John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Excuse me, Madam President, but on which subject?

Mr. WARNER. Is it the intention of my colleague in due course to lay this aside?

Mr. WARNER. I am not sure this is drawn in such a way as to continue what I deem essential practice with regard to naval ships. I would have to study it considerably to determine how it might impede ground operations.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I again draw my colleague to paragraph B, United States-led combat missions that require routine engagement in direct combat, that implies that the uniformed people are in direct combat and the presence in a supporting role of contractors can often be the case unexpectedly in connection with naval vessels which are a matter of a moment's notice.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, the Senator's point is well taken. He has served in this body many years and during that period of time, we have engaged in a number of military operations. This one is unique. I made a quick reference to the existing statutes, 113 U.S.C. and others. I am fearful the Senator has thrown out a fishnet here that catches too many when he says prohibit the use of contractors as relates to combat missions. I just do not know how we would operate aboard our ships. I do not know how we would operate in a number of theaters without the benefit of contractors, and, at certain times, they are in harm's way. So at the moment we will have to have very vigorous opposition to this amendment as it is presently drawn. If the Senator from Connecticut wants to lay it aside and take a look at it, I will be happy to do so.

Mr. WARNER. On the question of the interrogation, I would like to have an opportunity to revisit that. My immediate concern is maybe 90 days is short and perhaps there is some flexibility there. If I can return to the part B, that gives me very serious concern, and that is the combat missions that require routine engagement. For example, so much of the security for Ambassador Bremer today is all contracted. Much of the security, as I understand, which is given to other members of the Iraqi government, to the extent they avail themselves of what the coalition forces--that is nonmilitary, Ambassador Bremer's operation--make available to them, I do not know how we are going to meet those needs. If you follow this to the letter, you would have to have all soldiers doing that.

Mr. WARNER. I am on page 2.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I could not find that language. I listened carefully to the Senator's presentation. I can understand the translator.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, will the Senator direct the Senate to that portion where he thinks there is flexibility.

Mr. WARNER. My second concern goes to the question of the interrogation of prisoners. Clearly, the Armed Services Committee has had hearings on the very difficult problems that we encountered in the prisons in Iraq, and perhaps in certain areas in Afghanistan; and we, by no means, have concluded--either the Congress or the Department of Defense--our examination of these problems. As the Senator well knows, the Army, in particular, and the Department of Defense have a number of ongoing investigations with regard to these prisoner problems. It relates, as my good friend from Connecticut stated, to the use of, in some instances, interrogators who were contractors. This is the problem, as I see it. As we do our defense planning, we do our very best to have trained and ready cadres of individuals in combat areas and cadres of individuals for medical purposes and other purposes. If we were to put this type of prohibition into law, the Department of Defense--primarily the Department of the Army--would have to put into place a very significant number of individuals who would at all times be trained and ready to go in following combat operations to do the interrogations of prisoners. That, it seems to me, puts a burden on the Department which is not a wise expenditure of funds and use of military personnel. I don't know what the estimate would be. Let's assume that in due course our situations in Afghanistan and Iraq are secured in such a way that our forces withdraw and we hopefully return to a period where there would be more equilibrium in the use of our Armed Forces in conducting missions around the world. As this is drawn, the Department of the Army would have to have a very significant cadre of individuals who are just waiting assignment at a future time, as a consequence of some future military operation, to perform the interrogations. That has been an area that I think in the past has successfully been performed by contractors, providing there are rules and regulations laying down the specific requirements of the training of those contractors, the expertise. They just cannot pick up individuals off the street and put them into positions of responsibility. It is that general reason--and I will go on in a moment, but I will allow my colleague to reply--that I have great concern about the intention of this amendment. Those are two points I wish to make in terms of opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WARNER. The way it is drawn, it could be interpreted that way.

Mr. WARNER. That is not the way it is crafted, as I read it. If the Senator wishes to proceed on this part of the amendment, the Senator would be well advised to try to make reference to the existing law in such a way as to make it clear.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I have looked over this amendment very carefully. We will have to oppose it for a number of reasons. There may be some parts of it on which we could have a meeting of the minds. I would like to walk through the amendment with my good friend and ask him a few questions about this amendment. Let's go to the title: Prohibitions on the Use of Contractors for Certain Department of Defense Activities. (A) Prohibition on Use of Contractors in Interrogation of Prisoners and Combat Operations. That and combat operations poses a dilemma. For example, as the distinguished Senator knows, in his State are a number of our submarines. At any one time, those submarines have a board of contractors who are working on the equipment, training of sailors, taking an aircraft carrier. At any one time, you have maybe several hundred contractors aboard an aircraft carrier. On a moment's notice, either of those vessels could be given a tactical order to go into harm's way. The way this amendment is drawn--so broadly--I think the Senator had better look at it again. I could not in any way support an amendment that says contractors are prohibited from going into harm's way, because they are forward-deployed with our units; they are aboard our vessels. At any time, on a moment's notice, they could be put into a position of being in harm's way.

Mr. WARNER. I see the Senator from Colorado. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator from Connecticut. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be laid aside.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at this point in time--

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wonder if we could ask the Senator from Connecticut if we could temporarily lay this matter to one side while we finish processing the amendment by the Senator from Colorado? It would take but a few minutes.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this side is prepared to accept this amendment.

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

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER. Absolutely. I have no objection to that.

Mr. WARNER. I am very anxious to hear that. My requirement is to depart the floor to check on something and I will be right back.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have looked this over and I am of the opinion that it can be eventually accepted. I am wondering if the colleagues would just allow the Chair to put in a quorum call for no more than 5 minutes, and then I will be right back to the floor to address this amendment.

Mr. WARNER. That is a prudent way to proceed.

Mr. WARNER. Certainly the Senator has a right to request it.