John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in consultation with the ranking member, I say that there are three amendments in which, speaking for the majority, I would yield back time in our possession in the hopes we could move to the amendments for voting purposes. The first one, of course, would be the amendment, as I just discussed with the distinguished Senator from Michigan, regarding the desire to have a Presidential commission regarding the detainee issues. I ask the Chair to inform the Senate as to the amount of time that is under the control of the majority and minority on that amendment.

Mr. WARNER. A little louder, Mr. President.

Mr. WARNER. Amendment No. 2430.

Mr. WARNER. That is the question before the Chair on amendment No. 2430.

Mr. WARNER. Fine. Then we would like to move to the amendment by the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, regarding missile defense. Again, I would inquire as to how much time is remaining on the amendment, which is amendment No. 2427.

Mr. WARNER. Well, I am prepared to yield back time on that if we can get some indication from Senator Reed as to his desire. I am hopeful we will have that vote up. Then there is an amendment by the distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, amendment No. 2436. Will the Chair advise the Senate as to the time remaining on that amendment?

Mr. WARNER. Well, with regard to the time in opposition, I am opposed to the amendment, but I am prepared to yield back the time on that amendment. This, hopefully, alerts Senators that any one and hopefully all three of those amendments could be up for votes very shortly.

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, 2424 is the number on that amendment. If the Senator will withhold for a minute. The inquiry is in to the desk as to the time left on the Nelson amendment.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. WARNER. Within the past 15 minutes, I received the assurance. Has all time expired, Mr. President?

Mr. WARNER. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. WARNER. I so make that request for both amendments, Mr. President.

Mr. WARNER. And I so make that request, the underlying amendment and the Inhofe amendment.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the use or the yielding back of the debate time on the Byrd amendment, the Senate proceed to a series of stacked votes in relation to the following amendments: The first is the Byrd amendment; the second is the Nelson amendment, No. 2424; the third is the Snowe amendment, No. 2436; provided that no second degrees be in order to the amendments prior to the votes; finally, that there be 2 minutes equally divided between the votes and that the second and third votes be limited to 10 minutes each.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, further I hope, working in consultation with the distinguished ranking member, to have more votes. There is an outstanding Reed amendment and there is an outstanding amendment by the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin. I hope those votes will be addressed by the Senate not too long after the conclusion of this series of votes. Mr. President, under the order of the Senate that I asked for earlier, the Senator from Alaska is to be recognized.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield, we have already scheduled Senator Byrd's amendment at this point in time, so it is quite in order and timely. Amendment No. 2442 (Purpose: To establish the position of Deputy Secretary of Defense for Management.)

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, one of the great pleasures of those of us who serve on the Armed Services Committee is to have the opportunity to work with Senator Byrd, an individual for whom I have the greatest respect and whose corporate knowledge of the institutions of Government, most particularly the institution of the U.S. Senate, is second to none. I have listened carefully to this presentation by our distinguished colleague from West Virginia, and I think he cites, with relative accuracy, points that should be taken into consideration. But I would like to say to my friend, I wonder if you might consider an alternative approach. We stop to think that the Department of Defense was envisioned by the Key West Conference in 1947, when Harry Truman--I might say one of my favorite Presidents--saw the need to bring together the Departments of the Navy and the Army and the emerging Air Force from the glorious days of the Army Air Corps and put them all together, unify them, and eliminate, thereby, certain frictions, and so forth, that normally exist between the military Departments. The Department of Defense as we know it today was born, and James Forrestal was our first Secretary. This Department has served this Nation very well in the ensuing years since 1947. And yet, as Mr. Byrd has said very eloquently, he has pointed out problems associated with the enormity of the growth of responsibilities, the enormity of the growth of appearances required by the senior members of the Department before the Congress and the like. I think he also has in mind the British system, for which all of us who have dealt with that system through the years have a certain degree of admiration. They have a civil service sort of permanent under secretary structure, so as there is turnover in the top positions through the years, there is someone to come in and say: Well, I was here under the previous two secretaries and, indeed, the facts are such and so. It has its virtue. But I think the complexity of the problems you raise requires some careful study. Now, a subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, under the distinguished chairmanship of Senator Ensign, has looked at this question. He will succeed me here momentarily to give his thoughts. I come down to this point, I say to my good friend from West Virginia. You start with the proposition there is no other Government agency or Department of our Federal system, other than the FAA--and I did not know that until I was prompted by your amendment to do the research--which has the two Deputy Secretaries or Under Secretaries, as the case may be. That, to me, indicates that throughout the formation of our Government, whether it has been under Democrat control or Republican control, it is a concept that has not been tried. But it merits careful study. I am wondering if the Senator from West Virginia would think of converting his amendment to provide for a study. Now, I do not mean to kick the can down the road for a year and let it disappear as a concept. Let's have a tight study of 90 or 120 days. Let's have it done by one of the Federal research centers, not the GAO because the GAO, frankly, has an opinion, maybe have it done by two of them, require two of them to do it, and report back to the Congress early next year, say in the February-March timeframe, such that we could hold a hearing in the Armed Services Committee and perhaps the Government Operations Committee, which has sort of plenary jurisdiction over Government agencies and Departments, and take a look at it. It might take root, and as such we would put it in as a part of next year's authorization bill. We could then go to our colleagues in the Senate and our colleagues in the other body and say: Look, we have carefully analyzed and studied, and this is our conclusion. I say to my good friend--not that I could teach him anything--knowing where the votes are, I am inclined to think there is probably a sufficient structure of votes here not to carry your amendment, and I would hate to see it lost, to be honest. And should it pass here, there is nothing in the House. And as you well know from more experience than I, that conference produces unpredictable results. This is a good idea. This idea merits very careful attention and study. I would be the first to cosponsor with you if you were so desiring of amending your pending amendment to provide for a framework by which this concept is studied step by step before the Congress is called upon to render its judgment. I say that with the greatest respect. At this point, I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, may I suggest the Senator go first, and then I would seek the opportunity for recognition to indicate that it is acceptable on this side. But if the Senator from Florida desires, I think there is good reason to have a rollcall vote as opposed to a voice vote.

Mr. WARNER. It is laid aside temporarily to come up at the conclusion of the Snowe amendment. And then, of course, prior to the Senate addressing a vote on the Snowe amendment, there will be 2 minutes for each side to address that amendment. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Senator Inhofe was on the floor earlier today. It was his intention to offer a second-degree amendment. I wonder if I can make a unanimous consent request that I now raise that second-degree amendment, put it on your underlying amendment, and then 30 minutes is now allocated, 15 to the distinguished Senator and 15 more to this side. That would enable you to have more time within which to debate. So you would not lose the minutes that you have. I now make a unanimous consent request. I offer the Inhofe amendment in the second degree at this time with the understanding the time remaining on both sides would be added to the 30 minutes additional time.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to follow the regular parliamentary procedure. The unanimous consent--we have a perfect right to put the second-degree on, but I am trying to keep the continuity of the debate going rather than you extinguishing your 3 minutes. I prefer we continue with the amendment at this time, being the pending amendment, with the understanding that the 3 minutes remaining on Senator Harkin's time be added to his 15, giving him 18; our 17 be added to the 15 that we have.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 2439 to Amendment No. 2438