J. Cleland

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the Georgia Southern University football team for their second consecutive and sixth overall NCAA's Division I-AA football national championship. In addition to the record number of National Championships, Georgia Southern has captured four consecutive Southern Conference titles. Never in the history of Division I-AA has there been such a successful football program and I see no end to their success in the future. Among the many players and coaches who were honored this year was Coach Paul Johnson who was recognized as the American Football Coaches Association's 2000 Regional Coach of the Year. Another notable performance was that of junior running back Adrian Peterson who completed his 43rd consecutive game rushing for more than 100 yards-- including 152 yards against the much larger school, the University of Georgia and 148 yards against Montana in the National Championship game. Much credit is due to all the players--offense, defense and special teams--who made this wonderful season possible. While the Eagles had just two losses this season--one to rival Furman and the other to the Division I-A opponent the University of Georgia-- they had an impressive list of victories this season, including: a 57- 12 victory over Johnson C. Smith; a 24-17 victory over Wofford; a 31-10 victor over Chattanooga; a 56-3 victory over VMI; a 42-24 victory over Western Carolina; a 34-28 victory over Appalachian State; a 27-10 victory over the Citadel; a 42-7 victory over East Tennessee State; and a 32-9 victory over Elon. Additionally, in the post season, Georgia Southern defeated: McNeese State 42-17; Hofstra 48-20; Delaware 27-18; and finally, Montana 27-25 for the National Championship. Mr. President, at this time, I would like to recognize all the 2000 Georgia Southern football team for their dedication to the team and their commitment to the hard work it takes to win a national championship: Derek Adams, T.J. Anderson, Mike Anderson, Brad Bird, Rob Bironas, Chris Blount, Bubba Brantley, James Burchett, Travis Burkett, Victor Cabral, P.J. Cantrell,, Charles Clarke, Edmund Coley, Paul Collins, Dreck Cooper, Reggie Cordy, Melvin Cox, Leonard Daggett, Devin Danridge, Kevin Davis, Dietrich Everett, Hakim Ford, Nate Gates, Justin Godsey, Ryan Hadden, Eric Hadley, Travis Hames, Winston Hardison, Kevin Heard, Nick Heuman, Sean Holland, Dallas Horne, Donte Hunter, Trey Hunter, Eric Irby, Chris Johnson, Titus Johnson, Willie Johnson, Jamar Jones, Josh Jones, Nick Kearns, Tom LaRocco, Robert LeBlanc, Robert Locke, Basail Mack, James McCoy, Jim McCullough, Chad McDonald, Eric McIntire, Jesse McMillan, Corey Middlebrooks, Steven Moore, Phillip Mouzon, Mark Myers, Jason Neese, Derrick Nobles, Chris O'Neil, Carlton Oglesby, Terry Owens, Kevin Patterson, Freddy Pesqueira, Adrian Peterson, Lavar Rainey, J.R. Revere, Matt Rio, Aundra Robinson, Elliott Rogers, Darryl Rountree, Anthony Scott, Joe Scott, Scott Shelton, Mike Stewart, Dion Stokes, Taqua Thrasher, Gino Tutera, Zzream Walden, Michael Ward, Andre Weathers, Sid Wildes, Anthony Williams, Chaz Williams, Derrick Williams, Tyrie Williams, Verge Williams, Justin Wright, Brian Young, David Young, James Young and Mike Youngblood. Finally, I would like to offer my thanks and congratulations to the people of Georgia Southern--the students, alumni, supporters, faculty, staff as well as the community of Statesboro. As you well know, this championship could not have been accomplished without your unshakable commitment to the football program last year and the many previous years. I am proud of all the Eagle players and coaches and I am proud to say the most successful football team in Division I-AA is still in Statesboro, Georgia. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would authorize the President to present a Gold Medal on behalf of Congress to former President Jimmy Carter and former First Lady Rosalynn Carter in recognition of their service to the Nation. I would like to thank Senators Miller, Inouye, Torricelli, Bingaman and Harkin for co-sponsoring this bill and extend an invitation to all our other colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation to award these two great Americans with Congress' highest honor. It is widely agreed that President Jimmy Carter and his wife Rosalynn Carter have distinguished records of public service to the American people and the international community. Internationally, the Carters have been involved in a number of public service initiatives ranging from combating famine in Sub-Sahara Africa and encouraging better health care in Third World nations to serving as mediators in an effort to end civil wars in half a dozen countries. President Carter has monitored numerous foreign elections in an effort to spread democracy throughout the world. A Congressional Gold Medal awarded by Congress will show the appreciation of the American public for the many contributions that President and Mrs. Carter have made, including service in public office from the state legislature to the White House. Jimmy and Rosalynn continue to promote human rights worldwide due to their active involvement in the nonprofit Carter Center in Atlanta that has initiated projects in more than 65 countries to resolve conflicts, promote human rights, build democracy, improve health care worldwide, and revitalize urban areas. In addition, the Carters serve as volunteers for Habitat for Humanity, which helps low income families build their own homes. I hope that other members of Congress will join me and Senators Miller, Inouye, Torricelli, Bingaman, and Harkin in recognizing President and Mrs. Carter for their distinguished records of public service by awarding them the Congressional Gold Medal. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Gold Star Parents Annuity Act. The use of the Gold Star to denote the death of a service member or members in a family was started during World War I by President Woodrow Wilson. The idea behind the Gold Star was that it could symbolize the family's devotion and pride in the ultimate sacrifice for their country made by their family member instead of the sense of personal loss that is represented by the traditional mourning symbols. The Gold Star Parents Annuity Act provides for an annuity of $125 a month payable to each individual who has received a Gold Star Lapel pin, which is awarded to parents who have had a child die honorably in service to our country. Payments are to be divided equally among parents when there is more than one surviving parent. The receipt of this pension will not deprive anyone of the right to any other pensions, benefit, right or privilege that they are entitled to under any existing or future law. Furthermore, these special pension payments will not be subject to any attachment, execution, levy, tax lien or detention under any process. I believe this measure would provide a needed increase in income for many parents who have lost children in service to our country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would authorize the President to present a Gold Medal on behalf of Congress to former President Jimmy Carter and former First Lady Rosalynn Carter in recognition of their service to the Nation. I would like to thank Senators Miller, Inouye, Torricelli, Bingaman and Harkin for co-sponsoring this bill and extend an invitation to all our other colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation to award these two great Americans with Congress' highest honor. It is widely agreed that President Jimmy Carter and his wife Rosalynn Carter have distinguished records of public service to the American people and the international community. Internationally, the Carters have been involved in a number of public service initiatives ranging from combating famine in Sub-Sahara Africa and encouraging better health care in Third World nations to serving as mediators in an effort to end civil wars in half a dozen countries. President Carter has monitored numerous foreign elections in an effort to spread democracy throughout the world. A Congressional Gold Medal awarded by Congress will show the appreciation of the American public for the many contributions that President and Mrs. Carter have made, including service in public office from the state legislature to the White House. Jimmy and Rosalynn continue to promote human rights worldwide due to their active involvement in the nonprofit Carter Center in Atlanta that has initiated projects in more than 65 countries to resolve conflicts, promote human rights, build democracy, improve health care worldwide, and revitalize urban areas. In addition, the Carters serve as volunteers for Habitat for Humanity, which helps low income families build their own homes. I hope that other members of Congress will join me and Senators Miller, Inouye, Torricelli, Bingaman, and Harkin in recognizing President and Mrs. Carter for their distinguished records of public service by awarding them the Congressional Gold Medal. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Gold Star Parents Annuity Act. The use of the Gold Star to denote the death of a service member or members in a family was started during World War I by President Woodrow Wilson. The idea behind the Gold Star was that it could symbolize the family's devotion and pride in the ultimate sacrifice for their country made by their family member instead of the sense of personal loss that is represented by the traditional mourning symbols. The Gold Star Parents Annuity Act provides for an annuity of $125 a month payable to each individual who has received a Gold Star Lapel pin, which is awarded to parents who have had a child die honorably in service to our country. Payments are to be divided equally among parents when there is more than one surviving parent. The receipt of this pension will not deprive anyone of the right to any other pensions, benefit, right or privilege that they are entitled to under any existing or future law. Furthermore, these special pension payments will not be subject to any attachment, execution, levy, tax lien or detention under any process. I believe this measure would provide a needed increase in income for many parents who have lost children in service to our country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CLELAND

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

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, today we saw new Members of the Senate sworn in. It was a pleasure to see a dear personal friend, Maria Cantwell from the great State of Washington, sworn in as that State's junior Senator. When I was visiting with her in the fall, during the maximum climactic days of her campaign, we were talking about the Senate and great Senators from the State of Washington, and the name of Henry ``Scoop'' Jackson came up. He has been one of my heroes. As a matter of fact, last year I was given the Scoop Jackson Award, and it was a great honor for me to receive it. Scoop Jackson was, of course, known for his stance for a strong military, a strong defense, and also a strong commitment to positive and progressive social policies. This made him a great statesman from the State of Washington. When Maria and I discussed this, I said: It is interesting; when I came to the Senate 4 years ago, I wound up with Scoop Jackson's desk. As a matter of fact, as my colleagues know, it is a tradition, after one has served here a while, that they carve their name in the desk when they leave. This honored desk has Scoop Jackson's name carved in it. It is my pleasure today to yield to the freshman Senator from the great State of Washington and, in the great tradition of Scoop Jackson, to yield to her this desk which will be transferred to her shortly. I wish her the very best and a long, lively term in the Senate, particularly in the tradition of Scoop Jackson. I welcome Senator Cantwell and yield the floor.

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate and acknowledge LaGrange, Georgia, which was recently named the ``Intelligent City of the Year for 2000'' by the World Teleport Association. LaGrange is only the second city to win this award which can be awarded to any city worldwide. LaGrange is deserving of this award, which is in recognition of its ``Internet For Everyone'' program to provide Internet access to every home in the city with cable access at no additional cost to the resident. In the 1990's, LaGrange officials deployed a fiber optic network because they recognized this infrastructure need to ensure their community is adequately prepared for the coming information age, and they saw the advantages of such an investment. This foundation led to the development of a two-way hybrid fiber coaxial cable network that supports cable modems and Internet access for the 21st Century. All the customer needs is a television, and the Internet is accessed through a set top box and wireless keyboard. This investment in the workforce of tomorrow is one of a kind, and anyone who can access the world wide web will now be a recipient of the knowledge and information of the citizens of LaGrange. I have pledged to work with them to encourage the further development of the Internet for the benefit of users worldwide. In fact, last month, I was in LaGrange to celebrate the wiring of the city's government housing community. At this event, I was pleased with the amount of knowledge the children already have about the web, its uses, and the potential it brings. They are our future, and they are the people who will benefit the most from LaGrange's farsightedness. As Congress looks for ways to bridge the digital divide, I would like to make an example of LaGrange, Georgia, the Intelligent City of the Year for 2000. There are many options available for communities around the country. Once we are connected we will truly be able to learn more from one another about ourselves, our communities, our country, and our world. Again, I congratulate the city of LaGrange, Georgia and Mayor Jeff Lukken, and I hope that the children and families of LaGrange will take full advantage of this great opportunity.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Senator. Two minutes.

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I come before the Senate to remind Members that the news today reminds us why we need a Defense authorization bill; why we need pay increases for our military men and women abroad; why we need our Armed Forces to be strong; why we need to take care of our military retirees, especially in terms of their health care needs; why we need a defense of this country at all. Our young men and women are in 121 nations around the globe, and they stand on watch in defense of this country. In doing so, they voluntarily, every one of them, place themselves in harm's way. We saw the cost today of that terrible price that is exacted from time to time on our service men and women. All of us have in our hearts and in our thoughts and in our prayers the families of those service men and women on board the U.S.S. Cole as they struggle with taking care of their dead, their wounded, and their missing. This year's Department of Defense authorization conference report represents months of hard work and compromise on behalf of our Nation's military, as has been discussed. I thank Chairman Warner and ranking member Carl Levin for their leadership throughout this entire process this year and for their support particularly of my initiatives to enhance the GI bill. Stephen Ambrose, the historian, particularly of the greatest generation of World War II, said the GI bill is probably the finest piece of legislation ever devised by the Federal Government. I thank Senator Hutchinson, chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee, with whom I have worked closely this year on issues pertaining to the quality of life of our service men and women. This conference report has been a long time coming, as has been discussed. We began the authorization process earlier this year. Here we are in the closing days of this session of the Congress and finally debating the conference report for the DOD authorization bill. The extended time we have taken on this year's bill has been worthwhile, though. It represents our continued effort in the Senate to build upon a firm foundation by providing a substantial increase in funding for the U.S. military, and Lord knows we need it. Last year was the first step in addressing some of the pressing needs of those who defend our Nation by providing pay increases--and by the way, with last year's pay increase and this year's 3.7-percent pay increase, we will have provided just in the last 2 years the biggest pay increase in a generation. This bill not only provides pay increases but reform of the military retirement pay system, targeted bonuses, critical investments in spare parts, and continued support for the next generation of weapons systems. We have taken an even bigger step this year throughout this process. We have talked with our men and women in uniform. This year I have been to Kosovo. I personally have been to Japan and the Korean peninsula. I talked with our men and women in uniform serving around the world. I consulted with the leadership of the services. We have taken yet another step to fulfill the promises to support those who put on the uniform and carry our flag every day. Our people, as we now know, and are so painfully reminded today, face dangers every day in what seems the most routine of tasks. Our hearts do go out to the sailors and families of those serving, especially on the U.S.S. Cole, tonight in the Middle East. Those sacrifices are just a recent reminder of what our men and women face every day. This year we continue the support of the modernization of our Armed Forces by funding the next generation of weapons systems, such as Joint Strike Fighter providing critical funding for the F-22 aircraft. We have authorized additions to some of our most trusted aircraft systems by increasing the funding for C-130s made in my home State of Georgia and funding additional JSTARS aircraft, without which we could not conduct modern warfare. Also included in this bill is increased funding to support the Army's plan to transform itself into a leaner, more mobile fighting force. We have authorized funding of $222 million for our spare parts accounts and over $407 million for equipment maintenance accounts to address such critical readiness issues. This year, as with last year, we have increased funding in support for the most critical weapon in our arsenal--our military men and women. It is their hard work and selfless service that make America's military the strongest force in the world. This year, we provided that 3.7-percent pay increase to all military personnel. We have eliminated TRICARE copayments for our military families and extended TRICARE Remote to active duty family members assigned to remote locations who do not have access to military treatment facilities. We have authorized almost $9 billion for military construction and provided improvements to family housing, which is much needed. We have included full implementation of a thrift savings plan for service members. We have also authorized those military families eligible for food stamps to qualify for an extra $500 a month. Most importantly, this year, we have taken an enormous step by providing health care access for our military retirees. Since my election to the Senate, I have heard from military retirees in Georgia and across the Nation regarding health care benefits. When they were asked to serve their country, they did not turn their backs on our country. Time and again, we have heard their call for keeping this country's promises to them. This year, we are living up to that promise. In this conference report, we have authorized the Warner-Hutchinson provisions granting TRICARE for seniors as a lifetime benefit for our retirees over the age of 65. For the first time, we are granting health care insurance for military retirees over 65. Though in the beginning this was a 2-year pilot program to be fully implemented and fully funded in the outyears, we worked to make this benefit permanent. Additionally, I worked with my colleagues to provide a prescription drug benefit, prescription drugs being the biggest out-of-pocket expense for military retirees, for our Medicare-eligible retirees. This is the first prescription drug benefit to be offered by the Federal Government. Our military retirees have earned these benefits, and I am proud to support both of these vital provisions. One quality of life issue I have been working on during the past 2 years has been educational benefits. I was pleased that two provisions of my educational initiative are included in the conference report: authorizing the services to pay 100 percent of tuition assistance for going to school while in the military and allowing VEAP participants to buy into the Montgomery GI bill. However, we have to do more. I will continue to work to address the quality-of-life issues, especially educational benefits. I still believe we must make the GI bill more family friendly. We must work to offer a transferability option to our military families, as recommended by the congressionally mandated Principi Commission. I note this conference report is subject to a budget point of order. There are important concerns about the increases in mandatory spending that are included in the legislation. However, this spending which is mainly for health care benefits is needed and justified. Therefore, I will not support the budget point of order and will support final adoption of this conference report. In the next congressional session, we have to continue to work hard to establish meaningful benefits for service members who serve our great Nation by taking additional steps along the road to maintaining the finest military in the world. We must honor the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who serve this country. They deserve it. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. I ask unanimous consent that Tricia Heller and Geoff Gauger be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of the Department of Defense authorization conference report.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, in my lifetime, I have witnessed many changes, experienced fantastic joys, and seen countless faces. It is easy in today's fast-moving society to find yourself caught in a perpetual whirlwind. With days full of appointments and meetings, life sometimes seems to lose all semblance of stability. Luckily, I have always had a source of peace and inspiration in my life, Lithonia First United Methodist Church. With great personal pride and happiness, I come before you today to commemorate an anniversary that is of particular importance to my family and me. One hundred-forty years ago, on Sunday, October 14, 1860, a small group of Lithonians convened for the first time to worship under the leadership of the Reverend Newdaygate B. Ousley. From its humble beginnings in a one room meeting house, Lithonia Methodist Episcopal Church, the forerunner to Lithonia First United Methodist Church began its ministry and a tradition of service that continues even today. It is ironic that a church that grew during the tumult of the Civil War has lasted as long as Lithonia First has. In fact, it is perhaps even more astounding that over the years since its first meeting, during a time that has seen two world wars and countless technological innovations, the church has pulled even closer together and taken on a significant leadership role in its Georgia community. For 140 years, Lithonia First United Methodist Church has provided services and leadership for the surrounding region. Through personal outreach, family ministry, and organizing events like flea markets and barbeques to raise money for the needy, Lithonia First has solidified its place of leadership in its community. Since its simple beginnings, Lithonia First United Methodist Church has grown and become a source of stability and inspiration for its congregants. Under the ministry of its Pastor, Dr. Lawrence E. Wilson, the church has proven how important faith is to our prosperity, and illustrated the power of a community united. It is my pleasure to honor Lithonia First United Methodist Church for its historic anniversary. I am forever grateful for the church's acceptance, dedication, and commitment, I am truly blessed to be a part of such a wonderful community.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, amid the violence and uncertainty of the Civil Rights movement, many people distinguished themselves while fighting for fairness and justice. Men and women risked great personal harm and displayed unparalleled courage in a struggle none of us must ever forget. Although many of the names of those who fought for fairness have been lost to history, it is important to honor these selfless warriors of equality. Although his name is not as familiar as those of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and James Farmer, Mr. LeRoy Collins, former Governor of Florida, played an instrumental role in preventing violence and ensuring the success of demonstrations one fateful Spring day in Selma, AL, 35 years ago. As marchers arrived at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, they hoped against hope that a repeat of ``Bloody Sunday'' was not waiting for them. President Lyndon Johnson, having witnessed the unconscionable violence initiated by Alabama State troopers on March 7, 1965, sought to stave off another potentially bloody day, and entrusted LeRoy Collins with the delicate task of easing the extremely tense situation. Over the course of the day, Mr. Collins crisscrossed the Pettus Bridge, negotiating at either end with Dr. King and representatives of the Alabama police. After a tireless effort, Mr. Collins eventually secured an agreement that not only allowed the marchers to cross the bridge, but also prevented the violent clash so many people had feared. Later that day, with Alabama State troopers and the entire Nation looking on, 2,000 people led by Dr. King peacefully marched across the Edmund Pettus Bridge. In an era known for its heated violence, peaceful encounters were a welcome surprise. The nonviolent nature of the second march across the Pettus Bridge was in no small measure a result of LeRoy Collins diligence and courage. One can imagine that had a deal not been brokered, an encounter, possibly more violent than the one on ``Bloody Sunday,'' could very easily have taken place. LeRoy Collins' work illustrates why it is important to go beyond the stories printed in the history books. His hard work and selfless effort saved lives and empowered the movement led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In a world seemingly devoid of real heroes, it is important to honor those who have made truly significant contributions to our Nation. It took a great man to accomplish what Mr. Collins did. As Dr. King once wrote, ``Human progress never rolls on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God.''

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, there is a great outpouring of human generosity taking place in our great country that I must speak about here today. I was honored to be with my friends and colleagues, including the late Senator Coverdell, Representatives Mac Collins and Sanford Bishop, Columbus Mayor Bobby Peters, Col. Frank Helmick, along with Wayne Anthony of Hands On Columbus and many, many other volunteers, as we embarked on the historic event of initiating the House of Heroes program. This program should serve as a model to communities all across the country to provide needed assistance and support for aging veterans who bravely served their country and their families. It is often said that ``Poor is the nation who has no heroes. Poorer still is the nation which has them but forgets them.'' The House of Heroes project makes sure we don't forget this adage by having volunteers take up shovels, paint brushes and brooms to show not only our veterans, but also their families, that they are not forgotten. This past May at the home of Betty Cook of Columbus, in my state of Georgia, the House of Heroes was inaugurated by federal, military, and local officials to help serve as a reminder to younger generations of Americans how our nation's older men and woman veterans have proudly served and sacrificed for their country to help preserve our freedom. The inauguration ceremony reminded us all that honor, valor, and sacrifice come not only from service members, but from their spouses and family as well. While Mrs. Cook's husband served his country as a medic in World War II, she fought the war at home. She supported their family on her own, while encouraging her husband to press on in battle overseas. Hundreds of thousands of G.I.'s fought for their families, sustained by the love they were getting from home. Victory was never won alone. The House of Heroes program relies on people who volunteer their services to repair and improve the home of a veteran and/or their spouse as an act of appreciation from the Congress of the United States and people of this nation. I am especially proud of those who contributed their time, effort and energy to help bring this project to fruition. It was especially uplifting to have witnessed the hard work that was put into the project. I would like to express my gratitude to each and every volunteer who made this worthy event the great success that it was. I strongly support H. Con. Res. 395 that expresses the sense of the Congress that the House of Heroes project in Columbus, Georgia, should serve as a model for public support for the Nation's veterans and strongly agree with everything this resolution represents. I especially thank Representative Mac Collins for introducing this worthy legislation. Today, Columbus, Georgia, remains home to thousands of service members and their families stationed at Ft. Benning and Columbus has always been a critical area for our nation's defenses, both past and present. The initiation of the House of Heroes program proves that from beginning to end, this remarkable city is home to some remarkable people. This event is only the beginning for the House of Heroes program as communities across the nation will begin to undertake their own House of Heroes programs modeled after the great program that the fine people of Columbus started.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, today, with my dear friend and wonderful colleague from Kansas, Senator Roberts, we come to the fifth and final in our series of floor discussions on the global role of the United States. We will begin with consideration of the key instruments of national security policy, and we will conclude this series with a presentation of what we have learned over the course of these dialogs. The inspiration for the first of today's topics comes from a source we have often cited in this series: The great 19th century military thinker, Karl von Clausewitz, who wrote in his seminal work on war these words: Its dominant tendencies always make war a paradoxical trinity. The passions that are to be kindled in war must already be inherent in the people. The scope which the play of courage and talent will enjoy in the realm of probability and chance depends on the particular character of the commander and the army; but the political aims are the business of government alone. These three tendencies are like three different codes of law, deep rooted in their subject and yet variable in their relationship to one another. A theory that ignores any one of them or seeks to fix an arbitrary relationship between them would conflict with reality to such an extent that for this reason alone, it would be totally useless. Our task, therefore is to develop a theory that maintains a balance between these three tendencies, like an object suspended between three magnets. Attempts to find the proper balance between the roles of the people, the military and the government when America goes to war have been a major feature of the last 35 years, from the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, to Operation Desert Storm, to Operation Allied Force. In my opinion, it is an effort which has not been overly successful. Certainly in the case of Vietnam, there was no real attempt to mobilize the American public in support of the war effort, nor for the Executive Branch to seek or the Congress to demand that the Constitutional role of the Congress to legitimize the conduct of hostilities be exercised. But I would also contend that much the same pattern is evident in more recent American interventions in the Balkans, and to an only somewhat lesser extent in the Gulf War. The fact that we have emerged from all of these military interventions without major harm--though the negative impact from Vietnam was far from negligible--is a tribute to the efforts of our servicemen and women, the capabilities of our weaponry, but also, I would suggest, the fact that our vital national interests were never threatened in these cases. Only the Cold War, which by and large was prosecuted effectively, both militarily and politically and on a bipartisan basis, and in which we achieved a decisive victory, posed such a threat in the last half century. We have spent much of the time in previous dialogues in discussing the proper ends of American national security policy in the post-Cold War era, but if we don't fix the problems in this ``holy trinity'' of means--the roles of the public, the military and the government--we are going to be continually frustrated in our achievement of whatever objectives we set. Let's start with the first of Clausewitz' trinity: the people. The post-Cold War world is not only producing changes abroad--changes which we have spoken of at some length in our previous global role discussions--but also a number of alterations here at home. Over the past decade or so, we have seen a democratization in terms of our foreign and defense policies in the sense that the American public is less and less disposed to leave these matters to the ``experts,'' and to trust the assurances of the ``Establishment'' with respect to the benefits of internationalism. While there is certainly nothing wrong with such skepticism, and indeed a demand for accountability is a healthy and appropriate attitude for the public to take, whether on national security or any other public policy, this democratization of national security policy has been marked by widespread public disengagement from the details of that policy: For example, a 1997 Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey found that foreign policy and defense ranked last, at 9 percent, among issues cited by the public as the most important matters facing the country. A 1997 Washington Post/Kaiser Foundation/Harvard poll discovered that 64 percent of the American public thought that foreign aid was the largest component of the federal budget, when in fact it is one of the smallest at approximately 1 percent. A 1999 Penn and Schoen survey discovered that nearly half--48 percent--of the American public felt that the U.S. was ``too engaged'' in international problems, while just 16 percent expressed the view that we are ``not engaged enough.'' A 1999 poll for the Program on International Policy Attitudes found that only 28 percent of the American people wanted the U.S. government to promote further globalization while 34 percent wanted our government to try to slow or reverse it, and another 33 percent preferred that we simply allow it to continue at its own pace, as we are doing now. Related to these results, I personally believe that the end of the draft and the dramatic reductions in defense personnel levels in recent years--since FY85 the size of our armed forces decreased by 30 percent--has produced a growing disconnect between the American public and the American military, with fewer and fewer people having relatives or friends in the military, or living in communities in which a military base is a dominant feature of the local economy. This growing separation between the military and civilian worlds has produced a profound impact on the perspectives and performance of the U.S. government when it comes to the use of force, and I will return to this point later. We can bemoan the public's skepticism and disengagement, and wish that it didn't exist, but it is a fact which impacts on all major foreign and defense policy issues facing the Congress. We saw it in the NAFTA debate, and in the debates on Iraq, NATO and the Balkans. Now, I believe that the critics of foreign trade and foreign engagement raise important and legitimate concerns which need to be addressed. I do not believe we can stand behind platitudes that ``foreign trade is always good,'' or ``U.S. leadership is always essential.'' In my view, the burden is now on those who would urge engagement overseas, whether military, political or economic. As the just discussed public opinion data indicate, they have their work cut out for them, with widespread indifference, lack of knowledge and doubt about the value of such engagement. However, it is a debate worth having, and indeed is essential if we are to achieve the kind of national consensus we need in this post-Cold War era. The second of the war-making trinity of Clausewitz is the military itself. Lets talk about the military. The subject of military reform is a fascinating and important one in its own right, but is somewhat beyond the scope of our dialogues on the U.S. global role. However, I would like to touch on a few areas in which the specific needs of our Armed Forces, and the perspectives of and about the American military have a direct bearing on our role as policy-makers. As perhaps the leading military analyst of the Vietnam War, Colonel Harry Summers, wrote in his excellent book On Strategy: The Vietnam War in Context: Prior to any future commitment of U.S. military forces our military leaders must insist that the civilian leadership provide tangible, obtainable political goals. The political objective cannot merely be a platitude but must be stated in concrete terms. While such objectives may very well change during the course of the war, it is essential that we begin with an understanding of where we intend to go. I couldn't have said it better. As Clausewitz said, we should not ``take the first step without considering the last . . .'' There is an inherent contradiction between the military and its civilian leaders on this issue. For both domestic and international political purposes the civilian leaders want maximum flexibility and maneuverability and are hesitant to fix on firm objectives. The military on the other hand need just such a firm objective as early as possible in order to plan and conduct military operations. That is according to Harry Summers. Mr. President, I know all too well the kind of price that is paid by our men and women in uniform when our political leaders fail to lay out clear and specific objectives. More than thirty years ago, in Vietnam we lacked clear and specific objectives. We attempted to use our military to impose our will in a region far from our shores and, in my view, far from our vital national interests, and without ever fully engaging the Congress or the American people in the process. The result was a conflict where the politicians failed to provide clear political objectives and where our policy was never fully understood or fully supported by the American people. From what I have seen since I came to this distinguished body in 1997, we have made very little progress on any of these fronts in the years since that time when it comes to America going to war. The trend discussed earlier of a growing disconnect between the military and civilians has been perhaps even more pronounced among national foreign and defense policy-makers. A groundbreaking recent study, organized by the North Carolina Triangle Institute for Security Studies and entitled ``Project on the Gap Between Military and Civilian Society,'' made a number of major findings relevant to our discussion today. Let me quote from the Project's Digest of Findings and Studies: Americans in the national political elite are increasingly losing a personal connection to the military. For the first 75 years of the 20th Century, there was a significant ``veteran's advantage'' in American politics: always a higher percentage of veterans in Congress than in the comparable age cohort in the general population. This veteran's advantage has eroded over the past twenty-five years in both chambers of Congress and across both parties. Beginning in the mid- 1990s, there has been a lower percentage of veterans in the Senate and the House of Representatives than in the comparable cohort in the population at large . . . Compared to historical trends, military veterans seem now to be under- represented in the national political elite. This particular growing disconnection is having a major impact on the central topic of our global role dialogues. To quote again from the Triangle Institute report: The presence of veterans in the national political elite has a profound effect on the use of force in American foreign policy. At least since 1816, there has been a very durable pattern in U.S. behavior: the more veterans in the national political elite, the less likely the United States is to initiate the use of force in the international arena. The effect is statistically stronger than many other factors known to influence the use of force . . . The trend of a declining rate of veterans in the national political elite may suggest a continued high rate of military involvement in conflicts in the coming years. I find that statistic astounding. One part of the Triangle Institute study, titled ``The Civilian- Military Gap and the American Use of Force 1816-1992,'' found: two broad clusters of opinion that track with military experience, yielding what we call civilian hawks and military doves. Specifically, this particular survey discovered that civilian leaders are more willing to use force but more likely to want to impose restrictions on the level of force to be used, and more supportive of human rights objectives, while military leaders are more reluctant to use force but prefer fewer restrictions on what level of force to employ, and tend to support more traditional ``Realpolitik'' objectives for U.S. foreign policy. Fascinating. Interestingly, civilian leaders with prior military experience were found to hold views closer to the military rather than civilian leadership. In other words, those who have seen the face of battle are more reticent about resorting to force than those who have not. This does not mean they--I should say we--are necessarily right in any particular case, but it should certainly give ``civilian hawks'' some pause in considering recourse to an instrument whose chief practitioners are wary of utilizing. Above all, as was the case with the government needing to engage the public far more effectively on questions of foreign policy, so must the military and the government--including the Congress --more effectively engage each other if we are ever going to achieve the kind of balance which Clausewitz wrote of. This leads me to the third and final piece of the Clausewitz trinity: the government. As I noted earlier, Colonel Summers emphasized that military leaders must insist that the civilian leadership provide tangible, obtainable political goals. In this country, that duty rests squarely on the shoulders of the President and Congress when it comes to the business of war, as outlined by our Founding Fathers when they drafted our Constitution. Under the Constitution, war powers are divided. Article I, Section 8, gives Congress the power to declare war and raise and support the armed forces, while Article II, Section 2 declares the President to be Commander in Chief. With this division of authority there has also been constant disagreement, not only between the executive and legislative branches, but between individual members of Congress as well, as we have seen in our most recent debates on authorizing the intervention in Kosovo and on the Byrd-Warner amendment concerning current funding of that very operation, dare I say war. Judging by the text of the Constitution and the debate that went into its drafting, however, members of Congress have a right, and I would say an obligation, to play a key role in the making of war and in determination of the proper use of our armed forces, which has brought Senator Pat Roberts and me to this floor, shoulder to shoulder, to see if we can't further articulate and work out a consensus on how do we commit American forces abroad. It is generally agreed that the Commander in Chief role gives the President power to repel attacks against the United States and makes him responsible for leading the armed forces. During the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, however, this country found itself involved for many years in undeclared wars. Many members of Congress became concerned with the erosion of congressional authority to decide when the United States should become involved in a war or should use our armed forces in situations that might lead to war. On November 7, 1973, the Congress passed the War Powers Resolution over the veto of President Nixon. As Dante Fascell, former Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs noted: The importance of this law cannot be discounted. Simply stated, the War Powers Resolution seeks to restore the balance created in the Constitution between the President and Congress on questions of peace and war. It stipulates the constitutional directions that the President and Congress should be partners in such vital questions--to act together, not in separate ways. The War Powers Resolution has two key requirements. Section 4(a) requires the President to submit a report to Congress within forty- eight hours whenever troops are introduced into hostilities or situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances. Section 5(b) then stipulates that if U.S. armed forces have been sent into situations of actual or imminent hostilities the President must remove the troops within sixty days-- ninety days if he requests a delay--unless Congress declares war or otherwise authorizes the use of force. The resolution also provides that Congress can compel the President to withdraw the troops at any time by passing a joint resolution. It is important to note, however, that since the adoption of the War Powers Resolution, every President has taken the position that it is an unconstitutional infringement by the Congress on the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief, and the courts have not directly addressed this vital question. I would submit that although the Congress tried to reassert itself after the Vietnam War with the enactment of the War Powers Resolution, we have continued to be a timid, sometimes non-existent player in the government that Clausewitz emphasized must play a vital role in creating the balance necessary for an effective war-making effort. Since I came to the Senate, it has been my observation that the current system by which the Executive and Legislative Branches discharge their respective Constitutional duties in committing American servicemen and women into harm's way has become inadequate. Congress continually lacks sufficient and timely information as to policy objectives and means prior to the commitment of American forces. And then, in my opinion, Congress largely abdicates its responsibilities for declaring war and controlling the purse with inadequate and ill- timed consideration of operations. Perhaps this failure has been a long time in the making. My dear friend and colleague Senator Byrd so eloquently stated in an earlier address to this body on the history of the Senate, We remember December 7, 1941, as a day of infamy. We mourn the hundreds of American servicemen who died at Pearl Harbor, and the thousands who gave their lives in the war that followed. We might also mourn the abrupt ending of the debate over American foreign policy. While history proved President Roosevelt and his followers more correct than their isolationist opponents, it also buried for decades the warnings of the isolationists that the United States should not aspire to police the world, nor should it intervene at will in the affairs of other nations in this hemisphere or elsewhere. A very wise statement by Senator Byrd. Reasons for the failure of the War Powers Resolution and for our current difficulties abound. I believe that part of our problem stems from the disputed and uncertain role of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 in governing the conduct of the President, as well as the Congress, with respect to the introduction of American forces into hostile situations. Once again, these disputes continue to resound between both the branches and individual members of the legislative branch. In all honesty, however, the realities of our government highlight the fact that while the legislature can urge, request, and demand that the President consult with members of Congress on decisions to use force, it cannot compel him to follow any of the advice that it might care to offer. With that in mind, as an institution, Congress can do no more than give or withhold its permission to use force. And while this ``use it or lose it'' quality of congressional authorizations may make many members leery about acting on a crisis too soon, delays will virtually guarantee, as Senator Arthur Vandenberg once stated, that crises will ``never reach Congress until they have developed to a point where congressional discretion is pathetically restricted.'' What a great quote. I felt that certainly as I tried to vote properly in this Chamber months ago in regard to Milosevic and his intervention in Kosovo. Mr. President, I believe that in view of our obligations to the national interest, to the Constitution and to the young American servicemen and women whose very lives are at stake whether it be a ``contingency operation'' or a full-scale war, neither the executive or legislative branches should be satisfied with the current situation which results in uncertain signals to the American people, to overseas friends and foes, and to our armed forces personnel. In making our decision to authorize military action, Congress should work to elicit all advice and information from the President on down to the battlefield commanders, make a sound decision based on this information, and then leave battlefield management in the hands of those competent and qualified to carry out such a task. Only then will the proper roles and balance of the triad Clausewitz spoke of be obtained. And only then will our decisions to commit troops be based on the principles we spoke of in our earlier dialogs: (1) a vital national interest, (2) with clear national policy and objectives, and (3) with a well-defined exit strategy. As Senator Mansfield once stressed, In moments of crisis, at least, the President and the Congress cannot be adversaries; they must be allies who together, must delineate the path to guide the nation's massive machinery of government in a fashion which serves the interests of the people and is acceptable to the people. Beautifully said. In light of the problems and issues just discussed, I would like to take a moment to discuss S. 2851, a bill I recently introduced with Senators Roberts and Jeffords, which seeks to find a more workable system for Presidential and congressional interaction on the commitment of American forces into combat situations. It is a bill derived from the current system for Presidential approval and reporting to Congress on covert operations, a system which was established by Public Law 102- 88 in 1991. By most accounts, this system has been accepted by both branches and has worked very well with respect to covert operations, producing both better decisionmaking in the executive branch and improved congressional input and oversight with respect to these operations. Since overt troop deployments into hostilities almost certainly constitute a greater risk to American interests and to American lives, I believe such a system represents the very least we should do to improve the approval and oversight process with respect to overt military operations. It does not bind or limit the executive branch or military, but seeks to build upon the principles we have covered throughout our global roles dialog. Precisely because the United States is a democracy, it is important that policy decisions be made democratically. As Michael Walzer observes in his article ``Deterrence and Democracy'': ``The test of a democracy is not that the right side wins the political battle, but that there is a political battle.'' Policies that pass through public debate and inspection emerge all the stronger for it, because they enjoy greater respect both at home and abroad. Instead of seeing executive-legislative conflict over foreign policy as a cause for dismay, we should recognize that healthy democracies argue over the wisdom of policies. Debate is what, ultimately, produces better policy. And this is precisely the role of the government, both the President and Congress, in fulfilling our constitutional duties and achieving the proper balance of the Clausewitz trilogy. I believe the case has clearly been made that the public, the military, and the government--the three under- pinnings of successful national security policy--are not now in proper ``balance,'' to use Clausewitz' term. Each part of this trinity is skeptical and increasingly disengaged from the other two, with a number of significant and negative effects on our national interest which we have discussed today and in previous dialogs: a widening divide between the aspirations of American foreign policy-makers and the Congress' and the public's willingness to finance the necessary means is one such point; a military and civilian leadership which sees America's role in the world and the means appropriate to secure those ends in vastly different terms; a national government which is deeply divided along partisan lines and between the executive and legislative branches. I suggest the chief responsibility for fixing this dysfunctional system lies squarely with us in the government. As Clausewitz said, ``the political aims are the business of government alone,'' and it is the political aims which drive, or at least should drive, both military requirements and the public's engagement, or disengagement, from American policy. We must find more and better ways of communicating with our constituents on the realities of our national interests and the real costs of securing them. We must find more and better ways to increase the exchange of experiences and ideas between the government and the military. And we must find more and better ways of ensuring that both the executive and legislative branches properly fulfill their constitutional responsibilities in the arena of national security policy. Professor of Strategic Studies at Johns Hopkins University Eliot Cohen closed his paper on ``The Unequal Dialogue: The Civil-Military Gap and the Use of Force,'' which is a very interesting series of case studies on effective, and ineffective, civilian and military interaction during wartime, with these observations, which are extremely relevant to our discussion today: (The lessons of serious conflict) are, above all, that political leaders must immerse themselves in the conduct of war no less than they do in great projects of domestic legislation; that they must master their military briefs as thoroughly as they do their civilian ones; that they must demand and expect from their military subordinates a candor as bruising as it is necessary; that both groups must expect a running conversation in which, although civilian opinion will not dictate, it must dominate; that that conversation will include not only ends and policies, but ways and means. In other words, we in Government, the constitutionally established political leaders, must step up to the plate and do our jobs when it comes to national security policy--especially when it comes to making war--with great humility as to our own limitations, with great care and forethought, but with diligence and determination. Mr. President, it is my honor and distinct personal privilege to yield to the distinguished Senator from Kansas, Mr. Roberts, for further remarks.

Mr. CLELAND. I thank Senator Roberts for that wonderful presentation. We have reached several conclusions in this year-long dialog regarding America's global role. Before I get to some of the conclusions, may I say a special thank-you to my key staff members. Mr. Bill Johnstone, who has been the absolute force behind my remarks and has helped my thought process for a number of years as we have discussed American foreign policy issues, a special thanks goes to him. A special thanks also to Tricia Heller of my staff, and Andy Vanlandingham; they have been invaluable in helping me form some of my conclusions about America's global role in the world. I thank very much my dear friend from Kansas. It is an honor to be with him, continuing our dialog on America's role in the world in the 21st century, particularly in terms of military commitments, our footprint around the world, so to speak, and its rationale. It is a pleasure to stand shoulder to shoulder with him in a bipartisan way, to see if we can't find a consensus that might lead us well into the 21st century in terms of our foreign policy. Mr. President, when Senator Roberts and I embarked on this series of Global Role Dialogues back in February, we set as our goal the initiation of a serious debate in this great institution of the United States Senate on the proper role of our country in the post-cold war world. We both believed--and continue to believe--that such a process is absolutely necessary if we are to arrive at the bipartisan consensus on national security policy which our Nation so badly needs, but has been lacking since the fall of the Soviet Union. While the vagaries of Senators' schedules have unfortunately limited somewhat our ability to involve more Senators in this process, I want to thank Senators Hutchison, Hagel, Lugar and Levin who all made important contributions to these discussions. Senator Roberts and I will be exploring ways in which we can broaden this dialogue in the next Congress. When we began our discussions we also indicated that we had far more questions than definitive answers. And while we cannot claim to have found any magic solutions or panaceas for the challenges facing the United States on the global scene as we approach the end of the Twentieth Century, I believe I can speak for Senator Roberts when I say that we believe we have learned much from the writings and statements of many, many others, in this country and abroad, who have thoughtfully considered these questions we have been examining. We have drawn heavily on the work of such entities as the Commission on America's National Interests--on which Senator Roberts serves with distinction--, the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, and the ODC's America's National Interests in Multilateral Engagement: A Bipartisan Dialogue. We have consulted the work of a large number of academics, and governmental, military and opinion leaders from around the world. And, for myself, I have certainly learned a great deal from my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from Kansas. While what we are about to say is far from complete and very much a work in progress, we believe it is only fair to provide the Senate-- which has indulged us with many hours of floor time to pursue this project--and to those who have followed our efforts with interest and encouragement to lay out the lessons we have learned and some general principles which we believe should guide our national security policies in the years ahead. At this point, I yield again to my partner in these dialogues, Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, but first I want to thank him for all of his help in this undertaking. His experience, his good humor and his wisdom have made our dialogues both instructive and extremely enjoyable. I yield to Senator Roberts.

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, these are not the ``seven deadly sins,'' but I think in many ways it is a sin if we violate these basic fundamental lessons that we have learned. First and foremost, we believe as a nation--including government, media, academia, personalities, and other leaders--we need to engage in a serious and sustained national dialog to do several things: First, define our national interests and differentiate the level of interest involved, spell out what we should be prepared to do in defense of those interests; second, build a bipartisan consensus in support of the resulting set of interests and policies. As a starting point, within the Senate, we would encourage the Foreign Relations Committee and our own Armed Services Committee upon which we both sit to hold hearings on the finished products of the Commission on America's National Interests, the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century and other relevant considerations of these critical topics. I yield to the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. CLELAND. Third, the President and the Congress need to urgently address the mismatch between our foreign policy ends and means, and between commitments and forces by: Determining the most appropriate instrument--diplomatic, military, or other--for securing policy objectives; Reviewing carefully current American commitments--especially those involving troop deployments--including the clarity of objectives, and the presence of an exit strategy; and Increasing the relatively small amount of resources devoted to the key instruments for securing our national interests--all of which can be supported by the American public, as detailed in ``The Foreign Policy Gap: How Policymakers Misread the Public'' from the University of Maryland's Center for International and Security Studies. These include: Armed Forces--which need to be reformed to meet the requirements of the 21st Century; Diplomatic Forces; Foreign Assistance; United Nations Peacekeeping Operations--which also need to be reformed to become much more effective; Key Regional Organizations--including NATO, the Organization of American States, the Organization for African Unity and the Association of South East Asian Nations. I again yield to Senator Roberts.

Mr. CLELAND. Fifth, with respect to multilateral organizations, the United States should: More carefully consider NATO's new Strategic Concept, and the future direction of this, our most important international commitment; Press for reform of the UN's and Security Council's peacekeeping operations and decisionmaking processes; Fully support efforts to strengthen the capabilities of regional organizations including the European Union, the Organization of American States, the Organization for African Unity, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations--to deal with threats to regional security; and Promote a thorough debate, at the UN and elsewhere, on proposed standards for interventions within sovereign states. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Kansas.

Mr. CLELAND. Beautifully said. I could not have said it better, nor concur more. Finally, the United States can, and must, continue to exercise international leadership, while following a policy of realistic restraint in the use of military forces in particular, by: Pursuing policies that promote a strong and growing economy, which is the essential underpinning of any nation's strength; maintaining superior, ready and mobile armed forces, capable of rapidly responding to threats to our national interests; strengthening the non-military tools discussed above for securing our national interests; and making a long-term commitment to promoting democracy abroad via a comprehensive, sustained program which makes a realistic assessment of the capabilities of such a program as described by Thomas Carothers in his excellent primer on ``Aiding Democracy Abroad: The Learning Curve''. I hope it is very clear that Senator Roberts and I are not advocating a retreat from America's global leadership role, and are not advocating a new form of isolationism. We both believe our country has substantial and inescapable self-interests which necessitate our leadership. However, when it comes to the way we exercise that leadership, especially when it involves military force, we do believe that our national interests sometimes require that we use restraint. The alternatives--whether a unilateralism which imposes direct resource costs far beyond what the Congress or the American people have shown a willingness to finance or an isolationism which would fail to secure our national interests in this increasingly interconnected world--are, in our judgment, unacceptable. Over the course of these dialogues, Senator Roberts and I have both turned to the following words from the editor of the publication National Interest, Owen Harries: I advocate restraint because every dominant power in the last four centuries that has not practiced it--that has been excessively intrusive and demanding--has ultimately been confronted by a hostile coalition of other powers. Americans may believe that their country, being exceptional, need have no worries in this respect. I do not agree. It is not what Americans think of the United States but what others think of it that will decide the matter. On his desk at the Pentagon when he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell kept a quote from the great Athenian historian Thucydides: Of all manifestations of power, restraint impresses men most. With great thanks to my distinguished colleague, Senator Roberts, and to the Senate, I conclude these dialogs on the global role of the United States. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Commission on America's National Interests--Executive Summary This report of the Commission on America's National Interests focuses on one core issue: what are U.S. national interests today? The U.S. enters a new century as the world's most powerful nation, but too often seems uncertain of its direction. We hope to encourage serious debate about what must become an essential foundation for a successful American foreign policy: America's interests. We have sought to identify the central questions about American interests. Presuming no monopoly of wisdom, we nevertheless state our own best answers to these questions as clearly and precisely as we can--not abstractly or diplomatically. Clear assertions that some interests are more important than others will unavoidably give offense. We persist--with apologies--since our aim is to catalyze debate about the most important U.S. national interests. Our six principal conclusions are these: America advantaged.--Today the U.S. has greater power and fewer adversaries than ever before in American history. Relative to any potential competitor, the U.S. is more powerful, more wealthy, and more influential than any nation since the Roman empire. With these extraordinary advantages, America today is uniquely positioned to shape the international system to promote international peace and prosperity for decades or even generations to come. America adrift.--Great power implies great responsibility. But in the wake of the Cold War, the U.S. has lost focus. After four decades of unprecedented single-mindedness in containing Soviet Communist expansion, the United States has seen a decade of ad hoc fits and starts. A defining feature of American engagement in recent years has been confusion. The reasons why are not difficult to identify. From 1945 to 1989, containment of expansionist Soviet communism provided the fixed point for the compass of American engagement in the world. It concentrated minds in a deadly competition with the Soviet Union in every region of the world; motivated and sustained the build-up of large, standing military forces and nuclear arsenals with tens of thousands of weapons; and precluded the development of truly global systems and the possibility of cooperation to address global challenges from trade to environmental degradation. In 1989 the Cold War ended in a stunning, almost unimaginable victory that erased this fixed point from the globe. Most of the coordinates by which Americans gained their bearings in the world have now been consigned to history's dustbin: the Berlin Wall, a divided Germany, the Iron Curtain, captive nations of the Warsaw Pact, communism on the march, and, finally, the Soviet Union. Absent a compelling cause and understandable coordinates, America remains a superpower adrift. Opportunities missed and threats emerging.--Because of the absence of coherent, consistent, purposive U.S. leadership in the years since the Cold War, the U.S. is missing one-time- only opportunities to advance American interests and values. Fitful engagement actually invites the emergence of new threats, from nuclear weapons-usable material unaccounted for in Russia and assertive Chinese risk-taking, to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the unexpectedly rapid emergence of ballistic missile threats. The foundation for sustainable American foreign policy.-- The only sound foundation for a sustainable American foreign policy is a clear sense of America's national interests. Only a foreign policy grounded in America's national interests can identify priorities for American engagement in the world. Only such a policy will allow America's leaders to explain persuasively how and why American citizens should support expenditures of American treasure or blood. The hierarchy of American national interests.--Clarity about American national interests demands that the current generation of American leaders think harder about international affairs than they have ever been required to do. During the Cold War we had clearer, simpler answers to questions about American national interests. Today we must confront again the central questions: Which regions and issues should Americans care about--for example, Bosnia, Rwanda, Russia, Mexico, Africa, East Asia, or the Persian Gulf? Which issues matter most--for example, opening markets for trade, investment opportunities, weapons of mass destruction (WMD), international crime and drugs, the environment, or human rights? Why should Americans care? How much should citizens be prepared to pay to address these threats or seize these opportunities? The Commission has identified a hierarchy of U.S. national interests: ``vital interests,'' ``extremely important interests,'' ``important interests,'' and ``less important or secondary interests.'' This Report states our own best judgment about which specific American national interests are vital, which are extremely important, and which are just important. Readers will note a sharp contrast between the expansive, vague assertions about vital interests in most discussion today, and the Commission's sparse list. While others have claimed that America has vital interests from the Balkans and the Baltics to pandemics and Taiwan, the Commission identifies only five vital U.S. national interests today. These are (1) to prevent, deter, and reduce the threat of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons attacks on the United States or its military forces abroad; (2) to ensure U.S. allies' survival and their active cooperation with the U.S. in shaping an international system in which we can thrive; (3) to prevent the emergence of hostile major powers or failed states on U.S. borders; (4) to ensure the viability and stability of major global systems (trade, financial markets, supplies of energy, and the environment); and (5) to establish productive relations, consistent with American national interests, with nations that could become strategic adversaries, China and Russia. Challenges for the decade ahead.--Developments around the world pose threats to U.S. interests and present opportunities for advancing Americans' well-being. Because the United States is so predominant in the economic, technical, and military realms, many politicians and pundits fall victim to a rhetoric of illusion. They imagine that as the sole superpower, the U.S. can simply instruct other nations to do this or stop that and expect them to do it. But consider how many American presidents have come and gone since President Kennedy consigned Fidel Castro to the dustbin of history. Students of history will recognize a story-line in which a powerful state emerges (even if accidentally), engenders resentment (even when it acts benevolently), succumbs to the arrogance of power, and thus provokes new threats, from individual acts of terrorism to hostile coalitions of states. Because America's resources are limited, U.S. foreign policy must be selective in choosing which issues to address seriously. The proper basis for making such judgments is a lean, hierarchical conception of what American national interests are and what they are not. Media attention to foreign affairs reflects access to vivid, compelling images on a screen, without much consideration of the importance of the U.S. interest threatened. Graphic international problems like Bosnia or Kosovo make consuming claims on American foreign policy to the neglect of issues of greater importance, like the rise of Chinese power, the unprecedented risks of nuclear proliferation, the opportunity to increase the openness of the international trading and financial systems, or the future of Mexico. Based on its assessment of specific threats to and opportunities for U.S. national interests in the final years of the century, the Commission has identified six cardinal challenges for the next U.S. president: Strengthen strategic partnerships with Japan and the European allies despite the absence of an overwhelming, immediate threat; Facilitate China's entry onto the world stage without disruption; Prevent loss of control of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons-usable materials, and contain the proliferation of biological and chemical weapons; Prevent Russia's reversion to authoritarianism or disintegration into chaos; Maintain the United States' singular leadership, military, and intelligence capabilities, and its international credibility; and Marshal unprecedented economic, technological, military, and political advantages to shape a twenty-first century global system that promotes freedom, peace, and prosperity for Americans, our allies, and the world. For each of these challenges, and others, our stated hierarchy of U.S. national interests provides coordinates by which to navigate the uncertain, fast-changing international terrain in the decade ahead. summary of u.s. national interests Vital Vital national interests are conditions that are strictly necessary to safeguard and enhance Americans' survival and well-being in a free and secure nation. Vital U.S. national interests are to: 1. Prevent, deter, and reduce the threat of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons attacks on the United States or its military forces abroad; 2. Ensure U.S. allies' survival and their active cooperation with the U.S. in shaping an international system in which we can thrive; 3. Prevent the emergence of hostile major powers or failed states on U.S. borders; 4. Ensure the viability and stability of major global systems (trade, financial markets, supplies of energy, and the environment); and 5. Establish productive relations, consistent with American national interests, with nations that could become strategic adversaries, China and Russia. Instrumentally, these vital interests will be enhanced and protected by promoting singular U.S. leadership, military and intelligence capabilities, credibility (including a reputation for adherence to clear U.S. commitments and even- handedness in dealing with other states), and strengthening critical international institutions--particularly the U.S. alliance system around the world. Extremely Important Extremely important national interests are conditions that, if compromised, would severely prejudice but not strictly imperil the ability of the U.S. government to safeguard and enhance the well-being of Americans in a free and secure nation. Extremely important U.S. national interests are to: 1. Prevent, deter, and reduce the threat of the use of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons anywhere; 2. Prevent the regional proliferation of WMD and delivery systems; 3. Promote the acceptance of international rules of law and mechanisms for resolving or managing disputes peacefully; 4. Prevent the emergence of a regional hegemon in important regions, especially the Persian Gulf; 5. Promote the well-being of U.S. allies and friends and protect them from external aggression; 6. Promote democracy, prosperity, and stability in the Western Hemisphere; 7. Prevent, manage, and, if possible at reasonable cost, end major conflicts in important geographic regions; 8. Maintain a lead in key military-related and other strategic technologies, particularly information systems; 9. Prevent massive, uncontrolled immigration across U.S. borders; 10. Suppress terrorism (especially state-sponsored terrorism), transnational crime, and drug trafficking; and 11. Prevent genocide. Important Important national interests are conditions that, if compromised, would have major negative consequences for the ability of the U.S. government to safeguard and enhance the well-being of Americans in a free and secure nation. Important U.S. national interests are to: 1. Discourage massive human rights violations in foreign countries; 2. Promote pluralism, freedom, and democracy in strategically important states as much as is feasible without destabilization; 3. Prevent and, if possible at low cost, end conflicts in strategically less significant geographic regions; 4. Protect the lives and well-being of American citizens who are targeted or taken hostage by terrorist organizations; 5. Reduce the economic gap between rich and poor nations; 6. Prevent the nationalization of U.S.-owned assets abroad; 7. Boost the domestic output of key strategic industries and sectors; 8. Maintain an edge in the international distribution of information to ensure that American values continue to positively influence the cultures of foreign nations; 9. Promote international environmental policies consistent with long-term ecological requirements; and 10. Maximize U.S.-GNP growth from international trade and investment. Instrumentally, the important U.S. national interests are to maintain a strong UN and other regional and functional cooperative mechanisms. Less Important or Secondary Less important or secondary national interests are not unimportant. They are important and desirable conditions, but ones that have little direct impact on the ability of the U.S. government to safeguard and enhance the well-being of Americans in a free and secure nation. Less important or secondary U.S. national interests include: 1. Balancing bilateral trade deficits; 2. Enlarging democracy everywhere for its own sake; 3. Preserving the territorial integrity or particular political constitution of other states everywhere; and 4. Enhancing exports of specific economic sectors.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my military fellow, Tricia Heller, be granted the privilege of the floor during the presentation of the global role of the United States.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Illinois for yielding to me for the purpose of discussing the ambiguous situation in which we find ourselves in terms of the budget process and the appropriations process. I thank the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, for his continuing efforts to remind Members of this Chamber of our responsibilities to this institution but, more importantly, responsibilities to the American people. Today Senator Byrd is causing us to step back and reflect on what we are now doing with respect to the appropriations process. It brings back a comment I like from Winston Churchill: How do you know where you are going unless you know where you have been? Senator Byrd reminds us where we have been in the appropriations process, our history, our tradition, and the rules of the Senate. He is very fearful of where we are going in that process, and so am I. As a Senator now for 3\1/2\ years, I am certainly not nearly as well versed as Senator Byrd in the history or the precedents of the Senate. I would like to add that I believe all other Senators, of whatever level of experience and of both parties, acknowledge his leadership in this respect. Nonetheless, from what I have read and heard in this debate, in the first budget and appropriations cycle of the 21st century, the Senate has moved in a new and deeply troubling direction. I am certainly aware that on occasion the Senate has been compelled by necessity to resort to bypassing the regular process of committee action for consideration and amendment, conference action, and then final approval, final passage, of individual authorization and appropriations measures. Indeed, I voted for the massive omnibus measure with which we concluded the 1998 session. That single bill totaled a whopping $487 billion and funded 8 out of the 13 regular appropriations bills. I think Senator Byrd himself said on that occasion, ``God only knows what's in it.'' Most of us didn't. However, even on that occasion, the Senate actually took up separately and passed 10 of the 13 bills and considered 1 other bill-- namely, Interior appropriations--while only 2 appropriations measures, the Labor-HHS-Education bill and the relatively small District of Columbia bill, were acted on in conference without any previous Senate floor action. By contrast, this year the number of appropriations measures which are apparently headed for conference action without affording the full Senate an opportunity to work its will has grown to three: Commerce- Justice-State, Treasury-Postal, and VA-HUD. Not only is this trend disturbing, but apparently a determination was made fairly early on that these measures would somehow not require regular floor consideration. I have heard many theories as to why this will be so, including fears of hard votes, difficult votes, or of obstructionist tactics. But I have yet to learn of any real justification or defense of the notion that the Senate has discretion as to whether or not it will consider appropriations bills--the means through which we are supposed to discharge perhaps the ultimate congressional authority under the Constitution, the power of the purse. If we in the Senate are not authorized or able to have an impact on appropriations bills, we have what the American Revolution ostensibly was all about: taxation without representation. I have the great privilege of representing the 7.5 million people in the State of Georgia, the 10th most populous State in America. Georgia hasn't had a representative on the Senate Appropriations Committee since 1992. And while the 28 members of that committee, representing 27 States, with Washington being fortunate to have 2 seats, do a good job of considering national needs and local interests, they cannot be expected to know the priorities and interests of the people of Georgia. As the Senate was envisioned by the founders and as it has operated throughout our history, the absence of State representation on the Appropriations Committee was not an insurmountable burden. Nonappropriators could expect to have the opportunity to represent their constituents' interests when the 13 appropriations bills came to the Senate floor were open to debate and amendment. Indeed, in my first 3 years in the Senate, I often had recourse to offering floor amendments or entering into colloquies on behalf of Georgia--Georgia priorities and Georgia people. But with the apparent move to routinely bypassing the floor, what am I or, more importantly, my constituents to do? In looking at the fiscal year 2001 bills, which apparently will not come to the Senate floor in amendable form, the potential adverse impact on my State is clear. For example, the Commerce bill funds key Georgia law enforcement efforts, including the Georgia Crime Lab and technology enhancement for local law enforcement agencies, such as the Macon Police Department. The Treasury bill contains the budget for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynn County, GA. And the Veterans' Administration appropriations measure covers the national veterans cemetery for north Georgia that I got authorized last year. For all of these and more, the Georgia Senators will now apparently have no direct role. This is not the way it should be, under the Constitution, or the way we ought to act under the traditions of the Senate. More and more of the most important decisions affecting our constituents and their communities are being moved off the floor of the Senate and into closed-door deliberations involving a small number of negotiators where the people of my State are left out and where my only choice as their representative is a single take-it-or-leave-it vote on a massive and unfathomable package. This is taxation without representation. Mr. President, I understand that in an election year--especially this one--it is always a challenge to have the Senate get its business done on time. But when ``business as usual'' starts becoming a process where the Senate routinely doesn't get to work its will, something fundamental has been lost. Then, we had better worry not just about the interests and constituents of today, but the precedents and legacies we are leaving for future Senates and future generations of Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, with a focus on the horizon and a knowledge of where we've been, I come before you today to laud a group that has dedicated its time and resources to Georgia's youth in attempts to secure a brighter future for us all. Throughout its existence, The Georgia Early Learning Initiative, a collaboration of business and labor leaders, health and human service providers, educators, and legislators, has sought to increase access to, and funding for, early education throughout our state. As a reflection of today's fast-paced society, households increasingly boast two working parents who can neither afford to miss work nor pay the often exorbitant cost of childcare in our country. In fact, while only forty percent of children are cared for by a parent all day, sixty-seven percent of Georgia mothers with children under age six are in the workforce. Increasingly, many parents want to stay home, yet have no choice but to work. However, it takes a dedicated and selfless group of people to bring about results; there is no greater champion of Georgia's children and investment in the future than The Georgia Early Learning Initiative. A child's pre-school years are more important than we have previously acknowledged. With 554,430 Georgia children currently enrolled in preschool, and the knowledge that ninety percent of human brain functions develop during the first three years of life, early learning and improved childcare are perhaps more important than ever before. It is our responsibility as a nation and leaders to support activists who are willing to fight for worthy causes, especially when those causes will benefit generations to come. We owe it to our children to provide equal access to early learning options which will place them on a secure footing and will allow them to excel in life. It is the mission of the dedicated men and women who comprise the Georgia Early Learning Initiative to increase childcare choices for parents and to extend the opportunity to succeed to all of America's children, no matter what their family's station in life. In the future, we will only be as strong as our children. As Pearl Buck said, ``If our American way of life fails the child, it fails us all.'' As I think back to where we have been and once again focus on the glorious horizon, I cannot help but feel optimistic about our future knowing that men and women like those working with the Georgia Early Learning Initiative continue to fight for a better tomorrow for all of our children.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, it is with great personal joy and pride that I come before you today to commemorate an anniversary that is of particular importance to my family and me. One hundred years ago, on October 13, 1900, in a borrowed school building at the intersection of McDaniel and Rockland Roads, sixteen original members of the Turner Hill Baptist Church convened for the first time. The group enjoyed being together and quickly became a strong extended family. In fact, within months of their first meeting at the Old County Line School, the members decided to cement their closeness by constructing a permanent church building of their own. On land donated by E.L. Turner and as a result of its members' ingenuity and hard work, the beginning of 1901 marked the opening of Turner Hill Baptist Church, a wooden structure heated by one wood stove and lit by kerosene lamps. Although the congregation moved to a new brick structure in 1954, the original wooden building and the work that went into its creation continue to embody the values of all those associated with the church. Despite the absence of Turner Hill's original sixteen members at today's centennial celebration, many of their descendants are delighted to take part. By the same token, some of the original nine families, including my own, who were present as the church opened in 1901 continue to attend regular services: Turner Hill has both fifth and sixth generation members. I am also proud to be related to both the church's current youngest and oldest members. While my father, Mr. Joseph Hugh Cleland, and Aunt, Mrs. Georgia Mae Cleland Johnston, are Turner Hill's most senior members, my cousin, Miss Jessica Wages is the newest addition to the 151 member congregation. Over the years, the church itself and the faces in the pews have changed, but one thing has remained a constant--community. My friends and family at Turner Hill have pulled together in times of crisis and joined each other in celebration throughout the years. Behind the leadership of Reverend Farrell Wilkins and with God and family at the center of their lives, the members of my church today commemorate an historic anniversary. May their next hundred years be as prosperous as their first.