Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I ask unanimous consent that I may be recognized following the remarks by Senator Sessions.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Presiding Officer this: It is my understanding that the Senator from Michigan will be recognized next, to be followed by the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, to be followed by the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions; is that correct?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask the Senator if he is familiar with the statement made by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology--this is somebody who appeared before his subcommittee and mine--Secretary Jacques Gansler?

Mr. ROBERTS. He made a recent statement in regard to the very issue the Senator from Oklahoma is pointing out. I think it will be helpful if I read this, if the Senator from Oklahoma will permit me. This is somebody from the administration. He stated this: We are trapped in a death spiral. I do not think one could make it any more plain than that. We are trapped in a death spiral. The requirement to maintain our aging equipment is costing us more each year in repair costs, down time, and maintenance tempo. But we must keep this equipment in repair to maintain readiness. It drains our resources--resources we should apply to modernization of the traditional systems and development of new systems. Then the Secretary went on to say: So we stretch out our replacement schedules to ridiculous lengths and reduce the quantities of new equipment we purchase, raising the cost and still further delaying modernization. I do not think one can be any plainer than that. So the Senator's remarks are backed up not only from what we hear in testimony but also from the many bases at home and overseas. I thank my distinguished colleague for all the effort he makes from his personal time and other duties to go to bases all over the world. He checks with the enlisted; he checks with the NCOs; he checks with the officers; and he checks with the commanders and shows them his candor and integrity. We talked about this at great length. In terms of readiness, there is no other person in the Congress of the United States or, for that matter, whom I know in this city who knows better the readiness problems we have, and it is backed up by this statement by a Secretary of the administration. We owe the Senator from Oklahoma a debt of gratitude.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, will my distinguished colleague yield for a question?

Mr. ROBERTS. I yield to my distinguished friend and colleague from Oklahoma for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, there has been some discussion on the floor in reference to this bill, the Defense authorization bill, on the merits of including a hate crimes provision. I am struck by the fact that we have just witnessed an international terrorist hate crime with the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, leaving, according to my notes, 5 dead and 36 wounded, 12 missing. All of our U.S. military are on alert in terms of force protection. Our intelligence services are working full time to make sure that we have the proper force protection as they do their duty. In fact, I think that is a hate crime to which this particular bill speaks. I associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished chairman. While Members on both sides have strong feelings about the hate crimes bill, in no way should this defense authorizations bill be further held up or impeded. I express my sincere condolences, as my colleagues have, to the families and friends of the crewmembers of the U.S.S. Cole who were killed and injured today in the Port of Aden in Yemen. They died or they were injured in the services of this Nation, and we all feel their sacrifice. The apparent--I say ``apparent''; I think we all know it was--terrorist attack on the U.S. ship was brutal, it was unprovoked, it was an act of terrorism. All the information is not yet available to determine the source and the motivation of the attack. The Government of Yemen has said they are certainly not involved, so we have to reserve judgment on the response, if this is a terrorist strike. No matter what the cause of the explosion, this again points out the risks that our service men and women face every day. We have to be ready every day. There is no strategic response to terrorism in regard to the service they provide to our Nation. We must never forget that we ask the members of the military to be on the front line of U.S. diplomacy, and, unfortunately, they are the obvious targets of terrorist groups. I have the privilege of being the chairman of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee on the Armed Services Committee. As has been indicated by Senator Levin and others, we have the responsibility to make sure we are ready and we have the proper resources to combat terrorism. I can make a solemn promise to the families involved and to our military: We are going to continue to do our very best budgetwise and our very best in regard to legislation and policy to assure the force protection that we must have to protect our troops. I rise to add my compliments to the chairman and the distinguished ranking member, Senator Levin, of the Armed Services Committee on a job that I think is well done. Through their hard work and their perseverance over the last legislative year, and in particular in regard to the conference with our colleagues in the House, we are presenting to the Senate a bill that will make significant progress. Senator Sessions has made what I consider to be an excellent speech on the state of military readiness, the problems and the challenges we face. I see the distinguished chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, the Armed Services Committee, Senator Inhofe, who does a splendid job in that regard. He has been sounding the alarm for years in regard to the readiness problems we face. We will make significant progress toward stopping what I call the readiness drain now facing our military. It is not enough, but this bill does actually lay down a marker that the Congress is very serious, that the committee is very serious about its commitment to reversing the damaging readiness cuts. We owe the men and women of the Armed Forces nothing less. Over time, the last several years, we have authorized significant increases in pay. We have certainly done a better job in regard to the retirement system. We reformed that. As the distinguished chairman and the ranking member have pointed out, under the health care banner, we are now providing health care for the military retired. That is an obligation we must keep. As I have indicated, I have the privilege to serve as the chairman of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee. I am very proud of our accomplishments this year in the subcommittee. I thank the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, for his assistance, as well as all the members of the subcommittee, working in a bipartisan fashion to produce this work product. Behind the success was the hard work of our staff. I have always said that there are no self-made men or women in public office today. It is your friends who make you what you are. I put staff in that category. We are only as good as our staff in terms of the work product we are able to pass. I take this opportunity to thank them. They are not expecting this, but I want to take this opportunity to present: The head of our Emerging Threats and Capabilities ``posse,'' if I can refer to us in that vein, and who I consider to be the iron lady and the iron fist of the science and technology world, Ms. Pam Ferrell; Mr. Military Transformation, who did an outstanding job, Mr. Chuck Alsap; the strong duo dealing with counterterrorism, the very subject we are dealing with today, even as I speak, as the 250 members of the U.S.S. Cole try to right the ship and save the ship, is Mr. Ed Edens and Mr. Joe Sixeas; the guy, the young man or the staffer that the drug cartels probably fear as much as anybody, Mr. Cord Sterling; our cyber warrior, Mr. Eric Thommes; and our tough negotiator in dealing with the Russian programs, the counterthreat reduction programs, an investment for us, and we think an investment for the Russians, as well, Miss Mary Alice Hayward; and the cleanup hitter, Miss Susan Ross. I thank each and every one of them for their hard work, their professionalism, and the work product we were able to produce. There are many successes for this year I want to address, but time is an issue. I know the Senators from Oklahoma and Iowa want to make some remarks, but there are four areas I would like to highlight of which I am especially proud. First, we have two educational programs designed to increase research and the number of technically trained Americans. We have a technology personnel gap. I do not know what the acronym is for that. We hear about gaps in the past in terms of arguments in regard to the military. But, boy, this is a gap that is real and it is a gap that must be filled. We have authorized $15 million to establish what is called an Information Security Scholarship Program for the Secretary of Defense to award grants to institutions of higher education to establish or improve programs in information security and to provide scholarships to persons who would pursue a degree in information assurance in exchange for a commitment of service within the Department of Defense. That is a breakthrough. Senator Warner gave his personal leadership to this. As a matter of fact, it is his initiative. I like to think I had something to do with it, as well as all members of the committee in a bipartisan fashion. We have also authorized $5 million to establish something called an Institute for Defense Computer Security and Information Protection. This institute will conduct research in technology development in the area of information assurance and to facilitate the exchange of information with regard to cyber threats, technology tools, and other relevant issues. Again I go back to the technology personnel gap. This will assist us to really close that gap. As a matter of fact, when we asked the experts in our subcommittee, What keeps you up at night? they mentioned a lot of things, but they mentioned two things of priority interest. No. 1 is the possibility of the use of biological weaponry by some state-supported terrorist or non-state-supported terrorist. The second thing they worry about is cyber attacks, information warfare. So we think this institute is long overdue. We have authorized $5 million. That is going to get it started. The second thing I would like to mention is that we ensure that the Department of Defense will focus real coordination in their responsibilities to combat terrorism activities through a single office. We had four people before the subcommittee testifying in regard to DOD responsibilities and the challenge they face in regard to terrorism, so I asked the witnesses: Would you sit in order of your authority. Nobody knew where to sit--No. 1, 2, 3, 4--because they didn't know. We had so many people within the DOD who shared partial responsibility for this that we did not find one person in charge. So that is what we are going to have after this bill passes. We made a suggestion on the Senate side; we really singled it out and put it in a particular person's area of responsibility. The House came back and said let's let the Secretary of Defense decide that. But I will tell you again, we are going to ensure the Department of Defense is focused in regard to their responsibilities to combat terrorism through one single office. We included a provision that would designate one Assistant Secretary of Defense as the principal civilian advisor to the Secretary for Department of Defense activities for combating terrorism--one guy in charge, one lady in charge, one person in charge. This provision ensures there is a single individual within the Department responsible for providing focused and comprehensive and well-funded DOD antiterrorism policy. I have said that about three times now, but three times I want to say how important that is. I think it is a real step forward. The third area is to reduce the risk of the expansion of weapons of mass destruction and to help provide opportunities to Russian scientists outside of their weapons development. We authorized over $1 billion for nonproliferation and threat reduction programs for the Departments of Defense and Energy to assist nations of the former Soviet Union in preventing the expansion of their weapons of mass destruction and dissemination of their scientific expertise. This is a program really started by Senator Nunn and Senator Lugar. Conferees included several initiatives to obtain greater Russian commitment to these programs--these programs are not without controversy--and the necessary U.S. access to ensure these programs do achieve their threat reduction goals. We authorized $443.4 million for the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program for fiscal year 2001 to reduce the threat posed by the former Soviet Union weapons of mass destruction. So, let's see, there is $443.4 and $1 billion for the nonproliferation and threat reduction programs. That is quite an investment to assist the Russians, to work together with the Russians to reduce that kind of capability. Last, I would like to say to help the military continue to put a solid effort in the invaluable area of science and technology and to ensure we are ready to address the emerging threats, we added $209 million for the Defense Science and Technology Program; that is the S&T programs, the science and technology programs. We focused on revolutionary technologies to meet the emerging threats. And we required the services to undertake a comprehensive planning process to identify long-term technological needs in consultation with the warfighting and the acquisition communities, and to ensure that the services' programs in regard to science and technology are appropriately designed to support these needs. I could list some other significant accomplishments in the joint warfighting area, in the continued focus on helping our military communities prepare for the possibility that they may have to handle the consequences of a terrorist attack on our homeland. We all know about the U.S.S. Cole. That threat exists in regard to our domestic situation as well and in several other key areas where we have jurisdiction. But I am going to let that go. I will probably put something in the Record at a later date in regard to what I think we have done in meeting our responsibilities in that area. Again, I thank the chairman, Senator Warner, who has labored long and hard. We did this several months ago. We have been in conference for 2 or 3 or 4 months. In the rush to complete our business, we had all sorts of things pop up out of the woodwork, almost a gauntlet to get this bill done. I thank Senator Warner, Senator Levin, all members of the committee for their leadership, their guidance, their help during the development of this year's Defense bill. There is no more important bill. Our first obligation as Members of this body is to do what we can in behalf of our national security. Today's events certainly prove that is the case. That has been spoken to by the distinguished chairman. I think it is a good bill. We need to get it passed, and it needs a big vote. It needs a big, solid vote for the responsibility we have to our men and women in uniform. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I believe the regular order is that I have the time. But I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee be recognized prior to my remarks at this time, and I would be delighted to have him speak, or I will yield to the distinguished chairman, whatever is his preference.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I commend his remarks to all Senators and more especially all staff in both the House and Senate. It captures that special relationship--the analogy might be--my boss, right or wrong--my boss. In the case of Herb Bateman and Dave Scandling the rightness of their work was 100 percent--there was no wrong. In closing, I would like to quote Helen Steiner Rice to Laura Bateman, to the family, to the staff, and to the friends and constituents of Herb Bateman, my friend. When I must leave you for a little while, Please go on bravely with a gallant smile And for my sake and in my name, Live on and do all things the same-- Spend not your life in empty days, But fill each waking hour in useful ways-- Reach out your hand in comfort and in cheer, And I in turn will comfort you and hold you near. I would be happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from Virginia.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman, my friend and colleague, for his comments. I wasn't planning on doing this. But I might just provide the chairman with a reflection. As he knows, we were in conference on the Defense authorization bill--the bill we are trying to get finished here. It is so essential to our Nation and our national security. There was not anybody in Congress who worked harder or who was more effective in regard to national security than our dear friend, Herb Bateman. The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats on the Senate side, of which I am accorded the privilege of being the chairman, was meeting with several other subcommittee chairmen because the House does not follow suit in terms of our organization or duties and we think the Emerging Threats Subcommittee, which was largely formed out of the leadership of the distinguished chairman, encompasses so many different things that are so important to our national security. We were meeting in conference. The distinguished gentleman from the First District of Virginia came in, and he was a tad late. The only amendment we had that was still outstanding was the Bateman amendment. I asked Herb if it was a little late for his tee time. He laughed and said: No, not today but tomorrow. I informed all those present that the Senate had strong feelings about Mr. Bateman's amendment--very strong feelings--and, despite that, we would accept the amendment under one reservation. Herb was a little concerned because it was a very fine amendment. He looked at me and said: Well, Mr. Chairman, Pat, friends and colleagues from the House, what would that reservation be? I said: Only if we call your amendment the ``Herb Bateman Common Sense Amendment.'' Obviously, it was agreed to and passed. That was on a Thursday. We lost Herb over that weekend--something I could not believe as I came to work on Monday. But as I reflect back on that, it was probably his last amendment, and it was ``common sense,'' as he always stood for. So from that standpoint, I think the distinguished chairman's suggestion about what we do in the next Congress is most appropriate. I appreciate his contribution. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise on the Senate floor today to pay tribute and to really eulogize one of our colleagues from the House of Representatives and a personal friend. I am speaking of Herb Bateman, the late Congressman from America's First District, the First District of Virginia. As most of my colleagues know, Herb passed away last month following a rich life of public service, family commitment, and 18 years of distinguished service in the House of Representatives. Herb had announced his retirement last January, and in doing so, he had received well-deserved accolades and awards and letters of appreciation. They were from virtually everyone whose life he touched--and he touched many from all walks of life. I might add, the letters of appreciation and thanks are still being sent to newspapers in his district. From September 12 through 14, Members of the House paid a very deserved tribute to Herb, and in doing so, really captured the essence of the man. The essence, simply put, is that Herb epitomized integrity in public service. I commend these moving and very accurate portrayals of Herb Bateman to the attention of my Senate colleagues. Let me also say that the comments by our colleagues in the House also represented a most appropriate segue to the services that were held for Herb in his hometown of Newport News. I am compelled to say that I have never attended services more appropriate, more moving, and more fitting in celebrating the life of someone so respected and so loved. I was privileged to join many of Herb's colleagues and my former colleagues in the House; Senator Bunning; the distinguished senior Senators from Virginia, Senator Warner and Senator Robb; and hundreds of friends and relatives who were in attendance. There simply wasn't enough room in Our Lady of Carmel Catholic Church in Newport News last September 15 to hold all of Herb Bateman's friends and constituents who joined his wife Laura and their family, yes, to mourn his loss, but also to pay tribute and celebrate his life. The remarks by Monsignor Michael D. McCarron were not only appropriate and especially uplifting in their religious context, providing Herb and Laura's family and all of us in attendance the strength and faith that we needed, but they also captured with humor and grace the perspective of one's life devoted to public service. Herbert H. Bateman Jr., ``Bert'' Bateman, eulogized his Dad in moving remarks that only a loving son could give. Bert's eulogy was a gift of solace and comfort to his mother, his family, his sister Laura and her family, to all of the relatives present--and with regard to that special father-son relationship we all would hope for--it was a gift to us all. The last speaker during the service for Herb Bateman, was his long time Chief of Staff, Dan Scandling. And, it is Dan's eulogy that I am going to ask to be put in the Record today. I do so for a special reason. Dan Scandling's remarks are not only a fitting tribute to his boss, Congressman Herb Bateman, they also speak for all of the Bateman staff members during 18 years of Herb's distinguished service. They speak for Dan, and they speak for his long- time and valued executive assistant, Peggy Haar, and for all of the staffers who served Herb so well during his 18 years in the House of Representatives. After hearing Dan speak, I believe his comments also represent that special relationship that most congressional staff members have with their congressman or their senator. My appreciation for Dan Scandling's remarks, like others who are privileged to serve in this body, are because I am a former staffer--or as we say in Kansas, a bucket toter, if you will, in my case working for both a Senator and my predecessor in the House of Representatives. In each case, my boss was the Senator or the Congressman. So it was and is for Dan and all of the Bateman staff. They admired and loved him and their work demonstrated that and in turn their work earned the respect and gratitude of the people of America's First District. I am fond of saying that there are no self-made men or women in public office; that it is your friends who make you what you are. In this respect Herb was indeed a self-made man but also made better by his friends, more particularly his staff. I am also fond of saying you are only as good--in terms of accomplishment and making a difference-- as your staff. Herb accomplished much and made a difference. Dan Scandling captured those thoughts and much more in his moving tribute to his boss, Congressman Herb Bateman. His personal tribute to Laura Bateman, a great lady, was especially appropriate and captured Herb's commitment and love for his wife. Dan summed up the life of Herb Bateman and his public service attributes as only a trusted aid could do--Herb's credibility, integrity, his hard work and commitment to his fellow man. He also reflects on their personal relationship with honor and affection. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the eulogy given by Dan Scandling on behalf of his friend, mentor and boss, Congressman Herb Bateman be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now be in a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, Senator McCain has an amendment at the desk and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Let's try principle No. 4. We are the only global superpower, and in order to avoid stimulating the creation of a hostile coalition of other nations, the United States should, and can afford to, forego unilateralist actions, except where our vital national interests are involved. The U.S. should pay international debt. The U.S. must continue to respect and honor international commitments and not abdicate our global role leadership. Finally, the U.S. must avoid unilateral economic and trade sanctions. Unilateral sanctions simply don't work as a foreign policy tool. They put American businesses, workers, and farmers at a huge competitive disadvantage. The U.S. needs to take a harder look at alternatives, such as multilateral pressure and more effective U.S. diplomacy. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Georgia.

Mr. ROBERTS. Principle No. 6: In the post-cold-war world, the U.S. should adopt a policy of realistic restraint with respect to the use of U.S. military force in situations other than those involving the defense of vital national interests. In all other situations, we must: Insist on well-defined political objectives; determine whether non- military means will be effective, and if so, try them prior to any recourse to military force. We should remember the quote from General Shelton: The military is the hammer in our foreign policy toolbox but not every problem is a nail. We should ascertain whether military means can achieve the political objectives. We should determine whether the benefits outweigh the costs (political, financial, military), and that we are prepared to bear those costs. We should determine the ``last step'' we are prepared to take if necessary to achieve the objectives. I wonder what that last step would be. It is one thing to have a cause to fight for. It is another thing to have a cause that you are willing to die for. In too many cases today, it doesn't seem to me that we have the willingness to enter into a cause in which we are ready to die but it seems to me we are sure willing to risk the lives of others in regards to limited policy objectives. That's not part of the principle. That's just an observation in regard to the last step recommendation. We should insist that we have a clear, concise exit strategy, including sufficient consideration of the subsequent role of the United States, regional parties, international organizations and other entities in securing the long-term success of the mission--Kosovo is a great example. Finally, insist on Congressional approval of all deployments other than those involving responses to emergency situations. The Senator referred to the amendment introduced by the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, and that of Senator Byrd. I voted for that. I do not think it was an abdication of our responsibilities. Again, those of us in Congress, the majority, should approve all deployments other than those involving responses to emergency situations. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will immediately resume the Interior appropriations conference report at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning. The Senate will remain on the conference report until it is disposed of. It is hoped that a final vote will occur no later than tomorrow afternoon. The Senate could consider any other appropriations conference reports as well as the continuing resolution providing for the continued operations of the Federal Government until October 14, 2000.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it recess until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, October 4. I further ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4578, the Interior appropriations bill.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be discharged from the further consideration of S. Res. 360 and S. Res. 361, and that the Senate then proceed en bloc to their immediate consideration.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bills be read the third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bills be printed in the Record, with the above occurring en bloc.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration en bloc of the following bills: Calendar No. 836, H.R. 2752, and Calendar No. 910, H.R. 4579.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bills be read the third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bills be printed in the Record, with the above occurring en bloc.