John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. Yes, of course.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in reply to the distinguished Democratic whip, I certainly commend him. I would say to him that practically as long as I have been in the Senate he has been on the floor for the Senate authorization bill all these many years and has been a tremendous help to us, and he continues at this moment. I assure him we are working on a UC which I hope will accommodate the distinguished Senator from Vermont and his requirements. So I am simply asking for a few minutes on which this matter may be presented to the Senator, unless someone wishes to speak.

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. I think we are at the point, unless there are other colleagues who desire to discuss this--does the Senator from Alabama wish to speak?

Mr. WARNER. Let's look at section 1001: Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction-- So forth-- knowingly and willfully-- (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement, or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain-- I say to my good friend, these statutes cover most of the situations, if not all, in which there could be a wrong perpetrated, a wrong of the type you say is profiteering. To bring this to a conclusion, the very fact that the two of us have had some experience and cannot reconcile differences on the meaning of the language of the Senator from Vermont brings home the fact we should not be asking our colleagues to make that the law of the land on a vote this afternoon after this short debate. The Senator is bringing a brandnew dimension into the Criminal Code.

Mr. WARNER. Would that be in the nature of some sort of trick they were trying to perform?

Mr. WARNER. I am reading the statute. That is what it says here: Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, any scheme or artifice with the intent to defraud the United States-- And the contract is going to set the profit margins.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this framework of laws embraces enough provisions that they could establish a case of fraud using the example the Senator from Vermont stated because the contract will have provisions in it with regard to the amount of profit, and there would have to be some reasonable examination of that. The contract is not going to be silent on that issue.

Mr. WARNER. Section 1031 of title 18, ``Major fraud against the United States'': Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, any scheme or artifice with the intent to defraud the United States-- That is fairly broad.

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. I have a very quick and simple answer to the Senator's question. Adoption of the amendment by the Senator from Virginia would be the first time the jurisdiction of these two titles is extended beyond the shores. Criminal convictions could be brought against defendants, if my amendment is adopted.

Mr. WARNER. That is a legitimate question. I answer in the affirmative, that the anecdotal types of things we have discussed on the floor would be covered by the existing criminal statutes, provided they found the requisite level of ``beyond a reasonable doubt.'' I challenge my friend, I cannot find any criminal law that employs this type of verbiage that he seeks here. There is reference in civil statutes to that type of language, but the Senator from Vermont is now asking that these words become a part of the criminal statute. I think what is going to happen, if your amendment will be adopted, is that this infrastructure of tens of thousands of individuals and companies out there right now is going to say: We are out of this; we are not going to subject our people, we are not going to subject our business to the risk of this type of prosecution under these vague standards of ``materially overvalues any good or service.''

Mr. WARNER. I am reading from the Federal Criminal Code, 2004 edition. I imagine it supersedes the 2003 edition. The point is that the statute, 1001, originated on June 25, 1948. This shows the last amendment to be October 11, 1996. Very clearly, I think my good friend has to acknowledge that this is proof that the two statutes upon which I rely have clearly been on the books for a considerable period of time and have been presumably tested in the courts and otherwise. That is the basic difference. I can find no reference in the Criminal Code to the use of the language that my good friend uses here, ``materially overvalues.'' I think that is too vague a standard upon which to send anybody up the river. I don't care whether it is 20 or 30 years, or whatever period of time.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resume the Defense authorization bill on Wednesday, there be 30 minutes equally divided for debate in relation to the Dodd amendment, No. 3313, as further modified. I further ask that following that time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the amendment, with no amendments in order to the amendment prior to the vote. I further ask that following the disposition of the Dodd amendment, the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, or his designee, be recognized to offer the next first-degree amendment.

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

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send a package of amendments to the desk and ask that they be considered en bloc.

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

Mr. WARNER. That is the Senator's prerogative.

Mr. WARNER. We may be able to work it out tomorrow such that we do not require a recorded vote.

Mr. WARNER. We have all been patient. I thank the Senator. I think that is very helpful. If the Senator will proceed along those lines, I will be working on the finalization of the unanimous consent request to put in tomorrow. At the conclusion of the Senator's remarks, this amendment will just be among the pending amendments?

Mr. WARNER. Fine. I will indicate to the leadership I will not need a full hour to speak to the second-degree amendment and to my concern about the permanency of it. But the reality is I think this will move tomorrow. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Illinois seeking recognition. It is my hope and expectation we can work this matter out. How much does he wish to address it tonight?

Mr. WARNER. We will work on this tomorrow. But I think for the purposes of tomorrow's debate, we framed the parameters in which the debate is likely to occur. I am optimistic that we can work this out together. I commend the Senator. He has been a lead, with Senator McCain and others, from the very beginning. At this point in time, the leadership, tonight, in consultation with Senator Levin and myself, will work out the sequence of events tomorrow. The Senator believes he needs a full hour on his side?

Mr. WARNER. As I think the Senator will see--I think I have sent a copy of my amendment over to him. It is very brief. It just specifies that the funding will come from areas other than the Department of the Army budget or elsewhere in the defense budget. Has the Senator had an opportunity to look at the amendment?

Mr. WARNER. Then my next question would be, you know from your experience on the committee that the Department of the Army primarily-- it could be it comes from other areas of the defense budget, but the Department of the Army might have to get over $2 billion out of its current budget to meet these added costs. Would that not be correct?