John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I followed that statement with great care. I commend the Senator. I think he articulated the key issues. He used the word ``compromise'' and keeping an open mind. I wish to assure those who are following this that our group that supports Senator McCain's amendment have taken careful consideration of the continuing need to collect our intelligence, first and foremost to protect our troops and, of course, first and foremost to protect our citizens back here in this Nation from terrorists or other attacks. It is a balanced approach that we have tried to take on this, a careful one, thoughtfully moving each step of the way and entertaining carefully the views of others who have views different from our own.

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, we had announced earlier--I see my distinguished colleague, a member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Reed--that we would move to Senator Allard and then follow with the Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Reed. Amendment No. 2423

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is the Senate now on the Defense bill?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, now that we are on the bill, it is my intention to eventually deliver an opening statement, but in courtesy to our colleague from Florida--and I believe he will be followed by Senator McCain to be followed by Senator Allard--I think we ought to proceed immediately to the amendments. Senator Levin and I will be on the floor to assist all Senators who wish to bring any matters to the attention of the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, be recognized for 15 minutes, to be followed by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, for such time as he requires, to be followed by the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Allard, to be followed on this side of the aisle--we are trying to alternate--with such amendments as Senator Levin may recommend.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am opposed to Senator Bill Nelson's amendment, and I intend to introduce a second degree amendment that would give the Commission on Veterans' Disability Benefits, which Congress established to study survivor benefits, the opportunity to complete its work before further changes are made to the Survivor Benefit Plan, or SBP. I oppose Senator Nelson's amendment, because this blue ribbon Commission on Veterans' Disability Benefits has been established, is currently at work examining this issue, and, I believe, will provide vitally needed facts and recommendations regarding veterans' benefits. The commission includes two Medal of Honor winners, two Distinguished Service Cross winners, and 6 winners of the Silver Star. They can be relied on to provide a comprehensive study. The commission was established to help the Congress, DOD, and the Veterans Administration determine what steps should be taken to best assist disabled veterans and their families. We should not implement another change to the SBP until the Commission completes its work. Let's remember that in last year's Defense Authorization Act, the Senate significantly improved benefits provided under the SBP. Congress directed the elimination of the so-called ``2-tier'' system which reduced the monthly SBP annuity when the survivor reached age 62. This was a significant change that works to the benefit of military retirees and their spouses. We should stop and allow an assessment by the commission of the effect of that change before we conclude that the SBP is in need of change. Here is another consideration: Senator Nelson's amendment does not take into account the great improvements in death benefits for military survivors that have been enacted this year. There has been an increase in the death gratuity--from $12,000 to $100,000--and an increase from $250,000 to $400,000 in the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, or SGLI. These changes clearly are substantial, and they have improved the quality of life for many of the survivors who my friend, Senator Nelson, advocates for today. There have been various other benefits implemented for retirees and their survivors since 2001. I ask unanimous consent to have a list of these legislative improvements printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, finally we can't ignore the cost of this amendment. CBO estimates the cost of Senator Nelson's changes to the SBP as $903 million in Fiscal Year 2006 and $9.3 billion over 10 years. This is all mandatory spending for which there is no provision in the budget resolution and no offset in the legislation before us. I urge my colleagues to support my second degree amendment and look to the Commission on Veterans' Disability Benefits before we implement any further changes to the Survivor Benefit Plan.

Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent to be an original cosponsor, as I have been consistently on the Senator's amendments. He will recall that our first meeting was when I was Secretary of the Navy when he returned from Vietnam. So our relationship on this issue has a long history, and I firmly believe it is in the best interest of the Department of Defense that this manual be the guide for our men and women of the U.S. military. I commend the Senator.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think the Record should also reflect that in the course of my service as Under Secretary and Secretary of the Navy, I had the great privilege of working with the Senator's father, a naval officer without peer, distinction and achievement. He was commander in chief of all forces Pacific during several of those critical years in Vietnam when the Senator was incarcerated.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will speak in opposition to this amendment, but to accommodate a colleague who has remained on the floor, I yield such time as the distinguished Senator from Colorado, a former member of our committee, former expert on our committee on this subject, needs.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for bringing that point up. He is on that committee.

Mr. WARNER. Therefore, you were participating at the time this took place.

Mr. WARNER. And were the Senate to accede to the Reed amendment, it would, in effect, be overruling or reversing what the Appropriations Committee, through the conference report, will presumably bring before the Senate in a matter of days.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we thank our former member, the Senator from Colorado. Would the Chair kindly advise the managers as to the time remaining on both sides for this amendment?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at this time I would like to grant time to our distinguished colleague from Alabama, a member of the Armed Services Committee, bearing in mind it is the desire of the manager to leave time for Monday. There are other colleagues on our side who wish to speak in opposition. We are pleased he will take the time to join us.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, speaking on my time under my control on this amendment, I wish to express my opposition to this Levin-Reid amendment would transfer $50 million from the Ground-based Midcourse Defense, GMD, program to the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. The impact of this amendment would be, first and foremost, to delay the fielding of ballistic missile defense capabilities to protect the U.S. homeland against the threat posed by long-range ballistic missiles; and secondly, to cause a break in the production of ground-based interceptors, GBIs--a production break that would cost the government $270 million to restart. While I agree with the sponsors of this amendment that the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program is an important national security initiative, the defense of our homeland against the growing threat of long-range ballistic missiles is equally, if not more, important. Asking us to choose between missile defense protection and CTR is a false choice: we need to do both. And, in fact, this bill fully funds the President's requested amount for both programs. The bill before the Senate authorizes the requested amount of $415.5 million for CTR programs within the Department of Defense, and $1.6 billion for other non-proliferation efforts in the Department of Energy. There is no current need for extra CTR funds; in fact, the CTR program has an unobligated balance of some $100 million. With a backlog in spending, it is hard to understand why the proponents of this amendment think that more money is needed at this time for the CTR program. The President's budget for missile defense, on the other hand, has already taken its share of cuts. Due to last minute decisions made at the Pentagon as the fiscal year 2006 budget was being finalized, the missile defense budget request was reduced by $1 billion in fiscal year 2006, and $5 billion overall between fiscal year 2006 and 2011. Sponsors of this amendment argue that we should not provide long-lead funding for GBI missiles 31-40 because of recent test failures. I am mindful of the recent difficulties encountered by the GMD system test program, but in my view--and that of independent test authorities-- these difficulties do not represent serious technological hurdles for the GMD program. Indeed, such problems are to be expected during the research and development phase of complicated weapon systems. To get at the root cause of these testing problems, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency, to his great credit, commissioned an independent review team, IRT, to examine these recent GMD test failures. The IRT found no fundamental GMD system design flaws related to the recent test failures. Moreover, the IRT found no evidence that major modifications of the current system hardware or software will be required. In other words, it is unlikely that future testing will find some major fault in the system that will require a costly retrofit to fielded GBIs. For those of my colleagues concerned about testing, I point out that this bill before you contains a provision--developed in a bipartisan fashion during the committee's markup--which requires the Missile Defense Agency, the service operational test agencies, and the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation to plan and conduct tests that demonstrate the operational capability of the ballistic missile defense system. The bill also reallocates $100 million from longer term development efforts to GMD testing, consistent with the recommendations of the independent review team. The current and growing threat posed to our country by long-range ballistic missiles argues for proceeding without delay with the Department's approach of concurrent testing and fielding of ballistic missile defense capabilities for the homeland. Some of my colleagues suggest that because the current system is not fully proven, we should not procure additional missile interceptors. To this I would respond that General Cartwright, Commander of U.S. Strategic Command--the senior military official charged with advising the Secretary of Defense and the President on missile defense matters-- has testified, with respect to the current GMD system, that ``in an emergency, we are in fact in the position that we are confident that we can operate and employ it.'' In addition, the Pentagon's chief independent weapons tester, the Director for Operational Test and Evaluation, noted in his most recent Annual Report to Congress that ``the test bed architecture is now in place and should have some limited capability to defend against a threat missile from North Korea.'' In my view, it is a good thing that we have some capability--albeit limited--to defend the homeland against long range missiles. For as General Cartwright testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in April, ``we have a realistic threat here; we have an imperative.'' General Cartwright is referring to CIA and DIA estimates that the North Korean Taepo-Dong 2 ballistic missile is capable of reaching the United States with a nuclear warhead--and that North Korea could resume flight testing of the Taepo-Dong 2 at any time. The Defense Intelligence Agency also estimates that Iran will have the capability to develop intercontinental ballistic missile, IBCM, by 2015. We simply can't wait until the threat is upon us to deploy missile defenses; we can't wait until the GMD system is fully and completely tested before we start providing some measure of protection against this threat. It is our responsibility to field what capabilities currently exist, even while we continue to test and improve the system. By continuing to field missile defenses today, we send a message to potential adversaries that we will not be deterred or coerced by their possession of long-range ballistic missiles. In summary, I ask my colleagues to reject the amendment offered by Senator Levin. This amendment would needlessly delay the fielding of a ballistic missile defense capability to protect the homeland. As the Commander of STRATCOM warns, the threat is real. We must continue on the current path of fielding available capabilities--even while testing continues to improve the system over time. Mr. President, at this time I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will yield a few minutes to me before he departs the floor? There are evolving aspects with regard to the underlying goal of this amendment, as he and I speak, on information which is circulating which goes to how the administration dealt with these issues. I am going to reserve until Monday exactly the approach the Senator from Virginia is going to take. I wish to consult with a number of my colleagues in that connection. But I wish to point out two things. The Senator from Michigan said we should face--speaking, of course, to the committee but also the United States and colleagues in the Senate--this issue square on. I know my distinguished friend and colleague of so many years would say, by virtue of him and me being the two principal cosponsors of the McCain amendment, that we are within the rights of this committee facing certain aspects of this issue head on as it relates to the future conduct of this country. I also hope at some point in our debate that we can address the very valuable contribution that two individuals, together with the staff and a third member of the commission--namely, former Secretary of Defense Schlesinger and former Secretary of Defense Harold Brown. Each of those extraordinary men--and I have been privileged to know and work with each of them quite closely through the years. Actually, I served under three Secretaries of Defense when I was in the Navy Department as Secretary, and one of them, the last, was Secretary Schlesinger. He remains to this day one of my closest confidantes and advisers on a wide range of issues. Harold Brown, my colleague, the Senator from Michigan, will recall, I sponsored--and I think the Senator from Michigan joined me when I was on the Intelligence Committee in an overall review of our intelligence. The first chairman of that commission was a distinguished former Member of Congress, Les Aspin, and then, following his untimely death, Harold Brown. I was the one who recommended he take over the work on that commission, on which I was privileged to serve as a member. A lot of things have been done to address the issue, which is the goal of this amendment. Again, I am going to reserve until Monday just how I am going to further approach this issue, but I wanted to bring those two points up should the Senator from Michigan wish to comment on either.

Mr. WARNER. The order has it that the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island will now continue his contribution to the Levin amendment.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, under rule XIV, I understand there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading.

Mr. WARNER. In order to place the bill on the calendar under provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceeding.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on today's Executive Calendar: Nominations 422, 423, 427, 429, 430, 431 and 434 and all nominations on the secretary's desk. I further ask unanimous consent the nominations be considered en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of an amendment to S. 1932, the deficit reduction bill. I am pleased to be joined in this bipartisan effort with Senators Lieberman, Roberts, Durbin, and Allen. I am grateful to each of them for working closely with me in crafting this amendment. In addition, I would like to thank Chairman Enzi and Senator Kennedy for working closely with me in support of this amendment. Under the deficit reduction bill, certain educational programs are authorized or reauthorized that provide Federal dollars to help low- income students with the costs associated with higher education. These programs include: (1) Pell grants--in fiscal year 2005 $12.787 billion was spent on Pell grants by the Federal Government; (2) ProGAP grants-- a new mandatory spending program consisting of approximately $1.45 billion a year that is designed to provide supplemental grants to low- income Pell grant recipients, regardless of their majors; and (3) SMART grants--a new mandatory spending program consisting of $450 million a year that is designed to provide supplemental grants to low-income Pell grant recipients in their third and fourth year of college who are pursuing majors in math, science, engineering, and foreign languages. These initiatives are commendable. I support them. Each program will significantly increase dollars targeted to low-income individuals who wish to pursue higher education to help them with the costs associated with their schooling. But while I support these programs, I also fervently believe that when the Congress expends taxpayer money, it ought to do so in a manner that meets our Nation's needs. The fact of the matter is that should this bill become law, the Federal Government will spend, next year alone, approximately $14.5 billion on grants to help low-income students attend higher education. I repeat $14.5 billion. Of this $14.5 billion, though, without this amendment, only $450 million each year will be specifically targeted towards encouraging students to enter courses of study that are critical to our national security. That amounts to only about 3 percent of the total amount spent. I repeat, 3 percent. That is astonishing to me. It is astonishing to me because a key component of America's national, homeland, and economic security in the post 9/11 world of global terrorism is having home-grown, highly-trained scientific minds to compete in today's one-world market. Yet alarmingly, America faces a huge shortage of these technical minds. Strikingly, America faced a similar situation nearly 50 years ago. On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union successfully launched the first manmade satellite--Sputnik--into space. The launch shocked America, as many of us had assumed that we were preeminent in the scientific fields. While prior to that unforgettable day America enjoyed an air of post World War II invincibility, afterwards our Nation recognized that there was a cost to its complacency. We had fallen behind. In the months and years to follow, we would respond with massive investments in science, technology and engineering. In 1958, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act to inspire and induce individuals to advance in the fields of science and math. In addition, President Eisenhower signed into law legislation that established the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA. And a few years later, in 1961, President Kennedy set the Nation's goal of landing a man on the Moon within the decade. These investments paid off. In the years following the Sputnik launch, America not only closed the scientific and technological gap with the Soviet Union, we surpassed them. Our renewed commitment to science and technology not only enabled us to safely land a man on the Moon in 1969, it spurred research and development which helped ensure that our modern military has always had the best equipment and technology in the world. These post-Sputnik investments also laid the foundation for the creation of some of the most significant technologies of modern life, including personal computers, and the Internet. Why is any of this important to us today? Because as the old saying goes: he or she who fails to remember history is bound to repeat it. The truth of the matter is that today America's education system is coming up short in training the highly technical American minds that we now need and will continue to need far into the future. The fact is that over the last two decades the number of young Americans pursuing bachelor degrees in science and engineering has been declining. In fact, the proportion of college-age students earning degrees in math, science, and engineering is now substantially higher in 16 countries in Asia and Europe than it is in the United States. If these current trends continue, then, according to the National Science Board, less than 10 percent of all scientists and engineers in the world will be working in America by 2010. This shortage in America of highly trained, technical minds is already having very real consequences for us as a country. For example, the U.S. production of patents, probably the most direct link between research and economic benefit, has declined steadily relative to the rest of the world for decades, and now stands at only 52 percent of the total. In the past, this country has been able to compensate for its shortfall in homegrown, highly trained, technical and scientific talent by importing the necessary brain power from foreign countries. However, with increased global competition, this is becoming harder and harder. More and more of our imported brain power is returning home to their native countries. And regrettably, as they return home, many American high-tech jobs are being outsourced with them. Simply put, in today's one world market, while we in America are sleeping at night, the other half of the world is thinking and contriving of every possible way to compete against us economically. Moreover, while we are sleeping at night, there are persons in this world who are awake, working hard in support of efforts aimed at taking our security and our freedoms away from us. Fortunately, we can do something here today to help us become better prepared. Certainly, the SMART grant program is an important step in the right direction. But while the SMART grant program is one small step for man, it is not a giant leap for America. More has to be done. Remember, even with the SMART grant program, next year only 3 percent of the $14.5 billion targeted towards low-income students will be focused on meeting our security needs. That is why I am offering this amendment today. The Warner, Lieberman, Roberts, Durbin, and Allen amendment is simple. It simply allows the Secretary of Education to provide to low-income Pell grant recipients who pursue majors at the college and university level in critical national and homeland security fields of math, science, engineering, and foreign languages, an additional sum of money on top of their normal ProGAP grants. The amendment gives incentives and inducements to students who accept the challenge of pursuing the more rigorous and demanding curriculum of these studies that are critical to our Nation. The amendment achieves its goal without adding a single new dollar to the underlying bill. The Warner, Lieberman, Roberts, Durbin, and Allen amendment does not change the Pell grant program or the SMART grant program in any way. It merely changes the formula of payments to students who will receive ProGAP grants. This change is desperately needed to put our nation on the road to meeting the ever increasing competition from India, China, and other nations where more and more of their students are pursuing studies in the scientific area. The amendment builds upon the SMART grant program by enabling the Secretary to provide even greater incentives to encourage individuals to pursue studies critical fields. The amendment accomplishes this goal by allowing the Secretary of Education to award larger ProGAP grants to students majoring in programs of math, science, engineering and foreign languages that are key to our national and homeland security. While I believe studying the liberal arts is an important component to having an enlightened citizenry, we simply must do more to address this glaring shortage in other critical fields. America can ill afford a 21st century Sputnik. This amendment will make sure that additional monies get focused on training the highly skilled minds that are needed in the 21st century to protect our national, economic, and homeland security. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements related thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague. I take this opportunity to propound a unanimous consent request. It has been cleared on both sides. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2967, received from the House.