John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield my 2 minutes to the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. WARNER. I need a minute or two to wrap up.

Mr. WARNER. I yield such time as my colleague requires. Would the Chair advise as to the time on both sides?

Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. The simple reply is, you can't take an individual, no matter how many degrees they might have, in 90 days, or less, and train them to be an interrogator. Most of the contractors now performing this work are former U.S. military individuals--people who served in the interrogation field, primarily during the cold war when the U.S. military had a significant requirement for interrogators, both in the European theater and the Korean theater. I see my colleague from Alabama. Does my colleague seek recognition?

Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object, and that the Senator from Virginia be recognized for the purpose of the tabling motion following Senator Dodd.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, there is a problem. The Senator has identified it. I acknowledge it. I do not think it is as great as the Senator portrays it, but nevertheless there is a problem. What I am saying to my colleagues who are momentarily going to be asked to vote is that we cannot in any way possible solve it in the 90- day period, and we are in the middle of a war. The Senator is going to basically dismantle 50 or more percent of our intelligence interrogation, and it is from these interrogations that our troops today are getting valuable information to protect their lives on the battlefronts primarily of Afghanistan and Iraq. I say to Members, when you come and are asked to vote, if you vote in support of this amendment, then I simply say you are pulling the plug on our intelligence system and the interrogation system and severely dealing them a crippling blow. It is as simple as that. Does my colleague acknowledge that in 90 days the interrogation is out of business? Am I correct?

Mr. WARNER. They are part of the system--40 interrogators of which 20 are contractors. In 90 days, 50 percent roughly of the operation in Guantanamo ceases to function. I will tell you that practically there is no way in the world the military can go out and hire and recruit and put into uniform or civilian capacity that number of individuals.

Mr. WARNER. I understand that. That is the very point I wish to make. You give us a year in which to cure that problem, but then you go to the analysts and interrogators, 60 analysts of which 35 are contractors.

Mr. WARNER. Nevertheless, eventually they have to be taken inhouse.

Mr. WARNER. That has been stated twice by the Senator. Those are facts and valid opinions. But I am looking at the very practical effect--that under this amendment when the President's signature goes on the bill, in 90 days we are out of business. Let me point out a few statistics. Take Guantanamo Bay: Right now we have 140 translators of which over 100 are contractors.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that cripples America's intelligence system in the middle of a war in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and our operations in Guantanamo. How can the Senate suddenly withdraw our U.S. military interrogation base in the middle of a war in 90 days? There is no way in the world the military--there is a greater burden on the Army--can hire and train in this short period of time all the replacements that would be required if the Senator's amendment became law.

Mr. WARNER. It is signed into law.

Mr. WARNER. First, I would like to lay the predicate. The Senator has brought forth an important concept. He asked for a study. I am prepared to support the study. But I urge my colleague, as I did the other day on another part of the amendment--and he accepted my advice and took that out--we have to look at this interrogation section. There is a trigger mechanism, if you look at the amendment, which says in 90 days every one of these contractors has to discontinue their work. That is what it says. Am I not correct?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator engage in a colloquy with me?

Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, my understanding is we will now go off the bill. We will remain off the bill for the remainder of the evening. We now have three votes on judicial nominations. I stand corrected. After the votes on the three judicial nominations, there is a short matter with Senator Sessions. It is in the UC. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the votes for the three judicial nominations be 10-minute votes.

Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. WARNER. Yes, Madam President. I yield it knowing that the good wisdom and sound judgment of this body will follow my views.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, my amendment does everything that my colleague stated as a desired goal. His amendment goes a step further. This is the reason we have two votes. He establishes a new criterion for a crime that could result in incarceration up to 20 years. It is so vague that I assure you it could not get through the first year of law school. It says you could go to jail if ``you materially overvalue any good or service.'' There is no regulation, no criterion by which to judge that. As a consequence, this body would be enacting a new criminal statute without any hearings, without any thoughtful process, and would subject the contracting community, which numbers in the tens of thousands of individuals supporting the men and women of the Armed Forces all over the world, to this very vague proposed criminal statute. I urge strongly that you vote against the Leahy amendment. I regret that, I say to my good friend, but we cannot put on our books this statute. It would be wrong.

Mr. WARNER. Two minutes on each side.

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

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WARNER. Without a rollcall vote.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 at 10 a.m., on ``Judicial Nominations'' in the Dirksen Office Building, Room 226. Witness List: Panel I: Senators. Panel II: Richard A. Griffin, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit; and David W. McKeague, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit. Panel III: Virginia Maria Hernandez Covington, to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida.