John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Senator Dole wrote: Accordingly, I would urge you to consider, at a minimum, allowing a Presidential waiver authority based upon compelling national security needs. That sort of thing is often done. We carefully considered that. But after consultation with my cosponsors and many others, we decided not because it would make the amendment so weakened that it loses its purport. Therefore, I say respectfully to my former leader that that I cannot do. However, he has made other suggestions. And by pure coincidence and timing, they have been incorporated in the revised amendment, which I will file as a part of these remarks. For example, he said: That said, I believe in principle that you are entirely right to try to hold the Administration's feet to the fire to ensure that the United States continues to lead, while at the same time preventing it from shouldering an inordinate share of the international burden in the Balkans. The devil is in the details, however, and I am concerned that some of the targets identified in your amendment simply cannot be met, and that the European powers are being held to a higher standard than the United States. For example, is it realistic for the United States and/or Europeans to be required to disburse 33 percent of the funds needed for Kosovo reconstruction by June 1, 2000? Prior to receiving this letter, we had made technical changes from ``disbursed'' to ``obligated or contracted for.'' This gives the flexibility that is needed to obviate the problems raised by Senator Dole and others. These technical changes, if I may enumerate them, give added flexibility to the President of the United States in making this very important certification. We have not, in my judgment, diminished in any way the strength of this amendment, but it has given added flexibility. No. 1, it makes it clear that the performance we are seeking on the part of the allies is to be evaluated, as we put in our amendment, ``on the aggregate.'' Performance of one nation which falls short, one nation which may not be able to make it, will not prevent the President from making the required certification. No. 2, we require that reconstruction and humanitarian assistance must be, as I said, obligated or contracted for. That point we covered in the recitation of Senator Dole. This is in recognition that even if the money has been set aside for Kosovo, some of these projects ``spend out'' at a slow rate. These are the types of constructive changes that have come to my attention and we have incorporated them. We are still working on this. As I say, I have also been engaged in discussions with a number of administration officials over the past 2 weeks. Last Friday, I had a productive meeting with the National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, on the eve of his departure on this important trip the President is now undertaking. We were joined by OMB Director Jack Lew and Under Secretary of Defense, Walter Slocombe. As a result, of some of the technical information relayed to me at that meeting--it was a very good meeting--I have redrafted my amendment to take into account some of the concerns that were raised. While I think it is fair to say the redraft which I and my cosponsors have agreed to will not satisfy all the concerns of the administration, I believe our consultations are making progress. I ask unanimous consent to print the latest version of my amendment in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I rise today to recognize and say farewell to an outstanding Naval Officer, Rear Admiral Andrew A. Granuzzo as he prepares to retire upon completion of forty-two years of distinguished service. It is a privilege for me to honor his many outstanding achievements and commend him for his devotion to the Navy and our great nation. A native New Yorker, Rear Admiral Granuzzo's Navy career began in 1958 upon his enlistment. During the years that followed, he was commissioned as a naval officer and earned his wings of gold as a naval aviator. His assignments included sea duty with helicopter antisubmarine squadrons on both coasts, service with an attack helicopter squadron in Vietnam, and exchange duty in the United Kingdom with the Royal Navy. He commanded Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron 15, was navigator of the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Forrestal and commanded two ships, U.S.S. Inchon and U.S.S. Saipan. Rear Admiral Granuzzo was selected for Flag rank in 1991, and commanded Amphibious Group Two, leading a 22-nation NATO exercise at sea. Twice, he commanded Joint Task Groups interdicting the flow of drugs through the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico. Perhaps his most significant contribution to the Navy is the role he has played in reshaping the Navy's diverse and often divergent aspects of safety, environmental protection, and occupational health. As Commander of the Naval Safety Center, he introduced the principles of risk management to naval operations. During his tenure, accidents and fatalities, on and off duty, was dramatically reduced and the lowest accident rate in naval aviation history was achieved. As the Director of Environmental Protection, Safety and Occupational Health Division for the Chief of Naval Operations, Rear Admiral Granuzzo provided dynamic, inspirational and brilliant leadership during a critical, highly visible period for the Navy. As advocate for both naval operations and the environment, he pioneered new initiatives, including the first-ever, capped cost, commercially insured, installation environmental clean up contract, which has the potential of saving tax payers hundreds of millions of dollars. Additionally, he spearheaded savings in workers' compensation costs; accelerated field tests of a new bioremediation method for the biohazard perchlorate; and conceived a program that reduced shipboard oil spills. Rear Admiral Granuzzo's innovations have positioned the Navy to ensure its ships leave a clean wake, its facilities and installations preserve and protect the natural environment, and its people embrace their role as good stewards of the environment. From the beginnings of the cold war, through Vietnam, the gulf war, and beyond--forty-two years in all--Rear Admiral Granuzzo has served as a warrior of uncommon valor. He is an individual of rare character and his professionalism will be sincerely missed. I am proud, Mr. President, to thank him for his honorable service in the United States Navy, and to wish him ``fair winds and following seas'' as he closes his distinguished military career.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join my colleague in the House of Representatives, Congressman Wolf, in introducing legislation to honor two former Representatives from Virginia's 10th district which designates two postal buildings in Northern Virginia after Joel T. Broyhill and Joseph L. Fisher. The Honorable Joel Broyhill, was the first member elected to Virginia's newly created 10th district. He served in the House of Representatives for twenty-two years. A native of Hopewell, Virginia, Congressman Broyhill is also a decorated veteran and served as captain in the 106th Infantry Division in WWII. During the war, he was taken prisoner by the Germans and held in a POW camp after fighting in the infamous and costly ``Battle of Bulge.'' Congressman Broyhill currently resides in Arlington, Virginia. I believe renaming the postal building at 8409 Lee Highway in Merrifield, Virginia would be appropriate in recognition of his honorable and extensive political and military careers. I would also like to honor another former Representative from the 10th District, the late Honorable Joseph L. Fisher. Congressman Fisher had a notable political career in the local, state and federal government. Congressman Fisher, who held a Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University, began his career in public service as an economist with the U.S. Department of State. After his service in World War II, he became a member of the Arlington County Board. He began a three-term service in the House of Representatives when he was elected in 1974, defeating the incumbent Republican Joel Broyhill. Subsequent to his service in the House, among other positions, Congressman Fisher served as secretary of the Virginia Department of Human Resources and was a professor of political economy at George Mason University. Congressman Fisher's commitment to public service should be recognized with the designation of the post office located at 3118 Washington Boulevard in Arlington, Virginia as the Joseph L. Fisher Post Office. Joseph Fisher passed away in 1992 at his home in Arlington, Virginia. He is survived by his wife, Margaret, their seven children, sixteen grandchildren, and two great grandchildren. I seek my colleagues to support legislation to honor these two former members in recognition of their distinguished public service.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Presiding Officer is familiar with the matter I bring to the attention of the Senate, and I thank him for his advice and willingness to participate in the undertaking to prepare the amendment which I will now address. I rise today to advise the Senate of a proposed amendment on Kosovo, a form of which I and other cosponsors intend to offer when the Senate considers the fiscal year 2000 Supplemental Appropriations Act. An experienced group of colleagues have worked together, and we will continue to work together on this legislation. I thank Senators Stevens, Inouye, Roberts, and Snowe for joining me as cosponsors in this effort. I inform the Senate about this amendment now so that other colleagues, officials in the administration, and, indeed, our allies and other nations and organizations will have sufficient time to study and provide constructive comment on this legislation prior to the Senate's consideration of the supplemental later this month. This is a vital issue, as our Presiding Officer knows full well. It is critical to the men and women of our Armed Forces that the U.S. Congress face up to this issue. It is equally critical to the brave troops of other nations serving in Kosovo. It is critical to the future of NATO, and it is critical to future peacekeeping missions. There are an ever-increasing number of problems in the world today. It is a far more complex and dangerous place than it was a decade ago or a decade before that. Indeed, as I look back on the cold-war era, there was a certain amount of certainty within which we were able to structure our forces, lay down a strategy, and perform our missions. Today, it is greatly different. The challenges posed to our national leaders, and particularly the men and women of the Armed Forces, have little precedent. Likewise, the diversity of the threats have now proliferated throughout the world. They are less and less nation sponsored, state sponsored; oftentimes, they are just small groups. There are conflicts in ever-increasing numbers, prompted by cultural, ethnic, and religious differences. As I publicly stated regarding this amendment, my intention in offering this legislation is to ensure that our European allies have stepped up to meet their share in providing the necessary resources and personnel for the civil implementation in Kosovo, the efforts to which we have all pledged as a group of nations to fulfill. Once the military mission was completed, then we committed among ourselves to take the next step to ensure the peace that was given as a consequence of the sacrifices and the professionalism of the men and women who promulgated that combat action for 78 days. During that period of combat, the United States bore the major share of the military burden for the air war, flying almost 70 percent of the total strike and support forces at a cost of over $4 billion to the American taxpayer. Many, many aviators and others took high personal risks. We were joined in that combat operation by another seven or eight nations that indeed did fly, willingly and courageously. However, it was the United States only--how well our colleagues know--that had the high-performance aircraft, the guided missiles, that support the transport aircraft. NATO did not have it. Those elements of our military, whether they were in or out of NATO, were brought together to promulgate this successful military operation. In return, the Europeans then promised to pay the major share of the burdens to secure the peace. So far, they have committed and pledged billions of dollars for this goal. I acknowledge that. They have come in diverse amounts at diverse periods of time, but the problem is not enough money has been put up thus far in a timely fashion to make their way to the Kosovo problems, and then begin to solve those problems. Why the delay? The troops and the public are entitled to know. As a result, our troops and other troops are having to make up for the shortfalls of failing to provide the police force--something we all agreed upon long before the first shot was fired. The troops today, therefore, are having to make up for those shortfalls by performing basic police functions, such as running towns and villages, acting mayors, settling all types of disputes, and guarding individual houses and historic sites. The distinguished Presiding Officer visited this region just a month or so ago, as did I, and witnessed this. The troops are functioning in areas for which they were not specifically trained. However, there is an extraordinary learning curve for men and women in the Armed Forces of the United States of America and, indeed, other nations. The Presiding Officer and I know; we were privileged to wear uniforms ourselves at one time. We know how well these young men and women can adapt to challenges. They were not specifically trained, but they are doing the job, and they were doing it very well, but at a great personal risk, I say to the Presiding Officer, at a great personal risk. We have seen in the past few weeks, in Mitrovica and other areas, outbursts, we have seen woundings, we have seen deaths. That was not a situation we anticipated would take place if there had been a timely sequencing of the military actions and the placing of a civilian police force, infrastructure adjustments, and all the other things needed to bring together Kosovo as an operating society. Our troops engaged in a high-risk mission, along with others. Their courage, their professional work, as I said, was witnessed by the Presiding Officer and myself, on my trip, and by many others in the Senate. I credit the large number of Senators for taking the time to go over and visit with our troops to see for themselves the complexity of the situation and the risks that are being taken. As I said, our troops accept that risk. Indeed, the American people thus far have accepted that risk. But it is now incumbent upon the Congress of the United States to begin to exercise its authority and to show some leadership, hopefully in partnership with the administration. We need to show leadership to make certain, regarding the commitment made by our allies and other organizations--whether it be the United Nations, the E.U., the OSCE, or many others who are working in governmental organizations--that we are pulling on the oars together. I am proud to say our country, as best I can determine, has met in a timely fashion its obligations. But the purpose of this amendment is to draw the attention of our allies to the fact the record does not show that they are likewise fulfilling their commitments in a timely way. We braved those 78 days of combat. Along with other nations that participated we laid the foundation for peace in Kosovo. What we cannot and must not allow to happen is for the risk to our troops to endlessly drift on because of the failure of our allies to live up to their share of the commitments. This is the bottom line of this amendment. The amendment is simple and straightforward. Half of the funding included in the supplemental for the U.S. military operations in Kosovo--over $1 billion; that is one-half; it is a total of $2 billion--would be provided up front, ready for prompt disbursal to stop the drawdown of the readiness accounts. This would pay for the expenses accrued by our military in Kosovo since the start of the current fiscal year, way back on October 1, 1999. The remainder of the money, roughly another $1 billion, would be available only--and I underline ``only''--after the President of the United States certifies to the Congress that the European Commission, the member nations of the European Union, and the European member nations of NATO have provided a substantial percentage of the assistance and personnel which they themselves have committed to the various civil implementation efforts in Kosovo. This is an important point that needs to be emphasized. In this legislation we are not seeking an arbitrary or unachievable standard. We are holding the Europeans accountable for the pledges and commitments which they have made. Recognizing that nations have different fiscal years and different procedures, we are not asking for full compliance within the context of this legislation. We expect eventually full compliance. In the critical areas of humanitarian assistance, support for the Kosovo Consolidated Budget--the money needed by Dr. Kouchner, to whom I will refer later; he is the head of the U.N. mission--to run Kosovo and the police for the U.N. international police force, the Europeans must provide 75 percent of the money or personnel which they committed to provide before additional U.S. taxpayer dollars for military operations in Kosovo would be disbursed. That is a formula I devised along with the others who worked with me on this, and the intention is to lay down the figures of who has done what, when they did it, and what is left to be done. Unless our President, through his leadership, and other world leaders, can bring this rough formula into play, then we have the triggering mechanism by which the President, if he desires not to certify, or cannot because the facts do not justify a certification. Then I will spell out what happens to the balance of that money. As I mentioned, on the reconstruction side--I wish to repeat that; it is important--it is a more long-term endeavor. We are requiring the Europeans to provide a third of the money they pledged for the 1999 and 2000 period. I will readily admit I do not know if a third of the reconstruction money is a good benchmark because that is the category of aid for which I am having the most problem getting accurate data. I cannot tell you the hours and hours involved in consultation, trips and travel to the U.N. and elsewhere, to the Departments of our Federal Government, indeed, consultations with the White House. I found everyone trying to be constructive. We had a meeting at the White House with the Secretaries of State, Defense, the chairman of the Budget Office, the National Security Adviser. Trying to assemble the data is an awesome task. This amendment forces that task to be undertaken by that individual best qualified to do it, and that is the President of the United States, working in concert with these organizations and the other allies. It is so difficult to get the data, but we have plowed ahead as best we could. We know, for example, that billions have been pledged at two international donor conferences for Kosovo reconstruction, but I have not been able to find within the administration, at the U.N. or at the E.U., anyone or any document or fact that could advise me and inform the Senate on how much of that money has actually been disbursed. To put it in the vernacular, where are the canceled checks for what has come in already? It is as simple as that. The American people understand there has to be a record. That is part of the body of fact this Congress needs--and that is required by this legislation--as we decide whether or not to support a continuation of our military deployment, the U.S. troops which are part of the KFOR military structure. Again, I compliment that KFOR structure. It is working. It is meeting unanticipated problems. It is doing the best it can. There have been some problems recently. Our committee has had General Clark in, just a week or so ago. We went over this, carefully provided oversight about every 3 months or less on this situation. What happens, I ask, if our allies do not fulfill their commitments and the President is not able to make the certification required by this amendment? If the President cannot make the required certification by June 1, then the remaining $1 billion contained in the supplemental for military operations in Kosovo may be used only for the purpose of conducting a safe and orderly and phased withdrawal of U.S. military personnel from Kosovo. There it is. That is the bottom line. It has to be said. Someone has to say it. And I said it. I am very pleased with the support I have gotten from a number of individuals to step up and take on this responsibility. Further, no other funding previously appropriated for the Department of Defense may be used to continue the deployment of U.S. military personnel in Kosovo. We have to seal that up. It had to be said. I thought long and hard on the time and the moment I would come to this floor and state it. But I did it. We are not setting a deadline for the withdrawal of our troops. It is up to the President and his military advisers to decide how best a safe, orderly, and phased withdrawal should be done. Under this legislation, the President would have to submit his plan for the withdrawal to the Congress by June 30. In my opinion, that withdrawal should not take more than 18 months. The bottom line is it is not fair to our troops, to their families at home, to the other troops, to remain indefinitely in Kosovo with the political structure, be it our President, the Congress of the United States, the legislatures of the other nations and their leaders, not to take some strong, positive action now to ensure this peace. We cannot ask those people in uniform and, indeed, many civilians who are associated in this effort--there are a lot of volunteer organizations there--we cannot ask them to take the ever-increasing share of this burden and the risks, personal risks, simply because the nations are not willing, in a timely way, to provide the funding or personnel they promised for civil implementation in Kosovo. Some will criticize this legislation. That is all right. I am prepared to receive it. But what is a better solution than what we have devised? If there is a better one, please come forward and give it to us. I invite constructive criticism. I invite suggestions. Those who worked with me on this join me. Some may claim it holds the U.S. military deployment in Kosovo hostage to the actions of our allies; that we are in effect letting others decide whether or not our troop presence in Kosovo will continue by their inaction. I address that allegation now and say, quite respectfully, that our President has already made that connection. The exit strategy for our troops in Kosovo--as it is for our troops in Bosnia--is directly linked to the actions of the U.N., the E.U., the OSCE and others in achieving their goals on the civil implementation side. Our President said on October 15 in a letter to the Congress: The duration of the requirement for U.S. military presence (in Kosovo) will depend upon the course of events. . . . The military force will be progressively reduced based on an assessment of progress in civil implementation and the security situation. This legislation uses the same link, the same tie to the actions of others already adopted in concept by this administration. In Kosovo, the U.N., E.U., and OSCE are the groups charged with the civil implementation responsibilities. Up to this point, I must say quite plainly, these organizations are not doing the job they committed to do in a timely manner in Kosovo. The successful NATO-led military operation in Kosovo was undertaken--at personal risk to our troops and those of other nations, and with billions of dollars in costs to the American taxpayers and the taxpayers of other nations--with the understanding in America and, indeed, throughout Europe that the U.N. and other organizations would promptly move in behind and consolidate the military achievements. Now, as a result of little progress in that consolidation, U.S. troops and troops from over 30 nations, are required to perform almost all the tasks and are facing an indefinite deployment and indefinite risk in Kosovo. Personal bravery, international bonds of commitment, and prudent NATO leadership won the war in Kosovo, but will the slow pace of follow-on actions result in the loss of the peace? That is what we are facing. Recent events in Mitrovica show how fragile the peace is in Kosovo and how time and unfulfilled commitments play into the hands of those who oppose the peace, and there are several factions that oppose this peace. During a hearing in the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 2 with NATO commander General Clark as the witness, I and other Members signaled our intention to take legislative action in connection with the upcoming Kosovo supplemental to be proposed by President Clinton. It has not as yet arrived in the Senate. It is to revitalize the near stagnant situation in Kosovo. That is the purpose of this amendment. Congress has a coequal responsibility with the executive branch, and we now must exercise leadership, again I say, hopefully in partnership with the administration. This is not a political document. Many went in with the best of intentions, but it is time we recognize that no matter how sincere those intentions may have been, we are not collectively, as a group of nations, fulfilling our responsibilities. We, a growing number of Senators, state: Other nations and organizations must follow through on their commitments if U.S. troops are to remain a part of the Kosovo military force. The United States has far too many commitments around the world. Our military is stretched too thin as it is. We cannot have an open-ended, possibly decades-long military deployment in the Balkans. We, together with other nations, went into Kosovo with the best of intentions--to stop the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent people, to restore peace and stability to that region, and to help the people of Kosovo rebuild lives shattered by war and ethnic cleansing. But what has the situation achieved? What has this coalition really achieved? Clearly, the military has fulfilled its mission. To the extent possible, given the continued ethnic animosities--and how extraordinarily they persist--the military has stopped the large-scale fighting and created a relatively safe and secure environment, from a military perspective. However, unacceptable dangerous levels of criminal activity continue and put our troops and many others at risk. Therefore, we have little time left in which to address this problem. We have to figure out, given the precious little progress that has taken place to date, what we can do in the future. This is one idea by a very conscientious and thoughtful group of Senators. We must recognize the U.N. bears its share of the responsibility. We only say that because the U.N. cannot share all the blame or accept all the blame for the slow pace of progress in Kosovo. But we are mindful of the fact that international organizations are dependent on timely contributions of money and personnel from member nations. In other words, the U.N. acts as a funneling of these funds as they are contributed pursuant to commitments by the various nations. These contributions have been severely lacking, severely delayed in the case of Kosovo. When I was in Pristina in January, I had the opportunity to meet with Dr. Kouchner--an extraordinary man--the head of the UNMIK, the U.N. mission in Kosovo. He is a very dedicated and committed individual. He has given up much of his private life to go into that area to do the very best he can. We conducted that meeting with General Reinhardt at the KFOR headquarters, the headquarters, I might add, which on that particular night did not even have running water and the electricity was flickering. It is just an example of the inability to deliver the very basic necessities. I remember Dr. Kouchner said that night--he was bitterly cold--that there were people literally huddled in their homes without adequate food, heat, shelter, and the like, and it could have been alleviated, to some degree, had these nations stepped up and met their commitments. As I said, I was impressed with the professionalism and dedication of the general and Dr. Kouchner. Dr. Kouchner sounded a consistent and urgent theme. He desperately needed money if the U.N. was to achieve its goals in Kosovo. Dr. Kouchner has been going from capital to capital across Europe and, indeed, in this hemisphere--he visited here just a few days ago--urging nations to live up to the commitments they made, to send the money for his mission. General Reinhardt has been supporting Dr. Kouchner in his efforts, since the general understands the KFOR troops continue to bear the full burden if the U.N. mission does not succeed and the missions of all the organizations. According to General Reinhardt: The problem for Bernard Kouchner is that he doesn't get the money to pay for what he knows he needs and wants for Kosovo. . . . The international community--the same governments that decided to get us here--doesn't give him what . . . he needs, and it has a direct impact on my soldiers. On Monday, March 6, Dr. Kouchner and General Reinhardt, as I said, were at the U.N. to report to the Security Council on the situation in Kosovo. Dr. Kouchner told the Security Council: If we hope to build democracy in Kosovo, we must do more than ensure the safety of its residents. We must allocate the necessary resources to accomplish the job. I agree. Foreign donors must deliver immediately, as the United States has done, on their commitments and promises. My greatest concern is with the international police. The U.N. has said it needs an international police force of 4,718. To date, only 2,359 police have arrived in Kosovo. It is interesting, just about half of what was projected. The United States has done its share. We have already deployed 481 police, and the remaining police pledged by the U.S.--for a total of 550--will arrive in Kosovo shortly. Others, particularly Europeans, have to do their share by providing the necessary police forces. Overall, nations have pledged over 4,400 police. They must now deliver on these pledges. Pledges do not help with the current violence. We need to put it in words that Americans understand: ``Cops on the beat.'' I commend my distinguished ranking member, Senator Levin, who has constantly hit that theme in open sessions over and over again. To a large measure, he joins me in the purport of this amendment. Hopefully, in the weeks to come, with his advice, and with others advice, we can, to the extent necessary--maybe not necessary--reconfigure some of the language of this amendment. We had a meeting today with officials of our administration in the Armed Services hearing, again, to show the amendment and to urge them to come forward and give us such suggestions as they wish to make. I spoke, by phone, with Secretary Cohen and National Security Adviser Berger. It is not as if we are out here operating on our own. We are trying to do our best. But remember, Congress has coequal responsibility and must exercise its best leadership. NATO's soldiers must get out of the business of policing. That will not happen until enough police arrive. Our troops are not policemen. They were not specifically trained, as I said, to perform these tasks. It should not be a part of their continuing indefinite mission. Since the air war began almost a year ago, the United States has spent over $5 billion for our military operations in Kosovo--$5 billion. It was for a good cause. But $5 billion is desperately needed by our military today for its modernization. The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, at lunch--and the Presiding Officer was there--recounted program after program in terms of the airlift, the aging C-5, the aging C-41, the need to up the buy of the C-17. That is where these needed dollars are required. The annual price tag for the military commitment is over $2 billion in Kosovo. This is a heavy burden on the defense budget, but we are going to, hopefully, get it in the supplemental so that we do not take it, as we say, out of their operating accounts. That is the importance of this supplemental. Plus, it is a heavy burden on the American taxpayer. In addition to these significant sums of money, I am concerned, again, about the safety and welfare of the men and women in uniform. I will come back to that on every single pace. Each day that I am privileged to be a member of the Armed Services Committee--and now as its chairman--I think and begin every day asking myself: What is my obligation to work with this committee to better the lot of the men and women of the Armed Forces and their families? They are patrolling these towns and villages--as you and I are in this Chamber, and others--subjecting themselves to substantial personal risk while performing their duties. They are taking the risks. The American people take the risks. I believe we have reached a point in time where it is the responsibility of the Congress to take action to ensure that others step up and fulfill their commitments--other nations and organizations--and that the U.S. military commitment to Kosovo not remain an endless commitment. I place this draft in the Senate Record of today, rather than formally filing the amendment, to show our determination to put forth a constructive approach, not a ``cut and run''--there is never any intention to do that--but accountability for all trying to secure a lasting peace in Kosovo. That is the bottom line. I did not file it, so that, if necessary--if we get a good set of suggestions--we can change this document and improve it. I believe the American people will continue to support the U.S. involvement in Kosovo. I know they will if they know that our President and their Congress are acting in partnership, in concert, to get this job done that is fair to all. They want to see our allies also step up and be accountable and to do their part. I think--and I say this humbly--this proposal will help do just this. We invite the comments and suggestions of all. I thank the Presiding Officer, and others, for joining me in this effort. I yield the floor. Exhibit No. 1 amendment no.-- (Purpose: To limit the use of funds for support of military operations in Kosovo) At the appropriate place, insert: Sec. __. (a) Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under the heading ``overseas contingency operations transfer fund'' for military operations in Kosovo, not more than 50 percent may be obligated until the President certifies in writing to Congress that the European Commission, the member nations of the European Union, and the European member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have provided at least 33 percent of the amount of assistance committed by these organizations and nations for 1999 and 2000 for reconstruction in Kosovo, at least 75 percent of the amount of assistance committed by them for 1999 and 2000 for humanitarian assistance in Kosovo, at least 75 percent of the amount of assistance committed by them for 1999 and 2000 for the Kosovo Consolidated Budget, and at least 75 percent of the number of police, including special police, pledged by them for the United Nations international police force for Kosovo. (b) The President shall submit to Congress, with any certification submitted by the President under subsection (a), a report containing detailed information on-- (1) the commitments and pledges made by each organization and nation referred to in subsection (a) for reconstruction assistance in Kosovo, humanitarian assistance in Kosovo, the Kosovo Consolidated Budget, and police (including special police) for the United Nations international police force for Kosovo; (2) the amount of assistance that has been provided in each category, and the number of police that have been deployed to Kosovo, by each such organization or nation; and (3) the full range of commitments and responsibilities that have been undertaken for Kosovo by the United Nations, the European Union, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the progress made by those organizations in fulfilling those commitments and responsibilities, an assessment of the tasks that remain to be accomplished, and an anticipated schedule for completing those tasks. (c) If the President does not submit to Congress a certification and report under subsections (a) and (b) on or before June 1, 2000, then, beginning on June 2, 2000, the 50 percent of the amounts appropriated in this Act under the heading ``overseas contingency operations transfer fund'' for military operations in Kosovo that remain unobligated (as required by subsection (a)) shall be available only for the purpose of conducting a safe, orderly, and phased withdrawal of United States military personnel from Kosovo, and no other amounts appropriated for the Department of Defense in this Act or any Act enacted before the date of the enactment of this Act may be obligated to continue the deployment of United States military personnel in Kosovo. In that case, the President shall submit to Congress, not later than June 30, 2000, a report on the plan for the withdrawal.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer. I ask unanimous consent to have an amendment appended at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the conferees for their hard work and diligent effort to accommodate the wide range of interests on this long-awaited legislation. I take this opportunity to make my position on the FAA conference agreement perfectly clear. There are three areas which I want to address. First, I am grateful to the conferees for the inclusion of my amendment delinking federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funds to Reagan National and Dulles International Airports to the confirmation of federal appointees to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA). This provision ensures the release of $144 million to allow for critical safety and modernization plans to go forward. Second, I want to express my regret that the provision raising the Passenger Facility Charges (PFC) was included as part of the conference agreement. Lastly, it was my strong preference that no new additional flights be allowed into and out of Reagan National Airport. Despite my opposition, it was the will of the Congress to increase the number of slots at Reagan National. I will continue to oppose any increase in the number of flights at Reagan National. I am pleased with the inclusion of my amendment to give Reagan National and Dulles International Airports equitable treatment under Federal law that is enjoyed today by all of the major commercial airports. As you know, Congress created the MWAA Board of Directors and charged the Senate with the duty of confirming three federal appointments. In addition to the requirement that the Senate confirm the appointees, the statute contains a punitive provision which denies all federal AIP entitlement grants and the imposition of any new passenger facility charges (PFC) to Dulles International and Reagan National if the appointees were not confirmed by October 1, 1997. As the current law forbids the FAA from approving any AIP entitlement grants for construction at the two airports and from approving any PFC applications, these airports have been denied access to over $144 million. These are funds that every other airport in the country receives annually and are critical to maintaining a quality level of service and safety at our Nation's airports. Unlike any other airport in the country, the full share of federal funds have been withheld from Dulles and Reagan National for nearly three years. These critically needed funds have halted important construction projects at both airports. Of the over $144 million that is due, approximately $161 million will fund long-awaited construction projects and $40 million is needed to fund associated financing costs. I respect the right of the Senate to exercise its constitutional duties to confirm the President's nominees to important federal positions. I do not, however, believe that it is appropriate to link the Senate's confirmation process to vitally needed federal dollars to operate airports. This amendment would not remove the Congress of the United States, and particularly the Senate, from its advise-and-consent role. It allows the money, however, which we need for the modernization of these airports, to flow properly to the airports. These funds are critical to the modernization program of restructuring them physically to accommodate somewhat larger traffic patterns, as well as do the necessary modernization to achieve safety-most important, safety-and greater convenience for the passengers using these two airports. Mr. President, my amendment is aimed at ensuring that necessary safety and service improvements proceed at Reagan National and Dulles and I am pleased with its inclusion. Secondly, I wanted to express my profound regret that the conference agreement includes any increase in PFC charges. The current PFC cap is set at $3 per airport and passengers can easily pay a total of $12 in taxes on a round trip flight. Already, airline passengers are subjected to a 7.5% federal excise tax, the $12.40 per passenger excise tax on air passenger arrivals, as well as the 4.3 cents per gallon Aviation Trust Fund tax on aviation jet fuel. Airline passengers can pay as much as 40% of their total ticket cost just in taxes. Providing better airport facilities is imperative but raising PFCs in order to guarantee a revenue stream for aviation is like flying a jet plane with less than adequate destination fuel. You'll get off the ground but it will come at great cost. Lastly, the conference agreement includes a provision that will allow for an increase of 12 flights at Reagan National Airport. The original Senate language included an unacceptable and astonishing number of 48 takeoffs and landings. I fought very hard to stem the tide as I had innumerable environmental, clean-air and local control concerns and am appreciative the conferees agreed to scale back the number of additional slots to a less egregious number. In crafting this agreement, I strongly urge my colleagues in the Senate not to open future discussion on this matter without appropriate deference being made to my constituents in Virginia.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a truly incredible American and resident of McLean, Virginia for the past 35 years, who has passed from this world. Chester M. Lee--known as ``Chet'' to family and friends--was born on April 6, 1919. After graduating from the U.S. Naval Academy Class of 1942, Chet Lee went directly into service in World War II. Chet was involved in a number of battle engagements during World War II and survived a Japanese kamikaze attack on his ship, the USS Drexler, off the coast of Okinawa in 1945. Chet Lee spent 24 years in the U.S. Navy, serving his country with great honor both in and out of battle. Chet helped pioneer the Navy's use of ship radar, was instrumental in development and testing of the POLARIS missile program, and commanded two Navy destroyers and an entire destroyer division. Chet Lee moved to Northern Virginia in 1964 to serve the Secretary of Defense at the Pentagon and achieved the rank of Captain before retiring from the Navy in 1965. He continued to be affectionately referred to by Navy and non- Navy colleagues as ``Captain Lee,'' and remained an avid Navy football fan throughout his life! In 1965, Captain Lee requested to be retired from active duty in order to answer the call at the National Aeronautics and Space Agency, which was deeply involved in the Cold War space race. At NASA, Chet spent 23 years providing instrumental leadership during our nation's most exciting and pivotal space years. Captain Lee served as Assistant Mission Director for Apollo Missions 1 to 11 and then Mission Director for Apollo Moon Missions 12 to 17. He was Director for the Apollo/Soyuz space-docking mission, perhaps one of the most significant precursor events to the melting of Cold War barriers between the U.S. and then- Soviet Union. Captain Lee's impressive NASA career continued as he played an integral role in the development, operation and payload management for the U.S. Space Shuttle program. In 1987, Chet Lee continued advancing U.S. aerospace leadership in the private sector, joining SPACEHAB Inc., a company dedicated to pioneering U.S. space commerce. He ascended to the position of President and Chief Operating Officer in 1996. Chet was instrumental in guiding the company's participation in the joint U.S.-Russian Shuttle- Mir program, and his tenure at SPACEHAB included 13 Space Shuttle missions, including the mission that returned Senator John Glenn to space. Captain Lee became Chairman of SPACEHAB's Astrotech commercial satellite processing subsidiary in 1998 and served on SPACEHAB's Board of Directors. At the age of 80, Chet Lee continued to work full-time on SPACEHAB and Astrotech projects up to his last days here on Earth. Chet Lee was a tireless public servant, a devoted husband, father and grandfather and mentor to countless in the aerospace community. I am proud to have had Chet as a constituent, and my blessings go out to his family and friends during this time of mourning. I ask my colleagues to pay tribute today to Captain Lee's memory and to honor him for his contributions to this great country.

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 am introducing this bill with the complete support and, indeed, the leadership of our distinguished majority leader, the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Lott. The Senate will recall that Senator Lott was one of the principal persons who enabled the pay and other benefits bill that was passed by the Senate, and indeed adopted by the President, to be introduced last year. He has exhibited leadership on this subject throughout. He is a former member of our committee, a very valued member. He has kept quite active on matters relating to not only personnel but the whole aspect of our national defense. I pay a special tribute to him and also to the other members of our committee. Indeed, it is a bipartisan effort at this time in every respect to present to the Senate this piece of legislation. I see the distinguished chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee who will follow me in addressing this issue. Mr. President, I will be chairing a committee meeting of the Armed Services Committee on the subjects of Kosovo and China, two very troublesome situations in the world today, so I am briefly going to make a few statements and then ask unanimous consent the remainder of my statement be printed in the Record. I rise to introduce a very critical piece of legislation entitled ``The Military Medical Improvement Act of 2000.'' This legislation represents an important and much needed first step. I wish to carefully underline this is a first step. It is a beginning in addressing the many needed requirements to fulfill the commitments of the United States of America through the years--beginning in World War II--to the men and women who have proudly worn the uniform of our Armed Forces. It relates, of course, to the military medical care system, which serves not only those on active duty but their dependents and, indeed, those who have retired. I am particularly privileged to have had the opportunity to serve with, and to continue to work on behalf of, the men and women of the Armed Forces for over a half century. I was privileged to have brief tours of active duty in World War II and Korea. Indeed, I myself was a beneficiary of this care system. I did not remain in service long enough to get the entitlements that come with retirement, but nevertheless I know firsthand the value and superb medical treatment that is offered to the men and women of the Armed Forces. What we are trying to ensure is that the same treatment and care is spread throughout the system. A particular part of this legislation is to go beyond the President's request and includes laying a larger foundation, a larger beginning series of steps, for those in the retired community. All of us, when we proudly raised our hand and took the oath of office as military persons, were given certain assurances that we would be cared for not only while on active duty but for those who went on in a career--a career, I stress--type of situation, that they would get that care along with their families for the balance of their lives. That is the important thing that I address today. These men and women depend, at various times in our Nation's history, on the Congress. I repeat that--not necessarily criticism to the Commander in Chief, the President--it is not a political observation; it is simply a fact that the Congress, at various times in our history, has had to step forward on its own initiative to provide the fulfillment of the commitments that have been made to the men and women of the Armed Forces. This is one of those instances. The President put forth in his package those measures which he believed began to address this problem. Now we come along, as a coequal branch of this Government, and lay before first the Senate and, indeed, the House will soon take it up similarly, our own proposals as to how to add to the President's package so as to, in particular, have a bigger foundation, a greater beginning, to care for those men and women of the Armed Forces, particularly in their period of retirement. Mr. President, as I said, I rise today to introduce a very critical piece of legislation, the Military Medical Improvement Act of 2000. This legislation represents an important and much needed first step--a beginning--in addressing the many complaints and concerns with the military medical care system. I am particularly privileged to have had the opportunity to serve with, and to continue to work on behalf of, the men and women of the armed forces for over a half century. These men and women depend, at various times in our Nation's history, on the Congress to keep the commitments that were made when they took the oath of office to serve their nation. In most cases our nation committed to provide health care--for life--for military members, their families, and retirees and their families. Quality military health care has been a lifelong priority for me. I was dependent on the military health care system with brief tours as an active duty sailor and U.S. Marine, and later, responsible for its oversight as Secretary of the Navy. Today, I, along with the Majority Leader, Senator Lott, Senators Daschle, Levin, as well as others, propose legislation to meet our commitment to the brave men and women who have so honorably served their country, through a full career and those now serving, by taking initial steps to fulfill the obligation to provide them with quality health care. Last year, the Congress adopted significant enhancements to pay and benefits for our military members and their families. Already, we are seeing the positive impact of last year's legislative actions on recruiting and retention. We must not stop there. Health care remains to be addressed and is a significant component of our military benefit package, as well as a commitment our Nation made to our service members and their families. Meeting our health care promise to our service members and their families is not only a commitment and a moral obligation but it is also in our interest. Today it is a key factor in recruiting and retention. Delivery of quality health care and the assurance that the government meets its obligations are key factors in the morale and retention of our troops. I would like to acknowledge the efforts of Secretary Cohen, Chairman Shelton, and the Joint Chiefs in highlighting the many problems in meeting the health care commitment to our military retirees and implementing a user-friendly medical program for all. The legislation I am introducing today includes the initiatives for active duty family members included in the President's budget request for fiscal year 2001. However, these initiatives do not go far enough. The President's request stops short in addressing any initiatives for our military retirees. Military retiree healthcare needs cannot wait longer. I am well aware of the promises of lifetime health care made to those service members with whom I served. There is ample evidence that when young men and women joined the Armed Forces, they were promised health care for themselves and their families, for the rest of their lives in return for career commitments. Often this was in writing. Now, upon reaching age 65, they are finding that this commitment is often not fulfilled. My desire is to return a sense of fairness to the military health care system by providing beneficiaries, including Medicare-eligible military retirees, access to health care. Under the current system, military retirees lose entitlement to military medical care at age 65 and must rely on Medicare for their healthcare needs. In addition, base closure and realignment actions have had a significant impact on both active duty members and retirees by reducing the medical infrastructure of our Armed Forces. Our military's hospital network has decreased by approximately 30 percent since the mid- eighties, while the military beneficiary population has grown and aged. Those who have so honorably served their country believed they could depend on health care provided by local base hospitals. The Department of Defense capacity has become limited. We must find other ways to meet our health care commitment. For our active duty members and their families, implementation of TRICARE, the Department of Defense's managed care program, has created its own set of challenges for the Department of Defense. As General Shelton stated before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 8, ``the program is not user friendly'' and ``we need to get it right and I know we will''. The first section of the bill I am introducing today provides for health care delivery to the over-65, Medicare eligible retired military population. Over the past 2 years, Congress directed implementation of several demonstration programs, for over-65 military retirees, including Medicare subvention, the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, and a Medicare insurance supplement or ``medi-gap'' type policy. One of these programs is due to expire this year, some have just started, and other are due to start this spring. This legislation extends the demonstration programs to allow for continuity of care and assessment by the Department of Defense and the Congress to determine the most appropriate long term health care solutions for these beneficiaries. In addition, the bill allows for the expansion of the ``Medicare subvention'' or TRICARE Senior Prime Program to major medical centers throughout the country, where the Department of Defense is reimbursed for care provided to Medicare eligible beneficiaries through agreement between the Secretary of Defense and Health Care Financing Administration. This authority will permit TRICARE Senior Prime to grow in these areas in which the program appears to be more promising. Additionally, due to the low response to the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program demonstration so far, the Secretary of Defense will be authorized to expand the number of sites at which this option is offered. We want to allow a full and open evaluation of this program. The second section of this bill recognizes and meets a major healthcare need or our older military retirees by providing a pharmacy benefit, which Medicare does not provide. The legislation expands the Department of Defense's mail order program to allow participation by all beneficiaries, including the over 65 population. Military retirees over the age of 65 would be asked to pay a modest deductible of $150 per year to participate in this new benefit. This responds to their urgent need for pharmaceuticals for our retirees--especially for those suffering from chronic long-term conditions such as diabetes and heart disease. This bill recognizes the need to quickly implement improvements to the Department of Defense's managed care program, TRICARE, especially for active duty personnel and their family members. Chairman Shelton, and the Service Chiefs, have been extremely vocal in his desire to create equity in the TRICARE program for active duty personnel and their families. The Department has recognized that improvements in this area are crucial to recruiting and retention and have included two provisions in the President's budget request. Those provisions which are incorporated in this bill, include expanding the TRICARE Prime Remote benefit to family members of those active duty personnel stationed in remote locations and elimination of co-pays for TRICARE Prime family member who use care outside of the military medical facilities. Defense Authorization Acts over the past several years have included various legislative direction pertaining to improving access, availability and scheduling of appointments, claims filing and payment, and a single nationwide enrollment program. This bill reinforces the previous actions of the Congress and requires the Secretary of Defense to accelerate implementation of these improvements to the TRICARE program by October 2001. In this time of decreasing resources, increasing costs and increasing demand for health care services, cooperation among the federal agencies is critical. The Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs have a long standing, cooperative, and productive relationship. This legislation authorizes additional initiatives between DOD and the VA in the area of patient safety, reducing medical errors and pharmaceutical safety. Finally, much discussion has taken place about how to finance the military health care program over the long term. Specifically, the Joint Chiefs have suggested the accrual financing of military retiree health care might be the most appropriate option. This legislation directs the Department of Defense to conduct two studies to assess the feasibility and desirability of financing the military health care program for military retirees on an accrual basis. Our men and women in uniform have answered the call of their country without hesitation or equivocation. Commitments were made to them in return for their service. We must fulfill those commitments. This legislation begins, I repeat begins, the process of satisfying the health care needs of all beneficiaries in a more comprehensive, uniform and fair manner. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. WARNER. I am not certain that the Senator mentioned Senator Daschle as a cosponsor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I am confident we will have a majority of the Senate eventually as cosponsors on this legislation. Indeed, there are other Senators who may have ideas of their own, so we will work this piece of legislation. It may be passed as a freestanding bill. It may well be that this legislation will be incorporated in the annual authorization. That is a decision that the distinguished majority leader, myself, and others will make, together with the chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee in the course of the coming months. I thank the Senator.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am introducing this bill with the complete support and, indeed, the leadership of our distinguished majority leader, the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Lott. The Senate will recall that Senator Lott was one of the principal persons who enabled the pay and other benefits bill that was passed by the Senate, and indeed adopted by the President, to be introduced last year. He has exhibited leadership on this subject throughout. He is a former member of our committee, a very valued member. He has kept quite active on matters relating to not only personnel but the whole aspect of our national defense. I pay a special tribute to him and also to the other members of our committee. Indeed, it is a bipartisan effort at this time in every respect to present to the Senate this piece of legislation. I see the distinguished chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee who will follow me in addressing this issue. Mr. President, I will be chairing a committee meeting of the Armed Services Committee on the subjects of Kosovo and China, two very troublesome situations in the world today, so I am briefly going to make a few statements and then ask unanimous consent the remainder of my statement be printed in the Record. I rise to introduce a very critical piece of legislation entitled ``The Military Medical Improvement Act of 2000.'' This legislation represents an important and much needed first step. I wish to carefully underline this is a first step. It is a beginning in addressing the many needed requirements to fulfill the commitments of the United States of America through the years--beginning in World War II--to the men and women who have proudly worn the uniform of our Armed Forces. It relates, of course, to the military medical care system, which serves not only those on active duty but their dependents and, indeed, those who have retired. I am particularly privileged to have had the opportunity to serve with, and to continue to work on behalf of, the men and women of the Armed Forces for over a half century. I was privileged to have brief tours of active duty in World War II and Korea. Indeed, I myself was a beneficiary of this care system. I did not remain in service long enough to get the entitlements that come with retirement, but nevertheless I know firsthand the value and superb medical treatment that is offered to the men and women of the Armed Forces. What we are trying to ensure is that the same treatment and care is spread throughout the system. A particular part of this legislation is to go beyond the President's request and includes laying a larger foundation, a larger beginning series of steps, for those in the retired community. All of us, when we proudly raised our hand and took the oath of office as military persons, were given certain assurances that we would be cared for not only while on active duty but for those who went on in a career--a career, I stress--type of situation, that they would get that care along with their families for the balance of their lives. That is the important thing that I address today. These men and women depend, at various times in our Nation's history, on the Congress. I repeat that--not necessarily criticism to the Commander in Chief, the President--it is not a political observation; it is simply a fact that the Congress, at various times in our history, has had to step forward on its own initiative to provide the fulfillment of the commitments that have been made to the men and women of the Armed Forces. This is one of those instances. The President put forth in his package those measures which he believed began to address this problem. Now we come along, as a coequal branch of this Government, and lay before first the Senate and, indeed, the House will soon take it up similarly, our own proposals as to how to add to the President's package so as to, in particular, have a bigger foundation, a greater beginning, to care for those men and women of the Armed Forces, particularly in their period of retirement. Mr. President, as I said, I rise today to introduce a very critical piece of legislation, the Military Medical Improvement Act of 2000. This legislation represents an important and much needed first step--a beginning--in addressing the many complaints and concerns with the military medical care system. I am particularly privileged to have had the opportunity to serve with, and to continue to work on behalf of, the men and women of the armed forces for over a half century. These men and women depend, at various times in our Nation's history, on the Congress to keep the commitments that were made when they took the oath of office to serve their nation. In most cases our nation committed to provide health care--for life--for military members, their families, and retirees and their families. Quality military health care has been a lifelong priority for me. I was dependent on the military health care system with brief tours as an active duty sailor and U.S. Marine, and later, responsible for its oversight as Secretary of the Navy. Today, I, along with the Majority Leader, Senator Lott, Senators Daschle, Levin, as well as others, propose legislation to meet our commitment to the brave men and women who have so honorably served their country, through a full career and those now serving, by taking initial steps to fulfill the obligation to provide them with quality health care. Last year, the Congress adopted significant enhancements to pay and benefits for our military members and their families. Already, we are seeing the positive impact of last year's legislative actions on recruiting and retention. We must not stop there. Health care remains to be addressed and is a significant component of our military benefit package, as well as a commitment our Nation made to our service members and their families. Meeting our health care promise to our service members and their families is not only a commitment and a moral obligation but it is also in our interest. Today it is a key factor in recruiting and retention. Delivery of quality health care and the assurance that the government meets its obligations are key factors in the morale and retention of our troops. I would like to acknowledge the efforts of Secretary Cohen, Chairman Shelton, and the Joint Chiefs in highlighting the many problems in meeting the health care commitment to our military retirees and implementing a user-friendly medical program for all. The legislation I am introducing today includes the initiatives for active duty family members included in the President's budget request for fiscal year 2001. However, these initiatives do not go far enough. The President's request stops short in addressing any initiatives for our military retirees. Military retiree healthcare needs cannot wait longer. I am well aware of the promises of lifetime health care made to those service members with whom I served. There is ample evidence that when young men and women joined the Armed Forces, they were promised health care for themselves and their families, for the rest of their lives in return for career commitments. Often this was in writing. Now, upon reaching age 65, they are finding that this commitment is often not fulfilled. My desire is to return a sense of fairness to the military health care system by providing beneficiaries, including Medicare-eligible military retirees, access to health care. Under the current system, military retirees lose entitlement to military medical care at age 65 and must rely on Medicare for their healthcare needs. In addition, base closure and realignment actions have had a significant impact on both active duty members and retirees by reducing the medical infrastructure of our Armed Forces. Our military's hospital network has decreased by approximately 30 percent since the mid- eighties, while the military beneficiary population has grown and aged. Those who have so honorably served their country believed they could depend on health care provided by local base hospitals. The Department of Defense capacity has become limited. We must find other ways to meet our health care commitment. For our active duty members and their families, implementation of TRICARE, the Department of Defense's managed care program, has created its own set of challenges for the Department of Defense. As General Shelton stated before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 8, ``the program is not user friendly'' and ``we need to get it right and I know we will''. The first section of the bill I am introducing today provides for health care delivery to the over-65, Medicare eligible retired military population. Over the past 2 years, Congress directed implementation of several demonstration programs, for over-65 military retirees, including Medicare subvention, the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, and a Medicare insurance supplement or ``medi-gap'' type policy. One of these programs is due to expire this year, some have just started, and other are due to start this spring. This legislation extends the demonstration programs to allow for continuity of care and assessment by the Department of Defense and the Congress to determine the most appropriate long term health care solutions for these beneficiaries. In addition, the bill allows for the expansion of the ``Medicare subvention'' or TRICARE Senior Prime Program to major medical centers throughout the country, where the Department of Defense is reimbursed for care provided to Medicare eligible beneficiaries through agreement between the Secretary of Defense and Health Care Financing Administration. This authority will permit TRICARE Senior Prime to grow in these areas in which the program appears to be more promising. Additionally, due to the low response to the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program demonstration so far, the Secretary of Defense will be authorized to expand the number of sites at which this option is offered. We want to allow a full and open evaluation of this program. The second section of this bill recognizes and meets a major healthcare need or our older military retirees by providing a pharmacy benefit, which Medicare does not provide. The legislation expands the Department of Defense's mail order program to allow participation by all beneficiaries, including the over 65 population. Military retirees over the age of 65 would be asked to pay a modest deductible of $150 per year to participate in this new benefit. This responds to their urgent need for pharmaceuticals for our retirees--especially for those suffering from chronic long-term conditions such as diabetes and heart disease. This bill recognizes the need to quickly implement improvements to the Department of Defense's managed care program, TRICARE, especially for active duty personnel and their family members. Chairman Shelton, and the Service Chiefs, have been extremely vocal in his desire to create equity in the TRICARE program for active duty personnel and their families. The Department has recognized that improvements in this area are crucial to recruiting and retention and have included two provisions in the President's budget request. Those provisions which are incorporated in this bill, include expanding the TRICARE Prime Remote benefit to family members of those active duty personnel stationed in remote locations and elimination of co-pays for TRICARE Prime family member who use care outside of the military medical facilities. Defense Authorization Acts over the past several years have included various legislative direction pertaining to improving access, availability and scheduling of appointments, claims filing and payment, and a single nationwide enrollment program. This bill reinforces the previous actions of the Congress and requires the Secretary of Defense to accelerate implementation of these improvements to the TRICARE program by October 2001. In this time of decreasing resources, increasing costs and increasing demand for health care services, cooperation among the federal agencies is critical. The Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs have a long standing, cooperative, and productive relationship. This legislation authorizes additional initiatives between DOD and the VA in the area of patient safety, reducing medical errors and pharmaceutical safety. Finally, much discussion has taken place about how to finance the military health care program over the long term. Specifically, the Joint Chiefs have suggested the accrual financing of military retiree health care might be the most appropriate option. This legislation directs the Department of Defense to conduct two studies to assess the feasibility and desirability of financing the military health care program for military retirees on an accrual basis. Our men and women in uniform have answered the call of their country without hesitation or equivocation. Commitments were made to them in return for their service. We must fulfill those commitments. This legislation begins, I repeat begins, the process of satisfying the health care needs of all beneficiaries in a more comprehensive, uniform and fair manner. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I am confident we will have a majority of the Senate eventually as cosponsors on this legislation. Indeed, there are other Senators who may have ideas of their own, so we will work this piece of legislation. It may be passed as a freestanding bill. It may well be that this legislation will be incorporated in the annual authorization. That is a decision that the distinguished majority leader, myself, and others will make, together with the chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee in the course of the coming months. I thank the Senator.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. WARNER. I am not certain that the Senator mentioned Senator Daschle as a cosponsor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Patricia L. Lewis, a member of the staff of the Committee on Armed Services, be granted the privilege of the floor during the introduction of the Military Health Care Improvement Act of 2000.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, she has been an invaluable assistant, as has the staff of my committee, together with the staff of Senator Lott, and others who have been working on this important piece of legislation.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to offer excerpts from three very insightful, thought provoking articles recently published in the U.S. Naval Institute magazine PROCEEDINGS. These articles were written by enlisted service members on the very important subject of retention of enlisted personnel in our Armed Forces. This is one of the most critical issues facing our military services today and I am encouraged by the solutions our senior enlisted personnel have offered as it shows their deep concern for their people, their service and their country. Allow me to share with you some of these perceptive views on this complex problem: Senior Chief Navy Counselor Paul T. Pierce, USN writes, ``. . . what is the number-one reason that sailors--talented sailors, the ones we want to keep--cite as their greatest dissatisfier? It is not pay or even family separation. Those issues always are near the top, but the number one reason sailors give for separating from the service is lack of advancement opportunity.'' He further states, ``The evidence is intuitive and irrefutable that we cannot build a force of professionals if we afford them virtually zero advancement opportunity. It is really that simple. . . . The fact remains that today's sailors are smart enough to grasp that promises of better opportunity made through almost ten years of draw down simply are not likely to materialize in any meaningful way in a ``steady-state'' Navy. This generation of young sailors and junior officers believes it has stupendous opportunities outside the Navy. Real or imagined, that siren's call is beckoning to them-imploring them to leave us. At the same time, many of them, particularly our mid-grade, second-term enlisted technicians, have qualities that make them highly marketable on the outside. . . . If we want to make real headway retaining sailors, then we must make the restoration of advancement opportunity a readiness imperative.'' Master Chief Machinist's Mate James P. Russell, USN writes, ``Recognizing what sailors need is not an easy task. Sailors will always tell you they want more money. If we continue to chase the sailor's paycheck as the retention tool of choice, we will reach a point where we no longer can afford the price. It is unreasonable to expect that the Navy will be able to meet the perks and extras from our competition. It is the intangibles that will make the sailor stay for a career. We have things to offer that no company on earth can match: the opportunity to make a difference; structured guidance and support throughout a career; responsibility at a level unmatched anywhere; a retirement plan that is guaranteed to be there at the end of a career; respect recognized throughout the world; the chance to grow and develop in an environment that is tolerant of mistakes; camaraderie that cannot be matched by any corporation; and an opportunity to experience all this in a global environment. The person who needs to be able to transmit the knowledge of those perks to the sailor, and to make sure they are available, is that sailor's chief. Sailors are happiest when: they have a clearly defined mission; have ownership of their work environment; are held to fair, consistent and sensible standards; their families live in a clean, safe, and relatively comfortable location; and they receive recognition and pay that reflect the importance of what they do for their country. As the Navy leadership focuses on the first and the last, the responsibility of fighting for the rest lies squarely on the shoulders of the chief. The bottom line? Keep sailors happy and they will stick around.'' And finally, Master Sergeant Michael M. Green, USAF writes, ``Our military and political leadership express serious concern for the ever- growing retention and recruiting problems facing the enlisted force, and have initiated moderate pay improvements to help resolve these problems. Much more can and must be done, however, to address the real financial needs and expectations of our enlisted warriors. The chief shortfalls of the current pay structure are in basic pay, the basic allowance for subsistence (BAS) and education incentives.'' He concludes, ``There are innumerable reasons why patriots choose and continue to serve in our nations military. There are significantly fewer reasons why they opt to leave. Financial compensation is the chief concern to both young recruits and old wardogs. Fashioning a more equitable pay and allowance structure will greatly entice tomorrow's warriors into service as well as to keep today's enlisted force serving proudly. . . . Our enlisted force is not composed of second-class citizens. It is a collection of the guardians of our nation and our national interests. It is time they are compensated that way.'' These veterans have poignantly put forward their thoughts on a most difficult issue in an honest and sincere fashion. Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity to share their views with you and the Nation they serve.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I understand there are two bills at the desk due for their second reading.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I object to further proceedings on this bill at this time.

Mr. WARNER. I object to further proceedings on this bill at this time.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Warner, Mr. Hutchinson, and Mr. Cleland pertaining to the introduction of S. 2087 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the distinguished and exemplary career of Marie Fabrizio Dickinson, Chief Clerk of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Today, Marie achieves a notable and important career milestone: thirty years of continuous service with the Senate Committee on Armed Services. ``Far and away the best prize that life offers,'' Teddy Roosevelt once remarked, ``is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.'' During the past thirty years, Marie has tirelessly devoted her professional pursuits to work we all know to be certainly worth doing: supporting the men and women of the Armed Forces. Marie began her career in 1970 as the sole staff assistant for the Republican minority Committee staff. In 1987, Marie was promoted to Assistant Chief Clerk--serving eleven years in that assignment. When I became Chairman of the Committee in 1999, I was very fortunate to have Marie accept my request for her to serve as Chief Clerk of the Committee. During the last year, Marie has excelled as Chief Clerk. The Armed Services Committee has undertaken many initiatives and issues in the 106th Congress--pay and benefits reform for our servicemembers, military operations in the Balkans, and an end to the decade-plus downward trend of defense spending. In each instance, at any hour of day, or night, under Marie's direction, Committee administrative operations have been flawless. The gains we have made in support of our servicemembers during the past year are due in no small part to the professional acumen and personal commitment of Marie Dickinson. It is no small feat to attain the distinction achieved by Marie. Less than one percent of the employees of the Senate serving today have thirty or more years of service. Having supported five consecutive Chairmen prior to me--Senators Stennis, Goldwater, Tower, Nunn, and Thurmond--and seven staff directors of the Armed Services Committee, Marie is only surpassed in her duration of service with the Committee by the venerable Senator Strom Thurmond. Mr. President, I invite you and our Senate colleagues to join me and offer our sincere appreciation to Marie Dickinson for her outstanding and distinguished thirty years of services. I do so with the hope that Marie will continue her outstanding service as Chief Clerk of the Committee on Armed Services for many more years.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to address my colleagues on both sides of the aisle with regard to the deepening and very grave concerns I have in my heart about the situation in both Bosnia and Kosovo. I, as many colleagues, travel with some regularity to that region of the world, the Balkans. Just 3 weeks ago, I completed my most recent trip. I had the distinct privilege of being accompanied on that trip by the Supreme Allied Commander of Europe, General Clark, Commander in Chief of NATO Forces, in my travels through Kosovo, and then later the next day with his deputy, Admiral Abbott, as I went into Bosnia. I have been to this region many times, although I am not suggesting I am any more of an expert than my colleagues. I first went in 1990 with then-leader Robert Dole. We went to Pristina, in Kosovo. I remember our delegation of Senators queried Senator Dole: Why here? Bob Dole instinctively knew that Kosovo could become a battleground. I remember Stephen Ambrose, the historian, was alleged to have quoted Eisenhower when Eisenhower was asked, 10 years after D-day: General, tell us about the next war. And Ike very wisely did not opine, except to say: That war could come as a surprise and may well come from a direction that none of us could anticipate. In our visit to Kosovo, I and that tried and tested and courageous Bob Dole, a soldier of World War II, were confronted with a totally unpredicted situation while in Pristina. Thousands and thousands of people heard about Members of the U.S. Congress coming to this remote region, and they converged on the hotel. There was panic in the streets and a great deal of disorder. People were being trampled in the crowds, and Senator Dole had to make a wise decision, and a quick one, that we had to exit because we could be responsible for injuries to people, people who wanted to come to see us, people who wanted to tell us about the hardships that were then being inflicted by Milosevic. Indeed, we made a hasty retreat. But as we went back to our plane, we passed that historic piece of ground, whose origin goes way back, in my recollection, to the 1300s, that field of battle which actually the persons who preceded the governing structure today lost. They lost the war, yet they still consider that hallowed ground. But I remember as we passed that battlefield, Bob Dole said: Tragedy and fighting will visit this land someday. And that it did. Our Nation's men and women of the Armed Forces, primarily the Air Force, fought a courageous battle: 78 days of combat, tens of thousands of missions together with other nations--seven other nations were flying missions with our Air Force--and eventually the major nations of the world came to an understanding as to how that fighting should stop. It was causing tremendous damage, but there was no other recourse by which we could get the attention of Milosevic. There are those who say today, in hindsight, perhaps we should not have done this, perhaps we should not have blown up that bridge. When I visited Pristina several weeks ago, someone said: We haven't got power because the power lines were blown out. It was a tough war, and our military commanders made tough decisions; 19 nations got together to make those decisions--a historic first combat by NATO. They made it work. Now they have basically stopped any major fighting and we are down to incidents --fortunately few incidents, but nevertheless dangerous ones. When I looked into the faces of the young men and women of our Armed Forces, and indeed other armed forces, and actually walked the streets with a patrol, it was clear they were performing duties for which they were never trained in their military careers. Historically, our troops have not in any great measure performed the type of mission they are doing in that region. But they are doing it and doing it very well. They are accepting the risks of getting caught in the crossfire that still erupts as a consequence of the cultural differences, the ethnic hatreds. Indeed, much of the fighting today in Kosovo is Albanian upon Albanian. It is retribution against fellow Albanians because they at one time or another did something to further the Serb interest. Our troops are there. When you ask those in charge, whether it is the NATO commanders, the U.N. representative, the E.U. representative, or anyone else, no one can give you any time estimate within which our forces can be withdrawn. The infrastructure that was to move in behind in Kosovo, the commitments that were made by a number of nations to provide police, to provide money to pay salaries for the judicial element, to help rebuild the power lines--it is not flowing. It is caught up in bureaucracies, international bureaucracies. It is all but stagnant--all but stagnant. I met with the commander of all troops, a very competent professional German officer. I met Ambassador Kouchner, who has been designated to pull together the various elements to make this work. We were in a room in the military headquarters. There was no running water. The water pipes were shut off, partially due to freezing and partially due to lack of power. The light bulbs flickered. Ambassador Kouchner pointed out we do not have enough power to keep the homes warm. There was a certain feeling we won the war but we could lose the peace, because the war goes on amongst the bureaucracies, no matter what the good intentions may be to bring forth and reestablish in that war-torn region of Serbia--Kosovo is a part of Serbia--the infrastructure needed to bring back just a modicum of a normal life. Foremost in my heart is my deep concern for the men and women of the armed services undertaking missions for which they were not trained. Missions which take them away not only from their families, but take them away from other potential deployments of our U.S. military, a military that is stretched far too thin already. These men and women of our military need to have some definitization of how much longer we are going to keep significant numbers deployed to Kosovo. That timing is directly tied to the ability and the willingness of other nations and organizations to come in and consolidate the military gains, reestablish an infrastructure--be it judicial, be it police, be it rebuilding, be it a form of government, be it elections-- so that the troops can return--ours and others--to their assignments and their bases elsewhere. A similar situation still exists in Bosnia after these many years. However, let me draw a distinction. After the fighting stopped in Bosnia, the military decided they would locate the troops in heavily protected compounds. They would go out on daily patrols to prevent the eruption of further fighting. So far, that has worked. Clearly, without any question, the military operations in Bosnia and Kosovo are a great credit to the men and women who fought them, the men and women who planned them, and the men and women who are still there today. That job was done and done well. In Kosovo, they decided not to concentrate the military, either the U.S. military, or the other militaries. Rather, they were dispersed in the various regions. The U.S. region is the same as the one controlled by the British and the French. They dispersed them right out into the small communities so that men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces, four and five of them at a time, are living in some war-torn house or in a small churchyard where I saw them. Some are just guarding churches because of the incredible desire to destroy churches. That is a whole chapter of this tragedy which someone has to examine. The Albanian forces practically destroyed every church the Serbian people ever used. Quite different is the military deployment in Kosovo from that in Bosnia, but both have worked. Both were carefully planned, both have a credible measure of success. In Bosnia, the Dayton accords laid the blueprint. One can argue we should have done this and we should have done that in Dayton. Yes, we knew it could have been better, but we had to get an agreement, and we got the best we could at that time. One of my concerns is we should go back--not reconvene everybody who was at Dayton--but go back and examine what was right and what proved not to be successful at Dayton and correct it. The fighting has stopped, and the military provides a security blanket within which the various factions can begin to reestablish that country. Some progress is being made, but by any timetable, that progress is way behind the expectations, given the fighting has been over for several years. It is way behind, again, because of the difficulty of the bureaucracies working to bring in adequate police, and not just the police who perform duties on the streets, but in the case of Bosnia, we need an international police force to investigate and fight the rampant crime. Beneath the security blanket provided by the men and women of the Armed Forces, organized crime is rampant. It has been said the only thing really organized in Bosnia is organized crime. The various ethnic factions get along very well in the criminal underworld. They have charted their ground. Yes, things are slowly improving in Bosnia but ever so slowly. There we have independent entities. The U.N. has one area of responsibility, primarily the police; the E.U. another area of responsibility; the OSCE responsibility with regards to elections. However, they each report to different capitals. I had the Deputy Secretary General of the United Nations in my office yesterday. He is in charge of peacekeeping all over the world. He made clear how the four basic entities in charge of bringing about the restoration of Bosnia all have different reporting channels. There is no central authority that works today for the greater betterment of that region. What has happened? You still cannot get a definitive date from anybody as to when the American troops and other troops can be withdrawn. I say it is time the Congress of the United States should step up. We are a coequal branch of our Government. This body has time and time been called upon to vote for funds, for resolutions, and other legislative initiatives with regard to the Balkan situation. Now it is time for us to take a look at the constant flow of the American taxpayers' money and say: Is America going to keep its spigot flowing when, at the same time, other nations are not meeting their financial commitments or obligations? If I can digress for a moment, I have studied this situation, I have talked with innumerable people, I have traveled to this region. The Balkan situation is the most difficult problem and a matrix of diversified responsibility and commitment I have ever tried to get my arms around. As soon as I feel I have one body of fact on which I can rely and reach a decision, another person will come along and say: No, it's different than that. I have tried in this set of remarks to outline how I understand the situation to be in Bosnia and Kosovo. But I rise today to say to the Senate that it is my intention, when the piece of legislation we anticipate will be coming through soon, the supplemental--the supplemental has $2 billion--can I repeat that?--$2 billion associated with our obligations, military and otherwise, in just Kosovo. I think it is time we stated our intention as the Congress of the United States to allow the first part of those funds to flow--I will refine the language eventually--but to have a stopping point when we take a pause and we say to our President respectfully: Mr. President, no further funds of the $2 billion will flow until you can come back and give us some type of assurance, certification, or otherwise, that the other nations are living up to their commitments. That should get the attention of the other nations. I say most respectfully, that should give our President some leverage to deal with these other nations. I am not alone on this. I have talked to a number of colleagues. As I say, my language is not refined at this point. I welcome suggestions. I welcome those who can contribute facts where I may be in error with regard to some of the statements I make today. In good conscience, I tried to check out everything. But, as I say, getting your arms around this problem is not easy. Getting the body of facts is difficult. Indeed, others have worked as hard as I have. Collectively, let us bring together our judgments as to how best and by what mechanism we can assert our responsibility under the Constitution--as the coequal branch, as those who control the purse strings of the U.S. Government--to string this purse of $2 billion such that our President can expend what has to be expended in the next 90 days, following adoption by the Congress, but that there comes a time when accountability steps in. Our President has to explain to the Congress what he has done, what remains to be done, and hopefully some prospects of when these situations in both Bosnia and Kosovo can be brought to a state of affairs where the infrastructure allows the significant withdrawal of our troops and, indeed, troops of other nations. It may well be that the United States--we took a major role in the war in Kosovo, a major role in the war in Bosnia--could turn over such balance of troop responsibilities as may remain in, say, a year, 18 months, to the Europeans. They are quite anxious, under NATO, to establish their own organization militarily to do certain things in the event NATO, for one reason or another, decides not to do them. This might be their first challenge. I see on the floor the distinguished leader of our NATO group in the Senate, the Senator from Delaware. We just met with the British Foreign Secretary on this very question. This might be an opportunity to test that new military structure. I have concerns about that and how it might have long-term effects on the weakening of NATO, but for the moment I give those who propose it the benefit of the doubt. It has not been completely refined yet, this concept, nor implemented. So that is another question for another day. The reason for my addressing the Senate today is my deep concern for the welfare of the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States who are going through a winter far more severe than anything we have experienced here, certainly in the area of the Nation's Capital. And every day they could be subject to someone looking down a gun barrel, perhaps not firing in anger at them or the troops of other nations but firing in anger at someone else because of the persistent ethnic hatred that remains. I say most respectfully, we have a duty in this institution to assert ourselves as to the timetable committed to by other nations with regard to their support in both Bosnia and Kosovo which, up to this point, has not been met. We should do everything within our power, and working with our President, to see that that is done. Mr. President, simply put, the United Nations, the European Union, and the OSCE are not doing the job they committed to do--in a timely manner--in Bosnia or Kosovo. The successful NATO-led military operations in Bosnia and Kosovo were undertaken--at personal risk to our troops, and those of other nations, and with billions of dollars in cost to the American taxpayer--with the express understanding here in America that the UN and others would promptly move in behind and consolidate the gains. Now, as a result of little consolidation, U.S. troops--and troops from over 30 other nations--remain in Bosnia over four years after the end of that war, and are facing indefinite deployments to both Bosnia and Kosovo. Personal bravery and international bonds of commitment won the wars in the Balkans; but, will the slow pace of follow-on actions result in a loss of peace? During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on February 2, when NATO commander General Clark was the witness, I first signaled my intention to take legislative action, in connection with the upcoming Kosovo Supplemental to be proposed by President Clinton, to revitalize the near stagnant situations in both Bosnia and Kosovo. I addressed this subject again this past Tuesday, during the Committee's annual hearing with the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs on the budget request. I am considering a variety of options, including tying U.S. military funding for these operations to demonstrable progress by the UN, the EU, and the OSCE in fulfilling their commitments to rebuild the civil society in Bosnia and Kosovo; or requiring the withdrawal of U.S. troops by a time certain--perhaps in 18 months--and leaving the military occupation in Bosnia and Kosovo to European leadership. In the coming days, I intend to continue to consult with my colleagues in the Senate, and others in the Administration and outside of government, on this initiative. From my initial discussion with my colleagues I have to say, support is growing for my concept. Congress has a co-equal responsibility with the Administration, and we now must exercise leadership, hopefully with concurrence by the Administration. This situation just cannot continue. Other nations and organizations will have to follow through on their commitments, the parties in the region will have to start cooperating with international authorities and taking on more responsibility for the fate of their region and their people. The U.S. military will not stay there forever. The United States has far too many commitments around the world, our military is stretched too thin as it is; we cannot have a decades-long military deployment to the Balkans. We, together with other nations, went into Bosnia and Kosovo with the best of intentions--to stop the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent people, to restore peace and stability to the region, and to help the people of the Balkans rebuild lives shattered by war and ethnic cleansing. But what has the coalition achieved? Our military forces have done their job. We have stopped the fighting, but precious little other progress has taken place. As one official said to me in Bosnia, ``We have stopped the fighting, but the war goes on.'' Four years after the Dayton Accords ended the war in Bosnia, little progress has been made in rebuilding that country. The economy is stagnant, police forces are inadequate and ineffective even to deal with routine criminal activity--much less the growing problems of organized crime, the judicial system is far from ready, only crime and corruption are growing. In fact, I was told by a senior UN official in Bosnia that the only truly organized, multi-ethnic institution in Bosnia is organized crime. Regrettably, a similar situation is rapidly developing in Kosovo. At this point, I would like to mention a positive event that has occurred in the region, the recent elections in Croatia. However, at this point, it remains to be seen if those elections will translate into similar positive events in Bosnia and Kosovo. Since the timing of the departure of U.S. and allied troops from both Bosnia and Kosovo is directly linked to the progress--or lack of progress--that the UN and others make in achieving their goals, I am gravely concerned with the current situation. Clearly, the military has fulfilled its mission--namely, to provide a secure situation in Bosnia and Kosovo. In sharp contrast, the UN, the EU, the OSCE and others are not living up--in a timely manner--to the commitments they made to consolidate the gains made by the military. Even though I have had a long association with the situation in the Balkans--having traveled regularly to the region since first visiting Kosovo in September 1990 with then-Senate Majority Leaders Bob Dole and others, and being the first U.S. Senator to go to Sarajevo during the war, in September 1992--I was, quite frankly, distressed by what I saw during my last visit in January. Let me be clear--our troops, along with the troops from over 30 other nations that have joined the NATO-led operations in Bosnia and Kosovo, performed magnificently in their military missions. They are, today, conducting a wide variety of assignments, and doing an outstanding job. The U.S. troops I met in Bosnia and Kosovo are among the finest I have encountered in my 30-plus years of public service in working with military organizations throughout the world. They are well-trained, motivated and enthusiastic about what they are doing to help the people of Bosnia and Kosovo. Simply put--they have achieved their mission. To the extent possible, given the continued ethnic animosities, the military has stopped the large-scale fighting and has created a safe and secure environment, from a military perspective, in both Bosnia and Kosovo. However, unacceptable, dangerous levels of criminal activity continue, and put our troops at constant risk. So, why are our troops still in Bosnia over four years after they were first deployed? Why is there no end in sight in Kosovo? The reason is that the United Nations, the EU and other international organizations charged with the responsibility of rebuilding the civilian structures in Bosnia and Kosovo are simply not doing their job. This situation has to change. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to communicate this message directly to Bernard Miyet, the Under Secretary General for Peacekeeping Operations at the United Nations. We had a lengthy discussion regarding Bosnia and Kosovo and I conveyed to him my extreme concern with the situation there, in particular the slow pace with which the United Nations, European Union and other international organizations are fulfilling their promised assistance to the region. Foreign donors must deliver, immediately, on their promises of international police so that NATO soldiers can get out of the business of policing. Our troops are not trained to perform these tasks, and it should not be part of their mission. The United States has made a major contribution of 450 police for Kosovo and is about to increase its commitment. Others, particularly the Europeans, have to do their share by providing the necessary police forces. Secretary Cohen delivered that message to our European allies this past weekend, at the annual Wehrkunde Conference. According to Secretary Cohen, To date there has been a clear failure by participating nations to provide the UN with sufficient numbers of police for public security duties in Kosovo, with a significant disparity in the amount of support provided by different Alliance members. Indeed, the number of police deployed is roughly half of what was planned. As a result, KFOR soldiers, who are trained to fight wars, are working as policemen, a job for which they have not been trained and should not be asked to perform indefinitely. I agree. We must be mindful of the fact that the United Nations and other international organizations can only succeed if the nations comprising these organizations contribute the needed resources. In Kosovo, the UN needs the money to do the job. Only a small portion of the money pledged at last November's donors conference for Kosovo's budget has actually been delivered. This is the money that pays the salaries for teachers, judges, and street sweepers--the people who make Kosovo work and whose loyalty the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) needs if it is to succeed. The Europeans and others have to carry their weight and deliver on their commitments. I am particularly concerned with the performance thus far of the European Union. The EU has taken on the primary responsibility for the reconstruction of Kosovo. This is a job to which the EU committed--in recognition of the fact that the United States bore the lion's share of the cost of the war. Unfortunately, it is not quite working out as planned. Last fall, the EU committed almost $500 million for reconstruction. Recently, the European Parliament reduced that commitment to less than $200 million, questioning Kosovo's ``absorption capacity.'' It now appears that there is a serious chance that even this reduced EU commitment will not arrive in time to make a difference. I would like to quote from the excellent statement made by the Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, during last week's Committee hearing with General Clark: It is vitally important for the international community and particularly the nations of Europe to provide the funding and the civilian police that are so necessary if these missions (in Bosnia and Kosovo) are to be successful . . . The European Union can talk about a goal of greater Euoprean military strength--a stronger European pillar within NATO. But the first test is whether it will meet the responsibilities they have already accepted of providing $36 million and civilian police for Kosovo. On my scorecard, they are flunking the test. The distinguished Ranking Member and I agree. And again, during last Tuesday's hearing, Senator Levin reiterated and strengthen his message from last week by saying, ``There is a requirement (in Kosovo) for 6,000 civilian police, but less than 2,000 have been provided. We have provided our share but others have failed, and that failure endangers our troops and the success of our mission. Civil implementation of the cease fire is in real jeopardy and will fail unless a sufficient number of international civil police are put on the ground promptly by the Europeans. The European Union can talk all it wants to about its plans to provide a militarily strong European pillar within NATO under the European Security and Defense Identity. But that is just rhetoric. The reality is their failure to meet their current commitments in Kosovo.'' Since NATO troops were first deployed to Bosnia in December of 1995, the United States has spent almost $10 billion dollars to support our military commitment of troops to that nation. We have spent an additional $5 billion in Kosovo for the air campaign and the deployment of U.S. KFOR troops. The annual price-tag for these military commitments is $1.5 billion for Bosnia and $2 billion projected for Kosovo. This is an obligation for the American taxpayer. In addition to these significant sums of money, I am concerned about the safety and welfare of the men and women of our Armed Forces, and the Armed Forces of the other nations, who every day patrol the towns and villages of Bosnia and Kosovo, subjecting themselves to substantial personal risk while performing duties traditionally not performed by military personnel. As I said earlier, our troops have performed their mission--they have created a safe and secure environment, as I previously indicated. But the UN and other elements of the international community have not filled in behind our troops to perform their mission. The results is that our troops are forced to fill the vacuum, preforming missions for which they were not trained--acting as mayors, policemen, arbiters of disputes, large and small. I was told of U.S. troops who were guarding two old Serb women who did not want to leave their home, which happened to be in an Albanian village. I saw three U.S. soldiers guarding a Serb church in an Albanian section of Kosovo. We must ask ourselves, are these jobs our troops should be performing today, tomorrow or for an indefinite period, as is now projected? These are commendable, humanitarian objectives which should be assumed by entities other than the Armed Forces. In Kosovo--as is the case in Bosnia--there is a level of hatred-- personal, ethnic and religious--that is simply beyond our comprehension. When I was in Kosovo in January, I was told that most of the violence in Kosovo is now Albanian on Albanian violence. I find this troubling. The United States and our NATO allies went into this region for the purpose of stopping and reversing the ethnic cleansing of Albanians by Serbs. But what has been a consequence of our involvement? While hundreds of thousands of Albanians have returned to their homes, tens of thousands of Serbs have been driven from Kosovo-- the result of attacks by returning Albanians. Now that the Serb population of Kosovo--such as it is--has been isolated in small pockets of the province, we are seeing growing violence by Albanians against fellow Albanians, simply for their past or present association with Serbs. In the town of Vitina, I was shown a store, owned by an Albanian, which had been bombed 2 days before our arrival. Why? The Albanian shopkeeper had purchased property from a Serb--he was a ``collaborator'' in the minds of hardline Albanians. Is it realistic for us to think that these people can ever live together peacefully? Or are we wasting our time and money--and needlessly risking the lives of our people--trying to achieve the goal of a multiethnic society for Bosnia and Kosovo? I believe that we have reached that point in time when it is the responsibility of the Congress to take action--to reexamine the goals, their achievability, and what appears to be our open-ended involvement in Bosnia and Kosovo for an undetermined period of time. The PRESIDING OFFICER: The Senator from Delaware. (The remarks of Mr. Roth pertaining to the submission of S. Con. Res. 81 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.)