John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. It is that operative phrase of ``reach that criteria.'' It seems that reaching that criteria has the effect of excluding a lot of programming, albeit they don't have quite the audience that others do, but nevertheless, there may be some individuals within this family that is set forth in the amendment that would like to hear it.

Mr. WARNER. That assurance to me is important. So what you are saying is it would not be any indirect censorship of any particular philosophical category of programming under your proposal?

Mr. WARNER. So your proposal does not bind them to this market criteria.

Mr. WARNER. I find that helpful. I think you have dispelled any thought that this amendment would impose any censorship.

Mr. WARNER. And the variety of news services--again, there are obviously certain news services that have a proclivity to go to a more conservative side and some to the liberal side, but again, are news services given an equal opportunity to be heard?

Mr. WARNER. For example, I happen to like NPR, and I like to hear FOX News. I like to have the juxtaposition of the different viewpoints.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might ask the Senator one last question. He makes reference to the ombudsman. How does your coverage of the subject of an ombudsman differ from the amendment offered by the Senator from Iowa?

Mr. WARNER. Fine. So that clarifies the sole technical distinction, which is an important one, between your second degree and the underlying first degree. Therefore, it is up to the Secretary, but once an ombudsman is selected, assuming the Secretary opts to do so, in no way is that individual chartered or directed to do his work or her work different than what the Senator from Iowa desires?

Mr. WARNER. I think that is important. So could that ombudsman be among the existing people in the Department of Defense, have it as an additional duty, or should that person be brought in from the outside and have the sole responsibility of ombudsman work?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think that is an important flexibility. I am certain that within the Department, there is an individual or an individual with objectivity and a background that could perform this work.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I may clarify what the situation is, 2 minutes in morning business is left, and that is being allocated to the Senator from Massachusetts, fine, no problem there. But as I understand, the Senator from Massachusetts also wishes to address the Levin amendment; am I correct?

Mr. WARNER. At which time is the expiration of the 2 minutes. Then the time is charged to the Levin amendment; is that correct?

Mr. WARNER. I hate to interrupt the Senator from Massachusetts, but if you have to do it, you have to do it.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I realize that, but can we at this time substitute a revised document for the one that is being held at the desk? The Parliamentarian brought it to the attention of Senator Inhofe, and it is my understanding he followed the guidance of the Parliamentarian on this technical modification.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer and the Parliamentarian and other staff who facilitated this. Mr. President, we are anxious to continue to work on this bill. I wonder if the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island can indicate what hopefully will occur this afternoon from his side of the aisle? One of his distinguished staff members handed us a sheet.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, also, the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island has an amendment with regard to missile defense. Might I inquire as to the remainder of time on each side on that issue?

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer. It is our intention that the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, will utilize largely the remainder of the time on this side, and then I hope we can bring that important amendment to a vote.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might ask my distinguished colleague, we debated the Inhofe amendment at some length this morning. Could the Senator, for purposes of helping Senators who are following this debate, describe exactly what the difference is? There is one rather significant and technical difference, and that is the sense-of-the- Senate amendment by the Senator from Oklahoma would allow the ombudsman to be at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense, as opposed to your amendment, which would make it mandatory. Am I correct in that?

Mr. WARNER. Putting aside the procedure on which the ombudsman is put in place, is there any distinction between what the duties of the ombudsman would be under the Inhofe second-degree and the underlying first-degree?

Mr. WARNER. Let's make certain the Senator does have a copy.

Mr. WARNER. It was simply a technical correction to an earlier amendment, I say to the Senator.

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. In the interests of moving forward on the floor, Senator Inhofe will be available following the recess we are going to take for purposes of the respective caucuses. I wonder if we, given that there is significant time remaining now on the Inhofe amendment, might go to another matter in such a way that we could engage Senator Inhofe more directly, on behalf of his amendment, with the distinguished Senator from Iowa?

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator. I see the distinguished Senator from Alaska at this time. I yield the floor. amendment no. 2427