John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Yes. Could the Senator, in the interim, talk to his cosponsors on both sides of the aisle and give me an estimate of the time that would be required?

Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished Democratic whip and my colleague from Michigan. The unanimous consent agreement is in order. The vote should start momentarily.

Mr. WARNER. Wait a minute, let's just leave it ``we are near the end.''

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, to conclude this brief colloquy, I am not able to speak to the Daschle amendment or the Biden tax measure. I will have to engage people on the tax committee to look at that. The others, I would say, as chairman and I hope you as ranking, if we are able to get through the agenda we have outlined, this bill is really down in its final stages; would you not agree?

Mr. WARNER. Fine. Mr. President, the Senator from Rhode Island approached the Senator from Virginia earlier today, and he said he would provide some language. Thus far, we haven't had that opportunity.

Mr. WARNER. It is at the desk.

Mr. WARNER. I see.

Mr. WARNER. We will take that into consideration. I cannot commit at this point in time, but I do know there is an amendment by the distinguished Senator from Delaware regarding taxation.

Mr. WARNER. That is a new dimension which I have not had the opportunity to review.

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. We will try to establish time agreements during the course of the votes today. That is to be followed by the Reed amendment which goes to end strength, a very significant issue. That amendment currently has an amendment in the second degree, not an amendment which is a substitute but just an amendment. That is under consideration and will be debated at that time and then, in all probability, a voice vote, not on that, a voice vote on the first one I hope, but on the second there would likely be a rollcall.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the managers of the bill are grateful to the leadership for the cooperation we are getting in moving this bill along, as well as all Members. We have had a preliminary meeting with regard to tomorrow's schedule. I would like to acquaint the Senate with the thinking at the moment with the leadership. We would start off the morning with no morning business, proceeding promptly to the bill at the hour of 9:30, with the first amendment to be brought up on our side, the Bond-Harkin amendment. Am I correct on that?

Mr. WARNER. I defer to my colleague here with regard to the very important amendments on missile defense.

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

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER. My understanding is, that is correct.

Mr. WARNER. So modified.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the leadership has been working with the managers and has worked out a unanimous consent request which I would like to propound to the Senate at this time. I ask unanimous consent that at the hour of 4:30 today, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Warner amendment No. 3452, which is to be modified to be in the form of a first-degree amendment, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Leahy amendment No. 3292, with no amendments in order to the amendments prior to the votes; I further ask consent that following those votes, the Senate proceed to executive session and immediate votes on the confirmation of the following: Executive Calendar No. 567, William Duffey; No. 590, Lawrence Stengel; No. 607, Paul Diamond. I further ask consent that following those votes, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate resume legislative session. I finally ask consent that following those votes Senator Sessions be recognized in order to offer his amendment No. 3372, which is to be further modified with changes that are at the desk; provided further that following 10 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form, the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. WARNER. I have been informed by the distinguished Democratic whip that we are close, in which case I suggest the absence of a quorum, at which time we can all draw a breath.

Mr. WARNER. In reply, I think you framed the question very clearly. My response I hope is equally clear. I could not make a proffer as to what I might do until I have looked at it. I want to know how this particular language is employed in those civil penalty provisions. It may have added words in it. I haven't read any of those clauses, so I would have to wait. But you have accurately stated there is a very significant difference between the legislation proposed by the Senator from Virginia and the legislation proposed by the Senator from Vermont. I think at this point we are about ready to receive the unanimous consent proposal; am I not correct?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is a situation I would want to examine with great care and see how it is phrased. I think right now we have two very distinct pieces of legislation before this body. This is legislation proposed by the Senator from Virginia which is predicated on statutes that have been in existence for a number of years--one, 1948 is the origin; the second is 1988. We simply extend the jurisdictional reach of those statutes to areas in which these contractors are performing beyond the continental boundaries. It is a very clear way of bringing to justice those operating beyond our shores. To me, that does it. I am firmly opposed to the introduction into the criminal statutes a standard of criminality which I feel is far too vague to support the extreme of deprivation of life, liberty, and freedom--not life, perhaps, but liberty and freedom.

Mr. WARNER. Well, I would have to look at it. At this late hour, with votes momentarily to occur, I would not want to conjecture. My predicate is that criminal penalties deserve the most exhaustive consideration by the legislature, be it State or Federal. This new standard that my colleague from Vermont has raised has a legislative as well as a judicial history in civil penalties. It does not have a comparable record in any Federal system.

Mr. WARNER. Oh, no, I cannot buy off on that. There is one portion of the amendment of the Senator from Vermont which is a brandnew concept being introduced of standards for criminality, and I cannot accept that.

Mr. WARNER. They are both criminal, except mine uses the underlying statutes and legislation adopted into law after the normal process through the Senate.

Mr. WARNER. Well, not exactly. We will just have a colloquy. Mine is likewise a criminal statute.