John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I very much want to make a statement in support of the subcommittee's efforts on the funding for the Colombia operation. Our committee had a hearing on the subject. We looked into it very carefully. At the appropriate time, I want to be recognized by the Chair. I need a few more minutes to collect my documents, but I judge from the managers, I would not be disruptive to what they are engaged in were I to seek the floor in the near future.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if the Senator would withhold.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the managers for their efforts on this very important piece of legislation. They will have my support. Mr. President, I have been associated with this very important piece of legislation providing aid to Colombia since it was first recommended to the Congress of the United States. I commend the administration and, in particular, General McCaffrey. I have had an opportunity, as chairman of the Committee on Armed Services and, indeed, for some 22 years to work with General McCaffrey, particularly during the period of the Gulf War in 1991 when he showed extraordinary leadership as a troop commander in that decisive battle to turn back Saddam Hussein's threats. Now he has volunteered, once again, as an American patriot, to take on this somewhat thankless task of dealing with the almost insoluble problems of the importing into this country of drugs. This is one effort by the general--indeed, the administration, and others--to try to curtail this illegal importation of drugs. I heard a colleague earlier today concerned about: Well, we are not spending enough money here at home. My quick research and consultation with other colleagues indicates that I think some $500 million in taxpayers' money has been added by this Congress to the Administration's budget requests for domestic programs over the past 3 years. This money has been expended in an effort to educate and to, in every other way, help Americans, first, avoid the use of drugs and then, if misfortune does strike an individual and their families, to try to deal with the tragic consequences. So I rise to speak in support of the U.S. counternarcotics activities in the Andean ridge and neighboring countries, as provided for in this bill, and to address the impact of drug trafficking on the stability of the region. The importance of this region to the United States cannot be overestimated. I will give you one example. The region provides the United States with almost 20 percent of the supply of foreign oil. The number is likely to increase with the recent discovery, in Colombia's eastern plains, of reserves estimated at 2 million barrels. The ongoing controversy over the price of gas by the American motorists at this very moment is reason to help Colombia fight this problem. When I say help this nation, I have been privileged to meet with their President in the course of his visits here, and also meet with the Foreign Minister, the Ambassador--the very courageous Ambassador from Colombia to the United States--and many others from that nation. And, indeed, I have met with private citizens here in America who have had their origin and background in Colombia. So I have talked to a wide range of individuals. This legislation is the right thing. I commend all those, certainly here in the Senate, and particularly those in the current Government of Colombia, as well as the citizens who have worked to foster this legislation. Mr. President, to reiterate I rise to speak in support of United States counter-narcotics activities in the Andean Ridge and neighboring countries as provided for in this bill, and the impact of drug trafficking on the stability of the region. The importance of this region to the United States cannot be overstated. This region provides the United States with almost 20 percent of its supply of foreign oil--a number that is likely to increase with the recent discovery in Colombia's eastern plains of reserves that are estimated at two billion barrels. The ongoing controversy over the price of gasoline that the American motorist is paying only serves to reinforce the importance of this commodity in our everyday life and economy. In sharp and tragic contrast is the threat from this same region posed by illegal drugs to American citizens on the streets of our cities and in the playgrounds of our schools. An estimated 80 percent of the cocaine and 90 percent of the heroin smuggled out of Colombia is destined for the United States. Sadly these drugs have caused, directly and indirectly the death of 50,000 Americans each year and the loss of billions of dollars from America's economy. I am also very concerned about the impact that narco-trafficking in Colombia is having on the democratically elected governments in the region. Many of these countries have only recently transitioned from military dictatorships to democracies--and as recent events have demonstrated--these democracies are fragile. The ``spill over'' effect from the narco-trafficking in Colombia could prove enormously destabilizing to the surrounding nations. Additionally, this region is home to the Panama Canal, a waterway of significant importance to America. With the United States no longer maintaining a permanent military presence in Panama, it is crucial that we be vigilant against any threat as a consequence of drug trafficking our friends in the Panamanian Government and the Canal itself. The President's recent request for a $1.6 billion supplemental aid package to assist Colombia and its neighbors in their counter-narcotics efforts, and the funding which will be appropriated through this and other acts for that purpose, represents an increased U.S. role in the region's difficulties. The rampant violent criminal activities of the various terrorist organizations and paramilitary groups involved in narco-trafficking, including kidnaping and murder, continue to undermine the stability of the democratically elected governments of the region. This is particularly true in Colombia. The proposed aid package, much of which will be provided to Colombia in order to fund portions of the $7.5 billion Plan Colombia, represents one of the most aggressive foreign policy actions of the United States in Latin America in recent history. However, the funding contained in this package is only a small part of our overall commitment to this problem. We already spend hundreds of millions of dollars and deploy hundreds of military personnel to the region every year. In addition to the proposed increase in funding, our support for Plan Colombia will require us to deploy many more military personnel in order to train Colombia law enforcement and military personnel. This is a matter of grave concern for the Senate Armed Services Committee, which has as its primary focus the safety and well-being of the men and women who proudly serve in the Armed Forces. The decision by the Congress to support Plan Colombia and an increased American involvement in the region was not to be an easy one to make. Some have compared the situation in Colombia to Vietnam, and warn against such a U.S. military involvement in an internal matter. Others believe that such involvement is in our vital interest and warn of the consequences if we refuse to engage. On April 4th of this year, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on this issue in order to explore the problem and determine what, if any, assistance was appropriate. Our witnesses at that hearing included Brian Sheridan, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict; Rand Beers, Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs; General Charles Wilhelm, Commander-in-Chief, United States Southern Command; and Mr. Peter Romero, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs. Mr. President, at that hearing I asked our witnesses five questions I believe to be essential in making a decision regarding what role the United States should play in this effort: (1) Is it in our vital national security interest to become involved? (2) Will the American people support this involvement? (3) Can we make a difference if we become involved? (4) Will American involvement create a reaction amongst the people of the region that is counter to our interest? and (5) Are those we propose to help committed to achieving the same goals we support? These are not easy questions but the testimony of the witnesses left me to conclude that it is in our interest, that we can make a difference, and that we will have the support of the people of the United States and the people of the region if we take appropriate and effective action to help the democratically elected governments of this region regain control of their sovereign territory. Mr. President, this bill represents that appropriate action and I believe that our Armed Forces will ensure that it is effective. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the time in the quorum call be divided equally to both sides.

Mr. WARNER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to speak on this issue for not to exceed about 6 minutes.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the situation is as follows: For close to 2 or 3 years, I have been working with my good friend, Senator Dodd, on a wide range of issues relating to Cuba. Senator Dodd and I have spent a great deal of time studying and, indeed, traveling in relation to this matter. It is our belief that we should, as a nation, remove those legal impediments, to allow food and medicine to go into Cuba. We embarked on the effort to legislate, to have the Senate adopt measures to allow food and medicine to go into Cuba. I remember one of our former distinguished colleagues, Malcolm Wallop, brought into my office some American physicians who had undertaken to travel down to Cuba to see for themselves the plight of these people who have been denied up-to-date, state-of-the-art medical equipment. Cuba has good doctors, but they have not the medical equipment nor the medicine. Anyway, those efforts failed. In the course of the Elian Gonzalez case, it became apparent to me that America--outside of Florida and elsewhere--began to wake up to the relationship between the United States and Cuba and the inability, over 40 years, to succeed in our goal to allow that nation to receive a greater degree of democracy, trade, and other relationships. So Senator Dodd and I have at the desk an amendment, the Warner-Dodd amendment, calling for the appointment of the commission. It is essentially the same as the Dodd amendment that is up now. But as a manager of this bill and, indeed, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, I have to decide my priorities. My priorities are that this bill is in the interest of the security of this Nation; $300- plus billion providing all types of equipment for the men and women of the Armed Forces--salary, medical care for retirees. The committee has worked on this bill for 6 months. This issue of the commission to determine the future relationships between the United States and Cuba is not germane. I thought perhaps we could discuss it, so I offered the amendment, and it is now the pending business. But it is clear to me that this piece of legislation could become an impediment for this bill being passed. I have no alternative but to say two things. One, I remain philosophically attuned and in support of the Warner-Dodd amendment, which is at the desk. At some point in time, I hope to rejoin the effort, with others, to try to bring about some of the objectives in the Warner-Dodd amendment. But it has to be withdrawn at this time in order for this bill to move forward and the Dodd amendment to be considered. Amendment No. 3267, Withdrawn So at this time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Warner-Dodd amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, consistent with what I said earlier, I will have to support the motion to table so that this amendment is not an impediment to the passage of the bill. Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their cooperation. I see my colleague from Florida is here. I yield the floor. Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.

Mr. WARNER. If I have some time under the UC agreement, I yield it to my distinguished colleague from Florida. Amendment No. 3475

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss two amendments to S. 2549, the Department of Defense Authorization bill. Specifically, I wish to discuss Senator Kennedy's amendment and Senator Hatch's amendment, both of which deal with hate crimes. Typically defined, a hate crime is a crime in which the perpetrator intentionally selects a victim because of the victim's actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation. Mr. President, I deplore all acts of violence. But, I must say, that I personally find hate crimes to be particularly horrific. Crimes committed against someone simply because of that person's race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation are, in fact, different types of crimes. In 1998, James Byrd, Jr. was beaten, tied to the back of a pickup truck, and dragged to death along a Texas road. Why? for one reason and one reason only: Mr. Byrd was black. Later in 1998, Matthew Shepard was beaten, tied to a fence in Wyoming, and left to die. Why? For one reason and on reason only: Mr. Shepard was homosexual. These brutal murders shocked me and shocked our Nation. James Byrd and Matthew Shepard were killed not for what they did, but simply because who they were. Our country's greatest strength is its diversity. While it is true that certain people might not approve or might not agree with another person's religion or sexual orientation, or might not like someone's color, we must not, I repeat, we must not tolerate acts of violence that spur from one individual's intolerance of a particular group. Hate crimes do tear at the fiber of who we are in this country. The United States is a country of inclusion, not exclusion. Hate crimes, unlike other acts of violence, are meant to not just torture and punish the victim, such crimes are meant to send a resounding message to the community that differences are not acceptable. In 1990, I was pleased to vote in support of the Hate Crimes Statistic Act. This act required the Attorney General of the United States to gather and publish data about crimes ``that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.'' In addition, in 1994, I was pleased to support the Violence Against Women's Act. This important legislation provides funding for many important programs, including funding to prosecute offenders, funding to help victims of violence, grants for training of victim advocates and counselors and grants for battered women's shelters, to name but a few. Presently before the United States Senate is an amendment offered by Senator Kennedy, entitled the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2000. This legislation, essentially, would amend current law to make it a federal crime to willfully cause bodily injury to any person because of the victim's actual or perceived race, color, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation or disability. This is a great expansion of federal jurisdiction. Current federal hate crimes law covers race, religion, and national origin so long as the victim is engaged in one of six federally protected activities. The Kennedy amendment would expand federal jurisdiction into certain murder, assault and battery cases and possibly all rape cases. As a United States Senator, I believe that before the Congress passes legislation that would vastly expand federal criminal jurisdiction, we must take into consideration two important factors: the need for the legislation and the constitutionality of the legislation. The horrific murders of James Byrd and Matthew Shepard certainly cause strong emotional feelings that would lead me to believe that the expansion of federal hate crimes law is necessary. However, once the emotional feelings somewhat subside, we are left with the facts. In this case, the facts are not yet present to indicate a need for federal legislation. All states have laws that prohibit murder, battery, assault, and other willful injuries. Most states, 43 I believe, have hate crimes statutes, although these states differ in what groups are covered. Since 1990, with the passage of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, we have learned about the number of hate crimes that are occurring. These statistics, however, do not show whether states are, in fact, not prosecuting crimes under their hate crimes statutes or are not prosecuting crimes being committed against certain groups of people. If states are prosecuting such crimes, a vast expansion of federal jurisdiction is unnecessary. Moreover, it is also interesting to point out that in some circumstances the Kennedy amendment, if it became law, would in fact result in a weaker punishment for a hate crimes perpetrator than state law. For example, the Kennedy amendment states that where the crime is murder, the convicted defendant shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. It does not authorize the death penalty for the most heinous crimes. Two of the three murderers of James Byrd were prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to death in Texas. The third was sentenced to life in prison. In addition to analyzing the need for the expansion of federal criminal jurisdiction, I believe that members of Congress have a duty to evaluate the constitutionality of particular legislation before passing such legislation. I have some grave concerns about the constitutionality of the Kennedy amendment. Congress must have constitutional authority to enact legislation. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution provides a laundry list of Congress' power to enact legislation. One such power in that list is the power to regulate interstate commerce. From the New Deal era to the mid 1990s, the United States Supreme Court broadly interpreted Congress' authority for enacting legislation pursuant to the commerce clause. In fact, for approximately 60 years following the passage of New Deal legislation, the Supreme Court did not overturn one piece of congressionally passed legislation on the grounds that Congress exceeded its authority to enact legislation under the commerce clause. In the past few years, however, the Supreme Court, in the cases of United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison, issued opinions that places some serious boundaries on Congress' authority to enact legislation under the commerce clause. Just this year, in the Morrison case, the Supreme Court struck down a provision of the Violence Against Women's Act--a bill that I supported in 1994. The plaintiff in the Morrison case was allegedly raped by three students at a major university in my home state. She brought a civil suit in federal court under a provision in the Violence Against Women's Act that provides federal civil remedies for victims of gender motivated violence. The Supreme Court stated that this provision of VAWA was unconstitutional, holding that the Congress exceeded its authority under the commerce clause in enacting this legislation. Now, I am not going to get intimately involved in a legal analysis of the Morrison case and its application to the Kennedy amendment. It is important, however, to point out one particular quotation in the majority opinion. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Rehnquist stated ``if Congress may regulate gender-motivated violence, it would be able to regulate murder or any other type of violence since gender- motivated violence, as a subset of all violent crime, is certain to have lesser economic impacts than the larger class of which it is a part.'' 20000 U.S. Lexis 3422, *31 (2000). Based on the Morrison case, I have serious concerns about the constitutionality of Senator Kennedy's amendment. I believe that a federal role in combating hate crimes is appropriate. I support Senator Hatch's amendment to study the success of States in investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. I also support provisions in Senator Hatch's amendment that will provide assistance and federal grants to States and localities to help assist them in their investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. Let me be clear, if a federal study indicates that states and localities have not been successful in investigating and prosecuting hate crimes, I will be the first person to join Senator Kennedy in trying to find a constitutional federal hate crimes solution. At this time, however, I must reluctantly vote against Senator Kennedy's amendment in light of my concerns about the necessity and constitutionality of this legislation.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my distinguished colleague, Senator Levin, and I are prepared to address a series of amendments which have been agreed to on both sides on the authorization bill for the armed services of the United States. Consequently, I send a series of amendments to the desk which have been cleared by myself and the ranking member. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider those amendments en bloc, the amendments be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to any of these amendments be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I may inquire, as I understand it, today the Senate will not further consider the armed services bill; is that correct?

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. That is correct.

Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3468 (Purpose: To increase the authorization of appropriations for the Marine Corps for procurement by $2,000,000 for night vision (M203 tilting brackets), by $2,000,000 for 5/4T truck high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (including $1,500,000 for recruiter vehicles), and by $6,000,000 for the mobile electronic warfare support system; and to offset the total amount of the increase by reducing the authorization of appropriations for the Army for other procurement for the family of medium tactical vehicles by $10,000,000)

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WARNER. This amendment would increase Marine Corps procurement accounts $10 million for various items. It has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. WARNER. The Senator is correct.

Mr. WARNER. The Senator from Georgia is correct. We see many projects that need funding. However, in distributing scarce resources we must work with the Pentagon's priorities. While base commanders may have different views of what their bases need, if those priorities do not correspond with the Pentagon's priorities then it is different for us to assess the military value of the various projects.

Mr. WARNER. We agree that Fort Stewart needs new construction dollars and worked very hard this year to do what we could to help. We are committed to Fort Stewart's future and look forward to working with you, the base and the Pentagon to help it in the future.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.