John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my colleague from the great state of Connecticut Senator Dodd and I rise today to pay tribute to the Naval Submarine Force and to submit a resolution to commemorate the 100th anniversary of this outstanding institution. In the year 2000 the United States Navy Submarine Force celebrates its one hundredth anniversary. The Submarine Force began with the purchase of U.S.S. Holland on April 11, 1900. The past 100 years have witnessed the evolution of a force that mastered submersible warfare, introduced nuclear propulsion to create the true submarine, and for decades patrolled the deep ocean front line: the hottest part of an otherwise cold war. Beginning in World War I the Submarine Force began to support national interests through offensive and defensive operations in the Atlantic. Using lessons learned from German U-boat design, the US Submarine Force developed advanced diesel submarine designs during the inter-war years. In spite of a hesitant beginning due to Pearl Harbor and difficulties with defective torpedoes, the World War II submarine force destroyed 1,314 enemy ships (5.3 million tons), which translated into 55 percent of all enemy ships lost. Out of 16,000 submariners, the force lost 375 officers and 3,131 enlisted men in fifty-two submarines, the highest casualty rate of any combatant submarine service on any side in the conflict. Seven Congressional Medals of Honor were awarded to submariners during World War II for distinguished gallantry in combat.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I have no additional remarks. My colleague has handled it. Our statements are very clear. We have worked together now for these many months. We did our very best on behalf of our State for this issue.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I just attended a ceremony at the Department of Defense, at which time the President signed the authorization bill for the Armed Forces of the United States for the year 2000. I was necessarily delayed in returning to the floor. My colleague, Senator Robb, accompanied me, and he will be here momentarily. We worked together on this amendment, as we worked together on this project from the inception, a project basically to try to get National Airport and Dulles Airport into full operation. Our aim all along has been to let modernization go forward and, to the extent we can gain support in this Chamber, limit any increase in the number of flights. We do this because of our concerns regarding safety, congestion, and other factors. I say ``other factors'' because at the time the original legislation was passed whereby we defederalized these airports and allowed a measure of control by other than Federal authorities, giving the State of Virginia, the State of Maryland, and the District of Columbia a voice in these matters, it was clear that Congress should not micromanage these two airports. We went through a succession of events to achieve this objective, and we are here today hopefully to finalize this legislation--and I have already put in an amendment to allow the modernization to go forward-- and to do certain other things in connection with the board, to let the board be appointed. Now we come to the question of the increased flights, and I support the amendment by my distinguished colleague. I want to cover some history. My remarks today will focus on the unwise provisions included in this bill which tear apart the perimeter and high density rules at Reagan National Airport. These rules have been in effect--either in regulation or in statute--for nearly 30 years. Since 1986, these rules have been a critical ingredient in providing for significant capital investments and a balance in service among this region's three airports--Dulles International, Reagan National, and Baltimore-Washington International. First and foremost, I believe these existing rules have greatly benefitted the traveling public--the consumer. Mr. President, to gain a full understanding of the severe impact these increased slot changes will have on our regional airports, one must examine the recent history of these three airports. Prior to 1986, Dulles and Reagan National were federally owned and managed by the FAA. The level of service provided at these airports was deplorable. At National, consumers were routinely subject to traffic gridlock, insufficient parking, and routine flight cancellations and delays. Dulles was an isolated, underutilized airport. For years, the debate raged within the FAA and the surrounding communities about the future of Reagan National. Should it be improved, expanded or closed? This ongoing uncertainty produced a situation where no investments were made in National and Dulles and service continued to deteriorate. A national commission, now known as the Holton Commission, was created in 1984. It was led by former Virginia Governor Linwood Holton and former Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole and charged with resolving the longstanding controversies which plagued both airports. The result was a recommendation to transfer federal ownership of the airports to a regional authority so that sorely needed capital investments to improve safety and service could be made. I was pleased to have participated in the development of the 1986 legislation to transfer operations of these airports to a regional authority. It was a fair compromise of the many issues which had stalled any improvements at both airports over the years. The regulatory high density rule was placed in the statute so that neither the FAA nor the Authority could unilaterally changes it. The previous passenger cap at Reagan National was repealed, thereby ending growth controls, in exchange for a freeze on slots. Lastly, the perimeter rule at 1,250 miles was established. For those interested in securing capital investments at both airports, the transfer of these airports under a long-term lease arrangement to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority gave MWAA the power to sell bonds to finance the long-overdue work. The Authority has sold millions of dollars in bonds which has financed the new terminal, rehabilitation of the existing terminal, a new control tower and parking facilities at Reagan National. These improvements would not have been possible without the 1986 Transfer Act which included the high density rule, and the perimeter rule. Limitations on operations at National had long been in effect through FAA regulations, but now were part of the balanced compromise in the Transfer Act. For those who feared significant increases in flight activity at National and who for years had prevented any significant investments in National, they were now willing to support major rehabilitation work at National to improve service. They were satisfied that these guarantees would ensure that Reagan National would not become another ``Dulles or BWI''. Citizens had received legislative assurances that there would be no growth at Reagan National in terms of permitted scheduled flights beyond on the 37-per-hour-limit. Today, unless the Robb amendment is adopted, we will be breaking our commitments. These critical decisions in the 1986 Transfer Act were made to fix both the aircraft activity level at Reagan National and to set its role as a short/medium haul airport. These compromises served to insulate the airport from its long history of competing efforts to increase and to decrease its use. Since the transfer, the Authority has worked to maintain the balance in service between Dulles and Reagan National. The limited growth principle for Reagan National has been executed by the Authority in all of its planning assumptions and the Master Plan. While we have all witnessed the transformation of National into a quality airport today, these improvements in terminals, the control tower and parking facilities were all determined to meet the needs of this airport for the foreseeable future based on the continuation of the high density and perimeter rules. These improvements, however, have purposely not included an increase in the number of gates for aircraft or aircraft capacity. Prior to the 1986 Transfer Act, while National was mired in controversy and poor service, Dulles was identified as the region's growth airport. Under FAA rules and the Department of Transportation's 1981 Metropolitan Washington Airports Policy, it was recognized that Dulles had the capacity for growth and a suitable environment to accommodate this growth. Following enactment of the Transfer Act, plans, capital investments and bonding decisions made by the Authority all factored in the High Density and Perimeter rules. Mr. President, I provide this history on the issues which stalled improvements at the region's airports in the 1970s and 1980s because it is important to understanding how these airports have operated so effectively over the past 13 years. Every one of us should ask ourselves if the 1986 Transfer Act has met our expectations. For me, the answer is a resounding yes. Long-overdue capital investments have been made in Reagan National and Dulles. The surrounding communities have been given an important voice in the management of these airports. We have seen unprecedented stability in the growth of both airports. Most importantly, the consumer has benefited by enhanced service at Reagan National. For these reasons, I have opposed an increase in slots at Reagan National. There is no justification for an increase of this size. It is not recommended by the administration, by the airline industry, by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority or by the consumer. The capital improvements made at Reagan National since the 1986 Transfer Act have not expanded the 44 gates or expanded airfield capacity. All of the improvements that have been made have been on the land side of the airport. No improvements have been made to accommodate increased aircraft capacity. Expanding flights at Reagan National will simply ``turn back the clock'' at National to the days of traffic gridlock, overcrowded terminal activity and flight delays--all to the detriment of the traveling public. This ill-advised scheme is sure to return Reagan National to an airport plagued by delays and inconvenience. This proposal threatens to overwhelm the new facilities, just as the previous facilities were overwhelmed. Mr. President, it is completely inappropriate for Congress to act as ``airport managers'' to legislate new flights. Those decisions should be made by the local airport authority with direct participation by the public in an open process. Today, we will be preventing local decisionmaking. I know that my colleagues readily cite a recent GAO report that indicates that new flights at Reagan National can be accommodated. This report, however, plainly includes an important disclaimer. That disclaimer states: This study did not evaluate the potential congestion and noise that could result from an increase in operations at Reagan National. Ultimately, . . . the Congress must balance the benefits that additional flights may bring to the traveling public against the local community's concerns about the effect of those flights on noise, the environment, and the area's other major airports. Surely, we cannot make this important decision in a vacuum. Determining how many flights serve Reagan National simply by measuring how quickly we can clear runway space is not sound policy. For these reasons I urge the adoption of the Robb amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will offer an 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. Congress enacted legislation in 1986 to transfer ownership of Reagan National and Dulles Airports to a regional authority which included a provision to create a Congressional Board of Review. Immediately upon passage of the 1986 Transfer Act, local community groups filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the board of review. The Supreme Court upheld the lawsuit and concurred that the Congressional Board of Review as structured as unconstitutional because it gave Members of Congress veto authority over the airport decisions. The Court ruled that the functions of the board of review was a violation of the separation of powers doctrine. During the 1991 House-Senate conference on the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), I offered an amendment, which was adopted, to attempt to revise the Board of Review to meet the constitutional requirements. Those provisions were also challenged and again were ruled unconstitutional. In 1996, in another attempt to address the situation, the Congress enacted legislation to repeal the Board of Review since it no longer served any function due to several federal court rulings. In its place, Congress increased the number of federal appointees to the MWAA Board of Directors from 1 to 3 members. In addition to the requirement that the Senate confirm the appointees, the statute contains a punitive provision which denies all federal Airport Improvement Program entitlement grants and the imposition of any new passenger facility charges to Dulles International and Reagan National if the appointees were not confirmed by October 1, 1997. Regretfully, Mr. President, the Senate has not confirmed the three Federal appointees. Since October 1997, Dulles International and Reagan National, and its customers, have been waiting for the Senate to take action. Finally in 1998, the Senate Commerce Committee favorably reported the three pending nominations to the Senate for consideration, but unfortunately no further action occurred before the end of the session because these nominees were held hostage for other unrelated issues. Many speculate that these nominees have not been confirmed because of the ongoing delay in enacting a long-term FAA reauthorization bill. At the beginning of the 105th Congress in January 1997, Commerce Committee held hearings and approved the three nominees for floor consideration. Unfortunately, a hold was placed on them on the Senate floor at the very end of the Congress. All three nominees were renominated by the President in January 1999. Nothing has happened since. Mr. President, I am not here today to join in that speculation. I do want, however, to call to the attention of my colleagues the severe financial, safety and consumer service constraints this inaction is having on both Dulles and Reagan National. As the current law forbids the FAA from approving any AIP entitlement grants for construction at the two airports and from approving any Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) applications, these airports have been denied access to over $146 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 over two years. These critically needed funds have halted important construction projects at both airports. Of the over $146 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. Also, I must say that I can find no justification for the Senate's delay in considering the qualifications of these nominees to serve on the MWAA Board. To my knowledge, no one has raised concerns about the qualifications of the nominees. We are neglecting our duties. For this reason, I am introducing an amendment today to repeal the punitive prohibition on releasing Federal funds to the airports until the Federal nominees have been confirmed. Airports are increasingly competitive. Those that cannot keep up with the growing demand see the services go to other airports. This is particularly true with respect to international services, and low-fare services, both of which are essential. As a result of the Senate's inaction, I provide for my colleagues a list of the several major projects that are virtually on hold since October, 1997. They are as follows: At Dulles International there are four major projects necessary for the airport to maintain the tremendous growth that is occurring there. Main terminal gate concourse: It is necessary to replace the current temporary buildings attached to the main terminal with a suitable facility. This terminal addition will include passenger hold rooms and airline support space. The total cost of this project is $15.4 million, with $11.2 million funded by PFCs. Passenger access to main terminal: As the Authority continues to keep pace with the increased demand for parking and access to the main terminal, PFCs are necessary to build a connector between a new automobile parking facility and the terminal. The total cost of this project is $45.5 million, with $29.4 million funded by PFCs. Improved passenger access between concourse B and main terminal: With the construction of a pedestrian tunnel complex between the main terminal and the B concourse, the Authority will be able to continue to meet passenger demand for access to this facility. Once this project is complete, access to concourse B will be exclusively by moving sidewalk, and mobile lounge service to this facility will be unnecessary. The total cost of this project is $51.1 million, with $46.8 million funded by PFCs. Increased baggage handling capacity: With increased passenger levels come increase demands for handling baggage. PFC funding is necessary to construct a new baggage handling area for inbound and outbound passengers. The total cost of this project is $38.7 million, with $31.4 million funded by PFCs. At Reagan National there are two major projects that are dependent on the Authority's ability to implement passenger facility charges (PFCs). Historic main terminal rehabilitation: Even though the new terminal at Reagan National was opened last year, the entire Capital Development Program will not be complete until the historic main terminal is rehabilitated for airline use. This project includes the construction of nine air carrier gates, renovation of historic portions of the main terminal for continued passenger use and demolition of space that is no longer functional. The total cost of this project is $94.2 million with $20.7 million to be paid for by AIP entitlement grants and $36.2 million to be funded with PFCs. Additional airfield work to accompany this project will cost $12.2 million, with $5.2 million funded by PFCs. Terminal connector expansion: In order to accommodate the increased passengers moving between Terminals B and C (the new terminal) and Terminal A, it is necessary to expand the ``Connector'' between the two buildings. The total cost of the project is $4.8 million, with $4.3 million funded by PFCs. Mr. President, my amendment is aimed at ensuring that necessary safety and service improvements proceed at Reagan National and Dulles. Let's give them the ability to address consumer needs just like every other airport does on a daily basis. 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. Under the current situation these funds have been held up. It is over $146 million, which is more or less held in escrow, pending the confirmation by the Senate of the United States of three individuals to this board. For reasons known to this body, that confirmation has been held up. The confirmation may remain held up. But this amendment will let the moneys flow to the airports for this needed construction for safety and convenience. It is my desire that at a later date, we can achieve the confirmation of these three new members to the board.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, with my distinguished leader and Senator Helms, we met today for the better part of an hour--and through Senator Levin. As my colleague knows, he is absent for reasons of a personal need today. We have carefully laid the foundation for a very thorough hearing by the Armed Services Committee. Our committee has supervision over the stockpile, and really the stockpile is a central body of fact which I urge each Senator to study very carefully. What we have proposed to do on Tuesday of next week is to have the experts from the Central Intelligence Agency, from the various laboratories, in closed hearing to lay out the facts with regard to this stockpile. The following Wednesday, we are going to invite the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and former Secretaries of Defense and former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs, and Senator Levin, of course, will have his selection of witnesses. The following day, on Thursday, we again, with the directors of the laboratories and others, will cover more details about the stockpile issue and the efforts by this country to put in place testing to be a substitute--that is, computer analysis, and so forth, as a substitute for actual testing. Our committee will have a very thorough set of hearings. We will distill the facts, provide them for the record, and bring them to the respective leaders, and hopefully perhaps the Senate, as a whole, can consider parts or all of this important testimony.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say most respectfully to my good friend, the minority leader, each year the Armed Services Committee reviews the stockpile issues. Each year we go through our normal oversight hearings. A part of it relates to the very issues that we will again bring to the Senate by virtue of the hearings in our committee and the record that we will put together. So I must say, most respectfully, our committee annually looks at these issues. So for members of our committee, and to the extent others have been interested, in fact, the record is there.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my concern, as you have said, is a decade hence. Will there be some leader in the world or, indeed, some rogue or some other individual who wants to challenge our country who will have any basis to believe we have less than 100-percent reliability in that arsenal of weapons we will have in a decade or 15 years out? That is the critical period of time. I say to my good friend, Senator Daschle, everyone knows my very strong opposition to this treaty. Frequently, colleagues on both sides of the aisle engage me in informal debate of what it is about the treaty, what it is about the facts that lead me to this conclusion. So, yes, perhaps we could have been more formalized at some point in time. But I think it is important that we focus on it at this critical time, and that we are going to have very thorough hearings in our committee. I have looked over the hearings of the Foreign Relations Committee over the year and they, indeed, covered many of the subjects relating to this treaty in that period of time.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. First, I wish to commend our colleague for the very forthright way in which he has, for some period of time, expressed his strong views, the need for this treaty to be considered by the Senate. I strongly support the request of the majority leader, and I share with you the hope that our leadership can work this out and we can move expeditiously. I assure my colleague, I have just had the opportunity to speak with my distinguished ranking member, Senator Levin. The Armed Services Committee will promptly conduct hearings regarding that area for which we have oversight responsibility. The point I wish to make to my colleague is, it is going to require the most careful consideration by all Senators to reach this vote. Much of the relative material that convinces this Senator to oppose the treaty simply cannot be disclosed in open. I am going to urge our colleagues, and I am sure with the assistance of our leadership, we can provide more than one opportunity for each Senator to learn the full range of facts regarding this treaty and its implications for this Nation. Yes, I want to see America lead, but I want to make certain that leadership role that exists today can exist a decade hence, 15 years, 20 years hence. That is the absolute heart of this debate: What steps do we take now to ensure that our country can maintain its position of world leadership in the decades to come? We shall develop the facts, those of us who are most respectful of your viewpoint, as I am sure you are of mine. It will be a historic vote for this Chamber. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, may I address the distinguished majority leader who has been very helpful to the interests of my State given that National Airport and Dulles Airport are undergoing extensive modernization. In the present form of the bill that the leader has designated, is that issue taken care of? If not, is the opportunity open for the Senator from Virginia and others to address that issue?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished leader. Likewise, the issue of the number of slots has been a moving target. May I inquire as to the current specification in the bill and whether or not that could be changed by the proponents of the bill under this UC between now and the date it is brought up?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our leader for the assistance he has given throughout the years to the Commonwealth of Virginia and other interested parties with regard to these two airports.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, last week the Senate Appropriations Committee completed action on the appropriations bill for a number of Federal agencies including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I commend Senator Bond and Senator Stevens for their efforts to support the full request for NASA in the midst of extreme budget pressures. The NASA funding in the Senate bill will face a stiff challenge in the conference with the House, however. I want to take this occasion to reflect on the importance of investment in research and development in the NASA budget to civilian and military aeronautics. The aerospace industry in the United States has undergone a dramatic transition in the last ten years. In 1986, 70 percent of the sales of this industry were to the government, primarily for the defense market. Less than 30 percent of the business base of the industry consisted of commercial products. At that time, Federal research and development supporting aerospace technology was largely funded by the Defense Department. Today, the situation has reversed. The defense portion of U.S. aerospace business is at 29 percent, and the defense share continues to shrink. Although Federal funding for military-unique hardware will always be needed in the interests of national security, non-defense research from agencies such as NASA is growing in importance to the industry. Nearly 70 percent of aerospace sales are in the commercial arena, and 41 percent of aerospace production in this country is for export. As we grow increasingly concerned about monthly trade balance figures, the importance of these aerospace exports for our national economy grows. The aerospace industry was responsible for $59 billion in exports and $22 billion in imports in 1997. This resulted in a positive trade balance of $37 billion--the single biggest trade balance of any sector in the entire American economy. In 1998, our exports grew to $64 billion in equipment with total imports of $23 billion. The industry trade surplus of $41 billion has widened the gap between the aerospace industry and all other sectors. Make no mistake; we are competing in an aggressive global marketplace. Technological leadership is absolutely essential if the U.S. aerospace industry is to continue successfully competing in an increasingly complex and sophisticated world economy. Some long-term trends for the health of the aerospace industry are troubling, however. There has been a dramatic reduction in Federal aerospace R&D funding. During the Carter administration, we invested 18 percent of our R&D funding in the U.S. aerospace community. That amount increased to 21 percent during the Reagan years. Today, it is only 8 percent and declining. The reductions have been even more severe in certain specific areas. The aeronautics budget in NASA has declined from $920 million in fiscal year 1998 to $620 million in the request for fiscal year 2000, a reduction of almost a third over just three years! Reducing research and development funding for this vital industry runs counter to all of our historical economic experience. We are experiencing a time of tremendous economic expansion in our country, but we seem to have forgotten the tremendous role R&D plays in sustaining this growth. Alan Greenspan recently testified that rapid technological change has made a significant contribution and is a major force in this expansion. We cannot, and as long as I am a Member of the United States Senate, we will not forget this! In 1804, the venerable president from Virginia, Thomas Jefferson, with the full support of Congress, set in motion the first official exploration of our new frontier. He boldly sanctioned the Lewis & Clark expedition not only to map the new territories of the United States, but also to satisfy an American passion for discovery--the same passion that has led our country to be the leader among nations. That first step paved the way for today's exploration of the solar system, the continued exploration of communication technologies, and the future exploration of the planet Mars. The very year the United States landed a man on the moon, the Department of Defense had begun to work on a new technological concept that is now coming into its own. I speak of the Internet that is transforming the structure of our economic life. The technological wonders that support our national security and fuel our economic growth were not invented overnight. We must be prepared to weather the slow and often tedious process of design and development of products and systems necessary to bring them to maturity. It is no different in aeronautics. I am concerned that without a national strategy for aeronautics R&D investment, we will gradually lose the technological edge of which we are so proud and which is key to our competitiveness in the global economy and our security as a nation. We should not delude ourselves; America will lose its preeminence in aeronautics unless we adequately fund aeronautics research at NASA. For instance, the Appropriations Committee in the House recently cut the NASA budget so severely that it will cause a major employment problem and will devastate advanced technology programs so carefully planned for implementation. The House reduced NASA numbers by $1 billion in order to pay for more housing and veteran programs. I appreciate the position facing the Appropriators, but to halt some 30- science programs in their tracks and halt vital research in the aeronautics area is nothing short of foolhardy. I applaud the recent action of the Senate Appropriation's Subcommittee in reversing this House action and urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to insure the Senate position prevails in the coming conference. Programs such as those at NASA cannot be turned off and on like a light switch. It takes time to realize the fruits of our labors. We must not so cavalierly cancel programs and efforts just as they are beginning. A reduction of the magnitude proposed by the House will devastate both research in astronautics and aeronautics in this country. In my travels through Virginia over the recess, I was made aware of the real effect of reductions in the NASA aeronautics R&D budget proposed by the House of Representatives. I visited the NASA facility in Langley, Virginia that leads the nation in aeronautical research and aviation safety technology. It has led this nation in aeronautical breakthroughs from the development of the super critical wing used on many commercial aircraft flying today, to the development of a new collision-avoidance aircraft system for the FAA. This is the center that gave us the magnificent leaders of our Manned Space Program like Dr. Bob Gilruth, Dr. Chris Kraft, Dr. Max Faget, and many others who left Langley to lead our Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs. NASA Langley has exemplified a passion for excellence from its earliest days when it conducted research to produce safe, more efficient and technically superior aircraft for both the military and commercial markets. Given that 70 percent of NASA Langley programs are funded through the NASA aeronautics budget, the future of this national resource is in doubt unless Congress and the Administration can find ways to reverse the severe reductions to this part of our national R&D effort. This nation's leadership in aerospace is not an accident of history, Mr. President. It was made possible by dedicated leaders who looked beyond the present and dreamed of the future that could be. People like those at Langley and throughout NASA. We must not forsake this global leadership in aeronautics technology. We must work together to balance critical priorities and provide the leadership, sacrifice, and enduring commitment to technology, research, and most of all learning. We must continue to fund a robust R&D program through these agencies. Let me close, Mr. President, with a final thought. As Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, I am keenly aware of the challenges our military forces face as they attempt to maintain our security in the face of ever declining resources. Part of the strategy of our leadership at the Department of Defense is to save resources by buying commercial aerospace products wherever possible. This dependence on the commercial marketplace is increasing dramatically. Because of this there is an increasing security dimension to the R&D we accomplish at NASA. This is yet another reason to insure that the effort is funded properly. Mr. President, my concern is as follows. This very important appropriations bill which I will support contains the basic funding for NASA. My concern is that within the NASA budget there is a growing decline and emphasis on research and development funds for aerospace. I say marshal the aerospace industry as it relates to civil aircraft and military aircraft. Frankly, the rush to get to space, the rush to develop the space station--I must say components of that are being made in my State--concern me greatly as I see the following. Some long-term trends for the health of the aerospace industry are troubling. There has been a dramatic reduction in Federal aerospace R&D funding. During the Carter administration, we invested 18 percent of our R&D funding in the U.S. aerospace community. That amount increased to 21 percent during the years under President Ronald Reagan. Today, that category of R&D is only 8 percent and continuing to decline. The funds are being siphoned off into the space program. This Chamber will be in recess probably in several hours. Seventy- plus percent of my colleagues are going to depend on civil aviation to transport themselves back to their home districts and their States for continuation of the business in the Senate. I am among them. I visited Langley Research Center just a short time ago. There I saw a test bed of a program which the technicians told me--these are not politicians, these are trained technicians--Senator, if we can continue our funding, we are going to come up with the software and the hardware which, hopefully, can reduce by over 50 percent the accidents that planes experience every day in either the landing or the take-off phases. Therein is the high risk in aviation. That same research and development can be applied to our military aircraft. It is common to both aircraft. It is a very small amount of money. Fortunately, I received the assurance from the NASA Administrator when he visited my office a few days ago that the program will stay intact. I cited other programs in here, such as noise reduction. More and more the airports are growing around the highly populated areas, and noise becomes a problem. At National Airport it is a very significant problem. Again, a relatively small amount of money can make a difference in years to come--a small amount in comparison to the enormous sums of money going towards the space station and other related infrastructure. We will get to space someday. But in the meantime, we cannot turn our backs on civil aviation. Our exports on civil aviation products--largely airplanes--is one of the biggest, positive factors in our ever-declining balance of trade. It is a major offset. I am pleased to join my distinguished colleague in offering this amendment. It has been my intention, frankly, to go for a cut--a specific cut. But I have been in consultation with the distinguished Senator from Maryland, the distinguished Senator from Missouri, the chairman of the subcommittee, and the chairman of the committee, Mr. Stevens. First, they made a heroic effort to get more money back into these accounts. They are being watchful of the same problems that concern me. So I decided to withdraw my amendment which would have gone to specific cuts to fund what I believe would be an adequate amount. I am now going to join my distinguished colleague, Mr. Robb, in another approach on this. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. Senator Robb and I have joined on an amendment. The Senator will introduce the amendment. I would like to address it. I think to show courtesy it is first on Senator Robb's watch, and then I will follow.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the exceptionally distinguished service of Ms. Linda Coleman, who is leaving Federal Service on September 30, 1999, after 30 years. She has been the mainstay within the Office of the Chief of Legislative Liaison, United States Army for the past 20 years. It is a privilege for me to recognize the many outstanding achievements she has provided the Congress, the United States Army and our great Nation. Linda Coleman has worked for every Member of the Congress as the Secretary of the Army's legislative liaison within the Army's House Liaison Division, Congressional Inquiry Division, and Programs Division. Initiative, caring service, and professionalism are the terms used to describe Linda Coleman. She has been instrumental in providing information and explaining the diverse programs within the United States Army. Ms. Coleman is an expert in coordinating the interface between the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Army and Members of Congress. She is an expert at cutting through the red tape of the bureaucracy without losing sight of the fact that taking care of the soldier is the ultimate goal. I have never known of an instance in which Ms. Coleman would back away from doing the right thing for the Army, the soldier or family members, or the Congress she served. Ms. Coleman has earned a reputation on Capitol Hill as someone who could be relied upon to respond to inquires in a responsive, professional manner. She expanded the Army's understanding of Congress and the Army's role in the legislative process through continuous interaction with Members of Congress and the Army's leadership. Ms. Coleman established procedures to assist in informing and explaining the Army to Congress. Ms. Coleman prepared the Army's senior leaders for all of their meetings with Members of Congress. For each meeting, she prepared the Army senior leader with detailed information on the issues and the interests of the Members of Congress involved in the meetings. Ms. Coleman has been the ``go to'' person in Army Legislative Liaison. When Members of Congress had a really complex issue, the legislative action officers and assistants would go to her for advice. Ms. Coleman is able to communicate effectively with both military officials and Congressional staff members and has developed superb working relationships. Her professional abilities have earned her the respect and trust which served her, the Army, and Congress so well. Mr. President, Linda Coleman is a great credit to the Army and this great Nation. As she now departs after 30 years of Federal Service, I call upon my colleagues to recognize her great contribution to the Nation, and in particular, the Congress. I wish her well in her future endeavors.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services, I report favorably nomination lists which were printed in the Records indicated, at the end of the Senate proceedings, 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 ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today the Senate will immediately begin debate on the Department of Defense authorization conference report with the vote on adoption ordered to take place at approximately 9:45 a.m. Following the vote, the Senate will begin consideration of the VA-HUD appropriations bill. It is hoped that Senators who have amendments to the bill will work with the chairman and ranking member so that they may offer those amendments in a timely fashion. Senators can expect votes throughout the day in an effort to make significant progress on this legislation. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague. This is a committee that works together as a team under our joint leadership. The House of Representatives sent a strong signal which I hope, within the next 30 minutes, will likewise be sent by the Senate. That signal went worldwide to the men and women of the Armed Forces, many of whom are serving in harm's way to defend the very flag to which we pledged our allegiance today. That vote was 375 to 45. I urge all Senators to give, likewise, support to this bill. As I close my remarks and say that this bill is for those men and women of the Armed Forces, I take note of the presence on the floor of our distinguished former chairman, Senator Thurmond. There is no braver soldier who ever served in the Senate than our distinguished chairman.

Mr. WARNER. He will, I assume, be casting one of the very first votes for this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator for her interest in helping clarify these important provisions. I agree we must continue to protect the environment, safety and health at DOE facilities.

Mr. WARNER. That is correct. Section 3261 provides: ``COMPLIANCE REQUIRED.--The Administrator [of the National Nuclear Security Administration] shall ensure that the Administration complies with all applicable environmental, safety, and health statutes and substantive requirements. PROCEDURES REQUIRED.--The Administrator shall develop procedures for meeting such requirements. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.-- Nothing in this title shall diminish the authority of the Secretary of Energy to ascertain and ensure that such compliance occurs.'' Section 3261 was included to make clear NNSA's obligation to continue to comply with environmental laws and DOE environmental orders.