John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I appreciate his thoughtful remarks, but, again, it was a team effort by a number of us, including the Senator from Delaware. I want to make the point here, the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Helms, and Senator Biden's colleagues on that committee held a hearing. There was a unanimous vote, and Mr. Helms reported this nomination to the floor. It did pass through there with the approval of the committee on which the Senator serves.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that concludes my opening remarks. I may have further remarks about this nominee, but I want to share the time now with my distinguised colleague from Delaware. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to a great patriot, soldier, and father, Colonel Charles W. Alsup. After nearly 28 years of dedicated service around the world, Colonel Alsup will retire from the United States Army on September 30, 1999. Colonel Alsup was born in Birmingham, Alabama. He enlisted in the Army in 1971 as a private and was later commissioned as a Military Intelligence Second Lieutenant upon completion of the Infantry Officer Candidate School at Fort Benning, Georgia. Throughout his military career, Colonel Alsup distinguished himself as a true professional and an exceptional leader. His initial assignments included: a tour with 8th Special Forces Group, Fort Gulick, Panama; duties as a counterintelligence special agent and staff officer with the 902th Military Intelligence Group, Fort Meade, MD; and intelligence officer, 4th Battalion, 69th Armor Regiment, 8th Infantry Division in Mainz, Germany during the height of the Cold War. He successfully commanded at the company, battalion, and brigade levels, culminating with the prestigious 501st Military Intelligence Brigade, Yongsan, Korea. Colonel Alsup also excelled at a variety of teaching and staff officer positions, including Reserve Officer Training Corps duty at the University of Alabama; Staff Group Leader, Combined Arms and services Staff School, Fort Leavenworth; Director of Intelligence, 24th Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, GA; Director of Intelligence, Eight U.S. Army, Yongsan, Korea; and duty on the Army Staff in Legislative Liaison and the Directorate for Operations and Plans. Colonel Alsup's final assignment as Assistant Director of Intelligence for the Joint Staff, Washington, DC, showcased his superior grasp of national intelligence issues, his impressive management skills, and his ability to perform under pressure. Colonel Alsup provided unparalleled intelligence support to the senior leadership of the Executive and Legislative Branches, contributing significantly to their understanding of national level crisis and contingencies. His positive impact on the Joint Staff, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the intelligence community will be felt for years to come. Colonel Alsup is a distinguished graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth and the Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island. His awards and decorations include the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Meritorious Service Medal with Four Oak Leaf Clusters, the Army Commendation Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters, the Special Forces Tab, the Senior Parachutist Badge, and the Ranger Tab. Through his distinctive accomplishments, Colonel Charles W. Alsup culminates a distinguished career in the service of his country and reflects great credit upon himself, the United States Army, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the Department of Defense. I wish every success to Colonel Alsup as he finishes his truly remarkable military career and thank him for a job exceedingly well done.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services, I report favorably nomination lists which were printed in the Records of June 21, 1999, June 23, 1999, June 28, 1999, June 30, 1999, July 1, 1999, July 14, 1999, July 19, 1999, July 21, 1999, 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 rise today to acknowledge the retirement of Robert Tobias, President of the National Treasury Employees Union. I would like to take a moment to recognize the hard work and accomplishments of Mr. Tobias who, during a career with the NTEU of 31 years, has served as a prominent advocate for the over 155,000 federal employee members of the Union. Under Bob's leadership, the NTEU has grown to become the nation's largest independent federal employees union, representing workers from 18 government agencies. Bob is one of the foremost authorities on federal employee issues and has been a vital resource to those of us who work on Capitol Hill, to the agencies he represents and throughout the federal government. Bob is highly respected among labor relations specialists as well. He has been instrumental in developing and enacting major legislation effecting federal employees including, creation and implementation of the Federal Employees Retirement System, pay parity issues, and he served as a member of the bipartisan National Commission Restructuring the IRS whose work was the basis for the comprehensive IRS reform legislation passed in the 105th Congress. Furthermore, Bob has been successful in numerous landmark legal battles impacting employee rights in court and before various federal oversight bodies, such as the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Federal Labor Relations Authority and the Office of Personnel Management. Again, I commend Mr. Tobias for his invaluable work on behalf of federal employees, and I wish continued success for Mr. Tobias in his future endeavors.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution that passed the United States Senate by unanimous consent each of the last two years. I am pleased to join Senator Murray in establishing October 21, 1999, as the Day of National Concern About Young People and Gun Violence. On April 20, 1999, two teenagers wearing long black trench coats over fatigues began shooting their fellow classmates and faculty at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. In the end, 15 people died and many others were injured, in the bloodiest school shooting in America's history. Unfortunately, the atrocity that occurred in Littleton, Colorado, is not an isolated incident. Before the shooting in Columbine High School, recent school shootings occurred in Pearl, Mississippi; West Paducah, Kentucky; Jonesboro, Arkansas; and Springfield, Oregon. After Littleton, six students were shot in Conyers, Georgia, by one of their fellow students. The problem of young people and gun violence expands beyond school shootings. Every day in the United States, 14 children under the age of 19 are killed with guns, and in 1994, approximately 70 percent of murder victims aged 15 to 17 were killed with a handgun. America has lost thousands of children in what has become the all-too-common violence of drive-by shootings, drug wars and other crimes, as well as in self-inflicted and unintentional shootings. In the aftermath of these tragedies, we all find ourselves looking for answers. While there is no simple solution as to how to stop youth violence, a Minnesota homemaker, Mary Lewis Grow, developed the idea of a Day of National Concern About Young People and Gun Violence. I believe this idea is a step in the right direction, as do such groups as Mothers Against Violence in America, the National Association of Student Councils, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Parent Teacher Associations, and the American Medical Association. Simply put, this resolution will establish October 21, 1999, as the Day of National Concern About Young People and Gun Violence. On this day, students in every school district in the Nation will be invited to voluntarily sign the ``Student Pledge Against Gun Violence.'' By signing the pledge, students promise that they will never take a gun to school, will never use a gun to settle a dispute, and will use their influence in a positive manner to prevent friends from using guns to settle disputes. Mr. President, losing one child from gun violence is one too many. Though this resolution is not the ultimate solution to preventing future tragedies like Littleton, if it stops even one incident of youth gun violence, this resolution will be invaluable. I urge all of my colleagues to join in this resolution to focus attention on gun violence among youth.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period for morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for brief periods.

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that following morning business the Senate resume consideration of the intelligence authorization bill, and Senator Bingaman be recognized at that time in order to offer an amendment.

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, July 21. I further ask consent that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, 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 a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Durbin, or his designee, 30 minutes; Senator Hatch, or his designee, 30 minutes.

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will convene at 9:30 a.m. and be in a period of morning business for 1 hour. Following morning business, the Senate will resume the debate on the intelligence authorization bill. Senator Bingaman will be recognized to offer a second-degree amendment regarding field reporting to the Kyl amendment regarding Department of Energy reforms. Other amendments are expected to be offered and debated throughout tomorrow's session of the Senate. Therefore, Senators can expect votes throughout the day and into the evening. The majority leader would like to inform all Members that the Senate will remain in session on Wednesday until action is completed on the pending intelligence authorization bill. Upon completion of the intelligence authorization bill, it is the intention of the majority leader to proceed to any appropriations bill on the calendar.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to introduce today legislation to complete the commitment to finance the federal share of the cost of constructing the new Woodrow Wilson bridge. As my colleagues are aware, this 40-year-old bridge which links Interstate 495 between Maryland and Virginia, is owned by the federal government. For over a decade, the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia and affected local governments have conducted an extensive public process to select a design for a replacement facility for the Wilson bridge. The Record of Decision on the Environmental Impact Statement selected an alternative for a 12-lane bridge, of which 10 lanes are for all traffic and 2 lanes are dedicated for HOV. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, provides $900 million for planning, engineering, design and construction from 1998 through 2003 for this design. This funding level represents approximately half of the estimated total project cost of $1.9 billion. The legislation I am introducing today, along with my Senate colleagues, Senator Robb, Senator Sarbanes and Senator Mikulski, provides the final installment of federal funds for the project. Also, this legislation has been reviewed by the Administration and it compliments the legislation requested by the Administration earlier this month. Specifically, the bill provides a total of $600 million from the Highway Trust Fund in fiscal years 2004 through 2007, at an annual funding level of $150 million. Our bill adds a requirement not present in the Administration's bill that Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia must provide $400 million before any of the funds can be obligated. The requirement for matching funds from the capital region jurisdictions ensures that the total project cost of $1.9 billion is fully financed. Also, this matching provision responds to a major issue that came before a federal court earlier this year. In that litigation, the court ruled that the project had not fully met the transportation conformity requirements of the Clean Air Act. Conformity requires that sources of funding for transportation projects be identified and that state transportation plans for building transportation projects ``conform'' with state implementation plans designed to meet air quality standards. Mr. President, the funding provided in this legislation also ensures that this project will receive the same financial treatment as other highway construction projects around the nation. Under TEA-21 and prior federal transportation laws, 20 percent of state funds are required to match 80 percent of federal dollars used on any highway construction project on the federal-aid system. This 80 percent federal/20 percent state requirement will now be applied to the Wilson bridge project when this legislation is enacted. Mr. President, now is the time to act on this legislation. The project is at a critical juncture as we work to meet the construction schedule. While the funds authorized in this bill will not be available until 2004 through 2007, full funding must be identified and committed now before any construction can begin. The current schedule is for construction to begin by the fall of 2000. Let me be clear to my colleagues that this legislation continues all of the requirements set for the capital region jurisdictions established in TEA-21. Specifically, Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia must develop a financial plan and enter into an agreement with the federal government to determine which jurisdiction will take title to the new bridge. Also, this legislation does not waive any federal environmental laws. Those issues are before federal court and efforts to resolve them are ongoing between the Federal Highway Administration and the plaintiffs. As it has been stated previously, the useful life of the current bridge is nearly expired. Daily traffic of over 175,000 vehicles per day is causing irreparable damage to the bridge structure. It is prohibitively expensive to continue spending scarce transportation dollars to repair the bridge when its projected lifespan is rapidly expiring. The Federal Highway Administration has confirmed that we can keep the bridge open to all traffic until about the year 2004, but those estimates can change overnight as monthly safety inspections reveal continuing damage. Today, we are introducing two bills in the Senate to accomplish this funding initiative because of the committee jurisdictional issues. As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am sponsoring the bill to provide $600 million from the Highway Trust Fund beginning in 2004. My colleague, Senator Robb, as a member of the Finance Committee, will be introducing legislation to permit these Highway Trust Fund dollars to be obligated in 2004 and beyond. Current tax law limits the obligation of new Highway Trust Fund dollars beyond the current TEA-21 authorization period of 2003.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to introduce today legislation to complete the commitment to finance the federal share of the cost of constructing the new Woodrow Wilson bridge. As my colleagues are aware, this 40-year-old bridge which links Interstate 495 between Maryland and Virginia, is owned by the federal government. For over a decade, the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia and affected local governments have conducted an extensive public process to select a design for a replacement facility for the Wilson bridge. The Record of Decision on the Environmental Impact Statement selected an alternative for a 12-lane bridge, of which 10 lanes are for all traffic and 2 lanes are dedicated for HOV. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, provides $900 million for planning, engineering, design and construction from 1998 through 2003 for this design. This funding level represents approximately half of the estimated total project cost of $1.9 billion. The legislation I am introducing today, along with my Senate colleagues, Senator Robb, Senator Sarbanes and Senator Mikulski, provides the final installment of federal funds for the project. Also, this legislation has been reviewed by the Administration and it compliments the legislation requested by the Administration earlier this month. Specifically, the bill provides a total of $600 million from the Highway Trust Fund in fiscal years 2004 through 2007, at an annual funding level of $150 million. Our bill adds a requirement not present in the Administration's bill that Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia must provide $400 million before any of the funds can be obligated. The requirement for matching funds from the capital region jurisdictions ensures that the total project cost of $1.9 billion is fully financed. Also, this matching provision responds to a major issue that came before a federal court earlier this year. In that litigation, the court ruled that the project had not fully met the transportation conformity requirements of the Clean Air Act. Conformity requires that sources of funding for transportation projects be identified and that state transportation plans for building transportation projects ``conform'' with state implementation plans designed to meet air quality standards. Mr. President, the funding provided in this legislation also ensures that this project will receive the same financial treatment as other highway construction projects around the nation. Under TEA-21 and prior federal transportation laws, 20 percent of state funds are required to match 80 percent of federal dollars used on any highway construction project on the federal-aid system. This 80 percent federal/20 percent state requirement will now be applied to the Wilson bridge project when this legislation is enacted. Mr. President, now is the time to act on this legislation. The project is at a critical juncture as we work to meet the construction schedule. While the funds authorized in this bill will not be available until 2004 through 2007, full funding must be identified and committed now before any construction can begin. The current schedule is for construction to begin by the fall of 2000. Let me be clear to my colleagues that this legislation continues all of the requirements set for the capital region jurisdictions established in TEA-21. Specifically, Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia must develop a financial plan and enter into an agreement with the federal government to determine which jurisdiction will take title to the new bridge. Also, this legislation does not waive any federal environmental laws. Those issues are before federal court and efforts to resolve them are ongoing between the Federal Highway Administration and the plaintiffs. As it has been stated previously, the useful life of the current bridge is nearly expired. Daily traffic of over 175,000 vehicles per day is causing irreparable damage to the bridge structure. It is prohibitively expensive to continue spending scarce transportation dollars to repair the bridge when its projected lifespan is rapidly expiring. The Federal Highway Administration has confirmed that we can keep the bridge open to all traffic until about the year 2004, but those estimates can change overnight as monthly safety inspections reveal continuing damage. Today, we are introducing two bills in the Senate to accomplish this funding initiative because of the committee jurisdictional issues. As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am sponsoring the bill to provide $600 million from the Highway Trust Fund beginning in 2004. My colleague, Senator Robb, as a member of the Finance Committee, will be introducing legislation to permit these Highway Trust Fund dollars to be obligated in 2004 and beyond. Current tax law limits the obligation of new Highway Trust Fund dollars beyond the current TEA-21 authorization period of 2003.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 46, submitted earlier today by Senators Shelby and Sessions.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to this resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to speak with regard to the feelings in my heart and in the hearts of my daughter Mary, my daughter Virginia, and my son John on behalf of the Kennedy family. My daughter Mary was a member of the play group at the White House formed by the President and his lovely wife Jacqueline Kennedy for their daughter Caroline and, my recollection is, three or four others of the same age. They were perhaps among the most photographed young people in America at that time. Our family cherishes the pictures with Caroline and in some John-John was there. It was just a warm experience for these youngsters to start their life. Jacqueline Kennedy was so gracious to all of us in our family. I had known Mrs. Kennedy when I was, my recollection is, in my early twenties, and we were in the same group of young people who mingled together at various events in those days. I remember the absolute startling beauty of that magnificent woman. We remained friends throughout her life. She and the President briefly had a farm in Virginia which abutted on the farm that my then-wife Catherine and I had, and I frequently saw her at sporting events. The families were intertwined at a very young age. Previously, at the University of Virginia Law School, while my period at that school was interrupted by service in the Marines during the Korean war, Bobby Kennedy was there, and we overlapped for a period of time. I remember participating in some of the touch football games and getting my first insight into that extraordinary family. My daughter Virginia knew John-John quite well. In past years, prior to marriage, they were in the same group that often attended events together. This has left a very deep and sad feeling in the hearts of my children, and I know they would want their deepest sympathy conveyed to the members of the family. I do that tonight, being privileged to be on the floor of the Senate and talking about this most distinguished family. I met President Kennedy on several occasions. I knew him, as a matter of fact, when he was a Senator. I remember very well one night going to a television studio with him and some other people. I cannot recall exactly what the show was, but that night, for various reasons, is tucked away in my memory. Then, of course, in the campaign of 1960, I was the advance man for President Nixon; and Bobby Kennedy was the advance man for his brother. We had frequent but always pleasant and cordial meetings on the campaign trail of 1960. But the main purpose of my taking the floor is to express, on behalf of my children, our profound sorrow for this tragic event, and how we are all deprived of what I think in our hearts we believe would have been a great future for this young man, had the Lord seen fit to have him remain with us. He was destined to go on to greatness, and we, as a nation, have been deprived. But we accept the Lord's will in this case. All that could be done was done, primarily by the Coast Guard, the Navy, the National Transportation Safety Board, and others. I think they are worthy of commendation for their services. To our distinguished colleague, Senator Kennedy, I know, having spoken with him, he was looking forward to this wedding. So often this family has come together in hours of tragedy, but this wedding was to be an hour of pure joy. He looked forward to it with expectation. But now, of course, that has to be postponed, I hope for a brief period. But I remember how hard the Senator worked on the Patients' Bill of Rights. I voted against him on every vote except one, and that has often been the case in my 21 years in the Senate serving with my friend. And we have had many opportunities to work together on various things. He is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, of which I am privileged to be chairman. When I was ranking member on the Seapower Subcommittee, he was chairman; and then for a brief period, when I was chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee, he was ranking member. But I remember how hard he worked last week. His heart was in that bill regarding the health of the citizens of our Nation. It was just another chapter in his long and distinguished career in the Senate. I believe on both sides of the aisle he is regarded as one of the hardest working, most conscientious Members of the Senate. We have nothing but profound respect for him and the manner in which he, as one of the heads of this distinguished family, has worked to bring this family once again to the realization of a loss that they must accept. Mr. President, we conclude today's proceedings by several of us speaking on this. We do so from the heart and convey our prayers and sympathy to this family. Mr. THOMPSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague for his comments. I have worked along with the team, the principals. They were going to put the amendment on the armed services authorization bill. I thought at that point in time that an insufficient number of Senators had had an opportunity to acquaint themselves with the seriousness of this issue and that we should wait for the bill of our distinguished colleagues from Alabama and Nebraska. A number of Senators have now acquainted themselves with those provisions. We have an impressive number of cosponsors, and I am privileged to be one. I don't view this as any retribution against the President or the Secretary of Energy. It is something that simply has to be done with these institutions that are enormously valuable to the Nation and our national security. I use the word ``enormously'' because I can't think of another word that connotes a greater degree of importance to our country. I went out a week ago yesterday and spent several hours at Los Alamos and then went on to the other laboratory. I must say, the impression I gained from talking with a fairly significant number of individuals, both at Sandia and Los Alamos, was that they are willing to work with this proposition as laid out in the Senator's amendment and make it work. I have listened to those who have some questions. As a matter of fact, I made myself available to work with Senator Levin. We worked together on the Armed Services Committee. It is still not clear in my mind exactly what he hopes to achieve. It is my expectation we will address it tomorrow when the amendments come forward. I know it is the right thing to be done in the interests of the country. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee. Indeed, his committee has held 11 hearings. The Senate Armed Services Committee also has had several. One broke a record; it was 7 continuous hours of hearing. It convinced our membership we are behind it.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I understand the distinguished Senator from Georgia has time allocated this morning. I am asking his indulgence that I might speak for a period not to exceed 5 minutes and to yield within that period a brief moment or two to our distinguished colleague, Senator Hagel.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. Yesterday, the Armed Services Committee had a briefing on the Balkan Task Force from the Department of Defense. I put the question to the uniformed officers: Is there a correlation between the absence of strong leadership in the U.N. and risk to our troops? Their response was a definitive yes. I thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia.

Mr. WARNER. It covers the following: Five weeks after the end of bitter ethnic war and the arrival of NATO troops in Kosovo, growing confusion among Western officials, local politicians and Kosovo's population about who controls the province is hampering efforts to begin rebuilding its tattered economy and political structure and social services. The essence of this article captures a concern of this Senator, that the men and women in the Armed Forces, be they wearing the uniform of the United States or the uniform of our other NATO allies, all under the command of an American officer, General Clark, are at increasing personal risk because the United Nations is not able, perhaps for valid reasons, perhaps for invalid reasons, to take up their allocation of responsibilities and relieve the burdens from the troops so they can restrict their responsibilities to professional military duties. I believe we should proceed with this nomination, have a vote up or down. Hopefully, this nomination will be approved by the Senate, and we can have a strong voice to enter into this very serious situation in Kosovo. We have invested billions of dollars. We have put at risk tens of thousands of lives, the men and women of the Armed Forces of this country and other countries, to reach the conclusion we now have of relative stability, in clear contrast to the cruel ethnic cleansing inflicted upon the people of Kosovo. I think the time has come. I ask those who have reasons to be further considering this nomination--I am actively working to resolve those problems--to weigh the risk to the men and women of the armed forces of all nations involved in Kosovo. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Post, July 16, 1999] Kosovo's New Adversary: Confusion (By R. Jeffrey Smith) Pristina, Yugoslavia, July 15--Five weeks after the end of a bitter ethnic war and the arrival of NATO troops in Kosovo, growing confusion among Western officials, local politicians and Kosovo's population about who controls the province is hampering efforts to begin rebuilding its tattered economy, political structures and social services. The Western allies are preparing an ambitious multibillion- dollar program to repair war damage and bring stability to Kosovo and the surrounding region for the first time in at least a decade. But the effort has already become bogged down by major disagreements among the rival claimants to power in the Serbian province. In the resulting power vacuum, Kosovo's myriad problems are multiplying. Thousands of vacant buildings, homes and businesses are being taken over by squatters, some of whom are investing in new, unlicensed enterprises whose legal basis is unresolved. No one is sure who owns public enterprises or who is to benefit from their revenues now that most Serbian officials have left and hundreds of thousands of ethnic Albanian refugees have returned. With municipal offices otherwise unoccupied, former members of the rebel Kosovo Liberation Army are taking up positions as local administrators even though they lack any legal authority. Even so, the former rebels are making decisions and issuing edicts whose long-term viability is open to question. In the meantime, fire departments have no trucks, hospitals have no ambulances or equipment, gas stations have no fuel. Electricity and water supplies function only intermittently, and telephone service is available only in parts of Pristina, the Kosovo capital, and a few other towns. Without a trained police force, ``the level of lawlessness is stable on the high side,'' one senior Western official said. But no one knows who to complain to--or where. According to NATO, the United Nations--officially in charge of reestablishing a civilian government--is the top authority. But almost no one here seems to heed, or even recognize, the U.N. presence. Many civilians still regard NATO and its 32,400 troops as the ultimate arbiter on civil matters. Other residents say unelected ethnic Albanian representatives, led by KLA members, are in charge. Moreover, the KLA and the United Nations have begun to joust over matters both large and small. In one such encounter, Jay Carter, the senior U.N. official in charge of civilian government here, told a senior KLA official that all state-owned property in Kosovo is now under U.N. control. But Visar Reka, the KLA official, said he responded that ``You're not the owner, you're just the manager; Albanians are the owners.'' Reka and others who work in the offices of KLA political leader Hashim Thaqi, who has been named prime minister of a provisional government, say they have the authority to run the province until elections next spring. But U.N. officials refuse to recognize this claim. ``To me, [Thaqi] represents the KLA, not the government; we are clear on this,'' said Brazilian diplomat Sergio Vieira de Mello, the interim U.N. administrator in Kosovo. Even so, the United Nations itself is unsure how far its legal mandate extends and recently asked its lawyers to review what authority its officials are entitled to assert. In particular, the lawyers are looking at whether revenues from state-owned enterprises, such as electric and water utilities, must be placed in escrow until Kosovo's legal status is resolved or can be spent without input from authorities in Belgrade, the capital of both Yugoslavia and its dominant republic, Serbia. Kosovo's final legal status-- whether it will remain part of Serbia, for example--is likely to take years to resolve. For now, no one knows for sure what Yugoslavia--and its Serbian leadership--owns or is entitled to control in Kosovo. ``Ownership is one of the toughest problems we face,'' said de Mello, who is being replaced this week by Bernard Kouchner of France. ``If it is state-owned, it is the U.N.'s, at least during the interim administration. If it's private, we are in serious trouble.'' Kosovo's ethnic Albanian majority is reasserting itself in the wake of the withdrawal of Serb-led forces and the flight of tens of thousands of Serbs from the province. More than 660,000--or roughly 85 percent--of the ethnic Albanians who fled or were expelled from the province have now returned, each expecting to have considerably more say in Kosovo's governance. Meanwhile, the government in Belgrade has complained repeatedly that provisions in the June 12 cease-fire accord offering Serbia at least a token role in policing borders and monuments in Kosovo have not been respected. It has also denounced talk of creating an independent currency for the province and has claimed rights to revenues from state-owned mines and power plants. Much of the confusion stems from the uncertain status of the agreement signed by ethnic Albanian leaders and Western officials in France last March, which set out in dozens of pages what the new government here would look like. But Serbian officials never accepted the document, and nothing was written to replace it when the cease-fire accord was signed. Since then, the United Nations, NATO and local leaders have had to renegotiate which of its provisions will be followed. KLA officials, for example, complain that the United Nations got off on the wrong foot by demanding that jobs at city halls, utilities and state-owned media be apportioned equally among Serbs and ethnic Albanians. The intent was to demonstrate even-handedness and to help persuade Kosovo Serbs to stay here. But the plan angered ethnic Albanians, who expected that jobs would be divided according to their proportion of the overall population--now hovering at 95 percent. ``It means a new slavery,'' said Ram Buje, a KLA political official now employed in Thaqui's office, of the proposed 50- 50 split. When asked about the split last Friday, de Mello indicated he was unaware of it and called inappropriate. By Sunday, U.N. officials agreed that 330 ethnic Albanians will eventually work alongside just 60 Serbs at the city hall in Pristina, a likely model for other towns. But the city hall was closed Tuesday after the most prominent Serb there was badly beaten by an ethnic Albanian mob, which claimed he had committed atrocities during the war. The ethnic Albanian leadership has not been the only source of friction for the U.N. mission. A U.N.-appointed consultative council was to have been established Tuesday, which would have the power to confirm the selection of mayors for each of Kosovo's 29 municipalities. It was supposed to have two representatives from longstanding ethnic Albanian political parties, one from the KLA, two independent ethnic Albanians, two Serbs, a Turk and a Muslim. The Belgrade government's local representative was not invited, de Mello said, ``because the others won't come if he is there.'' But some KLA officials last week created a new party that will not be represented, and the two Serbs picked by de Mello--Serbian Orthodox Church Bishop Artemije Radosavljevic and Serbian Resistance Movement leader Momcilo Trajkovic-- announced last weekend they would boycott the commission on grounds that Serbs and Serbian interest are not being adequately protected. As a result the council has yet to get off the ground. De Mello acknowledged that it remains to be seen how the council will be replicated ``at the district or . . . municipal level, where democratic institutions will truly be tested.'' Buje, the Thaqi aide, has in the meantime stepped into the vacuum by appointing mayors for 25 municipalities-- all but the four in which Serbs compose a majority of the local population. ``We are the people who know all the business,'' Buje said, but the government ``is a mosaic. We know this is an international protectorate, but it's all mixed.'' Who's Running Kosovo? The U.N.? Bernard Kouchner, the U.N. administrator in Kosovo, faces a situation in which disputes over control have bogged down reconstruction efforts. NATO? Many in Kosovo still regard NATO, commanded by Gen. Wesley K. Clark, as the ultimate arbiter on civic matters, but NATO says it's the United Nations. The KLA? Kosovo Liberation Army leader Hashim Thaqi says the rebels have authority over Kosovo for now, but the United Nations refuses to recognize this claim.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I address the Senate regarding Executive Calendar No. 135, the nomination by the President of the United States of Richard Holbrooke of New York to be the Representative of the United States of America to the sessions of the General Assembly. That was presented to the Senate by the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Helms, on June 30, 1999. Following the favorable reporting by the Committee. It is now pending. I have been in this magnificent body, privileged by the State of Virginia, for 21 years. I fully recognize the rights of Senators to place holds on nominations. I respect that right. I respect them for the reasons they have done it. I have done it myself, although sparingly. But in my judgment, the urgency for the Senate to address this nomination is increasing daily. I urge the Senate to proceed to an up-or-down vote because the United States of America, in my judgment, is increasingly in need of having a very powerful voice at the U.N. Ambassador Holbrooke, in my judgment, is eminently qualified. He is well experienced with the complex issues in the Balkans. I ask unanimous consent that at the end of my remarks there be printed an article in today's Washington Post.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield to my distinguished colleague, Senator Hagel.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this week the United States Senate has been debating the provisions of two pieces of legislation dealing with increased patient protections for individuals with health plans. The bill that I support is called the ``Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act.'' The other bill under consideration is called the ``Patients' Bill of Rights.'' Though these bill have similar names, they differ greatly in what they will in fact accomplish. After I briefly summarize the major components of these bills, it will be clear that the title of the ``Patients' Bill of Rights'' is a misnomer. It will also be clear that the ``Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act'' is a bill that is truly focused on the American people. Through its major components, this bill will provide consumer protections, enhance health care quality, and increase access to healthcare. The Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act contains a number of provisions that are key consumer protections. These provisions will greatly enhance the health plans of the 48 million Americans who are covered by self-funded group health plans governed exclusively by the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act (``ERISA'') and will enhance the quality of healthcare. First, the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act has emergency care protection for consumers. Currently, some plans and managed care organizations require prior authorization for emergency department services and/or have denied payment for emergency room services if it turns out the patient's situation does not meet the plan or organization's definition of an emergency. As a result, a participant may be liable for the entire emergency room bill. This potential large cost to the patient, and the uncertainty of coverage, has a significant negative impact on the patient seeking emergency room care, even if such a visit is reasonable. What a tragedy it would be for a person to die because that person refused to go to the emergency room out of fear that coverage would be denied later? The Patients' Bill of Rights Plus remedies this situation in a cost effective manner by requiring self-funded ERISA plans that provide coverage for emergency services to pay for emergency medical screening exams using a ``prudent layperson standard.'' The bill also requires these ERISA plans to provide coverage for any additional emergency care necessary to stabilize an emergency condition after a screening exam. Under the prudent layperson standard, an ERISA plan would be required to cover emergency medical screenings if a person with an average knowledge of health and medicine would expect that the absence of immediate medical attention would result in serious jeopardy to the individual's health. For example, let's say an individual is experiencing chest pain. Though I am not a doctor (my father was), I do know that chest pain could at least be a symptom of indigestion, heart burn, or a heart attack. If this individual went to the emergency room because of these chest pains, the prudent layperson standard would cover emergency screening, even if the heart pain turned out to be a case of indigestion. Another problem that I continuously hear people complaining about is gatekeepers. Many plans require patients to visit their primary care physicians and obtain a referral before they can visit a specialty doctor. These gatekeeping provisions can, in certain circumstances, drive up the cost of healthcare, and also make it more difficult for patients to access appropriate medical care. Moreover, certain gatekeeping provisions fail to recognize that women and children have unique health care needs. The Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act also remedies these problems by requiring self-funded ERISA plans to provide direct access to routine obstetric and gynecological (``ob/gyn'') care and routine pediatric care without requiring prior authorization. Third, in addition to improving access to emergency care services, ob/gyns, and pediatricians, the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act ensures access to covered specialty care by requiring ERISA plans to provide patients access to covered speciality care within network, or, if necessary, through contractual arrangements with specialists outside the network. While this bill would not prevent a plan from requiring a referral by a patient's primary care physician in order to obtain some specialty services, the bill does require a plan to provide for an adequate number of visits to the specialist when the plan requires a referral. Fourth, the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act also addresses the situation of when a patient's physician under a plan is terminated or is not renewed by the plan. This bill requires an ERISA plan to continue coverage with a patients' provider, if the patient is undergoing a course of treatment that includes institutional care, care for a terminal illness, or care starting from the second trimester of pregnancy. Coverage duration is for up to 90 days for a patient who is terminally ill or who is receiving institutional care. For a pregnant woman who is in her second or third trimester, coverage is required to be continued through the postpartum period. In addition to providing these key consumer protections to the 48 million Americans who are covered by self-funded group health plans governed exclusively by ERISA, the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act creates appeals procedures for the 124 million Americans covered by both self-insured and fully-insured group health plans. These appeal provisions are essential protections to ensure that Americans receive the service and coverage they are entitled. Simply put, the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act requires an internal and external review process under which consumers can appeal a plan's denial of coverage. A plan must complete a consumer's internal appeal within 30 working days from the request for an appeal. An internal coverage appeal can also be expedited, meaning the determination must be made within 72 hours, in accordance with the medical exigencies of the case, after a request is received by the plan or issuer. In the event that the plan denies coverage because the treatment was not medically necessary or appropriate or was experimental, the internal review must be conducted by a physician who has appropriate expertise and who was not directly involved in the initial coverage decision. A consumer who is denied coverage and who loses an internal appeal still may have an avenue to pursue coverage through an external appeal. An external review is available when a plan has denied coverage based on lack of medical necessity and appropriateness and the amount involved exceeds a significant financial threshold or there is a significant risk of placing the life or health of the individual in jeopardy. Once an external review is requested, a plan must select a qualified external review entity, in accordance with the medical exigencies of the case. The plan must select the entity in an unbiased manner and the entity must be: (1) an independent external review entity licensed or credentialed by a State; (2) a State agency established for the purpose of conducting independent external review; (3) an entity under contract with the Federal Government to provide independent external review services; or (4) any other entity meeting criteria established by the Secretary of Labor. The external review entity then selects the independent expert to conduct the external review. This independent expert reviewer must have appropriate expertise and credentials, must have expertise in the diagnosis or treatment under review, must be of the same specialty as the treating physician when such an expert is reasonably available, and must not have certain affiliations with the case or any of the parties involved. This expert's job under the external review is to render an independent decision based on valid, relevant, scientific, and clinical evidence. This includes information from the treating physician, the patient's medical records, expert consensus, and peer-reviewed medical literature to assure that standards of care are reviewed in a manner that takes into account the unique needs of the patient. This internal and external review process is integral to ensuring that patients get the medical care they need. Again, the bill provides for an Independent medical judgment by a qualified and non-biased medical expert. This will protect against the possibility that a health plan might try to ``short change'' its consumers. Our bill is a responsible approach that will not drive up costs and cause more Americans to lose health insurance coverage. Sixth, the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act protects health insurance consumers against the use of a technological innovation that could prove costly to them. Scientists today believe that most people carry genes with certain characteristics that may place these people at risk for future diseases. Consequently, insurance companies could use this technology and charge higher premiums to those individuals who are genetically predisposed to certain diseases. The Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act protects against this by prohibiting all group health plans and health insurance issuers from denying coverage, or adjusting premiums or rates based on ``predictive genetic information'' for the 140 million Americans covered by both self-insured and fully insured group health plans and individual health insurance plans. Finally, this bill protects consumers and increases the quality of health care by protecting patient-provider communications. The communications are protected through the elimination of gag rules, which restrict physicians and other health care providers from discussing patient treatment options not covered by patients' plans. I believe in providing patients with the most information possible so that they can make informative healthcare decisions, in consultation with their health care provider. The gag rule prohibition in this bill will permit health care professionals to discuss treatment alternatives with patients and render good medical advice, regardless of whether the treatments or alternatives are covered benefits under the plan. Not only does the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act provide consumer protections and increase health care quality, this legislation also increases access to the health care system. First, this bill expands the use of Medical Savings Accounts (``MSA''). These accounts were created in 1994 but are currently only available for employees of firms with 50 or fewer employees. This bill expands MSA availability to all individuals. This bill also loosens some of the restrictions on Flexible Savings Accounts (``FSA''). An FSA is an account which an employee can deposit money into to cover healthcare costs that are not covered by the plan. Current law, however, provides that any money in the FSA that is not used by the end of the year is lost. This bill would allow workers to keep up to $500 of unused FSA funds in tax- preferred accounts every year, giving those patients greater control over their health care. I have long been a supporter of giving Americans the ability to better control their own health care costs by purchasing special tax-preferred savings accounts for basic medical expenses. Finally, the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act expands access to health care by allowing self-employed Americans to deduct 100 percent of health insurance expenses from their taxes. Combined, MSAs, FSAs, and the full deductibility of health care costs for the self- employed will increase Americans flexibility in health care coverage options and decrease the number of uninsured. Mr. President, this is just a brief summary that highlights some of the major provisions of the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act. As I am sure you can see Mr. President, that this bill is truly a Patients' Bill of Rights. This bill provides consumers with a number of protections against health plans and increases accessibility to the health care system. Consequently, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important piece of legislation. On the other hand, because I feel so strongly that we as a Congress must work toward increasing accessibility to the heath care system, I feel compelled to speak out against the so called ``Patients' Bill of Rights.'' This bill, by prescribing more mandates, more regulations, more bureaucracy, and more lawsuits, will certainly raise the costs of health care and close the access door to many Americans. Health care costs are already high in this country, and many Americans cannot afford health insurance. According to Dan Crippen, director of the Congressional Budget Office, there were approximately 43 million Americans under the age of 65 that lacked health insurance coverage in 1997. As health care costs continue to rise, who do you think is going to pay for the increased cost? Well, I am fairly certain it will not be the insurance companies or the health care providers. Rather, increased costs will be passed on to the consumers through higher premiums and reduced benefits. That means the consumer will have to bear the cost by paying higher premiums for their health plans and receiving less benefits. Higher premiums for consumers mean even more Americans will be unable to afford health insurance coverage. Mr. President, I believe the United States Congress should pass a Patients' Bill of Rights that provides consumer protections and does not result in people losing access to the health care system. The ``Patients' Bill of Rights'' does not achieve these objectives. The Congressional Budget Office has conducted a cost estimate of the ``Patients' Bill of Rights.'' The original cost estimate of this bill was that it would increase premiums 6.1%. It is not difficult to understand that higher premiums are likely to result in some loss of health insurance coverage. If you increase costs, some people will not be able to afford health insurance. Americans should not have to choose between the basic necessities of life like food and shelter and health insurance. Mr. President, given the number of uninsured Americans and the prospect of increasing health care costs, the ``Patients' Bill of Rights,'' by increasing premiums by 6.1%, is simply irresponsible. Predicting the exact number of Americans that will be uninsured if the ``Patients' Bill of Rights'' becomes law is difficult. However, the numbers the experts keep telling me are that this bill will result in over 1 million Americans losing their health insurance coverage. Of this over 1 million Americans, an economic consulting firm estimates that this bill will cause over 34,700 Virginians to lose their health insurance. Let me reiterate this point Mr. President. The experts have been telling me that due to the 6.1% premium increase in the ``Patients' Bill of Rights,'' over 1 million Americans and approximately 34,000 Virginians are likely to lose their health insurance. This, Mr. President, I cannot accept. Mr. President, legislation that will cause so many Americans and so many Virginians to lose health insurance coverage is not a true Patients' Bill of Rights; therefore, I am unable to support the inappropriately titled, ``Patients' Bill of Rights.'' On the other hand, the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act is a true Patients' Bill of Rights. The Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act increases access to the health care system and provides key consumer protections. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this true patient protection piece of legislation.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of my amendment creating the Federal Employees Equity Act of 1999. My legislation expands a provision included in the Omnibus Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 1997 (P.L. 104-208) to allow Federal agencies to contribute to the costs of professional liability insurance for their senior executives, managers and law enforcement officials. While this important benefit contained in the Omnibus Appropriation bill was indeed enacted, it has not been made available on as wide a basis to Federal employees as we had hoped. The Federal Employees Equity Act would ensure that Federal agencies reimburse one-half the premiums for Professional Liability Insurance for employees covered by this bill. Federal managers, supervisors and law enforcement officials should not have to fear the excessive costs of legal representation when unwarranted allegations are made against them and investigations of these allegations are conducted. I was a strong supporter of the provision in 1996 because Federal officials often found themselves to be the target of unfounded allegations of wrongdoing. Sometimes allegations were made by citizens, against whom Federal officials were enforcing the law and by employees who had performance or conduct problems. Although many allegations have proven to be specious, these Federal officials were often subject to lengthy investigations and had to pay for their own legal representation when their agencies could not provide it. The affected Federal managers, supervisors and law enforcement officials are generally prohibited from being represented by unions. For employees who are in bargaining units represented by unions, Congress allows Federal agencies to subsidize the time and expenses of union representatives when they are needed by such employees, whether or not they are dues paying members of the union. Because these Federal officials are denied union representation, they have found it necessary to purchase Professional Liability Insurance in order to protect themselves when allegations are made against them to the Inspector General of their agency, to the Office of Special Counsel, or to the EEO office. The insurance provides coverage for legal representation for the employees when they are accused, and will pay judgments against the employee up to a maximum dollar amount if the employee is found to have made a mistake while carrying out his official duties. Currently, these managers must hire their own lawyers in order to defend their reputation and careers when they are the subject of a grievance, regardless of whether the complaint has merit. The current law has had some success and has been implemented by several Federal departments including: Departments of Agriculture, Education, Interior, Labor, and such agencies as the Social Security Administration, Small Business Administration, General Services Administration, Securities and Exchange Commission, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Office of the Inspector General at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the National Science Foundation, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Office of the Inspector General at the Office of Public Health and Science, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration at Department of Health and Human Services. Regrettably, other departments such as Treasury, Justice, Defense, Commerce, Transportation, Veterans Affairs, and agencies such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the Office of Personnel Management have not seen fit to do so. The professional associations of these officials (the Senior Executives Association, the Professional Managers Association, the FBI Agents Association, the Federal Criminal Investigators Association, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys, and the Nation Treasury Employees Union) have endorsed the concept for legislation to require Federal agencies to reimburse half the cost of premiums for Professional Liability Insurance. The intent of this measure is simply to ``level the playing field'' so that supervisors and managers are treated equally by various Federal agencies and have access to protections similar to those which are already provided for rank and file Federal employees. I request your support for these Federal officials and for this legislation.