John Warner

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in concurrence with the ranking member, the Senator from Oklahoma wishes to lay down an amendment which I am going to recommend be accepted by a voice vote. I believe that is with the concurrence of my ranking member.

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

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I strongly recommend to colleagues the acceptance of this amendment. It has been carefully thought through. It is a policy that has been joined in jointly by the Secretaries of State and Defense. It is the expectation that to the extent we are successful with these programs, it likely will go to the deployment of our troops abroad in various situations we deem necessary to protect our own national interests.

Mr. WARNER. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want very much to support my colleague from Nevada, but I would like to have some clarification. I tried to listen very carefully to what the Senator said. I want to see if my interpretation of the amendment is correct. I begin by saying the question of whether and how the use of riot control agents would be limited by the Chemical Weapons Convention became a major issue when the treaty was considered by the Senate for ratification in 1997. The resolution of ratification for the CWC contains a condition requiring the President to certify that the United States is not restricted by the CWC in its use of riot control agents in certain specified circumstances. The condition also required the President not to eliminate or alter Executive Order 11850--which I have before me; it was signed by President Ford on April 8, 1975--which prohibits the use of riot control agents in war except in defensive military modes to save lives. Now, I turn to the Executive Order 11850 and specifically ask the Senator, is his interpretation of his amendment consistent with the objectives as stated in Executive Order 11850, signed by President Ford April 8, 1975?

Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. If I could further propound a clarification, reading from the preamble to 11850, the Executive order, it says: The United States renounces, as a matter of national policy, first use of herbicides in war except use, under regulations applicable to their domestic use, for control of vegetation within U.S. bases and installations or around their immediate defensive perimeters, and first use of riot control agents in war except in defensive military modes to save lives such as-- and these are the examples-- (a) Use of riot control agents in riot control situations in areas under direct and distinct U.S. military control, to include controlling rioting prisoners of war. (b) Use of riot control agents in situations in which civilians are used to mask or screen attacks and civilian casualties can be reduced or avoided. (c) Use of riot control agents in rescue missions in remotely isolated areas, of downed aircrews and passengers, and escaping prisoners. (d) Use of riot control agents in rear echelon areas outside the zone of immediate combat to protect convoys from civil disturbances, terrorists and paramilitary organizations. Regarding the ground operations as we are reading about daily in the Anbar Province, in Fallujah--I visited up in Fallujah several weeks ago. How would they, under your amendment, be deployed, assuming this amendment is adopted, in a manner differently than what they are doing today?

Mr. WARNER. I want to make clear I presume the amendment of the Senator clarifies some ambiguity, which ambiguity acts as a deterrent on our forces today from using it. Once the ambiguities are set aside, then we can proceed to utilize these agents, provided it is consistent with the Executive Order 11850? Have I correctly stated that?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, there are four packages of amendments at the desk being held subject to action by the Senate. I ask the Senate consider those amendments en bloc, the amendments be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and I ask any statements relating to these individual amendments be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER. All four. And the Chair has acted.

Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague from Michigan for working together with colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We achieved a substantial amount of work. Tomorrow we will return, and my rough calculation with regard to the amendments is of the 12 on the majority side, we have the Chambliss amendment, which might be subject to a second degree; we have the Ensign amendment, which is now the pending amendment; there is an amendment by Senator Talent, Senator Graham, Senator Inhofe that involves prayer at the service academies; Senator Frist in recognition of our troops and others participating in the war against terrorism; and consent to Brownback which is an amendment regarding personal notification relating to the men and women of the Armed Forces in cases where he deems parental consent is appropriate. And the Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner, has an amendment. I have the list of the Senator from Michigan. Six of the 12 amendments have been acted upon by the Senate. To the extent the Senator can advise the Senate of the remaining amendments, it would be helpful.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that there be a period of morning business not to exceed 10 minutes.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 8, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on Kosovo--A Way Forward.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 8, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on Nominations.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Saudia Arabia: Friend or Foe in the War on Terror?'' on Tuesday, November 8, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 226. Witness List Panel I: Daniel Glaser, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC. Alan Misenheimer, Director of Arabian Peninsula and Iran Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC. Panel II: Anthony Cordesman, Co-Director, Middle East Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, DC. Nina Shea, Director, Center for Religious Freedom, Washington, DC. Steve Emerson, Terrorism Expert and Executive Director, Investigative Project on Terrorism, Washington, DC. Gulam Bakali, Islamic Association of North Texas, Board of Trustees, Richardson, TX.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Executive Nominations'' on Tuesday, November 8, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. Witness List Panel I: The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison, U.S. Senator, R-TX; The Honorable John Cornyn, U.S. Senator, R-TX. Panel II: Carol E. Dinkins to be Chairman of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; Alan Charles Raul to be Vice Chairman of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Research, Nutrition and General Legislation be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 8, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. in SDG-50, Senate Dirksen Office Building. The purpose of this Subcommittee Hearing will be to discuss the Pet Animal Welfare, PAWS, statute.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for a hearing entitled, ``Strengthening Hurricane Recovery Efforts for Small Businesses'' on Tuesday, November 8, 2005, beginning at 10 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 8, 2005 at 10 a.m. to hold a closed business meeting.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank our distinguished colleague. He has taken an active role in a number of issues and that, together with his work on the Judiciary Committee, gives him a special insight into the issue of detainee matters. The distinguished ranking member has arrived. I had hoped that Senator Cornyn could speak for 15 to 20 minutes, if that is agreeable, and then following that, perhaps the Senator from Michigan and I will have some matters to address the Senate on. For the benefit of all Members, the bill is open for amendment at this time.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague. I say, with a sense of modesty, that we are making good progress on the bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Yes. I thank my distinguished colleague, who is a very valued member of our committee. We are anxious this afternoon to pursue amendments. I will review at an appropriate time what we have achieved so far and what we have planned for the day. But it would be the managers' preference that as you speak to the bill, you do so in morning business because we are on a rather tight time constraint. I thank the Senator for his courtesy.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, we have certainly no objection to that. At this juncture in the bill, it does not impair our ability to manage. I ask the Senator to please proceed.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia. We are studying this amendment very carefully. I am anxious to get the views of my distinguished colleague, the ranking member, and his group. As I listened carefully to the Senator's remarks, I was reminded by my own experience--I had a very modest career in the military--I think I spent a total of 14 years in the Marine Corps Reserve and witnessed and participated in a callup of the Reserves in connection with the war in Korea. I recall very vividly that war hit us out of the blue in the summer of 1950. The then-Secretary of Defense, Louis Johnson, under President Truman, was cutting and slashing the military right and left. It was down to the raw bone. Suddenly this war engulfed the United States and there were thoughts in the beginning that it would be fairly simple to end the war. I remember MacArthur was commander in chief of the forces at that time, and he made a famous statement--I think it was in late September or October--that this war will be over and everybody will be home by Christmas. Well, that was the fall of 1950, and action did not end until 1953, which had many names from the ``forgotten war'' to a ``police action,'' but it did cause over 50,000 casualties. The point I wish to make is I witnessed with my own eyes the Reserves being brought in. I was with a group that was called up on 30 days' notice. Most of them had been in World War II. I had brief service at the end of World War II in the Navy. We were all basically former World War II veterans and just beginning to reestablish ourselves. It was only an interval of about 4 years since most had been released then in 1946 and, whammo, in 30 days we were in it. At first I remember in the training detachments down in Quantico there was a decided feeling among the old regulars of the Marine Corps that we were second-class citizens, but once our folks hit the battlefield, whether it was on the ground or in the air--I was assigned to an air unit as a ground officer--Reserve pilots flew right along with the regular pilots, and one could not tell the difference. They pulled equal missions together, took equal risks. I do not know how the casualties bear out, but I know a lot--not a lot, but a number of our Reserve squadron lost their lives, wounded. So I say to the Senator, as I listened, I thought back of those days and how in the ensuing years that was the first time in the Korean War that we really involved the number of Reserves that were needed, and our regular forces then, not unlike now, had been pared down in numbers. As a consequence, today I believe 60 percent of the persons serving in Iraq are Reserves at this very moment. I use the term ``reserves'' to apply to the Guard as well. So they are full partners. Then, fast forwarding, I remember serving in the Pentagon during Vietnam, and we decided to have, under the leadership of an extraordinary Secretary of Defense, Melvin Laird, the concept of a total force; in other words, whether one is Guard, Reserve, or regular, they are a total force. The total force concept moved on through the years. I think the Senator is right on target. If the Senator will bear with us a little bit, we are trying to determine exactly how we are going to treat this amendment. At the moment I am very impressed with the Senator's objective. I ask forgiveness for taking the time of the Senate to dwell on what I actually saw years ago and have seen, as the Senator has, on our visits to Iraq, one cannot distinguish between the Guard and the Reserves. They are all amalgamated into the regulars. Actually, many Guard and Reserve units are functioning as units, somewhat augmented, I suppose, with some regular officers, and vice versa some of the regular units are augmented with the Reserve and Guard officers. But it certainly is a total force and a magnificent force we have serving today. The Senator is right, all of these trends with regard to personnel, they begin to--it is like the awakening of the dawn. The sun does not break through, and one begins to wonder what about this cloud cover, and there is some cloud cover associated with the recent statistics regarding the introduction of new Guard and Reserve persons. I will say I think the retention has been pretty good in many areas of our Guard and Reserves, but nevertheless we need an inducement. I think this amendment has the beginnings of something that is very important. The Senator is a valued member of our committee. The Senator fought hard for this one. Give us a little time to work it around.