John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my colleague is correct on that. I can verify that. And I agree with his interpretation of my amendment. It is as simple as that.

Mr. WARNER. No later than.

Mr. WARNER. At long last, he is joining me. I am going to do that as soon as the opportunity presents itself. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. That is my intention.

Mr. WARNER. Yes, of course.

Mr. WARNER. I ask my colleague to restate his position for clarity, and then I will clearly indicate.

Mr. WARNER. That is correct.

Mr. WARNER. It comes down to a very practical application, that we believe strongly--and this amendment recites it--that certain steps should be taken before any President makes such important decisions with regard to the numbers in our future arsenals. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement, this debate can continue tomorrow. I think we have had an excellent debate. I think we have narrowed, for the benefit of the Senate, where the differences are on the two sides. Unless my colleague from Colorado has further to say on this amendment, I will proceed to do another amendment at this time.

Mr. WARNER. I think the Senator from Nebraska has carefully pointed out that some clarification of this December timeframe is desirable. I will begin to draft it immediately and hope he can accept some.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator from Michigan. It is not my intention to modify the amendment of the Senator from Virginia at the desk at this time.

Mr. WARNER. It was brought to a markup, at which time any Senators on that side of the aisle could have objected to it. There was no objection. In fact, as I have looked at the record, it was accepted and voted on unanimously by the entire committee, recognizing the importance of having such a review done timely before any analysis could be made as to future levels of weaponry; am I not correct?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I may, I will make one observation and then I will step back. This provision in the bill that is currently before the Senate was done in, first, the subcommittee of which the Senator is chairman.

Mr. WARNER. I see the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee on strategic affairs seeking some recognition. I would like to accommodate him. I have had more than adequate opportunity to debate these points.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have enjoyed my colloquy with my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts. I would like to present my amendment at an appropriate time. Has the presentation of the presenter, the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, concluded? Is this an appropriate juncture, because I don't want to encroach on the opportunity for him to fully give his presentation?

Mr. WARNER. I am not going to single out the Foreign Relations chairman, but I make the following observation. That is, this is the law of the land. We are giving the opportunity to the next President to do the necessary studies. Supposing President Clinton took such actions, which under the Constitution I presume he can--except that the law is pretty explicit here, unless it is repealed--and laid down a set of numbers which the next President, whomever it may be, finds unacceptable after he does the requisite studies, not only of the nuclear posture but also the conventional. You have to do them together. Then what happens? The next President is faced with the dilemma of trying to refute what President Clinton did. That would be the worst of both worlds.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I simply say to my colleague, the Congress has done it. Why do we want to hobble? They did it. Last year our colleague brought up the amendment, vigorously argued it, and it was defeated. So Congress did it again.

Mr. WARNER. That is a risk.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might reply, I raised that issue earlier. One of the reasons, motivations for the Russians to drive to lower figures as soon as they can possibly get there is the inability fiscally to maintain their own structure in a readiness posture, which equates to what they have had in years past.

Mr. WARNER. I simply say to my distinguished colleague, before this Senator expresses a view on that, I want to see a new quadrennial review, as well as a new analysis of our strategic system. I will not commit to any numbers at this time until I see that. That is essentially what our candidate George W. Bush has said.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer. Mr. President, I am thoroughly enjoying this opportunity. It is an important amendment. Let me start by allowing those who are following the amendment to understand what it is our distinguished colleague wishes to do. By his amendment, he wishes to repeal the limitation on retirement or dismantlement of strategic nuclear delivery systems in excess of military requirements. ``Section 1302 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998 is repealed.'' The thrust of what he is trying to repeal limits the President of the United States to certain levels of strategic systems. Are we agreed on that? Does the Senator have a copy?

Mr. WARNER. Fine.

Mr. WARNER. I beg your pardon?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I remember so well when the Senator brought this up last year. This is a serious effort by one of the most serious, conscientious Senators with whom I have ever been privileged to serve and one for whom I have the highest personal and professional regard. As I said some months ago, this Senator, too, will miss him. We are not trying to abridge, so to speak, the right of President Clinton. He is the President of the United States. Until the last day, the last hour, the last minute of his term of office, he is entitled to exercise the powers given to him under the Constitution. As the Senator knows so well, being a student of foreign and international affairs, the Constitution designates the President of the United States as that individual who is our chief foreign policy advisor, negotiator, the home realm authority that goes with the Presidency. I don't wish to be critical, but I will be factual. The President simply did not, in the course of his administration, avail himself of the opportunity to do the indepth type of study that I and other colleagues think is necessary before any decision of the type the Senator describes be made. As the Republican candidate, George W. Bush said he would move in some of the directions President Clinton has indicated in terms of trying to seek that level of reduction to the lowest level that still protects the security interests of this country. But George W. Bush would only do that after he had received the advice and counsel of the Department of Defense, and presumably his own Secretary. But Members of the Joint Chiefs would still be carrying forward, a number of them, from one administration to the other, and he would carefully counsel with them as he moved forward. My point is, that study cannot be done in 30, 60, or 90 days, in my judgment, nor should it be done. Let's face it; we have elections coming this November. We have the heat that accompanies any election from the debates that take place between the candidates and, most specifically, the Presidential candidates. To try to overlay a decision of that magnitude and try to have a report generated in 30, 40, 60, 90 days is not, in my judgment, the wise thing to do.

Mr. WARNER. Does the Senator have a copy of section 1017 he can print in the Record?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, there is no constraint on the next President, be it President Bush or President Gore, within which time--I mean it is not next December. He can do it before next December.