Mark Warner

My predicate is that criminal penalties deserve the most exhaustive consideration by the legislature, be it State or Federal. This new standard that my colleague from Vermont has raised has a legislative as well as a judicial history in…

Oh, no, I cannot buy off on that. There is one portion of the amendment of the Senator from Vermont which is a brandnew concept being introduced of standards for criminality, and I cannot accept that.

They are both criminal, except mine uses the underlying statutes and legislation adopted into law after the normal process through the Senate.

I am reading the statute. That is what it says here: Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, any scheme or artifice with the intent to defraud the United States-- And the contract is going to set the profit margins.

This framework of laws embraces enough provisions that they could establish a case of fraud using the example the Senator from Vermont stated because the contract will have provisions in it with regard to the amount of profit, and there…

Section 1031 of title 18, ``Major fraud against the United States'': Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, any scheme or artifice with the intent to defraud the United States-- That is fairly broad.

I am reading from the Federal Criminal Code, 2004 edition. I imagine it supersedes the 2003 edition. The point is that the statute, 1001, originated on June 25, 1948. This shows the last amendment to be October 11, 1996. Very clearly, I…

Adoption of the amendment by the Senator from Virginia would be the first time the jurisdiction of these two titles is extended beyond the shores. Criminal convictions could be brought against defendants, if my amendment is adopted.

My colleague has challenged me on the underlying statute that I include in my amendment. I draw his attention to the title 18, section 1001. That statute was put on in 1948. Now, the second statute I utilize is 1031, which was adopted in…

I will reply to that. My criminal penalty is under existing statutes, which were carefully debated by the Congress and have been on the lawbooks for a number of years. I will soon address the Senate as to how long these statutes have been…

I am just saying I think the Congress should deliberate very carefully a criminal penalty of up to 20 years for these thousands upon thousands of companies that are currently engaged. Carefully, first go through a series of hearings, and…

I concur with that very simply. So how best to do it, I think, is as follows. My amendment would strike the language of the Leahy amendment and substitute language which would make it explicitly extraterritorial, which means we can reach…

I simply say, this is not a vote or debate on a partisan issue. We both feel this issue has to be corrected. I simply plead for reasonable time within which to do it, hopefully, to give greater security to our fighting men and women.

I say to my colleague, there are basically young enlisted men with no field experience, in no way a comparison to the seasoned cadre of contractors now performing this invaluable service.

The simple reply is, you can't take an individual, no matter how many degrees they might have, in 90 days, or less, and train them to be an interrogator. Most of the contractors now performing this work are former U.S. military…

They are part of the system--40 interrogators of which 20 are contractors. In 90 days, 50 percent roughly of the operation in Guantanamo ceases to function. I will tell you that practically there is no way in the world the military can go…

I understand that. That is the very point I wish to make. You give us a year in which to cure that problem, but then you go to the analysts and interrogators, 60 analysts of which 35 are contractors.

First, I would like to lay the predicate. The Senator has brought forth an important concept. He asked for a study. I am prepared to support the study. But I urge my colleague, as I did the other day on another part of the amendment--and…

But I am looking at the very practical effect--that under this amendment when the President's signature goes on the bill, in 90 days we are out of business. Let me point out a few statistics. Take Guantanamo Bay: Right now we have 140…

That cripples America's intelligence system in the middle of a war in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and our operations in Guantanamo. How can the Senate suddenly withdraw our U.S. military interrogation base in the middle of a war in 90 days…

Yes, I believe it is prudent that the Commission fully utilize the expertise that the Board on Science Technology and Economic Policy has developed in evaluating the trends of globalization and outsourcing on the industries you have just…

This Commission will examine our national technology and industrial base as it pertains to the national security of the United States. The Commission will make important recommendations to ensure we maintain our technological leadership in…

In no way do I indicate it would gum up the bill. I am just trying to address the procedure so colleagues on the other side are given the opportunity to come to the Senate. I am exploring that now. It is a very serious amendment, and it…

I am not sure this is drawn in such a way as to continue what I deem essential practice with regard to naval ships. I would have to study it considerably to determine how it might impede ground operations.

I again draw my colleague to paragraph B, United States-led combat missions that require routine engagement in direct combat, that implies that the uniformed people are in direct combat and the presence in a supporting role of contractors…