John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I engaged my colleague to set forth my concerns to other Members who are trying to evaluate their positions on this amendment, should it come forward, and I anticipate at the appropriate time the Senator will be introducing it. I question is there any precedent in Federal law for requiring parental notification, for example, in Medicare, Medicaid, or Federal employee health programs? I have to move on to this amendment, but it is a series of very important fundamental questions that has to be addressed in the context of the Senator's amendment, despite my own personal view that I associate myself with the Senator about the parental consent. Consistently I have voted for that here, but I have an overriding responsibility for the men and women in the military, and this is very unique. So I put this aside at this time, Mr. President, and return to the Inhofe amendment. I thank my colleague.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, may I inquire of the proponent of the amendment, I heard him use the term ``military cemeteries.'' There are State and Federal cemeteries. This amendment is directed at Federal cemeteries?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to join Senator Craig as a cosponsor on this amendment. This is an example which other Senators may wish to access as to how the two managers are willing to work in open colloquy on areas where there are amendments outside the framework of the 12 on each side which could possibly be reconciled, and a part of that reconciliation process would be the need for an open colloquy. This is a format the Senator from Michigan and I are pleased to entertain where there are other amendments that a colloquy in open session would be helpful in trying to reach a reconciliation.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is also important, with my colleague on the floor, that we are bound by this UC, 12 amendments on each side, and as we bring up amendments, I carefully designate, as the Senator from Michigan does, that they are within the 12 each side has.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank my two colleagues. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer. I am about to propound a unanimous consent request which I understand is cleared on both sides. I ask unanimous consent that at 2:45 today, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Inhofe amendment No. 2440, as modified, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Ensign Amendment, No. 2443; provided that there be 6 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form prior to the first vote and 6 minutes equally divided for debate prior to the second vote, with no second degrees in order to either amendment prior to the vote.

Mr. WARNER. I think we are cleared.

Mr. WARNER. I think everything has been cleared.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I presume there will be an opportunity. We are making progress. But there are junctures at which time Senators can address various aspects of the bill, including the distinguished Senator from Nevada.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I am willing to accede to that. Would that time be equally divided?

Mr. WARNER. Fifteen minutes between now and 2:45 be reserved for a debate on the Ensign amendment, 15 minutes equally divided.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, we are making progress on this bill. I thank all Senators for their cooperation. It is my hope that in the intervening period between now and the hour of 2:45, subject to the unanimous consent of 15 minutes, that other Senators can come to the Chamber and address the managers regarding the timing of the remaining amendments under the unanimous consent providing 12 amendments on each side. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in consultation with the distinguished Senator from Michigan and leadership, I propound this unanimous consent request, which I understand has been cleared on both sides. I ask unanimous consent that the 2:45 votes be delayed to begin at 3:20, and further that at 5:30 the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Chambliss amendment No. 2433, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Durbin amendment No. 2473, with the instructions modified to change it to a first degree, with no second degrees in order to either amendment prior to the vote; further, that there be 2 minutes equally divided between each of the stacked votes.

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

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, I recall that period very well. There were times when the Nation's capital had blackouts. At that time my father was a doctor actively practicing medicine in this city, and he had to take the headlights on his car and put a black screen over the headlight with about a 1-inch slit so he could respond to emergency measures during the blackout. Where our home was at that time we had blackout curtains. We regularly went out to make sure there was no leakage of the light because at that time the city lights, if they had been on, silhouetted U.S. and other allied shipping such that they were the target of then German submarines off the coast. Indeed, it is hard to believe this, but the coastline from Florida all the way up to New England was strewn with the damage of ships that were torpedoed. I remember well that period of time, and I remember the phrase. I am surprised you, as an Army man, used a Navy phrase that loose lips sank ships. But we have a very serious amendment here, deserving of equally serious attention. It has just been handed to us. I am sure the Senator would appreciate that we would need some time to study this to determine exactly how we should respond. I am reading the first paragraph: ``No person who knowingly violates,'' that would mean he would have to know that, A, his material is classified, and, B, that he has to have a knowledge of the law and regulation? Are those the two elements of that?

Mr. WARNER. I understand what the consequences are. But I want to make certain the Senator was trying to draw this up in such a way that, no matter how misfortunate, if it is unintentioned, then that would not be a violation.

Mr. WARNER. I find it difficult to believe anyone who has a security clearance would not understand the basic law and regulation prohibiting or controlling its use. You can almost impute to the person knowledge of the statute and law.

Mr. WARNER. Let me interrupt. I want to make certain that time used during the colloquy is divided equally, that when I speak, it is charged to my time, and the Senator from New Jersey, as he speaks, the time will be charged to him; is that agreeable?

Mr. WARNER. The standard you have is ``could have a significant adverse impact.'' Do you have any criteria for ``significant''? As you and I both know, having dealt in these areas for many years, we often look at things that are classified and we say to ourselves: Why in the world would they be classifying this document? Unfortunately, the broad brush of classification sometimes is utilized on things that I don't think need to be classified.

Mr. WARNER. Would the Senator be able to supply for the record the references that he says would define further the word ``significant''? You said it is defined in law. Could you cite those laws upon which you rely?

Mr. WARNER. I think I still have the floor.

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

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we have a second vote as ordered. Amendment No. 2443