John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I inquire of the distinguished majority whip, in the period of time until the chairman and I have a consensus as to how to proceed, could Senators be recognized for the purpose of just debate on the question related to this bill?

Mr. WARNER. I think that is constructive. We are anxious to proceed to the extent we have amendments which are cleared. Subject to the chairman's desire, we can proceed to clear those. Senators would be free to discuss any portion of the pending bill. I think they so desire. There would be an understanding, we will put it in unanimous consent form, that no further amendments can be offered until, say, the hour of 12:30.

Mr. WARNER. I am perfectly willing to agree to that at this point and ask that it be the pending business, if that is the guidance you wish.

Mr. WARNER. That is correct. I will call it up, but I would prefer, as a courtesy, to allow Mr. Levin to examine it and then hopefully we can agree upon a procedure whereby he would then file a second degree, and then we can have hopefully the Senate address the two issues.

Mr. WARNER. I am certain of that. Our attention was diverted by other matters to get started this morning. If you will just forebear for a brief period, we will see if we can't accommodate the Senator.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will ask my good friend if he will allow the two managers to have a chance to consult on this. It is my understanding that the amendment is cleared on both sides.

Mr. WARNER. Given that the chairman will arrive in a few minutes, I am happy to yield the floor to my colleague for such purposes.

Mr. WARNER. No.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask that my amendment be the pending amendment.

Mr. WARNER. We will make certain.

Mr. WARNER. That is our understanding.

Mr. WARNER. If I could add further, that is the proportions of the allocation--it is implicit in there--he can make the allocation in such proportions to the two accounts as he deems appropriate?

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank the chairman for providing this amendment at this time, precisely at the stroke of 12:30. We will have the opportunity to examine it. You have basically reached the point where you are saying that the President wants to follow the law. And if this were adopted, it is my understanding it is not the intention of the second-degree amendment, the proposers of it, to in any way abrogate the flexibility to allocate these funds between the two stated purposes in my amendment--namely, missile defense and homeland security--in any way. In other words, he retains full flexibility to do so. Am I correct in that? When we talked yesterday that was the purport of the amendment the distinguished chairman was proffering yesterday. I presume this amendment continues your representation that the purpose of the amendment was not in any way to abrogate his flexibility to allocate between the two specific purposes as stated in the underlying amendment?

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I listened very carefully to the distinguished majority leader's comments. I am not so certain we have any major differences. I assure you, this administration and, indeed, the Senate as a whole is focused, as it should be, on homeland defense and taking those measures to protect the American people here at home and, indeed, abroad. There is no lack of emphasis I can find in the overall framework of legislative proposals now in law and hopefully to be enacted in law, making it very clear this President, under his leadership, is moving on a number of fronts to combat terrorism in the United States and where it affects our citizens abroad. Yes, I listened carefully, and others have mentioned the warnings we are receiving. They do address the weaponry--the weapons that are known to be in the hands of those who have interests antithetical to our great United States, our people, our freedom, and our way of life. But in this particular bill, as it relates to missile defense, we are looking into the future. There are many signs that clearly justify actions being taken, hopefully by this legislation, and to begin to take those steps to put in place such defenses as our technology can devise, and promptly, which would enable us to provide a limited system--not some giant umbrella but a limited system of defenses against a limited attack of missiles. So we are looking to the future. I share with the distinguished leader the fact that we have to forewarn our citizens today with regard to the weaponry available, whether it is biological, chemical, or possibly some mocked-up type of nuclear weapon by a rogue nation or some terrorist organization. I think we are all pulling together in the same direction. I hope we can address these amendments very promptly. I ask for a reasonable period of time within which to address the second-degree amendment. I thank the majority leader.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, will the Senator yield? We are privileged to serve on the Armed Services Committee. When I first heard of this, I thought to myself about the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of men and women who have worn the uniform of our country and have gone beyond our shores to fight for freedom. All of them were proud to stand in their schoolhouses and on their military bases, or whatever the case may be, and pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. Madam President, I join my friends in expressing our grave concern over this opinion.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I have to say to my friend, my father served in World War I as a doctor in the trenches. He was wounded and highly decorated. And he carried, in his tunic, throughout every hour of the day, his prayer book which his mother had given him. And he noted in it every single battle and engagement he was in which he tended to the sick and the wounded and those who died.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I am pleased that Chairman Levin and I have been able to come to agreement on my amendment to restore $814 million that the President can allocate to ballistic missile defense and to activities of the Department of Defense to counter terrorism and on Chairman Levin's second-degree amendment. Prior to their approval, I would like to offer some clarifying remarks concerning the intent and effect of these two amendments. The underlying Warner amendment takes advantage of the fact that the Office of Management and Budget is undertaking a midyear reassessment of the inflation assumptions built into the administration's fiscal year 2003 budget. I was informed 2 weeks ago that this reassessment will result in a new estimate that inflation in 2003 will be lower than earlier thought. What this means, in practical terms, is that the Department of Defense budget has an inflation ``bonus'' built in less funding will be required to purchase the goods and services in the Department's budget. Since these funds are excess to the Department's needs, there is no programmatic impact resulting from the inflation savings being used for other purposes. Thus the Warner amendment will allow the President to reallocate, as he determines to be in the national interest, $814 million toward two of the highest defense priorities, ballistic missile defense and DOD activities to combat terrorism, with no other programmatic impact. This amendment will provide the President the option to restore all the missile defense funds that were cut by the Armed Services Committee. In my view, these reductions would impede progress, increase program risk, and undermine the effort to provide for the rapid development and deployment of missile defenses for our Nation, our allies and friends, and our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen deployed overseas. I believe that the President would be completely justified in using the authority provided in this amendment for the missile defense effort. I believe that Senator Levin shares this opinion of my amendment, even in light of the effect of his second degree amendment. Our colloquy this afternoon indicates clearly that that the chairman's intent is not to restrict the President's options in any way. Again, I am please that Chairman Levin and I were able to come to agreement on this difficult issue. I would ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter Chairman Levin and I received this afternoon from the Office of Management and Budget stating the view of the Director of OMB that the president retains the options of using the funds provided in my amendment on missile defense.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I ask the indulgence of my good friend to enable me to work a bit and see whether or not we can proceed to a clear understanding for a procedure such that the Senate can address the views of the chairman and the views of the ranking member.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. It seems to me it was Senator Kennedy and myself. I have delegated that to my colleague from Wyoming.

Mr. WARNER. No objection on this side.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: I would like to request of our leader--I am endeavoring to reach Senator Levin. I understand he will soon be available to give me some guidance as to what he desires as Chair. We are anxious to move ahead on this bill. I realize certain of our colleagues have extremely sensitive matters to speak to--the tragic wildfires experienced out West and the Amtrak situation. I am not sure what my good friend from Montana is going to address. But, at the same time, I am hopeful that with the support of our leadership, we can outline a course of action today so the Kennedy amendment--I spoke to Senator Kennedy late last night--can be voted on at a time that is convenient, preceded by, say, maybe 30 minutes of final remarks by Senator Kennedy and our side; that we are able to go to the missile defense amendment, which I shared with the chairman last night; and, that we have today at least, say, 4 hours of debate on that with the hope we will vote this afternoon somewhere around 5 o'clock.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I am not hearing the Senator.

Mr. WARNER. I think that is fair enough.

Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object, I think that is a very good reconciliation in the interest of time. But let us say we would return to the bill at 10 minutes to----

Mr. WARNER. That is fine.