John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. For the information of all Senators, the Gramm amendment will be presented with a 1\1/2\-hour time agreement. Following that debate, the Senate will proceed to two stacked votes, first on the Specter amendment--and we have to reserve in here the amending of that amendment, which could be amended--to be followed by a vote on the Gramm amendment. So we just have the sequencing of the debate, sequencing of the votes. And we will momentarily, Senator Levin and I--I am prepared to accept the amendment as amended. The Senator is waiting for just one Senator to get concurrence. So we have the unanimous consent in place. I have given information to the Senate with respect to the sequencing of the Gramm amendment.

Mr. WARNER. This is a matter which the Armed Services Committee considered with some care and considerable debate. It is not as if we just accepted it. There was discussion, and our former chairman spoke very strongly on behalf of the other side of the issue. I am just astonished that we cannot seem to convince the prison group that competition would be good. It would raise the quality. That is what concerns so many of us on the committee. It would provide incentives for the Federal Prison Industries to deliver quality goods in a timely fashion and at a reasonable price. That is what this whole country is predicated on. This is interesting. The Department of the Air Force gets 2 million plus in launchers, guided-missile launchers, fiber optic cable assemblies. People think they are doing little, simple things, crafts and so forth, but there is a lot of high-tech equipment at the Department of Defense. Here is the Army, another guided-missile remote control; the Army, launchers, rocket and pyrotech; the Army, fiber rope, cordage; the Army, radio and TV communications equipment; the Army, antennas, wave guides and related; the Army, fiber optic cable assemblies. I mean, these are hardly simple matters. These are very complicated systems. We simply have to have quality for the Department of Defense. This is what concerns me. I could go on into some of the Navy engine electrical systems, all kinds of high-tech stuff listed in here. You see the office furniture, the office supplies. Here is one for some armor. In other words, we are talking about serious business for the Department of Defense. It is very serious business. We cannot be giving the strong disadvantage in the competitive world to the prisons and have them supply inferior equipment. I strongly urge Senators to vote against this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, there is no objection to the Senator sending to the desk the amendment as modified.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan wishes to address the amendment. We are together on it in the strongest possible opposition.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, a vote against this amendment is consistent with the provisions of the Constitution of the United States. I move to table, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in the course of the afternoon, as I said to my good friend and colleague, some 40 Senators have received the benefit of a full debate with the Secretaries of State and Defense, and the President's National Security Adviser, Mr. Berger, and with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Three times--twice by this Senator, one by another Senator--this very issue was posed to the national security team. They said without any equivocation whatsoever that the President would formally come to the Congress and seek legislation, not unlike what is described in this amendment prior to any change. In other words, the President of the United States is presently unchanged in the course of action that he is recommending to other leaders of the NATO nations, and the matter remains and will not be changed with reference to ground troops unless the President comes up and seeks from the Congress of the United States formal legislative action. I say to my good friend that I think we have achieved, in essence, what he seeks. As I pointed out in my first comments this morning and, indeed, in the title to the first amendment prior to the amending by the Senator from Pennsylvania, he referred to the War Powers Act, this is precisely what this debate is--a debate over the War Powers Act. That debate has not in my 21 years in this body ever been resolved, and I doubt it is going to be resolved on this vote. I yield the floor and yield back the time.

Mr. WARNER. The Senator from Michigan can use 5, and I will use 5. Take 5.

Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WARNER. That is the problem that troubles the Senator from Virginia the most--the California and Texas experiences. As I listened to my good friend from Arizona, he made rational positions and I agree with him; the Senator from New Jersey made rational positions. However, the practical thing that will happen if the Congress of the United States were to enact a base closure bill--this bill--the day after the signature is affixed by the President, the work begins in the Department of Defense down at the level of the services to work up the list of communities which, in the judgment of the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and certain DOD facilities is to be boarded up, and eventually it goes to the BRAC Commission. True, the next President would appoint that BRAC Commission. But the staff work would have been done. The communities all across America, as my good friend from Arizona pointed out in repeating my statement, become suddenly on full alert that it could be their base. They have a long tradition in this country of embracing that base. It is not just because of economic reasons and jobs. It is also, as the Senator well knows, because of the tradition in the community. Does the Senator realize I was the Secretary of the Navy who closed the largest naval base and destroyer base in your State? Your predecessor, Senator Pastore, brought this humble public servant, the Secretary of the Navy, down to the caucus room of the Senate of the Russell Building before more cameras than I have ever seen and grilled me for hour after hour after hour, together with the Chief of Naval Operations. That convinced me that we had to have a process called BRAC. I say with humility I was the coauthor of the first BRAC statute, coauthor of the second BRAC statute. Then I lost confidence in BRAC because of what the Senator just said--the politicization of the process as it related to decisions in California and Texas. If we were to pass this all over America, these communities would suddenly begin to wonder: Will politics play as the bureaucrats in the Department of Defense begin their assigned task to work up those lists that slowly go to the top and eventually to the BRAC Commission? Mr. President, that is the problem. That is a problem shared by so many of our colleagues. That was the problem that was shared by the majority of our committee, the Armed Services Committee, on which we all serve with great pride. In two instances, that committee turned down the proposal which the Senators bring before the Senate tonight. That is the process.

Mr. WARNER. Yes, the solution, regrettably, I say to my good friend, is that we have to wait until the next President determines whether or not in his judgment we should have a BRAC Commission and he comes before the Congress and he requests it. I will commit right now, no matter who wins the office of the Presidency, including, if I may say with great respect, yourself, I would be the first to sponsor a BRAC Commission under the McCain administration and I will work relentlessly to get it through the Senate. But that would be the moment that the bureaucracy begins to work up the list of the communities.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I reply to both friends, this is a very interesting colloquy. First, I hope my good friend would amend it that the Secretary of Defense--perhaps he could stay on and I would join at that point; I have the highest confidence in the Secretary of Defense.

Mr. WARNER. But, I say to my good friend, it is not the Secretary. The work begins literally down in the bowels of that building, in which I was privileged to remain for 5\1/2\ years, down at the low level of the staff beginning to work up those lists. And that political problem that arose in California and Texas could begin to creep into those basement and lower areas in the Pentagon, begin to influence those decisions which would gravitate to the top.

Mr. WARNER. I agree with that. That is precisely why I object, because that same White House could begin to communicate down with those good, honest, hard-working GS-14 employees of the Department of Defense. That is where it could start.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I may say, it will be there for an eternity.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in the course of the deliberation in the Armed Services Committee I came up with a phrase. I said there was no way to write into law the word ``trust.'' Therefore, my answer to my good friend is: No.

Mr. WARNER. Or at any level.

Mr. WARNER. I would welcome the Senator from Maine. That resonant voice will reverberate through this Chamber with a reasonable approach to this.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the answer is very simple: No. Because the moment the ink is dry and this becomes law--would the Senator not agree with me that the staff work begins on this the day it becomes law? The decisions begin to be made. The communities all across America go on full alert. The communities begin to hire expensive consultants to help them in the process, to prepare their case so that community is not struck. Am I not correct? Does any one of the three wish to dispute that the work begins at the bureaucratic level, by honest, conscientious individuals----

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I do.

Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. WARNER. I would be happy to----

Mr. WARNER. I would hope so, together with the remainder of BRAC.

Mr. WARNER. Senator Robert Kerrey on strategic nuclear delivery systems.

Mr. WARNER. One under consideration is Senator Brownback's, and it relates to India and Pakistan and the current sanctions.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services, I also report favorably nomination lists which were printed in full in the Records of March 18, 1999 and May 12, 1999, at the end of the Senate proceedings, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators. In the Navy nomination of Don A. Frasier, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of March 18, 1999. In the Air Force nomination of Donna R. Shay, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 12, 1999. In the Army nominations beginning Joseph B. Hines, and ending * Peter J. Molik, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 12, 1999. In the Army nomination of Timothy P. Edinger, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 12, 1999. In the Army nomination of Chris A. Phillips, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 12, 1999. In the Army nominations beginning Robert B. Heathcock, and ending James B. Mills, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 12, 1999. In the Army nominations beginning Paul B. Little, Jr., and ending John M. Shepherd, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 12, 1999. In the Army nominations beginning Bryan D. Baugh, and ending Jack A. Woodford, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 12, 1999. In the Marine Corps nominations beginning Dale A. Crabtree, Jr, and ending Kevin P. Toomey, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 12, 1999. In the Marine Corps nominations beginning James C. Addington, and ending David J. Wilson, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 12, 1999. In the Marine Corps nominations beginning James C. Andrus, and ending Philip A. Wilson, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 12, 1999. In the Navy nomination of Norberto G. Jimenez, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 12, 1999. In the Navy nominations beginning Neil R. Bourassa, and ending Steven D. Tate, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 12, 1999. In the Navy nominations beginning Basilio D. Bena, and ending Harold T. Workman, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of May 12, 1999.