John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I would say, if this situation today were of a parallel situation at the time of President Bush, I would have been the first to pass this same law. It was an entirely different factual situation, I say to the Senator. I hope those listening understand that. But you posed the question. If President Bush at that time was faced with the decision such as this to lower the numbers drastically, I would say it should not be done until the staff work and the careful work had been done by those entrusted, namely, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to make the analysis before a President acts.

Mr. WARNER. At this time, you yield such time under your control? I am prepared to yield my time, reserving a minute and a half.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will follow my colleague with maybe 2 minutes of remarks if he has any concluding remarks before we proceed to the sequence of votes.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, once we took the initiative on our side of the aisle in the committee, we had bipartisan support across the board. The Senator is absolutely right. The point is where we are. We are faced with constraints in military spending, as we are in all other avenues. Let's make it clear--let's see if the Senator and I can agree--the CBO, in costing out my bill, said it would be about $40 billion over 10 years. Will the Senator agree with that?

Mr. WARNER. The CBO, looking at the Senator's bill, said it would cost about $90 billion over 10 years.

Mr. WARNER. I advise my colleagues that at an appropriate time someone from the Budget Committee on this side of the aisle will make a point of order. Mr. President, we are almost parallel in thought here, certainly parallel in thought for the need to help the retirees. I have been privileged to be in this institution 22 years. This is the first time, I say to my colleague, we have ever taken a step to provide for retirees. No one can refute that. If I may say, to push aside a little humility, it came from this side of the aisle. It was not in President Clinton's budget. It hasn't been in any of his budgets. We took the initiative. We have done it carefully step by step. I commend my colleague for his leadership on this issue. Indeed, it is the interest in his bill which has been garnered across our land that has helped our committee to, step by step, begin to increase these provisions. I see my colleague wishes to make a point.

Mr. WARNER. I will.

Mr. WARNER. I will be happy to listen.

Mr. WARNER. Correct. So the difference between the two approaches is very significant in terms of dollars. In fact, the distinguished Senator's bill would cost along the following lines: He said $3 billion in fiscal year 2001; $5.7 billion in 2002; up to $8.3 billion in 2003; $9.4 billion in 2004; and going out to 2010, $12 billion. So those are the figures. I think we are in agreement as to the dollar consequences of the two bills. Yesterday, my distinguished colleague, the ranking member of this committee, when I raised the amendment, said that a point of order would rest. The inference was clearly that it would be brought against my amendment. Whereupon, I thought it imperative that I take my amendment and amend it, which I did, to just go out to the year 2004. By so doing, the expenditures under my bill, as they flow out through these years, bring it within the Senate budget resolution and, therefore, does not make it subject to a point of order. I think we can agree on that point.

Mr. WARNER. But my distinguished colleague proposing this amendment has decided not to try to take a similar action with regard to his amendment. Am I correct in that?

Mr. WARNER. The retiree community, in particular, following this, will say to the Senator from Virginia: Why did you cut short to 2004? I simply say: Because the likelihood of getting 60 votes was in doubt, and I didn't want to have that doubt. I wanted to make sure we got started on some major incremental series of benefits for retirees. That is why I did it. I made that calculation. I take full responsibility for having done it. Now, let's see if we can narrow the differences between the approach of my colleague and the one I take. I summarize it as follows: I have provided in my bill, albeit only through 2004, every provision the Senator has. Particularly, I commend him for waiving the 1964 law--not waiving it, but taking it off--which was essential. We did that together. The main difference is the coverage that is given to these retirees under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program; would I be correct in that?

Mr. WARNER. He is accurate in his statement.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, would you give both times?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield such time as the distinguished Senator from Arkansas may require.

Mr. WARNER. At this time, I will address that issue. In the course of our floor consideration, we frequently ask the CBO for their estimates. They gave me estimates yesterday which they have now revised this morning. Amendment No. 3173, As Further Modified

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we have worked out, hopefully, a mutually agreed upon unanimous consent request. I will slowly propound it. I ask unanimous consent that the previous order for Senator Warner to be recognized to offer an amendment on working capital be laid aside to recur following the disposition of the BRAC amendment. I further ask that on the Reid amendment, it be limited to 1 hour, with 45 minutes under the control of Senator Reid and 15 minutes under the control of Senator Warner, and no second-degree amendment in order prior to the vote in relation to the amendment. I further ask consent that following the disposition of the Reid issue, Senator Kennedy be recognized to offer his HMO amendment, and that there be 2 hours equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote. I further ask that following the disposition of the Kennedy issue, Senators McCain/Levin be recognized to offer their amendment, re: BRAC, on which there will be 2 hours equally divided, under the same terms as outlined above; namely, an hour under the control of Senators McCain and Levin, and 1 hour under the control of Senator Warner. I further ask that following the disposition of the Warner amendment, Senator Wellstone be recognized to offer his amendment, re: Child soldiers, on which there will be 30 minutes equally divided in the usual form and under the same terms as outlined above. I further ask consent that during the debate today or tomorrow, the following Members be recognized for debate only: John Kerry for up to 60 minutes and Senator Feingold for up to 12 minutes.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I certainly respect the contribution by our distinguished minority leader. I don't have any other recourse.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, a point of order has been raised on the amendment of the Senator from South Dakota. I would like to have Senator Gramm of Texas recognized to argue that point of order and that his name replace my name on having made it. He is on the Budget Committee. I simply made it on behalf of the Budget Committee. He makes it in his own right, my name to be deleted.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we had a very good debate on this. I see it slightly different. What we are doing in the Johnson amendment is giving two health care programs to military retirees. We are giving them the military health care program and then asking the taxpayers to add on the tax burdens of the Federal program. So it is not the same as we get; we do not get the military program. I have to correct the Senator. There are two systems if you vote for that. That is why his is $90 billion over 10 years versus the Warner amendment, which is $40 billion.

Mr. WARNER. The answer to that question is very simple. It was first done in 1996. We repeated it in 1997, 1998, and 1999. In 2000, we made it permanent. That is the provision which the Senator from Nebraska is trying to strike. In response to that, Congress took action and the President of the United States signed it into law one time, two times, three times, four times, five times. That should answer the question posed by the Senator from Nebraska. The President concurred in the judgment of the Congress which said that you should not drop below those levels. What the amendment from the Senator from Virginia says is it doesn't, in my judgment, restrict the President's constitutional right to negotiate, but it says, Mr. President, you should not unilaterally, as Commander in Chief, reduce our Armed Forces in terms of those strategic levels until you do two things which have been followed by previous Presidents, and, indeed, this President when he first came to office. You make a QDR study. For those that do not understand it, it is an entire study of the world threat situation, our force levels, force levels which are conventional, force levels which are strategic, and you do a comprehensive review of the nuclear posture. Those two things having been done, then you can proceed to exercise your judgment as Commander in Chief to reduce certain force levels. There it is. The President signed it five times, clearly. He could have vetoed it. He did not. He signed it into law five times. It remains the law of the land today. I will vigorously oppose the efforts of my colleague and good friend from Nebraska to repeal that law because that law very clearly says you must take prudent actions. My amendment sets out what those prudent actions are. Then my amendment gives the President the right, after taking those actions of the QDR and the posture review of the nuclear forces, to waive the statute that has been signed five times by the President of the United States.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might summarize, again, on five occasions President Clinton has signed into law actions by the Congress of the United States which state very clearly we should not go to these levels. There it is. It is interesting, one of the reasons Congress took that action is we were not sure what the Duma would do on START II. We were right. They accepted START II, but with the following conditions on it: ABM treaty demarcation protocol, ABM treaty succession multilateralization protocol, START II extension protocol. Those protocols have not been sent to the Senate by the President. No one can refute that; they have not been sent here. They do not have his endorsement. That is why we should not undo hastily with this amendment this fabric of legislation which for 5 consecutive years has been passed by the Congress and signed by the President of the United States. The Warner amendment does not preclude President Clinton from negotiating. It does not preclude our President from creating a QDR in the next few months, creating an updated nuclear posture. He could do it. But it would be imprudent and unwise to do it because it would run against the guidance provided by the Congress. No one should say this Congress, particularly the Senate, is not an equal partner on matters of seriousness of this nature, particularly as it relates to treaties. It is in the Constitution just as clearly as is the President's Commander in Chief role.

Mr. WARNER. Unequivocally, no, I say to my good friend.

Mr. WARNER. I think the Senator has raised a legitimate question. Are we as a body in the Senate to look in a bipartisan way to future arms control or are we not? It is a fair question given the action by this Chamber, which is a proper action, on the test ban treaty. I fought hard against that. The Senator was on the other side. We rocked the Halls of this Chamber with that debate. But that is history. I want the Senator to know that this Senator from Virginia firmly believes in an ongoing arms control process, firmly believes that this country should continue its leadership with this very important endeavor to try to make this a more safe world. But every arms control agreement that comes along is not the one we should buy into. I say to my good friend, if he says this Chamber is divided, I commit this Senator to work, so long as I am privileged to be a Senator, for arms control. But for some reason, the Russian Duma, although it is in comparison a very new legislative body, had the opportunity to take START II and accept it, just as President Bush had signed it, put it into force and effect--but how well you understand, they put conditions on and those conditions they knew would not be acceptable in this Chamber. So they intentionally blocked going into force and effect the START II treaty. I say to my friend, why did they do that?

Mr. WARNER. Why did the Russian Duma deliberately put conditions on START II, knowing that those conditions would never survive a vote in this Chamber?