John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I say to my colleague, you are right on. Indeed, go back before Kosovo to Bosnia. How many debates took place on this floor where the central question was: Was it in the vital U.S. interest to make our commitments there? Time and time again, the administration dropped the word ``vital,'' and then talked about how it was in our interest. But when we put life and limb of the American person on the line, whether it is in the cockpits or on the ground or on the sea, I really believe it should be in the vital interest of the United States of America for our families to be asked to make those commitments of life and limb. That is central to this question, as you pointed out, I think very carefully. If I might, because I think it bears worth repeating: ``The NATO charter requires the use of force in only one instance''--now this is the 1949 treaty, under article 5--``to respond to an armed attack against one or more of the member nations.'' Strike one, strike all. There is nothing in that charter that calls for the use of force to protect common interests. This is being created out of whole cloth, this non-article 5 combat. It is as if we are writing a new article to the original treaty. It is for that reason that we should bring this before the Senate. Because through the guise of calling it a strategic concept through the panoply of the 50th anniversary, what they have done here, in my judgment, is create a new article to the fundamental treaty of 1949, and that they cannot do without the advice and consent of the Senate.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. ROBERTS addressed the Chair.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, it was a partnership between the Senator from Michigan and myself together with all members of our committee. I think in the context of talking about Senator Thurmond, in the 21 years we have been here, he served with the chairmen before Senator Thurmond--Senator Nunn, Senator Tower, Senator Goldwater, Senator Stennis. Indeed, both you and I were well trained by these very, very strong and able leaders in the defense of our Nation.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today the Senate begins consideration of S. 1059, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. It is my distinct privilege as chairman to make the initial statement regarding this bill. I acknowledge the presence on the floor of my senior and most respected member, Mr. Thurmond, the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee. He will be speaking to the Senate just after the statements by the chairman and the ranking member. I thank Senator Levin, the ranking member. We came to the Senate together. I think this is our 21st year. We have collaborated on many, many special assignments given to us by previous chairmen and/or ranking members through the years. I value our professional relationship and, indeed, our friendship. I also wish to pay special acknowledgment to the subcommittee chairmen of the Armed Services Committee. Prior to this year, for some 20 years, I was a subcommittee chairman. I understand the role of a subcommittee chairman on our committee. But I must say, with great humility, I think each of the subcommittee chairmen this year exceeded beyond any current precedent their leadership, their hard work, together with their ranking member, in preparing the respective parts of this bill over which their subcommittees have jurisdiction. We have on our committee today marvelous participation by all members of the committee, on both sides of the aisle. I think our committee has historically operated and tried in every way to be nonpartisan on matters of defense, and we have succeeded. We are supported by just an extraordinary professional staff, and indeed other Members have their various personal staff members who work with the professional staff, and it is all a team together working to produce not only the bill but throughout the year to be responsive to each and every Member of the Senate with regard to their requests, or whatever the case may be, as they relate to the jurisdiction of our committee. So I thank them all at this time, as we begin this very important presentation to the Senate for the year 2000. I am extremely pleased to observe that this is the first time in nearly 15 years--15 consecutive years--that the defense budget before the Senate represents an increase in real terms, real dollars in our defense spending. This is a much-needed change, one that recognizes the problems brought on by 14 years of decline in defense spending. This overlaps, as the Chair will quickly recognize, both Republican and Democrat administrations. So this is not a political statement, although I do believe that the cuts under President Clinton have been too long and too deep. It was this year that the President, largely at the urging of a very courageous and fine Secretary of Defense, our former colleague, Secretary Cohen, and, indeed, members of the Joint Chiefs, gave his support to raising defense spending levels. Today, particularly under President Clinton, who has sent forward our troops into harm's way more times on more different specific missions than any other President in the history of this country, we are asking every day, every month, every year, more and more of the men and women of the armed services at a time when we have this very, very low level of manning of all branches of our services. At the same period, this world remains a place of ever increasing violence and uncertainty. As U.S. national interests are challenged throughout the globe, it is incumbent upon our military to be prepared to act when necessary, and act they have, with extraordinary commitment and professionalism. Our military forces are currently strained by ongoing day-to-day operations. The contingency operations in Bosnia, Iraq, and throughout the Balkan regions are putting a very severe strain on our overall manning and commitments, and the families --may I underline ``the families''--of these service members. In order for the military to respond effectively, it must receive the resources necessary to equip, train, and operate. Unfortunately, after years of declining budgets and continually increasing deployments overseas, the military services are showing the beginning signs of this overburdening. Recruiting and retention problems are leading to shortfalls in key skills. Insufficient procurement budgets have left our forces with equipment that is somewhat unreliable because of age and, indeed, more costly every day to maintain. Inadequate infrastructure funding has resulted in the degradation of the facilities in which our military personnel work and live. We must provide additional resources if we are to preserve this Nation's security and the readiness of its Armed Forces. That is why this bill before the Senate authorizes $288.8 billion in budget authority for fiscal year 2000--$8.3 billion above the President's request. I commend the majority leader of the Senate, Senator Lott, for his support and his leadership. It doesn't just go back a few weeks; it goes back well into last year. When consulting with him and, indeed, our distinguished chairman at that time, Senator Thurmond, the three of us recognized, together with other leaders in the Senate, such as Senator Stevens and Senator Domenici, that we have to bring about a reversal in this decline of defense spending. Those are the origins of the change of this curve. I want to note the extraordinary relationship that exists today between our committee and the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. I particularly thank Senator Stevens and his staff director, Steve Cortese, for their cooperation and support throughout the process of putting this bill together. Hopefully, Senator Stevens will follow soon behind with his bill so that the Senate can have both to consider. At this point I wish to take a moment to give credit to the Joint Chiefs of Staff for helping to secure the additional funding for defense. I think this is the first year in my 21 years that they have stepped forward with such absolute determination, vigor, and professional honesty and integrity and told the Senate--in effect, told the American people--of the concerns they have not only for their personnel but for the lack of funding needed to train the personnel, the research and development needed for the future, and the procurement decline we have experienced through these years. They came before the Senate committee last September and again in January, and they were very forthright. I don't doubt for a minute that their determination was the primary reason the President and the Secretary of Defense stepped up and began to support additional funding. The Secretary of Defense, of course, all along had been counseling the President, but I want to pay special respect to the Joint Chiefs. It is by necessity that I address this question of the shortfall in defense spending and lay it out historically over these 15 years. But let no one, let no nation, let no leader, let no rogue or terrorist think for a moment that the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States, together with their equipment and their readiness and training, aren't prepared to turn back any threat posed against this Nation, or this Nation together with its allies. In numerous committee hearings this year, the frightening magnitude of some of these problems was revealed. General Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated, ``Anecdotal and now measurable evidence indicates that our current readiness is fraying and that the long-term health of the Total Force is in jeopardy.'' General Shelton further informed the committee that our ability to execute our national military strategy has declined so severely that it would ``* * * take us more time, and that time to victory would mean that we would lose terrain that we subsequently would have to regain. It means that the casualties to the U.S. would be higher.'' Furthermore, according to the latest Quarterly Readiness Report: ``* * * there are currently 118 CINC-identified readiness related deficiencies, of which 32 are designated category 1 deficiencies--ones which entail significant war fighting risk to execution of the National Military Strategy and are key risk drivers for the MTW, Major Theater War, scenarios.'' During the committee's hearings on September 29, 1998 and January 5, 1999, the Service Chiefs outlined the essential funding requirements necessary to maintain the readiness of the armed forces. General Shelton and the Chiefs identified a series of readiness and modernization problems that, without additional funding of approximately $17.5 billion per year--I repeat, Mr. President--$17.5 billion per year--would continue to degrade our military capability. This figure does not include the additional funding necessary for contingency operations such as those we are facing in Kosovo today and in Bosnia and Iraq. It does not include additional funding for these contingency operations and increased pay and retirement benefits necessary to address the serious problems in recruiting and retention. This would cause additional requirements to exceed $20 billion per year. While the committee acknowledges that the administration's budget request contained additional money for defense--primarily because of the Joint Chiefs and Secretary Cohen's direct pleas to the President, the proposed budget request for fiscal year 2000 still falls short of meeting the Service Chief's minimum requirements. One of the noteworthy shortfalls within the budget request is the Administration's request to incrementally fund military construction. Such incremental funding would actually result in increased costs and delays in the construction of critical facilities. In addition, although the administration's fiscal year 2000 request represents an increase of approximately $500.0 million over the fiscal year 1999 budget request, it does not adequately fund the quality of life needs of the military departments. Therefore, the bill before the Senate allocates an additional $3.3 billion to MILCON to fully fund the fiscal year 2000 military construction and family housing programs requested by the Administration, and to fund additional quality of life programs--those determined by the members of our committee to have that high priority. A focus of the committee's action this year has been to address the serious problems we are having with recruiting and retaining a quality force. In January, the committee moved quickly to report out--and the Senate subsequently passed--S. 4, The Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999. The act authorized a 4.8-percent pay raise, reformed the military pay tables, and improved the military retirement system. The National Defense Authorization Act for 2000--this bill--includes pay and compensation elements of S. 4, as well as other innovative proposals to offer incentives to potential recruits and active-duty personnel. We believe the policies recommended in this bill will enable the military services to recruit and retain the number of quality personnel required to meet our national military strategy. That is the heart and soul of this bill. Again, I wish to commend Senator Lott and others who let this committee move out and have this as the first bill in the Senate to send the strongest message to the men and women in the Armed Forces all across the world that the Congress of the United States--certainly the Senate--stands beside them to see they are properly compensated and that their families receive a fair return for their services and the risks they take. There it is. It is in here. I hope it receives the strongest support of the Senate. The funding level of $288.8 billion for defense contained in the bill before the Senate represents a real increase of 2.2 percent over the fiscal year 1999 level. With the additional $8.3 billion over the budget request, the committee has done the following: Added more than $1.2 billion to primary readiness accounts, including ammunition, training funds, base operations, and real property maintenance. Two, authorized net increases of $509.3 million for ballistic missile defense programs; $218 million for military space programs and technologies; $111.6 million for strategic nuclear delivery vehicle modernization; and $55 million and a fraction for military intelligence programs; authorized $12.2 billion for atomic energy defense activities under the Department of Energy, an $187 million increase over the 1999 funding levels. That is an area in which the Presiding Officer has taken a great deal of interest through the years. Recommended a comprehensive set of provisions to enhance safeguards, security and counterintelligence at DOE facilities in response to recent and very, very grave and serious allegations regarding lack of security at DOE laboratories. We are learning every day about this breakdown in our counterintelligence. Members are participating in this analyzation. It is very serious and requires the closest attention by every single Member of the Senate. The committee has spent a good deal of time examining the allegations of Chinese espionage at the DOE facilities. The initiatives contained in this bill, I believe, will go a long way toward fixing the problems that Congress continues to discover. I say ``continues,'' because more and more comes out every day. In addition to the other items contained in this package, we have put into statute many of the items contained in the Presidential Decision Directive 61. The Secretary of Energy has indicated his support for our legislation. That is in this bill. We passed these provisions with strong bipartisan support in the committee. We also authorized a $855 million increase to the procurement budget request and a $213 million increase to research, development, test, and evaluation for the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force seapower and strategic lift programs. In addition, the committee authorized the budget requests for construction of six new ships and robust research and development in the future ships DD-21, CVN(X), the Virginia class submarines, and CVN-77. We added nearly $1.9 billion to procure a range of critical, unfunded requirements, and over $280 million of vital research and development activities for both air and land forces. We establish 17 new National Guard Rapid Assessment and Initial Detection Teams for domestic response to terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass destruction. This is a problem that this Senator considers the most serious facing the United States of America. That is, terrorism, which no longer is beyond our shores but which could be brought to our shores by any of the people crossing through the ports and the airports of this great nation of ours. Regrettably, even someone of deranged mind here at home could bring about the use of weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, this Senator, and indeed this committee, is giving its strongest support to prepare ourselves, hopefully, to deter any such attacks. If they occur, then the resources of the Department of Defense stand well trained to assist other departments and agencies of this Government in bringing about what solutions we would be faced with in such a horrible situation. I established a new subcommittee this year called Merging Threats under the very capable leadership of the Senator from Kansas, Senator Roberts. He will have more to say today about the very valuable work of this subcommittee and its ranking member and other Members toward what I have described in meeting this particular threat here at home. These particular teams, each comprised of 22 full-time National Guard personnel specifically trained and equipped to deploy and assess suspected nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological events in support of local first responders--that is, the local police, the local rescue, hospitals, volunteers all across our country; that is a local responding--would provide greater team coverage nationwide and greatly increase our ability to respond quickly to terrorist attack in the United States of America. Now, I note that the National Guard is involved. Throughout this bill, throughout current military history, there is an ever and ever increasing role for the Guard and Reserve forces. They comprise the total force, when you calculate the military capabilities of this country, and as each year goes by, more and more responsibility must be shared by the Active Forces with the Guard and the Reserve. They have performed brilliantly. Further, we establish a Department of Defense central transfer account for all funds to combat terrorism both at home and abroad, establish an information assurance initiative to strengthen DOD's information assurance program, and add an additional $120 million to the administration's request for information assurance programs, projects, and activities. The committee also considered additional base closings. This is a very serious subject, and my colleague, Mr. Levin, will have more to say about this, as will Senator McCain. During markup, the committee addressed two amendments submitted by these Senators. Both were not voted favorably by the committee. Speaking for myself, I have historically supported BRAC as a means of reducing excess military infrastructure. As Secretary of the Navy, I remember vividly having closed the Boston Naval Shipyard, one of the most significant base closings since World War II. I know how difficult it is on the local community and the State to see one of these facilities close. It is not just a matter of economics, although that is very serious; it is a matter of pride; it is a matter of patriotism; it is a matter of generations of association of the men and women of the military forces who were trained at and operated these bases. It goes back into the sinews of our history. Today, it is quite clear that the infrastructure and our inventory exceeds that which is needed by the current levels of the Armed Forces. Much of our war-fighting capability has changed dramatically. I remember the first BRAC. I was coauthor of that legislation. We closed a number of the old cavalry outposts that were built for the sole reason of protecting the territories when Americans were settling the West. By the time we got around, I think, 10, 12 or 15 years ago, to closing these bases, they had long since outlasted their military contribution to the overall security of our Nation. Historically, the country has always been behind. Again, I was the coauthor of the last BRAC bill. However, this time I declined and voted against the BRAC legislation for reasons that I will state more succinctly and fully at the time the amendment is brought to the floor today. I believe the bill before the Senate is a vital first step in enhancing military readiness, modernizing our forces, and improving the quality of life of our service members and their families. I urge my colleagues to send a strong signal of support, a strong signal of support to the men and women of the Armed Forces bravely performing their responsibilities as their forefathers have done throughout the history of this great Nation, formed 209-plus years ago. I anticipate with this bill and the bills that will follow we will always keep America strong, a beacon of hope and freedom and security to the whole world. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Lawrence Slade, a fellow on the staff of Senator McCain, be granted privileges of the floor during the discussion of S. 1059, the national defense authorization bill.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have just located, I think, a document that interests me a great deal. It is entitled, ``Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack: Report of the Joint Committee on the Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack,'' pursuant to a resolution of Congress, S. Res. 27. And it was reported on July 5, 1946. Just listen to those Senators who were on this commission: Alben Barkley, you remember him. What an extraordinary man; Walter George, George was considered one of the great, great internationalists; Scott Lucas of Illinois, one of the most senior Senators from the State of Illinois, the Presiding Officer's State; Owen Brewster from Maine; Homer Ferguson from Michigan. I say to my good friend, those names still reverberate with absolute distinction and credibility in this Chamber today. They made the findings which left history intact. And we here, just the two of us, really, on the floor tonight, are to urge our colleagues tomorrow to reverse that history? With all due respect, there is not the foundation, in my judgment, for the Senate to so act and overrule the findings of these men.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, there is no one in this body for whom I have greater respect than my dear friend and colleague, Senator Roth. He has put a lot of work, together with his able staff, into this case. But it seems to me that we stand in a momentous hour in the history of this country. We are asking our colleagues to trust in our own judgments and our findings as to whether or not one of the most remarkable and tragic chapters in the history of this Nation, in effect, should have this significant reversal these many years hence, based on no new evidence, based on the fervent plea of my colleagues, Senator Roth and Senator Thurmond. I shall take the floor tomorrow and most vigorously oppose this. I think for the night we have pretty well concluded this debate. I have to tell the Senator, it is an interesting one for me and not altogether without some implications in my own life, thinking back in that period of history. I will never forget Pearl Harbor. If I could just reminisce for a moment, it is hard to believe that shortly thereafter this city, the Nation's Capital, endured periods of blackout. I remember it very well, as a small--well, I wasn't so small. I remember my father was a physician and he was able to drive at night only with a slit on the headlights to get to the hospital. I remember very well our home was equipped with blackout curtains. All the streetlights went out. We were fearful of an attack here in Washington, DC, and, indeed, other east coast cities. There were Nazi submarines patrolling off the east coast of the United States, sinking ships. How well I recall on the beaches of Virginia there was washed up debris from sunken ships. The people on the west coast lived in constant fear that there would be an invasion. These were serious and strenuous times, calling on the men and women of the Armed Forces for a duty and a commitment and an assumption of risk without parallel, because this Nation in many respects was unprepared. How well we recall the pictures of the Army practicing maneuvers with broomsticks rather than rifles. When I think of the tragic death, loss of life and property, indeed, if we were to follow your logic--President Roosevelt had that intelligence--we could go back and judge the record of many others. It seems to me that what is before the Senate tonight is clear facts that men and women of clear conscience, with the ability to assess fresh information, have painstakingly gone through it, reached their conclusion year after year, and then a President, Harry Truman, is my recollection, am I correct, made the decision that he did with respect to these two officers. I just do not believe that the Senate at this time should reverse that history.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I don't intend to take the Senator's time. I intend to support the resolution. I thought a colloquy would bring out questions that others might have in mind and would clarify any doubts. Madam President, thank you.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think the Senator has raised a very key point. That is, equality of treatment. First, the Dorn Report specifically said that they--Kimmel and Short--do bear part of the responsibility. We are in agreement on that.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I introduce the Constitutional and Effective Reform of Campaigns Act, or ``CERCA'', which I first introduced during the 105th Congress. This legislation is the product of two years of hearings during my Chairmanship of the Rules Committee, discussions with numerous experts, party officials, and candidates, and nearly two decades of participating in campaigns and campaign finance debates in the Senate. Many of the proposals in this bill have been made in some form by several of my Senate colleagues and by Members of the House, and I readily acknowledge drawing on their expertise. The important discussions last Congress during the meetings of a task force headed by Senator Nickles, at the request of Majority Leader Lott, were invaluable. This legislation offers an opportunity for bipartisan support. It is a good faith effort to strike middle ground between those who believe public financing of campaigns is the solution, and those who believe the solution is to remove current regulations. It offers a package of proposals which realistically can be achieved with bipartisan support and meet the desire of the majority of Americans who believe that our present system can be reformed. In my judgment, we will not succeed with any measure of campaign reform in this complicated field without a bipartisan consensus. In drafting this legislation, I began with four premises. First, all provisions had to be consistent with the First Amendment: Congress would be acting in bad faith to adopt provisions which have a likelihood of being struck down by the federal courts. Second, I oppose public financing and mandating ``free'' or reduced-cost media time which in my mind is neither free nor a good policy idea. Why should seekers of federal office get free time, while candidates for state office or local office--from governors to local sheriffs--do not receive comparable free benefits? Such an inequity and imbalance will breed friction between federal and state office seekers. Third, I believe we should try to increase the role of citizens and the political parties. Fourth, any framework of campaign reform legislation must respect and protect the constitutional right of individuals, groups, and organizations to participate in advocacy concerning political issues. This bill is designed to be a ``bilateral disarmament'' on the tough issues of soft money and union dues: each side must give up equivalent ground. The Republicans should give ground by placing a cap on soft money which has tended to favor our side. And Democrats should give ground by allowing union members to decide voluntarily for themselves whether to contribute the portion of dues which goes to political contributions or activities. Specifically, on the issue of soft money, no reform can be considered true reform without placing limits on the corporate and union donations to the national political parties. This bill places a $100,000 cap on such donations. While this provision addresses the public's legitimate concern over the propriety of these large donations, it allows the political parties sufficient funds to maintain their headquarters and conduct their grassroots efforts. In addition, the current limits on ``hard'' contributions must be updated. The ability of citizens to contribute voluntarily to a wide range of candidates and to their parties is fundamental. At the same time, the practice of mandatory union dues going to partisan politics without union members' consent must end: it is counter to all the political freedoms that make America a true democracy. The concept of ``paycheck protection'' must be included in any campaign finance reform, so that these deductions are voluntary, whether these dues fund direct contributions to candidates or parties, or pay for undisclosed spending on phone banks, get-out-the-vote efforts, literature, and television ads. Under this legislation, unions would be required to obtain advance, written consent before deducting money for political activities from union members' paychecks. The present state of the law requires most union workers to give up their rights to participate in the union if they seek refunds of that portion of dues going to politics. In addition, this section would strengthen the reporting requirements for unions engaged in political activities and enhance an aggrieved union member's right to challenge a union's determination of the portion of dues going to political activities. In the Senate debates thus far, there has been much discussion about whether corporations should be required to obtain shareholder approval to make political contributions. This is an issue which warrants consideration. My proposal not only limits these corporate and union contributions to $100,000, it also includes a requirement that companies disclose their donations to federal political parties in their annual reports. And under current policies of the Securities and Exchange Commission, shareholders have the same rights to make recommendations to boards of directors on the propriety of political donations as they do on any business issue related to the company. In addition, the SEC is in the process of making it easier for shareholders to raise questions related to social policy matters at annual meetings. I am monitoring how these changes are implemented: if they are insufficient to guarantee adequate rights to shareholders, I will consider amending my bill to protect these rights. As an aside, I reject the notion that the status of union members is similar to those who belong to groups such as the National Rifle Association or the Sierra Club. Nobody is compelled to join these types of organizations, and those that do, know or should know that their dues are going in part to political causes. Furthermore, I considered including in this bill a narrowly-tailored disclosure requirement for individuals and groups spending large sums on public advertising affecting the public image of candidates during election seasons. However, in keeping with my first basic premise that reforms must pass the federal court test of constitutionality, I concluded that such a provision, in view of a long line of Supreme Court cases, likely would be declared unconstitutional, and thus I did not include the provision. The McCain-Feingold bill was thoroughly debated in the Senate, and any objective observer of the Senate would agree that we are genuinely deadlocked. This body needs to move beyond the debate of McCain- Feingold. I hope that all Members will review my bill as an objective and pragmatic approach to current problems with our campaign system. I encourage other Members to come forward, as I have, with proposals which objectively represent pragmatic approaches to what can be achieved. I do not claim to have the only solution: those with other ideas should come forward. In addition to the issues of soft money and union dues discussed above, nine other fundamental problems--all of which can be solved in a constitutional manner--are the most pressing. Here are these problems, in no particular order, and my proposed solutions: Problem 1: Politicians spend too much time fundraising, at the expense of their legislative duties for incumbents, and, for both incumbents and challengers, at the expense of debating the issues with voters. Solution: The current individual contribution limit of $1,000 has not been raised, or even indexed for inflation, for over 20 years. This fact requires that candidates must spend more and more time seeking more and more donors. The limit should be doubled, as well as indexed for inflation. Problem 2: The influence of voters on campaigns has been diminished by the activities of political action committees and interest groups. Solutions: I propose a $100 tax credit for contributions made by citizens, with incomes under specified levels, to Senate and House candidates in their states: this credit should spark an influx of small dollar contributions to balance the greater ability of citizens with higher incomes to participate. In addition, the increased individual contribution limit should balance the activities of political action committees. Problem 3: The influence of voters on campaigns has been diminished by contributions from those not eligible to vote. Solution: If you are not eligible to vote, you should not contribute to campaigns. My bill would prohibit contributions by those ineligible to vote, including non-citizens, children, and persons under felony convictions. It also codifies current regulations concerning political donations by domestic subsidiaries of foreign companies. Problem 4: Compared to incumbents, challengers face greater difficulties raising funds and communicating with voters, particularly at the outset of a campaign. Solutions: This legislation will allow candidates to receive ``seed money'' contributions of up to $10,000 from individuals and political action committees. This provision should help get candidacies off the ground. The total amount of these ``seed money'' contributions could not exceed $100,000 for House candidates or $300,000 for Senate candidates. To meet the constitutional test, this provision would apply to both challengers and incumbents alike, but in the case of an incumbent with money carried over from a prior cycle, those funds would count against the seed money limit. Second, Senate incumbents would be barred from using the franking privilege to send out mass mailings during the election year, rather than the sixty day ban in current law. Problem 5: Candidates with personal wealth have a distinct advantage through their constitutional right to spend their own funds. Solution: If a candidate spends more than $25,000 of his or her own money, the individual contribution limits would be raised to $10,000 so that candidates could raise money to counter that personal spending. Again, to meet constitutional review, this provision would apply to all candidates. Problem 6: Current laws prohibiting fundraising activities on federal property are weak and insufficient. Solution: The current ban on fundraising on federal property was written before the law created such terms as ``hard'' and ``soft'' money. This bill updates this law to require that no fundraising take place on federal property. Problem 7: Reporting requirements and public access to disclosure statements are weak and inadequate. Solutions: Under this proposal, the FEC would be required to post reports on the Internet for all to see, and to require that candidates, and groups making independent expenditures, make faster and more complete reports. In addition, registered lobbyists would be required to report their campaign contributions and those of their employer on their lobbyist disclosure reports. Problem 8: The Federal Election Commission is in need of procedural and substantive reform. Solutions: This legislation contains a number of procedural and substantive reforms of the FEC, including term limits for commissioners, and increases in penalties for serious violations. Problem 9: The safeguards designed to protect the integrity of our elections are compromised by weak aspects of federal laws regulating voter registration and voting. Solutions: The investigations of contested elections in Louisiana and California have shown significant weaknesses in federal laws designed to safeguard the registration and voting processes. The requirement that states allow registration by mail has undermined confidence that only qualified voters are registering to vote and only registering once: states should be allowed to decide whether to allow mail-in registrations. In addition, states should be allowed to require proof of citizenship when registering and proof of identification when voting: we require a photo ID to buy beer or cigarettes and can certainly allow states to protect the voting process by requiring a photo ID. Lastly, this bill would allow states to purge inactive voters and to allow state law to govern whether voters who move without reregistering should be allowed to vote. These are the problems which I believe can be solved in a bipartisan fashion. Attached to this statement is a section by section review of the legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact meaningful campaign reform, by looking at reform beyond the usual sound bites and addressing the real problems with our present campaign system. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of this conference report. I say to my good friend from North Dakota, I had oriented myself to one set of remarks, but I listened carefully to his, as I frequently do. He certainly speaks from the heart about his people. I remember the floods that his State experienced years ago. I feel as if I am on the farm, the family farm, with him. And you talked about that family. So while we may be at odds on this bill, I want to take the same theme and talk about a family. I want to talk about a military family. This bill has in it provisions for a military family. I want to talk about that wife here in the United States, or in other places of the world, with their children, whose husband is flying an aircraft right at this minute in harm's way. It could be the reverse, because women are flying aircraft in harm's way in this conflict over the Balkan region, over Iraq. Mr. President, this country is at war. And for that wife at home, war is hell. For that individual in the cockpit, war is hell. The purpose of this emergency legislation is to provide the dollars necessary to alleviate to some extent the strain on the families and those in the cockpits. Every Member of the Senate has young men and women involved in the conflict in Kosovo or over the general Balkan region or over Iraq or standing guard, as they are, in other far, remote areas of the world to protect freedom. That is what this bill is all about. Let me add one other feature, and then I will yield the floor, because many are anxious to speak. Each year, the Department of Defense plans for the next year and the year following as to how many aviators, for example, they will train to keep the cockpits filled. Last year, the number of pilots we had to keep to maintain the flying status of sufficient men and women fell by 1,641. That number of young men and women trained as aviators decided they no longer could remain on active duty and would return to civilian opportunities. Many of those decisions were dictated by their concern for their families. But stop to think of what it costs every American taxpayer to replace that individual in that airplane, to train the number of new recruits to be pilots or navigators or to take to sea in those combat airplanes. I ran that calculation. It costs roughly between $2 million to $6 million, depending on the type of aircraft, to train a man or a woman to become an aviator, $2 million to $6 million. If you multiply the average of that times 1,641, it is $9 billion just to replace the aviators. That same drain on trained manpower, womanpower in the military occurs in other branches of the service where perhaps their training is not as costly to the taxpayer but $9 billion just to close the gap for those flying aircraft. Let us think about the families, as my good friend from North Dakota described, the farm community. Let us talk about the military, what those wives and their children, what those aviators are doing in harm's way today. They are carrying out the orders of the President of the United States, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. This Nation is but one of 19 nations locked together in the first combat operation in the 50-year history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. This is a critical moment for families, be they farm families or military families. Mr. President, as I said, support the emergency supplemental appropriations bill now before the Senate. As chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, I join with my colleague and close working partner on defense matters, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, to urge all our colleagues to support our military forces by voting for this bill. I support this bill for one simple reason--we are at war. As we speak, we have military forces engaged in combat--going in harm's way-- in the skies over the Balkans and Iraq. Whether or not there is agreement on how these risk-taking operations are being prosecuted is not now the question. We must support our military forces who are risking their lives daily to carry out the missions they have been assigned. Mr. President, the conflict in Kosovo has been ongoing since March 24, when the NATO use of force began. Since that time our pilots and the pilots of our allies have flown thousands of combat missions against Milosevic's military machine. We have already spent billions of dollars--on both aircraft operations and munitions--in support of Operation Allied Force. These funds are now coming out of the readiness accounts of our military services. Without this supplemental, there would be further and unacceptable degradation of the readiness of our forces. The conference agreement provides $10.9 billion for defense, including $2.2 billion above the President's request for aircraft flying hours, spare parts, depot maintenance and munitions, including sophisticated precision-guided missiles and bombs, which allow our pilots to be more effective at reduced risk--both to them and to innocent civilians on the ground. Mr. President, I know that some of my colleagues have expressed concern regarding the funds provided in this bill for pay raises, pay table reform and retirement reform. I firmly believe that all my colleagues would agree that we have very serious problems of recruiting and retention in our military services. I believe the problems are of such magnitude--indeed, we have a hemorrhaging of skilled personnel leaving our military--that this situation qualifies as an emergency. As an example, both the Army and the Navy failed to meet their 1998 recruiting goals and the Army, Navy, and the Air Force project that they will not meet their recruiting goals for 1999. Last year, 1641 more pilots left the service than the Department of Defense projected. It costs about $6 million to train a single pilot. The cost to replace these 1641 pilots is more than $9 billion. We must act to stop this hemmorhage of pilots and other skilled military personnel. We must send a signal now that we in the Congress intend to take care of our military personnel and their families. I know that there are Senators who are concerned about this process, and there are Senators who disagree with some of the items in this emergency supplemental. I share some of these concerns. But, Mr. President, as I stated earlier, our Nation is at war. We can argue the process and our other concerns at another time. I believe that now is the time for the Senate to show its support for our men and women in uniform who are, as we speak, carrying out their assigned missions under difficult and dangerous conditions. I will vote for this bill, and I strongly urge my colleagues to do likewise. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. But the interesting thing is the direct parallels between, Mr. Chairman, what he performed in the Navy in 1974 and what he performed in the Senate in 1994. When I spoke of him as ensign, I heard on the floor of the Senate a little chuckle from a former ensign who is over there now preparing to address the Senate. I am sure he might expand a little bit on the relationship between an ensign and the higher officers. I see him busily going over his notes over there. But I say to my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, we should conclude these remarks by saying: An officer and a gentleman--a phrase known in the U.S. Navy. My distinguished colleague from Massachusetts earned that title, as did Admiral Nance. I thank the Chair and thank my distinguished colleagues. I ask unanimous consent that the Distinguished Service Medal citation be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to join our colleagues in the Senate to provide this record of our recollections of this great American who, in service to the Senate and in partnership with the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, left his mark. I feel very humble about it because I was fascinated in some research that I did on the U.S.S. North Carolina, the battleship on which he served. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record reference to the engagements in the closing days of World War II in which this distinguished ship participated with Ens. Bud Nance.

Mr. WARNER. In that period of time I was but a mere radioman third class. Aboard a battleship, about the only thing lower than a radioman third class is a bull ensign out of Annapolis. If the Admiral were here, he would recall those days. Ensigns on battleships were almost down in the bilge area. Nevertheless, he was privileged to serve with that distinguished ship in a series of engagements. I have also found a record of his second Distinguished Service Medal. It is interesting. I am searching for the first because it is likely that was in my period of tenure when a radioman third class had become Secretary of the Navy, because this one covers the period of June 1975 through December of 1978. I want to read these remarks, signed by the then Secretary of the Navy: For exceptionally meritorious service to the Government of the United States-- Rear Adm. James W. Nance, U.S. Navy-- while serving as the Assistant Vice Chief of Naval Operations/Director of Naval Administration from June 1975 through December 1978. In directing the efforts of the vast human and physical resources of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Rear Admiral Nance displayed the highest order of leadership, superb managerial acumen, and unexcelled initiative. The same qualities, Mr. President, I say to the chairman of the committee, that he exhibited on the Foreign Relations Committee. Isn't it interesting, these many years prior thereto, he was recognized for those qualities? His keen foresight and perception coupled with an extensive knowledge of Navy organization were significantly instrumental in successfully guiding the reorganization of several major realignment programs. Did he not do some reorganization for you, Mr. Chairman? Utilizing dynamic leadership, keen administrative ability, and steadfast perseverance, Rear Admiral Nance managed the Navy's massive organizational network in a noteworthy manner, thereby enhancing the shore establishment's support to the fleet. Additionally, he personally initiated and implemented important improvements in both procedural and institutional aspects of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and, by personal attention, example, and vigorous advocacy, he provided positive leadership in the area of Equal Employment Opportunity. Rear Admiral Nance's distinctive accomplishments, unparalleled effectiveness, managerial expertise, and tenacious devotion to duty reflected great credit upon himself and were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the very detailed briefing that goes behind this, the Navy's highest noncombat award, for which he received two. I hope to complete my research about the first.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, pursuant to section 3(b) of S. Res. 400 of the 94th Congress, I request that S. 1009, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, which was reported out on May 11 by the Select Committee on Intelligence, be sequentially referred to the Committee on Armed Services for a period not to exceed 30 days.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and say farewell to an outstanding Naval Officer, Captain Robert B. Shields, Jr., as he prepares to retire upon completion of twenty-seven years of distinguished service. It is a privilege for me to honor his many outstanding achievements and commend him for his devotion to the Navy and our great Nation. A native of Providence, Rhode Island, Captain Shields is a graduate of the United States Naval Academy. Upon graduation in 1972, his first sea tour was aboard the USS Aylwin (FF-1081) where he served as First Lieutenant and Anti-Submarine Warfare Officer. His second and third shipboard tours were served aboard USS Nicholson (DD-982) and USS Richmond K. Turner (CG-20). Captain Shields continued to demonstrate outstanding leadership abilities as the Executive Officer of USS Sterett (CG-31) and was rewarded with command of the destroyer USS O'Bannon (DD-987). His most recent sea tour was as Commanding Officer of the cruiser USS Vicksburg (CG-69). During Captain Shield's tenure, his ship earned the Battle Efficiency ``E'' Award, the Ney award, and the Best Ship's Store Sales and Service Award. Vicksburg distinguished herself as Air Warfare Commander for the John F. Kennedy Battlegroup while deployed to the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf. Captain Shields completed shore assignments at the Navy Postgraduate School where he earned a Masters of Science Degree in Engineering Acoustics; the Royal Navy Staff College in Greenwich, England; and in a variety of assignments in Washington, D.C. In Washington, he was assigned to the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations in the Research, Development and Acquisition Directorate and then completed a year as a Federal Executive Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Captain Shields first came in contact with our nation's lawmakers when he served as a Congressional Liaison Officer for surface ship programs in the Navy's Office of Legislative Affairs. With many successful at-sea and shore tours behind him, Captain Shields' was then handpicked to serve as Deputy Legislative Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. His current, and last, assignment has been with the Navy's Office of Legislative Affairs where he is Deputy Chief. Captain Shields is a dynamic and resourceful naval officer who throughout his tenure has proven to be an indispensable asset. He is a passionate advocate of the Sea Services and has been tireless in supporting the needs of the Sailors in the Fleet and their families. He understands better than anyone that they are truly the backbone of our national defense. His superior contributions and distinguished service will have long-term benefits for both the Navy and the country he so proudly served. As Captain Shields enters into his new profession, we will certainly miss him. I am proud to thank him for his service and wish him ``fair winds and following seas'' as he concludes his distinguished Naval career.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which will preserve a site of great historical importance. The legacy of Civil War battlefields must be perpetuated, not only to commemorate those who lost their lives in this tragic epoch, but also to consecrate land upon which some our country's finest strategic maneuvers occurred. On the hallowed land of Wilderness, Virginia occurred one of the greatest tactical stratagems in military history. Snatching the initiative to turn the tide of battle, Lt. General James A. Longstreet, under the command of General Robert E. Lee, forced back Union forces directed by General Ulysses S. Grant, in an advance known as ``Longstreet's Flank Attack''. Mr. President, this legislation will allow the Park Service to acquire this stretch of land, which will serve to ``complete'' Wilderness Battlefield. The legacy of the Civil War is far-reaching. A war which wrought such destruction has been the source of much fascination for scholars and amateur historians. The Battle of Wilderness is legendary for the tactical skills employed and the caliber of the soldiers who fought. There, among the tangled forests and twisted undergrowth, the Union Army, numerically superior and well supplied, were forced into confrontation with General Lee's hard scrabble Confederate troops. It would be one of the last battles in which Lee's incomparable martial machine would force Grant's Army of the Potomac to withdraw. It is also the site of the wounding of Gen. Longstreet, who, like General Stonewall Jackson, was wounded by friendly fire. Though Longstreet's injury was not mortal, the genius of the cadre of officers under the command of Lee dwindled. Thus would begin the twilight of the Confederacy. Legislation passed in the 102nd Congress would have allowed the Park Service to acquire this land by donation. Despite numerous efforts, the Park Service has been unable to accomplish this. The legislation at hand would amend Public Law 102-541 to allow the Park Service to procure the land by purchase or exchange as well as donation. The heritage and history which dwell amongst the interlaced undergrowth of this land deserve our recognition. I look forward to the swift passage of this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which will preserve a site of great historical importance. The legacy of Civil War battlefields must be perpetuated, not only to commemorate those who lost their lives in this tragic epoch, but also to consecrate land upon which some our country's finest strategic maneuvers occurred. On the hallowed land of Wilderness, Virginia occurred one of the greatest tactical stratagems in military history. Snatching the initiative to turn the tide of battle, Lt. General James A. Longstreet, under the command of General Robert E. Lee, forced back Union forces directed by General Ulysses S. Grant, in an advance known as ``Longstreet's Flank Attack''. Mr. President, this legislation will allow the Park Service to acquire this stretch of land, which will serve to ``complete'' Wilderness Battlefield. The legacy of the Civil War is far-reaching. A war which wrought such destruction has been the source of much fascination for scholars and amateur historians. The Battle of Wilderness is legendary for the tactical skills employed and the caliber of the soldiers who fought. There, among the tangled forests and twisted undergrowth, the Union Army, numerically superior and well supplied, were forced into confrontation with General Lee's hard scrabble Confederate troops. It would be one of the last battles in which Lee's incomparable martial machine would force Grant's Army of the Potomac to withdraw. It is also the site of the wounding of Gen. Longstreet, who, like General Stonewall Jackson, was wounded by friendly fire. Though Longstreet's injury was not mortal, the genius of the cadre of officers under the command of Lee dwindled. Thus would begin the twilight of the Confederacy. Legislation passed in the 102nd Congress would have allowed the Park Service to acquire this land by donation. Despite numerous efforts, the Park Service has been unable to accomplish this. The legislation at hand would amend Public Law 102-541 to allow the Park Service to procure the land by purchase or exchange as well as donation. The heritage and history which dwell amongst the interlaced undergrowth of this land deserve our recognition. I look forward to the swift passage of this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I did not mean to interrupt, Mr. President.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I do not want to interrupt this important colloquy, but I believe I am up next.

Mr. WARNER. How many times did we send out our troops? Are we suggesting each time, whether it was Vietnam in particular or Korea, that that wasn't the proper authority exercised by the President of the United States? You suggest that, I say to the Senator, when you say----

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will simply reply to my good friend, only four times in the history of the United States of America has Congress used that phrase, ``declare war.'' World War II is the last; am I not correct?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, while I have the Senator's attention, though, he said--very interesting--I don't want to breach confidences, but he and I have been present at three very important consultations with the President of the United States.