John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. If I understood the Senator, it does not in any way seek to revise the language in permanent law of title X?

Mr. WARNER. I say to my distinguished colleagues, it has been the practice of the conference committee on the authorization side each year, in reconciling the differences between the House and the Senate-- if the Senator from Georgia first would recite his understanding as to what is in the House bill now? And, should this measure be adopted on the floor today, what would be the differences that the House and the Senate would have to reconcile?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I understand it, the Senator quite accurately pointed out there is a floor in the House bill. We do not have a floor, it is your understanding, in the Senate bill; is that correct?

Mr. WARNER. So that issue would, then, be before the conference?

Mr. WARNER. I say, Mr. President, that my recollection--having had the privilege of serving as a conferee for, I think, all the 24 years I have been here--is that it has been the practice that on this type of legislation, although it is discretionary--that is, in the manpower area--it has been incumbent upon the Senate to find within our bill the $500 million for purposes of reconciliation in the conference. That has been our practice. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. WARNER. If I could finish, I will then be glad to yield. If that be the case, I should like to alert colleagues that we would have to look at all the programs, the full scope and full range of all programs in our bill to generate that $500 million. The consequences would be that in some areas there would have to be reductions in those measures which Senators thus far have believed were secure as a part of this bill. Would I not be correct?

Mr. WARNER. The Senator from Arizona wished to address the issue.

Mr. WARNER. About $379 billion.

Mr. WARNER. If I could ask my chairman, and, indeed, the sponsors, I am sympathetic to what our two colleagues are trying to do. What I am endeavoring to do is make clear the responsibility of the conferees once we get there. That is my basic concern because I have an obligation, as, indeed, my chairman does, in the conference to try to protect the integrity of the Senate bill, which has hundreds of different items from throughout this Chamber on both sides of the aisle. What is the chairman's view? Are we or are we not obligated? I believe, with the traditions of the past, that the Senate conferees would be obligated to find the 1-2 billion dollars. What is the chairman's view on that?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have another question for the chairman and the sponsors. Again, I am sympathetic to what we are trying to do. But at the same time, I find within the existing framework of the law-- that is title X--I would like to read that: Section (c) item (1) increase the end strength authorized pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(B) for a fiscal year for any of the armed forces by a number equal to not more than 2 percent of that end strength. The existing law gives the Secretary of Defense the right to go to not only the end strength submitted by our two colleagues--that is roughly 1 percent over the current table in our bill--but could go to even another percent of 2 percent. It is not clear to this Senator exactly what the pending amendment does that the Secretary does not already have the authority to do. Everything that the pending amendment, one way or another, urges be done, he has the right. I say this respectfully to the distinguished Senator from Michigan, our chairman. Yesterday, on missile defense, let's say it was a top priority of the Senate to focus this, as the Senator from Arizona said, to cure the problems associated. Fine. I have no objection to that. But I do not like to see the Senate adopt an amendment which does nothing to change the authority of the Secretary of Defense under the existing law. The question is, What does this amendment do that existing law does not permit the Secretary of Defense to do?

Mr. WARNER. If I understood my chairman, one of the options is to direct the Department to fund the levels in this amendment.

Mr. WARNER. I understand that. But clearly the Secretary of Defense may not exercise the discretion which our colleague from Georgia leaves in place to go to that end strength. So we can't direct them to do something unless the Secretary of Defense takes a prior action; that is, exercise the discretion to go to this new end strength level. Am I not correct?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that is an entirely different step with the conference taking that action. Then we would be taking the discretion away from the Secretary that he now has with regard to these end strengths. I would not favor that because of the following reasons: We reposed by law, in the Constitution, the Commander in Chief who in turn selects his Secretary of Defense. I think they must be given the maximum latitude possible as the executive branch. They are the managers. I am always concerned when the Congress tries to mandate that they should do A, B, or C when it is their collective judgment that A, B, or C not be done. I hope in the conference we don't reach that. But let me just point out the following.

Mr. WARNER. Would it not be incumbent upon the Senate conferees to find within this bill that will be passed shortly the $500 million in order to accept the provisions reconciled, as you say, by the House and the Senate?

Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we simply need a little time on this side to give it consideration. The chairman and I have just commenced a discussion on how we will proceed on the bill today. I would hope in due course we can indicate to the Senator that it will be accepted on both sides.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we now have clearance on our side. I thank the chairman. We are ready to move forward on the amendment.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank my colleague. We will examine this amendment. Yesterday, at one point we were willing to accept the second degree. Let's see whether or not that can be achieved in the near future. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will await the distinguished chairman, but it is my anticipation that we will move to the issue pending; that is, missile defense. I will send to the desk at this time an amendment on my behalf and that of the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Miller. I will not ask it to be the pending business, as a courtesy to my chairman, until he arrives. I anticipate upon his arrival that we will work out a procedure by which a second degree will be added. As a courtesy, I will wait until he arrives.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join the chairman in that commendation. Regarding the Domenici amendment, I move to reconsider the vote at this time.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, not to object, I just ask unanimous consent that Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison be added as a cosponsor to my amendment.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I would like to take a few moments to discuss an important issue that is covered in this bill: the need for the Department of Defense, as well as the entire Federal Government, to have the capability to continue essential operations after a direct attack on primary facilities. The importance of ensuring Continuity Of Operations (COOP) is a lesson that we all elevated in priority after September 11, 2001. Many of us in Congress and the Federal Government had begun to recognize the vulnerability of our critical infrastructures--especially our information networks--to disruption or destruction, prior to 9/11. I had even initiated an information assurance scholarship program to begin developing a cadre of professionals in DOD to address this potential problem area. There were, however, many in private industry that learned this same lesson almost 10 years earlier, and as a result, were far more prepared than the Federal Government when terrorists attacked the World Trade Center. The financial services industry is one that has historically handled an extraordinary amount of information. They track and record every financial transaction that occurs each day on Wall Street. In addition to an enormous amount of information, the financial services industry deals with information that is extremely critical in nature. After the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in May, 1993 this industry asked the question: ``What if the terrorists had been successful in bringing down these buildings?'' Their conclusion was sobering. It would have resulted in an extraordinary disruption of the U.S. economy for years. Accordingly, the New York financial institutions tasked the data storage industry to develop a technology that would allow information to be stored, in a second-by-second identical state, in two geographically separate locations. The goal was for each financial entity to have a primary data center in the city and a secondary ``mirrored-site'' in another State. If there was ever an outage at the primary location, no financial transaction would be lost, and all of the systems and networks could ``fail-over'' to the secondary center outside of the city and immediately put to use. In 1994 this technology was developed, validated and delivered. For the first time, information of all types, coming from computer systems of all makes and models could be replicated between two geographically separate locations. The ``mirrored'' data center, using sophisticated remote data storage technologies, had been born. No one ever envisioned that this remote data storage technology would be tested to the degree it was on September 11, 2001. The financial services industry's dedicated focus to protecting Wall Street's financial information resulted in that industry being more prepared than any other to handle an unanticipated natural or man-made disaster. As the World Trade Center towers collapsed, tragically ending the lives of thousands of hard working Americans, numerous data centers containing massive amounts of financial information vanished in an instant. The institutions utilizing this technology, however, did not lose a single piece of information and the financial markets were able to reopen almost immediately. Some could have opened that same afternoon. On the opposite end of the spectrum of information assurance readiness, unfortunately, is our Federal Government. Many of our key government agencies have their information backed-up only through out- dated tape systems, and with the back-up tapes stored on site, they would also be destroyed in any deliberate attacks. If destroyed, that information could never be recovered or restored. For years, agencies within the Federal Government have neglected the requirement to make the necessary investments in back-up data centers and remote data storage technology. At the same time, however, every Federal agency has grown extremely dependant on their data centers and the information contained within. The Department of Defense creates, disseminates, and relies more and more on electronic information to execute its mission and manage its organizations and people. The loss of a critical database and the information it contains could be catastrophic for our national security. We must ensure that the U.S. military has the same level of capability that was resident in the data centers of the financial institutions operating in the World Trade Center. Nothing can diminish the tragedy that occurred on September 11 or erase the pain that so many suffered. The foresight of private industry, however, in developing the capability to ``mirror'' information between geographically separate locations, resulted in protecting trillions of dollars in financial transactions and other critical records--the loss of which would have crippled the American, as well as the global economy, for years. I commend the exceptional competency of American industry's engineering talent, as well as the commitment of the private sector's leadership to invest the millions of research and development dollars to develop this capability. I also look forward to working with my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to ensure that the ``mirror'' capability is expeditiously and thoroughly employed within the Department of Defense. The protection of our critical information infrastructure is something we all need to be mindful of, and an area that deserves our best efforts to ensure its security.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Before the Senator yields the floor, I would like to associate myself with this colloquy, before we close this extraordinary chapter of Senate history. I say to my colleagues, let us not wait for the Supreme Court to act. Why don't we go ahead and formulate this amendment, put it together, have it in place, presumably with all 100 U.S. Senators, and they can take judicial cognizance of what is about to happen. I think that might not be a bad idea. The Senators have initiated it, so let us join and we will start the recruiting today.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I commend our distinguished leader, and the Republican leader will soon come to the floor and join him on this matter. We had a marvelous little debate here. The distinguished Senator from Connecticut, the distinguished Senator from Florida, my distinguished colleague from Nevada, and I suggested that this body take action and take it fast. And here we are, ready to act. I respectfully and humbly ask that my name be added as a cosponsor behind my colleague from Connecticut and my colleague from Florida, wherever they might be on the roster, and those rallying to the cause.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might address the Senate, I wish to express my appreciation to the distinguished majority whip. We did succeed on missile defense, but it could not have been done without the cooperation of the majority leader, the Republican leader, yourself, and our distinguished chairman, who departed a few minutes or so ago. We did achieve a good deal of work. I am confident that tomorrow, with the support of all the Senators, we will achieve a landmark bill on behalf of the men and women in the armed services of this great Nation. I thank all Members, and particularly the Presiding Officer for his patience and guidance throughout the day, and the Senate staff. I thank my distinguished colleague and friend.