John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this evening we consider the conference report to accompany S. 1059, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000. I am pleased to report for the first time in 15 years--I want to repeat that and let it sink in, 15 years--the defense budget before the Senate represents a real increase above the normal allowance we make for inflation. This is above inflation for defense spending. I rejoice in that as all members of our committee do. I am hopeful that all Members of the Senate, likewise, do. We authorize $288.8 billion in defense funding for next year, which is $8.3 billion above the President's budget request, and a 4.4-percent real increase in spending from last year. I acknowledge the roles particularly of the Members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who appeared before the Armed Services Committee on two occasions. We have a longstanding tradition in our committee that when these individuals are confirmed before our committee, we obtain from them a commitment that at any time the committee desires to receive their personal, professional, military opinion on matters, and those issues could be contrary to the policies of the administration which they proudly serve, they will be received. These individuals testified to the needs of their respective services which were over and above the dollar figures, the budget allocations set by OMB and, indeed, the administration. That gave the foundation of evidence that enabled Members, first in committee, and then before this body, in passing the bill to get the increased sums I have just referenced--$8.3 billion above the President's budget request. The President himself this year took an initiative to get additional defense spending. To the credit of our former colleague, Senator Cohen, he, likewise, was very supportive of the President and took the initiative that led to the President increasing the defense budget. However, our committee was of the opinion, again, based largely on the testimony of the Joint Chiefs, that we needed dollars above the President's figure and we obtained them. First, a quick review of the precarious international situation. Remember, much of the budget consideration started with the problems in Bosnia, the problems with reference to Kosovo. All during that timeframe, the committee was holding hearings and working on its budgets. Most recently, the crisis in East Timor. Incidentally, in consultation with the President, I indicated I supported the action of sending U.S. troops as a part of the security force under the U.S. auspices to save the people of East Timor. But I mention this is a very troubled world. It is a far different one than when I first came to the Senate 21 years ago, when it was a bipolar world dominated by the Soviet Union, at that time, and the United States as the two superpowers. We didn't realize the degree of stability we had during that period of the two superpowers in a bipolar world, but we appreciate it in today's world where we see so many ethnic, religious, and racial tensions which have now come to the forefront and have exploded into strife in various areas of the world. Russia evolved from that sort of crisis. But it does not remain, of course, as a superpower. Many nations, therefore, and the United Nations, have turned to the United States as the sole remaining superpower to solve new types of conflicts and tensions around the world. We are called upon to be--to use a phrase which I dislike, but it is well ingrained in the media-- the world's policeman. We are not the world's policeman. Our President--in my judgment too many times, but nevertheless by and large I have supported him on most of the occasions, such as East Timor--has directed our Armed Forces beyond our shores more times than any President in the history of the United States of America. All this to say that is justification for the additional defense spending, justification for the very significant sum of money embraced in this bill. It is fascinating to pause and go back and examine just what has transpired in a very brief period of time in our history. We face and bear these new developments with a force that is overstretched around the world and operating on a shoestring. Over the past decade, our military manpower has been reduced by one-third, from 2.2 million men and women in uniform to now 1.4 million in uniform. At the same time, during that decade, those very young, magnificently trained, dedicated, committed young men and women were involved in 50 military operations worldwide. At the same time that we came down in force structure, up rose the number of occasions in which the Commander in Chief-- successively, three Commanders in Chief--have deployed them throughout the world. By comparison, let's look at another chapter of history. From the end of the war in Vietnam, 1975, until 1989, U.S. military forces were engaged in only 20 military operations. What a sharp contrast, and it is reflected by the ever-increasing threat from weapons of mass destruction; that is, weapons composed of fissile material, biological material, and chemical materials. All of the ethnic and religious and racial tensions that are breaking out all over the world--that is the reason the President has had to send for our troops to meet these crises, but troops which are diminishing overall in numbers. It is critical the funding and the authorities contained in this conference report be quickly enacted into law so we can send a very clear message--we, the Congress of the United States--send a very clear message to our troops: We are behind you. We recognize that you are stretched. We recognize the hardships on your families. We recognize the risks you are taking. And we, the Congress, have responded by increasing the defense budget, by increasing the money for your salaries, increasing the money so that your salaries can begin to move up--and I carefully say move up--towards salaries commensurate with those in the private sector. A sergeant in our military today with, say, 4 or 5 years of service and training in a specialty can command a much higher salary in the private sector. How well we know that because they are not staying. Our retention of those well-trained people is at levels below the needs of the military. That is why, sergeant, we are raising your salary. That is why, captain, major, we are raising your salary. Because we know you are at that juncture in your career where you have to make a decision for yourself--and your family, in most cases--as to whether to stay at this current salary or go into the private sector where you can get a 10, 15, 20, 30, 100 percent increase in salary. We recognize your commitment to your country, your selflessness to serve your Nation, and joined with your family, we give you this recognition in this bill of a very significant pay raise, together with certain retirement benefits which more nearly meet your long-term projected goals. This is personnel reform. I thank Senator Lott, who initiated correspondence with the President of the United States just as soon as this session of the Congress began and pointed out to the President the need for certain personnel reforms. In weeks thereafter, he was joined by other Senators--Mr. McCain, Mr. Roberts--and the committee, in every respect that we could, followed the goals those three individuals laid down in devising this pay and benefits and retirement bill. The result of this conference report is to aggressively close the gap between military and private sector wages by providing a 4.8-percent pay raise and ensuring military personnel will be compensated more equitably. We did not get it all the way up to where they can draw a line equal to the private sector, but we came a long way. The military retirement system will be reformed by providing military personnel with a choice. They will be allowed to choose to revert to the previous military retirement system or accept a $30,000 bonus and remain under the Redux system. This may not be clear to all those who are not familiar with it, but I assure you this retirement system was derived by our committee and legislated by the Senate as a whole and adopted by the conference after the closest consultation with the senior uniformed personnel, as well as all grades and ranks, to make sure we got it right this time. I am pleased to give my colleagues that assurance. We did get it right. Military members will also be given the opportunity to participate in the Federal Thrift Savings Program; again, an incentive for them to remain in the military. During the course of our review, the committee found the single most frequent reason departing service members cite is that of family separation, occasioned most often by the back-to-back deployments of the uniformed member who has family, be it a male or a female, to the various parts of the world to meet the requirements of 50 deployments in this past decade. That puts a strain on families. For us, those who have the relative enjoyment of being with our families at all times, it is hard to understand. You are given orders: In 72 hours you are going to be aboard that plane or that ship and you have to leave your family and go abroad for, most often, an indefinite period of time. Let every young wife and let every child put themselves in the place of a military family where your father, or, indeed, your mother as the case may be, comes home and says: My orders read I must leave in 72 hours and I am not sure when I will be back. That is a tough lifestyle. But these young people are accepting it. I hope as a consequence of this bill, greater numbers will elect to retain their current positions and continue to advance and serve this country in their expertise. In addition to enhancing the quality of life for military personnel, this bill focuses on providing our Armed Forces the tools they need to meet their commitments worldwide. For example, this year the bill provides for $1.5 billion increased funding above the President's request for military readiness. This includes an additional $939 million to reduce equipment and infrastructure maintenance backlogs, $179 million for ammunition, and $112 million for service training centers. The conference report also stresses the problem of aging infrastructure by fully funding $8.5 billion in military construction projects, which is $3 billion above the administration's request. Much of this additional funding is targeted for housing and other projects that will enhance the quality of life of the men and women in the Armed Forces--just really meeting the basic requirements for a standard and a quality of life that they have earned many times over. The conference report also contains additional information about the modernization and specific provisions covering modernization and research and development funding to provide the requirement capabilities for the future. We try to look out a decade. What are the likely adversaries we will have 10 years from now, and what will be their military capabilities in terms of hardware? What is it the United States needs, to begin now or to continue research and development on, so as to meet those threats 10 years out and meet and exceed the capabilities of the military equipment likely to be in the possession of our adversaries a decade hence. The F-22 is a clear example of that. Senator Stevens, with whom I was consulting earlier this evening, is doing the very best he can to restructure, with the House of Representatives, that program so we can continue to develop that vital aircraft. I say vital because this Nation has adopted so many, if not all, of its military plans for combating an enemy on the concept of air superiority. We have had air superiority since the Korean war, in which I played a very modest role as a communications officer in the First Marine Air Wing. That was the last war--in Korea--in which we lost airmen as a consequence of aerial combat. Our distinguished colleague, Senator Glenn, who retired last year, was very much involved in that. That is the last time we experienced a threat in air-to-air combat from military aircraft of any great significance. There has been an isolated case here and there. I know at one point in time several planes took off during the Kosovo operation, but they were quickly knocked down and sent back to their bases. The same thing happens in Iraq today. Periodically, Saddam Hussein sends them up. They make a U-turn and scatter back home very quickly. Again, the reason they scatter back home quickly is the reason Milosevic was unsuccessful in his aircraft: Because we have air superiority. That is in air-to- air. Where we must stay abreast in air superiority is in what we call ground-to-air missiles. That is an entirely different threat and one that, every day that goes by, other nations are getting capability to shoot from the ground into the air, at almost all the altitudes at which our aircraft operate, very dangerous missiles to knock down our aircraft. It is for that reason we have to have the F-22 and other modern aircraft which provide for our men to maintain air superiority. The bill authorizes $55.7 billion in procurement funding, $2.7 billion more than the President's request, and $36.3 billion in research and development spending, $1.9 billion more than the President's request. In considering where to add money, the conferees focused on those items contained in the service chiefs' list of critical unfunded requirements. We did not just go straying off. We said to the chiefs: We recognize the President set a budget target within which you had to do your budgeting; but in the event the coequal branch of our Government--the legislative branch, the Congress--comes along and makes a determination that more money should be added to this budget, then where, in your professional judgment, should that money be added: In the Department of the Army? The Department of the Navy? The Department of the Air Force? That is what we used as guidance in adding moneys over and above the President's request to specific programs. Our Nation is facing very real threats from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, international terrorism, information warfare, and drug trafficking. These are the dangerous threats that keep our Nation's leaders up at night and that require substantial investments to counter. To meet these challenges, the Emerging Threats Subcommittee--under the superb leadership of Senator Roberts--pursued a number of initiatives that were adopted by the conference including authorizing 17 new National Guard RAID Teams to respond to terrorist attacks in the United States; initiating better oversight of DOD's program to combat terrorism; and establishing an Information Assurance Initiative to strengthen DOD's information security program. Now let me discuss the provisions in the bill that would reorganize the national security functions of the Department of Energy. A degree of controversy has arisen over these provisions and I wish to outline for my colleagues what the conference report does and, specifically, what it does not do. The conference report includes a subtitle that would restructure the Department of Energy by consolidating all of its national security functions under a single, semi-autonomous agency within DOE, known as the National Nuclear Security Administration. This action represents the first significant reorganization of DOE in over 20 years and is in direct agreement with the June 1999 recommendation from the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, which called for the creation of ``a new semiautonomous Agency * * * whose Director will report directly to the Secretary of Energy.'' There have been countless other reports that have questioned the management structure of the Department. But by far, the President's own Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board had the most damming assessment. This report states that ``the Department of Energy, when faced with a profound public responsibility, has failed.'' The report goes on to say that ``the Department of Energy is a dysfunctional bureaucracy that has proven it is incapable of reforming itself''. It has been asserted that the conference report could diminish the role of the States in DOE cleanup actions and blur the authority of the Secretary of Energy to manage the national security function of the Department. Let me state clearly that each of these accusations are wholly untrue. Language to maintain environmental protection was included that is identical to the language in the amendment offered by Senators Levin, Bingaman, and others in the Senate. This amendment was included in the DOE reorganization provision which overwhelmingly passed the Senate by a vote of 96-1 as part of the Intelligence Authorization Act. This vote on a very similar reform package as contained in the conference agreement demonstrated the clear intent of Congress that the current management structure at the Department was broken and was in need of reform. With regard to the authority of the Secretary of Energy, the conferees were very careful and could not have been clearer in retaining the authorities of the Secretary necessary to manage, direct, and oversee the activities of the new Administration. I and most of the other conferees believe this new DOE organizational framework will dramatically streamline the management of our Nation's nuclear weapons labs, establish clear accountability, and ensure full compliance with the Secretary of Energy's direction and all applicable environmental laws. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, however, has indicated that this new organizational framework would make it ``impossible for any Secretary of Energy to run the Department.'' Let me say, with all due respect to my good friend Mr. Richardson, I disagree. I was a Secretary of a military department and know what is required to make an organization work. I believe that the organizational structure that is created in this conference report could be successfully managed by a strong Secretary of Energy--and he should step up to this challenge. In conclusion, I want to thank all the members and staff of the conference committee for their hard work and cooperation. This bill sends a strong signal to our men and women in uniform and their families that Congress fully supports them as they perform their missions around the world with professionalism and dedication. Many organizations including The Military Coalition and The National Military and Veterans Alliance, two consortiums of nationally prominent military and veterans organizations representing millions of current and former members of the uniformed services, their families and survivors, strongly endorse enactment of this bill. I am confident that enactment of this bill will enhance the quality of life for our service men and women and their families, strengthen the modernization and readiness of our forces and begin to address newly emerging threats to our security. I urge my colleagues to adopt the recommendations of the conference committee. I ask unanimous consent that letters from supporting organizations and a list of the staff members of the Armed Services Committee be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my good friend and colleague for these many years. It is a personal privilege and a pleasure to work with him. He represents so many of the values and traditions which make this institution great. I know full well his dedication to the men and women of the Armed Forces. I have never known a Senator who more conscientiously goes into every issue--I don't want to use the word ``agonizes,'' but can he give me a better word?

Mr. WARNER. To explain the endless hours in which he and his staff go over the most minute details. Indeed, we owe a great debt of gratitude to our staff. I would like to make one recommendation to my good friend from Michigan. You need a deputy director. I have Judith Ansley. If the Senator from Michigan had a magnificent deputy director like her to help him curtail the top hands--Les Brownlee and David Lyles--it would be great, and I would see to it that the Senator got a little money from the budget for that.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we have done our job. I can't tell the Senator from Michigan the great respect that I have for him. I know how difficult this provision on the Energy reorganization has been. It is on our bill for valid reasons. We have somewhere between two-thirds and 70 percent of the funds that go into that Department under our overview. We do careful overview on the weapons program. But the fact that the Senator from Michigan has announced tonight that he will support that bill is very important. I think it will be important to the President as he carefully deliberates such petitions as may be before him by the Secretary of Energy and others on this issue. Mr. President, I think we have concluded. I thank the Chair and the staff of the Senate.

Mr. WARNER. My distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, the chairman of our air/land subcommittee, is absolutely correct. Committee records were reviewed, and the conferees to the fiscal year 2000 National Defense Authorization Act did, in fact, agree to increase the EA-6B authorization by $25.0 million for the procurement of modified band 9/10 transmitters. An error in the printing process was made, and the Government Printing Office will be preparing an errata sheet to correct this error.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I know of no further business on this bill. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I further ask that immediately following the vote on the defense authorization conference report, the Senate proceed to consideration of the VA/HUD appropriations bill and, further, no call for the regular order serve to displace the VA/HUD appropriations bill.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, September 22. I further ask consent that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date and the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin 15 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form for closing statements on the Department of Defense authorization conference report, with a vote occurring following the debate.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following treaties transmitted to the Senate on September 1, 1999, by the President of the United States: Tax Convention with Italy (Treaty Document No. 106-11); Tax Convention with Denmark (Treaty Document No. 106-12); and Protocol Amending the Tax Convention with Germany (Treaty Document No. 106-13). I further ask that the treaties be considered as having been read for the first time, that they be referred with accompanying papers to the Committee on Foreign Relations in order to be printed, and that the President's messages be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will convene at 9:30 a.m. and immediately begin 15 minutes of debate on the Department of Defense authorization conference report, with a vote immediately following. Therefore, Senators can expect the first vote at approximately 9:45 a.m. tomorrow. Following the vote, the Senate will begin consideration of the VA/HUD appropriations bill. Amendments are expected to be offered, and therefore Senators can anticipate votes throughout the day.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I understand that S. 1606, which was introduced by Senator Grassley, is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading, and I object to my own request of the second reading.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I pick up on the concluding note of my good friend, the ranking member of our committee. We marked up the bill barely 30 days ago and pledged our allegiance to rule XVI. Now, the essence of what this debate is all about: Are we going to do a 180 and all run downhill? What is the public going to think of the Senate and how it conducts itself and how it observes its rules? That should be foremost in the mind of every Senator as that vote bell rings, hopefully, in but a few minutes, as this debate concludes. As our distinguished chairman and ranking member have clearly said, our committee worked hard, not for a month, not for 2 months. I was subcommittee chairman of the subcommittee that did the initial draft of TEA 21. It was a 2-year task, 2 years carefully going out amongst the 50 States and evaluating proposals of the various Governors, of the organizations that devote full time to America's transportation needs and they came forth with a variety of proposals. We worked very diligently to take all of that into consideration, and over a 2-year period we had many, many subcommittee hearings, and, indeed, hearings of the full committee, and crafted this legislation with the intent of seeking equity and fairness among the 50 States, of correcting what many of us viewed as an inequity between the donor States, of which mine was one, and the donee States. Therein was the most difficult battle. Two years' work stands on the brink of being disassembled on this vote. The precedent of rule XVI stands to be stripped down momentarily on this vote. As my colleague from Montana stated, if this provision regarding the surplus is changed, what is next year? Is it the donee-donor fight? Does that become the next debate within the appropriations cycle? It was for the very reason this institution has regarded this legislation as law it should remain intact for 6 years. This is not a 1-year bill or a 2-year bill; this is a 6-year bill, a formula to remain in place to provide equity among the States for 6 years. Momentarily, the vote will be taken to make the first break, barely after 1 year of operation of this bill. There is a tradition in this great body not to personalize anything, but I just happened to observe there were 70 Senators who sought the exact provision that is the subject of this amendment, and that was a 10-percent set-aside for Federal programs. Seventy Senators came to our committee with a wide range of programs they felt were essential for their States which would not be covered in the general disbursal of the balance of the 90 percent. How interesting, the State of New Jersey fought hard for the Intelligent Transportation Systems funds, ITS; the State of Alabama fought hard for new corridor programs and ARC, just two little footnotes. I urge Senators to go back--we have it here in the correspondence-- and have the staffs advise their Senators what they asked of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and what was included in this bill in direct recognition of their needs, 70 colleagues. That is the reason for the creation of this provision. Our chairman mentioned the House. The House appropriations bill, I say to the chairman, as he well knows, had a number of provisions in there which his counterpart, Congressman Shuster, recognized as legislation on an appropriations bill. He went to the floor of the House, and in 18 consecutive instances the House backed up their chairman and struck those provisions, one by one, from that bill. I daresay, should this provision survive, regrettably, that same chairman will see in conference that it is removed. That is why I think it is incumbent on our body to likewise remove this legislation, and at the same time uphold the credibility of our action some 30 days ago and reaffirm rule XVI. This is equity. This is legislative process to achieve that equity. We put in place a magnificent piece of legislation, accepted all across America. As I traveled my State this summer, I saw instance after instance of construction on our roads. I said to myself: There is the taxpayers' money coming back from the highway trust fund, going straight to the States, and now being used to improve our system. It is working. TEA 21 is working. That is why we are here today, to ask our colleagues to let it remain intact because it is serving the purpose for which this body adopted it but a year ago. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. I am happy to yield the floor and await with eagerness for a reply to my question.

Mr. WARNER. If I may say, Mr. President, it is that first word, ``notwithstanding''--one of those magical words that resonates in this Chamber to signal this law is being changed, this formula is being changed. If you did not have this provision in there, these funds would flow precisely as this Chamber directed those funds to flow when they overwhelmingly adopted TEA 21. I say to my good friend, it is clear as the light of this given day what is taking place.

Mr. WARNER. He says it does not change the formula. But, if he had nothing in his legislation, these funds would flow in accordance with TEA 21. He is putting a switch in the track that diverts that 10 percent. I say to my good friend, that is clear documentation of a change to the formula.

Mr. WARNER. Will the chairman yield for a question?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my colleague from Montana is correct. I see my good friend from New Jersey standing. Why don't I ask him: Would not the result of what you are requesting be simply asking the Senate to go up the hill on rule XVI, turn around, and run down the hill?

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Washington care to enter into a colloquy regarding museums funding?

Mr. WARNER. I understand the need to adequately address arts funding and commend the Chairman's leadership in securing $500,000 above last year's appropriations for our nation's museums and libraries. However, this is still $500,000 short of the House funding level to continue the great work done by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). As the Chairman knows, federal funds play an important role in assuring that Americans have access to excellent museum services. 8,000 museums and 120,000 libraries throughout the country have benefited from Congressional support of IMLS. IMLS programs affect a broad segment of Americans and not an elite few. It helps small, rural museums gain access to resources such as database technology development by the larger museums. IMLS improves public accessibility of museums, while allowing local communities to decide on the content and programs of their own museums. Additional funding will allow IMLS to provide technological improvements, making museum and library collections available online and accessible to learners of all ages. I ask you to urge the Senate conferees to recede to the House position on IMLS funding and support a relatively modest $500,000 increase in the IMLS budget so museums and libraries across the country will be able to extend their educational services, expand teacher training, preserve our cultural heritage for our posterity and increase access to valuable resources for America's children.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator from Washington. funding for mark twain house

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to thank our distinguished colleague, together with Senators Domenici and Murkowski and their respective staffs. Indeed, the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House Armed Services Committee all collaborated to try to make this a constructive, constitutional, and balanced approach. But if I could ask the Senator a question, so those persons who have not had the opportunity to follow as closely as he the progress of this legislation, does the Senator think the product created by the House- Senate conference represents a piece of legislation that is stronger, in terms of creating this concept of a separate entity within the DOD, than was the bill passed by the Senate at 93-1?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, to use an old naval phrase, ``with all deliberate speed.'' I know the Senator's concern about the insertion of a date in March with regard to the final achievement by, presumably, the current Secretary; if Secretary Richardson will carry this through. Certain sections, however, of this legislation are quite clear that he should start the day after the President, hopefully, affixes his signature to this piece of legislation. It is a phasing process. We looked at the date of March, and it should not, in my judgment, be interpreted as any lack of resolve by the Congress. To the contrary, it is a recognition that a major reorganization of this proportion will require a period of time within which to achieve it. The opposite side of the argument of those who say we should not have had that date would be, if you did not put in a recognition that it would take time, then presumably 1 week after the President affixes his signature, we could haul the Secretary of Energy up here and say: You haven't achieved this in 1 week's time, 2 week's time or 30 days' time. We had to strike a balance. I know that has been of great concern to my distinguished colleague.