John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is with mixed emotions that I come before my colleagues today to express my profound congratulations to Mr. Charles S. Abell on the occasion of his confirmation by the Senate as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management Policy. I have had the great pleasure and distinct honor to work with Charlie Abell for the past 8 years, during his service as a professional staff member on the Senate Armed Services Committee. While we are all extremely proud of him, it is difficult to see him go. Charlie Abell began his service to country with a distinguished 26- year career in the U.S. Army. Charlie enlisted in the Army in 1966, and retired as a lieutenant colonel in 1992. During his military career, he served as both an infantry officer as well as a Cobra attack helicopter pilot. He was a highly decorated officer who led an infantry platoon, an infantry company, and attack helicopter units during two combat tours in Vietnam. Charlie has always been at the ``scene of action.'' Mr. Abell's decorations include the Legion of Merit, four Meritorious Service Medals, the Purple Heart, two bronze stars for Valor, 14 Air Medals, two for valor, the Army Commendation Medal for valor and the Combat Infantryman's Badge. Following his successful Army career, Charlie joined the Senate Armed Services Committee staff. He has been a most valued member of our ``team''. Charlie has been the lead staff member for the Personnel Subcommittee for the past eight years, and has been responsible for a wide range of issues concerning military personnel and quality of life. His expertise and counsel have been invaluable to the members of the Armed Services Committee--and indeed the Senate as a whole--as we have worked over the past several years to reform the military retirement system, enhance military pay, improve the military health care system, and honor our commitment to all military retirees to provide health care for life. Charlie's achievements with our Committee have truly touched the lives of all members of the military services--Active Duty, Reserve Components and retirees--and their families as well. I offer my sincere gratitude for his outstanding work in these endeavors on behalf of myself and all of the members and staff of the Committee on Armed Services. Today, Charlie Abell was confirmed by the U.S. Senate to serve in the position of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management Policy. While it is difficult for us to lose such a valuable member of our committee staff, we are all very proud of Charlie and know that he will be a very important addition to Secretary Rumfeld's staff. We will miss his professionalism, his depth of knowledge, his humility, and most of all his friendship. Charlie is a true professional and will continue to serve his country, and the Department of Defense with honor and distinction. I wish he and his wife, Cathy, fair winds and following seas, and will truly miss daily interactions with this dear friend and outstanding American.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I announce to the Senate that on Wednesday it is expected the Senate will begin the amendment process with respect to the education bill. Therefore, votes may be expected to occur during the day and into the evening on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Senators interested in offering amendments should contact the managers on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I address the Senate with regard to Senator Bob Kerrey. I do this out of, first, a sense of duty. I was Under Secretary of the Navy beginning in February 1969, together with our most beloved and distinguished former colleague who sat behind me many years, Senator Chafee, who was the Secretary. Senator Chafee and I, then Secretary of the Navy and Under Secretary Warner, were a very close working team. I have searched my mind many times as to what he would say were he here today. I think I can safely represent to the Senate that my remarks today would be very close to, if not exactly, what my dear friend, our former Senator and former Secretary of the Navy, would have said about our colleague, Bob Kerrey, this distinguished officer of the U.S. Navy. I came to know him in the many years we served together in the Senate. We often sat together on the floor. I remember distinctly going over to his side of the aisle. We reflected on those days together of Vietnam. He shared with me some very personal insights with regard to that conflict and how they affected his life. I am also very respectful of Senators McCain, Cleland, Hagel, and John Kerry. I have, likewise, had the benefit of listening to them and sharing with them my recollections of that incredible period of American history. I served in the Pentagon beginning in February 1969, leaving in 1974, for 5 years plus a few months during some of the most intense periods of that conflict. I visited Vietnam on occasions, as did Secretary of the Navy Chafee, and then when I became Secretary of the Navy, succeeding Chafee, of course, my visits continued. I have been on the fire bases, in the hospitals, where the wounded were brought back. I remember one story, the former Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Krulak, came to see me just before his confirmation to review various procedural matters with regard to his confirmation. We were there with General Mundy. He was then Commandant of the Marine Corps. We spent an hour together in a very thorough analysis of his background. I was doing it on behalf of then-Chairman Strom Thurmond. General Krulak got up to leave. This is a moment I shall never forget in my career as a Senator. He said: Senator Warner, this is not the first time we met. I was a little taken aback. I was thinking, where had I met this fine officer? I had known his father. He said: I was wounded in Vietnam, and I was in the process of being evacuated. I was on a stretcher with other men who had just been wounded, and the helicopter was coming in to take us out. Someone came up and grabbed me by the big toe and shook that toe. He said to me: Captain, you are going to be all right; you are going to make it. He said: I am here today to say, I made it, and you were that gentleman, as Secretary of the Navy, who grabbed me by the toe. I had no recollection because I visited with so many wounded and injured in that period on my visits to Vietnam. But it is a personal recollection of that period that I shared with another distinguished combat veteran who did a wonderful job as Commandant. Bob Kerrey and I traveled together, I remember so well, on a trip to Bosnia. We were coming into that zone where the war had just passed through not more than a day, if even as much as a day. Homes were burning. The ordnance was clearly visible, and the escort officers we had were somewhat concerned. I remember Kerrey fearlessly walking through areas. I was there by his side. We visited with a number of detainees who had been captured. You learn about an individual when you do a trip such as that. I became very close to him. We bonded together in many respects on that trip to that war zone on that particular day, the several days we were together. I reposed unquestioned confidence in his judgment, his honesty, and his integrity, being his boss in 1969, as Under Secretary of the Navy, at that time when these incidents happened. Indeed, the Medal Of Honor came up through the Navy Secretariat. I remember it quite well. Senator Chafee and I sat down, and Senator Chafee, then being the Secretary, affixed his name to that citation for his heroic actions. This has been a personal experience to watch very carefully, to study and read the many pieces that have been written, to watch him in his public appearances and study his face very carefully, his eyes and his mannerism, as he, I think in a very forthright manner, shared with the American public, and, indeed, those in Vietnam who watched, his heartfelt expressions about this incident. It was a tragic incident. I ask unanimous consent two articles which appeared in today's media be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER. I was personally impressed by these articles, the first written by former Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb appearing today in the Wall Street Journal, and the second in the Washington Times, written by Georgie Anne Geyer. I have not sat down with Ms. Geyer in some time, but in my course of these 23 years in the Senate, I have had the opportunity to be interviewed by her. She is a very thoughtful and careful journalist. In this article she recounts that she spent some 10 months in country covering that war. Jim Webb, of course, was a highly decorated combat Marine officer: Navy Cross, second highest decoration next to the Medal of Honor; Silver Star; Purple Heart; and, coincidentally, he was a naval aide to me and to John Chafee as a young captain and major in the Marine Corps in that period of time. He briefed me prior to trips I would take to Vietnam. Through the years I have valued his friendship enormously. I also had another personal experience. I remember one day there was a knock on my Senate door and in walked Jan Scruggs, who asked if I would help his group in their struggles to build the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. I cannot think of a greater honor I have had as a Member of the Senate than working, as I often refer to myself, as a private in the rear ranks of Jan Scruggs' group of individuals, who conceived and put together this magnificent memorial to the men and women who sacrificed so much in that conflict. I think I worked with him 6 to 7 years. I went to many meetings with many stormy sessions in either my Senate office or across the hall in the Armed Services Committee, and in the Veterans' Affairs Committee. I remember we would thrash out, in a highly contentious way, certain aspects of the design and development of that historic memorial. Now it stands as just an extraordinary reminder of that period. Its symbolism is different to every person who comes up to look at it. But in the course of those years, I relived, with so many of those people, their experiences in that conflict. Therefore I have had, if I may say, some modest association with the men and women who fought in that conflict, and I have shared with them many times their thoughts and concerns and recollections of the stresses and hardships that they have carried with them to this day. So I find these articles to be very compelling and I urge my colleagues to read them. I think they provide thoughtful, objective thinking to help in the interpretation of that chapter in history which was so difficult to understand, particularly Senator Kerrey's mission on that fateful night in Vietnam. Americans must understand that war is a terrible thing. Since the beginning of history, wars have imposed the harshest of consequences, not only on the combatants in uniform but so often on the innocent civilians who get entrapped between the lines or in the path of the advance or in the path of the retreat. And they have paid a price. I thought both Jim Webb and Ms. Geyer treated that subject thoughtfully based on their own firsthand observations and experiences in country in Vietnam. So I attribute a great deal of credibility to these two authors, particularly because of my long personal knowledge of Jim Webb. I say, with great respect to him, his career in the military far exceeded anything I ever did with my two brief periods of active duty, one just in the training command at the close of World War II, and the second for a brief tour of duty in Korea with the 1st Marine Air Corps. To the extent I was able to observe others in a combat situation in Korea, as basically a staff officer--I never put myself in the category of those who rightfully claim combat status, but I did stay in the same tents, eat in the mess, slept in the bunkers with them--they are a very special breed, these young men and women who fought wars in harm's way to preserve our freedom. Today I do my very best as a member of the Armed Services Committee to provide for a means of showing my respect for them and, indeed, my gratefulness to the American military for training me as a young person and for providing me with the GI bill of rights. I have many emotions as I stand before the Senate tonight to express these views. I got to know Jim Webb well when he was in the office of the Navy Secretary and I tried to counsel him as best I could on his decision to leave active duty--which largely was not of his choosing but was dictated by facts very personal to him. Had he stayed in the Marine Corps I think he was destined to the highest of rank and the greatest of responsibility. He had to make a tough decision to leave the Corps and pursue other challenges. I mentioned, of course, for a brief period he became Secretary of the Navy. I was very proud of his service as Navy Secretary. Several facts which I note from these articles and which I note from my own observation, again, are unquestioned. So many statements have been made by my distinguished colleagues about the honor and integrity of Bob Kerrey. His bravery and valor have been recognized many times, including being awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I know during the Vietnam war we asked many young men--I repeat that, we, the United States of America, we the Congress of the United States and the President, the Presidents of the United States--asked many young men, and some women in a combat support status, to undertake very difficult missions under the most extreme and dangerous of conditions. They put their lives at risk to accomplish sometimes unclear missions while trying to minimize casualties within their own units. Recently, I discussed this with members of the Armed Services Committee staff, combat veterans from Vietnam. We followed these stories about Senator Kerrey. We sat down and exchanged our own views. I deferred to them because two of them were in the thick of battle and they talked about the number of times throughout that war as veterans of ground combat that they took risks, themselves, personally, and risks to their men who were with them, to provide some measure of protection to the innocent non-combatant persons who had gotten entrapped in those battles in the dark nights and dusty days in that deep canopy. Yes, they did take personal risks themselves. As near as I can determine, then-Lieutenant Kerrey, Robert Kerrey, took those risks himself. They did so to protect the civilians in the combat zone. In that period of time, it was very difficult to determine who the enemy was; imagine that--who the enemy was. It was a very complex conflict into which we injected our men and women. So we will never know exactly what happened that February night in that Thanh Phong, Vietnam, battle. But I respect the word of my former colleague, Robert Kerrey, and I urge other Senators to read these articles and decide for themselves. I believe each of us ought to make our own determination about this situation. I conclude my remarks with a salute to the men and women who fought in that conflict and share with them my complete understanding, as near as I can base it on my own experiences. I salute them.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services. The following named officer for appointment in the United States Air Force to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601: To be lieutenant general Maj. Gen. Donald A. Lamontagne, 0000 The following named officer for appointment in the United States Air Force to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601: To be lieutenant general Lt. Gen. Lance W. Lord, 0000 The following named officer for appointment in the United States Air Force to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601: To be lieutenant general Maj. Gen. Brian A. Arnold, 0000 The following named officer for appointment in the United States Air Force to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601: To be lieutenant general Maj. Gen. Timothy A. Kinnan, 0000 The following named officer for appointment in the United States Air Force to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601: To be lieutenant general Maj. Gen. Richard V. Reynolds, 0000 The following named officer for appointment in the United States Air Force to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601: To be general Lt. Gen. William J. Begert, 0000 The following named officer for appointment in the United States Navy to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601: To be vice admiral Rear Adm. Malcolm I. Fages, 0000 The following named officer for appointment in the United States Navy to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601: To be vice admiral Rear Adm. Keith W. Lippert, 0000 The following named officer for appointment in the United States Marine Corps to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601: To be lieutenant general Maj. Gen. Garry L. Parks, 0000 (The above nominations were reported with the recommendation that they be confirmed.)

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services, I report favorably nomination lists which were printed in the Records of the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join my colleague in entreating to get this bill moving. I am proud to serve on the committee. It is badly needed.

Mr. WARNER. If I may say to my colleague, at the time our conference was allocating that last seat, I knew of the interest of the Senator from Texas. She extended to this Senator certain courtesies I shall not forget, enabling me to have that as my third committee. I thank the Senator.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, May 2, 2001. I further ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume the motion to proceed to S. 1 postcloture. Time consumed under rule XXII I further ask unanimous consent that the time of adjournment be considered as having been consumed from the time allotted under the provisions of rule XXII.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of following nominations: Reported by the Finance Committee, No. 62, Mr. Faryar Shirzad; and No. 63, Scott Whitaker, reported by the Armed Services Committee, which I am privileged to chair. Our committee met today in the course of a very thorough and very lengthy hearing on the issues regarding the B-22. I commend my committee and the Members who were in attendance, and indeed the witnesses who came before that committee. I think we performed some very valuable oversight. We will do much more. Within the course of that committee meeting, a quorum being present, we reported out favorably No. 45, Mr. Dov Zakheim to be Comptroller, and No. 48, Mr. Powell Moore to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for purposes of legislative affairs. I have known these gentleman for so many years. They are to be viewed as citizens who once again sign up to go into public office after extensive previous public office to serve our Nation. I commend them and their families. And, Nos. 51 through 57, 64, 65, and all nominations on the Secretary's desk. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have joined my colleagues for the purpose of contributing to the debate at hand. I think maybe I need 10, 12 minutes. Much material has already been covered. I don't wish to be redundant, but there are some points I would like to make.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his courtesies as always. It is a very simple equation. The bill got the attention of the administration. It is a new administration. Secretary Rumsfeld, for example, has in place today only three persons who have reached the full confirmation process and are now sworn into office. Six more have been processed by the advise-and-consent procedures of my committee and will come before the full Senate next week. The administration is struggling to put together this highly technical response. I think they should be given a reasonable period of time before we plow into a legislative process in this Chamber. Mr. President, I thank my colleague.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I reflected, as I approached the Chamber, that in my 23 years in the Senate, I don't know if I have ever opposed my leader on a motion to proceed. But, reluctantly, I do so this time because of my fervent belief that the views I have and share with a number of my colleagues are in the best interests of our Nation's security. With that in mind, I have tried for over 2 years to work with my distinguished colleagues, who have been speaking for some time, to resolve disputes within this legislation. These disputes have cut to the very essence of how the United States plans to protect its national security in an era of rapid globalization and proliferation of technology--most particularly technology related to weapons of mass destruction. On many occasions over the past year, I have joined others and have thought that we were close to obtaining a resolution on how to proceed on this bill. But each time, details have derailed us, regrettably, and those details indeed have overwhelmed the ability to compromise. I say ``details,'' but I think they are very important points. My goal has been to strike, together with others, the proper balance between national security and commercial interests. This is a complicated issue that cuts across the jurisdiction of six committees. Five committee chairmen with the responsibility for national security matters in this country are together on this issue. I think that carries a subtle message in and of itself. We have continuously expressed opposition to this bill in a respectful manner. I will not list the others because they are in the Record in the course of this debate. In addition, Senator Kyl, although not a chairman, has taken a leading role. He has sort of been the ``Paul Revere.'' Each time this matter is approaching, he sounds that alarm and we respond. This is an effort that requires careful thought and deliberate action. All of our committees should be united in an effort to reform our export control laws. If we do not obtain that type of unanimity-- and I say this respectfully to my good friend from Wyoming and my good friend from Texas--we could be doing a disservice to our country. At the present time, I believe it is premature to move this bill through the Senate, for two very good reasons: First, we need to give the administration, our new President, sufficient time to provide Congress with the promised details on how it plans to implement this legislation. I know full well that it has been stated--and I believe it is factually correct--that the administration has contributed a number of suggestions--which I think is 21--in the Banking Committee. The distinguished manager of the bill is present, and they have incorporated all of those. But when I look at it and listen and talk with the administration, those areas in which we have special concern are to be brought forth in an Executive order. Very simply, we are just saying allow time for the administration to do the Executive order. Otherwise, we risk spending a lot of time on the floor with amendments if we should go ahead with the bill and proceed in addressing issues that may be better left to the discretion of the executive branch. Secondly, moving this bill at this time without establishing consensus sends a wrong signal and could complicate a very difficult and tenuous policy toward China, which is still evolving. I cannot think, therefore of a worse time to pass legislation that could result in an increase of exports of high technology to China. I think we should listen carefully to the people in this Nation on this issue. This China policy is not just reserved to the bureaucrats in Washington--I say that respectfully--the executive branch and the Congress. The people of this Nation have very deep-rooted concerns about our relationship with China, and this subject goes to the very heart of those relationships. I have serious reservations about bringing up the bill at this time, as I said. We are still awaiting specifics from the administration on how it will implement this bill. We need to give the administration enough time to respond to our inquiries and deliver on their promises of additional information. The administration reviewed this bill at the request of myself, Senators McCain, Shelby, Thompson, Helms, and Kyl. We had one meeting with the National Security Adviser on this issue. While the review was conducted without the benefit of working level political officials in place with responsibility for export control issues, I am confident the administration did the best it could given the timeframes and the people with whom they had to do the job. Based on this review, the administration came up with a series of legislative changes that the Banking Committee included in its bill. This was a positive step, and I commend them. I support it, although I would have preferred this review take place with the benefit of the full administration package; that is, these amendments that have been adopted, together with other commitments that they have made to Congress on other issues. More remains to be done. We have not received specific comments or recommendations from the Department of Defense. That input, in my judgment, is critical. The Banking Committee's bill, including the changes made to the bill at the request of the administration, provides for even less protection for national security than changes proposed to us by the last administration. When the National Security Committee chairmen of the Senate were briefed on the results of the administration review, we were informed at that time that an interagency agreement had been reached on how the administration would enhance national security controls during implementation of the bill. We were then informed that the national security protections that we have sought would be included in an Executive order that would implement S. 149. Despite several inquiries on the part of my staff and others to get the information that we sought, we have not been able to get any specifics on what is in this interagency agreement or what might be in the Executive order. This information is critical in helping this Senator, and I think to not only the team we have put together, but many others, in order to make an informed judgment on this important piece of legislation. Therefore, I most respectfully urge our majority leader and sponsors of the bill to wait until we have more information from the administration about how it intends to implement the national security protections. Many of my concerns, as well as those of my colleagues, may be alleviated by the details of the administration's implementation plan. If, however, we do not get an answer from the administration in a reasonable amount of time, I urge the majority leader to chair a working group of interested members to work to clear as many amendments as possible prior to taking the legislation up on the floor, so as not to waste a great deal of time. At this time, in the absence of additional information from the administration, I have fundamental concerns with this bill. This bill continues the trend of dismantling our export control structure. During the height of the cold war, this Nation had a carefully formulated and carefully crafted export control process. There was a consensus--both here at home and with our allies--that we needed to protect our Nation's technology. The bottom line: It must never be used against us. This consensus has broken down with the end of the cold war. Technology is proliferating, and this bill will continue that trend. If our pilots are shot down over Iraq or put in harms' way due to enhanced communications and computing technologies that enhance Iraqi air defense capabilities, we need look no further than to the lack of will and leadership over the last decade to control this technology. While this proliferation of technology may be inevitable, we need to understand the implications of any decision that leads to freer trade in advance technology. With that understanding, we then must do whatever it takes to protect our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines as they face these new threats. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, we have witnessed a slow demise of the cold war consensus on export controls. I make three observations: First, we have seen a dramatic liberalization--primarily through Executive orders of successive Presidents--of export controls. We are only controlling about 6 percent of what we controlled during the height of the cold war. Second, because of the decline in defense R&D, technology innovation is primarily advancing in the commercial rather than the defense sector. This makes dual use export controls covered by the EAA even more critical in protecting our national security. Finally, as a result of both of these developments, we are witnessing the global spread of advanced technology that was once solely in the military realm. This threat will require a significant investment in defense capability to counter. Simply put, our export control policy has gotten out of balance. The Export Administration Act before the Senate, as currently drafted, tips the balance even further toward meeting commercial needs versus national security needs. There is a predominant emphasis in this bill on export decontrol, without, in my judgment, an adequate assessment of the national security impact of that decontrol. The bill now gives the Commerce Department the predominant role. I believe that this must be brought back into balance with enhanced DOD authorities and discretion. As now drawn, this bill also unnecessarily limits the President's discretion to control items for legitimate national security reasons. At a minimum, we must address in this bill: No. 1, the need to protect militarily sensitive technology. DOD and the intelligence community need to be able to protect sensitive technology from falling into the hands of potential adversaries. Technologies which, if proliferated, would undermine U.S. military superiority must be controlled. The national security agencies must be able to block any decontrol or export that might harm national security now or in the future. For example, hot section engine technology and other technologies that DOD and the intelligence community consider critical need to be protected. No. 2, the need to enhance the role of the Secretary of Defense and the intelligence community in the export control process, given the limited amount of items we are now controlling, and provide for a workable national security waiver for the President. At a minimum, the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense should be required in matters relating to which products should be controlled, the process for reviewing export licenses, the rules for any interagency dispute process, and regulations implementing dual use export controls; and No. 3, the need to ensure that the national security impacts of any proposed decontrol are well understood and articulated before decontrols are allowed to proceed. This assessment should be based on how this technology can be used as part of, or to develop, a foreign military or intelligence system or capability. Ongoing assessments need to be made to assess the cumulative impact of decontrols and the proliferation of technology. This last point is critical. Congress needs to look at the impact on national security of export decontrol and the global diffusion of technology. We need to assess the degree of technology proliferation that is occurring and the risk that our adversaries will use this technology to gain some type of asymmetric advantage over our forces. Global technology proliferation could put at risk our military superiority. Future historians may look back on the rapid decontrol and leakage of western technology as the biggest national security lapse of the post-cold-war period. I also want to ensure that unnecessary restraints on the ability of the private sector to compete in the global marketplace are removed. It is in our interest that U.S. businesses are able to maintain their commercial and technological edge over foreign competitors. However, when hard decisions must be made, national security must always be the paramount consideration.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will make General Lafayette an honorary United States Citizen. This honor has been bestowed on four other individuals including Winston Churchill and Mother Teresa. Marie Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de La Fayette (1757-1834) was born in France and was a wealthy French youth blessed with every advantage offered by Europe's aristocracy. Although he was wealthy and among France's aristocracy, he risked his wealth and status to aid the Americans in their revolution against Great Britain. At the age of 19, determined to dedicate himself to the cause of our liberty, he bought a ship and sailed to the American colonies to volunteer his services. In early summer of 1777, soon after his arrival, Congress voted him the rank and commission of Major General. Just two months later, Lafayette was wounded at 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 policy makers to have France make the decisive military, naval and financial commitment to the colonists. His tireless efforts, both as a liaison and a general, aided America in her time of need. As a general, his military tactics lured British General Cornwallis and his army to Yorktown, Virginia. The American Army, led by General Washington, along with French forces led by Rochambeau, came south and trapped Cornwallis and his troops at Yorktown. As a result, the British were forced to surrender. Lafayette's services to America extended beyond the battlefront. He worked diligently as an advisor, helping 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 eight U.S. presidents. Despite his commitment to our Country, America did not recognize his United States' citizenship in his time of need. While crossing the French border into the Netherlands to escape arrest from the Revolutionary French Government, the Austrians captured and arrested General Lafayette. Despite his claim that he was an American citizen being illegally detained, the Austrians disagreed. General Lafayette appealed to American ministers for help, but his calls for intervention were not answered. Lafayette clearly felt that he was an America citizen, and technically he may have been under the blanket naturalization granted all citizens of each state when the Constitution was ratified. The U.S. government, however, failed to acknowledge his claim, and he spent the next five years in prison. Although General Lafayette was made an honorary citizen by Virginia and Maryland before the United States Constitution was ratified, the United States failed to recognize his citizenship while he was imprisoned. I feel that we must set the record straight and honor General Lafayette for his commitment to the United States by making him an honorary United States citizen. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague in the House of Representatives, Congressman Jim Moran, in introducing legislation to correct an error in the retirement benefits calculation for certain part-time federal employees. In 1986, Congress passed legislation to reform the retirement system for the federal workforce, establishing the Federal Employees Retirement System to replace the Civil Service Retirement System. Provisions in this legislation also revised the formula used to determine retirement benefits for employees with full time and part time service in the federal government. Congress did not intend this change to impact the existing workers who remained under the Civil Service Retirement System. Implementation of the provision, however, was misinterpreted by the Office of Personnel Management. Affected employees are losing hundreds, and in some cases thousands, of dollars every year of the retirement benefits they earned. Many employees only became aware as they were about to retire that they would not receive all of the benefits they were expecting. The impacted federal workers had full-time service before 1986, and changed to part-time service for the end of their civil service career. Often these employees cut back their hours to care for their families, or even delayed retirement and worked part-time to help an office during a transition period. The revised retirement formula calculates benefits for a federal part-time worker based on a full-time equivalent basis which is scaled accordingly. Benefits are based on a worker's high-three average salary during his or her career. This could occur during an employee's part- time service. Civil service employees with pre-1986 full-time work and some part- time work after 1986 do not receive the proper credit for their full- time work, however, because full-time and part-time work are broken into two parts. The full-time equivalent pay for the high-three years should apply to an employees entire career. Instead, for the affected employees, their pre-1986 full-time benefits are based on actual salary. This two-step approach undervalues the worker's full-time service. The bill I am introducing today will correct this error by allowing an employee's full-time equivalent salary for their high-three years apply to their entire careers, including pre-1986 service. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and these federal employees for their dedicated service by ensuring they receive the retirement benefits they have earned. I ask consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I share with you and my colleagues an extraordinary story about an extraordinary American patriot. The gentleman's name is Arnold Spielberg. Yes, he is the father; but his own fame was earned, long before his son's, as a combat airman of the ``Greatest Generation.'' Like many of us during World War II, Mr. Spielberg heard the call of our great Nation and enlisted in the U.S. Army Signal Corps, just after Pearl Harbor, in January 1942. After several weeks of training at Fort Thomas and in Louisville, KY, he was transferred to the 422nd Signal Company at the New Orleans Army Air Corps Base near Lake Pontchartrain. Private Spielberg then spent the next 3 months doing close order drill and teaching Morse code to unwilling recruits. He recalled that in an effort to get the attention of these unwilling recruits, he would send them ``colorful'' jokes and stories to keep their attention. It worked. In May 1942, he boarded a troop ship in Charleston, SC and 2 months later, disembarked in Karachi, India. Once in India, he was stationed at the Leslie Wilson Muslim Hostel working at the Karachi Classification Depot. His job was to essentially open up shipments of war materiel, aircraft parts mostly, check them against the technical manuals to figure out which aircraft they went to and label them. While this was important work, Mr. Spielberg wanted to be closer to the action and asked his Commanding Officer for a transfer to the 490th Bombardment Squadron, Medium. He got it and was on his way. Corporal Spielberg tackled his new assignment with enthusiasm and vigor. He set up the communications system that serviced the control tower for planes practicing strafing and bombing missions on an island in the Indian Ocean. He also started to train as a radio gunner and learned all about the B-25's, the famous Mitchell bomber, communication equipment, inside and out. Because of his hard work and diligence, Corporal Spielberg quickly earned the rank of Master Sergeant and the reputation as an expert signalman. He designed a high gain, bi-directional rhombic antenna, using giant bamboo poles for support. Their signal was as clear as ``Ma' Bell.'' He also tackled the somewhat menacing problem of electric power. The base power was supplied by a large British diesel generator that produced 250 volts at 50 cycles. The radio equipment ran on 115 volts at 60 cycles. In order to use the British generator, the voltage output needed to be reduced. Master Sergeant Spielberg requisitioned a step down transformer however, he knew that would take six months or so to secure. In the meantime, by the use of a little ``horse trading,'' he enlisted the help of some squadron mates to refurbish the unit's old generator which was then turned in as a spare and a new generator was issued. The world over, U.S. soldiers, sailors and airmen used their common sense ``to make do'' when faced with challenging situations of all kinds. We didn't always do it ``by the book,'' but we succeeded. Master Sergeant Spielberg also redesigned some electrical circuitry because of a critical safety flaw that he discovered at great risk to himself. While performing maintenance on the squadron's large transmitter one morning, Master Sergeant Spielberg turned off the main power source so as to change the bands. Noting the red power light ``out,'' he reached in to pull out the transmitter-turning coil. As he grabbed it, 2600-volts DC current went through his hand and sent him flying in the air. When he returned from seeing the medics, he inspected the transmitter and noticed the relay that controlled the power to the main transformer was ``hot wired'' to the power side so that the unit continually received power and could not be shut off. He immediately rewired the unit and drafted a correction notice to be distributed to the entire transmitter-user community. Master Sergeant Spielberg also had the opportunity to fly combat missions. As the Japanese began their invasion of India with a focus on Imphal, his squadron was pressed to fly more missions. They supplied the British and Indian troops with food and ammo, and carried out the wounded. The aircrew soon became exhausted and ``over-flown'' so the Communications Officer looked to the ground crew. When asked if he would volunteer to fly, Master Sergeant Spielberg said, ``Yeah, I'll go first!''--and he did. He flew missions as the radio gunner, at night, into Imphal, to resupply the troops and bring out the wounded. Because of his extraordinary initiatives and many other forward- thinking actions, Master Sergeant Spielberg was awarded the Bronze Star medal with a citation that read: Pursuant to the authority contained in Army Regulations 600-45, War Department, Washington, DC, 22 September 1943, the Bronze Star Medal is hereby awarded to Master Sergeant Arnold M. Spielberg, 15088831: For meritorious service from 24 July 1942 to 16 October 1944 as communications technician. M/Sgt Spielberg originated numerous modifications and suggestions concerning radio equipment and procedures which were later put in use throughout the Army Air Forces. His untiring efforts and initiative have rendered substantial aid to the operations of his squadron. By command of Major General Davidson, Headquarters, Tenth Air Force, U.S. Army. Upon the termination of hostilities in World War II, in the year 1945, all services made an effort to allow those who experienced the battlefields beyond our shores to return, as soon as possible, to their families and homes. Often the records of their valorous service and the decorations they received had to follow. Given there were over 16 million who proudly wore the uniform of a service, this was a remarkable feat that was accomplished by a war-weary, but joyous nation. Now, some 56 years later, I was honored to join the present Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force, General Michael Ryan, in reviewing the records and expediting the conveyance of the Bronze Star Medal to Master Sergeant Spielberg.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished Chairman of the Budget Committee for his cooperation. funding for the corporation for public broadcasting

Mr. WARNER. I bring to your attention, my concern about a provision in the House version of the Concurrent Budget Resolution, H. Con. Res. 83, concerning restrictions on advance appropriations. The Senate provision more properly addresses this issue. The House provision (Section 13) is extremely vague and restricts both the Congress and the Administration concerning the funding of capital projects using advance appropriations. As you prepare to conference the Fiscal Year 2002 Concurrent Budget Resolution, I urge you to sustain the Senate provision (Section 201) in the final conference report.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of an amendment offered by myself and Senator Mikulski. Today, teachers expend significant money out of their own pocket to better the education of our children. Most typically, our teachers are spending money out of their own pocket on three types of expenses: education expenses brought into the classroom--such as books, supplies, pens, paper, and computer equipment; professional development expenses--such as tuition, fees, books, and supplies associated with courses that help our teachers become even better instructors; and interest paid by the teacher for previously incurred higher education loans. These out-of-pocket costs placed on the backs of our teachers are but one reason our teachers are leaving the profession, and why this country is in the midst of a teacher shortage. Therefore, I introduced The Teacher Tax Credit. This legislation creates a $1,000 tax credit for eligible teachers for qualified education expenses, qualified professional development expenses, and interest paid by the teacher during the taxable year on any qualified education loan. This legislation, S. 225, is cosponsored by Senators Mikulski, Allen, DeWine, Cochran, and Harkin. It is supported by the National Education Association. We all agree that our education system must ensure that no child is left behind. As we move towards education reforms to achieve this goal, we must keep in mind the other component in our education system--the teachers. This amendment to the budget resolution will set a reserve fund of $39.5 billion over the next 10 years to reimburse teachers for these out-of-pocket costs. Teachers will benefit and our children will benefit as well.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be made a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. Mr. President, I would like to call up amendment No. 265, and ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WARNER. I believe the Senator has allocated me a few minutes.

Mr. WARNER. Might I inquire of the Chair as to the amount of time remaining for the Senator from New Mexico?