John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. My friend used the term this amendment ``reauthorizes.'' I say to my good friend, Congress had nothing to do with it. This is a panel of the Secretary of Defense. The amendment language says ``to reconvene.'' It is not necessary to reconvene something which is ongoing. I want accuracy in this debate.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have no better friend than my distinguished colleague from Michigan. What troubles me is he used the term ``reauthorize.'' Congress never authorized the Welch panel. It was convened by the Secretary of Defense.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. It is important we do have colloquies on this issue. You have hit on a very important point, and that is ``contentious.'' Throughout our long history, through the cold war with the former Soviet Union-- indeed, today with Russia--there was always the underlying predicate that the Soviet Union--and now Russia--would handle decisionmaking as it relates to strategic intercontinental ballistic missiles in a responsible way. Up until recently, we knew very little about North Korea, we knew very little about the intentions of the deceased leader, and now the new leader. Some ground has been broken. I happen to be on the cautious side. So let us watch, not just for a month, not just for 2 months, but for over a period of time. It may well be that we can get a different perspective and understanding about the new leadership. But as yet, we cannot, and we have to rely on much in the past.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I agree, but the amendment says clearly you shall do something he is already doing.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I may address my colleague on my time and his reply can be charged to his time, I wish to associate myself with the response of my distinguished colleague from Michigan with regard to 2005. He is absolutely correct. The threat exists today. The warhead content is a different subject for a different time, but it is a part of this equation in calculation of time. I am pleased the Senator from Massachusetts said on the floor tonight that he supports going forward with the concept of what we call the Cochran bill which was signed by the President of the United States. That is my understanding of what he said. He did vote for it. But he said collectively, we, and he opened his arms. The record also shows that the other two colleagues on this amendment did not vote for the Cochran bill and were two of the three who voted against it. The ``we'' I think we want to make a little clearer. Here is my problem with this amendment, and I find myself in somewhat of an awkward position. I am defending Bill Cohen, my good friend, the Secretary of Defense of the administration with which my colleagues pride themselves with a long-time association. Fine. Here is what it says on page 4 of the amendment: Independent Review Panel.-- (1) The Secretary of Defense shall reconvene the Panel on Reducing Risk in Ballistic Missile Defense Flight Test Program. There it is, ``shall reconvene.'' Here is the panel to which he was speaking which reported to the Nation on June 13 of this year, and on page 3, General Welch and his colleagues said the following: The IRT believes that design discrimination capabilities are adequate to meet the defined C-1 threat. However, more advanced decoy suites are likely to escalate the discrimination challenge. The mid-course phase BMD concept used in the current NMD program has important architectural advantages. At the same time, that concept requires critical attention to potential countermeasure challenges. Precisely what my colleague from Massachusetts is saying. Let me finish: There is extensive potential in the system design to grow discrimination capabilities. The program to more fully understand needs and to exploit and expand this growth potential to meet future threats needs to be well defined, clearly assigned, and funded now. The concluding sentence: A panel of the IRT is continuing work in this area. When you direct the Secretary of Defense to do something the panel is already doing, I say to my good friends and colleagues, what is this about? That is why we will not accept the amendment. It has some constructive parts to it, but you are directing the Secretary of Defense to do something he is already doing. That is my concern.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, might I inquire? I was off the floor. Have the yeas and nays been ordered for tomorrow?

Mr. WARNER. No one is suggesting that.

Mr. WARNER. Of course. You asked if I would accept it, as chairman of the committee, one of the managers. The answer is yes. I think our distinguished colleague from Illinois knows that. We have said to him three times: We accept the amendment. Am I not correct? Let the Record indicate he is nodding assent to the question. The Senator from Michigan has urged him we would accept it. So rally on, dear colleague. We will listen to you. I don't mean to deflate your argument as to why we would not do it, because we have offered to do it.

Mr. WARNER. It is ready to be sequenced tomorrow for the purpose of voting?

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senators. We are now ready to hear from our distinguished colleague from Illinois, if he is ready. I will ask our colleague from Illinois two questions. One, on the assumption that Mr. Levin will soon return to the floor, I ask if we could interrupt for the purpose of clearing some en bloc amendments, which will enable the staff who otherwise would be here to return to their offices and use their time productively. We will ask for that at the appropriate time. Has the Senator indicated the amount of time he might seek for purposes of debate?

Mr. WARNER. You asked me a question.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator. In looking this over, I am inclined to think that we can, in the course of the conference, gain some support. I hope it remains in a factual manner and that the legislative history you are about to make in terms of your remarks, together with your colleagues, support what is in this amendment.

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

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. What did the Senator say?

Mr. WARNER. The Senator is correct. There is a diversity of scenarios we have to protect this Nation against. This test program was designed in large measure to prioritize those sources from whence an attack might emanate.

Mr. WARNER. The Senator is correct.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will look into that. I recognize the military had indicated that this perhaps doesn't give them the diversity of tests they desire. Certainly, I am interested in the comment that this Nation is faced with a multiple of sources, and that confirms my concern about the overall threat posed to this Nation by the rogue or accidental firing of a missile. That is why we need this national missile defense program.

Mr. WARNER. The Welch panel was before the Armed Services Committee just last week and testified.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I understand the amendment has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senators Shelby and Bryan, I call up amendment No. 3739 to alter the committee provision regarding the Department of Energy polygraph requirements, and I send a modification to the desk.

Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3739, As Modified (Purpose: To improve the modifications to the counterintelligence polygraph program of the Department of Energy)

Mr. WARNER. The amendment has been cleared. I urge its adoption.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Domenici, I call up amendment No. 3259 relating to directed energy research and development, and I send a modification to the desk which would provide for the coordination and management of directed energy technologies and systems in the Department of Defense. It is my understanding that this amendment has been cleared on the other side.