John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce legislation that will provide for greater economic growth, job creation and improve the availability of affordable housing in some of our Nation's most distressed communities. The legislation calls for the designation of a second round of Renewal Communities. The Renewal Communities program is an economic development initiative that was included in the Fiscal Year 2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act. The communities designated under the program benefit from a variety of tax incentives designed to attract new companies and enhance business opportunities in an area. Wage credits, a zero capital gains rate on new investments and similar tax breaks for business related expenditures will augment the efforts of State and local governments to promote job growth and restore economic stability in their communities. The Consolidated Appropriations Act signed into law on December 21, 2000, provided for the designation of 40 Renewal Communities. The Department of Housing and Urban Development was responsible for the selection and designation of the new RCs. The Department announced the list of 40 communities, which will share over $17 billion in tax incentives, on January 24, 2002. The designations are based on poverty rates, median income, and unemployment rates in the community. The most recent Department of Commerce census data available during the application process was from 1990. This was an issue of timing as passage of the legislation overlapped with the compilation of new census data in 2000. The use of the 1990 census data, however, severely limited the ability of many cities and localities which may be eligible based on the most recent data. The 1990 data does not reflect the economic shifts which have taken place over the last decade throughout the country. In the Commonwealth of Virginia, many communities have been devastated economically by plant closings since the census in 1990. The unemployment figures continue to rise when more businesses are forced to close down as the adverse financial effects begin to filter through the community. My legislation would provide for the designation of an additional twenty renewal communities with the requirement that the most recent 2000 census data would be used. I believe that a second round of Renewal Community designations would be appropriate and fair to those communities excluded by the limits of timing out of their control. We cannot move forward as a Nation when the gap in the economy stability of our local communities grows deeper and they are left behind. This is something the Federal Government can do to stimulate the economy from the ground up and at the same time help those who need it most. I encourage my colleagues to support this initiative. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce legislation that will provide for greater economic growth, job creation and improve the availability of affordable housing in some of our Nation's most distressed communities. The legislation calls for the designation of a second round of Renewal Communities. The Renewal Communities program is an economic development initiative that was included in the Fiscal Year 2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act. The communities designated under the program benefit from a variety of tax incentives designed to attract new companies and enhance business opportunities in an area. Wage credits, a zero capital gains rate on new investments and similar tax breaks for business related expenditures will augment the efforts of State and local governments to promote job growth and restore economic stability in their communities. The Consolidated Appropriations Act signed into law on December 21, 2000, provided for the designation of 40 Renewal Communities. The Department of Housing and Urban Development was responsible for the selection and designation of the new RCs. The Department announced the list of 40 communities, which will share over $17 billion in tax incentives, on January 24, 2002. The designations are based on poverty rates, median income, and unemployment rates in the community. The most recent Department of Commerce census data available during the application process was from 1990. This was an issue of timing as passage of the legislation overlapped with the compilation of new census data in 2000. The use of the 1990 census data, however, severely limited the ability of many cities and localities which may be eligible based on the most recent data. The 1990 data does not reflect the economic shifts which have taken place over the last decade throughout the country. In the Commonwealth of Virginia, many communities have been devastated economically by plant closings since the census in 1990. The unemployment figures continue to rise when more businesses are forced to close down as the adverse financial effects begin to filter through the community. My legislation would provide for the designation of an additional twenty renewal communities with the requirement that the most recent 2000 census data would be used. I believe that a second round of Renewal Community designations would be appropriate and fair to those communities excluded by the limits of timing out of their control. We cannot move forward as a Nation when the gap in the economy stability of our local communities grows deeper and they are left behind. This is something the Federal Government can do to stimulate the economy from the ground up and at the same time help those who need it most. I encourage my colleagues to support this initiative. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on May 4 through 6, 2002 more than 1200 students from across the United States will visit Washington, D.C. to compete in the national finals of the ``We the People . . .'' The Citizen and the Constitution program, administered by the Center for Civic Education. ``We the People'' is the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I am proud to announce that the class from Maggie L. Walker Governor's School from Richmond will represent the Commonwealth of Virginia in this national event. These young Virginians have worked diligently to reach the national finals and through their experience have gained a deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. The 3-day national competition is modeled after hearings in the United States Congress. The hearings consist of oral presentations by high school students before a panel of adult judges on constitutional topics. The students' testimony is followed by a period of questioning by the judges who probe their depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. The class from Maggie L. Walker Governor's School is currently conducting research and preparing for their upcoming participation in the national competition in Washington, D.C. I wish these young ``constitutional experts'' the best of luck at the ``We the People . . .'' national finals. They represent the future leaders of our Nation.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I recognize Colonel Benjamin L. Cassidy, United States Marine Corps, on the occasion of his retirement from active duty. During his twenty-eight years with the Corps, Colonel Cassidy served our nation with distinction and aplomb. After having graduated from Brown University in 1975, Colonel Cassidy was commissioned aboard the U.S.S. Constitution in Boston Harbor. Upon completion of The Basic School in 1975, he was transferred to Camp Lejeune, NC where he served as the Battalion Logistics Officer, Executive Officer, and Platoon Commander, 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marines, 2nd Marine Division. In 1978, Colonel Cassidy was assigned to 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion, 3rd Marine Division in Okinawa, Japan where he served as Company Commander and Platoon Commander. He was transferred to Fort Benning, GA in 1980 where he attended the Infantry Officers Advanced Course. Upon graduation, he accepted orders to Recruiting Station, Hartford, CT and served as the Recruiting Station Executive Officer from 1981 to 1984. From 1984 to 1987, he served with the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, Camp Lejeune, NC as the Battalion Operations Officer and Company Commander. In 1987, he attended the Marine Corps Command and Staff College at Quantico, VA and was later assigned as an Instructor. From 1989 to 1991, Colonel Cassidy served as the Marine Corps' Exchange Officer to the Brazilian Marine Corps, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. From 1991 through 1993, he served with the Bureau of International Narcotics Matters, U.S. Department of State, Washington, D.C. During this time, he also earned a Masters in National Security Studies at Georgetown University. He next served as Battalion Inspector-Instructor and Marine Corps Advisor, 4th Reconnaissance Battalion, 4th Marine Division, San Antonio, TX. In 1995, he served as Marine Corps Liaison and student at the Chilean Naval War College, Valparaiso, Chile. Many of you know Ben personally, as he has served for almost 4 years as the Director of the Marine Corps' Senate Liaison Office. During Colonel Cassidy's tenure here at the United States Senate, he planned and led numerous congressional delegations on fact-finding trips around the world. He coordinated these delegations flawlessly and with meticulous attention to detail. In addition, he has overseen the resolution of hundreds of congressional inquiries that have been submitted to the Marine Corps for clarification and assistance. Colonel Cassidy has also worked to ensure that members of the Senate have a better understanding of the requirements and capabilities of the Navy/ Marine Corps Team. We in the Senate have benefitted from Colonel Cassidy's dedication, sense of duty and outstanding work ethic, and I have made certain that we continue to benefit by hiring him as my Defense and Foreign Affairs Legislative Assistant. I wish Colonel Cassidy, his wonderful wife Kathleen, and their children Alanna, Ben, and Caroline, fair winds and following seas as he begins this new chapter of his life.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. At an appropriate time, I would like the Senator to yield for a minute, also. I will follow the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. WARNER. I thank you for that. Then 10 cents a pound quota buyout for 5 years, that is there. And allowing the producer to assign their base the first year and then reassign it the second year, that is very important. I thank the Senator and for that reason I give my strongest support for his legislation.

Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a quick question? I thank the Senator for his work on peanuts. This is an industry which is threatened. In my State, we are talking about small farmers, not the billions going to the grain belt. I don't criticize that, but it is the small farmer out there. We are dealing with people who are farming 40 acres, maybe 100 or so acres, sometimes 200. If I am correct, you are raising the target price to $5.50?

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senators were advised by the Foreign Relations Committee through a hotline of the desire of the Senate to act on H.R. 3167. I have objected, and will continue to object, to the Senate considering this bill. It is a very significant bill, and I felt obligated to come to the Chamber and state to the Senate exactly why I object at this time in the few hours remaining in this session--I say a few hours, tonight and tomorrow--to proceeding to consider such an important document as this. The document is an affirmation of a policy statement by President George W. Bush who said as follows on June 15, 2001, in a speech in Warsaw, Poland: All of Europe's new democracies from the Baltic to the Black Sea and all that lie between should have the same chance for security and freedom and the same chance to join the institutions of Europe as Europe's old democracies have. I believe in NATO membership for all of Europe's democracies that seek it and are ready to share the responsibility that NATO brings. Basically, I share the President's view on that, but this particular document goes on and cites the following. It says: Declarations of Policy by the Congress of the United States. 1. Reaffirms its previous expressions of support for continued enlargement of NATO alliance contained in the NATO Participation Act of 1994, the NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act of 1996, and the European Security Act of 1998. 2. Supports the commitment to further enlargement of the NATO Alliance expressed by the Alliance in its Madrid Declaration of 1997 and its Washington Summit Communique of 1999. 3. -- And this perhaps is the more significant declaration of policy. The Congress endorses the vision of further enlargement of the NATO Alliance articulated by President George W. Bush on June 15-- That was the statement I just read-- and by former President William J. Clinton on October 22, 1996, and urges our NATO allies to work with the United States to realize its vision of the Prague Summit of 2002. My views are as follows. I think NATO--and I think every Member of this body shares this with me--has done a magnificent job for over a half century. It is perhaps the strongest and most effective alliance and accord in terms of security that this Nation has ever entered into. Last year we had a very significant debate, and that is my basic problem; there is no urgency for this. This Chamber should resonate again with a strong debate on future membership in our NATO. We had several days of debate last year. I put forward an amendment limiting the number of nations. My concern is there are nine nations referred to in this particular document, all seeking NATO membership. That would be 9 plus 19, which would come to 28. The debate was in 1998. That is a very significant increase. This document does not proclaim each is going to be admitted, but it gives a strong inference and overtone that could come to pass. As a matter of fact, it is authorization to the effect that certain sums of money--and I support each and every one of these authorizations for funds going to the nations to enable them to continue their efforts to increase their military, to strengthen that military, to enable that military to become an important part of the overall military collection of the NATO countries. Before we speak to all nine indirectly and subscribe in whole to the President's policy, this body has a responsibility to examine each nation, to have a formalization from the administration and others as to which of those nations should be considered for inclusion in NATO, presumably in 2002. I see no urgency that we should proceed on a UC, without any Members except myself so far rising to address this. I respect the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. He was in the Chamber, which prompted me to speak, hoping I could engage him. The distinguished ranking member has communicated his desire to have this passed. I respect both of those fine Senators, but I think this deserves very careful consideration. We had hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee in 1998 regarding those members that desired to join. We had hearings in the Armed Services Committee, on which I am privileged to serve. I certainly encourage my chairman, Senator Levin, to have hearings on any thought with regard to increasing the size of NATO and specifically looking at those nations and providing our determination, as the committee, to the Senate as to the contribution they wish to make and the verification of the capabilities to make that contribution, both militarily and politically. By the way, these authorizations are contained in the foreign operations bill such that they can go forward. It will not impede the distribution of these funds. From time to time, Members put holds on matters. I take that obligation very seriously and come to state with some precision exactly why I take that step and will continue to do so for the balance of this session of the Congress, namely that it deserves the full attention of the Senate, preceded by a debate in the chamber with consideration by the two committees that have specific oversight of these matters.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act, which will reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA. Last year, presidential candidate George W. Bush appropriately indicated that education reform was a top priority. This year, President Bush has worked to make this top priority a reality. The Senate will soon pass H.R. 1, legislation which is based on President Bush's education blueprint, entitled, ``No Child Left Behind.'' I share the President's goal; our educational system must leave no child behind. I commend President Bush, Secretary of Education Paige, and my colleagues who served with me on the Education Conference Committee. We have worked in bipartisan fashion to forge this legislation that will substantively reform elementary and secondary education in this country. Education is the key to a better quality of life for all Americans. From early childhood through adult life, educational resources must be provided and supported through partnerships with individuals, parents, communities, and local government. The Federal Government has a limited but important role in assisting states and local authorities with the ever-increasing burdens of education. Originally passed in 1965, the ESEA provides authority for most federal programs for elementary and secondary education. ESEA programs currently receive about $18 billion in federal funding, which amounts to an estimated 7 cents out of every dollar that is spent on education. Nearly half of ESEA funds are used on behalf of children from low- income families under title I. Since 1965, the federal government has spent more than $120 billion on Title I. Despite the conscientious efforts of federal, state, and local entities over many years, our education system continues to lag behind other comparable nations. Nearly 70 percent of inner city fourth graders are unable to read at a basic level on national reading tests. Fourth grade math students in high poverty schools remain two grade levels behind their peers in other schools. Our high school seniors score lower than students in most industrialized nations on international math tests. And, approximately one-third of college freshman must take a remedial course before they are able to even begin college level courses. The underlying issue is--do we just pour more taxpayer dollars to perpetuate these mediocre results or do we take some bold new initiatives? The No Child Left Behind Act takes some bold new initiatives by increasing federal education funding, increasing state and local flexibility in their use of Federal funds, and increasing accountability--each are steps in the right direction. First, in regard to funding, the No Child Left Behind Act authorizes $26.5 billion for elementary and secondary education. This includes a substantial increase for Title I programs--which are education programs directed toward disadvantaged children. The bill also provides substantial funding for programs aimed at having all children read by the 3rd grade, teacher quality programs, and programs aimed at making our schools safe and drug free. Next, in regard to flexibility, the bill significantly increases State and local flexibility in the use of their Federal education dollars. Under the ESEA law that exists today, most ESEA programs have a specified purpose and a target population. Our states and localities are given little, if any flexibility in the use of the federal dollars they receive. Our schools do not need a targeted one size fits all Washington, D.C. approach to education. While schools in some parts of the country may need to use federal education dollars to hire additional teachers to reduce classroom size, schools in other parts of the country may wish to use federal dollars for a more pressing need, like new text books. Federally targeted programs for a specified purpose do not recognize that different states and localities have different needs. Who is in a better position to recognize these local needs, Senators and Representatives in Washington, D.C. or Governors, localities, and parents? Those Virginians serving in state and local government and serving on local school boards throughout the Commonwealth are certainly in a better position than members of Congress from other states to determine how best to spend education dollars in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The No Child Left Behind Act increases flexibility and local control. For example, the bill allows every local school district in America to make spending decisions with up to 50 percent of the non-title I funds they receive from the federal government. Thus, with regard to non- title I funds, every local school district will have the freedom to choose alternative uses for these funds within certain broad guidelines. Moreover, the bill provides even more flexibility in the use of federal education dollars for up to 7 states and 150 school districts. These states and local school districts will be given the opportunity to consolidate a number of federal education programs, providing the participating states and localities the ability to focus federal dollars where they are needed most. Finally, accountability, in certain areas, is needed. Our education policy is locking out many students and not providing them the key to a better life. It's time to move forward in education to ensure that all of our children are given the opportunity to receive a higher quality of education. President Bush's proposal to test students annually in grades 3-8 in reading and math, which is part of the No Child Left Behind Act, is a strong proposal that promotes accountability. These tests will result in parents and teachers receiving the information they need to know to determine how well their children and students are doing in school and to determine how well the school is educating its students. Testing also provides educators the information they need to help them better learn what works, improve their skills, and increase teacher effectiveness. While some have expressed concern that this legislation calls for too much testing, I have a different view. A yearly standard test in reading and math will allow our educators to catch any problems in reading and math at the earliest possible moment. Tests are becoming a vital part of life, no matter how onerous. If America is to survive in the rapidly emerging global economy, tests are a key part. I note that Virginia has already recognized the importance of testing, having installed an accountability system called the Standards of Learning (SOLs). In Virginia, we already test our students in math and science in grades 3, 5, and 8. The No Child Left Behind Act will build upon Virginia's experience. Increased funding, increased flexibility, and enhanced accountability, are all steps in the right direction that we take with the No Child Left Behind Act. However, I must remind my colleagues that we have more work to accomplish. President Bush's ``No Child Left Behind'' blueprint calls for tax relief for America's teachers when they dip into their own pocket to purchase supplies for students. Senator Collins and I have worked together since early this year to pass legislation to provide teachers with this type of tax relief. Unfortunately, the bill before us today does not contain these provisions. In my view, as we leave no child behind, we must not forget our nations' teachers. The important role that our nations' teachers play in educating today's youth and tomorrow's leaders cannot be overstated. Quality, caring teachers along with quality, caring parents, play the predominant roles in ensuring that no child is left behind. Nevertheless, in part because of their low salaries and the numerous out-of-pocket expenses they incur as part of their profession, we are in the midst of a national teaching shortage. Teacher tax relief legislation is one way the federal government can help. So, while I look forward to voting in support of the No Child Left Behind Act and look forward to President Bush signing this important education reform legislation into law, I also look forward to working with the President and my colleagues in Congress to ensure that our teachers receive the tax relief they deserve.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I yield to the manager.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my dear friend and colleague. I have done my best over the 23 years I have been privileged to represent the Commonwealth of Virginia to look out for the interests of our peanut farmers. I remember so well Senator Howard Heflin of Alabama. I remember Senators from Georgia. We got together through the years and worked out a fair treatment of our peanut farmers. The peanut program is such a small crop in the overall agricultural picture of the United States of America, but it is crucial to the economy of Virginia. History will reflect in the marking up of these bills in committee that somehow the Virginia peanut grower did not fare as well as those in some other States. To correct this inequity, Senator Helms and I sat down with our distinguished ranking member and we showed him what had occurred, largely through oversight. I believe this oversight occurred because Virginia's peanut farms are unique when compared with other peanut States. We have very small farms compared to other areas in the United States of America. For family farmers, oftentimes peanuts are one of their principal sources of income, if not their only agricultural source of income. They take a lot of pride as their fathers and forefathers have taken for many, many years. Nevertheless, the committee bill--I say this with all respect to my good friend and chairman, Senator Harkin, with whom I have worked with over these many years--somehow did not work out for Virginia. After consulting--and Senator Allen joined me every step of the way on this--after consulting with Senators Roberts and Cochran, they agreed to incorporate the best provisions we could manage into this substitute amendment. Consequently, we are ready to strongly support the Cochran-Roberts substitute because, for the time being, it gives us the best hope in Virginia to allow this industry to ride through this transition period of several years as the current quota program is phased out. But these individuals, unless they get a little bit of help, cannot survive through this transition. We have to help them. I thank my good friends, both Senator Cochran and Senator Roberts, for helping. We have achieved the following: For example, we will significantly raise the per ton target price. The current quota price per ton is $610. The House passed Farm Bill contains a target price of $480 and the Senate committee bill is currently $520. But under the Cochran- Roberts substitute we were able to raise the target price from $520 up to $550 which will enable our peanut growers to survive this period of transition. This will make a big difference to Virginia peanut farmers. It will enable them to simply survive. This is not a big moneymaking business. While many people nationwide enjoy the specialty Virginia peanut, it is expensive to grow. These provisions will allow Virginians to continue to grow this peanut as they have for generations. In addition to the increased target price, there are several technical provisions dealing with peanuts in Cochran-Roberts. For instance, producers will be allowed to re-assign their base for each of the 5 years of the farm bill. All edible peanuts will be inspected to maintain quality control. And the marketing associations will now be allowed to build their own warehouse facilities. Each of these small incremental steps will enable this very small but crucial industry in Virginia and parts of North Carolina to survive. I thank Senators Cochran, Roberts, Helms, and others. I thank my colleague, Senator Allen, for helping me. I am hopeful that we can provide help to these farmers. I see my good friend, the chairman of the committee. I remember very well when he joined the Senate and came to this committee. All I am asking for is a little bit of help for these peanut farmers. All through the years--with Senator Heflin and others around here from the peanut States--we always got together. We didn't ask for much, only just enough to survive. I hope the distinguished Chair will allow me to yield so the chairman may reply.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman. I remember Herman Talmadge. When I came to the Senate, he said: Young man. He didn't call me Senator. He said: Young man. You just stick with me and you will make it work. So I hope your bill does reflect this higher $550 per ton and a few other things, including allowing the producers to be able to move their base. I thank my friend, Senator Roberts.

Mr. WARNER. No. I am fine. I appreciate that courtesy. I thank the Chair for the indulgence. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and honor Captain Patrick W. Dunne, United States Navy, as he departs the Navy's Office of Legislative Affairs and assumes command of U.S. Naval Forces in Guam. Captain Dunne is a Naval Officer of the finest caliber who has established an impeccable reputation in the Navy and with the Congress through his multiple tours as a Congressional Liaison. A career submariner, Captain Dunne graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1973. As a junior officer, he has served with distinction at sea, both in the fast attack submarines USS Batish and USS Baton Rouge, and the fleet ballistic missile submarine USS Nathanael Greene. In May 1985, Captain Dunne was selected as Naval Aide to President Reagan. In addition to his normal duties, he was responsible for the coordination of all military support for the Reykjavik Summit with President Gorbachev. Following this eventful tour, Captain Dunne assumed command of the attack submarine USS Baltimore, home ported in Norfolk, VA. During his command, Baltimore completed a deployment to the Mediterranean Sea and the operational evaluation of one of the Navy's newest submarine sonar systems. Captain Dunne then began his first of three tours at the Navy's Office of Legislative Affairs as the Congressional Liaison Officer for Submarine Programs. Following this tour, Captain Dunne returned to sea, assuming command of the submarine tender USS Frank Cable home ported in Charleston, South Carolina. Under his command, Frank Cable was awarded the Meritorious Unit Commendation for its exceptional support of the submarines assigned to Submarine Squadron Four. Subsequent staff tours include serving as the Head, Plans and Programs for the Director, Submarine Warfare on the Chief of Naval Operation's staff, and his second tour in the Office of Legislative Affairs, this time as the Director of Naval Programs. Captain Dunne was next selected to serve as the Chief of Naval Operations' Special Assistant for Joint Matters and he then returned to the Office of Legislative Affairs for the third time as the Deputy Chief of Legislative Affairs. The Department of the Navy, Congress, and the American people have been served well by this dedicated naval officer. Members of this Congress will not soon forget the leadership, service, and dedication of Captain Pat Dunne. He will be missed. We wish Pat, and his lovely wife Dianne, our very best as he continues his already distinguished career.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I defer to the chairman.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am delighted to join Chairman Levin and others in cosponsoring this resolution to honor the National Guard on the occasion of its 365th anniversary. The men and women of today's National Guard have inherited a proud tradition of military service dating back to colonial days and extending throughout this Nation's history. Today, they are adding to this tradition. National Guard units are integrally involved in military operations in Bosnia, over Iraq, and against the al Qaeda terrorist network and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Our citizen soldiers and airmen are diligently performing their homeland security mission as part of Operation Noble Eagle. This service includes augmenting airport security operations at Virginia's nine commercial service airports. No element of the National Guard has a prouder, more distinguished record of service that that of the Virginia National Guard. I need only mention the 29th Infantry Division and its superb service in the D-Day invasion at Normandy. In seven minutes that awful day, one company of that Division's 116th Infantry Regiment lost 96 percent of its fighting force. Twenty-six Bedford, Virginia, men went ashore. Nineteen were killed, including the company commander and first sergeant. Today, Guardsmen of that same unit are leading the U.S. sector's multinational Stabilization Force in Tuzla, Bosnia. I was privileged to visit those Guardsmen in Bosnia over this past Thanksgiving week. The National Guard is critically important to the national security of the United States, and that has never been more true than in the war against terrorism we are involved in today. We honor the commitment and sacrifies of the 458,400 citizen soldiers and airmen of the National Guard, their families, their employers, and their communities. I congratulate the National Guard, all its personnel, and particularly Major General Claude Williams, the Adjutant General of the Virginia National Guard, and all soldiers and airmen of the Virginia National Guard on this important milestone.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank my great chairman. He succeeded me as chairman. We just moved one seat at the table in our committee hearing room. I guess that was the only change. Of course, other things took place. As he says, the trust is there, the respect is there. We travel. We just finished an extraordinary trip. We were the first two Members of Congress to go into the area of operations in Afghanistan, having visited our troops in Uzbekistan, our troops in Pakistan and Oman, and then on up into the Bosnia region where we visited our respective National Guards who are serving there now. I value our friendship. I look forward to hopefully many more years working together. I thank my friend. We shall carry forward. We do this in the spirit of bipartisanship on behalf of our men and women in uniform of the United States. We are here to do the people's business, and I say to the Senator, we have done the people's business. We have been aided in that effort by Judy Ansley, my chief of staff, having succeeded Les Brownlee; and Senator Levin's wonderful David Lyles, and Peter Levine. I use Senator Levin's lawyer's legal brains as much as I use my lawyer's legal brains. I thank our distinguished Presiding Officer, again, for helping us here tonight. I again salute and commend my staff. I am a very fortunate individual to be served so well in the Senate. We share our staffs in many ways. They get along quite well together.

Mr. WARNER. I also thank my distinguished colleague, Senator Reid, for his leadership on this issue. We speak of a disabled veteran. I have had a lifetime of association with the men and women in the U.S. military. In my military career, I was not a combat veteran. But I served with many who have lost arms, legs, and lives. Those individuals, when they go into combat and lose their limbs, or suffer injuries, are somewhat reduced in their capacity to compete in the marketplace for jobs and do all of the things they would like to do as a father with their children and their families. I take this very personally. I feel that some day the three of us-- and indeed I think this Chamber strongly supports it--will overcome and get this legislation through. I thank the Senator for his leadership. He is right that the World War II veterans have died at a 1,000, 1,200, sometimes 1,400 a day, and many of those are being penalized by this particular law. So I thank the Senator and I thank my chairman. We shall renew our effort early next year.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, just one further comment: Understandably, there are those who disagree with the President, and they have accused him of a violation, but the Senator has correctly pointed out, the President was faced with, Do I move forward and break the law or do I comply with the terms of the treaty which are explicit? He gave notice of withdrawal in 6 months. He chose to stay within the terms of the treaty, and he in no way violated the law. Am I not correct?

Mr. WARNER. I commend our distinguished colleague from Mississippi. I was the author of the Missile Defense Act of 1991. He was the author of the Missile Defense Act of 1999. We came to the Senate together, my distinguished colleague from Mississippi one number senior to me in this institution. I am always very respectful of that. I wonder if I might engage my colleague and suggest he delivered his remarks with such eloquence and such authority that those who may not have followed this issue as closely as he and I and others don't realize that the ABM Treaty wouldn't let us utilize our developing technology in space. We couldn't build any part of the system up in space. We couldn't build any part of the system on the sea, incorporating the use of the U.S. Navy as platforms. Those are the things that our President took into consideration. We have one of the finest navies in the world. The American taxpayers have put enormous sums of money into that Navy. Yet we cannot use a single ship for that purpose. I wonder if the Senator would detail some of the things that the ABM Treaty blocked which have now enabled our President and our Nation to move forward and utilize that technology. I remember in this debate years ago I used to explain that it would be more efficient, quicker, and less costly to the taxpayer to utilize these options which now finally are going to be on the table in 6 months. I thank my friend.

Mr. WARNER. If the Senator will yield, I wish to thank our colleague from Alabama. He is a very valued member of our committee. I say to the Senator, we thank you very much for your work throughout this year to make this bill possible and for your very thoughtful comments about the chairman and myself. Madam President, I yield such time to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi as he so desires.

Mr. WARNER. I yield such time as our distinguished colleague from Alabama desires.

Mr. WARNER. Our good friend from Rhode Island is a valued member of our committee, very hard working, very industrious. I expect it will be that situation for an indefinite period as the years roll by. He had a distinguished military career himself, a graduate of West Point. But I do have a few differences of view. And my good friend, the chairman, utilized these same key phrases I keep hearing. That is, we have a greater threat to our Nation from trucks, ships, or an airline that might bring in a missile or some type of nuclear device. We are putting so much money on missile defense at the time ``when it is the least likely means of delivery.'' I say to my friend, I listened carefully, but you don't rule out the possibility that someone could fire in anger but a single missile. That is the fallacy that I find in this argument. They do not rule out, they do not address the possibility, that but a single missile would come in and in all probability that missile would cause devastation far greater than a device that perhaps was conveyed by a truck or otherwise. So I think I just cannot accept the arguments, that concept of the ``least likely'' would deter this President or any President from proceeding toward a system to protect us against an attack by a limited number of missiles. That is all this President has asked repeatedly in his short term since he has been President. That is what he is asking. I hope Congress eventually delivers on that request by our President. Then there is a second argument; that is, suppose a nation possessed nuclear weapons which potentially they could use against us. They might not fire the weapon. But as our President might be deploying our forces to a region of the world, perhaps not unlike what we are doing in Afghanistan with a coalition of other nations, the threat could come: If you deploy a single member of the Armed Forces of the United States in an effort to deter or, indeed, engage an enemy on a foreign land, which enemy is acting against an ally or friendly country or in any way inimical to the cause of freedom, that missile could be used as a threat against our President. A single missile could make a dramatic change in the ability of a President, as Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces, to make a decision on a deployment. So perhaps at some point those Senators who have spoken against this could answer the two questions that I leave pending at this point.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I remember. I was here.

Mr. WARNER. The Congress, President Putin, and others that that was his intention. He did have a series of consultations with President Putin, his key aides, his Secretary of State, his Secretary of Defense, and, likewise, the National Security Adviser. But I guess we come back to the problem that you feel it was a matter of comity, not of law, that he----