John Warner

Mr. WARNER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Virginia may proceed as in morning business for such time as I may require.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and honor Lieutenant Commander John S. Jenkins, Jr., Judge Advocate General's Corps, United States Navy, as he departs the Office of Legislative Affairs and active duty service. A native of Virginia, Lieutenant Commander Jenkins was commissioned an Ensign through the Naval ROTC Program upon graduation from the University of Virginia in 1987. Serving initially as a Surface Warfare Officer, Lieutenant Commander Jenkins performed in a consistently outstanding manner under the most challenging of circumstances during his first sea tour aboard U.S.S. Carr (FFG 52) where he was assigned as the Combat Information Center Officer. In 1988, U.S.S. Carr acted, with substantial contributions from Lieutenant Commander Jenkins, as the On-Scene Commander during the rescue of 89 U.S. sailors from U.S.S. Bonefish as a result of a fire on board that submarine. The following year, U.S.S. Carr distinguished itself during Operation Earnest Will escorting of U.S flagged tankers during the Iran-Iraq War. Lieutenant Commander Jenkins served as one of the ship's two Tactical Action Officers responsible for defending his own ship and the escorted vessels during this crucial demonstration of U.S. resolve in the Persian Gulf. In 1991, as a result of his distinguished record of achievement, he was selected from among his peers in an intensely competitive process for the Navy's funded Law Education Program. He began law studies at The George Washington University Law School that fall and graduated with high honors in 1994, receiving the Charles Glover Award for the highest grade point average as a third-year student. Upon graduation, Lieutenant Commander Jenkins was assigned as a judge advocate to the Naval Legal Service Office, Norfolk, Virginia, were he served as Senior Defense Counsel and Trial Counsel in courts-martial at the Navy's largest and busiest legal service command. Since April, 1997, Lieutenant Commander Jenkins has served as Legislative Counsel in the Navy's Office of Legislative Affairs. In this capacity he has been a major asset to the Department of the Navy and Congress. While relatively junior in rank, Lieutenant Command Jenkins' maturity, judgment, initiative and intelligence have made him a valued advisor to the very top echelons of the Navy and Congress on issues of great importance to our national security. His insight into the legislative process is respected and sought out by all levels of the chain of command. Lieutenant Commander Jenkins' dedicated service and his ability to effectively articulate the Navy's position to Members of Congress and their staffs have contributed directly and substantially to the Navy's future readiness and the success of its legislative initiatives. Lieutenant Commander Jenkins' distinguished awards include the Meritorious Service Medal, the Navy Commendation Medal, and the Navy Achievement Medal with two gold stars in lieu of subsequent awards. The Department of the Navy, Congress, and the American people have been served well by this dedicated naval officer. John Jenkins is a young man who knew he could make a difference and have an impact, and did. Those in this Congress who have had the opportunity to work with him will remember him warmly and will miss his constant energy and sincere commitment to the best interests of the Navy. We wish John, and his lovely wife Karen, our very best as he transitions to civilian law practice with one of Washington's most prestigious law firms and continued affiliation with the Navy through the Naval Reserve.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I wonder, if I took but 3 minutes, would that convenience my colleague?

Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object, I suggest that the manager of this nomination be consulted first. Can the Senator withhold that and as a matter of courtesy discuss it with the manager and leadership of the Senate? I think that would be an important consideration. At this time, with no discourtesy to my colleague, I register an objection.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say with a great sense of humility that I have been privileged to be in public office for over 30 years. In the course of that time, I have had the privilege and wonderful opportunity to meet dozens and dozens of people who have held public office. I have listened to the very interesting comments of my colleagues with regard to the economy and interest rates and the like concerning the distinguished nominee, Mr. Greenspan. I simply go to a very simple but direct point with regard to this nomination; that is, dollars have a different meaning to people--savings, investments, and the like. But almost without exception they represent the efforts of hard work. Therefore, when it comes time to preserve, invest, save, whatever you may do with those dollars--the man and woman primarily who have earned it--you want to know that the system, the value of that dollar, the protection of that dollar is there for your anticipated use and in many instances for the next generation. As to those people who are directly concerned with the regulatory process and decision process which vitally affects the value of the dollar and the protection of the investments, you want to know they are of unquestionable character. I have known the nominee for many years and have had the privilege of working with him, playing golf and tennis with him. You get to know the totality of the man. This man is extraordinary. There will not be raised in the course of this debate, in my judgment, one single comment by any of my colleagues questioning this man's character. He is known by many in this community, he is known in this country, and he is known worldwide. The solidarity of his character and ethical standards is second to none. You may differ with him on some of his decisions, and that is understandable, but in terms of integrity, character, and ethics, he is beyond question. How fortunate we are that the President has selected this man to continue to serve this country and, indeed, the world because we are the world's leader in economics, national security, and in every other respect. I am happy to add my few words and indicate my support that we are fortunate to have a person of his great character to step up once again and assume the arduous role and time-consuming lifestyle of this important post. But before we confer on him the advice and consent of the Senate and every other aspect, he is not infallible. As I said, I remember someone many years ago talking about Great Britain who said: You get to know a man--on the playing fields I think it was. He is not infallible. This man cannot keep a golf score. His partners constantly have to remind him. He cannot keep score in a tennis game. This is perplexing. I can bring witnesses to attest to this. But we have to overlook that minor matter as he deals with major figures, and we wish him luck with the anticipated action of this distinguished body. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as if in morning business.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I urge all of my colleagues to take a look at this statement of the distinguished chairman. I will address momentarily some troublesome criticism directed at Senator Helms. I put his statement in the Record so all Americans can read it. Make up your mind for yourself with regard to the contents of his statement and the statements of others at that historic meeting, because I think we have to join together to try to help the U.N. become a more efficient, constructive organization. I would like to also call the attention of my colleagues to the statement made on Monday by the Secretary of State, Mrs. Albright. I quote that statement because I find it very troubling, and it prompts me to come to the floor today. Secretary Albright said: Let me be clear. Only the President and the executive branch can speak for the United States. I say to the Secretary, for whom I have a high, professional regard, and out of respect for the very important office which she holds: Madam Secretary, you are mistaken. I will not deliver a speech on the formation of our Government, but it is so basic that the Founding Fathers created three independent branches of government, coequal--I repeat: coequal--in authority. The President does not have sole authority in the area of foreign affairs. I could go into detail regarding the checks and balances in the Constitution and specific reference to the responsibility of the Congress and those of the President, but clearly Congress, through its advice and consent role, deals with treaties. A treaty cannot go forward without the advice and consent of the Senate. We have seen this most recently with the comprehensive test ban treaty, a highly controversial treaty. No Ambassador can go forth from this land to represent this Nation without the advice and consent of the Senate, and no program initiated by a President requiring funding of taxpayer dollars can be implemented without the authorization of those funds by the Congress of the United States. Madam Secretary, I say to you most respectfully: Reconsider that statement. I urge you to revise, as we say in the Congress, that statement in the context of the exact authority given by the Constitution to the Congress, and out of respect for the Members of the Congress who, Madam Secretary Albright, have respect for you and want to work with you, but not in the face of such a defiant proclamation as that. My primary purpose in attending the hearing at the United Nations last Friday was to give my views on what I view as the tragic situation developing in Bosnia and Kosovo. Together with my senior staff on the committee, Colonel Brownlee, Mrs. Ansley, and in the company of General Clark, commander in chief of our forces in NATO, commander in chief of U.S. forces in Europe, and his deputy, Admiral Abbot, I toured both Kosovo, Bosnia, and, indeed, spent time in Macedonia. I am gravely concerned. I have had a long association, as have many Members of this Chamber, with the conflicts in that troubled region. I was the first Senator to go to Bosnia, in September of 1992, in the middle of the war, arriving in the historic city of Sarajevo and seeing for myself the tragedy of war unfolding right before my eyes in the shelling of that city and the killing of innocent civilians. It was a very dramatic experience for me. It motivated me to dedicate much of my time since then to that conflict and to try to do what I could, together with others, to alleviate the human suffering. I am concerned that not enough is being done in either Bosnia or Kosovo. Let's look at a little history. Since NATO troops were first deployed to Bosnia in December of 1995, the United States has spent almost $10 billion to support our military commitment of troops to that nation. We are but one of many nations committing troops and funds to Bosnia. In addition, we have spent an additional $5 billion in Kosovo for the air campaign and the deployment of United States KFOR troops. Again, we are one nation, with more than 30 other nations, contributing military forces. The price tag for these military commitments of U.S. troops is roughly $1.5 billion each year for Bosnia and $2 billion a year projected for Kosovo. Those are very significant sums of money. Apart from the significant sums of money is my concern for the safety and the welfare of the young men and women of the United States Armed Forces and, indeed, those of other nations who every single day march through the frozen streets of Bosnia and Kosovo, subjecting themselves to risk. The fighting still goes on in small, largely ethnic, conflict--particularly in Kosovo. Our military personnel could be caught in the crossfire tomorrow. We experienced a tragic loss in Somalia--again, when the world had taken its attention away from Somalia. We had the best of intentions when we went in to relieve the human suffering in that nation. Then we drifted into nation building, and tragedy befell our Armed Forces in Somalia. A comparable tragedy could befall the Armed Forces of our country and those of other nations in either Bosnia or Kosovo tomorrow. Why are our troops still in Bosnia over four years after they were first deployed? Why is no end in sight in Kosovo? The reason for that is that the United Nations, together with other international organizations, are not doing their job. We went into these military operations in both Bosnia and Kosovo with a clear understanding that if the troops performed their mission, which they have done in both countries, then the United Nations and other organizations would take the necessary steps to rebuild Bosnia and Kosovo--which is still not a sovereign nation, with no plans to make it a sovereign nation at this time; it is part of Serbia. Nevertheless, they would restore law and order and enable the people to live their lives in peace. The military has done their mission. The United Nations is failing. In the course of the hearing we had in New York City, Ambassador Holbrooke, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, recounted how the United Nations had failed in its peacekeeping operations in Somalia, in Rwanda, and other areas. He said we cannot fail again. The Presiding Officer in the Chamber at this time was present during that hearing. He will remember I said that the United Nations is on the brink of failure in both Bosnia and Kosovo unless the U.N. steps up the pace of the fulfillment of its obligations, together with organizations that likewise have a commitment to provide an infrastructure of government and a rebuilding of the economy. There have been positive actions; for instance, the recent elections in Croatia. Still, we are so far behind in the fulfillment of commitments to rebuild civilian administrations in both Bosnia and Kosovo. We have to move with swiftness. Otherwise, we are guilty of letting the men and women of our Armed Forces and other armed forces take on jobs for which they were never trained but which they are carrying out--jobs of being policemen, jobs of trying to bring some civil structure of life to these little villages, all kinds of jobs for which they are not trained as military people, but to their credit they are carrying out well. We have to keep the pressure on the U.N. and the other organizations to do their job. There has been much discussion that the U.N. should take on enlarged obligations in Africa. We all recognize Africa is crying out for help. It has a measure of human suffering almost beyond comprehension. It has a measure of disease--primarily AIDS--beyond human comprehension. However, the problem is that until the U.N. can first fulfill its missions in Bosnia and Kosovo, I caution them not to take on additional peacekeeping actions of the magnitude of those contemplated for Africa. We have all been taught: Finish what you start before you take on a new task. I made those remarks, and I stand by them. In consultation with the members of the Armed Services Committee, I will initiate a series of hearings to provide this Senate and others with an up-to-date report on the situations in Bosnia and Kosovo. Proudly, the first part of that report is that the military has done its job--the militaries of our Nation and other nations. Sadly, our report will show that the United Nations is falling behind daily in fulfilling its commitments, together with other international organizations. I yield the floor. Exhibit I Address by Senator Jesse Helms, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, before the United Nations Security Council, January 20, 2000 Mr. President, Distinguished Ambassadors, Ladies and Gentlemen. Thank you for your welcome this morning. It is an honor to be here today, and to meet with you here in the Security Council. I understand that you have interpreters who translate the proceedings of this body into a half dozen different languages. It may be that they have an interesting challenge today. As some of you may have detected, I don't have a Yankee accent. I hope you have a translator here who can speak Southern, someone who can translate words like ``y'all'' and ``I do declare.'' It may be that one other language barrier will need to be overcome this morning. I am not a diplomat, and as such, I am not fully conversant with the elegant and rarefied language of the diplomatic trade. I am an elected official, with something of a reputation for saying what I mean and meaning what I say. So I trust you will forgive me if I come across as a bit more blunt than those you are accustomed to hearing in this chamber. I am told that this is the first time that a United States Senator has addressed the United Nations Security Council. I sincerely hope it will not be the last. It is important that this body have greater contact with the elected representatives of the American people, and that we have greater contact with you. In this spirit, tomorrow I will be joined here at the U.N. by several other members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Together, we will meet with U.N. officials and representatives of some of your governments, and will hold a Committee ``Field Hearing'' to discuss U.N. reform and the prospects for improved U.S.-U.N. relations. This will mark another first. Never before has the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ventured as a group from Washington to visit an international institution. I hope it will be an enlightening experience for all of us, and that you will accept this visit as a sign of our desire for a new beginning in the U.S.-U.N. relationship. I hope--I intend--that my presence here today will presage future visits by designated spokesmen of the Security Council, who will come to Washington as official guests of the United States Senate and the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee which I chair. I trust that your representatives will feel free to be as candid in Washington as I will try to be here today so that there will be hands of friendship extended in an atmosphere of understanding. If we are to have such a new beginning, we must endeavor to understand each other better. And that is why I will share with you some of what I am hearing from the American people about the United Nations. Now I am confident you have seen the public opinion polls, commissioned by U.N. supporters, suggesting that the U.N. enjoys the support of the American public. I would caution that you not put so much confidence in those polls. Since I was first elected to the Senate in 1972, I have run for reelection four times. Each time, the pollsters have confidently predicted my defeat. Each time, I am happy to confide, they have been wrong. I am pleased that, thus far, I have never won a poll or lost an election. So, as those of you who represent democratic nations well know, public opinion polls can be constructed to tell you anything the poll takers want you to hear. Let me share with you what the American people tell me. Since I became chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I have received literally thousands of letters from Americans all across the country expressing their deep frustration with this institution. They know instinctively that the U.N. lives and breathes on the hard-earned money of the American taxpayers. And yet they have heard comments here in New York constantly calling the United States a ``deadbeat.'' They have heard U.N. officials declaring absurdly that countries like Fiji and Bangladesh are carrying America's burden in peacekeeping. They see the majority of the U.N. members routinely voting against America in the General Assembly. They have read the reports of the raucous cheering of the U.N. delegates in Rome, when U.S. efforts to amend the International Criminal Court treaty to protect American soldiers were defeated. They read in the newspapers that, despite all the human rights abuses taking place in dictatorships across the globe, a U.N. ``Special Rapporteur'' decided his most pressing task was to investigate human rights violations in the U.S.--and found our human rights record wanting. The American people hear all this; they resent it, and they have grown increasingly frustrated with what they feel is a lack of gratitude. Now I won't delve into every point of frustration, but let's touch for just a moment on one--the ``deadbeat'' charge. Before coming here, I asked the United States General Accounting Office to assess just how much the American taxpayers contributed to the United Nations in 1999. Here is what the GAO reported to me: Last year, the American people contributed a total of more than $2.5 billion dollars to the U.N. system in assessments and voluntary contributions. That's pretty generous, but it's only the tip of the iceberg. The American taxpayers also spent an additional eight billion, seven hundred and seventy nine million dollars from the United States' military budget to support various U.N. resolutions and peacekeeping operations around the world. Let me repeat that figure: eight billion, seven hundred and seventy nine million dollars. That means that last year (1999) alone the American people have furnished precisely eleven billion, two hundred and seventy nine million dollars to support the work of the United Nations. No other nation on earth comes even close to matching that singular investment. So you can see why many Americans reject the suggestion that theirs is a ``deadbeat'' nation. Now, I grant you, the money we spend on the U.N. is not charity. To the contrary, it is an investment--an investment from which the American people rightly expect a return. They expect a reformed U.N. that works more efficiently, and which respects the sovereignty of the United States. That is why in the 1980s, Congress began withholding a fraction of our arrears as pressure for reform. And Congressional pressure resulted in some worthwhile reforms, such as the creation of an independent U.N. Inspector General and the adoption of consensus budgeting practices. But still, the arrears accumulated as the U.N. resisted more comprehensive reforms. When the distinguished Secretary General, Kofi Annan, was elected, some of us in the Senate decided to try to establish a working relationship. The result is the Helms-Biden law, which President Clinton finally signed into law this past November. The product of three years of arduous negotiations and hard-fought compromises, it was approved by the U.S. Senate by an overwhelming 98-1 margin. You should read that vote as a virtually unanimous mandate for a new relationship with a reformed United Nations. Now I am aware that this law does not sit well with some here at the U.N. Some do not like to have reforms dictated by the U.S. Congress. Some have even suggested that the U.N. should reject these reforms. But let me suggest a few things to consider: First, as the figures I have cited clearly demonstrate, the United States is the single largest investor in the United Nations. Under the U.S. Constitution, we in Congress are the sole guardians of the American taxpayers' money. (It is our solemn duty to see that it is wisely invested.) So as the representatives of the U.N.'s largest investors--the American people--we have not only a right, but a responsibility, to insist on specific reforms in exchange for their investment. Second, I ask you to consider the alternative. The alternative would have been to continue to let the U.S.-U.N. relationship spiral out of control. You would have taken retaliatory measures, such as revoking America's vote in the General Assembly. Congress would likely have responded with retaliatory measures against the U.N. And the end result, I believe, would have been a breach in U.S.-U.N. relations that would have served the interests of no one. Now some here may contend that the Clinton Administration should have fought to pay the arrears without conditions. I assure you, had they done so, they would have lost. Eighty years ago, Woodrow Wilson failed to secure Congressional support for U.S. entry into the League of Nations. This administration obviously learned from President Wilson's mistakes. Wilson probably could have achieved ratification of the League of Nations if he had worked with Congress. One of my predecessors as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Henry Cabot Lodge, asked for 14 conditions to the treaty establishing the League of Nations, few of which would have raised an eyebrow today. These included language to insure that the United States remain the sole judge of its own internal affairs; that the League not restrict any individual rights of U.S. citizens; that the Congress retain sole authority for the deployment of U.S. forces through the league, and so on. But President Wilson indignantly refused to compromise with Senator Lodge. He shouted, ``Never, never!'', adding, ``I'll never consent to adopting any policy with which that impossible man is so prominently identified!'' What happened? President Wilson lost. The final vote in the Senate was 38 to 53, and League of Nations withered on the vine. Ambassador Holbrooke and Secretary of State Albright understood from the beginning that the United Nations could not long survive without the support of the American people-- and their elected representatives in Congress. Thanks to the efforts of leaders like Ambassador Holbrooke and Secretary Albright, the present Administration in Washington did not repeat President Wilson's fatal mistakes. In any event, Congress has written a check to the United Nations for $926 million, payable upon the implementation of previously agreed-upon common-sense reforms. Now the choice is up to the U.N. I suggest that if the U.N. were to reject this compromise, it would mark the beginning of the end of U.S. support for the United Nations. I don't want that to happen. I want the American people to value a United Nations that recognizes and respects their interests, and for the United Nations to value the significant contributions of the American people. Let's be crystal clear and totally honest with each other: all of us want a more effective United Nations. But if the United Nations is to be ``effective'' it must be an institution that is needed by the great democratic powers of the world. Most Americans do not regard the United Nations as an end in and of itself--they see it as just one tool in America's diplomatic arsenal. To the extent that the U.N. is an effective tool, the American people will support it. To the extent that it becomes an ineffective tool--or worse, a burden--the American people will cast it aside. The American people want the U.N. to serve the purpose for which it was designed: they want it to help sovereign states coordinate collective action by ``coalitions of the willing,'' (where the political will for such action exists); they want it to provide a forum where diplomats can meet and keep open channels of communication in times of crisis; they want it to provide to the peoples of the world important services, such as peacekeeping, weapons inspections and humanitarian relief. This is important work. It is the core of what the U.N. can offer to the United States and the world. If, in the coming century, the U.N. focuses on doing these core tasks well, it can thrive and will earn and deserve the support of the American people. But if the U.N. seeks to move beyond these core tasks, if it seeks to impose the U.N.'s power and authority over nation-states, I guarantee that the United Nations will meet stiff resistance from the American people. As matters now stand, many Americans sense that the U.N. has greater ambitions than simply being an efficient deliverer of humanitarian aid, a more effective peacekeeper, a better weapons inspector, and a more effective tool of great power diplomacy. They see the U.N. aspiring to establish itself as the central authority of a new international order of goblal laws and global governance. This is an international order the American people will not countenance. The U.N. must respect national sovereignty. The U.N. serves nation-states, not the other way around. This principle is central to the legitimacy and ultimate survival of the United Nations, and it is a principle that must be protected. The Secretary General recently delivered an address on sovereignty to the General Assembly, in which he declared that ``the last right of states cannot and must not be the right to enslave, persecute or torture their own citizens.'' The peoples of the world, he said, have ``rights beyond borders.'' I wholeheartedly agree. What the Secretary General calls ``rights beyond borders,'' we in America we call ``inalienable rights.'' We are endowed with those ``inalienable rights,'' as Thomas Jefferson proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence, not by kings or despots, but by our Creator. The sovereignty of nations must be respected. But nations derive their sovereignty--their legitimacy--from the consent of the governed. Thus, it follows, that nations can lose their legitimacy when they rule without the consent of the governed; they deservedly discard their sovereignty by brutally oppressing their people. Slobodan Milosevic cannot claim sovereignty over Kosovo when he has murdered Kosovars and piled their bodies into mass graves. Neither can Fidel Castro claim that it is his sovereign right to oppress his people. Nor can Saddam Hussein defend his oppression of the Iraqi people by hiding behind phony claims of sovereignty. And when the oppressed peoples of the world cry out for help, the free peoples of the world have a fundamental right to respond. As we watch the U.N. struggle with this question at the turn of the millennium, many Americans are left exceedingly puzzled. Intervening in cases of widespread oppression and massive human rights abuses is not a new concept for the United States. The American people have a long history of coming to the aid of those struggling for freedom. In the United States, during the 1980s, we called this policy the ``Reagan Doctrine. In some cases, America has assisted freedom fighters around the world who were seeking to overthrow corrupt regimes. We have provided weaponry, training, and intelligence. In other cases, the United States has intervened directly. In still other cases, such as in Central and Eastern Europe, we supported peaceful opposition movements with moral, financial and covert forms of support. In each case, however, it was America's clear intention to help bring down Communist regimes that were oppressing their peoples,--and thereby replace dictators with democratic governments. The dramatic expansion of freedom in the last decade of the 20th century is a direct result of these policies. In none of these cases, however, did the United States ask for, or receive, the approval of the United Nations to ``legitimize'' its actions. It is a fanciful notion that free peoples need to seek the approval of an international body (many of whose members are totalitarian dictatorships) to lend support to nations struggling to break the chains of tyranny and claim their inalienable, God-given rights. The United Nations has no power to grant or decline legitimacy to such actions. They are inherently legitimate. What the United Nations can do is help. The Security Council can, where appropriate, be an instrument to facilitate action by ``coalitions of the willing,'' implement sanctions regimes, and provide logistical support to states undertaking collective action. But complete candor is imperative: The Security Council has an exceedingly mixed record in being such a facilitator. In the case of Iraq's aggression against Kuwait in the early 1990s, it performed admirably; in the more recent case of Kosovo, it was paralyzed. The U.N. peacekeeping mission in Bosnia was a disaster, and its failure to protect the Bosnian people from Serb genocide is well documented in a recent U.N. report. And, despite its initial success in repelling Iraqi aggression, in the years since the Gulf War, the Security Council has utterly failed to stop Saddam Hussein's drive to build instruments of mass murder. It has allowed him to play a repeated game of expelling UNSCOM inspection teams which included Americans, and has left Saddam completely free for the past year to fashion nuclear and chemical weapons of mass destruction. I am here to plead that from now on we all must work together, to learn from past mistakes, and to make the Security Council a more efficient and effective tool for international peace and security. But candor compels that I reiterate this warning: the American people will never accept the claims of the United Nations to be the ``sole source of legitimacy on the use of force'' in the world. But, some may respond, the U.S. Senate ratified the U.N. Charter fifty years ago. Yes, but in doing so we did not cede one syllable of American sovereignty to the United Nations. Under our system, when international treaties are ratified they simply become domestic U.S. law. As such, they carry no greater or less weight than any other domestic U.S. law. Treaty obligations can be superceded by a simple act of Congress. This was the intentional design of our founding fathers, who cautioned against entering into ``entangling alliances.'' Thus, when the United States joins a treaty organization, it holds no legal authority over us. We abide by our treaty obligations because they are the domestic law of our land, and because our elected leaders have judged that the agreement serves our national interest. But no treaty or law can ever supercede the one document that all Americans hold sacred: The U.S. Constitution. The American people do not want the United Nations to become a ``entangling alliance.'' That is why Americans look with alarm at U.N. claims to a monopoly on international moral legitimacy. They see this as a threat to the God-given freedoms of the American people, a claim of political authority over America and its elected leaders without their consent. The effort to establish a United Nations International Criminal Court is a case-in-point. Consider: the Rome Treaty purports to hold American citizens under its jurisdiction-- even when the United States has neither signed nor ratified the treaty. In other words, it claims sovereign authority over American citizens without their consent. How can the nations of the world imagine for one instant that Americans will stand by and allow such a power-grab to take place? The Court's supporters argue that Americans should be willing to sacrifice some of their sovereignty for the noble cause of international justice. International law did not defeat Hitler, nor did it win the Cold War. What stopped the Nazi march across Europe, and the Communist march across the world, was the principled projection of power by the world's great democracies. And that principled projection of force is the only thing that will ensure the peace and security of the world in the future. More often than not, ``international law'' has been used as a make-believe justification for hindering the march of freedom. When Ronald Reagan sent American servicemen into harm's way to liberate Grenada from the hands of communist dictatorship, the U.N. General Assembly responded by voting to condemn the action of the elected President of the United States as a violation of international law--and, I am obliged to add, they did so by a larger majority than when Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was condemned by the same General Assembly! Similarly, the U.S. effort to overthrow Nicaragua's Communist dictatorship (by supporting Nicaragua's freedom fighters and mining Nicaragua's harbors) was declared by the World Court as a violation of international law. Most recently, we learn that the chief prosecutor of the Yugoslav War Crimes Tribunal has compiled a report on possible NATO war crimes during the Kosovo campaign. At first, the prosecutor declared that it is fully within the scope of her authority to indict NATO pilots and commanders. When news of her report leaked, she backpedaled. She realized, I am sure, that any attempt to indict NATO commanders would be the death knell for the International Criminal Court. But the very fact that she explored this possibility at all brings to light all that is wrong with this brave new world of global justice, which proposes a system in which independent prosecutors and judges, answerable to no state or institution, have unfettered power to sit in judgment of the foreign policy decisions of Western democracies. No U.N. institution--not the Security Council, not the Yugoslav tribunal, not a future ICC--is competent to judge the foreign policy and national security decisions of the United States. American courts routinely refuse cases where they are asked to sit in judgment of our government's national security decisions, stating that they are not competent to judge such decisions. If we do not submit our national security decisions to the judgment of a Court of the United States, why would Americans submit them to the judgment of an International Criminal Court, a continent away, comprised of mostly foreign judges elected by an international body made up the membership of the U.N. General Assembly? Americans distrust concepts like the International Criminal Court, and claims by the U.N. to be the sole source of legitimacy'' for the use of force, because Americans have a profound distrust of accumulated power. Our founding fathers created a government founded on a system of checks and balances, and dispersal of power. In his 1962 classic, Capitalism and Freedom, the Nobel- prize winning economist Milton Friedman rightly declared: ``[G]overnment power must be dispersed. If government is to exercise power, better in the county than in the state, better in the state than in Washington. [Because] if I do not like what my local community does, I can move to another local community . . . [and] if I do not like what my state does, I can move to another. [But] if I do not like what Washington imposes, I have few alternatives in this world of jealous nations.'' Forty years later, as the U.N. seeks to impose its utopian vision of ``international law'' on Americans, we can add this question: Where do we go when we don't like the ``laws'' of the world? Today, while our friends in Europe concede more and more power upwards to supra-national institutions like the European Union, Americans are heading in precisely the opposite direction. America is in a process of reducing centralized power by taking more and more authority that had been amassed by the Federal government in Washington and referring it to the individual states where it rightly belongs. This is why Americans reject the idea of a sovereign United Nations that presumes to be the source of legitimacy for the United States Government's policies, foreign or domestic. There is only one source of legitimacy of the American government's policies--and that is the consent of the American people. If the United Nations is to survive into the 21st century, it must recognize its limitations. The demands of the United States have not changed much since Henry Cabot Lodge laid out his conditions for joining the League of Nations 80 years ago: Americans want to ensure that the United States of America remains the sole judge of its own internal affairs, that the United Nations is not allowed to restrict the individual rights of U.S. citizens, and that the United States retains sole authority over the deployment of United States forces around the world. This is what Americans ask of the United Nations; it is what Americans expect of the United Nations. A United Nations that focuses on helping sovereign states work together is worth keeping; a United Nations that insists on trying to impose a utopian vision on America and the world will collapse under its own weight. If the United Nations respects the sovereign rights of the American people, and serves them as an effective tool of diplomacy, it will earn and deserve their respect and support. But a United Nations that seeks to impose its presumed authority on the American people without their consent begs for confrontation and, I want to be candid, eventual U.S. withdrawal. Thank you very much.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senators for their indulgence in permitting me to make this statement. I feel very strongly about what I am about to say, and I wish to share some views with my colleagues. Last Friday, I had the opportunity to participate in a historic mission to the United Nations. It embraced a series of events, led by the distinguished chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. On Friday, I was privileged to join the chairman and, the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and other members of the committee for this historic occasion. I appreciated very much the opportunity to join the Foreign Relations Committee. For it was the first time in history that the U.S. Foreign Relations Committee conducted a hearing out of Washington, DC. I think it was most appropriate that the hearing was conducted under the auspices of the United Nations. Our distinguished Ambassador to the United Nations, Ambassador Holbrooke, facilitated these series of meetings. I commend him highly for his participation. The Foreign Relations Committee events at the United Nations began on Thursday afternoon when Chairman Helms became the first Member--very interesting, Madam President--the first Member of the Congress of the United States to address the U.N. Security Council. The chairman's statement to the Security Council was tough, but those of us who have known Senator Helms and who have had the privilege of working with him through these many years know him to be a very tough and resolute and forthright man. He spoke with candor, but, in my view, his statement was carefully measured. His objectives were constructive. In my view, he accurately portrayed the concerns of many Americans with regard to the United Nations--an important organization. As I said last Friday, to the Secretary General at lunch--I spoke again to a large group of Ambassadors--and then in the course of the hearing, the world is dependent upon the existence of the United Nations to bring member nations together, and to try to work on a variety of problems throughout the world. One of those problems of great concern to me is peacekeeping, which is becoming a greater and greater challenge. I do not in any way disparage the U.N. We came as a group to constructively give our viewpoints and to indicate the willingness of those of us who came and others to try to make the U.N. work more efficiently in the cause of world peace and to lessen human suffering throughout the globe. But that organization is in need of reform. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Helms' statement to the U.N. Security Council be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks, as well as a brief description of the events at the United Nations that the committee attended.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to explain to my colleagues an important change made to the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999, which was reintroduced as S. 1948 and included in the measure before us today. As my colleagues may know, I and other Senators had been very concerned that two sections of the legislation would unfairly have discriminated against Internet service providers. Many of my constituents were concerned that sections 1005(e) and 1011(c) of the legislation would be interpreted by the courts or the Copyright Office to expressly and permanently exclude any ``online digital communication service'' from retransmitting a transmission of a television program or other audiovisual work pursuant to a compulsory or statutory license under the Copyright Act. I am pleased to report that these potentially damaging provisions were deleted from the bill before us. As my colleagues may know, these provisions originally were inserted in conference, even though the committees of jurisdiction had never held hearings on them, had never received any record evidence as to their need, and had never considered them in open debate. The committees of jurisdiction in the House and the Senate will now have an opportunity to carefully consider the application of the Copyright Act to the Internet and broadband service providers. As someone proud to represent most of the major Internet service providers in the world. I have little doubt about the importance of the Internet and other online communications technologies for enhancing consumer access to information and programming. Online technology has transformed the way consumers receive information, including audiovisual works. It undoubtedly will bring other benefits, but only if Congress makes certain that it does not place unreasonable barriers in the way. Because rapid technological changes are having an ever more significant impact on our economy, it is essential that the Congress give full attention to this issue early next year. the intellectual property and communications act

Mr. WARNER. I rise to address a number of aspects of the State Department Authorization Act, which has been included in the final omnibus budget package of legislation. This bill contains a number of provisions that, directly and indirectly, affect the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee, and I am very concerned by the fact that this major bill was included with virtually no consultation with our committee. I believe that the process works better when the normal legislative procedures are followed. I would like to raise a specific issue with the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Section 1134 of the State Department Authorization Act prohibits Executive Branch agencies from withholding information regarding nonproliferation matters, as set forth in section 602(c) of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978, from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House International Relations Committee, including information in special access programs. I am aware that problems with the dissemination of nonproliferation information have arisen in the past. DOD has taken steps to correct these problems and has established a policy that special access programs will not include nonproliferation information, as defined in section 602(c) of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978. Based on my review of DOD's special access programs, I believe that the Department of Defense does not now have special access programs which include such nonproliferation information. I have been assured that, in the future, DOD will provide nonproliferation information to the appropriate committees of Congress.

Mr. WARNER. I am concerned that some might interpret section 1134 of the State Department Authorization Act as requiring expanded access to sensitive DOD intelligence sources and methods, as contrasted with nonproliferation information itself. I believe that section 1134 would not require DOD to change its current procedures for protecting such sensitive sources and methods. Is this also the understanding of the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee?

Mr. WARNER. That is the case now, and I am pleased that DOD has assured both of us that the prerogatives of the Foreign Relations Committee will be protected. I thank my distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a very important issue that threatens to undermine the readiness of our Navy and Marine Corps units that are scheduled to deploy to the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf in February. That issue is the current situation on the Puerto Rican Island of Vieques where the Navy is being prevented by unrestrained civil disobedience from conducting training critical to its preparations for deploying into a possible combat environment. Two weeks ago, I and four of my colleagues introduced Senate Resolution 220, that would express the Sense of the Congress that the Secretary of the Navy should initiate the required training for the Eisenhower Battle Group and the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit on the island of Vieques, and that the President should not deploy these forces unless the President determines that they are free of serious deficiencies in their major warfare areas. Over the past two weeks there have been discussions between the Federal government and the Government of Puerto Rico to try and reach an accommodation that would resolve the current impasse between the Navy and the people of Vieques. Unfortunately, these discussions have not born fruit and there is no resolution in sight. The simple fact is the President needs to act to resolve this impasse. Today, the Armed Forces are at risk of reaching unacceptably low levels of preparedness. Last week we learned that two Army Divisions are not ready to execute the National Military Strategy without unacceptable risk to the personnel in those units. If the required training for the Eisenhower Battle Group and the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit is not conducted in December, in February these two units will be unable to deploy without serious deficiencies in their warfighting capabilities. We cannot allow this degradation in the readiness of our Armed Forces to occur if we intend to maintain our position as a world leader, and honor our commitment to our military personnel to reduce the risk they incur when they sail into harm's way. As Vice Admiral Murphy, Commander of the Sixth Fleet of the Navy, recently testified before the Armed Services Committee, the loss of training on Vieques would ``cost American lives.'' Over the past several weeks, the Armed Services Committee has held a series of hearings on the important issue of Vieques. Over the course of these hearings, I have become increasingly convinced that it would be irresponsible to deploy our naval forces without the training that takes place at the Vieques facilities. On Tuesday, September 22, 1999, the Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee, under the leadership of Senator Inhofe, held a hearing to review the need for Vieques as a training facility and explore alternative sites that might be utilized. At that hearing both Admiral Fallon, commander of the Navy's Second Fleet, and General Pace, commander of all Marine Forces in the Atlantic, testified that the Armed Forces of the United States need Vieques as a training ground to prepare our young men and women for the challenges of deployed military operations. On October 13th, the Seapower Subcommittee, under the leadership of Senator Snowe, heard from Admiral Murphy, commander of the Navy's Sixth Fleet and the commander who receives the naval forces trained at Vieques, who stated that a loss of Vieques would ``cost American lives.'' Earlier this month, after the release of the report prepared by the Special Panel on Military Operations on Vieques, the so-called Rush Panel, I held a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee to discuss with Administration and Puerto Rican officials the recommendations of that report, and to search for a compromise solution that addresses the national security requirements and the interests of the people of Vieques. In outlining the need for Vieques at that hearing, Secretary Danzig, the Secretary of the Navy, stated that only by providing the necessary training can we fairly ask our service members to put their lives at risk. Admiral Johnson, Chief of Naval Operations, stated that the Eisenhower Battle Group would not be able to deploy in February without a significant increase in the risk to the lives of the men and women of that battle group unless they are allowed to conduct required training on Vieques. Finally, General Jones, Commandant of the Marine Corps, testified that the loss of training provided on Vieques ``will result in degraded cohesion on the part of our battalions and our squadrons and our crews, decreased confidence in their ability to do their very dangerous jobs and missions, a decreased level of competence and the ability to fight and win on the battlefield.'' At that hearing, I asked Admiral Johnson and General Jones ``Is there any training that can be substituted for Vieques live fire training between now and February that will constitute, in your professional judgment, a sufficient level of training to enable you to say to the Chairman of the Joint chiefs of Staff, the Eisenhower Battle Group and the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit are ready to go.'' In response they stated ``no, sir, not without--not without greatly increasing the risk to those men and women who we ask to go in harm's way, no, sir.'' I remain convinced that the training requirement is real and will continue to directly effect the readiness of our Carrier Battle Groups and Marine Expeditionary Units. As General Shelton recently testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the training on Vieques is ``critical'' to military readiness. He further stated that he ``certainly would not want to see our troops sent into an area where there was going to be combat, without having had this type of an experience. We should not deploy them under those conditions.'' All of the military officers with whom we have spoken on this issue have informed us that the loss of Vieques would increase the risk to our military personnel deploying to potential combat environments. The Rush Panel, appointed at the request of the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico and the direction of the President, recognized the need for Vieques and recommended its continued use for at least five years. What we have learned in these hearings is that Vieques is a unique training asset, both in terms of its geography with deep open water and unrestricted airspace and its training support infrastructure. The last two East coast carrier battle groups which deployed to the Adriatic and Persian Gulf completed their final integrated live fire training at Vieques. Both battle groups, led by the carriers U.S.S. Enterprise and U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt, subsequently saw combat in Operations Desert Fox (Iraq) and Allied Force (Kosovo) within days of arriving in the respective theater of operations. Their success in these operations, with no loss of American life, was largely attributable to the realistic and integrated live fire training completed at Vieques prior to their deployment. According to Article II, section 2, of the Constitution of the United States, the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces. As such, he bears the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the men and women in uniform he orders into harm's way, receive the training necessary to perform their mission with the least risk to their lives. I am encouraged that the President has tried to resolve this matter with the Governor of Puerto Rico in such a way that would allow the Navy to conduct the necessary training. However, I am disappointed that the President and the Governor have been unable to achieve such a resolution. Mr. President, as long as we are committing our nation's youth to military operations throughout the world; and as long as Vieques is necessary to train these individuals so that they can perform their missions safely and successfully; it would be unconscionable to deploy these forces without first allowing them to train at this vital facility. Mr. President, the Eisenhower Battle Group and the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit will soon deploy to the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf. In order to do so safely, they must begin preparations to conduct the necessary pre-deployment training on the island of Vieques in December. The time has come for the President to make a decision to protect our national security and the safety of our men and women in uniform. He must decide to allow the Navy and the Marine Corps to conduct this training, and to notify the Secretary of the Navy and the Governor of Puerto Rico of his decision.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a member of our Senate family who has dedicated himself for many years to serving the Senate and the Committee on Environment and Public Works--Jimmie Powell. I know that our distinguished former chairman, Senator Chafee, would not have let pass the opportunity for the Senate to recognize Jimmie Powell's years of service to the Committee and his contributions to the protection of our environment. Now, as he prepares to open a new chapter in his professional career and leave the Senate after some twenty years of service, I want to extend my appreciation and thanks to Jimmie on behalf of myself and the other Republican members of the Committee--Chairman Smith, and Senators Inhofe, Thomas, Bond, Voinovich, Crapo, Bennett, and Hutchison. The hallmark of his career has been his command of the issues, hard work and dedication to protecting public health and our environment. As the staff director for the chairman and the Republican members of the committee, I know that Senator Chafee respected Jimmie and was grateful for his counsel and the service he provided. To staff, and to some members, Jimmie was an adversary, as well as a motivator and educator. He began his Senate career with former Senator David Durenberger in 1978, serving as his staff director of the Government Affairs Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations and later as legislative director. In 1985, Jimmie began his long service as a professional staff member and staff director for the Committee on Environment and Public Works. While his service primarily focused on legislative priorities for Senator Durenberger, Chairman Stafford and Chairman Chafee, he worked tirelessly for all Republican members of the Committee. When one examines the environmental laws enacted in the past 20 years, those of us on the committee know of Jimmie's leadership and accomplishments. This lengthy list includes the Leaking Underground Storage Tank program as part of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, Superfund, the 1987 Clean Water Act with groundwater protections and nonpoint source programs, the 1986 and the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act, the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, particularly provisions on air toxics and alternative fuels, the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act and the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century. In every legislative challenge that came before the committee, Jimmie effectively worked to forge consensus, to find common ground, to develop solutions that represented the views of the members of the committee. While we may not have agreed on every issue, he is a person of great integrity. He effectively executed the views of the Senators he served. A Senator could ask for no more. He was tough, but fair. All of us owe Jimmie Powell a debt of gratitude for the many years he has served the Senate and this country. We wish him every success and thank him for a job well done.

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering legislation reported from the Committee on Environment and Public Works to make technical corrections to the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. In July, 1999, the conference report on the Water Resources Development Act was enacted. The press of the conference business to reach final agreement prior to the August recess led to inaccurate cite references and omissions that need to be corrected. This legislation and the accompanying amendment simply address technical modifications that have been brought to our attention by the Corps of Engineers. There are no new project authorizations, policy changes, or funding issues contained in this legislation. As the Committee, by practice, has reauthorized the civil works mission of the Corps of Engineers every two years, the 1999 authorization bill is a produce initiated by the Committee in 1998. it is expected that, again next year, the Committee will examine the civil works mission of the Corps with all of the associated policy issues. I respectfully request that my colleagues support this legislation and the amendment so that WRDA 1999 can be fully implemented.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this is a historic day for America, for the Senate, for the citizens of Rhode Island, and for the family of the late Senator John Chafee. I ask unanimous consent now--and I am joined in this unanimous-consent request by Senator Lincoln Chafee, who was just sworn in as United States Senator for the State of Rhode Island-- that remarks given at his funeral by Senator Chafee's son, Zechariah Chafee, entitled ``The Service of Thanksgiving for the Life of John Chafee,'' October 30, 1999, be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to read the first paragraph of the statement given by Zechariah Chafee: What a man. What a life. Come with me. Let us look at how he lived and what he was made of. John Chafee said at times that the great shapers of his life were his parents, the Boy Scouts, his wrestling, the United States Marine Corps, the United States Senate and, above all, his own family. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services, I report favorably nomination lists which were printed in the Records on 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, today, as we gather together to witness Lincoln Chafee take the oath of office to serve as the Senator from Rhode Island, I am reminded of my conversation last week with Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater. We shared fond memories of our friend and spoke of his many contributions to transportation safety. Secretary Slater worked closely with Chairman Chafee on transportation issues that came before the Committee on Environment and Public Works. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the remarks made last week by Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater on the passing of our colleagues, Senator John Chafee.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. The Senator from Virginia understands the parliamentary situation is I can offer a resolution, a sense of the Senate, in morning business.

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

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Warner pertaining to the introduction of S. Res. 211 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, a letter from the President of the United States to this Senator.