John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Is it an appropriate time for a Senator to send an amendment to the desk? Is it appropriate for a Senator to send an amendment to the desk unrelated to the pending amendment, the one that has just been debated, and ask it be placed in the queue for consideration?

Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent this amendment be placed in the queue for consideration.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, the Congress authorized active and reserve members of the uniformed services to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan now available for federal civil service employees. This was an important part of the recruiting and retention package which the Senate passed, and which was enacted into law last year. Under that authority, provided in last year's Defense Authorization Act, service members would be eligible to deposit up to five percent of their basic pay, before tax, each month. The government is not required to match the service member's contributions. In addition, service members would be permitted to directly deposit special pays for enlistment, reenlistment and the lump-sum for electing to remain in the ``Redux'' retirement program--pre-tax--up to the extent allowable under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, into their Thrift Savings account. Last year's legislation required the President to identify sufficient offsets in order to implement this important program. Unfortunately and inexplicably, the President failed to identify the offsets in the budget he submitted to the Congress in February. Mr. President, we must adjust the outlays and revenues in the Budget Resolution to permit the Thrift Savings Plan to be extended to members of the uniformed services. This Thrift Savings Plan does not cause the loss of revenues, but defers the tax due until the service member retires. This is an important point--there are no lost revenues, and the cost of this initiative is cheaper than losing our most qualified military personnel. Making the Thrift Savings Plan available to military personnel would come at a critical time for the military services. Participating in a Thrift Savings account would encourage personal savings and enhance the retirement income for service members, who currently do not have access to a 401k savings plan. Under current Thrift Savings Plan regulations, participants may borrow from Thrift Savings accounts for such worthy purposes as college tuition and purchasing a home. When implemented, military personnel would be able to join federal workers in a savings program that would enhance the value of their retirement system and permit them to improve their quality of life. The Armed Services Committee continues to receive testimony strongly supporting a Thrift Savings Plan for military personnel as a strong incentive for both recruiting and retention. Testimony from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Service Secretaries and the military personnel chiefs confirm that the Thrift Savings Plan would be an important incentive for recruiting military personnel and retaining highly trained military personnel on active duty or in the Ready Reserve. The Service Chiefs have indicated that this plan, combined with the pay raise, the repeal of the Redux retirement system, and the increased bonuses in the FY 2000 bill, would alleviate the hemorrhage of trained and experienced military personnel we are now experiencing. This critical initiative was not included in the President's budget request, but it is necessary to assist in retaining our military service personnel. We must correct this shortcoming in the President's budget. The Senate has supported extending the Thrift Savings Plan to military personnel on three previous occasions. It is time that we complete the process and provide the necessary funding that would permit military personnel to join the federal workforce in the Thrift Savings Plan.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished manager, Senator Domenici. Senator Stevens and I have an amendment at the desk calling for a $4.1 billion increase in total defense spending. We recognize that the House of Representatives is taking similar action. This would be parallel action. At no time in contemporary history have there been more threats and more challenges affecting the security of this country. At the same time, at no time in my memory--I have been associated with the military as far back as World War II--has there been really less incentive for the young men and women of the Nation to join and proudly wear the uniform and incentives for those in the middle grades of our military to stay in after enormous expenses for the taxpayers to train them. When they finish their obligated period and first-term enlistments--the first term for officers and oftentimes pilots is 6 to 8 years--they are highly sought after by the private sector in our magnificent expanding economy. We have this coincidence of pressures being put on the military today. I urge my colleagues to vote favorably on the current version of the Stevens-Warner amendment of $4 billion for extra defense spending to meet the threats worldwide and to provide the proper benefits and care for the men and women of the Armed Forces and their families; to provide for the increase in procurement for the modernization they need with the additional dollars for training. This Nation has witnessed the deployment of the men and women of the Armed Forces beyond our shores in the last 6 or 8 years, more times than any other President has sent them out into harm's way. For too many years, the size of our defense budget has been based on constrained funding, not on the threats facing our country or the military strategy necessary to meet those threats. We began to make some progress last year when, for the first time in 14 years, we had a real increase in the authorized level of defense spending. We must continue the momentum we started last year in an effort to correct the most critical readiness, modernization, and recruiting and retention problems in our military. Any analysis of our defense budget should begin with an analysis of the worldwide threat that our military faces--both now and in the future. The world remains complex and dangerous, and the United States is continually called upon to provide the requisite leadership to resolve the many conflicts which continue to erupt in this rapidly changing world. The negative impact that the large number of contingency operations in which our military is engaged worldwide is having on the readiness of our military forces concerns me. We have had troops in the Persian Gulf--engaged in active military operations against Iraq--for over a decade, in Bosnia for over four years, and now in Kosovo--with no end in sight for any of these operations. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have testified that they still have a shortfall in funding of $9.0 billion for this fiscal year--fiscal year 2000; a requirement for an additional $15.5 billion above the budget request to meet shortfalls in readiness and modernization for fiscal year 2001; and a requirement for an additional $85.0 billion over the next five years. These were requirements identified by the Service Chiefs as their unfunded, validated requirements--not a set of ``wish lists.'' As the elected representatives of the American people, we have no higher responsibility than ensuring the safety and security of our people by maintaining a strong and capable military. As chairman of the Armed Services Committee, I cannot sit idly by--knowing of the many shortfalls in defense funding that currently exist--without at least trying to address the many urgent needs of our military. The Administration's budget request for fiscal year 2001 took some positive steps forward. The Budget Committee added an additional $500 million, but more needs to be done. While the fiscal year 2001 defense budget request does reach the $60 billion modernization goal set in fiscal year 1995, this goal has not kept pace with requirements and has never been adjusted for inflation. Estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) have more accurately placed the funding necessary to meet modernization requirements at $90.0 billion annually, with other organizations stating that even larger increases are necessary. We must continue the momentum we started last year when the Congress provided the personnel incentives necessary to reverse the negative trends in recruiting and retention. The Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the Service Chiefs have all said that fulfilling our commitment for healthcare to our military retirees will be among the highest priorities this year. I believe, there is overwhelming support in the Senate to correct many of the shortfalls in the military healthcare system for our service members, their families, and our military retirees. it is critical to enact the important initiatives contained in the bipartisan healthcare legislation introduced by the Senate and the Armed Services Committee leadership. Adding the funds in this amendment makes it possible to fund this important initiative for military retiree healthcare. The increase of $4.0 billion contained in our amendment will allow us to bring defense spending to a more appropriate level and address some of the urgent unfunded requirements of the military chiefs. By adding the funding in this amendment, we will not be forced to fund needed increases for defense using emergency spending. Adding these funds now, allows the Senate to follow the normal procedures of authorization first, and not to forced to deal with added spending as an emergency. The challenges that this country will face in the new millennium are diverse--new threats, new battlefields, and new weapons. It is important that we remain vigilant, forward thinking, and prepared to address these challenges. Mr. Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence, concluded his excellent opening statement at a very sobering hearing before the Armed Services Committee in January by saying: The fact that we are arguably the world's most powerful nation does not bestow invulnerability; in fact, it may make us a larger target for those who don't share our interest, values, or beliefs. We must ensure that our military forces remain ready to meet present and future challenges. I want to express my appreciation again to the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the chairman of the Budget Committee for assisting us on this amendment. I want to also thank the highly professional staff members of the Appropriations Committee and the Budget Committee for their assistance for working out this amendment. I also want to thank Senator Domenici and his staff in assisting me last evening in working out a solution which will provide for the implementation of a Thrift Savings Plan for the active and reserve components of our military. I urge adoption of this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Likewise, I ask the Senator if I might be a cosponsor. My father was a medical doctor and devoted much of his career to the very subject the Senator addressed in his amendment.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my friend for his commitment to correct this shortcoming in the President's budget and his help in reducing the hemorrhage of trained and experienced military personnel. I also want to express my appreciation to the highly professional staff of the Budget Committee for their assistance in working out a solution to this vital issue.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first I commend the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia. I was the chairman of the subcommittee that worked on ISTEA--we called it TEA-21. How well I remember that he, together with the Senator from Texas, fought the battle to take the 4.3-cent tax out of the general revenues and put it into the highway trust fund. Now our distinguished colleague and former majority leader is once again showing that leadership to keep those funds flowing to support America's highway infrastructure. The economy of this Nation is dependent upon the efficient use of its transportation for people to get to and from their places of work, to carry our goods to the ports and terminals, to get them throughout the world. Now we are faced with this situation. I, from the first day, have resisted--even though I am in opposition to my distinguished leadership--the repeal of this 4.3 cents. It was a commitment made by the Senate by a vote, if I recall, I say to the senior Senator from West Virginia, which was in the 80s of Senators who approved the transfer of these funds from general revenue to the highway trust fund. Every Senator understands the highway programs in his or her State. I recognize that. But stability is the key word, stability in funding. We have the former distinguished Governor of Missouri and the former distinguished Governor of Ohio who will address those points. But as they set down their programs for highway improvement, safety and construction, they needed to have some certainty in the funding. It took almost a decade for the Senate to finally come to the recognition we ought to stop this donor-donee situation, one of the most controversial things I ever witnessed in my 20-plus years in the Senate. We got rid of that. We also, in that bill, made a specific law whereby, when you go to the gas pump in your State and pump that gas, those taxes go to Washington and make a U-turn and go back to the State. No State got less than 90 percent of the return of those taxes. That is what we are here for, continuity of action and decisionmaking by this body, continuity and stability in planning these programs to improve our roads, our infrastructure. There are contracts that reach out a year or more, 2 years or more. People have to order materials. They have to do design work. They have to engage labor. That is being done. We see the slow, steady improvement of our infrastructure. Now we are challenged by the 4.3 cents. As the distinguished Senator from West Virginia said, it could have a triggering mechanism where 4.3 cents goes to over 18 cents. As he pointed out, there is no certainty these funds will get back to the pockets of those who put the gas in their car--no certainty. There are many, many levels where various purposes could take off these funds. My distinguished colleague from West Virginia talked about the groups. He put their letters in the Record. This is a group of organizations all across this country that support the highway construction program, whose efforts led to the passage of the ISTEA legislation in this Senate and eventually had it enacted into law. The distinguished Governor from Ohio, who will soon speak, was very active in the National Governors' Association and the Association of Highway Administrators, which had given sound support through that legislation. He did not come by it by accident. It took absolutely years to build up to get this done. The National Governors' Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, Council of State Governments, U.S. Conference of Mayors, National League of Cities, National Association of Counties--these are groups that visit us every day on various issues. They write: Proposals that would interfere with or reduce revenues coming to either trust fund by suspending or repealing any portion of Federal transportation taxes would undercut critical commitments to the nation's public infrastructure and potentially threaten the credit quality of state and local bonds already issued to finance highway, bridge and airport construction and repair. Already the contracts are out. The revenue bonds are out. Even the American Automobile Association, one of the most valued organizations in the history of this country, stated as follows: AAA has serious concerns about efforts to suspend or repeal any portion of the federal gas tax. While attractive at first glance, this course of action will do little to address the root cause of our gasoline price problem today, which is a shortage of supply caused by curtailed production of crude oil by [primarily the] OPEC states. Our distinguished senior colleague covered that. To reiterate, this Sense of the Senate amendment is critically important because of legislation that is pending before the Senate to suspend 4.3 cents of the federal gas tax until next January, and because of the instructions this resolution gives to the Finance Committee to report legislation to repeal the 4.3 cents tax. The budget resolution before the Senate indicates that the reconciliation instructions to the Finance Committee provide $150 billion over 5 years in tax cuts that ``could accommodate'' the repeal of 4.3 cents of the federal gas tax. It is unsound budget policy for this budget resolution to assume that a portion of the gas tax will be repealed. It is unsound for several reasons, and today I will share with my colleagues the reasons for my concerns. I join with my colleagues in their frustration with the rising price of gasoline. It is too high and threatens the continuation of our robust economy. In our efforts to respond to OPEC's choking off of supply and the absence of leadership by this administration, we must not promise American's tax relief that they may not get. The entire proposal to repeal or suspend the 4.3 cents gas tax and replenish the Highway Trust Fund with general revenues is fraught with uncertainty. I ask the question, is the repeal, or temporary suspension of 4.3 cents of the federal gasoline tax going into the pockets of American drivers? What is the guarantee that this tax cut will be passed on to consumers at the pump? How are they protected from the oil refiners and wholesalers chipping off their share? Will the free marketplace enable them to charge the same price at the gas pump? Just last week the Congressional Research Service issued a new analysis entitled ``Transportation Fuel Taxes: Impacts of a Repeal or Moratorium,'' which stated: Current market conditions and the small amount of tax relief incorporated into most proposals, however, raise uncertainty as to whether prices to individuals and businesses would fall and whether any price decline would be meaningful to consumers. If it is not passed on to consumers, and the high prices continue, Americans will feel betrayed. The impact of a repeal on the 4.3 cents is significant on our budget surplus. According to the Department of Transportation, this repeal will result in a loss of $20.5 billion to the Highway Trust Fund for the remaining years of TEA-21--until 2003. Efforts to repeal or suspend the 4.3 cents gas tax has generated strong opposition from the National Governors' Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State governments, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, and the National Association of Counties. They write: Proposals that would interfere with or reduce revenues coming into either trust fund by suspending or repealing any portion of federal transportation taxes would undercut critical commitments to the nation's public infrastructure and potentially threaten the credit quality of state and local bonds already issued to finance highway, bridge and airport construction and repair. Even the American Automobile Association with millions of members dedicated to highway maintenance and safety write: AAA has serious concerns about efforts to suspend or repeal any portion of the federal gas tax. While attractive at first glance, this course of action will do little to address the root cause of our gasoline price problem today, which is shortage of supply caused by curtailed production of crude oil by OPEC states. The Small Business Legislative Council joins those views with the following: While small businesses are clearly suffering as a result of the high gasoline prices, we are long time staunch supporters of preserving the integrity of the highway trust fund and making sure that we have the proper infrastructure to deliver our goods and services. My colleagues who support this repeal will tell you that the Highway Trust Fund will not be harmed--that general fund monies will be used to replace lost revenue to the Highway Trust Fund. This replacement, if it actually occurs, will be $20.5 billion. And, where will this $20.5 billion come from? It will come from our limited budget surplus--and it will drain the limited dollars available for lasting tax cuts to Americans. This budget resolution provides for $150 billion for tax cuts to be defined through the reconciliation process by the Finance Committee. I support this level of funding to relieve the tax burden on Americans. But, do we want to use the on-budget surplus to give a tax cut to gasoline wholesalers? Or, do we want to use the funds in the budget resolution for other, more certain, tax legislation providing real and lasting tax relief. That is the course I want to take. The budget resolution assumption that the Congress will repeal 4.3 cents of the gas tax comes to pass, it will have a lasting, negative impact on the Highway Trust Fund. The Highway Trust Fund is the sole source of revenue available to maintain and upgrade our nation's highways, transit systems and highway safety programs. We are in only the second year of the 6-year TEA-21 legislation. Now is not the time to take a step backward on the important investments we are making in our nation's transportation infrastructure. For over a decade in the Senate, I, along and many others, worked to restore faith with drivers who were promised that gas taxes they pay when buying gasoline would be used to maintain and modernize our highways and transit systems. Finally, in 1997, with the steadfast, leadership of Senator Byrd, Senator Baucus, Senator Bond, and others, we achieved success. TEA-21 guarantees that all of the gas taxes motorists pay at the pump will be placed in the Highway Trust Fund and spent--100 percent--on highways, transit, and highway safety. Before TEA-21, the gas tax was increased by 4.3 cents in 1993 to pay for spending on many programs other than transportation or deficit reduction. I opposed this tax increase, but it passed. Later, while debating TEA-21, this body voted 80 to 18 not to repeal this tax, now that it was going to the Highway Trust Fund. As our nation's transportation infrastructure aged and crumbled, it was imperative we transfer the 4.3-cents tax from general revenues to the Highway Trust Fund in 1997. The TEA-21 spending guarantee reforms resulted in a 40 percent increase in transportation spending for each of the next 6 years. We are only in the second year of TEA-21, yet we can see in every state the transportation construction that is moving forward. We are just beginning to see the benefits of TEA-21 with more projects under construction, jobs being created, products moving more efficiently across the country, and most importantly, improvements in highway safety. Do we want to turn back the clock and inject uncertainty again into our nation's highway program. We are being asked to rely on future legislation that will have an untested triggering mechanism to restore general revenues to the Highway Trust Fund. What happens if it doesn't work. Again, this uncertainty will jeopardize the safety of the driving public and the thousands of jobs that are now at work under TEA-21. We all know that it takes years--far too long--for highway and transit projects to make it from the drawing board to construction. Severe swings, or even the uncertainty as to the availability of funds, in transportation spending will make it nearly impossible for states to effectively manage their highway programs. Consistent funding levels are critical to the seamless steps of planning, design, engineering, permitting, contract selection, materials orders, and construction. A stable program, where states, local governments, and contractors have the benefits of a long-term funding cycle ensures a reliable supply of materials and an experienced, ready workforce. Do we want to stop the modernization of our nation's transportation system to give the gas middle-man a few more pennies in his pocket? Or, do we keep on course to improve transportation and highway safety for all Americans? Lets use wisely our limited budget surplus for meaningful and lasting tax relief--not on promises that Americans may never see. I ask unanimous consent the letters to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER. I would like to have 7 minutes.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague, the assistant leader of the minority, a great Senator in his own right. We have worked together and will continue to work together. These are matters of conscience. Bottom line, it is the fervent hope of all Americans that a Senator, when he or she votes, votes what is in the best interest of the United States and as a matter of their own personal conscience. That I do, and I know my distinguished colleague from Nevada follows that credo. I thank the Senator.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. He has stood with me throughout this battle, succeeding me as chairman. He fully understands. He brings a perspective to the Government. He understands the problem of long-term stability in contracting on our highway programs. Of course, that is predicated on this trigger mechanism working. Perhaps the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee will know. This is so serious, but I wish to inject a little humor. One of our colleagues today said this reminds him of pool. It is a three-bank shot. Picture the ball. That is the 4.3. You hit it off one bank, and suddenly it gets stripped off and goes around the other balls, which is the Budget Committee, so they don't have any voice in this. It goes off another bank. When it hits that bank, it picks up funds from the general revenue. Then it comes over and hits another bank to get around the Appropriations Committee, which usually has some authority over appropriating around the surplus, and then slowly goes into the pocket of the highway trust fund. So this is a three-cornered bank shot. Maybe our distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee can throw a little light on this triggering mechanism and how it works. I thank my colleague.

Mr. WARNER. And still is, I might add.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, again, I thank my colleague for what I regard as a very moderate and tempered and sincere approach to this issue. There is always a temptation to lurch into what are the political unknowns or intentions here. But our distinguished assistant leader of the minority party, I think, just stated his case very factually. I respect him for that. I say, before the distinguished leader leaves the floor, I think the Presiding Officer might have a perspective here. If you just wait a minute, I shall take the Chair and enable the Presiding Officer to address the Senate.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on that point, this has been a great concern to me in my responsibilities on the Armed Services Committee. As the three of us are debating here in the spirit of the Senate, we have aviators flying missions over Iraq, containing that nation from further aggression, further human rights violations, possible further aggression from the very members of the OPEC cartel to which the distinguished Senator just referred having this meeting. They are risking their lives. What are we asking Americans to risk their lives for, at the same time we are sending spare parts to Iraq to increase oil production? I asked in the Armed Services Committee the other day what, if any, commitments we made. I was assured by administration officials there was none. Iraq came up here the other day and committed to the world market 700,000 barrels as part of the 1.7, which my distinguished colleague from New Mexico just addressed. Then, at the same time, we have naval units in the Persian Gulf, right off Saudi Arabia, off the Emirates, off Kuwait, right off the coast of these nations, risking sailors' lives, and other nations have joined. Great Britain is flying with us over Iraq. They are taking risks as they try to enforce the embargo of the illegal export of oil from Iraq which, I understand from one of our colleagues, is coming now into the United States. How can we ask these young men and women flying these missions to take the risk of life in the face of this flawed energy policy? I thank my colleagues. This has been a very good debate. I started off solo, and little did I know I would have the support of my two distinguished colleagues. I thank them both.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to turn to the subject of the cloture vote that will be held tomorrow. It is scheduled on legislation to suspend 4.3 cents of the Federal gas tax and then the possibility, at some point in time, of the suspension of the full 18.4-cent gasoline tax; the 4.3, of course, is included in that. Now this proposal was laid before the Senate last night by our distinguished majority leader, Senator Lott. Senator Lott is a man of principle. I rise with convictions of my own, and I hope he will accord me the same respect I accord him. He firmly believes it is in the best interest of the country--the measure he is bringing before the Senate. I believe it is my duty to oppose that, and my remarks give the reasons for doing so. I ask unanimous consent that several documents be printed at the end of my statement.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in this effort, I am joined by the following organizations as of this moment. Within 3 hours this afternoon, they have come to my door in great numbers. I urge Senators to listen to the following. Opposing this measure--the substance of the bill--are the National Governors' Association. The distinguished Presiding Officer was a former Governor and was active in that association. Also, there is the National Association of Counties, U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Conference of State Legislators, Association of Road and Transportation Builders, Associated General Contractors, Building and Trades Unions, American Highway Users Federation, American Automobile Association. That list is growing by the hour. I believe the Senate, at this critical hour, should be directing its attention in a constructive way to point out the failures of the Clinton energy policy. My colleague, the junior Senator from Alaska, has been a tireless worker on this effort. I believe either today or tomorrow he will be addressing the Senate on this subject. We should be focusing our attention on how, legislatively or otherwise, we can help the American free enterprise system to increase production. That production has been stymied time and time again by a number of Government regulations, such that today America is dependent for 56 percent of its petroleum energy requirements--56 percent coming across the ocean to our shores. We are now finding ourselves in this great Chamber, watching intently as to what OPEC might do. A series of nations, the majority of whom-- certainly not Iraq and Iran and others--we have come to their defense time and time again when their security and freedom have been challenged. Yet, we are sitting here by the hour waiting to see how they might provide this great Nation, the United States of America, an energy program of imports combined with our own domestic production to meet our needs, to continue to strengthen this economy, which is not only helping to support our Nation and provide jobs but, indeed, is relied on by economies throughout the world--all because of this petroleum. We recognize that the price of gasoline has reached such a high level that it is beginning to have tragic consequences on families, on small businesses, on truckers, and many others across this Nation. Indeed, this Chamber is directing its attention to see what relief we may give. But I say most respectfully to those who are proposing the suspension of this 4.3-cent tax and the possibility of another trigger requiring that to be subsumed into an 18.4-cent tax, that this is not a wise course, and I oppose it. I oppose it because the proposal is fraught with uncertainty. We could be taking an action which would not translate into relief for the drivers of our vehicles--those who are suffering from this. There is simply too much uncertainty in this course of action. That is one reason. The second reason is it would impact negatively on legislation which I and others fought for years for and finally got through in the form of new highway legislation. I will address that in detail. I ask the question: Is the repeal or temporary suspension of the 4.3 cents going into the pockets of the drivers? Can we give them that assurance? That is the question each of you will have to answer if you want to support this proposal. What is the guarantee that this tax cut will be passed on to the consumer? What is the likelihood it might go in part or in whole into the pockets of the middlemen, the wholesalers, or the distributors? How are the drivers protected from the oil refiners and wholesale marketers from taking off some of this for their own reasons? Will the free marketplace enable them to charge the same price at the gas pump even after you achieve the rescinding of the 4.3? What is there to indicate that the price at the gas pump is going to come down? I can find no certainty. I come back time and time again to one word-- ``uncertainty.'' If it is not to be passed on to the consumers and the high prices continue, I think Americans will feel betrayed. They are now mad. But they could be more irate if they are betrayed by what could be perceived as a course of action. That could happen. But there is no certainty 4.3 cents will be put into their pockets. What is the impact of this hollow tax cut? Is it a significant impact on our budget surplus? Very clearly--the way the bill is drawn, it will have an impact on that surplus. The Department of Transportation estimates that the 9-month suspension--as proposed in this legislation--of this portion of the gas tax will result in approximately $6 billion less in the highway trust fund. That money, which by law in the context of the highway legislation that I worked on, will be taken out. That means there will be a shortfall in the next 9 months of $6 billion. While the legislation as proposed by the distinguished leader has a unique provision--I am not sure I have ever seen one like it before-- calling on the surplus--that is the general revenues and surplus--to replenish the lost revenue in the highway trust fund, there is some trigger mechanism in there. But I ask my colleagues in the Senate: Do we want to be spending a significant part of our limited surplus for this uncertainty? If we knew it was going into the consumers' pockets, that might be one thing. But I have yet to find anybody who says it is absolutely going to bypass all the middle people and go into their pockets. Do we want to take that surplus, which we are examining for debt reduction, tax reduction and other purposes, do we want to suddenly have $6 billion with just the 4.3 cents go into this type of scheme? If we go to 18.4, then it could well consume all the surplus. The question you have to ask yourself is, Is that what we want to do with the surplus? This Senator says no. In other words, I would rather see such tax legislation as can pass this Chamber, tax legislation which guarantees by law taxpayer relief-- the marriage penalty tax for one and the estate tax relief for another, specifically--relief that they need. And there is certainty. That is the word; there is certainty. But there is uncertainty with this proposal. Do we want to use the on-budget surplus to give a tax cut to gasoline wholesalers? I don't. Do we want to use our surplus for other, more certain tax legislation? Yes, I do. That is the position I take this evening. Let's go back and look at the highway legislation that we worked on several years ago, called TEA-21. For over a decade in the Senate, I, along with many other colleagues on both sides of the aisle with strong bipartisan support--the senior Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, our former colleague, Senator Chafee from Rhode Island, myself, and others--teamed up in the Environment and Public Works Committee. I was then chairman of the transportation subcommittee, a position now occupied by our distinguished Presiding Officer, who I believe is in concert with me on the views with regard to this tax. Over a period of years we worked towards several goals, and we achieved them. We wanted to first restore faith with the drivers who were promised over the years that the gas taxes they paid at the pump would come back to their respective States to be used for new highways, improvements in safety, and the like. But it never happened. We had the donor-donee situation, where various States got higher than they sent to Washington for taxes; others got less. And finally we struck a note of fairness in that legislation. It was landmark legislation. It has worked in our States. That is why the Governors in all 50 States are opposed to this. That is why the highway administrators in all 50 States and their organizations are opposed to the legislation. They made it work. Tens upon tens of thousands of contracts are operating today to modernize and improve our highways and other transportation facilities. Millions of people are engaged in employment and others in providing the supplies and engineering and design. The system is working as it was intended when this Senate together with the House of Representatives put this legislation into law. TEA-21 guaranteed that all the taxes motorists paid at the pump would be placed in the highway trust fund. It would go into the trust fund, and, indeed, 100 percent went for highways and highway safety. Before TEA-21, the gas tax was increased by 4.3 cents. I voted against an increase in taxes of 4.3 cents. But it went into the general revenues. As a part of the legislative process in devising TEA-21 right on this floor, we voted--I believe the vote was 80-18--to take that 4.3 cents which was going into the general revenue and put it into the highway trust fund. Now we are asked to suspend that source of income going into the highway trust fund. I am opposed to it. As our Nation's transportation infrastructure aged and crumbled, it was imperative that we transfer the 4.3 cents from general revenues to the highway trust fund. Eventually, TEA-21 guaranteed spending reform which resulted in a 40-percent increase in funds for transportation over the past 2 years. Today, we are just beginning to see the benefits of TEA-21 with more projects under construction, jobs being created, products moving more efficiently across the country, and, most importantly, improvement in highway safety. Do we want to now turn back the clock and inject uncertainty--that is the key word, uncertainty--into the funding profile needed for our highway program? While the legislation has an untested triggering mechanism to restore general revenues to the highway trust fund, what happens if that trigger is pulled and it doesn't work? Again, uncertainty will jeopardize highway safety for the driving public and thousands of jobs once created by TEA-21. In order to accomplish these significant budget reforms in TEA-21, adequate funding in the highway trust fund was critical to meet the many demands for the highway dollars. The highway trust fund is the sole source of revenue to improve our highways and bridges and maintain our bus and rail systems. The consequences of a suspension of 4.3 cents of the Federal gas tax are very significant if that triggered mechanism doesn't work. First, State and local transportation activities will lose approximately $6 billion just from the 4.3. Second, there will be a tremendous loss of high-paying jobs. I have heard upwards of a quarter of a million jobs would be lost. Certain representations have been made by some of my colleagues, and I am not in a position to agree or disagree, that all the contracts that are currently signed in an operation have adequate funding. That could well be correct. However, I could not get the same representation from those individuals regarding the 18.4. If that suddenly comes in, it could jeopardize some of the contracts that are outstanding. As Members come to the floor to vote tomorrow, they must have in mind an answer if the triggers go in effect--there are several triggers to the 18.4--what happens to the current contracts out there now and the people who are on the highways of this Nation working with trucks and all the other equipment to improve these roads. State and local transportation activities, as I say, will lose significant funds. Second, there will be a tremendous loss of the highway-paying jobs. I have covered that. Third, the safety of American drivers would be jeopardized. I am going to have printed in the Record the AAA letter which goes to the question of safety on the highways of America. Fourth, there would be severe disruptions in maintaining the planning schedules. In other words, every week in my State the highway departments, as they do in other States, are analyzing the needs of that State and beginning to project the work, contract for the work, design the work. Suddenly, they hear from Washington; wait a minute, the funds that may not come in. We promised the transfer from the general revenues. Try to explain the triggering mechanism, and what happens. Uncertainty comes into the equation. We all know it takes years, far too long for a highway or transit project to make it from the drawing board to construction. Severe swings or even the uncertainty of the availability of funds in transportation funding will make it nearly impossible for States to effectively manage their highway programs. Consistent funding levels are critical to the seamless steps of planning, designing, engineering, the permitting process, contracting, and construction. A stable program--where States, local governments, and contractors have the benefits of a long-term funding cycle--translates into a reliable supply of new and improved highways. That is elementary. Do we want to stop the modernization of our Nation's transportation system to give the gas middleman a few more pennies in his pocket? It could well happen. Or do we keep on course to improve transportation and highway safety for all Americans while providing more meaningful and lasting tax relief with such limited surplus as we may have? Those are the fundamental questions. I read off the various organizations, and I will make a brief reference to the following from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials: Dear Senator Warner: I would like to express AASHTOs profound concern with, and opposition to, bills recently introduced in the House and the Senate that would repeal or suspend all or a portion of the Federal motor fuel taxes. We appreciate the economic hardships caused by the sharp rise in the price of oil to the trucking industry, to the motoring public and to other sectors of our committee. However, we are concerned that the recently introduced legislation, designed to relieve the current economic distress, will inadvertently jeopardize the financial stability of the federal program that supports the various surface infrastructure on which motorists, the trucking industry, and indeed the economy depend. From the Small Business Legislative Council, addressed to Senator Lott, with a copy came to me: On behalf of the Small Business Legislative Counsel (SBLC), I want to indicate that we must object to the initiative to temporarily roll back the Federal gas tax. While small businesses are clearly suffering as a result of the highway gasoline prices, we are long time staunch supporters of reserving the integrity of the highway trust fund and making sure that we have the proper infrastructure to deliver our goods and services. From the American Automobile Association, one of the great hallmarks in our transportation system for many years, they write: Even more troubling is the proposal to temporarily suspend the 18.4 cents per gallon Federal tax prices if prices top $2 per gallon this year. That is an average; it is a complex formula. It could happen. I understand in California today the prices are over $2. It would not be just one State that triggered it. It would be a national average. Continuing: Despite assurances that revenues lost by the Highway Trust Fund will be replaced with revenues in the budget surplus, this action fundamentally alters the basic principle governing surface transportation funding. The Federal excise tax is a user fee. Motorists are paying for road and bridge repairs and safety programs through the fees paid at the gas pump. Now, from the American Road and Transportation Builders Association. They listed 10 points which will be printed. Last, I did not know what a coincidence it would be that the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Ohio, would be in the Chair. I obtained the following editorials which appeared in his State today, again, solidly supporting the distinguished Senator's stance on opposition to these taxes. It is very clear. I will read one editorial which appears in the Akron Beacon Journal: And all that gas tax, the difference that 4.3 cents can make. George Voinovich doesn't like paying $1.60 or more for a gallon of gas. In that sense, the Ohio Senator stands with the majority of his fellow Republicans, heck, the majority of Americans. Where he departs from the party line is determining what to do about the increase. Not surprisingly, Voinovich takes a practical approach. On Thursday, he joined Sen. John Warner, a Virginia Republican, and Sen. Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, to voice their bipartisan opposition to repealing the 4.3-cents-per-gallon tax levied in 1993 for deficit reduction. All three understand the cost if the tax is repealed. Cost? Old motorists might save a few cents. What they would lose is money for highway repair and construction. In 1997, Congress altered the purpose of the tax, dedicating the 4.3 to the highway use only. What would Ohio lose? If the repeal took effect in July, the State would forfeit $650 million the next three years. The State Department of transportation is already budgeted $300 million in Federal money for new construction. That would disappear. In its place? The headaches of drivers as they navigate the roads in desperate need of repair. Voinovich knows deficient roads exact their own toll. All across America today, tonight, people will be joining in notifying their Members of Congress that this piece of legislation, no matter how sincere, how principled in its presentation to this body, is not in the best interests of the country for the reasons I have stated. Exhibit 1 [From the Akron Beacon Journal, Mar. 27, 2000] All That Gas Tax--The Difference That 4.3 Cents Can Make George Voinovich doesn't like paying $1.60 or more for a gallon of gas. In that sense, the Ohio senator stands with the majority of his fellow Republicans, heck, the majority of Americans. Where he departs from the party line is determining what to do about the increase. Not surprisingly, Voinovich takes the practical approach. On Thursday, he joined Sen. John Warner, a Virginia Republican, and Sen. Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, to voice their bipartisan opposition to repealing the 4.3-cents-per- gallon tax levied in 1993 for deficit reduction. All three understand the cost if the tax is repealed. Cost? Oh, motorists might save a few cents. What they would lose is money for highway repair and construction. In 1997, Congress altered the purpose of the tax, dedicating the 4.3 cents to highway use only. What would Ohio lose? If the repeal took effect in July, the state would forfeit $650 million the next three years. The state Department of Transportation has already budgeted $300 million in federal money for new construction. That would disappear. In its place? The headaches of drivers as they navigate roads in desperate need of repair. Voinovich knows deficient roads exact their own toll.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend our distinguished colleague from South Carolina for his excellent remarks. He speaks from the heart on that subject, as he does on all of his work in the Senate. It is a privilege for me and others to learn from him constantly.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we respect the comments of our colleague from Vermont. Recognition should also go to Senator Hatch. I realize Senator Leahy also was about to speak on behalf of Senator Hatch. I want to recognize his efforts in working with the Senator from Vermont on this issue. The final vote was 63, and that is well beyond 50 percent of the Senate by which most issues are decided. Mr. President, at this time, I notice the senior Senator from South Carolina on the floor. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized following his presentation.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 14. This important joint resolution calls for an amendment to the United States Constitution that would allow the United States Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. For years now I have been among the strongest supporters in the United States Senate of amending the United States Constitution to allow Congress to prohibit physical desecration of the United States flag. I was pleased the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a resolution identical to S.J. Res. 14 on June 24, 1999, by a vote of 305-124, and I look forward to voting for S.J. Res. 14 in the near future. In 1989, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision in the case of Texas v. Johnson, stated that the First Amendment prevented a state from protecting the American flag from acts of physical desecration. Since that time, a number of individuals have sought to seize on this misguided Supreme Court decision to justify flag burning. Mr. President, why would any citizen, who wishes to continue enjoying the great privileges of being an American, need a legal right to burn our Nation's flag in public? No amount of tortured legal argumentation can overcome common sense and the plain meaning of the First Amendment. The first amendment to the Constitution states that no law shall abridge the ``freedom of speech.'' The key word in this portion of the amendment is ``speech.'' Laws that do not abridge ``speech'' are not prohibited by this section of the amendment. Simply put, burning the United States flag is not speech. A flag is not burned with words. Rather, a flag is burned with fire. As such, burning a flag is more appropriately classified as conduct, which is not protected by the first amendment. The proposition that our greatness as a nation rests on whether or not an individual is permitted to burn Old Glory simply does not add up. At a time in our national history when disparate influences appear to be dividing people, the American flag represents unity. During the American Revolution, and subsequent conflicts, the flag has unified our diverse nation. Our flag symbolizes the freedoms we enjoy everyday. Generations of Americans have gone forth from our shores to stop enemies abroad from taking away these freedoms. In addition, our great nation has always used the flag to honor those who, proudly in the uniform of our military, made great sacrifices. These are startling statistics that tend to be forgotten with the passage of time: World War II, 406,000 U.S. service members killed; Korea 55,000 U.S. service members killed; Vietnam, 58,100 U.S. service members killed, and Persian Gulf, 147 U.S. service members killed. For all those who gave their life, let us not forget that their caskets were draped in our flag as the final expression of our nation's thankfulness. The memory and honor of those who have fought under our flag demands that our flag be protected against reckless conduct presenting itself as ``free speech.'' Amendment No. 2890

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of the distinguished majority leader, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following convention transmitted to the Senate on March 23, 2000, by the President of the United States: International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), Treaty Document No. 106-23. I further ask that the convention be considered as having been read the first time; that it be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the President's message be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed in morning business for such time as I may require.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the bottom line for the United States and for the other nations involved in KFOR--that is the entire military operation in Kosovo--is the current safety and well-being of our troops being deployed there--U.S. troops and those of some 35 other nations are involved and the formulation of a timetable, safety first, but the formulation of a timetable. We can't do it right now, but if the purport of this amendment is met, we will be able in the reasonable future to formulate a timetable for the establishment of the infrastructure, both economic and security, which will allow for the safe return of our troops and those of other nations to their respective homes. Today, I had the opportunity to meet in my office with the Italian Minister of Defense, for example. He shares the common goal of this amendment. We are now one day away from the 1-year anniversary of the start of the NATO war on behalf of Kosovo, on behalf of human rights. The world could not have stood by idly and watched the killing and the rape and the pillaging of that nation and done nothing. It was a challenge to figure out what to do. On a number of occasions, I consulted with General Clark. Indeed, I was with him in part of that campaign, watching the operations he directed, and directed very skillfully. We could not have done nothing. This is an appropriate time for reflection and assessment. What have we accomplished and what remains to be done? Clearly, the large-scale ethnic cleansing has stopped and hundreds of thousands of Kosovar Albanian refugees have returned to their homes. For this, NATO should be proud of their military action. But what better way to express our pride in their successful accomplishment of that military mission than for the United States, in concert and partnership with its allies, to come forward in a timely manner and meet the commitments to solidify the military gains? None of us are totally satisfied. A regrettable chapter relates to the Serbian people who lived in those areas, many of whom have left after the cessation of the 78-day campaign. But I think the KFOR troops are doing their best to provide equal protection and that we are continuing to address that situation because we have to have an evenhanded policy. Human rights, to be successful, has to be implemented evenhandedly. Yes, the fighting has stopped. Unfortunately, the violence continues. Recent events in Mitrovica and in the vicinity of the Presevo Valley are cause for great concern. Bottom line, until there is an economic structure in place, together with a security structure, we will not see substantial progress in creating peaceful, civil society in Kosovo. Until that happens, under the administration's current plan, U.S. troops could remain indefinitely in Kosovo. Earlier this week, General Reinhardt, the commander of KFOR, said-- and I believe I am quoting him accurately--that he believed KFOR troops would be in Kosovo for up to a decade. To make such a declaration at this time, I say, with respect to this fine professional military officer whom I have met--I met him in Pristina about a month ago, right in his office--I repeat, to make such a declaration at this time I find unacceptable. This is one of the motivating factors behind the amendment I have proposed. We cannot let General Reinhardt or anyone else set a timetable of a decade. We need to see more progress on the civil implementation side. The U.N., the E.U., and the OSCE must move more swiftly to fulfill their responsibilities for rebuilding Kosovo, and our European allies must provide the assistance and personnel they have promised to provide if these goals are to be achieved. Time is of the essence. The amendment I and others have placed before the Senate is but one approach to deal with the situation in Kosovo. I know other colleagues have their own approaches on this issue, not necessarily dissimilar. We share common goals. In particular, I commend Senator Robert Byrd, who has proposed a concept for rapid turnover of the KFOR mission to the European allies. I now ask unanimous consent that the editorial by Senator Byrd be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. WARNER. It outlines in full his concepts, which are very interesting. I have been on the Senate floor with Senator Byrd so many times. He is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. No one takes to heart more dearly the welfare of the men and women of the Armed Forces and their families than Senator Byrd. He is concerned about their welfare as am I. We have joined together at a meeting in the White House, I think some 3 weeks ago, to discuss this very subject. He spoke up with great courage and determination to the President and the Secretaries of State and Defense. It was quite an interesting meeting. What we cannot allow to happen is for the current situation in Kosovo to drift on for a decade. I say no. There are problems. Those problems are surmountable if we work together. They must be addressed. They must be addressed in a timely manner. I hope the amendment in its present form, revised, will contribute to this goal. I, once again, encourage my colleagues and others to come forward with any constructive suggestions they may have. I continue to say that this Senator--I think I can speak for my cosponsors--is going to stand firm, firm in furtherance of the goals of human rights in Kosovo, in furtherance of remaining as a vital partner of NATO, in furtherance of creating a record to show that NATO can handle peacekeeping missions. To do that, we need more timely assistance from those who have committed to provide the infrastructure of economics and security. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Exhibit No. 1 Secretary General, NATO, Bruxelles, March 15, 2000. Senator John Warner, Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee, Russell Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. My Dear John: I am glad we had the chance to talk by phone yesterday. As I noted, I share your concern that the Allied nations need to react more swiftly and forcefully to the current challenges in Kosovo. I have been pressing hard to ensure that nations provide additional forces for KFOR. Dire press reports notwithstanding, progress has in fact been made. Let me give you an update on what steps are being taken. On force levels for Kosovo, the European Allies are now stepping up their contributions. Italy has agreed to provide a manoeuvre battalion of two companies for a limited time period. France is putting under NATO command two companies that had already been dispatched to Kosovo on short notice under national authority, and is adding one further company. Together, these three companies will form a new French manoeuvre battalion. This still leaves a shortfall of three companies relative to the needs in theatre as identified by the Supreme Allied Commander, General Clark, and the KFOR Commander General Reinhardt. I have been in direct contact with several Allied governments, and General Clark and the Military Committee Chairman Admiral Venturoni have been in touch with Chiefs of Defense. As a result of these contacts, a further five countries have indicated that they are seriously considering sending additional forces to Kosovo. Even before the addition of these forces, European nations are contributing a majority of the forces on the ground in Kosovo. The following figures relate to forces to theatre on 13 March. While these figures fluctuate by small amounts on a daily basis, the overall ratio of forces has been fairly constant for some time. EU nations makes up 60.3 percent of all the forces in Kosovo. European nations--leaving aside Russia and the CIS states-- make up 69.2 percent of the forces in Kosovo. Adding in Russia and the other CIS states, European nations account for 80 percent of all the forces in theatre. The remainder is made up by Argentina, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Canada and, of course, the United States, for a total of 38 nations contributing to KFOR. On the civil implementation side, there has also been some notable progress: The European Union has started to disburse 45 million Euro ($43.6 million) of the 360 million Euro ($349 million) pledged to UNMIK for the year 2000. Several NATO members states have also increased their financial contributions to both UNMIK and the KPC. Germany, Italy and Turkey have strengthened their civil police contingents to Kosovo, and the United Kingdom has agreed to provide additional judiciary officials. Let me emphasize in providing you this data that I am only reporting to you what I have been told as Secretary General. Implementation is key, and I will continue to press hard to make sure that nations follow through both on their KFOR contributions and on civil implementation. With these points in mind, I have to convey to you my firm belief that it would be wrong for NATO right now to have a reduction or limitation on the U.S. commitment, just as the situation in Kosovo is becoming more challenging and the European Allies, who are already carrying a large load, are beginning to do even more. This is particularly true when looking at the situation in the Presevo Valley, which is adjacent to the U.S. sector in Kosovo. I hope the U.S. will play a strong role in heading off a potential crisis there. The U.S. forces did a superb job today in raiding a number of support bases in Kosovo for extremists operating in southern Serbia. We need that kind of effective military presence to continue. On a related point, I understand your concerns for not deploying American forces away from these Southeastern trouble spots to help reinforce other Allies in Mitrovica. But I would not want to see the U.S. position cast in stone as a means of justifying lack of routine responsiveness to the operational commander. Such a position would be at odds with the principle of unity of command, which is essential to the effective of NATO forces in multinational operations over the long term. I appreciate your ongoing concern for the success of the KFOR operation. I am working very hard to ensure that the European Allies hold up their end of the bargain--in both the military and the civil implementation areas--and am counting on you and your colleagues to help maintain the valuable U.S. contribution. All the very best. George. Exhibit No. 2 U.N. Interim Administration, Mission in Kosovo, Pristina, March 18, 2000. Hon. John Warner, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator: Let me first of all thank you whole heartedly for your unfettered support and assistance as Chairman of the Armed Services Committee: the kind of tough questioning that took place as a result of your interventions have been instrumental in helping UNMIK achieve some of its objectives. I want to give you an update on the situation regarding the Kosovo Consolidated Budget, which is now in considerably better shape than it was earlier in the year. Donor pledges made at the end of last year have now crystallized into cash in the bank. Recently the Kosovo Budget has received contributions from the United States, the UK, France, Japan, and the European Union. As you will see from the attached tables, it is now estimated that the budget has sufficient cash to carry us through the summer. Furthermore our revenue collection is now improving. In particular, the European Union has already paid in some of its contributions, and clear and rapid procedures are in place for the remaining of the Union's contributions to be paid in (another more than Euro 55 Millions will be transferred to the Kosovo Budget in the next three months). Further, and as planned, the Union will contribute over Euro 240 Millions for reconstruction in 2000. I would however also stress that there were never sufficient pledges to cover the whole of the needs for the year 2000. there is still an uncovered gap of about 35 million DEM, as per attached table, and any assistance you can extend to us to cover that gap will be deeply appreciated by this mission. I very much appreciate the efforts that you have made so far which have been instrumental in improving our budget situation. Existing donor pledges have now been honored. The next challenge will be to get new donor pledges and to ensure that the pledges for the reconstruction budget of 17 November 1999 do materialize. I look forward to a continued dialogue with you, and I hope to see you soon. Sincerely, Bernard Kouchner, Special Representative of the Secretary General.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on March 9, I advised the Senate of my intention to offer an amendment on Kosovo to the supplemental, assuming that legislation comes up. If not, I will consider other avenues of legislation to incorporate the basic structure of this amendment. I have been joined in this effort by a thoughtful and well-respected number of my colleagues; indeed, the distinguished Senator from Alaska, who just departed the floor, and the distinguished Senator from Hawaii. I placed a draft copy of the amendment in the Record at that time and invited comment and constructive criticism. I am so pleased to report that has happened in abundance. I am here today to report to the Senate there has been an increasing interest in this amendment--positive, in most instances. I will refer to one bit of very constructive criticism momentarily. We have taken into consideration the views of many. I will be putting in today's Record an amendment which shows certain modifications, technical modifications, which I hope will meet some of the very fine constructive ideas I have received. To summarize, the amendment would require our European allies to fulfill a certain percentage of the commitments they have made to provide assistance and police personnel to Kosovo before the entire $2 billion contained in the supplemental for United States military operations in Kosovo would be made available. The amendment would allow for the provision of 50 percent of the money--over $1 billion--immediately for the use of the Department of Defense. But the remainder would be dependent on a certification by the President of the United States that our allies had provided a certain percentage of their commitments of assistance to Kosovo. If the President is not able to make that certification by June 1, then the remaining $1 billion could be used only to conduct the safe, orderly, and phased withdrawal of our troops from Kosovo--not a cut and run; not a fixed timetable; I repeat, a safe and orderly phased withdrawal. Again, I have been pleased by the response that has been generated by this amendment. It is clear, we have already achieved our first goal of focusing attention on this very serious problem in Kosovo. Actions on the part of our allies are being taken at an accelerated rate, and much more detailed information on such actions, past and present, are becoming available daily. For example, this past week I received letters from Lord Robertson, the Secretary General of NATO, and Dr. Bernard Kouchner, the head of the UN Mission in Kosovo, outlining the increased efforts of burdensharing of certain allies. According to the letter I received from Dr. Kouchner--I would like to quote a paragraph--I quote: I very much appreciate the efforts that you have made so far which have been instrumental in improving our budget situation. Existing donor pledges have now been honored. The next challenge will be to get new donor pledges and to ensure that the pledges for the reconstruction budget of 17 November 1999 do materialize. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters from Lord Robertson and Dr. Kouchner be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks, with certain other documents that I will attach, and letters.

Mr. WARNER. In addition, I had the opportunity to meet yesterday with Ambassador Guenter Burghardt, the European Commission representative in Washington, who provided me with valuable information on the contributions of the EU, particularly their efforts to streamline their process for providing assistance. Several weeks ago, it was very difficult to get accurate information on what had been pledged by our allies--not that they were withholding it; people just could not find it, in many instances, and put it into writing--and almost impossible to get data on what had actually been supplied to Kosovo. Now we are clearly making progress on this front, but more remains to be done. I asked for constructive criticism. And within the hour, by pure coincidence, because I planned to deliver these remarks, came a letter from our former distinguished majority leader, and my very close friend and mentor, Senator Robert Dole. I ask unanimous consent to print a letter from Senator Dole in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, with complete humility, may I ask to be associated with the remarks of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia on behalf of our colleague. I have had the privilege of serving both with the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Alaska. This is my 22nd or 23rd year, I think. I have lost count. But in those years, I have come to so respect both Senators. As we look at life in the Senate, there are no moments that are more cherished, no more well deserved than when a colleague rises at his or her own initiative to speak from the heart, as our distinguished Senator from West Virginia has done. He evoked the great quote from the Bible about the prophet without honor. But I would say to my friend from West Virginia, I have never thought of Senator Stevens--until this moment--as being a prophet, but I have always thought of him with honor. Although we are from the same side of the aisle, we have had very strong and vigorous debate in dissent, but I have never left the Chamber with less than the feeling that it has been a fair fight, and an honest fight, having even greater respect for our distinguished colleague. How richly he deserves this honor. Like you, I say to the Senator, I only wish I could be there. But we will be there in spirit. I thank my colleagues.