on the Missile Defense Agency. I would note that the Secretary of Defense, in a letter to Chairman Levin and me, informed us that our bill, even prior to this amendment, ``would impose a number of burdensome statutory restrictions that would undermine our ability to manage the [missile defense] program effectively.'' The Office of Management and Budget reiterated this view. A few moments ago, I spoke to General Kadish, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency, who echoed these concerns even as he reiterated his willingness to provide Congress with all information on tests to facilitate our legitimate oversight function. Third, Congress already has a process to gain all the information that it desires on a test or tests. We need simply ask for a report or a briefing, and the Missile Defense Agency has responded, is responding, and will respond. I have heard no allegation that information on tests has been denied to the appropriate committee, or is not available on request. I fully concur with those who believe that Congress should have access to all relevant information related to missile defense tests. I have relayed the assurances I received that the Missile Defense Agency will provide us with this information. All members, and staff with appropriate clearances, will have access to this information. Indeed, Committee staff received a classified briefing related to targets and countermeasures prior to the last long- range missile defense test. In the interest of comity and the desire to complete work on this important legislation expeditiously, I will not oppose inclusion of this amendment in the pending bill. I will work during our conference with the House to improve the provisions on missile defense. Mr. President, we had to handle this amendment very expeditiously in order to achieve our 2 o'clock objective to have final passage. I did review it very carefully with the Department of Defense. We did make the technical changes. But I would have to say that I hope there is no inference, from this amendment as it now has been amended, that the Department would not have responded to the Congress had the Congress requested any information under any tests. So the amendment points up the importance of and the interest in the Congress, but at the same time Congress could have obtained the same information, as required by this amendment, had it taken the initiative. Am I not correct in that, I ask the Senator?

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. That is all I wanted to establish. So that shows the Secretary of Defense is proceeding in an orderly manner, at least with one service, to achieve the goals the Senator from Georgia has been reciting.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, this amendment relates to the MARAD obsolete vessels, which are currently in the James River and are becoming a very serious hazard to the environment. I spoke earlier this morning with the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Hollings. He agrees that this amendment is in the interest of all parties and expresses his support for it. The amendment would simply transfer a certain sum of money--the same sum having been designated in the House bill--for the purpose of enabling MARAD to proceed to correct this potential environmental problem and, hopefully, removing these vessels at the earliest possible date. Madam President, this amendment would make additional funding available in fiscal year 2003 for the disposal of obsolete vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet, also known as the ``Ghost Fleet.'' Because of their interest in this issue, I have worked with Senators Hollings and McCain to develop this amendment and believe that I have their support. Both Senators, however, have made it clear that the funding language for disposal of obsolete National Defense Reserve Fleet vessels included in section 3501 of H.R. 4546 is preferred to the funding language included in this amendment. I appreciate your concerns and will ensure that these concerns are considered in conference. Since 1994, the Maritime Administration or MARAD has been compelled to rely exclusively on the domestic scrapping market because of environmental concerns related to overseas ship sales and scrapping. Until October 2000, however, MARAD was statutorily prohibited from paying for scrapping services, which effectively precluded the use of the domestic market. After the prohibition was removed, MARAD disposal efforts were further hampered by inadequate funding. The amendment provides that $20 million be made available for MARAD disposal of obsolete vessels, an $8.9 million increase to the budget request. The additional funding will address a funding shortfall and hopefully help to avoid an environmental nightmare. There are 135 obsolete vessels in the fleet slated for scrapping, 29 of those vessels are considered a high risk to the environment, and 23 of those high risk vessels are located in the James River near Ft. Eustis, Virginia. Such vessels contain large amounts of oil contamination and other hazardous substances, such as asbestos and polychlorinated byphenyls (PCBs) These vessels pose a risk to the environment because their advance age and poor condition could result in the release of hazardous substances near sensitive environmental habitats. A growing number of regulators, marine inspectors, environmentalists, and workers who oversee the ``Ghost Fleet'' suggest that an environmental disaster is likely--if not imminent. In 1999, the fleet barely survived the 40 mph winds and rough water caused by Tropical Storm Floyd. Although none of the vessels leaked, 30 vessels broke away from their moorings resulting in a two week recovery effort and a $3 million investment in a new mooring system. Given the current condition of the fleet, disaster may occur with or without another sever storm. For example, the Mormac Wave is a 40-year old retired cargo carrier with peeling lead paint and thick, jet black oil that has leaked from holding tanks to form a 3-foot-deep lagoon in the rusted hull of the vessel. Although workers who maintain the Wave and other deteriorated vessels endeavor to keep the nightmare from becoming a reality, they are fighting a losing battle. As a result, it is vital that Congress ensure that MARAD have adequate resources to address this problem. It is my hope that the additional funding authorized by this amendment will help to accelerate the scrapping of vessels that are in the worst condition, most of which are located on the James River.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.

Mr. WARNER. Parliamentary inquiry: My understanding is the Senate now, by previous order, proceeds to the cloture vote; am I correct?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I share the views as expressed by our distinguished colleague from Arizona and, indeed, the distinguished colleague from Georgia, about the problems facing the men and women in the Armed Forces today, particularly the Reserves, the Guard, and others. They have very loyally and patriotically accepted the call to leave their families, their jobs, and go on an active duty status. Further, both Senators are quite accurate as to the current stress that is being put on the active force, now augmented by the call-ups of the Guard and Reserve--nevertheless, the total force as we refer to it today--the stress that is being put on them and their families by the deployments worldwide. I take absolutely no exception to their observations. I at this point want to seek some clarity as to the interpretation of the amendment before I ask the Chair to call up a second-degree amendment to see if, in fact, that may not be necessary. I say to my distinguished colleagues--either Senator may answer--is this amendment paid for by offsets from other provisions in the bill?

Mr. WARNER. My next question would be: title X governs this process of the end strengths and has done so for many years. The practice of the committees of the armed services--certainly the Senate committee-- is simply to establish new end strengths and then they are incorporated into the continuing language of title X, which is in permanent law and does not need to be revised annually. Does this amendment in any way revise the provisions of title X?

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. At some point it may be reviewed in committee or by the Senate, but it is important to be part of the Record.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas has an important measure, which I have reviewed. Given the current status of the bill, it is questionable whether it can be brought up on the bill. The Senator is anxious to speak about it. I suggest the Senator send the amendment to the desk and leave it there, making it part of the Record as a colloquy.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I just wished 2 minutes for comment.