John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? I was much taken by my colleague's comment that this is a matter between the Federal Government and the State. Indeed, it is a marriage that every Governor would dream about, and the wedding presents being given are astronomical. Look at the whole project. It is dotted with wastewater projects to clean up the water that comes from the communities before it goes to these estuaries. I can understand that. I can understand that, I say to my other colleague from Florida. But how does that differ from the Chesapeake Bay which has been struggling over a 10-year period to clean up the wastewater from their surrounding communities which goes into the Chesapeake Bay and which affects the striped bass, crabs, and everything else? Who pays for that? The local communities do. The wastewater comes from the various adjacent communities, and why shouldn't this cleanup project be paid for by the local communities rather than this massive public project? I have looked at towns all over Virginia that are struggling to meet the wastewater requirements and paying their local taxes to clean it up before it is distributed into the streams and rivers and lakes in my State. I say there is no difference between my streams and my lakes in the Chesapeake Bay and the magnificence of the Florida Everglades. Yet the Senator is asking the Federal taxpayer to pay for it and changing a law which has served this Nation for some 14 years. That is why you do not have the 35-percent construction cost formula but 50 percent, because of the many projects which are not related to the magnificence of the flora, fauna, birds, alligators, snakes, and so forth, which indeed are very important. They are very important and essential to these projects. Fine, clean up the water, but do it like every other municipality. Have the States pay for it with the local taxes before it is distributed back into the various components of the Florida Everglades. If there are any Senators who wish to reply during the course of the debate, I would be glad to yield. There is an abundance of wedding presents coming with this marriage, I say to my good friend from Florida.

Mr. WARNER. I make my point, Mr. President. I see no distinction. Water is water. Cleanup is cleanup. The question is, Who is going to pay for it? The question is, Who will pay for it?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I may respond to my friend, I accept what he is saying. It is just a question of who is going to pay for it. Take, for example, the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay, which begins way up in Delaware, reaches Baltimore, MD, reaches Washington, DC, and reaches Norfolk, VA. All of the water runoff from those municipalities the local people accept the cost of because it goes into the Chesapeake Bay, which is, as any number of projects, a Federal investment. The Federal taxpayer has put money into cleaning up the Bay. What is the distinction between the water runoff from municipalities into the local streams or the Chesapeake Bay, which is just as important to the people of those communities as are the everglades to the people of Florida?

Mr. WARNER. Thank you. I wish to share the time. I will accept the time of my questioning to be charged to the time of the Senator from Virginia, and, of course, the reply would be charged to the chairman's time.

Mr. WARNER. I want to reply to my colleague. We love our States equally. I say to the Senator, the Chesapeake Bay is just as dear to our people as are the Everglades to Floridians. The Chesapeake Bay is a national asset--maybe not of the proportions but certainly of equal significance to the Everglades. All of this has been done through the years at a minute fraction of the cost to clean up the bay. Striped bass and crabs are returning and are beginning to live and prosper. We are making some progress. Again, there has been a clear cost sharing by the local communities, which I do not find in this bill. My question to the Senator is, Why did the Congress of the United States in 1996, just 4 years ago almost to the day, October 12, pass a law saying ``operation and maintenance expenses of projects carried out under this section shall be a non-Federal responsibility''? That was 1996, 4 years ago. Why is this now being changed?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my understanding is at this time the Senate will proceed with the matter before it relating to the Florida Everglades and the bill submitted by the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee; am I not correct?

Mr. WARNER. The pending business is an amendment submitted by the Senator from Virginia with my principal cosponsor, the Senator from Ohio; is that correct?

Mr. WARNER. I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the clerk. I asked the amendment be read because this is a technical amendment. It clearly strikes the provision which, if left, changes the law that the Congress and the executive branch have operated under for 14 consecutive years. It changes it for this project, and it establishes a precedent that every Member of Congress in the future will have to grasp as he or she advocates their next project in their State. I think that is ill advised. For 14 years, we have had a body of law that has served well regarding the most complicated and very expensive series of programs to take care of needed situations in our country--floods, saving lives, navigation, promoting commerce. We can go on and describe these many projects that each year the Congress considers working with the Corps of Engineers and the executive branch to obtain. All of a sudden, we are going to quietly, with one short sentence, take off the law books the provision which has established that the States have the responsibility for operation and maintenance when these projects are completed with taxpayer money and some cost-sharing formula by the States. I think that is wrong. I see no justification. I support this project. I will vote for it. It is a very important part of America. Indeed, it is shared, although in Florida the benefits are shared by all Americans. I point out regarding the Chesapeake Bay, for years I have advocated, with some success, and with the help of many colleagues, the cleanup and the restoration of that great national asset. That has been in progress for a dozen years. Each year, we get a few million dollars to do it, just a few million here and there, to improve this magnificent estuary serving a number of States on the east coast. All of a sudden, we come along with the romance of the Everglades, and the administration has some idea--and I cannot find any justification clearly in the Record--and says do away with 14 years of practice and legislation that has been in effect by the Congress. I say to every Member voting, be prepared to go back home and explain to your constituents why they must continue to pay the full 100 percent O&M for their projects in the last 14 years, and all of a sudden Florida gets a cost sharing of 50-50. Be prepared to go back home and answer that question. My amendment simply restores, preserves, the law as it has been for 14 years. Very interestingly, in 1996 I, as I have for 14 years, served on the Environment and Public Works Committee. I happened to be subcommittee chairman when we considered the Florida Everglades and wrote the initial legislation to get this project underway. I am addressing the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Public Law 104-303, October 12, 1996. I refer to the following, 110 Stat. 3770: Operation and Maintenance.--The operation and maintenance of projects carried out under this section shall be a non- Federal responsibility. So Congress, just 4 years ago, reiterated in this Everglades project that it shall be non-Federal for operations and maintenance. What is the mystery about this project that first induced the administration, then the Environment and Public Works Committee in reporting this bill out--what induced them to change the law which was very succinctly and expressly stated just 4 years ago, a law that had been in effect since 1986? I will vote for this. It is a good project. However, I succinctly say, let's adhere to the law that has served this Nation well. I guarantee no Member of this body or the other body can bring to the attention of their colleagues the need for something to be done in their State without having this same cost-sharing formula in the years to come. To do otherwise would be unfair to your constituents. So all I am trying to do is preserve equity and fairness--equity and fairness for what has been done in the past and what shall be done in the future. By requiring the States under the 1986 law, and as repeated under the 1996 law, to bear the burden of operation and maintenance puts a burden on the States to examine the projects brought forth by the Members of Congress to determine is this worthy, in fact, of the support of the taxpayers of that State for the life of the project. It is a joint decision at that point. Now with the stroke of a pen in this statute we are requiring the Federal taxpayers to pay 50 percent of the lifetime of this enormous project. This is one big project. You say, Senator, what do you mean such a big project? Look at the budget. Just look at the budget of the Corps of Engineers for the past few years. It has averaged around $1.4 billion for the whole of America, for the 50 States--$1.4 billion. In this bill alone we are authorizing $1.1 billion for 10 of perhaps 50 to 60 projects of this one restoration of the Everglades. Let me repeat that: $1.1 billion for Florida, and that is construction costs. The O&M costs for these first 10 is estimated, total for these 10 projects, somewhere between $10 and $40 million a year. And as you look at the next 10 and the next 10 and the next 10 and the next 10, to where you get to the 50 or 60 total projects for the restoration of the Everglades, that O&M figure becomes quite considerable. This project is going to suck the lifeblood out of projects all across America, not only in terms of the construction costs but, if the Congress were to adopt this, 50-50 cost sharing. Paul Revere called out, ``The British are coming.'' I call out: Folks, this is coming. I forewarn you. This is coming. You better go back home and talk to your constituents and say this one is going to be in competition with what I had planned this year and next year, or next year, for our State. Is the Congress ready to take the Corps of Engineers' budget averaging $1.4 billion and double it and triple it? If you look at the statistics, this budget of the Corps has been coming down through the years. Today, the Corps has insufficient funds to meet the requirements that existed prior to 1986. Let me point that out. Prior to 1986, we did have a cost sharing on O&M for projects. It is still the obligation of the Federal Government to live up to the O&M expenses for the project prior to 1986. Yet the Corps is short funds to meet its obligations under law prior to 1986. So I am anxious to hear from our distinguished chairman, a very valued and dear friend of mine of many years. I see both the distinguished Senators from Florida are going to participate at some point in this debate. I just come back to something very simple. What is it about the mystique and the romance of the Florida Everglades that justifies changing a body of law that has served this Nation well for some 14 years, and that was specifically reiterated and put into law in 1996 when we addressed the first, very first pillars, the foundation for the Everglades project which we address here today? Mr. President, I would like to return to this subject, but I know my colleague from Ohio, who is joining with me on this, and my distinguished colleague from Oklahoma--both of whom serve on the Environment and Public Works Committee--are desirous of speaking to this issue. For the moment, I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I checked that out. This is part of the statement I am putting in the Record. Clearly, it was not done. That is a second area where it is deviating from the longstanding practice of the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Mr. WARNER. You better go back and undo some of the things we have done in the last 14 years and readjust the cost sharing. I say to my friend, I don't understand it. The State of Florida has to pay 50 percent rather than 35 percent. I will tell you why. It is because you have so many collateral projects, wastewater and other things. But if that was the problem, why didn't you stick in the committee to the 35 percent and leave the cost sharing as it was and not change the law?

Mr. WARNER. We shifted from marriage to partner, Mr. President.

Mr. WARNER. Thirty-five to forty. I was off 10 percent. I say to my good friend, the reason you go to 50 percent and not 35 is you are covering non-Federal and part of municipal water supplies. There are a whole lot of municipal water supplies that are benefited.

Mr. WARNER. I will pass this document to my good friend and we should address that together before the vote. My amendment simply says, leave in place the 1986 and the 1996 laws. That is all. I yield time to the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my friend. I wouldn't want to go back to Virginia and say to my community they are more special than they are. But one of the interesting things, if I may add for a minute, where are the environmental organizations, the watchdogs who are the first to come up? They are standing by in absolute silence as to the change of this law which they helped us put in place in 1986, and again in 1996. It is just silence across the land because of the romance and the mystique of this magnificent Everglades. I say to those organizations: My little lakes, my little streams in Virginia are just as important. And the people of Virginia are paying to clean up the water going into those streams and lakes, rivers and dams, not the Federal Government. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. I yield time to my friend from Ohio.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to accommodate the distinguished chairman of our committee to facilitate the vote, which would also accommodate a number of our colleagues. We have had a very good debate. The issue before the Senate is very succinct and simple. We have had a body of law for 14 years. That law, with reference to this specific project, was reviewed in 1996. And explicitly, the Congress, after reviewing it, stated the following: ``The operation and maintenance of projects carried out under this section''--and that section dealt with the Florida Everglades--``shall be a non-Federal responsibility.'' So we are now about to vitiate 14 years of law. I say to my colleagues, you will have to go back and explain to your constituents how all the projects in that 14-year period are now operation and maintenance being funded by the States, and that the budget for the projects prior to 1986 is underfunded by $440 million in this one fiscal year. So I think it is a very bad precedent for this Congress to vitiate 14 years of law, and particularly when it was reviewed specifically with regard to this project just 4 years ago and explicitly written into law that the operation and maintenance would be entirely the responsibility of the State of Florida. I yield the floor and yield back my time.

Mr. WARNER. Certainly, I did not wish to invade. But the Senator invited questions: Does any other Senator know of projects other than 35 percent? I am pointing out, yes, because he is including a lot of municipal water supply, treatment plants for runoff water, and a lot of other things that most States pay for back home. I thank the Senator.

Mr. WARNER. I yield such time as the Senator from Ohio may require. But before doing so, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Warner amendment.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague. I will take but a few more minutes. Therefore, I intend to vote loudly and strongly for this measure. In conclusion, I am privileged to work in the Senate in the area of security, military and foreign relations as chairman of the Armed Services Committee. In light of that, I have looked very closely at China. China is pushing many frontiers, whether it is the export of armaments or being involved in some of the most complex and fragile relationships the world over. We need only point out Pakistan and India and how Russia is on one side and China is on the other side. Let's only hope that their work with regard to that tension-filled part of the globe will be constructive and in a way to prevent any significant confrontation between those two nations. Therefore, I think it is important that our military maintain its relationship with the Chinese. Given the tenuous situation with regard to Taiwan, and the strong principles of our Nation in trying to defend and support that democracy, I believe such a dialogue will give us a better opportunity to work on security relationships, whether regarding India and Pakistan, Taiwan or other regions of the world. Mr. President, I think we are on the verge of a very historic moment. I commend the chairman and ranking member for their initiatives and long weeks of hard work. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, throughout the 22 years I have been privileged to be a Member of the Senate, I have worked very closely with our distinguished colleague from Delaware, Senator Roth, and indeed our colleague from New York, Senator Moynihan. This has to mark one of their finest hours in the Senate. Senator Moynihan has spoken with me unreservedly on this important issue and it took the strong leadership of our chairman and distinguished ranking member to shepherd this key legislation through the Senate in light of the number of challenges they faced. I hope that not only the constituencies in their respective States but the Nation as a whole recognize the skill with which these two very seasoned and senior Senators have managed this most critical piece of legislation. Passage of this legislation is in the interest of our country economically and in terms of our security--I will dwell on the security interests in a moment--for today, tomorrow, and the future. As we enter this millennium, China, in my judgment, is our natural competitor in economics, and perhaps the nation that could pose the greatest challenges in terms of our national security. I was very much involved, as were other Members of the Senate, indeed our two leaders, in the amendment offered by Senator Thompson. I subscribe to so many of his goals. Were it not for a framework of laws which adequately address the concerns of Senator Thompson, I would most certainly have supported his amendment. But as our two managers have pointed out, as drafted, that amendment could have imperiled the passage of this legislation. I am pleased to join colleagues today in supporting PNTR for China. I join all Senators who have spoken so eloquently on the question of human rights deprivation in China. Indeed, I have traveled there, as almost every Member of this body has at one time, and have witnessed with my own eyes the human rights deprivation of the citizens of that nation. However, continued isolation, in my judgment, would strengthen the hands of those who inflict the abrogation of human rights on those citizens by restricting the Chinese people's contact with some of our very finest Ambassadors. I am not just speaking of the diplomatic corps. I am talking about the American people, be they traveling for business or to gain knowledge about China. The American people are among the best Ambassadors as it relates to human rights. Our citizens, wherever they travel in the world, most particularly to China, whether it is to conduct business or for pleasure or for other reasons, bring with them the closely held and dearly valued principles of a democratic society, principles of human rights. They are unrelenting in trying to share those principles and impress upon the people of China the value of reshaping their society along the principles of human rights adopted by the major nations of this world, particularly the United States. Therefore, exposing Chinese citizens to many of the ideals that our democratic society is built upon can only help in the strengthening of human rights in China. It is through such contacts, which will be greatly expanded with the passage of PNTR with China, that significant improvements can be made in the human rights situation in China. Not providing the PNTR status for China would also have a significant impact on both U.S. businesses and consumers. China imports 20 percent of the U.S. wheat and timber exports, and they also are major importers of U.S. cotton, fertilizer, aircraft equipment and machinery. China supplies the United States with one- third of those wonderful gifts, particularly at Christmastime, that we share with our children. They have always had a very innovative insight into what the children want and a great deal of what we purchase comes from that nation. Ten percent of our footwear, 15 percent of our apparel, and a large percentage of our electronic products are supplied by China. Without a PNTR agreement, duties on these products might drastically increase and the costs be borne by the American consumer. However, China's accession to the WTO will be a boon to U.S. manufacturers, farmers, and service providers. As a requirement to join the WTO, China has agreed to greatly reduce tariffs across the board. This will in turn open markets in that huge nation, thereby providing American business with great opportunities. Let me take a minute to explain how such a reduction in Chinese tariffs will beneficially impact my State, the Commonwealth of Virginia. In 1998, Virginia's worldwide poultry and product exports were estimated at $101 million. China is currently the second leading market for U.S. poultry exports. Under its WTO accession agreement, by 2004, China will cut its frozen poultry products tariff in half, from 20 percent to 10 percent. The beautiful Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, indeed, along with other regions of the State, are the heartland of our poultry export market. They stand to benefit greatly. In 1998, Virginia's worldwide live animal and red meat exports were estimated at $87 million. Under its WTO accession agreement, by 2004, China will reduce its tariffs 45 percent to 12 percent on frozen beef cuts, from 45 to 25 percent on chilled beef, and from 20 percent to 12 percent on frozen pork cuts, definitely benefiting Virginia's exports in these areas. Virginia's lumber industry is the 13th largest in the Nation. China is the world's third largest lumber importer. Under its WTO accession agreement, China will substantially reduce tariffs on this import, thereby dramatically opening up the market to the American lumber industry. Those are but a few examples of how China's accession into the WTO will provide numerous opportunities for Virginia business, particularly small- and medium-size companies which account for 54 percent of all exports from Virginia to China. I believe it is in the long-term interest of the United States to maintain a positive trade relationship with China. I believe we can use our relationship to foster positive social, civil, and economic changes in China. Isolation tactics will only prevent the United States from having any influence over guiding China towards democratic reform.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the Chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee regarding the General Investigations Activities of the Corps of Engineers. The Corps of Engineers is authorized to repair the Goshen Dam/ Spillway system on Lake Merriweather in Rockbridge, Virginia. This dam is classified as a ``high hazard'' dam according to the Federal Dam Safety Guidelines because its failure threatens the downstream community of Wilson Springs. The Corps has completed a Technical Report on the engineering and design specifications for the project's repairs and upgrades. The House passed bill includes $150,000 for further planning and design activities for this important project. I call this situation to the attention of the Chairman and respectfully request that he give favorable consideration to this matter in conference.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. president, on July 21, 2000 our colleague Senator John McCain delivered an address at the Change of Command ceremony were Admiral Jay Johnson stepped down from his distinguished career to be succeeded by Admiral Vern Clark as the 27th Chief of Naval Operations. I was privileged to be present, together with Roberta McCain, Senator McCain's mother, to listen to his stirring remarks to our Navy-Marine Corps men and women-both present and serving throughout the world in the cause of freedom. Our colleague has a long and distinguished career in and with our military. His heartfelt delivery was genuine and his message was inspirational. I ask unanimous consent that his remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to express my frustration over the inability of the Senate to reach a unanimous consent agreement in regard to legislation that addresses the critical shortage of highly skilled workers in the information technology fields. On April 11, 2000, the Senate's Judiciary Committee favorably reported out S. 2045, The American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, by a vote of 16- 2. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this important legislation. Unfortunately, this legislation is now being held hostage because some of my colleagues in the Senate wish to attach unrelated amendments to the bill. There are very few remaining days left in this Congress. Before Congress adjourns for the year, we must pass the remaining appropriations bills, and have them signed into law. In addition, legislation extending Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China, and legislation reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, must be considered. Consequently, there simply is just not enough time for the Senate to debate numerous unrelated amendments on the H-1B visa bill. Mr. President, our country's burgeoning economy has resulted in an extremely low unemployment rate nationwide. While I am proud of our economy, and our low nationwide unemployment rate, there does exist a tight labor market in many fields, especially the information technology fields. One need only look in the classified section of the Washington Post to see how many high-tech jobs are available in Northern Virginia. This tight labor market makes it difficult for the high-tech industry to fill job openings, and this difficulty is compounded by the fact that our American education system, for one reason or another, is not producing enough individuals with the interest and skills for employment in the information technology fields. If these jobs our not filled, our economy will suffer, and these American companies will move overseas to fill their jobs. In 1998, Congress and the President recognized the serious effects that the tight labor market could have on the high-tech industry and our economy. In that year, Congress passed, and the President signed into law, legislation increasing the annual ceiling for admission of H- 1B nonimmigrants from 65,000 to 115,000 in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000, and 107,500 in fiscal year 2001. This 1998 act also imposed a $500 per visa fee to fund training and scholarships for U.S. workers and students. Nevertheless, despite increasing the H-1B ceiling just two years ago, that increase has proved to be woefully inadequate. In 1999, the H-1B visa ceiling was reached at the end of 9 months. This fiscal year, the ceiling was reached 6 months into the fiscal year. The effect of the H- 1B ceiling being reached before the year's end is that these jobs will remain unfilled, which in turn will only hurt our economy. The Senate Judiciary's Committee Report on S. 2045 states that the, ``shortage of skilled workers throughout the U.S. economy will result in a 5-percent drop in the growth rate of the GDP. That translates into approximately $200 billion in lost output, nearly $1,000 for every American.'' The Committee cites other studies that indicate that a shortage of information technology professionals is costing the U.S. economy as a whole $105 billion a year. I also found Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's testimony before the Senate's Banking Committee quite compelling. Mr. Greenspan endorsed S. 2045 in response to a question from Senator Phil Gramm, and then stated that, ``The benefits of bringing in people to do the work here, rather than doing the work elsewhere, to me, should be pretty self-evident.'' Now, let me state clearly, it is my preference that these jobs in the information technology fields would be filled with Americans. However, due to the low unemployment rate and the lack of unemployed educated high-tech workers, filling the numerous openings in the information technology fields with Americans is simply not realistic. Therefore, to continue to propel our economy forward, we must pass legislation such as S. 2045 to fill these critical positions in our information technology sector. This legislation, though, does more than just increase the number of H-1B visas to temporarily fill the job openings in the high-tech industry that cannot be filled by Americans. This bill contains very important provisions that continue the imposition of a $500 fee per H- 1B visa petition. It is estimated that this fee, with the increase in the H-1B ceiling, will raise roughly $450 million over three years. This money will create 40,000 scholarships for U.S. workers and U.S. students, thereby helping them to choose education in these important fields. Our goal should be to fill these American jobs with trained American workers. These provisions of S. 2045 takes us toward that goal. Mr. President, in closing, I cannot overstate how important it is for our country's economy to raise the ceiling on H-1B visas, and to provide funding for the training of Americans to fill these jobs. I implore my colleagues to reconsider their demand for votes on unrelated amendments on this legislation. At this late stage in the Congress, demanding votes on unrelated amendments on this legislation will kill this important bill, leave very important jobs in the information technology sector unfilled, and ultimately, hurt our economy.

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. Raymond P. Huot, 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. Thomas R. Case, 0000 The following Army National Guard of the United States officers for appointment in the Reserve of the Army to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., Section 12203: To be major general Brig. Gen. Alexander H. Burgin, 0000 To be brigadier general Col. Jonathan P. Small, 0353 The following named officer for appointment in the United States Army 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. Joseph M. Cosumano, Jr., 0000 The following named officer for appointment in the United States Army 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. Freddy E. McFarren, 0000 The following named officer for appointment in the United States Army 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. Michael L. Dodson, 0000 The following named officers for appointment in the United States Naval Reserve to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 12203: To be rear admiral Rear Adm. (lh) William J. Lynch, 0000 Rear Adm. (lh) John C. Weed, Jr., 0000 The following named officer for appointment in the United States Navy to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 624: To be rear admiral Rear Adm. (lh) Daniel H. Stone, 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. Michael D. Haskins, 0000 The following named officers for appointment in the United States Navy to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 624: To be rear admiral (lower half) Capt. Clinton E. Adams, 0000 Capt. Steven E. Hart, 0000 Capt. Louis V. Iasiello, 0000 Capt. Steven W. Maas, 0000 Capt. William J. Maguire, 0000 Capt. John M. Mateczun, 0000 Capt. Robert L. Phillips, 0000 Capt. David D. Pruett, 0000 Capt. Dennis D. Woofter, 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 Vice Adm. Scott A. Fry, 0000 (The above nominations were reported with the recommendation that they be confirmed.)