John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, certainly it is to be viewed the time within which to be completed. Given the certain constructive steps the current Secretary, Secretary Richardson, has taken, I presume he will have achieved the reorganization in a time shorter than that. But I must say to my colleague, you cannot satisfy everybody. This is my 21st year on the Armed Services Committee, and as we file tonight the signatures of those members of the respective committees, House and Senate, who have approved the conference report, it is my understanding that no Democrat member of the Armed Services Committee in the Senate will be signatory. That comes as a personal disappointment to me as chairman in my first year. I met with the committee this afternoon. There was representation of probably seven or eight members on the Democrat side. The ranking member let me know beforehand of his concern, and I understood him throughout. We tried as best we could to work with the minority on our committee on this issue, as we do all issues. It is a matter of deep regret that we were not able to reconcile the differences that apparently were very significant between the Democrat approach to this and the Republican majority approach. I will accept the consequences. I am the captain of this ship now, and I accept full accountability. I do note, however, that my understanding is, as of this hour, most, if not all, the Democrat Members of the House have signed, of course, the identical conference report.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, one last observation, if the Senator will remain for a moment, and that is, I think we should acknowledge in this Record tonight the work of the Intelligence Committee, the Governmental Affairs Committee, the Energy Committee, and the Armed Services Committee. There were four committees that worked diligently. Our distinguished majority leader would have periodic meetings of the chairmen, and others such as yourself, who had an interest. Senator Domenici attended all of those meetings. On this side of the aisle, from our top leadership down through the committee chairmen and others, we worked together as a team to address this national, if not international, crisis of the leakage of information from these magnificent laboratories. Our national security is absolutely dependent on their work product and the security of that work product today and tomorrow and for the indefinite future. I thank all chairmen. They had a number of hearings. My estimate is that we in the Senate, among the four committees, must have had 25 hearings on this subject.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. I also observe, yes, but he was very objective about the seriousness of this problem. Throughout his deliberations, whether in Senator Lott's office or the hearings or in our consultations together, he was always very objective, and he put national interests first at every step. So the Senator is correct. I conclude with one sentence to my friend. I do not think if we recalled William Shakespeare from the grave that this provision on reorganization could have been written on the Department of Energy to satisfy everyone. That is the reason I have such deep regret about my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Many times we consulted them right down to the word and the comma and the like. We just did the very best we could, and I am proud of the work our committee did. I pay tribute to the respective staffs and my colleagues who worked on it. We are fully accountable for the effectiveness, and we, as a committee, perhaps with other committees, will hold a hearing very early next fall to determine the progress, assuming this is signed, within a period of, say, 2 months after the President's signature is affixed. I thank my distinguished colleague. Mr. President, I want to make a few more comments regarding the conference of the House and the Senate. Quite apart from the DOE provision, we are very pleased that we made major strides in this legislation on behalf of the men and women of the U.S. military. We have an authorized funding level of $288.8 billion, which is $8.3 billion above the President's budget request. And that is in real terms. This is the first time in 13 years that there has been a real--I repeat--real increase in the defense budget. Our distinguished Presiding Officer is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He actively participated in structuring this piece of legislation. We have approved a 4.8-percent pay raise for military personnel, reform of the military pay tables, and annual military pay raises 0.5 percent above the annual increases in the Employment Cost Index. We provide military members with a wider choice on their retirement system. We allowed both Active and Reserve component military personnel to participate in thrift savings. There is nothing more important. Indeed, the tax legislation just passed --always, certainly, on this side of the aisle we are trying to seek ways to increase savings in our United States. I am pleased now we give wider opportunity to the men and women of the Armed Forces. Strategic forces: We authorize a net increase of $400 million for ballistic missile defense, a program that finally has achieved recognition under our distinguished colleague, Senator Cochran of Mississippi, in passing here a week ago, the important legislation, which the President has now signed, to take another step forward in protecting America against the likelihood that possibly some accidental firing or limited attack could be launched against this country. We have a long way to go, but through the leadership of Senator Cochran, and others, we have finally forged, I think, another, should we say, 10 yards on this lengthy ball field. We authorize an increase of $212 million for the Patriot PAC-3 system, again missile defense. Seapower authorized a $1 billion increase to the procurement budget request of $18 billion and a $251 million increase to the research, development, test, and evaluation budget request of $3.9 billion for the Seapower Subcommittee under the chairmanship of Senator Snowe. Very able work was done on behalf of Senator Snowe and the ranking member, Senator Kennedy, for the Navy and the Marine Corps and a limited number of Air Force programs under their jurisdiction. We extended the multiyear procurement authority for the DDG-51 procurement and authorized advance procurement and advance construction for the LHD-8. We authorize construction of three DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class destroyers, two LPD-17 San Antonio class amphibious ships, and one ADC(X), the first of a class of auxiliary refrigeration and ammunition supply ships. We authorize advance procurement for 2 SSN-774 Virginia class attack submarines, and $750 million for the CVN-77, the last of the Nimitz class aircraft carriers currently in planning. We will, however, go on with another class of carriers, and that is the subject of research and development. In the readiness, we increase funding for military readiness by $1.5 billion. It provides for the protection of the military's access to essential frequency spectrum. That was a highly contested issue in our legislation. The private sector had concerns that the Pentagon would absorb a proportion of the spectrum beyond its needs. But in consultation with Congressman Bliley, the chairman of the House committee with jurisdiction, Senator McCain, a distinguished member of our committee, as well as chairman here of the Commerce Committee, we reached this compromise, which I hope all will find satisfactory. In the Airland area, we had an additional $1.5 billion for critical procurement requirements and an additional $400 million for research and development activities above the President's request. We fully authorized the development and procurement budget request for the F-22 Raptor. It is with some regret that the House did not adequately fund that program, in my judgment. That is a subject that is actively before the two Appropriations Committees. But both the House and the Senate authorizing committees fully funded that program. Lastly, upon assuming the chairmanship of this committee from my distinguished predecessor, Senator Thurmond, I decided to establish a new subcommittee entitled ``Emerging Threats.'' That committee, under the great leadership of Senator Roberts, moved out, and here are some of the initiatives taken by that subcommittee. We authorize and fully fund 17 new National Guard Rapid Assessment and Initial Detection--commonly known as RAID--Teams to respond to terrorist attacks in the United States--12 more than the administration request. It was my judgment, and Senator Roberts' and the members of the committee, that this is the greatest threat poised at the United States today--the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, whether they be biological, chemical, or possibly the incorporation of some crude weapon involving fissionable material. We have to move out on that. Progress was made by this new subcommittee. Further, we required the department to establish specific budget reporting procedures for its Combating Terrorism Program. This will give the program the focus and visibility it deserves while providing Congress with the information it requires to conduct thorough oversight of the department's efforts to combat the threat of terrorist attack both inside and outside the United States. We authorize $475 million for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program to accelerate the disarmament of the former Soviet Union--now Russia--strategic offensive arms that always threaten the United States. That was commonly referred to as the Nunn-Lugar program for a number of years. We establish an Information Assurance Initiative to strengthen DOD's information assurance program and provide for an additional $150 million to the administration's request for information assurances programs, projects, and activities. In cyberspace today, with the rapid research and development--indeed, achievement--of many technical initiatives, the whole area of cyberspace is threatened by an ever-growing number of sources of invasion and compromise, and indeed, disabling of the systems themselves. I thank my colleagues for indulging me to speak to this important piece of legislation which will be filed tonight in the House and, of course, automatically in the Senate. I shall now inquire of our staff as to the desire of other Members to speak, as well as the wrap up for the evening. (Mr. KYL assumed the Chair.) I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. WARNER. If the Senator would yield?

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator very much for his kind comments. But the Senator has brought to mind the fact that our majority leader, Senator Lott, made a decision to support our committee in putting through S. 4, I think the earliest bill in the Senate, which brought about the pay raises and retirement adjustments, which, hopefully, will increase our readiness by encouraging more young men and women to join the Armed Forces--our recruiting having fallen off--and retaining the skilled personnel that we now have. Also, it was the Joint Chiefs of Staff that on two occasions came before our committee--in September of last year and again in January of this year--and unequivocally stated, in their best professional judgment, the need for additional dollars, and how best those funds could be expended by the Congress, and putting particular emphasis on the pay and allowances, which is always the top priority of the Chiefs for their men and women of the Armed Forces. I thank my colleague.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I have just been informed, much to my great pleasure, that two members of the minority, two Democrats on the Armed Services Committee, have now decided to sign our conference report, and there is a likelihood of one or more additional ones. I depart the floor far more heartened than when I entered about 40 minutes ago.

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. It is a great pleasure for those of us who join in the opening of the Senate to have the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. I have been here 21 years, and at long last this essential and I think necessary practice, which is celebrated all over America every day, particularly in the schools, and so forth, is now observed in the Senate. The words of our guest Chaplain today were very stirring because this could be one of the final days in our Senate life before we go on a recess, which will enable us to join our families and spend some time with our constituents and others. I thank the Senator.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I may just add a little to that colloquy, it is my recollection that Mark Twain had some fairly pithy remarks on the Congress of the United States from time to time. Perhaps we should include some of those in the Record. My mother came from St. Louis, MO, so I feel that I am particularly blessed by the presence of this Chaplain today.

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senate leader, I shall address the Senate momentarily about the calendar of events for the day, but I see my distinguished colleague from Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft, who had the great foresight and wisdom to invite the Reverend Coleman as our guest Chaplain.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I join my colleague in this effort. Mr. President, the construction funding request by the National Park Service budget would help protect and expand the facility to provide a better legacy for our children. Educational programs for all children, especially the children of Virginia, will serve as a living reminder of the prejudice that took place in our country at the turn of the century, and Maggie Walker's life will provide a strong role model for present and future generations seeking to overcome adversity. Maggie Walker urged women to work together to advance their place in society. She said, ``If our women want to avoid the traps and snares of life, they must band themselves together, organize, acknowledge leadership, * * * and work * * * for themselves.'' Maggie Walker also stressed the empowerment of minorities in the business field. She recognized the ``need of a savings bank, chartered, officered, and run by the men and women of this [community] * * * Let us have a bank that will take the nickels and turn them into dollars.'' The Maggie Walker House symbolizes the persistence of an individual in the face of prejudice. For citizens in Richmond, the life of Ms. Walker, and her National Historic Site, are a daily inspiration. I hope the construction money allotted to the Maggie Walker National Historical Site in the National Park budget and approved by the President will be provided. I thank my colleagues for considering this matter, and I'd appreciate hearing the managers' views on this project.

Mr. WARNER. I support the view of my colleague. We wish to briefly review the issue for the Managers and explain why we believe that an injustice has been done to the City of Virginia Beach. For past 25 years, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in conjunction with the City, has been working to complete the Sandbridge Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project, one of the region's highest priorities. Early in 1998, several Nor'easters struck the east coast and literally demolished Sandbridge Beach, which is a very important barrier island that provides protection for the Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Forty homes were lost to the storms, and more than 300,000 cubic yards of protective beach sand were washed away. As a result, there was an immediate, critical need to replenish the beach. Although the Corps has the responsibility of annual renourishment of Sandbridge, as it is a federally-authorized project, the City advanced the money to replenish the beach because it was in a state of emergency. I wish to emphasize that point. Instead of waiting for the Congress to appropriate the funds to the Corps, the City spent $8.1 million of its own money for the Sandbridge Beach Renourishment, which is an option Congress allowed the City under the Water Resources Development Act. The Minerals Management Service (MMS) became involved when the Corps selected a location to mine the sand for Virginia Beach. The location selected, the bottom of the ocean three miles off the coast, is an area legally designated as the ``outer continental shelf.'' Pursuant to the 1994 amendments to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OSC), the MMS negotiates agreements for the right to extract minerals from the outer continental shelf. Under this authority, the MMS made a decision, which we believe to be both unfair and poor policy, to charge the City of Virginia Beach for the sand mined. The MMS has the authority to change its decision, and I believe this would be the right thing to do. First, with respect to the discretion of the MMS, the MMS's own Proposed Policy and Guidelines state that: The new law provides that the Secretary may assess a fee. This affords discretion not to assess a fee on a case-specific basis.

Mr. WARNER. Yes, there are. The MMS waived the fee for two other requests for use of OCS sand for shore protection projects sponsored by the corps. One was in Duval County, FL, and the other in Myrtle Beach, SC. For these two cases, the MMS ruled that project-related activities had progressed to the point that an ``assessment of a fee for the OCS sand resources could have delayed or prevented project construction''. The MMS therefore determined that waiving the fee would be in the best interest of the public in those two cases. In the case of Sandbridge Beach, we believe that it was in the best interest of the public for the MMS to waive the fee as it not only is a Congressionally authorized project, but it also protects a federally owned wildlife refuge, the Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator from Washington and the Senator from West Virginia. Senator Warner and I want to reemphasize that this is a situation of basic fairness, and action is needed to correct an injustice imposed by the federal government. We ask that if funds become available during the House-Senate Conference, that the Managers provide $198,000 to reimburse the City of Virginia Beach. We thank our colleagues. cumberland island

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, by previous order, the Senate will begin 30 minutes of debate on the Holbrooke nomination; that is, the Honorable Richard Holbrooke, to be Ambassador to the United Nations, with a vote to occur at approximately 10 o'clock today. Following disposition of the Holbrooke nomination, the Senate will resume consideration of the Interior appropriations bill with amendments expected to be offered and debated. In addition, when the Senate receives the tax reconciliation conference report from the House of Representatives, it is expected that the Senate will begin consideration of that legislation. Therefore, Senators should expect votes during the day and into the evening during today's session of the Senate. I thank my colleagues for their attention. That is from the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Lott.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished Senator. He has been very helpful throughout the nominating process.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut, and also to Senator Hagel, who has been very helpful in this nomination. At the conclusion of his remarks, the vote will occur.

Mr. WARNER. We will just accommodate the 5 minutes, then. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Texas have 5 minutes. What are the requests of the other Senators? Two or three minutes? So I ask unanimous consent that we go to the hour of 10:15, at which time we then, hopefully--have the yeas and nays been ordered, Mr. President?

Mr. WARNER. If I might just advise my colleagues, the previous order is that the Senate will vote at 10. I ask unanimous consent that that be extended to, say, 10 minutes after 10, to afford other colleagues an opportunity to contribute their remarks. I am sorry, but the leader is very anxious, given the heavy calendar of work today, and I think it is important we proceed to this nomination. So if each of the remaining Senators can take 1 or 2 minutes, that would be helpful.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Maryland. He is quite accurate in his recitation of the rules of the Senate. This is by tradition. I suggest we not deal too much with what took place in the past on this nomination, but I felt that this Record this morning should reflect, for those who are following the nomination, my judgment with regard to the tradition of a Senator seeking a hold. Again, it is part of that balance of power between the two branches. For example, Senator Grassley, in his case, feels very strongly about the need to protect those individuals who are commonly referred to as whistleblowers. They should be protected. Senator Grassley, after having talked with him many times, recognized the Holbrooke nomination is of importance, but he carefully evaluated his responsibility as one of those leaders in the Senate who have protected the rights of whistleblowers. That is behind us. Many Senators have worked on this nomination. I express my appreciation again to the leadership and those Senators, particularly the Senator from Delaware. The facts about this nominee are well known. I have known him personally for a number of years. I have watched his distinguished career, and in the course of the morning, I will add some facts. But I want to yield the floor momentarily to my colleague from Delaware. The point is that my concern about this nomination and its timeliness is because of the fact that we now have in Kosovo a force under the NATO Command of General Clark, Operation Joint Guardian. While we had hoped that this military operation would have had a smooth operational history, in fact it has encountered many unforeseen problems, problems where our troops and the troops of other nations had to perform all types of diverse duties. Many of these young men and women who are courageously participating in this operation have had no formal training in the military with respect to many of the responsibilities they are now undertaking. The United Nations, under a force known as United Nations Mission in Kosovo, referred to as UNMIK, has had a very slow start getting organized and into the field to perform duties that are currently being performed by the NATO military. One of the reasons for working to accelerate the consideration of this nomination is that in knowing Mr. Holbrooke and his forcefulness and his background, he, I believe, is better qualified than anyone else I know of today to take on this important post and to accelerate the functions of the United Nations in this region. The sooner they get in, the less risk to the men and women of the Armed Forces currently undertaking many missions which they are doing quite well, despite the fact they have had little or no formalized training in operating civil, local governments in the village of Kosovo. Fortunately, this force is under the command of the NATO Commander, General Clark. General Clark and Ambassador Holbrooke have known each other for many years. They have worked together. They participated in the Dayton accords, for which Ambassador Holbrooke deserves great credit, and I will have further comment on that later. Also, Ambassadors, when they report for their duties, may be fortunate to have a spouse who is quite interested in those duties and perform as a team. This is going to be an extraordinary husband and wife team of Richard Holbrooke and Kati Marton, his wife. She is a noted authoress. She has roots in central Europe. She is a beautifully educated and cultured woman. I have had the privilege of knowing her for a number of years. They will be an extraordinary team in this important post. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a biography of Richard Holbrooke.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator is correct; it is tradition-- --

Mr. WARNER. Yes. I thank many other Senators who have worked with me--Senator Hagel, Senator Grassley, Senator Voinovich, and my distinguished colleague from Delaware, Mr. Biden who will be speaking momentarily. I yield for the comments of the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. WARNER. Now, Mr. President, I thank the Senate leadership with respect to this nomination. It has been a unique one for various reasons. The elements of that uniqueness are well known to my colleagues. I shall not speak in detail about the tradition of ``holds'' but I think much of the general public is somewhat perplexed about the procedures in the Senate. There has been discussion as to the procedure on this nomination and the use of what is referred to as a ``hold.'' There is a diversity of views within this body on the use of a ``hold,'' but, in my judgment, it is an important and proper procedure utilized by Senators in conjunction with what I view as the balance of power established by the Constitution in the coequal branches of the Government: the executive branch, the power of nomination by the President, and the Senate and its power of advice and consent. The use of the hold is an exercise of that balance of power between the two branches. In this instance, I thank the distinguished majority leader and, of course, the minority leader, and others who have worked to bring this nomination to this point where today the Senate will render its advice and consent on this very important nomination.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate today will enact the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. This important legislation continues the Corps of Engineers civil works critical mission to provide flood control, hurricane protection, river and harbor navigation improvements, environmental restoration of our nation's waterways and other water resource infrastructure improvements. Since 1986 when the Congress and the Executive Branch reach agreement on landmark cost-sharing principles that apply to the preparation and construction of these projects, the Congress has endeavored to enact this reauthorization bill on a two-year cycle. As the former Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Congress enacted a water resources reauthorization bill in 1996. Regrettably, due to the complexities involving a project to provide flood protection for the Sacramento, California area, the House and Senate were unable to resolve the differences concerning this project in 1998. Today, the conference report before the Senate includes those projects in last year's bill along with other construction projects that the Corps of Engineers has reviewed and judged to be in the national interest. Through a comprehensive process to study and analyze the scope of individual projects, the Chief of the Corps of Engineers has found the 45 authorizations for new construction projects to be technically sound, economically justified and environmentally acceptable. Mr. President, this simply means that the Federal taxpayer will receive a higher return on the economic benefits resulting from construction of these projects compared to the individual construction costs. Also, for these projects, a state or local government will provide from 35 percent to 50 percent of the costs of construction. The Corps civil works program provides significant protection to lives and property from flooding and coastal storms. The maintenance of our river and harbor navigation channels are critical for us to maintain a competitive edge in a ``one-world'' economic market. The value of water resource projects is well-documented. In 1997, Corps flood control projects prevented approximately $45.2 billion in damages. The Corps continues to support the navigation channel deepening projects so that the larger class of cargo ships and super coal colliers can call on our commercial water ports. The value of commerce on these waterways totaled over $600 billion in 1997, generating approximately 16 million jobs. Mr. President, the conference report also contains very important provisions to strengthen and expand the Corps new focus on environmental restoration of our nation's waterways. We have established a new program, known as ``Challenge 21'', which provides the Corps with the direction to work with local communities to developed non-structural flood control projects. This is an initiative that will hopefully produce less-costly flood control options. This program will be important to financially-strapped communities who may not be able to afford to provide the 35 percent local costs for a traditional flood control project. Also, this program will foster the preservation of sensitive ecosystems that provide vital flood protection in the floodplain. Challenge 21 also has the potential to produce significant savings in the reduction of flood damages and Federal flood damage assistance costs. Mr. President, since the enactment of the 1986 water resources bill which established cost-sharing requirements for the construction of water projects, I have been committed to applying these requirements to projects authorized in subsequent bills. I applaud my Senate colleagues for enacting Senate legislation that adhere to these rules. The cost- sharing requirements have been successful in leveraging non-Federal funds and they have ensured that only those projects with the greatest merit, economic benefit and local support move forward. It was my view, along with Chairman Chafee and the Ranking member, Senator Baucus, that we must insist on the cost-sharing requirement for projects authorized in this bill. I regret, however, that the conference report does not apply the cost-sharing principles in all cases. I would just ask my House and Senate colleagues to remember the 10- year stalemate that existed between the Congress and the Executive Branch from 1975 to 1986. At that time no water resource projects moved forward because the Executive Branch insisted on some level financial contribution from those who would benefit from these projects. By 1986, the Congress and the Administration reached agreement on a fair allocation of costs and since that time there has been an orderly process for planning, designing and constructing water resource projects. We must not abandon cost-sharing rules, or else there is the very real possibility of again triggering a halt to Federal funding for these important projects. I will continue to work to follow the requirements of the 1986 bill and stand ready to work with my colleagues on this issue. Mr. President, this legislation, which was three years in the making, involved a great deal of staff time and commitment. I want to express my appreciation to the staff of the Environment and Public Works Committee--Jimmie Powell, the Staff Director, Dan Delich, Abigail Kinnison, Chelsea Henderson, Jo-Ellen Darcy, Ellen Stein and Peter Washburn for all of their efforts. Also, the professional expertise of the Corps of Engineers was invaluable. I particularly want to thank Larry Prather, Gary Campbell and the many dedicated professionals at the Corps of Engineers Headquarters for their technical evaluation of the many projects that came before the Committee for consideration. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the conference report. the savannah harbor deepening project