John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I say to the distinguished Senator from Alaska that the Chair has ruled that the----

Mr. WARNER. If I could clarify what I am trying to do----

Mr. WARNER. The Chair is correct.

Mr. WARNER. Yes. I yield for a question.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that is the request of the Senator from Virginia. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. WARNER. I beg your pardon?

Mr. WARNER. If I might just make a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair. Our distinguished colleague from Connecticut has been waiting for a period of time. I wish to respect that, but I ask following his remarks if the Senator from Virginia could be recognized for the purposes of a colloquy with the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin.

Mr. WARNER. Did we understand that the Senator from Illinois wants another 15 minutes?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I could regain the floor?

Mr. WARNER. I urge the adoption of the amendment in hopes that the distinguished colleague from Connecticut, with two extraordinary veterans of military life, can sit down and work this out in a mutually satisfactory manner. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement, we have been recognized, the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Michigan, to conduct a colloquy?

Mr. WARNER. We yield for the parliamentary desire.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I note the presence on the floor of my distinguished colleague, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. During the course of yesterday, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee on appropriations, Mr. Stevens, and myself participated in a parliamentary situation, whereby the Senator from Virginia sent an amendment to the desk. It was actually filed. I asked it be called up and it was. At that time, there was an objection interposed by the Senator from Alaska, referring to the Congressional Record of today, at page S10967. We went through the parliamentary situation, whereby I desired to have the amendment considered. The Senator from Alaska objected. Whereupon, I raised the question of germaneness to the amendment, and it was referred to the Parliamentarian. I would like to read exactly what the Parliamentarian stated on this occasion. I stated: ``the Parliamentarians have advised,'' and I stress that word ``advised''--``the Parliamentarians have advised'' that in the Parliamentarians' opinion ``there is sufficient language in the House bill to permit Senator Warner to assert the defense of germaneness with respect to his amendment numbered 1955.'' I ask, at this moment in time, a parliamentary inquiry. Has the Senator from Virginia correctly stated what was put forth to the Senate through the Chair? And, if so, what is the nature of the vote that is now before the Senate?

Mr. WARNER. Would that be as requested by the Senator from Alaska?

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer. I thank the Parliamentarian. I took this action, frankly, on behalf of the men and women in the Armed Forces. Our Nation is engaged in war--a war on terror with two very major engagements, one in Afghanistan and the other of larger proportions in Iraq. We have men and women in far-flung posts all over the world, men and women on the high seas, men and women back here training, and the men and women of the Armed Forces and their families look to the Congress of the United States to provide for their needs. That is clearly set forth as our responsibility in the Constitution. The Committee on the Armed Services was established by this body for the purpose of examining the President's budget, examining a wide realm of other issues that come before us, and preparing each year a bill known as the authorization bill for a certain year--in this case it is 2006. Our committee did that and unanimously reported out favorably to the floor that bill. That bill was taken up by this body and debated for a series of days. Some 30 amendments by colleagues were accepted. They are part of the amendment that is now pending and is the subject of this vote this evening. There came a time when it was the judgment of the majority leader and the Democratic leader that this bill would be taken down to give a higher priority to appropriations bills. That is a leadership decision. Thereafter, Senator Levin and I worked with our leadership in an effort to get our bill back at a specific place on the calendar so that it could be considered by the Senate. It had been our hope that that opportunity would have been given to us prior to the appropriations bill. All of us who have been privileged to work on these bills through the years--this is the 27th year in which I have been privileged to work. The same number of years of my colleague--recognize the value of the authorization bill being passed prior to the enactment of the appropriations bill. Given that situation, realities are such that we were not able to get it up. We are now faced with the need to exercise every option under the rules to get our bill considered. Although it is an extraordinary procedure and it has only been done once in 1988, I think we at this juncture, given the indefinite time in which our bill could be taken up, and the short period in which, presumably, the Congress is going to remain in session, have to seize this opportunity at this time to have our bill considered in conjunction with the appropriations bill. For that purpose, I filed the amendment, amended it to take out section B which relates to the Department of Energy, and section C which relates to MILCON, leaving section A which is those provisions which dovetail and support many provisions of this appropriations bill which is pending here today. I have heard the distinguished managers of the appropriations bill time and time again in previous years, as in this year, explain the desirability of having the authorization bill acted upon prior to the appropriations bill. I readily acknowledge to the managers of the appropriations bill the essential requirement to get passed as quickly as possible--hopefully, before this recess--the requirements for the ongoing financial needs of the Department of Defense. They are critical. I have not put this on to that bill as a dilatory measure. And to expedite consideration of the authorization bill, I carefully selected a series of amendments, originally numbered 110 amendments, and filed them at the desk in two managers' amendments, the purpose of which was to say to our colleagues they are your amendments. Senator Levin and I have reconciled such differences as existed such that we both now agree--the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Virginia--that they are ready for enactment on our bill through the vehicle traditionally used of a managers' amendment requiring just one single vote, if necessary. We can perhaps incorporate them into the underlying bill--but one vote on these packages. Given the changes in circumstances of germaneness, it was necessary for the Senator from Virginia to prepare a third amendment, which I will now file with the clerk. It is permissible under the unanimous consent, and I send to the desk about 100 amendments, which, in the judgment of myself and others, are germane to the bill. Therefore, I send that to the desk.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at this point in time, parliamentary inquiry: Does not the standing unanimous consent allow a Senator to file an amendment in the second degree?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have to say in fairness that I have checked with the Parliamentarian each step of my procedure yesterday and today. I have checked, and it was the interpretation given to me, as frequently given to Members of this body by the Parliamentarians, that the unanimous consent did not prohibit, as the Chair just announced, the filing of second-degree amendments.

Mr. WARNER. Could the Chair repeat that a little louder, please?

Mr. WARNER. Fine. This third amendment I have filed is simply a consolidation drawing from the first amendment of 80-some amendments, and the second, I think, was 18 to 20. Only those amendments in this third filing are ones relative to part A. All amendments relative in the earlier packages--the first and the second I filed--basically were part A, but there were some relevant to parts B and C, so I removed those. Because if there is a challenge at the time I bring it up--assuming the Senate in its vote sustains the judgment of the Senator from Virginia and others that there is germaneness in our underlying amendment--then I seek to amend that with this third package which constitutes only amendments related to part A, such as if there is another challenge on germaneness I will not be burdened down by sections B and C. In no way does this third filing in any way try to restore parts B or C. To the contrary, it takes out all amendments which are related to B and C, so hopefully if I have a further challenge on germaneness, it can be sustained, that they are germane.

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the statement is correct. I would not use the word ``understanding.''

Mr. WARNER. The Senator is exercising his rights in a very courteous way throughout.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. We have worked these many years together and we have tried to work in the spirit of what is best, as our managers of the appropriations bill, for the men and women of the Armed Forces. I plead, give not just the managers a chance, but give the Senate, I say to our managers, the chance to show that they are not going to come up here with a whole lot of amendments to drag this appropriations bill down, trying to attach those amendments to our amendments. We have worked hard for weeks to compile this list of 100 amendments. We do not know of any others out there--there are some, but not massive numbers--that are going to come in and literally capsize this appropriations bill. Give it a chance. After a day or so here, if the leadership finds factually that the Senate is taking steps, and is within their right to try and put second degrees on, and that is an impediment to finishing the bill by Friday, I am sure we can sit down with the two leaders and work out a solution. I simply say, give us not just a chance but give the Senate as a body a chance to show responsibility to enact the annual authorization bill. Amendment No. 1977 Mr. President, I endorse strongly the McCain amendment. I have been a cosponsor from the beginning. I have looked into this situation. At one time when I was privileged to be Secretary of the Navy when the war in Vietnam came to an end, I dealt extensively with the prisoner issue and their families in that tragic era of our history. I have had some insight into this situation which enables me to give the strongest possible endorsement to this amendment by the Senator from Arizona, a very respected member of this Senate and a man with an extraordinary record in the armed services of the United States. The McCain amendment provides us with the opportunity to better ensure our Nation's military does not repeat the errors, faults and misdeeds we have seen occur at military detention facilities overseas as we fight this war on global terrorism. As General Abizaid told us last week this will be a long war against terrorists and our Armed Forces must have clear and understandable standards. The McCain amendment has two parts of equal vital importance, both critical. The first establishes clear rules for the conduct of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines involved in interrogation operations. It does not add new approaches or techniques, it merely takes Army doctrine which is our clearest guidance on conduct of interrogations and makes it our military standard as set forth in the Army Manual. Clearly the Constitution gives Congress a role to play in the creation of rules pertaining to the treatment of detainees. Article 1, section 8 provides that the Congress shall have power to make rules concerning captures on land and water, and also to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. Rules for treatment and interrogation of detainees clearly falls within this authority given to Congress by the Constitution. The second part of the McCain amendment speaks to American values. It tells our soldiers, sailors, airman, and marines, our allies, and the rest of the world that the cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment are not part of the American character. Our standards against cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment are deeply rooted in our Bill of Rights. Ultimately it is our uniquely American character that must be embedded in our American way or war.

Mr. WARNER. Parliamentary inquiry: Did not the Senator from Virginia on Monday file an amendment in the nature of a managers' amendment with 60 amendments and they have been at the desk since that period of time?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that is correct. The third filing consists of amendments only relative to part A in the hopes--if we have another challenge at the time we try to amend it. So now the Senate is faced with a tough call on this vote. I fully appreciate for my colleagues the difficulty of trying to evaluate how Members should vote. In all fairness, this Nation is at war. The men and women of the Armed Forces are watching ever so carefully what the Congress is doing. I am fearful if we do not avail ourselves of this opportunity to put our bill on--which has been done once before--and hopefully add those amendments which are very important to many Senators, that this could be misconstrued not only at home, not only abroad by the men and women of the Armed Forces, but indeed there could be some puzzlement throughout the world as to where is the Congress in supporting the men and women of the Armed Forces. This is a critical time. We must do it. I say to my good friend, it is not an effort in any way to undermine the Senator's efforts to get this appropriations bill through. By the incorporation of these 100 amendments, together with the 30-some amendments which have already been adopted by the Senate the previous time we had this bill on the floor, there will not be forthcoming a massive number of amendments which in the end could result in a further drawing out of the time needed to have this body exercise its judgment on the appropriations bill. I plead with my colleagues to have an understanding of the imperative nature to act upon this bill promptly. It underlies much of what the Senator is trying to do in the appropriations bill. It is needed authorization language. I see my colleague who has joined me in this, if the Senator wishes to go ahead. Does the Senator have a question?

Mr. WARNER. That is what we have, a colloquy.