John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. This is the correct interpretation of Section 3261. Retaining Secretarial authorities over environmental compliance is an essential element of Title XXXII.

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

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senate worked well into the evening last night, and we had about an hour and a half of deliberations regarding this bill. We are prepared this morning, the distinguished ranking member and myself, to conclude that debate. Once again, I pay my heartfelt tribute to my distinguished ranking member and the staff of the committee for a job well done. We have produced a work product in which I believe this institution can take great pride. Mr. President, the Senate is a constant learning experience, and although I have been privileged to have represented the Commonwealth of Virginia for some 21 years in the Senate, I experienced last night an event which I shall always remember. We had concluded our debate, and I was proceeding to do the wrapup on behalf of the majority leader, and when the Senate concluded its work, I was suddenly surrounded by the pages, shaking hands, and expressing their great appreciation. It then took me a minute to realize that we had concluded debate beyond the hour of 9 p.m., thereby foreclosing any requirement that they perform their homework. That was a tribute that I shall long remember. The other experience last night was my distinguished good friend and ranking member, the senior Senator from Michigan, announcing that he would support this bill. I recognize it has been a serious struggle for him and others occasioned by the amendment on the bill regarding the reorganization of the Department of Energy. I feel very strongly that the Senate did its duty on behalf of the country and put on that bill legislation in the course of the conference that is badly needed to reorganize that Department. I am confident the current Secretary has the ability within this statute to lead that Department, restructuring it in a manner that it can continue to serve the United States and at the same time protect the vital security matters that come before that Department. The bill before us now marks a necessary turning point in reversing the dangerous trends that we have witnessed in our military after 15 years of declining defense spending. While the world has changed in many ways since the end of the cold war, what has not changed is that America's Armed Forces are bearing our commitments as they have always done. There are, however, limits to that commitment by the men and women who proudly serve in uniform. Our forces are clearly overstressed in commitments throughout the world, the most recent being East Timor, where there was clear justification for U.S. participation. Over the past decade, our military manpower has been reduced by one- third, from 2.2 million to 1.4 million, and during this same period our troops have been involved in 50 military operations worldwide. As the force levels have been brought down, as the defense spending in that same period was brought down, up went the number of times that President Clinton and, indeed, President Bush sent our troops beyond our shores--50 times. Compare that period of 10 years to the end of the Vietnam war, in 1975, when we had a bipolar world--the Soviet Union and the United States. In that period from 1975 until roughly 1990, a 15- year period, U.S. military forces were engaged in only 20 deployments beyond our shores. Therein is the reason why our committee, with the strong support of the leadership--certainly Senator Lott initiated the correspondence that began to bring to the attention of the President, and indeed this body, the need for increased defense spending. Eventually the President did recognize that need and indicated a willingness to increase that spending. Our committee, I am very proud to say, even went beyond the President's number for defense spending. We did so with the very able help and assistance of the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. On two occasions they came before our committee and clearly told us their own personal views regarding the need for additional pay for the men and women in the Armed Forces, additional money for research and development and procurement, and, indeed, it was their testimony that laid the solid foundation on which we come before the Senate today, proudly, with a bill, for the first time in 15 years, increasing defense spending. I yield the floor at this time to my distinguished colleague.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of the distinguished majority leader, I object to further proceedings on the bill at this time.

Mr. WARNER. I understand there is a bill at the desk due for its second reading.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. For the indefinite future, we are asking them to endure this hostile fire. And from time to time they have to drop live ordnance to protect themselves in fulfillment of this containment mission over Iraq.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.

Mr. WARNER. Correct.

Mr. WARNER. I presume you include in your remarks direct reference to the Navy and Marine Corps aviators who flew missions in Kosovo, who are flying tonight and tomorrow and for the indefinite future missions with regard to the containment of Iraq, in many instances in hostile fire. Tonight, tomorrow, and the next day----

Mr. WARNER. I am sure you mentioned that across the board the uniformed side of the Department of Defense stands foursquare with the comments that you have made today. I have had consultations, as you have had, with the Chief of Naval Operations, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Shelton, the Chairman, and others, on this issue. This is an issue that I have had considerable familiarity with for many years--when I was the Under Secretary and Secretary of the Navy in 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, and 1972. We had recurring problems of this nature down at Vieques. We constantly worked with the political structure at that time to resolve the problems. But I think you are absolutely correct. At the moment, we have to regain control of this range for training purposes. I hope the commission--the several officers looking at this--will come forward with a program that will indicate to the Puerto Ricans we want not to be offensive to the people of Puerto Rico but to indicate the need for this area and, hopefully, to have some program by which we can meet the desires of all parties to work it out in some way. At this moment, I am not prepared to indicate what the workout should be. I want to study the report of this commission. The Senator from Oklahoma and I should have private consultation with the Secretary of Defense and others. But let's see what we can do to meet the requirements of all parties involved but focusing on the essential nature of this range to America's readiness of its Naval and Marine Corps forces and embarking periodically to trouble spots in the world from the East Coast. I thank the Senator.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator. I had the opportunity last night to be with the President--Senator Domenici and I--with regard to the debate that we will have tonight on the conference report of the authorization bills of the Senate and the House, and I brought this subject up. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the colloquy with the Senator from Oklahoma my letter to the President, which I discussed with him last night on the VA issue, be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I agree that we will look at the policy issues involved. At the moment, we need to have a record before the Senate on the absolutely vital nature of this range to the very safety of individual service persons, primarily those flying aircraft, but in every respect those in the Marine Corps doing amphibious work. Mr. President, we cannot send, as the Senator from Oklahoma said, these individuals into harm's way without adequate training. We are doing that with the next battle group, as you pointed out. So I think we should advise the Senate of the hearing tomorrow, the importance of that, the subsequent hearing, maybe at the subcommittee level, depending on further readiness aspects, and then the full committee on a policy issue.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction over this issue, for spending the time on a careful analysis of this very important problem. We will have the hearing tomorrow. We consulted on this, and I am hopeful that he will consider a follow-on hearing, because as I look over tomorrow's agenda, given the time we have, it is my view that we will need a subsequent hearing on this.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if the Senator will allow me to make clear for the Record, while I addressed the President about the importance of the bill as a courtesy to him, I never tried to elicit that response. But I certainly left that meeting with the impression, No. 1, that the President has given a lot of study to the issues that my distinguished good friend and colleague, Senator Levin, has raised tonight. He is carefully briefed on it. His questions were very precise on it. Senator Domenici and I provided responses which I hope were quite informative to the President. But I in no way wish to indicate that he likewise indicated what he would do. I certainly have the impression from that meeting and from everything else I gained that there is not as much fervor down at the White House for a veto, and I am confident that Secretary Cohen likewise contributed his views to the President on this. I am confident he urged the President to sign. He is the principal Cabinet officer involved. With regard to Secretary Richardson, he has always been, I think, well received by the Members up here who have listened to his overtures on this question. I spoke with him about 10 days ago in my office. I told him at that time precisely what the Senator from Michigan just said--that I thought, to the extent there are ambiguities, together with valuable legal counsel--and I also mentioned this to the President last night--I am confident he can run this Department. If he has the desire and the commitment to do so, he can operate this Department. The Constitution provides for separate branches of Government. The President has the administration of the executive branch. He delegates certain responsibilities to his Cabinet officers. It was not the intention of the Congress to take away from the President's authority. I am very pleased, if I may say to the President and to the Senator from Michigan, that I learned tonight the Senator from Michigan will vote in favor of this bill. I was terribly concerned that at the time he couldn't sign the conference report. But he, too, has fought the good battle in terms of his views about this reauthorization. I take those to heart. Let us look at this in a positive light--that this Secretary will take the reins and look at this statute. It challenges him to run a strong Department. It is my expectation that he will do it and that in a period of reasonable time he will have proven not only to his Department but to all of us in the executive branch and the legislative branch that this can be done. Thank you, Mr. President, and my colleague, because I value our work and relationship. We came to the Senate together 21 years ago. We have been through many struggles. And for the foreseeable future we have certainly another year to work together to devise a bill.

Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the distinguished majority leader has laid before the Senate the DOD authorization bill, and I inquire of the Chair if that is the pending business.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am prepared to stay here for the remainder of the evening. This is a very important subject. I am joined by the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Levin. However, I observed our distinguished colleague from New Mexico in the Chamber. It was my understanding he desired to lead off the comments on this bill tonight since the bill incorporates a very important provision which was sponsored by Senator Domenici, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Kyl. Seeing Senator Domenici I yield the floor to him.

Mr. WARNER. You opened by saying that this was a way to have the Senate address this important subject. Of course, the Senator is aware that the Armed Services Committee oversees about 70 percent of the budget of the Department of Energy, so this is a very logical piece of legislation on which to put the important provision. And, of course, you and I worked together on it.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have had the real privilege of working with Senator Domenici on this particular amendment from its inception. Together with Senators Murkowski and Kyl, we crafted this very carefully. The original concept was adopted by the Senate in the consideration of the intelligence bill. We then incorporated it in our bill, and we worked it with the House. I will go into further details. Throughout, Senator Domenici has been really the leader of this effort. The Senate owes Senator Domenici a deep debt of gratitude for his perseverance on this provision. I am sure that America will recognize that service because it is in the best interests of the country. It was not motivated by politics. It was crafted carefully on the report of our distinguished colleague, Senator Rudman, who, of course, is one of the principal advisors to the President on intelligence and other matters. He was selected by the President to do this report. So we thank you, I say to the Senator. Last night, Senator Domenici took the initiative of going down to see the President. I was privileged to accompany him and join in that meeting. We were going to have a meeting for, I suppose, 20 minutes or so. The President had just arrived. He still had a little mud on his boots from visiting a flood area and was in his clothes from the trip, his casual clothes. He was preparing his address to the United Nations. But he stopped to take the time to carefully evaluate the concern of the Senator from New Mexico, and a meeting of 20 minutes lasted well over an hour on this and other subjects. But primarily he has a grasp of the issues. He asked specific questions. And the Senator from New Mexico, together with his able staff member, Alex Flint, who was also there with us, responded. The Senator from New Mexico talked to one question tonight. But I wanted to raise the second question and put it in the Record. He will recall the concern he had about the split provision and where it was. I went back, researched, and found in our record a letter dated July 29 from Jacob Lew, Director of the Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget. Mr. Lew wrote me the following: I understand that Representative Spence has proposed an amendment for the FY 2000 defense authorization bill conference concerning the creation of a National Nuclear Security Administration at the Department of Energy. The Administration strongly opposes this language because it does not provide sufficient authority to the Secretary of Energy to assure proper policy development for, and oversight of, the new organization at the Department of Energy. The language jeopardizes the creation of sound counterintelligence, intelligence, and security efforts, and environmental, safety, and health compliance activities at the new organization. If this legislation were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that it be vetoed. We carefully tried to take into consideration Mr. Lew's concerns. We drafted that provision for that specific reason. So we were trying to follow the directions of the Director of Budget. I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the Record a short letter from me to the President thanking him for the meeting last night, containing a copy of this letter and explaining just how we arrived at that provision. But I think it would be helpful for the Record if the Senator from New Mexico were to expand on the President's question and the response of the Senator.

Mr. WARNER. By previous order, the distinguished majority leader has indicated that at the hour of 9:45 tomorrow morning, this will be the pending business for the purpose of the recorded rollcall vote. Am I correct?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thought it very important and as a courtesy to the President that this be a part of the legislative history of this bill. Senator Domenici has given an excellent explanation. So this part of the Record contains all the information that is pertinent, I ask unanimous consent that my letter to the attorneys general, to which our distinguished colleague, Mr. Domenici, referred, likewise be printed in the Record so that those studying this issue will have in one place all of the pertinent material. I thank the Senator.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, again I thank Senator Domenici. The Record should reflect the valuable contributions by the staff members who worked on this amendment: Alex Flint of Senator Domenici's staff, John Roos of Senator Kyl's staff, Howard Useem of Senator Murkowski's staff, and Paul Longsworth of my staff, and the Armed Services Committee staff. Privileges Of The Floor

Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent Clint Crosier, a fellow from Senator Smith's office, be granted floor privileges during the DOD authorization debate.

Mr. WARNER. I also ask unanimous consent that staff members of the Committee on Armed Services on the list I send to the desk be extended privileges of the floor during consideration of this conference report.