John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in quick reply to my good colleague, he knows full well that those protocols put on by the Duma relate to the ABM Treaty. That is a subject of great controversy.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I don't know. I must regain the floor and control it. I thank my colleague.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I strongly disagree. I don't believe that linkage existed in these negotiations. What is clear is that our President, in good faith--I commend our President--at the summit did the best he could. I am concerned about some of the language he used in regard to the future discussions on the ABM Treaty. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article written by William Safire, which I think in a very clear and careful way points out the language about which I have a concern.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is very clear that the next President of the United States must be given every possible bit of leverage he can have as he readdresses in good faith, as did President Clinton, this issue of the ABM Treaty. It could well be that the levels we are debating right here in this amendment are the levels of those arms reductions which we all know as a certainty will be done at some point in time. We believe, of course, in accordance with the Warner amendment, that it should be done after careful analyses and steps have been taken. In any event, we will come down to those levels. We know that. But should not that next President have in his negotiating strategy the ability to do those negotiations of lower levels as a part of the essential requirement to get some reasonable modification to the ABM Treaty that enables this country, as George W. Bush said in his statement, to rightfully defend itself? That is what this is all about. Don't take away a possible negotiating bit of leverage he has with regard to the levels of these weapons. Will the Chair advise us with regard to the time remaining.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I see my distinguished colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee, rising. I see other distinguished colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. If I can advise my distinguished colleague, the subject of a military museum embracing the chronological history of the participation of men and women of our Nation in causes of freedom beyond our shores is very much in the minds of the members of the Armed Services Committee. At the moment, I and other Senators are promoting a museum colocated with Arlington Cemetery on the ridge that overlooks where the current headquarters of the Marine Corps is located. That is due for demolition. That site seems to me and others to lend itself to the convenience of tourists visiting this Nation's Capital. It would embrace the military history of all branches of our services. We are a modest size in comparison to others, but the Senator is right. I noticed with interest yesterday in Great Britain the Queen opened an extraordinary exposition and permanent museum devoted to the Holocaust, again, a reminder of chapters of the tragedy that unfolded on the European Continent as a consequence of Hitler and the Axis powers.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. He has served this committee very well in his chairmanship. I think he has stated very clearly the issues in this amendment.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I may make one observation in reply, the President's budget for 2001 includes funds to sustain our strategic forces at current levels. Why then did he send up a budget request to maintain those strategic levels, the levels you are now asking him not to knock down?

Mr. WARNER. I simply say once again I thank the Senator from South Dakota. He has been a leader on this issue. Indeed, his amendment has been widely supported throughout the retirement community. I have come in with the second-degree simply to say we should take these steps incrementally, one after another. Let us bring the retirees back into the fold of the military health care system. Let us build the infrastructures necessary to take care of them and try that out in the light that only 2,500 ever opted for the Federal program out of 66,000 eligible. Let us try that out for the 2 or 3 years my program would be in effect. The next President will have to address this situation. The next Congress will address this situation. But we will have made enormous progress if the Senate will adopt the Warner amendment. Indeed, it represents well over two-thirds of the amendment by our distinguished colleague from South Dakota. The only thing remaining is whether or not we should give both at this point in time, which would double the cost over a 10-year period. It would double the cost if we gave them the option of the Federal program in addition to what we are giving them under the Warner amendment; namely, now back into the system which has taken care of them for the period of their active duty and that period between the termination of their active duty and retirement up to age 65.

Mr. WARNER. One footnote to this colloquy. Yesterday Senator Dole, who is chairman of the National World War II Memorial Campaign, received a check for $14.5 million from Wal-Mart stores. The contribution was presented by a group of World War II veterans and Wal- Mart associates during a special ceremony yesterday. That, together with the action by this Chamber which I hope will become law, are the final building blocks needed in that fundraising campaign.

Mr. WARNER. We are ready for the vote on a point of order. I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of the two leaders, that the next two votes be limited to 10 minutes.

Mr. WARNER. At this point?

Mr. WARNER. Senator Robb is very active in that. I yield the floor. amendment no. 3183

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WARNER. The Senator posed a question. I will take responsibility to answer the question as we go along, and we can frame for colleagues where the differences are between yourself and my amendment, and then the distinguished Presiding Officer will take the second question.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this has been a good debate. It is on a very important issue. I express my gratitude to so many colleagues who have participated. In summary, I simply say this body, five times, has passed the statute which my good friend desires to have repealed. Do not repeal this statute. Do not, I say to my colleagues, in good faith, repeal a statute which was signed into law five times by the President. I ask my friend, what has changed to justify repealing it? He says the ratification of START II by the Duma. Had that ratification been in accordance with the way this Chamber ratified it, I would say it is time to let the statute go. But they did not do it. They put protocols on that treaty which pose a great problem to the next President-- indeed, to this President--as he saw when he went to the summit. And nyet, nyet, nyet, nyet, time and time again when our President tried in a very rational way to determine the flexibility that Russia might have on the ABM Treaty, which flexibility is essential for this Nation to provide for its own defense. Nyet, nyet, nyet. Those are the only changes since five times this Chamber has adopted that law; five times the President has signed it. The only change is a ratification of START II by the Duma, with impossible conditions put on it, which not only the Senate would not accept but nor would this Nation accept.

Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WARNER. I want very much for the Senator to have a full opportunity to present his viewpoints, of course, in the time remaining. But at some point I think it would be very helpful to the other Senators following this debate to frame exactly what the differences are between the Senator's approach and the approach I have in my amendment. If he could indicate in the course of his presentation when we can bring that into sharp focus for the benefit of our colleagues, I would like then to get into a colloquy, on my time for such portion of the colloquy as I expend in my statements.

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I express my gratitude to the distinguished ranking member and to the distinguished minority whip. We are endeavoring to ascertain the remainder of the amendments that could be brought before the Senate in connection with this bill. There are strong initiatives on this side. We are going to put out a hotline on our side. We are urging Senators to contact the respective cloakrooms and to indicate--in the event they have a desire to have a matter covered on this bill by amendment--their desire to speak in relation to this bill or other procedural steps so that we can try to project the conclusion for this bill. We hope by 6 o'clock tonight is to get a unanimous consent request to lay down a list of amendments to be considered for the remainder of time on this bill.

Mr. WARNER. Since he and I joined together several years ago on a piece of legislation to initiate the BRAC process--you remember that, and I will not go into the chronology--I share with the Senator appreciation of the need for an assessment of our base structure. That should be made in the context of the demands of the armed services. There is no one--you just had an amendment that succeeded overwhelmingly in the Senate on food stamps. You begin to address these problems. I commend my old friend and colleague. This comes to my mind. There is no one who is a stronger fighter for the prerogatives of the President of the United States. You fought hard here recently on an amendment which I had with Senator Byrd. I think you took the line we could be strapping the President of the United States. Factually speaking, with no criticism towards President Clinton, there will be an election in this country and a new President elected in a few months. He will take office. Should we not accord him the courtesy to address this question, address it in the context of the needs that you have stated, address it in the context of a QDR, his own analysis of the military structure of the United States? Address it in the context of what his direction will likely be with respect to the Armed Forces of the United States? My colleague, above all, and I are strong supporters of one particular candidate. He has spoken out very forcefully on the need to further strengthen our military. I think if we were to start the process now, it could in some ways impede or indeed thwart the next President's, what I consider, complete freedom to look at this issue. My colleague was right. He was talking about the $20 billion this could possibly generate. He was correct in assessing the needs of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and others. Just moments ago we missed by a few votes a $90 billion program for retirement, which was tough for those who had to go against it, but we had to resist that. I am suggesting: What is the reason we should start now versus just allow the next President to frame this legislation in terms of his own needs and aspirations?

Mr. WARNER. And I suggest yourself.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, he served on our committee with the Vice President.

Mr. WARNER. No, I think Senator McCain answered my question. We both made our points. Mr. President, the time that I consumed will be chargeable to those in opposition to the McCain amendment. I shall eventually vote in opposition to the McCain-Levin amendment.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and simply say we are endeavoring and working with the other side of the aisle to see if we might come up with some clarification to his amendment. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 3214 To Amendment No. 3210