John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to thank our distinguished two leaders. On behalf of Senator Levin and myself, we assure our two leaders we will deal with this expeditiously, with the cooperation of the Senate. I am certain we can have an armed services bill this year. This is a nation at war. We have no alternative. I yield the floor. Amendments Nos. 2248, 2250, and 2249, en bloc

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: My understanding is the time at this point had been reserved for statements regarding the elections in Iraq. Am I correct? What is the time remaining?

Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent the time be extended for a period not to exceed 10 minutes.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my distinguished colleague from Colorado has spoken very eloquently with regard to the elections in Iraq. I would like to add a few thoughts of my own, for it was truly a momentous event in the sense that a nation which had not had any government since 1920 was given the opportunity to begin its course toward joining the nations of the free world to have some form of democracy of their own choosing--and I underline that: Of their own choosing. They thereby take a place in the world with a responsibility for securing the basic freedoms people worldwide desire. On Saturday, October 15, 2005, the Iraqi people, once again, following their historic election in January of this year, took another significant step forward in Iraq. We saw millions of Iraqis indicate their willingness to embrace the democratic process by virtue of their voting. There was a strong turnout nationwide, a significantly higher turnout than we anticipated in certain areas. This turnout, particularly in the Sunni regions, is more remarkable because it was often in the face of insurgent intimidation. We all observed three important signs of Iraqi progress in the events of October 15th. First, the electoral process proceeded as planned. Insurgent efforts to disrupt the elections that were attempted throughout the summer and right up to the elections simply did not succeed. Second, Iraqi Government's outreach to Sunni leaders during the constitutional drafting process is having an effect. Prime Minister al- Jafari said, ``The victory for Iraq is that Iraqis are voting.'' Third, the Iraqi security forces provided protection to more than 6,000 polling sites. I cannot overstate the importance of that. The United States, together with its coalition partners, worked hard for some 2 years now to establish a military and a police force. I would say, having followed this very carefully in the Armed Services Committee, that significant progress has been made in the last 120 days. We have established criteria to assess the quality and the professional level attained by these individuals, and how best to integrate them in the overall security framework needed to preserve and protect the Iraqi people and preserve their sovereignty. Real progress has been made. The voting day was an example of how they perform. At the polling sites, security was primarily the responsibility of either the Iraqi police or the national forces. It was clear and visible that the Iraqis took the lead in this effort. No security incident appeared to affect voting. The level of security breaches was far below the high of some 300 breaches during the January election of this year. I believe there was less than 20 incidents total that tried to disrupt the election, but all failed to affect the casting of votes at these polling places. We have no confirmed figures on the results yet. We, the world, await the outcome. Newspapers throughout the world carry reports of the importance of the election and saluting those who made it possible--not just the security forces but also the United Nations and other international organizations which came in and supervised this historic day. Basically the streets were calm. In some places there were mild celebrations. Last month, for example, in Tall Afar in northern Iraq, coalition and Iraqi forces were engaged with insurgents for control of that city--a bitter battle. It is interesting that on Saturday the Independent Election Committee of Iraq estimated that 80 percent of the registered voters in that community voted. Therefore we must praise the efforts of the Iraqis, the U.S. civilian and military personnel, all those of our coalition partners and those of international organizations for planning and executing an electoral referendum in such a challenging environment. The United Nations chief electoral adviser in Iraq said: The process has gone so smoothly and well, from a technical point of view. The Vice Chairman of the International Mission for Iraqi Elections, a coalition of electoral monitoring bodies, praised the referendum for its legal framework, planning, and logistics. Now the world will await the final result, due hopefully later this week. The Independent Electoral Commission in Iraq is supervising this process and will announce an official tally after votes are counted at a central location overseen by the United Nations election advisory team to ensure that international standards are being met. There are, no doubt, difficult days remaining ahead. Generals Abizaid and Casey told the Congress, the American people, and indeed the whole world, just that in appearances throughout the United States last month. Both men were confident that we are moving in the right direction. We saw that progress this Saturday and we salute them for their leadership and their participation and their responsibility in achieving the results that came about on Saturday. If the constitution is ratified, Iraqis will vote again on December 15. This time they will vote for a permanent government to take office on December 31. That leaves 60 days, basically, between now and December 15. It will be a very unusual period in the history of Iraq, in that many of those in this current government, the interim government, will be seeking office in that election. So we have to exercise a degree of patience as we watch them, as they pursue their political campaigns at the same time they have official duties to maintain a government and serve the needs of the people of Iraq-- whether it is the power, whether it is the water, whether it is the security. All of those things must be maintained during this interregnum until the election takes place. Then, following December 15 there is basically a 60-day period as established under the law that they have adopted. There is a 60-day period in which that government must replace the existing one and take the reins of authority and govern Iraq for a period of 4 years--truly a permanent government. As this political situation matures, so too will the Iraqi security forces, and I am confident we will see a continued strong pace to obtain the needed numbers of trained police, border security, internal security, national guard, and a standing army to provide that nation with protection for its sovereignty and internal protection from the insurgents. With an Iraqi permanent government in place and steady progress in these security forces, I see--and I want to say with great caution--an opportunity, following the first of the year, to begin to review our present force structure and to consider such options as will hopefully be available to lessen the size of our overall troop presence. Watching Iraqis vote, we as Americans should be especially proud of the contributions of those men and women who proudly wear the uniform of the United States. When I speak with them in Iraq, as I did weeks go on my sixth trip, and in Afghanistan, they know the importance of what they are doing. I would like to underline that. Individually, they know and understand the importance of the mission which they, as members of the all-volunteer force of our military, have undertaken. Together with the commitments in support of their families back home, they are performing brilliantly in Iraq, Afghanistan, and all across the world, protecting the security of this Nation and the security of our principal allies. We will continue to demand from these people as we always have, but they are like generations before them, answering a call to duty to defend the values and freedoms we cherish. We wish them well. We wish the blessings of the Almighty on them and their families. We have taken heavy casualties in this conflict, both in terms of lost lives and wounded. Not a day goes by that those who are privileged to serve in this Chamber do not have that foremost in their minds, as do most Americans. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I must say, I am impressed with the thoroughness with which our colleague has researched this issue and the fervor with which he speaks. But I pose this question: The Department of Defense estimates it will cause a 3-year delay and cost some $65 million to change the contract structure. I reiterate my strong opposition to the amendment because I don't think the Department has had the time operating DTS to adequately prove the principles and the goals they wished to achieve. I recognize other colleagues wish to speak. I thank my colleague for the opportunity to have a colloquy.

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

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, Senator Levin and I are currently conducting a hearing of the Armed Services Committee. Both of us believed it was imperative to come to the Chamber and express to the Senate our strong objection to the amendment offered by our distinguished colleague, Senator Coburn. I give this by way of background. The Committee on Armed Services for some time has been, frankly, encouraging the Department to take steps to try to put in place a system that would revise the older means by which travel was accommodated for members of the Department and others. It is a very extensive number of individuals who are affected. The Department did put in place a program, albeit rather slowly. Nevertheless, it is now in place. Congress, through the years, has criticized the Department for not providing better business practices, specifically for the inadequate oversight of their travel programs. Criticism centered around a growing number of separate, nonintegrated travel systems which did not provide the information required for DOD or congressional oversight. Therefore, the Defense Travel System was created by the DOD to address these criticisms and the desperate need to make this system work more cost- effectively. Comparing the Defense Travel System to the legacy systems is inappropriate because the Defense Travel System performs different functions. The legacy systems are travel reservation systems. The DTS, as it is known, reengineers these legacy systems into a travel and financial management system which links 30 defense data and financial processing systems with the consequent lower transaction and processing fees and lower personnel costs. DTS is saving both people and money. A return to the legacy systems will require additional people, which is not funded. As DTS is further implemented, additional savings will be achieved. Our joint plea is to allow DTS to remain in place and give it a reasonable chance to function and prove its goals. According to the GAO, the ``continued use of the existing legacy travel systems results in underutilization of DTS and affects the savings that DTS was planned to achieve.'' This includes paying higher processing costs through the legacy systems' manual travel vouchers as opposed to the processing of the travel vouchers electronically through DTS. The GAO and the Department of Defense have briefed the Armed Services Committee staff that they believe DTS should be given a reasonable opportunity to continue to resolve the Department's travel programs. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that is correct. In the event the Senate concurs in the position of both of us with regard to the forthcoming vote and the Senate agrees as to germaneness, it is my intention to call up my amendment, which is the 2006 armed services bill, and at that time to put on it a managers' amendment--jointly, the two of us-- which is the third pending amendment at the desk. We will discard the other two amendments because this third amendment has been carefully drawn to have those amendments, as the Senator from Michigan said, those amendments relative to part A, which constitutes the amendment at the desk at this time. It will be the subject of a vote, and not parts B and C.

Mr. WARNER. A matter of public record. Then yesterday I filed a second amendment with about 18 in the nature of a managers' amendment, and they were in the public record. I say to my good friends, the amendment I filed today, the third one, is nothing more than taking from each package only those amendments which have been at the desk, filed, and consolidating them in a third package. I say to my friend, I am in no way trying to be devious at all. Those amendments have been a matter of public record Monday, Tuesday, and today's amendment simply is a consolidation of all of those that have been at the desk in that period of time. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Yes, of course, I recognize that. I was just trying to be informed as to how the rest of us can plan our schedules. The Senator from Connecticut might well desire what period of time?

Mr. WARNER. I commend my colleague from Connecticut.

Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Certainly. Amendments Nos. 1895, 1996, 2017

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have sent modifications to the desk on amendments 1895 for Senator Bingaman, 1996 for Senator Mikulski, and 2017 for Senator Bennett. I didn't know the amendments had already been sent to the desk. I ask unanimous consent these amendments, as submitted, be agreed upon and not the modifications I sent to the desk.

Mr. WARNER. I commend our distinguished colleague from Connecticut. I would say, knowing him through these many years and enjoying a warm and cordial friendship, his indignation was in full control and modest in comparison to other periods, but he is absolutely right. Were I in his position, I would be indignant about the fact that you have tried assiduously to urge the Department to follow the law which I was privileged to work with you in putting into effect last year. That law was Section 351 of the Defense bill last year. It set forth, as the Senator has in this bill, much the same relief for the men and women of the Armed Forces who, on their own initiative, have gone out and expended, and indeed their families have contributed, sums of money. I am very much in favor of this. I hope the managers of the bill will see fit to accept it. But I do urge upon the managers and my colleague from Connecticut that consideration be given to a clause which was in the law last year. I will read it: The protective safety or health equipment was purchased by the member during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on July 31, 2004. That enables some period of time within which we have an understanding of what was involved in the expenditures. We, in the legislative body, call that a sunset provision. It is not found in the pending amendment. Having had modest service myself, as a sailor and so forth, inconsequential though that be, I know a little bit about the life of a service person. The modern GI, this generation, I guess as great as any generation we have ever witnessed in the history of the country-- believe me, leave it to them and they can figure out a lot of things that presumably are better than provided by the military. The Senator pretty well restricted himself to those essential things with which I agree. But if we leave this open, we enable these young men and women, proudly wearing the uniform today, to buy a whole lot of things. Next thing you know we are going to have an open door for a lot of things to be purchased. A wrong, in my judgment, was done in the early procurement system of this equipment, failure to have it, failure to deliver it in a timely way to some of our troops, and you have made that clear today, as have other Senators on the floor. But I say, I do believe consideration should be given to some terminal date--maybe through 2006--in which to give the military the chance to make certain that everything that can protect the life is there, and there is no requirement for these young people to go out and purchase it on their own.

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. WARNER. Yes. That is precisely what I asked the Presiding Officer to accept, and I think your ruling is consistent with the request of the Senator from Virginia. We can proceed.

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield for a question.

Mr. WARNER. That is correct.

Mr. WARNER. The Senator is correct. I would add that it was for the purpose, at a subsequent time if the Senate enables this amendment of the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Michigan jointly put up, which is our annual authorization bill, that we would then ask this amendment be brought up of 101 amendments by our colleagues and be attached to our authorization bill by having one vote, if necessary, on one amendment, which encompasses by management procedure 100 amendments by our colleagues.

Mr. WARNER. I yield for a question.

Mr. WARNER. No. I have not made one, I say to the Presiding Officer.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I may try----