John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. It is just a question to my distinguished colleague. He used the term ``inaction by Congress.'' Indeed, I say to my colleague, Congress has been inactive on a number of occasions when we sent our troops abroad and expended our taxpayers' money. That is one of the purposes of this bill. To establish a precedent of inaction not conceived by the Founding Fathers--indeed, we are given coequal powers. I want to go back to the bill itself, on page 71, ``congressional priority procedures,'' and ``joint resolutions, defined.'' I interpret that clause in the Byrd-Warner language that only one Senator is required, I say to my distinguished colleague. One Senator can bring forth that resolution. I commit to you that I will be that Senator, if necessary. So there will not be, in my judgment, inaction by the Congress after the President sends his report up.

Mr. WARNER. That is what the amendment requires. In other words, if there is a need, the President has the waiver authority.

Mr. WARNER. I, frankly, would vote for it, if the next President were to come and ask for that and made a strong case. I really think the sky is not falling in, I say to my distinguished friend. We have carefully provided in this piece of legislation contingencies for any such action that would jeopardize our remaining troops and/or the other nations that will come and pick up the modest numbers of combat troops. I thank the Senator.

Mr. WARNER. How interesting it is that two good friends and two colleagues can be on opposite side of an issue at this point in time. Circumstances have changed. I draw the Senator's attention to page 565 of the bill where it says: Except as provided in paragraph (B), absent specific statutory authorization . . . the President may waive the limitation in paragraph (1)(B) for a period . . . of up to 90 days each in the event that-- . . . the Armed Forces are involved in hostilities in Kosovo or that imminent involvement by the Armed Forces in hostilities in Kosovo is clearly indicated; (ii) NATO, acting through the Supreme Allied Commander -- The very person the Senator from Delaware pointed to remaining in charge-- in Europe, requests the emergency introduction of United States ground forces into Kosovo to assist other NATO or non- NATO military forces involved in hostilities or facing imminent involvement in hostilities. There it is. The President, seeing the actions that the Senator just pointed out, can dispatch the American troops. They can come out of that cadre of over 100,000, or thereabouts, in NATO and go right into this action. The Senator says the 85 percent that are there now from some 32 nations are of little consequence if a portion of the U.S. forces-- namely, the ground combat troops--are withdrawn and we leave the other support troops and the other types of troops there. This is not an American cut and run. This is not an American pullout. Here is the authority for the President to step in in the types of contingencies the Senator pointed out. If I might pose a rhetorical question, does the Senator think the case is so weak for the Balkans that the next President of the United States cannot come to the Congress and make the case for the Congress to have the troops stay after July 1?

Mr. WARNER. That power is given to the President of the United States.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, may I take 1 minute to state the Byrd- Warner amendment. We would simply change the date from July 1, 2001, to October 1, 2001, the date on which funds would be prohibited for continued deployment of ground combat troops. Second is one of the benchmarks the President has to certify. It would be reduced from 33 percent to 25 percent, thereby making it possible, in the judgment of this Senator, that the President would be able to make the certification as required by the amendment.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to indicate my reasons for not supporting the Daschle amendment, amendment number 3148 to S. 2521, the military construction appropriations bill. The Daschle amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. After starting a number of findings, the amendment states that it is the sense of the Senate that ``Congress should immediately pass a conference report to accompany'' the juvenile justice bill that includes the Senate passed gun-related provisions. During the Senate's debate of the juvenile justice bill in May of 1999, I supported the Lautenburg amendment, and other amendments to close the gun show loophole in the Brady act. I also supported an amendment to require licensed firearms dealers to provide a secure gun storage or safety device when a handgun is sold, delivered or transferred. Unfortunately, the juvenile justice bill has been locked in a House and Senate conference committee. Let me be clear, I remain firm in my stance on these issues. I certainly hope that House and Senate conferees can reach an agreement in conference on the juvenile justice bill. And, I will continue to support the common-sense gun provisions that passed the Senate during the juvenile justice debate. I believe the Senate passed gun-related amendments to the juvenile justice bill will help keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons and increase public safety without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens. Despite the fact that I agree with the statement in the Daschle amendment that Congress should immediately pass a conference report on the juvenile justice bill that includes the Senate passed gun-related amendments, I do not support the Daschle amendment. The Daschle amendment is not a legislative amendment and is simply a procedural maneuver. The Daschle amendment has no force in law and no relationship to the underlying purposes of the military construction appropriation bill. As chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have a responsibility to secure passage of the important military construction appropriations bill. This bill provides critically needed funding for military construction projects, improves the quality of life for the men and women who are serving our country in the armed forces, and sustains the readiness of our armed forces. These areas are traditionally underfunded, and this bill provides the necessary funds to help make up for this shortfall. The Daschle amendment is an unrelated sense-of-the-Senate amendment to the military construction appropriation bill. Sense-of-the-Senate resolutions have no force in federal law. Voting for this amendment places vitally needed funding for our Armed Forces in peril by jeopardizing passage of the overall bill. Again, I continue to support the commonsense gun related provisions that passed the Senate as part of the juvenile justice bill. When these matters come before the United States Senate in a substantive, rather than a procedural capacity, and on a related piece of legislation, I look forward to voting for them once again.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Fine. Mr. President, in the course of the deliberations before the Senate Appropriations Committee on this measure, the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd--former majority leader of the Senate; one who has served in the Senate 41 years--brought before that committee an amendment entitled the Byrd-Warner amendment dealing with the issue of the balance of power in the Constitution between the executive branch, the President, and the legislative branch, the Congress of the United States, as it relates to matters of foreign policy but, most particularly, as it relates to the matter--and perhaps the most important entrusted to both the President of the United States and the Congress--the most important matter of when the President, as Commander in Chief, sends beyond the shores of our great Nation men and women in uniform into harm's way in the cause of peace. This week, those of us on the Republican side of the aisle had our weekly luncheon, as did our good friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle. At our luncheon, Senator Strom Thurmond stood and asked if we could observe a moment of silence as he recounted the closing day of World War II, when hostilities ceased in Europe--the bloodiest of all wars, in which 292,000 men and women, wearing the uniform of the Armed Services of the United States, lost their lives. You could have heard a pin drop in that caucus as that great soldier, as that great statesman, asked for remembrance of the veterans of those generations. In a very humble way, I have a brief memory. At age 17, I joined the Navy. It was January of 1945. I was simply trained, as were thousands of other youngsters my age, because at that point in January, in the winter of 1945, both the war in Europe and the war in the Pacific were inconclusive. I simply was at training command, waiting for the invasion of Japan. I thank God that last battle in the Pacific never occurred, not only for myself but for millions of others who would have been involved. I look back very humbly on the modest contribution I made in uniform, both in that war and again during the Korean war, where I served in the Marines for a brief period. The military did far more for me than I did for the military. Today, that 17-year-old sailor as of 1945 is privileged to be the chairman of the Armed Services Committee of the Senate, a dream I thought would never be fulfilled. I again reiterate, my service was modest. On both sides of the aisle, there are men who have served and show the scars of war, who understand the burden on the President of the United States as he sends forth troops into harm's way. I respect these individuals greatly for their knowledge, for having borne the pain in the field of battle, unlike myself. But I was there when others did. The point of this is the gravity of the decision to send forth our people--the sons and the daughters of people from every village and town across this Nation. I recount World War II. I then go to Korea, again, where I served as a young Marine officer. Over 50,000 men and women lost their lives in that conflict. During the course of the Vietnam conflict, I was privileged to serve in the Navy as Undersecretary of the Navy and then as Secretary of the Navy. I was there 5 years, 4 months, and 3 days. Over 50,000 men and women lost their lives, not to mention the number of those wounded. The point I make is, the last time this Nation declared war was World War II. Yet since that time we have sent men and women into harm's way, beyond our shores, over 100 times. We never declared war in the Korean conflict. As a matter of fact, it was called the forgotten war. We never declared war in Vietnam, a war that not only brought tremendous casualties on the field of battle and a wrenching experience to the families--as each war does--but it divided this Nation. Indeed, it was the people of this Nation who rose up and, finally, through their elected representatives in Congress, provided the basis for the withdrawal of our troops from that conflict. That is what this amendment is all about. It is a decision of power between the executive and the legislative branches. It is assuming the responsibility--the responsibility to join with the President or not join with the President--in sending those people beyond our shores. No greater responsibility rests upon a Member of Congress than that. I have had the privilege to know Presidents. I have had the privilege to learn from my elder statesmen in this Chamber--foremost among them John Stennis, John Tower, Barry Goldwater, and ``Scoop'' Jackson, all of whom worked on the Armed Services Committee--of how Presidents of our great Nation face up to that decision to go or not to go. Stennis used to tell the story that Lyndon Johnson told him. The President used to say to Stennis: When that phone rings at night, and there is a troubled spot in the world, and I have to make the decision, Do I or do I not send those troops? I always thought, Where is an aircraft carrier, an island of America? What is the nearest force structure of the U.S. to this conflict? It is a big decision. Read the biographies of our Presidents. It is a tough decision. Congress has an obligation to share with the President in the making of that decision. That is my point. That is what this amendment is about. We have not really fully shared in that decisionmaking since World War II. Yes, we have the power to declare war under the Constitution. We also have the sole power over the purse--the power to decide whether that President can utilize the taxpayers' contribution each year in the operations of the United States. Just this week, the Armed Services Committee concluded its bill-- roughly $309 billion--to provide for the Armed Forces of the United States. It is the biggest money bill that goes through here. It will be brought to the floor next week, hopefully. That is what I am talking about--the power of the purse. Our committee authorizes, and the committee under the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, and the distinguished cosponsor of this amendment, Mr. Byrd, then make the decisions on the appropriations against the authorization. That is what this amendment is about. It is about how we conduct the expenditure in this bill--$2 billion-plus for Kosovo alone--how we go about spending the taxpayers' money for that. How does it directly relate to the safety and welfare of those brave men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces who are marching through, or patrolling through, or standing watch night and day in Kosovo? Mr. President, I first went to Kosovo in 1990 with then-leader Bob Dole. There was a group of four or five of us. I remember that trip very well. I remember that we exited rather speedily from Kosovo because there was a riot developing. So many people wanted to see the American Senators, wanted to tell the American Senators about the cruelty and the deprivation of human rights that was then, in 1990, being inflicted on the people of Kosovo--Kosovo being a part of Yugoslavia--being inflicted by Milosevic. Little did we know that war would soon spread through this region--first in Bosnia, and then it would erupt in Kosovo. Well, we saw those people. We went by the famous field where, hundreds of years ago, the people of that region fought off the barbarian insiders and lost the battle. They still consider that the most hallowed ground in Kosovo. That region has been subjected to fighting and internal strife ever since. Even Hitler put some 21 divisions in there to try to control the Yugoslav region, and finally he told his generals to just contain them as best they could. He never could subvert that province because of the internal fighting. Throughout the occupation of the German armies, a continuous civil war raged among the various religious and ethnic factions in that region. The Germans just sort of turned their back on them. One German general said in a dispatch to Berlin about those who died in this civil war: ``Less mouths to feed, less backs to clothe.'' What a desperate, desperate cauldron of humanity. I expect that at one time or another in our deliberations in this body on Bosnia and Kosovo, every Member has availed themselves of the history of this region. As many times as I have been there--I believe I was the first U.S. Senator to go into Sarajevo in September of 1992, at the height of the fighting of the civil war in that town. I remember the French, who were controlling such security as was available, just in an airport where we were trying to bring in Red Cross supplies and food, put me in an armored vehicle and drove me around the town. We looked out through a little slit and firing was going on. A French colonel and a former Foreign Legionnaire said, ``I have fought in battles all over the world, and I cannot understand this one.'' The Croatians, Bosnians, Serbians were fighting each other. He said, ``If you saw them in a room, you could not tell the difference. Most are well-educated people.'' He said, ``In all my years of combat in far-flung places of the world, I have never seen the violence that these people can inflict on one another. I have never seen anything like it.'' That violence raged for years, until the U.N. and then NATO forces finally came in and stabilized peace in that region. The war in Kosovo, we know well. We did everything we could at the diplomatic table. There were negotiations and valiant efforts by many. Not only the U.S, but, indeed, many nations tried to deal with Milosevic and to avoid the fighting. The rest is history. For 78 days, an air war was conducted in which the United States of America flew roughly 70 percent of the missions. Five or six other nations had their fighters, and they did the best they could. It was a consortium of nations. Why did the U.S. have the largest burden? Very simply, we had the most modern equipment. It was a high-tech war. We employed every bit of high-tech equipment that we knew how to employ to protect the lives of the aviators. That was the correct decision. We gave as much as we could to our allies, but their planes simply weren't equipped with the high-tech guidance systems, radar systems, and other detection systems to defend themselves. So we flew the bulk of the missions. NATO is still without adequate airlift. We supplied the cargo planes, the troop carriers, in large measure. In that remote location in the airfields that ring Kosovo--Italy had a dozen airfields, and how valiant that country was in that battle. They turned over much of their civil aviation, air space, and airfields to allow the U.S. and allies to operate their aircraft around the clock. Back to this amendment. The amendment is in two parts. I will refer to it as part 1 or 2. First, it is a contribution that I made some 2\1/ 2\ months ago, following my most recent trip to Kosovo. I went into that region, I think for the fifth or sixth time, and I went to the headquarters of the KFOR commander, a fine German officer, well-trained. He had a modest office. We were joined by Ambassador Kouchner, who was given by the U.N. the primary responsibility for trying to rebuild Kosovo following the termination of the conflict. This was January. I remember it well. There were 1 or 2 light bulbs sort of hanging from the ceiling, and they were constantly flickering. Down the hall was a toilet that was inoperative because there wasn't enough power. You had to flush it by taking a big bucket of water and pouring it in. I bring this up because Ambassador Kouchner said to me repeatedly in the hour or so I was there, as the lights were flickering, ``We don't have enough money from our allies that fought this war and others who made the commitment to get adequate power.'' He said, ``Half of the city of Pristina''--that is where we were, Pristina--``is freezing tonight because of the inadequacy of the power, inadequacy of the housing, inadequacy of everything, food and the like.'' That was in January. That is not an American; that is a Frenchman. The general who commented on the lights said, ``This is the best building in town. We are doing our best; we are going to make it through.'' This was the headquarters of all the KFOR, all the troops. Up to 30 nations had contributed troops to try to bring about a measure of stability. The consequence of that trip and going out to visit our troops in a far region--the whole area was divided into various regions: The American sector, the French sector, the British sector. I visited our troops in the American sector. I watched these young men from places all across the United States, heavily dressed in their flack suits and protective vests, cold as the dickens, carrying weapons, but going around to try to maintain order in these war-ravaged communities. There was the Serb section in the town and the Albanian section. There was an indivisible line between them. You couldn't see it. But everybody knew you didn't step across it. There was very little, if any, contact between two factions. I visited other American soldiers--two and three stationed out to guard a church. Our soldiers then and today are doing all kinds of tasks at personal risk, for which in large measure they weren't trained. They do not teach us in boot camp how to solve marital disputes or how to solve disputes between shop owners who are arguing. These wonderful persons in uniform are drawing on a lifetime of American experience with their families and their homes and their towns to perform tasks that are far beyond any training the military gives. But they are doing it. They have done it, and they continue to do it, and do it very well. At the end of the war, there were commitments in which the various allies came in and said we will send so many million dollars; we will send so many police; we will send so many building supplies; we will do this and we will do that. Bernard Kouchner, the man in charge, simply said it is not being done. So I came back home and concocted an amendment in consultation with quite a few of my colleagues. I went about it very deliberately. I consulted on two occasions at the White House in constructive meetings. The administration wasn't at all supportive of this venture; that is, on the face of the draft that I had. But I had other people within the administration and elsewhere telling me privately: John, if you do this, I think you will get the attention of the allies and they will begin to fulfill the commitments they made. Whether they are dollar commitments, commitments for police, or other commitments; they will do it. I came to the floor of the Senate on Monday. I had quite a few cosponsors: The distinguished Senator Stevens, the distinguished Senator Inouye, members of the Appropriations Committee, and a great number of the Armed Services Committee. There was nothing to file the amendment against. But my intentions were that at such time as the Kosovo supplemental came through, I would put it on and have it printed in the Record. This thing reverberated around the world, known as the Warner amendment. I take no great pride of authorship. But they had to name it something. But, suddenly, the allies began to get the message that we mean business in the Congress of the United States. We mean business. They began to account for what they had done. They began to expedite their dollars. They began to expedite the building materials. They began to expedite in some ways sending police, although they are still far behind the goals. Now, some 2\1/2\ months later, I have just been advised as late as yesterday by a constant stream of U.N. and E.U. officials through my office. I thank them. They quietly thanked me and those who supported me for bringing this matter out in the public and making known the need of the allies to step up. The House of Representatives, Mr. Kasich, called me one day with great respect and said: John, I think your amendment is a good one. Would you agree if I brought it up on the House floor just as it is? I said: Fine. Give it a try. There was quite a debate in the House of Representatives on that amendment. I will put it in the Record later today. But it was only defeated by a very few votes with basically 200 on each side. By a very few votes did it go down, largely because a number of Members had not really had a chance to think it through. But this amendment, which is couched as the Byrd-Warner amendment today, simply says the following: That the allies made certain commitments that, in the judgment of this Senator and such others who support those commitments, have not been kept in a timely way. We have about 15 percent of the troops there. I want to make this clear. Other nations have 85 percent of them. As a consequence, our troops and the troops of other nations could be there indefinitely. There is no one--I defy anyone--who can come to this floor and give with any precision the dates on which the infrastructure of that nation, and particularly its judicial system, a police system, and other necessary infrastructure, can enable the troops of this Nation and others to go home. It seems to me they needed a wake-up call. That is precisely what this amendment does that I partly drew up. It simply says to our President: Respectfully, Mr. President, of this $2 billion coming through, you can utilize a certain percentage right away to reimburse the Department of Defense for expenditures it has already made for the Kosovo operation for this fiscal year to replenish the funds taken out of the Department of the Army, largely, but some out of the Navy, some out of the Air Force, but 25 percent we hold back--that is all, 25 percent of $2 billion we hold back--until you can certify that you have examined, first, the commitments of our allies, and then, second, the extent to which they have completed their commitments. I have been told on good authority that in all probability the President can make that certification largely with what has occurred in the 2\1/2\ months since this Warner section of this thing has been made public. So my amendment in large measure has met its goal. I thank the many people who have helped me and stood by the purpose of this amendment. But had the President not been able to certify, I said the other 25 percent of the money would then be used to bring our troops home because this Nation has fulfilled its commitment and did its best certainly in the combat phase of this. Certainly in the year almost after the combat phase, we have done it. Now let the Europeans and other nations pick up. If there is one thing in this bill I will bring to the floor next week for the colleagues of the Armed Services Committee, the most serious thing facing us today in the military is the retention of the middle-grade personnel, enlisted and officer, because of the constant deployment of these individuals all over the world away from their families. We are not today able to retain sufficient numbers to keep this military of ours, this magnificent military of ours, strong in the future. It is not the shortage of dollars. It is not the shortage of equipment in large measure, although spare parts is a problem. It is the fact that these men and women in the uniform of our Nation are constantly being sent away on ships, flown away in airplanes, and many times with very short notice so that the remaining spouse has to pick up the responsibilities as that serviceperson goes overseas. I just think to keep an indefinite commitment in this region without any participation by the Congress of the United States is wrong. We should speak to that, and that is what my portion does. It simply says 25 percent is to be used to bring home the troops if you can't make the certification. But if the Congress wishes, it could meet and say: Even though you could not make the certification, Mr. President, we think you should continue the policy as you have laid it out despite the inability of making the certification, despite the fact that our allies have not made their commitments. That amendment simply says we should be involved. That is what the Constitution requires. We should be involved. We cannot come in here year after year, month after month, and just stamp these appropriations with an ``aye'' vote and then run out of the Chamber. We have to face up to this amendment. This amendment makes us face up to it. That is my principal contribution. I join my distinguished colleague and friend, Senator Byrd, in his portion. I see my distinguished colleague from South Carolina who worked on this and voted for it in the Appropriations Committee. I shorten my remarks so the Senator may address the Senate. The thrust of the Byrd amendment is not ``cut and run,'' not that we are trying to undermine NATO, that we are turning our back. It is simply saying to the Congress of the United States and to the next President, give Congress a plan and show we can pull out just the combat elements of our troops, leaving the intelligence, leaving the logistics, leaving other segments of the military to help the remaining troops of the many nations--not cut and run. Bring out the combat troops. Show Congress a plan. Those troops, in our judgment, should be out by July 2001. Is that too much to ask, 14 months hence? That is not cut and run. That is not undermining anybody. That is not sending a signal to Milosevic that the United States is turning its back. It is saying to the men and women of our Armed Forces, to this Nation, that we have done our share. It is time for us to pick up the combat share to the extent it is still necessary. And then, if it is in the infinite wisdom of this body that we should not make any changes, we should not come home with the combat elements. All we have to do is stand up and send a message, a sense of the Congress, we think we should stay. That would add far greater strength to the conviction of the American participation than this year after year after year of idly voting on an appropriations bill and not discussing it. I respect my dear colleague from West Virginia. How many times he has been on this floor reminding Members of our responsibilities? Many, many times. This is an amendment that simply says: Congress, the hour has arrived where you have to stand up and be counted if we will continue for an indefinite time the missions in Kosovo. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a Dear Colleague letter.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I make a parliamentary inquiry. Are we now out of morning business and on the bill?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from South Carolina. I remember when I first came to the Senate 22 years ago, two-thirds of the Senate or more had the opportunity to serve in uniform. Today, there are fewer. I cast no aspersion against those who do not. It is just a generational thing. Listening to my dear friend from South Carolina, I know he draws on his experiences in the army in World War II as a young officer in the battle to free Europe when he had the responsibility of life. No one else but him, as an officer, had the responsibility for those young men under his command. This type of amendment we discussed--certainly I have and others-- with many veterans who have worn the uniform of this country and many who are on active duty today. The distinguished Senator said he has seen war. I saw it in the continental limits in World War II, and then I had a brief tour in Korea as a ground officer with an air wing. I saw the others who had to fight it, but I never put myself in the category of a combat soldier. I have always said my orders did not take me there, but they took the Senator there and he saw it. I know in the course of this debate, the issue will be raised: We may be putting the young men and women in the Armed Forces in jeopardy as a consequence of this amendment, even the act of filing it and debating it. I want to get into that. I am sure the Senator will rejoin in this debate if and when that happens. I see our distinguished colleague here, who is a naval veteran, who is about to speak. I do not know if it is on this matter or on another matter. It is not on this matter. But I am willing to join in that debate. When 23 members of the Appropriations Committee voted ``yea'' to put this in--and the distinguished Senator from South Carolina can correct me--but of that group who voted ``yea,'' the following have been privileged to wear the uniform of our country: Senator Cochran, Senator Specter, Senator Gorton, Senator Burns, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Senator Daniel Inouye, Senator Ernest F. Hollings, Senator Herbert Kohl, and Senator Stevens, the chairman. They are veterans. Let us debate it, but let us debate it with great care. The letter which I put in the Record from Senator Byrd and myself states our point of view. This letter is just going out to Members, but already the following cosponsors, who likewise were veterans, have signed on: Senator Roberts, Senator Strom Thurmond, Senator Inhofe, Senator Robert Smith, and Senator Sessions. So a goodly number of those who have been privileged to wear the uniform of our country have joined behind this. We would not have done it, I say to the Senator, if we had had a moment's concern we were increasing the risk to our people. They are at risk today. They will be at risk tomorrow and the next day. And as we are drifting into this endless--endless--commitment, they are at risk every single day. This amendment simply says: Congress, either join with the President or state your case and bring them home. That is the purpose of this amendment.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, did the Senator wish to respond?

Mr. WARNER. Without losing my right to the floor, I yield to my colleague.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an outstanding young Virginian, Daniel Azzize Samuel, who has been selected to receive the 2000 American Automobile Association Lifesaving Medal. This award is the highest honor given to members of the school safety patrol. Daniel is a member of the Kent Gardens School Safety Patrol in McLean, Virginia. On January 12th of this year, he was on his way to his post when he saw an eight-year-old student running back toward his departing bus. Quickly sizing up the danger, Daniel yelled at the student to stop. The bus driver also heard Daniel's yells and stopped the bus, a mere three feet from the oncoming student who was approaching in the driver's blind spot. I salute Daniel and the other young recipients of this year's award, Daniel Rogers of Maryland and Greg Lawson and Tasha Tanner of Ohio, for their lifesaving contributions to the safety of their fellow students. As members of their school safety patrols, these young people have made invaluable contributions to their schools and communities. I also commend the American Automobile Association for their sponsorship of this valuable program to keep our nation's young people safe on their trips to and from school.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from West Virginia, as his principal cosponsor on this important Kosovo amendment which was adopted this morning by the Appropriations Committee. We have worked together as partners on this endeavor for the past several weeks, and I have confidence that the outcome of our efforts is sound precedent for our Nation's security policy. The amendment which will soon be before the full Senate is a true collaboration--a melding of the original Warner certification amendment and the long-standing efforts of Senator Byrd to ensure that Congress exercises its constitutional role in decisions to deploy U.S. troops into harm's way. There are two main goals that we are seeking to accomplish: first, to ensure that our allies are shouldering their commitments, their fair share of the burden for implementing stability and peace in Kosovo; and, second, to require the Congress to fulfill its constitutional responsibility to vote on the continued deployment of U.S. ground combat troops in Kosovo. I would like to address--up front--what we are not doing with this amendment. We are not doing a ``cut and run'' from Kosovo. We are not deserting our NATO allies. I want to be very clear on these points. We are simply saying that our allies must fulfill the commitments which they made--I repeat, which they made--to provide assistance and personnel to rebuild the civil society in Kosovo; and that the Congress must take action--vote--to specifically authorize the continued presence of United States ground combat troops in Kosovo after July 1, 2001. These are not precipitous or ill-conceived measures. They are supported by a respected group of cosponsors who are all strong supporters of NATO and who are determined not to let the United States military simply drift into an endless presence in Kosovo. The vote in the Appropriations Committee was overwhelmingly in favor of the Byrd- Warner amendment--23 to 3. I would like to address in detail the certification requirement contained in this amendment, as it is an updated version of an amendment I originally put before the Senate on March 9. Subsection (d) of the Byrd-Warner amendment would provide 75 percent of the over $2 billion contained in the Supplemental for military operations in Kosovo immediately--no strings attached. The expenditure of the remaining 25 percent of the funding would be dependent on a certification by the President that our allies had provided a certain percentage of their commitments of assistance and personnel to Kosovo. If the President is not able to make that certification by July 15, 2000, then the remaining 25 percent of the Kosovo funds contained in the fiscal year 2000 supplemental could be used only to conduct the safe, orderly and phased withdrawal of our troops from Kosovo. This limitation could be overcome by a vote of the Congress--under expedited procedures--to allow the money to be used for the continued deployment of our troops in Kosovo, despite the lack of the Presidential certification. Why do I feel so strongly about our Allies meeting their commitments in Kosovo? Because of the sacrifices of our brave men and women in uniform who bore the major share of the burden for the air war in Kosovo, and the continuing sacrifices of our troops, today and for the future, on the ground in Kosovo. As my colleagues know, the United States flew almost 70 percent of the total number of strike and support sorties in Operation Allied Force, at great personal risk, particularly to our aviators, and at a cost of over $4 billion to the U.S. taxpayers. In return, the Europeans have promised to pay the major share of the burdens to implement and secure the peace. So far, they have committed and pledged billions of dollars and thousands of personnel for this goal. The problem is that not enough of the money or the necessary personnel have made it to Kosovo. Since I first signaled my intentions on this amendment several months ago, considerable progress has been made--I gratefully acknowledge this. There has been a positive response from our allies. But more needs to be done, particularly in the areas of police and reconstruction. What is happening as approval of this assistance for Kosovo is slowly working its way slowly through the bureaucracies in Europe? Our troops, and the troops of other nations, are having to make up for the shortfall--by performing basic police functions, running towns and villages, guarding individual homes and historic sites, escorting ethnic minorities--all functions for which they were not specifically trained and which increase their level of personal risk. When will this end? Time is of the essence as our troops stand in harm's way until relieved, in large measure, by civilians specially trained. General Klaus Reinhardt, the fine German general who recently relinquished command of KFOR, said that he expects military elements of KFOR to be in Kosovo for a decade. I find this unacceptable, but I can see how it is possible if we do not move quickly to establish the basic economic and security infrastructure in Kosovo that is essential for long-lasting stability in that troubled region. That is one of the main goals of this amendment--to spur our allies on to quickly fulfill their commitments. What we cannot--must not--allow to happen is for the current situation in Kosovo to drift on. There are problems. They must be addressed and addressed in a timely manner. The principal sponsor of this amendment, the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia and noted historian has eloquently addressed the constitutional responsibility of the Congress in deploying U.S. military forces overseas. I would simply add that it is time--past time--for the Congress to fulfill its obligations regarding our deployment to Kosovo. Since last June, the United States has had thousands of troops engaged in a dangerous operation in Kosovo, and thus far Congress has taken no action, other than emergency supplemental appropriations, on this deployment. This is disappointing, but not surprising. The last time the Congress exercised its constitutional responsibility to declare war was during World War II. Since that time, the United States military has been involved in over 100 military deployments--including the Korean conflict and the war in Vietnam. and where has the Congress been during all of that time? We occasionally pass resolutions authorizing the use of force--as we did for the Persian Gulf conflict--but more often than not, we simply fail to act. That must stop. We owe it to our brave men and women in uniform to act on their behalf. They are fulfilling their responsibilities; we must fulfill ours. This amendment does not say we must leave Kosovo. This amendment does not mean that we are shirking our NATO responsibilities. This amendment simply says that Congress--as a co-equal branch on foreign policy matters--must exercise its constitutional responsibilities and authorize the continued deployment of United States ground combat troops in Kosovo. I urge my colleagues to join us in our effort to prevent an open- ended United States military commitment in Kosovo. Mr. President, in summary, the Byrd-Warner amendment was today adopted by an overwhelming majority of 23 to 3 in the Senate Appropriations Committee. This is an amendment on which Senator Byrd and I have worked for the better part of 2 months. We have had extensive consultations with a number of our colleagues, and thus far we have, as cosponsors, Senators Stevens, Inouye, Thurmond, Roberts, Snowe, Inhofe, Gregg, Smith of New Hampshire, and Sessions. There are others who will be added in due course. Senator Byrd and I are concerned about two things: The indefinite commitment of our troops into the Kosovo situation and that indefinite commitment not being backed up by an affirmative action of the Congress of the United States, which has a clear responsibility to act when we send young men and women into harm's way. This is not a cut-and-run amendment. This is simply an assertion that the United States together with its allies is trying to bring about peace and stability in that region. We have succeeded after an extensive 78-day combat mission, 70 percent of which missions were flown by the U.S. airmen. It is time to address the future and to have our allies meet their commitments in a timely fashion, commitments they made prior to the combat action and shortly thereafter. Secondly, we believe there should be some certainty as to how long our troops must remain in this commitment. It cannot be indefinite. We are, as a nation, now with troops all over the world. And we are stretched. We are having problems with retention, problems with recruiting because of the overextension of the U.S. military forces. What Senator Byrd has emphasized--and many times on the floor of the Senate--is it is the duty of the Congress of the United States, through a vote, to affirm the policies of the executive branch as we deploy our troops into harm's way. So those are the basic elements of this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague for yielding the time. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a friend and patriot Sterling Edwards Rives, Jr. of Petersburg, Virginia who died on February 13, 2000, at the age of 78 years. A native of Surry County, sterling served in the Army at the close of World War II and then spent a year building airfields in the Philippines. He returned to a position as an inspector with the U.S. Department of Agriculture traveling with his wife Virginia Anne and newborn son Sterling III throughout the Southeast grading peanuts, potatoes and produce. Two more sons Andrew II an Bailey were born as they moved to Petersburg where he began his 35-year career where he held leadership positions in the Christ and Grace Episcopal Church. Sterling Rives served on the Virginia Republican State Central Committee, as a delegate to four national conventions, vice-chairman of the Petersburg Electoral Board, and as a delegate to the White House Council on Aging. President Ronald Reagan once told me that ``Politics is not a spectator sport.'' No one took that more to heart than Sterling Rives who believed that it was his civic responsibility and patriotic duty to contribute freely his time and talents to elect those he supported to public office. I was privileged to be one of those public servants whom Sterling took by the hand and guided towards election day after election day. Sterling Rives drove the original footings for the foundation of the Republican Party of Virginia. He and his family gave tirelessly in election after election. Just last year Virginians elected a Republican Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General and a new Republican majority in the House of Delegates and the Senate for the first time in our state's history. That impressive victory was a most appropriate tribute to Sterling Rives' long public service encouraging people to be active in politics. We have far too few citizens who recognize the importance of the political process in preserving our democracy and our freedom. The life of Sterling Rives will stand as a model for patriots who seek to preserve our liberty. I know my colleagues join me in paying tribute to Sterling Rives and extending to his family our deepest sympathy.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Yeoman Second Class Matthew C. Hawes, United States Navy, for his unsurpassed dedication to duty, professionalism, and public service. As Petty Officer Hawes transitions from the active duty Navy to the civilian work force and the Naval Reserve, I am privileged to recognize his achievements and to commend him for the exemplary service he has provided to the Senate, the Navy and our great nation. Petty Officer Hawes enlisted in the Navy in January 1991 and was assigned to the U.S.S. Cincinnati (SSN 693) after completing Yeoman ``A'' school and Basic Enlisted Submarine School. While aboard the Cincinnati, he made several overseas deployments which contributed to the security of our nation and earned his ``Silver Dolphins,'' the enlisted submarine warfare qualification insignia. He was then assigned to Joint Task Force 160 in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as the Non- Commissioned Officer-in-Charge of the J1 Division. After his six-month deployment to Cuba, Petty Officer Hawes was assigned to the Bureau of Naval Personal as the Administrative Assistant to the Enlisted Nuclear Power Programs Manager. He served in this position until he was selected for assignment to the Navy's Office of Legislative Affairs. Petty Officer Hawes reported to the Navy's Senate Liaison Office in April 1996 as a Liaison Officer and Administrative Assistant. In this capacity he has been a major asset to the Navy and to the United States Senate. He has been key to the smooth coordination of all Navy leadership visits to the Senate, as well as for the accurate and prompt management of a wide variety of Navy- related Senate constituent casework. Petty Officer Matthew Hawes has been extremely helpful to me and to my staff in numerous actions, as I know he has been for many of you. The Department of the Navy, Congress, and the American people were well served by this dedicated Navy Petty Officer. Members of this Congress will not soon forget the service and dedication of Petty Officer Hawes. He will be missed. We wish Matthew, his lovely wife Blairlee, and their daughter Kathryn, Fair Winds and Following Seas.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to lend my support for the naming of the Pearl Street courthouse in New York City as humble tribute to our colleague, the distinguished senior Senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who regrettably announced his retirement from this body at the conclusion of the 106th Congress. It is only fitting that any recognition of the senior Senator from New York's achievements should first underscore his limitless passion in reflecting the highest ideals befitting the dignity, enterprise, vigor and stability of the American government. His singular vision of the role of a United States Senator and his deep desire to live up to that lofty image is only part of what makes my friend and colleague the paragon of public service which he has been for this body, his constituents and the American people for nearly a quarter century. Since his election to the United States Senate in 1976, Senator Moynihan has imprinted an indelible impression upon our Nation's Capital in so many estimable ways. His virtues extend far beyond my capabilities of statesmanship but, given that the pending matter is the naming of a federal building in his honor, I will limit myself to simply discussing his unique role in shepherding the physical transformation of the federal landscape in Washington, D.C. During his tenure in Congress, Senator Moynihan has made a consistent commitment to build government buildings well and help achieve the potential L'Enfant envisioned here 200 years ago. There's a fitting symmetry to Senator Moynihan's career in Washington. He started out nearly four decades ago in the Kennedy Administration, and his service at the White House end of Pennsylvania Avenue continued in the Johnson and Nixon years. Since 1977, he's served on this end in the U.S. Capitol as the Senator from New York. It fell to him, as one of Kennedy's cadre of New Frontiersman, to write a prescription for then-failing Pennsylvania Avenue, whose shabbiness had caught the President's eye during the inaugural parade. True to his scholar's training, Senator Moynihan went back to basics to prepare an eloquent appreciation of L'Enfant's conception of Pennsylvania Avenue, ``the grand axis of the city, as of the Nation . . . leading from the Capitol to the White House, symbolizing at once the separation of powers and the fundamental unity in the American government.'' Little wonder, then, that Senator Moynihan today can look back with satisfaction at what has happened to the avenue. He was there at the beginning. When news came that President Kennedy had been shot, Senator Moynihan was having lunch with fellow White House aides to arrange a briefing for congressional leaders concerning the new plan for Pennsylvania Avenue. Senator Moynihan started out, as he once wrote, ``at a time of the near-disappearance of the impulse to art'' in public building, witnessing a ``steady deteriorating in the quality of public buildings and public spaces, and with it a decline in the symbols of public unity and common purpose with which the citizen can identify, of which he can be proud, and by which he can know what he shares with his fellow citizens.'' He called the new Rayburn House Office Building ``perhaps the most alarming and unavoidable sign of the declining vitality of American government that we have yet witnessed.'' In his 1962 report which he drafted for President Kennedy, ``Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture,'' Senator Moynihan outlined three broad principles which still affect federal architecture today: (1) An official style must be avoided; (2) Government projects should embody the finest contemporary American architectural thought; and (3) Federal buildings should reflect the regional architectural traditions of their specific locations. Senator Moynihan's deep rooted passion for public architecture has abated not an iota in the years since he wrote that document. In an interview he gave as a freshman Senator newly assigned to the Environment and Public Works Committee, he was quoted as saying, ``I like buildings, I like things,'' he explained simply, ``and the government builds things.'' Later as chairman, he used his vantage point to become one of the capital's most persuasive, powerful voices for rationality and beauty in the things our government builds. Recently, he was asked about the capital's esthetic transformation, to which he asked a rhetorical question: ``Do we realize we look up and we have the most beautiful capital on earth?'' I thank Senator Moynihan. I have been privileged to serve with you to help transform Pennsylvania Avenue into the great thoroughfare of the city of Washington, DC. His 1962 vision is Y2K's reality. I sincerely hope that the courthouse we name in his honor reflects the legacy of federal architecture he leaves and the great vision of this Nation he always espoused.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an enhanced piece of legislation the Military Medical Improvement Act of 2000. This revised legislative initiative incorporates the major concerns of beneficiaries I heard pertaining to the original legislation. S. 2087, the Military Health Care Improvement Act of 2000 that I introduced on February 23, 2000, contains a provision authorizing a mail order pharmacy benefit for military retirees, dependents and survivors over age 64. Since S. 2087 was introduced, the Personnel Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee has conducted a hearing on medical issues where beneficiary representatives conveyed the importance of a comprehensive pharmacy benefit to committee members. I chaired sessions of the Senate Armed Services Committee where senior Department of Defense officials, both uniformed and civilian, addressed the importance of the medical benefit and meeting health care commitments to retirees as recruiting and retention issues. Due to my grave concern about meeting the needs of military beneficiaries, and the importance of health care as a component of the compensation package, I have continued to solicit views of military beneficiaries on medical benefits. I recently conducted a town hall meeting in Norfolk, Virginia, devoted exclusively to military health care issues. A recurring concern mentioned by the participants was that the pharmacy provision of S. 2087 did not include a retail pharmacy component. I have come to the conclusion that it is critical that we expand access to a retail benefit for all military beneficiaries. The legislation I am introducing today responds to the concerns I have heard from military beneficiaries and includes a modified pharmacy provision that expands the mail order pharmacy program to all military beneficiaries with no enrollment fee or deductible and that would provide access to retail pharmacy networks for all military beneficiaries, including those eligible for Medicare. This benefit would mirror the current Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) pharmacy benefit. The BRAC pharmacy benefit is currently restricted to only a few Medicare-eligible military retirees. The modified pharmacy benefit I am suggesting would, in effect, extend the BRAC benefit to all Medicare-eligible beneficiaries of the military health care system. Based on lower than expected costs associated with this enhanced provision, and my recent amendment to the budget resolution which allows for funding of medical reserve account to accommodate incorporation of programs to address military retiree's health care needs, I am confident this body will embrace this further commitment to meeting the health care needs of those who have so faithfully served their nation.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an enhanced piece of legislation the Military Medical Improvement Act of 2000. This revised legislative initiative incorporates the major concerns of beneficiaries I heard pertaining to the original legislation. S. 2087, the Military Health Care Improvement Act of 2000 that I introduced on February 23, 2000, contains a provision authorizing a mail order pharmacy benefit for military retirees, dependents and survivors over age 64. Since S. 2087 was introduced, the Personnel Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee has conducted a hearing on medical issues where beneficiary representatives conveyed the importance of a comprehensive pharmacy benefit to committee members. I chaired sessions of the Senate Armed Services Committee where senior Department of Defense officials, both uniformed and civilian, addressed the importance of the medical benefit and meeting health care commitments to retirees as recruiting and retention issues. Due to my grave concern about meeting the needs of military beneficiaries, and the importance of health care as a component of the compensation package, I have continued to solicit views of military beneficiaries on medical benefits. I recently conducted a town hall meeting in Norfolk, Virginia, devoted exclusively to military health care issues. A recurring concern mentioned by the participants was that the pharmacy provision of S. 2087 did not include a retail pharmacy component. I have come to the conclusion that it is critical that we expand access to a retail benefit for all military beneficiaries. The legislation I am introducing today responds to the concerns I have heard from military beneficiaries and includes a modified pharmacy provision that expands the mail order pharmacy program to all military beneficiaries with no enrollment fee or deductible and that would provide access to retail pharmacy networks for all military beneficiaries, including those eligible for Medicare. This benefit would mirror the current Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) pharmacy benefit. The BRAC pharmacy benefit is currently restricted to only a few Medicare-eligible military retirees. The modified pharmacy benefit I am suggesting would, in effect, extend the BRAC benefit to all Medicare-eligible beneficiaries of the military health care system. Based on lower than expected costs associated with this enhanced provision, and my recent amendment to the budget resolution which allows for funding of medical reserve account to accommodate incorporation of programs to address military retiree's health care needs, I am confident this body will embrace this further commitment to meeting the health care needs of those who have so faithfully served their nation.

Mr. WARNER

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 rise today to join my colleague from Maine as a sponsor of this very important piece of legislation that would allow women-owned businesses to participate in the Department of Defense (DOD) mentor protege program. Since 1990, the mentor protege program has provided small disadvantaged businesses increased opportunity to compete for federal contracts. The program accomplishes this by providing incentives to major defense contractors to assist qualified small business to enhance their abilities to compete as contractors on DOD contracts. The mentor- protege program does not guarantee contracts to anyone. Instead, it is designed to equip participants with the knowledge and expertise that they need to win such contracts on their own, in the competitive market place. The mentor protege program has been an important tool to help achieve the goal--established by Congress in 1987--that DOD increase to five percent the total value of contracts and subcontracts awarded to small disadvantaged businesses. This has been a remarkable success story. For the past six years, the DOD has exceeded this 5% goal. In 1994, a similar goal was set for the DOD to award five percent of its annual contracts to women-owned businesses. While women-owned business participation in defense contracting has increased since 1994, we are still, however, well below the 5% goal. It seems appropriate to provide DOD with additional tools to assist in meeting this goal. Providing women-owned businesses the opportunity to participate in the mentor protege program will be a big step forward in expanding federal contracting opportunities for these businesses. I want to thank Senator Snowe for her leadership on this issue and her work on behalf of women-owned businesses around the country. I urge swift passage of this legislation to enhance the opportunity for women- owned businesses to compete for, and win, DOD contracts.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Maine as a sponsor of this very important piece of legislation that would allow women-owned businesses to participate in the Department of Defense (DOD) mentor protege program. Since 1990, the mentor protege program has provided small disadvantaged businesses increased opportunity to compete for federal contracts. The program accomplishes this by providing incentives to major defense contractors to assist qualified small business to enhance their abilities to compete as contractors on DOD contracts. The mentor- protege program does not guarantee contracts to anyone. Instead, it is designed to equip participants with the knowledge and expertise that they need to win such contracts on their own, in the competitive market place. The mentor protege program has been an important tool to help achieve the goal--established by Congress in 1987--that DOD increase to five percent the total value of contracts and subcontracts awarded to small disadvantaged businesses. This has been a remarkable success story. For the past six years, the DOD has exceeded this 5% goal. In 1994, a similar goal was set for the DOD to award five percent of its annual contracts to women-owned businesses. While women-owned business participation in defense contracting has increased since 1994, we are still, however, well below the 5% goal. It seems appropriate to provide DOD with additional tools to assist in meeting this goal. Providing women-owned businesses the opportunity to participate in the mentor protege program will be a big step forward in expanding federal contracting opportunities for these businesses. I want to thank Senator Snowe for her leadership on this issue and her work on behalf of women-owned businesses around the country. I urge swift passage of this legislation to enhance the opportunity for women- owned businesses to compete for, and win, DOD contracts.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the budget resolution conference report. This budget before us today continues the momentum we started last year to provide additional funding for defense in an effort to correct the most critical readiness, modernization, and recruiting and retention problems in our military. I thank the Majority Leader, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee and his staff and the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee and his staff, for working with me to provide the additional $4.0 billion in much-needed funding for the Department of Defense, the reserve for military retiree healthcare, and the important language necessary to allow the military thrift savings plan to become a reality. I also recognize members of my own committee staff--Les Brownlee, Staff Director, Judy Ansley, our Deputy Staff Director, and especially Larry Lanzillotta, our Budget Chief--whose expertise in budgeting matters is invaluable not only to the Armed Services Committee, but to the entire Senate as well. The funds which have been added in this Budget Resolution for defense are absolutely critical in providing readiness, modernization funding, and the personnel incentives necessary to reverse the negative trends in recruiting and retention. The increase of $4.0 billion will allow us to bring defense spending to a more appropriate level and address some of the urgent unfunded requirements of the military chiefs. For too many years, the size of our defense budget has been based on constrained funding, not on the threats facing our country or the military strategy necessary to meet those threats. This budget will go a long way in allowing us to ensure the safety and security of our people by maintaining a strong and capable military. Making the Thrift Savings Plan available to military personnel comes at a critical time for the military services. Participation in a thrift savings account will encourage personal savings and enhance the retirement income for service members, who currently do not have access to a 401(k) savings plan. When the TSP program is implemented, military personnel will be able to join federal workers in a savings program that will enhance the value of their retirement system and permit them to improve their quality of life. The Service Chiefs have indicated that this plan, combined with the pay raise, the repeal of the Redux retirement system, and the increased bonuses in the FY 2000 Defense Authorization Act, will reduce the hemorrhage of trained and experienced military personnel we are now experiencing. The Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the Service Chiefs have all said that fulfilling our commitment for healthcare to our military retirees should be among the highest priorities for this year. I believe there is overwhelming support in the Senate to correct many of the shortfalls in the military healthcare system for our service members, their families, and our military retirees. It is critical that we enact the important initiatives contained in the bipartisan healthcare legislation introduced by the leadership of the Senate and the leadership of the Armed Services Committee earlier this year. This budget resolution makes it possible to fund these important health care initiatives for our military retirees. I want to again express my appreciation to the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, and the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, and also their highly professional staff members for assisting us in securing these much- needed funds in support of a stronger national defense.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the American Bar Association Commission on Women in the Profession announced in February the winners of the 2000 Margaret Brent Women Lawyers of Achievement Awards. Among those worthy recipients was Dovey J. Roundtree, General Counsel for the National Council of Negro Women, whom I have been privileged to know for many years. As a former law clerk to Federal Circuit Judge Prettyman, then as an Assistant United States Attorney, followed by private practice in the greater metropolitan area of Washington, DC, I came to know and admire the professional achievements of Attorney Roundtree. She is most deserving of this recognition for her tireless efforts to help others. The award Mrs. Roundtree has earned is named for the first woman lawyer in America, Margaret Brent. She arrived in the Colonies in 1638, and was involved in 124 court cases over the course of eight years, winning every case. In 1648, she formally demanded the right to vote in the Maryland Assembly, but her petition was denied by the Governor. These awards were established in 1991 to honor outstanding women lawyers who have achieved professional excellence in their area of specialty and have actively worked to help other women lawyers. Attorney Roundtree and her work have been admired for more than three decades. She has been a leading civil rights lawyer, an Army veteran, an ordained minister and a resident of Spotsylvania. She is a founding partner of the Washington, DC, law firm of Roundtree, Knox, Hunter and Parker, and she served for 35 years as General Counsel to the National Council of Negro Women and as special consultant for legal affairs to the African Methodist Episcopal Church. Mrs. Roundtree attend Howard University Law School on the GI Bill and went on to break legal ground in both civil and criminal law. Her 1955 bus desegregation victory before the Interstate Commerce Commission, Sarah Keys versus Carolina Coach Company, was critically important in the legal battle for civil rights. She was the first black woman admitted to the Bar Association of the District of Columbia and actively recruited other black women attorneys. Dovey J. Roundtree is most deserving of this award.