John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. If the Senator will withhold, I want to endorse the McCain amendment. Essentially what he is doing is codifying what is policy now. I think it is of such importance that it would require this bill to do so. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 1557

Mr. WARNER. We are operating under an original 1-hour agreement that was modified to give 10 minutes to the Senator from Alabama. I think under the original 1 hour the Senator from Virginia has time and the Senator from South Carolina has time. Would I be correct?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wonder if I might bring to the attention of the Senate that we now have 215 amendments offered on this bill; 27 amendments have been proposed and are pending, a number desiring to have rollcall votes. I know of five rollcall votes that I think are ready to go. I ask the Senator, might we advise our leaders that we can continue tonight with rollcall votes and hopefully that can be facilitated.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague because it is important that we keep momentum going forward on this bill.

Mr. WARNER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Chair advise the Senate as to the pending business?

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if my distinguished leader would enter into a little discussion with me, the Thune amendment, to which he has referred in his remarks, apparently has been modified in a way that I wish to advise the Senate on this modification, as I read it. It is extraordinary. The concept of BRAC only works if the President decides on the block of closures and sends it to the Congress to vote it up or down en bloc. As I read this and I just read it for the first time a few minutes ago I draw your attention to the page I handed the Senator from Mississippi. It says as follows: In the heading by striking ``congressional disapproval'' and inserting ``congressional action.'' In subparagraph A, by striking ``the date on which the President transmits such report'' and inserting ``the date by which the President is required to transmit such report,'' and subparagraph B, by striking ``such report is transmitted'' and inserting ``such report as required''--all this gets down to the following: that the Secretary may not carry out any closure or realignment--that is any of the number on the whole list, any of them: The Secretary may not carry out any closure or realignment recommended by the Commission report transmitted by the President pursuant to section 2903 if a recommendation for such closure or realignment is specified as discussed by Congress in a joint resolution partially disapproving the recommendations of the Commission that is enacted before the earlier of. . . . It seems to me, as I read this, Congress can now go in and cherry- pick base after base and pass a resolution to take it out.

Mr. WARNER. If I may inquire at the desk, was there not a modification put in by Senator Collins this morning, three amendments, and among them

Mr. WARNER. Let me point out, I say to my distinguished former leader, that the original Thune amendment that was offered, I think, Thursday or Friday night and was the subject of a detailed colloquy between myself and the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, is still at the desk, and then this amendment that I read to you is the final paragraph in an amendment which is identical in every way to the one we discussed--Senator Thune and myself--on Thursday night. With the exception of the last paragraph in that amendment, it has been changed to read the same as this one.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this is another very important step forward, drawing on the very profound remarks made earlier today by our distinguished colleague from Arizona. The three of us have worked together. I want to clarify one aspect because when I looked at the Senator's earlier draft, it appeared to me that a military judge being given to an unlawful combatant appearing before an administrative review board would give that individual more due process than accorded a lawful combatant, a POW. My understanding is the Senator's modification now embraces that concern, and I want to make that clear to our colleagues.

Mr. WARNER. Why does the Senator not state it in his own words?

Mr. WARNER. Clearly, the unlawful has no advantages over, as we might say, the lawful. They are on equal status, so to speak?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I ask that I now be a cosponsor, with that modification.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the three of us, together with others who have talked with us, I think, have made a very valuable contribution because all eyes are on America as to how we conduct these difficult situations. Tomorrow we will have an opportunity to further go into this question about the use of the Army manual. My concern over that is that the current manual, in my judgment, does not quite strike the balance between detention and interrogation. I am hopeful that we can draw from the Department of Defense, as best we can, what the modification of the Army manual would be. If I can be assured that is going to be balanced and take into consideration the need to address this unlawful category of these individuals who are not acting on behalf of a State-sponsored conflict--am I not correct?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I do need to make certain that this modification will treat the subject of how a person is detained with equal specificity as to how they are to be interrogated. As you know from your experience of 20 years in the JAG--as a matter of fact, you and I went to Guantanamo a week or so ago. It is important that detention be conducted in a way that it doesn't somehow influence how the interrogation might go. I will not draw the picture here as to what could be done.

Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I can answer that. If you look at the second McCain amendment, basically that amendment is directed at that question. That is my understanding.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we will take the amendment under careful consideration, I assure the Senator.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, may I assure our colleague and others who have expressed an interest, Senator Levin and I are working toward those ends. I take full responsibility for the concept of the cloture. It has achieved, a significant result thus far. We have up to 240 amendments. Another 18 amendments are pending at the desk with rollcalls requested. So the Senate is actively participating. I assure you I am going to meet with my leader--and I respect his judgment-- first thing in the morning. I will explore the options that are available with him. I thank my colleague.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we have labored together these 27 years. This, too, shall be overcome in one way or another. I thank my friend from Connecticut. I am impressed with the enthusiasm he expressed at this hour of the night.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to express concerns about the Levin amendment related to Federal time and material contracts. The proposed amendment would direct that when prime contractor engages a subcontractor to augment the delivery of hours under a time and materials contract, the prime should be entitled to be reimbursed only at the price the subcontractor is billing the prime. I want to bring to the attention of the Senate the rational for the pricing of these time and materials contracts. The prime contractor must locate, negotiate and obtain the subcontractors with whom he performs the contract and assume the risk associated with his and the subcontractors performance. If a subcontractor does not perform or is substandard in its performance, the prime is responsible. If a subcontractor quits or is dismissed, the prime must find a substitute. Assuming this management role, and more importantly, the risk, is one of the reasons for the time and management contract and the blended payment arrangement. Of particular concern to me about the Levin amendment is its potential impact on small business. The proposed amendment would be counter to the President's mandate to promote small business participation in government acquisitions by de-incentivizing prime contractors from engaging subcontractors--most of whom are small businesses--in the fulfillment of their contracts. Finally, Mr. President, I am told that the administration is about to initiate a rule making to revise how time and materials contracts are managed. Federal contracting is a very complex process which is best resolved through a thorough review among all the parties and through the regulatory process. If there are abuses, I am the first to stand and say that they should be stopped. But it is very difficult for the Senate today to understand fully the implications of the Levin amendment and whether it will even resolve any alleged abuses in contracting. I would like to work with Senator Levin and others to encourage the administration to issue its proposed rule promptly, put it out for comment so that all the impacted parties would have the opportunity to comment. If the Senate continues to have concerns once the rule making is completed, that is the appropriate time for us to act. I ask unanimous consent that several letters I received on this subject be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and honor ADM Vern Clark, U.S. Navy, our 27th Chief of Naval Operations, who last week turned over the helm of the U.S. Navy to his successor. As former Secretary of the Navy and a member of the Armed Services Committee for 27 years, I have worked closely with every Chief of Naval Operations since Admiral Clark was Ensign Clark. A child of the Midwest, Admiral Clark is a graduate of Evangel College and holds a master's degree in business administration from the University of Arkansas. It is this Nation's great fortune that Admiral Clark heard the call of the sea and attended Officer's Candidate School, receiving his commission in August 1968. His first sea duty tour was aboard USS John W. Weeks, DD 701. One of the first things Admiral Clark did upon assuming his present post was to obtain the picture that formally hung in the wardroom of USS John W. Weeks to remind him of where he came from and to keep his focus on the fleet. Admiral Clark has had the good fortune to spend more than half of his career in command. The Navy recognized early on his potential for leadership when as a lieutenant he commanded USS Grand Rapids, PG98. He would go on command USS McCloy, FF 1038, USS Spruance, DD 963, the Fleet Anti-Submarine Training Center Atlantic, Destroyer Squadron One Seven, Destroyer Squadron Five, Cruiser Destroyer Group Three, Second Fleet, and the U.S. Atlantic Fleet. On those rare occasions when Admiral Clark was not in command, he served in a series of increasingly challenging shore assignments. He completed assignments as the Special Assistant to the Director of the Systems Analysis Division in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, the Administrative Assistant to the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Surface Warfare, and as the Administrative Aide to the Vice Chief of Naval Operations. He served as head of the Cruiser-Destroyer Combat Systems Requirements Section and Force Anti-Submarine Warfare Officer for the Commander, Naval Surface Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, and he directed the Joint Staff's Crisis Action Team for Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Admiral Clark first hoisted his flag aboard the U.S. Transportation Command where he was Director of both Plans and Policy, J5 and Financial Management and Analysis, J8. While commanding the Carl Vinson Battle Group, he deployed to the Arabian Gulf and later served as the Deputy Commander, Joint Task Force Southwest Asia. Admiral Clark has also served as the Deputy and Chief of Staff, United States Atlantic Fleet; the Director of Operations, J3 and subsequently Director of the Joint Staff. Admiral Clark assumed his duties in peacetime on July 21, 2000. Sitting in his office on September 11, 2001, war came to Admiral Clark's Navy when American Airlines flight 77 hit the Pentagon just a few yards from where he was sitting. Since that day he has skillfully led the Navy in the global war against terrorism. Throughout this time, he has continued to focus on his top five priorities manpower, current readiness, future readiness, quality of service and alignment. Chief among those priorities is manpower. Admiral Clark is fond of saying that the Navy is winning the war for people. That is due in no small part to his leadership during this difficult time. Standing beside this officer throughout his superb career has been his wife Connie, a woman to whom he owes much. She has been his key supporter, devoting her life to her husband, to her family, and to the men and women of the Navy family. She has traveled by his side for these many years visiting the fleet. Her sacrifice and devotion have served as an example and inspiration for others. This team has served our Navy well and we will miss them both. With these words before the Senate, I seek to recognize Admiral Clark for his unswerving loyalty to the Navy and this great Nation. We thank him and wish Vern, his wife Connie, and his sons Jeffery and Christopher fair winds and following seas as they continue forward in what will most assuredly remain lives of service to our country.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object, I would like to amend it to enable the distinguished Senator from Alabama, whose subcommittee has jurisdiction over at least one of the amendments of Senator Allard, be permitted to use such time as he desires in the colloquy between the three Senators.