John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first, on behalf of Senator Levin and myself, I thank all the Members for the strong cooperation to procedurally move this series of amendments and to proceed with the bill. Speaking just for myself--my ranking member is absent for a moment--I believe very strongly that this bill can be completed today before sunset. Of course, this is one of the longest days of the year, so that might be a little longer than some might wish, but I do think it is achievable. I say that most respectfully. What we recommend to be done now--and I will ask unanimous consent-- is the Senate now turn to an amendment by the distinguished Senator from Texas, and I am told by the Senator that she will seek a voice vote. That has been cleared on both sides. The next amendment will be offered by our distinguished colleague from Georgia, a member of the committee, Mr. Chambliss. That will take perhaps an hour or more and will require a record vote. Thereafter, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate then recognize the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Dayton, to address the Senate with regard to amendments and the bill as a whole. I would also say to colleagues, subject to confirmation by the leadership, that I am recommending there be no votes from now until 3:30. There are two very serious functions taking place, both of a religious nature, in our city, and Members are attending either the last rites of Philip Merrill, a personal friend of mine, a wonderful man who recently lost his life on the Chesapeake Bay, and then I understand a distinguished archbishop of the Catholic Church is being installed with a ceremony today. Therefore, the bill will continue its momentum in this period of time, and following those votes, I am certain the leadership will give the managers such guidance as to when we can conclude this bill, which again I hope will be today. So at this time, I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be an hour equally divided between the distinguished Senators from Georgia and Arizona on the Chambliss amendment.

Mr. WARNER. We have covered as much ground as we can procedurally at this point, and I yield the floor. Amendment No. 4377

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we will turn to the distinguished Senator from Georgia for his amendment, with 1 hour equally divided.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I find myself, as chairman, having to live up to my responsibilities. Not only do I have the highest regard for our colleague from Georgia, I have a high regard for this airplane. These airplanes are stationed in Virginia. I am supporting the position taken by Senator McCain against the constituent interests in my own State because I feel ever so importantly the statements made by Senator McCain--namely, that the oversight which our committee tries to provide should be respected in this Chamber. It is our collective judgment. The majority of the Senators, having voted on this in various ways in our committee, believe that we should not go to this multiyear procurement at this time for reasons eloquently stated by the Senator from Arizona. I regret deeply to be in opposition to one of our most valued Members, the Senator from Georgia, but let me point this out: You have to sometimes stand apart from constituent interests, State interests, and do what you believe is in the best interests of this country. I say this with a sense of humility. I walked into the Pentagon in February of 1969 as then-Under Secretary of the Navy. The halls of the building were filled with the wreckage of a plane called TFX in which this country had invested billions of dollars to build and it was finally concluded that, for a number of reasons, the contract shouldn't go forward. Thereafter, in the positions as Under Secretary and Secretary of the Navy, I worked with the S-3, a new AFW airplane, bringing that along. I worked with the F-14. As a matter of fact, this distinguished aide of the Armed Services Committee was an F-14 pilot and has reminisced with me many times--thank you for putting two engines on that plane--because many a time he landed on a carrier with one engine. The planes are complicated situations, and they are becoming more and more complicated each year, and it is the collective judgment of the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee that we should not abdicate our oversight and jump into this multiyear procurement. I support the airplane. I am hopefully getting additional aircraft at my base in Virginia. I am proud of that. But I am going to support what I think is a proper management decision. To support the Chambliss amendment would be, frankly, a violation of statute on the books, the law of the land. Subsection A(1) through subsection 6 of section 2306(b) of title 10, United States Code, establishes the conditions for entering into a multiyear procurement contract. The statute requires the use of such a contract resulting in a substantial savings. This multiyear procurement proposal under this amendment would not provide substantial savings--some savings but not substantial. The statute also requires that the estimates of both the cost of the contract and the anticipated cost avoidance through the use of a multiyear contract are realistic. Just listen to what Senator McCain said. The estimates are not realistic. The Air Force had budgeted for 24 F-22A aircraft in fiscal year 2006 but will only be able to buy 22 or 23 aircraft with the available funds. Mr. President, the statute also requires that there is a reasonable expectation that throughout the contemplated contract period the head of the agency will request funding for the contract at the level required to avoid contract cancellation. There is no reasonable expectation that the level of funding required to avoid contract cancellation will be met. The multiyear justification package sent to Congress on May 16, 2006 presented a program that was underfunded by $674 million. By statute, I say to colleagues, this amendment cannot be supported. By statute, by the majority of the members of the Committee of the Armed Services having examined it carefully, through subcommittee and full committee review, it cannot be supported. I say most respectfully to the Senator from Georgia, we are facing here a rather interesting chapter of a very significant and important defense contractor trying to get through this body a decision which is in violation of statute and overrides the judgment of the majority of the members of the Armed Services Committee. I urge Senators not to support this amendment.

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

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Minnesota. He will be departing our committee this fall, as he departs the Senate. I appreciate the work he has contributed to our committee throughout the year. It is time for my distinguished colleague from Michigan, ranking member, and I to offer a package of amendments.

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. I was absent from the floor. I express my humble appreciation to my colleague from Minnesota. I recall that he accompanied Senator Levin and me to Iraq one time. That was when I first became aware of the knowledge that he had on world affairs and other subjects. He has contributed to the greater good of the Committee on Armed Services. I thank him for his service. But there is more time; he has a little bit left to go. Amendments Nos. 4492; 4493; 4494; 4266, as Modified; 4495; 4307, as Modified; 4326, as Modified; 4224; 4496; 4309, as Modified; 4345; 4368; 4497; 4222; 4498; 4499; 4202, as Modified; 4500; 4441; 4231, as Modified; 4409; 4501; 4502; 4503; 4504; 4505; 4506; 4331; 4507; 4508; 4509; 4510; 4219; 4386; 4511; 4197; 4512; 4513; 4514; 4515; 4342; 4365; 4241; 4220, as Modified; 4371; 4244; 4516; 4466; 4517; 4363, as Modified; 4450, as Modified; 4362, as Modified; 4275, as Modified; 4475, as Modified; 4276, as Modified; 4469, as Modified; 4477, as Modified; 4518; 4214; and 4519, En Bloc At this time I send a series of amendments to the desk. They have been cleared by myself and the ranking member. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the amendments en bloc, the amendments be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table. Finally, I ask that any statements relating to any of the individual amendments be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I thank my colleagues. Amendment No. 4471, as Modified

Mr. WARNER. That is right. Who quoted Edward R. Murrow, something about the strength of our Nation depends on the diversity of thinking and expression?

Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. I do believe those two amendments on which we spent so much time were carefully and fully debated. I accept with a sense of humility the outcome, that we were able to prevail on this side of the aisle. However I underline that I do that with a sense of deep humility. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague for his remarks. If I might draw to the attention of my distinguished colleague, we have been consulting with our respective leadership and their staffs. We have a joint goal of trying to complete this bill today and have third reading and final passage. The bill is now open for amendment. We have some knowledge of some amendments that may be offered. We would urge those who wish to offer amendments, recognizing cloture has been agreed to by the Chamber, nevertheless within the confines of that cloture, we are ready to have the opportunity to consider further amendments. I believe I am about to put in the first quorum call for the purpose solely that we have no amendments at the moment pending. That is the first time in the consideration of this bill, I believe.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague who has worked side by side with me these 28 years on these matters. When I look back on my modest career in the Senate, I can't think of any other Senator with whom I have had a better relationship and a more trusting one, although we do disagree on occasion.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the amendment sponsored by the Senator from Alabama, concerning the need to add an additional $45 million to the Missile Defense Agency for testing and operations of the ground-based midcourse defense, GMD, system. In December of 2002, the President directed the Department of Defense to begin fielding an initial set of missile defense capabilities that included ground-based interceptors for the defense of the United States against the long-range ballistic missile threat. Given our total vulnerability to that threat, the Missile Defense Agency chose to begin the simultaneous fielding of missile defense interceptors even while developmental testing continued to validate the effectiveness of the system. While this is not a conventional acquisition approach, I believe it was prudent given the emerging ballistic missile threats we expected to face. Recent North Korean preparations for the test launch of a long-range ballistic missile confirm the wisdom of the administration's approach: we need to have an emergency missile defense capability in place, even while development and testing of the system continues. Moreover, I believe Iran's continuing development of longer range ballistic missiles, coupled with their intention to acquire nuclear weapons, also argues for fielding missile defense capabilities as soon as technically feasible and in numbers sufficient to stay ahead of the threat. Just last month, from the floor of the Senate, I spoke to my colleagues about how NATO might respond to the greatest threat to regional and global stability that we face today: Iran. I noted that I support the principle of preserving as many options as possible in diplomacy, and to bolster those diplomatic options, NATO should consider erecting a ``ring of deterrence'' that would surround Iran to deter the use of actual force, as was done so successfully during the cold war. I believe that a ground-based interceptor site in Europe, as is being proposed by the Department of Defense, would contribute to this deterrence of Iranian--or any other--missile threats, and would be consistent with NATO activities already underway to provide missile defense capabilities for the Alliance in the next decade. Most important, a missile defense site in Europe would send a message to nations developing longer-range missiles that the United States and its allies will not be intimidated by the threat of ballistic missiles armed with weapons of mass destruction. The amendment before us now recognizes the accomplishments of the Department of Defense in fielding, in such a short time, a limited missile defense system that is now available in an emergency to provide a measure of protection for the American people against a long-range missile threat--such as the missile that now sits on a North Korean launch pad. One of the limitations of the current GMD system, however, is that it is difficult to maintain the system on alert while it is undergoing the testing necessary to further improve its capability and reliability. To address this limitation, the Missile Defense Agency plans to create the infrastructure and redundant communications links necessary to permit the system to remain on alert even while test events are underway. This amendment helps advance these plans so that we are better prepared to address the threat posed by the development of a North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile. In closing, I would note that in my many years here in the Senate, I have been privileged to participate in many a debate over missile defense. We have examined this issue from every conceivable angle-- cost, technology, policy, strategy, and diplomacy--and the debate always appeared to me to be somewhat theoretical, since we lacked actual missile defense capabilities. But today this is no longer the case. The United States now has a limited capability to defend its territory, deployed forces, and its allies against missiles of all ranges. It is a limited capability, to be sure, but one that now provides the President and his senior officials with additional options that can reinforce diplomacy and deterrence or, as a last resort, protect against the growing ballistic missile threat.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might first thank my colleague from Oklahoma. A few people around here will say they are going to be here at a certain time and show up at a certain time. The Senator was committed to come here at a certain time, and I thank him.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, is it possible for the managers to look at this for a moment before it is sent up? I think it would help facilitate matters. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER. If I can address the Senator with regard to this amendment, it is an amendment the Senate has visited before. I would like to have the Senator's observation of whether my information is correct. The Senator has been at this 2 years. I commend the Senator for that work. As a consequence of that work, the Department has done some things, have they not?

Mr. WARNER. It has been told to me that 95 percent of the Senator's goals have been achieved and that by October 1 of this year, it will be 100 percent.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my friend is an expert on this, and I freely admit I am not.

Mr. WARNER. It is represented to me the DTS, the defense system is not merely a travel booking system, but it has much broader functionality than any of the Federal Government e-travel systems. In short, DTS is an end-to-end accounting system that automatically handles the entire range of otherwise very expensive and time-consuming manual tasks associated with DOD travel. Any fair comparison has to begin with the fact that DTS offers an end-to-end travel management capability that incorporates military entitlements and DOD travel policies, and e-travel services simply do not.