Samuel Nunn

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, many of my colleagues may remember an Air Force lieutenant colonel named Dan Kennedy who served in an outstanding fashion a number of years ago in the Senate Liaison Office. Some of us may also recall that Dan had a brother, Jack, who was an Air Force pilot who lost his life in the war in Southeast Asia. Jack's remains returned to the United States in June of this year ending years of uncertainty and frustration for his family and loved ones. I think it is most appropriate that we pause for a moment to remember Capt. Jack Kennedy's sacrifice. Some 25 years ago this August, Capt. Jack Kennedy was lost while flying a reconnaissance mission over South Vietnam. Jack was a forward air controller with the 20th Tactical Air Support Squadron based in Chu Lai in support of the 23d Infantry Division. On August 16, 1971, he failed to check in during normal radio communications checks. Unfortunately, there were no radio calls from his aircraft and there were no eye witnesses. There were, however, reports of a North Vietnamese regiment operating in the area over which Jack was flying that day. Although there was no crash site found, Jack was listed as missing in action, a status he carried until the Air Force moved to change it to presumed killed in action in July 1978. In 1992, after several visits and discussions with Vietnamese villagers, a joint United States/Vietnamese team identified a possible crash site. At that time, no conclusive evidence was available to specifically identify the site as the one where Jack Kennedy's plane had crashed. In 1993, several bone fragments, reportedly from the pilot of that aircraft, were provided by villagers. Recent advances in medical science fostered the development techniques that permit the comparison of DNA extracted from bone fragments with DNA from another family member for the purposes of identification. In May of this year, the Air Force advised Jack's family that the bone fragments recovered at the crash site in 1992 had been positively identified as being Jack's. Capt. Jack Kennedy's remains arrived at Travis Air Force Base in California in late June, and will be flown to Washington, DC, on August 1. A funeral is scheduled for August 2 at 11 a.m. in the Old Post Chapel on Fort Myers followed by an internment with full military honors and flyover at Arlington National Cemetery. Throughout this long ordeal, Jack's family has persevered. Jack's father, Daniel Kennedy, Sr., died in 1986--10 years before his son's remains would be returned to the country he loved so much. Jack's brother, Dan, whom I mentioned earlier, his wife Tamara, and their six children reside in Dumfries, VA. Jack's mother, Mrs. Sally Kennedy, lives in Lake Ridge, VA. Today, I would like to offer her our most sincere appreciation for the sacrifice her son Jack made in the service of his country, and for the steadfast faith with which she has endured the tremendous sense of loss, the unparalleled uncertainty and the incomprehensible frustration that, in some small measure, will be lessened in the very near future.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, do we need the yeas and nays on the amendment? I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. NUNN. I would like to have a rollcall vote, if that is satisfactory with the floor managers, but I will do it at whatever time is convenient.

Mr. NUNN. Just reserving the right to object, whatever the Senator wants to do on a rollcall vote will be fine. I would like to have a rollcall vote but I will consult with him on that. But in terms of the order, if the Senator prefers to order this at some later time and stack it with some other amendment if we do have a rollcall, that is fine with the authors.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, as I understand it, there is no amendment pending at this point.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, if it is satisfactory with the Senator from Alaska, the chairman of the committee and manager of the bill, I will present an amendment at this time, but I would like to make sure it is satisfactory to him.

Mr. NUNN. I thank the Senator from Alaska. Mr. President, this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Lugar, Senator Domenici, Senator Warner, Senator Harkin, and others, is filed at the desk as amendment No. 4453, so I call up the amendment.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that minority staff members on the Armed Services Committee and two congressional fellows-- and I send a list to the desk--be accorded privileges of the floor during the Senate's consideration of votes relating to the Department of Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, the amendment that is now the pending business provides funding for Defense Department activities authorized by the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act which was accepted by a 96-to-0 vote 2 weeks ago in this Chamber. That program deals with one of the most urgent national security problems America faces today, and this amendment funds the DOD part of that authorization. We have worked very carefully and constructively with the appropriations staff, our friends from Alaska and Hawaii, Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye. They have both been very strong supporters of this overall initiative, and they have been very cooperative in working with us. We did not have the authorization bill drafted in time to get that to the appropriators for their consideration in their normal markup activities. Therefore, we have this amendment in the Chamber today. This amendment, as I have said, deals with one of the most urgent national security problems facing America today. I have just come from a press conference with Bob Ellsworth and General Goodpaster and others, Dr. Rita Hauser, where they have spent a number of months with a very distinguished panel, including the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain; the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham; Congressman Pat Roberts; Brent Scowcroft; and others. That report, which sets forth America's vital interests and distinguishes those vital interests from extremely important interests and distinguishes both of those categories from less important interests, makes an enormous contribution to the dialog we should have in this country about what is truly in the vital interests of America. By the term ``vital,'' I mean interests that are so strong and have so much effect on the American people, their security and their well- being that we are willing to fight if necessary and send our young men and women to war if necessary to protect those interests. It is very clear in reading that report that one of the top vital interests of the United States is to prevent this country from being the victim of attacks with weapons of mass destruction from terrorist groups and, in order to do that, to do everything we can possibly do to get ready for that and to deter it and prevent it by stopping these weapons at the source before they get to this country and, if they do get here, God forbid, doing something about it and being prepared to deal with it. This threat of attack on American cities and towns by terrorists, malcontents, or representatives of hostile powers using radiological, chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, in my view, is a top and vital national security interest of this country. This threat is very different from the threat of nuclear annihilation with which our Nation and the world dealt in the cold war after World War II. During the cold war, both we and the Soviet Union recognized that either side could destroy the other within a matter of hours but only at the price of its own destruction. Today, this kind of cataclysmic threat is greatly reduced, but tragically the end of the cold war has not brought peace and stability. As a matter of fact, I think we can describe the period of the cold war as being one where we had very high risks because of the likelihood of escalation, and escalation would mean the use of weapons of mass destruction when two superpowers confront each other all over the globe. But during that period of high risk we also had high stability because both superpowers understood the consequence of getting into a nuclear war and therefore did everything they could to prevent it, including controlling clients and allies so that we would not have wars that could escalate involving the two superpowers. We have moved into another era now. We are in a period of much lower risk, but because we do not have those superpowers contending and constraining, we are in a period of lower stability, lower risk but lower stability. Some of those States that we call rogue nations, fanatic groups, small disaffected groups, and subnational factions or movements that hold various grievances against the U.S. Government have increasing access to and knowledge about the construction of weapons of mass destruction. Individuals and groups are not likely to be deterred from using weapons of mass destruction by the classical threat of overwhelming retaliation. Most of them do not have a return address so we do not know where they are in many cases, let alone have a real fix on how to deter them. These groups are not deterred by the threat of a nuclear counterstrike, and a national missile defense system, no matter how capable, is irrelevant to them. These subnational groups and terrorist groups are the primary focus of our threat today. Mr. President, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations held a series of hearings over the last year, the subcommittee chaired by Senator Roth. I have chaired it in the past and am now the ranking Democrat member on it. We had hearings, a whole series of hearings over the last year. Senator Lugar has had hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee, and the hearings have been about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. At those hearings, we heard from representatives of the intelligence and law enforcement communities, the Defense Department, private industry, State and local governments, academia and foreign officials. These witnesses described the threat that we cannot ignore and which we are, without any doubt, unprepared to handle. CIA Director John Deutch, for one, candidly observed, ``We have been lucky so far.'' The release of deadly sarin gas in the Tokyo subway was a warning bell for America. Prior to those attacks in Japan, the sect that carried out those attacks was unknown to United States intelligence and poorly monitored by Japanese authorities. We received a louder warning bell in the World Trade Center bombing in New York. It was here in the United States, not half a world away. The trial judge at the sentencing of those responsible for the New York Trade Center bombing pointed out that the killers in that case had access to chemicals to make lethal cyanide gas. According to this trial judge, they probably put those chemicals into that bomb that exploded. Fortunately, the chemicals appeared to have been vaporized by the force of the blast. Otherwise, the smoke and fumes that were drawn into and up through the tower in New York would have been far, far more lethal. So according to this opinion by the trial judge, Mr. President, we have already had a major chemical attempt in this country. We had a third warning bell in the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. This showed yet again the ease of access to simple, widely available commercial products that, when combined, can provide powerful explosives. This kind of knowledge can also give us the threat of chemical weapons. This knowledge and much more is available over the Internet today to millions and millions of people. Our purpose here today is not to frighten anyone, certainly not to frighten the American people. It is to persuade the Congress that we face a new and a very severe national security threat for which American Government at all levels--State, local and Federal--are at this stage woefully and inadequately prepared. We must begin now, today, to prepare for what surely threatens us already. To do this effectively we must take the expertise that has been built up over the years in both the Department of Defense and Department of Energy and make it available to Federal, State and local emergency preparedness and emergency response teams. There is much to do to prepare our State and local governments for this threat. Doing it will require leadership from the people who know about it and who have expertise in it, that is the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy. There is simply no other practical source. In the authorization bill we make it clear we hope to move this function over a period of time to the Federal Emergency Management Agency or other appropriate agencies, but today we have no choice. If we are going to deal with this problem, it has to be dealt with by people who have the training and equipment and know-how and expertise, and that is the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense. The time to do this is now, not after we suffer a great tragedy. Like many of my colleagues, I believe there is a high likelihood that a chemical or biological incident will take place on American soil in the next several years. I hope and pray that does not happen. But we do not want to be in a posture of demanding to know why were we not prepared. This training and equipment function is the heart of the act, but it is not the whole act. Other parts are designed to beef up our capability to detect and interdict weapons of mass destruction and their components before they reach the United States. In addition, the authorization act allocates some funds for expansion and continuation of the original Nunn-Lugar concept through very important high-priority programs run both by the Department of Energy and by the Department of Defense. Finally, the act establishes a coordinator in the office of the President of the United States, to address serious deficiencies in the coordination of activities across the many Federal, State and local agencies who have some responsibility for portions of the overall program. The amendment I propose today, with my colleague and partner, Senator Lugar, and Senator Domenici, provides funds for the portions of this act that are conducted by the Department of Defense. It is certainly my hope the Department of Energy funding will be in the appropriate appropriation bill when it comes forward. Specifically, these activities include the training of local first responders on dealing with a chemical or biological terrorist incident; providing assistance to the U.S. Customs Service and customs services in the former Soviet Union, Baltics, and Eastern Europe in interdicting such materials; stepping up research and development efforts--and this is enormously important--in developing technologies that can detect chemical and biological weapons and materials; and bolstering programs in the original Nunn-Lugar program that are designed to stop these materials at their source, which is by far the best way and most efficient way and the safest way to protect our own country and prevent the use of such materials here in America. Mr. President, when I use the term ``first providers,'' I am talking primarily about firemen, policemen and health officials who would rush to the scene and, in virtually every exercise we have had, the second tier fatalities have come in these categories, people who rush to the scene to help the victims and end up being victims themselves because they are not equipped or trained to deal with this kind of threat. This amendment is fully offset in achievable savings from various Department of Defense accounts. The total here is $150 million, which is completely offset so this does not increase the bill in terms of total amount. I am convinced we must address this issue before the unthinkable happens in this country. Can we afford to dismiss the possibility that another World Trade Center or Oklahoma City bombing could involve chemicals, biological weapons, or radioactive materials? If we do ignore this threat, we do so at our own great peril. The trends are clear. More nations and groups are exploiting the increased availability of information, technology and materials to acquire mass destruction or mass terror capabilities. There is no reason to believe that they are not willing to use them. I have heard too many experts, whose opinions and credentials I respect who have vast experience in this area, tell me it is not a question of if, but only of when. I believe this legislation, while only a beginning, responds to a very urgent national security concern of our Nation and I believe it is a strong beginning. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I see my colleague and friend on the floor, the Senator from Indiana, so I yield the floor.

Mr. NUNN. I would say, we can enter into a time agreement very easily. I think we could also simply make a couple of more speeches and have a vote or order a vote and stack the vote, whenever the Senator from Alaska would like to do so.

Mr. NUNN. I would like to consult and talk with the Senator from Indiana on that, but I appreciate the Senator's expression.

Mr. NUNN. I have concluded my remarks. I think the Senator from Indiana indicates that will be acceptable to him.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, on July 10, 1996 the Senate confirmed the nomination of Andrew S. Effron to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. I want to take a few moments today to speak about this fine individual, who as many in the Senate know, has served on the staff of the Committee on Armed Services since 1987. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Andy's complete and impressive biography be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, Andy comes from a family with a strong tradition of public and community service. His parents, Marshall and Marion Effron, have been deeply involved in political, civic, and charitable organizations in Andy's hometown of Poughkeepsie, NY. Andy's wife, Barbara, has held numerous offices in PTA and civic associations in Arlington and Fairfax Counties. Their children are continuing the tradition. Robin, a rising senior at W.T. Woodson High School, is on the student council and serves as an officer for the chorus, Model U.N., and Tri-M arts society. Michael, who will be entering seventh grade next year, was vice president of the Student Council at Canterbury Woods Elementary School, and he is also an All-Star Little Leaguer. Andy's confirmation hearing on July 9 was a bittersweet day for me and, I am sure, for all the members of the committee. It was sweet because we were so pleased that someone whom we have known and worked with for so long and whom we have admired and respected for his extraordinary ability and expertise had been nominated by the President to be a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. It was bitter, though, because the committee will soon be losing one of the finest talents the committee has ever had the good fortune of having on its staff. The Armed Services Committee first became familiar with Andy Effron in 1986 when he was in the Office of the General Counsel of the Department of Defense and was one of three individuals from the Department who worked with us during the Senate-House conference on the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act. We were so impressed with Andy's expertise that we asked him to join the staff the following year and he has continuously confirmed our initial judgment ever since. Andy has not just confirmed our initial judgment, he has consistently demonstrated an amazing capacity for hard work, an ability to perform at the highest level, and a willingness to tackle and master any issue of importance to the committee. As a matter of fact, Andy has been involved in so many important matters--important to the committee, to the Department of Defense, and to our national security--that I won't even attempt to enumerate them because the list would fill many pages of the Record. Suffice it to say, that Andy Effron epitomizes the best in what a professional staff member should be. He is a consummate professional whose hallmarks of service have been his loyalty and his dedication. This Senator, and indeed the entire Senate, have been the fortunate beneficiaries of Andy's good judgment and wise counsel. It was a wonderful tribute to Andy that his nomination, following close scrutiny, received the unanimous bipartisan support that it did. Those of us who have known and worked with Andy for so many years, of course, were not surprised. Mr. President, I commend the President for nominating Andy Effron to this very important position. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Services will be gaining an extraordinary legal talent in the very near future. While the Senate is losing one of the very best to have ever served, gratefully Andy Effron will continue to serve the U.S. Armed Forces and the Nation. I am proud of Andy Effron and grateful to him for all the many sacrifices he has made in the course of his long service to the committee. I wish Andy and his family much continued happiness. Exhibit 1 Biography of Andrew S. Effron Andrew S. Effron serves on the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee as Minority Counsel. He previously has served as the Committee's General Counsel (1988-95) and Counsel (1987-88). Prior to joining the Committee, he served as an attorney- adviser in the Department of Defense Office of General Counsel (1977-87); as Trial Counsel, Chief of Military Justice, and Defense Counsel in the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, Fort McClellan, Alabama (1976-77); and as a legislative aide to the late Representative William A. Steiger (1970-76; 2 years full-time, the balance between school semesters). Mr. Effron was born September 18, 1948 in Stamford, Connecticut, and raised in Poughkeepsie, NY, where he graduated from Poughkeepsie High School (1966). He is a graduate of Harvard College (1970, B.A., magna cum laude), where he was Editor in Chief of the Harvard Political Review; Harvard Law School (1975, J.D. cum laude), where he was Executive Editor of the Harvard Civil Rights Civil Liberties Law Review; and the Judge Advocate General's School, U.S. Army (Basic Course Distinguished Graduate, 1976; Graduate Course, by correspondence, 1984). Mr. Effron's publications include: ``Supreme Court--1990 Term, Part I,'' Army Lawyer, Mar. 1991, at 76 (with Francis A. Gilligan and Stephen D. Smith); ``Supreme Court Review of Decisions by the Court of Military Appeals: The Legislative Background,'' Army Lawyer, Jan. 1985, at 59; ``Post-Trial Submissions to the Convening Authority Under the Military Justice Act of 1983,'' Army Lawyer, July 1984, at 59; ``Military Participation in United States Law Enforcement Activities Overseas: The Extraterritorial Effect of the Posse Comitatus Act,'' 54 St. John's L. Rev. 1 (1979) (with Deanne C. Siemer); ``Punishment of Enlisted Personnel Outside the UCMJ: A Statutory and Equal Protection Analysis of Military Discharge Certificates,'' 9 Harv. CR-CL L. Rev. 227 (1974). Mr. Effron's awards include the Army Meritorious Service Medal (1977); the Defense Meritorious Service Medal (1979); and the Department of Defense Distinguished Civilian Service Medal (1987). Mr. Effron and his wife, Barbara, live in Annandale, Virginia. They have a daughter, Robin, and a son, Michael.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, several months ago, I participated in a ceremony at the Pentagon to open an exhibit honoring the office of the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This was a significant moment in recognizing the remarkable success of the Goldwater--Nichols legislation, which reorganized the Department of Defense. However, this moment would not have been possible without the help of the pentagon's Director of Administration and Management, David O. (Doc) Cooke. Today, I would like to extend my personal appreciation to Doc Cooke for his help in establishing this exhibit but primarily I want to thank him for his long and continuing career in public service. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article on Doc Cooke that was published in Government Executive be reprinted in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, Doc Cooke's association with our Nation's armed services began in World War II, when he served as an officer aboard the battleship U.S.S. Pennsylvania. In 1947, he became a civilian employee with the Navy in Washington, DC. He completed his law degree from George Washington University in 1950 and, shortly thereafter, was recalled to active duty during the Korean war as an instructor at the School of Naval Justice. Since that time, Doc Cooke has rendered outstanding service to 14 different Secretaries of Defense. In 1958, he became a member of a task force on Department of Defense reorganization that was led by Secretary of Defense, Neil McElroy. Under Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, he served on a briefing team that advised the Secretary on issues related to organization and management. In his dual role as the Director of Administration and Management and Director of Washington Headquarters Services, Doc Cooke has oversight responsibilities for more than 1,800 employees throughout an impressive array of offices at the Pentagon, including the Directorate for Organizational and Management Planning, Defense Privacy Office, OSD Historical Office, Quality Management Office, Directorate for Budget and Finance, Directorate for Real Estate and Facilities, Directorate for Correspondence and Directives, Directorate for Personnel and Security, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, Directorate for Federal Voting Assistance Program, and the Office of General Counsel. The high level of energy and competence that Doc Cooke brings to his job has earned him the title of ``Mayor of the Pentagon'' from his friends and colleagues. Doc Cooke has always recognized that people are the driving force behind any organization's successes and shortcomings. His determination to never lose sight of the human factor in dealing with organizational and administrative issues has been a key contributing factor to the success that he has enjoyed throughout his career. Doc's ability and success in communicating with others is evident not only in his profession, but also in his involvement in community service. In 1992, he helped launch a program in Washington, DC, to encourage high school students to pursue careers in public service. This led to the establishment of a Public Service Academy. The Public Service Academy works closely with Federal agencies in planning the school's curriculum, establishing internship opportunities for students, and providing counseling for both students and their families. Last year there were 28 seniors at the Academy. Of that total, 25 were accepted into college and 3 found employment. This type of success is a shining example of the integrity and compassion with which Doc Cooke approaches both his profession and his community. Last year, Doc Cooke received the Government Executive Leadership Award from the National Capital Area Chapter of the American Society for Public Administration. This award was given in recognition of his strong leadership throughout his outstanding career in the Federal Government. Mr. President, I ask that the Senate join me in thanking Doc Cooke for his continuing service to our Nation. I hope that he will continue to serve for many years to come. We wish him, his wife, Marion, and his entire family every success for the future. Exhibit 1 [From the Government Executive, September 1995] Mayor of the Pentagon (By A.L. Singleton) David O. Cooke, this year's winner of Government Executive's annual award for leadership during a career in federal service, may have a tough time deciding where to display his plaque. After 37 years in Defense Department management, Cooke has a Pentagon office that is crammed full of trophies and medallions praising his dedication to public service, executive development and good government. Awards compete for wall space with photographs of Cooke and a variety of associates from pals to presidents. There's a shot of Cooke posing with radio/television personality Willard Scott, each man covering his bald pate with a silly wig. There's a picture of Cooke with President Clinton at the White House. But perhaps the photograph that best represents Cooke's career shows him seated and grinning broadly in front of 9 of the 14 Secretaries of Defense with whom he has worked. Cooke is director of administration and management and director of Washington Headquarters Services for DoD. This means, among other things, he is in charge of the operation, maintenance and protection of the Pentagon Reservation, which spans 280 acres on the Virginia side of the Potomac River and includes not only the Pentagon and its power plant but also the Navy Annex and numerous other DoD buildings in the National Capital Region. He oversees some 1,800 employees, controls 20,000 parking spaces, runs a quality-management unit and directs organizational and management planning for the Department of Defense. Cooke is often called ``the mayor of the Pentagon''--a nickname that reflects the power his office wields over day- to-day life in the Defense Department's huge headquarters operations. Beyond the mundane tasks of ensuring adequate cooling and equitable parking, Cooke's job requires a deep understanding of the theory and practice of management in one of the world's most complex enterprises. Yet most people, from the workers who clean his office all the way up to the Secretary of Defense, call him ``Doc.'' A man who doesn't take his many impressive titles too seriously, Cooke enjoys the familiarity. from teaching to task forces The Doc Cooke story began 74 years ago in Buffalo, N.Y. His parents were schoolteachers and that was what he also set out to be, receiving his bachelor's and master's degrees from the State University of New York. World War II took him out of the classroom and onto the decks of a battleship, the USS Pennsylvania, where he served as an officer throughout the war. Afterward, he returned to Buffalo to teach high school. Then, in 1947, three events changed his life. He entered law school, met and married fellow law student Marion McDonald and accepted an offer to become a civilian employee of the Navy in Washington, D.C. Once settled in the capital, he resumed law studies at night and received an LL.B. from The George Washington University in 1950. When the Korean War began, Cooke was recalled to active duty, this time as an instructor at the School of Naval Justice. Thereafter followed a stint as a maritime lawyer for the Navy in New York. In 1957, he was reassigned to the Judge Advocate General's Washington staff and a year later joined a task force on DOD reorganization spearheaded by Secretary Neil McElroy. This was the start of a highly specialized career in military organization and management that would lead him to the top ranks of federal civil service. ``I never effectively got back to the Navy,'' Cooke recalls, even though he remained on active duty for nine more years. One of Cooke's most vividly remembered assignments of those early years was to Robert McNamara's briefing team on organizational and management issues, which the new Secretary formed in 1961. McNamara intended to institute sweeping changes in Defense organization, and he wanted a small group to advise him. Led by Solis Horowitz, a Harvard lawyer who eventually became DOD's assistant secretary for administration, the group consisted of Cooke, representing the Navy, Army officer John Cushman and Air Force officer Abbott Greenleaf. Cushman and Greenleaf ``both retired as three-star generals,'' Cooke observes, ``so two out of the three became eminently successful, and I was the guy who wasn't.'' The Cooke School of Management Such self-deprecating wit is classic Cooke. ``He might make fun of himself, but not someone else,'' says DOD historian Alfred Goldberg. ``He has a good sense of humor and uses it in dealing effectively with people.'' Rossyln Kleeman, a distinguished executive-in-residence at the George Washington University's School of Business and Public Management who has served alongside Cooke in several public-employee organizations, agrees. ``I've listened to a lot of Doc's speeches,'' she says, ``and after an opening joke or two, he will invariably have his audiences in stitches.'' Cooke readily admits to using humor as a management tool. One of the keys to success, he believes, is ``taking your job, but not yourself, very seriously.'' Another, Cooke says, is a managerial style based on people. ``You can think about an organization in terms of its wiring diagram,'' Cooke explains, ``or its skeletal structure or the task skills you need to make it function the way you want. Or you can think in terms of the people involved. And to loosely paraphrase the apostle Paul, the greatest of these is people. ``When I get complaints, and I get a lot of them, from managers who say that people who work for them aren't doing what they're supposed to be doing, I always ask: `Have you told these people? Have you explained to them what you expect?' Very often I find they haven't gotten the guidance and direction they should have gotten. ``People constitute our most important resource,'' Cooke concludes, ``and so often, we treat them like dirt.'' Cooke practices what he preaches, say three senior executives who have worked at the heart of his 11-member Pentagon management team. Doc ``is very good at getting along with people, no matter who they are,'' says Arthur H. Ehlers, who recently retired from his post as director of organizational and management planning in Cooke's office after 25 years. Cooke has always maintained good relationships with members of Congress and with leaders in the executive branch, says Walter Freeman, another longtime top aide who is director of real estate and facilities for DoD, ``and it's not because he treats them differently from anyone else.'' Leon Kniaz, another key assistant who recently retired after a decade as director of personnel and security, elaborates. Cooke, he says, ``has always had an open-door policy and listens well to people. There isn't anybody who walks into that office and talks with Doc who doesn't think that he or she has become a personal friend . . . [Cooke] is people-oriented, and I think that comes through.'' Yet Cooke is no pushover. ``He doesn't just tell people what they want to hear,'' says Kniaz. ``He knows how to say no, and I've heard him do so in meetings where participants were expecting him to say yes.'' And when Cooke is fighting for a cause in which he believes, he fights hard, his associates agree. Perhaps nowhere in his career is this more evident than in the stubborn campaign he waged to launch the current renovation of the Pentagon. A Bureaucratic Coup Cracks in the walls, corroded pipes and frequently overloaded electrical circuits attest to 50 years of neglect in the upkeep of the Pentagon by the General Services Administration, the agency charged with maintaining and leasing most federal buildings. (See ``Operation Renovate,'' February.) ``For years,'' says Freeman, who joined Cooke as a tenant of the Pentagon in 1983, ``Doc tried to get GSA to renovate. But it was a very expensive job, and DoD was paying big rent to GSA and was sort of cash cow. So GSA was reluctant.'' Although the ``rent'' DoD paid GSA to look after the Pentagon injected hundreds of millions of dollars into the Federal Buildings Fund each year, GSA would not finance the sweeping renovations needed. Cooke saw that the only way out of the dispute was to stage a coup. ``Doc went to Congress and asked that the ownership of the Pentagon be transferred to DoD,'' recalls Freeman, ``so we would be, in effect, our own landlord and could do the job ourselves. He set up what became known as a `Horror Board,' and took it with him every time he would go up on the Hill to testify.'' The Horror Board was a flat panel to which Doc affixed examples of Pentagon decay. ``There would be pieces of rusting pipe, damaged wiring, pieces of asbestos and all sorts of things that showed the building was falling apart,'' Freeman says. ``New exhibits would appear periodically, and Doc would point to these things and say: `Just look at this. See how bad conditions are.' Finally Congress agreed, and one Member said, `All right, Doc, but you aren't bringing that thing up here again, are you?' '' Now, Freeman points out, the Pentagon Reservation is owned by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and an orderly, 12-year renovation project is under way. ``I can't think of anyone else who could have, or would have, done this,'' Freeman says. ``There's even a special Pentagon Renovation Revolving Fund established to pay for the project.'' Estimates put the cost of the Pentagon overhaul at $1.2 billion. after hours Somewhere in between saving the Pentagon's buildings and planning the never-ending reorganizations of Defense management structures, Cooke has found time to be an active member of good-government groups and a leader of community service projects. He also has played prominent roles in government-wide initiatives. He was, for example, a leader in the President's Council on Management Improvement (PCMI) while that group was active, and he currently chairs the Combined Federal Campaign's Washington-area coordinating committee. For years he's been a supporter of the Public Employee Roundtable-- contributing a key staffer through an Intergovernmental Personnel Act assignment--and he often reflects with pride on the Roundtable's success in spreading the annual celebration of Public Service Recognition Week to dozens of communities. Today, if asked, he'll acknowledge with a chuckle the little- known fact that his office provides a good share of the funding for Vice President Gore's National Performance Review. Cooke has been a leader in two professional groups in the field of public administration--the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) and the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA). Sometimes, with Cooke's encouragement, these groups combine in support of a single project. This was the case with a 1992 initiative to reach out to students at Anacostia High School in one of Washington's poorest areas. The idea was to set up a Public Service Academy, with the goals of sparking students' interest in public service careers--and in their academic work. NAPA the National Capital Area Chapter of ASPA and the PCMI were among those who offered early support. ``I'm very pleased with that venture,'' Cooke says, beaming. ``There's nothing else like it in the area.'' Federal agencies lend three managers to the Academy each year to work with the faculty in establishing curriculum, arranging visits to and internships at government offices, coordinating special events and offering counseling to students and their families. While Anacostia High has a graduation rate of only 55 percent, 90 percent of the Academy's students graduate. Of the 28 seniors who matriculated from the Academy this June, 25 were accepted by colleges, and 3 found jobs. ``I think that's pretty good, by just about any standards,'' says Cooke. Cooke also works to secure further education for government workers. Anita Alpern, a distinguished adjunct professor at American University's School of Public Affairs, notes that Cooke has been a strong supporter of the Federal Executive Institute and of American University's Key Executive Program, a master's program in public administration for government employees. ``And,'' she says, ``he does all this as a firm believer that education should not stop after you've got a job, it should continue so you can do that job better.'' Cooke explains the volume of his extra curricular commitments: ``I don't think you can do the best job if you just put in your 40 hours and go home. I know that I can do better here in my office because of the extra time I spend networking and learning from others outside my office.'' They Can Keep the Gold Watch For now, Cooke has no plans to retire, which is good news for his friends at the Pentagon. ``I don't know anyone who would not shudder at the thought of Doc retiring,'' says Freeman. ``And why should he? He's doing what's fun for him and good for the country. Why should he turn to something that's not so interesting?'' Federal management is still Cooke's passion. ``There are not many higher callings,'' he says. He's passed this belief onto his three children, all of whom have federal careers. Cooke's response to public cynicism about government is to say that, ``on balance, our [governing] system has worked well. There have been enormous innovations, especially at state and local levels. We do face serious problems in our society today, but many of them have little to do with government per se.'' Cooke maintains an external optimism. Citing, as he often does, classic philosophical literature, Cooke borrows from Voltaire as he says: ``This is the best of all possible worlds because it is the only possible world. We just have to keep working on it.''

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I am puzzled concerning the objections to the use of Military-to-Military Contacts Program funds for international military education and training [IMET]. The Armed Services Committee is told each year by the commanders in chief of the combatant commands that IMET is the United States' most cost effective program in terms of fostering friendly relations with the foreign militaries. The combatant commanders routinely point out that foreign military officers who have received IMET training come to appreciate American values and the American way of life and that these foreign officers often rise to assume senior positions of leadership within their military and civilian hierarchies. Pursuant to this testimony, the Armed Services Committee in the Department of Defense Authorization Act for fiscal years 1992 and 1993 specifically authorized the creation of a CINC Initiative Fund to carry out eight types of activities, including military education and training to military and related civilian personnel of foreign countries. The CINC Initiative Fund is designed to provide funding for activities that were not foreseen when the budget request was submitted to Congress and that would enhance the war fighting capability, readiness, and sustainability of the forces assigned to the commander requesting the funds. In the years since this authority was created, the CINC Initiative Fund has only been used to provide IMET on a few occasions. Incidentally, the use of this authority for IMET is limited to $2 million per fiscal year. The committee's initiative this year seeks to build upon an existing program--the Military-to-Military Contacts Program which is designed to encourage a democratic orientation of defense establishments and military forces of other countries. Under existing law, this program is primarily aimed at in-theater activities and generally involves the establishment of military liaison teams and traveling contact teams in engaging democracies to seek to identify those countries' needs and then seek to design programs that are carried out by visiting experts, seminars, conferences, or exchanges of personnel. When a larger need is identified that would exceed the limited funding for this program, the in-country liaison teams seek to identify programs under the Foreign Assistance Act that can satisfy the need. When it comes to IMET, however, we have found that existing funding for the IMET Program has already been programmed and the traditional IMET Program is unable to meet the need. We have also found that the needs of emerging democracies in Eastern Europe have caused legitimate IMET needs of countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia to go unfunded. Thus, by adding IMET as one of the activities that can be carried out under the Military-to-Military Contacts Program, we are merely seeking to provide a modest supplement to the traditional IMET Program when a truly pressing need arises. We are, of course, amenable to put funding limits on the use of the military-to-military contacts programs for IMET and that has been communicated to the Foreign Relations Committee. I hasten to point out that the Secretary of State must approve the conduct of any activity--not just IMET--authorized under this program and that funds cannot be provided for any country that is not eligible for assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act. In summary, Mr. President, this is a very modest supplement to the traditional IMET Program, it has a precedent in prior congressional action relating to the CINC Initiative Fund, and we are amenable to including reasonable funding limitations to its use for IMET. I urge my colleagues to support S. 1745. Mr. President, I would simply say that the IMET Program is one of the highest priorities of the commanders in chief we hear from every year around the world. The newly emerging democracies in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe have consumed a great deal of those funds, leaving almost nothing for Asia, Africa, and Latin America. We also take note of the fact that these IMET funds have been cut each and every year, so they do not seem to have a high priority by the Foreign Relations Committee but they do have an enormous priority for our military. So we will be glad to work with our friends on the Foreign Relations Committee to iron out jurisdictional problems with the hope that we can unite behind one of the most important programs we have to have contacts and influence all over the world through military-to-military contacts that can end up bringing peace in areas that otherwise would be in conflict. So I would take into account what my colleagues have said, but we do have a very high priority on this program and that has been exemplified in testimony year after year after year by all of our military commanders.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on the bill?

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Thurmond very much for his gracious remarks concerning my participation in this bill and also my participation over the last 24 years in the Defense authorization process and matters affecting our national security. I also say to my friend from South Carolina that I identify with and completely support his remarks about two outstanding members of our committee, Senator Exon on the Democratic side and Senator Cohen on the Republican side. These two individuals have made truly enormous contributions to our Nation's security. I have worked with Senator Exon on many different matters over the years. He has been a stalwart on strategic matters, and really has made immense contributions to our overall security. Senator Cohen and I have joined together time after time in working on matters of great importance, including the special operating forces where he truly has been an expert and a leader. Senator Cohen is an expert on Asia and also has all sorts of legislative interests beyond the Defense Committee. But he has made tremendous contributions to the men and women who serve our Nation and to the taxpayers of our Nation. These two individuals, Senator Cohen and Senator Exon, truly will be missed. In the brief time allotted to us today, I will defer my detailed expression of appreciation to members of the committee and staff for their dedicated service in securing passage of this legislation until we act on the conference report. But I would like to summarize my thoughts at this time. First and foremost, I would like to thank our distinguished chairman, Senator Thurmond. Through his leadership, his strength, and his steadfast and dedicated commitment to the national defense, this bill is about to pass. It is my honor and privilege to work with him on all of the committee matters, and indeed have had the great pleasure of working with him over the years. I know that his service will continue with the strength and leadership that he has had in the past. I am also grateful to all of the other committee members on both sides of the aisle who have dedicated themselves to this important bill. Our subcommittee staff have done yeomen service on this bill. They deserve much credit for the passage of the bill. We brought a sound, good defense bill to the floor. There were a number of concerns that have now been ironed out. I think of such as demarcation, as in the ballistic missile and theater missile defense area, and also regarding the ABM Treaty; the multilateral provision that was in the bill. Both of those have been greatly improved on the floor. It is my strong impression that this bill will be acceptable to the administration. We have a real challenge in the House-Senate conference because there are a number of provisions that clearly would not be acceptable to the administration. In the House bill, we have to prevail upon those issues if we are going to have a Defense bill signed into law this year. The Senate also adopted a provision sponsored by Senator Lugar, Senator Domenici, and myself to bolster our defenses against weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, both at home and abroad. We need no reminder that we are in an era of terrorism now. We spent all day yesterday in the hearing regarding the tragedy that took place in Saudi Arabia. Of course, our heart goes out to all of the families and to the men and women involved in that who were serving our Nation. The provision that passed the Senate in this bill improved existing programs, such as the Nunn-Lugar program designed to stop proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons at its source, primarily the former Soviet Union. But the primary new threat is on domestic preparedness against terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical, biological, and nuclear. It is very, very clear by the hearings that we have had in the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, as well as other hearings, that we are not prepared as a nation to deal with chemical or biological attack. We have a long way to go in the overall area of getting our policemen, our firemen, and our health officials able to handle one of these threats, if it ever comes. But primarily our effort must continue to be to stop the sources of this proliferation at the very beginning before they leave the country where the weapons are, where the scientists are, and where the technology is; and also to make sure, if that does happen, that we stop those weapons at our own borders before we have to deal with the attacks. But we have to have a tiered defense against this growing threat. I think we will have an even stronger bill in conference since the Senate has taken action on the floor. I urge my colleagues to support this important defense measure. The cooperation and help exhibited by all Senators, floor staff, parliamentarians, clerks, the Reporters of Debates, attorneys, and the Legislative Counsel's Office is very much appreciated by this manager of the bill. I am sure the chairman feels likewise. Finally, Mr. President, I have to express my appreciation to the superb committee staff on both sides of the aisle, and to our two staff directors, Les Brownlee with the majority and Arnold Punaro with the minority. They have done a magnificent job of managing and motivating in order to keep this bill on track and moving. I particularly want to express my appreciation to Les Brownlee, who has just become the staff director, although he has been a stalwart both in his service to our Nation in the Army as well as his service on this committee. But he has truly done a tremendous job as staff director on this bill. We have enjoyed very much working with him in his new capacity, as we did in his former capacity. I appreciate the hard work of both of the staffs. I will have more to say about them when we get the conference report back. They are not through working yet. So I do not want to overcongratulate them until we get through with the bill and we actually have it ready for conference. I thank the chairman for his dedication. I thank all of the members of our staff for their sacrifices which they have endured, and their families, in order to bring this bill to the floor. Mr. President, as we conclude the debate on the national Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1997 I would like to take a moment to bring to the Senate's attention recent remarks made by a former Senate colleague and a valued friend, Alan Dixon. Last year, Alan Dixon had the difficult task of chairing the 1995 Base Closure Commission. While some may not agree with various aspects of the Commission's findings, the Commission, under the tremendous leadership of Alan Dixon, fulfilled its obligation to make fair assessments of Department of Defense recommendations for base closures and realignments, to review additional closure and realignment options, and to make final recommendations to the President on ways in which the Department of Defense must reduce its excess infrastructure. DOD and the military services are executing these final BRAC decisions and affected local communities are making, plans for reuse and economic development. Mr. President, there is no easy part to base closure--the final recommendations were not easy for the Commission, implementation of the final decisions by the services is not easy, and base reuse by local communities is not easy. Not easy, but a necessary part of the Department's ability to afford modernization and readiness in the future. Mr. President, Alan Dixon made a speech before the American Logistics Association Conference on June 18 where he summarized the 1995 Base Closure Commission's actions and commented on what should be considered in terms of a future round of base closure. In his remarks, he pointed out, as senior military and civilian defense leaders have also indicated, that excess capacity and infrastructure will remain even after all base realignment and closure actions from the 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995 rounds have been completed. In order to address this excess infrastructure using the same Commission-type framework, Senator Dixon recommends that Congress authorize another Commission. I believe it is important that Alan Dixon's remarks be made part of the Record for all to read and consider. Mr. President, I commend our former colleague, Alan Dixon, on his leadership and dedicated service on issues of great importance to our national security. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dixon's remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I know Senator Pell is on the floor. I believe Senator Helms is on the floor. So at this point I yield and reserve any time I have remaining. Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I respond to our friend from Washington that we will be glad to work with him in conference to look at this. We have just not had time to completely diagnose and understand the effects of the amendment at this point, but we will be glad to work with him in conference.

Mr. NUNN. I move to table the motion. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. NUNN

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.