John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before our distinguished colleague from Delaware departs the floor, I would like to ask a question of him. He is a modest man, but I hope he will provide some insight. When I was privileged to come to the Senate 24 years ago, nearly three-quarters of the Members of the Senate had, at one time or another, worn the uniform of their country. Because the world has changed so much since that period of time, and so forth, very few Members today have had the opportunity, really, to serve, and therefore it is now--where it was 70 to 75 percent--down to 30 percent. But I would like to just ask a question because many are studying this Record and following this colloquy. I have always believed, Mr. President, fellow Senators, that the military service is an inherently dangerous profession and that any individual--man or woman--who accepts those risks--in the course of my remarks, which I will eventually make, I will cover this in greater detail. But my recollection of our distinguished colleague from Delaware, when I was privileged to be the Navy Secretary, was in naval aviation. It was during the period of the cold war. But, I say to the Senator, perhaps you would share with us, frankly, what went on in your mind every time you took off, every time you landed. Your missions, at that time, as I recall, were basically in the antisubmarine operation. You may not have been fired upon, but the simple act of flying that plane every day, together with your crew, was one of danger, one of risk. We saw an extraordinary rendition on television last night of that plane that was involved in firefighting. The wings collapsed. In the course of my period--I do not claim to be any hero or anything else, but I certainly have witnessed a lot of harm that has been inflicted, one way or the other, to the men and women who have worn the uniform. I ask the Senator from Delaware, does he share my basic thesis that it is an inherently dangerous business, not only to the individual but, indeed, for the families who will await their return every day?

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

Mr. WARNER. I am sure you witnessed operational accidents in those instances that you saw on active duty probably as I did when I was a ground officer in the aviation unit in Korea. But some of those who shared the tents with me never came back. Some were operational. I remember our commanding officer, a tried and trusted combat veteran from World War II. His name was Al Gordon. His plane took off on a mission and burst into flames. He crashed not a few miles distant from our field. Again, accidents happen with great frequency. It is a dangerous business for all those involved. They accept those risks, expecting those of us in Congress to support them and their families such as the purport of this legislation. I thank my colleague.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority whip for his comments. Mr. President, part of my remarks is an exact lifting from the Congressional Record of last year when Senator Reid took the floor following the adoption by the Senate of the conference report on the authorization. Just three of us were here--Senators Reid, Levin, and I. We talked about our commitment to bring this matter up again this year. It was a remarkable colloquy. I read it again not long ago. It shows the long period of time in which our distinguished colleague from Nevada has fought so hard for the veterans, and particularly those who were deprived of what I believe, of what Senator Reid believes, and I believe what a majority of the Senate believes they are entitled to. I thank my distinguished colleague from Nevada for his very thoughtful and kind remarks, but most importantly for his undying leadership through the years, coupled with others--our colleague from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Hutchinson, whom I urged come to the floor, and I believe he will be here shortly, and others. I ask unanimous consent that a colloquy from 2001 be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a minute?

Mr. WARNER. I can speak following passage of the amendment.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join with Senator Levin, Senator Smith, Senator Hutchinson, and Senator Reid in offering this amendment to S. 2514. The committee included in the bill a provision--section 641--that, over the next 5 years, would phase in elimination of the current dollar-for-dollar offset of military retired pay and veterans' disability pay for those military retirees most severely in need--that is, those who have been determined by the Veterans' Administration to be 60 percent or more disabled. I compliment Senator Cleland, Senator Hutchinson, Senator Smith and the members of the Personnel Subcommittee on bringing forward this timely, focused relief. The provision in the underlying bill was drafted to be consistent with the direct spending funding allocation contained in the budget resolution reported by the Budget Committee. But as the leaders of the subcommittee would readily acknowledge, more needs to be done. During the full committee markup, Senator Smith of New Hampshire proposed an amendment that would implement full concurrent receipt immediately. This initiative, I note, is consistent with S. 170, the legislation spearheaded by Senators Reid and Hutchinson, which, at this point, has over 80 consponsors in the Senate. It also is similar to the legislation that Senator Reid, Senator Hutchinson and I introduced in March of this year, S. 2051, the Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2002, which sought to eliminate the conditions for implementation of full concurrent receipt previously included in last year's conference report. However, many, many of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, have joined in seeking to end this injustice impacting disabled military retirees. Our shared goal? To ensure that an important class of disabled veterans--military retirees who have incurred service connected physical or mental disability--are fairly and appropriately compensated by the nation they served so well. The administration has taken a very different view on this issue. In fairness, I think the Senate should be aware of the Statement of Administration Policy on the underlying bill, which we received this morning and which addresses the issue before the Senate. This document states that the President's senior advisors will recommend a veto if either section 641 or the proposed amendment before us now that would fully implement concurrent receipt is included. I do not believe there is any member of this Senate who would assert that military retired pay adequately compensates a severely disabled, retirement-eligible service member who is appropriately rated by the Veterans' Administration for service connected injuries and disability. Perhaps, over a century ago, when the military retirement system was in its infancy, the legislation requiring the offset accurately reflected the legislative intent of the members. That is not the case today. The number of cosponsors for legislation that would repeal this law illustrates that it no longer expresses the will of the Congress. It is our responsibility to take appropriation action. We can not and should not wait any longer for this to happen. Before concluding, I want to recognize and thank the many veterans groups in The Military Coalition who have been unwavering in their support for this legislation. I have met with and listened closely to representatives from several of these organizations about their concerns about concurrent receipt, and I particularly want to recognize the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Fleet Reserve Association, the Retired Officers Association, the Retired Enlisted Association, the Non Commissioned Officers Association, the National Guard Association of the United States, the Enlisted National Guard Association of the United States, the Disabled American Veterans, American Veterans of World War II, Korean and Vietnam AMVETS, the Association of the United States Army, the National Military Family Association, the Air Force Sergeants Association, and the Vietnam Veterans of America for their support. I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort.

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

Mr. WARNER. OK.

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in order to try to facilitate the important debate we are having and bring it to some conclusion with regard to the desires of the chairman to have votes, the chairman and I have discussed the following, and we would like to entertain thoughts from others: That the amendment of the Senator from Virginia in the second degree would be accepted by the chairman. He would presumably so state. We then proceed to a rollcall vote on the chairman's underlying amendment. However, the distinguished Republican leader, Mr. Nickles, is engaged in something that is important he complete. I understand he can be present by 2 p.m. because he, likewise, wishes to address this issue. So on the assumption he can be present between 2 p.m. and 2:10 and that his remarks would take no more than 15 minutes, could either the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma or the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania indicate to me, and therefore to the chairman, a reason we should not then go to a vote shortly after the conclusion of the remarks by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Nickles?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I may just respond, that is a procedure I would endorse. I thank my colleague. In that form, the Levin amendment, as amended by Warner, would be consistent with the wishes of the Secretary of Defense and the goals and, therefore, I think I can represent it has his support. I will verify that, but I am positive I proceeded on that course this morning, and I know of no communication thus far to me of any deviation. The Levin amendment, as amended by the Warner second-degree, would be consistent with the goals as established in the President's budget amendment and is now being sought by the Secretary of Defense. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. WARNER. Last night the Senator hosted, with Senator Lieberman, a meeting with the Deputy Secretary and the Secretary of the Army, and I was present. I thought the very clear explanation you made of the different challenges of 2002, how they differ from 2003, was important. I think that would be vital for colleagues to understand--particularly in the context of your concern, which I share, about the million and a half a day being expended while the Congress works its way through this bill.

Mr. WARNER. Briefly, I want to ask a question. I thought the Senator gave a very interesting, forthright, and quite courageous assessment of a situation that has prevailed for a very long time. I am not sure I fully agree with quite as strong an indictment of the Army. Nevertheless, facts are facts. I remember joining Chairman Levin and going over to see Secretary Cohen years ago, shortly after General Shinseki came into office, indicating it was the view of Senator Levin and myself that the funds were not there to achieve the magnitude of the Army reorganization. I remember that meeting very well. I think Secretary Cohen basically acknowledged they would do what they could to fix it, and the rest is history. The question I have to pose--and the chairman is here, and I will suggest a hypothetical--if my amendment were to be accepted by a voice vote, we would then proceed to a vote on the chairman's amendment, the underlying amendment. Does that help or impede the Senator's objectives as ranking member, working with his chairman to try to resolve that issue?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at this time there being no others seeking recognition on the pending and underlying second-degree amendment, I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. I will come back and define that later, but I think it is important other colleagues address that point.

Mr. WARNER. At what point in time would that expenditure take place?

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank our distinguished chairman. He very accurately cited that my amendment embraces the corrections of the study requirement and the actions by the Chief of Staff of the Army is identical to his. I share the concerns of the Senator from Michigan. He recited in accurate detail a process which he characterized as zigzag. Again, my amendment in no way dislodges the goal by the chairman to have that work done by the Army. Then it goes to the Secretary of Defense. Where we differ is in what takes place after the Secretary of Defense has made his decision. I listened carefully, and the Senator said if we go the reprogramming route, if I may pose a question, then the money will be spent, but my understanding is if one of those committees fails to act, that money essentially is parked for an indefinite period of time; am I not correct?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to commend our colleague from Oklahoma with regard to the budget amendment. On the Crusader, he has been in the very forefront and participated, I think, in almost all of the discussions--fighting hard for the Army to at some point in time indicate what their preferences are and, second, to see that this void in the ability of the Army to provide the--let us just call it-- ``artillery fire,'' and have it replaced at the earliest possible time with a system which can substitute many times over and more efficiently for the current antiquated Paladin system.

Mr. WARNER. The administration is on record as opposing any action to stop the Defense authorization process which would block the President's determination to terminate the Crusader program. For that reason, I have developed this alternative, which has the support of the administration. The discussions I have had over the past several days with the Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary, the Secretary of the Army, and others, have lead to this compromise, which would, with minor modification, make the Levin amendment acceptable to the administration. So the Levin amendment survives if modified by the Warner second degree in a document that is acceptable to the administration. The second-degree amendment does not alter the intent of the original amendment by Senator Levin. The chairman, quite properly, has concerns with the process, as do I, which was followed to terminate the Crusader program. The chairman believes the Army has not been given ``due process.'' I concur in that. My amendment would not alter the part of the Levin amendment which addresses this issue. Under the provisions of my amendment, the underlying Levin amendment would still do the following: Transfer the $475 million for the Crusader field artillery system to a budget line for the Future Combat Systems to be used only for the purpose of developing indirect fire capabilities for the U.S. Army; provide the Army time to conduct an analysis of alternatives to address its requirement for indirect fire capabilities; require the Chief of Staff of the Army to submit recommendations to the Secretary of Defense on several issues, including the best way to allocate funding for fiscal year 2003 and beyond, to address Army indirect fire support requirements; require the Secretary of Defense to forward the Army Chief of Staff's report to the Congress, and to make recommendations regarding the best way to meet the Army's requirement for indirect fire support. I want to make it clear, the Secretary of Defense has the final authority. My amendment differs from the Levin amendment in one key way. The Levin amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to seek reprogramming approval to transfer funding from the Future Combat System budget line to those lines which would support the Army's indirect fire requirement, as a result of the review conducted under the Levin amendment. The Warner amendment would replace that formal reprogramming process with a simpler ``notice and wait'' procedure. Under my amendment, the Secretary of Defense would notify the Congress of his intention to transfer funds to support the Army's indirect fire requirements. The transfer would be effective 30 days after notification. This approach will allow the Congress to retain oversight over this important issue but remove the ``one member'' or one committee veto, which is sometimes the result of the reprogramming process. At this time, I yield the floor.

John Warner

Speeches

Manage analytics