John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. He is clearly one of the elder statesmen of this institution, with some almost 30 years of service in the Senate.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I listened to my distinguished colleague with great interest. If my colleague wishes to speak for a few more minutes, I will follow my colleague. I say to the Senator, I was very interested in what you were saying. Does my colleague wish to take some additional time?

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in the past 24 hours the world awakened again to another tragic incident causing great damage, death, harm, and destruction to the people of Israel. There are now news reports that, understandably, the Israelis are positioning their forces such that they, first and foremost, have to defend their sovereignty and the people of their nation, but that could again result in injury and death to others. Regrettably, this has gone on for a very long time. Speaking for this one Senator, I feel it as an obligation on me, and I share that obligation with my colleagues, to address this subject and to put forth our own ideas as best we can fashion them. I am about to do that again. For the fourth time I have taken this floor and spoken about a concept I have had. I once again share it with my colleagues in hopes, if they have a better idea, if this administration has a better idea, then put it forward. My thoughts were expressed on the floor on May 2 of this year in the Congressional Record, page 3812; June 21, Congressional Record, page 5891; July 24, Congressional Record, page 7299. On August 2, roughly 6 weeks ago, I wrote the President of the United States. Copies were sent to his principal Cabinet officials having responsibilities in these areas. I am going to read that letter because it embraces my thoughts. Even though it was 6 weeks ago, I still steadfastly believe this is one approach to this tragic situation that deserves consideration. I fully understand our President and his Cabinet are heavily engaged with regard to critical considerations on Iraq and the United Nations. But I believe there is a connection between the ongoing crisis and the unsettled situation and the death and destruction in this tragic conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people. Six weeks ago I wrote to the President. This is the first time, of course, I have made public this letter. I respect the President of the United States of whichever party. In these 24 years I have been privileged to be in the U.S. Senate, I have written on occasion, as each of us do, to our Presidents. But I try not to write the letter and within the same day or days release it. So this is the first time I have released this letter. It was 6 weeks ago, August 2 of this year: Dear Mr. President, the Nation recently celebrated our traditional 4th of July holiday--normally a time of joyful reflection about our history and patriotism. Thankfully, it was a peaceful day for America, but we entered that holiday period confronted with yet more warnings off possible terrorist attack. It is, indeed, prudent that our citizens be warned of such threats, even when specifics are lacking. However, if these warnings continue indefinitely, our people will begin to wonder what is the root cause of this hatred toward America and what is our government doing about it. For the first time in the over 200 year history of our Republic we, under your leadership, are establishing a Department of Homeland Security and designating a new military command, U.S. Northern Command, to protect the fifty states. We've taken bold steps at home; others must join us in taking bold steps abroad. As we all know, the scourge of terrorism in our 21st Century world is a complex, multi-faceted problem. There is not a single cause, but many, including: disparate economic development around the world; lack of political and economic opportunity in many regions; the alarming spread of radical, fundamentalist religious dogma's--especially Islam--amongst those feeling disenfranchised from the mainstream; and, the parallel rise in ethnic conflict after decades of oppression by Communist and other tyrannical regimes. In this environment of perceived hopelessness and despair for many of the world's youth, certain seemingly unsolvable events continue to fan the flames of anger and hatred that lead to irrational acts. This is manifested in the individual acts of terror we witness almost daily on the streets of Israel and in the recruitment of angry young men and women into radical terror organizations that encourage them to vent their anger in the most destructive, often suicidal, of ways. Finding solutions for the conditions that have bred this hate and total disregard for peaceful solutions will be complex, but it must be systematically addressed. Clearly, you and key members of your Administration have shown, and continue to show leadership in this area. But, we must ask the question, can more be done by others? The prolonged Israeli-Palestinian conflict contributes, in part, to the unrest and anger in the Arab world. How much it contributes cannot be quantified, but it is a significant and growing factor. This conflict, often presented in a distorted and biased manner to citizens of Arab nations, must be confronted, if we are ever to meaningfully address the disaffection and dissatisfaction felt by the people of this region. Each act of violence by either side in this unending conflict further erodes hope for a peaceful future for the people of Israel, the people of Palestine and others throughout the Middle East. In fact, each act of senseless violence in the Middle East further erodes hope that someday we can feel secure from terrorism here at home. All reasonable options to bring about an end to this violence and indiscriminate loss of life must be considered. We can never abandon hope. We must act in a way to renew hope in this land of faith, and we must continue to consider all options. May I respectfully submit the following concept for your consideration concerning the use of NATO peacekeepers. My recommendation would be for you to request that the North Atlantic Council (NAC) formally consider a proposal to use NATO forces as peacekeepers. If the concept is acceptable to the NAC they could commence to draw up a plan for peacekeeping. Once consensus had been achieved within the NAC, the NAC would so advise the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, making it clear NATO would assist, only if the two sides establish a genuine cease fire, and both sides accept NATO's plan. Further, both sides must commit to cooperate in preventing further hostilities until negotiations have been successful to the point that NATO forces could be withdrawn and a substitute security plan has been put in place. Obviously, these steps are and will be very challenging, but they are achievable, especially in light of the bold, balanced vision you have articulated for a resolution of this conflict. The basic thoughts in this letter have been stated by me previously in speeches on the floor of the Senate, and in my remarks to a recent gathering of NATO ambassadors on Capitol Hill, and in open hearings of the Senate Armed Services Committee with the Secretary of Defense present. Time is of the essence. I am concerned that recent events in the region, including the unfortunate Israeli attack that killed women and children as Israeli forces pursued Palestinian terrorists and the subsequent terrorist attack on Hebrew University, will further delay meaningful progress toward peace. I strongly encourage you to explore this option with our NATO allies, and determine if they are willing to consider such a proposal. The time for discussion and consensus building is now. When the conditions for a cease fire and negotiations are right, we must be able to act quickly and decisively with a credible peacekeeping force. I believe a NATO force would be credible for the reason that Europe is perceived as being more sympathetic to Palestinian views and the U.S. as more sympathetic to Israeli views. NATO can bond these viewpoints to act as one with peace as its unifying goal, and dispel these perceived biases. NATO troops are trained and ``ready to roll'' on short notice. NATO is an established coalition of nations with a proven record of successful peacekeeping in the Balkans. Clearly, there are risks, but NATO peacekeepers can--with the cooperation of Israel and the Palestinian people--bring stability to this troubled region; stability that will allow for meaningful negotiations that have a chance to end the violence. This is not a conclusion that I have reached lightly. Some of my colleagues in the Senate, as well as noted journalists and others, have discussed with me the broad issues associated with this proposal. Mine has been one of the many voices calling for well-defined principles and restraint in the employment of U.S. forces around the world. I fully recognize the risks to U.S. forces and our alliance partners. I strongly feel this is one of those unique circumstances that demand every resource and idea we can bring to bear. If the opportunity arises, we must be prepared to give peace and hope a chance. I respectfully submit these thoughts as you forge ahead and lead the world's efforts to find a path to peace for this important region of our global community, and in so doing, enhance the security of our people here at home. It is my fervent hope that by the time we pause to celebrate our nation's next birthday, the fledgling ideas we are collectively considering today will have blossomed into substantial progress toward freedom from the senseless violence we are witnessing today. With kind regards, I am respectfully.--John Warner.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I was going to ask the Senator a question.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will now turn, I say to the Senator from South Carolina, my remarks to the question of the pending amendment by the Senator from Tennessee, and I thank my good friend for his reply to my question.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we were, as a body in recess--fortunately, the leadership decided this body should go into recess so we could watch the President of the United States deliver a speech which, in my judgment, is one of the most important speeches ever delivered before the United Nations. He laid out with specific clarity the threats to the world posed by Saddam Hussein, the threats to the world of inaction at this time, and that those who say to him, there is concern this Nation is acting unilaterally--our President very clearly gave the United Nations a clear and respectful mandate to act now in the face of unrefuted facts that in 16 instances, Saddam Hussein has defied the United Nations and the Security Council. What better evidence? He alluded to the fact that Saddam Hussein has provided evidence-- clearly, it is there--of a highly increased tempo of activities toward the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction, weapons which in no way are needed for the rightful defense of the sovereign Nation of Iraq, weapons that could only be manufactured and devised for offensive actions against other nations. This is not a war, which we are alluding to, between Iraq and the United States. This is a war of free nations--many free nations--free people, innocent people whose lives are at risk in the same way lives were risked on 9/11 a year ago in New York, in my State of Virginia, and in Pennsylvania. I commend the President. It is interesting, against his speech is the background of another President, President Clinton, who on February 19, 1998, referring to his own perspective on terrorism, said, referring to the terrorists: They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information and ideas, and they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow this to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of the region, and the security of all the rest of us. Our President built on that foundation in this historic speech that was delivered today. It is my fervent hope that the Congress of the United States, hopefully led by the Senate, will accede to the President's request made to a group of us from the House and Senate who were in his office just weeks ago, when he called on the Congress, to act with respect to this situation such that the executive branch, led by President Bush, and the Congress are arm in arm as we carry forward our war against terrorism and, most specifically, the threats posed by Iraq. We are here on the issue of homeland defense, the issue of a new Department. We have had a good debate. We have our differences of view but, nevertheless, I see the momentum, I hope, in this body to move forward with this legislation. I support the overall intent of this legislation. I strongly agree with the need to better organize our Government to protect our homeland, but I do not support all the provisions of this bill. Two such provisions are addressed by the pending Thompson amendment, which I strongly support, which would strike titles II and III of the underlying legislation. These titles have been of concern to me for some time, and in a letter dated July 17 of this year, which I ask now unanimous consent to print in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks, I so expressed my concerns to the managers of this legislation.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, title II mandates the establishment of a National Office for Combating Terrorism, and title III mandates the development of a national strategy for combating terrorism and homeland security response. I note that the administration is strongly opposed to both of these titles. The arguments against title II are not unlike the questions I posed to the distinguished Senator from South Carolina regarding his measure, which is also pending before the Senate. And that is, we should accord, as a legislative body, the Congress, the maximum flexibility to our President, be he Democrat or Republican, in establishing that structure he deems necessary in his Department to best serve his style of discharging the obligations of the Office of President. Our President respectfully says to the Congress: I do not need what is proposed in title II. Again, on October 8, 2001, following the tragic events of September 11, President Bush formed the Office of Homeland Security in the Executive Office of the President to oversee immediate homeland security concerns and to propose long-term solutions. Governor Ridge has discharged with great distinction the responsibilities of that office. They worked hard under the President's guidance to produce a comprehensive plan that now deserves our serious consideration and support. Again, the mandate to establish an Office for Combating Terrorism within the Executive Office of the President of the United States, in my judgment, would be redundant to the structure currently in place, particularly since the President has already stated his intention to retain the position of Assistant to the President for Homeland Security. I urge the Senate to respect the right of the President under the Constitution to establish his office, his infrastructure, which best serves his style of management. Turning to a second concern, and that is budget review and certification authority provided for in this legislation to the proposed Director of the National Office for Combating Terrorism, in my view, such authority will undercut the ability of several Cabinet-level officials, most notably the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Attorney General, and the Director of Central Intelligence, as well as the new Secretary of Homeland Security, assuming the Senate and the House act, to carry out their primary responsibilities. In the case of the Department of Defense, the Secretary of Defense-- and I have had the privilege in my 24 years in the Senate of working with a succession of those Secretaries--the Secretary of Defense has a wide-ranging responsibility to protect the vital U.S. interests and to protect against the threats that are ever mounting against our Nation. The Department, under the leadership of Secretary Rumsfeld, is currently engaged in an all-out global war against terrorism designed to bring to justice those responsible for the September 11 attacks on our Nation and to deter would-be terrorists and those who harbor them from further attacks. The Secretary of Defense must ensure that the Department is adequately and properly funded to carry out its many missions. Pending before the Congress is the largest increase in defense spending in many years, decades, but it is necessary. Our committee, the authorization committee, together with the Appropriations Committee, will soon bring their respective conference reports to this body for approval, and I anticipate rapid approval by both Houses of Congress. It would be unwise to subject portions of the budget of these respective Cabinet officers to a veto in many respects.

Mr. WARNER. I ask for an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. WARNER. I turn now to title III. The pending legislation requires the development of a national strategy for combating terrorism and homeland security response. I have been the author, with colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Senator Nunn, who was chairman of our Committee on Armed Services, and Chairman Levin, the current chairman, and urged that these various reports concerning the security of our United States be brought by the administration to the Congress in a timely manner so we can make our appropriate decisions on the budget. Time and again, our committees have done that. It has been, generally speaking, a good response by successive administrations on this subject. When the President established the Office of Homeland Security, he directed Governor Ridge to develop a comprehensive strategy to protect the United States from attack, which is right here. Therefore, I think it is again redundant for this specific section in title III to be enacted which more or less formalizes, again, the necessity for producing this report which the President has voluntarily done. I see the distinguished Senator from Connecticut in the Chamber. I commend him for the hard work he has done, and I strongly urge that this body be given the opportunity soon to make its final deliberations and that this important legislation be adopted in whatever form is the will of the Senate. I congratulate the Senator from Connecticut, as well as the Senator from Tennessee. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, July 17, 2002. Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman, Chairman, Hon. Fred Thompson, Ranking Member, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington,

Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee. I wish to commend the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, and our very dear, soon-departing friend from Tennessee for their very important work on this bill, homeland security. Amendment No. 4513

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, as our highly esteemed colleague knows full well, he occupies a position in this Chamber almost second to none by virtue of his long experience and as a chief executive officer of his State, a Governor. In listening very carefully to what he said, it occurs to me that there is merit in this amendment. However, my question to our colleague, given the rather dramatic points he makes here, is: Should we not allow the current President the opportunity to communicate with the Senate his views on this? It seems to me this council was established for the specific reason of being advisory to him. It is thought of as his means of establishing an infrastructure, as all Presidents have done, that best serves the method by which they wish to govern and discharge their responsibilities as President. My committee, Armed Services, the Foreign Relations Committee, the Committee on Governmental Affairs, and others that possibly have some oversight on this type of amendment, it seems to me, could quickly gather the views and, in all probability, we may end up with our colleague's amendment. But at least afford the courtesy to the President to share with the Congress--and most specifically the Senate--the views before they act on such a dramatic piece of legislation as this.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, we have just returned from a most historic and moving ceremony at the Department of Defense. That building will always occupy in my heart a very special place for I was privileged to serve there during 5 years and 4 months of the period of the war in Vietnam in the Navy Secretariat, including my service as Secretary of the Navy. On 9/11, of course, I joined colleagues briefly here in the Chamber and then we exited and with other colleagues who were gathered in the park, we chatted a little bit about what we should do. I returned to my office and conducted a brief prayer meeting and recommended to my staff that they proceed to their homes and their loved ones. In about an hour or two, however, I decided I would like to go to the Department of Defense again because of my very special high regard for the men and women of the Armed Forces and that dastardly act committed by terrorists. I called the Secretary of Defense, whom I had known for many years. We both served in the administration of President Nixon and President Ford. He said: Come right over. I called my good friend and colleague, Carl Levin, at his home, and Carl immediately said, yes, he would join us, and the two of us then proceeded to the Department of Defense where we joined Secretary Rumsfeld and then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Shelton. It was a memorable afternoon there at the command post watching the magnificence of our command structure dealing with the many unknowns, and yet taking the proper actions. The President called in. Both Senator Levin and I spoke with him briefly. Then we went back with the Secretary to where the plane had struck the building and visited with all those who were performing heroic acts right before our eyes in hopes of saving other lives and doing what they could to comfort those wounded. We then returned with the Secretary. And Secretary Rumsfeld asked Senator Levin and I to accompany him to a press conference. We stood behind the Secretary and the Chairman while they spoke. And then unexpectedly, Secretary Rumsfeld turned to both of us and asked us to make a few remarks. I have here this morning the remarks I made, with no preparation, just speaking from the heart. And they are as true today, 1 year later, as they were at about 6:30 on the afternoon or the evening of 9/11 when Senator Levin and I joined the Secretary. I will just repeat these remarks. I stated that I was joined by my distinguished chairman, Carl Levin, and I said, speaking to the Nation: I can assure you that the Congress stands behind our President and the President speaks with one voice for this entire Nation. This is, indeed, the most tragic hour in America's history, and yet I think it can be its finest hour, as our President and those with him, most notably our Secretary of Defense, our chairman [of the Joint Chiefs] and the men and women of the armed forces all over this world stand ready not only to defend this nation and our allies against further attack, but to take such actions as are directed in the future in retaliation for this terrorist act--one of the most unprecedented in the history of the world. We call upon the entire world to step up and help, because terrorism is a common enemy to all, and we're in this together. The United States has borne the brunt, but [which nation] can be next? Step forward and let us hold accountable and punish those that have perpetrated this attack. Under the leadership of our President and the courage of the men and women of the Armed Forces and the strength of the citizens of this Nation, that has been done, is being done, and will be done. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on June 6 of this year, President Bush proposed the establishment of a Department of Homeland Security and, arguably, the most fundamental reorganization of the United States Government since the passage of the National Security Act of 1947. This proposal by our President is the logical culmination of a very deliberate process that started when then-Governor George W. Bush established homeland security as his highest priority during a speech at the Citadel in September 1999, when he stated, ``Once a strategic afterthought defense has become an urgent duty.'' While I support the overall intent of the legislation and strongly agree with the need to better organize our Government to protect our homeland, I do not support all provisions of this bill as drafted. Two such provisions are addressed by the pending Thompson amendment--which I support--which would strike titles II, and III of the underlying legislation. Title II mandates the establishment of a National Office for Combating Terrorism and title III mandates the development of a national strategy for terrorism and homeland security response. I would like to note that the administration is strongly opposed to both of these titles. On October 8, 2001, following the tragic events of September 11, President Bush formed the Office of Homeland Security in the Executive Office of the White House to oversee immediate homeland security concerns and to propose long-term solutions. Governor Ridge and others have worked hard under the President's guidance to produce a comprehensive plan that now deserves our serious consideration and support. To now mandate the establishment of a national Office for Combating Terrorism within the Executive Office of the President would be redundant to the structure currently in place, particularly since the President has already stated his intention to retain the position of Assistant to the President for Homeland Security. Additionally, I have serious concerns about the budget review and certification authority provided by this legislation to the proposed Director of the National Office for Combating Terrorism. In my view, such authorities would undercut the ability of several Cabinet-level officials, including the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General and the Director of Central Intelligence, as well as the new Secretary of Homeland Security, to carry out their primary responsibilities. In the case of the Department of Defense, the Secretary of Defense has wide-ranging responsibilities to protect vital U.S. interests and to prevent threats from reaching our shores. The Department, under the leadership of Secretary Rumsfeld, is currently engaged in an all-out global war against terrorism--designed to bring to justice those responsible for the September 11 attacks on our Nation and to deter would-be terrorists and those who harbor them from further attacks. The Secretary of Defense must ensure that the Department is adequately and properly funded to carry out its many missions. It would be unwise to subject portions of the budget carefully prepared by the Secretary of Defense to a ``decertification''--in essence, a veto--by an official who does not have to balance the many competing needs of the Department of Defense and the men and women of the Armed Forces. Title III of the pending legislation requires the development of a national strategy for combating terrorism and the homeland security response. When the President established the Office of Homeland Security, he directed Governor Ridge to develop a comprehensive strategy to protect the United States from terrorist attacks. In July of this year, President Bush unveiled his Homeland Security Strategy, precluding the need for Title III of the pending legislation. Legislating anything other than a periodic review and update of this strategy in conjunction with normal updates of our overall national security strategy would be burdensome and would divert attention and resources away from the administration's focus on homeland defense and the global war on terrorism. As the President stated in releasing the homeland security strategy on July 16, ``The U.S. Government has no more important mission than protecting the homeland from future terrorist attacks.'' We in the Congress should do all we can to help our President achieve this goal. I urge my colleagues to support the Thompson amendment.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to a great sailor, patriot, husband and father, VADM Thomas Ray Wilson. By the time we return from our August recess, this great sailor will have officially retired from active service on August 30, 2002, having faithfully and loyally served his country around the globe for over 33 years. Admiral Wilson ends his active service having served at the pinnacle of military intelligence as the 13th Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Born in Columbus, OH, Admiral Wilson is a 1968 graduate of Ohio State University. He joined the Navy at the height of the Vietnam conflict, and received his commission as an ensign in March 1969, following completion of Navy Officer Candidate School in Newport, RI. Throughout his extraordinary military career Admiral Wilson distinguished himself as a candid innovator, a patient, creative teacher; and a great leader. His early assignments included watch officer and analytical and command briefing positions in the Taiwan Defense Command in Tapei, Taiwan, and in the Defense Intelligence Agency. Subsequent duties ashore and afloat included assignment on the USS Kitty Hawk; as the operational intelligence officer with the Iceland Anti-submarine Warfare Group; duty with Carrier Air Wing Three embarked in USS Saratoga; and force intelligence officer for Commander, Patrol Wings Atlantic in Brunswick, ME. Recogizing his potential to serve the Navy and the Nation in positions of great responsibility, the Navy selected Admiral Wilson to serve as Commander, Task Group 168.3 in Naples, Italy, where, under his leadership, this unit earned the Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation. After this successful tour, Admiral Wilson moved on to Yokuska, Japan, where he served as the Fleet Intelligence Officer and Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, U.S. Seventh Fleet, embarked in U.S.C. Blue Ridge. After returning to the United States, Admiral Wilson served in a variety of senior positions in Washington, DC, and the Norfolk, VA area, including Director of Fleet Intelligence, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, and as Director of Intelligence, J2, U.S. Atlantic Command, where he was deeply involved in the planning and execution of operations to re- establish freedom and democracy in Haiti in 1994. Admiral Wilson has served in the most senior military intelligence positions in our Government since 1994, including Vice Director for Intelligence, J2 on the Joint Staff in the Pentagon; as the Associate Director of Central Intelligence for Military Support within the Central Intelligence Agency; and, as the Director for Intelligence, J2 on the Joint Staff in the Pentagon. In these positions Admiral Wilson was intimately involved in the planning and execution of virtually all U.S. military operations around the world in the past 8 years. In the process, he has gained the personal respect and confidence of two Presidents, three Secretaries of Defense, four Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and countless Members of Congress. As Admiral Vern Clark, Chief of Naval Operations, who was Director of the Joint Staff when Admiral Wilson was the J2, noted at Admiral Wilson's retirement ceremony recently, ``When Tom Wilson spoke, we listened.'' In conversations I have had with colleagues in the Senate and with numerous Defense officials who interacted with Admiral Wilson, there was uniform consensus--his analysis was thorough, his judgment was clear and his instincts were flawless. In July 1999, Admiral Wilson moved on to his last and most challenging active duty post as the 13th Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and, symbolically, the chief of military intelligence for all of our Armed Forces. His 3-year tenure at the Defense Intelligence Agency was marked by the same innovativeness, commitment to excellence and selfless service to Nation that characterized his entire military career. He reshaped the Agency to ensure that it was meeting the 21st century demands of our senior military and civilian leaders and that it was postured to respond to the rapidly evolving challenges our Nation will face in the years ahead. Admiral Wilson's outstanding leadership qualities were never more apparent than during the Defense Intelligence Agency's most difficult hour--the September 11 attack on the Pentagon. His crisis management abilities were critical in the hours that followed--both in accounting for members of the Agency, and in positioning the Agency to provide critical threat data in the immediate aftermath of the attack. The Defense Intelligence Agency lost seven members in the Pentagon attack, with five others seriously injured. Admiral Wilson's personal contact with each family who lost a loved one, and with the five surviving members in the days and weeks that followed was most appreciated and highlighted the selfless concern for others this remarkable sailor has always demonstrated. His concern for family members and his outreach to the workforce were critical to holding the Agency together as it worked its way through the aftermath of the attack. His leadership was absolutely key to ensuring warfighters and policymakers obtained the best possible support as the Nation began to respond. The success of our forces in the global war against terrorism is a testament to the quality of effort given by the Defense Intelligence Agency under the able leadership of ADM Tom Wilson. Throughout his career, Admiral Wilson has displayed unmatched dedication to providing the highest quality intelligence support to the warfighter and senior defense officials. His leadership has helped transform the military intelligence community into a joint, interoperable, technologically advanced federation that is postured to support the challenges of today and tomorrow. His personal commitment to the intelligence community, to the Navy, and to our Nation is of the highest, most commendable order. I wish to extend my gratitude and appreciation to VADM Tom Wilson and his wife of 33 years, Ann, for their friendship, their sacrifice, and for the remarkable service they have provided to our Nation, our Navy, and to the countless young people whose lives they have touched in such a remarkably selfless and positive way. On behalf of a grateful Nation, I want to sincerely thank Tom and Ann Wilson for serving so faithfully and so well. As they end their active service with the Navy, I wish them success and happiness in retirement and future endeavors. As a fellow sailor, I wish them fair winds and following seas-- Godspeed.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to BG James D. Hittle, USMC (retired) who was buried at Arlington Cemetery on July 24, 2002. I was privileged to serve with this distinguished military office and public servant in the Navy Secretariat during the Vietnam war years. His main responsibilities were naval manpower and reserve affairs, but his wisdom was sought not only by me as the Under Secretary of the Navy bust also by Secretary of the Navy John Chafee and Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird. He remained my friend and valued adviser throughout his life. I ask that the tribute to a great American General Don Hittle which was delivered at his funeral by General Paul X. Kelly, USMC (retired), the 28th Commandant of the Marine Corps be printed in the Record. The tribute follows: A Tribute to Brigadier General James D. Hittle, USMC (Retired) Brigadier General James Donald Hittle--devout Christian-- great American--Marine officer--gentleman and gentle man-- loving husband--caring father--always a friend in need! Commissioned a Marine Second Lieutenant in 1937, Don Hittle was a ``plank owner'' when Major General Holland Smith activated the 1st Marine Division for World War II--was D-4 for the 3d Marine Division under Major General Graves Erskine on Guam and at Iwo Jima--and after the war commanded 2d Battalion, 7th Marines, in the Occupation of North China. After serving his Corps for 23 years, Don Hittle's future life could easily qualify him as a quintessential ``Renaissance Man.'' He was Director of National Security and Foreign Affairs for the Veterans of Foreign Wars; syndicated columnist for Copley News Service; commentator for Mutual Broadcasting System; Special Counsel for both the Senate and House Armed Service Committees; a founder and Director of the D.C. National Bank; Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs; Senior Vice President for Pan American Airways; consultant to the President of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation; advisor to several Secretaries of the Navy and Commandants of the Marine Corps--and the list goes on and on and on. Colonel Don Hittle came into my life during the summer of 1956, when Major General Jim Riseley dragged me kicking and screaming from a cushy tour in what was then the Territory of Hawaii to the labyrinthian corridors of Headquarters Marine Corps. As many of those here today will recall, this was the long, hot summer of Ribbon Creek, and Don Hittle was Legislative Assistant to Randolph McCall Pate, our 21st Commandant. I was a young, eager, starry-eyed Captain, very naive in the arcane world at the Seat of Government--but, I was soon to learn. My first lesson was a negative one--that a junior officer should never ask the Legislative Assistant to the Commandant for a description of his duties and responsibilities. With that said, I did notice that every time Colonel Hittle came charging into General Riseley's office he closed the door behind him. While I readily admit to not being a ``rocket scientist,'' I did surmise that there were some ``big time'' discussions underway. But, as the saying goes: ``Nothing succeeds quite like success.'' I was soon to learn that by working closely with the Congress, where Members and their staffs knew him, respected him, and trusted him, Don Hittle had effectively minimized the repercussions from Ribbon Creek. One senior member from the House of Representatives was heard to say: ``Don Hittle is the best damned Legislative Assistant the Marine Corps has ever had.'' One could go on for hours, perhaps days, about Don's myriad contributions to his Country and his Corps. As an example, I could tell you how he more than any other saved the Army Navy Club from extinction. Senator John Warner, who is here with us today, could tell you that when he was Secretary of the Navy he never had a more imaginative and dedicated Assistant Secretary. Joe Bartlett, the former House Reading Clerk and a retired Marine Corps General, could tell you how Don Hittle was responsible for the creation of the dynamic Congressional Marine Club. Incidentally, Jim Lawrence, who is also with us today, once said of this organization: ``Congress created the Marine Corps--Congress has sustained the Marine Corps-- Congress has mandated the mission of the Marine Corps-- through this organization we are now bonded to each other forever.'' In the end, however, all of his many other contributions to his Country and to his beloved Corps pale by comparison to what he accomplished as a member of the renowned ``Chowder Society'', that elite group of brilliant Marine officers who, in the aftermath of World War II when the very life of our Corps was threatened, insured that our existence, our roles, and our missions were written into law. Don's critical role in the survival of his Corps was best described by General Merrill Twining when he inscribed his book, No Bended Knee, ``To: Don Hittle, Who saved our Corps.'' There can be no doubt that our Corps we have today, with three active divisions and wings written into law, owes an enormous debt of gratitude to Brigadier General James D. Hittle, USMC (Retired). Isn't it ironic to remember that fifty-five years ago certain groups, whose objectives were inimical to the survival of our Corps, were attempting to relegate us into insignificance. Today, with a lion's share of the credit for making it possible going to Don Hittle, we have just heard that Jim Jones, our 32d Commandant, is soon to be the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. Our congratulations go to Jim-- his Corps is very proud--Don Hittle is very proud! Several years after my retirement, Don asked me to join him for lunch at his Army Navy Club. His purpose was to ask if I would give his eulogy. I was honored beyond belief, but did not look forward to the day when it would become a reality. Before closing, let me share with you a story that Joe Bartlett told me last week. Jinny and Joe are members of a Bible class at their church. As a gesture of their love and caring for those who are terminally ill, the class prepares an audio tape for their listening. On one side they include the patient's favorite hymns, and, on the other, a medley of their favorite tunes. During Don's last days with us--a time when he was under heavy sedation--Joe swears that Don's body stiffened to attention every time the Marines Hymn was played. In closing, let me remind you that Don lived by two simple words--words which have given inspiration to our Corps for over 200 years--Semper Fidelis--always faithful. Don Hittle was always: Semper Fidelis to his God. Semper Fidelis to his Country. Semper Fidelis to his Family. Semper Fidelis to his Corps. And, Semper Fidelis to his fellow man. In Don's memory, then, let us share these meaningful words with each other as we leave this holy place--and let us pray that one day we can live in a world where all of its citizens are Semper Fidelis to each other. Don Hittle would like that.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Judge Henry Hudson, who has been nominated to serve as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Senator Allen and I had the honor of recommending Judge Hudson to President Bush for this position, and we have worked closely with Chairman Leahy, Senator Hatch, and with our leadership to get Judge Hudson's nomination to a confirmation vote. It is important to note that the Virginia Bar Association ``highly recommends'' Judge Hudson for this Federal judgeship. In addition, Judge Hudson's nomination enjoys bipartisan support in Virginia. Congressman Jim Moran and State Senate Minority Leader Dick Saslaw, both Democrats, have penned letters of support for Judge Hudson. Judge Hudson enjoys such widespread support based on his extensive experience with the law, and his reputation for having an appropriate judicial temperament. For these reasons, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously reported out his nomination. Judge Hudson's legal career began with his service as a Deputy Sheriff in Arlington County, Virginia, in 1969 and 1970. He then went to law school, graduating from American University in 1974. Subsequent to his graduation from law school, Mr. Hudson entered legal practice as a prosecutor. First, he served as an Assistant Commonwealth's attorney for 5 years and then as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia. In 1986, Mr. Hudson was confirmed by the Senate and began his service as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, where he served until 1991. After leaving the U.S. Attorney's office, Judge Hudson once again received Senate confirmation and served as the Director of the United States Marshals Service from 1992 to 1993. After completing his work at the Marshals Service, Mr. Hudson entered private practice until he was sworn in as a Judge on the Fairfax County, Virginia, Circuit Court. Judge Hudson has served as a Judge on this important court since 1998. During his time on the Fairfax County Circuit Court bench, Judge Hudson has been known as a fair, objective judge who conducts proceedings with dignity and with the appropriate judicial temperament. I am confident that he will continue his service on the Eastern District of Virginia bench consistent with this reputation. I urge my colleagues to support Judge Hudson's nomination.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I pay tribute to an exceptional leader--Vice Admiral Tom Kilcline, Sr., in recognition of his remarkable career of service to our country. Tom served his country for over 50 years as a distinguished Naval Officer and as President of The Retired Officers Association, TROA. Having battled cancer for over three years, Tom passed away on July 11, surrounded by his family at the Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, MD. In 1943, at the height of World War II, he enlisted in the Navy from Kokomo, IN and was appointed to the U.S. Naval Academy in 1945. Tom enjoyed a distinguished career as a Naval Aviator; he flew in Korea, became an accomplished Test Pilot, commanded a tactical carrier based squadron during Vietnam, and flew actively, including tactical jets, until his retirement as Commander Naval Air Forces, US Atlantic Fleet in 1983. Admiral Kilcline was an incredible leader and tireless advocate for our Navy. During my tenure as the Secretary of the Navy, Tom headed the Office of Legislative Affairs and, while there, we worked closely together to push for legislative initiatives to improve readiness and to provide for much of the modern naval force you see today. Following his retirement, he served as National President of The Retired Officers Association where he continued to work with Congress on behalf of thousands of our retired service personnel for nearly 10 years. Tom's greatest ally and strength was his devoted wife of 52 years, Dornell Thompson of Pensacola, FL. Dornell, a daughter of a naval aviator, was by his side through all his battles, from championing the cause of our country and our military families, to his fight with cancer. They have had four children: Rear Admiral Tom, Jr., on duty with the Naval Aviation Warfare Staff at the Pentagon; Lt. Patrick, lost in an F-14 accident; Lt. Kathleen, a Navy doctor killed in an auto accident; Mary, devoted daughter and navy wife of Captain Bob Novak; and seven loving grandchildren. Admiral Tom Kilcline will be greatly missed by his family, friends and this Nation, but his legacy of devotion to family and service to his country remain with us forever.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I rise today to join with my colleague from Washington, Senator Cantwell, to ensure that the remaining, undisturbed areas within our National Forest system are permanently preserved. Like many of my colleagues, I have worked with the Forest Service and participated in the public comment process on the development of the current Roadless Area Conservation Rule. This administrative procedure was several years in the making with extensive public outreach of public hearings across the country. Thousands of Americans voiced support for protecting these areas from road building and other development. For my part, this legislation today continues efforts I have undertaken with my colleagues from the Southeast to protect the existing roadless areas in the Southern Appalachia forests. In 1997 I urged the Secretary of Agriculture to impose a moratorium on new road construction in these inventoried roadless areas. Last year, I urged President Bush to embrace and implement this important resource conservation policy. I was very encouraged that the President announced his administration's support for this rule on May 4, 2001. Today, with this rule under legal challenge, I believe that it is important to take another step forward with ensuring that this rule is codified so that it has the full force of law. While some may advocate changes to the current rule to gain advantages for greater use or greater restrictions on these inventoried roadless areas, I want to assure my colleagues that our legislation today mirrors the current rule. With the extensive efforts of the Forest Service to analyze the impact of the rule and the large number of public comments in support, we must stay true to this effort. The devastating fires on Forest Service lands in the West this summer have renewed our commitment to programs to reduce the fuel load on forest lands. I support Sen. Domenici's initiatives to redirect Forest Service funding of fuel reduction projects in areas adjoining residential areas, and remain committed to giving the Forest Service all of the tools it needs to reduce the loss of life and property from fires. An important reason for my support today is because I am convinced that the Roadless Rule does not prevent the Forest Service from undertaking any fire prevention activities in roadless areas. Nor, when a fire exists, does the rule prevent the Forest Service from taking any appropriate action, including building roads in roadless areas, to create fire breaks or other means to control a wildfire. But, Mr. President, there must be no doubt on this important issue. For that reason, we have provided further clarification that the Forest Service has every authority to prevent fires or to respond to fires, and to use appropriated funds to undertake fire suppression activities in roadless areas. This rule is a balanced approach to forest service management because it provides for reasonable exceptions for activities in roadless areas. I remain committed to the multiple-use management of our national forests. Timber and mineral resources on these public lands are assets that should be appropriately utilized and available for all Americans. My view of multiple-use management also recognizes and advances the recreational and environmental assets of these roadless areas. The remaining roadless areas in our national forests are important for providing outstanding recreational opportunities for the public. These lands also provide wildlife habitat and protect the water quality of many watersheds that serve as downstream drinking water sources for our communities. The Roadless Area Conservation rule is also sound fiscal policy for our national forests. The Forest Service has documented an $8.4 billion backlog in maintaining existing roads within our national forests. Continuing to build new roads in these fragile areas will only further strain the scarce dollars within the Forest Service. As I have indicated, the legislation we are introducing today does not change the substance or spirit of the Roadless rule in any way. To be clear, this legislation preserves the exemptions in the rule to allow for road construction where needed to protect these lands from floods, fires, and pest infestation. It ensures public access to private lands, and recognizes the existing rights to ongoing oil and gas leases. For Virginia, this legislation ensures that 394,000 acres of inventoried roadless areas in the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests are permanently protected. During the public comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the Forest Service received 68,586 comments from residents of Virginia. The Forest Service advises me that of this amount more than 98 percent of the comments supported full protection of these roadless areas. I am pleased to support this legislation that is important to all regions of the country. The public has voiced its overwhelming support for this important conservation initiative, and I trust that my colleagues will respond by passing this bill this year.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I rise today to join with my colleague from Washington, Senator Cantwell, to ensure that the remaining, undisturbed areas within our National Forest system are permanently preserved. Like many of my colleagues, I have worked with the Forest Service and participated in the public comment process on the development of the current Roadless Area Conservation Rule. This administrative procedure was several years in the making with extensive public outreach of public hearings across the country. Thousands of Americans voiced support for protecting these areas from road building and other development. For my part, this legislation today continues efforts I have undertaken with my colleagues from the Southeast to protect the existing roadless areas in the Southern Appalachia forests. In 1997 I urged the Secretary of Agriculture to impose a moratorium on new road construction in these inventoried roadless areas. Last year, I urged President Bush to embrace and implement this important resource conservation policy. I was very encouraged that the President announced his administration's support for this rule on May 4, 2001. Today, with this rule under legal challenge, I believe that it is important to take another step forward with ensuring that this rule is codified so that it has the full force of law. While some may advocate changes to the current rule to gain advantages for greater use or greater restrictions on these inventoried roadless areas, I want to assure my colleagues that our legislation today mirrors the current rule. With the extensive efforts of the Forest Service to analyze the impact of the rule and the large number of public comments in support, we must stay true to this effort. The devastating fires on Forest Service lands in the West this summer have renewed our commitment to programs to reduce the fuel load on forest lands. I support Sen. Domenici's initiatives to redirect Forest Service funding of fuel reduction projects in areas adjoining residential areas, and remain committed to giving the Forest Service all of the tools it needs to reduce the loss of life and property from fires. An important reason for my support today is because I am convinced that the Roadless Rule does not prevent the Forest Service from undertaking any fire prevention activities in roadless areas. Nor, when a fire exists, does the rule prevent the Forest Service from taking any appropriate action, including building roads in roadless areas, to create fire breaks or other means to control a wildfire. But, Mr. President, there must be no doubt on this important issue. For that reason, we have provided further clarification that the Forest Service has every authority to prevent fires or to respond to fires, and to use appropriated funds to undertake fire suppression activities in roadless areas. This rule is a balanced approach to forest service management because it provides for reasonable exceptions for activities in roadless areas. I remain committed to the multiple-use management of our national forests. Timber and mineral resources on these public lands are assets that should be appropriately utilized and available for all Americans. My view of multiple-use management also recognizes and advances the recreational and environmental assets of these roadless areas. The remaining roadless areas in our national forests are important for providing outstanding recreational opportunities for the public. These lands also provide wildlife habitat and protect the water quality of many watersheds that serve as downstream drinking water sources for our communities. The Roadless Area Conservation rule is also sound fiscal policy for our national forests. The Forest Service has documented an $8.4 billion backlog in maintaining existing roads within our national forests. Continuing to build new roads in these fragile areas will only further strain the scarce dollars within the Forest Service. As I have indicated, the legislation we are introducing today does not change the substance or spirit of the Roadless rule in any way. To be clear, this legislation preserves the exemptions in the rule to allow for road construction where needed to protect these lands from floods, fires, and pest infestation. It ensures public access to private lands, and recognizes the existing rights to ongoing oil and gas leases. For Virginia, this legislation ensures that 394,000 acres of inventoried roadless areas in the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests are permanently protected. During the public comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the Forest Service received 68,586 comments from residents of Virginia. The Forest Service advises me that of this amount more than 98 percent of the comments supported full protection of these roadless areas. I am pleased to support this legislation that is important to all regions of the country. The public has voiced its overwhelming support for this important conservation initiative, and I trust that my colleagues will respond by passing this bill this year.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this is a matter on which I and a number of others have worked for some time. I thank my distinguished colleague from Virginia, Congressman Virgil Goode, whom I asked to introduce this measure in the House. He did so with great skill. It was passed by the House. It had previously been adopted by the Senate, but now the House bill has been adopted by the Senate. Hopefully it will be forthcoming to the President for signature. I rise in support of this resolution which has been an idea I have had for many years. It bestows honorary citizenship on the Marquis de Lafayette. I think it is an honor long overdue. This great Frenchman fought with Washington, as I shall enumerate, in a battle for our independence. He was very influential in having the French Government intervene, as they did decisively, at Yorktown to enable that long, drawn-out conflict to be brought to an end. He later came back to Virginia and traveled throughout my State and other parts of this great Nation and is remembered with great fondness. In his greatest time of need when the Austrians imprisoned him for his supposed involvement in the fall of the French monarchy, the United States did not acknowledge Lafayette as a U.S. citizen despite his cries for help all across our land. This young man risked so much to help build the America we know today, and we are now correcting this long-delayed injustice to Lafayette and celebrating him not only as a patriot of freedom and liberty but as a U.S. citizen. At the young age of 19, Lafayette disobeyed the wishes of King Louis XVI of France, risking his own personal wealth and status to aid in our quest for freedom from Great Britain. He proved his dedication to our liberty when he was wounded in the battle of Brandywine, forever endearing himself to the American soldiers. Throughout the American Revolution, Lafayette acted as a liaison between France and the American colonies. He urged influential policymakers to have France make the decisive military, naval, and financial commitment to save the American colonists. His tireless efforts, both as a liaison and as a general, aided America in her ultimate victory. During the war, Lafayette proved himself over and over as a soldier and a good friend to George Washington. George Washington was impressed with Lafayette's military tactics which lured British General Cornwallis and his army to Yorktown, VA. The American Army, led by General Washington, along with French forces led by General Rochambeau, came south and trapped Cornwallis and his troops at Yorktown. As a result, the British were forced to surrender. The famous French fleet appeared on the horizon and they prevented any resupply to the British forces from their ships offshore. It was a decisive part of that battle. Here we are today enjoying freedom 200-plus years later because of Lafayette and the French contribution. Lafayette's services to America extended beyond the battlefield. He worked diligently as an adviser, helping to win concessions from Britain during the treaty negotiations. At Versailles, when negotiating with the French Government, our representatives, Franklin and Jefferson, found him invaluable. Moreover, his impartial friendship was extended to the first seven U.S. Presidents. One of Lafayette's major contributions was bridging these cultural gaps between America and France. His early influence on America still holds true today as we try to bridge the cultural gaps to many countries across the globe to help cultivate freedom. With this in mind, now more than ever, it is important to remember who our friends are in the world as we try to create a coalition against terror. The Marquis de Lafayette is celebrated by many as a symbol of freedom and liberty. I am happy and honored for the opportunity to offer this resolution for citizenship before the Senate. Congress has before shown its respect and gratitude for Lafayette when both the Senate and the House of Representatives draped their Chambers in black for his contribution to the independence of this great Nation. Now, I would like to say to the Marquis de Lafayette as John J. Pershing did in World War I when he stood before the patriot's grave and said: ``Lafayette, we are here.'' Our Nation has only bestowed this honor on a few persons. I shall place into the Record the names of those, such as Winston Churchill and others. So here now, at long last, we honor this great patriot. First, I thank Senator Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I also thank, from my staff, John Frierson; former staff member, Don Lefeve; and Congressman Virgil Goode from Virginia and his assistant, Rawley Vaughn, for their help. The French Ambassador to the United States has been of great help and encouragement, as has Mr. Jim Johnston of the Virginia Film Foundation, Wyatt Dickerson, and Dr. James Scalon, a history professor at Randolph-Macon University. It is interesting how many people have joined to make this possible. I now enumerate those who have received honorary citizenship by our Government: British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, on April 9, 1963; Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg, October 5, 1981; William Penn and his wife Hannah, October 4, 1984; Mother Teresa, November 16, 1996. It is very interesting. I am deeply humbled to have been one of several to make this possible. Again, I say that the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Leahy, was of invaluable help to make this legislation possible. I spoke with him earlier today. He helped me facilitate the adoption of this matter this evening.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate concur in the House amendment to the joint resolution, that the Senate concur in the amendment to the preamble, that the Senate concur in the House amendment to the title, and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc.